Spiral
Originally uploaded by Blisterman.
One of the biggest areas of contention in architecture, in the last 100 years has been, the conflict between functionality and form. How a building works vs how a building looks.
It's an interesting arguement, one which both sides are equally passionate about.The functionalists believe that the most important quality of a building is how well it performs the task it was designed for.
It's a valid argument. Zaha Hadid's Vitra Fire Station, is aestetically highly regarded, by many critics, architects and casual architecture fans. However, as a fire station, it was a miserable failure. It's now a museum gift shop. Can it still be considered great architecture?
Advocates of putting Aesthetics first, the 'function follows form' approach, argue that looking good is a function. In fact it's an important function, and that's it's easy to create a building that works. The true mark of great architecture, is creating a piece of beauty.
This is also a valid arguement. Purely functional buildings, such as the "Machine for Living" that Le Corbusier described, are often times, sterile, boring and depressing places to be in.
There are of course many architects who fall somewhere between the two extremes in regards to their approach to architecture.
What I'm going to explain here. Is my approach towards architecture. It's not a manifesto, or a style, it's a philosphy.
My approach, through every stage of design is to always consider experience.
What do you want the experience of using your building to be like. It's a holistic approach, taking every aspect of the building into account.
What do you want people to experience, when they approach your building, pass it, see it in context? Do you want it to be inconspicious in its setting, so people don't even notice it's there? Does it stand out and amaze people with its beauty?
What is the entrance like? Is entering it a grand, theatrical experience. Do you want people to feel slightly intimdated, or feel completly welcome?
What is it like to move from one part of the building to another? Is it easy and straightforward? Is it slightly awkward, but interesting and exciting? What is the experience of sitting at a desk in the building like? What is it like to fall asleep inside it?
The possibilities are endless. No two architects would create the same experience, because every architect has different priorities, but if the buildings are carefully thought out in this way, the result should be buildings which are functional, beautiful, good places to visit. And above all, be created with the end user 100% in mind.
There is nothing really new, or groundbreaking about this approach. It seems completely logical, but it seems, not too many architects think about their buildings in this way, and the end result is buildings, which are either functional, but horrible places to visit, or superficially pretty buildings, which are highly inefficient.
The experience first approach, used intellegently and carefully, can result in buildings which work in every aspect.
