The
Week 9 reading discusses the general process of how architecture is created.
The following techniques were mentioned:
- Function maps (bubble diagrams, etc.)
- Envelope (The form)
- Structural elements
It
emphasises that function is adaptable so, as mentioned in the title of the
article, it has the ability to follow form. One strong aspect that stood out to
me was the discussion of the unpredictable outcomes of architecture. The
article noted that the people involved in determining what the form should be
and what function should be carried out in the form can never determine the
outcome as architecture is “ever-changing”.
Cities
are also mentioned briefly towards the end of the article in relation to its
opposite characteristics to buildings, in that it does not have one function,
it is mixed use. Cities were also seen as formless, their organisation being
determined by the behaviour of the occupants. In this case, townscape and
behaviour were defined as mutually adaptable.
I
found this reading to be very interesting as the notion that “form follows
function” has been taught to us from the very start the course. Previous
assignments had been based entirely around the theory. I’d imagine creating
architecture with the notion that “function follows form” could lead to extreme
and radical concepts which may be poorly justified with that single theory.
My
first impression from reading the title was an article on a new method of
architecture that endorses egoism with no reigns. However, the author delves
into the adaptable nature of behaviour which shines a new light on the older
theory. I agree with the notion that behaviour is adaptable as can be seen in
the example of the congregation of people in the foyer area of the Hong Kong
Shanghai Bank, given by Yasu in the Week 4 lecture. Yasu mentioned that the
architecture, Norman Foster, would not have been able to predict this sort of
function and behaviour to occur in this space.
The
hall was created for one purpose and now caters to another purpose with the
behaviour of the unforseen users adapting to the space. It would be interesting
to compare two different types of architecture, one based on “form follows
function” and the other based on “function follows form”, in order to gauge
each ones degree of success.
