Unpopular Opinion: Form is just as important as Function

Why can’t form come first? Or at least simultaneously?

Now don’t get me wrong obviously all buildings need to function in their intended ways… but why does that way have to stop at what is standard/ base-line/ expected/ cheapest/ etc.? Is it not our charge as architects to reimagine and reinvent what already exists in a sense?

Yes, we want our buildings to function and yes, we want our intended users to enjoy and feel comfortable in the space… but this is where at least my understanding of the meaning of architecture comes into play. If one relies on the notion of function too heavily it will become a limitation and could result in boring architecture. 

For example, does a Walmart facility serve its function? Sure, it is a large box with ample amount of room to fit product into; I will give you that. Second question, have you ever heard of anyone talking about how beautiful or innovative a Walmart is, or what a great experience they had inside a Walmart? I would venture to say no. That is, to me, the simplest example of form clearly following function (if not just being absent completely). Why can't we as architects set a new standard? This was a concept Bjarke Ingels hit on in his lecture. What if future generations don't know a time when something you designed wasn't the normal, like his innovation of ski slopes on the powerplants in Copenhagen?

If form takes the backseat, and allows function to take over completely, then at what point do architects become unnecessary? Wouldn’t simply just having contractors/ construction managers/ etc. design and build all the world’s buildings provide for functional buildings? Sure, but architecture would no longer be an art; you would no longer desire to enter buildings to experience them, rather you would use it for its intended purpose. And maybe that is some peoples’ view on the purpose of buildings.

Without form, you lose creativity. To reiterate I am not saying function doesn’t matter, because it does… but why can’t function still happen in a beautiful, imaginative, sculpture of a building? So maybe I agree with Eisenman, maybe I don’t, but I think architecture as an art relies on its form. Why can’t something that we already know works be transformed into something with more beautiful form? 

Function does not have to be sacrificed, but without form would we even have architecture anymore?