Levels of Engagement: Part 1
Once a post is online, I usually revisit it the day after to weed out typos and evidence of over-hasty editing. Sometimes I might rephrase something but there’s always a temptation to add further thoughts, particularly at the end as a kind of coda. At one stage, the August 11 post had two additional endings but I used one to begin the next post in that series, and the other one about some new kind of live-work space became the theme of this post.
Specifically, this post is about three things. The first is what a space for work might be like when that work is performed online. Is a kitchen table really ok as a desk? Is multi-tasking really a thing or do we just divide our attention into smaller slices? Is any kind of virtual background suitable? The second is what kind of relationship the space where the work takes place, has with the space for the living sustained by that work. And the third question is what kind of relationship either or both of those spaces should ideally have with the world outside. One necessary qualification concerns the types of work we’re going to be talking about but I think we already know the answer. It’s anything that can be largely performed remotely and individually via a computer and an internet connection. It’s everything that continued to be done, albeit with various degrees of inconvenience, during the 2020-2021 lockdowns. Firefighters, nurses and air traffic controllers didn’t work from home. We discovered we weren’t very good at cutting hair.
The space for work
We talk about living and working online but lives are still physical lives and the work still requires persons to be there. The psychological space for work is something we make for ourselves from whatever physical space we have to work in, even if it is electronically (virtually) connected to other similar spaces. We may use a desktop computer, laptop or smartphone to exchange or share audiovisual information in a social environment and we may use the same device to process and share data in a work environment. Ideally, we should make a distinction between work and non-work interaction by using a desktop computer for one and and a smartphone for the other but those portable computers known as laptops and smartphones mean we can do some parts of both from the same device.
The processing of information used to be called “office work” or “a desk job” and much of it still takes place at desks. We’ve even kept the terminology. Our laptops have these things called “desktops” we find ourselves at. We “message” each other to make sure everyone “is on the same page” and there is “a paper trail”. I “post”. We “empty the trash”. This is just mapping existing meanings to new conditions and there’s nothing wrong with that. Other terms are updated. Instead of “clocking on/off” we now “log on/off”. All of these terms refer to the actions of work and not to the space in which the work takes place. The meanings of “corner office” and “window office” probably date from at least the 1950s. Once, “the water cooler” was thought of as the place for office chit-chat. Many companies had a glass-walled meeting room invariably called “the fishbowl”. The terms “open plan” and “cubicle” defined two very different approaches to how work was conducted. Open planning was meant to encourage the flow of ideas and information while its opposite, the cubicle, was supposed to facilitate focus. Cubicles may have facilitated focus and open planning may have encouraged the flow of ideas and information but workers in open plan offices aren’t normally the ones who make the decisions. I suspect this is especially true for the offices of large architectural firms.
The late 20th century saw some workplaces become more colorful and textured in the hope people might want to spend more time there and maybe even prefer it to where they live. The ostensible reason for this was that employees are more productive when relaxed but the question then becomes what counts as relaxation? Are bright or unusual colors conducive to relaxation? It’s difficult to care either way. I don’t like the idea of air traffic controllers being too stressed and I don’t like the idea of them being too relaxed either. The optimum mindset for the job depends upon the job.
If we assume our typical worker does something involving the manipulation or communication of information via a computer screen, then a space where they can focus on doing that seems like a good idea, particularly if they also have a window and a long view they can look past their screen to give their eyes a rest. However, all productive tasks aren’t the same and for 100% of the time. What to do? It’s stupid to retreat to a cubicle because of one thing that needs some thought and it’s just as stupid to shift to some open and supposedly creative space so once or twice a day so you can ask “what do you think of this?” We’re probably wrong to equate physical isolation with focus but, for some types of work, favourable acoustics are probably more conducive to focus than physical isolation. The header image is my office.
The relationship between work space and living space
About the year 1400 I’m told there was a type of person who was almost universal. They grew their own food, kept some livestock such as sheep or other furry animals, the fleece of which could be made into yarn and then woven into a coarse fabric to make simple clothes. They made their own pots, They had few tools other than some kind of stick to work the land. They existed outside of a greater economy and to a certain extent a greater society. Survival and living activities occurred in and around where they lived. Putting living spaces above shops was most likely a Roman invention but the typology occurs in many different cultures throughout history. It’s still a distinct separation though. The single-storey Japanese machiya had the front space as the shop or workspace and the residential space behind but it was still a distinct separation. All this tells us is that selling or making things or performing services such as cutting hair is not like office work. This next house is a gallery and living space combined, or rather, intersected. The lower level is where the public is invited but they might not step up into the residential space. Similarly, the residents can go to and from their bedrooms without stepping down into the gallery space. There’s still a division between (retail) work and living.
For those of us who could, our first experience of working from home was during lockdown in 2020. Teachers taught classes online, architects transferred data from their living rooms, and all manner of meetings were conducted against virtual backgrounds. People could work from a kitchen table or counter but professional couples had to schedule use of the quietest space for online meetings, especially if the living space was shared with children. Having a spare room for dedicated use as an office or study remains our best solution but not everyone can have this. For most people, the extraordinary circumstances were temporary as some governments tried to encourage/force people back to their offices for what would be the symbolic point of cities if offices were empty? In the end, people reverted to using their living space as it was designed to be used. There are few proposals for how living and working intersect in the same space. Here’s one I saw at the last Misfits’ trienniale.
The residential space is configured as an office with the meeting and work desk at its core. Offices have storage, a kitchen and a bathroom anyway. The presence of the bed and storage for clothes are the only things telling us this isn’t an office. This example is interesting because whether it’s a workspace or a living space depends on the occupants’ frame of mind. It’s either the ultimate freedom or the ultimate tyranny but it’s a choice we all make everyday many times whenever we access an online device regardless of where we are. It’s not the physical space that’s the problem.
The relationship between either or both of them and the world outside
The problem of the relationship of the live-work space to the greater world is the same problem as our residential spaces have to the world at large. It seems strange to place all this emphasis on electronic connectedness when the spaces we live in are largely detached from each other and the world. The Riken Yamamoto posts over the past year basically all say the same thing and, of Yamamoto’s various solutions to this, two in particular allow not only for the intersection work workspace and living space, but for them to intersect with the non-private space outside. For me, the 2003 Canal Court Codan project is more successful because the corridors are double loaded and must be more trafficked. [c.f. The Household and Community]
Canal Court Codan is creating Small-Office-Home-Office space with the same relationship as mediaeval shops had to the street. The work space is the interface between living space and society. This makes sense but is it true? Take the middle layout for Canal Court Codan. It’s easy to imagine it as a nail bar but little else. These shops and offices won’t depend upon passing trade. The corridor was never a street in the sky. The people passing along that corridor might be returning with some shopping. They might be someone else’s customers. Or someone else’s visitors. Or someone else’s delivery. The corridor may be bustling but that’s not the kind of busy that’s conducive to online work. Also, it’s not as if all work is conducted 9–5 and the building switches to residential mode in the evenings and on weekends. It’s not that the activity itself is bad. It’s just that a bigger buffer is needed.
Yamamoto’s 2010 Pangyo Housing has a bigger buffer and it also a potential workspace that’s one third of the total area. That space is ideal for a shop or office and far enough away from other people to not have to alter one’s behavior or composure because of them. It’s possible to be alone but not isolated and to be diverted but not interrupted. It’s probably the best we can do. After that, living mode and work mode are just states of mind that the one space can accommodate. The problem is how to downscale it while keeping those relationships intact.
• • •
Share this:
