The Tetris City: Workplace mobility and the dynamic spatiality of knowledge work in Silicon Valley North, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Economic geography scholarship rests on the assumption that work has a well-defined and fixed location. Existing data and traditional methods for capturing the location of work have not yet been able to grasp the increasingly dynamic spatiality of knowledge work that other disciplines — like Mobilities and Management and Organizational Studies — have been discussing for some time. These disciplines suggest that as a result of greater worker mobility, flexibility and digitization work has been extending beyond the official, well-defined workplace. If this is the case, the concepts that underpin our understanding of where work takes place need to be rethought. The dominant paradigms that shape how economic geographers and urban planners think about the location of work are informed by fixed categories, which likewise treat places and workers as fixed in time and space. And while recent studies using census-type data are showing a modest but steady rise in mobile work, they fail to capture the locations (in addition to the formal workplace) that are used for work throughout the day, the week, the month and the year. At present, this complexity can only be qualitatively explored. A closer look at these nuances will improve our understanding of new ways of working, how spaces are being used for work, and how these changes affect real estate and urban planning. This is especially important given the Covid-19 crisis and the unprecedented shift to remote work. The experiences of knowledge workers (for some of whom the “new normal” has been normal for some time) pre-pandemic reveal valuable insights on what workplaces are likely to be like once the pandemic has been resolved. Indeed, focusing on knowledge workers in Canada’s high-tech and start-up hotbed in Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo, this dissertation confirms that work has been extending beyond the formal, designated workplace (i.e., the office) to include a number of other locations. What is more, it reveals that the increasingly fuzzy boundaries between work, life and play have produced fuzzy definitions of work and the workplace. Meanwhile, interviews with corporate consultants and real estate professionals reveal that firms have been changing their offices to mirror new trends, and while some have been reducing the amount of space required per worker to generate more collaborative and attractive work environments, others have been deploying the same strategies (i.e., flexwork) for cost-saving purposes. No matter the motive, the willingness to pay a premium for flexible spaces (and flexible leases) has exacerbated office real estate costs, driving more companies to pursue flexwork options, and thereby intensifying the need for workplace mobility. This circular relationship between flexwork and rising office rents also makes it difficult to keep track of who is using spaces, how and for how long. Interviews with city planners reveal that while they are cognizant of these changes, they feel limited in their capacity to regulate the real estate market. Finally, flexwork has become, above all, a real estate play and a feature of the financialized and deregulated real estate market. What is more, because these new ways of working are considered innovative and creative, they’ve garnered institutional support, thereby obscuring their downsides. I conclude that workplace mobility affects the city in a manner resembling the “Tetris Effect”, or the need to constantly think about and adapt space — across personal and professional domains — in order to maximize economic utility. Neoliberal planning, with its focus on growth, neglects the downsides of workplace mobility as it seeks out ways to accommodate it. This calls into question the effectiveness of planning tools (as well as their ideological foundations) in ensuring that corporate decisions are in the interest of the public in the longer term
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».