UX and Architecture User Experience vs. “Being Interesting”
Rendering of Apple Park, Cupertino, California.
RENDERING © APPLE
Apple Park, located in Cupertino, California, and designed by the award-winning architecture firm Foster + Partners, fully opened its doors in 2017. It cost roughly five billion dollars and took six years to come to fruition. The new circle-shaped headquarters is 2.8 million square feet of office space, and tries to move away from private offices to an open-plan concept with shared desks and bench seating, with the intent of fostering collaboration among teams. The late Steve Jobs – Apple’s founder – had instructed Foster + Partners to design a space that would house 12,000 employees under one roof; in his mind, this design rethought the modern office and he projected that it would be a success. The Architect’s Newspaper quotes him as saying, “I think we have a shot at the best office building in the world.”1
However, when it opened its doors to employees in April 2017, Apple Park was met with complaint and criticism, and it appeared as though Jobs had not taken into consideration his employees’ discomfort in working in an office with an open-plan concept. It has been reported that employees were not willing to accept these working conditions and rumors spread around Silicon Valley that employees were seeking to quit, due to their extreme dislike for the design of the space. A major concern of the employees was the excessive noise and distraction caused by these work surroundings, with some executives even expressing dissatisfaction with the design. Furthermore, research has suggested that “they were damaging to the workers’ attention spans, productivity, creative thinking, and satisfaction.”2
This happens more often than you would think in architectural practice. Have you ever entered a restaurant that looks amazing, however, you could not hear the person sitting in front of you? Or entered a study space intended for focus, but the surroundings were so distracting that you couldn’t focus on learning? These examples of the architecture hindering the usability of a space are indications that the vision of the client or architect is interfering with – or explicitly disregarding – the human condition within the space.
Similar issues have been touched on in architectural theory over the years, with many claiming that space defines program, instead of the other way around. It is important to leave room for interpretation in architecture; however, problems occur when the client’s vision differs so significantly from the needs and desires of the people using the space that it impacts the users in a negative way. The question becomes: how much do architects care about the living experience of those inhabiting their buildings? Many would claim that they care very much. But it should be their top priority. Instead, when architecture is evaluated in competitions or in academic settings, it is typically judged on originality – “being interesting” and having an innovative architectural concept, rather than enhancing the living experience of the potential occupants.
Apple Park is an example of a design where “being interesting” came at the expense of the employees’ satisfaction with their work environment. Innovation and originality are both important aspects of design and a way to test and push new concepts, however, the experience of the user is just as important or more important. What distinguishes architecture from art is users’ continuous occupation within the structure (my opinion, but the line is very grey). Furthermore, there is a lack of post-occupancy evaluation of spaces from the user standpoint to better inform future designs or possibly to leave room to adjust the current design to match the user’s needs.
In the sequel to this three-part essay, the author will discuss user experience (UX) design and Lean Startup methodology, as they apply to architecture.
REFERENCES
1. https://archpaper.com/2017/08/employees-unhappy-apple-campus
2. https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-open-office-trap