Form vs Function?

[Chinook Arch]

I thought I would start a thread to discuss form versus function. Reading through the threads in the buildings section it seems that there are two camps here at Skyrise, one camp who wants architectural, beauty, and another camp who wants function. Ultimately it would be nice to have both but it isn’t the case most often, so I’m curious what people think in regards to form versus function, if they can only choose one option?

Personally, my own view is function over form, but that’s just my opinion. I’d like to hear what other people think.

 

[Tarsus]

For sure the goal should always be both nice form and proper function but if I have to pick a choice between the two I would go with function over form. I’m less concerned with the beauty of buildings over the streetscape and the function of a building. As long as the street scape is nice and functionable, I’m not that concerned what the floors above look like.

 

[Cowtown]

I'd always take function over form. It's great to have some nice buildings from an architectural point of view, but I'd rather have a high street filled with fairly average buildings like Catalyst or Trail 19, but having decent retail street interface than hold out for uber cool buildings. I think cool fancy buildings work better for institutional stuff, like university buildings, libraries, museums or music centres, and we've done that.

 

[Urban Outdoorsman]

I'd also say function over form. It's easier to give a building with good bones a facelift than build a new urban fabric from scratch.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I've always preferred function over form. In a free market economy where the level of design is driven by consumers, our best option is to control the design of the street level, as at least we have control over that, and good street interfacing is more due to design rather than cost. For the rest of the building, cost plays a factor, and we don't have as much control over that. We can control it to some degree, by having the city veto projects that are plain ugly are super cheap but ultimately it's a free market and the developer will decide to build what works for them financially. It's tricky to control that.

I'd always take function over form. It's great to have some nice buildings from an architectural point of view, but I'd rather have a high street filled with fairly average buildings like Catalyst or Trail 19, but having decent retail street interface than hold out for uber cool buildings. I think cool fancy buildings work better for institutional stuff, like university buildings, libraries, museums or music centres, and we've done that.

I tend to agree. Around the world there are numerous examples of areas that are filled with average buildings, but the sum of them make a vibrant area because they did the street portion properly. You see this in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Buenos Aires, London, Berlin, Athens, the list goes on.

 

[adamyyc]

There are some architectural styles where form is an outcome of function. Some may disagree with me, but I think there’s beauty in the simplicity of some International Style buildings as an example.

That said, I think I’m going to go against the grain and say form over function. Maybe this is a Calgary-specific comment, but I think we have over corrected and now put too much focus on function that most new buildings outside of new public/institutional buildings in Calgary look like cheap boxes and feel temporary. I’d rather see new buildings that are visually interesting, because good architecture generally has more permanancy.

It’s gotten to the point where the first comment on just about every new private development on here is basically “doesn’t look great but at least it’s density”. If there is even a bit of architectural style it feels like “oh the developer has gone above and beyond with this one”. I feel this way every time a new building has thrown in some Art Deco features now.

I think I also feel this way because even the function in some of these new developments isn’t that great.

 

[Mountain Man]

I don't see this as an either - or. Function should dictate, but thoughtful design can make great use of the form to compliment the intended function (see Telus Sky, function is mixed use, form compliments that). We don't tend to waste space in buildings here to make it look cool these days, that's a Dubai thing, and pro-forma here basically eliminates that.

 

[Beltline_B]

If I had to pick between a two, I would pick function. Function first, and then, nice form with it is an added bonus.