What is the relationship between form & function over the lifespan of an architectural work? Meaning how does renovation, adaptive reuse, etc, affect how building are both designed initially and transformed later?

ARTICLE READING

LECTURE 07

Form & function has always been a very central debate in the field of architecture. But from the time of modernism architecture to post modernism to the current present a lot have change. Even the very function of a building has since evolved through time, and architecture today consist of complex considerations, with more than just one simple functions for a building, and architecture have go way beyond the ornamentation era, where building must be looked at, as a whole. “Instead of many things, just one thing” by Frank Lloyd Wright, where wright describe building should be designed as part of each other. So, with this many changes in the idea surrounding the debate between form and function, series of renovation and the lately renowned style of architecture, adaptive reuse. there are bound to be a change in the relationship between form and function over the lifespan of an architectural work.

For example, in this semester we have had a site visit to the ROW KL, where a row of old shop houses is turned into event spaces and other new rooms for new businesses. During my research, I came across an architecture work from a Switzerland architecture group, Stereo Architektur, where they turn the main assembly hall of the former Burckhardt machine factory in Basel, Switzerland, into an event space, just like how the ROW KL renovate the shop houses. With a new tenant the structure of the old machine factory is now additionally requested to serve as a multifunctional working environment. Therefore, using the existing structure, they are to add new structure to fulfill the new function of the place, unlike the past where it is only meant for one purpose.

Basic design of the new structure consist of a small elevated rectangular cube that are to be fit into the already existing hall.

The goal is to create a space, providing countless possibilities and flexibility from, office working spaces, areas for casual and cultural activities, workshops, to resting area, and in the same time, still provide large amount of spaces for bigger events. The main intervention consists in the insertion of an autonomous wooden installation – a house within a house. Just as how Richard Hill had challenge the definitions of purpose, function, and use, the swiss architects certainly challenges the possibility of the space and how it could be change into something more than just an ordinary space where it serves only one function.

Furthermore, it also contains a reception and is therefore located at the main entrance of the hall. To preserve a maximum of flexibility on the ground floor, the new construction is elevated and suspended on wooden beams, leaving only the wardrobe and a small meeting room downstairs. On the upper floor of the new construction two different sizes and differently oriented meeting spaces, form the main body of the construction. On top, there will be a deck offering an area for resting and chatting purposes, where people could pause and laid back to take a break. Everything is built closely and fit nicely under the same hall roof. From this you can see how through renovation, the function of space is changed into a much commercial friendly space where it serves the function of which this generation is centralized on.

Here's a comparison for The Row KL (Left), and the Burckhardt machine factory in Basel, Switzerland (Right)

Similarly both take advantage of the existing structure to add and impose new spaces and function.

Here it showed the structure is layout, and what the new spaces are function for.

Through the changing of time, building like these are to adapt to the function required by this generation. Although originally the main form of the building is not meant for this, but this changes the functionality of the space and in the same time preserving the old form of the building. Eisenman noted that “modern architecture was an outmoded functionalism,” and sees “modern architecture as an obsessional formalism”, where he then said that we should not waste time worrying whether form follows function, but should instead allow the two factors evolve alongside each other and use both to define evolving form of the building environment. So, I think this is somehow a way of challenging the balance of the relationship between function and form, by renovating the old building through the concept of adaptive reuse.

The view from the top floor of the new added structure and the overall structure in the building.