Beyond the Headcount

One of the things I enjoy about working in the logistics sector is that it never stands still.

We have spent nearly thirty years producing imagery for industrial and logistics developments. During that time, the buildings have become larger, the sites more complex, and the expectations placed upon them considerably higher.

But recently I have found myself wondering whether it is not just the buildings that are changing.

Perhaps it is the story around them too.

For decades, one of the strongest arguments in favour of a new logistics development has been employment.

Hundreds of jobs.
Sometimes thousands.

It was a compelling case because it was easy to understand and easy to communicate.

I am not convinced that will be enough on its own for much longer.

Not because warehouses are becoming less important.

Quite the opposite.

Look at Amazon’s increasingly automated fulfilment centres. Look at Ocado’s robotics. Look at the rapid growth of data centres.

(And who can ignore Optimus from Tesla?)

These are hugely valuable pieces of infrastructure, yet many employ far fewer people than equivalent developments might have done twenty years ago.

The developers reading this will know all of that already.

The more interesting question is what comes next.

What Does the Building Enable?

If automation continues to reduce employment density, what becomes the dominant planning argument?

Perhaps the answer is that we are asking the wrong question.

Instead of asking only how many people work inside a building, perhaps we should also be asking what that building enables.

A modern distribution centre does not just store products.

• It helps keep supermarket shelves stocked.

• It supports manufacturing.

• It enables next-day delivery.

• It keeps construction projects supplied with materials.

• It connects producers, suppliers, retailers and customers.

Its value is not measured solely by the number of people working inside it.

It is measured by everything it allows everyone else to do.

That feels like a very different conversation.

Instead of asking:

“How many jobs will this create?”

Perhaps we are increasingly asking:

“What happens if we do not build it?”

That shifts the discussion away from employment alone and towards productivity, resilience and national capability.

These are infrastructure arguments rather than purely employment arguments.

And infrastructure arguments require a different kind of storytelling.

The Next Layer of Complexity

One area where I have often wondered whether we will eventually see more change is multi-storey logistics.

Compared with countries such as Japan, Singapore and parts of mainland Europe, the UK has built remarkably few examples.

We have had the opportunity to visualise a couple of conceptual schemes over the years. They were fascinating projects and felt like a glimpse into a possible future, yet the market never quite seemed ready.

There are understandable reasons for that.

Historically, land has often been cheaper than building upwards. Multi-storey logistics introduces structural complexity, vehicle ramps, more demanding fire engineering and significantly higher construction costs.

Then there is power.

As HGV fleets gradually transition towards electrification, supplying enough electricity to charge large numbers of heavy vehicles becomes a significant challenge. Grid capacity is already delaying developments across the country, while charging infrastructure, battery storage and the associated safety considerations add another layer of complexity.

None of those feel like permanent barriers.

They feel like engineering challenges.

Whether the solutions arrive in five years or fifteen, they feel more like questions of timing than questions of possibility.

The Communication Problem

All of this has made me think differently about visual communication.

Traditionally, architectural visualisation has focused on showing people what a development will look like.

That is still important.

But perhaps it is becoming only part of the job.

If the planning conversation is moving beyond headcount, then the way we communicate logistics schemes may need to evolve as well.

The appearance of a building is only one part of its story.

• There is also the operational efficiency.

• The automation.

• The energy infrastructure.

• The transport strategy.

• The biodiversity improvements.

• The role the building plays within a much larger supply chain.

Those things are difficult to appreciate from a single external CGI.

That does not mean the external CGI is no longer useful. It still has an important role, particularly in planning, context, scale and appearance.

But it may not be enough on its own.

Increasingly, films, operational visualisations, cutaways, interactive tools and other forms of visual storytelling can help explain not just what a development looks like, but what it does.

Perhaps making the invisible visible is becoming just as important as showing the building itself.

A Different Kind of Planning Story

None of this suggests that every logistics development should be approved.

Large buildings have genuine impacts on landscapes, transport networks and local communities. Those impacts deserve careful scrutiny.

Nor do I pretend to know exactly how planning policy will evolve over the next decade.

But it feels increasingly unlikely that the conversations we will be having in 2035 will be the same ones we are having today.

As automation continues to reshape the sector, perhaps the industry needs to become better at explaining the wider value these developments create.

The narrative is changing.

The warehouse is no longer simply a place where lots of people go to work.

It is becoming part of the infrastructure that enables almost every other part of the economy to function.

If that is where the conversation is heading, perhaps the way we communicate these developments needs to evolve alongside it.

I would be interested to hear whether others in the industry are seeing the same shift.

[email protected]