PLAN DE ACCIÓN

In consequence with the trend toward more knowledge-based and custom- ized production, it is no surprise that the first attempts to optimize social and technical needs were made in buildings for the service industries. Herman

Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheer in the Hague, Holland, built in 1974, houses the thousand employees of an insurance business. A top lit central street

runs through stacks of pyramidal decks, each floor connected by bridges. Top down lighting, open decks and staircases, combined with lush interior

vegetation of plants and trees, creates an indoor city with open air quality in the labyrinth of space. Perhaps its strongest break with the traditions of office and particularly the open plan office, was its sense of freedom to choose and move. The blend of work and social space were more reminiscent of an urban neighborhood than of a dedicated workspace.

Designed by Niels Torp in 1988, (though masterminded by the visionary SAS CEO Jan Carlzon) the SAS headquarters is one of the most wellknown

examples of the workplace as urban form with its descending street lined with not only seven office floors, but cafés, cinema, shops, bank and swim- ming pool, in short, all the amenities of city life. Finally, in the recently built

London Ark at the Hammersmith flyover in London, by Ralph Erskine, a

British architect, (domiciled in Sweden), the town metaphor is pronounced again. Rising layers of offices and meeting spaces wrap around a lofty, spectacular atrium with restaurants, meeting lounges and bridges.

The urban metaphors could also be found in a new assembly plant, built

in Malmö, by the other Swedish automaker, SAAB Scania. Not long after the Volvo Uddevalla factory was built in 1988, SAAB made a similar move and took over parts of an abandoned shipyard site in central Malmö. A huge

building used for welding iron plates into sections of ships was converted into a modern car assembly plant. Like the Uddevalla plant it too was closed down after an even shorter period of operation. But it is interesting to compare the two plants from other viewpoints as well.

The interior central street, 250 metres long, 20 metres wide and 12 metres

high, is the indisputable centre of the SAAB building. (Fig 3) As such it

is surprisingly successful, in receiving generous natural light from several

directions. Inspired by modern office buildings, notably the SAS airline

headquarters in Stockholm, this street nevertheless has a distinct industrial flavour through the heavy roof constructions and thick bundles of technical installations freely penetrating the open space.

Through this central street an overview of the total plant is possible. The main entrance is used by everyone. Walking among hundreds of people choosing routes on different levels to reach their work area, it is possible to get an understanding of how their tasks all contribute to the common goal, that of producing a certain number of quality cars. The recreation spaces are not definitely assigned to a certain production area as in the Volvo Uddevalla factory. One can choose different routes to several areas.

The SAAB Malmö and the Volvo Uddevalla factories can be seen to illus- trate different principles, which can be used to overcome the lack of meeting places in the traditional factory building. The labels to describe them could

be called ‘The Main Street’ and ‘The Family Flat’. In Uddevalla, Volvo chose ‘The Family Flat’ solution, where a team of car builders formed a socially

identity and strength within the ‘family’ but also a risk of strong pressure

to conform within the group and aloofness towards other groups. One got the impression that in Uddevalla, the assembly workers were the ones who actually built the car. The material handlers performed a less qualified and more monotonous service function. Those who started working there might not have gotten the natural contact with the assembly work and a chance later to try their hand at other tasks.

SAAB did not go as far as Volvo in letting the workers build the whole

car. But the work cycle became considerably longer than the customary 2–3 minutes. Car builders and material handlers were part of a larger team and switched tasks to provide variety and broaden skills. The need for identity

and contact was not met through a close-knit ‘family’ as in Volvo, but

through the more varied social life of the factory street. But in spite of the

large ‘urban’ scale, the public character of the SAAB street was limited. The foremen’s offices were obtrusively juxtaposed with the recreation spaces,

contact with the exterior natural and urban environment was obscured.

Is it really necessary to choose between the SAAB and Volvo solutions?

Might it not be possible to have both the larger integrated groups and the

challenge of building the whole car? Another physical configuration of the

Volvo plant was discussed at an earlier stage. The production workshops

were then placed as ‘bubbles’ around the Materials Centre. Perhaps that idea

could have been developed further so as to integrate assembly work and materials handling. It would seem that evaluations of alternatives and pos- sibilities of this kind need more developed concepts and tools of analysis.