View/Open - Aaltodoc

on the environmental performance of a
building (Hoes, Hensen et al. 2009).
The influence of the occupancy rate of a
building on its ecological sustainability
is neglected however. As academic
workplace utilization generally lies between
twenty-five and thirty percent (Harrison
2010), it is to be expected that this has an
impact on the sustainability of the situation.
Both in economical, and ecological terms.
This low occupancy results in inefficient use,
and diffuses the actual spatial demand.
Harrison (2010) states that because of the
low use-rate of this particular part of our built
environment, enhanced by the changing
culture in learning, traditional categories
of space become less meaningful. People
have different daily rhythms. This causes
some people to be more active, and
willing to work or study in evenings and
weekends, while others prefer to work
during office hours. When spaces, and their
supporting operations can adjust to such
differences, their use could be optimized.
Monofunction buildings, as pointed out by
Brand (1995) are not ideal for efficient use
in the long run. As they are built for one
specific purpose, they do not suit other uses.
This causes them to become functionally
obsolete much faster than buildings which
are more uniform in their use. In his Shearing
Layers theory, Brand (Ibid.) explains how the
exterior skin of a building generally remains,
as do the structure and site of a building.
The interior layers—the stuff, space plan,
and the services—are prone to more
frequent alteration. When these layers are
constructed to be permanent it is more difficult
to adapt the building for a different use.
When designing a building, it would be
beneficial to take this future change into
consideration, choosing the interior and
exterior design in such a way that it can
withstand the test of time in terms of user
needs and the fluctuation of fashion. Ideally,
buildings would be usable in such a flexible
manner that they can serve as whatever they
need to during whichever time of the day.
Img 6: Shearling Layers
Source: S. Brand; How Buildings Learn
1.6 Example cases
In order to investigate the different types
of workspaces that are emerging,
four small case studies were done.
1.6.1 The HUB
Founded by four pioneers, the HUB
Brussels became an innovative space. In
an evaluation, Anis Bedda gives his view
on the closure. Bedda (2013)worked at the
HUB for several years in different functions,
and explains how the HUBs business model
has, in his opinion, not lead to its closure.
What he marks as the most important issue
leading to the bankruptcy is the experience.
A co-working space needs to be more than
just tables and chairs in order for it to create
a community. HUB Brussels had been able
to create this community and facilitating
social impact, but in doing so, lost the sense
of a workspace. Because of the social
interaction and the lack of separable spaces,
the space was generally noisy, which
didn’t provide an ideal working situation.
In fact, members who had once come
there to work, left, while the others stayed.
Bedda writes this partially to the hosting of
the space. In an interview the author had
with Sami Oinonen, co-founder of HUB
Helsinki, the topic of the closed hub came
up. To the question of why he thought the
location in Brussels went bankrupt, Oinonen
(2013) answered that it was probably
because they didn’t have a clear target
group. There was no clear communication
about what kind of people they wanted to
attract, and what professional backgrounds
were existing in the community. Another
important aspect in the entire HUB network
is the communication. Bedda writes in his
analysis that even though people had visited
the website, they were uncertain of what the
HUB really was. Furthermore, confirming
what Sami Oinonen claimed, HUB Brussels
focused on “social entrepreneurs”, which
caused some people to stay away, thinking
they weren’t the target group. At the same
time others who didn’t necessarily have
many social innovation activities did come.
This contradiction caused the community to
be diverse, but limited at the same time.
Bedda continues by saying that a co-working
space should be open to everyone who
finds value in the space and its community.
“The identity of the community takes
shape in how the hosts of the community
act upon their values” (Bedda 2013).
1.6.2 Loosecubes
A co-working concept with a rather different
business model was LooseCubes. The
concept started as a member based system,
connecting workers in need of a place,
with hosts having a workspace available.
This could be for just a day, or for longer
term agreements. Initially the hosts and
LooseCubes, were paid through membership
fees: the host companies charged, working
members paid, and LooseCubes received
part of this. This model is focused on
serendipitous interactions and social
exchange, rather than on a tight community.
With funding LooseCubes received, they
initiated pop-up workplaces, such as a
workspace under the Manhattan Bridge,
and a short inhabitation of the shipping
containers at the Dekalb Market in New
York (Empson 2012). Later, they changed
their business model to an invite-only system,
with the idea that current members would
bring in new members and hosts. This
change in openness and spontaneity was
very contradictory to their initial model,
and not long after this their business
proved unviable as they went bankrupt.
Stuff
Space plan
One big difference in the two previously
described systems is the options that you have
Services
as a co-worker, being part of their network.
Structure
In the case of the HUB, the membership you
take is only valid for one particular location.
Skin
You can work at HUB Brussels as agreed, but
Site
you cannot work at a HUB in another city if
you happen to find yourself elsewhere. This
was in fact possible in LooseCubes’ system,
24 25