Subtitles for From Instruction to Innovation

155   1   0  
  Pause sub
Hello.
I think we're going to start.
My name is Adele Santos.
I was the Dean at the School of Planning,
Architecture School of Planning here from 2004 to 2014.
And I'm still here as a co-director
for the Center of Advanced Urbanism,
and doing some teaching in architecture and in planning.
So this panel is called "From Instruction to Innovation."
And I think the growth of innovation districts--
thanks to partnerships between universities, governments,
and industry-- has led, in a way,
to a new model, as actually described by Hilary Bowden
earlier.
Thank you, Hilary.
That was useful to me.
Kendall Square is our neighborhood,
and it is the phenomenon that has responded
to the presence of MIT attracted by the incubating of talent
by the advancement of knowledge about the kind of level
of research that is going on at MIT.
But I have to say that when I arrived as dean in 2004,
the Kendall neighborhood was still a little dreary
to say the least.
It was bleak.
People complained a lot about there was no place to eat,
hence the food trucks.
When people arrived at the T-stop,
they would wonder where MIT was-- actually, they still do.
And astonishingly, when we celebrated our 150th birthday,
the School of Architecture and Planning
along mostly with Humanities decided
to put on a festival of art, science, and technology.
And we managed to get Memorial Drive closed
on two evenings between the bridge
so we could actually wander down to the river and use the river.
And we invited the public into not only the grounds of MIT,
but also our buildings, to see the artifacts we'd made.
And I was absolutely struck by the conversations
I had with the public, who actually
made me realize that in fact we were seen as a precinct.
And I'd never seen it that way.
But there it was, the joy of actually coming in and seeing
what we were doing and exploring the grounds.
It was amazing amazing.
Anyway, here 12 years later, the Kendall neighborhood
is actually an innovation district, quite evidently.
It's a vibrant place-- lots of places to eat,
lots of things to do there.
The East Campus Plan, which is now in process,
was actually in response to this new reality.
We had this part of the campus that we could expand into.
And it was quite clear there was an opportunity
to build a strong linkage with the neighborhood.
And although I think 77 Mass Avenue will remain
the formal entry to the campus, our new gateway
that's actually being planned is being designed really
to create a zone of town and gown interaction.
And it will actually function as the main entry to the campus,
because that's where the people are.
So finally, Harvard had Harvard Square.
We had not much.
But now we have our own supportive neighborhood.
So with that in mind, I am going to bring up the first speaker.
And I've cut their bios down by the way.
It's a little embarrassing, but that's all we could do.
And they've all been instructed to speak within 10 minutes
or so.
So the first speaker is Israel Ruiz,
who is the Executive Vice President and Treasurer at MIT.
He's the institute's Chief Financial Officer
and is responsible for administering the institute's
$5.2 billion capital plan through 2030--
seems like a headache to me.
[LAUGHTER]
Anyway, he is a true believer in the power
of research, technology, and innovation
to bring opportunity to people and improve the world.
He's a true MIT person.
He is actually a graduate of the MIT Stern School of Management.
He's actually been involved also since the early 200s with MIT's
digital education efforts.
He coded the task force that published
"The Future of MIT Education," which
was a very important document.
He co-leads the $1.2 billion institute proposal
to create a vibrant mixed use development in Kendall
Square and its transformation.
And this is underway, and I think
it's really important, as I said earlier,
that it really moves ideas from the laboratory
to the public arena.
But actually, we will be building a place
to celebrate all of this.
So Israel.
[APPLAUSE]
Let me start with a quote.
If I let you read the quote for a couple of seconds--
you've all seen the newspapers about Kendall Square
and the ecosystem around MIT, and you may actually
have found this quote.
But I would be astonished actually if you know it.
Any guesses from who this is coming from?
It's coming from the Director of Public Health
from the Commonwealth.
And in fact, notice I say "director" and not
"commissioner."
And that should give you a clue about the time of this quote.
And that's from January of 1917.
And you may actually say, why do I start this way?
And I want to start this way because
despite I have only 10, 11 minutes-- and I'll talk fast.
I actually went back to a passion of mine,
which is we moved in 1916.
We're celebrating a century.
But as a financial person and as the kind
of institute steward of all these assets,
I care about the day after the move.
And MIT has an amazing archival history.
And this quote comes from the report of the president
from 1917.
So just after we celebrate it-- so I know that
after the celebration, John and Gail will go and toast.
I'm not sure they were toasting when
they were ending the 100-year move from Boston to Cambridge.
So I wanted to extract a few more quotes for you
to frame why it is in MIT's DNA, the ecosystem of innovation
that we are propelling and seeing today.
The first one is from President Maclaurin,
and it talks about the hopes and dreams of MIT
that many, many, many years were now fully realized
at the time of that crossing.
At the time of now, to have ample space and room
for growth.
And that's an important aspect that I'll then consolidate
for you in a second.
The second one, also from the same president and dear
to my heart, was the cost.
You don't see many people talking about the cost
of the undertaking.
It cost $7 million, which I took the time
to calculate the inflation-adjusted dollars
and it's not that much.
It's $130 million.
So clearly, a lot's changed in the cost of buildings.
And I know there are many architects and builders
in the room, so think about what's happened.
But seven million for MIT was another quote
that this is my predecessor, Francis Russell Hart,
an MIT treasurer who is the only treasurer who has come back
to the institute to work twice.
I'm not planning to do that.
[LAUGHTER]
But think about the comparison.
The move from Boston to Cambridge took $7 million.
And you know all the history about the fundraising
and the role that it played to enabling that move at the time
that MIT's endowment was worth $5 million.
Not $5 billion, $5 million-- so talk about boldness,
and talk about what that represented
in enabling what then came.
And then finally is, of course-- and I left it for the last one.
Just let's stop about physical things.
We're really an institution of our human capital and talent.
And of course, President Maclaurin did not forget that,
and talked about the human capital.
And it's an amazing report that I urge you to go.
And it's 28 pages of fascinating reading,
including the fact that there is a section that
talks about the problems of the future.
So this is January of 17.
They just moved and opened the main group.
And talk about that section.
And I guarantee you, we're talking about the same problems
today 100 years later.
So I pulled these into three what
I call timeless ingredients.
The first one is a special-- let me call it even magical;
some of you talk about the connected campus-- magical
physical environment.
The second one?
Of course, I wear my hat-- appropriate financial support.
And the third one-- the concentration
of this diverse human talent, with big hopes,
dreams, aspirations.
I'm now going to talk about the third one.
You are after all at MIT.
That's a given, certainly today.
But the first two, I want to give you some sense.
And then this historical sense is important.
So 1917-- now we're moving in decades.
But think about what Kendall Square was at that time.
And there was this advertisement if you were a manufacturer,
come to Kendall Square.
This advertisement was run on national media.
From 1920s to 1940s, MIT had not sprawled all the way
to Kendall Square.
And you can find anywhere from rubber, from ink,
to not yet candy-- candy came later.
But think about all the industry and industrial sense
of the mission of MIT to solve the problems of this industry.
You fast forward now to the '70s and 2000s,
and you may recognize some of these buildings
in the aerial picture.
There are just two buildings to your left in 1973,
and one is today Draper Laboratory.
And the other one that you can see at the end
is Volpe, the headquarters for the Department
of Transportation.
It took about 10 more years to develop by Boston Properties
Cambridge center to look like it looked in 2005.
And if you keep moving, I will say
MIT has been paranoid about running out
of space since the crossing.
You had one or two buildings, and for many buildings
it has been really doing a good job for decades
to think about the aspirations and the hopes
and dreams of the current and future generations of scholars
at MIT, and to make sure that through the administration
and well-doing of many, many people in the past,
we are enough to fulfill what that will do in the future.
Nobody knows.
We'll dedicate it and determine that in the future.
But in the meantime what's happened
is, well what do we do with that land?
And we leave it at that.
So I'll tell you very quickly this painting
of 100 years of physical.
I want to give you another sense on the financial support
and how the dynamics around the financial support have changed.
The first one is the MIT proper finances.
And I didn't have time to put the bar from 1917,
but the bar from 1917 had zero research.
The bar from 1917 had barely giving.
The bar from 1917 was all tuition.
And I'm going to leave the tuition number aside,
because it would cause some panic.
But I will tell you that MIT charged on a per-course basis.
What you see is this evolution of the quintessential
after World War II, research university was born.
Research at that time represented
north of 95% of the revenues of MIT
at the time post-World War II.
You see the evolution to '81, '91, and then forward,
and how the smaller sections of research
proportionally to the endowment and the giving
and the private support, the role of private support at MIT,
the role of financial support to the hopes and dreams.
But the blue part-- it's still 28% of $2.4 billion today.
And what's important is who is funding that 28%?
So we started in 1917.
Everything is funded through tuition with the really 200,
300 students that MIT had at the time
all the way now to 2015, one third being research-funded
and who is funding that research.
So what you see here is that the research of MIT
started with the World War II efforts, Dean Vannevar Bush.
97% in the 1940s was funded from federal sources.
And it's come down to now below 66%.
This year we may be trending in the low 60%.
So the nonfederal sources of research support,
which is at the end of the day what
fuels MIT's inventions and technology powers,
is all coming from non-federal sources.
And more than half of those non-federal sources
are industrial and business in nature.
So there is no other university like this one
in which that number, which today amounts
to a very big dollar amount, is funded
through the industrial support.
And that's the second point.
The third point is a lot has happened in the last 20 years
in venture capital flows around the area.
I'm just zooming in in biotech.
There's an equal story on any other sector
you want to think about.
But in biotech you can go 20 years back
and think about the proportion of biotech venture capital
funding around the area of the New England
area versus Silicon Valley.
And I am telling you, trust me-- 99% of the New England area
is Cambridge.
[LAUGHTER]
So trust me on that data.
I'm a data person.
400 million in 1995.
200 million was coming to this area.
200 million was coming to the Silicon Valley
area, which around UCSF, Berkeley, Stanford.
You can see the evolution that in the last 20 years,
the area of Cambridge, the area of Kendall Square,
has now surpassed-- basically equaled-- at $1.9 billion
the entire Silicon Valley area.
And it's now to combine 60% of the entire US funding
of biotech in venture capital.
I'm not going to quote things you can get in the media, which
is nine out of the 10 big pharmas
moved to Kendall Square in the last 10 years or so.
But this is one of the key drivers, financial support.
OK, let me close this now.
So now you have these three ingredients.
And of course, in a timeless set of ingredients,
which one am I missing?
I'm missing time.
So put these thing ingredients together
and give it time, and what you get
is a dedicated set of conditions to create an innovation
ecosystem.
So today, this is the image, this aerial image,
from Cambridge looking into Boston.
Specifically I chose this one to look at Back Bay, where
we come from.
And now, the area of MIT academics
represents something like triple the size of what
MIT moved 100 years ago.
But what's more relevant is who is around it.
And who is around it is a bunch of companies so diverse, so
intellectually stimulating, and so concentrated
that are generating the intellectual pursuits back
and forth between MIT, Harvard, any other academic institution
in the area, and this region.
I'm leaving aside the logos of 800 more companies
that you wouldn't even recognize,
but they are part of this ecosystem.
So why am I saying this, and why is this
the ecosystem that we're doing?
Because that land that MIT was paranoid about accumulating
to make sure that MIT's future generations had
could be put to use to do this.
And I didn't have time today to go through the good work that
went from all of the neighborhoods around MIT
into Cambridge-- you see Technology Square a little bit
here, and then Kendall Square-- and the latest one
is our initiative.
So I want to invoke 100 years of legacy and history
in developing innovation ecosystems, innovation
at large, to then show you what it's been shown now
many, many, many times since the early 2010 we've been at this.
And to just make sure that what MIT is trying to do here
is, again, create the physical environment,
the first ingredient I showed you,
with the financial support to curate what's
going to happen in the area around the T-stop of Kendall
Square.
Why?
Because we believe in this concentration and density,
and in the creation of the acceleration
of these innovation ecosystems.
So when you think about what these may look like, hopefully
in five to 10 years what we want to enable
is what has been enabled already,
and accelerate it and expand it.
Why?
Because the mission of MIT, of pursuing research
and innovation, is now directly linked-- in financial terms,
in physical terms, in intellectual terms--
to the health of our surroundings.
So I started with three observations.
I want to leave you with three conclusions.
Science and technology creates opportunity.
It has been creating opportunity for more than one century.
The concentration and our curation of this concentration
accelerates the innovation engine.
And the creation of these dynamic living environments
are the essential components to make these innovation
ecosystems vibrant, successful, and really
become what Kendall Square is today at MIT.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
That was terrific.
My next speaker is Katie Stebbins,
who is the Assistant Secretary of Technology, Innovation,
and Entrepreneurship for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
She's had more than 20 years of experience in city
and regional development.
She served the city of Springfield for 10 years,
specializing in environmental planning and Brownfield
redevelopment.
She's run her own consulting practice,
was a private consultant for the Holyoke Innovation District
on behalf of the Massachusetts Tech Collaborative.
She's a city planner, and right now she's
leading the application of lessons
learned in the economic development of environments
such as Kendall Square to spark growth
and of smaller cities in less populated regions
throughout Massachusetts.
So welcome, Katie.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you so much.
I'm going to speak from the podium.
I hope that's OK with everybody.
Thank you so much for having me today.
It's such an honor, I have to say,
to be able to speak with a panel of such esteemed colleagues.
I was joking earlier.
I said, you know, I never could have gotten into MIT
as an undergrad and I doubt I could
have gotten into MIT as a graduate student,
but it's so nice that in my 40s there's this great equalizer
that now we can all be colleagues and friends,
and it doesn't matter.
It's all good.
So as I was introduced, my title is Assistant Secretary
of Technology, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I say very often that I have the best job.
I mean, the governor probably likes his job,
but I really love my job.
Massachusetts is a leading technology state
in the country, as we know.
We have people all over the country
and all over the world trying to mimic what we're doing,
and it's an exciting and humbling experience
as a city planner, an economic development professional,
to be asked to lead the state's competitiveness
agenda in tech innovation and entrepreneurship.
So we all know the innovation economy is in great demand.
It's exciting to work in Kendall Square.
It's exciting to work in a growth economy.
However, I have to say, my entire career I was always
drawn to those places that hardly
had a heartbeat, those economies that were so in decline
everyone just kind of said, what are we
going to do with this place?
Much of what we've looked at is Detroit recently, right?
Or we looked at Pittsburgh at one point,
which is now turned around.
These are places that don't have a university partnership.
They don't have private industry.
They might have some jobs, but the main office,
the private industry, may not be in that town.
They all have government.
How many people think we can create innovation districts
with just government?
I know that's a trick question.
I know.
But I'm from government, so I'm optimistic.
But I came to this question as I travel around
the state-- I have to leave Boston obviously,
and I have to serve the entire Commonwealth.
I had one CEO of a Boston companies say to me, hmm,
you're traveling around.
We're looking at other parts of the Commonwealth.
It seems suboptimal to me that we should be considering
innovation outside of Boston.
Oh my god.
I can't go to Orange or Worcester
or Pittsfield and look town leaders in the eye and say,
I'm sorry.
I'm going to have to go today.
It is suboptimal to talk to you about your economic future
in the innovation economy.
I am not going to do that.
So what's so great is that I get to go to these towns and I say,
OK, you don't have the trifecta of
the university-private industry-government
partnership, this golden unicorn that we all
love that we know is done so much in Boston.
We love the golden unicorn.
But I believe that we can build the stool differently.
So over the next 10 minutes, I just
wanted to talk about how we do this.
Because that's the beauty of innovation--
it's about new models.
It's about new rules and new players and new ideas.
So number one-- how do we grow in scale innovation districts
and ecosystems in places that don't
have the beautiful big golden unicorn?
Right?
How do we encourage, secondly, this massive number of people--
who are the innovators, the makers, the hackers,
the innovators-- to go into the field of city planning?
How do we get them to be in our governments?
And third-- and this comes from the title
of this two-day session-- what is
the next for a place like MIT?
What do we do when Kendall Square is built out,
the innovation district is here?
What's the next role for university
in innovation districts that aren't
immediately at their borders?
So on the first piece, when I began my job
I directed my colleagues to find all of the innovation assets
in the state.
And I said, OK, I want to know about all the innovation
assets.
Go find them.
And they said, all right, we're going to contact every business
association.
We're going to get their lists.
We'll take out the duplicates and we'll be all set.
And I said, oh, no, no, no, no no.
I don't want to do that kind of a search.
I said, picture yourself as like a jilted girlfriend.
You are the crazy ex-girlfriend that
needs to cyberstalk everything innovation
and cool in this state, and I want you to scrub it.
And what was interesting is we did end up
actually cyberstalking people.
It wasn't so much the places as that if you started
following people on Twitter and social media,
and you started to go to Meetup.com,
you started to find people all over the state
and you started to follow their patterns of where they were
visiting, what did they go to, what meetups did they attend,
where did they do yoga.
You could find out this stuff on the internet.
It's unbelievable.
I'm sure if the people knew I was stalking
all this about them, they'd have like a cease
and desist from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
However, we started with A. We went through Y. We ended up
with over 800 innovation assets in the state of Massachusetts,
and we did not map Boston or Cambridge.
The innovation economy is very much alive
throughout the state of Massachusetts
and all four corners of the state, many times
without the golden unicorn.
So we find this stuff.
We find groups of things.
I meet with community leaders and I say, hey,
Mr. Town Manager, you're not going
to believe what you've got in your borders.
I found this group of digital comic book illustrators meetup
that get together every Wednesday,
and I found this team of kids who are doing a robotics club
and their parents are very involved in robotics.
Or hey, I found this roller derby team
that's doing 3-D printing of their trophies
and gathering skaters from a startup community.
Isn't this amazing?
I have to say as an aside, the only reason I know
about the innovation economy in the roller derby community
is because I skated on the team.
And when I worked for the Holyoke Innovation District
in Western Mass, I was working really hard in Holyoke
doing just this.
What are all the innovation assets
that we can find around Holyoke and Springfield and Chicopee
and Western Mass?
And I saw that the roller derby team was
looking for quote "fresh meat."
And I thought, oh, I'm going to check this out.
This must be innovative.
These are startup people.
These are creative people.
I went in, I strapped on my skates.
I hadn't done that since I was a teenager.
I have to admit, I fell in love with it--
fell in love with the creative people, the innovators,
fell in love with full contact sports--
and quickly realized there is a whole network of roller derby
teams in the state of Massachusetts
which have innovators and artists and creative people
getting together and building this economy, too.
And so I get to go to these towns.
And I say, all right.
You've got these people.
These people know how to work with their hands.
These people know how to hustle businesses.
How do we build a community with them?
And they say, well, I don't get it.
Why do I care?
And I said, well, these people have come to us, the state,
and they say, yeah, we used to be one or two people in meetup.
But now we've got 10.
Now we've got 15.
Now we've got 25.
As Israel mentioned, we're gaining critical mass.
We can't do this out of our living room anymore.
We need a space.
So they come to us at the state and they go,
do you guys have any money to help us put a space together?
Because essentially what they're proposing at the end of the day
is rebuilding the community center, right?
They do this and they say, OK.
We need to rebuild the community center.
We need to make makerspaces in it.
We need to put technology spaces in it.
But the town planners, the DPW directors,
the code enforcement people who have to enforce the bylaws,
go, oh god.
So a makerspace-- how do we classify that?
Is it a place of assembly?
Is it manufacturing?
Is it dangerous?
Are you using chemicals?
Suddenly, we don't know how to classify these things, right?
A co-working space?
A co-working-- so you're all going to work together?
Do I classify it-- well, we don't really have offices.
Well, if you don't have walled-in offices,
how the heck am I going to classify
what your co-working space is?
So suddenly, we realize we have to be
having these conversations at the local level.
And over time, we show value to the local leaders
and build relationships between these communities, which
is wonderful.
Then we start to see new opportunities open up.
Workforce development-- we start to see the workforce
development government people start
to take advantage of makerspaces as training grounds
for people in manufacturing.
So how do we start to take what's
happening as a critical mass of community resources
from our innovators and turn it into a greater framework
for economic development?
And now there's a value of them coming together.
So this brings me to my second point about who
are the next city planners.
I believe that we need to begin the road
map of building innovation districts by sharing
our profession more broadly and inviting the entrepreneurs
and inviting the artists, the designers, the hackers,
the makers.
We need to find these people in the neighborhoods
that we're working in.
We need to serve and offer them the educational tools
to be our colleagues, and not just our constituents.
And I'll get to that in my third point, which
is where I think the university partnerships are
going to be critical.
These budding ecosystems, they're
hungry for so much more.
So now we've looked at this.
We have one leg of the stool that's community, right?
We have another leg of the stool that's government.
We've put a government leg on the stool.
They're OK.
But have you ever sat on a stool with only two legs?
We need more.
The evolution of these places is really exciting.
We're now seeing vocational schools
giving us proposals for vocational shops
that are around hydroponic gardening and robotics
and coding-- things that we never
would have thought of getting in a vocational education.
This is working.
So these communities though grow,
and the critical mass grows.
And then they run out.
They run out of ideas and people and resources,
and they want more.
And so this brings me to the third leg
of the stool, which is the university partnerships,
because there's so much knowledge and resource
and opportunity in a university partnership.
And how does a place like MIT imagine itself participating
in helping to grow communities that want innovation
frameworks, want to build their economies on this system,
but they aren't right next door?
What's going to happen, I hope-- and we're
seeing this in some places-- is that universities are finding
ways to partner in these budding ecosystems,
finding ways to offer more tools,
offer more classes, virtual relationships,
on-site relationships.
And what's exciting is then the private sector comes up.
Again, it is true.
We need critical mass.
So the private sector comes and they say, huh.
You're starting to generate workforce.
You're starting to generate people.
You're starting to attract people
who want to come live here.
You've got a roller derby team.
Who wouldn't want to live there, right?
And so I will close by saying that it's my observation
that the innovation economy, while it also
needs critical mass, we also need
to democratize it because it has to be available to everyone.
We can build a stronger chair if it's
available to everybody who wants to participate-- not just
thriving communities, but communities struggling
to figure out what their next economic development
framework is going to be.
And so I look forward to the challenge
of working with MIT into the future
as how we build these partnerships
and how we grow frameworks for the innovation districts
and economies throughout the Massachusetts commonwealth
outside of Boston.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Thanks, Katie.
That was pretty inspiring.
Roger Duffy is our next speaker, and he
is a Design Partner at the New York Office of Skidmore,
Owings, and Merrill.
His design work encompasses a wide range
of award-winning urban projects, from
transportation-oriented developments, residential,
hospitality, and office buildings.
The urban context, which is mostly
where he works and has built in, really
include the adaptive reuse of 510 Fifth Avenue, Cornell NYC
Tech Master Plan, treatment of reclaimed space in Roosevelt
Island, the University Center of The New School,
the corner of Fifth Avenue and 14th Street.
He's led two teams that have looked
at the area around Grand Central Terminal and Madison Square
Garden.
And obviously, he is a very experienced person
also in the academic context.
So Roger Duffy.
[APPLAUSE]
Hi, everyone.
Thank you John and Hashim for organizing
this wonderful two-day event.
Also, congratulations to MIT.
We're all here because this is a center of excellence
and innovation, and I think that's to be applauded.
And congratulations on your centennial.
So innovation districts is the subject to talk about today
and I've chosen to bracket it around for four main subjects
so the first is this idea of an industrial lab, which
was an early type of innovation district.
Next is sort of the venture model.
It's represented by Silicon Valley and perhaps Kendall
Square.
Third is a sort of partnership model, which
is a hybrid that includes governments-- so again, perhaps
like Kendall Square a bit.
And the last is a sort of placeless,
geography-less place, this sort of shared research,
shared innovation condition that exists through the internet.
So to start with the first one here,
I'm going to show you sort of best of breed type projects.
Just to sort of frame the thought process here.
The first is a series of buildings
in New Jersey for Bell Labs in a particular cluster of buildings
that was located in Murray Hills, New
Jersey-- and a particular building
one that's shown here on the lower right, which
is a building that in the history of science--
a dangerous thing to say at a science school
and probably a roomful of scientiss--
in the history of science in the 20th century, arguably a place
where the greatest leaps forward happened,
in this particular building.
Humbly, I might submit as an architect,
this was designed not by an architect, not
by a famous architect, but by a scientist, Mervyn Kelly.
It shares many of the attributes that some earlier speakers
talked about-- this condition of chance interactions,
this idea of visual connections, this idea of interdisciplinary
work, and this cojoining of theoretical research
and applied research coming together under one roof--
so an important place, and a place that really became
the catalyst for many of the incremental developments that
happened starting in the mid-'50s in Silicon Valley
starting with Fairchild Semiconductor.
Incidentally, the beginning company
of Fairchild Semiconductor was started by a scientist
from Bell Labs, William Shockley,
who left Bell Labs in 1955.
He went home to Santa Clara, California,
started a company called Shockley Semiconductor, which
failed.
But Gordon Moore and other scientists worked with him
and started Fairchild Semiconductor.
So the beginning of Silicon Valley
really was spawned from this building, this complex,
this innovation lab, this industrial lab in Murray Hills,
New Jersey.
So onto Silicon Valley-- sort of beginning in the mid-'50s, sort
of hit its stride in the early '70s.
I would characterize this-- again,
dangerous for an architect to say--
as incremental advancements, the big leaps
in the early part of the 20th century happened at Bell Labs.
So these incremental advancements
in terms of the internet, in terms of cellular networks,
et cetera, happened in and around here.
Maybe the architecture isn't so important--
dangerous for an architect to say.
But there was a kind of networked condition
of local providers, of people that
are proximate to each other, that that
focused on individual parts of these incremental advancements.
And lots of interesting things that have shaped our futures,
my futures, happened in this place.
So Bell Labs-- great place.
Mid-'50s, it's sort of put aside.
'70s, '80s, '90s-- there's the Silicon Valley model.
And perhaps we're moving into a new type.
Israel showed an interesting data slide
where more of the venture capital money
is flowing to Kendall Square area
and around Massachusetts-- interesting statistic.
I guess the change has already happened away
from the Silicon Valley model.
This particular model is represented here
by Roosevelt Island, the project that I master planned
in New York City and Marion, who speaks next,
designed one of the buildings for.
And this includes the ingredient of local government,
which was mentioned by the previous speaker.
The fourth condition-- which I won't address here today,
but just to introduce-- is a subject
that John and Hashim will talk about tomorrow, which
is this networked shared innovation, shared research
condition that's done via the internet-- so
geography-less kind of place.
So a few mappings of innovation, which
is the focus here today-- and this
is a mapping of the districts.
And you have one here.
New York is starting one on Roosevelt Island.
They have one in the Chelsea area of New York.
But almost every city across America
either has one or has started one of these innovation
districts.
So everyone's chasing the same thing.
If you map innovations by patents,
you can see that a large cluster in California along the West
Coast, and also a large cluster in the Northeast,
but also a fair amount of clusters
in and around the center of the US north and south.
If you map it by venture capital deals, which Israel
did in a different way, you can see the sort of mapping
of where are those innovations.
So generally speaking, the money's chasing the innovations
and they're betting on the future of that.
Or you could map it by functional type.
So when Bell Labs was creating this research operation,
they did it with a clear mission to determine
what the future of communication might be.
So within that narrow bracket, they made money advancements.
Now the field of innovation is much broader and across many,
many functional types, from biopharma to communications
to electronics to you name it.
And this is the kind of mapping and showing you the diversity
of that kind of research.
So the ingredient of the local government--
the concept here is there's no epicenter
to where these innovation districts happen.
I think that's an important concept.
And the other distinguishing characteristic, I think,
in the modern type is that they have different stages.
Aside from becoming important, hopefully,
during a certain period of time and then obsolete
until something new happens, they
have sort of stages of life, like the famous Thomas Cole
paintings at the National Gallery in Washington, DC.
So youth here would be represented
by the pre-startup and idea.
And I'll show you how that applies in the Cornell Tech.
And then the startup would happen
in an incubator kind of building,
like the one Marion is designing at Roosevelt Island.
And those two things are designed
to happen on Roosevelt Island, on this campus
that we're designing with Cornell and Technion.
And then the idea is that those companies, as they grow,
would leap out of that canvas and into the environs
of across the river in Queens or in Manhattan, or somewhere else
in the environment-- so not being sort of located
by a specific geography.
And this mapping is one that just shows you the idea
that the geography moves around as growth happens
and as innovations happen in that area.
So this picture of the site on Roosevelt Island-- it's
12 acres.
It's the southern tip of Roosevelt Island,
a mature community sitting in the East River.
There's a hospital that has since
been decommissioned and demolished that was previously
on the site.
The site had a series of encumbrances and opportunities.
We decided to use it as a way to create a thoroughfare
through the site with views looking out to the city
and to the beyond-- so implying a connection
between this campus and the vital city around it.
The island is long and thin, has lots of residences, schools,
shops, different forms of life, and also
a memorial on the southern tip designed by Louis Kahn.
The hospital was formerly an impediment
to the circulation systems.
We were very respectful and humble
in how we approached this project,
reconnected all the vital pedestrian and vehicular pass
through the site, and have public connections
through the new project.
Five main characteristics of the site-- hyper-sustainability
is the first one.
So net zero projects or LEED platinum
projects-- the largest passive house project
in the world, which is a housing project that's
under construction now.
The project is designed for resiliency from flooding.
It's designed to exceed the 500-year flood
plain in New York City.
It's mixed use, including incubator space
for future companies.
It's a truly public campus-- no gates, no thresholds.
Hilary mentioned that earlier today.
And this is unique, because it's privately owned public space.
It's something New York City, I guess, invented.
I'm not sure.
There's lots of those things.
A lot of them get gated off in New York City,
but this one is always open-- no gates,
no thresholds of any kind, open 24 hours a day.
And it's a phased development.
It's a 99-year lease between the city and Cornell and Technion,
and they have to build out the full phase
project, which is 2 million square feet of project,
by 2037.
So this is a mapping of the floodplains.
You can see the 500-year flood plain is elevation 13.
The East River is the title estuary.
It's not really a river.
It has tides in it.
And the ground floors and the main circulation
will be at elevation 19-- so well above the 500-year flood
plain.
The circulation, you can see, works around existing barriers
on the site.
There's a gymnasium on the north side.
It creates a diagonal path to existing parks north and south,
and also a tram station and a tube station that connects
to the rest of Manhattan.
All the entrances to the buildings, first phase
and future, are located off the circulation spine.
And the circulation spine has views out
to New York City to the beyond.
All the parks are outwardly focused-- so no internal quads,
like the earlier example of Columbia University--
all facing the river, much like your quad
that faces out to the Charles River with the dome.
So the phase one is about 40% of the development
of the two million square feet.
It's about 50% of the green space development for the site.
There are four buildings being designed.
The tall one is a housing project
that's Passive House, designed by Gary Handel, developed
by Related and Hudson development companies.
The building in the foreground is the first academic building
that is paid for by Cornell and designed by Thom Mayne.
The building with the diagonals on the far right
is the building that Marion's developing.
It's owned and developed by Forest City Ratner, who is also
developing all the site work-- so a developer
developing all the site work for this campus.
And the fourth building is not yet being designed.
It's under consideration.
It's a hotel and education center,
and it's the building that's sort of in between being
tall and being short.
Big emphasis on the spaces in between-- they're
as much a priority, as Hilary mentioned earlier this morning,
as the buildings themselves because they support learning
and education on this campus, and they
represent more than half of the land area that will be
preserved in and of the future.
So thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]
Thanks, Roger.
Interesting to see what's happening by Cornell.
Thank you.
And now we have Marion Weiss, who is the Graham Chair
Professor of Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania
School of Design, and co-founder of Weiss-Manfredi,
architecture landscape urbanism.
It's a multidisciplinary design practice
based in New York City.
I think the firm has done a number of projects that
are quite well-known, competition-winning projects
such as Olympic Sculpture Park in Seattle,
the University of Pennsylvania Nanotech Center,
Barnard College's Diana Center, the Brooklyn Botanical Garden
Visitor Center.
And in all of these, there's definitely
a relationship between city, nature, architecture,
and infrastructure.
Current and upcoming projects include this mixed use building
for Kendall Square.
I think we've heard it referred to.
It would be very nice if we see that.
Marion, I'm not sure if you will do that.
And also now the bridge at Cornell Tech's new campus
in New York City.
Maybe we'll see that one, too.
She has many honors, she and actually
the partnership-- the Academy Award for Architecture
from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, New York City
AIA Gold Medal of Honor among other things,
and the Princeton Architecture Press
has published two monographs on the work of the firm.
So welcome, Marion.
[APPLAUSE]
Well, thank you Adele.
And also, thank you for convening here at MIT
this 100-year celebration.
It's an extraordinary thing to think about an institution that
is inventing itself in real time at the 100-year mark.
And as we start to think about what it is to create and invent
a university and to create a setting,
I think that a preoccupation that I share with my partner
Michael Manfredi is really, what is a kind of perspective,
both literal and figurative, on what it means
to create a place where we convene as individuals
and choose to be together as a teaching
institution and a learning institution
and a research institution as opposed to somewhere else?
You could say a fantasy envisioned by an artist here,
Raphael in 1509 to 1511, the School of Athens,
is truly in some ways an inspiration
for what it is to perspectively converge in one setting
all the intellectual leaders and philosophical leaders of time.
You could see Plato reaching for the sky, if you will,
and Aristotle reaching down.
But Copernicus, Ptolemy, Euclid--
they are all there, convening both across time and in one
place, but somehow all together and understood
through perspective.
So if we start to think about this notion of perspective
and convening a community, it is not just the planning--
and we think as architects and plan-- but it's the section
and the perspective of how we actually simultaneously
come together that I think is evocative of how we think
about shaping an institution.
Now, if that was 500 years ago, Oxford in 1096, I believe,
when they founded an institution,
convened a place much like a convent, if you will,
fully enclosed but gathering like-minded people together
as part of the city but still closed off from the city.
We think about MIT 100 years ago then,
the idea of convening those same models but not yet a
closed but one that's open-ended facing the river
found itself as one that was sort of central in nature
and then had some signatures like the Infinite Corridor
that said the place of circulation
is a place of inspiration and convening.
And that's occurred over time.
Now, the whole idea of instruction--
and from instruction to innovation, if you will--
was a thesis if you will, for this second part
of the afternoon is in some ways that kind of directed research
or that directed organizational studio.
You could see a research lab on one side,
the architectural studio on the other.
There was still a sense that through consensus, we would all
learn the same thing and produce something that
was viable out in the world.
But in fact, you could say it's the places of retreat.
And you could look here at Calder's studio or Tesla's
laboratory as models where the individual would
go off and, in a laboratory environment
or in a loft-like setting, invent, destroy, and reinvent.
And you could say that building 20, the reason why
it was so successful is it was a low-lying building that nobody
cared about.
So people could reinvent it, tear it apart,
and start all over again.
Now, that gets to my thesis here with five projects
which I'll share, which is really
a topographic social infrastructure is indeed
the umbilical cord of intellectual life
that can convene a larger community that is a campus.
And if you could say that the idea of directed learning seen
here in this kind of setting as we are right now at Kresge,
where there's a speaker and an audience
convened to hear one voice project something that
might be shared again, you could say
that the sectional gift, if you will, of the Spanish Steps
is something altogether different.
And in this case, there's a topographic need,
infrastructural in nature to allow you to get from one level
to the next, but along the way, enough interstitial
pauses to allow an offhand encounter to occur in the city.
And arguably, the idea of one individual
to another to many individuals together
is the intellectual model that a university
can aspire to think about.
The first project I'll share is the Barnard College Diana
Center.
And some of you know Barnard College as somehow cast
a little bit in the shadow of Columbia University,
literally and figuratively, but in fact an extraordinary
four-and-a-half acre women's college.
And yet it's behind a gate.
And you could say that as a school behind a gate,
you discover behind that gate something extraordinary-- two
landscapes, Lehman Lawn above and the historic courtyard
below, divided literally and figuratively and out of sight
from each other because of a plaza that's separated it.
When a competition was held to do this 100,000 square foot
Diana Center, unnamed at that time--
it was called the Nexus-- Judith Shapiro, then president,
said she was calling it the Nexus
because her idea was to convene many, many different people
together and somehow transform this particular wall
or barrier-- this was the Macintosh
Center-- from a student center that walled
the city of into now a place that could have architecture,
art, theater, library, reading room, cafe, classrooms,
et cetera, and convene the entire institution together.
But 100,000 square foot-- it couldn't
be the long lateral corridor.
It needed to extend up and through,
and in our mind reconnect the campus-- so building not just
as one building, but one that connects a campus that
has been divided, and then taking that landscape
gesture of connection as to one that
would make it through the building
itself so that there'd be an awareness at all times
and a sectional convergence of the activities
that are going on inside.
So you can see a landscape gesture below,
a spatial landscape scale gesture above,
transforming that wall of a facade that
had been the voice, if you will, of Barnard College into one
that would become a kind of prismatic lens into really
what's so extraordinary-- including the architecture
school, which is the only projection cantilevered off
there, which is a senior architecture studio.
Now again, since food is a place that collects everybody,
it's on the ground floor.
And from this cafe we are looking up
to the reading room, the library, and the gallery
critique space for art and architecture.
But that collapsed idea, if you will, the School of Athens,
is what allows you to be visually connected--
although acoustically separated because of the glass--
all that is happening on every level,
whether you can go there or not.
And again, a kind of magic carpet, if you will,
that connects visually the kind of chromatic sort
of amber colors moving to red all the way through.
So from the reading room, we're looking down all the way
to the cafe.
We're standing in the gallery critique space,
so an architecture student might be able to text somebody
to bring them up a coffee and still wave.
But more important was not to create a building in our mind.
It was to connect a divided campus.
The campus was divided from the historic courtyard
to the upper area by a huge wall and 20-foot grade
change, which allowed a bowling alley to exist underneath.
And our question was if we could eliminate the bowling alley,
could we in fact create a connected campus?
And so this amphitheater now only holds
classrooms rather than a bowling alley.
But again, because a vertical campus
doesn't have that luxurious crosswalk
that a university in the Midwest might have,
that crosswalk and diagonal green, if you will,
is wrapped up and strapped onto the vertical face
of the building in the campus with the staircase
that connects.
And again, that staircase that connects
is one language that connects the institution.
But in fact, it's the chroma of this externally acidish terra
cotta colored glass that connects it to the chroma,
if you will, of the brick campus of Columbia and Barnard itself.
And so this is it from the reconnected green.
And ultimately, the idea was to take
that barrier of a language, of an expression,
of an institution, into one that would be a place of invitation
and ultimately be a place of connection as a hinge,
if you will, between Barnard and Columbia.
Columbia, by the way, is to the right.
Now, the idea of campuses are so influential as ways
of convening that even places like Novartis
will think of not just a place to build offices,
but to build a campus.
And this is Lampugnani's master plan for the Novartis campus
in East Hanover, New Jersey.
And again, Lampugnani being so very, very strict,
insisted that each and every building
must be exactly 100 feet wide, 250 feet long, 75 foot high,
and in a box.
You could see our box there in red.
Now, the extraordinary thing about that
is the idea of working almost in a loft-like flexibility-- they
were committed to open office-- was
it had a companion, if you will, of a place of relaxation,
that landscape.
And it was that idea of relaxation
that brought us to think about the other point of relaxation
in an office area as a place you convene and relax at home.
What if that idea of a living room or a landscape
could carve its way through this box
to be a continuous convener of everybody,
since the open office moves everybody so frequently?
So literally, stripping and scarring
that box now with a place of collaboration
is what we've done here, lined with wood, a staircase,
and in fact, a kind of ascending living room, if you will,
with a chair that we designed with Vitra that
would be large enough and welcoming enough
to hold you together.
But at any given moment, you could simultaneously
look at the open office in this case
above, the convening space below,
and understand that the simultaneity
of this place of invitation to work or relax and convene
is always in evidence.
And literally, that cut is a marker
that through a specular reaction connects
to the landscape in the wonderful sort of halcyon
environment around it.
But that cut is what marks the place of convening.
Now, Cornell Tech at Roosevelt Island-- and I
think Roger Duffy did this extraordinary job of explaining
the complexity of Bloomberg's sort of gift of a vision
to say that we need to actually create a kind of tech
environment here that's research-based that actually
can propel New York City forward in this strange and isolated
place.
And the whole idea was saying that directed
research you could say has a delayed application.
The startup entrepreneurial garage model
is one that's super accelerated.
Can we in fact infuse and put these two worlds
together what Silicon Valley does in miles latter
could we actually condense into one setting on this island?
And so if you look at this, our question
is if you look at this multi-phased thing,
the idea of creating a campus that needs to feel complete
at any given moment means that a certain building-- and you
could see our building right here, that footprint
was a strange and hermetically sealed one.
And our question was, how could we in fact
open it up literally to the city river to river,
get peripheral views of light all the way around,
and allow the kind of incubator spaces
that will be filling the upper levels
compliment the lower level research university
space, because in fact they share 30% Cornell Tech,
70% startup?
Again, that kind of conflation of these things
is really about trying to create,
in one building, Silicon Valley's great success.
And our point was, by relaxing that section
through pulling the landscape in and pressing in
and compressing the base of the building,
we could in fact actually have a kind of crystalline lens
at which the center is where this kind of collaboration
happens, where in fact views into, through,
and across the building are literally
how those lab spaces and incubator spaces
find themselves together.
Again, you can see the teaching spaces and lab
spaces, if you will, for the Cornell Tech on the lower
level and the convening space looking out
so that in fact-- this is it just a few days ago-- if you
see those columns holding up the cantilever, which
will be covered outdoor spaces, those
will be gone next week when the trusses are completed.
But the trusses themselves allow effectively a column-free wing
on either side, supported only at its core and its periphery
so that loft-like flexibility remains.
And again, it's sort of a spectacle,
if you will, from the East River, and one that,
if you will, we hope in about a year from now
will be a place of great innovation and invention.
A place that you may be familiar with, MIT at Kendall Square,
is extraordinary because this is a moment where
MIT is doing a piece of campus-making and city-making,
and entrepreneurial life being built around that hinge
literally at a hinge point.
And at Kendall Square, if you will,
our red box, if you will-- formerly known as Site P,
now building five-- is actually at this hinge point,
where it is a place where it truly must look
in every direction possible.
That hinge point literally is taking a star
and giving a four-sided building eight sides.
Those eight sides themselves are topographically
operated in section-- the first cut, if you will,
the invisible one, the subway or the T; the next layer, if you
will, at ground, the retail spaces plus the MIT
Museum; the next two levels, if you will,
the MIT Museum; and that breaker scar
there sets up all the kind of incubator and office spaces
above.
It is more importantly, though, a gateway.
And the symbol of actually tilting the building
back to open that gateway and to the T
itself is to say that this is a district that
is a future destination now, but one that will truly leverage
a piece of campus-making, city-making, and ultimately
a new relationship, if you will, that says that this innovation
district has a building which is one of many that is now
a citizen of a new precinct.
And this last project really is this notion
of what is it to be a citizen in a city
and a citizen in a university as a building.
And that citizenship, if you will, of campuses
has tended to fall around the notion of landscape
being a legible component of how you know
you are in this campus setting.
If you look on one side, the city of Philadelphia
has already defined itself through its greens.
But the city of Philadelphia on the other side of the river,
the University of Pennsylvania, had
to decant roads to create green space
to be able to have an identity.
But as the campus is moving east and connecting to the city,
this funny red C-shape here is where
the School of Engineering's buildings
are-- not an ounce of green space.
So our thinking when we were looking at this nanotechnology
building opportunity, all we heard were constraints.
The biggest one, if you will, in this one area
is that nanotechnologies have research labs that
are vibration-free and are electromagnetically-free.
So that means that there's a sweet spot, and only one spot,
where one could actually locate the labs, which
is in the back of the site.
So our question was, could we actually invert this equation?
And while we might put those labs that
have those vibration EMI sensitivities in the back,
could we also allow this building
to become a citizen of shaping an open space
and look back to the campus and city?
So this unfurling of things that need to simultaneously happen
means city-making and campus-making
below research within a kind of trajectory movement above
and a crystalline periphery that allows
you to look in and actually welcome the sciences.
So if you look at this now, you could
say that we were so fortunate that the university also
had a dean, Eduardo Glandt, who loved art--
you could see he rescued this Tony Smith out of storage--
but one who wanted the research to be seen.
And so if you look at now on the inside, what we were struck by
is that every nanotechnology building that we visited
had one solid door with a little portal in it that was yellow.
And we asked what that was for and learned
that it was to cut out the infrared light.
And we said, well, if that does the trick,
can we have a yellow wall, an amber wall,
and show the research inside?
So this is what you see, the amber wall that
looks into the clean room.
It's the cleanest place you can imagine in the world.
We as humans are so dirty that we need to be in bunny suits.
But that lens, if you will, that amber lens,
is to allow the scientists to look out,
and those who are working from the outside to look in.
In the lowest level, where the characterization suites are,
which must have no vibration-- this is all
concrete-based-- we even dragged the landscape down
to pull some light into this microscopy characterization
lab.
But in fact, more importantly was
to say that rather than sort of load
the kind of research bases around one
shared corridor by opening it up and unfurling it
into a C-shape, we were able to actually say
that you could look in.
Now, elevators have to be at far ends of the building
because they're electromagnetic and vibration interference,
which means that you need to have the most
irresistible stairs, because lab buildings have a 20-foot floor
to floor.
The stair needs to really be something that is broken down
in such a way that we could actually
create collaborative spaces along the way.
But also, the idea was again, like the School of Athens,
allowing to collapse into one space
those things that should be seen beyond, including
the conference and meeting spaces,
so that there's a sense of what's going on.
So even at the very, very top, where
we're looking at the cantilever overlook,
that is a space where everybody can
convene with talks et cetera.
But in fact, the real convening is the place
of movement and circulation.
And that is the place that is most
legible and luminous to the city by day
and to the campus by night, ultimately
where the individuals gather or where those convene is
the signature, if you will, is in the cantilever,
which is closest to the edge of the canvas.
But most importantly-- and the thing
that I think we're most excited about--
is that the one building becomes a citizen
of the campus and a protagonist for bringing
that whole idea of shaping a landscape
and creating new lens to research sciences.
So again, I think through all this examples,
our hunch is that the research and productivity that
happens here at MIT that will be happening with great extreme
out in Kendall Square is actually
taking that notion of the research, the university
building, and the campus and its citizenship in the city
as a way of actually projecting something far larger
into the world.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you, Marion.
And you did show us the two buildings I hoped you would.
It was terrific.
One more speaker-- Carlo Ratti, who practices in Italy.
He's an architect and an engineer by training.
And he's also an MIT, where he directs the SENSEable City Lab.
He holds several patents.
He's coauthored 250 publications.
I don't know how he does it.
His work has been exhibited worldwide
at venues such as Venice Biennale,
the Design Museum in Barcelona, the Science Museum in London,
MAXXI in Rome, and the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.
Blueprint included him as one of 25 people who
will change the world.
Where are you?
He's down there looking, smiling.
Forbes listed him as one of the names you need to know.
And Fast Company named him one of the 50 most
influential designers in America.
Two of his projects, the Digital Water Pavilion,
which he did here at MIT, and the Copenhagen Wheel,
were included by Time in the list of the best inventions
of the year in 2007 and 2014.
He's an out-of-the-box thinker, and hopefully you will conclude
this session with something that we don't know about.
Bye.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you.
Thank you, Adele.
I don't believe all of that.
Now, I want to share with you a few things
about the work we've been doing on innovation district.
I want to start with this picture.
The slide is not too visible, but this
is Le Corbusier, one of the most respected architects
of the past century.
And in the 1930s he wrote "Le Chartre d'Athene," the Athens
Charter.
He claimed that actually everything in a city
or in a campus had to be very well divided.
And so like I said, in 1931, a place
for working, sleeping, leisure and so on
had it all to be separated.
Now, if you think about a city like that, it's a huge waste.
It's a city where you build, in a certain sense,
a city for sleeping and then use it only for part of the day,
a city for working just for part of the day-- a lot
of traffic between them.
So it is no surprise that since the 1950s and '60s and '70s,
people really started thinking about mixed use-- Jane Jacobs,
but many, many others-- about how
we can put different several uses together in space.
Well, we think today that has gone perhaps one step further.
It's about digital-- how digitally changing
is impacting the way we work.
And how it's really changing the transition between public space
and private space, the very structure inside our buildings.
And let me give you one example, taken from our campus.
So what you see here is our beautiful campus,
almost like a little city inside the city.
You see downtown Boston, MIT, don't bother Harvard up there.
And if you take the MIT campus, it
was one of the first places in the world to be totally covered
with Wi-Fi.
And so what we saw over the years
is this transformation between what you see to the left--
how we used to work; or that's a computer
room, how it used to be-- to work
in a much more flexible way.
Now, those two images are a bit biased.
What you see to the left, I tried
to find the most appalling computer
room I could find-- no daylight, just artificial light
and so on.
To the right, it's beautiful.
It's a sunny day.
That's not always the case during the winter.
But you get an impression going to warm
from pictures of the left to something much more flexible.
So what we said was, well, what if we could actually
use the network?
The network is changing the way we work and live.
So what if you could monitor that
in order to understand really these changes?
So what is the network which is producing the changes could
also help us to quantify them.
So we went to MIT facilities, to MIT IS&T. We said,
can we start monitoring activity on the network?
Here you see every dot is actually an access
point on the MIT campus.
And we started studying that.
What you see there, you see people waking up at MIT
and then moving on campus during the day.
You see the bubble is the number of people,
and then how basically the pulse of the campus.
If you aggregate all of that for the whole campus,
this is a typical week at MIT.
So you see this Monday morning, people
getting to campus around 9:00.
You see a few people still working 9:00 to 5:00--
not that many.
Most people still keep working till very late at night.
It's either 10:00 or 11:00.
Even in the middle of the night, you get a lot of activity.
And the same thing repeats on Monday, on Tuesday,
on Wednesday, on Thursday-- not on Friday.
Like all over the world, activity slips away on Friday
afternoon, as you see here.
And then you've got Saturday and Sunday.
They're almost like normal days.
You just remove the 9:00 to 5:00 people.
And you always see a little thing here on Sunday night
around 9:00 or 10:00 PM.
And that's when you say, shit, tomorrow is Monday again.
And then you go back to work.
Anyway, if you take this, what you can do today
is something that was a dream for architects
a few decades ago.
You can get real-time occupancy profiles for every space.
And what you see here is most of the spaces at MIT,
how they've been used over time, just by using the signals that
are emitted in those spaces.
Well, if you take all the signals
and you mathematically analyze them-- here's
a fully transform to cluster them-- then
what you find is what I was saying before,
the fact that digital is actually allowing us today
to use space in a different way, to have much more flexibility
over time and over space.
We can overlay different functions.
And it's really changing the way we are using space.
There are things I wanted to highlight.
The first one is we're using space in a more communal way.
In a certain sense, you could think coworking-- perhaps also
co-living, co-making, this idea of sharing spaces
over time in different ways.
And the good news also, to respond
to what Israel was showing in the first presentation,
is that when you do this, you can use a square foot
in a more efficient way.
So on the one hand, you can use the space better.
A lot of the spaces were most of the time empty in the past,
and then now we can use them better.
But also, we can use them in a more sociable way.
So what we've been doing is extending the same analysis
to other places.
We did recently a piece of research at the Louvre Museum
in Paris.
Again, we did the same thing.
We looked at the signals emitted from electronics in order
to see how people move in the Louvre Museum.
There's a few scientific papers--
this was in The Financial Times-- looking at it this.
And what we're trying to do is learn
how this can tell us something about how we can
design new innovation spaces.
I want to share a couple of images.
This is a project we did with Dennis Frenchman, who
I don't know if he's in the room,
but he is at MIT, a great colleague.
And this is what we've been doing in Guadalajara in Mexico,
in a new innovation city there.
We're actually working on a lot of indoor and outdoor spaces
that people could use as an extension for their offices.
Here you see some of the sketches for one
of the incubator spaces in the city.
At the moment, our office-- we are
working in some of the largest co-working spaces in Europe.
You can see here some of the initial ones.
And one of the things we are experimenting with there
is how, when space is used in such a flexible way,
you can have all the systems in space actually
follow occupancy.
You can look at occupancy data in order to design a space,
but also you can have a space that responds in real time
to occupancy data.
And in this case, for instance, the heating, the cooling,
and the lighting responds to people.
There's nobody in the space, the space
goes on standby, pretty much like your computer.
So it becomes something dynamic that responds
to occupancy in the space.
I wanted to finish with a couple of examples.
So this really applies to the master plan scale.
We saw it before, and here in the case of Guadalajara
or other places.
It applies to the scale of the building itself,
but also to the furniture.
I want to share with you just a couple of quick examples.
A couple of years ago, Cassina, an Italian furniture producer,
came to us and said, well, can we
think about how changing the way to use
a space, such as a sofa, a couch?
And a long time ago you might gotten home,
you take newspaper, a printed newspaper,
you read it on the sofa.
But today, you might go there and you
keep on working on a tablet.
You might want a space that's both a coffee table or a place
for working, for posting, for reading
the newspaper-- the same newspaper,
but in digital form-- or just for meeting friends and others.
So we came up with this concept.
And they say, sure, that could be interesting.
But how do you do it?
How do you build it?
And there's no material that can do that.
Well, it turns out that if you take a digital fabrication
and use laser cutters in two pieces which
are slightly different one from the other,
you can combine them in a way to create a material that
has an embedded programming that allows
it to take different shapes.
And so here you see one of the first-- again,
one of the beauties that we see every day here at MIT
of digital fabrication is that if you've got an idea,
you can just try it out.
Just use a laser cutter, a 3-D printer, to prototype it.
So you see one of the first models, something
which is closed or it's open.
And it has embedded in its geometry
the stability in one shape or the other shape.
And here is a slightly better model
made of wood and aluminum.
And here you see the produced one.
Interesting thing is that you then produce it, also
with the same techniques.
So there is no difference anymore between the prototype
and what then is produced in big quantities,
again with laser-cutting.
And you combine all the different pieces,
and you get the final elements as you
see here, closed or open, or open the other side.
And I wanted to finish with something else
that we'll present in a just a couple days in Milan.
Design week in Milan is coming up, and one of the projects
is again, similar thinking about flexible spaces
and reconfigurable spaces.
This time we've been working with Vitra, the Swiss furniture
producer.
And here we've been thinking about the elements that
have little elements of furniture that
have a linear actuator inside them
so they can go up and down.
You can control that from your smartphone.
So you can see the configuration from your smartphone,
and then you can create a flexible dynamic space
that constantly changes shape.
Here's a little rendering of how it might look.
It's going to be an exhibition at the Tren Ave.
And I'll show you now-- it's not open yet,
so this is not a video.
It's just an animatics, just putting together
some images of how the video might look like after taking
footage of the real thing.
But I'll show it to you anyway.
It's the first time I'm showing it,
just as a sketch of how the project could be.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
[END PLAYBACK]
So I want to leave you with this.
I know that basically, technology
is changing the way we are living, the way we're working.
We're more flexible.
And in a certain sense, architecture is responding.
It's responding both in the way that we know more
about occupancy, so we can design in a different way.
But also, architecture can become more
like a living, responsive skin.
Architecture has always been something like the third skin.
You've got your own skin, our own skin, and then
the skin of clothes, and then the skin of architecture.
But that skin has always been more like a corset, something
really rigid that didn't adjust to us.
We had to adjust to architecture.
Perhaps in the future we can think
about an architecture that follows us,
that responds to us, more like a living skin.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Thanks, Scott.
I did ask for something we haven't seen before,
and I think we just have had that.
Great.
So tomorrow morning we start again at 8:30.
I'm sorry the panel has run late too,
but that's the inevitability.
Thank you all for your contributions to this event.
And thank you audience for being patient.
[APPLAUSE]

Share this subtitle



Description