Architecture In Use

DJM van der Voordt, HBR van Wegen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781136428388
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

This unique book discusses programming, design and building evaluation providing a 'joined up' approach to building design. By linking the functional and architectonic qualities of a building, the authors show the practical implications of the utility value of buildings.
Starting by looking at how the relationship between form and function has been dealt with by different approaches to architecture from a historical perspective, it goes on to discuss how the desired functional quality and utility value of a building can be expressed in a brief and given a physical form by the architect. Finally, it advises on how to carry out post-occupancy evaluation and provides the architect with methods and techniques for testing whether the intended utility value of a building has been achieved.

CHAPTER 1

Architectonic and functional quality of buildings

1.1 Functions of a building

In psychology the term ‘function’ is defined as ‘ability’ or ‘power’. The dictionary amplifies this definition by adding ‘special kind of activity’ or ‘mode of action’. Various authors have devoted their considerations to the functions of a building. In the 1960s De Bruijn, one of the founders of functional analysis as a discipline at Delft’s Faculty of Architecture, distinguished four different functions (Zeeman, 1980):

■ Protective function: protection of people and property against harmful influences and dangers, e.g. wind and rain, inquisitive onlookers, interference.

■ Domain or territorial function: buildings make it possible to operate in a place of one’s own, without disturbance from others. Key words are privacy, safety and security.

■ Social function: buildings create spaces and places in which people can carry on their activities optimally. Primary elements here are health, welfare, communication and quality of life.

■ Cultural function: a building must also satisfy requirements relating to the form and character of the spatial environment. The cultural function involves aesthetic, architectonic, urban design, planning and environmental factors. Culture also includes the notion of civilisation, one of whose implications are that buildings and the activities they accommodate should not be nuisance or cause damage to the environment.

The architecture critics Hillier and Leaman (1976) also distinguish four main functions of a building, but divide them up differently:

■ Spatial organisation of activities

A building needs to provide optimum support for the activities desired by properly arranging the available space: for example, by siting related activities next to one another and providing efficient communication between them, and by separating activities that are likely to conflict with one another.

■ Climate regulation

A building must provide an optimum interior climate for the user, his activities and his property. This necessitates a protective ‘filter’, separating the inside from the outside, and efficient plant. Inside the building, elements which separate and connect and the equipment of the different rooms must make it possible to adjust the interior climate of each room to suit its own particular use.

■ Symbolic function

A building can be seen as the material embodiment of the specific ideas and expectations not just of its designer but also of the client and the users. This makes it a cultural object, an object with social and symbolic significance and meaning.

■ Economic function

A building requires investment. It gives added value to raw materials. Maintenance and management form part of the exploitation cost, and must be set against income from rental or sale. It follows that a building, whether property or an investment object, has economic value and so an economic function.

The first functions named in the above lists can be summarised as utility functions. The last two functions refer to cultural functions. This division corresponds closely to the functions distinguished by the architect Norberg-Schulz (1965). A building creates an artificial climate, protecting people against the influence of weather, insects, wild animals, enemies and other environmental hazards. The building also provides a functional framework, within which human activities can be carried out. These activities are socially determined, and so give buildings a social meaning. A building can also represent something cultural – perhaps something religious or philosophical. Norberg-Schulz refers to the combination of a building as a piece of social environment and its cultural symbolism as a ‘symbolic environment’.

Delft University of Technology’s Professor Dirken (1972), head of the product ergonomics department of the industrial design faculty, uses the terms primary and secondary functionality. Primary functionality means the utility value or effectiveness of a product. Secondary functionality is concerned with function as a bearer of meanings, as for example a building as a means of expressing status, evoking a sense of beauty or representing the kind of experiential values that are described in terms such as ‘pleasant’, ‘pleasing’ or ‘attractive’. Ekambi-Schmidt (1972) calls this ‘affective functionality’. Others call the function of form to evoke a sense of beauty as the ‘aesthetic’ function.

1.2 Functional quality

Quality is the extent to which a product fulfils the requirements set for it. ‘Functional’ refers to the function or functions performed by something, in this case a building. Thus, the functional quality of a building means its ability to fulfil the functions envisaged for it. Van Dale’s Dutch dictionary defines functioneel [related to the English ‘functional’] as ‘suitable for its purpose’ and mentions functional design as an example. Here the term is mainly used in connection with making possible and providing spatial support for the use envisaged. Webster’s Dictionary provides a similar definition, defining functional as ‘… connected with, used to contribute to the development or maintenance of a larger whole, designed or developed chiefly from the point of view of use’. Thus, functional quality can be defined as the extent to which the building and the constructional means applied make possible and provide a proper level of support for the utility function or the activities envisaged.

The functionality of a building does, however, also depend on the extent to which its spatial and physical qualities support the other three functions listed by Hillier and Leaman – the climatologic function, the cultural function and the economic function. A climatologically unsatisfactory building is not user-friendly. A high cultural value can increase a building’s utility value. A building is only functional when resources (ground, construction and materials) are used efficiently and the building is arranged effectively and efficiently. In a wider sense, therefore, the functional quality of a building can be defined as the extent to which it provides a proper level of support to the desired activities, creates a pleasing interior climate, has a positive symbolic or cultural meaning and contributes to a favourable economic return and an optimum price–performance ratio.

In practice, however, it is usual for the expression ‘functional quality’ to concentrate on the first of these functions. If a building is being discussed as a climate regulator it is much more usual to talk of the quality of the building technology or building physics. Symbolic value is generally considered to fall under architectonic quality or be treated as aesthetic quality. Experiential value falls under the same heading. The relationship between quality and cost is often treated as a functional aspect (efficiency of design), or as an economic issue.

Summarising, it can be concluded that functional quality refers primarily to a building’s efficiency, practical usability or utility value, taking into accounts the financial means available. Functional quality requires a building to have good accessibility (‘access for all’), to provide sufficient space, to be arranged efficiently and comprehensibly, to be sufficiently flexible and to provide spatial and physical conditions that will ensure a safe, healthy and pleasant environment. More details are given in Chapter 6.

1.3 Architectonic quality

The term ‘architectonic quality’ is used both in a narrow sense and in a wider sense. In architectural journals and discussions on architecture, architectonic quality is generally linked primarily with visual and compositional qualities and symbolic or cultural meaning, so that it comes to be seen as complementing or sometimes even contrasting with functional quality. Take, for example, an observation like, ‘Functionally the building is well thought out, but architectonically it is poor’. According to Delft University of Technology’s Professor Carel Weeber, quoted by Van Dijk and De Graaf (1990), a building can be perfectly sound even if it lacks architectonic interest. A building’s architectonic quality is not determined by the professionalism with which it was built, but by the part it plays in architectural discussion. A building only becomes architecture when it is discussed; i.e. when it plays a part in cultural discussion. Weeber believes that the fact that a building is well thought out professionally is not enough to make it a piece of architecture. It remains unclear whether the converse might also be true – whether one can speak of architectonic quality in cases where the user requirements are satisfied insufficiently or not at all, and the workmanship is unsound. Tjeerd Dijkstra, former government architect, is very explicit on this point. In a paper on architectural policy entitled Architectonische Kwaliteit (Architectonic quality), dating from 1985 and adapted in 2001, he explicitly links architectonic quality with utility value. In his view it is essential that the form of a building is derived from the user requirements and the possibility of achieving efficient construction with available materials and techniques and taking into account the urban design context. And this should be done in a way that is both stimulating and appealing (Box 1.1).

Similar to Dijkstra’s view is the opinion of Van Rossum and De Wildt (1996). These authors studied the relationship between the way a commission is awarded and the architectonic quality achieved. With the help of four groups of questions, three architecture critics judged the architectonic quality of 18 buildings. They also emphasise the relationship between form, function and construction, consistency and context (Box 1.2).

Box 1.1 Components of architectonic quality, according to a former government architect

■ Utility value: the extent to which the building is suitable for the use envisaged suggests this use and gives it an extra dimension.

■ Clarity and complexity: the composition of the building should structure the way it is perceived, making it clear, comprehensible, recognisable and, in due course, familiar. At the same time the building should be stimulating, which requires a degree of complexity. Complexity exists when a composition combines a number of different themes: for example when the structure of the building derives not just from its function but also from its urban design context.

■ Object and context: internally, this refers to such things as the treatment of the transition between public and private, between collective use and individual use; externally, it refers to the contribution the building makes to (and the influence it exerts on) the quality of public open space.

■ The way in which use is made of architectonic resources such as size ratios, materials, texture, colour and light.

■ Associative meanings.

Source: Dijkstra, 1985/2001.

Box 1.2 Components of architectonic quality, according to a number of architecture critics

1. Building, function and context

What was the context in which the project had to be completed? What was the nature of the site? Did the site have special qualities? Did it impose special requirements, tacitly or not? Was there any conflict between programme and site? Does the building add quality to the site or has it damaged its original quality? Does the building as realised satisfy its intended function? Is it a faithful translation of that function? Or is it more than that; does it add something, because of its expressiveness and spatial quality? Does it elevate the required functions to a more poetic level, so creating new associations and meanings?

2. Internal consistency

How is the building’s function reflected in its spatial organisation? Does it conform to a particular typology or does it raise questions about a particular typology? How is the spatial quality of the building perceived? Is the visitor ‘led’ through the building by a consistent spatial configuration? Is there a ‘story’, a ‘thread’ running through the development of the interior space: introduction, development, tensi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• List of Tables
• Figure Credits
• 1. Architectonic and functional quality of buildings
• 2. Function and form
• 3. Programme of requirements
• 4. From brief to design
• 5. Evaluating buildings
• 6. Quality assessment: Methods of measurement
• Name index
• Subject index