FUNCTION AND FORM

Alex Carlen. Form Follows Function. TU Delft Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment. January 2014

 

The study of the quote “Form Follows Function” showed that the Functionalist notion of function did not refer to the world of users but to some sort of philosophical realm of functionalist design. Where the forms were to express the actual functioning of the building. But this way of designing has caused a lot of architects to legitimize their projects by using quotes like Sullivan’s “Form Follows Function” were function meant complete freedom. Since the notion of function made the architects and designers free to define it in ways that always legitimized their own aesthetic priorities. So, one could argue that the quote fails with bringing an end to formalism and that it on the contrary started and legalized an era of extreme formalist approach towards architecture. Alex Carlen is a Graduate Faculty Member at Delft University of Technology Department of Architecture in Delft, Netherlands. His article on function and form stemmed from a Seminar called “Architectural Reflections”, in which he led in January of 2014, when this paper was written.

 
Carlen provides insight into the meaning for Sullivan’s quote and adds pushback as the meaning of the phrase can be used under a broad umbrella of aesthetic as well as be flipped on itself. Bringing me to the conclusion that function and form are not definite, but instead interchangeable to ones meaning of architecture. For this reason, it better to design with the context in mind and instead let that be the driving factor behind the form and concurrently the function. For a impactful design can be achieved when site and empathic realization of place is taken into consideration. Comparing to the approach that would be taken by Bjarke Ingels when he is asked to take on a new project.

 

Both aspects of function and form are certainly important during the undertaking of a new project. However, architects seem to prioritize one over the other and this is great when it comes to setting a hierarchy. As to achieve a project that is simple in its design and doesn’t take too many routes, which will in turn lose the user within the building and the driving idea behind it. Furthermore, understanding where, who and what you are building should certainly take priority over the form and function and work together to achieve a successful building.

​

​

BODY AND BUILDING

Sou Fujimoto. Primitive Future: Architecture Designed As A “Nest” Or “Cave. Inax Publishers. February 2008

 

Sou Fujimoto writes about the idea of Nest v. Cave. The way Fujimoto describes a cave is that it's a naturally occurring and pre-existing condition. It is existing independent of humans. So, when a human decides to occupy a cave, he or she must assimilate their lives to that which is already there. They must deal with the ambiguity of the spaces because it is not clear how everything should be used. A nest, on the other hand, is something completely created by and for the benefit of a person or animal. It would not exist without someone creating it and so it is prescriptive and functional in a way that a cave is not. Fujimoto is interested in exploring architecture that is analogous to caves. Sou Fujimoto is a Japanese practicing architect, who has an established office called Sou Fujimoto Architects in Tokyo, Japan. Fujimoto published a book called “Primative Thoughts” in 2008, which contained an overview of his projects to date, and explains the concept of “Nest and Caves”.

 

There is a difference between adaption and creation. Fujimoto brings a new perspective with his notion of the nest and the cave as it is the primary driving factor of why we as architects design. People become the motive, and the improvement of people’s lives is what pushes innovation in design. Yet, what is lost is the symbolic connection people have to buildings and the need to make an impact sometimes takes priority over necessary nostalgia. Fujimoto examines the need for shelter and provoke the opportunity for thought by the architect to either build new or renovate the existing and adapt to the needs for improvement.

 

As stated in my manifesto, “Some building would best be served if they were fresh air” and I think this holds true to my surroundings as I see plenty of buildings that would be better used if they were torn down to allow for new ideas that best serve the community. Yet, let’s not confuse that with prioritizing new ideas with old, but beautifully executed architectural marvels, as those are just as important as new buildings and those, “caves” should be upkept to adapt with the current era. As they exemplify the past and the significant knowledge that absorbed from observing them.

​

​

MATERIALITY AND IMMATERIALITY

Matthew R. Graham. Material and Immaterial: Designing an Architecture of Cognitive Systems

. Honors Library at Pennsylvania State University. 2012

​

Architecture has tended toward crafting the material, treating the physical volume that we bodily inhabit superior to space shaped in our minds. This way of thinking is at odds with the ways in which we experience space and form an understanding of it as we move through it, use it, and live. Through experience, buildings are not objects, but a continuum, a series of moments distorted and rearranged in the mind in a constant play between our immediate surroundings and a greater understanding of their connections. For buildings to be responsive to their users, then, architecture must be viewed as a negotiator and connector between these immaterial and material elements of human experience. New York’s Pennsylvania Station is a network that extends far beyond its physical location, although it has been treated as an object throughout its history. The initial McKim, Mead, and White building of 1910 was an object-signifier of the system, a symbol and head house of the vast reach of the rail network. When this building was demolished in 1963, the system remained, but the symbol was removed and replaced with unrelated objects, leaving the network disconnected from the urban fabric. By understanding Penn Station as a cognitive network of systems, a new building can be designed where these systems themselves form the building and are the building, rather than an object that merely represents the greater network. Matthew R. Graham is a practicing architect at the nationwide firm, HOK. This article comes from the analysis of his Thesis project of Pennsylvania Station’s system and immaterial symbolism while he was in school at Pennsylvania State University during his 5th year. His Thesis received plenty of acclaim from AIA, ranking within the top 3 nationally and was recipient of the Paul M. Kossman Thesis Award, given to the winner of the Penn State Department of Architecture’s highest honor for 5th-year thesis.

 

Kossman’s Study into the symbolic meaning of buildings reminds me of Luis Barrigan’s idea of “Silence”, and how voids can be just as powerful as masses in buildings. The notion of immaterially being an object itself brings up the idea of “place” and how even nothing can be featured as a place of destination. We see this all the time when looking at plazas and how an open stretch of land is instrumental to civic engagement. For example, a classmate and I were working late own our semester project as we were the only two still at studio at the time. Focusing on design decisions, she came up to me for advice and asked, “what should I do with this space, (in reference to a high school) should I put the library here?”. I saw the piece of the build acting as a main entry point and so I told her, “It should be nothing”. She looked at me with a questioning face as to make sense of what I said. I explained my thought on how the space should just be nothing to allow for congregation among students as well as allow for easy circulation and she agreed.

            Louis Kahn received this same advice from Barrigan in his process of designing the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA when it came to the centered courtyard. Today, this space evokes a feeling that is intangible and proves to be just as powerful. Leading me to believe that more mass isn’t always the answer and instead influence of the outside world can coexist with the built environment.

​

​

BUILDING AND CONTEXT

Nina Sołkeiewicz-Kos. Sustainable Architecture in the Context of Regional Activities. Czestochowa University of Technology, Czestochowa, J. H. Dąbrowskiego 69, 42-201, Poland. 2017

​

Solkeiewicz approaches building development as the introduction of modern aesthetics. The attractiveness of the created space is to encourage residents to continue the accepted architectural and urban solutions as it will prompt them to interact in the area of the proposed functional solutions. There is an opportunity to build according to the tradition and contemporary cultural trends. Such an approach to the design process requires from the architect to choose the sources of inspiration and validate them. Architecture inspired by local tradition is highly appreciated in the world which is confirmed by numerous awards in international competitions. In the era when globalization and standardization affect the architectural sector, the trend of regional architecture stands out with its expression, form and detail which make up its timeless character. Dr Nina Sołkiewicz-Kos teaches urban engineering and building engineering at Czestochowa University of Technology in Czestochowa, Poland. She is a member of the Association of Polish Architects (SARP) and the Chamber of Polish Architect (KIA). Dr Nina Sołkiewicz-Kos's research interests include issues related to trends in energy efficient building. She is the author of numerous publications in this field in books and conference materials, and co-author of a monograph. Ten-year professional experience prior to academic career (historic monuments preservation lab, architectural studios) has allowed the realization of many building projects.

 

Dr. Solkiewics brings up a great point in that in a world of standardization, Architecture that stands out is the projects that embrace the local culture and aims to integrate local tradition with new methods. The idea of standardization is good in the sense that it connects one person from a different part of the world to another. However, the downfall to standardization is that by creating a universal language, qualities that make a place unique are lost. Like Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia. His form of architecture is what makes Barcelona a unique place and one that is visited by Millions each year. People don’t want to see the same thing in different places, but instead destinations full of attractions.

The task is up to the architect to create architecture embraces the past and the qualities that make it specials, but also aim towards the future of what can come next. Admiring the relics of the past but creating the heritage of the future.

 

​

NATURE AND THE CONSTRUCTED

P. Haupt. Architecture vs. Nature: A Reinvented Relationship. Cracow University of Technology, Poland 2017

​

Haupt emphasizes that Architectural and urban design are influenced by more and more restrictive legislative regulations which go along with the increasing awareness of the impact of human activities on the environment. This trend is stimulating the development of sustainable technologies applied in architecture. Incorporating elements of nature using their unique features supporting energy efficiency, air quality control, water and sewage management systems can often be observed. Elements of nature may be implemented in the building itself, as well as in its surroundings and interior. Therefore, there may be a new type of space observed in contemporary sustainable structures – a transition space forming a soft edge between the building, its interiors and the city. The relationship between architecture and nature is being rediscovered via sustainable design and how its nature is surly finding its way back into the city fabric. Patrycja Joanna Haupt is a professor at Cracow University of Technology for the Institute of Urban Design in Krakow, Poland. This article arose during her educating of “World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education” in 2017.

 

Biophilia becomes the culprit for nature finding its way back into the built environment. Exposure to nature has always been beneficial to human health and a functional aspect to animals that inhabit this earth. Nature has offered numerous benefits to humans but also architecture in the sense that by studying nature, we have made advanced in all aspects of human life such as health and construction methods. So, it only makes sense for architecture to find methods in which sustainable design becomes not just a commodity that can be sometimes found within the urban fabric, but instead standardized. Beginning a trend of standardization which can be credited to Norman Foster and his example of the Willis Faber and Dumas Headquarters in 1975.

 

With Standardization comes the responsibility for an architect to design with nature and not consider nature as an afterthought. I have tested this theory in my project called “Nature Park High School”, in which I am given a project that is consumed by nature and instead chose to work with nature rather than eliminate it. Adding nature as a tool to an architect’s repertoire for creating a design that serves the land and the people that inhabit it.

​

​

FUTURISM V. CONVENTIONALITY

David Celanto. Innovate or Perish: New Technologies and Architecture’s Future. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 2006

​

Celanto expresses that Architects’ refusal to embrace technological innovations invites their extinction. He explains that other professions are ruthlessly shoving their way onto the turf that was once the sole domain of architects. The capabilities now provided by furniture system designers, sustainability consultants, construction managers, and engineers of all stripes have become so advanced that architects may eventually become unnecessary, except, perhaps, as exterior stylists. To avoid obsolescence, architects need to increase demand for their skills by embracing emerging technologies that both stimulate and satiate consumer desires. For savvy architects, revolutionary opportunities for creating enhanced predictability, complexity, branding, feedback, and economies of scale glimmer on the horizon. focusing on the potentials of new design and building technologies, therefore improving architecture’s marketplace success. David Celanto is Columnist Writer for the Harvard Design Magazine, which was founded in 1997 and is a biannual publication of the Harvard University Graduate School of Design

 

Too often is the debate of if technology should be embraced or ignored within the architectural world. Preference of pen and paper creates a conflict, however I believe that a total abandonment of technology will lead to the extinction of the practice. However, this does not mean I’m saying to trade in the pen and paper for computer, but instead create a process in which task for a design are divided into the capabilities of each sector between tech and conventional methods. This is where my criticism of modernism comes into play as it becomes too easy to create a box and leave it in its purist shape. As technology progresses, we now have the chance to create and build forms that a few years back were inconceivable. So since, we can, then we should. Reasons we practice architecture is to progress humanity into the new livable future and modernism, although great and clean, is not the future.

 

Working with technology will help evolve humanity, which is the purpose of life. We are on this planet to leave it better as we found. For example, the idea of sustainable design has become more prevalent and no one disagrees that it is a bad idea. Technology should be treated the same way when it comes to design and future architecture.

​

​

HUMAN COGNITIVE ABILITY TO IMAGINE

Liane Gabora Ph.D. The Power of 'Then': The Uniquely Human Capacity to Imagine Beyond the Present. March 2010