Congress Hall in Philadelphia

Congress Hall in Philadelphia-the birthplace of the United States Constitution-is a superb room for dialogue. Why is this room so well suited for the ebb and flow of ideas?

• It seats 150 people. One can't get much larger and still remain intimate, yet fewer people would bring fewer ideas.

• Room surfaces support the speaking voice.

• The ceiling is high enough to provide support for voices, yet not so high as to create undue reverberation.

• There is a high platform in front for someone to maintain order and address the assembly.

• It is set back from the street and buffered from outside noise.

• The semicircular seating plan optimizes interaction amongst the participants.

• Windows set high in the walls allow maximum natural light, but no distracting outside views.

• There is no noise from mechanical air-conditioning. We know from history-and from contemporary experience of Philadelphia summers-that it was hot and stuffy in that room. It is currently possible to build inaudible HVAC systems. Unfortunately this is rarely done in modern conference rooms.

  In contrast, the typical contemporary hotel ballroom/convention room or business auditorium seems to have been designed as an afterthought.

• The ventilation system is loud.

• Distracting noises break in from adjoining rooms.

• Seating is flat, with no raised platform in the front.

• Natural light is rare.

• There is no support for the voice at all, since nearly all room surfaces absorb sound. This approach is necessary since the high noise levels would be unbearable in a more reverberant room.

  As a result of these conditions, all discussion must take place through the medium of a sound system. Much valuable time is spent fussing with this impediment to communication. The result is either too loud, or inaudible. And what does one do when there is discussion amongst members of the group? Passing a microphone around really puts a crimp on the spontaneous exchange of ideas.

  Thus, in nearly two and a quarter centuries of technological progress, our conditions for group dialogue are worse than in Congress Hall in 1787-except that now we sweat less.

  We now have the tools to do better, by building on the example of Congress Hall-just as concert hall designers have built great new concert halls by building on the superb models of the past. In the information age, there is tremendous value in spaces that foster group dialogue. I see an opportunity here.