Hansen Sentosa, 2018 Architecture theories: Function and Form Form and function can be seen as visualization of ideas that can never be separated from one another. These two elements are essential to all design processes in architecture. Form is a physical appearance of an object or in this case, building. Function is more of the non-physical part of a building. The different in general between form and function is pretty clear. Form is something that people experience first when the see a building. It acts as first impression of an object. Different from form, function is what we experience inside. We will be able to feel if the building successfully meet the function or not when we start exploring inside. At other aspects, we need to understand the function of a building because there are specific requirements for different types of buildings. In the other hand, we also need to understand the form as it can be part of constraints such as the surrounding aesthetic and zoning requirement (for skyscrapers). In order to create successful building in the world of architecture, form and function must be presented well. Through the history of architecture, form and function have been creating an everlasting debate about whether it is “form follows function” or the other way around, “function follows form”. Some architects use “function” as a starting point of their work. After figuring out the function, they will then trying to create the right form that will satisfy the requirement of the function. Some other architects use form as a starting point. They will try to utilize a specific form effectively to fit the function inside. Although despite the whole debate, architects have shown that both principles can work really well. There are a couple references that I use in this paper. The first one is The Dynamics of Architectural Form by Rudolf Arnheim, where we are able to see and explore the design thinking and design process of different philosophies such as “form follows function” and “function follows form”. It is important to note that different philosophies have different approaches for the design. The second reference is a book that I found in Park’s Library, about Islamic architecture, called Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning by Robert Hillenbrand. The reason why I choose this book in particular is because of how it
describes very clearly how beautiful forms can still be achieved by following certain functions (putting form as a secondary aspect of the design). The last reference is a book from Design Library, Super Structures, the World’s Greatest Modern Structures by Neil Parkyn. I personally choose this book to show how form can be taken even further in building. Buildings here are no longer be seen as an object with flat façade of bricks and concrete. They are more of pieces of art and sculpture and could potentially be landmarks of places. Architects try to bring the structure and form to the next level. Buildings that are used to be seen as impossible is actually possible once it is being built. I think this book in particular will complement the philosophy of “function follows form”. Form follows function is a principle associated with modern architecture in 20th century. Form follows function means that the shape of a building or object should be determined and based on the function and purposes of the respective design. It was all started in time of Louis Sullivan. He was the one who coined the phrase “form follows function”. In his 1896 article, “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered”, Sullivan wrote “It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law”. Functionalist approach to architecture, in his opinion, is the right way to do architecture. In my opinion, there are reasons why design is called design, one of which is because design is a creation that serves certain functions and purposes. Successful design is the one able to fulfill its purposes. At this point, I have a strong stance that function is what matter the most in design, especially compared to form. In the other hand, form is the result of function. The program (function) inside is what determined the resulting form of the building or object as a whole. In my studio this semester, we are assigned to design an ecological and research center in Ames, Iowa. After being given the program brief which contained all the things and requirements that we need to fulfill, we are supposed to start our building design. Our instructor suggested us to make mutation massing models first and then put the program and spaces that we need to have inside. However, I did the opposite since I found it harder to
think of the reasoning for the building. In my studio, I saw some of my friends were struggling with it too and decided to do the other way around. I worked on the program inside, played with different spaces for the interior, made a lot of bubble diagram to determine the importance of the spaces first. Soon as I finalized my building program, I was able to create a correlated building form that seemed to have more synergy with the program. I think this method will have a stronger foundation when asked about the form. At Iowa State University, There are a lot of buildings that can be set as examples of integrating form and function. First example is Sukup Hall. This building is considered new (modern) building in the University. When we stand in front of the building’s front entrance, we can see that it has a combination of glass and metal cladding. The cladding are made in layers to define each respective floor. In the other hand, the glass cladding gives a sense of transparency throughout the building. Even before we enter the building, we can see through the other end of the building. Both the glass and metal claddings have nothing to do with the frame and the structure of the building. The claddings are located in front of the building’s structure. The sense of transparency give a welcoming impression to guests because the transparency makes the building less enclosed. Coover Hall uses a combination of metal and glass for its cladding. This particular dress conceals the structural framework of the building and is not involved as a structural part of the building. In contrast, College of Design building has a completely different approach from Sukup Hall. While Sukup Hall emphasizes lightness and transparency, College of Design seems to emphasize heaviness and solidness throughout the design. The façade of college of Design is made out of concrete material. The façade is solid with no column gap shown. It would not seem like it uses cladding. People would think that the concrete is monolithic, on other word, serves as structure. However, if we look closer and pay attention to the details of the building, the concrete on the exterior of the building is not actually the structural part of the building. The concrete materials are used differently inside and outside of the building. The waffle slabs and the columns are made out of concrete and served as structural part of the building. I would assume that the concrete on the exterior of the building is there to match the concrete inside the building, and also to give impression that this building stands apart from the
typical college brick buildings. Overall, this material strategy gives an impression of modern brutalism to the university. “Form follows function” is very distinctive in its design process compared to “function follows form”. Diagrams of how the architects locate different programs inside the building create strong indicator of this principle (form follows function). In the book Dynamics of Architectural Form by Arnheim, the author discusses different design process and thinking of buildings in along 19th century. House Van den Doel, by Ilpendam, can be set as an example of this design process. He started to form the building by a series of diagrammatic squares that shows different space programs, also known as bubble diagram. After everything fits nicely he then adjusted the form of the building based on his bubble diagram. “Interaction of shapes is an order in which wholes are composed of simply shaped, self-sufficient parts is easy on the human mind. Each part, being a whole within itself, can be dealt with alone. It can be understood and judged in terms of its own organization, and the interrelation between components is relatively loose. Early forms of visual conception favor such compositions” (pg. 188). The building might not be as aesthetic and as interesting as buildings by architects like Zaha Hadid or MAD architecture, but it clearly shows that the building is functionally working really well. The space division is clear, since the house is basically a series of boxes with different sizes. The architect focused more on the programs of the house and put the form and façade afterward. This is similar to the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. In one of his famous work, The Falling Water, Frank Lloyd Wright showed different programmatic diagrams of how the spaces could work and organized. There is a private space, living space, work space, dining space, room for workers, a basement where people can see the water stream, storage, and many else. I experienced the inside of the house when I went there last summer. All of the spaces are very well organized inside. Of course, the form is limited to the function of the building. The look of the building is very simplistic and minimalist, a series of boxes and rectangular shapes assembled together in an aesthetic way. Although limited to it, people still admire the beauty of the Falling Water inside and outside. Different from the previous examples, Islamic architecture has shown through its
history of how form and technology for structure always follow certain functions. Mosque, as a place for praying, has a very distinctive function just like church. They need different spaces for different functions inside. I found the book, Islamic Architecture by Robert Hillenbrand, very interesting. It talks about the history, evolution, and different types of mosques around the world. One of the projects that I think is a great example of “form follows function” is Amasya, mosque of Sultan Bayazid. The mosque shows how “form follows function” can be made very beautiful while keeping the function as what it is. In the book, the author describes the structure inside the mosque to follow the function of a mosque itself. “Yet one significant element, crucial to Haghia Sophia and a cliché of Ottoman architecture after 857/1453, had not yet entered the architectural vocabulary of the Turkish mosque before that date. This was the use of two full semi-domes along the mihrab axis to buttress the main dome. The long-rooted Islamic custom of marking the mihrab bay by a great dome rendered such a feature otiose. Once the decision had been taken to make the largest dome the central feature of a much larger square, the way was open for the adoption of this Byzantine feature, and then the transformation and enrichment of interior space was a foregone conclusion” (pg. 118). In mosque, the dome is usually the center place for people to gather and pray. They want to enlarge the dome to meet its function. This is the reason why they need to put and extra semi-dome, buttress, and bays to the building. This case shows that the form complements the function of the building. The opposite of the previous principle (form follows function) is “function follows form”. In time of Louis Sullivan, architects who went against his principles emphasized more in ornamentation. Nowadays, “function follows form” is getting more and more popular with the advancement of technology. Architects who follow the principle “function follows form” are more into digital possibilities, testing the limitation of surface creativity, and material innovations. Buildings with “Function follows form” principle are usually defined as parametric design.
Last Spring semester, in studio, we were working on a collaborative project called Two by Two. The project was basically creating a form of “small landscape” for public seating area. This was the first time I worked along with the principle of “function follows form”. We first of all are asked to make different design iterations in section of how the object will look flowy and aesthetically good. Students found it hard to imagine how certain forms could be made to meet the function (seating space). Overall, it was an experience for us working with this architecture philosophy. In 19th to 20th century, times of modernism, a lot of architects start to emphasize and take a further step toward this principles. Some of the most notably among our generation are Zaha Hadid and Santiago Calatrava. They have a very distinctive works compared to other architects in general because of their parametric and rather unique design. In this philosophy (function follows form), the buildings will more likely to have aesthetic and beautiful looks in the design because they prioritize the form more than the function. I think this is part of the reason why a lot of Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava, MAD architect’s works are usually have a simple and straightforward functions. Example of these will be buildings like museum, gallery, bridges, stations, landmarks. Basically something that are made to stand out. Santiago Calatrava is among the pioneer who takes the principle even further and outside of the box. He is well known for emphasizing structure while keeping the aesthetics of his works. All of his work have strong basis of function follows form. In the book Super Structure by Neil Parkyn, one of Calatrava’s work is presented as an example of the principle. One of his famous projects, Oriente Station in Lisbon, Portugal, 1993-1998, reflects his architectural philosophy. The book, Super Structures the World’s Greatest Modern Structures, by Neil Parklyn, describes his work as follow, “Steel makes a further dramatic appearance in the bus terminal, where canopies in the form of giant palm leaves shelter the staircases that lead down from the gallery to the buses at ground level. These canopies are part-supported by outrigger struts, which enable the use of long cantilevered sections. Together with the huge canopy signaling the main entrance to expo ’98, they complete a bravura display of structural steelwork” (pg. 22).
The imitation as described in the quote was his attempt to emphasize the aesthetic looks of the station. The form plays the leading role in the process while the function follows it afterward. In my opinion, function follows form revolutionizes the way we see building in general. It first of all tests the engineer and architect’s skills to actually make the structure works with the form wanted. Through this philosophy we are now able to see a form of building not only as a piece of object but also as a piece of art and sculpture. It pushes architecture industries to further develop innovation and technology to be able to integrate with the design. I really appreciate these kind of works. Some people might say that is not the right way to do architecture. But what I have seen so far is that it works. People enjoy and admire all his works (Calatrava’s). What I admire the most from him is his ability to create compositions that appear at once natural and structurally impossible. He uses natural objects like wings, spine, waves, ribs, and many else as inspirations of his works. The true purpose of the dramatic contours are typically more for aesthetic that structural. Although of course the structure will be well calculated in order to make it possible. In my opinion, modernism in architecture emerged from both principles, “function follows form” and “form follows function”. It is important to notice that both attributes, function and form, are essential to the architectural design process. We must know and understand the function of the building, since there are some specific requirements for types of buildings. However, form is equally as important, it may be affected by zoning requirement, neighborhood aesthetics, lot size, and many else. I really think that both ways, either form goes first or function goes first, will work. A couple times, I would start with form first and then I question myself in how I can take this form and utilize it effectively in the design. At other times, the function starts first by making different iteration of bubble diagram to see how the spaces could work effectively. Then from that point, I try to create a unique form that will satisfy the requirements of the building’s function. I always believe that architects develops their design philosophy based on their experiences, education, and their personal thought and perception about buildings. This is why I stated above that both attributes are essential to the design process. Santiago Calatrava shows people how
building should not be looked as just a building or an object, but sculpture and pieces of art. His architecture philosophy of “function follows form” apparently works really well. His works are known to be landmarks in places. In the other hand, “form follows function” works really well too. The Falling Water by Frank Lloyd Wright shows it all. With different spaces adjusted, stacked, and connected from one to another to meet certain functions inside the house, Falling Water is known to be one of the most famous and successful architectural work of all time. Function and form in architecture will always serve as medium to create objects and buildings. Although the definition of function and form are still the same the interpretation of them is not. By looking at the history from Louis Sullivan’s time to today, the perception of function and form has been constantly changing. It evolves how people look and experience spaces in buildings.
Bibliography Arnheim, Rudolf. The Dynamics of Architectural Form (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977). Hillenbrand, Robert. Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/architecture/4-205-analysis-of-contemporary-architecture-fall2009/readings/MIT4_205F09_Sullivan.pdf Parkyn, Neil. Super Structures the World’s Greatest Modern Structures (New York: Merrell Publishers Limited, 2004).