Lindsey Torpey

Zahid Islam

Introduction

Designing workplaces is a problem-drives-solution task due to the ever-evolving type, nature, and requirements. A growing amount of companies are adopting collaborative workplaces to encourage employees to resolve issues and increase the companies’ productivity collectively. Designers need to understand what indeed encourages collaboration in the workplace and design towards it rather than assume simple amenities such as a ping-pong table and a comfortablelounge will bring colleagues together for collaboration. This study looks at two analysesprovidingus with differentviews compared to traditional design thought to further develop the arguments for designed collaboration spaces in the workplace. We begin with the consideration ofthe sociallysustainable communities (Dempsey, Bramley, Power, & Brown, 2009) a guideline, indicatingthe workplace needs to include the human aspect tofacilitate collaboration. Then we will look at Kevin Lynch’s urban design concepts to observe how cities are understood and how people move through and around cities (Lynch, 1960). These two essays will give us a vocabulary and framework to discuss how users might move about the workplace.Lastly, we will review the analyses this study performed on a co-working workplace using Space Syntax to ultimately identify, which areas in a workplace require careful consideration when designing for collaboration with information gleaned from all three views.

Sustainability of Communities

The use of the word sustainability in this work refers to the ability to sustainthe social interactions of individuals, rather than more frequent use of sustainability defined as not depleting or permanently damaging a resource.

Research shows that beyond a well-designed built environment, companies need to have the culture to encourage collaboration as well.(Dempsey, et al., 2009) Socially sustainable communities in the context of the workplace are groups of people who are comfortable, safe, and engaged with one another. Socially sustainable communities create an environment of trust, openness, and motivation, which are pivotal for authentic collaboration (Guerreiro, 2011).

Dempsey, Bramley, Power,and Brown (2009) used five elements to describe the social sustainability of the community in an urban environment:

• Social interaction/social networks – “The density and knowledge of relationships within the network.” The more the community knows about each other, the more they are comfortable with each other.

• Participation in collective groups and networks – Team activities. Building stronger ties.

• Community stability – Consistent group with a low rate of turnover.

• Pride/sense of place – Defined culture. Sense of community. Place of belonging.

• Safety and security – Physical safety. This element ties into Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs; Human’sbasic foundational needs requireattentionprior to addressing high function needs.

The author observed anecdotal evidence that not having these elements developed in a community may not hinder collaboration; however, having these elements ultimately helped community cohesion. These conceptsof social sustainability of communities will be usedin this study as anunderstanding of human emotion/behavior as it ties into the willingness of individuals to collaborate withinthe workplace.

The Image of the City

In The Image of the City, Kevin Lynch studies three cities and asks long-time residents and workers to sketch a map of their respective city from memory thus creating a vast amount of hand-sketched maps(Lynch, 1960). Lynch synthesized the mapsfrom each city and categorized the information recorded by the residents/workers based on the types of elements used to convey similar directional information. Lynch selected five categories to be used to describe elements of cities (Lynch, 1960):

• Paths – Channels of movement

• Edges – Boundaries creating separation between areas. Perceived edge or seam between two areas used to align one's self geographically. EX: Edges of development, the edge of the neighborhood, dividing railroad tracks.

• Districts – Sections of the City. Perceived as going “in to” or “out of” the city center.

• Nodes – Strategic points. Junctions, crossing, or convergence of paths. Events on a journey

• Landmarks – Point of reference used to navigate or give directions, for instance, buildings, signs, and stores. “Take a right at the statue.” The statue is the landmark.

These five identified elements describe and define how people understand and how people move through cities. This study will use these concepts as an understanding and vocabulary of how users will interact with the interior space of a co-working workplace.

Co-Working Workplaces

Co-working workplacesattempttostimulate collaboration through the intrinsic nature of the communitythey try to create in each unique location. For this study, we identified two co-working workplaces for preliminary evaluation: Space-A and Space-B. We toured and observed each workplace to understand how people moved through and about the space. We did a preliminary analysis based on our observations to identify the critical points of each space while also comparing the culture of each community.

Space-A

Figure 1:A floor plan of the second floor of Space A with an indication of existing floor level changes.

Located on the second floor of a three-story building, Space A separated the open, potentially collaborative spaces from the offices, as seen in the floor plan in Figure 1. Based on the initial review, this layout of the space seems to contradict our perception of the company and its goals: to bring together people.

Space-A’s company mission(painted in a mural on the wall) repeatedly uses the word community as a driving force for its spaces. This study would argue that to build community;any space needs to entice collaboration. However, based on observation, Space A seems to cater to people who are solely looking for a place to work. If collaboration happens, it is by happenstance because the space is individual-centric.

While touring and observing three different occasions, we onlyobserved the main floor. There are twofloor-level changes on the main floor, each of which is accessible for all users by two ramps. However, please note our analysis discussed later in this paper will not be able to compute the level changes.

Space B

Figure 2:a Floor plan of the 7^th floor of Space B with an indication of Key Card Access Points and shading indicated the space off-limits to lower memberships, whichdo not have a key card.

Space B occupies two floors in a high-rise office building, connectedwith amonumental stair. The 7^th floor is the main floor and the focus of our observations.

Space B offers offices separated from the open work areas by key card access only. Key card access is available based on the type of membership purchased. As seen in Figure 2, most of the Space B is off-limits to users without key-cards, as indicated by the shaded area. The question of the card access limiting the way users move about the space is not addressed here and requires a separate study.

Despite the separated layout, Space B’s companypredominantly advertised its co-working workplaceas having regular community events and an app for members to communicate at the office or on the go.

Space Selection

Due to the limited timeline of this study, selecting one space for further analysis is critical. Two distinct points led this study to select Space-A over Space B:

1. The user’s membership at both Space A and Space B determines how much access the user will have throughout each co-working workplace. Space B restricts lower memberships to a much smaller area of the co-working workplace than Space-A does. Therefore, we selected Space-A with the thought that more people would have a lower-priced membership with a more considerable amount of area to use.

2. This study intends to determine if a workplace can be designed for collaboration;therefore, this study was intrigued how Space A’s culture focuses on the community but seems to prevent collaboration by the separation of offices and common areas. Therefore, this study is interested in analyzing if Space-A achieves the company’s intent of a collaborative co-working space.

Analysis with Space Syntax

Space syntax is a technique used to describe and analyze patterns of architectural space (Mohamed, 2012). Bill Hillerdeveloped this technique in the 1970s. Space syntax was selected for this analysis of co-working workplaces because this study is combining human behavioral concepts from Dempsey et al.(2011) and urban planning concepts from Lynch (1960), while space syntax “attempts to explain human behaviors and social activities from a spatial configuration point of view,”(Hillier & Hanson, 1989). The original space syntax technique has evolved and been developed to create multiple types of graphs, each with a different intent, used to analyze the space. This study will focus on twocategoriesof graphs: visibility graph analysisand convex map analysis. Within the convex map analysis category, this study will focus on three sub-groups of analyses: integration of space, mean depth of space, and degree of connectivity.

Visibility Graph Analysis

The purpose of a visibility graph analysis (VGA) is to analyze sightlines through space to identify the visual connectedness. The process of VGA begins with the software drawing lines across the floor plan to represent every sightline possible within the space. The software assumes all walls are full height and opaque, which is unfortunate for this study because most of the walls of Space A are full-height glass partitions. As shown in Figure 3, once the sightlines are drawn the software color-codes the graph for ease of interpretation. Red lines indicate the highest concentration of sightlines crossing, and dark blue lines indicate the least concentration of sightlines crossing.

The areas color-coded as red indicate a definite visual connectedness, meaning if one were standing in the space identified as a red area, one would be able to see more of the co-working workplace. In contrast, if one were standing in a dark blue area,one would see less of the co-working workplace and therefore be less visually connected.Furthermore, users within the co-working workplace will be able to see into the redareas more so than they would be able to see into the dark blue areas.

Our VGA indicates in figure 3, the corridors and paths seen in red/yellow areas of Space A have the most robust visual connection to the main level or district of the co-working workplace. Users will be seen more and see more when they move about the space in these areas. The possibility of collaboration is more likely to occur as users move through the hallways of the co-working workplace along these paths. Figure 4 isolates the main areas with the most active visual connection.

Figure 3:Visibility Graph Analysis

Isometric view of the Visibility Graph Analysis overlaid with a 3D view of Space A. Red areas are more visually connected spaces. Blue areas are less visually connected.

Figure 4:a Floor plan of the Most Visible Areas isolated from the Visibility Graph Analysis.

Convex Map Analysis

Convex maps function differently than VGAs because they analyze how particular components of the built environment relate to other components around it, whereas VGA analyzes sightlines. Creating a convex map requires indicating the software that constitutes a component of the space by identifying shapes for each room within the co-working workplace. Each office, common area, corridor, and all other spacesare components of the co-working workplace. For greater detail, we separated the corridors into smaller components to better identify if individual sections of the corridor are more suited for collaboration.

This study will analyze the co-working workplace with three variations of the convex map: integration of space, mean depth of the space, and degree of connectivity.

Integration of Space and Mean Depth of Space

The integration of space looks at which components of space are most integrated, or easily accessible, from all other components and color-codes the components accordingly. Consider hopping from room to room with your finger on the floor planthe further one goes from the original location, andthe least integrated, the final destination is to the original location.In figure 5, red is the most integrated and dark blue is the least integrated.

The mean depth of space considers the same concept of accessibility of components, but the mean depth analysis intends to consider how far, or deep, into the space each component is located relative to all other components. Consider mean depth as to how far one has to physically walk if one were in the co-working workplaceto access a specific component of space. The further one has to walk, the deeper that particular component of space. In Figure 7, red components of space represent the deepest or farthest spaces while dark blue represents the most shallow or shortest distance to a particular component.

The integration of space and mean depth of space analyses are thought to correspond with social encounters. Meaning that the more integrated and the shallowest areas will have more social interaction because more users are passing through those spaces to reach their final destination(Hillier & Hanson, 1989).

In figure 5 and figure 7, the color-coding indicates the area noted as #1 is both the most integrated and has the shallowest depth within the co-working workplace. Comparatively, area marked as #2 is an example of the least integrated and deepest spaces within the co-working workplace. Area #1 would be better suited for collaboration while area #2 would be more suited for activities requiring focus with little distraction. Designing for a balance of variation in space could play into Dempsey et al.’s (2011) concept of Community Stability because depending on the user, a range of space types is needed depending on the needs of their work.

Figure 5:Integration of Space

Isometric view of Integration of Space convex map overlaid with a 3D view of Space A. Red is the most integrated and dark blue is least integrated. Area #1 is the most integrated and area #2 is some of the least integrated space.

Figure 6:a Floor plan of the Most Integrated areas isolated from the Integration of Space convex map.

Figure 7: Mean Depth of Space

Isometric view of Mean Depth of Space convex map overlaid with a 3D view of Space A. Red indicates deeper spaces and dark blue indicates shallow spaces. Area #1 is the most shallow and area #2 is some of the deepest space.

Figure 8:a Floor plan of the Most Shallow Depth areas isolated from the Mean Depth convex map.

Degree of Connectivity

Analyzing connectivity within space syntax equates to measuring the number of immediate neighbors each component of space has. The higher the number of neighbors, the higher the degree of connectivity,and the lower the number of neighbors, the lower the degree of connectivity. In figure 9, red indicates the highest degree of connectivity and dark blue represents the lowest degree of connectivity.

In our analysis shown in figure 9, the corridors connecting multiple offices have the highest degree of connectivity. Assuming users of the co-working workplace are interested in collaborating, conversations are more likely to occur in the corridors.

Figure 9: Degree of Connectivity

Isometric view of Degree of Connectivity convex map overlaid with a 3D view of Space A. Red areas indicate more highly connected space. Blue areas indicate lesser-connected spaces.

Figure 10:a Floor plan of the Most Connected areas isolated from the Degree of Connectivity convex map.

Conclusion

Often, we think of the spaces we move in, out, and through, as the background to our daily lives, but the built environment is an intrinsic aspect of our world. The types of spaces in which we live our lives affect the way we think, the way we move, and the way we feel because of the way the built environment is planned, designed, and maintained.

Workplaces designed for collaboration can become a standard, but designers need to look at how people are moving through existing spaces to ensure the next design or the redesign incorporates alterations to enhance collaboration further. However, this is not to say that isolated and unconnected spaces are not needed. On the contrary,there needs to be a balance of each.

This study used space syntax analyses of a co-working workplace to understand how collaboration could be designed intoa built environment. Figure 11 is a compilation of the most successful areas of each of the four graphs and maps we discussed abovein the analysis of Space A. This study found main circulation pathsand intersecting nodes to be the areas for greatest potential collaboration. From our initial observation of Space A, we believed the layout of the co-working workplace to contradict the company’s goals because of the separation between offices and the open areas. However, our analysis shows that the current layout of the space could do well for promoting collaboration along circulation paths, crossing paths to create meeting nodes, and creating events along a journey in the co-working workplace.

If the company culture governing a space does not adhere to the concepts presented by Dempsey et al., we may not see as positive results in collaboration as the space syntax software might show. Regardless of how well a space may be designed for collaboration, users need to actively participate in collective groups to build a dense social network, teams need minimal turnover to develop long-term relationships, and leaders need to be creating a sense of place for users to feel valued and engaged.

Collaboration could successfully occur when individuals cross paths or meet at an intersecting location, but the individuals have to be willing to participate.

Figure 11:Overlay of Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10 to create an overall view of the areas most likely to facilitate collaboration

Reference

Alexander, C. (1996). A city is not a tree, Architectural Forum. by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout.-London, Routledge.

BBC. (1993). Bill Hillier, Tomorrow's World. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FY7ImqYsm8

Cottrell, M. (2014). Guide to the LEED green associate V4 exam. John Wiley & Sons.

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable development, 19(5), 289-300.

GBES. (2014). LEED Green Associate Exam Preparation Study Guide. LEED Green Associate Exam Preparation Study Guide, v4, 75-92. Orland Park: American Technical Publishers.

Griffin, E. (1991). Hierarchy of needs of Abraham Maslow. A first look at communication theory, 124-133.

Guerreiro, M. (2011). Sustainability through biomimicry: urban solutions inspired by nature. In International Conference Virtual City and Territory (7è: 2011: Lisboa) (pp. 397-402).

Haviland-Jones, J., Hudson, J. A., Wilson, P., Freyberg, R., & McGuire, T. R. (2013). The emotional air in your space: Scrubbed, wild or cultivated?. Emotion, Space and Society, 6, 91-99.

Hillier, B. (1999). The common language of space: a way of looking at the social, economic and environmental functioning of cities on a common basis. Journal of Environmental Sciences-Beijing-, 11, 344-349.

Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1989). The social logic of space. Cambridge university press.

JPNDC. (2015). JPNDC. Retrieved January 2016, from https://jpndc.org/brewery/

Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

Mohamed, A. A. (2012). Evaluating way-finding ability within urban environment. In Eighth International Space Syntax Symposium; Greene, M., Reyes, J., Castro, A., Eds.

Pilatowicz, G. (2015). Sustainability in interior design. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 8(3), 101-104.

Project for Public Spaces. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved January 2016, from Project for Public Spaces: http://www.pps.org/

Randhir, T. O., & Raposa, S. (2014). Urbanization and watershed sustainability: Collaborative simulation modeling of future development states. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 1526-1536.

Redman, T., Hamilton, P., Malloch, H., & Kleymann, B. (2011). Working here makes me sick! The consequences of sick building syndrome. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 14-27.

Space Syntax Network. (n.d.). Space Syntax Network Home. Retrieved from http://www.spacesyntax.net/

Space Syntax. (2012, May 15). Space Syntax_Compnay Introduction. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L08-zm6BQA.

Tarabieh, K., Nassar, K., Abdelrahman, M., & Mashaly, I. (2019). Statics of space syntax: Analysis of daylighting. Frontiers of Architectural Research.

UNESCO. (2010, January 1). What is a Sustainable Community? Retrieved September 2, 2016, from UNESCO:http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/ mod17.html

Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is Social Sustainability? A Clarification of Concepts. Geoforum, 42 (3), 342-348.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Ann Arber, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, Inc.

Yiftachel, O., & Hedgcock, D. (1993). Urban social sustainability: the planning of an Australian city. Cities, 10(2), 139-157.