Architecture

I really enjoyed the article. I don't agree with all of the specific ideas, but I heartily agree with the general principles. Architecture should serve its occupants. Providing a practical environment is the first requirement. Making that environment pleasant is the second. Any design that fails either of those requirements may or may not be art, but it is always bad architecture. If someone can afford to have their designs built as oversized art installations, more power to them, but people should not have to live or work in them.

Where I differ from the author is their idea that old buildings and ornamentation are inherently better. Minimalist designs that feature attractive materials, like wood and natural stone, can be lovely. Beauty can take many forms, but it should always be considered. People do live better around beauty. And if a building design is too "sophisticated" to be appreciated by most of the people using it, the architect has failed.