Form follows function' or 'function follows form'


Which approach is effective and efficient in conceptualizing design ideas in architecture: 'form follows function' or 'function follows form'?

The consensus now is that both are very important determinants and are not exclusive. I think the same applies to the form-or-function-first question. Of course we want our buildings to be efficient - structurally, ergonomically and ecologically - and we mostly agree that elegant design generally reflects functionality. But the human brain is much more complex than to simply accept things at face value. We have a need to be inspired by what we find beautiful and inspiring.

Feb 16, 20 3:45 pm

form and function has an intimate relationship. Form can constrain function if one is not careful. It defines what functions can occur in a particular place. However form shall be informed by the understanding of the function and its spatial needs. 

There is an integral relationship. 

Feb 17, 20 2:02 am
Wood Guy

Paraphrasing what Subaru once said about the fake hood scoop on their sport-model cars: "Form follows function. Sometimes the function is aesthetic." 

I don't have much use for pure decoration, but when no thought is put into the form, designing for function alone results in bland--or worse--buildings. 

Feb 17, 20 8:35 am

Block this user

Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: