Do open hallways and glass walls = better science? The Post-Dispatch ran an interesting story at year's end describing how one architectural firm has started to test this assumption with some rigor.

Cannon Design, responsible for the new Doisy Research Center at SLU, has long been a proponant of designing scientific buildings with lots of open space. Knocking out the walls fosters collaborations between researchers, increasing creativity and minimizing the overlap of expensive resources. But do the finished facilities have the desired effect? To find out, Cannon just began a 3-year study to analyze how the outputs of research groups (publications, grants, etc.) have changed once they moved into one of these new structures. In the process, they hope to discover a new selling point for the open design (As well as not a little publicity for themselves).

What do you think? I know that I prefer working in the new green-glass buildings, but most of that can be chalked up to a combination of sunshine and bragging rights (ooh, green glass!). I've seen departments in brick basements share every resource they earn, and groups in newer facilities never leave their bench - it can really go either way.

By the way - I just got back from from vacation in Orlando, and I think that everyone with any interest in designing science buildings should visit the Land pavilion at EPCOT:

Maybe leave out the balloons, but everything else - gorgeous.

(...more from stltoday.com)