Here's an interesting paper from WFH Research that looks at, "the evolution of working from home." Not surprisingly, remote work tends to vary by industry, with tech being the most likely to work from home and with hospitality & food services the least likely.
By extension, WFH prevalence also appears to correlate with population density. This largely has to do with the kinds of jobs that center themselves in big and dense cities. This is interesting because one conventional way to think about cities is that they are places where businesses and people cluster to accumulate wealth. That clustering is still happening, but work is evolving.
And that is always the case.
Overall, the authors conclude that about 40% of US employees are now working at least one day a week at home, and that just over 11% are fully remote. They also argue that fully remote work lowers average productivity by about 10-20%, but that hybrid work is closer to flat. Interestingly enough, opinions on productivity differ whether you ask employees or managers.
If you'd like to read the full paper, click here.
Figures: WFH Research
Here is an excellent reason for why you may want to spend more time walking:
People have noted that walking seems to have a special relation to creativity. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1889) wrote, “All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking” (Aphorism 34). The current research puts such observations on solid footing. Four studies demonstrate that walking increases creative ideation. The effect is not simply due to the increased perceptual stimulation of moving through an environment, but rather it is due to walking. Whether one is outdoors or on a treadmill, walking improves the generation of novel yet appropriate ideas, and the effect even extends to when people sit down to do their creative work shortly after.
The results were a bit inconclusive as to whether outdoor walking is better than other forms of walking, so for now we will just say that walking -- in general -- is good for creative thinking. But where my mind immediately goes is: Does this finding scale up?
In other words, if you were to take two different cities -- City A where everybody, for the most part drives, and City B where everybody, for the most part, walks -- could you find any evidence that City B was on average more creative than City A?
I guess one way you could measure this is through patents. And if you were to look at patents per capita in the US, you'd likely find cities like Princeton (NJ), Redmond (WA), and cities in Silicon Valley near the top of the list. I'm not sure there's an obvious correlation here.
But it is kind of interesting to think about a possible relationship between urban form and creativity.
Here's an interesting paper from WFH Research that looks at, "the evolution of working from home." Not surprisingly, remote work tends to vary by industry, with tech being the most likely to work from home and with hospitality & food services the least likely.
By extension, WFH prevalence also appears to correlate with population density. This largely has to do with the kinds of jobs that center themselves in big and dense cities. This is interesting because one conventional way to think about cities is that they are places where businesses and people cluster to accumulate wealth. That clustering is still happening, but work is evolving.
And that is always the case.
Overall, the authors conclude that about 40% of US employees are now working at least one day a week at home, and that just over 11% are fully remote. They also argue that fully remote work lowers average productivity by about 10-20%, but that hybrid work is closer to flat. Interestingly enough, opinions on productivity differ whether you ask employees or managers.
If you'd like to read the full paper, click here.
Figures: WFH Research
Here is an excellent reason for why you may want to spend more time walking:
People have noted that walking seems to have a special relation to creativity. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1889) wrote, “All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking” (Aphorism 34). The current research puts such observations on solid footing. Four studies demonstrate that walking increases creative ideation. The effect is not simply due to the increased perceptual stimulation of moving through an environment, but rather it is due to walking. Whether one is outdoors or on a treadmill, walking improves the generation of novel yet appropriate ideas, and the effect even extends to when people sit down to do their creative work shortly after.
The results were a bit inconclusive as to whether outdoor walking is better than other forms of walking, so for now we will just say that walking -- in general -- is good for creative thinking. But where my mind immediately goes is: Does this finding scale up?
In other words, if you were to take two different cities -- City A where everybody, for the most part drives, and City B where everybody, for the most part, walks -- could you find any evidence that City B was on average more creative than City A?
I guess one way you could measure this is through patents. And if you were to look at patents per capita in the US, you'd likely find cities like Princeton (NJ), Redmond (WA), and cities in Silicon Valley near the top of the list. I'm not sure there's an obvious correlation here.
But it is kind of interesting to think about a possible relationship between urban form and creativity.
North American cities have long had a problem with apartment buildings.
One the one hand, they were viewed as an important requirement for world-class status. Regardless of whether there was an economic imperative to build in this way, you needed grand buildings to communicate that you were an important and sophisticated city.
But on the other hand, apartments were viewed as clearly inferior to low-rise houses. Apartments were too dense; they were thought to morally corrupt people (infidelity meant just walking down the hall); and by definition -- until the rise of condominiums -- they were filled with renters.
I recently stumbled upon this 1989 research paper by Richard Dennis (through Bob Georgiou's blog) and it is a fascinating account of Toronto's first apartment-house boom from 1900 to 1920:
One of the first apartment houses to be completed in the city was the Alexandra Palace Apartments (pictured above) on University Avenue near Elm Street:
The next building to be completed, the Alexandra, on University Avenue, was on an even grander scale. It was promoted by the Union Trust Company, but subsequently owned by the specially constituted Alexandra Palace Co. Ltd., and opened in 1904. The building, of stone, brick and steel construction, comprised 72 suites on seven floors; it also included dining rooms. In 1905 more than a quarter of its suites were vacant, mainly on the upper floors (although the very top floor was fully occupied); its tenants included a leading judge, two barristers, a professor, a doctor and a prominent real estate agent, but otherwise its social standing did not quite match that of St George Mansions. In 1915 occupants included Professor James Mavor. There were more tenants aged in their thirties than in St George Mansions, but overall the average age of 42 and household size of 2.6 was not dissimilar.
But perhaps the most interesting part of the paper is Toronto's reaction to this apartment boom. We moved to stop it:
Nonetheless, it is clear that the attempted invasion of high-status single- family areas in Parkdale and, more especially, Rosedale and Avenue-St Clair, provided the catalyst to action. For all the moral outrage and sanitary evidence, there was little concern as long as apartments stayed downtown or in lower-status neighbourhoods. This becomes even more apparent when we examine what happened in the months following the passage of the by-laws.
Toronto's housing stock has changed dramatically over the last 100 years or so, and we are now nearly 50% apartments/condominiums over 5 storeys. But at the same time, some things seem to never change.
North American cities have long had a problem with apartment buildings.
One the one hand, they were viewed as an important requirement for world-class status. Regardless of whether there was an economic imperative to build in this way, you needed grand buildings to communicate that you were an important and sophisticated city.
But on the other hand, apartments were viewed as clearly inferior to low-rise houses. Apartments were too dense; they were thought to morally corrupt people (infidelity meant just walking down the hall); and by definition -- until the rise of condominiums -- they were filled with renters.
I recently stumbled upon this 1989 research paper by Richard Dennis (through Bob Georgiou's blog) and it is a fascinating account of Toronto's first apartment-house boom from 1900 to 1920:
One of the first apartment houses to be completed in the city was the Alexandra Palace Apartments (pictured above) on University Avenue near Elm Street:
The next building to be completed, the Alexandra, on University Avenue, was on an even grander scale. It was promoted by the Union Trust Company, but subsequently owned by the specially constituted Alexandra Palace Co. Ltd., and opened in 1904. The building, of stone, brick and steel construction, comprised 72 suites on seven floors; it also included dining rooms. In 1905 more than a quarter of its suites were vacant, mainly on the upper floors (although the very top floor was fully occupied); its tenants included a leading judge, two barristers, a professor, a doctor and a prominent real estate agent, but otherwise its social standing did not quite match that of St George Mansions. In 1915 occupants included Professor James Mavor. There were more tenants aged in their thirties than in St George Mansions, but overall the average age of 42 and household size of 2.6 was not dissimilar.
But perhaps the most interesting part of the paper is Toronto's reaction to this apartment boom. We moved to stop it:
Nonetheless, it is clear that the attempted invasion of high-status single- family areas in Parkdale and, more especially, Rosedale and Avenue-St Clair, provided the catalyst to action. For all the moral outrage and sanitary evidence, there was little concern as long as apartments stayed downtown or in lower-status neighbourhoods. This becomes even more apparent when we examine what happened in the months following the passage of the by-laws.
Toronto's housing stock has changed dramatically over the last 100 years or so, and we are now nearly 50% apartments/condominiums over 5 storeys. But at the same time, some things seem to never change.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
