I recently wrote an article on “the fun theory”, an initiative of Volkswagen raising the possibility of producing positive changes in human behavior through fun. They propose to add, to everyday objects, a surprise element, causing a reaction on people and taking them out of their daily routine.
From my point of view, this is an awakening to the changes of mankind. The speed with which we live has made us zombies that move, always forward, but without stopping before the small and beautiful details of life. This initiative aims to make of our daily life a more fun one, which forces us to take breaks.
The article ends with a question: why not take a step forward in the profession and make our job as architects more fun? This question left me thinking about THE question: what is fun architecture? I try to imagine it and all I can think of are bizarre images, as the ones of explicit theme park buildings, which reflect a little (or a lot) the concept of “speaking architecture.” Even worse, by placing the words “fun architecture” in my internet browser, wishing to be surprised by images that helped me on my hunt for answers, I just got scared with a couple of strange buildings.
I have always defended architecture without excess, without going so far as many minimalist architects, which sometimes exceed in the “lack of elements” but the theme of “the fun theory” produced in me a larger conflict than I would have wanted.
When I think about the buildings that have been most important to me and my career as an architect, the Barcelona Pavilion by Mies Van der Rohe comes to my mind. I can think of many words to describe it: sublime, clean, simple, unique … I could go on forever, without ever being able to say that it is fun. And now that I analyze it, I think that is a little sad. Why cannot describe architecture as fun? Why not make fun architecture? But above all things, how to make fun architecture? I need answers…
I know how strange it must be for the people reading this essay right now, to imagine me trying to define Mies as fun. I am not; I know that not every building can be fun as not everybody can have the same profession, but I think we should give some spark to our projects, make them shine a little more brightening the lives of those who are there to enjoy them.
I want to be able to give life to buildings and to transmit that life to its inhabitants; I want to surprise without frightening; I want to be able to produce smiles no laughter; I want to see my happiness reflected in my creations…
But, how to make fun architecture without compromising the architecture “style” that I have always defended? I have no answer yet, and that doubt have taken away my sleep…
the place of dreams 
From a layperson’s perspective (I’m not an architect), I would say that one necessary element for making buildings fun is keeping people in mind throughout the design process. We’ve all seen buildings that are striking but not functional for humans. I think that being aware of the inhabitants and their activities might be a first step.
Getting people involved in the proccess… that´s something big and many architects do not give it the necessary importance.
Thanks for your comment
Ana
I busted this out recently — well because I watch a lot of children’s television. Spongebob sees is as an acronym. F = Friends that do stuff together U = U and Me N = Anywhere & Anytime at all. and it makes me think that fun at least in this context has to be the “transportable” those things that bring smiles no laughter as you said and maybe long after and away from the first encounter. . . I would think too that there may be an element of relationalism (I know not a word) and communicavism (on a roll) to it. anyway thank you for the thoughts, the good looking blog and happy musing. jb
“This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds”… not so nice living in a third world country, hehe.
I agree with you. The element of surprise is really important in order to get people to smile.
Thanks for your nice comments.
Ana
Wow.
I was excited to see an architecture wondering about the notion of “fun architecture.” This is a question I have been working on in my PhD research and recently delivered a talk at TEDx Boulder on the subject, “What makes a place fun?”
The video is not up yet, but I would be interested to hear what you think once it is.
My simple answer is this:
Something that is fun is a thing that is both the thing that it says it is and not the thing it says it is.
So, piano stairs are both stairs (a way to move, on foot, from one elevation to another) and not stairs (It’s a piano keyboard!). I see this theme played out, environmentally, in playgrounds, malls, homes and commercial buildings. Architectural history and theory usually throws all this stuff into the bucket of “folly.” But, as you point out there, there is something not only special, but maybe necessary in the concept of fun, that architects need to rediscover to design in this day and age!
I really like your theory! I agree with you:
“Something that is fun is a thing that is both the thing that it says it is and not the thing it says it is”.
That´s it!!! That´s the answer!
I have a few links about fun architecture. I hope you´ll find them usefull (although you probably have heard about all of that)
“Glassphemy” http://nyti.ms/d7fKdt
“Dispatchwork” http://bit.ly/9QXJvr
“Pothole Onomatopoeia” http://bit.ly/bNwnHI
“Dumpsters pools” http://nyti.ms/2wUh9g
There are also these books that discuss the importance of the game element in culture and society:
“Homo ludens” (Johan Huizinga)
“Play As Emotional Survival” and “The Ambiguity of Play” (Brian Sutton-Smith)
I´d love to see your video when it´s finished.
Thanks for your comment
Ana
Hi there, i really like your blog. Check out my review of it on my own blog http://ramblingsofanarchitecturestudent.blogspot.com/
YAY!
Thank you!
I really appreciate it!
Regards,
Ana