"brudgers" wrote in message
...

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
om...

2. The second point is one I think I suggested to you a few years
ago....and it is equally important. Architecture is not really about
structures....it is about spaces for humans and their belongings and
their activities. Therefore, the shape of architectural space must be
driven by the human actions instead of by the construction.

At a certain scale I agree with you. But I would argue that at a certain
scale physical dimensions of the space takes precedence, e.g. the dome of
St
Peters or the Eifel tower. I just don't believe that the relationship is
one way. Program is not always that important (though it usually is).


Any means
of construction is simply an interesting curiosity unless it forms the
spaces needed by humans. In other words... if the spaces are driven by
the structural system, it is simply an engineering novelty ...not a
work of architecture.

In those cases, structure, scale and grandeur were a big part of the
program.

The trick is to discuss program.Your proper injection of the term bails CEG
out of his narrowly presented belief.