Skip to main content



Frame | Workplace

application

In an office interior, Frame is most often an immovable interior partition of wood or metal, typically attached to the floor and ceiling planes of a space.

research

Frame was identified as an archetypical practice in the Intypes materials study as a movable, lightweight partition designed to divide the interior.1 The concept takes root in traditional Japanese house design (15th to 16th century) in which shoji, a "latticework wooden frame with panels of translucent rice paper, formed the initial boundary separating exterior gardens from the interior".Twentieth century architect Walter Gropius characterized a shoji as an "interceptor panel" that provides "complete flexibility of exterior and interior walls".

In the workplace, Frame has been interpreted variously, although it retained many of the properties and intentions of the original shoji. In corporate spaces Frame became an immovable interior partition, and some Frames acted as sliding doors. However, the same latticework design remained, often in wood or metal. The Frame itself was painted or finished in a manner that incorporated itself into the design of the rest of the space. Unlike traditional shoji, these contemporary interpretations of Frame were more substantial in size - in length and height as well as depth, and weight-heavier than a shoji screen-giving the perception of having structural integrity. Still "devoid of unnecessary ornamentation" in its aesthetic, the modern use of Frame in offices no longer emphasizes adjustability and flexibility in use.

Frame proved a useful device for in lobbies and corridors to separate sub-spaces within a larger area without using up much square footage or blocking visual access between spaces. Shoji-inspired screens were often used to delineate the boundaries of conference rooms. "The walls consist of a basic frame, sometimes constructed using metal or wood studs, clad with a translucent material, typically glass or acrylic. Large sliding doors sometimes grant access to the inner space. The clearly articulated framework helps establish an organizing principle, while the translucent cladding gives a greater feeling of openness while still providing the necessary level of privacy. Although less common, some screens omit the translucent cladding material entirely. The open framework divides space but permits almost complete visual access".2

In the 1960 decade when the concept of open plan offices began to rise in popularity, the problem of creating private or semi-private spaces arose. Designers sought solutions that would encourage spaces to remain as open as possible, but would create the required amounts of privacy needed for some office or conference areas.3 The incorporation of Frame into the office environment provided a desirable solution to this problem.

One interpretation of Frame was as an acoustical screen, but these presented several new issues. The height of the screens fell above or below site lines; tall screens ultimately served the same function as walls and limited the open quality of the office space while shorter screens provided insufficient visual and acoustical privacy. Also, movable acoustical screens needed to be able to stand on their own, typically requiring a slight curvature in the screen as well as feet at each end and one at the center,4 resulting in an aesthetically undesirable and functionally subpar design.

Effect
Frame provides many positive problem-solving attributes. Visual access and communication is easily achieved through the inherent latticework design. Privacy is controlled through the elimination or use of cladding. Frosted glass panels, or other translucent materials, support the greatest visual and acoustical privacy. Panels in Frame are prevalent in executive conference rooms or private offices where users demand optimal enclosure and privacy without a sense of an impenetrable barrier. Transparent glass or acrylic panels provide significant acoustical privacy, but allows visual communication between the two spaces that Frame divides. This is applied in instances where it is desirable for users to visually access conference or meeting areas to engage in the interactions and work that is being accomplished within. This semi-privacy also indicates that the nature of the tasks being completed behind a Frame is not highly classified, as the Frame does not provide a completely secure space.

The elimination of panels altogether allows for both visual and acoustical transaction, but serves to delineate space and to indicate a transition in function or purpose. This is seen most often in lobby spaces where a Frame separates the reception desk from a seating or waiting area. The two spaces have two different functions which are subtly separated by the Frame, but a strong line of visual and acoustical connection remains open. By changing Frame's size and material, it is possible to create a balance that meets many of the privacy requirements of any given space. Additionally, if Frames are not integrated into an architectural space, they are easy replaceable.


The grid pattern of the Frame introduces a proportional system to the interior and creates order and rhythm utilized to reinforce a sense of strong visual organization. The proportional system used in Frame, however, is often inconsistent with the proportional system of the architectural space. This characteristic may be traced back to the Katsura Imperial Villa, which German architect Bruno Taut observed to have stringent standards of measurement, but proportions that were "never applied schematically".5 Architect Walter Gropius observed that "the use of movable partitions and window frames makes the proportions extremely variable".6  This has certain implications about spatial order. Too much variability in proportional systems, from Frame to windows to ceiling tiles, could result in a chaotic interior. Designers must be conscious of balancing "a sequence of patterns in space"7 to create a sense of order.

Chronological Sequence
Frame emerged in offices prior to 1960, not as partitions, but as a two-dimensional wall panel in which the wooden mullion was emphasized. In David Millard's 1959 office design for Miniature Precision Bearings, Incorporated, a clearly articulated wooden Frame structure was applied directly on drywall.8 At this point in Frame's development there is no strong strategic connection to traditional shoji aside from the use of thick wooden edges.

In the 1960 decade free-standing acoustical wall panels rose and fell in popularity. The Early innovators, Quickborner Team of Hamburg, Germany, developed the concept of burolanschaft or "office landscaping". Their concept of a completely open office space involved the elimination of floor to ceiling partitions. As a solution that would create an easily modified plan without major reconstruction, acoustical panels were implemented as the "walls" within an office.9 As demonstrated in the E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company headquarters (1967) in New York City, several acoustical panels joined together could create a substantial barrier and delineate the boundaries of offices and conference rooms.10 While office landscaping promoted collaboration and flexibility in a manner that had been unprecedented, the movable panels proved to be insufficient in creating spaces within the overall environment that provided adequate acoustical or visual privacy when needed.

By the 1970 decade, however, Frame, became firmly entrenched as an interior partition solution within the office environment. Its distinctively latticed wooden structure clad with translucent panels echoed the traditional shoji. The movable partition was almost a direct translation, only re-engineered with materials suitable for an office environment, as seen in John Crews Rainey Associates' 1974 workplace design for Heidrick & Struggles.11  Functionally, however, the Frame in the Heidrick & Struggles headquarters, paid homage to shoji - expanding from floor to ceiling and secured along a track for easy movement that would open or close the entryway to the conference space within. This design solution solved many of the privacy concerns of acoustical panels while maintaining adequate flexibility within the plan of the office.

Late into the 1970 decade and through the 1980s, Frame began its evolution from a literal translation of the shoji. Frames found in workplaces became increasingly more stationary and eventually become integrated into the architecture of the space, no longer reading as an object within the interior. The beginnings of this change can be found in Alexandra Stoddards' 1979 design of the Tod Williams & Associates office in New York City.12 The Frame was secured to the floor, and although it did not reach the ceiling plane, it kept a sense of openness. The panels also changed, no longer limited to the translucent shoji, but evolving into opaque ones that eliminated visual connection between the two sides of the Frame.

By 1986, as demonstrated in the offices of Solomon Equities, Frame became increasingly more integrated into the wall construction of the interior, fixed onto the floor and connected to the drywall extending from the ceiling.13 The Frames were stationary, but rather became a substitute for a wall itself. The translucent panels allowed some light filtration and opened up the space, while acoustically and visually securing the conference room. The repetition of multiple Frames connected edge to edge reinforced the spatial order and rhythm established by the grid structure.

Also during the 1980s, workplaces began exploring a more casual culture and open layout, integrating some of the concepts introduced by office landscaping, but shaping them to cater to specific needs of the company. Prior to this decade, Frame had been applied only to conference spaces or along circulation paths. Frame began to be utilized as partitioning walls to private offices, such as those for the Johnson, Johnson & Roy office in Dallas.14 As facades, Frame broke down a hierarchical barrier between executives and the rest of the staff, facilitating greater communication across ranks and promoting increased productivity.

Experimentation with the scale, color and materials of Frame was common in the 1990 decade. Designers manipulated the proportions of the grid, "stretching" the once-strict square into rectangular panels, and rather than adhering to the typically thin construction of Frame, designers played with the thickness of the partitions. It is during this period that panels were left completely open, rather than filled with a material. In the 1994 design of Fair, Isaac, and Company's office in San Rafael, California, a Frame separated the reception area from the waiting area. The Frame, constructed from a sheet of metal and painted vibrant colors, acted as partition, as well as a sculptural element within the space.15 In the same year, HCA Partners designed Frames for the American World Trade Center in Moscow, Russia. These Frames, distributed within the lobby space, were substantially thick, a trait not found in the designs of previous decades.16

 From 2000 to 2010, applications of Frame occurred in a variety of designs, materials and locations within an office setting. Many workplaces of this period utilized Frame as a fixed partition that allowed customization of privacy. In the Hillier-designed Turkiye Is Bankasi Headquarters (2001) in Istanbul and the Concrete Incorporated offices, Frames came full circle back to traditional shoji, appearing as lightweight and serving only as a screen. In the offices of Concrete Incorporated, Frame is integrated into the wall panels, encasing panels of glass to create the effect of floor to ceiling windows.17

end notes

  1. 1) Elizabeth M O'Brien, "Material Archetypes: Contemporary Interior Design and Theory Study" (M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 2006), 30-31.
  2. 2) O'Brien, Material Archetypes, 34.
  3. 3) John Pile, Open Office Planning (New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1978), 109-19.
  4. 4) Pile, Open Office Planning, 119.
  5. 5) Bruno Taut, excerpt from "Nippon, Japan: Seen through European Eyes" in Katsura Imperial Villa, ed. Virginia Ponciroli (Milan: Electraarchitecture, 2004), 335.
  6. 6) Walter Gropius, "Architecture in Japan" in Katsura Imperial Villa, 353.
  7. 7) Gropius, Katsura Imperial Villa, 355-76.
  8. 8) Miniature Precision Bearings, Inc. [1959] Dave Millard; Rye, NY in Anonymous, "Offices," Interior Design 30, no. 10 (Oct. 1959): 184; PhotoCrd: Guy Gillette-Lensgroup.
  9. 9) Anonymous, Office Landscaping (New York: The Business Press, 1969), 14.
  10. 10) E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [1967] Quickborner Team; Wilmington, DE in Anonymous, Office Landscaping, 69; PhotoCrd: Alexandre Georges.
  11. 11) Heidrick & Struggles Headquarters [1974] John Crews Rainey Associates; New York, NY in Anonymous, "Heidrick & Struggles," Interior Design 45, no. 4 (Apr. 1974): 114; PhotoCrd: Alexandre Georges.
  12. 12) Tod Williams & Associates [1979] Alexandra Stoddard, Inc.; New York, NY in Anonymous, "Cabins in the Sky," Interior Design 50, no. 9 (Sep.  1979): 232; PhotoCrd: Mark Ross.
  13. 13) Solomon Equities [1986] Herman Smith-Millerl New York, NY in Jerry Cooper, "Solomon Equities," Interior Design 57, no. 5 (May 1986): 231; PhotoCrd: Paul Warchol.
  14. 14) Johnson, Johnson & Roy [1989] Hermanovski Lauck; Dallas, TX in Mayer Rus, "Johnson, Johnson & Roy," Interior Design 60, no. 8 (Jun. 1989): 288; PhotoCrd: James F. Wilson.
  15. 15) Fair, Isaac and Co. [1994] Richard Pollack; San Rafael, CA in Edie Cohen, "Soft-Com," Interior Design 65, no. 9 (Sep. 1994): 164; PhotoCrd: John Sutton.
  16. 16) American Trade Center [1994] HCA Partners; Moscow, Russia in Edie Cohen, "HCA Partners," Interior Design 65, no. 9 (Sep. 1994): 187; PhotoCrd: Peter Paige; Concrete Incorporated [2001] Specht Harpman; New York, NY in Henry Urbach, "Top Deck," Interior Design 72, no. 5 (May 2001): 273; PhotoCrd: Michael Moran.
  17. 17) Turkiye Is Bankasi [2001] Hillier-New York; Istanbul, Turkey in Monica Geran, "Ottoman Empire," Interior Design 65, no. 9 (Sep.1994): 280; PhotoCrd: Paul Warchol.
  18. 18) Evidence for the archetypical use and the chronological sequence of Frame in workplace design was developed from the following primary sources: 1950 Miniature Precision Bearings, Inc. [1959] Dave Millard; Rye, NY in Anonymous,  "Offices," Interior Design 30, no. 10 (Oct. 1959): 184; PhotoCrd: Guy Gillette-Lensgroup / 1960 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [1967] Quickborner Team; Wilmington, DE in Anonymous,  Office Landscaping (New York: Business Press, 1969), 14 ; PhotoCrd: Alexandre Georges / 1970 Heidrick & Struggles Headquarters [1974] John Crews Rainey Associates; New York, NY in Anonymous,, "Heidrick & Struggles," Interior Design 45, no. 4 (Apr. 1974): 114; PhotoCrd: Alexandre Georges; Tod Williams & Associates [1979] Alexandra Stoddard, Inc.; New York City in Anonymous, "Cabins in the Sky," Interior Design 50, no. 9 (Sep.  1979): 232; PhotoCrd: Mark Ross / 1980 Solomon Equities [1986] Herman Smith-Millerl New York, NY in Jerry Cooper, "Solomon Equities," Interior Design 57, no. 5 (May 1986): 231; PhotoCrd: Paul Warchol; Johnson, Johnson & Roy [1989] Hermanovski Lauck; Dallas, TX in Mayer Rus, "Johnson, Johnson & Roy," Interior Design 60, no. 8 (Jun. 1989): 288; PhotoCrd: James F. Wilson / 1990 Fair, Isaac and Co. [1994] Richard Pollack; San Rafael, CA in Edie Cohen, "Soft-Com," Interior Design 65, no. 9 (Sep. 1994): 164; PhotoCrd: John Sutton; American Trade Center [1994] HCA Partners; Moscow, Russia in Edie Cohen, "HCA Partners," Interior Design 65, no. 9 (Sep. 1994): 187; PhotoCrd: Peter Paige / 2000 Concrete Incorporated [2001] Specht Harpman; New York, NY in Henry Urbach, "Top Deck," Interior Design 72, no. 5 (May 2001): 273; PhotoCrd: Michael Moran; Turkiye Is Bankasi [2001] Hillier-New York; Istanbul, Turkey in Monica Geran, "Ottoman Empire," Interior Design 65, no. 9 (Sep.1994): 280; PhotoCrd: Paul Warchol.

bibliographic citations

1) The Interior Archetypes Research and Teaching Project, Cornell University, www.intypes.cornell.edu (accessed month & date, year).

2) Yin, Shuqing. "Theory Studies: Archetypical Workplace Practices in Contemporary Interior Design." M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 2011, 38-51.