Saving Trees
In response to your concerns about the existing trees …
The City of Falls Church has offered their “Tree Preservation Standards and Specifications” for adoption by George Mason University. There are effective and inexpensive strategies that the university is open to using with respect to the Krasnow addition.
Their pamphlet: “Tree Preservation during Construction” is available on their website under the “Tools” sidebar:
http://www.ci.falls-church.va.us/government/developmentServices/arborist.htmlAs one of their representatives said, “It’s great to hear of an institute that was created for thinking – thinking”!
Architecture with Neuroscience Applications
(Following is a summary of our discussion from the recent Woods Hole workshop on “Mapping Memory of Space and Place” where we used the Krasnow addition as a case study to structure a working session on design approach with neuroscience applications.)
Discussion Group Participants included:
Matthew A. Wilson, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, group moderator
Meredith Banasiak, ANFA
John Eberhard, FAIA, ANFA
Roger Goldstein, FAIA, Goody Clancy Associates
Merlin Lickhalter, FAIA, FACHA, Academy of Architecture for Health
Fred Marks, AIA, ANFA
Upali Nanda, Ph.D., ANFA
James Olds, Ph.D., Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
Steven Senft, Ph.D., Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
Ron Skaggs, FAIA, HKS Architects
Krasnow, as an interdisciplinary cognitive research institute, requires the following 4 categories of spaces:
- Collaborative space (nodes and hubs and the links between them)
- Research Labs
- Core facilities
- Retreat/sanctuary
Collaborative spaces:
Studies on topological continuity in rat experiments indicate that spaces are stored in memory according to their contiguity versus their metric distances (cognitive proximity versus metric proximity). Impediments and barriers – visual, physical or psychological – create disparate memories of distinct spaces. A barrier within a space confers two spaces versus one single space. This cognitive disconnect/separation of space also restricts physical movement between areas. By increasing physical connectivity, we can reduce the impediments/barriers to collaboration, the impediments being defined as anything that segregates space and therefore people. This can be achieved by increasing physical connectivity (thereby decreasing the number of memories of disparate spaces), or, in instances where a disconnect is forced to occur (e.g., a vertical level change between floors), we can create a necessity for the barrier to be transgressed. The free flowing of ideas is directly related to the free flowing of the architecture; collaborative free flow must be contiguous space.
Architects have conventionally grouped things like demountable walls, doors, and transparent (glass) walls / windows into a “soft-barrier” category (like the semi-permeable membrane). Research in animal studies has shown that these are perceived by the brain as barriers nonetheless. A window may create an opportunity for visual exploration but it does not serve to unite two spaces. Though regarded as easily surmountable barriers, they still disconnect the space, serve to create disparate memories of spaces, and restrict movement. When a partition is put in place, one space physically and perceptually becomes multiple spaces and results in a diminished opportunity for movement between spaces.
We have mentioned one of the two major issues of collegiate design – movement between spaces. In addition to getting people to flow to a space, we also need to design stopping points – to encourage people to linger within a space. “Placemaking” can be achieved with spatial calibrators: 3-D objects which are interactive make a greater memory (and therefore richer experience) because they engage more neural responses. More cells are dedicated when space is interactive across diverse or multiple behaviors (versus strictly circulation, or spaces where nothing happens) with the result being that the associated places are more salient, more important.
Two-dimensional architectural attempts to define a space (such as changing the wall color) have proven to be weak cues with respect to placemaking. The most effective strategy is to place 3-D, interactive objects and instruments at critical intersections.
Daylight is a successful orienting cue and wayfinding device because it provides an external frame of reference as well as clues to cardinal direction, time of day, and weather. Circulation spaces are often devoid of natural light because they occur in the most inner regions of a building, flanked by rooms on all sides. A narrow, double loaded corridor (meaning that it can be entered from rooms on either side) that does not have an external frame of reference or stopping points along its length can actually prove to be a stressful space to occupy and therefore will inhibit collegiate interactions. If we think of this in terms of a freeway analogy, I know that I become a more nervous driver when there is traffic entering and exiting on both the right and left, and in tunnel situations where there is not an opportunity to stop or exit, and there is no external frame of reference.
Research Labs:
While I do not have scientific based evidence to apply to this category, the presiding architectural theory is that lab planning must be autonomous in granting the end users the ability to determine their own future, and the freedom to make changes as necessary. This is very much in line with the “Labs must be flexible” assumption.
Core facilities:
While research labs need to be flexible, it is important to note that there are certain specialized lab facilities which require complex walls, security and infrastructure.
Retreat/Sanctuary:
Research indicates that when rats are engaged in consummatory behaviors (e.g. eating, grooming and defecating), they enter into memory recall mode. The architecture associated with these activities should support memory recall and therefore be designed as sensory environments which placate the limbic system to facilitate recall and stimulate memory. Private offices or lounge areas might have similar qualities in that they are safe, familiar, and comfortable so as to set the stage for the scientific “Eureka” moment to occur.
Where are we? Where are we going?
TIMELINE
From the data collection phase, we game up with 6 general assumptions to adopt as user-generated design principles:
Now it is payback time (payback for the investment you have made in enduring the interviews!). During this concept development phase, we will go through another feedback loop to dialogue on how your issues and insights are being addressed, and how the design principles might be refined, fleshed out and implemented.
Write in your comments and suggestions!
Power outages
Most of us know that the power went out this morning at Krasnow. My solution was to walk over to the Johnson Center with my laptop (after an hour or so during which I did a press interview over the phone) in the hopes of actually doing something productive with the rest of my day. This worked.
On the way across campus, I noticed, painfully, that massive diesel generators were supplying emergency juice to several of the other science buildings, and it drew me to the conclusion that this is something we absolutely *must* have going forward with the new instrumentation and the Krasnow expansion.
Jim
Cephalization!
As Jim mentioned in the Director’s Blog, I was away last week at Woods Hole for a Neuroscience and Architecture Workshop on “Mapping Memory of Space and Place”. The workshop provided an opportunity for neuroscientists and architects to dialogue on related interests. Our particular break-out group utilized the raw data from the Krasnow Institute interviews as a case study to focus our discussions – to talk in terms of actual, versus hypothetical, programmatic and spatial conditions. As you can imagine, the coincidental timing (of the workshop and Krasnow programming study) proved very opportune as this produced another layer of “stuff” to inform the design process for the Krasnow new construction – stay tuned for upcoming blogs!
In a sidebar conversation at the workshop, one of the participants from Krasnow shared this poignant metaphor with me:
Krasnow’s existing long, linear, symmetrical building can be thought of as the “notochord”, and the additions as the “cephalization” of the institute. This metaphor incorporates a couple different architectural implications we have previously addressed:
- that the new infrastructure will be designed to allow more complex and specialized functions to take place (e.g. an imaging center)
- that the appropriate physical structure and organization is perhaps more branch like, and does not occur along a segmented, double-loaded corridor
- that essential to the function of the organic whole are rich and integrated pathways for communication within and among the lobes and cord (i.e., how would we design a “corpus callosum” for the new addition?)
Having gotten to know Krasnow during the summer months, I can't wait to see how it becomes activated during the school year. Best wishes for a successful fall semester.
