Growth of Our Network of Centers
Philosophy and Methods Related to the Creation and Operation
of Environments
04/27/1997
(updated 09/24/97)
by Matt Taylor
By the beginning of summer, MG Taylor will support twelve
or thirteen Management Centers consisting of nearly 85,000
square feet. MG Taylor owns and operates several of these,
such as the knOwhere stores in Hilton Head, and Palo Alto,
and the Athenaeum International Tech Center in Boulder, Colorado.
Our clients and partners own and operate the remaining mix
of portable and fixed centers. The accompanying map and table
illustrate our position.
Center |
% Complete |
Status |
Size |
MG Taylor Hilton Head knOwhere Store |
75 |
ready to expand this fall |
5,000 |
MG Taylor Cambridge knOwhere Store |
100 |
sold to client for internal use, in operation |
12,000 |
MG Taylor Palo Alto knOwhere Store |
100 |
in operation |
20,000 |
Ernst & Young Chicago Accelerated Solution Center(ASE)/ADC |
10 |
in operation |
11,000 |
Coke ASE/Rapid Deployment System® (RDS) |
85 |
portable system on truck |
6,000 |
Euro RDS |
100 |
just completed first DesignShop in September |
6,000 |
NASA Langley |
100 |
in operation and expanding |
3,500 |
Arnold Engineering Development Center |
100 |
in operation; satellites under construction |
8,000 |
SeaLand |
100 |
in operation |
2,300 |
Consensus Corporation |
10 |
in operation |
3,000 |
Kellogg's |
100 |
in operation |
5,500 |
MG Taylor/Ernst & Young GMHS Navigation Center
environment |
10 |
in operation |
4,500 |
GMHS Satellites (3 @ 1,000sf each) |
10 |
in design |
3,000 |
MG Taylor/ Athenaeum International Boulder Tech Center |
100 |
in operation |
2,500 |
CNL Properties, Inc. (NavCenter) |
10 |
in contract documents |
2,000 |
For years, many of our Knowledge Workers and clients have thought of
MG Taylor as a provider of processes that promote and unleash group genius
in their organizations. The DesignShop® system accomplishes this aim,
but the process cannot be successfully applied without the accompanying
innovative physical environment that removes many of the blocks that stymie
and attenuate other group process techniques. Structure wins. Traditional
physical environments embody so many powerful cultural cues left over
from the industrial age, that creativity and productivity emerge only
at a terrible expense and consumption of individual energy. In such environments
it's impossible to work smarter--one can only work harder.
In several recent conversations with Knowledge Workers and clients, I
have come to realize that our ValueWeb System commands only an obscure
understanding of the basic philosophy and methods related to the creation
and operation of our environments. This paper and several others that
appear in this quarter's Journal of Transition Management should begin
to correct this situation. To begin, I'll describe the phenomenon of the
soul-body dichotomy in our culture and its influence upon the field of
Architecture.
The Soul-Body Dichotomy
The pinnacle of either/or thinking in society dictates that the soul,
or expressive nature of a thing may be divided from its physical nature,
or body, or worse, that the two compete to the exclusion of the other.
The pursuit of reconciliation between these two supposedly separate entities
employs a host of advocates, consultants and seekers. The embrace of this
belief by society leads to a staggering cost measured in human worth and
creativity. We anguish over the choice of following what we love or accepting
whatever will satisfy our physical needs. When the two happen to intersect,
we view the event as an anomaly instead of a manifestation of the natural
order of things. We attribute such an expression of life to luck, genetics,
or environment. So long as we accept a dichotomy, or division between
soul and body, we play a zero-sum game of compromise where each turn produces
a winner or a loser. Some days we sacrifice our economy for our art, and
other days our art for our economy.
This prevalent paradigm makes it difficult for both clients and Knowledge
Workers to understand that great and productive environments cannot be
realized within the structure of such either/or thinking. Designers, builders
and users whose philosophy and culture proceeds from the soul-body dichotomy
believe that an environment can be tastefully executed, or it can be economical;
it can function properly or it can be beautiful; it can be practical or
it can support well-crafted processes. Either/or, but never both/and.
Chances are that you, the reader, are mentally compiling a list from your
own experiences that prove the actuality and power of the paradigm. Unfortunately,
most of our design experiences were conducted as a series of choices,
instead of a creative challenge of synthesis. Continued clinging to the
paradigm provokes the ruination of our planet, renders our communities
sterile and impotent, and sullies and impoverishes human dignity.
Architecture is the expression of the culture that builds it. The proper
accomplishment of all three attributes--Shelter,
Arrangement and Expression--define the function of architecture. Nevertheless,
the highest synthesis of these three can only emerge from a philosophy
that does not see them as independent, hierarchical, or at war with one
another. Rather, they are interdependent and support one another's proper
execution. The healthy manifestation of architecture throughout history
demonstrates this truth time and again.
The Development of My Philosophy
Architecture is based on a way of life. The idea of art as “a selective
recreation of reality” I learned from Rand in '58 (Atlas Shrugged). I
developed my definition of architecture for a lecture I gave at Orange
Coast College in the Spring of 1962. The update of this definition was
made in December 78, when I added operating the environment as an intrinsic
aspect of architecture’s creation.
The concept of the three attributes of architecture (shelter, arrangement,
and expression) is my “invention” that stems from my early years. What
I was seeking to resolve with these formulations was the elimination of
the deadly either/or thinking that always leads to compromise. When I
began practicing architecture, function was defined as incorporating the
utility and practical aspects of the work, and the art--if
any--was tacked on as usually useless ornament.
I started to think about the true economic aspects of architecture
as a builder in New York City in the early ‘60’s. Until that time, my
entire understanding of a project equated money, value and budget for
the design and construction phase of the life of the building. My sole
concern was getting enough budget to make the building ready for occupancy.
However, I began to glimpse the true measure of value and worth as stretching
over the life of the building; perhaps even over the life of future projects
that would be built on the same ground. My decisions were influencing
not only the design and the construction, but the considerably longer
timespan of the use of the building. And at that time, after the completion
of a structure, alterations to the design or the buildout were problematical
and expensive. There was no design/build/use cycle but only a design/build/use
straight line. The result of my thinking may be found in MG Taylor's Design/Build/Use
model and is the basis for the philosophy of our whole product line of
management centers, NavCenters systems, Rapid Deployment Systems, and
knOwhere Stores.
In the mid 70's I started to think of the information aspect of work-focused
architecture and that led to the integration of environments, tools
and processes and the development of Management Centers.
This entire journey was one of searching for and incorporating those
elements that are intrinsic to the basic nature of architecture and those
which drive the design process. I added elements into my design process
in this order:
The interesting thing is that as I added elements I became less and less
employable. As my scope of understanding broadened across the design/build/use
spectrum, I ceased to fit into any of the pigeon holes that comprise the
industry. I was neither an architect, builder, engineer, nor user, but
all of these at once. Still today architecture is not practiced from this
level of synthesis, except for a sturdy community of architects who practice
the best of residential design.
What's missing from the industry is a design process that combines and
releases the genius of a collaboration of practitioners who work with
each other through the life span of the building or environment. The DesignShop
process provides a model for such collaboration that is practical, inclusive,
and dynamic enough to allow the practice of architecture in this way.
Now we are assembling the ValueWeb ecology that requires and allows this
way to be expressed and practiced. Our Knowledge Workers and clients must
strive to understand through applied experience, the design/build/use
model and the integration of tools, process and environment required to
make it work.
Related Articles:
MG Taylor Philosophy and Practice of Architecture
Economic Strategy for Management
Center Development
The Modern Attitude
copyright © 1997, MG Taylor Corporation.
All rights reserved
copyrights,
terms and conditions
19970427181202.web.bsc
|