Form + Function = Balance

 

When looking back at my notes from lectures and readings (and the video) this week, I noticed the words “form” and “function” repeated several times throughout.  This caused me to reflect a little on the topic.  In architecture, it can be somewhat argued that a given principle is form follows function.  In other words, we let the shape of a building be determined by the function that the building will serve.  This can be quite the controversial topic depending on the architect’s stance.  For example, Eisenman believed that these two properties should not follow each other, but work hand in hand.  He argues that functionalism is somewhat obsolete. I have to agree with him based on my personal experiences and studies thus far in my architecture path in life.  I believe full heartedly that for appealing and purposeful architecture, form and function must coincide together.   

I have a personal experience that I was reminded of when looking further into this principle.  Several years ago, I was working at an architecture firm in my hometown.  We had a local organization come forth wanting a new complex.  This organization focused on providing groceries, medicine, and other necessities to those less fortunate in the town.  They were outgrowing their location and had some options of what to do that would best benefit them moving forward.  Obviously, this place needed to serve many functions such as office space, a miniature grocery store/pharmacy, food storage (freezers), and of course, also have a loading dock.  We provided several options for them when presenting what could potentially be their new complex.  The first was a big warehouse type structure. It was perfect for their needs of how the organization functioned. In this option, we presented clean cut rooms, wide open space, plenty of adaptability opportunities, had office/conference space, and an area for a loading dock as well.  The only problem was because of the ideal layout for best function of the space, the building appeared to look like a Costco.  It simply was not aesthetically pleasing to the eye.  

 A second plan was formed that had all of the same program as the first, just laid out in a different manner including more of an open office concept on an upper level, while also enhancing organic spaces throughout.  The different layout allowed for a more appealing site plan and exterior façade as well.  It was overall more welcoming, as it was the complete opposite of a warehouse.  

Now there wasn’t, but if there would have been a third option, I’m sure it would have been on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, where the form was amazing and the ultimate driver putting the functionality of the space on the back burner.

So…which did the clients choose? The second option.  It was important to them that the building functioned, but also took an inviting form that represented what they were about to the community.  I agreed with the clients choice, as it is so important for architecture not to solely be a "functional" profession.  That would mean that eventually the appealing aspects which lies in the form of a project would disappear, and architecture would become standard and production based. 

In closing, I am indeed guilty of solely focusing on functionality of space in past projects.  However, reflecting upon my personal experiences, the readings, and class discussion on this topic, I am reminded that perhaps the best solution is to intertwine form and function in design in a proper balance. 

   

Image credits: 

Quote: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/175218241729549384/

Eisenman Model 1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Peter-Eisenman-The-Max-Reinhardt-House-Berlin-Alemanha-1992-torre-nunca-construida_fig11_314191152

Eisenman Model 2: https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Church-of-the-Year-2000-1996