01. the fourth dimension in architecture

7/25/2019 01. the Fourth Dimension in Architecture

1/22

6

Years later,someof our subjects observedhow hard everyone

worked

and

spoke of their

new

environment

as

a work machine.

The buildingcontinued

to

look like

new

m

fflll

gm e course

of our

study, as

t did on

the

occasion of several visits.

And, as

this

is being

written,

1

was

infonned that it still looks like new.

The messages, consistent with Hewitt's goals for the

com

pany,

were

: We care.

We

care about quality.

We

care about

attention

to

detall. Dependability and durability of our product are

important to

us.

We care about our customers,

the

machines

we

make,

and thepeople

who

make and sell them. This was consistent

with Saarinen's basic approach

to

his work.

To him,

everything

mattered and nothing was taken for granted. Thus bis building, like

ali great art, has after almost forty years, stood the test of time. I

won't

be here to

see it, but 1 can't

imagine

that it could do anything

but continue to take

on

deeper and deeper

meaning.

Saarinen

was

what

mv friend Bt c

kwillf

r

Q

called a

comprehensive thinker. His Deere Co. eadquarters

was

a

statement about

the

man himself. lt was his expression

ofwhat

was

important and how we should look at the world. He understood

concepts that are just

now

being discovered about the relationship

between people

and

their environments. That is, bis building

was

a

world class statement thatto be appreciated

must be

viewed against

the

backdropofthe social, intellectual

and

regional environments in

place at the time

of

ts construction.

His work changed the company, the people and the fann

machinery industry.

Edward

T.

Hall

11n194

I INTRODUCTION .TO

m

STUDY OF EERO

SAARINEN'S BUILDING FOR DEERE COMPANY

Forthe past decade

we

have been deeply involved in the study

of man's use of

space,

and in the course of our research

we

interviewed hundreds

of

ndividual occupants ofbuildings as well as

seores of architects. In the process we developed a growing and at

times frightening awareness of

the

impact of buildings on human

behavior. During the early phase of our research in

1964 we

first

visited the headquarters of Deere

Co.,

producers of fann equip

ment and machinery, in Moline, Illinois. The building--then in

the

final stages of construction but still unoccupied-is situated off a

highway sorne ten miles from the town ofMoline. The visitortravels

along the north si de ofa wide fertile valley hugging low rolling hills

on the left. Abruptly and without forewanng

the

visitor rounds a

bend and there

it

is a breathtaking structure n Cor-Ten steel

and

glass that looks

as

though

sorne

genie

has

transported it intact from

the hidden valley ofa

J

apanese emperor

and,

having selected just he

right surroundings, set it.down without disturbing a leaf.

If

this

sounds romantic it is because

we

find it difficult

to

describe the

impact of Saarinen's masterpiece.

No

photograph begins to do it

justice because the camera works on very different principies

from

the

eye

and the

brain.

Within

the instant

of our first encounter

we

knew that

we had

to

study this building to unlock and reveal its secrets. We did study

the

building and we did discover

sorne

of its secrets, but like any

great

work

ofart t reveals itselfslowly. Studentsofarchitecturewil1

be

discovering things about Eero Saarinen's building for


2/22

8

decades to come. Ouroriginal plan was quite simple: ta1k to a wide

representative sample ofpeople using the building, find out as

muchas we could about the entire

process-the

idea and need for a

building, the selectionof the architect, the c ation the ram,

and finally the building itself as a viao e struc ure. Our initi

interviewscheduleswere rather simple nd represented a baselineof

data on things people thought

and

said

be/ore

they moved into the

building. Details on the methodologyof the study appear in the last

section.

This is nota study that emphasizes contentand detail, though

this would have been possible. Sorne of the things we discovered

about the complex multi-level processes that are summarized in

Saarinen' s steel and glass statement are present in al1 buildings and

will be discussed in detail. But we had something else in mind;

namely,

to

reveal a paradigm. To

do

this we want first

to

mention

sorne unstated assumptions conceming the nature

of

a person's

relationship to his or her environment and the effect of culture on

design.

The most pervasive and important assumption, a comerstone

in the edifice of Western thought, is one that lies hidden from our

consciousnessand has

to do wil

a person' s relationship to bis orher

environment. Quite simply, the Western view is that human pro

cesses, particularly behavior, are independent of environmental

controls and influence. In his rather remarkable book, Ecologica/

Psycholo

gy

Roger Barker reports on two decades

of

studying the

role of environmental settings in everyday life in a Kansas town.

Barker states: ''The view is not uncommon among psychologists

that the environment

of

behavior is a relatively unstructured, pas

sive, probabilistic arena of objects and events upon which man

behaves in accordance with a program which he carries about within

himself. Contrary to this widely shared view Bark:er finds the

environment consisting ofhighly structured

.

.improbable arrange

ments of objects and events which coerce behavior in accordance

1

'Barker,

Roger

G. Ecological Psychology. Stanford University Press, 1968.

-

finds that e tixironment provi es a settinsw is lid

tapgard

behavior according to bindin but as yet unverbalized rules which

are more compelling nd more uniform than such individual vari

able

as

personality. Far from bein assive envirorunent actually

e ters into a transaction With umans. t IS ere Ore impOSSI e to

conduct valid studies of human behavior without reference to the

contextof he environment.

Sorne cultures of the world are concerned about fitting

humans into nature or nto societyor both (Japan, for example . But

in the Western world generallyand

m

America particularly humans

are viewed

as

dominating

al1

that is around them. t s no wonderthat

when we look at buildings as objects

of

study in this country

we

find

either a preoccupation with the responses

of

he individual occupant

orapreoccupation with the structure as a creation of an individual

architect, or even occasionally an expression of a client's

personality. Somehow we in the Western world cannot get away

from this preoccupation with the individual. Studying the Deere

building we found owselves more and more uncomfortable with this

emphasis on the individual. Saarinen, after all, had done as muchas

is humanly possible, and much more than is usual, to handle the

complexityof people s needs and

to

integrate them, their environ

ment and their jobs in a total setting. We finally realized that we

owselves ~ captives

of

our own cultureand

were

overlooking the

fact that the building was also designed to house an organization.

A third underlying assumption is that a building is a single

thing, something whichhas integrity

nd

canbe singled out from the

rest

of

he physical setting.

In

a sense we

thinkof

and treat buildings

as individual objects-good, bad, indifferent, expensive, rare, cheap,

well or poorly constructed, beautiful, ugly, cherished or despised.

We assign them al1 the qualities

of

objectsand seldom thinkof hem

as

statements - active agents in the human situation.

9


3/22

1

Earlier we said that it is impossible to conduct valid studies of

human behavior without reference

to

context, even though context

has been largely ignored in social science virtually from the begin

ning. In

the

course of our research on the Deere building it became

more and more apparent that in studies ofbuilding one is examining

three

separate but interrelated factors:

A The structure itself, its program, design, workmanship,

materials, detailing, etc.,

B. Repeople as physiological and psychological organisms

who perfonn the functions the structure was designed to house, and

C. The ~ z tion that is also housed by the building but

which exists in a larger context. The organization and its structure

become the ontent

of

a statement that can only be read in tenns

of its setting.

How does

one

go about integrating these

three

factors? Most

of

what is known about either buildings or people is without

reference to the other while the third set ofvariables is either ignored

or unknown. Otherwise why would it be increasingly difficult to

identify either the institution or the activity from looking at most.

modem structures?

We

are not referring simply to the fact that

form

is seldom dictated

by

function, but to the wider and in sorne ways

more important irnpactof he building as a statement in an existing

communications network; what

is

the building saying? we discov-

. ered in the course of the Deere study that what the building

communicates

is

as

important in its consequences as anything else

we were able to identify.

li

organizations exist in a social matrix; almost invariably

they are associated

with

a place and usually with a structure. Tue

social matrix can

be

extremely limited and

the

structure primitive,

as

is the caseof he boys' neighborbood club house built in a vacant lot

But there is a difference between a local, a regional, and an

intemational or world-wide organization (such

as

Deere Com

pany), justas there is a difference between a school, a drug store, a

paper company,

IBM

and a farm machinery manufacturer.

JBM

represents the future

and is

growing. Farmers, farming, and

fann machinery evoke an entirely different setof mages. There is

also a difference between a single company and a conglomerate, as

well

as

a new company and one with a long past.

While

ali

this must seem quite obvious, the principies just

outlined are seldom retlected in the designofbuildings.This is due

in

part

to the fact that, in

~ c k m i n s t e r

Fuller's terms, comprehen

sive thinking is a

rare

commodity. For an architectural program to

provide a suitable environment for individuals working as members

of eams, an overall designofhigh quality, durability and strength,

and a statement that is appropriate

to

the organization and which

enhances an entire industry is asking alot. Yet this

is

what Saarinen

did.

As clearly and as simply as we can state it, the Deere

headquarters is not one thing but many different things. It is a

statement on multiple levels that symbolizes Saarinen' s concem for

the individual and his belief in the future of an industry that was in

the doldrums when this building was conceived. Like all strong

successful statements the point that comes across most clearly is that

this did not just happen. I t was planned very carefully and was the

result of great genius and thousands ofhours of attention

to

every

detall.

lanning the uilding

It is impossible to see this building without being deeply

moved and impressed. Nestled in a ravine on 700 acresofwoods, it

has views that change with the season and the hour. It is a veritable

crystal palace encased in Cor-Ten steel which has tumed a warm

cinnamon brown. The strength

of

he design is immediately appar

ent; the steel structural frame stands out

from

the shimmering glass

undemeath.

The main office building rises seven floors and faces south

toward the rivervalley, overlooking

two

lakes. Inaddition, there is


4/22

12

a mammoth enclosed display area for Deere s huge brightly colored

tractors

and

farm machines-sorne

of

wbich approach dinosaurs in

siz(}--and an auditorium that seats four hundred people. As visitors

enter they look down on the product display area and then cross a

glass enclosed bridge that connects the display area to the main

building at the fourth floor level. The bridge provides a sense of

participation with nature

as

one walks across it at tree top level in the

midstof an outdoor panorama.

Th} interior spaces were designed withgreat careto maximize

J .

ews

n

general, each department has a large open area situa

re

d

next

to

the outside glass wall (with the exception of the Executive

Roor). Private offices were deliberately located in the central part

of

the building so that most employees could have an outside view.

Outside walls are glass with bronz.e-colored vaporized metal sealed

between two laminated plate sheets. This glass reflects outside light

and glare without affecting visibility from the inside, and in the

summer it helps reduce the load on the air conditioning system. A

combination

of

metal-louvered sun screens and glare resistant glass

is very effective inkeeping the building comfonable withouthaving

to use shades which would block the views.

E

p

cjencv and functionalism are evident throughout the build

ing. The two lakes in front of the main building not only provide

visualdelight, butone ofthem serves

to

cool the waterthatcirculates

in the air conditioning system. Water heated by this system is

sprayed into the air from fountains in the lake, cooled, and then

recirculated. Th;,partitions that forro the spaces for offices in each

department:B;: fs means the

u i l d i n ~

js e s p o n

the changes that are inevitable as the organization grows.

The interior color scheme is charcoal and off-white for the

walls and off-white tile for the floors . It was Saarinen s feeling that

people would add the color in this building nd that the out-of

doors would become part

of

the interior, hence the low-key color

scheme

H WIIT

n

a great many ways the Deere building is a direct retlection

ofWilliam

A

Hewitt, Chainnan nd Chief Executive. His stamp is

on virtuany everything in

the

building. From inception

to

final

completion, he was

the

driving force behind this building. Hewitt

worked closely with Saarinen and bis associates

for

seven years

before the building was completed. The importance ofthe Hewitt

Saarinen rapport and the enormous amount of thought and insight

that each man brought to the planning phase of he building cannot

be overestimated.

Hewitthas always beeninterested in architecture and design

and he had worked formany years with a world famous designer, the

late Henry Dreyfuss, on various projects forthe company. When we

asked Hewitt what other experiences had influenced him

and

made

him aware

of

he importance ofgood arcbitecture, he said

he

felt that

growing up in San Francisco had made him conscious of the

importanceof he environment. He also added that while he was in

college he had had a friend who taught

him

a lot about design and

architecture, and then when he married he was influenced by bis

wife

Hewitt s thinking about the kind of building he wanted for

Deere was based on several premises: first, he wanted to pull the

company together and improve employee working conditions.

Deere employees had been scattered around downtown Moline in

several different buildings-some quite

old-and

clearly there

was

a definite need for integration

of

departments. Then, he wanted a

building that would help the company attract

and

hold superior

personnel. This

is

ofcrucial importance toan ntemational business

located in a small fyfidwestem

city.

Hewitt al so wanted a building

that would be outstanding aesthetically. This would both improve

the

cg

world at large and raise the architectural

Mb t iocal community.

l J


5/22

4

In thinking

about

the

type of building

he

wanted, Hewitt

favored

modero

architecture; at the

same time he

wanted a building

that

would e appropriate for

a

farrn

machinery business. Before

selecting

an

architect, he talked

to

many people-including

designers

and

business executives

who

had worked with architects.

Hewitt spent a lot of time

and

thought choosing an architect

and

Saarinen washischoice. One ofSaarinen s main attractions was his

desire to capture the spirit of he company and the personality

of

ts

Chairman

SAARINEN

Saarinen s

firm was

large enough

to

undertake such a bigjob,

yet small enough for Saarinen to

work

directly with Hewitt Their

interaction

was

unusuall y productive: that rare combination of the

right client-


6/22

16

The collaboration between architect

and

client on

the

Deere

building was blessed with greater than usual syrnpathetic

understanding

and

respect. Saarinen s first design

was

an inverted

pyramid structure which was situated

on

top of a ll This design

was rejectedby the company because

they

didn

t eel

it was suited

to

their particular organization nor did it provide the flexibility they

needed.

However

it

is

important to

note

that

the

client

and the

architect

were able to

resolve their differences in such

an

amicable

way

that each felt satisfied

and wanted to

continueworking together.

Saarinen s next design was the one

the

company chose to build.

Saarinenfinished

the

working

drawings

ofhis building, but

he

did not live to see it completed.

He

died the

week

after construction

began. Fortunately, several of his associates

had

been

deeply

involved in the Deere building

and

were

able to

see that the building

was completed in accordance with Saarinen s idealsand standards.

These men

were Kevin

Roche, John Dinkeloo,

J.N. Lacy and

Warren

Platner.


7/22

8

11 THE PLANNING PROCESS

n

addition to Hewitt there were four Deere officials who

made up the company s Committee, ali of

whom

worked closely

with Saarinenand

his

associates in he planning stagesand through-

out construction. lnitial planning for the building had begun before

1957 when Booz, Allen and Hamilton, management consultants,

made a detailed study of the company s future

needs.

First, they

swveyed the space used by each department in the old buildings,

then they interviewed ali department managers

to

detennine future

growth and future space

needs.

They projected these space needs to

1970, based on data provided by departmental managers. (Ulti-

mately sorne projections proved more accurate than others, of

course.) Armed with the Booz, Allen and Hamilton infonnation,the

Building Committee then decided which departments should go

where and how many floors would be required.

Al1

this basic data

was

supplied to the architect anda great deal of time

was

spent

deciding what each department s space requirements would be

before the design

was

frozen.

For the architect i is vitali y important that a client be able to

tellhim what the projected growth of he company will be within a

five

to ten year period. Otherwise, how can

he

plan for growth? As

it urned out, the Deere growth projections based on the Booz, Allen

and Hamilton reportwere reasonably accurate

in

most departments.

However, there

was

unforeseen growth in heExport Order Division

which meant that thisdepartment later became crowded, nd this in

turn necessitated adjustments within the department. Fortunately,

the flexibility of Saarinen s interior design

was

such that partitions

could be moved, and the department

was able to

accommodatemore

people. The point we wish to emphasize is that

two

things are

required for an office building

to

be responsive to future growth:

1) accurate growth projections supplied

to

the architect and

2) flexibility in the interior space design provided by the architect.

THEMODULE

lt was the employee atwork

and

bis or herspace needs that led

to the establishmentof severa basic module sizes which Saarinen

presented

to

the Building Committee. Two members ofthis commit-

tee, Joseph Dain and George Neiley, chose the basic module of 3 x

6 feet for the building. The committee then built their own full size

ockups using wood sides.Eventually they settled on three basic

office sizes:9x 2

feet,

12x12, and 12 x

18

.The 12x18 footoffices

were later reduced

to

12

x

15

in order

to

provide more office space .

The 12x15 foot size seems

to

wolkjustas well. The onlyexception

to these three basic sizes

are

the offices on the Second Floor which

arelarger.

Tl size of desk determined the minimum amount of space

that any employee would have. Saarinen and Associates designed

the

desks as well as

a

other furniture for

the

building. In our view,

this

is another important factor in

the

success

of

his building.

Ei

ther

the architect must design the minimum

work

area or speci

fy

pre-

cisely what its dimensions will

be.

Otherwise, there can be no real

planning of the interior spaces

and

their relation to the outer

structure.Oerks and secretaries were provided

with

a desk;drafts-

men were given a table and storage space. For employees with

private offices, each person was given a

desk

and a credenza.

MODELS

ND

MOCKUPS

Saarinen was a great believer in mock-ups and models. He

made a model ofeach floor with

fumiture,

wall color, floor surfaces,

9


8/22

20

etc., using a scale

of

1

1/2

inches to the

foot. Early

in the project it

was

decided

to

puild a full-scale mock-up at a cost

of

about

100,000.

Since

the mock-up proved

to

be extremely useful for

testing design ideas it was well worth the price. This one-bay

two

storymock-up now located beyond the parking lot) made it possible

to

testand correct the effectiveness of he sun-screenlouvers and the

glare-resistant glass which

were

items

of

he greatest importance in

the overall

design.

Color schemes could

be

tried out as

well as

designs

for

filing cabinets,

and

mock-ups

of

urniture.

Also,

sample

columns of Cor-Ten steel were erected and they began

to

weather

and

gave everyone

an

idea of

how they

would look on

the

finished

building.

Everything

in

the building and

in

th building design itself

was reviewedby H ewitt and the Building Committee and evaluated

in

modelform or inful l sea/e mock ups be/ore itwas accepted. e

believe it is important

to

overstate

the

importance

of

models

and

mock-ups.

As

most architects eventually discover, many clients

have

no

ability

to

visualize

how

a building

will

look

when

it's

completed. This is

hard

for architects to understand because they

themselves are visually oriented. They can

see

in their

mind

complete designs

which

they then translate into renderings or

blueprints. But the client usually

has

great difficulty visualizing

spacesas depicted in blueprints. He or she can

t

ell what aroom will

look like until it's built. This is why l rg

s

lemodels and mock

ups are so necessary.

Nothing

seems

to have escaped

the

attention

of

Saarinen and

Hewitt. Fumiture

and

equipment were viewed in model fonn,

discussed

and

considered

at

length,

down

to and including such

things as the china and flatware

used

in the dining rooms, salt

cellars, even the paper packages for sugar on the dining tables.

Throughout the building

ll

fixtures

were

carefully selected -door

handles, drinking fountains, directories, floor plates in

the

firewells.

Nowhere

is

attention

to

detail more noticeable than

in he

design of

the washrooms, where Saarinen took great pains

to

provide

simple,

21


9/22

elegant

fixtures.

Even

the

paper

towel

dispensers which atfirst were

so unobtrusive nobodycouldfind them-reflect a detenninedeffort

to

maintain standards of understated quality. The supervision of

constructionwas also exacting. One of Saarinen's staff

was

on hand

during

the

entire construction period

and

every change

from speci

ficationhad to

be

approved

by

Saarinen s office.

The

contractorwas

reported to have said that he ... had never been as closely

oversupervised. This may

be

true, but the results speak for

them-

selves.

OST

The cost of the building is privileged data and is not

generally known within the organization. While

we

do not feel free

to release th figure which was only recently reported to

us we do

feel compelled to

say

that it

was

much less

th n

we had

estimated.

In fact, our own estimate

was

double the

actual

cost figure

and

substantiallyless than buildings

of

similar quality like

the

Seagram' s

building. Naturally, in comparing these cost figures

we

excluded

land

and fumiture.

There

are

many reasons

why the Deere

building is

nomical building but surely one of

the

most important is the

extensive use of pre-finished materials thatdo not require expensive

labor.

Examples

abound:

movable partitions, vinyl asbestos floor

tUeand prefinished ceiling material. Another labor saving factor

was

the minimal use of plaster which appears

only

in

the

main

corridor walls

and

in executive offices on the Second Floor. The

exposed brick in the central core and the rest rooms also requires

no

finishing.The exterior steel

frame

of

the

building is Cor-Ten which

has its own oxidized finish

and

needs

no

paint orprotective coating.

Most architects who have toured

the

building comment on the

excellent

use of

material related t both initial costand maintenance

costs. Forus

the

building is proof hat good design is not dependent

on high cost.

J


10/22

4

This buildingwas obviously built

to

lastand will undoubtedly

tum out

to

be avery wise investment on the part of he company, i

not a real bargain, as building costs soar every year. Because of its

country location the building cost a fraction

of

anything of

comparable size in a city. Trying

to

allocate costs within the

company would

be

very difficult because this building

does

much

more than just house 1 200 employees. It

has

been

an

invaluable

asset in personnel recruitment and company public relations.

How the uilding Works

While the initial impact of

his

building is overwhelming

and

one is immediately impressed by its great strength

and

beauty, there

is something else that comes through even

more

forcefully

as

one

visits it repeatedly. Everything

conv

e

ys

quality

and

congruence.

Each component of this building seems to wotk in harmony with

every other component-all of

them at

the same

high

level

of

performance. The beauty

of

its setting seems balanced by the

perfection of ts design, rooted in meticulous planning.

Certain spaces elicit certain behavior and

this building

was

designed

for work.

In

the words

of

one

employee, This building is

a beautiful work machine. Another man voiced

this

opinion about

the

building before he moved

in:

Sorne people aren

t

going to like

this

building because they are going

to

have

to

pull

up

their socks.

This struck usas an accurate prediction. The extreme sense oforder,

efficiency, neatness

and

precision that one feels as one walks

through the building's interiors undoubtedly carnes over

to

ll

employees to

sorne

degree. It 's hard to

iJna

ine

an

one feer that

this

SQace

was desimed for anxthing but work.

This sense of orderliness

and

efficiency is reinforced by such

things as the absence of the clutter of personal effects in anyone s

office. Hats and coats are hung in closets in the central corridors.

Few personal mementoes are displayed in work areas. There is also

a clean

desk

policy that

requires

employees

to

put everything

away


11/22

26

away

at

the

end

of

each

day.

At first there were

many

complaints

about this, but by

the

end of five years

people

apparently

had

become use

to

it

and

the complaints

were

less

frequent.

Each floor contains 31,600 square feet. A 12-foot central

corridor between

two

rows of exposed steel columns gives

an

unobstructed area on each floor, with a 42-foot span on each side of

the corridor to the exterior glass walls. Movable steel partitions

spaced in accordance

with

a 3 x 6 foot module divide the floor areas

to

suit departmental needs.

As

the visitorwalks through the interiors of

he

building he or

she

can't help being struck by

the

sense of compartmentalization.

Each department

is

successfully enclosed

and

screened

from

other

departments

and

far enough from the long central

c o ~ r

to

Q OVide

a sense of privacy-almost isolation-from the rest of the

organization. i n t r u e s on these departmental units. They

~

~

sort o

t it

e

:

protected

from

auditory

and

visual

f14

1stractons

.

While it is true that

the

building compartmentalizes

the

company, this

s

entirely consistentwith organization of Deere

and

Company,

where departments are self-contained

units.

The building

probably strengthens each department's interna functioning.

However, it should be noted that a design which segregares depart

ments would not work for

an

organization that depends on maxi-

mum

interaction between departments. Again, it demonstrates the

importance ofthe architects's understanding ofhow the organiza

tion wotks, so that his design can be congruent with tbe way his

client 's business functions. Architects cannot overcome personnel

or organizational problems, but at least they should not add to

these problems. This means that architects must knuw their client s

goals needs,functions and organization.

Perhaps

the

thing that most impressed

us

about the building

on our last visit is the fact that after five

years

of occupancy it

still

looked brand new. For a building housing twelve hundred employ

ees

for

five years this

is

no

small achievement

and

reflects both

the

excellence

of

Saarinen s design

and the

superior maintenance pro

vided by thecompany.

Anothervery impressive feature is

the

fl.exibility of

he

floor

to-ceiling partitions which Saarinen designed, enabling various

departments to rearrange their

space

as needed.

They

are so

well

designed that they show little sign

of

wearand tear despite consider

able

spatial rearrangemt:nt in several departments. The common

objection to many movable walls is: 1)

that

they are in practice not

very

movable;

2) people don

tmove them.

The partitions often split

the difference between the temporary

and the

permanent -they have

the advantages

of neither

and

the disadvantages ofboth. Saarinen

managed

to

design movable walls that look like part of

he

building.

It should be noted that

the

maintenance department at Deere

and

Company

has really mastered

the

art of moving walls, and can

completely rearrange a department ovemight. They 'vedone it often

enough

to

know

how

to

do

it

well, and they

have quality material to

work

with. We've observed the operation and while it cannot be

termed effortless, it does work and

work

well.

RESTROOMS

The rest rooms are unusually handsome, spacious and well

designed - the most luxurious

we

have ever seen in any office

building. About the only major deficiency

we

noted

is

the lack of

provision for a rest

~

adjacent to

the Jadies rooms.

It's

ve

importantto provide

sorne

place

where women

can

lle down

quietly

for afew minutes. Without such a rest area,

when

a woman doesn t

feel well or just

wants to

rest for afew minutes she has to go down

to the ground floor First Aid Room

which

simply cannot

accommo-

date all those

who

need a quiet place

to

rest.

IMPACT

ON MPWY S

In

our

interviews of

Deere

personnel, individual responses

to

the building varied widely. In contrast

to

sorne

who

felt inhibited by

27


12/22

the building' s design, there were severa people

(in

product design,

engineering

and

advertising) who mentioned that the building had

actually changed their approachto their

work. They

felt freerto

seek

new

solutions

and

to

try

things out.

As

one

said,

"This building

n g e d my

thinkng and I'm not so much in a rut anymore."

A

few

employees feltthat theircreativity

as well as

their

own

sense of individuality

was

hampered by

the

building.

This

was

expressed as dissatisfaction with

the

fact thaw

0

one can

ge

rsonalize

s or her own work sgace . The design its

cli' d

oes not filow

iS

"personal touches,"

and

there are strict regulations preventing

~ ~ ~ o p l e

from

putting

up

pictures, photographs, maps, charts, etc.

This is

an

effort on management's part to pre

serv

e the purity of

design

and

keep

out any

"Mickey Mouse" touches.

28

S9me people felt the building denied them privacy

and

they

spoke ofbeing "on display a1l the time ." The large glass areas offer

practically isual

Qrivacv

and

most

eo

le

are

clearly visible to

t a numberof othersanday lon

g.

Even private offices have sorne glass

l walls. This imposes certain restrictions on people's behavior. You

don't put your feet

up

on your desk or take off your necktie.

A

few

people rnentioned

to us

that they

found the

building

tiring We

began thinking about this

and

wondering what features

contributed to this particular reaction. First, we thought of he work

tempo in the building, which

is

very noticeable.

You

feel this when

you walk into the building and as you go from one department to

another. Everyone is working hard

and

pushing themselves.

The

building itselfhas a kind of"rapid beat"

and

is experienced

by

sorne

as

alittle

cold,

a

feeling

that is

contributed

to

by

the

florescent ceilings.

Another factor that

may be

responsible for the feelings of

fatigue is the fact that there are

no areas where

employ

ees

can gather

-

nformally--no lounges or meeting

rooms

. This

means

that on

coffee breaks

and

at lunch hour o fo can only go to the cafeteria

Cl

z

o

=

:;)

l

11.

(.)

:

o

...J

01. the fourth dimension in architecture

Documents