3 ms·

"Landscrapers" will (obviously) have fewer, but larger floors. For certain types of organizations (e.g. software development organizations) this can be a real

by curtis 9y ago

"Landscrapers" will (obviously) have fewer, but larger floors. For certain types of organizations (e.g. software development organizations) this can be a real advantage, since more of the people that each person needs to work with can be on the same floor. Being separated by even a single floor can make a remarkably big difference to communication.

klenwell 9y ago
Interesting point. Reminds me of one of the major arguments in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steels as to why the Old World conquered the New and not vice-versa. Eurasia is a "landscraper" (oriented longitudinally) allowing for easier trade and exchange of innovations (especially related to agriculture and animal domestication) along a broad expanse of land. The Americas are a skyscraper (more latitudinal orientation) with greater diversity of climate and topology that impeded the spread of some innovations and technologies.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  Jared Diamond's thesis (rather like I feel the skyscraper/landscraper thesis is) is quite overstated. The climatic zones running from Mesopotamia to China are quite varied, and there's rather little evidence for technology transfer between these two endpoints. By contrast, the climatic zone from the northern edge of the Valley of Mexico to the boreal forests in Canada is basically one smooth temperature gradient, and we do know of rather extensive trading and tech transfer in North America (particularly, the introduction of maize to the independently-developed agriculture quite revolutionized developments in eastern North America). Not to mention the fact that the Americas don't seem so far behind Eurasia the more we do the archaeology: Norte Chico is now dated to at least 3200-3500 BC, a date competitive with Ancient Egypt and not too far behind Sumeria in terms of developing civilization.
elguyosupremo 9y ago
I definitely agree, our dev organization has been outgrowing our current space and one team move to an adjacent floor and I barely see them anymore. Even though I don't directly collaborate with them I miss the small chats about what they are doing.
eric-hu 9y ago
Maybe one floor will be an open air office the as long as the empire State building is high.
jcranmer 9y ago
Because people are obviously more willing to talk to people ¼ mile away, but on the same floor, than the person on the floor above them, right? I think the floor argument is oversold: what matters is proximity, and particularly the aptitude to congregate in common areas (such as water fountains). Once you're talking about choosing between a 15-story 1 block building versus a 5-story 3 block building, you're already big enough that you've lost proximity and common area congregation, so it doesn't really matter that much either way.

by curtis 9y ago

klenwell 9y ago

Interesting point. Reminds me of one of the major arguments in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steels as to why the Old World conquered the New and not vice-versa. Eurasia is a "landscraper" (oriented longitudinally) allowing for easier trade and exchange of innovations (especially related to agriculture and animal domestication) along a broad expanse of land. The Americas are a skyscraper (more latitudinal orientation) with greater diversity of climate and topology that impeded the spread of some innovations and technologies.

jcranmer 9y ago
Jared Diamond's thesis (rather like I feel the skyscraper/landscraper thesis is) is quite overstated. The climatic zones running from Mesopotamia to China are quite varied, and there's rather little evidence for technology transfer between these two endpoints. By contrast, the climatic zone from the northern edge of the Valley of Mexico to the boreal forests in Canada is basically one smooth temperature gradient, and we do know of rather extensive trading and tech transfer in North America (particularly, the introduction of maize to the independently-developed agriculture quite revolutionized developments in eastern North America). Not to mention the fact that the Americas don't seem so far behind Eurasia the more we do the archaeology: Norte Chico is now dated to at least 3200-3500 BC, a date competitive with Ancient Egypt and not too far behind Sumeria in terms of developing civilization.

elguyosupremo 9y ago

I definitely agree, our dev organization has been outgrowing our current space and one team move to an adjacent floor and I barely see them anymore. Even though I don't directly collaborate with them I miss the small chats about what they are doing.

eric-hu 9y ago

Maybe one floor will be an open air office the as long as the empire State building is high.

jcranmer 9y ago

Because people are obviously more willing to talk to people ¼ mile away, but on the same floor, than the person on the floor above them, right? I think the floor argument is oversold: what matters is proximity, and particularly the aptitude to congregate in common areas (such as water fountains). Once you're talking about choosing between a 15-story 1 block building versus a 5-story 3 block building, you're already big enough that you've lost proximity and common area congregation, so it doesn't really matter that much either way.