Form Follows Function in Architecture

I just finished my university degree in architecture and I won’t lie I fell out of love with it towards the end, your videos have genuinely ignited the flame of passion I once had, making me realise the beauty behind design, giving it real purpose in society. It feels so bogged down especially in the uk where I’m from, there’s nothing inspiring here everything is copy and paste, great job with the videos you just gained a new subscriber please keep making more!!

I am really glad I saw this video. I recently tried to explain to my students the difference between modernism and postmodernism in architecture and design. I'm not an expert in any of this but I have lived long enough to see that interesting transition between the optimism, perhaps excessive, of the Modernists versus the cynicism and capitulationism of the postmodernists. The modernist believed that society would become increasingly equal and more democratic and more socially responsible. They boldly built skyscrapers in New York City where the you could see, from the curb where you exited a yellow cab, the lobby and elevators of the building, unencumbered and unprotected and only interrupted up by transparent glass doors. The post modern skyscraper is a fortress with no windows for as many as 10 stories (Bonaventure Hotel, LA). It accepts inequality and builds fortresses for the ruling class to feel protected and comfortable while living in ersatz fantasy world that often look like theme parks ("Viva Las Vegas" anyone?). So they put Chippendale hats on skyscrapers, or worse, twelve dancing gigantic angels on a chateau roof on top of a skyscraper (580 California Street). The pomos are relativists who pimp out their trade to the corporate cynics who have given us a dystopia.

This was truly well put and informative, I love your holistic approach covering the varying disciplines and their methodologies. Might have to rewatch several more times before the start of any new projects to broaden the scope of approach. Looking forward to more future content!

Fascinating. Thank you. As an architectural layman I admire forms (and their characteristic functionality) that have evolved through natural selection over geological periods of time: honed by nature and natural forces (including human activity). Many of the British Victorian-era designs (e.g. large railway stations) were based on mechanical aspects of plant biology (form and function).

Functional spaces that are “like trees …where no elements are connected to other elements” reminds me of integration and connectivity diagrams in college that showed a functional modern apartment building with one main exit having no pedestrian paths crossing along the street versus traditional row home entrances with many paths crossing each other along the street.

I just found your channel, interesting video! I feel that the "form follows function" doctrine definitely has merit. BUT I also feel it is often forgotten what function can be other than the material needs: we are human beings and as such we have psychological needs – fresh air, rooms filled with daylight, "non-utilized" space that acts as a buffer, etc. etc. It makes me especially sad when I see those needs getting more and more ignored; just the other day I read an article about how some people want to make it legal in NY to build windowless bedrooms. The purpose of architecture of not making people depressed and miserable is an important yet often neglected function!

Something attractive thats pleasing to the eyes is one thing. But something thats attractive & has a function is another, it becomes and experiences. It gives a whole new meaning of its value and appreciation.

I'm glad I came across your channel. Learning more than I did in school. With everything said, my thought on these is that function is often neglected these days because it brings about complex decisions that could counter your forms when considering natural lighting, ventilation, and comfort. Modern architects try as much to cut corners and rely more on artificial means in order to achieve extraordinary forms forgetting humans rely on the natural environment.

Thanks I am proudly sharing this with my friend from visual art world. I wish these should have been available during my visual art teachings

Thank you very much for this valuable information. Although I am an architecture student and do not have enough time, I finished the video until the end. I am following you from Iraq.

Construction, no matter what will be always done to create a needed space. For resting, cooking, shelter, working, etc. You will be subject to the space you have and the money or materials that you can count on. One of the goals of the architect, is to make those spaces confortable physically in use and for the eye. The rest, I would say is a matter of personality. Both, from the architect and from the people who will use the space. A good architect will understand the need of his client, his taste and will be able to apply its knowledge to create the building that will fit his customer's needs.

Thank you sir, your knowledge enlighten us to become better and understand architecture. There is so much in this world we do not know, yet we strive to understand and will always try to uncover and reinvent.

I am not even an architecture, I am a software engineer and I already knew that computer science have borrowed a lot of concepts from other branches, most importantly from architecture, like design patterns, etc. But today I have learned a lot that I think, will improve my knowledge on my area of expertise, as computer scientists has also gone into similar debate like form vs function, but with different terminology, object-oriented vs functional programming.

This video deserves more than 34k view. Good writing, pacing, everything, Robert. Keep it up.

I happen to come across this video by coincidence upon initial (separate-side) interest in architecture and general design-oriented careers. I happen to take greatest interest and research in system, diagramming, function, behavior, etc in general abstract. I cannot emphasize the greater significance this video/topic reaches and the ideas different in degree you have introduced to me. I love how you don't just expand into architecture but rather its environment; or another way I could put it: instead of just form, emphasis on function(s) or rather of greater significance, role. I cannot applaud enough how great this video is!!!

Thank you for this video. Its great to see this form and function. I am studying building and construction.

Brilliant video. It doesn't matter if one agrees with the content or not. It is brilliant. I would love to see your views in your designs, how you conceptualize architecture. I perceive architecture as a way to frame society. If enough buildings have large balconies that protrude at least ten feet from the building with lookouts into the street below and the city beyond, that street becomes a main street, and the city itself becomes a beautiful place simply because it has been deemed worthy of attention. Architecture sets the stage in which human life takes place. How that is translated into design is not to think of buildings only as exercises in abstract design, but for abstract design to follow the purpose for which the building is intended, or in other words, form follows fuction. I see architecture as a good way to frame human life to make people happy. I've never concerned myself with style beyond universal aesthetic concepts of forms that flow so well that they emanate serenity and peace. Architecture has always been about branding. Name one example where it has not done so. Cathedrals, temples, parks, old and modern buildings have always branded something, either power, greed, an excessively large ego, leisure, capitalism, consumption, and a belief in a higher power. All along the way, artistry has hitched a ride to justify those founding principles of architecture. The problem today with architecture is that it has become too sterile, too much about winning design contests and not make the world a better place. The function of framing human life cannot be done properly if human life already lies in a frame, if people are not authentic enough to truly be spontaneous. That is why I love the architecture presented in episodes of Star Trek (The Next Generation) and Star Trek (Yoyager), particularly the Vulcan cafe depicted in Yoyager's episode "In The Flesh." That simple architecture that reminds you of how beautiful the outside world is through a simply angled window with indoor plants creates an enclosure or sense of space that life is good. It does not force upon you the thought that the building is the design of an architect. Instead, the architect has extended him or herself into his or her work so much that you only experience the intention of their work, the soul of their passion. For form to truly follow function however, human life must be organic and spontaneous and free. An example of how it is not is just hearing architects talk about the function of their buildings. The concern is usually how people from a particular demographic and particular routines and particular patterns of behaviour are to behave. However, this does not mean that all present day architects are never designing buildings where spontaneous activities can emerge. Bjarke Ingels has done both. His spaces are very flexible for a variety of human activities, including nature. Not all his projects succeed in what I would call true architecture because many of his buildings are just to show off, but not all. It's not the branding that's the problem, but the fact that architecture today is branding itself. It is losing relationship with the world and becoming an exercise in conceptualization, not in a true framing of human life. Architecture is most beautiful when it beautifies the world around us, not in itself, but in how it transports us to all other arts and activities seamlessly without effort. If a building is excessively noticeable, it kicks the universe outside of its space and becomes its own universe. Until now, buildings did not do this too much. Even cathedrals connect you with the divine in some form, even if to youthe divine is only a concept. Buildings today sometimes connect you with nothing at all. To best illustrate my meaning, I provide the example of the Toyota Prius (before 2023 new generation). Most people think the prius is ugly because its wheels lack proportion to its body, or because it is not agressive. The prius is actually a tremendously beautiful car because its design is totally connected with the environment. When you see a prius pass by, pay very close attention without thinking too much. Just look at the car. What does it make you feel? If you are sensitive enough, you will see a glimpse into the future, a truly mature car whose concern isn't trying to impress anyone and whose design only exists to connect one with the environment. Most cars, if not all, are designed to make you feel like a driver, like it's all about you. A prius rips your useless ego out of you and makes it all about the external world. This allows your healthy ego, or nothing at all except you to experience the world as you've never experienced it in other cars. You can even forget you're driving a car because the experience is so calming yet alive. Most people aren't sensitive enough to have a clue of what I'm talking about. How can they? They've been driving cars their whole lives as machines that simply utilize roads to get from A to B. A prius is intended to be driven as something that is flowing with the outside world, not a sporty car where you can transform yourself into a driving machine that only uses the road to satisfy its own internal desires. A sports car disconnects you from the outside world because it turns it into a background to look at while driving, a scenario where deep down the car and you are the protagonist. The prius is the opposite. It turns the environment into a protagonist and you into its graceful observer, which deep down also turns you into the protagonist of as a being that is connected to everything around you. This is the function architecture should have and often fails in today's world. A building should be noticed because it reminds you of nature, or of some relation to the world, the environment it is in. If a building only makes you think of itself, it has failed. This does not mean design isn't important, but that design is sacred.

I'm not an architect, nor a designer, nor an artist. However, as someone with an enduring interest in architecture, systems thinking, & urban/regional development, I finished this video with the distinct impression that this is one of the most important and thought-provoking videos I've ever watched. I also happen to be a fan of the later works of Christopher Alexander (A Pattern Language, etc), so there's that too! Thanks for this thoughtful work.

Design is a basic human need, encompassing functionality, practicality, and aesthetics. A design solely focused on aesthetics tends to lack longevity as users may find certain elements awkward to use. On the other hand, a design purely based on functionality, neglecting aesthetics, can lead to user dissatisfaction and lower sales. Achieving the right balance between these two design aspects is crucial for a successful final product, although some degree of tension is inevitable. Throughout history, functional considerations often took precedence during the design process, with aesthetics coming later to enhance the appearance. Users attribute different values to functionality and aesthetics, and the market adapts accordingly. Simplicity and the "less is more" principle have been key factors in design for thousands of years. Principles like association/grouping and flow diagrams are vital in achieving practicality while contributing to the overall beauty of the design by creating order and coherence.

I´m studying architecture, and I´m going, to be honest, maybe it wasn´t for me, but I´ve concluded that architecture is the science of human-environment development. It is not only the artistic part or the logical part; they both come together to create human spaces. That said, I do believe that form follows function. But everybody sees architecture differently.