致旨為工作場所之設計者

這是門跨學科，而非普遍概念下的設計研討會。旨為建築系碩士生所設計，但同時對不動產中心以及其它相關領域中，想從設計過程中獲益、但本身卻非設計者的學生也適用。參與本研討會的主要資格，在於對這門課的興趣、參與的強烈渴望，並具體指出那些在下一回經濟復甦所需求的辦公大樓中形式、品質、形象與性能之新潮流。

本研討會將探討一位名為Ada Louise Huxtable的建築評論家，在2003年1月7日的《華爾街期刊》中發表重新發展災區現場提案等廣受積極討論中的重要部份。該提案指出：「無論雙子星大樓於日月映照之下是多麼令人印象深刻、透過災難性疾病保險法錯誤地與它們連結的象徵為何，我們真地要再重蹈覆徹嗎？」問題的背後，透露出Huxtable女士認為無論建築設計如何出色、新興的使用者需求形式為何，市貿中心遺址、不切實際的財務及政治期望的惰性，將是難以克服的理念。

對於身為歐洲建築師的我而言，相距三十年後再度重回美國生活，針對相同的問題個人觀感卻已截然不同。過往的三十多年來，我已經歷了倫敦、法蘭克福、斯德哥爾摩與巴黎等辦公大樓中一連串的卓越改善以及規格方面的創新設計。這些概念都是為了因應全球化商業、組織文化民主化等方面經濟、社會以及科技情況的改變，同時也因應了各種不同的能源與環境危機、如設備管理等新興職業的成長，其中最重要的，乃是紛亂的資訊科技所帶來的鉅大影響。觀察美國辦公大樓的設計在同一段時間內成長地多麼緩慢，是多麼不可思議呀。這兒真的一成不變嗎？一樣的基礎發展模式卻仍持續著。相同的辦公大樓一而再、再而三地建構而立。

研討會的問題著重於：

• 過去三十年來美國辦公室的發展背景中改變了什麼？哪些又未曾改變？
• 美國的辦公室市場中的更新以及明顯缺乏產品發展的興趣原因為何？
• 諸如租屋與使用者需求、商業文化、局部選擇、財務與贊助，租賃安排、科技、營造技術中，什麼可能的改變能夠證明與激發創新？
• 開發者利用這些改變的商業誘因為何？
• 當供給者特別留意到新興使用者的需求時，辦公室發展的產品、服務及建築特色的創新可能導致什麼發生？

沒有考試。每個學生的成績評定如下

1. 持續地為研討會的課程貢獻自己的意見，包括其中的閱讀
   
2. 批判性地評估目前發展實務的說明能力
   
3. 探索設計如何得以連結供給與需求的議題之能力
   
4. 想像力、初始動機及五月上旬期末報告中的實務說明

研討會課程的最後部份，將要求每個學生（或每組學生）以報告的形式向適當的開發者（如Gerald Hines）或提供服務者（如Regus）發展創新特色、產品或服務的案例。該報告包括市場分析、提案特徵的詳細敘述（非設計）、善加證明後頗獲支持的產品與服務，與極具說服力且證實創意的商業案例。由於口頭報告將於最後一堂課舉行，在這之前辦公室發展界的知名人士將受邀前聽。學生們的想法必須具有說服力、實際且有效地掌握聽者的注意力。口頭報告與討論的標準必須是高水準的。

期末口頭報告步驟安排如下：

• 目前由各大城市如波士頓與紐約所主導，辦公室發展過程的探索。
• 分析開發者與供給者相對保守地位的分析。
• 改變要素的探索。
• 口頭報告的進展情況。

提議研討會的成果將可於學期結束後在地產權產業會議之一中呈現，如芝加哥的Realcom。此概念是否得以進行將於學期初決定。

舉例來說，若無明確有力的理由，作品可由建築系與不動產中心的若干組學生共同呈現。

• 了解建築與商業努力中的重要領域
• 探索介於設計與新興使用者需求的關係；
• 分析及報告技巧的培養；
• 與來自麻省理工學院中的眾多訪問者，更重要的，與主要的發展者、經紀人、產品與服務供給者與建築師彼此接觸；
• 洞察共同研究建築及不動產中心主導的專題之可能性。
• 個人產品發展機會。

本研討會乃是由麻省理工學院訪問教授及國際建築暨諮詢實務DEGW的創辦者Francis Duffy所主講的第四系列課程，專業項目為一因應使用者需求工作與學習環境的設計。

四個最初的公眾研討會（2001年春季課程）為三年系列的研討會做準備。第一個研討會（2001年秋季課程）檢視一系列案例研究中工作場所的創新設計。紀錄了過程與成品中最令人感興趣的不同點。第二個研討會（2002年春季課程）著重在「缺失的產品」──學生的主要任務在於定義且詳細說明，那些於傳統辦公室產品供給者目錄與不動產服務「工作新紀元」的服務與產品中不足之處。第三個研討會（2002年秋季課程）乃是評估重新成立的麻省理工學院航空暨天文實驗室，與一系列定義明確的教學目標間的關係。每個學生並創造且測試衡量建築性能的方法。

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.