Committee on Design

On reviewing, with some trepidation, the extended thread about design excellence, etc., of the past several months,
two high-sounding Quotes From The Masters have been noted. To nitpick, it's always been my understanding that the attributions should be:
"Form Follows Function.": Louis Sullivan
"Form Follows Function is mere dogma, until you realize the higher truth that form and function are one." : Frank Lloyd Wright
-------------------------------------------
Kenneth Moffett AIA
Bullock Smith & Partners
Knoxville TN
-------------------------------------------

Pardon me for commenting without having reviewed this particular discussion, but I was drawn to Kenneth's mention of the old Form/Function adage.  

Through the years, I have come to find the 'Form follows function' adage to be overly simplistic, prone to misinterpretation, and misleading to generations of architects and others in the design and building industries. Of course our buildings must 'function' and be useful for our purposes. And yet Sullivan's quote has been mis-used by architects, developers, planners, engineers, etc to produce over a half-century of segregated single-use buildings, districts and transportation systems.  My understanding of Sullivan's original meaning was that 'function' is broadly inclusive of many functions, and many meanings, including for instance the function of ornament.  

Yet, for generations now, 'function' has been reduced down to single uses, minimalism and specialization. Traffic engineers think the sole function of roads are to move cars. Commercial developers think the sole function of retail buildings and districts is to maximize profit by maximizing sales of goods. Same for home builders, office park developers, etc. Lending institutions have reinforced and even led this tendency toward segregation of uses. 

Instead we need to act as generalists, integrating mixed-use, multifunctional, multi-modal, multi-cultural environments.  We have thought too long in terms of only single functions, often disregarding the multiplicity of overlapping, and even contradictory functions that occur in human society, as well as natural systems.  Jane Jacobs comes to mind with her advocacy for the messy vitality of compact urbanism where all sort of overlapping functions occur.  

I tend to believe that 'functions follows form and typology', meaning that the physical form of our buildings, public realm, neighborhoods, and overall environment affect and direct our daily actions and our lives. It's an obvious corollary to 'form follows function' that 'function in turn follows form'. 

-------------------------------------------
Laurence Qamar AIA
President
Qamar Architecture & Town Planning Co.
Portland OR
-------------------------------------------

Perhaps Mr. Qamar has not seen the entire discussion, but his comments about function certainly align with points I have been trying to make about how all inclusive our concepts of 'function' need to be. I would definitely agree that anything can be assigned function, including art. In fact, I would go so far as to define architecture as "sculpture with a few more functions."

In my opinion, the harm to design quality is done by those who seek to strip away art from their function and treat it as an afterthought, which only reveals an ignorance of the real power and capacity that art holds over a design. In fact, it is the beginning of the design process where art is by far the most powerful and helpful to finding new ideas.  To treat art as an afterthought is to put it in the weakest position to do you any good.

I believe the real problem with functionalism began with a book written by a certain fellow in Texas, decades ago, on programming. This book eventually became the bible of programming. The author himself (who is a very nice guy) says that his concept of programming was simply meant to be a guideline, and not a precise tool for the determination of building form. And we can thank him for helping us to create a predesign billing phase. But, in the end, it doesn't really matter what his intent was.  The reality is, an entire population of architects latched on to this concept with a fervor that has turned programming into an industry. Programmers have been paid, rewarded, promoted and certified with knowledge that is considered valuable to specific client niches in specific industries, yet has wreaked great havoc on artistic intellectualism in its wake.

I know many programmers who consider themselves to be designers. They hold great power over design, yet, they can't really design anything. They know square feet, cost, codes, and handy proximities. They know their clients.  But their little bubble diagrams and boxes are not nearly enough be a design.  It might be enough to collect a bill from a client.  But it's not enough to create a great work of architecture. For those clients who are smart enough to know this, those are the ones who will insist on hiring two architects - one to design, and another to produce.  And that's often because they have figured out that programmers are not designers, they are producers. To control their power, you practically have to hire a separate firm to contain them. 

It's ok to marry programming knowledge to artistic knowledge. Art has room for functions of any kind, whether abstract or literal. But it's not ok to use programming knowledge in lieu of artistic knowledge.
  
-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris, AIA
Architect
Dallas, Texas
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 08-25-2011 12:37
From: Laurence Qamar
Subject: Form Follows Function

Pardon me for commenting without having reviewed this particular discussion, but I was drawn to Kenneth's mention of the old Form/Function adage.  

Through the years, I have come to find the 'Form follows function' adage to be overly simplistic, prone to misinterpretation, and misleading to generations of architects and others in the design and building industries. Of course our buildings must 'function' and be useful for our purposes. And yet Sullivan's quote has been mis-used by architects, developers, planners, engineers, etc to produce over a half-century of segregated single-use buildings, districts and transportation systems.  My understanding of Sullivan's original meaning was that 'function' is broadly inclusive of many functions, and many meanings, including for instance the function of ornament.  

Yet, for generations now, 'function' has been reduced down to single uses, minimalism and specialization. Traffic engineers think the sole function of roads are to move cars. Commercial developers think the sole function of retail buildings and districts is to maximize profit by maximizing sales of goods. Same for home builders, office park developers, etc. Lending institutions have reinforced and even led this tendency toward segregation of uses. 

Instead we need to act as generalists, integrating mixed-use, multifunctional, multi-modal, multi-cultural environments.  We have thought too long in terms of only single functions, often disregarding the multiplicity of overlapping, and even contradictory functions that occur in human society, as well as natural systems.  Jane Jacobs comes to mind with her advocacy for the messy vitality of compact urbanism where all sort of overlapping functions occur.  

I tend to believe that 'functions follows form and typology', meaning that the physical form of our buildings, public realm, neighborhoods, and overall environment affect and direct our daily actions and our lives. It's an obvious corollary to 'form follows function' that 'function in turn follows form'. 

-------------------------------------------
Laurence Qamar AIA
President
Qamar Architecture & Town Planning Co.
Portland OR
-------------------------------------------