Can technology be equal to “good architecture”? In order to answer this question, first we must consider the building itself, or the genesis of the building.

 It is like the bricks. If you want to build a wall you would start from 0 level (bricks touch the ground) and then a row above them and so on. So each previous row (in this case) serve as a support.

Furthermore, believe it or not the architecture applies the same rule: We must know the past to move on with the present. As Norman Foster has said: “As an architect, you design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future which is essentially unknown.”

Pier Luigi Nervi was a builder and a non-technician. He made some researches on architectural phenomenon concentrated in two directions: physical structure of a building and the aesthetic aspect of it.

If you had asked Nervi what are the basic things before you build a building, he would have been answered: stability, durability, functionality and economic efficiency. Would you buy a house that would be ruined after the first earthquake? Would you be the owner of the house with cracked walls after a heavy storm, or would you buy a house that you can’t afford it because it is way too expensive than normal one? I bet you wouldn’t. You know why? Because you as well as the architect want to achieve the maximum result with minimum means. But are these elements sufficient? I think no… All these objective characteristics must be followed by “subjective” one: AESTHETIC work.

Aesthetic is related to the impression that a building gives us, related to the visual sense. But this impression we can receive even by the choice and the utilization of materials. For example: when we see a castle, the walls are from stones and we perceive it as a hard building structure. In contrast to this, imagine seeing a house whose walls are from glass. We perceive it as a delicate structure which is not enough stable or durable.

Through reading I came across some terms: functionality, economic efficiency, technology and aesthetics. I tried to find a relation in between these terms and what I found is: all terms relate to aesthetics, so whatever the first process may be, the final one should be related to aesthetic.

Functionality + Economic Efficiency = Aesthetics

Technology + Economic Efficiency = Aesthetics

These two equalities come to different results: To me, architectural statements isn’t related to richness in decoration, luxury materials or things like these, contrary if less had been spent in such things better architectural result would have been obtained.

There are some points which have been discussed during the lecture about building correctly and I’d like to mention:

·         Stability : Do you want a house which is made of straw? Maybe you want, but imagine living there for the rest of your life, in winters, in summers, in windy days, in stormy nights and so on. The house wouldn’t survive the challenges. Do you know why? Because the stable resistance to loads and external forces isn’t achieved.

·         Durability: In this case the choice of materials isn’t the appropriate one, the adaption of necessary construction safeguards constitutes the first condition of achieving durability and lasting quality.

 Function: Proper proportioning of the sizes and the relationships of spaces and preciousness of the materials and with respect to the purpose the building will be used; refinements or architectural  elements whose origin where purely utilitarian and suggested or required by the building process is found throughout the history of architecture

1)  Pediments

2)  Stone quarrying

3)  Capital and bases of columns

In the term of function to eliminate the heavy masses a replacement of mansory with slender ribs was made and also instead of a solid wall there were made flying buttresses to divide the force that went down to the foundation

Max results with min means (economic efficient)

·         Correctness: the building should serve the purpose for which it was built; it should be stable and survive the external elements

·         Material: is connected to aesthetical sensitivity of the designer to also determine the inner beauty and validity of the building; models, emphasizes and proportions it. Imagine the Eiffel tower made of concrete. Can you imagine? I think no, because the tower wouldn’t have been stable.

But, firstly we must consider the past, because it lightens the present. For example: the relation between technology and aesthetic was strongly related; technology was developed as a necessity which required a strong aesthetic statement. By knowing what I mentioned above, we are able to analyze the columns. The base of the columns has come due to necessary enlargement of sections required to support the architraves and to obtain a better diffusion of load from the column to the masonry below. Today we have a wide variety of choices, we can choose from different materials, we can choose the space of our building. Now imagine how houses or other building would have been in the past where  there was only one material and the spaces inside were determined by the material that the nature gave.

 “To provide meaningful architecture is not to parody history but to articulate it.” – Daniel Libeskind. So the past can help us reflect on the present. Let’s start firstly with Romans:

1-In architecture, however, the Romans absorbed some important techniques from the Etruscans before Greek influence was decisively felt. This included the arch and the vault, which were destined to carry Roman engineering into a development directly away from that of ancient Greece, who preferred arches and domes. The vaulting techniques used by the Romans were the simple geometric forms: the semicircular barrel vault, the groin vault, and the segmental vault. An excellent example of Roman vaulting is the Basilica of Constantine and Maxentius in Rome. A natural development of the vault was the dome, which enabled the construction of vaulted ceilings and the roofing of large public spaces such as the public baths and basilicas. The Romans relied heavily on the dome for much of their architecture, such as Hadrian's Pantheon, the Baths of Diocletian and the Baths of Caracalla. Characteristic of Roman architectural design was the construction of complex forms of domes to suit multilobed ground plans.

The mastery by Roman architects and engineers of the arch, vault and dome - further enhanced by their development of concrete - helped them to solve the first problem of monumental architecture, which is to bridge space. Roofing a great area means carrying heavy materials across spaces impossible to span with the Greeks' simple system. In the arch, and the vault that grew out of it, the Romans had a means of thrusting the massive Colosseum walls story above story, of covering a luxurious bathing hall that could accommodate three thousand persons, and of creating the majestic form of the Pantheon.

2- The Gothic period, which I like the most, it is seen a connection between technology and aesthetics. The highest expression of gothic architecture is the large cathedral. There came in light the replacement of heavy masses of mansory with slender ribs as mentioned above done for functional purpose (we see that ribs became more decorative through time from Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral to Bristol Cathedral and then to Exeter Cathedral and King’s College Cathedral). Flying buttresses, visualization of the principal lines of forces along the diagonals of the groined vaults and the extension of these lines down to the foundation, is the greatest invention. The flying buttress was not just practical, though. It was also decorative. Flying buttresses were often elaborately designed. They appeared to dart and sweep around each building, giving a sense of movement and of flight. They were often decorated with intricate carvings, giving a sense of grandeur and importance. The gothic builders were the real forerunners of modern technology, eliminating the heavy masses of masonry used by Romans and replacing them with the equilibrium of forces created.

3-Greek and Egyptian builders were limited by the heavy materials (marble/stone). As I mentioned above in Greek temples the space between columns was determined by the monolithic architraves which by the time they became merely ornamental, meanwhile Romans made an intelligent invention of thrusting roofs and horizontal forces.

In today’s life there are many examples how technology is related to architecture, for example the Eiffel Tower, the circular arches at the structure underneath were added as a purely aesthetic element, but without them the tower wouldn’t have had the same impression to our eyes. Or imagine the inner part of the iphone; full of technological parts, but on the outside it pleases our eyes.

 Furthermore, Nervi stresses the structural mechanics form, conceptual design, material and aesthetics stating that they should have:

      i.        Reflecting statical system

    ii.        Harmony, proportions

   iii.        Elegance

   iv.        Unique solutions

    v.        Fitting to the environment

   vi.        Surface appearance (forms, colors, materials)

  vii.        Humanity