For me, this comes down to intent, and the degree to which the intent can be read in the building. By intent, I mean the intentions of the designer and client in designing the building.

If the intention was to build a bog-standard house, as quickly as possible using bog-standard materials, a bog-standard architect acting for a bog-standard client, it is likely that the building will be bog-standard and devoid of depth - at least not intentionally*.

Nos the direct opposite of that is someone like Zumthor, who is all about intention - it can be read in his work.

Can I get a prize for the sentence with the highest use of the term 'bog-standard'?

whenever i see this stuff, i'm almost assured the project lacks depth.

I'd argue that depth is not about intention but rather about the time spent on design, most specifically, the number and depth of questions asked and answered. The reason Zumthor's projects have depth is because of the huge, dedicated amount of time he affords himself. His projects have no more or less intention than those of say Frank Gehry - they both know exacty what they want and how to get it - but Zumthor's process is one of questioning and honing. This process creates a series of layers both of scales (the site, building and details) as well as the history of decisions, the refinement of every choice.

Depth and complexity are not synonymous, although they can occur at the same time. Liebeskind's Jewish Museum is complex and you can feel the depth of emotion, the narration of space, the vast amount of thought that went in to the project; whereas many of his other buildings are merely aesthetically complex and lack depth below the level of surface.

The intention is behind the time spent... Intention is about questions and answers - figuring out what you want to say. Everything is a signal of either a question or a statement. Like most things, it comes down to the quality of questions you ask...

for me, depth is one of two things: conceptual rigour and/or the ability to stand up to repeated scrutiny. there is a lot of architecture that is cool at the first glance, but has nothing to say by the second or fifth or two-thousandth encounter.

for example, since we're all loving on Zumthor right now, his Bruder Klaus chapel is not complex, but it is deep.

In that case, intent is merely anything you do on purpose? Many things in architecture are a subject of accident or one's hand being forced due to the complexity of the architectural process. I guess that depth in some way is related to how these accidents (things out of one's control) are incorporated in to the 'intent' or become separate from it: how stubborn the architect is. However, a practice that embraces accident and the coincidental perhaps has a depth to the finished product because of the rigour of their intent?

details and simplicity

foundations

are you sure you know what depth in art is? do you mean strictly at an optical level? that would be dangerous

fays.panda
I believe depth in art is defined by amount of meaningful layers contained in the piece of art.

Much of it comes down to talent. The amount of time spent is irrelevant. FLW spent, what, 3 hours designing Falling Water? Or was it 30 minutes? Eitherway, good evidence that talent trumps all.

Talented designers, intentionally or intuitively, will continue to push for a purity in their intentions. Mediocre designers will just 'do it' and then move on.

'Depth' results from the layered process, the fine tuning and perfection of the formal moves (subtle as Zumthor's or complex as Gehry's - they are both masters of 'depth', imho), the perfection of details.

The uncompromised pursuit of the designer's ideals is also crucial. Gehry spent decades perfecting ways to do what he wanted. Others spend decades perfecting details that seem to disappear.


In the end, though, you'll find the most talented are always perfectionists and will always continue to push for their ideals. The closer the building is to these ideals, typically, the more depth the project has.

obviously there is going to be more than one answer and any good answer given is going to be more nuanced than black-and-white: the nature of something that can be said to have 'depth'.

depth can be a product of intention, rigor, talent, perfectionism, designers' own biography and the trajectory of the development of the designers' work, a project's ties to its specific cultural context, layers of meaning (whether generated from the designer or others), a poetic/'making' approach to the development of the design and the actual making, etc. - really, the more of these the more likely that a project will be said to have 'depth'...

Thoughtfulness. Thorough consideration of many, many different elements in the work.