Howard asks (in regard to Kresge Audi.) :
> Form and function are not working together in this design solution --- by a
> fameous architect, Sarinen! How can fame be obtained on this basis?
As you certainly know, Saarinen usually designed without much priority to
a building's practical program (what I think is the main aspect of "function").
Coincidentally, most architecture awards (and the accompanying fame) usually
don't put much priority on how well a building works.
An anecdote about good design and bad critics (paraphrased from _The Psychology
of Everyday Things_ [republished later under a slightly different title, which
I can't remember right now---nor the author]):
Several years ago, the Federal gov't. wanted to building two
new offices on the west coast, one in California and the
other in Washington state. The one in California was handed off
to a regular pretty-good design firm. But the one in
Washington was given to a firm who was allowed to do a little
experimentation in the design. The Washington firm let the
workers who would be working at the office decide on the
furniture (by actually testing out various kinds) and on various
working arrangements. When the buildings were at last finished,
the results were vastly different between the two: the one in
Washington was well-liked by both the workers and those who
visited (most were surprised that such a nice building was a
Federal building; often desribed as have a loose, "homey"
feeling), while the one in California was your typical
"office-like" office (which neither the workers nor visitors
in general found to be anything better than they were used to).
After their openings, which building received much publicity
and even an award? The California one, of course. In fact,
when the award was given to the California office over the
Washington office, the jurors said they didn't like how the
Washington one didn't feel like an office, just the reason
why the people who actually used the building (the people who
really matter in the end) liked it.
John Tsuchiya
> Form and function are not working together in this design solution --- by a
> fameous architect, Sarinen! How can fame be obtained on this basis?
As you certainly know, Saarinen usually designed without much priority to
a building's practical program (what I think is the main aspect of "function").
Coincidentally, most architecture awards (and the accompanying fame) usually
don't put much priority on how well a building works.
An anecdote about good design and bad critics (paraphrased from _The Psychology
of Everyday Things_ [republished later under a slightly different title, which
I can't remember right now---nor the author]):
Several years ago, the Federal gov't. wanted to building two
new offices on the west coast, one in California and the
other in Washington state. The one in California was handed off
to a regular pretty-good design firm. But the one in
Washington was given to a firm who was allowed to do a little
experimentation in the design. The Washington firm let the
workers who would be working at the office decide on the
furniture (by actually testing out various kinds) and on various
working arrangements. When the buildings were at last finished,
the results were vastly different between the two: the one in
Washington was well-liked by both the workers and those who
visited (most were surprised that such a nice building was a
Federal building; often desribed as have a loose, "homey"
feeling), while the one in California was your typical
"office-like" office (which neither the workers nor visitors
in general found to be anything better than they were used to).
After their openings, which building received much publicity
and even an award? The California one, of course. In fact,
when the award was given to the California office over the
Washington office, the jurors said they didn't like how the
Washington one didn't feel like an office, just the reason
why the people who actually used the building (the people who
really matter in the end) liked it.
John Tsuchiya