This article was published in 1962, during
the age of faith on ‘endless frontier’ with development of science and
technology. Main point of this article is to spotlight the increasing
importance and emphasis on architectural structure of research laboratory. By
pointing out architectural fashion and style of the age, this article reveals
that the role of architects was increasing though it did not always meet
scientists' needs who worked inside of the building. Overall, this document
could be regarded as a primary source which illustrates the increasing concern
on how to design the research place to facilitate the research activity at the
age of one of the golden age of American science research.
According
to author, growing interest on architectural design of research place is due to
the amplification of support compare to pre-war age. Thus, science laboratory
was becoming a symbol of “temple of our century” which promises the development
and economic pay-off. For instance, modern art picture had to be on the wall,
and air conditioning system should be installed to enhance the productivity of
research work even in the room without window. To fit into rapidly changing
research structure, walls of building had to be removable, so that scientists
could literally reassemble their research spaces.
However,
obsessive emphasis on functional design of laboratory space did not always work
for scientists. For author, modern laboratory was losing the humanity component
which old style laboratory such as Cavendish laboratory had acquired. One
scientist in IBM laboratory confessed that “it taken me one year to learn to
live in this building.”
Then,
what was the road to take? Author claimed that architects' focus should be
beyond the designing of efficient space. For instance, how to organize the
research place in ‘human scale’ in big science to maximize the intimate
collaboration and creativity? Thus, “the best kind of architect for a research
facility is one who understands the creative process.”
1) What were the factors behind the boom of
research space design during the 1960s? Research fund boom was probably merely
one of factors. For instance, rise of modernism in architecture which does not
hide the function of the space could be one factor.
2) Was the architectural design of research
laboratory fundamentally new phenomena during the 1960s? I can immediately
recall research by Owen Hanaway on the case of Tycho Brache’s Uraniborg design.
Space design of research institute has always been one of important concerns
when scientists build the research place.
3) On the other hand, is the design of
space exclusively important in research laboratory? Design of workshop,
factory, and even the business office has been a concern of historians and
sociologists in terms of how design of such places represents not only the
function of the place, but also the meaning of the place in broader social
context.
4) Directly linked to the third question –
what are the relationships between function and symbol? In other words, design
of research space has both functionalistic and symbolic purposes. Are they two
independent factors? Or, are they two sides of coin?
No comments:
Post a Comment