A pattern language

As size of group grows, more and more people hold back.

There is no particularly natural threshold for group size; but it is clear that the number who never talk climbs very rapidly. In a group of 12, one person never talks. In a group of 24, there are six people who never talk.

We get similar thresholds when we consider comfortable distances for talking. Edward Hall has established the upper

713

BUILDINGS

range for full casual voice at about 8 feet; a person with 20/20 vision can see details of facial expression up to 12 feet; two people whose heads are 8 to 9 feet apart, can pass an object if they both stretch; clear vision (that is, macular vision) includes 12 degrees horizontally and 3 degrees vertically—which includes one face but not two, at distances up to about 10 feet. (See Edward Hall, The Silent Language, New York: Doubleday, 1966, pp. 118—19.)

Thus a small group discussion will function best if the members of the group are arranged in a rough circle, with a maximum diameter of about 8 feet. At this diameter, the circumference of the circle will be 25 feet. Since people require about 27 inches each for their seats, there can be no more than about 1 2 people round the circle.

Next we shall present evidence to show that in institutions and workgroups, the natural history of meetings tends also to converge on this size.

The following histograms show the relative numbers of different sized classes held at the University of Oregon in the Fall of 1970 and the relative numbers of available classrooms in the different size ranges. We believe these figures are typical for many universities. But it is obvious at a glance that there are too many large classrooms and too few small classrooms. Most of the classes actually held are relatively small seminars and “section” meetings, while most of the classrooms are in the 30 to I 50 size range. These large classrooms may have reflected the teaching methods of

actual classes held 34-9
class size

available classrooms 40.6
				20.7
	15-3
VtO
COn*0	6-3				7.2	8.1
'o							1.8
							-1

	0	O	0	Ovo	8
w-	co	VO	On		cp
6	VO	CO	VO	On	*0
classroom size

Histogram: Classes don’t fit the classrooms.

7¹4

I 5 I SMALL MEETING ROOMS

an earlier period, but apparently they do not conform to the actual practice of teaching in the I970’s.

We found that the meetings of official committees, boards, and commissions in the City of Berkeley have a similar distribution. Among the various city boards, commissions, and committees, 73 per cent have an average attendance of I 5 or less. Yet of course, most of these meetings are held in rooms designed for far more than 15 people. Here again, most of the meetings are held in rooms that are too large; the rooms are half-empty; people tend to sit at the back; speakers face rows of empty seats. The intimate and intense atmosphere typical of a good small meeting cannot be achieved under these circumstances.

Finally, the spatial distribution of meeting rooms is often as poorly adapted to the actual meetings as the size distribution. The following histograms compare the distribution of classrooms in different sectors of the University of Oregon with the distribution of faculty and student offices. ₄₇%

DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY OFFICES DISTRIBUTION OF CLASSROOMSThe meeting rooms are not located where people work.

Once again, this discrepancy has a bad effect on the social life of small meetings. The meetings work best when the meeting rooms are fairly near the participants’ offices. Then discussions which begin in the meeting rooms are able to continue in the office or the laboratory. When the meeting rooms are a long walk from offices, the chances of this kind of informal business are drastically reduced.

Therefore:

Make at least 70 per cent of all meeting rooms really small—for 12 people or less. Locate them in the most public parts of the building, evenly scattered among the workplaces.

Make each square mile of countryside, both farm and park, open to the public—the countrysde (7) ; arrange the half acre lots to form clusters of houses and neighborhoods, even when they are rather spread out—identifiable neighborhood (14),

HOUSE CLUSTER (37). . . .

32

evenly distributed through working areas		70 per cent small meeting rooms
A

Shape meeting rooms like any other rooms, perhaps with special emphasis on the fact that there must be no glare—light on two sides of every room (159)—and on the fact that the rooms should be roughly round or square, and not too long or narrow—sitting circle (185). People will feel best if many of the chairs are different, to suit different temperaments and moods and shapes and sizes—-different chairs (251). A light over the table or over the center of the group will help tie people together—pools of light (252). For the shape of the room in detail, start with the shape of indoor space

(19 0 * • • •

716

152 HALF-PRIVATE OFFICE

. . . within the overall arrangement of group space and individual working space provided by intimacy gradient (127), FLEXIBLE OFFICE SPACE (146), and SMALL WORK GROUPS ( I 48) , this pattern shapes the individual rooms and offices. The pattern also helps to generate the organization of these larger patterns.

4. .%

it*

What is the right balance between privacy and connection in office work?

The totally private office has a devastating effect on the flow of human relationships within a work group, and entrenches the ugly quality of office hierarchies. At the same time, there are moments when privacy is essential; and to some extent nearly every job of work needs to be free from random interruption.

Everyone who has experienced office work reports some version of this problem. In our own experience—as members of a working team of architects—we have faced the problem in hundreds of ways. The best evidence we have to report is our own experience as a work group.

Over tite last seven years we moved our offices on several occasions. At one point we moved to a large old house: large enough for some of us to have private rooms and others to share rooms. In a matter of months our social coherence as a group was on the point of breakdown. The workings of the group became formalized; easy-going communication vanished; the entire atmosphere changed from a setting which sustained our growth as a group to an office bureaucracy, where people made appointments with each other, left notes in special boxes, and nervously knocked on each other’s doors.