Neuro-architecting at Krasnow: July 2005

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Assumption 4, Part II: Hubs & nodes and the links between them

“The genius of Harold Morowitz is that he has pulled a dynamic group of interdisciplinary people together.”
“People are nice here. They are willing to share ideas, not compete with each other.”
“We are a communal group – we are a collection of people who want to work together.”
“I am concerned that there is no space devoted to the interactions (gathering spaces) needed to do science in the new addition. Adequate space for people to gather is as critical as space for people to think, and space for lab benches.”

I left off in Assumption 4 by saying, “Collaboration builds bridges between the interdisciplinary types of research taking place at Krasnow. The architecture should promote community, versus isolation, in order to fully capitalize on the diverse knowledge of its inhabitants.”

An organization’s organization can have a physical complement where the architecture becomes an articulation of the "organizational flow chart”. Communal spaces in the form of hubs & nodes and the links between them can provide opportunities for spontaneous interaction – and the collaboration which so characterizes the Krasnow Institute - to occur.

In your words ….

You have identified hubs & nodes that “work” in promoting collaboration:
The downstairs lunch room:
- The downstairs lunch room is fabulous: It is an accessible, open space, with a big round (non-hierarchical) table, windows, white boards and a coffee station which together make collaboration happen. It also provides an opportunity to do science with visitors.
- The “Lunch Room” serves us not only as a lunch room, but also as a place to hold group meetings, conferences and informal gatherings.

You have identified hubs & nodes that do “not work”, acting as obstacles to collaboration:
The Kitchen:
- the kitchen is way too small - This is the smallest lunch room of anywhere I have worked.
- the large vending machine took out space that allowed multiple people to “hang out”.
- The kitchen is not effective: taking lunch requires going elsewhere and wastes at least an hour.
- Since we are not allowed to eat in the lab – where do I go?
- If there is no where to eat lunch, people will tend to keep to themselves (by eating alone in their office).
- Maintaining a single watering hole would be nice so we don’t fragment the staff.
Labs:
- The worst thing you can do to a PI is remove them from the lab. They need to have a direct unimpeded path, yet separation, with the data collection and data analysis that is being conducted.

Krasnow’s current linear structure marked by long, horizontal hallways and cellular, segmented offices and labs does not facilitate collaboration and teamwork. This is especially true for the “upstairs culture” which is shaped by its long corridor versus the more organic “hub” created by the lunchroom downstairs; says one upstairs resident: “my daily rountine is to enter the building, check my mail, and go to my office for the day”. In general, Krasnow lacks “lingering spaces”, places to pause – to read someone’s poster hanging on the wall, or to chat with a colleague in the hallway. Another means of increasing the odds of people collaborating is to increase the chances that their paths will intersect; that is, to optimize the number of physical and visual paths and connections between nodes & hubs.

With respect to the new addition, it is important to promote the existing collaborative spirit so that a fractured culture between new and old does not result. The addition, in turn, needs to physically promote collaboration within itself and with dialogue back to the existing facility.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Assumption 4: Krasnow is Interdisciplinary …

… and moreover, builds bridges among disciplines.

This is such a loaded topic that it must be further subdivided into more specific categories:

1. Krasnow is interdisciplinary both experimentally and theoretically. As such, there need to be distinct spaces for both experimental and theoretical study to happen. As listed on the website homepage, the interdisciplinary types of research being conducted here include: “cognitive psychology, neurobiology, and the computer-driven study of artificial intelligence and complex adaptive systems”.

2. Krasnow’s interdisciplinary studies have implications both academically and professionally, for education and application.

3. Collaboration builds bridges between the interdisciplinary types of research taking place at Krasnow. The architecture should promote community, versus isolation, in order to fully capitalize on the diverse knowledge of its inhabitants. This concept will be furthered explored in a blog to follow.

* I would like to offer my apologies to those I have interviewed and referred to Krasnow as a “Neuroscience Institute”. This is an example of how the interview process can correct misconceptions and reveal information in such a way as to provide an enhanced understanding of what is actually taking place here.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Assumption 3: We like our trees.

“sylvan”, “ski lodge”, “a wildlife habitat”, “tucked in the vegetation”, “natural”, “ambient”

These are all descriptors of how Krasnow characterizes its building-site relationship. Though we have already alluded to this earlier (refer to July 7 “Trees” post and comments), it is certainly worth declaring formally:

We like our trees.

I have learned that many of you spend the majority of your waking hours (including weekends) at Krasnow. Some of you take walks in the woods on campus trails; some of you can only experience the woods from afar. In each experience, the trees are not only beautiful, but also functional as they provide relief and escape from the intense work and a sterile interior in a way that energizes you to push forward. The view beyond the windows, through the trees, tells stories animated by the family of fox and deer who live here, and the trees as a vertical backdrop serves as an indicator of seasons. I have been told: “the great room is the best part of the building, and it is the trees that make it great”. Whether viewed from the large windows of the great room, or the smaller windows of an office, the line of forest spreads out and wraps the building, acting as a protective membrane which encircles and connects the disparate rooms and people: "It is only 20 – 30 yards of forest, but it is enough".

Clearly there is concern about removing the trees – and, worst case scenario, implementing a “concrete jungle”. Here are some of the related architectural implications you have proposed regarding the construction:
- All offices should take advantage of our natural asset and be awarded a view of the trees.
- If we build higher (more floors), we can reduce the building footprint and save more trees. (The opposing argument is that the greater the number of floors, the more barriers/degrees of separation between floors exist).
- An outside wooded courtyard or patio could take advantage of an exterior experience of our trees.
- Bringing live plants into the building could pull that vegetative connection from exterior to interior.
- There is the potential for a cooperative vegetable/flower garden to be maintained by interested individuals. Since people spend so much time here, it could be like having a piece of “home away from home”.
- The current minimal landscape intervention is successful because it does not compete with natural environment and trees. The new site plan should adopt a similar approach to landscaping.

(We all enjoy reading each others comments – keep them coming!)

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Assumption 2: Labs must be flexible

I am reminded of a lecture I attended by an architect who was investigating residential neighborhoods in San Diego, California as compared to those in Tijuana, Mexico. The architect found that the same master-planned, tract house communities could be placed in both San Diego and in Tijuana, but over time the architecture and interstitial spaces (the area between the houses) aged and transformed along vastly different trajectories because of the different cultures and demands placed on the residences:

Whereas the gated communities of San Diego remain closed systems due to stringent zoning that prohibits any kind of formal alteration or programmatic juxtaposition, housing tracts in Tijuana quickly submit to transformation by occupants …. The ways in which occupants customize their tract houses - filling in setbacks, occupying front and back yards as well as garages with more construction and overlapping programs …. are perceived as open systems, their inherent uniformity giving way to occupants' collective desire for functionality and flexibility, for the freedom to activate improvisational, higher-density, and mixed uses ….

The imitation tract housing developments in Tijuana …. are inspiring and liberating in their search for strategies of improvisation, layering, juxtaposition, and negotiation of a territory conceived as an operative and flexible horizon.

-From “Border Postcard: Chronicles from the Edge”, by Teddy Cruz. The American Institute of Architects, 2005. http://www.aia.org/cod_lajolla_042404_teddycruz

In lieu of tract housing, the architect Teddy Cruz proposed that Tijuana needed a more fluid, organic architecture that would allow for change and growth in order to accommodate this fluid, organic aspect of its culture.

The parallel here is that Krasnow also has an evolving and organic nature (which, I have been told, is characteristic of a research institution). Therefore, labs must be flexible (aka Assumption 2) because:

1. The forced transformation/reconfiguration and re-appropriation of space and boundaries that is taking place at Krasnow is inhibited by the existing architecture, for example ….
- Storage space has been “created” in the hall in order to open up room in the lab with the result being that the room numbers are obscured and it can be difficult for visitors to find their way because of the visual congestion.

- The corridors are reduced in size which deter stopping for conversation as this will block traffic flow.
- Workspaces and offices have expanded into the hall which makes it uncomfortable for both the user - who is continually distracted and exposed - and for the passers-by - who may feel guilty for distracting those trying to work.
- Retrofitting is expensive.
- Expensive equipment is allocated to small spaces and placed on “homemade” furniture which may prevent the equipment from working properly.

2. Future demands will necessitate flexibility ...
- Different types of research require different arrangements and infrastructure. We don’t yet know who will occupy the new labs. Different research typologies also require different boundary conditions, for example, thick, insulated, shielded walls are needed for the fMRI room, and thin, transparent partitions are needed between subject and investigator for some behavioral studies.
- Equipment and technology evolve and change.
- Funding changes – research groups grow and shrink.

- Different collaborations and proximities arise when equipment sharing can take place.
- Krasnow itself will grow – we need to accommodate later expansions in a way that does not compromise the existing facilities.

It is very encouraging that the architects have been asked to address this need - part of the proposal evaluation is how each design accommodates flexibility. One stipulation already in place is a strategy for dealing with the demising walls between labs: these will be built devoid of services so they can easily be reconfigured. Power will be brought in from above and below, versus in the walls.

The hypothesis then is that employing such architectural solutions to increase flexibility will result in increased functionality.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Assumption 1: Growth will result in change

With 19 interviews completed, I am at the point of having enough raw data to begin to propose some design assumptions which can – with further clarification and direction – be formulated into design principles and criteria to be passed along to the selected architect, and ideally incorporated into the Krasnow Institute’s design. Though these assumptions may seem obvious, they are nonetheless worth stating – putting on the table for further elaboration and dissection.

Assumption 1: Growth will result in change.
Just like the addition of a new baby, the family dynamics at Krasnow will be altered to accommodate the new construction. Though we (the Krasnow Institute) welcome this change, we are concerned about how it will affect the way we live and work at Krasnow, both short term and long term. More specifically, …

How will the fMRI affect me? (For additional insights, refer to the Director’s Blog June 28 entry, “Why putting the magnet in the current Krasnow makes sense”)
- The fMRI is known to create a lot of noise that would potentially interfere with my research and physical comfort.
- Will there be an increased traffic flow of general public (the subjects) coming to Krasnow to be used in the scanner experiments?
- How will the health and environmental implications of pollutants be handled: radio, magnetic, noise, vibration, field?
- Will the scanner be able to get quality electrical power? This equipment is very expensive to service in the event of interrupted power.
- Will the scanner have dedicated power that will not affect the electrical distribution to the existing circuits and demands?
- How can we ensure professional safety practices are upheld (one incidence report could be enough to shut the scanner down)?
- Will everyone have access to or training on the fMRI? Having this piece of equipment is a wonderful opportunity for me to build my professional skills and experiences.

Parking: the number of building occupants is subject to increase, and the current number of parking spots are not sufficient to accommodate additional faculty and staff.
- The other lots are a distance away

Construction conditions could be disruptive to my work.
- Traffic and related congestion and security issues – Will the construction schedule be limited to certain days/hours? Can the existing facility still maintain restricted access?
- Noise/vibration from equipment.
- Dirt, dust and “critters’ may be stirred up and in increased presence.
- Where will I be working? Will people have be displaced from rooms/offices/labs on a temporary or permanent basis on account of construction?
- Will the connection of the new addition and the existing building eradicate offices or the seminar room?

Types of research and laboratories may negatively affect one another.
- Increased presence of animals.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

It's not set in stone

The new addition is not “set in stone”, although as many of you pointed out to me in the interviews, it is very apparently “set in foam board”: rendered in physical form in the lobby model case (recently relocated to the entry vestibule), complete with window panes and shading structures.

So, as Jerry Seinfeld might say, “what’s the deal with that?”. There is an assumption that the addition has already been planned and designed to be a 3-story structure situated at an angle projecting from the north end of the existing building - as indicated in the model.

Here's the scoop: The model was commissioned when the university had anticipated using the same architect who designed the original building also to design the building addition. The model provided a way to sell the idea of the expansion in order to raise money and support.

At some point, the architect selection process was opened up to three architectural firms who would compete for the design of the addition. As am I writing this, the three competing architectural teams are at their respective “drawing boards” fleshing out attempts to answer notions of how it should look, be sited, and attach to the existing building.

The architect who designed the original building (and the lobby model) is one of these three competing teams. However, even this architect’s design, if selected, is not likely to resemble the lobby model exactly because the addition on the model crosses a small parcel of land, an easement, owned by a utility company (look for the overhead wires/cables at the north end of the building; this marks the bounds of the easement).

I thought it was important to convey the story of the lobby model for a few reasons… so you are not surprised and confused should the final product look nothing like you expected, and also to assure you that your input does count – it is not set in stone.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Neuroscience and Architecture

As you may know, I am involved with the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA). In the course of the interviews, many of you have stated, “I do not understand what neuroscience has to do with architecture”. Yesterday I came across this article in a past (ANFA) Newsletter that I thought was a good “short answer” response to describing what neuroscience has to do with architecture:

Given the brain's perception of space at the level of architectural experiences, or more specifically the human response to places, it is clear that "space matters". The attributes of space ranging from shapes, to color, thermal conditions, light (both natural and artificial), and sound are perceived by our sensory systems, processed through the thalamus and midbrain, and sent to the cortex to be recognized in a conscious way. All of this is done in microseconds. The architect Frank Pitts has said, "If we truly knew what happens in the brain when humans experience space, and if we knew why they have these experiences, then we would be able (as architects) to approach design with a much deeper knowledge base, be creative at another level, design something that really sings. Now, we make too many mistakes."
SCAN, Issue 3, Spring 2005

For further information, you can refer to the following websites:
www.anfarch.org
http://www.architecture-mind.com/

Great to see the comments coming in! Thanks for posting.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Trees

"It is the marriage of the soul with Nature that makes the intellect fruitful, and gives birth to imagination." - Thoreau

Nature often provides a poetic stimulation that can feed the soul and inspire us to greatness. In the course of interviewing one respondent, a more literal connection of nature to his scientific work was revealed which I found especially moving:
“the trees (woodlands) are a source of inspiration in my study because the branching helps me visualize neurons.” The window acts as a “microscope in the office” providing a view of “enlarged neurons”.

The Great Room

The amount of time in which people physically occupy the Great Room is not proportional to the amount of comments that I am receiving about this space … the room certainly does seem to have a “greatness” factor that is causing such a passionate reaction.

Certainly the Great Room has "great" features: it is open, has vaulted ceilings, wood floors, and a hearth. It has views through many large windows; as one respondent said, “It is nice to feel like you are outside without leaving the building”. However, there is concern that it is not being used, that is not being used the right way, and that it is not useful. Therefore, how can it most effectively be used?

I decided to see what other universities were calling “Great Rooms” and found 2 general program use typologies:
1. a casual, communal lounge promoting private study, relaxation and spontaneous interaction.
2. a ceremonial space for formal gatherings and special occasions, often rented out to unaffiliated groups

I know that the Krasnow’s Great Room ideally accomplishes both program types at different times. Elements such as the hearth and “openness to all” reinforce that the Great Room is indeed a place of gathering and coming together. However, as Jim Olds pointed out in his blog “Upstairs Downstairs” (http://krasnow.blogspot.com/), there is a larger opportunity for academic and social collaboration at Krasnow than currently exists.

Therefore, if there exists a need for “collaborative activity” and “a greater sense of community”, and you have at your disposal a place for gathering and coming together, How can we charge this space with architecture or specific programming to meet this goal?

Here are some of the ideas that have been put forth thus far in the interviews; feel free to add your comments and ideas:
- Couches and free coffee – the free coffee generates a flow of people and stimulates productivity, the couches offer a “touch-down” place to interact
- Exterior patio/courtyard as an exterior extension of the Great Room and provide a link to other spaces such as the kitchen
- Storage and process for setting up and tearing down banquet space – the existing furniture is not mobile. Adding any furniture pieces (especially large, heavy items) will make the process more cumbersome.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Mini Blogs

It has been a few days since I last published, but it is not for lack of material ... I have completed three interviews so far, and the response has been GREAT! I am very excited about your unique perceptions and must share some of them with you. Thus, the next few entries will be “mini-blogs” so I can rapid-fire download to you some of these shared insights.

Thanks also to everyone who so willingly signed up for interviews during last Friday’s recruiting effort. I have 10 more interviews scheduled for the remainder of the week and am looking forward to hearing what you have to say. If you haven’t signed up yet, send me an email and let me know when you might be available. The interview will take about an hour.

As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Virtual & Physical Environments

I have been getting to know you and your labs through your various websites posted on Krasnow’s home page. You have done an outstanding job on these websites as they reflect a virtual extension of “self” (“self” being you as an individual, you as a research team, AND you as an institution). I have observed that your websites display characteristics such as:
- visual memory reinforcement of the learning that is taking place at Krasnow (publications and research graphics)
- a sense of comfort and the familiar (photos, links to favorite websites, colors, fonts and backgrounds that are personalized)
- dynamism, opportunity for interaction (email contacts, links to related material and studies)
- appreciating your achievements (awards, media)

I reference these above qualities in particular because they are a partial list of characteristics which define brain responsive environments. It’s not a question that will appear on a survey during your interviews, but I would like to offer the following, “what is the architectural equivalent of your virtual environment?”. That is, does your physical environment support your goals and identity in a way that is consistent with your virtual environment? While I recognize that the functions and aims of virtual and physical environments are different, both are immersive environments and, ideally, extensions of "self". Therefore, I find that the virtual environments you have created offer rich design clues about the type of physical brain responsive environment best suited to your research.

As always, comments are welcome.

Neuro-architecting at Krasnow