Corporate Typology
by Rebecca Senn
When corporations began moving to the suburbs the buildings they chose to build and occupy were not all one and the same. Different types of companies moved to the suburbs, for example John Deere, General Electric, American Can, IBM, and MasterCard. Therefore, these corporations needed different types of facilities for their businesses. The typology of the corporate facility in the suburbs became quite diverse and interesting.
When referring to typology the definition itself will be related to the specific type of corporate facility, the main purpose of the corporate facility, and the type of building establishment itself. Typology is being used to define and classify the different kinds of corporate facilities companies chose to build and occupy. Discussed will be three different types of facilities: the corporate campus, the corporate estate, and the office park.
The Corporate Campus
The corporate campus first emerged in the 1940s, after World War II, as an instrument to re-conceptualize research management, attract scientists from academia, and cloak the corporation in high-minded institutional garb.
The corporate campus contained office and laboratory facilities focused around a central green quadrangle, surrounded by parking and an enclosed driveway.
It was designed to look like the American university campus (see Figure 1.3 image comparison in Appendix), providing amenities for a singular division of middle management: corporate research. The corporate campus established the initial shift of white-collar work into the pastoral suburban setting. Some early examples of the corporate campus include corporations such as Bell Labs, General Electric, and General Motors. Each of these companies built corporate campuses to move their research divisions out of industrial settings. They wanted to valorize the engineering scientist, and validate the use of science for profit. The corporate campus was intended to accelerate scientific invention just by the premeditated planning of its buildings. It concentrated physical, financial, and personnel resources that were to allow for this scientific acceleration. There are four key projects that contribution to the revelation of the corporate campus.
The first being AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories, opening in 1942 in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The General Electric Electronics Park in Syracuse New York, and Johns-Manville Research Center in Manville, Jersey later followed, both opening in 1948. But, it was the 1956 General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Michigan that “dramatically transfigured the more confined aims of previous research campuses and created an icon of American technological, economic, and corporate supremacy.”
With the advent of the Technical Center, the corporate campus became a centerpiece in American culture and society. After 1960, the corporate campus became the norm for high levels of industrial science. The excerpt below signifies the magnitude of the
General Motors Technical Center opening:
“Design in Detroit”, INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, October 1955 (the entire issue was dedicated to the new profession of automobile design, but addressed the new GM Technical Center):
“The number one architectural event in Detroit is the spectacular new General Motors Technology Center, covering a mile-square plain a dozen miles north of the city. It is architecture on unprecedented scale – actually a complete research town where each of the five major GM research functions has its own complex of buildings, pools, landscaped square and gardens. The 17 individual structures, low and generously spaced, surround a 1780 ft. lake and are encircled by drives and shaded parking areas. Final touches are just being put on the Styling Section – the cornerstone of a $100 million project that has been underway for a decade. The Technical Center, designed by Saarinen, Saarinen & Associates of nearby Bloomfield Hills, is an integrated interpretation of a great industry: the crisp building forms and precise detail of the glass, steel, aluminum and enamel facades convey the spirit of technology and the machine; the brilliant glazed brick end walls in nine gala colors are a reminder of craft and the skill of the hand. In industrial buildings like the Tech Center there is a significant new dimension to design-for-industry: when business is designing products to improve the life and beauty of its own operation, it expresses itself proudly and boldly in the unified language of art.”
The General Motors Technical Center was an early influential corporate campus. Note the expansive central open space surrounded by laboratories and peripheral parking and entryways (set up like a college campus).
When corporations began moving to the suburbs the buildings they chose to build and occupy were not all one and the same. Different types of companies moved to the suburbs, for example John Deere, General Electric, American Can, IBM, and MasterCard. Therefore, these corporations needed different types of facilities for their businesses. The typology of the corporate facility in the suburbs became quite diverse and interesting.
When referring to typology the definition itself will be related to the specific type of corporate facility, the main purpose of the corporate facility, and the type of building establishment itself. Typology is being used to define and classify the different kinds of corporate facilities companies chose to build and occupy. Discussed will be three different types of facilities: the corporate campus, the corporate estate, and the office park.
The Corporate Campus
The corporate campus first emerged in the 1940s, after World War II, as an instrument to re-conceptualize research management, attract scientists from academia, and cloak the corporation in high-minded institutional garb.
The corporate campus contained office and laboratory facilities focused around a central green quadrangle, surrounded by parking and an enclosed driveway.
It was designed to look like the American university campus (see Figure 1.3 image comparison in Appendix), providing amenities for a singular division of middle management: corporate research. The corporate campus established the initial shift of white-collar work into the pastoral suburban setting. Some early examples of the corporate campus include corporations such as Bell Labs, General Electric, and General Motors. Each of these companies built corporate campuses to move their research divisions out of industrial settings. They wanted to valorize the engineering scientist, and validate the use of science for profit. The corporate campus was intended to accelerate scientific invention just by the premeditated planning of its buildings. It concentrated physical, financial, and personnel resources that were to allow for this scientific acceleration. There are four key projects that contribution to the revelation of the corporate campus.
The first being AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories, opening in 1942 in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The General Electric Electronics Park in Syracuse New York, and Johns-Manville Research Center in Manville, Jersey later followed, both opening in 1948. But, it was the 1956 General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Michigan that “dramatically transfigured the more confined aims of previous research campuses and created an icon of American technological, economic, and corporate supremacy.”
With the advent of the Technical Center, the corporate campus became a centerpiece in American culture and society. After 1960, the corporate campus became the norm for high levels of industrial science. The excerpt below signifies the magnitude of the
General Motors Technical Center opening:
“Design in Detroit”, INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, October 1955 (the entire issue was dedicated to the new profession of automobile design, but addressed the new GM Technical Center):
“The number one architectural event in Detroit is the spectacular new General Motors Technology Center, covering a mile-square plain a dozen miles north of the city. It is architecture on unprecedented scale – actually a complete research town where each of the five major GM research functions has its own complex of buildings, pools, landscaped square and gardens. The 17 individual structures, low and generously spaced, surround a 1780 ft. lake and are encircled by drives and shaded parking areas. Final touches are just being put on the Styling Section – the cornerstone of a $100 million project that has been underway for a decade. The Technical Center, designed by Saarinen, Saarinen & Associates of nearby Bloomfield Hills, is an integrated interpretation of a great industry: the crisp building forms and precise detail of the glass, steel, aluminum and enamel facades convey the spirit of technology and the machine; the brilliant glazed brick end walls in nine gala colors are a reminder of craft and the skill of the hand. In industrial buildings like the Tech Center there is a significant new dimension to design-for-industry: when business is designing products to improve the life and beauty of its own operation, it expresses itself proudly and boldly in the unified language of art.”
The General Motors Technical Center was an early influential corporate campus. Note the expansive central open space surrounded by laboratories and peripheral parking and entryways (set up like a college campus).
The Corporate Estate
The corporate campus then gave rise to the idea of the corporate estate. The corporate estate of the early 1950s consisted of a striking and impressive building complex; complete with a long driveway, water features, and compact parking lots that were meant to be invisible (this is very different than the corporate campus in which parking lots are large and noticeable, enveloping the campus).
Impeccably landscaped on more than 200 acres of land, the corporate estate provided a “broadly resonant alternative to the unmitigated modernity of the city skyscraper.” The estate was a sign of corporate image and generated a corporate persona within its pastoral community. The symbolic corporate estate became a “source of esteem for an array of employees, as well as neighboring communities.” The estate was carefully designed and crafted to address different audiences, for example the local and global. Mozingo states that “corporations used the estates’ image as a public relations tool in communicating with employees, local residents, stockholders, competitors, and bankers. The aesthetics of the corporate estate were very important, as they stood to symbolize for more than just function.
The enduring typology of the estate is the idea of the “villa” as a true expression of power. The corporate estate was a presentation of “intense programmatic investment of ideological goals.” The scale and opulence of the site attests to the incontrovertibly prestigious status of the corporations. Most importantly, the corporate estate became associated with patronage as opposed to mere ownership. They were designed to give off an air of worldly, lavish, and prestigious distinction.
The genre of corporate estate evolved through three projects: General Foods (1954), Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (1957), and Deere & Company Administrative Center (1964). Urban historian Kenneth Jackson notes that General Foods “began the outward trend in earnest” and provided a conceptual and design prototype for the corporate estate.
General Foods Moves to the Suburbs
In 1954, General Foods, a Fortune 500 company, decided to move to White Plains, New York, located in Westchester County, from Manhattan. As General Foods continued to expand in its Park Avenue building the company began to exploring alternative locations for its 1300 employees. Mozingo eloquently describes General Foods decision to move to the suburbs in Pastoral Capitalism:
“the evolution of the corporate estate in Westchester County began as fiscal compromise to maintain, as much as possible, an uncluttered, bucolic, nineteenth-century elite landscape threatened by the dissolution of the upper-class estate and the loss of their hefty taxes revenues yet increasingly burdened by the costs of public services demanded by the ever increasing numbers of suburban homeowners. This concurred with General Food’s desire to build in a location with prestige that was markedly not industrial. In this milieu, the corporate estate of low-rising buildings, arching entry drives, and pastoral landscapes as a recognizable iteration of the landscapes it replaced.”
Although the General Foods headquarters can be seen as a plagiaristic example of the corporate laboratory campus, with a sedate landscape and architectural commencement, its intense devotion to creating an impressive public portico predicted the ever more grandiose corporate estate buildings in the years to come. The basic features of the General Foods corporate estate; low rise buildings; central building; long entry drive; two large parking lots peripheral to the buildings entrance; and an all-encompassing landscape scenery remained standard in corporate campuses that followed its design.
The Office Park
By the 1950s the office park came into fruition as a much cheaper alternative to the corporate campus and estate. The office park arrangement provided lots for office buildings, each building surrounded by a collection of parking within a landscaped environment of medians and verges that held true to suburban uniformity. The office park included lower-level regional staffs and it was a direct response by developers to provide an alternative to the large and pricey corporate campuses and estates. Because the office park housed lower-level staffs their status essentially did not merit a large corporate campus or estate. So what were the characteristics of the office park? Specifically, how did they differ from the corporate campus and estate?
Essentially, the office park translated the basics of the corporate campus and estate into a money making speculative development that was first built by local developers, and not large corporations (i.e. General Foods, IBM, PepsiCo). The office park was designed to be flexible and adaptable for a range of tenants. For example, office park developers could “build to suit” for a particular renter with long-term lease agreements. Or, occupants could buy part of the building and add to it or build their own building. Office parks allowed for start-up corporations, back offices, lower level support, and smaller corporations in general to avoid the large and expensive costs of building their own headquarters, while occupying their own separate building rather than a few floors of an urban skyscraper.
According to Mozingo, the very first office park was established in Mountain Brook, Alabama in a suburb of Birmingham. The Jackson Company was the creator and the project was simply called “The Office Park.” Unlike the corporate estate and campus, the office park had various buildings separated from each other, each with individual parking lots and strips of landscaping. Indeed, the parking lots of office parks became a distinctive identifier.
In conclusion, it is easy to see that the corporate facilities attracted to the suburbs were not all the same. Corporate estates, corporate campuses, and office parks were all attracted to the suburbs, but they came with a variance in internal and external features. Corporate estates were built to symbolize corporate prestige, corporate campuses were more technically designed for engineers, and scientists, and the office park was for lower level management and served as the cheapest alternative.
Sources:
Mozingo, Louise A. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011.
motorimages.com
The corporate campus then gave rise to the idea of the corporate estate. The corporate estate of the early 1950s consisted of a striking and impressive building complex; complete with a long driveway, water features, and compact parking lots that were meant to be invisible (this is very different than the corporate campus in which parking lots are large and noticeable, enveloping the campus).
Impeccably landscaped on more than 200 acres of land, the corporate estate provided a “broadly resonant alternative to the unmitigated modernity of the city skyscraper.” The estate was a sign of corporate image and generated a corporate persona within its pastoral community. The symbolic corporate estate became a “source of esteem for an array of employees, as well as neighboring communities.” The estate was carefully designed and crafted to address different audiences, for example the local and global. Mozingo states that “corporations used the estates’ image as a public relations tool in communicating with employees, local residents, stockholders, competitors, and bankers. The aesthetics of the corporate estate were very important, as they stood to symbolize for more than just function.
The enduring typology of the estate is the idea of the “villa” as a true expression of power. The corporate estate was a presentation of “intense programmatic investment of ideological goals.” The scale and opulence of the site attests to the incontrovertibly prestigious status of the corporations. Most importantly, the corporate estate became associated with patronage as opposed to mere ownership. They were designed to give off an air of worldly, lavish, and prestigious distinction.
The genre of corporate estate evolved through three projects: General Foods (1954), Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (1957), and Deere & Company Administrative Center (1964). Urban historian Kenneth Jackson notes that General Foods “began the outward trend in earnest” and provided a conceptual and design prototype for the corporate estate.
General Foods Moves to the Suburbs
In 1954, General Foods, a Fortune 500 company, decided to move to White Plains, New York, located in Westchester County, from Manhattan. As General Foods continued to expand in its Park Avenue building the company began to exploring alternative locations for its 1300 employees. Mozingo eloquently describes General Foods decision to move to the suburbs in Pastoral Capitalism:
“the evolution of the corporate estate in Westchester County began as fiscal compromise to maintain, as much as possible, an uncluttered, bucolic, nineteenth-century elite landscape threatened by the dissolution of the upper-class estate and the loss of their hefty taxes revenues yet increasingly burdened by the costs of public services demanded by the ever increasing numbers of suburban homeowners. This concurred with General Food’s desire to build in a location with prestige that was markedly not industrial. In this milieu, the corporate estate of low-rising buildings, arching entry drives, and pastoral landscapes as a recognizable iteration of the landscapes it replaced.”
Although the General Foods headquarters can be seen as a plagiaristic example of the corporate laboratory campus, with a sedate landscape and architectural commencement, its intense devotion to creating an impressive public portico predicted the ever more grandiose corporate estate buildings in the years to come. The basic features of the General Foods corporate estate; low rise buildings; central building; long entry drive; two large parking lots peripheral to the buildings entrance; and an all-encompassing landscape scenery remained standard in corporate campuses that followed its design.
The Office Park
By the 1950s the office park came into fruition as a much cheaper alternative to the corporate campus and estate. The office park arrangement provided lots for office buildings, each building surrounded by a collection of parking within a landscaped environment of medians and verges that held true to suburban uniformity. The office park included lower-level regional staffs and it was a direct response by developers to provide an alternative to the large and pricey corporate campuses and estates. Because the office park housed lower-level staffs their status essentially did not merit a large corporate campus or estate. So what were the characteristics of the office park? Specifically, how did they differ from the corporate campus and estate?
Essentially, the office park translated the basics of the corporate campus and estate into a money making speculative development that was first built by local developers, and not large corporations (i.e. General Foods, IBM, PepsiCo). The office park was designed to be flexible and adaptable for a range of tenants. For example, office park developers could “build to suit” for a particular renter with long-term lease agreements. Or, occupants could buy part of the building and add to it or build their own building. Office parks allowed for start-up corporations, back offices, lower level support, and smaller corporations in general to avoid the large and expensive costs of building their own headquarters, while occupying their own separate building rather than a few floors of an urban skyscraper.
According to Mozingo, the very first office park was established in Mountain Brook, Alabama in a suburb of Birmingham. The Jackson Company was the creator and the project was simply called “The Office Park.” Unlike the corporate estate and campus, the office park had various buildings separated from each other, each with individual parking lots and strips of landscaping. Indeed, the parking lots of office parks became a distinctive identifier.
In conclusion, it is easy to see that the corporate facilities attracted to the suburbs were not all the same. Corporate estates, corporate campuses, and office parks were all attracted to the suburbs, but they came with a variance in internal and external features. Corporate estates were built to symbolize corporate prestige, corporate campuses were more technically designed for engineers, and scientists, and the office park was for lower level management and served as the cheapest alternative.
Sources:
Mozingo, Louise A. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011.
motorimages.com