I. Introduction

II. The Nature of the City

III. Sources of Renewal

IV. Theology, Nature, & Architectural Education

July 2001

© Philip Bess Professor, Andrews University, Michigan - Notes

istorically, architecture has had multiple ends, and these ends often exist in tension. One end of architecture, long prominent, has been defined with reference to communities, specifically to the buildings commissioned by communities. In the architecture commissioned by religious or political or artistic or athletic communities, architects have understood themselves to have a primary obligation to address the variety of practical and formal issues important to their patrons--and I would argue that addressing the concerns of patrons (including the formal concerns of patrons) is a pragmatic duty not superfluous but intrinsic to architecture.

          But there are other ends of architecture equally prominent; and a second has been a definition of purpose in architecture with reference to the architectural community and its own internal history and standards of excellence. These standards include not only such abstract traditional architectural virtues as durability, convenience, beauty, and decorum, but also particular works of architecture that function as iconic and authoritative points of reference: the Parthenon, the Pantheon, the Colosseum, the Arch of Constantine, San Andrea at Mantua, the Tempietto, San Carlo alle Quatra Fontane, the University of Virginia, the Robie House, the Villa Savoye, the Chrysler Building, the Salk Institute, etc. For architects this second purpose is primarily formal rather than pragmatic. And although the formal concerns of architects cannot supersede in importance the pragmatic concerns of their patrons (for if they did, very little architecture would actually get built), these formal concerns are in some way the essence of architecture and are what distinguish architecture from "mere" building, to which architecture is otherwise and at all times necessarily and intrinsically connected.

          It should be easy to see the potential tension between these two historic ends of architecture, the inherent possibility for conflict between what the patron wants and what the architect wants. We know however, from seeing successful works of architecture, that such conflicts can be resolved more or less satisfactorily. But there is yet another historically prominent end of architecture, one that goes beyond the good of the patron and his community, and beyond the good of the architect and her community; and that end is the good of the city. This end is implicit in the traditional architectural virtue of decorum; and it is this virtue of decorum that links the community of architecture to that larger community, the city. But this third end implies something else, something more: that architecture is not only an end in itself, but also a contributing means to (as well as one tangible manifestation of) some higher end. This higher end is the good life for human beings; and in an even more direct and fundamental way, the good life for human beings is also the end for which the city exists.

          So, to reiterate: historically, one purpose of architecture is pragmatic, and concerns the interests of particular communities that are patrons of architecture. A second purpose is formal, and concerns standards of excellence within the architectural community. And a third purpose--civic purpose--is similar to the others in that it too refers architectural ends to a community; but it differs in that the community with which it is concerned, the city, is rarely if ever the direct patron of architecture. This difference therefore requires some further consideration of just what kind of community the city is, and the nature of the city's purposes.

next chapter >>  The Nature of the City

back to top