Function Follows Form

[mx2]

[djswan]

I could probally argue both ways. The math thing always gets me. Speaking of the language of math.

I'll check it out with ya

Peace

Derek

[csintexas]

You didn't give any back ground, links or much in the way of your own explanation or opinion and there was a lot of other discussion going on.

Certainly you could find countless example of adaptive reuse because in the end any building is simply enclosed area. So while there is no question that in fact function does follow form to some extent in existing structures (although they are often extensively remodeled to suit the new function) this still doesn't mean that this is the best way to approach design.

[mx2]

Aye but therein lies the rub...should it be conceded that form follows function may NOT be the only way to design, then what constitutes a departure from that adage? What's the rules for engagement?

mx2.5

[ArchiMotion]

Function Can Follow Form

See, this is it, I was the first to propose such an idea in earlier threads -->>

http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30&sid=95c197b60dee73668082a66ba59231df

[djswan]

mx. The above is an example of what not to do, as far as rules of engagement.

[djswan]

[csintexas]

No doubt there is more than one way to skin a cat. Form follows function may NOT be the only way to design.

This is just a generality, a good rule of thumb a pleasant sounding catch phrase that reminds us of what is important.

Some structures like the http://www.gatewayarch.com/Arch/index.aspx are purely artistic and don't need to function at all from an architectural standpoint.

As djswan pointed out this O2 building is not necessarily good. It is an example of reuse but could it have been better if it where designed from the start with it's current function in mind? Why did the original use fail?

[mx2]

I think you're missing the point. When anyone is adamant about form following fucntion, the implication is that there is no other rule to follow. What I am simply pointing out is that is that form does not always follow function in every circumstance of design, not even in a building that begins with form following function. The rule of thumb must come with a caveat: form does not always follow function. It is not an absolute. And therefore, there is no need to prove that form follows function. But it is important to explain why the process of design cannot stray to far from the element of function when making choices. But as I mentioned elsewhere, there is far more to design then these old adages.

ArchiMotion, glad to see you had made the point earlier. I had no idea. Kudos and credit to you.

mx2.5

[ArchiMotion]

Thanks Mx. It seems nobody is avid to lifting a finger around here. (Of course, a hyperbola of exaggeration to make a point

http://www.o2centre.co.uk/

[birgco]

Certainly function can follow form, but just like pounding a nail with one's forehead or going on a blind date...........
will you regret it in the morning?

[lekizz]

I really didn't need to see your colon, Derek

[lekizz]

And on the subject of the thread, I would say the Miilennium Dome (as it was called until 2005) is one of the most clear examples of form following function. It is basically a gigantic tent, with tent poles, cables all very clearly in view. As a structure its function is extremely clear. The fact that since 2005 the tent has been populated with shops and entertainment areas is immaterial.

After akll, the aim of Modernist structures was to express the way they were built - the function of walls, floor slabs, roofs, windows was simply and clearly expressed. It was not the objective for houses to express 'homeliness', either is it the intention of the Millennium Dome to express 'entertainment space' (other than the fact that by its nature it looks exactly like a 'Big Top' circus tent).

[csintexas]

It seems like "expressing structure" could be more a philosophical idea than an actual functional one.

When I think of function I am primarily thinking about how well something performs a task and not what it cost to build although cost is certainly a function of architecture.

Theoretically this honesty in allowing the structure to be exposed frees the structure from contrived and expensive means of covering up structural elements. Did it serve that function in this case?

The Hermit crab is well adapted to using discarded shells for protection. It's form is very much related to it's function. It's growth rate will be stunted by lack of a suitable larger shell. A King crab could never use discarded shells because it's form is not suited to that function.

[djswan]