Can someone find firmness, commodity, and delight inthese catagories?
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!bl
oom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Design in General...
Date: 14 Sep 1993 04:30:15 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 55
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <273hcn$g66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m16-034-25.mit.edu
In thinking about designing architecture, it appears that "good design"
is based upon three major areas. (I might be missing some really important
area, but right now, these seem to me to be the only factors.) In other terms,
one can think of these as being the three major "functions" of a building:
1. Structure: how well the building stands, how it physically
resists disasters (including fires), how well it
protects
itself from wind, precipitation, and wear
2. Climate/Energy: how well it uses energy (which is
usually closely related to climate); how well it relates
to the physical effects of site (climate, orientation,
physical form of site)
3. Built Environment: how well the building works directly in
relation to people---psychological effects, effects of
human movement, comfortable furniture, etc. (including
such things as where rooms are placed in relation to the
path of the sun, ornament, etc.)
From my point of view, a building which accomplishes all three functions well
in a physical form would be a "good design."
An important point to emphasize is that these functions are independent
of the intentions of the architect and only depend upon the given situation. If
an archtect intentionally focuses on the structural functions and purposely
neglects its psychological functions, the resulting building (if he succeeds in
his intentions) would be a "bad" design.
However, each situation for a building can give rise to many different
kinds of "good designs," as well as just as many different kinds of "bad
designs."
And this is where the individuality of the architect comes in. Which one design
of the infinite possible "good designs" is created is the decision of the
architect.
A "good design" balances the three major functions in a way that allows
all to work at a SUFFICIENT level, not at the most efficient level. In fact, if
one of the functions were picked to be "efficient," it would probably adversely
affect the other functions, dropping them below a sufficient level.
And finally, if one can determine all the required functions (which is
probably not humanly possible, but perhaps at least all the major ones), the
role
of the architect is to convert these functions which exist only in the mind,
into
the plans for an actual physical form. For example, anyone can think up of an
idea of a living room that streams sunlight in a pleasant way, but actually
designing a real room which does that is an entirely different matter....) If
all the forms correspond with their intended functions, the design would be
"good."
Perhaps, then, the design would also end up being beautiful and
expressive
and lively, as well, without having any of those goals actively in mind.....
N. John Tsuchiya
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!bl
oom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Design in General...
Date: 14 Sep 1993 04:30:15 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 55
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <273hcn$g66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m16-034-25.mit.edu
In thinking about designing architecture, it appears that "good design"
is based upon three major areas. (I might be missing some really important
area, but right now, these seem to me to be the only factors.) In other terms,
one can think of these as being the three major "functions" of a building:
1. Structure: how well the building stands, how it physically
resists disasters (including fires), how well it
protects
itself from wind, precipitation, and wear
2. Climate/Energy: how well it uses energy (which is
usually closely related to climate); how well it relates
to the physical effects of site (climate, orientation,
physical form of site)
3. Built Environment: how well the building works directly in
relation to people---psychological effects, effects of
human movement, comfortable furniture, etc. (including
such things as where rooms are placed in relation to the
path of the sun, ornament, etc.)
From my point of view, a building which accomplishes all three functions well
in a physical form would be a "good design."
An important point to emphasize is that these functions are independent
of the intentions of the architect and only depend upon the given situation. If
an archtect intentionally focuses on the structural functions and purposely
neglects its psychological functions, the resulting building (if he succeeds in
his intentions) would be a "bad" design.
However, each situation for a building can give rise to many different
kinds of "good designs," as well as just as many different kinds of "bad
designs."
And this is where the individuality of the architect comes in. Which one design
of the infinite possible "good designs" is created is the decision of the
architect.
A "good design" balances the three major functions in a way that allows
all to work at a SUFFICIENT level, not at the most efficient level. In fact, if
one of the functions were picked to be "efficient," it would probably adversely
affect the other functions, dropping them below a sufficient level.
And finally, if one can determine all the required functions (which is
probably not humanly possible, but perhaps at least all the major ones), the
role
of the architect is to convert these functions which exist only in the mind,
into
the plans for an actual physical form. For example, anyone can think up of an
idea of a living room that streams sunlight in a pleasant way, but actually
designing a real room which does that is an entirely different matter....) If
all the forms correspond with their intended functions, the design would be
"good."
Perhaps, then, the design would also end up being beautiful and
expressive
and lively, as well, without having any of those goals actively in mind.....
N. John Tsuchiya