A
Synthesis of Design, Method
and Opportuity |
| I
first started thinking seriously about the work
structure of office design in the early 60s. Like
many of that era, I promoted the concept of a more
open office design. In a series of un-built projects,
I explored these options but found no takers. The
old model of office held sway. Herman Miller
ultimately cracked the mold and the rest is history.
This concept, also, became entrenched and dogmatic
and has failed to evolve in a way necessary to repair
its many defects. In time, I became even more opposed
to the so called “open” office than the
traditional office. |
| I
have a number of objections to the presently pervasive
approach to office design. These go, primarily to
the root of the concept of the office. I am not concerned,
here, with arguments of esthetics. Obviously, one
would rather have a well designed environment rather
than a poor one, or - as in more often the case -
a hack that in no way can be considered at all.
It is most often true, unfortunately, that the issues
that I address in this document are as prevalent
in
“good” architecture (as it is conventionally
defined) as in “bad.” |
|
Matt
Taylor
Camelot
September 27, 2003
|
SolutionBox
voice of this document:
INSIGHT • POLICY • PROGRAM
|
posted:
September 27, 2003
revised:
October 11, 2003
• 20030927.183928.mt • 20031011.123931.mt •
(note:
this document is about 5% finished)
Copyright© Matt
Taylor 2003
Aspects
of work shown here is Patented by iterations and
in Patent Pending
|
|
|
