Flex Space

Is architecture too specific? As designers, we are often asked to think of space as an extension of the occupant. We analyze spatial usage, program adjacencies, and get into the mind of our clients. We pursue quantitative information to validate design decisions as the “right way” to design a library, office, restaurant, etc. When we complete a project it works well for the current occupant of the space, but how will it reflect the occupant 50 years from now?

In Margaret Crawford’s Little Boxes: High Tech and the Silicon Valley, we see that oftentimes, unprogrammed or flexible space is key to innovation and adaptability. Whether that be a garage or a prefab building, or even a lightweight constructed house. In architecture, we often site these spaces as undersigned and economically driven. I am not defending the construction of this type of cookie-cutter architecture, what I am defending is the opportunity for customization and growth that occupants of these spaces have to make it their own, and eventually move to a space that is better suitable for them at that moment in time, like Wozniak and Jobs and Apple Inc.

Architecture should be more flexible, both for its user and for its longevity over time. Thinking more specifically on spaces that are designed for start-ups or growing companies, they should focus on providing adaptability through construction type, an array of spatial dividers, ease of assembly, local construction and materials, and focus on the intent of the space being adaptable versus one that is hyper-specific to the current occupant. This allows for growth and for occupants to change over time.