I was having a discussion with some co-workers about curves as a design choice both academically and professionally (when we really should be working, I know lol). Our old professors had always dogged us on why we used curves. After a few heated and inconclusive moments where we argued over whether a curve's function would be outweighed by the difficulty and cost of constructing it, I started to wonder if there is/are a compelling argument(s) for curves.
*I personally favor curves primarily as an aesthetic choice, recognizing that aesthetics can be a function.
Well its difficult to say, it all depends on context. You might want to follow the curvy contours of the site for example, it really all depends on the site, program...etc. But yeah curves for no reason is a bad idea in school and in the real world.
Everything natural around us is organic in form... rectilinear forms is a human creation, mainly born out of ease of construction, efficiency and often times due to lack of design skills.
With the technology available to us today, I don't see why curves shouldn't be used in our designs. However, like Dafer said, there is a danger for most to lose sight of what is important in architecture and spend too much time worrying about curves and forms of a building.
Everything natural around us is organic in form - everything natural around us looks like it is curved. In reality, organic shapes are formed from a series of straight lines arrayed through a mesh of points in space... So any argument around curves being more natural, and therefore more authentic is only skin deep...
Curves are efficient at spreading and diffusing sound, but you have to be careful.
A curved surface may enclose more space/volume per surface area than a rectangular or polygonal shape.
Many natural surfaces are curved already anyways, so why fight nature? Go look at aerial photographs of Las Vegas or western Miami near the Everglades, and you can see where a relentless orthogonal grid was dropped onto natural contours; it looks weird, and probably doesn't function all that well.
Curved duct bends are more gentle on airflow than right-angle ducts.
etc, etc.
There's the parallel question of why you are trying to use materials that want to be orthogonal to construct curves. Plastic, molded materials (rammed earth, concrete), or even modular materials (masonry) may be easier to make curves (or near-curves) with than, say steel that comes in straight segments.
Your comment is an old and fallacious one. As a Cornell University architecture student who spent many of his days in the geological wonders that are the gorges in Ithaca, I can assure you that rectilinear forms and "straight" lines are abundant in nature. Open your eyes a bit or take a stroll through the wild before commenting on nature; I cringe every time I here this proclamation.
furniture is easier to arrange in orthogonal spaces and 90 degree corners are better for mass produced furniture. We are at the whim of interior designers....
i r giv up: I'd add that curves are almost always an aesthetic choice. Nobody I know would go through the trouble of making a curve and then try to hide it.
and aesthetics matter. simplifying everything into a utilitarian argument is one of the reasons why we have such shitty buildings coming up on the daily.
Fuck, someone asks a simple question about curvilinear, and some people want to just show off what they learned in college about what a fucking curve isnt...
Everything natural around us is organic in form... rectilinear forms is a human creation, mainly born out of ease of construction, efficiency and often times due to lack of design skills.
Humans are nature! Lack of design skills? How about zumthors thermal baths?
Curves are better when there is a good reason for it. Aesthetics are important, but they should be functional as well or else its just boring imo. There are cheaper ways to do sculpture than architecture. But if thats your thing do it. We don't have to justify everything we do either. Most of the time the justifications are bogus anyway.
I have no problem with curves or straight lines, only the common perception that somehow curves are more moral because they appear more natural. Its like saying bananas are better than carrots.
Having said that, this original question is utterly trivial.
Urban sprawl is better than urban environments because of it's curvy streets that are "organic" and therefore superior to the rectilinear pattern of dumb cities. History has clearly shown this as well through the thriving social paradigms within the suburbs....duh...
waffle-based ontology
the city as undulating carrot cake waffle grid.
people as bananas within the waffle system,
ice cream as building and landscape
these are produced and consumed by interstellar mediums, ie. pissed off paranoid sugar addicts.
negotiating between curve and line the waffle surrenders its form to accommodate its contents.
This is the epicenter of curve porn trend train in recent digital tools architecture, where they revisit a lot of ideas Glen Small was interested in and working with, forty years ago (Jeff Kipnis' words to Glen, not mine "how does it feel to be forty years too early Glen?")
Everybody have their reason for curves or orthogonal lines. If curves are natural, great. If straight lines are manmade, great. Aren't humans allowed to come up with things, orthogonal configurations? Silly argument... Start counting how many millions of things we use everyday are made of orthogonal assemblies. What are you going to say? They don't work? C'mon...
A good architect should be equally adept using different geometries as they are part of each unique situation. And they do!
Glen Small is really into curves. He used to draw them and incorporate into his designs when a lot of "modern" and "post modern" architects thought they were ugly (I won't give any names, but they included a lot of prominent architects who changed their opinion these days.) Glen likes them because curves are sensuous, organic, ecological and therefore sustainable. They get him going. He has an uncanny knack for them and he really considers the structural parts of crazy stuff in a sober way. Here is his Detroit Stadium project from 1968.
This is his blog small@large with a lot of first hand, honest and original commentary on architecture, his work and his ahead of their time projects. Really good and heartfelt stuff in these highly pc days.
Oh, and straight lines in nature are only a matter of perspective - remember at the sub-atomic level everything is a frothy soup of quantum bits, which may even resemble stretched loops of string at the smallest length literally imaginable.
It's interesting that curves are discussed as some kind of penalty to function, rather than an aspect of it. Like all things, the relevancy or appropriateness of a particular form is dependent on which 'function' if considered the most important. If fitting furniture is the most important function of your architecture then there is not much more I can say.
As an example, I’m currently working on designing a 300m tower that is primarily a curved triangle in plan (tightly filleted corners with a larger curved facade on the sides). While there is a slight 'penalty' to the interior planning, the functioning of the tower a whole is improved by the form. firstly it looks pretty dam hot, secondly the average view aspect of each apartment/hotel room is improved significantly (one of the functions of good architecture is a happy client flush with cash from pre-sales who wants you to design their next building). Most importantly the triangular form and curved corners greatly reduces the formation of vortices under extreme wind conditions and therefore the required lateral bracing by nearly 40%. some of this saving has found its way to the facade, allowing us to spend more time finessing the design.
In other words, there is nothing intrinsically worthwhile about a particular geometry, other than the needs of a particular function it fulfills.
we think triangles have curves. doesn't speak well for the profession.
one of the problems with triangles is sometimes you get an acute angle and it's hard to get a vacuum in there. unclean spaces don't wear well. i guess if vacuuming and mopping and whatnot are not part of the design parti, or parameter if you're one of those, then it's not important. of if your client is only interested in the first lease so (s)he can sell the building to an REIT quickly.
just playing devils advocate. really i'm only interested in the waffles.
Is there a good reason for using curves?
I was having a discussion with some co-workers about curves as a design choice both academically and professionally (when we really should be working, I know lol). Our old professors had always dogged us on why we used curves. After a few heated and inconclusive moments where we argued over whether a curve's function would be outweighed by the difficulty and cost of constructing it, I started to wonder if there is/are a compelling argument(s) for curves.
*I personally favor curves primarily as an aesthetic choice, recognizing that aesthetics can be a function.
Well its difficult to say, it all depends on context. You might want to follow the curvy contours of the site for example, it really all depends on the site, program...etc. But yeah curves for no reason is a bad idea in school and in the real world.
Everything natural around us is organic in form... rectilinear forms is a human creation, mainly born out of ease of construction, efficiency and often times due to lack of design skills.
With the technology available to us today, I don't see why curves shouldn't be used in our designs. However, like Dafer said, there is a danger for most to lose sight of what is important in architecture and spend too much time worrying about curves and forms of a building.
Everything natural around us is organic in form - everything natural around us looks like it is curved. In reality, organic shapes are formed from a series of straight lines arrayed through a mesh of points in space... So any argument around curves being more natural, and therefore more authentic is only skin deep...
because they can make a building into something beautiful in a way rectilinear forms can't.
experience matters.
this argument is as stupid as asking why we paint walls.
Curves are efficient at spreading and diffusing sound, but you have to be careful.
A curved surface may enclose more space/volume per surface area than a rectangular or polygonal shape.
Many natural surfaces are curved already anyways, so why fight nature? Go look at aerial photographs of Las Vegas or western Miami near the Everglades, and you can see where a relentless orthogonal grid was dropped onto natural contours; it looks weird, and probably doesn't function all that well.
Curved duct bends are more gentle on airflow than right-angle ducts.
etc, etc.
There's the parallel question of why you are trying to use materials that want to be orthogonal to construct curves. Plastic, molded materials (rammed earth, concrete), or even modular materials (masonry) may be easier to make curves (or near-curves) with than, say steel that comes in straight segments.
@accesskb
Your comment is an old and fallacious one. As a Cornell University architecture student who spent many of his days in the geological wonders that are the gorges in Ithaca, I can assure you that rectilinear forms and "straight" lines are abundant in nature. Open your eyes a bit or take a stroll through the wild before commenting on nature; I cringe every time I here this proclamation.
Curves are so 2009.
Polka-dots. Mark my words. It's happenin'.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZ
lines are curves.
The straightest line in ithaca was Richard Meier.
editing seems so be disabled, so... *hear
Rusty,
You've been talking to Damien?
when sitting alone, people feel more comfortable sitting at a table that is round rather than square
archopop and dia: I guess things are straight only if you think so.. I'm talking more in terms of atoms, their form and how they grow. kapish
furniture is easier to arrange in orthogonal spaces and 90 degree corners are better for mass produced furniture. We are at the whim of interior designers....
i r giv up: I'd add that curves are almost always an aesthetic choice. Nobody I know would go through the trouble of making a curve and then try to hide it.
I like curves but I would say you can't always use them. It depends on the project and the requirements really. Sometimes you have no choice.
joker, yup.
and aesthetics matter. simplifying everything into a utilitarian argument is one of the reasons why we have such shitty buildings coming up on the daily.
All curves are made up of lines...What was the question again?
Oh, lines...some are long, and some are short, but all connect from one point to another, or are they really all just points.
So, again what was your point?
Fuck, someone asks a simple question about curvilinear, and some people want to just show off what they learned in college about what a fucking curve isnt...
@Kevin W.
Manners sir.
the point is a curve has a center point and suggests a perimeter and does other stuff too so be aware of your formal form formations
Everything natural around us is organic in form... rectilinear forms is a human creation, mainly born out of ease of construction, efficiency and often times due to lack of design skills.
Humans are nature! Lack of design skills? How about zumthors thermal baths?
Curves are better when there is a good reason for it. Aesthetics are important, but they should be functional as well or else its just boring imo. There are cheaper ways to do sculpture than architecture. But if thats your thing do it. We don't have to justify everything we do either. Most of the time the justifications are bogus anyway.
unequivocally yes.
or this...
AND THIS!!! :
really?
I have no problem with curves or straight lines, only the common perception that somehow curves are more moral because they appear more natural. Its like saying bananas are better than carrots.
Having said that, this original question is utterly trivial.
Urban sprawl is better than urban environments because of it's curvy streets that are "organic" and therefore superior to the rectilinear pattern of dumb cities. History has clearly shown this as well through the thriving social paradigms within the suburbs....duh...
Its like saying bananas are better than carrots.
but bananas are better than carrots. bananas go better with waffles too.
Yeah, but carrots help you see in the dark...
and cul de sacs are safer for the kids. especially if they eat carrots before crossing the street.
We used to dream about living in a cul de sac!
Actually, I did. But at the end of the sac was a beach.
ya, but if you tell that to the kids today dia, they won't believe you
i like turtles
waffle-based ontology
the city as undulating carrot cake waffle grid.
people as bananas within the waffle system,
ice cream as building and landscape
these are produced and consumed by interstellar mediums, ie. pissed off paranoid sugar addicts.
negotiating between curve and line the waffle surrenders its form to accommodate its contents.
RIP Freddie Mercury
This is the epicenter of curve porn trend train in recent digital tools architecture, where they revisit a lot of ideas Glen Small was interested in and working with, forty years ago (Jeff Kipnis' words to Glen, not mine "how does it feel to be forty years too early Glen?")
Everybody have their reason for curves or orthogonal lines. If curves are natural, great. If straight lines are manmade, great. Aren't humans allowed to come up with things, orthogonal configurations? Silly argument... Start counting how many millions of things we use everyday are made of orthogonal assemblies. What are you going to say? They don't work? C'mon...
A good architect should be equally adept using different geometries as they are part of each unique situation. And they do!
Glen Small is really into curves. He used to draw them and incorporate into his designs when a lot of "modern" and "post modern" architects thought they were ugly (I won't give any names, but they included a lot of prominent architects who changed their opinion these days.) Glen likes them because curves are sensuous, organic, ecological and therefore sustainable. They get him going. He has an uncanny knack for them and he really considers the structural parts of crazy stuff in a sober way. Here is his Detroit Stadium project from 1968.
This is his blog small@large with a lot of first hand, honest and original commentary on architecture, his work and his ahead of their time projects. Really good and heartfelt stuff in these highly pc days.
Sometimes, you just need a curve.
Oh, and straight lines in nature are only a matter of perspective - remember at the sub-atomic level everything is a frothy soup of quantum bits, which may even resemble stretched loops of string at the smallest length literally imaginable.
them greeks curved their straight lines uh huh 'twas as a matter of perspective i do reckon
fat chicks are more fun
...(sigh)...Freddie Mercury...
I can't believe nobody's mentioned Niemeyer.
It's interesting that curves are discussed as some kind of penalty to function, rather than an aspect of it. Like all things, the relevancy or appropriateness of a particular form is dependent on which 'function' if considered the most important. If fitting furniture is the most important function of your architecture then there is not much more I can say.
As an example, I’m currently working on designing a 300m tower that is primarily a curved triangle in plan (tightly filleted corners with a larger curved facade on the sides). While there is a slight 'penalty' to the interior planning, the functioning of the tower a whole is improved by the form. firstly it looks pretty dam hot, secondly the average view aspect of each apartment/hotel room is improved significantly (one of the functions of good architecture is a happy client flush with cash from pre-sales who wants you to design their next building). Most importantly the triangular form and curved corners greatly reduces the formation of vortices under extreme wind conditions and therefore the required lateral bracing by nearly 40%. some of this saving has found its way to the facade, allowing us to spend more time finessing the design.
In other words, there is nothing intrinsically worthwhile about a particular geometry, other than the needs of a particular function it fulfills.
that was far too rational and believable.
is this the thread about waffles?
...Freddie Mercury and waffles...
...
we think triangles have curves. doesn't speak well for the profession.
one of the problems with triangles is sometimes you get an acute angle and it's hard to get a vacuum in there. unclean spaces don't wear well. i guess if vacuuming and mopping and whatnot are not part of the design parti, or parameter if you're one of those, then it's not important. of if your client is only interested in the first lease so (s)he can sell the building to an REIT quickly.
just playing devils advocate. really i'm only interested in the waffles.
more liek downie's advocate.
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.