Chris Alexander is the feel good source for software design patterns and architectural design. But in the end there's something to be said for functional design in programming and in architecture.[1]
If people sit in their office, they don't talk. Putting common spaces along the glass curtain wall also democratizes access to light.
Finally, from a practical standpoint, the first thing people who spent all day in front of a CRT tended to do in a daylit office was draw the blinds and turn down the lights to reduce glare.
[1] What makes Alexander useful in architecture is that a great deal of architectural function is related to habitation and architectural patterns double back on themselves in terms of users whereas software design patterns tend to be focused on the programmer's pleasures.
An odd thing about Alexander's work on pattern languages is that, despite people's enthusiasm, Alexander himself considered it to be a failure. There's a chapter in Richard Gabriel's "Patterns of Software" (http://dreamsongs.org/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf) that has an interesting discussion on this.
Alexander considered his work prior to A Pattern Language to be a failure. Notes on the Synthesis of Form was largely his Phd work from Harvard, and his self-criticism was that the process was too formal.
My personal opinion is that it better corresponds to current software architectural practice because whereas A Pattern Language is entirely focused on habitability for end users, both current software architectural practice and Notes on the Synthesis of Form emphasize habitability for the architect/programmer - e.g. three tiered systems make the job of the programmer easier, they don't necessarily improve user experience, but light on two sides does.
Read Alexander's foreword to that book. He considers his earlier work to be a failure. In the sense that design patterns didn't work to allow people to make living buildings. However he seems to be very satisfied with his new Nature of Order series.
None of the offices in Holmdel had windows either. The article only had pictures of the large atrium and the hallways. Technical Staff had 10x12 winodow-less "office" shared by two people. You can shut the door to work but when more than 3 people want to have a meeting it felt cramped.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson_Research_Cente...