form = function

johndevlin,
though i understand your inquiries, you keep posting these extremely loaded questions in extremely simplistic ways...

and though i would not discourage this sort of dialogue at all, i would suggest that you find some better way of stating your questions. or revealing your own opinions in order to facilitate a more helpful discussion.

if not you will most likely keep receiving bullshit responses.

hey,

my response isnt bs....thats straight out of theory writings from stan allen / delanda.

:-(

i was actually thinking about this the other day..
form does follow function, but function also follows form..
there is a balance there, between function and aesthetics of form..

a good architect will pursue both..

i know there is other opinions out there, but people who say that they care so much about function that they totally disregard aesthetics are in denial..

TED,
i didn't mean you.

specifically.

or at least your response was not what sparked mine.

good,

thought i was on your bad side.

form follows form, not function

I just visited Arcosanti, and they had an chapter of Paolo Soleri's new book for sale. Anyway he argues that function will always follow form. Meaning that the natural environment (form) will determine the function of the beings living there.

Darwin's evolution meets architecture.

i was driving through LA yesterday using a map from the car rental place as a reference, and the map was suggesting that the streets were orhogonal.. well, they weren't.. i got lost..
i was wishing i had a GPS navigation system with me..

my point.. this 'organic' design is a pain to navigate.. and i am sure in the near future all of us will have to download floor plans to our palm pilots to get around the buildings..

so, .. does form follow function?

norm follows rambunction

what does function follow?

human desire

what do you mean by function?

- mathmatical metaphor
- biological metaphor
- use
- translation of the German words sachlich, zweckmassig, or funktionell

- each of which has their own definition, all translated into the word function in English -

sachlich - "thingness"
zweckmassig - meaning utility or inner organic purpose. This by the way is the intended definition by Sullivan - not use or program.

a definition terms would be helpful here.

it is definitely a balance. who has not tweaked a perfectly functional design to make it work with some aesthetic you had in mind, while still keeping it funtional within some specified upper or lower limits?

step-
his question may be "extremely simplistic ways..."
BUT...

it's been a better post thread than more grad school crap.

(no offense students, i could just care less about your grad school waiting list issues. some of us are in real life and want more "substance" from this site.)

Does your post constitute substance? Did you even address the question?

buffalo pill, i said it's a balance. I addressed the question from my perspective. you must ba a grad student on a wait list or why would you not dis pasha for the same response??

and yes, i stated real-life scenario where you would adujst form vs. function. i don't care if you call it substance or macaroni, it was a legitimate response..

if form still follows function, then the blob-mania is justified in that (vague) function produces (vague) form..............

Ben van Berkel came to Cornell once and showed us some blobs. A professor asked him: "what about the box?" and he replied "forget the box"..........which is a big no-no at cornell...........

while I admire some of his built work with UN Studio, you cannot possibly say that he's a fan of form follows function, and many architects are on his side with this......and I don't agree with that.

No, I'm not on any waitlist. I took offense at the notion that this thread, and your contribution to it, is substantive. I don't define regurgitating cliches followed by a question mark as substance. If you had answered my question on the agreed upon definition of function then maybe we could have an informed discussion. Otherwise, people like you will keep saying stupid shit like "it is definitely a balance."

Form tells a story. It can tell a story about function, or even become a burlesque satire about function - or it can be a story about invitation or exclusion or singularity or whatever you want it to say. That is the great joy and power of architecture. To say that all architecture should tell the same story is kind of a post WWII stick it to the man commie pinko move-on.org kind of thing to say isn't it? I mean - not that there's anything wrong with it. I just thought we had all moved on . . .

Form it so it functions.

form follows finance

dazed and confused: its so.. you..

:P

peter rentz: hahaha.. how true..

"Form Follows Finance"--by Carol Willis, about skyscrapers

one of the functions is form, yes?

sorry, did not mean to pass that one off as my own.

sorry peter, didn't mean to imply that either =)

but you did nancy.. you did..

but, thanks for that clarification..

form follows function was the kind of determinant slogan that sounded great in the pseudo-rational days of early modernism. the thing they forgot was that, prior to modernism, functions could change and buildings could adapt. a good reason why we see attempts to preserve any undistiguished 19c building but preservation of modern landmarks is so difficult to sell.

so many modern buildings became obsolete as soon as the function - or even the ownership - changed. we can still include intended function as part of the equation, but it makes much more sense to build for long-term use through multiple potential functions
> probably/maybe in the form of a permanent shell with more temporal 'stuff' inside, as described by stewart brand in 'how buildings learn.

make a building worth keeping and it will continue to have functions, even those never intended for it.

form follows function is unsustainable unless the definition of function goes beyond immediate task-oriented function and expands to include a big-picture function which allows us to once again make 100yr buildings instead of 10-15 yr buildings which are then discarded.

Thank you Steven Ward for this lucid, intelligent reply

why do i get the feeling that-
form follows- me everywhere i go

johndevlin - you are easily satisfied.

form SWALLOWS function. the germ is the real thing...

There is a relatively good exhibition on Kees Christiaanse and KCAP/ASTROL urban projects at the NAI Maastricht (The Netherlands) - part of it was called "Fuck the program?" if I remember well. I think they are promoting the same attitude Steven was describing - open/multiple use...

http://www.nai.nl/e/calendar/travellingexhibitions/kcap_trav.html

form follows arbitrary maya function

form follows either mathimatical metaphor function or human desire driven function.

Whichever the architect is less freaked out by.

Math freaks me out. I'll take desire.