If the open office full of distractions is the ideal working environment, then when I get an emergency call from work, I assume I'll fix the emergency faster if I take my laptop to the neighborhood daycare center and sit down right in the highest chaos room. Oddly enough at home when no pretensions are necessary because there is nobody to show off to, people who have to actual work, pick a nice quiet closed door "office".
A lot of open office love comes from utterly incompetent management and its very politically incorrect to discuss this other than semi-anonymous forums like this. "I have no idea how to manage these people or how to convince them to do what I want, but at least I can see them all squashed together like sardines". If your standard of performance is low enough, mere visibility is at least better than nothing.
I would go nuts if people were gossiping and being as chaotic as a daycare... Luckily I've never run into that. Actually the worst gossip-y company I ever worked at was a closed office/tall cubicle company.
Open office is equivalent of trying to study in a busy corridor where groups of people chat, come and go and every 15 minutes someone stops by to tell you hello.
Now, five or other small team in one room is a great thing. Kind of the best solution I would say. You can discuss when you need and it can be calm most of the time. However, open office is usually six such teams together overhearing each other while having next to zero chance to actually concentrate on anything.
Additionally, 'open-office' to me means OpenOffice, and while I can accept that it doesn't to everyone, be consistent. It's one of the rules of good journalism. The hyphen in the heading is not used in the article. Likewise, we have 'nineteen-fifties' versus '1997'. The ironic bit about spelling out 'nineteen-fifties' in a non-conventional, inconsistent manner... is the phrase in the article immediately following it... </oldmanrant>