this entry is not born out of ignorance or naivete but a sincere questions

'what makes good architecture?'

it's funny i guess that i have heard people say...i did it for x number of years but i realised in the end i just wasn't a 'good' architect.

which made me ask the question, what then is a 'good' architect? and subsequently what is 'good' and 'bad' architecture?

you left out 'ugly' architecture to complete the trilogy...

go walk down the street and ask yourself,

good and bad vary a great deal from person to person

It's been a while since this earlier thread saw the light of day, but you might want to check out: In 25 words or less: "Good Architecture" is ...

lorem....
can it really be possible that architecture really subscribe to that age old adage that it is in the eye of the beholder. it can't possibly be it..if it is completely subjective. how can be a 'bad' architect....which means no bad architecture exist...

also. i know what i like and why, it's not a questions i am asking myself.....i'm interested in are there basic principles of architecture...or are there general positions on architecture

randomised...
i would say ugly fits under bad

file...
i just scanned through 'in 25 words of less...' other than some major bickering...and hostility (which from my time spent on archinet i realised it is a frequent occurance)..there still doesn't seem like much of an answer on 'what is good architecture...' is this what the architecture profession really comprise of...a whole bunch of angry people with no opinions? how can we convince the public what we believe when we don't believe in anything?

we have lots of opinions, and we are angry ;-)


show me any building and I'll let you know if it is good, bad or just ugly, don't worry.






more helpfully, I could not do this before I was half way through undergrad. I had opinions, but many of those were just plain wrong.

the problem that most architects face is that what we aesthetically consider to be good is not what the majority of the general public considers to be good. the challenge for architects is going to be how do we contribute something of quality and value to a project beyond aesthetics. in many ways, i believe the profession has taken steps backwards in recognzing this reality in recent years, partially explaining the profession's marginalization within the construction of the built environment.

well. i think aesthetically pleasing should fall under as one of the elements of 'good' architecture....but i don't know if if should be 'the' characteristic of good architecture.

eg...oma's architecture isn't always particularly aesthetically pleasing. but its good in that it is very thoughtful way of thinking about architecture and it is a different way of thinking about architecture that is very relevant to today.

to help answer the question, 'what makes good architecture?'

Here's what it isn't:


- your parents mcmansion
- anything clad in efis
- a building that leaks (and isn't supposed to)
- a big box
- 99.9% of strip centers
- 99% of buildings for that matter
- designed by a "building designer" (see mcmansion)
- a building that doesn't function
- a building that ONLY functions
- a bulilding that blends details from various periods of style for merely aesthetic reasons
- a building that is only concerned with "curb appeal"
- it isn't found in a design it yourself magazine
- environmentally insensitive
- a building that makes you sick
- a building where the only description by the architect begins with, "Well the client wanted......"
- a building lacking real design intent
- a building where budget was the number one absolute most important concern because it was going to be sold for profit once built
- designed my most (NOT ALL!) but most of corporate america
- a building that results from politics
- a building that results from capitalism
- government housing
- speculative developer buildings

that's just the beginnings of a list.....

Personally, I do think it has to be aesthetically pleasing to be 'good'.

A well organized ugly thing, imho, is not good architecture. Might function well, but it ain't good architecture. Regardless of how much thought went into it (which is another topic, really).


I agree with some of the above and completely disagree with several of those items.

Personally, I do think it has to be aesthetically pleasing to be 'good'.

i don't disagree with that at all; i tend to think though that architects privilege aesthetics over other qualities when in fact most clients are highly skeptical of designers' sense of aesthetics. the value in the design needs to come from somewhere else, a value added beyond aesthetics; that's when you really have a client sold.

My completely inexperienced, ignorant, naive opinion:

Function only: space planning
Aesthetics only: sculpture
Middle ground: good architecture
neither: schlock

I try not to get overly caught up in the subjective nature... but sometimes I do. It hurts my head to debate it though. If it's built, you probably can't do anything to change it.

I will accept any concrete rebuttals, of course.

taking design that is aesthetically pleasing as the baseline, i think good design must go beyond function, even beyond something that functions incredibly well. i think the best design illuminates something about the client and makes the client better for having that truth revealed in the design.

jafidler - I am not sure I agree, though. I think that if you look at any other creative profession you'll see that design gets great respect. In fact, most other creative fields value good design as being more monetarily valuable than mediocre design (regardless of how well it functions).

I think that's the #1 problem with architecture - that the AIA (and others) have marginalized 'good' design and instead simply promote all architecture, good and bad, equally.


I see the value of a great designer as being far better than that of an average designer, as other professions promote talent.


So, I think that talented designers need to differentiate themselves by promoting the aesthetic qualities, education clients on why it is better, etc., etc.

Analogies of how good design is good business, so on and so forth.


I guess I just hate that architecture is such an even playing field. If someone has great talent as a designer, they should be at the top of the field, not struggling next to someone that is a draftsman and designs strip malls (the world needs that, too, of course).

'I guess I just hate that architecture is such an even playing field. If someone has great talent as a designer, they should be at the top of the field, not struggling next to someone [who] is a draftsman and designs strip malls."

What an amazingly interesting statement. Having been around the track more than few times, I would say that my own experience suggests that "the best" don't automatically rise to the top in any field. There's way more to success than just raw talent. IMHO, success in any endeavor requires a fairly broad skill set that includes, among other abilities, a capacity to sell and persuade, the ability to work effectively across a broad set of tasks, strong human relations skills, a clear understanding of client service, a willingness to sublimate one's own ego to the welfare of the team and the project, etc.

In my view, architecture isn't an "even playing field" and never has been. Because those attributes that lead to success in the academy often are not the same attributes that lead to success in practice. lots of folks who come out of school quickly become frustrated and angry.

Is it fair -- I don't know. Is it reality -- yes, I think it is !

Yes, that is very true. I completely understand how life is not 'fair' and there are tons with talent that never get anywhere and mediocre, and sometimes downright ridiculous, that get to the top (in any profession, just look at music!).

What I was referring to is not the individual's success, but how the profession treats the best. In most professions, those at the top will command considerably more than those at the bottom (stararchitects are an anomaly, more or less, and even then they aren't charging more compared to other fields).

Ironically, it is academia that pays more for well known talent, sometimes paying quite handsomely for them.


I think it is all changing, slowly, as the stararchitect phenomena trickles down and businesses see the value in quality design, but with this economic mess, who knows if that will continue or die.

This thread is entirely lolworthy.

I love polarization.

i know...it's amazing..i love it

orochi, instead of contributing condescending one-liners (that aren't even "lolworthy"), please write something meaningful if you intend to contribute anything at all.

and hema, for someone who in his first twenty posts on this board complained of "hostility" and "angry people with no opinions," your last post didn't do much to bring you above the fray.

back to a discussion that i think has some merit...

trace, in comments like:

So, I think that talented designers need to differentiate themselves by promoting the aesthetic qualities, educate clients on why it is better, etc., etc

i think you are overemphasizing the aesthetic as being good design. the problem i see with this is that even for architects the term aesthetic gets confused with style. something that is aesthetically pleasing becomes synonymous with building in the modern style. this is where i find an overemphasis of the aesthetic to be dangerous as it is largely detached from popular taste which cannot and should not be entirely dismissed in creation of architecture. on the other hand, you cannot completely discount the aesthetic, but in my view it is simply a prerequisite to good design, not good design in itself.

Sure, I agree that a design must have substance (functionality, logic, etc., etc.) and not just be 'pretty'. But in my experience, the buildings that are very pleasing aesthetically also take these things into account.

As for the public opinion, sure, you have to accommodate the people that pay the bill's opinions. But again, in my limited experience, 'good' design trumpts mediocrity.


Good design doesn't have to be more expensive or sacrifice anything, so why would someone not choose it? The reason is simply because it is not an option in front of them and only a few people seek out educating themselves about who is a 'good' designer/architect (unfortunately).


The good designers taht I know and the great buildings that I have visited incorporate great aesthetics with great thought and execution.


So I don't mean to say it is all aesthetics, just that that is an essential part and you can't have 'good' without it.





And yes, I do think there is 'good' in almost any style (with an emphasis on almost), I have my favs, of course, but recognize 'good' in other tastes (or try to).

i should clarify my last comment....there was no hostility and there was an opinion..just wasn't expressed clearly enough. .
my position is that i love the polarization the post has brought.....the debate...that was the intent...


jafidler...
i didn't realise the number of posts was a direct correlation with how one was perceived on this blog.

oh and it wasn't a complaint regarding '25 words or less...' it was an observation...i urge you to go and read that post and perhaps if you disagree please let me know.

its funny to see how people compare architecture to a 'product', if it looks beautiful then it is good, if it looks ugly then bad... I believe that the 3 main ingredients of good architecture are:

1) Functionality
2) Innovative (green energy + method of construction)
3) Test of time

oh and i would like to build on this


Function only: ugly space planning
Aesthetics only: sculpture that serves little purpose
Middle ground: a mediocre compromise
Best of both: the beginning of architecture...

Yikes! these are pretty conservative estimations of good architecture, though I think I have to agree with @anatomical gift (on the 25 words thread) that the problem is more in the framing of the question.

When you ask what makes "good" architecture everyone actually just assembles a list of things that "aren't bad" (thank you tagalong for demonstrating the point). When good becomes least bad, yes, functional architecture is less annoying to live in than antifunctional, timeless architecture is less obnoxious to look at than outdated campy architecture, sustainable architecture is less destructive than wasteful architecture, and innovative is less depressing than cliched or derivative architecture.

It's not that good design "must" be aesthetically pleasing ("The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason." John Cage) nor "must" it be functional, nor must it be anything. Good can only be evaluated within some contex. Most of the architecture that I would offhandedly call good, is more precisely architecture that I find useful (as models or for thinking through problems in architecture), some of it is pretty, some of it is shockingly ugly but has a substance that might not have been raised otherwise.

oh that wasn't a list for thing that "aren't bad", that was just a quick rant of a lot of the garbage all around us.

Good never becomes least bad, bad is bad, unless your in a university with grade inflation that grades on a bell curve.

Architects are extremely visually oriented, while other people may be more kinesthetic or audial. That's why "laypeople" not always appreciate the stuff that architects push through, especially regarding glass-clad concrete stuff. And they have every moral right to do so.
See finnish architect Juhani Pallasmaa's thoughts on this sbuject.

Good architecture provides healthy and nurturing environment for body, spirit and the senses. It ages gracefully. :))

That said, every architect will say that his architecture does just that.
Go into an architect's building and see if it makes you feel good. :) If the building makes you feel good in the long term, I think it is good architecture :)