Being ‘young’ today in Australia brings with it a great deal of pressure to perform, conform, be different, rage-against-the-machine, socialise and be successful - all at considerable cost both physically and emotionally.

Last month we conducted a survey of 1,200 respondents aged between 25 and 60 years of age. Asked whether they thought young people today were better off, worse off or about the same as they were when they were growing up, only 11% said better off; 61% said worse off; 12% said the same; 16% didn’t know.

This is quite surprising in view of the relative affluence in which these young people are now growing up. When we looked at this 61% saying ‘worse off’ qualitatively we found that what most of these respondents were referring to was not financially related - they were referring to social, political and emotional factors. In fact, it was to the social and political issues that they were mostly referring.

The sorts of issues that even some as young as 25 years believed are being faced by young people were the expectations of Australian society to perform - in career; in relationships; in community; in a society that these older people saw as increasingly hostile to the young. Why? For one reason, they saw that today’s pace of living is far greater than when they were growing up. They saw that Australia (like the rest of the world) is infected with a type of ‘hurry’ sickness. We now spend our lives rushing from task to task; meeting to meeting; appointment to appointment. 

So, it seems, the answer by 61% that young people growing up today have it worse off than  in earlier times could be a reflection of just how anxious and rushed the respondents saw their own lives. When we ask people in our focus groups to tell us (apart from money) what do they want more of in their lives, the response is ‘time’ in over 90% of cases.

Did you know that the elevator button needing replacement most often is the ‘Door Close’? We are so impatient that new elevators can come fitted with a ‘psychological waiting time’ application whereby when you press the call button a program determines the closest car to you and then lights up the appropriate signal to let you know which one will be there.

Young people suffer performance anxiety at a rate far greater than ever before.

Although it can be argued that we Australians have always placed great importance upon career; relationships; education; health and so on, why now do so many people think it’s tougher these days? 


Answer: lack of time. Instead of helping better manage time, technology has caused the need to multi-task; forced the need for instant responses to SMS and emails; taken us to a point of never-ending, seamless communication.

This accelerated pace is clearly visible in the big cities - young people are literally rushing off their feet to get things done - work, study, friendships, sex, drugs, parties, drinking and so on it goes. 


They feel the need to ‘perform’ at all these things far more acutely than ever before because there is so much more to do and get done. They rarely get time or take time to stop and smell the roses. This could be partly the reason that one in five suffer an emotional disorder requiring treatment before the age of 20 years of age. It could also account for the dramatic increase in the use of anti-depressants amongst the young over the past five years. It could account for the rise and rise of binge drinking and illicit drug use amongst teenagers (one in every three teens has ‘tried’ a form of illicit drug; many as young as 12 years old) - surely a sign that they are having difficulty coping.

It’s hard to imagine that the pace of life is  going to slow, so we need to be teaching our kids ways of coping without necessarily resorting to drugs or alcohol.


Parents are vital to this issue - really they are the determining factor in the ways in which their children will cope.

‘I’m going to kill myself. I should go to Paris and jump off the Eiffel Tower. You know, if I get the Concorde I could be dead three hours earlier. Wait a minute, with the time change I could be alive for six hours in New York but dead for three hours in Paris. I could get things done and also be dead.’ Woody Allen.

Proxemics

An anthropologist researcher named E. T. Hall developed a theory about the ways we utilise space between people to communicate non-verbally. Its name is proxemics. He developed this theory in 1963, and it is as useful today as it was then.

What is “Proxemics”? 

It is the study of space between humans and how we use this space to say certain things to others.

Proxemics is used today to assist in the design of retail outlets, restaurants, offices and even public seating areas.

Given that almost 90% of all human communication is non-verbal, being attuned to proxemics allows us to learn a great deal about our relationships with others without saying a single word.

How does proxemics help us? 

Proxemics allows us to determine spatial layouts or designs for all types of areas.

Proxemics also needs to adjust with cultural differences.

Anyone designing a public area, seating area, meeting area, retail zone or eating zone must be aware of proxemics - poor design will lead to poor spatial usage and lack of business. 

1. The Intimate Space 

Consider this, in western civilisation  a “comfortable” distance between people in an intimate or private situation is generally 15-45 centimetres - a “zone” for whispering, embracing or whatever else people do when they are so close. 

2. The Personal Space 

This zone is the comfortable distance when have a conversation with friends, family or close colleagues. This zone has a distance of between 45cms to 1.2 metres.

This space is also used to separate people waiting in queues at ATMs, bank tellers, or indeed anywhere that requires each of us to reasonably make personal contact with man or machine.

We have all experienced the discomfort of a person invading this space when we wait in a queue for some sort of service. 

3. Social Space  

This space is comfortable for conversations with work colleagues and acquaintances where it would be impolite to get any closer (Jerry Seinfeld’s “close talker” episode). This distance is between 1.2 metres and 3.5 metres.

This space also separates strangers, and designers will find that areas that do not allow for this distance will rarely attract users or patrons or customers. 

4. Public Space 

This is the polite and comfortable distance between say, a public speaker and an audience. This distance is 3.5 metres and beyond.

In his book Hidden Dimension, E.T. Hall illustrates that perceived spatial violations can lead to clashes between cultures - for example Western and Middle Eastern civilisations (where the distances between speakers is generally much smaller) can feel threatened when they communicate using different cultural distances.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, you might find yourself nose-to-nose with a business associate because their social space equates to our intimate space. you will probably find yourself backing away trying to regain your social space while your associate peruses you across the floor trying to maintain his. finally, you would come away from the encounter thinking he was “pushy”, and he thinking you were “stand-offish”.

If, on the other hand, you were visiting a friend in the Netherlands, you would find the roles reversed, you would be doing the chasing because their personal space equates to our social space.

Knowledge of proxemics within different cultures is vital for any space. One size does not fit all.

If you would like any more information, or wish to discuss this matter please contact me:

Mark de Teliga 0410 463 643/ markdeteliga@gmail.com

When you go into a building - it might be your home, or your office, a shop, restaurant or any other space - how does it enhance your feelings? What is is about its form or location or the objects within it that you like or dislike? What attracts you to want go back, or never go back?

Do this simple test when you are about to enter a building for the very first time:

What do I expect will be in the entrance or foyer? Will it be grand? Overwhelming? Is it attempting to make me feel small and insignificant? Will it be a reflection of a style I loathe? Or will I feel immediately comfortable and maybe even excited being there? Will it help me understand what this place is all about? Will it be a reflection of what I want from a place like this?

The big test is: would I want to live like this?

Endless research projects we have conducted into the impact upon the psyche of the built environment have shown that, over and over again, most people yearn for an upgraded version of their own living environment. They see their own as passé, they do not want a reflection of their current life, they generally want a better one.

It’s as simple as: “Oh I’d really like that in my home!”

We found that when people desired an object or finish or even a feature that they wanted in their home, this was the greatest accolade they could give.

When you look around you in a space or place do you feel as though you belong?

Do you feel happy to be there? Are you comfortable with the lighting, the furniture, the noise levels, the decor? I have spent a bit of time in the new Westpac building in Sydney - it is a masterpiece for visitors and staff. It is comfortable but at the same time rather exotic. Staff are somewhat blasé about their surroundings, but admit it’s a great place to work. However, first time visitors are amazed by the art, the number of beautiful meeting rooms, the outlook (almost every room has a view of Darling Harbour and the ANZAC Bridge). There are over 5,000 people in the building - not counting visitors - and they enjoy levels of comfort I have rarely seen before in an office building. Yet it’s not over-the-top at all.

Winston Churchill said “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”

The interiors and exteriors of places convey messages. We sense instantly if the vision for the place is mean or grand (not necessarily grand in size).

We sense instantly if the place is true to the vision or just to the bottom-line. 

Most of all, the design of places tells us everything about how the owners want to be perceived by the public. All my research has shown that when corners are cut the public somehow senses it and “marks down” the place.

Negative examples of the power of design

Another way of looking at the power of design is to study its negative impact upon the psyche. In his book Architecture of Authority, Richard Ross has shown a huge variety of very disturbing images described as “authority, tyranny...and morality”. They range from pictures of the segregation cells at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; the wooden “booking bench” in an LAPD holding centre (a long trestle with 20 or so sets of handcuffs fixed to it); shower stalls at Camp X-Ray and the like. These places issue threats and hideous consequences simply through their design. They were specifically designed to terrify and intimidate.

The double meanings of design

In a recent interview, Richard Ross said “I find it deliciously obvious that an interrogation room at LAPD Parker Center where O.J. Simpson was questioned (in the infamous 1990s murder case) is about the same dimensions as the confessional at a catholic church in Santa Barbara. But then, why not? Both seek to gain a confession for some form of absolution or mitigation of sentence. Both are intimate spaces designed to gain trust and allow secrets to be revealed.”