Form follows function or function follows form?
Which one comes first, “form follows function”, or “function follows form”? This is just like how we can compare between egg and chicken, which one comes first, egg, or chicken?
Form follows function is a principle associated with modern architecture and industrial design 
in the 20th Century, which states that the shape of a building or object should be predicated by or based upon its intended function or purpose [wikipedia.org], and the other one is by the opposite. It doesn’t means as form follows function is the best answer for this, although an architect usually do the design process by creating the lay-out of the room and the arrangement first, and later designing the form of the building. Mies van der Rohe says that he did not stand against the form, but he think that form is a goal of the designing process. Rohe thinks that function follows form always end up with formalism, satisfied the building’s appearance from outside view, but we don’t know what will be happen inside.
But, many architects also do their design by not doing the same step, they design the form of the building first, and later design the lay-out next to be mixed up with that. Yes the building became magnificent, superb, and iconic, its appearance will looks like a sculpture. Tom Wright, one of the Atkin’s architect whom designed Burj Al Arab, said: “if you can draw a building with a few sweeps of the pen, and everyone recognizes not only structure but also associates it with a place on earth, you have gone a long way towards creating something iconic”. This is one of the examples of “function follows form” architect.
Another example of “function follows form” architect is Frank Gehry. Look at his work at MIT Strata Center. Iconic building with deconstructs style. But what happen next, MIT Sued Gehry much for that design. They said that accumulations of snow and ice have fallen dangerously from window boxes and other areas of its roofs, blocking emergency exits and causing damage. Totally disaster! Gehry did not follow the rule here, as Rohe already said above, we don’t know what will be happen inside.
I myself also do both of these designs process, following my clients’ order. I put one of the examples above, I called it: “The maestro’s house”. I like this one; it looks like an iconic building. Yes I think all of you know that it comes from the idea of a grand piano’s form. How bout you?
Architect, Urban Designer.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
True,
Functionality is the prime criteria, but integration of functions cannot be ruled out. As an architect we have to go part-to whole and focus on detail and then whole to part too-integrating them into the urban matrix in a way that the favorable sun etc is not disturbed. Yes-we architects open studios to work but do end up working to keep their studios open.
Yes, that’s the phenomena, Mr. Manuj
Its looks like I prefer “form follows function” to do my work. Always begin with my clients ideas!
Not agree, I usually begin my design first with “function follows form”, and I like that because it can makes my design like statue
Haven’t had any designing works lately, this post brought me back to earlier years as an architect. I prefer function follows form though… Only an architect can fit into a sculpturous building functions it needed
just like you have said up there Andie, it’s like asking which come first, egg or the chicken…
I personally will see function 1st because function is what human needs, their circulations therefore, their activity and all, after that the form will follow what function needs… of course what we (designer) have to do in designing is FEEDBACK; function <> form <> function, back and forth… form somehow will shaped artistically once we formulated the functions… that’s a definit.
I also agree with what Jane65 said… depends on the Clients…
Form follows function (FFF1) or function follows form (FFF2)? In my opinion both approaches are relative to the (architectural) design context/objective.
When following FFF1, then architects will tend to optimize spatial arrangement, thus giving birth to a form which is the result of the spaces within; but with FFF2, considering its ridiculous flexibility, then architects can manipulate users’/inhabitants’ behavior thus creating a unique interaction between users.
Personally I would prefer FFF2 because of its manipulative qualities (God wills that I become a dictator one day hahaha) rather than FFF1 although I won’t deny that throughout my practices I employ FFF1 more than FFF2.
look at what iyasich@*****.com said=
form and function follow architect…
From what of my experience, I think I am the “form follows function” one, and my designs were not those bad to be compared with “function follows” one….
Hail for all of “function follows” Guys!
To JokoS65: I didn’t say that either method would result to a good/bad design, mate. Just mentioned my definition of each characteristics, and stated my opinion ’s all
Peace!!
By inquiring the relativity between function and form, I reckon you’re heading towards the concept of post-modern architecture?
By the way, hello to every architect in the house! Or building the house?
I am not an urban architect though, just one that feeds the pigeons in the park.
Blogrolled.
Leave your response!
Categories
Control Panel
Tags
3dmax 798 art district architect architect journey architecture architecture behaviour autocad beijing bonn busway canals citizen's place city Code River color community competition congestion construction coreldraw design drawing tutorial drawing tutorial fengshui frank gehry graffiti great wall china Hangzhou High Tech highway indonesia kampung Kenzo Tange landscape le corbusier maestro marketplace paris park permukiman perumahan photography shanghai urban design urban space veniceRecent Posts
Most Commented
Most Viewed