Frances to William... The dyadic classification of what is made as being an "ordinary nonsymbolic building" and an "extraordinary symbolic work of architecture" is intriguing. It also presumably omits any necessary reference to art or any requirement for either class to be aesthetic or artistic at all. This also raises the further thorn for me as to how the term "symbol" might be used in regard to say a building and a work of architecture, and even how narrow or broad the term "symbol" should be. Indeed, if that class of objects called architecture is to be expanded so as to include the land a work is on, then in the extreme the whole city or nation might also be included as a work of architecture. In another thrust, it is my tentative assumption that architecture as mainly an aesthetic "work of art" would likely be a visual artwork that must be seen as a view or sight or scene, while architecture as a praxic "work of nonart" would likely be a functional artifact that must be used for some practical purpose or instrumental utility. The further issue for me here is whether architecture as a kind of art should perhaps be classed as either a lofty work of functionless fine art or as a designed craft of functional applied art. It also remains unclear to me if engineered objects like dams and reservoirs and docks and pylons and tombs are to be held as some sort of architecture, let alone nonhuman hives and nests and dens.
You wrote... People used to distinguish between a building and a work of architecture. A building was simply a functional shelter but architecture was that and something more, something unnecessary but highly symbolic, like Chartres Cathedral or the Parthenon or the Manor of a ruling Duke. Nowadays the distinction is blurred and more inclusive. Yet it's a blurring that's been a long time coming. Even formal gardens, as extensions of architectural structures, are architecture. The Mall in D.C. is as much a work of architecture as the old Roman Forum and the grand squares of European cities, laid out in medieval times, are architectural. Vitruvius, in his Books on Architecture, arguably the beginning of architecture as a subject, gave much attention to placement, the landscape, the direction of winds, the array of streets, and so on as part of architecture. If architecture is meant to be seen as well as used, then the field of view, whatever it is, is really a part of the structure. One reason Chicago is a great city of architecture is that many of its important buildings, (stretching back to only the 19C) were designed to impress, to be seen against the sky and water, from down the street, from out in the lake. All great cities have aimed for the same effect.
