I take that one back,Igloos on floating Ice "would 'qualify. in which case ,The queen Mary would also qualify. Even the first lander on the moon would qualify.
On May 7, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Frances Kelly wrote:
Frances to Armando... Some municipal jurisdictions do not allow parked caravans or trailers on wheels or moored house boats to be deemed houses, for the alleged purpose of zoning the lands they occupy, but many theorists do allow these kinds of living quarters to be included as architecture, even if not strictly as artworks. It seems to me that all of this picky bickering is peripheral to the issue at hand, and merely tends to confuse the making of a philosophy for architecture. If these kinds of living quarters are to be excluded as tectonic architecture and even as fine art, which may indeed be warranted and justified, then a much more limited arena than what may now exist would be required to account for what is agreed to be architecture. In regard to the spatial contiguity or territorial proximity of buildings to each other in a given municipal context, this may indeed affect their individual quality like their visibility and safety and beauty, but whether this kind of locus and focus should be an architectonic criteria for say buildings to qualify as being good and even as being art is likely debatable. You wrote... Grounded, as not on wheels, or on a floating platform. Most city buildings are next to each other, would they qualify as architecture?
