Oh, Matthew. He did have a way with words, though I'm more of an Ezekiel fan, particularly 23:19-21.
Where architecture is concerned, I'm a real stickler.
I like my houses to look like this:
My stadiums like this:
My commercial like this:
My parks:
My banks:
And my churches like this:
Architecture firms are under pressure to do things differently, I'm sure. But the art and science of architecture was perfected many, many years ago, so for an architect to suggest anything different is just a tad presumptuous.
The
great I.M. Pei felt and still feels strongly about changing the way buildings are designed. This wasn't good enough for him:
http://www.anefian.com/makepage.pl?p...&tree=location
He felt it could be improved upon, so he built this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall
Completely unidentifiable as a place of governance. In fact, it's impossible to guess what might be happening inside this building. No doubt something sinister, though.
We have to keep architects in check because some of them have extraordinary egos and feel they can ignore the expertise bestowed upon us over the past two thousand years. That's a dangerous thing.
Architecture should communicate with people in a very literal way - you shouldn't have to guess what sort of function it serves or how one might even gain entrance to the building (i.e. The convention centre, Hamilton Place, the former AGH, etc.).
Creativity is such a wonderful thing. I just don't see a place for it in architecture. See Paris for further elaboration on this point.