Search results

Despite discussions about the universal work station, there is increasing workplace dynamics in US organisations. These dynamics include space configuration changes, space enclosure changes, changes in occupant density and increasing equipment density. At the same time, building infrastructures have not evolved to meet these demands, with little flexibility in the heating, ventilation and air‐conditioning (HVAC), lighting, or electrical/telecommunication systems of new or existing office buildings. This paper examines the effects of organisational workplace dynamics and building infrastructure flexibility on the environmental and technical quality of offices. Resulting from extensive field studies in US buildings, the authors contend that there are numerous statistically significant issues for the design and management of buildings for the dynamic organisation. The study identified numerous factors that affect thermal, air, lighting and technical quality in offices. In relation to infrastructure, for example, occupants who work in office areas provided with greater cooling capacity and more supply air volume, and combined with smaller HVAC zones, appeared to have higher levels of thermal satisfaction. Those who work in areas with higher outlet densities gave higher technical quality ratings; and those provided with relocatable outlets (raised floor and furniture based) gave significantly higher technical satisfaction ratings than those provided with least‐first‐cost ‘tombstones’. In relation to organisational dynamics, increasing occupant densities in existing buildings are related to more thermal and air quality complaints, more complaints about outlet accessibility, as well as more complaints about inadequate light levels on work surfaces. This paper will outline the major findings of a study linking organisational dynamics with building infrastructure, moving towards the definition of innovations in facility design that will more effectively support dynamic organisations.

This paper aims to examine how US architectural programs are addressing environmental imperatives through curricular‐based initiatives. It offers a brief overview of how environmentally conscious design education has evolved and compares curricular approaches to social, aesthetic, and technical sustainability education from six architecture programs considered to be national leaders in sustainability education.

Views from leading architectural programs on sustainable education were compiled and assessed leading to a curricular study of course and degree offerings.

It was found that four consistent approaches to undergraduate sustainable design education are being promoted: core value: all course content addresses sustainable design; systems‐focused: support courses fulfill needs for sustainable education; choice: sustainable education is through student selection of courses offerings; and specialization: sustainable education is a specialty endeavor mainly at the graduate level and in concert with centers or institutes. A new “composite” approach to sustainable design education is outlined.

Conclusions about architectural curricula were drawn from the assessment of a limited number of representative programs. The findings demonstrate that a technical‐course based approach from the specialist perspective still dominates most architecture programs.

The paper contributes to discourse on sustainability by examining how leading US architectural programs are currently addressing environmental imperatives through curricular‐based initiatives.

This paper concludes that a culturally based approach from a generalist perspective which encompasses systems knowledge and interactions among many disciplines is needed in design education.

Beyond architecture, the findings will be useful to many disciplinary domains considering the transition to a stronger, more fully integrated, environmentally focused curriculum.

Companies are redesigning their office space to encourage teamwork and break down hierarchies. But is the open office plan a cultural revolution or just more cost cutting?

The Merchandise Mart was crowded and regular elevator service was slow as usual as more than 55 000 people attended NEOCON 21 in Chicago.

The purpose of this paper is report to on the exploratory research into the application of usability concepts to the built environment conducted by a task group of the International Council for Building Research and Documentation (CIB TG51).

The objectives of the research were achieved through a series of case studies and associated workshops designed to identify and evaluate the ways in which stakeholders in projects were involved in decision making about building use and the methods and tools they used.

The research enabled a number of broad conclusions about the nature of usability as a concept and its application to the built environment and challenged the basis of conventional approaches to briefing and post‐occupancy evaluation.

The exploratory nature of the work clarified the research questions that need to be addressed in future work and raised a number of key conceptual, theoretical and methodological questions which will be explored in a further round of case studies.

The industrial partners, who were directly involved in the project, shared knowledge of user experience in the workplace and benefited from an independent review of the cases as a vehicle for discussing best practice. This enabled participants to receive feedback from leading‐edge organisations and provided new knowledge for action.

The paper sets out a novel approach to understanding user experience in the built environment and introduces examples from organisations that responding to the challenge of designing and managing buildings from a user perspective.