致旨为工作场所之设计者

这是门跨学科，而非普遍概念下的设计研讨会。旨为建筑系硕士生所设计，但同时对不动产中心以及其它相关领域中，想从设计过程中获益、但本身却非设计者的学生也适用。参与本研讨会的主要资格，在于对这门课的兴趣、参与的强烈渴望，并具体指出那些在下一回经济复苏所需求的办公大楼中形式、品质、形象与性能之新潮流。

本研讨会将探讨一位名为Ada Louise Huxtable的建筑评论家，在2003年1月7日的《华尔街期刊》中发表重新发展灾区现场提案等广受积极讨论中的重要部份。该提案指出：“无论双子星大楼于日月映照之下是多么令人印象深刻、透过灾难性疾病保险法错误地与它们连结的象征为何，我们真地要再重蹈覆彻吗？”问题的背后，透露出Huxtable女士认为无论建筑设计如何出色、新兴的使用者需求形式为何，市贸中心遗址、不切实际的财务及政治期望的惰性，将是难以克服的理念。

对于身为欧洲建筑师的我而言，相距三十年后再度重回美国生活，针对相同的问题个人观感却已截然不同。过往的三十多年来，我已经历了伦敦、法兰克福、斯德哥尔摩与巴黎等办公大楼中一连串的卓越改善以及规格方面的创新设计。这些概念都是为了因应全球化商业、组织文化民主化等方面经济、社会以及科技情况的改变，同时也因应了各种不同的能源与环境危机、如设备管理等新兴职业的成长，其中最重要的，乃是纷乱的资讯科技所带来的钜大影响。观察美国办公大楼的设计在同一段时间内成长地多么缓慢，是多么不可思议呀。这儿真的一成不变吗？一样的基础发展模式却仍持续着。相同的办公大楼一而再、再而三地建构而立。

研讨会的问题着重于：

• 过去三十年来美国办公室的发展背景中改变了什么？哪些又未曾改变？
• 美国的办公室市场中的更新以及明显缺乏产品发展的兴趣原因为何？
• 诸如租屋与使用者需求、商业文化、局部选择、财务与赞助，租赁安排、科技、营造技术中，什么可能的改变能够证明与激发创新？
• 开发者利用这些改变的商业诱因为何？
• 当供给者特别留意到新兴使用者的需求时，办公室发展的产品、服务及建筑特色的创新可能导致什么发生？

没有考试。每个学生的成绩评定如下

1. 持续地为研讨会的课程贡献自己的意见，包括其中的阅读
   
2. 批判性地评估目前发展实务的说明能力
   
3. 探索设计如何得以连结供给与需求的议题之能力
   
4. 想像力、初始动机及五月上旬期末报告中的实务说明

研讨会课程的最后部份，将要求每个学生（或每组学生）以报告的形式向适当的开发者（如Gerald Hines）或提供服务者（如Regus）发展创新特色、产品或服务的案例。该报告包括市场分析、提案特征的详细叙述（非设计）、善加证明后颇获支持的产品与服务，与极具说服力且证实创意的商业案例。由于口头报告将于最后一堂课举行，在这之前办公室发展界的知名人士将受邀前听。学生们的想法必须具有说服力、实际且有效地掌握听者的注意力。口头报告与讨论的标准必须是高水准的。

期末口头报告步骤安排如下：

• 目前由各大城市如波士顿与纽约所主导，办公室发展过程的探索。
• 分析开发者与供给者相对保守地位的分析。
• 改变要素的探索。
• 口头报告的进展情况。

提议研讨会的成果将可于学期结束后在地产权产业会议之一中呈现，如芝加哥的Realcom。此概念是否得以进行将于学期初决定。

举例来说，若无明确有力的理由，作品可由建筑系与不动产中心的若干组学生共同呈现。

• 了解建筑与商业努力中的重要领域
• 探索介于设计与新兴使用者需求的关系；
• 分析及报告技巧的培养；
• 与来自麻省理工学院中的众多访问者，更重要的，与主要的发展者、经纪人、产品与服务供给者与建筑师彼此接触；
• 洞察共同研究建筑及不动产中心主导的专题之可能性。
• 个人产品发展机会。

本研讨会乃是由麻省理工学院访问教授及国际建筑暨谘询实务DEGW的创办者Francis Duffy所主讲的第四系列课程，专业项目为一因应使用者需求工作与学习环境的设计。

四个最初的公众研讨会（2001年春季课程）为三年系列的研讨会做准备。第一个研讨会（2001年秋季课程）检视一系列案例研究中工作场所的创新设计。纪录了过程与成品中最令人感兴趣的不同点。第二个研讨会（2002年春季课程）着重在“缺失的产品”──学生的主要任务在于定义且详细说明，那些于传统办公室产品供给者目录与不动产服务“工作新纪元”的服务与产品中不足之处。第三个研讨会（2002年秋季课程）乃是评估重新成立的麻省理工学院航空暨天文实验室，与一系列定义明确的教学目标间的关系。每个学生并创造且测试衡量建筑性能的方法。

For Whom the Workplace is Intended

This is an interdisciplinary workshop, not a design workshop in the ordinary sense. It is certainly intended for graduate students in architecture but also for students in the Center for Real Estate (CRE), and for students in other related disciplines, who are interested in getting the most out of the design process but are not themselves necessarily designers. The main qualification for taking part in the Workshop is an interest in, and an urgent desire to do something about, specifying the type, quality, image and performance of the new wave of speculative office buildings that will be needed in the next cycle of economic recovery.

The workshop will address an important part of the general question vigorously posed by Ada Louise Huxtable, the architectural critic of The Wall Street Journal in her 7 January 2003 article on the proposals for the redevelopment of Ground Zero: "However impressive the twin towers were in sunlight or moonlight, whatever symbolism is now falsely attached to them through a catastrophic act, do we really need to make the same mistakes again?" Behind this question lies Ms. Huxtable's sense that however brilliantly architects design, and whatever patterns of user demand are emerging, the constraints of the program for the WTC site, the inertia of unrealistic financial and political expectations will be very hard to overcome.

To a European architect like myself, living once again in the US after a thirty year gap, a more personal version of the same question occurs. I have experienced over the last three decades an extraordinary sequence of improvements and innovations in the design and specification of office buildings in London, Frankfurt, Stockholm and Paris. These new ideas are all responses to changes in economic, social and technological circumstances, e.g. the globalization of business, the democratization of organizational culture, responses to various energy and environmental crises, the growth of new professions such as Facilities Management and, above all, the massive impact of distributed information technology. It is amazing to observe how little the design of the US speculative office buildings seems to have changed in the same period. Can it be really true that nothing has changed here? Yet the same basic developmental model persists. The same office buildings are being built over and over again.

The questions the workshop will address are:

• What has and has not changed over the last three decades in the context of office development in the US?
• What are the causes of the apparent current lack of interest in product development and renewal in the office market in the US?
• What likely changes, e.g. in tenant and user demand, in business culture, in locational choice, in financial and funding practice, in leasing arrangements, in technology, in constructional technique, could justify and stimulate innovation?
• What commercial incentives would it take for developers to take advantage of such changes?
• What innovations in new building features, products and services for office development would be likely to result, especially if emerging user demand were to be taken seriously by suppliers?

There is no exam. Each student's work will be evaluated on

1. ongoing contributions to the workshop sessions including readings,
   
2. demonstrated ability to critically evaluate current development practice,
   
3. ability to explore how design can be a bridge between supply and demand issues and
   
4. imagination, initiative and practicality demonstrated at the final presentation in early May.

For the final session of the workshop each student (or pair of students) would be expected to develop a case for an innovative feature, product or service in the form of a presentation to an appropriate developer (such as Gerald Hines) or service provider (such as Regus). The presentation will include a market analysis, a thorough description (but not design) of the proposed feature, product or service supported by a well argued and coherent business case justifying the innovation. Since the presentations will be given at the last class before an invited audience consisting of notable figures in the office development world, student ideas will have to be cogent, realistic and well worked out to grab attention. The standard of presentation and argument will need to be equally professional.

The build up to the final presentation will be in the following stages:

• An exploration of the office development process as it is currently conducted in cities such as Boston and New York;
• An analysis of the reasons for the relatively conservative positions of developers and suppliers;
• An exploration of factors for change;
• The development of the presentations.

It has been proposed that the results of the workshop could be presented after the end of term to one of the property industry conventions, such as the Realcom event in Chicago. The decision whether to go ahead with this idea will be made early in the term.

Work may be presented by pairs of students, if there is a cogent reason, for example, a partnership between an Architectural student and a student in the Center for Real Estate.

• Understanding of an important field of architectural and commercial endeavour;
• An exploration of the relationship between design and emerging user requirements;
• Development of analytical and presentational skills;
• Contacts with a variety of visitors from within MIT and, more importantly perhaps, leading developers, brokers, product and service suppliers and architects;
• Insights into possible joint research projects to be conducted jointly by Architecture and CREE;
• Personal product development opportunities.

This workshop is the fourth of a series being conducted by Francis Duffy, visiting professor at MIT and founder of the international architectural and consulting practice, DEGW, which specializes in the design of working and learning environments that respond to changes in user demand.

Four initial public seminars (Spring 2001) set the scene for the three year series of workshops. The First Workshop (Fall 2001) examined innovation in the design of the workplace through a series of case studies. Interesting differences both in process and end product were recorded. The Second Workshop (Spring 2002) focussed on 'Missing Products' - the main task was for students to define and specify services and products for 'New Ways of Working' that are still missing from the catalogues of conventional suppliers of office products and real estate services. The Third Workshop (Fall 2002) was an evaluation of the performance of the newly renovated MIT Aero/Astro laboratory in relation to a series of very well defined pedagogical objectives. Each student created and tested a means of measuring an aspect of building performance.