Corporate architecture
[1] During the 20th century corporate architecture underwent a transformation from functional design philosophies to more creative endeavours, which are able to be an expression of the firm’s institutional identity and play a role in stakeholders’ image of the organisation.
[5] Researchers also suggest that corporate architecture needs a wider definition that considers a broader range of economic and social contexts.
Examples of this are considerations regarding the functional flexibility of buildings and headquarters, as well as the total landscape corporate spaces create and their potential future impacts.
[6] Prior to the 20th century, planning for the construction of new buildings was typically based on land costs and location, with the main concerns being of “image”.
[2] Over time, the economy shifted focus from production to consumption, and as this transition occurred architecture became more elaborate through use of varied shapes and symbols, as well as the use of different materials.
[2][8] For example, in 1911, Fargus shoe factory located in Lower Saxony, Germany, used glass to transform their buildings into light and open spaces.
[2][8] Some defining design features of these buildings include intricate details at the base and more sculptural forms on the higher levels with heavy use of granite and marble.
Employees were physically grouped together based on their professional skills and functions in the company, allowing more interaction and collaboration in office spaces.
The physical settings stakeholders of the company interact with can create an emotional impact, which aids in their identification with the firm’s organisational practices and branding.
[13] The idea, which posits that collective memories and identities are tied to physical spaces, makes it an important aspect of corporate heritage and marketing.
[13][14] Places like landmark buildings and corporate headquarters can provide visual cues which form individuals’ experiences and therefore their perceptions of the firm.
[21] Key aspects put forth by van den Bosch et al. of how CVI affects firms are visibility, distinctiveness, authenticity, transparency and consistency.
Corporate buildings that were considered as moderate versions of either style, situated closer to the centre point of the spectrum, were positively described as natural and harmonious.
An example is Hong Kong’s Bank of China Tower, the design of which has caused controversy due to its facade of linked triangle shapes that considered to be “bad feng shui”.
Martin Kornberger and Stewart Clegg say that these buildings possess five distinct characteristics; a balance of chaos and order, flexibility, ability to generate problems, movement and design.
[3] Hatch[25] additionally said that her research showed that the two main roles office design has in an organisation is communication behaviour of the employees and their perceived status.
