Hello I'm Juana, I have a question. I understand that doing Architecture is when the architectural project is built, that is, where people can already interact with it and cover their needs for which it was built, but the process of doing the project can also be called Architecture?; Let's say you have the model of your idea but it is never built, is that also architecture? does the project need to be built to be architecture or not?
natematt
May 5, 20 3:17 am
I think most would agree doing architecture is the process, architecture is the final product but can also include the process, and that unbuilt design is also still architecture... often called paper architecture when it’s intent of the design was not to be built in the first place.
So I think you have it mixed around.... but there is a lot of wiggle room and people have different opinions
Dokuser
May 5, 20 3:32 am
I always thought of architecture as both the process and product of planning, designing, and building. But like natematt said, it’s definitely more of a subjective topic.
Thornton
May 5, 20 11:12 am
In my subjective opinion, the creation of a project is the basis of architecture. There is nothing to build without it ;)
mightyaa
May 5, 20 11:40 am
IMHO, the act would be "designing". The end result is "architecture". To me, only if it is built is it "architecture" because that was the purpose of the project and turning it over to the owner to use is the end result of your efforts. Additionally, an architect's stamp is necessary for the building... anyone can design and not all designs could be built. Architecture is describing something built IMHO.
archanonymous
May 5, 20 11:56 am
Architecture (built)
vs
Architectural Practice (the process of designing and administering projects with the intent they are built).
You could extend this to "critical architectural practice" (the process of designing projects with the intent that they impact thought within the architectural profession, but are not necessarily built)
Hello I'm Juana, I have a question. I understand that doing Architecture is when the architectural project is built, that is, where people can already interact with it and cover their needs for which it was built, but the process of doing the project can also be called Architecture?; Let's say you have the model of your idea but it is never built, is that also architecture? does the project need to be built to be architecture or not?
I think most would agree doing architecture is the process, architecture is the final product but can also include the process, and that unbuilt design is also still architecture... often called paper architecture when it’s intent of the design was not to be built in the first place.
So I think you have it mixed around.... but there is a lot of wiggle room and people have different opinions
I always thought of architecture as both the process and product of planning, designing, and building. But like natematt said, it’s definitely more of a subjective topic.
In my subjective opinion, the creation of a project is the basis of architecture. There is nothing to build without it ;)
IMHO, the act would be "designing". The end result is "architecture". To me, only if it is built is it "architecture" because that was the purpose of the project and turning it over to the owner to use is the end result of your efforts. Additionally, an architect's stamp is necessary for the building... anyone can design and not all designs could be built. Architecture is describing something built IMHO.
Architecture (built)
vs
Architectural Practice (the process of designing and administering projects with the intent they are built).
You could extend this to "critical architectural practice" (the process of designing projects with the intent that they impact thought within the architectural profession, but are not necessarily built)