 |
Agents of Transformation and the "Death" of Urbanism Preeminence of the Decorated Shed Staging Uncertainty |
[2S5]
THE WORKPLACE REVISITED.
Proponents of corporate strategic planning question the current situation from a similar viewpoint: "If we are willing to invest our cars with his and her thermal control, ventilation control, operable windows, task air and task light for two hours a day, why are we unwilling to invest in our workstations where 8 to 10 hours of productive work must take place?"108 This question should not only apply to the workstation, but also to the workplace. John Seller discusses the importance of design in the office: Influencing behavior is almost all of what management is about, and buildings influence behavior. Failure to wring every benefit out of the most expensive capital asset most companies ever have would not be countenanced in any other aspect of corporate life... Taking advantage of the behavior-stimulating opportunities in buildings requires an understanding of corporate strategy and an interest and skill in making buildings share the burden of implementing strategy.109
One begins to question, then, if Typical Plan evolved purely in the interest of flexibility, or in the interest of economy. Given the question above about why workstations are not invested with the same features as a car, I would argue the latter. The simple fact is that if the workplace – in which technology has always been of fundamental importance – were better engineered, it could only be better architecturally. And, as with the vehicle, the machine, or the body, good engineering and good design are mutually beneficial (and in many cases, indistinguishable). Given this viewpoint, one could imagine a workplace in which production is streamlined, and the act of working is facilitated by high quality services and amenities. Design should be considered integral to, not separate from, the implementation of these services and amenities. Furthermore, when we consider the shift in importance away from the physical façade, we need to shift the focus from the entryway to the workspace, and from the ornament to the substance. In their study entitled "A Vision of the New Workplace," Francis Duffy and Jack Tanis offer this point: [Currently] little or no linkage exists between the strategic view of the organization and the design of physical space. Management consultants rarely focus on the importance of physical space as a means of facilitating behavioral and organizational change. The new gurus talk about vision or strategic intent of companies, but usually architects and suppliers of physical space are not given much opportunity to link the process of designing office space with such strategies. Architects... can be strategically vital in addressing these issues, but management is not tapping into these resources.110
108Hartkopf, Volker with Vivian Loftness and Jay Shankavaram, "Facility Managers as Indispensable Partners in Corporate Strategic Planning" in World Workplace Conference Proceedings, Volume II (Houston: IFMA, 1996) p. 732 109Seller, John A., "Architecture at Work" in Harvard Business Review 110Duffy, Francis and Jack Tanis, "A Vision of the New Workplace" in ID (April 1993) p. 5-6 Images: 1. Photo by Katsuhisa Hasegawa, 2. The Business Center, 3. The Cubicles Continue..., 4. Hayworth "Ideation Group" Sketches |
However, there
is a counter-balancing device to this field: the entryway. The corporate entryway (or
atrium, lobby, foyer, etc.) serves to establish a mediating space between public and
private activities. In the corporate world, this semi-public space which acts as a
reception area is as predictable as the offices it serves. It establishes a front door to
the world, through which access and movement can be easily monitored and controlled. It is
the new façade. The entryway presents the best public face of a company or organization,
and is therefore afforded the most design attention (a strategy also found in the suburban
house). Predictably, while the entryway is often endowed with luxury, the office space is
treated economically; a phenomenon which I call the ‘back burner’ effect.
Ironically, the important operations of the company take place in the zone with the least
architectural investment. An equivalent strategy would be to disguise a mediocre engine
with a fancy car body, or to apply makeup to a sickly person. As I have said before, it is
not that appearances are unimportant, but a healthy appearance should radiate from a
healthy body, just as a beautiful car should have a well-built engine, and a masterful
work of architecture should possess a well-designed interior. And, as with the analogies
of the body or the vehicle, good design means operation-based design.
Indeed, why are
buildings not invested with the same level of service, support, and comfort – not to
mention aesthetics – as automobiles? One reason might be that automobiles are
mass-produced, and therefore more economical; yet most building components are also
mass-produced. Another reason comes from the prolonged schism between architecture and
engineering, with architects positioned at the top of the building-production hierarchy.
Mike Ablon, the architecture-trained vice president of Alliance Development Company once
said that "if you skimp on the engineering, you can put more money back into
architectural details [of a building]." The problem with this mentality is that it
asserts that outward appearance is more important than interior function (it is no
surprise that he worked for Robert Venturi for several years). Perhaps he prefers a
well-decorated, tasteless cake to a delicious one with a simple appearance. In any event,
this attitude – which leads to design-impoverished buildings – is widespread,
and makes little sense considering the attention we pay to the ‘engineering’ of
our vehicles, our machines, and our bodies.
A Master's Thesis in Architecture at Rice University by Blaine Brownell. Copyright © 1998 by Blaine Brownell. All rights reserved. |
