There seems to be an assumption that architecture has to be grand, but could architecture be a mundane structure? However, what comes to mind when someone thinks of architecture? Architecture is such an obscure term, that people determine the definition of architecture is various ways. Is the Eiffel Tower? How about the Great Wall of China? Or what about a Barnes & Noble? The last question could throw someone off. This essay considers texts from Rybczynski and Goldberger to look at Barnes & Noble, and uses the to determine whether Barnes & Noble is worthy of being coined the term “architecture.” The main point is that Rybczynski and Goldberger think everyday buildings could be architecture, the purpose of this essay is to extend their thinking
…show more content…
What about a Barnes & Noble? It is an everyday structure. It is not particularly aesthetically amazing, but according to Rybczynski and Goldberger’s arguments, it could still be considered architecture. Rybczynski builds a simple boathouse and still considers it architecture. A Barnes and Noble is a little more complicated then a boathouse, but it’s similar to Rybczynski discussing his boathouse because both are mundane structures. Goldberger also contemplates the idea of a mundane structure being architecture in his piece. Both Rybczynski and Goldberger compare a mundane structure to a grand structure. Each of their arguments brings up necessary points that are needed to define architecture. For Rybczynski, it is all about a social decision, whereas for Goldberger, it is about the building’s utility and artistic appeal. It seems that from these to readings the definition of architecture is not clear. For example, most people would not consider Barnes & Noble as architecture, because it is not aesthetically …show more content…
It’s nestled among other shops that surround a large square parking lot that is usually full. Sparsely, among the brick sidewalk, there are green fauna and trees. There are two benches facing each other from either directing. Barnes & Noble has a color scheme of green, tan, and brown colors. There a series of columns that helps support the structure. When you open the doors, the first thing you see is the foyer. To either side are books. Then, you are welcome with another set of doors that lead the way into the store itself. The floor is made of tan ceramic tiles. The space between the floors and ceilings is large. Inside, the light is dim, but there is still enough light to see. The light is soothing. It is an open space with rows of bookshelves to either side and two escalators in the center. It feels like a world of possibility, yet it’s not too overwhelming. There are lines of dark wooden bookshelves, large open windows, tan walls, and green carpet lining. In some places, there are even large chandeliers that are indented into the ceiling. The store utilized a large empty space, in a way so that many people can enjoy it. There might not be anything aesthetically original as part of the building, but one could still tell a lot of thought was put into the making of this building to make it both functional and appealing to sit
What about a Barnes & Noble? It is an everyday structure. It is not particularly aesthetically amazing, but according to Rybczynski and Goldberger’s arguments, it could still be considered architecture. Rybczynski builds a simple boathouse and still considers it architecture. A Barnes and Noble is a little more complicated then a boathouse, but it’s similar to Rybczynski discussing his boathouse because both are mundane structures. Goldberger also contemplates the idea of a mundane structure being architecture in his piece. Both Rybczynski and Goldberger compare a mundane structure to a grand structure. Each of their arguments brings up necessary points that are needed to define architecture. For Rybczynski, it is all about a social decision, whereas for Goldberger, it is about the building’s utility and artistic appeal. It seems that from these to readings the definition of architecture is not clear. For example, most people would not consider Barnes & Noble as architecture, because it is not aesthetically …show more content…
It’s nestled among other shops that surround a large square parking lot that is usually full. Sparsely, among the brick sidewalk, there are green fauna and trees. There are two benches facing each other from either directing. Barnes & Noble has a color scheme of green, tan, and brown colors. There a series of columns that helps support the structure. When you open the doors, the first thing you see is the foyer. To either side are books. Then, you are welcome with another set of doors that lead the way into the store itself. The floor is made of tan ceramic tiles. The space between the floors and ceilings is large. Inside, the light is dim, but there is still enough light to see. The light is soothing. It is an open space with rows of bookshelves to either side and two escalators in the center. It feels like a world of possibility, yet it’s not too overwhelming. There are lines of dark wooden bookshelves, large open windows, tan walls, and green carpet lining. In some places, there are even large chandeliers that are indented into the ceiling. The store utilized a large empty space, in a way so that many people can enjoy it. There might not be anything aesthetically original as part of the building, but one could still tell a lot of thought was put into the making of this building to make it both functional and appealing to sit