In the first reading, Eisenman discussed the evolution of functionalism to post functionalism/modernism. Comparing the end of the twentieth century with buildings like the National Parliament House to twenty first century buildings like the Google HQ demonstrates the dissimilarity in form and function within design build. Architects use to design a program with a form-follows-function-formula but with today’s modernistic attitude towards architecture, form and function are not related. The National Parliament House demonstrates the connection between man and space, form and function, without deliberately complicating the design. Light and space within the environment form the connection between man and space. With Google HQ, the form and the function have two separate meanings, the former allows for an aesthetic like build not strict on purity, while the latter is based on the specific mass clientele and social art desired in the workspace.
Reference
Eisenman, Peter. Post-Functionalism. Fall 1976
It would have been good to include specific quotes with regards to what you’re referencing in your comparison between the National Parliament House and Google HQ. I’m concerned that your definition of ‘form’ and ‘function’ are perhaps not precise enough to thoughtfully critique Eisenman’s texts.