Rules of Engagement: Architecture Theory and The Social Sciences in Frank Duffy's 1974 Thesis On Office Planning
Rules of Engagement: Architecture Theory and The Social Sciences in Frank Duffy's 1974 Thesis On Office Planning
Rules of Engagement: Architecture Theory and The Social Sciences in Frank Duffy's 1974 Thesis On Office Planning
Branden Hookway
Working Paper #39, Summer 2009
Rules of Engagement: Architecture Theory and the Social Sciences in Frank Duffys 1974
Thesis on Office Planning
Branden Hookway
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses the broad shift that took place in architectural theory and education
in the 70s, where models of the discipline asserting the autonomy of architecture eclipsed
models privileging architectures ties to other disciplines, particularly technology and the
social sciences. With Frank Duffy's Princeton thesis on open office planning (1974) as a
focus, the paper explores the theoretical and institutional contexts of this shift and offers
a critical reappraisal in light of contemporary issues facing architecture.
While the focus of this paper is on the context of the writing of a single
dissertation, Frank Duffys 1974 thesis on office planning at the then-named School of
Architecture and Urban Planning at Princeton University, my aim is to address two
tendencies often viewed as oppositional within architecture culture of the 1960s and
1970s. The first of these follows Duffys thesis topic, where planning methods, which
were generally treated within the architecture schools of the time as taking place at the
urban scale and under the patronage of the state, were extended to the more intimate scale
of space planning and to the sponsorship of private industry. In advocating the use of
social science methodology in the analysis of organizational behavior as a prelude to
design, Duffys thesis could be read as part of a tendency, including for example the
design methods movement, which sought to further integrate architecture with other
disciplines, especially the social sciences and technology. In adapting specialized
knowledge from other disciplines for use in the architectural design process, this
tendency challenged the Beaux-Arts idea of the architect as a professional generalist
form-giver, assuming instead a continual re-evaluation of the architects role in society in
light of specialized knowledge, technological change, the changing needs of clients, and
so on. Duffys thesis, for example, proposes a model that blurs the distinction between
architect and management consultant. The second tendency, which mostly won out in
architecture schools, brought about a broad shift in architectural discourse around the
idea of the disciplinary autonomy of architecture. Often associated with postmodernism,
this shift brought with it a profound reformulation of what would constitute architecture
theory and subsequently effected fundamental changes in architectural pedagogy and in
the organization of the schools themselves. Most strikingly, this lead to the de-emphasis
or outright removal of urban design and planning from the curriculum of many
architecture schools, and, in a discipline that had only recently begun to adopt study at
the PhD level, a new delimitation of the methodologies and aims that would define
advanced research.
This is not to say there were no attempts to find middle ground between the two
tendencies. It is interesting to note that this period has recently received renewed
attention from architectural theorists, perhaps on account of the growing reliance of
architecture on computing and media technology and the subsequent re-appraisal by
theorists for precedents where architects explicitly addressed systems thinking. i Rather,
architecture theory was the zone of contention between two separate discourses,
integration and autonomy, or to use sociologist Robert Gutmans terminology,
simulators and purifiers: the first referring to the reconciliation of architecture to the
expectation and choices of clients in an advanced industrial society, and the second to
the distillation of architecture discourse to basic principles and cultural ideal-types. ii
For Gutman, this contrast could be illustrated with two documents from 1966: a report on
architectural education commissioned by the American Institute of Architects and
directed by Robert Geddes (who had recently become the first Dean of the Princeton
School of Architecture and Urban Planning) and Bernard Spring, and Robert Venturis
seminal Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. The Geddes-Spring report
advocated the integrated studio, a studio co-taught by an architect and by a specialist in
another field such as engineering or the social sciences, as a way of training students to
comprehend the continuing changes in the social, economic, political, scientific, and
technological setting of our society. The overall goal was to develop a larger context for
the education of architects, which they identified as environmental design:
We understand today how the changing of any part of our environment
affects and interacts with every other aspect of that environmentno decision
about physical design is wholly independent. That is why this study has
chosen to deal with education for environmental design rather than separately
with architecture, engineering, planning or any other of the traditional
disciplines. As our knowledge grows, of the way that the work of the
traditional disciplines must always interact in the real world, it becomes
difficult to put the educational problems of these disciplines in separate
compartments. iii
For Venturi, however, the integrative approach is only staking a claim for architecture
rather than producing architecture. The result has been diagrammatic planning. Venturi
targets the platitudinous architects who invoke integrity, technology, or electronic
programming as ends in architecture, the popularizers who paint fairy stories over our
chaotic reality and suppress those complexities and contradictions inherent in art and
experience. Citing Geddes, Venturi writes: I make no special attempt to relate
architecture to other things. I have not tried to improve the connection between science
and technology on one hand, and the humanities and the social sciences on the
otherand make of architecture a more human social art. I try to talk about architecture
rather than around it. iv
What was at stake in delimiting architecture theory was the setting of
architectures disciplinary boundaries, most directly in the context of university
education, but also with wide reaching effect on architectural practice. That autonomy
emerged triumphant can be read not only in the institutional histories but also in the sense
in which the practice of architectural theory is now understood. Architecture theory
would advance typology, but not design methods. v For example, architectural theorist K.
Michael Hays could write in 2000 of the now highly specialized field of architecture
theory in the introduction to his survey of essays Architecture Theory Since 1968. Here
recent architecture theory is presented as a lineage running from structuralism and
phenomenology to poststructuralism and deconstruction, which, significantly, begins
with an oppositional stance, militating against the received models of modernist
functionalism and the positivist analyses that had reemerged in the guise of behaviorism,
sociology, and operations research in the 1960s. In a formulation reminiscent of Venicebased Marxian theorist Manfredo Tafuri, Hays characterizes the theorists he has curated
as individuals with some remaining faith in an engaged resistance to the system yet
still able to be titillated by the ecstatic surrender of the architectural subject to the very
forces that threaten its demise. vi
In the end, architecture theory is discourse on architectures engagement with
society. Disagreement within a discourse, or between competing discourses, can always
be framed as having to do with the means, aims, or lines of attack of this engagement, as
these constitute the boundaries of a discourse. In titling this paper Rules of
Engagement, I hope to suggest both the freedom and limitation inherent to architectural
theory, including but by no means limited to engaged resistance in a Marxian sense, to a
Sartrean sense of engagement as the social and political responsibility inherent in
intellectual work, to engagement in the sense of military and policing tactics governing
when, how, and how much force is to be used. Also, I wish to emphasize the role of selfpolicing rules within any discourse or institution, which determine acceptable methods,
aims, stylistic preferences and so on, whether acknowledged explicitly by its practitioners
or implicit in practice. This is in preparation for discussing an academic thesis that could
no longer be supported at the institution in which it was completed, and in a discipline
that due to its methods and wide range of interests and influences has long had difficulty
in defining its fit in a university setting.
The Princeton School of Architecture and Urban Planning established its PhD
program in 1967, shortly after the school separated from the Department of Art and
Archaeology to become its own School with Geddes its first Dean, and began to offer a
Master of Architecture (MArch) as its design degree where before it had offered a Master
of Fine Arts (MFA). In setting up the school, Geddes found inspiration the Department of
Architecture at Cambridge, then run by Lionel March, as the first architecture school set
up on the liberal arts model, as well as the ideas of Princeton University president Robert
F. Goheen on the qualities of a humanist university. vii Architecture was to be woven into
the university as a whole, with links in particular to history, the social and behavioral
sciences, and engineering. As a small school, its strength was to come through
interdisciplinary study. viii The PhD as it was first established was limited in scope to the
above three areas of competency. With the disciplinary shift from integration to
autonomy, and coincidental to Geddes replacement by Robert Maxwell as Dean of the
School in 1982, the PhD soon exclusively supported work in history and theory. A list of
PhD theses submitted to the Princeton School of Architecture demonstrates this clear
break. Where earlier theses included A Content Analysis of Environmental Concerns and
Implications of Strategic Planning (Ronald Puschak, 1981) and Managing Urban
Conflict: Torontos Response to Housing Related Protests (Hannah Shostack, 1983), later
theses included Sources of Modern Eclecticism: Studies of Alvar Aalto (Demetri
Porphyrious, 1984) and Urbanism and Utopia: Le Corbusier from Regional Syndicalism
to Vichy (Mary McLeod, 1985). After this point, nearly all of the theses submitted to the
Princeton School of Architecture are engaged in history and criticism; today this is
entirely the case. From the start this approach would be marked by the need for
architecture theory to carve out its own niche in academica. Richard Etlins 1978 thesis,
The Cemetery and the City: Paris 1744-1804, is illustrative here. With architectural
historian David Coffin and architectural theorist Anthony Vidler as primary advisors, The
Cemetery and the Citywhich situates urban hygiene as a cultural as much as practical
problem, and which uses techniques drawn from literary criticism to understand the
Cemetery of the Innocentssignals the growing privileging within architectural theory of
tools drawn from historical research, such as textuality and semiology, as means of
understanding cities. In describing the aims of his thesis, Etlin is particularly concerned
with differentiating his methodologythat of the architectural theoristfrom the
methodology of the historian: the entire study may seem to belong to some neverland of
academia which defies categorization. The true interests, though, of historical inquiry
reside precisely in projects which extend beyond officially sanctioned limits of
departmental territoriality. ix In adopting methods drawn from history, Etlin is at the
same time critical of these methods as not allowing for the kind of cultural synthesis
architectural theory seems to demand. He suggests that history attempt the integration of
the disciplines in order to understand the mentalit of past societes. x Etlins
methodology, though it limits its objects of study to the historical past, still holds to
architectural theorys promise of reconciliation through an act of synthesis located in the
present. By attentively examining the architecture of this period in its relationship to
social, political, cultural, and spiritual motivations, he argues, we can contribute to our
understanding of a mentalit which encompasses both collective attitude and individual
accomplishment. xi While, to be sure, one of the main intents of this thesis is to unpack a
particular historical context, it is also deemed necessary that the context be framed within
a set of contemporary issues. Thus understanding Paris in the late 18th century becomes a
way of revealing, as though archaeologically, the ideological foundations of the
contemporary city.
Yet it could be argued that just as the historical mode of architectural theory
utilized by Etlin sought to frame historical criticism through the concerns of the present,
so the mode of social science based architectural theory this historical mode would
displace made use of its own production of the present as a methodological device. The
present served to frame the social sciences, essentially in adapting the social sciences to
those issues pressing to architecture at the time. As much as this is the case, I would
argue, the social sciences provide material to be drawn upon by architectural theory that
is just as valid as that material drawn from historical and literary criticism. Despite the
charge that the methods and concerns of urban planning had diverged enough from those
of architecture to justify splitting the two departments, which eventually led in the late
1970s to the transfer of the entire department of Urban Planning at Princeton University
out of the School of Architecture and into the Woodrow Wilson School of Policy and
International Affairs, we can identify theses done under the aegis of planning rather than
historical criticism that are engaged in architectural theory. An example of this is the
thesis submitted by Frank Duffy in 1974: Office Interiors and Organizations: a
Comparative Study of the Relation between Organizational Structure and the Use of
Interior Space in Sixteen Office Organizations.
Frank Duffy, who was born in England in 1940, began his architectural education
at the Architectural Association (AA) in London. xii In the early 1960s, planning was an
important component of British architectural discourse, with the soundness of planning
methods demonstrated by the seeming successes of the postwar rebuilding effort. At the
time, nearly half of British architects worked for public departments. In London in
particular, the London County Council (LCC) wielded a great deal of authority over
housing development, city planning, and education. As London grew, the mandate of the
LCC greatly increased with the Greater London Development Plan of 1963 and its
subsequent reformation of the LCC as the Greater London Council (GLC) in 1965. In
this environment, many of the design studios at the AA focused on state-funded programs
such as schools and social housing. The intellectual climate at the AA was particularly
rich at this time, with a number of influential architects and theorists counted among its
faculty, including Alison and Peter Smithson, Archigram, and Cedric Price. Also at the
AA were Robert Maxwell and Alan Colquhoun, who would eventually take faculty
positions at the Princeton School of Architecture (with Maxwell serving as Dean from
1982-1989). Planning played a pivotal role in the architectural imagination of the time,
whether cast in positive, fantastical, or critical terms. The architects Alison and Peter
Smithson were known for a body of writings and projects built and unbuilt exploring
contemporary issues of education, housing, and city planning; their most influential
works included the Hunstanton School (1949-54), a project addressing contemporary
educational theories through an architectural style soon labeled New Brutalist by
architectural theorist Reyner Banham, and a competition entry for the Golden Lane Estate
housing project (1952), which proposed an urban condition making use of elevated
walkways dubbed streets in the sky. xiii Archigram, a group of young architects based at
the AA, produced speculative urban-scaled projects (such as Plug-In-City and
Walking City, both of 1964) that explored new space-age technologies, urban
megastructures, and consumer culture through an aesthetic heavily influenced by science
fiction, comic books, and the proto-Pop Art interests of the Independent Group of artists
based at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. Architect and writer Cedric Price
drew from cybernetic discourse in theorizing an architecture that would be mobile,
modular, and transformable according to the needs of its users in such projects as Fun
Palace (1965). He would later co-author Non-Plan with Banham, journalist Paul Barker,
and planner Peter Hall, an influential critique of top-down planning in the name of
personal freedom, with a laissez-faire approach to city planning advocated in its place. xiv
his research at how little systematized study had been done on the space planning and
functioning of the office, and at the apparent lack of innovation at that level of office
design. He discovered office landscaping in a single paragraph written by Banham in
Architectural Review that introduced a new type of office planning coming out of
Germany. This mention was part of a special issue of Architectural Review titled AR
Euromart, compiled and edited by Banham and published in May 1963, shortly after
Britains initial exclusion from the European Common Market. For Banham, the prospect
of a borderless Europe would have profound and mostly positive implications for Britain,
ranging from the technical aspects of building to the formation of cultural identity, as
trade affects the business of building and the practice of architecture as much as it does
other parts of the British economy and professional practice, and involves both with
developments that are currently revolutionizing the life, the labor, and the appearance of
the whole of Western Europe. xv British architects would not only have access to an
expanded range of goods and technologies, but would also find themselves as continuing
a long tradition, owing to the high degree of professional mobility that European
architects have always shown, of cross-border cultural fertilization:
The present generation of Mercedes-born consultants were preceded by
Gothic masons on loan from one diocese to another, Renaissance uomini
universali who found Italy to small or too hot for them, stuccatori or
bnistes, professional draughtsmen and lordly amateurs to whom the whole
of Rococo Europe was a single architectural scene, Scots civil engineers and
North Country railwaymen who changed the face of Europe and at the same
time brought its extremities closer together, Art Nouveau designers working
the circuit of international exhibitions and Kunstgewerbe schools. xvi
Here, Banham treated the continuous everyday transfer of technical ideas and
professional practices as being far more significant to this cross-border exchange of ideas
than any formal adoption of cultural norms; thus AR Euromart dealt less with
architecture and design, as such, than with the trades and professions, products and
organizations that bear directly or indirectly on the way in which architects conceive and
detail their designs. xvii
2. The free-association office-plan, indicating the clustering of work groups, shown in AR Euromart.
Executed by the Quickborner Team in 1961 for Buch und Ton, a German mail-order firm.
concept of a large office space organized into regular ranks of desks and partitions, the
creators of the new office plan, management consultants Eberhard and Wolfgang
Schnelle and architect Werner Henn, proposed a planning method that seems to have
affinities with the theories of natural clustering employed by Kevin Lynch in the US or
the Brutalists in Britain. For Banham this was a very promising idea; theoretical
10
justifications of all sorts, from cybernetics to circulation, are available, while with right
basic decisions, and intelligent adjustment later, there might well emerge a pattern of
working and occupying space that would manifest a clear and unmistakable functional
order. xix
The office planning idea, called Brolandschaft (literally: office landscape),
proposed an expansive, open, partition-free office space, with simple office furniture and
low movable partitions arranged according to a set of rules meant to enhance the flow of
information through the office. The rules of Brolandschaft would allow as well for
varying degrees of privacy and openness through the control of sightlines and the use of
partitions, and would carefully modulate the ambient acoustics of the workspace through
the use of carpeting and acoustical ceilings, and the lack of interior walls. The planning
3. (Left) A matrix chart used by the Quickborner Team in the analysis of work flow between groups.
4. (Right) A model of the Buch und Ton office floor, as shown in AR Euromart.
process began with a detailed study of the requirements and procedures of the office work
being done, as well as of the organizational hierarchy itself. Its practitioners would be
management consultants as much as they would be designers; Brolandschaft would
essentially animate as a spatial strategy a number of the American managerial ideas that
had taken hold in Germany after the Second World War. Duffy, then in his fourth year at
the AA, visited around a dozen Brolandschaft offices in Germany. Following the
interest aroused by Banhams brief article, Architectural Review commissioned him to
write a full article, which would appear in the February 1964 issue. Here Duffy opposed
11
Brolandschaft to the more rigid and surveillance-driven American open office plan, with
Brolandschaft reflecting the realization that office work is essentially a ritual in which
people do things together, involving a continuous flow of work from one table to the
next. It has been developed from work-study technique and the furniture arrangements it
produces, though free in appearance, are in fact arrived at by work-study methods. xx In
Brolandschaft, this realization would have implications at all levels of office
organization: instead of providing either complete privacy or total surveillance, there
would be the use of carpeting and screens to allow gradated levels of local intimacy; in
place of a rigid time schedule, the inclusion of a Pausenraum, a small refreshments area
situated in the middle of the office floor, would dispense of all office hours with the
idea that it is better for people to break off their work when they feel inclined and to
leave their immediate workplace thanto have an official break. xxi In relaxing the rigid
hierarchies embedded in earlier office designs and propagated in earlier management
theories, Brolandschaft would ask of workers a greater degree of self-motivation, and
encourage more fluid and spontaneous interactions with co-workers and team members.
Essentially, people in Brolandschaft are expected to organize their own time. xxii
Shortly after the publication of this article, Harry Cemach of Anbar Publications, a small
press that identified as its specialization organization, management, and methods,
commissioned Duffy to write a short monograph on Brolandschaft that would be
published in 1966 as Office Landscaping: A New Approach to Office Planning. xxiii
Having established an interest in office planning before arriving at Princeton to
write his thesis, Duffy would be further influenced by his time at the University of
California at Berkeley, where he went to study architecture in 1967 under a Harkness
Fellowship. While at Berkeley, he studied with Christopher Alexander and statistician
and planning theorist Horst Rittel, who were engaged in debate over design methods and
Alexanders pattern language, with Rittel maintaining from the basis of systems theory
that Alexanders pattern language was too deterministic, and therefore too brittle, to fully
capture or model complex environments. xxiv Duffy found at the time, however, that the
kinds of generic relationships and patterns suggested by Alexander were useful to
architectural design, and published a paper in Building Research in 1968 that he
described as carried out under [Alexanders] guidance and reflect[ing] his ideas. xxv
12
Essentially, these patterns would become methods for transmitting established knowledge
about office design; they would be building blocks, resolved problems that may be fitted
together in an infinite variety of ways, to build the design of an office floor or an office
building. xxvi This knowledge would be collected through the social sciences, which
would yield applied research, that is useful, that is not too difficult or expensive, and
that is conducted within the framework of a model of relationships between job, worker,
and building. xxvii
At the same time, gathering data on the social effects of environmental factors
was by no means simple. Duffy first of all called into question the straightforward
architectural determinism he saw as prevalent among architects: the view that
buildings determine peoples behavior. For Duffy, this attitude could only be
cheerfully paternalistic at best, or grimly exploitative for the sake of productivity at
worst. xxviii Against this view he would position those few social scientists who are
sufficiently interested to admit that buildings may influence behavior but who regard
buildings as something independent of human activity like music to a film, parallel but
not a shaping force. And these social scientists are undoubtedly considerably more in
touch with the data. xxix The idea that buildings could not overtly be a shaping force
was reinforced in the social sciences by the Hawthorne studies, a series of experiments at
Western Electrics Hawthorne Plant outside Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s on the effect
of changing light conditions on worker productivity. The most widely publicized
conclusion to come out of these studies, often referred to as the Hawthorne effect, was
that worker productivity increased simply with the workers knowledge that their work
was being observed and that their opinions were being taken into account. For Duffy, the
fact that social scientists could no longer conduct environmental research which dealt
only with overt stimuli and response, there resulted in organizational research a swing
away from human engineering to human relations; among social scientists there was a
rapid decline of interest in environmental variables; architects became even more cut off
from the stimulus of good empirical work in their own field. xxx
In 1968, Alexanders pattern language would provide Duffy with both a
methodology for bringing empirical social science into play in architecture, and a
possible theoretical justification of office landscaping. In a second article published while
13
14
thesis. While it would be formulated in the language of social science, Duffy held that
the research had to be relevant to topical issues which were of practical importance to
architects and designers. Rather than seeking cause and effect type relationships, he
sought to demonstrate through case studies a relationship between people and buildings
by utilizing a comparative format for both social science and architecture data. Most
importantly equal weight had to be given to both social science and architectural
variables. Otherwise, the research would have lapsed into the common fault of losing
sight of the relationship between people and buildings because of a bias toward
investigation on one side or the other. xxxv
Although his thesis would deal with theoretical issues, including for example a
history of the scientific management of the workplace and a discussion of
contemporary issues in organizational theory, it would primarily formulate itself as an
empirical study:
The hypotheses which are tested are that organizational Interaction is strongly
related to Subdivision and that the degree of organizational formality and
stiffness (Bureaucracy) is strongly related to physical Differentiation between
workplaces and layouts. xxxvi
From there, he would propose a model relating different types of office layout and office
organization:
Assuming the independence of these two basic pairs of dimensions
Interaction and Subdivision, and Bureaucracy and Differentiation a
hypothetical model is constructed which distinguishes between types of office
organization (highly bureaucratic and highly interactive; highly bureaucratic
but low in interactivity, etc) and types of layout (highly differentiated, low in
subdivision; highly differentiated, highly subdivided etc.) The model allows
the correspondences between types of organization to be examined
systematically. xxxvii
Finally, he would propose a method of measuring aspects of the office environment,
along with office behavior:
To test these hypotheses, measures of physical Differentiation and
Subdivision were invented. These were based on Area, Expense, Work
15
16
17
18
19
Examples of recent architecture theoretical re-appraisals of this period of disciplinary change include
Felicity Scotts essay on Emilio Ambaszs Universitas Project, which theorized an experimental
university conjoining Architecture + Technology + Theory, and Sean Kellers essay on Lionel Marshs
attempt to found an architectural science along cybernetic lines at Cambridge. See Felicity Scott, On the
Counter-Design of Institutions: Emilio Ambaszs Universitas Symposium at MOMA, in Grey Room 14,
Winter 2004, pp. 47-77, and Sean Keller, Fenland Tech: Architectural Science in Postwar Cambridge, in
Grey Room 23, Spring 2006, pp. 40-65.
ii
Robert Gutman, Educating Architects: Pedagogy and the Pendulum, in Nathan Glazer and Mark Lilla,
eds., The Public Face of Architecture: Civic Culture and Public Spaces (New York: The Free Press, 1987)
453-4.
iii
Robert L. Geddes and Bernard P. Spring, A Study of Education for Environmental Design: A Report by
Princeton University for The American Institute of Architects (Princeton University, December 1967), 9, 4.
iv
Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (New York: The Museum of Modern Art,
1966), 20-1.
v
See Alan Colquhoun, Typology and Design Method, in Perspecta Vol. 12 (1969), pp. 71-4.
vi
K. Michael Hays, Introduction, in K. Michael Hays, Architecture Theory Since 1968 (Cambridge: The
See Robert F. Goheen, The Human Nature of a University (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
viii
Information on the Princeton School of Architecture and Urban Planning under the direction of Dean
Richard Allen Etlin, The Cemetery and the City: Paris 1744-1804 (PhD thesis, Princeton University,
1978) 4.
x
Etlin, 5.
xi
Etlin, 8.
xii
The biographical information on Frank Duffy cited in this essay is based on personal interviews in April
2003 (at a seminar run by Robert Gutman) and October 2003, and via email in May 2005.
xiii
The urban theories of the Smithsons would later meet with significant public criticism; a similarly-
conceived public housing complex, Robin Hood Gardens (1969-1972), also designed by the Smithsons,
would later become a symbol of the failures of planned public housing.
xiv
Reyner Banham, Paul Barker, Peter Hall, and Cedric Price, Non-Plan: An Experiment in Freedom, in
New Society, vol. 38 no. 338, March 1969. See also Jonathan Hughes and Simon Sadler, eds., Non-Plan:
Essays on Freedom, Participation, and Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism (Oxford,
Architectural Press, 2000).
xv
Reyner Banham, Europe: The Relevant Continent in The Architectural Review, vol. 133 no. 795, May
1963, 313.
xvi
xvii
20
xviii
Reyner Banham, Europe: Office Cluster in The Architectural Review, vol. 133 no. 795, May 1963,
306.
xix
xx
Francis Duffy, Skill: Brolandschaft in The Architectural Review, vol. 135 no. 804, February 1964,
148.
xxi
xxii
xxiii
Frank Duffy, Office Landscaping: A New Approach to Office Planning (London: Anbar Publications,
1966).
xxiv
For a sense of the issues involved in the debate over pattern language between Rittel and Alexander, see
Jean-Pierre Protzen, The poverty of the pattern language, and Christopher Alexander, Value, in Design
Studies, Vol. 1 No. 5 (July 1980) pp. 291-8.
xxv
Francis Duffy, Architects and the Social Sciences (1968), collected in Francis Duffy with Les Hutton,
Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession (New York: Routledge, 1998), 11. First published as
Architect, Developer, User, Government, Manufacturer, and the Office Building in Building Research,
July 1968.
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
Francis Duffy, Petrified Typologies (1969), collected in Architectural Knowledge, 28-29. First
published as A Method of Analyzing and Charting Relationships in the Office, in Architects Journal,
March 12, 1969, 693-699.
xxxii
xxxiii
Francis C. Duffy, Office Interiors and Organizations: a Comparative Study of the Relation between
Organizational Structure and the Use of Interior Space in Sixteen Office Organizations (PhD dissertation,
Princeton University, 1974), iii.
xxxiv
xxxv
Francis Duffy, Office Design and Organizations (1974), in Architectural Knowledge, 49-50. From
revised introduction drawn from Francis Duffys Princeton dissertation. First published in this form as
Office Design and Organizations: I. Theoretical Basis, in Environment and Planning B, 1974, vol. I, 105118.
xxxvi
Duffy, Office Interiors and Organizations, iii. Italics underlined in the original.
xxxvii
xxxviii
21
xxxix
Douglas McGregor, Theory Y: The Integration of Individual and Organizational Goals in The
Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), 56.
xl
H. J. Lorenzen and D. Jaeger, The Office Landscape, Contract Magazine, April 1968. Quoted in Duffy,
xlii
xliii
xliv
xlv
I. March and P. Steadman, The Geometry of the Environment (London: RIBA Publications, 1971), 9.
xlvii
xlviii
The symposium describes Brolandschaft as one of the few internationally acclaimed post-WWII
contributions to German architecture. Office Landscape: A forgotten reform strategy of German post-war
modernism
(Symposium
Brolandschaft:
eine
vergessene
Reformstrategie
der
deutschen
Nachkriegsmoderne) was held in July 2008 in Kassel, Germany, with Frank Duffy as one of its invited
participants.
22