ABSTRACT
In each of the ten buildings we have analyzed, a single functional concept representing the architect’s view of human use for a specific activity became the overriding form determinant, affecting not only the plan, section, and elevations of the building but also the choice of materials, lighting, and furnishings. But in no instance did this overriding characteristic create a one-dimensional—a dysfunctional—environment. Even though each building can be viewed as an exemplar of its associated building type, each also transcends the instrumental functional definition of what is required of a good office, hospital, or symphony hall. Each building embodies the richness of an environment that satisfies the competing and complex demands of purpose, timeliness, and materiality. Each of the ten buildings is “useful” in ways that are not necessarily apparent—in how it is felt by its occupants to be efficient as well as symbolic, immediate as well as constant, and accessible as well as unique.
