"JD" wrote in message
m...

"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.


This is kind of like saying purely aesthetic elements are functional because
part of the function of the building is to please the client.

Michaelangelo just wanted to build a big ****ing dome. The the feat was
more significant than the program. In fact the feat allowed the program to
develop the way it did. St P's functioned prior to the construction of the
dome for a millenium.

"brudgers" wrote in message
om...

"JD" wrote in message
m...

"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.


This is kind of like saying purely aesthetic elements are functional
because
part of the function of the building is to please the client.

No, I don't believe it is. No single decorative element pleases one enough
to be pleased with a building and I do not agree that pleasing the client is
ever in the program -- satisfying the user always is however.

Michaelangelo just wanted to build a big ****ing dome. The the feat was
more significant than the program. In fact the feat allowed the program
to
develop the way it did. St P's functioned prior to the construction of
the
dome for a millenium.

Yes, but it could not have been nearly as awe-inspiring. Part of the big,
****ing dome's function was to serve a a big ****ing canvas. Sounds
programatic to me.

Sure the structure was a significant feat in and of itself, but it was
pushed by the program.