Hi,
Young and confused designer looking for guidance from the wisdom of archinects.
-What makes a work of architecture successful? Do you define success as meaning: a satisfied client? A work which is published? A contribution to Architecture's evolution, or something simple which doesn't leak? How do you define a successful building?
-Under what circumstance would you deem it acceptable to deny a client something they ask for?
-What characteristics should a successful work of architecture NOT possess, and why?
Emmexxthree, You offer the word “architecture” and you infer the word “good” I don’t think the two go together. I think its either architecture or it’s just a building. Note however that the word architecture lacks a clear singular definition. Opinions and definitions abound, it is continuously being critiqued, discussed, debated and defined. I wouldn’t dare post an example here of what I thought it was, it would set off a firestorm of critique and debate. There are 105,847 licensed architects nationally and there are probably 105,847 answers to your question. If your post goes anywhere you will see.
If an architect creates something it isn’t always architecture. I think all strive for it but programming constraints, committees, owner’s etc. can adversely influence the design process and most of the time it just ends up being a good building. A good (“successful”) building on the other hand is simply something that does not offend, serves its purpose well, is sustainable and is an exercise in good stewardship. Many AIA Chapters offer 25 Year Awards to buildings that meet these attributes. I guess too if a building doesn’t get torn down before you die is another criteria.
"I call architecture frozen music." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Jul 29, 14 7:45 pm ·
·
The word 'good' is a qualitative modifier. Architecture is a word. All buildings to some degree is architecture but not always "Architecture" in the context of featured projects. In my perspective, even the vernacular architecture is architecture but might not be high style. It isn't necessarily right or wrong. Since everyone will have their own personal idea of "architecture" of which some of it is part of a philosophical "art school" perspective in that architecture is not architecture until it is a "work of art" from the art school perspective. This points to the monumental perspective. That can be an endless semantic debate over qualitative standpoint.
The biggest problem isn't architecture vs. "Architecture". The problem is with the use of the word "good" because good is generally a qualitative based word and the other part is that there is no criterion or system of evaluation based on objective standards being framed. Not even quantitative/objective undertone to foundation of some qualitative elements with some true or false logic with some gradation of effectiveness. Does it emotionally move the client? How effective does it move the client. Along with defining basis from which the project is misioned to do.
Taking for example, you are designing a home... how does it function. Function in my perspective is "venustas", "utilitas" and "firmitas" not just "utilitas" or (utility). This is where an element of the relationship of form and function. In my perspective, there is the relationship of context with both form and function.
When you frame a project to a criteria from which you will grade the project and therefore the work, then we can see how the project works. In some sense, we need to see this not only at 1 yr. mark but at 5 year and 10 year mark. Some cases, 25 year and 50 year to grade our projects over a long term. Of course we may likely only do the first one or two and maybe three in order to ascertain and understand the effectiveness of the longevity of our design vision. This can be important for us to do especially if we have firms that will continue on well after those today and no longer with us to see reevaluate how our work holds up over time. Is the work timeless in its effectiveness.
Where I am getting at is it is better to evaluate effectiveness on a criterion basis from which we can go over with current and past clients versus saying something is good or bad.
That way, it is more beneficial for us because the system of evaluation can be learned from and see what works and doesn't work. How design ideas implemented held up over time and where it is weak. After all if we are going to evaluate, it is better have some evaluatable criterion that we can learn from and gain benefit from with a little bit of statistical science mechanism. The point is to have a system of evaluation that we can use to make ourselves more effective with our design ideas.
I think it depends on what types of building you are talking about. Honestly, I don't even know how many types are there in this world ,but roughly, Wiki lists out 13 types ,and several sub-types. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_types.
In my opinion, after you deeply studied each type of buildings then you come up with some cool, or even better, design that would improve both form and function of a building, I would call that a cool building. Specify your design and give your building only one meaning. I say only one because your building can be interpret so many ways by others and eventually will have several meanings; but if the building has only one meaning, I think it won't lose its ideal. Originality is important. Not deriving or integrating from existences.
For example, I want to build a barn. First I study history of a barn.Second, I study client needs (like if he likes to study in the barn but there is not enough light because light will destroy crops, then you build the specific place in the barn that has enough light for him to study and not destroying crops at the same time). Third, I come up with design, here it comes, meaning. So I am building a barn I don't want it to look like a garage. Then put my originality in this work and then go back to work on the third procedure again.
Originality can be acquire in many different ways. But if you want to improve you originality, start with visual record. Basically sketch every thing you find it's cool to you. like when you find bacteria that you looked through micro scope is pretty cool, you sketch it. Keep doing this until it becomes your life style. Look at your sketch each night so your brain will process those form. But once you have to design something, do not open your sketch book because you'll lose your originality. try to recall or imagine things in your sketch book. This way will allow your brain to help you produce your originality.
I'm a math major. I can't say a lot about architecture.
That is an extremely complicated question. I'm tempted to echo geezertect (commodity, firmness, delight) since he's fundamentally correct. But that deserves a little explanation.
Good architecture, as opposed to both pure art and pure utility, must fulfill both practical and emotional requirements. Architecture must function, but it must also perform that function artfully. An aesthetically magnificent building that is functionally problematic fails as architecture. So too do functionally-excellent buildings which are emotionally bland or aesthetically awkward.
So "great" architecture is building accomplished with a very high level of performance and aesthetic power to a level of refinement and ease that it achieves an almost transcendental effect of elegant power, integration, place, and emotional resonance.
I remember looking at the Eisenmann case study house with the column coming down in the middle of the bed sometime freshman year and deciding that this whole thing was just a charade in which you play the game to succeed while your buildings fail.
Do the building's occupants, visitors, and neighbors like the building and look forward to being there? Does it respect the culture and society in which it is placed? Is it build solidly of quality materials for the envisioned lifespan? Can it be maintained, and even modified later, with reasonable effort and expense? Does it eschew the trendy fads of the moment?
After completing a few dozen hours of site review in the last month... I can say that caulking makes a building successful and unfortunately, by those standards, my project is not.
What makes a building successful? What makes a building a failure?
Young and confused designer looking for guidance from the wisdom of archinects.
-What makes a work of architecture successful? Do you define success as meaning: a satisfied client? A work which is published? A contribution to Architecture's evolution, or something simple which doesn't leak? How do you define a successful building?
-Under what circumstance would you deem it acceptable to deny a client something they ask for?
-What characteristics should a successful work of architecture NOT possess, and why?
firmness, commodity and delight
Emmexxthree, You offer the word “architecture” and you infer the word “good” I don’t think the two go together. I think its either architecture or it’s just a building. Note however that the word architecture lacks a clear singular definition. Opinions and definitions abound, it is continuously being critiqued, discussed, debated and defined. I wouldn’t dare post an example here of what I thought it was, it would set off a firestorm of critique and debate. There are 105,847 licensed architects nationally and there are probably 105,847 answers to your question. If your post goes anywhere you will see.
If an architect creates something it isn’t always architecture. I think all strive for it but programming constraints, committees, owner’s etc. can adversely influence the design process and most of the time it just ends up being a good building. A good (“successful”) building on the other hand is simply something that does not offend, serves its purpose well, is sustainable and is an exercise in good stewardship. Many AIA Chapters offer 25 Year Awards to buildings that meet these attributes. I guess too if a building doesn’t get torn down before you die is another criteria.
"I call architecture frozen music." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The word 'good' is a qualitative modifier. Architecture is a word. All buildings to some degree is architecture but not always "Architecture" in the context of featured projects. In my perspective, even the vernacular architecture is architecture but might not be high style. It isn't necessarily right or wrong. Since everyone will have their own personal idea of "architecture" of which some of it is part of a philosophical "art school" perspective in that architecture is not architecture until it is a "work of art" from the art school perspective. This points to the monumental perspective. That can be an endless semantic debate over qualitative standpoint.
The biggest problem isn't architecture vs. "Architecture". The problem is with the use of the word "good" because good is generally a qualitative based word and the other part is that there is no criterion or system of evaluation based on objective standards being framed. Not even quantitative/objective undertone to foundation of some qualitative elements with some true or false logic with some gradation of effectiveness. Does it emotionally move the client? How effective does it move the client. Along with defining basis from which the project is misioned to do.
Taking for example, you are designing a home... how does it function. Function in my perspective is "venustas", "utilitas" and "firmitas" not just "utilitas" or (utility). This is where an element of the relationship of form and function. In my perspective, there is the relationship of context with both form and function.
When you frame a project to a criteria from which you will grade the project and therefore the work, then we can see how the project works. In some sense, we need to see this not only at 1 yr. mark but at 5 year and 10 year mark. Some cases, 25 year and 50 year to grade our projects over a long term. Of course we may likely only do the first one or two and maybe three in order to ascertain and understand the effectiveness of the longevity of our design vision. This can be important for us to do especially if we have firms that will continue on well after those today and no longer with us to see reevaluate how our work holds up over time. Is the work timeless in its effectiveness.
Where I am getting at is it is better to evaluate effectiveness on a criterion basis from which we can go over with current and past clients versus saying something is good or bad.
That way, it is more beneficial for us because the system of evaluation can be learned from and see what works and doesn't work. How design ideas implemented held up over time and where it is weak. After all if we are going to evaluate, it is better have some evaluatable criterion that we can learn from and gain benefit from with a little bit of statistical science mechanism. The point is to have a system of evaluation that we can use to make ourselves more effective with our design ideas.
I think it depends on what types of building you are talking about. Honestly, I don't even know how many types are there in this world ,but roughly, Wiki lists out 13 types ,and several sub-types. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_types.
In my opinion, after you deeply studied each type of buildings then you come up with some cool, or even better, design that would improve both form and function of a building, I would call that a cool building. Specify your design and give your building only one meaning. I say only one because your building can be interpret so many ways by others and eventually will have several meanings; but if the building has only one meaning, I think it won't lose its ideal. Originality is important. Not deriving or integrating from existences.
For example, I want to build a barn. First I study history of a barn.Second, I study client needs (like if he likes to study in the barn but there is not enough light because light will destroy crops, then you build the specific place in the barn that has enough light for him to study and not destroying crops at the same time). Third, I come up with design, here it comes, meaning. So I am building a barn I don't want it to look like a garage. Then put my originality in this work and then go back to work on the third procedure again.
Originality can be acquire in many different ways. But if you want to improve you originality, start with visual record. Basically sketch every thing you find it's cool to you. like when you find bacteria that you looked through micro scope is pretty cool, you sketch it. Keep doing this until it becomes your life style. Look at your sketch each night so your brain will process those form. But once you have to design something, do not open your sketch book because you'll lose your originality. try to recall or imagine things in your sketch book. This way will allow your brain to help you produce your originality.
I'm a math major. I can't say a lot about architecture.
That is an extremely complicated question. I'm tempted to echo geezertect (commodity, firmness, delight) since he's fundamentally correct. But that deserves a little explanation.
Good architecture, as opposed to both pure art and pure utility, must fulfill both practical and emotional requirements. Architecture must function, but it must also perform that function artfully. An aesthetically magnificent building that is functionally problematic fails as architecture. So too do functionally-excellent buildings which are emotionally bland or aesthetically awkward.
So "great" architecture is building accomplished with a very high level of performance and aesthetic power to a level of refinement and ease that it achieves an almost transcendental effect of elegant power, integration, place, and emotional resonance.
This is very, very difficult to do.
I remember looking at the Eisenmann case study house with the column coming down in the middle of the bed sometime freshman year and deciding that this whole thing was just a charade in which you play the game to succeed while your buildings fail.
Do the building's occupants, visitors, and neighbors like the building and look forward to being there? Does it respect the culture and society in which it is placed? Is it build solidly of quality materials for the envisioned lifespan? Can it be maintained, and even modified later, with reasonable effort and expense? Does it eschew the trendy fads of the moment?
After completing a few dozen hours of site review in the last month... I can say that caulking makes a building successful and unfortunately, by those standards, my project is not.
firmitas, utilitas, venustas, and sealant
vitruvius was a noob, and we all know that. his buildings leaked. the occupants of his buildings died in their 40s.
Way to copy and paste my above post rihanageorge.
Did the architect get paid?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.