Architecture? That is the question.

I watched Stuart Hicks wonderful architecture channel a while ago on buildings in Chicago, specifically the Marina Towers. It took my mind back to my first year in my architecture degree. This project constituted on of my first assignments. Being 17, I had no idea what the buildings, the assignment or even architecture were about. Nevertheless, I did ok.

The first time anyone asked us what we thought architecture was, was when Micha Bandini fronted up as a guest tutor for a semester. She wondered why a chair might not be 'architecture', while, say, a factory might be...or might not be...she had the 'art' view of architecture. A view I didn't share. I took the 'craft' view. Still do.

But her question was right and did prompt some tepid discussion.

This should have been the first question in the first subject in the first semester. This course (let's call it "Architecture 1") would then have introduced us to a number of buildings for us to analyze as 'architecture', to produce measured drawings of some fine buildings, and so on...In fact we did mindless paintings and sculptures. Mindless and pointless. Better would have been visual art exercises with architectural intent: models of forms on sites, for instance. 

The answer to the first question would have been interesting, not including chairs, of course. I don't recall her suggestion or our conclusions...we didn't even get a few papers to read and write an essay on.

After decades of practice (as an architect) and as both institutional client and commercial builder/manager:

Architecture is the design of buildings to produce socially meaningful shelter.

Socially meaningful indicates that people in society (and even a hermit is 'in' society in a contra-positive manner) would be served in various dimensions: value for money importantly, buildings that were above all practical: good to use. Buildings that made life for the occupants or users a little more enjoyable. This includes weather protection, shielding from excess heat and cold, and emotive aspects. The building should be good to be in, even 'fun'.

These are physical and emotional dimensions.

Then we go on along the path of 'meaningful'  to a more spiritual dimensions, ones that transcend the emotive. The building should change your view of life in some beneficial way. It should 'uplift' you.

One building that did this for me was the Jyvaskyla City Theatre by Aalto. I was bettered by it. Not to be a 'better' person..that comes with the humbling experiences of life, but I grew in knowledge of self and 'people in spaces' as a result. I thought more about  the experiences of who used my buildings, in whatever role I was in.

The approach to architecture I was taught by my studies was the production of 'walk-in sculptures'. It was not about 'people in spaces', really. Not really. That aspect was a passing phrase here and there, but it never landed.

In fact it was not until I was engaged in the design of  retail centres, hospitals, and, oddly enough, custodial facilities that I had to really think about 'people in spaces'. I thought about it more when I took responsibility for operational results in large portfolio of special facilities (value c. $1b in today's dollars).

So, architecture is the organization of socially meaningful shelter giving joy to the occupants...even in prisons.