" a proper collaborative working environment that’s physical, not virtual."

If you believe that only physical environments can be properly collaborative then you invalidate the remainder of your post.

The parent never claims that only a physical environment can be properly collaborative.

Literally the next sentence after the one you quote is “what’s right for isn't right for you”.

It reads exactly that way.

I’m stating that I’m after an environment that’s physical, not virtual.

I’m not saying that only physical environments have those qualities - I’m saying through my experience I work better, feel better, and contribute better when I can communicate in a physical space and not a virtual one.

Again, as I say, whatever is right for the individual. If virtual works for you, that’s great, but I’m consciously stepping out of remote work as I really struggle with it.

Collaboration isn’t a personal preference. By definition it requires at least one other party. In person collaboration is far more expensive in terms of real estate, time, and cognitive load. People who can work remotely effectively should be at an economic and productivity advantage.

Even if they did claim that they are more than welcome to that opinion

That would make sense if closed offices became common again.

It's impossible to collaborate in an open office. It's hard to talk to my team if that requires yelling louder than the other 200 people in the floor.

Exactly. Offices would be so much easier to work in if everyone had an office. It boggles my mind that open offices are so desired by management.

They are magnitudes cheaper i would imagine.

There's a nice middle point that Google used in 2012 with one office per ~10 person team team.

The offices are big enough to not be _too_ expensive, and small enough to enhance collaboration and concentration.