3. The aesthetic and practical aspects of architecture.

Architecture may be defined as a combination of function and beauty in the art of building. Until the mid-19th century, all buildings were governed by three structural principles: the post and lintel, the wooden truss, and the masonry arch. From then, and especially since the 1930s, architecture has been revolutionised by the use of new materials, basically the steel skeleton and reinforced concrete. Thus, structures were  feed from the weight limitations imposed by stone and brick at each floor level, so that greater flexibility in design was possible and virtually no limitation imposed on height. From very early times until the 19th century, building limitations had imposed  certain styles on architecture, now known as 'classical styles'. In the 20th century, certain innovative architects, such as Gropius, Le Corbusier and Mies van  den Rohe broke away from these styles and produced fundamentally new buildings both for public and domestic use. Most modern architecture derives from these pioneers.

Such is a very general statement about what has happened in the Western world. All countries, however, have their indigenous architecture, differing widely in outward appearance but historically limited by the same weight considerations as have applied in the West. Alongside this, the new architecture has been adopted in the East. An observer could stand in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, London or New York, and not note any essential differences. However, many capital or large cities have placed these new buildings alongside traditional examples, with dire results. St Paul's Cathedral in London is overshadowed by a skyscraper bank complex, a tragedy to anyone with aesthetic values. Wren's magnificent structure once dominated the high ground on the north bank of the Thames and was visible from most parts of London. This is no longer so. The Prince of Wales has rightly castigated the modern architects who have been responsible for this visual vandalism.

Partly as a result of his efforts, the problem of inappropriate architecture is now being taken seriously in Britain. Local planning authorities are made well aware of public feeling. Where, for example, there exists a high-street facade belonging to the 18th — 19th century in a small town, any new buildings are made to conform to this particular style. Not all countries take this line. There are, for example, no planning regulations in Spain. As a result, visual vandalism is unrestrained.

The above indicates the writer's prejudices! Yet it also raises various pertinent questions. For example, what is beauty? Is it an abstract constant, or does it lie in the eye

of the beholder'? And what is practical? Is it, in domestic architecture, something which solves the problem of housing, insofar as roofs over heads are provided, or should it have a social dimension?

It is generally accepted nowadays that buildings should match up to the traditions of the cities, towns or villages where they are built. Thus, new buildings in Regent's Park or Regent Street in London, have to conform to Nash's neo-classical style. In Other areas in Britain, Elizabethan half-timbering may predominate. This cannot be copied, but ways to conform can be, and are found. In many London areas, the hideous and inhuman tower-blocks of the 50s and 60s are being demolished in favour of old-style low level and terraced housing with gardens. Thus the social dimension is being reintroduced into domestic architecture, and this fosters a sense of collective and personal identity completely absent in the large complexes of flats and maisonettes, where conditions are depressing, and where vandalism and crime flourish.

Except where there are severe space limitations and little traditional architecture of much aesthetic importance, as in Hong Kong, many countries now realise that some kind of compromise is the right way forward. Obviously the advantages of the new materials should be exploited. Height is a crucial factor. Traditional facades can be combined with modern interiors without doing violence to the advantages of either. Beauty and practicality are not mutually exclusive considerations. You can throw a bad picture away or destroy a bad sculpture. Not so a bad or inappropriate building. We owe it to future generations to be extremely careful.

The writer's stand is that special care should be taken to make sure that buildings are both beautiful and practical. You can see from the way he writes that he is knowledgeable about his subject.