There is a strong correlation between spaces and the emotions experienced within them. We asked David Papini what happens if we remove the possibility to attribute a known value to space, instead assign new ones and what he thinks about the idea of overturning some logics to create less structure

Introducing more spatial FLEXIBILITY can help (in terms of space exploration it means adding value, we code space according to the possibility of movement and interaction offered by space, and it is a constituting part to the construction of reality at the neural level, ED). The idea that we are the same workers at 9:00 AM as we are at 4:00 PM, consequentially activities at 9:00 am can be the same as at 4:00 pm, is quite rigid. The same principle applies for space: what we can do in a meeting room cannot be done elsewhere keeping the same value.  Studies on psychology of decision show what is the best time to make a decision you won’t regret later, and it is around the first coffee break, around 10:00 AM. In the following hours it would be more suitable to do other activities which would probably need different spaces. Having a space that always activates people in the same way, can be dangerous or at least not profitable. In space management, it would be interesting to consider that the space a person occupies at 9:00 am should not be the same he does at 5:00 pm; It is not about creating rotating rooms, instead, realizing that there is not a fixed state; spaces need to be flexible, considering how people move (and explore space, ED) trying to guarantee more constant energy levels.

ENERGIZING SPACES bring us to the idea of recharge, previously mentioned. We need energy; we are made of energy.  In the recent years many support areas have been introduced, likes phone booths, for example. They became very popular: a hyper-isolated space for making calls.  The question arises: many studies shows that PERIPERSONAL space is the area in which we feel in control and need to feel protected; a body that comes close and enters the peri-personal space is somehow “invading”. The peri-personal space is estimated to be a circle with a 60 cm radius from our body.

Phone booths are small spaces, 90 cm by 90 cm or 1m by 1m, but there are people who spend half an hour or even the whole day in that space. Is it suitable if that person, during the phone call, is making decisions or negotiating? It may be suitable for an introvert, but for an extrovert it won’t be ideal.

This somehow leads to the concepts of affordance and semantics of spaces.

Meeting rooms, like many social places, are now associated with TRANSPARENCY, often having glass walls. Is this voyeurism or transparency? What is the subtle line between giving the impression of viewing and requesting those spaces to be hyper-soundproofed? While being highly engaged in an important conversation, being overstimulated by people passing by or looking inside does not help concentration. The same principle applies for people listening to a speaker: listening and being distracted by many activities around, detracts from the focus on the speaker.

“I do a lot of coaching sessions, even remotely, and often people are in meeting rooms, and there’s an issue of intimacy (or lack thereof) during coaching conversations, that are not psychological sessions but are guaranteed to be highly confidential. Often, I see the person on the other side raise their eyes because there is a glass wall in front of them, so the predisposition of that person to focus on the conversation, which in this case is the only fundamental for coaching, is largely impacted” A concept applicable also to meetings. A meeting is an interaction between people. It can be one person interacting with many others or a group interacting among themselves. What is the role played by SEMANTIC, the common meanings we assign to certain objects, and how can this play a key role within space design also referring to the concept of AFFORDANCE.

“Affordance connects objects to their attributed power of action, whatever our brain sees, any perception, is translated somehow into motor actions, e.g. I see a cup and my brain imagines me picking it up and drinking coffee. That is affordance, the fact that what I perceive visually, but also with other senses, has a motorial effect, it activates certain areas. The same goes for objects: if we spend our day with a certain type of object in my field of vision, this activates a motor sense, stimulates me in a specific way, and therefore-depending on how it stimulates me-it will have a motorial effect in my ecosystem and on the way, I will be in a certain situation, in which I will then need to be for 6/8 hours.” We often hear about activating lateral thinking, an activity that is probably a bit misunderstood. Creating many stimuli does not necessarily activate lateral thinking.

“For us, generation X, the greatest creative activator is BOREDOM, so in order to be creative, I would design rooms where people experience boredom. After a certain period of boredom, our brain reacts by producing activation and energy creation. It’s a paradox, but that’s how it works. Gaming rooms or massage services often implemented in companies might not actually produce real activation. If we have to standardize, we might say that having half an hour free and choosing to have a massage, going to a gaming room or being bored, probably being bored will lead to more creative results. I want to provoke and say that I would design spaces where people can get bored. Our brain gets accustomed to stimulation and over-stimulation and therefore constantly seeks stimuli, it’s what affordance does. Sensory deprivation is a torture, but sensory regulation is a value: activates energy. If someone invents a way to be bored in a constructive manner, it would essentially produce activation.”

There are various messages that can be conveyed through spaces. The logic behind gaming rooms or massages also has a psychological value: an allowance of something not work-related. A key point might be to understand that company employees are very diverse: there are introverts, extroverts, those with neurotic or even psychotic tendencies, various neuro-diversities that also need to be included and welcomed. Spaces should become eclectic and respectful of diversity. Somehow, this idea brings up another major theme within companies: control.  While being in a space that deprives the possibility of feeling in control of that space could be a problem for us all, especially for those with a certain level of anxiety activation, if a space makes us feel out of control about what happens, it is inherently anxiety-inducing.

“There are however conflicting opinions/data. The American Society of Civil Engineers conducted a study on skyscrapers with glass windows and the internal temperature is an issue: if the building is predominantly occupied by women, you can allow 1.5°C higher; if predominantly occupied by men, 1.5°C lower, otherwise, you risk revolts. So, if you have 8,000 or 10,000 people, 70% of whom are female, generally you have a perceived temperature 1.5°C higher. This is unsolvable unless you have buildings with only female or only male personnel, then you can work towards the ideal temperature, otherwise the air conditioning will always be too high or too low for someone, and that’s not solvable either, so flexibility is needed even for this. It’s clear that standardization allows cost control but can create discontent.”

Another question arises: does it make sense to incentivise CONTROL? Absolutely not. We need a certain level of control to avoid a defensive mode. No one has ever said that assembly lines do not work from a productive point of view but the issue is different: it is clear that we need a choice upstream, democratise, having a respectful working environment, need to pose the accent on how much control to exercise and especially how much control to leave to people. If the boss has all the control, the environment is constructed in such a way that there is a power ritual: I enter an environment where I have no control because it is open space, my desk is not just mine, because smart working is discouraged. The issue of control is fundamental. Looking at an environment, we understand many things; the first thing our brain wonders while exploring a new environment is: ‘what are the threats?’ If it perceives a too high threat level, we get anxious. There are companies that work very well with the terror regime because anxiety works from the point of view of exploiting human beings. A company based on the respect of employees and their wellbeing does not build a highly anxiogenic environment where everyone is a status symbol and where people are reminded what level of the food chain they occupy. This also stifles creativity and it activates instead a survival mode.  People try to get a representation of their status that makes them more comfortable; this happens even though they may not need it in a context where they feel that it is possible not to be in control and not to be controlled.