In Paul Goldberger’s article in the New Yorker, dated September 19, 2011, he concludes with the notion that there is a “lurking irony” in the way scientists have been collaborating with architects in shaping their research space. Architects, Mr. Goldberger notes, are an “unempirical…bunch” designing space for empirical investigations. Creating collaborative space that encourages interchange of ideas between scientists is important and desired by the scientific community. But can we as architects test our ideas in a closer approximation of the scientific method we seek to assist? By developing strategies to measure scientific success and creativity in the workplace, designers can study research environments both before and after a project is built. Architects would be well served to look at this approach in understanding the success of their work for the clients they serve. Paul Goldberger believes “scientists (are) the architecture profession’s most optimistic clients.They believe that well designed buildings can help them.” We assume success in our work when our client is happy, but we can go farther and pinpoint the relationship between great design and great science.
Life. Science. Architecture.
