Thesis: Future Collective Workplace by Lawrence Kam

Future Collective Workplace Affording Informal Interaction through Spatial Computation

ARCHITECTURE & SUSTAINABLE DESIGN KAM SIU HAN, LAWRENCE

Contents [A]

INFORMAL INTERACTION IN WORKPLACES

1 Overview 6

Abstract Introduction

The Office of Tomorrow

The New Focus

Computing Interaction

Independent Workforce Global Trends

Informal Interaction Characteristics of Informal Interaction

Circulation Analysis Case Studies Visibility Analysis Design Explorations

[B]

FUTURE COLLECTIVE WORKPLACE

Proposal

Design

Concept Expansion

102

[C]

APPENDIX

Project Brief Site Analysis

Urban Integration Business Strategies Massing and Program Workspace Layout Section and Perspectives

Computation Methods Beyond the Workplace

Bibliography

108

1 4

INFORMAL INTERACTION IN WORKPLACES

Overview

OVERVIEW

1.1

Abstract

This thesis fundamentally questions what the workplace will be in the near future. With the emerging local trend of a more independent workforce, plus global trends of horizontal organisational structures and urban office buildings with more informal spaces, the future workplace will focus highly on informal interaction which leads to the economic benefits of knowledge sharing, team-building and job satisfaction. Thus, this thesis proposes a new-built office building close to Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Central Business District catering primarily to startups and freelancers. The affordance of informal interaction is provided on three scales: with the public, between teams and between colleagues. The design combines computational methods of Space Syntax with Spatial Cognition and Visual Analysis to ensure the various shared spaces have the right degree of proximity, privacy and permission for healthy informal interactions, without compromising on space efficiency and worker productivity.

1.2

Introduction

What will office of tomorrow look like? The design of offices in the last century has bounced between rigid arrangements and organic layouts, each with limited success. However, with the rise of a new independent workforce, the office has switched from a place of production to a place of interaction. Coupled with this are spatial computation methods which evaluate spaces with a more human approach. The combination of the two gives rise to a new office typology demonstrated with the design of a new-built collective workspace. The first half of the booklet focuses on recent research and computational methods: Chapter 2 - The Office Of Tomorrow highlights emerging trends, while Chapter 3 - The New Focus evaluates the trends and identifies the aspect of Informal Interaction as the key design driver. Chapter 4 - Computing Interaction then lists the various ways in which informal interaction can be numerically measured based on the affordances of proximity, privacy and permission. The second half proposes a new collective workspace following the research and design explorations: Chapter 5 - Proposal identifies a suitable program and location for the new facility, while Chapter 6 - Design details the various design elements that contribute to providing healthy informal interactions as well as productive and profitable workspaces. The booklet ends with Chapter 7 - Concept Expansion which explores possibilities within and beyond the workplace setting.

2 8

INFORMAL INTERACTION IN WORKPLACES

The Office of Tomorrow

THE OFFICE OF TOMORROW

2.1

Independent Workforce

The architecture of the office building is driven fundamentally by the culture of business. As the nature of products and services shift from the cost efficiency of industrialization and repetition to customization and personalization, the culture and its people changes as well. Flexibility and scalability of product, as well as talent and reward management, are the hallmarks of many successful businesses today1. At the core of business, apart from money, is manpower. Despite the advancement of technology, it is still people who start and drive businesses. Hence, recognising who the future generation of workers are and how they function is important. If there was a trait to describe the “millennials”, that word would be “independence”. This can be seen in the increase in freelancers and small independent business (startups), as well as small units functioning separately from established parent firms (Figure 1).

THE NEW, INDEPENDENT WORKFORCE

Freelancers

Startups

Figure 1: The three groups of workers in the new independent workforce

Independent Units from Established Firms

2.1 INDEPENDENT WORKFORCE

a. Freelancers In a recent Graduate Employment Survey conducted across three universities in Singapore, the overall trend showed an increase number of graduates taking on part-time, temporary and freelance jobs (Figure 2). Over in the United States, the freelance workforce stands at 35% of the working population2. Workers today also have a tendency to “job hop” due to their increase preference in flexibility and self-management. This trend is likely to continue in the coming years. Established businesses are already taking advantage of this by outsourcing short-term work to freelancing professionals at lower costs compared to hiring them full time. Coupled with the rise of information sharing technology, the barriers to entry for freelancers are decreasing further3. Still, these freelancers need a base of operation and a platform to advertise both virtually and physically.

Figure 2: Newspaper infographic showing rise in freelancing in Singapore Graphic taken from “Freelance Jobs In Singapore On the Rise” published 26 Feburary 2017 in The Sunday Times

THE OFFICE OF TOMORROW

b. Startups The startup culture of Silicon Valley has also recently emerged in Singapore, with the number of new startups doubling from 2004. The Singapore Department of Statistics has identified over 48 000 startups operating in Singapore currently4. Hosting these startups are spaces specifically catered to them. Situated within one-north, JTC LaunchPad is a community of startups in the fields of biomedical, infocomm, media, electronics and engineering industries. Its success has resulted in its expansion of two more blocks slated for completion in 20175. Moreover, a second LaunchPad will be completed in Jurong Innovation District. Co-working spaces are also popping up closer to Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Central Business District to meet the high demands. However, the startup ecosystem remains a very fragile business setup which require a criticalmass to succeed.6 Many startups are failing financially7, and those which succeed will eventually grow into a pool of SMEs and smaller-scale MNCs. Spaces hosting these startups will need to be flexible for both growth and demise of these companies.

c. Independent Units from Established Businesses While the number of startups may decrease in the future, its impact will remain in established businesses. In terms of organisational structure, small temporal teams will form and dissolve as per project. These temporal teams consisting of multi-disciplinary workers will then function as an individual unit, similar to startups. Also, as in the case of Singtelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inno8, firms are looking to create independent research units physically and organisationally separated from the headquarters so as to remove the corporate burdens of the research team (Figure 3).

2.1 INDEPENDENT WORKFORCE

Figure 3: Shared co-working spaces in JTC LaunchPad @ one-north (Blk 71) JTC LaunchPad @ one-north hosts both start-ups as well as research units from Singtel and National University of Singapore.

Kuenne, C. : 2014, “The Four Key Drivers Of Growth”

Seow, B: 2017, “Freelance jobs in Singapore on the rise”

Schrader, B: 2015, “Here’s Why The Freelancer Economy Is On The Rise”

4, 7

Wong, K et al: 2017, “Growth Dynamics of High-Tech Start-ups in Singapore: A Longitudinal Study”

5, 6

Yeoh, F: 2016, “Singapore’s startup ecosystem: Have we arrived?”

THE OFFICE OF TOMORROW

2.2

Global Trends

Accompanying the rise of the independent workforce are evolutions of the workplace with the influx of new digital tools and technology. Morgan Lovell, in their conclusion of the evolution of office design, predicts that future offices will be viewed by workers as not a place to merely produce and perform, but to connect, collaborate and grow8. Hence, despite the increase in wireless technology and distributed work, employees will still want to work within a community of people, interact and share knowledge, while employers recognize the need to motivate, nurture and retain their staff. The need for the physical office space will remain and be shaped by the following trends: urban integration, program influx and horizontality (Figure 4).

Urban Scale

Building Scale

Floor Scale

Urban Integration

Program Influx

Horizontality

Figure 4: The Three Global Trends (Facing page) Figure 5: History of Workplace Evolution with Key Buildings and trends identified

2.2 GLOBAL TRENDS

a. Urban Integration In the United States, large corporations including McDonaldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s General Electric and UBS have shifted base from suburban towns to the city.9 The biggest reason is the fight for talent as the majority of millennials reside in cities. In a battle of attraction and retention of talent, the proximity to transport nodes and cheap

SUBURBAN CAMPUS Cheaper rental costs Larger space Quieter and safer environment Security and privacy

amenities becomes crucial.10 As urban offices are more expensive than suburban campuses, the cost is usually offset by squeezing in a higher worker density. This increase may in turn generate more opportunities for collaboration11. Also, businesses can cement themselves into the urban fabric and increase their brand

exposure.

These

factors

are

especially crucial for small independent

URBAN OFFICE Larger, younger talent pool Proximity to transport and amenities Higher worker density and collaborative potential Brand Exposure

business, which further contributes to the trend of urban offices.

Figure 5: Comparison between the advantages of the Suburban Campus and the Urban Office

THE OFFICE OF TOMORROW

Figure 6: OMA, New Media Campus in Berlin Proposal, 2013 This illustration shows how the building opens up to the public space, with the red figures representing the public and black representing staff. The public is able to access the ground and second floor, as well as a lookout floor deck in the middle of the building.

b. Program Influx A study conducted by Knoll Inc in 2016 predicted that offices will be more casual to create a relaxed, open atmosphere12. Apart from furnishing and interior design, companies are providing more facilities, amenities and recreational areas. Surveys show that provision of amenities lead to higher job satisfaction13. As job-hopping becomes more and more prevalent in the younger generation, organizations start to focus on attraction and retention of top talent by providing even more amenities to increase job satisfaction. Also, to meet the changing nature of work, there will be an increase in shared flexible spaces such as classrooms, co-working spaces and informal meeting areas. Together with the increase in personal portable devices and wireless cloud infrastructure, the need for a permanent personal desk is reduced tremendously.

2.2 GLOBAL TRENDS

Figure 7: Current and new programs in offices today and in the future

THE OFFICE OF TOMORROW

c. Horizontality Organizational behaviour of companies have shifted from a linear, hierarchical structure to a complex networked structure. The same study conducted by Knoll Inc predicted the rise in group-based work, leadership dispersion and non-linear workflow in the next 5 years14 (Figure 10). Collaboration was cited as the top driver for workplace planning15. With software, robots and artificial intelligence systems replacing tedious computer work, employees are able to spend more time tackling higher-level, multi-disciplinary issues. Teams consisting of workers from different departments will be formed on a per project basis. Mobility and circulation becomes extremely crucial for workers who will travel from meeting to meeting, carrying their own personal devices. These contrasts the capitalistic ideals of productivity and cost-efficiency of the earlier office layouts (Figure 9).

Figure 8: Frank Gehry, Facebook Menlo Park Campus, 2012 The campus features the largest open plan in the world, where all staff are located in a single floor. This is probably the most extreme architectural reflection of horizontality, where the flattened organization is directly translated into the form and layout of the building.

2.2 GLOBAL TRENDS

1900 Taylorism

1950 Burolandschaft

1960 Action Office

1980 Cubicle Farm

1990 Agile Working Casual Office

Figure 9: Evolution of the Workplace Layout from 1900-2000

Rise in percentage of group work

2012

2016

IN 5 YEARS

40%

52%

63%

IN 5 YEARS

Organizations moving towards Dispersed Leadership

25%

IN 5 YEARS

Organizations forecasting increase in non-linear work

41%

Figure 10: Selected results of survey conducted by Knoll Inc.

Morgan Lovell, “The Evolution Of Office Design”

Weller, C: 2017, “Millennials are forcing America’s largest corporations to kill traditional suburban office parks”

Arieff, A et al: 2016, “A New Look at the Corporate Campus”

12, 13, 14, 15

Knoll, Inc.: 2016, “Immersive Planning: From Research to Realization: An Experience-based Workplace”.

3 20

INFORMAL INTERACTION IN WORKPLACES

The New Focus

THE NEW FOCUS

3.1

Informal Interaction

If the capitalist notions of productivity, cost-efficiency, and growth defined workplaces of the 20th century, then the future workplace can be defined by the increasing focus in knowledge sharing through informal interaction. This is despite the fact that knowledge is already hugely available and easily accessible worldwide through the Internet and big data. Interestingly, various studies of the current generation all point towards “authenticity”. Matthew Tyson, a marketing strategist, highlights how the current generation avoids traditional news and advertising with the skepticism of false and biased information1. A consumer study by Elite Daily and Dan Schawbel, author of a best-selling book, revealed that millennials want to be engaged personally and be part of a strong social agenda2. Thus, the current and future generation prefer gathering knowledge from friends or trusted sources, best delivered face-to-face, such that they can have a good sense on whether the information is relevant to their work at hand. This is actually already prevalent in modern designs of co-working spaces, where exposure, networking and collaboration are needed for success. In global trends, urban integration of companies promotes transparency and engagement in the local community, thus the need for the office building to open to the site context becomes very crucial. Horizonality requires movement and circulation of workers, and the influx of new programs creates informal settings where workers can gather, socialize and share knowledge (Figure 11).

Tyson, M, 2016: “Millennials Want Brands To Be More Authentic. Here’s Why That Matters.”

Elite Daily, 2015: “Elite Daily Millenial Consumer Study 2015”

3.1 INFORMAL INTERACTION

MEW WORKFORCE

Independent Workforce

+ GLOBAL TRENDS

ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS

THE NEW FOCUS

Urban Scale

Building Scale

Floor Scale

Urban Integration

Program Influx

Horizontality

Public Interaction

Shared Informal Spaces

Circulation and Layout

Creating Informal Interactions

Figure 11: Diagram of how future trends of workplaces reflect the new focus of informal interactions

THE NEW FOCUS

Figure 12: Knowledge Sharing Cycle Adapted from the Interaction-Innovation diagram in Oseland, M et al, 2011: “Environments for successful interaction”

3.1 INFORMAL INTERACTION

A good office layout and design promotes and cultivates informal interaction, which then contributes to knowledge sharing, team-building and job satisfaction3.

THE NEW FOCUS

Characteristics of Informal Interaction 3.2

a. Types of Informal Interaction Formal implies planning and coordination while informal describes a high degree of randomity and spontaneity. This is independent on subject matter, as a formal interaction can also include parties while informal interaction can contain serious matters. In the workplace, types of interaction ranging from formal to informal are described by Robert Kraut in his study of the workplace (Figure 13)4. There are also third party interactions, where he or she is not involved directly with the interaction but by seeing or overhearing it, the person can form relations and draw conclusions about the work and social environment he or she is in.

more formal

scheduled

Prior arrangement

“Let’s go out for lunch!”

intended

Initiator meets with a set agenda

“Are you free now? I need to discuss this issue with you.”

opportunistic

Chance encounter reminding a party about an intended conversation

“Hey nice to see you... Oh yes I need to discuss this issue with you”

spontaneous

Chance encounter with no prior plans or intentions

“Hey nice to see you! How’s your day?”

more informal

Figure 13: Types of Informal Interaction

3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF INFORMAL INTERACTION

b. Involved Parties The content of the interaction is also heavily dependent on who is involved in the conversation. Taking the perspective of an office worker who is part of the independent workforce, this person can interact with three primary groups of people: the public, workers in the same building but from another team, department or company, and workers from the same team or department (Figure 14).

interaction with...

usually occurs at...

common types

business opportunities

the public

public spaces

spontaneous

exposure

scheduled e.g. public talks and events

networking

spontaneous

networking

scheduled e.g. internal events

external collaboration

workers from other teams

shared informal facilities and amenities

opportunistic e.g. forming partnerships

workers from same team

workdesks and meeting rooms

intended opportunistic

internal collaboration

scheduled e.g. set meetings

Figure 14: Interaction with various parties and their usual characteristics

THE NEW FOCUS

c. Affordance of Informal Interaction There are three key factors in affording informal interaction suggested by Fayard and Weeks5 (Figure 15), whichever the type of interaction or who the involved parties are. These correlate to several case studies, one by Grajewski on the SAS Headquarters in Stockholm revealing the low percentage of observed interaction in the planned meeting areas due to lack of privacy6, and another by Sailer on a media company in London highlighting how central corridors within workspaces created high spontaneous interactions but large distractions for the neighbouring workers7. Thus, apart from proximity, there needs to privacy and permission for informal interaction to flourish. However, there needs to be a range of spaces with different levels of proximity, permission and privacy to suit different work styles. informal spaces such as event spaces require high proximity and low privacy, while focused work spaces require the opposite. There needs to be a balance of each factors to avoid the negative case of each extreme (Figure 16).

Kraut, A et al.: 2002, “Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology ”.

Fayard, A et al.: 2005, “Photocopiers and Water-coolers: The Affordances of Informal Interaction”.

Grajewski, T: 1993, “The SAS Head Office – spatial configuration and interaction patterns”.

Sailer, K et al.: 2009, “Comparative Studies of Offices Pre and Post: How Changing Spatial Configurations Affect Organisational Behaviours” in Koch, D: 2009, “Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium”.

3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF INFORMAL INTERACTION

1. PROXIMITY Informal spaces should be functionally central: accessible and nearby main circulation routes and nodes. Proximity affects frequency of informal interactions.

2. PERMISSION There should be valid reasons for people to use to informal space. Permission affects length of informal interactions.

3. PRIVACY Privacy can be in the form of both visual and aural. Privacy affects depth of informal interactions (i.e. level of confidentiality).

Figure 15: The three factors affecting informal interactions

Lazy to walk

Distracting

Out of bounds

“Hogging”

Surveillance

Awkward Secretive

Figure 16: Graphic showing the negative cases if the value of each factor is too high or too low

4 30

INFORMAL INTERACTION IN WORKPLACES

Computing Interaction

COMPUTING INTERACTION

4.1

Circulation Analysis

The first factor affecting the affordance of informal interaction is proximity, which deals primarily with distance. Apart from the actual metric distance, there are psychological factors that affect our perception of distances. Two main fields of architectural research that analyzes human circulation and wayfinding in spatial layouts and designs (Figure 17) are Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition. Space Syntax, proposed by Bill Hillier in 1970s, offers a theoretical quantitative approach to measure of several types of distances within a building floor or urban plan. Separately, Spatial Cognition leans more towards psychology and evaluates the experience of the spatial environment in the choices made by individuals while navigating inside a building. While both fields have fundamental differences in approach, their results and conclusions overlap to a large degree. By holistically looking at both fields, a quantitative approach modified from Space Syntaxâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evaluation of integration and choice is proposed to analyze circulation and calculate proximity of informal spaces.

4.1 CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

Figure 17: Graphic showing the negative cases if the value of each factor is too high or too low

COMPUTING INTERACTION

a. Space Syntax In the 1970s, Bill Hillier proposed a theory called Space Syntax which quantitatively analyses geometric floor plans to explain and predict human behaviour and movement1. By calculating both actual and perceived distances, Space Syntax introduces integration and choice as measures to understand how people navigate through the building. Space Syntax stems from the premise that space generates activities2, rather than the topdown planning approach. Hence, if a certain part of a building or urban network is more accessible and popular, there will be more informal, transient activities occurring, which may be formalized over time. Thus, Space Syntax focuses more on the topology of the spatial configuration rather than physical qualities of spaces that enables such activities to happen. The sequence of approach in Space Syntax consists of three main steps: identifying spatial units, measuring the distances between these units, and finally evaluating the spaces based on the measured distances (Figure 18). The following pages details the methodology on how to arrive at the calculations of integration and choice, as well as its limitations.

Figure 18: Steps in evaluating spaces using Space Syntax

4.1 CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

i. Identifying Spatial Units There are three units in which a spatial configuration can be divided into: axial lines, convex spaces and isovists. These are based on the observation that people tend to move linearity, interact within convex spaces and perceive only what they can see.

From these observations, a spatial configuration can be derived as such:

Axial Lines Defined as the longest and fewest lines can be drawn to cover all available connections from one convex space to the other. Used to evaluate movement. Convex Spaces Defined as the largest area outlined by a border where any two points along it can be joined by a straight line without leaving the enclosed area. Used to evaluate interaction. Isovist Defined as the set of all points visible from a given vantage point in space. Used to evaluate visual-based behaviour.

COMPUTING INTERACTION

ii. Measurement of Distances After the division of a spatial configuration into its spatial units (either axial lines, convex spaces or isovist), the different measurement of distances can be conducted:

Metric Distance The actual distance a person has to travel from one spatial unit to another. Distance from space 2 to 9 = 3.75 + 6.20 = 9.95 m

Geometric Distance The total angular change a person experiences when traveling from one spatial unit to another. Distance from space 2 to 9 = 90 + 90 = 180 deg

Topological Distance The number of connections (also known as depth) passed through while traveling from one spatial unit to another. Distance from space 2 to 9 = 3

4.1 CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

iii. Evaluation of Spaces After completing the measurements of distances between every set of two spatial units, the evaluation of integration and choice can be conducted. Integration Integration, or closeness, is the measure of how accessible and well-connected a space is with all the other spaces in the configuration. It is related to the distance from the chosen space to all other spaces divided by the number of spaces it is connected to (mean distance). The lower the value, the higher the integration.

Space Topological Integration

1.714

2.571

1.143

2.000

Space 2 and 1 are the most integrated spaces topologically. Space 3 is the least integrated topologically.

Choice Choice, or betweenness, is the measure of how much a space is likely to be passed through with the number of possible routes to travel from one space to another. The calculation is similar to that of a water flow, where if two routes to the same destination are equally viable, both will be given an equal score.

Given a new example of a justified graph (right): When traveling from space 2 to space 9, both space 1 and 8 are viable travel routes. Hence the scores given for 1 and 8 will be half of the score of space 2 (1 / 2 = 0.5). At space 3 when the two routes merge, the score given for space 3 will be the sum of scores of space 1 and 8 (0.5 + 0.5 = 1).

COMPUTING INTERACTION

b. Spatial Cognition It has been pointed out that in many applications of Space Syntax as an evaluative tool, the observed movement and behaviour do not always reflect the results of Space Syntax. Also, the findings from one setting could not be easily replicated in subsequent studies3. Hence, while Space Syntax can visualize, explain and predict general patterns of movement and interaction, it is by no means an accurate and conclusive tool. Conversely, several aspects of Space Syntax have been reinforced by Spatial Cognition - a growing field of research stemming from a more psychological point of view4. A key difference in Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition is the approach to human wayfinding. While Space Syntax considers the entire spatial configuration in its calculations, Spatial Cognition focus locally on how people make decisions on which route to take at each junction (Figure 20). Thus, it makes sense that Spatial Cognition should be integrated into automated spatial planning methods to account for the qualitative aspect.

Figure 19: Summary of topics in Spatial Cognition in relation to wayfinding.

4.1 CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

Figure 20: Illustrations on how different factors in Spatial Cognition can affect the choice of route

COMPUTING INTERACTION

i. Familiarity Familiarity is the level of understanding a person has of the entire configuration at each junction. A person very familiar with the layout will be able to pick and choose which routes he can take to reach his destination. A person mildly familiar will employ certain strategies such as sticking to main corridors to reach his destination. Factors affecting familiarity include prior knowledge of the configuration5, or inferring from the typicalness of each floor6 and visual clues such as signs and vistas7.

ii. Environment Localized decisions are also affected by the qualities and the conditions of the spatial environment. If a person reaches a junction in which there are multiple paths to the same destination, he is likely to choose the more interesting and comfortable path. Placing attractors8 and making the space thermally comfortable and well-lit can attract more people to a certain path9.

4.1 CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

c. Combining Spatial Cognition with Space Syntax Spatial Cognition deals largely with the physical qualities of space in especially the environmental

aspects,

while

familiarity

considers different groups of users, locations of key circulation notes and lookout points. These can give clues as to how the furnishing, interior design and comfort should be done at the final stage of design. Topologically in relation to Space Syntax,

Given an example of a justified graph: If Space 1 is given a bias = 4 and Space 8 given a bias = 1, then the score given to Space 1 will be 1 / (4 + 1) * 4 = 0.8. Similarly, Space 8 will be given a score of 0.2.

Spatial Cognition can contribute to a more accurate measurement of Choice by adding biases to certain spaces. In the example below, if Space 1 is designed to be much more comfortable and interesting than Space 8, the distribution of score will be biased towards Space 1 resulting in a much higher score. This draws similarities to Philip Steadman’s Electrical flow graph representation of floor plans10 (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Steadman’s Electrical Flow graph based on width of room

1, 2

Hillier, B: 1996, “Space is The Machine”

Sailer, K et al.: 2009, “Spatiality and Transpatiality in Workplace Environments” in Koch, D et al, 2009: “Proceedings of the 7th InternationalSpace Syntax Symposium”.

Dalton, R.: 2006, “Understanding Space: the nascent synthesis of cognition and the syntax of spatial morphologies” in Holscher, C. et al: 2006, “Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition”.

5, 7

Holscher, C: 2005: Finding the Way Inside: Linking Architectural Design: Analysis and Cognitive Processes” in Freksa, C et al, 2005: “Spatial Cognition IV”.

Hillier, B: 1996

COMPUTING INTERACTION

4.2

Case Studies

Three workplaces were selected for a comprehensive analysis of affordance of informal interaction. The architects are the same for all three offices and have designed them with the common intention of providing informal spaces, but in very different approaches and layout strategies. The methodology for the analysis follows the steps of Space Syntax (Chapter 3.2) to determine proximity of the informal spaces using integration (accessibility) and choice (popularity of route). Spatial Cognition is not considered at this stage. The legibility follows the intended function of the space and the level of privacy is determined based on proxemics and size of openings. At the end of each case study, the strategies in each office are evaluated. The calculations are self-scripted in Grasshopper/C#.

Figure 22: Case Study 1 - PwC Basel Floor Plan by Evolution Design, 2016

4.2 CASE STUDIES

Figure 23: Case Study 2 - Google ZÃ¼rich Floor Plan, Evolution Design, 2008

Figure 24: Case Study 3 - easyCredit Nuremberg Floor Plan, Evolution Design, 2015

COMPUTING INTERACTION

a. Case Study 1: PwC Basel (Audit Firm) i. Key Information The layout is very standard and common with a centralized core and circular main route. There are no permanent workstations, meaning that workers shuffle around three main work areas: enclosed cubicles, normal open-plan workstations and meeting rooms. Within each floor, informal meeting spaces and lounges are provided.

ii. Results of Space Syntax and Affordances Space

Function

Integration

Choice

Proximity (frequency)

Legibility (length)

Privacy (depth)

Seats

0.094

2.9

Low

High

Seats

0.094

2.9

Low

Medium

High

Seats

0.086

6.0

Low

Medium

High

Seats

0.088

2.6

Low

Medium

High

Lounge

0.052

22.1

High

Medium

Low

Pantry

0.042

22.4

High

Low

Pantry

0.042

22.4

High

Low

iii. Evaluation There is little informal interaction occurring in this office. This is because majority of the defined informal spaces are tucked away from the main circulation route except for the lounge (D). The centrally-located pantries (E and F) offers the highest affordances, but the lack of privacy will make interactions long but brief.

4.2 CASE STUDIES

COMPUTING INTERACTION

b. Case Study 2: Google ZĂźrich i. Key Information The layout consists of two wings with individual cores. These wings are connected with large games and lounge areas. The office consists both individual and communal workspaces, with informal areas scattered throughout, including an outdoor recreational area.

ii. Results of Space Syntax and Affordances Space

Function

Integration

Choice

Proximity (frequency)

Legibility (length)

Privacy (depth)

Seats

0.107

15.0

Medium

Low

Seats

0.119

14.0

Medium

Low

Seats

0.119

14.0

Medium

Low

Seats

0.111

10.1

Low

High

Seats

0.108

15.9

Medium

Low

Games

0.065

18.7

High

Medium

Low

Lounge

0.080

16.7

High

Medium

Low

Pantry

0.119

14.0

Medium

High

Outdoor

0.130

6.2

Low

High

4.2 CASE STUDIES

COMPUTING INTERACTION

b. Case Study 3: easyCredit Nuremberg (Banking Firm) i. Key Information The layout reflects a campus approach, the four workspace wings surrounding a central gathering zone. This was to facilitate high frequency of accidental meetings and informal interactions in especially the central zone. Informal programs are located within while informal seating areas are mostly at the periphery of the central zone. The four corners hosts special programs including a gym and massage room.

ii. Results of Space Syntax and Affordances Space

Function

S1-14

Seats

Integration

Choice

Proximity (frequency)

Legibility (length)

Privacy (depth)

0.041 (ave)

varied

High

Medium

varied

Standing

0.051

28.9

Medium

Low

High

A2-3

Standing

0.044 (ave)

12.2

Medium

Low

High

Standing

0.048

21.9

Medium

Low

High

A5-6

Standing

0.046 (ave)

10.9

Medium

Low

High

Mini-Lounge

0.048

50.2

High

Medium

Low

Mini-Lounge

0.042

41.2

High

Medium

Low

CP1

Coffee Point

0.045

13.4

Medium

High

Low

CP2

Coffee Point

0.050

10.6

Medium

High

Lounge

0.038

13.6

High

Medium

High

Pantry

0.033

60.5

High

Medium

Pantry

0.034

50.2

High

Medium

Pantry

0.031

47.8

High

Medium

Pantry

0.044

42.0

High

Medium

Gym

0.043

32.2

High

Massage Room

0.039

42.2

High

Library

0.042

42.2

High

Creative Room

0.038

60.5

High

4.2 CASE STUDIES

COMPUTING INTERACTION

iii. Evaluation In general, majority of the informal spaces are accessible and along the key circulation routes, making the frequency of informal interaction likely to be very high. These spaces mostly reside within the main circulation ring. Thus their central location increases their proximity. Also, the four corner spaces (X1-X4) perform well because topologically they can be seen as the connecting space between two wings, similar to the games room in Case Study 2. The weakest performing spaces were the standing areas (A1-A6), where the increase in privacy led to their inaccessibility. They could be improved by increasing or re-orientating their openings such that it is more accessible via the main circulation route without compromising on their privacy. Also, a legible function should have been defined for them. This case study also highlights certain limitations in Space Syntax and simultaneously pushes for Spatial Cognition. The high number of spaces makes the calculation time extremely long, and therefore requiring the need for localization of degree 10. Furthermore, the rather organic layout of the central zone makes it difficult to define the convex spaces properly. Lastly, the low choice routes within the central zone does not accurately reflect the fact that key circulation nodes (lift lobbies) are located there, plus the void spaces should make the experience of the central spaces much better, thus increasing popularity.

4.2 CASE STUDIES

d. Conclusion The three case studies contain different placement strategies of informal spaces, of which the common trend is that centrally-located spaces along main circulation routes perform much better in affording informal interaction. Centrally-located spaces need not always be geographically in the center as shown in the corner spaces in the third case study. The lack of privacy will pose an issue however, especially when the informal space becomes part of the main circulation choice route (Case Study 2). A final point of observation is that the third case study has definitely benefited from a larger floor plate, allowing for much less constraints in the placement of informal spaces. The literal architectural manifestation of horizontality (Chapter 4.3a) is perhaps the ideal form for providing affordance for informal interaction, with the increase in amount of possible spaces in each floor.

COMPUTING INTERACTION

4.3

Visibility Analysis

Using the isovist as the base spatial unit in the Space Syntax measurements, a visibility map can be plotted. While Space Syntax is primarily for determining circulation, this map can serve a better indication of the level of privacy as it determines how visually exposed a person is at a certain location. Visibility is also important in determining permission. Within a building, having visual access to shared informal spaces can provide information on whether the space is occupied. Also, within the same workspace, being able to see coworkers either working or idling give a strong indication on their availability for interaction - one of the major benefits of the open plan9. The calculation strategy is as such:

1 Divide every occupiable floor into a grid

2 Project a point a certain height from the center of each grid square

3 Draw a line connecting every two points and check whether there is any obstruction.

standing height = 1.6 m sitting height = 1.0 m

If no obstruction, the grid square will be given a score based on angle and distance of line. score = field of vision * distance

4.3 VISIBILITY ANALYSIS

a. Field of Vision Generally when looking straight, there is a limit of our visual field. This limit stands at 70 degrees downwards and 50º degrees upwards with a slight head tilt (Figure 25). In addition to the extreme limits, there is a comfortable range which does not require the tilting of the head. Referencing theatre and cinema seating designs, the limits are 35 degrees both upwards and downwards (Figure 26).

Range < -70

Field of Vision Multiplier

-70 to -35

f = 0.5

-35 to +35

f=1

+35 to +50

f = 0.5

> +50

Figure 25: Diagram showing the vertical visual limits

f=0

35°

Figure 26: Reference diagram for the comfortable visual range Source: Neufert, P: Architects’ Data

COMPUTING INTERACTION

b. Distance Rolloff While our human eyes theoretically can see objects at an infinite distance away, there are biological constraints such as myopia and more crucially psychological constraints. Visibility is a two-way relationship; if you are able to see a person, that person is also able to see you as well. In a building, interior visibility operates in two modes: visual exposure and visual access. Exposure relates to how visible a person is to others located at various parts of the floor or building. The further the distance is, the less exposed the person is and therefore a higher degree of privacy10. In a workplace setting however, since 70% of collaborations happen at workdesks11, being able to see neighbouring coworkers is important as their actions indicate their availability for interactions12, a. This improves the permission aspect of informal interactions. Simultaneously, this may also improve privacy as people are able to determine who can oversee and overhear the interaction, and subsequently tailor the conversation to prevent leakage of anything offensive or secretive13. Thus according to NBBJ, visual access works at a range of up to 25 feet (7.6 m)14. This measurement is also reference to the public distance in Edward T. Hall’s Proxemics15. After 25 feet, visual exposure takes effect and decreases as distance increase. The cutoff distance is set to 100 feet (30 m), where research have shown that such a distance is functionally equivalent to being in different buildings16.

9, 12

Heumann, A et al.:2014, “Digitally Designing Collaboration: Computational Approaches to Process, Practice, and Product”

Pinsly, D et al.: 2007, “‘Visual exposure’ analysis model: a comparative evaluation of three case studies”

Herman Miller: 2012, “What It Takes to Collaborate”

Fayard, A et al.: 2005, “Photocopiers and Water-coolers: The Affordances of Informal Interaction”.

Sisson, P: 2016, “Office 2.0: Big Data is changing the design of our workplaces”

Hall, E.: 1966, "The Hidden Dimension".

Heerwagen, J et al: 2004: “Collaborative Knowledge Work Environments”

4.3 VISIBILITY ANALYSIS

VISUAL ACCESS

VISUAL EXPOSURE

+50°

+35°

100 ft 30 m

25 ft 7.6 m // 3 0° 360°

-35°

1.6 m

-70°

1.0 m

Range

Visual (Collaborative) Access

Visual Exposure

0 - 25 ft 0 - 7.6 m

d=1

d=0

25 - 100 ft 7.6 - 30 m

d=0

d = 1 - (dist - 7.6) / (30 - 7.6)

Figure 27: Combined Diagram of Field of Vision and Distance Rolloff (Visual Access + Visual Exposure)

COMPUTING INTERACTION

4.4

Design Explorations

a. Proximity (Circulation Analysis) i. Proximity of Spaces and Chance Encounters This exploration tests the integration and choice based on (a) number of connections between two corridors and (b) spaces opening to main corridors or sub-corridors. This is a purely topological measurement.

0 connections (ie. single central corridor) INT

CHC

1 connection

INT

CHC

2 connections

INT

CHC

3 connections

INT

CHC

0 subcorridors

1 subcorridor

2 subcorridors

When comparing vertically, rooms which open to the central corridors (choice routes) have higher accessibility. When comparing horizontally, integration values increase with the number of connections between two corridors, however the overall choice values drop which indicate less chance encounters.

4.4 DESIGN EXPLORATIONS

ii. Proximity of Spaces and Functional Centrality This exploration tests the integration and choice based on (a) number of connections between two corridors and (b) the orientation and number of openings in the centrallylocated spaces. Central Spaces Single Opening INT

Central Spaces Double Opening CHC

INT

CHC

0 connections

1 connection

2 connections

3 connections

Generally, centrally-located spaces have higher proximity and the fringe spaces, similar to the conclusions made in the case studies. When the number of openings increase, the integration values are much higher. Also, openings that face the higher choice routes also increases the integration values of the spaces. However, with more than one openings, the space becomes part of a route. This then raises the issue of privacy as people are going to walk through the space.

COMPUTING INTERACTION

b. Privacy in Plan View (Visibility Analysis) i. Facing and Orientation of Openings of Centrally-located spaces This experiment tests the visual integration of the same centrally-located space but with (a) different orientations of openings and (b) different facings of openings.

The results show that when comparing horizontally, the openings should preferably be both on top or bottom (middle column). This provides the largest uninterrupted area of dark green. When comparing vertically, the openings which face a smaller corridor width provide more privacy, but in reference to Experiment a-ii, the accessibility decreases if the wider corridors are the main circulation routes.

4.4 DESIGN EXPLORATIONS

c. Privacy in Section View (Visibility Analysis) i. Effect of dividers and elevations in visual privacy This experiment tests the visual integration of a room with (a) different heights of dividers, (b) two sections of differing elevations, (c) three sections of differing elevations. The heights of 1m is below seating eye level, 1.5m is in between seating and standing eye level, and lastly 2m is above standing eye level.

COMPUTING INTERACTION

The general trend is that the higher the difference in elevation (or height of dividers), the higher the privacy of the different spaces. Also, having an elevated platform in the middle can also act as a visual and physical barrier for both sides. Different functions can then occur in the more public middle platform and the more private side areas. Using elevation is an interesting way to separate space. Not only are privacy values different, but in reference to proxemics, people tend to interact within the same eye level17. Thus, even within the same room, people standing on an elevated platform will informally interact with those on the same platform, while those on the floor will interact with those on the floor.

d. Geometric Strategies i. Minimal Paths From the design explorations in proximity, having minimal circulation routes is key in creating chance encounters. A geometric strategy relating to this is the wooly thread system by Frei Otto. This system condenses the number of paths such that while the distance between one point to another increase, the overall length of paths decrease. New opportunities can also emerge at the junctions. This sacrifices the travel efficiency, but also frees up space for office areas and creates more chance encounters. Each path can be designed deliberately using Spatial Cognition to attract or reduce people travelling along certain paths, creating a hierarchy of circulation routes.

4.4 DESIGN EXPLORATIONS

ii. Alcoves The informal spaces should be placed alongside the main circulation routes, but not form part of the circulation. This ensures proximity and privacy. Geometrically, this resembles Christopher Alexander’s “Alcoves” (Figure 28), where within a large public space, small rooms at the side can facilitate more private discussions17. Figure 28: Christopher Alexander’s

This also follows our natural behaviour in large spaces

Diagram of Alcoves

and walkways, where people interacting stationary tend to stick to the sides and corners so as to use the walls or railings as a privacy shield and also not obstruct the usage of the space (Figure 29).

Permission: Not obstructing the way Privacy: Partially visible and audible Can see who is approaching and adjust conversation accordingly

Figure 29: Human behaviour when interacting in an open space or walkway + with the provision of an alcove

Alexander, C.: 1977: “A Pattern Language”

5 62

FUTURE COLLECTIVE WORKPLACE

Proposal

PROPOSAL

5.1 PROJECT BRIEF

5.1

Project Brief

The Future Collective Workplace will have the following elements:

A community of freelancers, startups and R&D units

Located at CBD in close proximity to potential investors and wideranging amenities

Facilitate knowledge sharing and community spirit through informal interactions

Following the rise of a new independent workforce (Section 2.1), the Future Collective Workplace will primarily house freelancers, startups and R&D units. With the global trend of urban integration (Section 2.2a), the location of this building will be near Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CBD with high accessibility to transport nodes, amenities and potential business investors. The spatial focus will be on affording informal interactions (Section 3), and will be designed and anlayzed using the various computation methods in Section 4.

PROPOSAL

a. Current Co-working Conditions

Figure 30: Map of Co-working Spaces near Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CBD

Currently, co-working spaces in near Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CBD are scattered in various locations. Sizes range from a shophouse to multiple floors within an office building, but the limited space equates to a limit in facilities available and the amount of rentable space for workers to inhabit. The co-working spaces are also physically separated from other businesses and offices, even if they are within the same building. As a result, there is limited opportunities for informal interaction.

5.1 PROJECT BRIEF

b. Proposed Building

Figure 31: Proposed location of the new Co-working building

The proposed new-built office building will be placed at a centralised location. Co-working spaces will inherit a large proportion of the building. The larger size can accommodate more teams and workers, as well as provide more shared facilities. Private offices can also accomodate certain parts of the building but still seamlessly integrating with the co-working spaces. The result is an increase in opportunities for informal interaction, and thus increased exposure, networking, collaborations and investments.

PROPOSAL

Site Analysis

5.2

rid

cro

clu

b st

The site is located within Chinatown, bounded by Cross Street, South Bridge Road and Club Street. Half of the site is currently taken up by an outdoor carpark, while the other half is a empty patch of grassland (Figure 32). A key building across Cross Street is China Square Central, which is a commercial development comprising of a shopping mall atrium and an office tower (Figure 33). The area can be accessed easily by public transport, and is walkable to major financial districts, Government offices, retail and F&B, making it a prime spot for an office building and even more so for a co-working location. The following pages will analyse the site.

5.2 SITE ANALYSIS

Figure 32: Current Condition - Outdoor Carpark

Figure 33: China Square Central

PROPOSAL

Figure 34: Consolidated Site Analysis of the Site, with walkable connections drawn to major areas

5.2 SITE ANALYSIS

PROPOSAL

a. Transport Nodes The site is within walking distance to three MRT stations: Chinatown (North-East Line), Telok Ayer (Downtown Line) and Maxwell (Thomson-East Coast Line, projected to open in 2021).

b. Sources of Funding and Distribution Partners Raffles Place Raffles Place is the site of Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Financial District, comprising notable skyscrapers such as Republic Plaza, UOB Plaza and One Raffles Place. Key businesses located here are banking, accountancy and law firms, as well as retail and F&B.

Marina Bay Marina Bay is Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s latest addition to the downtown area, housing the Marina Bay Financial Centre. It hosts mainly local and overseas banks, but also contains real estate, law, commodities, energy and technology companies.

Tanjong Pagar Tanjong Pagar is a historic area containing a financial and commercial zone along Anson Road, the notable building being Tanjong Pagar Centre. Government offices such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority and Ministry of National Development are also located within the area.

5.2 SITE ANALYSIS

c. Amenities and Necessities Chinatown Chinatown comprises of several areas: the tourist area of Pagoda Street, the shopping malls including China Square Central across the site and the large variety of F&B outlets along Club Street and Amoy Street. Hotels and other services can also be found in Chinatown.

Outram Outram consists several key buildings including Singapore General Hospital, Police Cantonment Complex and Pinnacle@Duxton, which is a residential high-rise building. Healthcare and police coverage is easily afforded within Chinatown, with residential units in close proximity.

Boat Quay Boat Quay is located along Singapore River, and the shophouses have been converted into restaurants, bars, cafes and small shops. This is an ideal location for dining along the riverside, drinks and socialising.

Photo Credits: Raffles Place - en.wikipedia.org Marina Bay - griffincommercial.com.sg Tanjong Pagar - Timothy Goh Chinatown - spintheday (Flickr) Outram - visitsingapore.com Boat Quay - leglessllama.wordpress.com

6 74

FUTURE COLLECTIVE WORKPLACE

Design

DESIGN

6.1

Urban Integration CHINA SQUARE CENTRAL HONG LIM COMPLEX

TOWARDS TELOK AYER MRT

TOWARDS CHINATOWN MRT

The building needs to be able to integrate with the public, following the trend of urban integration described in Section 2.2a. The ground floor will need to attract people into the building, and programmatically allow for the public and the workers inside to interact. This can be done through creating programs such as exhibitions, event spaces, auditoriums and F&B, in which the public and workers can both enjoy and benefit. These spaces can also generate additional income, reducing rent spaces and making it more affordable for the cash-strapped freelancing and startup workforce.

6.1 URBAN INTEGRATION

TELOK AYER MRT

CHINATOWN MRT

1 Placing the three access points of the site towards the three surrounding MRT Stations, the circulation of people moving around through the site is mapped out. Using Frei Otto’s

OUTRAM MRT

concept of the minimal paths, all the paths can be consolidated into the middle of the site.

2 The

exhbition

ground

floor

massing

follows

suit,

surrounding the junction in the center. The auditorium

three indoor areas respond to the conditions retail, F&B

surrounding the site, and the center is left empty for a large event space.

3 Large “alcoves” are then extract from the massing. The alcoves on the perimeter serves to draw people walking along the main roads, while those in the middle creates pockets of space responding to the event space, including a grandstand for seating.

DESIGN

Ground Floor Plan

6.1 URBAN INTEGRATION

DESIGN

6.2

Business Strategies

a. Income Streams At this junction, it is important to tie in the focus of informal interaction and the independent workforce with a strong business strategy so as to create a credible building with efficient circulation and programs. This is crucial as a large percentage of income of co-working spaces come from the renting of desks and membership fees (Figure 35). Business strategies of offices revolve around space efficiency and worker productivity, both in tandem to achieve economic benefits to developers and tenants. Space efficiency consists of the traditional methods of rentable area and utilization, while worker productivity is affected by collaborative opportunity and choice (Figure 36). There are other ways of cost saving as well. Coworking spaces can enjoy economies of scale as services are shared among many tenants. According to WeWork, the size of meetings tended around 2-4 people regardless of the size of meeting room1, thus large meeting rooms can be downsized to save space. Lastly, having established businesses inherit part of the building can offset the high cost of the prime location.

Davis, D: 2016, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Spatial Analytics: New Ways of Understanding Architecture at WeWork R&Dâ&#x20AC;?

6.2 BUSINESS STRATEGIES

Figure 35: Income Streams of Co-working Spaces Source: deskmag (2017) â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Profitability of Coworking Spacesâ&#x20AC;?

space efficiency rentable area utilization

worker productivity

economic sustainability

collaborative opportunity choice

Figure 36: Ensuring economic sustainability of the building

DESIGN

b. Strategies for Program and Circulation

strategy

measurement

space efficiency

Sharing of meeting spaces A co-working office allows for the sharing of meeting spaces across different teams and floors, reducing total area for meeting spaces and increasing rentable area.

Area Efficiency Calculation

space efficiency + worker productivity

Placement along key circulation routes [Proximity] Placing informal spaces along key circulation routes increases their proximity to workspaces, thereby likely to increase utility and collaborative opportunity.

Space Syntax: Choice

worker productivity

Provide range of privacy Different levels of privacy cater for different functions as well as provide more choices of spaces for workers to work or interact in.

Visual Exposure

6.2 BUSINESS STRATEGIES

c. Strategies for Workspace Layout strategy

measurement

worker productivity

Zones of high visual access Placing high density of desks in zones of high visual access increases proximity and permission, increasing collaborative potential while reducing unwanted distraction.

Visual Access

space efficiency + worker productivity

Zones of low visual access Areas with lower visual access and visual exposure can be allocated for private desks and focus desks, maximising rentable area and allow workers the choice to shift in and out of focus work.

Visual Access Visual Exposure

DESIGN

6.3

Massing and Program

a. Massing

1 The current plot is an open air carpark and empty patch of grass

2 The main design is a podium block raised to match China Squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s podium. This will accommodate public and co-working spaces.

3 Two towers rise above the podium hosting private offices and established businesses, matching the height of China Squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tower and stepping down to the low-rise shophouse area.

6.3 MASSING AND PROGRAM

b Program Distribution

The public will inherit the ground floor (Section 6.1), above which will be 5 floors of coworking spaces. A transfer floor connects the podium and the towers and contain an outdoor roof scape for both startups and business to enjoy and interact. The private offices eases the economic burden of the startups and helps in the profitability of the prime location. Co-working facilities can also be integrated within the private offices.

DESIGN

6.4

Workspace Layout

a. Circulation Strategy 1 The core circulation follows a figure 8 loop ascending upwards and connecting two half floors (decks). These decks are spaced half a floor height apart (2.5m) such that each deck easily connects to two more half decks.

2 The main circulation loop branches out into the various working spaces, resembling a minimal path system.

3 Secondary circulation connects the various working spaces to provide an additional route choice. This route is narrower and made less spatially interesting to reduce its preference in terms of spatial cognition.

4 Informal programs (â&#x20AC;&#x153;alcovesâ&#x20AC;?) are arranged accordingly to the type of circulation and the function of the space it connects with. The alcoves facing inward facilitate more public functions while those facing out facilitate more private functions.

6.4 WORKSPACE LAYOUT

b. Space Syntax Measurement with Spatial Cognition

Degree = 10 Values are logarithmic

The Space Syntax measurement of Choice, biased with Spatial

Spatial Cognition Biasness Main Circulation: k = 1.0 Secondary Circulation: k = 0.5 Tertiary Circulation: k = 0.25

the idea of the design: a heavily used main circulation at the

Cognition, is run throughout the whole building and reflects center and a quieter secondary connection at the edges.

Core Circulation: k = 0.5

DESIGN

c. Floor Plan Iterations As mentioned previously in Section 6.2, a key strategy is to provide a range of workspaces: exposed, private, visually accessible and inaccessible. Iteration 1: Large Floor Plates

Standard two large floor plates each with a central core and connected by the circulation described in the previous section.

high

Visual (Collaborative) Access There

large

area

high

collaborative access, at the expense of private working areas.

low

high

Collaborative Access There is a large exposure zone which therefore results in minimal privacy in the working zone. This illustrates the downside of the large open plan.

low

6.4 WORKSPACE LAYOUT

Iteration 2: Addition of voids

Instead of putting dividers and furniture, voids are added to break up the large floor plate and provide vertical visual connections between floors. Each floor has also been offset.

high

Visual (Collaborative) Access The

collaborative

areas

are

now

concentrated into zones, with a good balance of private spaces.

low

high

Collaborative Access There is better privacy in the coworking zones, however privacy in certain alcoves are not differentiated enough.

low

DESIGN

Final Iteration: Elevated Platforms

Elevating and sinking platforms divide the floor plate further and creates a physical and visual barrier for the private alcoves (diagram on right).

high

Visual (Collaborative) Access There is little difference from the previous iteration. low

6.4 WORKSPACE LAYOUT

high

Collaborative Access The alcoves at the secondary circulation (facing the voids) are a

low

lot more private. Overall, there are distinct zones of exposure and privacy. 91

DESIGN

d. Floor Plans (Spatial Computation Overlay)

6.4 WORKSPACE LAYOUT

DESIGN

e. Library of Spaces

EXPOSURE ZONE

PRIVACY ZONE

Balcony

2 Alcove

Reading Room

Event Space

Snooze Room

Lookout

Focus Booth

Recreation Deck

Meeting Room

Individual Booth

Lift lobby

CO-WORKING ZONE 6 Reception 7

Shared Pantry / Copy

6.4 WORKSPACE LAYOUT

f. Area Calculations

Not counting area for core and services, the floor achieves 65.4% rentable workspace, showing the success of condensing circulation (12.8%) and sharing of meeting spaces (21.8%). As reference, the values can be compared to the three earlier case studies in Section 4.2. (Internal circulation within workspaces is also counted as workspace area in all instances.)

PwC Basel

Google Zurich

easyCredit Nuremnerg

DESIGN

6.5

Section and Perspectives

The section highlights the high visual connection between different floors and workspaces of the co-working podium block.

6.5 SECTION AND PERSPECTIVES

Perspective interior render shows the open co-working space, where hot desks are located, and the private desks elevated at the side. The focus booth is located further back and the meeting room is visible but only to the extent of seeing whether it is occupied or not.

Axonometric with a floor cut at Level 5 98

7 100

FUTURE COLLECTIVE WORKPLACE

Concept Expansion

101

CONCEPT EXPANSION

7.1

Computation Methods

This thesis highlights the use of several computation methods combined and modified to suit the setting of the workplace. The traditional Space Syntax is upgraded with Spatial Cognition, and the Visual Graph Analysis is expanded into the third dimension and broken down into Visual Access and Exposure. With the advancement in data gathering tools and computation methods, there is room for further improvements in the accurary of the methods used in this thesis:

a. Virtual Reality At the design stage, having future occupants wear the virtual reality headset and walk through the designed building can help better the understanding of visual exposure. Many other factors can be considered such as the facing of the people and visual attractors. These can translate into improving the prediction of the visual access and exposure analysis.

b. Post-Occupancy Data The best feedback for any method used is the post data, or live feedback. When a user is fully immersed in a space for some time, there will be issues that were unforeseeable at the time of design. Offices are increasingly equipped with post--occupancy data sensors such as thermal sensors and room occupations. Having workers be the source of data can potentially reveal new patterns and habits. The location of workers can be tracked within the building, which can then show the circulation patterns, and eye-tracking devices can be worn to better understand visual behaviours.

102

7.1 COMPUTATION METHODS

Figure 37: Post-occupancy data of WeWorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meeting rooms Having data reflecting real-life trends can help understand the success and failures of spaces, which will contribute to a better design of the next office.

103

CONCEPT EXPANSION

7.2

Beyond the Workplace

The workplace was chosen as the core program for this thesis. However, informal interaction happens in many other different settings and communities with varying degrees and for various reasons. Informal interaction is just as crucial in learning institutes, parks, public and community spaces. As long as there is people, there is informal interaction. The concepts of the minimal paths and the alcoves are also not limited to the workplace. The principles work in a scale as small as a room or building in this thesis, but can also extend up to the scale of urban planning. As the scale gets larger, these concepts may lose their geometric shapes but the principles and intentions remain the same, eg. a park can provide a reclusive space in a busy commercial area similar to an alcove but does not have to follow its concave shape. The key contributors to informal interaction i.e. proximity, privacy and permission, are also crucial factors in other environments. The same computation methods used in this thesis can be transferred to these other settings with an adjustment in measurement values. For example, privacy works slightly differently in residential apartments where the distance for window visual access can be up to 100 m, while visual exposure extends up to the neighbouring block of flats at around 20 m (Figure 38).

104

7.2 BEYOND THE WORKPLACE

Figure 38: Visual Sightlines of Residential Blocks Shach-Pinsly, D et al (2007) created a computation model to analyse three case studies of residential blocks determining their privacy values based on neighbouring blocks.

105

8 106

APPENDIX

Bibliography

107

APPENDIX

Bibliography

Alexander, C.: 1977: “A Pattern Language” Arieff, A et al: 2016, “A New Look at the Corporate Campus” Dalton, R.: 2006, “Understanding Space: the nascent synthesis of cognition and the syntax of spatial morphologies” in Holscher, C. et al: 2006, “Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition”. Elite Daily, 2015: “Elite Daily Millenial Consumer Study 2015” Fayard, A et al.: 2005, “Photocopiers and Water-coolers: The Affordances of Informal Interaction”. Grajewski, T: 1993, “The SAS Head Office – spatial configuration and interaction patterns”. Hall, E.: 1966, “The Hidden Dimension”. Heerwagen, J et al: 2004: “Collaborative Knowledge Work Environments” Herman Miller: 2012, “What It Takes to Collaborate” Heumann, A et al.:2014, “Digitally Designing Collaboration: Computational Approaches to Process, Practice, and Product” Hillier, B: 1996, “Space is The Machine” Holscher, C: 2005: Finding the Way Inside: Linking Architectural Design: Analysis and Cognitive Processes” in Freksa, C et al, 2005: “Spatial Cognition IV”. Knoll, Inc.: 2016, “Immersive Planning: From Research to Realization: An Experience-based Workplace”. Kraut, A et al.: 2002, “Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology”. Kuenne, C. : 2014, “The Four Key Drivers Of Growth” Morgan Lovell, “The Evolution Of Office Design” Pinsly, D et al.: 2007, “‘Visual exposure’ analysis model: a comparative evaluation of three case studies” Sailer, K et al.: 2009, “Comparative Studies of Offices Pre and Post: How Changing Spatial Configurations Affect Organisational Behaviours” in Koch, D: 2009, “Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium”. Sailer, K et al.: 2009, “Spatiality and Transpatiality in Workplace Environments” in Koch, D et al, 2009: “Proceedings of the 7th InternationalSpace Syntax Symposium”. 108

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schrader, B: 2015, “Here’s Why The Freelancer Economy Is On The Rise” Seow, B: 2017, “Freelance jobs in Singapore on the rise” Sisson, P: 2016, “Office 2.0: Big Data is changing the design of our workplaces” Weller, C: 2017, “Millennials are forcing America’s largest corporations to kill traditional suburban office parks” Wong, K et al: 2017, “Growth Dynamics of High-Tech Start-ups in Singapore: A Longitudinal Study” Yeoh, F: 2016, “Singapore’s startup ecosystem: Have we arrived?”

109

110