Hi
As many of you know I'm a bit of a utilitarian beginner. anyway, I'm trying to understand phenomonology and architecture with very little success, as an example of theirs definition being:

"For Heidegger dwelling is the purpose of life, guarding and nurturing the fourfold. The fourfold can be interpreted as the concept of man as a part of nature (a concept that was explored in the readings of Ando and defined as an eastern approach to nature). Thus, dwelling entails guarding and nurturing this relationship. This can be done by building: nursing and nurturing the things that grow, and constructing things that do not grow. For Heidegger, this preserving of nature is not about saving it from danger, it’s about setting it free into its own essence."

Anyway, if anyone can explain that to me I'd be very appreciative. Because at a causual glance it does read as some pretty god-awful writing.

However, the question that stuck in my mind is if anyone knows of any utilitarian architects or architectural design methods? I know of the planopticon of Bentham, bu does anyone know of any other architectural programs that incorporates 'happiness' as one of the design requirements? Form and Function are of course the big two that everyone knows of, but just as there has been talk of 'Happiness Economics' is there anywhere a 'Happiness Building'?

I can't understand the passage. As for utilitarian architecture, happiness has always been a design requirement. You can't sell a house if people don't like it.

Whenever I've heard the adjective 'utilitarian' applied to architecture, it's meant almost the opposite - that the building was designer to perform a (menial) function with no thought to pleasing aesthetics.

Re Heidegger, you probably won't get much help here, at least from our current population. Heidegger is related to util in the same sort of way as snooker is related to boxing - some guys might have declared that they fall under the same banner but none of the activities, motions or methods have anything discernable in common.

Yeah, I also couldn't make heads or tails of that passage either, the very first sentence left me lost since the left an adverb or adjective hanging at the end of the sentence without a subject. A fourfold what? Also why four? The author seemed to be trying too hard to be clever, either that or they were actively using the Post-Modernist Essay Generator.

I agree that within design 'happiness' should be an aim, and the architect should approach their buildings with the welfare and harmony of the projected users in mind. It's just that I've recently encountered some design teachers who seems to value the expression of personal language more, which just seems egotistical to me. Abstractions may make sense to the architect but are pointless if they serve no functional purpose, or in effect hinder the efficient application of function, and only communicate with the designer.

I'd be interested to knwo if Bentham wrote anything about architecture. Seeing that he spent so much of his life on the Planopticon and the attempt to use architecture as a tool of ethical.....'re-education'? I think environments can have a pretty strong effect on people, whether it can have a direct effect on their ethics I'm not sure?

Mm, well what Arepo says about the phrase "utilitarian architecture" is correct. When people say this, they usually mean architecture that only executes its most basic functions. Keeps you warm and dry but nothing else. But that's not what utilitarianism is at all in ethics.

Now what utilitarianism really argues - whether we're designing houses, clothing, or any other item - is maximise happiness by any way possible. So that means it's not just about food, shelter and water. There's no contradiction between utilitarianism and designing houses with feature walls, fountains, beautiful hallways, etc.

Now, you say, some design teachers explain architecture in a more architect-centric fashion. Well, on the one hand, utilitarianism does have a role in keeping people practically oriented. Utilitarians like Peter Singer point out when large amounts of money are being spent on un-useful things, for example bottled water. However, even quirks of architecture that may only be partially understood by its users could help the users to project a particular identity, not unlike showing someone an arthouse film (that you may or may not understand!). It could make friends think about these users differently and it could make them happier.

Utilitarian generally means built only for its function. The ethical theory is an entirely different meaning of the word. It's sort of like how libertarian means either a certain belief about free will or the belief that the government shouldn't interfere with people.

Yeah I was meaning in the ethical context, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting here.

I guess the problem I was having with the teacher was that abstraction of form at the expense of function I don't believe could maximize happiness. A cool looking hospital that requres you to take a detour through the basement to get to a top floor surgery isn't going to put the surgeon, patient, nurse whoever in a good mood. An example would be the National Museum of Australia which seemed to have such a personalized theory driven design stage that, that its functional qualities are poor. I'm not just talking about as a visitor, important user as that is, but also from talking about people who work there. It's fine having an entrance hall based on the negative space of a gordion knot, but what is the benefit of having that design element if it is not self-communcative and does not add to the overall experience/benefit of the building?

You could ask similar questions of many forms of art - I heard a Turner Prize winner (whose name I forget) scorning the idea that art should be 'appealing'. Presumably if he broke down his aim it would ultimately be to provoke the kinds of thought that improve society, but I'd want to see some pretty good evidence that an unmade bed or a tower of dead rats did that before I'd choose to give them public funding.

If they're self-financing, criticism is probably pointless.