Doktorski studij na FSB: Uvod u znanstveno istraživački rad 2019/2020

Irma Kremer

CAN ARCHITECTURE MAKE US MORE CREATIVE?

UDC

Essay

Summary

It has been considered how creativity is a result of interaction of three elements which

include domain, field and person. However, some theories suggest how the place could be the

fourth element. By reviewing examples from history and present it is pointed how certain

architecture designs fostered creativity. The main goal for work space design should be

building the space which promotes human interactions which lead to creative discussions and

generation of new innovative ideas.

Key words: creativity; architecture; work space

1. Introduction

There are many definitions of creativity since every person interprets it in their own

way. Although, there are some similarities. From Discovery Channel interview questions,

answered by prominent individuals working in various fields of expertise, few conclusions

about creativity can be made [1]:

Trying to reach the part of the brain that is usually inaccessible - unconscious

part.

Generating new approaches that were not used by anybody else before by

stepping outside the norm.

Supporting oneself with knowledge, experiences and relations in order to

reinforce own ideas.

Desire to find solutions, not being content by what initially might seem as the

most obvious solution.

Integration of known concepts in a new way.

Ideas will come to person in relaxed state when the person is not blocked in any

way.

Certain phases are present around process of creativity:

curiosity → inspiration → imagination → fascination → creativity → innovation

The question to be answered is what is the meaning of these phases, is the process occurring

naturally or can it be positively affected by external aspects, and if so, does it have the same

measurable impact on enhanced innovation [1]?

2. Effect of architecture on creativity

According to Csikszentmihalyi creativity is a result of the interaction of a system

composed of three elements: “domain - consists of a set of symbolic rules and procedures

(visual arts); field - are the ‘experts’ who validate the innovation (critics); person - who brings

novelty into the symbolic domain (artist) [2].” The fourth anticipated element could be place.

Irma Kremer Can architecture make us more creative?

2

2.1 Historical examples

MIT’s Building 20, the Ancient Greek Agora, 18th Century British teahouses, and early

20th century Parisian cafés are considered as one of the most creative spaces in the world.

That kind of spaces made people, such as Socrates or Chomsky or Edison, interact in a way of

exchanging ideas, arguing about morals and discussing technologies. As said by Jonah Lehrer

“the most creative spaces are those which hurl us together. It is the human friction that makes

the sparks[3].”

To elaborate about architecture and its role in creativity and learning, example of MIT’s

Building 20 can be analysed. During World War 2, in 1942, MIT’s Radiation Lab required

expansion. It was built in 6 months, designed as a temporary solution in a single afternoon

and prioritized space needs over design. The building quickly became a center of pioneering

military research despite a temporary structure with many physical shortcomings (poor

ventilation, leaks). After the war ended it was supposed to be demolished but in lack of space

it was used for overflow while housing diverse groups of scientists. Before being finally

demolished in 1998 Building 20 recorded many great breakthroughs. In example, the first

advances in physics behind microwaves, major developments in high-speed photography, the

first video game, modern computer hacking, etc. The large building made scientist from

various background interact. Henry Zimmerman, an electrical engineer whose office was in

the building for years explains “In a vertical layout with small floors, there is less research

variety on each floor. Chance meetings in an elevator tend to terminate in the lobby, whereas

chance meetings in a corridor tended to lead to technical discussions” One other very

important fact about Building 20 is that it was susceptible to change since it was temporary

building. The employees had ownership of space and could arrange it to their needs without

asking for permission. One scientist cut holes through two floors of his lab to make room for a

three-story tall cylinder while working on the first atomic clock [4].

Already mentioned places: the Ancient Greek Agora, 18th Century British teahouses, and

early 20th century Parisian cafés were places which generated a great number of meaningful

original ideas. Those environments separated from work or home were creative because they

induced generative interactions between people from different fields of expertise. Again, it is

important for people to interact [4].

2.2 Present-day examples

As an example of modern creative environment, company Google can be observed. As

said by Susan Wojcicki, the Senior Vice President of Advertising at Google, “nurturing a

culture that allows for innovation [has been] the key” to Google’s continued success. Since it

is important to produce ideas continuously, Google focuses on the enhancement of places in

which employees work. In previous chapter (2.1) it was stated how human interaction plays

crucial role in an idea development. Also, how environments separated from work or home

induced generation of creative ideas. That is why Google tends to create more informal

environment by implementing contents like ping-pong tables and beanbag chairs. Looking

back to Building 20, scientists appreciated having the ownership of their working space. They

were allowed to change it without permission. Similarly, Google gives freedom to employees

in designing of desks or work stations. James Stewart of the New York Times explains “Some

have standing desks, a few even have attached treadmills so they can walk while working.

Employees express themselves by scribbling on walls. The result looks a little chaotic, like

some kind of high-tech refugee camp, but Google says that’s how the engineers like it.” The

informality of Google’s work environment is what surprises people most. Employees are

encouraged to work however they want, independently or by interacting with others about

business related matter without having to worry of appearing not to work. Further, Google

Can architecture make us more creative? Irma Kremer

3

fosters open space design of offices and lots of spaces for gathering. If two two people would

run into each other in a hallway and started conversation requiring technical discussion that

would befit from being written down, it would be favourable to write it down right there and

then, hence the proximity of gathering space to do that. Craig Nevill-Manning, the

engineering director in Manhattan explains how the office design promotes the creative

interaction “Google’s success depends on innovation and collaboration. Everything we did

was geared toward making it easy to talk. Being on one floor here removed psychological

barriers to interacting, and we’ve tried to preserve that [5].” In Fig 1, example of Google

office is presented.

Fig. 1 Google London Office [6]

Before constructing the working environment Google referred to “people analytics”.

This field is about statistical assessment of interactions between people within the office. It

analyses interactions between employees, place of interactions and influence of the space

organisation on employees. The author of the book on “People Analytics”, Ben Waber,

believes that “physical space is the biggest lever to encourage collaboration. And the data are

clear that the biggest driver of performance in complex industries like software is

serendipitous interaction [7].” This refers to generative interactions happen by accident but

result in actual creation. Interstitial space is the space where most of these interactions

happen. It shouldn’t only be space that enables to get people from one functional space to

another. People move through that space without prompt purpose other than to reach the

destination where they are going and it is the center of informal interaction. It is the space

where conversations are started and ideas are discussed [5].

A good example of using interstitial space is the one of Pixar studio. When Steve Jobs

was the CEO of Pixar he put all of the bathrooms in the common space at the center of the

office. Employees would walk to the commons from their office more often and spend more

time in the hallways, hence more time interacting with their colleagues as well. The hallways

walls’ were also equipped with chalkboards enabling good ideas a surface to land [5].

A great number of creative work spaces have been built overtime. The buildings were

found in a search on ‘creative work environments’, ‘creative offices’ and ‘business

incubators’ [1].

Irma Kremer Can architecture make us more creative?

4

Fig 2. Designed creative work environments [1]

Can architecture make us more creative? Irma Kremer

5

The buildings from Fig. 2 are chronologically organized, listing year, name, city and country:

#01 Mancuso Business Incubator Batavia, NY United States 1959

#02 Bell Labs Holmdel Complex Holmdel, NJ United States 1962

#03 Salk Institute San Diego, CA United States 1962

#04 Thinkubator Chicago, IL United States 1989

#05 KesselsKramer Amsterdam Netherlands 1996

#06 Post Panic Amsterdam Netherlands 1997

#07 Sparkspace Columbus, OH United States 2000

#08 Pallotta TeamWorks Los Angeles, CA United States 2002

#09 Metropolis Coffee Company Chicago, IL United States 2003

#10 Centre for Social Innovation Toronto, ON Canada 2004

#11 Magellan Idea Center Charlotte, NC United States 2005

#12 Spinderihallerne Vejle Denmark 2006

#13 Red Bull HQ London London United Kingdom 2006

#14 TBWA/Hakuhodo Tokyo Japan 2007

#15 Youtube HQ San Bruno, CA United States 2007

#16 The HUB Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands 2008

#17 Google Zurich Zurich Switzerland 2008

#18 Spaces Amsterdam Netherlands 2009

#19 Selgas Cano Office Madrid Spain 2009

#20 Workbar Boston, MA United States 2009

#21 YES! Delft Delft Netherlands 2010

#22 Workspace6 Amsterdam Netherlands 2010

#23 Medina Turgal DDB Istanbul Turkey 2010

#24 HaKa Building Rotterdam Netherlands 2010

#25 Corus Quay Toronto, ON Canada 2010

#26 Long Studio Fogo Island, NL Canada 2010

#27 The Summit San Fransico, CA United States 2010

#28 ANZ Center Melbourne Australia 2010

#29 Headspace Calgary Canada 2011

#30 Horizon Media Office New York, NY United States 2011

#31 Facebook HQ Palo Alto, CA United States 2011

#32 Microsoft HQ Vienna Austria 2011

#33 Saatchi & Saatchi’s Bangkok Thailand 2011

#34 Macquarie Group Office London United Kingdom 2011

#35 StudioSC Sao Paulo Brazil 2012

#36 Offsite New York, NY United States 2012

#37 Platform for Arts and Creativity Guimares Portugal 2012

#38 Hybrid Office Los Angeles, CA United States 2012

#39 Mind Candy London United Kingdom 2013

#40 Hayden Place Culver City, CA United States 2013 In Fig. 3 world map is used to visually show the place where the projects are realised

on a global scale. It can be seen that most of them can be attributed to North America and

Europe [1].

Irma Kremer Can architecture make us more creative?

6

Fig 3. Locations of creative work environments worldwide [1]

3. Conclusion

The main lesson to take from the research of architecture’s influence on the creativity is

that it is important to make people interact and ensure the presence of informal environment

in the interstitial space. It has been proven to be a fruitful space for generating new ideas as an

outcome of discussions that are often started unintentionally. Another valuable lesson is that

an individual should be given an ownership of the space to certain extent to express their

creativeness and to create a pleasant work environment. From the global analysis of the

creative work environments it can be concluded that for now primarily North America and

Europe are focused on creating that kind of buildings.

Can architecture make us more creative? Irma Kremer

7

REFERENCES

[1] J. Van Dijk, R. J. Nottrot, D. J. M. Van der Voordt, and J. A. Van de Voort, “Creating

Creativity; A study into architectural means to stimulate the creative mind and enhance

innovation,” TU Delft.

[2] M. Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity - Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and

Invention. 1997.

[3] J. Lehrer, “Groupthink.” [Online]. Available:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/30/groupthink. [Accessed: 15-Feb-

2020].

[4] J. C. Molloy, “Can Architecture Make Us More Creative?” [Online]. Available:

https://www.archdaily.com/353496/can-architecture-make-us-more-creative.

[Accessed: 15-Feb-2020].

[5] J. C. Molloy, “Can Architecture Make Us More Creative? Part II: Work

Environments.” [Online]. Available: https://www.archdaily.com/367700/can-

architecture-make-us-more-creative-part-ii-work-

environments?ad_medium=widget&ad_name=recommendation. [Accessed: 16-Feb-

2020].

[6] “Google London Office.” [Online]. Available:

https://www.interiordesign.net/projects/13291-at-google-s-london-office-ahmm-

overturns-decades-of-workplace-norms/. [Accessed: 20-Feb-2020].

[7] B. Waber, “People Analytics: How Social Sensing Technology Will Transform

Business and What It Tells Us about the Future of Work,” 2013.

Defined: 10.02.2020.

Delivered: 16.02.2020.

Supervisor: Kalman Žiha

Irma Kremer

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture

Ivana Lučića 5, 10000 Zagreb