3.3 EXAMPLES on DESIGN CHOICES 3.3.

1 Examples on Design Choices with DEEP FLOORPLATES:

[15] Deep Plan with Polygon Type cells Design Choices: 1. Meandering Corridor organization 2. Aligned Workstations Organization 3. High Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Modular Unit Scale

[1.3] Deep Plan with Strawbridge Type cells Design Choices: 1. Grid Corridor organization 2. Grid Workstations Organization 3. Low Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Single Workstation Modular Unit Scale

[original wanamker] Deep Plan with Square Type cells Design Choices: 1. Grid Corridor organization 2. GridWorkstations Organization 3. Low Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Modular Unit Scale

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

17

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS: syntactical and statistical analyses unfolding logic of synthesis
prof. sonit bafna prof. john peponis qualifying paper. Nov. 2006. ranah m. hammash

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Research on ofce environments has suggested that syntactical characteristics of their layoutsparticularly the distribution of integration values of component spaces are critical to understanding and reshaping emergent patterns of communication and socialization amongst the inhabitants (Hillier and Penn, 1991; Grajewski, 1993; Penn, Desyllas and Vaughan, 1999; Serrato and Wineman, 1999; Peponis and Wineman, 2002, Rashid et al., 2005). A practical question that this research raises for the designer is how to formulate design strategies for layouts that have desired syntactical characteristics. The issue is not straightforward, and cannot be handled through the normal process of design as a succession of moves that may incrementally move the emerging design to its desired form. This is because the distribution of values of syntactical attributes such as integration values of individual spaces is, by denition, not predictable; small changes in the values of spaces in one part of the layout may have unpredictable changes in other parts. One solution, obviously, is to understand the relationship between design moves and syntactical characteristics of layout at the level of the entire plan, investigating whether specic design moves are systematically associated with specic syntactical patterns. We discuss the generic problem of designing ofce layouts as a set of decisions made within a limited category of choices, and then investigate which types of decisions lead to layouts with predictable patterns of integration. The paper is based on a year long research project aimed at developing specications for ofce environments, sponsored by the General Services Administration, a US Government Federal Agency. This project involved two comparative studies of ofce layouta pilot study of 8 actual ofce layouts, and a more involved comparative study of 48 ctional layouts designed for two ofce oor-plates. The ctional plans were designed through a systematic variation of design decisions; conventional axial maps were used to describe their syntactical structure.
SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:
syntactical and statistical revisits

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

One point of methodological departure from convention in our study is in the way we characterize individual layouts quantitatively based on the distribution of integration values. We describe each plan as a set of four numbers (the four momentsmean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosisof the distribution of integration values), and use multi-variate statistical methods to explore the relationship between this set of numbers and design decisions underlying the plans. Two unexpectedly interesting trends begin to emerge: 1) There is a surprisingly little amount of predictability associated with most of the design decisions, and 2) whatever predictability exists, is associated with local scale decisions, most notably the geometry and degree of enclosure of cubicles/ofces, distances between neighboring workstations, and the manner in which workstation clusters are dened. This suggests that paying a close attention to decisions like the geometry of workstations or cubicles, and details like the location of their entrances, may have a more critical role to play in creating designs with specic syntactical characteristics, as compared to larger strategic choices such as developing a central corridor, creating a grid to locate the individual cubicles, or even to allow an organic irregular plan to develop. We end with a general syntactical model of the distribution of values in ofce layouts, laying down some key benchmarked values.

1.0. INTRODUCTION 1.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Do embedded social and spatial patterns dwell into design strategies? 2. If so, are they structurally correlated? 3. Can analytical methods potentially inform syntactical design descriptors?

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 DATA COLLECTION/ GENERATION: This study follows an empirical/ hypothetical approach. Based on other ongoing research and knowledge gained from syntactical/ behavioral analysis of existing projects and oorplates which were primarily generated from existing federal ofce buildings. Two oorplates of these were selected in order to create 48 experimental layouts which were varied according to specic design choices such that certain design parameters were controlled and parametrically constrained. The space-planning constraints were undertaken at various design levels. 3.1.1 PlanType level: The shell conguration was restricted to two types of regular convex oorplates: 21 Deep oorplates and 27 Shallow oorplates; wherein the two different shapes of shell, partially derived from existing federal ofce buildings projects, were deployed. 3.1.1.1 Deep Floorplate: Deep shell conguration geometrically extends far outward or inward from the surface. It has a convex shape having no-core in the middle of the space. 3.1.1.2 Shallow Floorplate: Shallow oorplate lacks sufcient physical depth. It has little spatial extension at one or its two dimensions measuring little from the surface.

Deep plan Shell

Narrow plan Shell

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:
syntactical and statistical revisits

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.1.1.1 DEEP FLOORPLATE GENERATION PROCESS: The following three diagrams illustrates progressively the process of generating the deep oorplate type previously described from an existing federal ofce building based in Wanamaker- Pennsylvania.

Original Wanamker Ofce Building Deep plan

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

Partial Deep plan Disection

Original Wanamker Deep plan Disection

The upper diagram demarcates a partial dissection of the deep oorplate which was chosen to comply with the given parameters and geometric denition of the deep conguration. The diagrams on the right demonstrate the nal conguration: the upper one with its original furnished layout and workstations and the lower one is stripped thus reduced to its outer shell and xed ofce rooms and stairway.

Final Deep plan Shell

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.1.1.2 SHALLOW FLOORPLATE GENERATION PROCESS: The adjacent two diagrams illustrate the shallow oorplate type which is based on the original plan of an existing federal ofce building in AWL. The oorplate was chosen to comply with the given parameters and geometric denition of shallow conguration mentioned previously. The adjacent diagram demonstrates the nal conguration one with its original furnished layout and workstations, and the far one is stripped thus reduced to its outer shell and xed high walls rooms and meeting rooms.

Original AWL ofce building oorplate

Shallow Plan Shell

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

10

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

Design Choices Table

Clustersing Boundary definition DISTINCT OVERLAP DISTINCT DISTINCT DISTINCT DISTINCT DISTINCT OVERLAP DISTINCT DISTINCT

Rows Layout name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 18 20 15 19 16 22 Random3 Grid4 Grid5

plantype deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep

celltype poly poly poly poly poly poly poly poly square square

organization_degree Aligned Aligned Aligned Aligned Aligned Aligned Random Random Aligned Aligned

Public Hallways Organization GRID GRID GRID GRID GRID GRID LINEAR MEANDERING GRID GRID

Workstations Organization GRID GRID GRID GRID GRID GRID GRID IRREGULAR GRID GRID

Density Level COMPACT COMPACT OPEN SPACES OPEN SPACES OPEN SPACES OPEN SPACES COMPACT COMPACT OPEN SPACES OPEN SPACES

Clustering Type ONE TYPE ONE TYPE MULTI ONE TYPE ONE TYPE ONE TYPE MULTI MULTI MULTI MULTI

Modular Unit Scale 1 WS 1 WS 1 WS 1 WS 1 WS 1 WS MULTIPLE MULTIPLE MULTIPLE MULTIPLE

3.2. Design Choices Denition and Diagrammatics: 3.2.1 Public Hallways Organization: Corridors and Circulation Structure A design choice which describes space-planning and layout structure of corridors and circulation organization dened as the public hallways in a oorplate or its main circulation routes. This design choice is classied under three types: a. Grid Type: Dominant circulation paths in 2 directions b. Linear Type Dominant circulation paths in 1 direction c. Meandering Type No dominant circulation paths The adjacent diagrams comparatively and abstractly demonstrate the geometrical denition of each type and for all the listed design choices.
SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:
syntactical and statistical revisits

1. Public Hallways Organization: GRID

Public Hallways Organization: LINEAR

Public Hallways Organization: MEANDERING

13

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.2.2 Workstations Organization A design choice which describes space-planning and layout structure of modular workstations or cubicles. This design choice is classied under three
1. Negative Space-Planning: Negative Space-PLanGRID ning: LINEAR Negative Space-Planning: MEANDERING

types: a. Grid Type: Workstations layouts arrangement based on a grid template or a bidirectional pattern b. Aligned Type: Workstations layouts arranged on strings: a one directional juxtaposition or alignment. c. Irregular Type: An organic arrangement with no overall geo

2. Workstations Organization: GRID

Workstations Organization: ALIGNED

Workstations Organization: IRREGULAR

metric organizational format. 3.2.3 Density Level A design choice which is altered by the number of occupied cells per unit area as well as the compactness or adjacency level in between cells. It describes the overall working environment as being open and easily maneuvered or compact and dense; thus is classied into: a. High Density: close proximity between cells minimized circulation and public area b. Low Density: lower level of compactness and proximity wide and spacious circulation and public areas

3. Density Level: High

Density Level: Low

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

14

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.2.4 Clustering Type A design choice which describes formal clustering and grouping pattern of the workstations cells and its mode of repetition. Either one type of clustering is deployed all over the oorplate layout or multiple types are; thus it is classied into two: a. Unit Cluster: repetition of a single cluster of workstations [illustrated example on L-shape 3-cells cluster] b. Multiple Clusters repetition of multiple types of clusters which might vary in conguration and number.
4. Clustering Type: UNIT CLUSTER Clustering Type: MULTIPLE CLUSTERS

3.2.5 Clustering Boundary Denition A design choice which describes the overall formal boundary or outer peripheries of workstations clusters and are divided into: a. Distinct Boundary: regular well dened and contained b. Overlap Boundary: irregular May share common spaces

5. Clustering Boundary Denition: DISTINCT

Clustering Boundary Denition: OVERLAP

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

15

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.2.6 Modular Unit Scale The nal design choice which commonly counts the number of workstations in a repetitive modular cell. If a one single workstation is deployed as a template in the overall layout, then its categorized as Single. If several types were used [singles and aggregate cells of several workstations], then its classied as Multiple Workstations. a. Single Workstation: repetition of a modular workstation cell b. Multiple Workstations: repetition of multiples [illustrated example on modular of 4 cells]

6. Modular Unit Scale: SINGLE WORKSTATION

Modular Unit Scale: MULTIPLE WORKSTATIONS

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

16

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.3 EXAMPLES on DESIGN CHOICES 3.3.1 Examples on Design Choices with DEEP FLOORPLATES:

[15] Deep Plan with Polygon Type cells Design Choices: 1. Meandering Corridor organization 2. Aligned Workstations Organization 3. High Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Modular Unit Scale

[1.3] Deep Plan with Strawbridge Type cells Design Choices: 1. Grid Corridor organization 2. Grid Workstations Organization 3. Low Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Single Workstation Modular Unit Scale

[original wanamker] Deep Plan with Square Type cells Design Choices: 1. Grid Corridor organization 2. GridWorkstations Organization 3. Low Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Modular Unit Scale

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

17

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.3.2 Examples on Design Choices _LONG FLOORPLATES: [SQ7] Design Choices: 1. Meandering Corridor organization 2. Aligned Workstations organization 3. High Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Workstation Modular Unit Scale

[Poly 7] Design Choices: 1. Grid Corridor organization 2. Grid Workstations organization 3. High Density 4. Single Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Single Workstation Modular Unit Scale

[SQ7] Shallow Plan with Square Type cells

[Poly 7] Shallow Plan with Strawbridge Type cells

[Strawlong 3] Shallow Plan with POlygon Type cells

[Strawlong 3] Design Choices: 1. Meandering Corridor organization 2. Aligned Workstations organization 3. High Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Overlap Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Workstation Modular Unit Scale

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

18

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

3.3.2 Examples on Design Choices _LONG FLOORPLATES: [SQ7] Design Choices: 1. Meandering Corridor organization 2. Aligned Workstations organization 3. High Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Workstation Modular Unit Scale

[Poly 7] Design Choices: 1. Grid Corridor organization 2. Grid Workstations organization 3. High Density 4. Single Clustering Type 5. Distinct Clustering Boundaries 6. Single Workstation Modular Unit Scale

[SQ7] Shallow Plan with Square Type cells

[Poly 7] Shallow Plan with Strawbridge Type cells

[Strawlong 3] Shallow Plan with POlygon Type cells

[Strawlong 3] Design Choices: 1. Meandering Corridor organization 2. Aligned Workstations organization 3. High Density 4. Multiple Clustering Type 5. Overlap Clustering Boundaries 6. Multiple Workstation Modular Unit Scale

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

18

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

4.1.3. Axial Map Analysis We used the typical axial map as one of the important techniques of analysis to infer visual as well as numerical patterns of integration/ segregation in parallel to the other syntactical and geometrical techniques. As shown in the axial map analysis to the far left, the lines are thickened in proportion to their centrality value; the thicker the line, the more central it is. 4.1.4. Depth Map Analysis Depth map is an syntactical technique that uses cell to cell representation as a visual analysis or a fractional depth representation; a quick technique we used for inferring visual elds of depth when running comparisons across various oorplates.

Axial Map Analysis

Depth Map Analysis

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:
syntactical and statistical revisits

26

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

Examples on RRA Distribution Histogram Visual/Formal Analysis in relation to Axial Maps

Integration Analysis/ Axial Map 1 Integration Analysis/ Axial Map 2 Hierarchical Distribution of high integration and Even distribution of integration and segregation segregation
1.1
Fragmented Symmetrical Gradation Distribution Histogram Floorplate1

Integration Analysis/ Axial Map 3 Uneven distribution: highly integrated layout

0.8

Continuous Asymmetrical Rectilinearity tr Distribution Histogram Floorplate 3 m

1
0.7 0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
Fragmented Rectilinearity Distribution Histogram F Floorplate 2

.6

0.9 8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

.5

4 .4

.3

.2

Visual Analysis Axial Map 1

Visual Analysis Axial Map 2

Visual Analysis Axial Map 3

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

34

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

APPENDIX 1
Example on Deep Floorplate Syntactical Analysis

FURNISHED PLAN

SCEMATIC PLAN: FIXED FURNITURE DEFINING AXIAL LINES

AXIAL MAP

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:

syntactical and statistical revisits

62

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

APPENDIX 2
Example on Long Floorplate Syntactical Analysis

FURNISHED PLAN

SCEMATIC PLAN: FIXED FURNITURE DEFINING AXIAL LINES

AXIAL MAP
SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:
syntactical and statistical revisits

63

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006

APPENDIX 3

poly7
Distributions RRA
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
.01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99

Rows ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

TOTALDIST_ 33 56 59 54 54 55 53 55 55 57 58 85 55 55 54 54 56 55 55 56 54 57 57 57 57 57 59 56 41 72 55

MEAN DEPTH 1.1 1.867 1.967 1.8 1.8 1.833 1.767 1.833 1.833 1.9 1.933 2.833 1.833 1.833 1.8 1.8 1.867 1.833 1.833 1.867 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.967 1.867 1.367 2.4 1.833

RINGSIZE 27 5 3 7 7 6 8 6 6 4 4 1 6 7 8 8 6 7 7 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 20 7 6

RA 0.00689655 0.0597931 0.06668966 0.05517241 0.05517241 0.05744828 0.05289655 0.05744828 0.05744828 0.06206897 0.06434483 0.12641379 0.05744828 0.05744828 0.05517241 0.05517241 0.0597931 0.05744828 0.05744828 0.0597931 0.05517241 0.06206897 0.06206897 0.06206897 0.06206897 0.06206897 0.06668966 0.0597931 0.02531034 0.09655172 0.05744828

DN 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869 0.17756869

RRA 0.03883878 0.33673224 0.37557103 0.31071026 0.31071026 0.32352706 0.29789346 0.32352706 0.32352706 0.34954904 0.36236584 0.71191488 0.32352706 0.32352706 0.31071026 0.31071026 0.33673224 0.32352706 0.32352706 0.33673224 0.31071026 0.34954904 0.34954904 0.34954904 0.34954904 0.34954904 0.37557103 0.33673224 0.14253833 0.54374295 0.32352706

Normal Quantile Plot

Quantiles
100.0% maximum 0.70347 99.5% 0.70347 97.5% 0.70347 90.0% 0.59460 75.0% quartile 0.40132 50.0% median 0.27754 25.0% quartile 0.23794 10.0% 0.17837 2.5% 0.16838 0.5% 0.16838 0.0% minimum 0.16838

Moments
Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean upper 95% Mean low er 95% Mean N Sum Wgt Sum Variance Skew ness Kurtosis CV N Missing 0.3283568 0.1420582 0.0233542 0.3757213 0.2809922 37 37 12.149201 0.0201805 1.3882341 1.3388757 43.263378 0

RRA Distribution/ Moments

Mean Depth and RRA calculation table for all axial lines

Depth Map Analysis

Axial Map: Integration Analysis

SPACE-PLANNING STRATEGIES AT OFFICE BUILDINGS:
syntactical and statistical revisits

64

ranah hammash georgia institute of technology.qualifying paper. fall 2006