Architecture is the unique proof which demonstrates how people advance in time and live in a civilized world.

if this is true it would seem we are going back wards.  Yes I realize this is the worst example, but it is also a fairly common one.

I watched the Nova special about Machu Picchu recently.  They engineered the entire mountain side with drainage just to be able to build there.  The pictures really don't do justice to the roughly 700(!!!) terraces that were created to stabilize the city.

We like to think we are this amazingly advanced civilization, but I sometimes question that assumption.  +1 for us though in the lack of human sacrifice department.

OK so i completely avoided answering the question.  Architecture is important.  I am sure we have all been in a building that was lousy.  

The kind that makes necessary tasks more difficult.

Buildings without natural sun light.

Buildings that require unsustainable amounts of heating and cooling to make comfortable.

Buildings so ugly that you just want to shout "Everybody out!  You've got 10 minutes until I Howard Roarke this fu@!#r"

We have all also been in buildings that make your spirit soar.  Sometimes just seeing a picture is enough to make the magic happen.

Hey jbushkey,

You did not answer the question. I just said How architecture is important for me because it reflects time. You think that my comment is stupid. I just give you a recommendation. Read this book "Why architecture matters" by Paul Goldberger. Thank you for your attention. Have a good day. 

Hey jbushkey,
I apologize because I made a mistake saying that architecture is the unique proof. Although, architecture is really a proof that shows time for me, but I think that engineering for you shows everything. And, you know that Architects were engineers too many years ago. Therefore, they were one of the greatest minds in the world. Thank to USA, they separated architecture and structural engineering. So, architects lost prestige in their jobs. Architects started to be considered less important, and structural engineers started to be considered more important than architects, even civil engineers’ opinions were more important and powerful than architects’ opinion. I don’t know if I can currently say that same, but this is the world. Really, I think that the same what happened to the arts will happen to architecture.

Hey Jbushkey,

Tell me if there is not difference between these buildings. 

Piero I am having trouble discerning between blue question mark one and blue question mark two.

Tell me if there is not difference between these buildings

This is the other one

Hey jbushkey,

I am waiting for you answer. Maybe, you cannot answer it. 

Piero believe it or not I actually turn the computer off from time to time.  This was a tough question so I called on my 3 year old boy to help daddy out.  I wasn't sure but he says the two buildings are different.

The first building looks like an athletic complex and seems to be reflecting a death ray off the left side out into the city somewhere.  It is high tech, and I would guess has enormous embodied energy, is a monster to heat and cool, and is only accessible by car.  It could be anywhere in the world.  It's styling gives no clue.  Within 50 or so years the university or city will likely tear it down and replace it.

The second I am guessing is residential and is traditional in style.  It is probably already a few hundred years old.   

My first post was me saying out loud how much I hate 90% of the built environment.  While the highway spaghetti might be technologically more advanced I think it is inferior to much of what was built hundreds and in some cases thousands of years ago.  That is not to say that all ancient architecture is better than all modern architecture.

Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?

@jbushkey

lol at that analysis of the first one. it's the Sage Gatheshead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sage_Gateshead

perhaps my problem with the original question is the use of the word 'us'.

who is us? architects, mankind?

i could only answer 'how is architecture important to me?'

and it is because it's my job, it's what i spend all of my working and most of my non-working time thinking and dealing with, it's the job that pays the bills but also the activity that gives me a tremendous sense of satisfaction and worth.

i see no point in comparing it to engineering or computer science.

you go to high school, you pick a future career (for whatever valid or invalid reasons), you go to university...you get a job. simple.

as an architect, i prefer to see great architecture around me, but hey! the world is full of 90% uninteresting buildings - but to see, design or be involved in those instances of good architecture - that's what's important to ME.

The second building probably started out as a bank, a hotel or a professional office of some variety. It's a bit too ornate for domestic architecture.

Also, the statue on the top of the building is at first glance is Hermes. However, Hermes is usually not depicted as carrying a staff, also known as the caduceus, in most classical imagery. So, this figure is more than likely the Roman version of Hermes known as Mercury.

I do know that Mercury was a symbol for Austrian-German customs agencies and frequently used in symbols of trade companies.

Considering the flag on the front of the building is a Bulgarian flag, this building was probably built, repurposed or renovated around the 1870s onwards after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The lack of pilasters, columns and the blank decorative panels (I suppose they would be steles if they were finished) are typical of French, German and Austrian neoclassical and baroque styles. This would suggest that these ideas originated from different takes on different translations of Palladian and classical architecture. It should also be noted that the use of non-human statuary here is not necessarily inline with more southern, Italian or Greecian, or eastern, Russian, as caryatids, telamons or atlanses were far more predominate. The use of eagles and lions does lend the imagery of the building to a position of power; perhaps, at one point housing some figure of authority.

The lack of a portico or a prostyle would suggest that this was not a building open to the general public. But the ornamentation on the front door and given the heavy weight of the pediment, this building attempted to greet visitors.

Interesting though that even with the newly-adopted hybridized architectural style, a more traditional decoration technique (albeit more common in northern countries) was the use of pargeting in the grossly disproportional and almost alien entablature.

For the second thing:

It's, uhm, shiny, very technological and stark. Something probably intellectual and "cutting-edge" happens there that's more than like open to the [paying] public— something to do with the arts, sciences or the demonstration of either.

(We must also remember that before the 20th-century, most of the world's population was illiterate. Non-modern art and architecture has the necessity of being able to tell stories and convey great deals of information.

How do you say "no trespassing" without using signs or words? How do you say "house," "hospital," "bank," or "market" without descriptions both written and verbal? And even more  tedious, how do you convey these ideas when many people often in a region didn't even speak the same language?

We forget that classical and traditional ornamentation served a very useful and practical purpose of conveying culture, language and history through non-written and non-verbal communication.)