Saturday, March 24, 2007
This was the opening keynote.
Architect Prince-Ramus, spoke about a handful of projects on which he worked and, despite fairly radical end results, were designed for use rather than purely aesthetic. The expectation of the talk was that information architects would find parallels between information architecture and building architecture.
Project 1: Seattle Public LibraryResponded to challenge to create a space which would fulfill the varied expectations for a modern public library. Among the recognized conflicts is the growth of new technologies, on top of the existing, long-lived book technology. In parallel are increased expectations for an urban public library as community space. Both of these progressions are illustrated with the following graphs. In response, the architect attempted to designate a percentage to the “stable spaces” (book stacks, staff spaces, etc) and not allow the social spaces areas to encroach. In other words, both (or all) roles of the library…and all formats deserve a space.
One of the highlights of this building is that the book stacks are in one continuous spiral—much like a parking garage—within the building. This design provides a logical arrangement while also creating serendipity (users flow from one section to the next).
- There is no down escalator, in fact, to encourage the user to browse down the stacks.
- Call numbers are embedded in the floor at the end of each range.
- Elevator buttons which normally indicate floor are instead labeled with call numbers.
Possible Application to L&ET:
- Can make the same argument about stable versus unstable spaces in our environment? Our spaces seem to be in flux and our “stable” spaces (staffing, in particular) have encroached on social spaces, rather than the other way around.
- How do we label our elevator buttons in the stacks? In public areas?
- Embedded call numbers they way they did it don’t make sense for us (it looked somewhat permanent for them). I wonder about carpet squares with exchangable call numbers or an electronic display. Would the gain in navigation be worth the cost?
Project 2: CalTech Pasadena Information Sciences building
One of the early steps in this project was to chart out the different functions of the building spaces with colors—first, on a floor map and then stacked up into a bar graph. The end result looked much like a disk defrag graphic, and the conclusions may be somewhat similar.
In this building, as across the entire campus, the spaces were heavily intertwined. His point was that with everything all mixed up, users are less likely to visit that building because they can’t figure it out. Instead, they stay in a building that they’ve already learned, even though that building may be just as fragmented.
To clean it all up, the architect worked with the client to create clusters (research, factory, undergrads centers, Olympus were his labels). Like things were treated in like ways. For instance, staff office spaces ended up in a ring around the facility.
Possible Application to L&ET:
- He promoted fishbowl conference rooms which spark conversation, even from outside a team, and promote innovation. The poster sessions offered a similar idea from AOL—not fishbowl, though.
- The idea of defragging a space makes sense to me. Put like functions together and it seems like you’d get more efficiency.
- I think we’ve been thinking too inside the box about staff work spaces. Should we start looking at vertical space like we did with the double-decker carrels?
- An interesting observation from the architect…many architects (and the information architects I asked, too) work in large spaces where collaboration is easier. In fact, conversations from co-workers are seen less as distraction and more as a staying involved. He found that academics viewed collaborative space more as private offices with doors that could be opened.
- Are too committed to the traditional work day. Do we have staff that would prefer to work different schedules and share spaces?
Links for more info:
