Chapter 4
Design vs. Function
Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the debate between design and function.
As we move from architectural theory into the practice of architecture, we come upon one of the most important debates in architecture. This is a debate between architectural design versus building function. Is how a building looks more important than how it functions, or does the function outweigh the look of a building?
This debate has seen many forms and terms ranging from design integrity to traditional tried-and-true. In many cases, the look or style of a building type has stayed the same because the ability to build the building becomes easy and profitable.
Other circumstances can define design or function based purely upon the economics of the project budget. If you put enough money into a project, you can almost guarantee enough decoration to clad your functional box! The many circles that intertwine our built world constantly struggle with the decision of design and function. Both are elements that should be part of every building, but it's the percentage of either that creates the debate.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a well-known American architect by the name of Louis Sullivan coined the phrase "form follows function." This has been one of the most used phrases in architectural teaching. The notion is the shape of the building reacts to all the needs that are required in the building. Basic examples can be seen at automobile factories which are long and narrow to reflect the assembly lines within.
Other examples reflect every day ideals of what a building should look like: a bank for example should look solid and classical so it seems secure, no matter how it needs to function within. Of course, this presents a good argument against the idea of form follows function.
Many early modern styles used decoration and ornament as a way of defining what the building was. As the century evolved, later modern styles took to the phrase more strictly and saw that decoration and ornament were wasteful and made it a point to truly follow the philosophy.
Late century commercial architecture was typified by the tall rectangular skyscraper with its repetitive floors. Purely a representation of function over design as the initial concept was to maximize rentable square footage within the building perimeter. Once that was complete, the skin of the building could be applied. This application of decoration or ornament was the extent of the exterior design to the building. The battle became more about what you could do to the skin of the building, versus changing the shape of the building.
What this did to modern-day commercial architecture was elevate the need for quality interior design. So much so, that a classification was derived to rate or scale the level of design and quality and formulate it back to the rentable dollar range.
A “Class A” building now signified a high level of quality with respect to materials and amenities. It did not guarantee whether the exterior of the building had the same level of aesthetic design quality. Therein lies the basis of the debate between design and function. Location, demand and budget became the major players in the debate.
