I am a big fan of passive house design. I buy books about it, read blogs about it, go to trade shows about it, watch other architects design about it, go to open houses about it, and mostly dream about it. Somehow my architectural visions always ends up looking more like house B than house A . Reality, on the other hand, usually ends up looking the other way around. Why, I ask myself, is this? As I am fond of mentioning, did not Louis Sullivan, after all, poetically state.
“Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change, form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies, in a twinkling. It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.”
In theory, and in reality too, there can be no doubt that form does, indeed, follow function. For architects, a problem only presents itself when we don’t like the way said form ends up looking. In this case there is really only one real choice. Modify the form. That can be done legally by changing the function, usually by making it more complex. We see that the South facing sun room in house B also serves as an entry with architecturally agreeable results. Pure function, as demonstrated in the green house attached to house A, can be a bit hard to take. What is an architect to do? I say, change the way it looks, legal or not.