Latest Blog Posts

Boubekri and colleagues make a health-based case for designing access to natural light into structures.  As they report, “daylight . . . is vital to our lives. . . . impacting circadian rhythm and . . . producing vitamin D through our skin. . . . buildings play a significant role in controlling how much daylight people are exposed to. . . . Zoning regulations ought to be concerned with the fact that without sufficient daylight in the street, it is not possible to have sufficient daylight inside our buildings. . . .  Urban design and urban zoning legislation are as important as the building itself. . . . Building designers and developers need to provide architectural solutions that give building users the opportunity to access unfiltered sunlight by providing balconies and terraces without having to leave the buildings.  Only direct contact of the skin with the sun produces the vitamin D levels that we need on a daily basis.”

Mohamed Boubekri, Nastaran Shishegar, and Thulasi Khamma. 2017. “Sustainability with Health in Mind:  A Case for Daylighting.”  International Journal of the Constructed Environment, vol. 8, no. 2, no pagination, DOI:  10.18848/2154-8587/CGP/v08i02/1-13

Lusk, Filho, and Dobbert studied the landscaping preferences of pedestrians and bicyclists.  The team report that “To increase levels of biking while improving safety, cities around the world have started building barrier-protected bicycle-exclusive cycle tracks between the sidewalk and the street. . . . pedestrians and cyclists [were asked about] their preferences about whether trees should be planted and . . . preferred locations on the sidewalk/cycle track they were using. . . . trees were preferred. Trees with bushes between the cycle track and the street/parked cars were most preferred . . . and trees between the cycle track and the street parked/cars were second most preferred. . . . Participants also indicated that trees and bushes located between the cycle track and street/parked cars were best at blocking perception of traffic . . . lessening the perception of pollution exposure . . . and making the participant feel cooler.”

Anne Lusk, Demostenes Filho, and Lea Dobbert.  “Pedestrian and Cyclist Preferences for Tree Locations by Sidewalks and Cycle Tracks and Associated Benefits:  Worldwide Implications from a Study in Boston, MA.”  Cities, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.024

Lindberg, Tran and Banasiak used an online survey to study how personality influences responses to office design.  The research team defined extraversion as “the degree to which one is outgoing and social, while neuroticism is a measure of negative emotionality (versus emotional stability and even-temperedness) and is positively correlated with anxiety and unhappiness.”  The Lindberg lead team determined that “difference in exposure [to others, as in an open workplace] had relatively little effect on perceived control for individuals in the low neuroticism category, but individuals in the high neuroticism category felt much less control in an exposed work space than in a more enclosed work space.” Additional findings related to extraversion and office design: “While the results were not significant [they are very close to significant].  . . . individuals scoring high on extroversion rated their performance in enclosed and exposed work-space environments similarly . . . while individuals scoring low on extroversion [these people were relatively more introverted] rated their performance in enclosed environments higher than their performance in exposed environments.”  The researchers concludes that their “findings question the widely held architectural design assumption that physical proximity and open office designs are desirable for social interaction and, consequently, improved communication and innovation.”

Casey Lindberg, Diemtrinh Tran, and Meredith Banasiak.  2016. “Individual Differences in the Office: Personality Factors and Work-Space Enclosure.”  Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 105-120.

Research continues to indicate that work groups’ relative locations influence the performance of employees.  Sunkee Lee, a Carnegie Mellon University professor, studied a corporation in South Korea (whose employees had assigned seats) that relocated:  “In the old building, six teams . . . were seated in one area, while six other . . .teams sat in another one; the two groups were separated by a common entrance. . . . in the new location . . .nine of them were situated in one open area and three in another, with a common entrance in between. The two spaces were identical in terms of decoration, lighting, equipment, distances between teams and workstations, and proximity to management.” After the relocation, the quality of the work of employees in the area with more teams improved dramatically as did the revenue they generated.  Lee believes that “physical proximity promotes trust and the exchange of valuable and novel knowledge between newly met peers.’”  Lee reports that the relocated individuals did not work directly with their new neighbors and “they were inspired by overheard dialogue and informal conversations to shift from ‘incremental’ to ‘radical’ creativity and increased sales as a result.”

“Why You Should Rotate Office Seating Assignments.”  2018.  Harvard Business Review,https://hbr.org/2018/03/why-you-should-rotate-office-seating-assignments