Architectural elements that can enhance creativity

Year: 2018

Categories: Scientific Methodology

Course: Undergraduate Final Project

Authors: Amanda Lopes Altelino

ABSTRACT

This article is based on a study regarding the effect the workplace environment exerts on the workers’ creative process. It points to the need for conceiving such spaces with a focus on the individual worker and their daily wellbeing as well as outlines architectural and visual elements that may be used so as to engender a more welcoming, less stressful environment.

INTRODUCTION

The work environment has the ability to exert either a positive or a negative influence on a worker’s psychology. Two factors are required for an individual to develop emotional stress: (1) the individual’s personality characteristics, combined with (2) the current workspace layout. This is called person-environment interaction (Ivancevich, 1982).

In view of the increase in workplace stress, which may be induced by the spatial layout, further research in this field is needed. Over the years, the work environment has evolved in pace with the technological advancements, forcing the individual to continually adapt. This constant stress may cause emotional disorders which, if not treated, result in increased worker absence. According to a study by the Brazilian Social Security Institute, depressive

episodes were the reason for 43,300 instances of paid sick leave in 2017 alone, making depression the 10th most significant cause of worker absence. Anxiety disorders were placed 15th, with 28,900 cases, while recurrent depressive disorder made the 21st place with 20,700 sick leave payments.

With mounting evidence of the need for greater awareness as regards workplace stress, research has been done on characteristics conducive to stimulating worker creativity and attention, with a focus on creating the least stressful possible environment. It has been verified that certain types of work environment can deprive occupants of creativity, according to Foster (2016), and that activities requiring a greater degree of creativity call for different physical workspaces than those suitable to noncreative activities, as stated by Amabile (1999).

EVOLUTION OF THE WORKPLACE

Small rooms with few, all-male workers—that was the prominent characteristic of the early 1800s workplace. British and American industrialization produced an increase in administrative and bureaucratic jobs. The typical facades of the period had a specific architectural style: “Greek Revival” with Doric columns and large store windows, a signal of novel and important work being done inside the building (Kassalow, 1996). Although the separation between manual and nonmanual labor was distinct, a certain intimacy simultaneously existed among workers within the office, concealing the competitive environment.

Between 1860 and 1920, the business industry started to develop, leading to an increase in the workforce and in the number of job positions inside the offices, to be followed by a reorganization of the spatial division of the personnel. Big changes with regards to the constructed spaces took place as a consequence of the development of new technologies, such as metallic structures, which allowed for the construction of taller buildings, as well as the elevator, the typewriter, and the telephone—the latter making it possible to separate the office from the warehouse by excluding the need for personal contact.

In the wake of the labor and technological developments, the layout of the offices changed altogether. The quality of the finishes also improved, though as a means to distinguish worker status. Leffingwell emphasizes this period as the onset of the “work with wellbeing” concept, with the introduction of recreation spaces, coffee areas, etc. At that time, a resting area would be a place where women could stretch their legs on a sofa or dance around a phonograph whereas men could go outdoors for a smoke break. A new workplace culture began to shape a new workplace layout. The boss now had a luxurious, segregated area, while the remaining space was divided into various departments and then hierarchically between management and general workers.

In the 20th century, the development of the skyscraper brought about a new expansion of the offices with the verticalization of buildings. On the inside, small offices were separated by semitransparent glass partitions. These latter changes were described by architectural historian Carol Willis with the term “Form Follows Finance”.

The next big step affected the architectural shell of the buildings, with the popularization of the modern/international style developed by Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Mies Van de Rohe. Concrete and glass, considered to be the new expression of the corporate era, began to be used. The increased use of those materials, however, created a new problem, as individuals were pushed further inside the buildings, where natural light is scarce.

As the buildings became more open outwardly, some changes also took place in their interior. The pursuit of wellbeing became a new goal, with an effort to understand the worker-space relation, which led to a focus on ergonomics and comfort. The spaces began to promote relaxation and interaction, and the worker was no longer stuck in place and was allowed to choose where to work. At the same time, to afford the workspace a measure of enclosure, the cubicle began to be used, initially with the intent of providing freedom and autonomy. This led to a rise in worker complaints; the cubicles’ constraint on air

circulation was detrimental to worker health (a condition known as “sick building syndrome”) (Saval, 2015).

More recently, with the development of such new technologies as the computer, workspaces have gone through drastic changes, promoting the concept of a smoother transition from college life to corporate life (Saval, 2015). Big businesses introduced different workspaces, including open-plan layouts connected to the nature. There was

a “deterritorialization” of space, where employees were allowed to choose where to work, and interaction between workers was encouraged. “Company culture” became a major part of the marketing strategies.