Talk:Architectural theory

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Craft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Architecture Theory hierarchical tree

I understand that Architecture Portal is working hard in the definition of various styles (and thus theory in itself), but I feel that a logical, simple but deep hierarchical tree on architectural theory is required. This because Architecture is not a closed subject, there were and are many schools of thought and "traditions" of thinking, which correlate with past thinkers and philosophers. Without notes near me I can remember an Existentialist school, a Phenomenological school (please correct my typos if I make mistakes here, thank you), Structuralist, Post-Structuralist, etc etc, with many inspirers among who Nietzche is one of them. But there were a lot others, perhaps even some hundreds. And this is not a difficult information to acquire.

These people defend different definitions of architecture, and this is why is so important. These different perspectives should be available to the public the most concise and informative way possible. This also may explain the hot nature of the debate in the definition of architecture section, as people tried to post their own view of "what" architecture is really about, disregarding or injuring the posted views of others. This section could clear us up in that regard.

If I have time (not seeing it happen) I will try to post a suggestion of a tree when I have my books near me. Anyone help?

That sounds like a pretty major project, but a brief sketch would be pretty useful. It would be especially useful for "the public" and new students of architecture. In order to not make it reductive and stereotypical it would have to be pretty complex. Failing that, it seems that we could maybe add the more recent architectural theory readers to the bibliography. I am thinking of Michael Hays' and Kate Nesbitt, although there is also the Joan Ockman. My only other thought is maybe to structure it around major questions being asked in architecture, such as "what social responsibility does the architect have?" or "what is the best way to derive form?" or "what is the importance of process?" or "how does the building relate figure to ground?" or "what role does the detail play in architecture?". Things like that might be an easier and more fruitful way of explaining current debates in theory?

JoyKnoblauch 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off topic

The 20th century section seemed to me to be interesting but heading off topic, so I've drastically revised it but post the original below for info:

With the rise of science and modernisim in the 20th Century, the issue of

Churchill), then there are many ethical implications to every design decision. The ethos of the international style led to aims of using industrialised architecture to reshape society, as well as accommodating the new demands of motor transport and providing replacement dwellings for slum clearance in urban renewal projects while keeping densities high enough to avoid urban sprawl

. The results of were often a social failure for various reasons, and by the 1960s there was increasing interest in responding to communities rather than crudely shaping them. Concepts of flexibility were explored, and ways of consultation were developed with the aim of involving communities in design input.

Jane Jacobs has considerable influence, and her work has been backed by environmental psychology statistically demonstrating that different building arrangements have huge effects on rates of violent crime, levels of mental health, community activity, physical wellbeing. Concerns about architects "playing god" led many debates, which have continued today (- for example to counter rising obesity, ought elevators to be located distant from car parking areas, and stairs far closer?). In practical terms, UK police are regularly involved in advising on ways to minimise crime at the design stage.

In the UK at least, the role of the architect in society was challenged from within the profession as a result of such discussion, and has continued to be challenged, with the government's Egan report (1990s) advocating that the architectural profession should focus on efficiency of output (streamlining design, like the automotive industry), rather than on any deep-set social role or agenda.

Hope that helps, .. dave souza, talk 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much more on the button I think, thanks --Mcginnly | Natter 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mess

This article is a mess. One can clearly see that Wikipedia people are all about sciences and techs and surely not about arts, specially architecture. When I reach home I'll try to figure out a way to make that hierarchical tree someone talked here about, make that "cleansweep". I'll need help. Anyone?

195.23.224.41 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

This article has a very broad scope and can't go into too much detail about any one figure. There was quite a lot of information on Sitte added [1], I may be splitting hairs here but his work was more

Recorder 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This page is still a mess

As of summer 2009, this page not only remains a mess, but is littered with misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visconti24 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architectural theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323042805/http://www.reading.ac.uk/biomimetics/about.htm to http://www.reading.ac.uk/biomimetics/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello Wiki-architect-theorists, I added three images. Couldn't resist, hope everyone is ok w/ them if not, please change them! ovA_165443 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the concerns outlined above and the importance of this overview, what are plans for addressing these concerns? LBollefer (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]