This post touches a fairly major nerve for me, for predictable reasons: I personally prefer very bright task lighting with fairly dim ambient light, and walls behind me, with reasonably low ceilings, and dedicated personal space, and the current trend in architectural thinking about office spaces is toward open-plan layouts, with lots of glass and no solid walls. Since it is usually framed as a concession to Sustainability-- since daylighting decreases lighting costs, and spaces that can be reconfigured by just moving furniture save on future construction costs-- this means that my personal preferences are often denounced (especially this semester) as being objectively wrong and probably harmful.
As for "how it's done," there are any number of ways, usually involving lots of glass with selective screening (louvers, brise-soleils, overhangs). The Genzyme Center is a big poster child, currently. It uses a lot of terracing, heliostats, and a big shiny mobile to get light into the interior. You can also look at other work by Behnisch and Foster, particularly the Commerzbank Tower.
To clarify, I'm not against sustainability as a design goal (as long as it is not the only design goal), but sometimes it is invoked blindly to defend ideological points. For example, extensive daylighting may have an adverse effect on heating and cooling loads, just as recycled materials may burn more fuel in transportation than non-recycled local materials.
i am somewhat indifferent to sustainability or efficiency when it comes to my personal ideal, which optimizes for my own happiness and productivity while doing my current job. i completely understand that exposing many software developers to an abundance of natural light makes them sad and nonproductive.
i've seen a few of the newer buildings on microsoft's campuses which move towards a more open layout and they just seem like nicer places to work in. where i am now i feel is small and sometimes cramped, a victim of orange-y fluorescent lighting and completely nonconducive to collaboration; instead promoting email culture and small insular groups making changes that are ultimately bad ideas. the overall culture is one such that almost no one ends up using the lounges for anything lounge-like.
As for "how it's done," there are any number of ways, usually involving lots of glass with selective screening (louvers, brise-soleils, overhangs). The Genzyme Center is a big poster child, currently. It uses a lot of terracing, heliostats, and a big shiny mobile to get light into the interior. You can also look at other work by Behnisch and Foster, particularly the Commerzbank Tower.
Reply
For example, extensive daylighting may have an adverse effect on heating and cooling loads, just as recycled materials may burn more fuel in transportation than non-recycled local materials.
Reply
i've seen a few of the newer buildings on microsoft's campuses which move towards a more open layout and they just seem like nicer places to work in. where i am now i feel is small and sometimes cramped, a victim of orange-y fluorescent lighting and completely nonconducive to collaboration; instead promoting email culture and small insular groups making changes that are ultimately bad ideas. the overall culture is one such that almost no one ends up using the lounges for anything lounge-like.
Reply
Leave a comment