Shared Space

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Zifferblatt with double f and double t is a German and Russian word for a watch face. <a href="http://ziferblat.net/en/" target="_blank">Ziferblat</a> with only one f and one t is a home you can rent by the minute. The missing letters are a clue to what you get – not the whole deal.
In a time when rents and rental insecurity are high and people are sharing rooms with strangers just to have a bed for the night, it is worth looking at this new “home as a service” enterprise. Ziferblat originated in Moscow and spread from there to St Petersburg and other Russian and Eastern locations via Ljubljana to Manchester, Liverpool and London. Around the world, there are currently 14 Ziferblat venues, described as places for cultural and social engagement.
Russia has had a cultural precedent for communal living. After the 1917 revolution, komunalkas emerged to provide collective living arrangements in response to an acute urban housing crisis.
The Ziferblat concept seems a perfect fit for those who share a room at night but don’t have a place to call home during the day. Each venue is open from 10am to midnight and offers a place to relax, read, cook or work – you can even have a nap. It is fully furnished and the website shows your companions performing poetry and playing piano, arty bohemian types – and perhaps as a result unable to pay the high rents in city locations.
At Ziferblat you pay by the minute. That’s right, you have a living room by the minute. The tag line is: “Everything is free except the time you spend here.”
And the minutes are cheap, a few cents only, and like every good deal it’s capped. So once you spent three to four hours, there’s no more to pay for the day.
The top rate is about A$15-20 per day depending on the country. For this, besides the comfortably furnished space, you get free coffee, tea, water, juices, fruit, vegetables, snacks and facilities like a kitchen and bathrooms.
Deconstructing the idea of home
Is this sort of commercial enterprise a further step towards deconstructing our concepts of home and domestic living? After all, a flat can be compared to a car. It sits idle most of the time when we are at work and really is used only at the edges of the day.
Yet we work hard to pay for our home and hope to make up the difference when we sell it. Wouldn’t it be much smarter to outsource the whole idea of the home? To have a home only when you need one and be unencumbered by it when you don’t? Why pay for it when we are not even there most of the time?
This makes even Airbnb seem old school, because with Airbnb I am still paying for my accommodation even if I am out sightseeing.
All that is missing to complete this new decentralised home is a mobile storage service. But all I have to do is send a text message and they pick up (or bring) and store my precious belongings. It’s physical cloud storage for distributed living, modernism 3.0.
This concept opens up a whole new perspective on urban development. Could it be that the current approach to high-density living is missing this new 21st-century trend? Will we be burdened with inappropriate outdated infrastructure that is not used as intended?
What’s more, the new approach will be nearly impossible to control and regulate – unless we accept invasive forensic examination of our private utility bills.
Has urban living changed more than we know?
I estimate, based on advertisements on Australian websites only, that at least 10,000 people are sharing rooms in Sydney. Yet we also have to consider rooms to share in Sydney being offered online in countries like China, India, the Middle East, etc … to new arrivals before they even leave.
A picture starts to emerge of room sharing that may be an underground boom going on right now. Instead of 10,000 people being technically homeless here in Sydney, the number may might well be closer to 50,000 or 100,000. That means a population ranging in size from Strathfield to the combined suburbs of Mosman and North Sydney may be sharing rooms!
Has the horse bolted? Has the game changed so much that is it time to confront these new realities of urban living?
The owner of Ziferblat calls his guests micro-tenants, slicing the pie into ever thinner portions. Ziferblat and other versions of the distributed home might well play a big part in the future of urban city living. We just haven’t realised it yet, because we are too busy and preoccupied with paying off the home we can’t really afford – while our ten roomies in the three-bedroom flat next door have already moved on metaphorically and literally.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86395/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">You may ask, what about neighbours and a sense of belonging? But isn’t there a virtual reality app for that?
Christian Tietz, Senior Lecturer in Industrial Design, UNSW.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/living-rooms-for-rent-by-the-minute-outsource-the-whole-idea-of-home-86395" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Photo source: Ziferblat.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Living rooms for rent by the minute outsource the whole idea of home: Christian Tietz

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75612/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A recent survey of 400 multinational corporations found that two-thirds plan to implement shared-desk workplaces by 2020. But research shows these arrangements have a range of outcomes, many of which are negative. 
A recently published study of 1,000 Australian employees found that shared-desk environments had a number of problems. These included increased distrust, distractions, uncooperative behaviour and negative relationships. On top of this, there was a decreased perception of support from supervisors. 
Another study showed that shared-desk environments can lead to employee marginalisation, indifference and inattention to co-workers, loss of identity and decreased organisational commitment.
These studies and more should sound a cautionary note against the uptake of shared-desk arrangements.
<h2>Changing workspaces</h2>
Office spaces are changing rapidly thanks to remote work, technology and the need to innovate. But cost is also a big factor. 
Office space is typically the second-biggest cost for organisations. And some research suggests that up to 40% of office space is vacant at any one time. 
The cost of offices is one of the drivers of shared-desk work arrangements, which fall into two categories: hot-desking and activity-based working. By using these arrangements, an employer can fit more workers into an existing space and more efficiently use the available space.
Hot-desking is where employees either share a desk with others or are not assigned a permanent desk and must find one when needed. Hot-desking arose as a strategy to save on space and to cater to the needs of employees who largely worked outside the office.
Activity-based work, by contrast, assumes all employees work flexibly and will seek out a range of different spaces to undertake different tasks. As such, these workspaces provide a range of work settings for different types of activities such as meetings, collaboration, private work, creativity and concentration. Employees are expected to switch between these settings as necessary.
Proponents of activity-based work claim that cost is not a major driver of its uptake. Rather, companies have implemented it to attract and retain talent, and increase collaboration and innovation, employee well-being and sustainability.
But plenty of research shows negative effects of shared-desk workplaces. These negatives potentially outweigh the benefits.
<h2>Diving into the research</h2>
Some studies have suggested that having a permanent desk may not be as important as the overall layout of the office, or the freedom to personalise that space. 
But employees without an assigned desk complain of desk shortages, difficulty finding colleagues, wasted time and limited ability to personalise their space. And, as I noted earlier, hot-desking has been found to result in higher levels of distrust, fewer co-worker friendships and decreased perceptions of supervisory support.
Meanwhile, research on activity-based work has shown that it is likely to work best for employees who see themselves as mobile and independent, and who have largely self-contained work processes. For those who work well in these environments, the ability to select a workstation or area based on individual needs and preferences is seen as a positive. Another positive is the ability to avoid unwanted social interaction when necessary, by working in a quiet space, for example.
However, the flipside of activity-based work is workers who have troublefinding privacy or concentrating. Further research shows that employees rarely, if ever, switch between different work settings. While those who did switch workstations were found to be more satisfied, there were strong objections among those who didn’t.
Activity-based work can also have an impact on the social dynamic in the workplace, creating tensions between those who come into the office and use certain spaces regularly, and those who don’t. Lastly, it can create additional work, as workers must find and set up a workspace, move between locations, and then remove everything at the end of the day. 
So while hot-desking and activity-based work are touted as increasing communication, collaboration and efficiency, research shows there are other outcomes as well. While these environments can work well for some employees – those who are highly mobile and autonomous, for instance – the research shows that many employees do not work well in these environments. 
A one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to succeed. Implementing one may have negative impacts on the organisation as well as workers. Employers need to accommodate differences in individual employees and in the type of work they undertake. Additionally, research has shown that management style, as well as social and cultural factors will have a significant impact on whether activity-based work is successful. 
Workplaces should be designed to support both well-being and productivity. This requires a more nuanced approach.
Libby Sander is lecturer, Bond Business School, Bond University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/libby-sander-143232" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Shared Space

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Shared Space

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News