Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Workplace of the Future : Ecosystem of Hackable Spaces Akbarnejad, Mahsa 2019-04-26

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Akbarnejad_Mahsa_ARCH_549_Future_workplace_2019.pdf [ 155.4MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0378575.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378575-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378575-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378575-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378575-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378575-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378575-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0378575-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0378575.ris

Full Text

WORKPLACE OF THE FUTURE: ECOSYSTEM OF HACKABLE SPACES by MAHSA AKBARNEJAD M.A.Sc., British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2013A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE Committee Members: Annalisa Meyboom, Sara Stevens, Anne Maisonneuve I accept this report as conforming to the required standard --------------------------------------------- Annalisa Meyboom --------------------------------------------- Sara Stevens THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2019 © Mahsa Akbarnejad, 2019 Release Form Architecture  School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture University of British Columbia Name: Mahsa Akbarnejad UBC Student Number: Graduate Project Title: Workplace of the Future: Ecosystem of Hackable Spaces In presenting this report in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, I agree that UBC may make this work freely available for reference or study. I give permission for copying the report for educational purposes in accordance with copyright laws. Mahsa Akbarnejad April 26, 2019 Name Signature Date iii Abstract In cities today, people seem to work anywhere and everywhere. For knowledge workers, a chair and Wi-Fi are the only necessities. The office has lost its immediate identification with the office as a room or space in a designated building, where all work tasks are carried out, from writing and faxing to attending meetings. Work has become transportable and ubiquitous, almost a state of mind. Like a bubble of pure concentration that one can turn on and off with or without the help of tangible tools, work is where you are. Where does this leave architecture, if the office building and the office itself are in decline? Does this mean we don’t’ need offices anymore? The short answer is No. In fact, it was in this decade that we saw the emergence of small corporate cities such as Google or Facebook headquarters or the Apple campus. Even companies that did not want to pay for office space recognized the importance of collaboration and face to face interaction. This has led to the creation of shared spaces like WeWork which advertises its space as “dynamic environments for creativity, focus, and connection, it’s a movement toward humanizing work”.  Although the office building is hardly extinct, its architecture has not changed in the past decade or so. Office building designs are dominated by optimized core-to-perimeter depths, floor plate square footages, LEED certification, and utilization rates. New ideas about sustainability, information technology, flexibility, or trends in work patterns hold little weight. Fortunately, professional offices, tech firms, design industries, and start-ups are among the tenants creating demand for architectural alternatives.  I have studied the history of white-collar jobs, workspace, and workplace trends. That research is documented here, along with a design proposal that demonstrates an architectural alternative to conventional office design. The proposed design is not meant as a definitive or singular solution, but as a conceptual strategy that offers new direction based on changing business needs.    iv Statement of Thesis   Workplace design trends over the past decade remain somewhat unremarkable, in spite of the fact that work culture and technologies have undergone a radical transformation. There is no definitive or singular solution for this gap. But architectural design can help organizations create effective workplaces that respond to changing culture and business conditions.   v Table of Contents ABSTRACT III STATEMENT OF THESIS IV TABLE OF CONTENTS V LIST OF FIGURES VII CHAPTER 1: EVOLUTION OF WHITE-COLLAR JOBS 1 1950 – 1960 2 1960 – 1970 4 1970 – 1980 5 1980 – 1990 6 1990 – 2000 8 CHAPTER 2: CURRENT STATE OF WORKPLACE DESIGN 11 2000 – Now 11 Popularity of Open-Floor-Plan 11 The emergence of Corporate Cities and Contemporary (or Creative) Offices 13 Workplace Trends 19 CHAPTER 3: ECOSYSTEM OF HACKABLE SPACES 21 How the Physical Environment Can Help 21 22 Bazaar 22 A New Workplace 23 vi Site 24 Proposal for Resident Zone 30 Proposal for Resident Zone 31 Proposal for Meeting Zone 32 Proposal for Meeting Zone 33 Proposal for Meeting Zone 34 Proposal for Meeting Zone 35 Proposal for Nomadic Zone 36 Proposal for Nomadic Zone 37 Proposal for Social Zone 38 Proposal for Social Zone 39 CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES 43 New Babylon 1956 43 Pao I and Pao II 45 Elii’s Potlatch 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48   vii List of Figures   Figure 1 The office timeline .................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2 Jack Lemon in The Apartment ............................................................................................... 2 Figure 3 Skidmore, Owings & Merill. Union Carbide Building, New York. 1960 ............................. 3 Figure 4 Burolandschaf office space - 1950........................................................................................ 4 Figure 5 Herman Miller Design. Action Office 2. 1968 – 76 ............................................................. 5 Figure 6 Herman Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheer Office - 1970 ....................................................... 6 Figure 7 Herman Miller Ethospace Cubicles 1980 ............................................................................. 7 Figure 8 Cubical Offices .......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 9 Evolution of the spatial organization of the workplace (Salehian 2016) ......................12 Figure 10 Norman Foster, “Apple Campus 2” Rendering ................................................................13 Figure 11 Norman Foster, “Apple Campus 2” Rendering ................................................................13 Figure 12 Corporate Offices .................................................................................................................14 Figure 13 Bjarke Ingels and Thomas Heeatherwick “Google” Rendering ....................................15 Figure 14 A WeWork Space ..................................................................................................................16 Figure 15 Contemporary Offices .........................................................................................................17 Figure 16 Dystopian Vision ...................................................................................................................18 Figure 17 Preliminary drawing .............................................................................................................21 Figure 18 Tabriz Historic Bazaar Complex located in North West of Iran ...................................22 Figure 19 Proposed floorplan design with four zones .....................................................................25 Figure 20 Section view for the proposed floorplan ..........................................................................26 Figure 21 Alternative floorplan designs ..............................................................................................27 Figure 22 Alternative floorplan designs ..............................................................................................28 Figure 23 Section view for another site – reperposed industrial werhouse ................................29 Figure 24 Resident zone – version 1 ..................................................................................................30 Figure 25 Resident zone - version 2 ....................................................................................................31 Figure 26 Meeting zone - idea 1 / version 1 ......................................................................................32 Figure 27 Meeting zone idea 1 / version 2 .........................................................................................33 Figure 28 Meeting zone - idea 2 / version 1 ......................................................................................34 Figure 29 Meeting zone - idea 2 / version 2 ......................................................................................35 Figure 30 Nomadic zone - version 1 ...................................................................................................36 Figure 31 Nomadic zone - version 2 ...................................................................................................37 Figure 32 Social zone - version 1 .........................................................................................................38 Figure 33 Social zone - version 2 .........................................................................................................39   viii Figure 34 Section view showing different materials, light filtration, privacy level, and circulation ........................................................................................................................................40 Figure 35 Office perspective view for reperposed industrial werhouse .......................................41 Figure 36 New Babylon 1959 – 1974 .................................................................................................44 Figure 37 Pre-furniture ...........................................................................................................................45 Figure 38 Elli’s Potlatch .........................................................................................................................47   1 Chapter 1: Evolution of White-Collar Jobs  Figure 1 below identifies key moments in the history of domestic architecture – with a deeper dive into the contemporary examples such as hot desking, concept of hoteling, satellite and plugin offices. Identifying these sets of inflection points in the history of workplace opens up new paths of development – both organizational and formal – for conceiving of a world where technology is a natural part of our workplace, paths that prioritize interaction over isolation, collectivity over privacy.   Figure 1 The office timeline                         EVOLUTION OF WHITE COLLAR JOBS1930`s 1940`s 1950`s 1960`s 1970`s 1980`s 1990`s 2000`sinnovativeordinary/traditionalFun Palace-Cedric Pricework has occured purely out of necessityfactoriesc orporate control Democratic EnvironmentbürolandschaftInternational stylework stationhot desck(Nomadic Life Style)We workPupup/Plug in HotelingTechnologyWork i Playopen planergonomic design New Babylon-Constant NieuwenhuysPao I & Pao II - Toyo ItoOne hand Clapping Art Instalation- Duan Jianyu  2          Figure 2 Jack Lemon in The Apartment  An insurance office depicted in a motion picture called The Apartment shows the office space of the1950s. The executives had personal offices, often with glass doors, with their secretaries seated outside and the clerical staff seated in rows of desks. Facilities, such as washrooms, and kitchen facilities were similarly defined. It was a world of professional men, and the women were secretaries or clerks, wives, who stayed home, or elevator attendants. The power was held by the men, and favors could cross the barriers, whether sexual or based on some information. However, it was viewed, as a man’s world.  It was understood by all that this was the way it was, and it was almost impossible to cross into the privileged world of the executive suite. Rooms that were off-limits to the employees defined this difference, and it was the accepted order of life.  These were the roots of life, privilege and position came with social status, education and inheritance. However, this model of the hierarchy is still alive and well. The Apartment was filmed forty years ago but the issues; model of control, who is able to progress, and the dominance of those with power remain strong, in spite of a wider education and limited increased progress for women.   1950 – 1960  A Contemporary version of the 1950s office was the Union Carbide building in New York City, designed by Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore, Owings & Merill (SOM). The designers’ perceived and designed a rigid planning module that had movable partitions allowing some privacy but not entirely. It introduced a level of integration that still had established levels of importance of the personnel involved. Though certainly, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Johnson Wax Building of 1935-39 had an impact on modern office, SOM is largely credited with developing the vocabulary and approach to designing the modern office.   American architectural design has accepted the configuration of Union Carbide’s office space. It clearly delineates the hierarchy of the status of the personnel.     3Figure 3 Skidmore, Owings & Merill. Union Carbide Building, New York. 1960 The size of a person’s office, how many windows, and what view is visible from the windows, indicates the power of the person involved. The clerical staff has to work in open areas without much privacy. The individuality of the person had to conform to efficiency and space restrictions. To put the role of architecture and the individual in perspective, one might consider what Bunshaft once said: that social welfare workers were wonderful, but they shouldn’t be called architects.  In the 1960s the economy entered a phase where white-collar workers became the center of attention. A large part of this was the necessity to organize, record, retrieve, and create information. Between telephones, adding machines, intercom systems, and typewriters, technology was kept fairly simple but a fascination with automation was starting to occur. It is not only the physical architecture of the modern office that has altered the language of today’s office. Education and approach of management theory have eased attitudes. Technological, communication and information technologies have changed the economy to the point that more control has devolved to the clerical levels of the organization. Quickbourner Group, a German management consulting firm, began to visualize a working environment that was not organized boxes but something that crossed boundaries, with the ability of the workers to share their thoughts with management. Developed in Germany, this open, free-flowing concept, known as Burolandschaft, counteracted what many viewed as the sterile anonymity of rectilinear International Style plans. Their design of office space was freer- flowing, emphasizing group discussion areas with a lack of physical barriers. Instead, the areas were visually marked by removing barriers such as plants and freestanding screens.   However, this German group did not necessarily aim for equality of personnel. Hierarchy became marked by furnishings, location of the offices, and screens. Personnel relationships maintained a control and supervision aspect and in reality, the more open space made it easier for managers to supervise individuals. In many ways, the open concept was not popular with either management or staff.   4 Figure 4 Burolandschaf office space - 1950  1960 – 1970  This decade started the move that defined the late 1900s style of office design. The 1960s offered various designs; the SOM model (Union Carbide) with its planning grids introduced suspended ceilings, cable and wire ducts, lighting, and partitions to be standardized and mass-produced. Nothing has had a more profound impact on the office environment than the advent of modern systems furniture, a now ubiquitous solution that gave rise to the cubicle.  Robert Propst, then with the Herman Miller Furniture Company, authored a book entitled The Office, A Facility based on Change which addressed the future of the office from a social, technological and process point of view.      In 1968 he developed and marketed an open plan office system called Action Office 2 with the help of George Nelson, an influential office furniture designer. This was a modular system that reduced the requirement for tailored design and left open opportunity for change. This design offered a new view on human dignity and individual level of control; foreseeing changes in technology and motivation in individuals who could add to work patterns and expressions.  Propst’s attitudes were advanced, he envisioned McGregor’s Y style management theory as the most feasible, one that trusted personnel to seek challenge and work to attain good performance because they were encouraged to think and enhance their own opportunities.   5Instead of supporting the open work area, Propst decided on a balanced approach. This was not entirely successful, because the desk in the open area was a form of accommodation that gave little privacy and did not add to positive interaction between employees. In the years to follow, blanket approaches to literal warehousing of people and universal applications again would ignore the individual in terms of differences and de-emphasize group communication. The cubicle did not generate interaction and was not satisfactory as to privacy or comfort. Figure 5 Herman Miller Design. Action Office 2. 1968 – 76   1970 – 1980  Throughout the 1970s the ingrained idea of corporate control and the non-confrontational attitude of the workforce was the status quo of the American workforce. Individuals held on to their jobs and positions without challenging the status quo. The idea of altering their place in society was not in their mindset.   Perhaps the most important work environment of the 1970s was Herman Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheer Office Building in Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. The building introduced a more interactional idea about how the work environment might work. This focused on the idea of a range of status free group space, removing status privileged work    6 environments. It also encompassed preformed furniture item for all areas of an office.  Leading to many of the standard practices today, in the United States, several design firms of the 1970s and 1980s formed interior design as an approach to business as a concept. Leaders in the industry were Davis Allen, Margo Grant, and Orland Diaz. Interior design became the focus of their industry, mainly industrial. Therefore, the standardized ideas of corporate design led the way to today’s environment.  Douglas Ball, an employee of a Canadian company named Sunar, designed an alternative to the established notion of panel systems used for divisions in offices.                 Figure 6 Herman Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheer Office - 1970 His design while providing strategic screening, allowed for visual communication. His contribution is considered important because it changed the modularity which until then had been dominant within the industry. Ball’s design made it possible to have choices in the office-system product and move away from strict standards of style to which office workers had become accustomed.  In 1980 a movie, Nine to Five, portrayed a revolution which took place in the tightly controlled atmosphere of the office workplace. It challenged the hierarchy and dominance felt by the working-class members of the office. In many respects, this movie foretold the future but changed little at the time. The clerical staff continued to sit in open areas where they were visible to supervision.   1980 – 1990  In 1985 an article in the “Harvard Business Review” by Phillip Stone and Robert Luchetti entitled, Your Office is Where You Are”, became a mantra for innovation and forward thinking among those challenging conventional office environments. “Their basic premise was that management should develop a liberal attitude within the workplace that was based on trust and individual responsibility towards the job. In other words, the employees would not merely produce what was dictated but     7 Figure 7 Herman Miller Ethospace Cubicles 1980  would work together to create a better environment and product. This article also raised the question of whether the cubicle hindered efficiency and recommended activity-based interaction between individuals or groups of individuals, who would be allowed to decide the best place to work. This brought into question the idea of ownership of space, less management control and foreshadowed the possibility of technology that was not yet a fact.  The 1980s saw the growth of personal computers and the white-collar workers purchased their own. Once the personal computer became established a new system of utilities was required. This led to changes in infrastructure in the buildings themselves. It also led to new designs in furniture which was easy to modify. It was named, Ethospace, and the designer was William Stumpf.    It was more flexible than the panel systems and made the workplace more user-friendly.  One of the first and largest users of Ethospace was the American Express headquarters in New York, designed in 1983 by Swanke Hayden Connell. Space had “ambient light, modular carpet an impressive amenities package, a signature building, well-appointed individual work areas, and a strong art program.” The design intention was to make the office more meaningful to individuals than the older concept that had been in use since the 1960s. However, certain areas still retained the status and individual space for management.        8 1990 – 2000  Consultants, including Francis Duffy, Franklin Becker, Fritz Steel, and Michael Brill, are credited with changing the idea of what is a workplace. The combination of architecture, research and environmental psychology made an impact on what was later to be termed “Alternative Officing”. And it led to changes in the way work was organized and accomplished. Where work is done became less important with technological advances, such as wireless capability and the invention of the internet. More emphasis was placed on the interaction between individuals and less on top-down authority. Some companies saw this alternative officing as a chance to reduce overhead in real estate, while other companies maintained a bias for real estate which was insulting to the above- mentioned innovators.  Another approach emerged in the late 1980s, called hoteling; space used only as needed. This was more a tool to save on real estate costs, than support workers. It is not a system that is welcomed by many workers. Rather than being a choice under the conceptual idea of alternative officing, it has literally become alternate officing.  One well-publicized alternate officing example was the one constructed by Chiat/Day, whose New York office provided the opportunity for employees to communicate and interact. The office was designed by Gaetano Pesce in 1995. It encompassed the current technology and provided no individual spaces and employees were treated as equals. “A value was placed on high motivation, teamwork, diversity of ideas and value-laden communication.” The dress code was eased and the attitudes were about contribution rather than a misplaced idea of productivity. It was not a one hundred percent success though, because when Chiat/Day expanded and opened an office in Los Angeles in 1998 it made some changes to the design used in New York.    9Figure 8 Cubical Offices  This diagram shows the experience of cubical office, where the experience of inside the cubical is dreary and gloomy. There are small moments of personal expression in the cubical but otherwise, it is very dull. Fortunately, you can step out of that into the printer or water cooler and experience a bit more social life, but there is a lack of any connection to the outside world.    10 The design was created by Clive Wilkinson and did incorporate individual space but this was for all employees and was functional space rather than hierarchal. Wilkinson built-in concepts that provided employees with some privacy and a sense of ownership that set a legacy in office design.  Interestingly enough, “incubator space” has emerged in the last few years as a space type geared toward innovation and idea generation. Space is geared to younger employees and idea generation, but the traditional corporations, while using the idea, treat it as space different from a normal office.                     Note:   The history of the office from 1950 to 2000 is mostly based on the work of Christopher Budd.   He has consulted numerous publications and conducted interviews in the preparation of his essay. Texts and oral communication by the following authors have provided important background information on specific subjects, as noted in parenthesis: Lance Knobel, Donald Albrecht, and, most notably, Elisabeth Pellegrin-Genel (The Apartment and/or Playtime compared with contemporary architecture and design); Pele grin- Genel, Knobel, and John Pile (Burolandschaft); Carol Herselle Krinsky and Maeve Slavin (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Gordon Bunschaft, and Davis Allen); Todd DeGarmo (interview: SOM and Swanke’s American Express headquarters); Peligren-Genel (Central Beheer Office Building); Robert Propst, Leslie Pina, and Knobel (Herman Miller’s products and influence); James L. Bowditch and Anthony F. Buono (key management theories); Robert Propst (influence of X and Y management theory on his work); Michael Brill, Professor Franklin Becker, and Robert Luchetti (key perspectives on contemporary shifts in office environment).         11 Chapter 2: Current State of Workplace Design 2000 – Now Popularity of Open-Floor-Plan  Open floor plan offices offer flexibility and facilitate collaboration. Although this seems to be the new alternative to the traditional cellular office plan or rigid cubical layout, the open floor plan is anything but new. Among the first open-floor-plan offices in the United States was the Larkin Administration Building, by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1904-6. Designed, in part, for clerical work, this office building featured uninterrupted floor plates (made possible by its steel frame) surrounding a five-story-tall atrium. The design was also known, however, for the rigid behavioral control is enabled. Its lack of walls made it easier for managers to supervise their employees and conversation was “forbidden.” (Kellaway 2013)  So, why is open-floor-plan office trending again?  There’re several reasons:  1. Encourage collaboration 2. Promote learning among employees 3. Nurture a strong and unified culture   It was however shown in several field studies that these outcomes are not fully realized. Specifically, in one study, it was revealed that a transition from partitioned office to open-floor-plan resulted in decreased levels of satisfaction in team member relations, increased level of physical distress, and lower perceived job performance (Brennan 2002).   Specifically, workplace distractions such as noise and lighting have been cited as a predominant concern for employees working in open-floor-plan offices and recent technological trends suggest that these distractions may only proliferate in the future (Liebl 2012).  In fact, in a study done by cityLAB-UCLA/Gensler, the four main problems of open-floor-plan office were identified as  1. Excess distraction (noise) 2. Lack of privacy/control 3. Hyper-connectivity  4. Telecommuting  Despite these challenges, the open floor plan office is becoming more prevalent across the world. According to one study, the average individual workspace has dropped to 190 square feet in the year 2013 from 225 square feet in the year 2010 (Congdon 2014). And this trend is here to stay as it’s a logical and cost-effective solution to a growing workforce.    12 LARKIN BUILDING, 1904 Frank Lloyd Wright  Spatial Characteristics: Open floors and central court  Typological Basis: Controlled environment with central illumination  RCA BUILDING, 1933 Raymond Hood  Spatial Characteristics: Uniform alignment of workstations  Typological Basis: Modernist ideal schemes  OSRAM GmbH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1962 Walter Henn  Spatial Characteristics: Autonomous configurations of workstations with few interior subdivisions  Typological Basis: Fluid circulation of information, workspace independent from exterior environment  HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANK, 1986 Foster Associates  Spatial Characteristics: Absence of spatial program, reintroduction of cellular office  Typological Basis: Subjective labor more independent from physical environment, the mobility of both labor and the city                                        Figure 9 Evolution of the spatial organization of the workplace (Salehian 2016)    13 The emergence of Corporate Cities and Contemporary (or Creative) Offices  Over the past decade, Silicon Valley technology industry giants have built corporate cities and popularized the “creative office” as the new standard for progressive office design. The creative office rejects the traditional partitioned office model and is instead characterized by open-floor-plan layout, an emphasis on collaborative or shared space, modern and casual furnishings, and leisure amenities.  There are ample examples of major corporations that have adopted a creative or collaborative office. Apple is constructing its new headquarters designed by Norman Foster as a single, circular building surrounded by a large outdoor park with extensive jogging and cycling trails.    Facebook’s new headquarters, designed by Frank Gehry, includes plans for a single quarter-mile-long room with moveable desks that can be easily rearranged by its employees.                Figure 10 Norman Foster, “Apple Campus 2” Rendering   Figure 11 Norman Foster, “Apple Campus 2” Rendering   1214Figure 12 Corporate Offices  Workers at corporate cities feel trapped even though the leisure world has been brought to them.     15 Figure 13 Bjarke Ingels and Thomas Heeatherwick “Google” Rendering Google is working on a new headquarters with Bjarke Ingels of Danish firm BIG and Thomas Heatherwick of Heatherwick Studio. The concept for Google North Bayshore is to create lightweight block-like structures that can be moved around, rather than investing in permanent buildings. According to Google, this will offer flexibility as the company invests in new product areas.   These tech giants have overarching anxiety of keeping their workforce and these corporate cities are an answer to this anxiety. It’s a race between top companies to keep the best talent. They try to make these social and leisure spaces to encourage their introvert engineers to socialize.        In a way, these so-called leisure spaces within corporate cities are tightly controlled and monitored facilities designed to ensure the well-being of the workforce. And even though these major corporations have tried to bring all the amenities that one might need into their workspace, they have in a sense secluded them from the outside world which is why their employees might feel as if they are trapped within these corporate cities.                16 In this decade, we have also witnessed the emergence of shared workspaces, such as WeWork, that provides the contemporary office for technology startup subculture communities, and services for entrepreneurs, freelancers, startups, small businesses, and in some cases even for large enterprises.   WeWork has essentially redefined spaces and has created mixed-use places within the office where different activities coincide. For example, the kitchen is not just for eating, it’s a collaborative space, or the office is half private office and half conference room.                    Figure 14 A WeWork Space                                       17Figure 15 Contemporary Offices The so-called creative offices, in neighborhoods like Gastown in Vancouver BC, are more like a domestic loft in a repurposed industrial building than a corporate tower. It’s more playful than a standardized 9-to-5 work world and has more exposed duct-work and wall graphics than wall-to-wall carpet in wood-paneled waiting rooms. This diagram shows the workspace of contemporary office spaces with small offices that have no window and narrow hallways. You think these offices are going to be great, but once you enter the lofty space, you are stuck in a tiny office with no windows. -18Figure 16 Dystopian Vision This diagram shows a dystopian vision of the future where social connections are mostly done through VR where people in VR are digital versions of themselves.   19 Workplace Trends  In a three-year research collaboration with Gensler Los Angeles, cityLAB-UCLA observed office design in downtown Los Angeles and began to speculate about the “Future of Work” by studying the development of the office at three scales: the city, the building, and the desk. The first year of the project reviewed the planning history of downtown Los Angeles as well as the historical evolution of office work. Year two of this investigation explored an array of innovative ideas, technological advances, and design opportunities for office work in the coming decades. The third year focused on conceptual design solutions to address these opportunities. These studies made it abundantly apparent that office design has evolved far more slowly than the technologies it deploys. Further, while an array of innovative spatial ideas can be imagined for the future of work, implementation remains elusive. Key findings and recommendations of the cityLAB-UCLA study follows:          Workplace Trends and Observations  1. ‘Creative Offices’ are often standard offices  2. Inefficient use of space is prevalent  3. Inefficient design created inefficient communication  4. The office is everywhere - physically and temporally   Workplace Design Recommendations   1. Encourage active use of all spaces in the building  2. When designing collaborative workspaces, variety is key  3. Privacy is just as essential to performance as transparency  4. Optimize on outdoor space  5. Balance high-tech flexibility and low-tech hack-ability  6. Create spontaneously, not staged, outlets for leisure  7. Use technology to give buildings agency              20 A similar study presented by The Steelcase Global Report found that most engaged employees’ physical work environment supported their ability to:   • Choose where to work in the office based on the task • Socialize with colleagues • Concentrate easily • Work in teams without being interrupted • Move around throughout the day • Physically move during the day and change postures • Feel a sense of belonging to the company • Easily and freely express and share ideas • Share projects and achievements • Have access to information about the company • Accommodate remote workers and visitors • Feel relaxed, calm   21Chapter 3: Ecosystem of Hackable Spaces How the Physical Environment Can Help The workplace of the future needs to be adaptable and allow organizations to respond to changing business conditions. It also needs to support employee wellbeing. The key design principle that can help organizations create a resilient and effective workplace is to: Create an Ecosystem of Hackable Spaces People at work need to focus, collaborate, relax, socialize, and learn throughout their day.  Figure 17 Preliminary drawing      There is no single space that can support the diverse needs of employees. The workplace should be designed as an ecosystem of interconnected zones that are destinations where people have choice and control over where and how they work.   Why hackable?  A hackable space is a space that can be modified from its original and pre-defined use cases to incorporate a diverse and different mix of uses. The most sustainable vision for the future of office buildings and work, going forward, is hacking.      22                  Figure 18 Tabriz Historic Bazaar Complex located in North West of Iran      Bazaar  Creating an ecosystem of spaces in the workplace is not a new idea. In fact, it has been in use for thousands of years in the traditional Bazaars of Iran. Bazaars are multi-functional complexes, integrating of a series of interconnected, covered structures, buildings, and enclosed spaces developed over time for a variety of functions; from the commercial and trade-based, to the social, political, religious and educational. As a workspace, Bazaars are compelling in that they spatially compress the communal and social aspects of work with the individual pursuit of an enterprise. And this is the key aspect of what I am taking from bazaars.      23 A New Workplace  The following are considered for the design of the new spaces:   Posture The workplace should encourage regular movement throughout the day and offer options for people to work in sitting, standing, or lounge postures.  Presence Spaces should enable quality interactions with teams that are both local and remote with different time zones, supporting both digital and analog communication.    Privacy The workplace should provide places that offer varying ways to achieve privacy, in both open and enclosed spaces. A space that employees can focus or just relax.  The individual hackable spaces are built with easy to move panels that can be connected and are configurable. Size, shape, nature, and color of the panel can be personalized by the worker, therefore increasing their stake in the environment of work.    The panels are not just for the office space. You can also create common spaces which are designed to refuel and park for the entire workforce. Employees can exchange ideas and negotiate each other's hackable spaces in the common areas. The workspaces are built with different configurations. The individual units are composed of:   • wall panels (depth is 1.2)  • ceiling panels for personal units (2x2)  • acoustic panels  • privacy panels with a variety of patterns and colors  • hanging pieces  Modular spaces are built with these panels with a series of different materials (that are dealing with light filtration, privacy level, circulation.) Spaces are laid out to encourage workers to move. And the arc structure of the wall panels is inspired by the architecture of the Bazaar.                     24 Workplace of the future needs to accommodate and anticipate changing organizational and employee needs. That’s why four spatial typologies (zones) are considered here. The zones are as follows:  Resident Zone Assigned spaces for workers to complete everyday tasks.  Meeting Zone Choices of settings to allow for different forms of team collaboration.  Nomadic Zone A destination for mobile workers to connect with others or find an appropriate space for focus.  Social Zone A comfortable area to socialize, refresh, informally collaborate, focus and seek nourishment.  The size, ratio, and adjacency of each zone are tailored to match both business objectives and cultural expectations. The outcome is an environment that supports change, rather than resists it.        Site  A sample design is proposed here for a high-tech company with 30 employees located at 619 West Hastings Street. The site are 430 sq. meters which is ideal for the company based on the North American average of 15 sq. meters per person.     UP2002500560068861230200020004000200020001440318050503740155013502000200023002000200013002000200020004000 3000 2000 2000 14001400200020001200200020001000200026001480610020001400200040002000100020001505012700123001100036000890010100 170002300OFFICE PLANSCALE:1/100zonesframe/structural panel (personal space)frame/structural panel (meeting space)existing building Oce Space (2x2)Personal ZoneMeeting ZoneNomadic ZoneSocial Zone619 W Hastings St, Vancouver, BC AA168162000 mm2000 mm4000 mmFigure 19 Proposed floorplan design with four zones There are 35 offices in the building. The workplace is composed of a total of 35 ceiling panels, 94 wall panels, 8 large panels and, 120 columns. This equipment can be delivered by 7 medium sizes (2”x4”x2”) trucks. 000 2400360038004000 20001000 500 5002502000 13002000 2000OFFICE SECTION  AASCALE:1/40619 W Hastings St, Vancouver, BC Figure 20 Section view for the proposed floorplan UP20002000400020001860200096320001500 3007 130440002000200020002000198620003000200012002000687623268228572020162000687620009632000400020001986168162000 mm2000 mm4000 mm36000890010100 17000127001100015050Figure 21 Alternative floorplan dessign AOFFICE PLANSCALE:1/100619 W Hastings St, Vancouver, BC 168162000 mm2000 mm4000 mm36000890010100 17000127001100015050UP124101020002000135026702000230014002000120020002000980200026001400200020002000200010141000100613892000200020002000200020001257100012501110Figure 22 Alternative floorplan dessign BOFFICE PLANSCALE:1/100619 W Hastings St, Vancouver, BC 00024003600OFFICE PLANSCALE:1/402500 2000 3000 10002000 2002000 20002000400020002000PANEL CONNECTIONS21 mm 100 mmmiter, permanent jointBONDED JOINTSCALE: 1/10STRUCTURAL FIN JOINTSCALE: 1/10100 mm EDGEINTERLOCK JOINTSCALE: 1/10100 mmT PROFILE ENDSCALE: 1/10100 mmFIXED PANELSSCALE: 1/10FLOOR125 mm200 mm100 mm200 mm200 – 24 East 4th Avenue Vancouver, BC168162.4 m3.6 m2 m2.4 m2.4 m1.2 m 1.2 m2.4 m2 m3 mSCALE: 1/100Figure 23 Section view for another site – reperposed industrial werhouse  External ViewTYPE OF WORK SUPPORTEDFocusCollaborateRejuvenateSocializeLearnPOSTURELoungeSitStandWalkBikePRIVACYEnclosed Shielded openAcousticalVisualPRESENCEIn personvideo ConferenceAnaloge ConfrenceDigital content30Proposal for Resident Zone Version 1 Height-adjustable desks and high-performance ergonomic seating support a wide range of postures and workstyles. Activity stations encourage movement and activity, which can re-energize the brain and improve physical well being. Figure 24 Resident zone – version 1   31Proposal for Resident Zone Version 2 Figure 25 Resident zone - version 2 External View32Proposal for Meeting Zone Idea 1 / Version 1 Digital displays let the local team see remote participants and shared digital content. High-tech collaboration tools speed idea sharing while supporting multiple postures. And integrated video conferencing ensures remote colleagues can see local participants and their whiteboard content. Figure 26 Meeting zone - idea 1 / version 1   External ViewTYPE OF WORK SUPPORTEDFocusCollaborateRejuvenateSocializeLearnPOSTURELoungeSitStandWalkBikePRIVACYEnclosed Shielded openAcousticalVisualPRESENCEIn personvideo ConferenceAnaloge ConfrenceDigital content33Proposal for Meeting Zone Idea 1 / Version 2 Figure 27 Meeting zone idea 1 / version 2                              External View34Proposal for Meeting Zone Idea 2 / Version 1 Adjacent conversation area accommodates visitors and meetings away from the primary desk. Technology enables collaboration while space division creates a boundary and enhanced privacy for focus. Figure 28 Meeting zone - idea 2 / version 1     External View35Proposal for Meeting Zone Idea 2 / Version 2 Figure 29 Meeting zone - idea 2 / version 2                           External View36Proposal for Nomadic Zone Version 1 This space provides a relaxed posture and place to focus in the open. It also provides destinations for meetings, private phone calls, or virtual reality (VR) experiences Ergonomic support and relaxed posture minimize physical distractions. Figure 30 Nomadic zone - version 1    Front ViewSide ViewPhone Booth37Proposal for Nomadic Zone Version 2 Figure 31 Nomadic zone - version 2 Front ViewSide ViewVR Booth38Proposal for Social Zone Version 1 Coffee and nourishment make this space a destination Figure 32 Social zone - version 1 External ViewTYPE OF WORK SUPPORTEDFocusCollaborateRejuvenateSocializeLearnPOSTURELoungeSitStandWalkBikePRIVACYEnclosed Shielded openAcousticalVisualPRESENCEIn personvideo ConferenceAnaloge ConfrenceDigital content39Proposal for Social Zone Version 2 Figure 33 Social zone - version 2 External View40Overall the project is characterized by a continuous sequence of different settings. Even lighting contributes to the space characterization. Panels build space in a dynamic way by repeating the same structural geometry. When you walk through these interconnected hackable spaces, you go past social gathering spaces, privacy booths, meeting rooms, etc.  Each space has different light qualities, panel sizes, height, etc. and these qualities reflect the nature of activities in thesespaces. For example, social space is open and inviting, but a private reading/quiet space has a more visible partition. Generally, employees are encouraged to socialize, exercise, and live a healthier, more balanced life at their workspace.                         Figure 34 Section view showing different materials, light filtration, privacy level, and circulation Figure 35 Office perspective view for reperposed industrial weerhouse  42 Proposed spaces are re-configurable. The same office space can be open and inviting or closed to facilitate a more private setting for focus work. The office typology is also timeless. The proposed design is applicable to the desire and needs of different companies at different times.  The larger groupings of hackable spaces will be serviced through a singular backbone providing cooling, heating, and electricity to individual units, while structure and enclosure are provided by building in existing industrial buildings/offices in the city center. The flexibility of the single unit aids in the overall adaptability of the larger community as units can be joined and easily separated and altered as the number of employees changes. Allowing a simple inexpensive structural system to service different types of employees. The hackable spaces essentially provide a private/quiet space for employees within plain sight which is ideal for employers.  In conclusion, the proposed design for the workplace of the future is not meant as a definitive or singular solution for an effective workplace but as a conceptual strategy that offers new direction based on changing business and cultural needs. .43 Chapter 4: Case Studies New Babylon 1956 Inspired by the book Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga, Constant Niewwenhuys designed models for cities with the playful and creative human being at the center. Cities in which man is liberated from manual labor, where a man can dedicate himself fully to the development of creative ideas. He focused on the question which role art plays in intensifying a daily life filled with creative expression? He worked on the project from approximately 1959 to the New Babylon exhibition in 1974. (Wigley 1998) With new Babylon, he created a vision of a worldwide network of connected cities of the future. The land is collectively owned and labor fully automated. The need to work is replaced by a nomadic lifestyle of creative play. New Babylon is inhabited by homo ludens, who liberated from labor, have no need to for art because they can be creative in their daily life. Although Constant’s vision is extreme, his insights can inform my design of the workplace for a world where a nomadic lifestyle prevails. In Constant’s own words: New Babylon offers only minimal conditions for a behavior that should remain as free as possible. Every limitation of movement, of the creation of mood and atmosphere should be inhibited. Everything should remain possible, everything should be able to happen. The environment is created by the activities of life, not the other way around.  On December 20, 1960, Constant, a 40-year-old artist, delivered a speech to his observation of the future of architecture and urban structure:  “Modern architects are negligent. They have systematically ignored the massive transformation of everyday life caused by the twin forces of mechanization and population explosion. Their endless garden-city schemes desperately provide token fragments of ‘pseudo-nature’ to pacify ruthlessly exploited citizens. The modern city is a thinly disguised mechanism for extracting productivity out of its inhabitants, a huge machine that destroys the very life it is meant to foster. Such exploitative machinery will continue to grow until a single vast urban structure occupies the whole surface of the earth. Nature has already been replaced. Technology has long been a new nature that must now be 44 creatively transformed to support a new culture. The increasingly traumatized inhabitants have to take over the shaping of their own spaces to recover the pleasure of living. This reshaping will become their dominant activity when automation soon handles all forms of production. Leisure time will be the only time. Work gives way to an endless collective play in which all fantasies are acted out.”  His vision still holds true after almost 60 years. And his project is a good example of an environment that gives the post-worker a sense of purpose and pride. Figure 36 New Babylon 1959 – 1974 45 Pao I and Pao II Toyo Ito’s Pao I and Pao II which he proposed in 1985 and 1989, respectively show the struggle between work and leisure. During the 80s, the city of Tokyo was one of the most technologically advanced places in the world and also one of the densest cities with an increasing price for a square meter. That is why the two projects proposed by Toyo Ito are based on a scenario where most of the domestic functions are dissolved in the metropolis while the living unit becomes a minimal space just for shelter and access to the informational network.  His nomadic pieces of furniture would be used by someone who was living under those kinds of conditions.  Figure 37 Pre-furniture For my project, this is very generative because it helps me to think about how I would design nomad and architectural forms, ways of which architecture can engage questions about the design of personal space at this scale. The architecture of the two Pao is light and ephemeral, a tent which dissolves itself in the buzz of the metropolis and that is almost reduced to a series of design objects. The surfaces are in effect a screen that incorporate the high-tech development of those times and allow the information from the outside world to enter the intimate living spaces, a theme which will become recurrent only in later years. (Inaki 1995)   46 Elii’s Potlatch  This project for El Ranchito 2014 revolves around an ancient gift-exchanging ceremony that was held by the tribes of the American Pacific coast and was known as potlatch.   El Ranchito 2014 starts with a potlatch. Before work starts, artists receive a gift containing all the necessary tools. This gift is easy to transport, so artists can explore the bay and choose the right spot for their work for the coming weeks. Once they settle down, they can deploy their gift and use the wrapping to house their workspace.   The Potlatch! The system revolves around four main elements that make up the gift package:   First, the gift wrapping. It is formed by six unfurlable greenhouses, of 1.50 x 0.75 x 2.05 m each.   The bases of these greenhouses are hinged to allow different configurations of space. It could be an unbroken wall of greenhouses or an individual space. The greenhouses separate the different work areas and at the same time give room for storage space and lighting.  Secondly, there is a rigid module. The last unit of the elements in the gift is built in MDF and has the same geometry as the greenhouses. It can be used as a permanent vertical panel (as a display stand or notice board) or else as a work surface by laying it down on the ground. A storage cabinet is included at the bottom.   Thirdly, the tricycle. Once the greenhouses have been folded and the table has been erected, the tricycle is used to transport the package around the bay until the appropriate location is found.   Finally, the stuff. The gift contains all the essential tools for the stay, including lights, chairs, cups, clothes hangers, a small rug, some plants, a watering can, a reading guide and, a hammock, which shall be hung from the structure of the bay.  All the greenhouses can be interconnected. The system allows different configurations to ‘improve’ Bay 16: isolated strips, a secluded area of the open space with several specialist areas for individual work, one-off associations between residents, etc. Part of the aim of these residencies is to get participants to design their cohabitation space and try the space out. Lastly, the project includes a meeting space, a rest area, and an area to have meals and prepare a cup of tea, using as many recycled elements from previous editions of El Ranchito as has been possible.  47 Elii’s design of these interconnected hubs of workspaces with common areas in between can inform my design of similarly interconnected hubs of temporary and erectable workspaces for the city of the future. However, there are some constraints in respect to the strategy and material aspect of this project. And these constraints hold true for my design of on-demand workspace design, as well. On the one hand, the need to be capable of dismantling and folding the whole assembly so that the artists’ residencies are compatible with other types of programmes, such as exhibitions or events, that will be held in the same space throughout the year. On the other hand, the storage of the assembly whenever there are no residences. Once they are dismantled, assemblies can be folded down to a size of 3.50 x 1.80 x 2.2. Finally, their ephemeral nature, their adaptation to a limited budget and their production within a month also need to be considered. Figure 38 Elli’s Potlatch 48 Bibliography Antonelli, Paola. 2001. Workspheres: Design and Contemporary Work Styles. The museum of modern Art, New York. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Baum, Andrew, and Stuart Valins. 1977. Architecture and social behavior: Psychological studies of social density. New York; Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. Benedikt, Michael. 1992. Cyberspace: First Steps. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Birkhauser. 2001. Defining Digital Architecture: 2001 Far East International Digital Design Award. Publishers for architecture. Basel Boston Berlin. Brandes, Uta, and Michael Erlhoff. 2011. My desk is my castle: Exploring personalisation cultures. Basel: Birkhauser. Brennan, Aoife, Jasdeep S. Chugh, and Theresa Kline. “Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field study.” Environment and Behavior 34.3 (2002): 279-299. Cave, Colin, John Worthington, and Francis Duffy. 1976. Planning office space. New York; London: Architectural Press. Congdon, Christine, Donna Flynn, and Melanie Red- man. 2014. “Balancing ‘We’ and ‘Me’ (Digest Summary).” Harvard Business Review 92.10: 51-57. cityLAB and Gensler. 2013. The Future of Office Work: How We Got Here, Los Angeles: Gensler. cityLAB and Gensler. 2014. The Future of Office Work: Rewiring Work, Los Angeles: Gensler. Hookway, Branden. 1999. Bürolandschaft (office landscaping). In Pandemonium: The rise of predatory locales in the postwar world. Houston; New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Horgen, Turid. 1999. Excellence by design: Trans- forming workplace and work practice. New York: John Wiley. Inaki Abalos, Juan Herreros. 1995. “Toyo Ito: Light Time.” El Croquis: Toyo Ito 1986-1995 71. J.Mitchell, William. 1999. e-topia “urban lif, Jim – but not as we know it”. The MIT press. Cambridge,London.49 Kellaway, Lucy. “The decline of privacy in open-plan offices.” BBC News, 2013. Retrieved from http:// www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23502251 Liebl, Andreas, et al. “Combined effects of acoustic and visual distraction on cognitive performance and well-being.” Applied Ergonomics 43.2 (2012): 424-434. Markus, Thomas A. 1993. Buildings and power: freedom and control in the origin of modern building types. London; New York: Routledge. Mazingo, Louise A. 2011. Pastoral capitalism: a history of suburban corporate landscapes. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Mosher, Mike. 2011. The interface: IBM and the transformation of corporate design, 1945/1976. N - New ed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Osman, Michael. 2018. Modernism’s visible hand: architecture and regulation in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pile, John F. 1978. Open office planning: A hand-book for interior designers and architects. New York; London: Whitney Library of Design. Rabinbach, Anson. 1992. The human motor: Energy, fatigue, and the origins of modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Saval, Nikil. 2014. Cubed: A secret history of the workplace. First ed. New York: Doubleday. Salehian, Carla. Cuff, Dana. 2016. BEYOND CREATIVE, Transforming the Workplace. Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Architecture +Urban Design: citylab. Steelcase. 2016. "Engagement and the Global Workplace." Research, Michigan. Wigley, Mark. 1998. Constant’s New Babylon: The Hyper-Architecture of Desire. Amsterdam: Rotter- dam. Willis, Carol. 1995. Form follows finance: Skyscrapers and skylines in new york and chicago. 1st ed. New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0378575/manifest

Comment

Related Items