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 | |
|
