The Vitruvian Three Points in a Transitional Culture

Anyone who has had at least two semesters of architecture school knows Vitruvius. Vitruvius wrote the oldest treatise on architecture we know of today (c. 50 BCE). He describes how temples, civic building and houses should be built, their proportions, their construction; as well, he discusses technology, history, and theory. Anyone who is familiar with Vitruvius knows what is called his "Three Points", which are : firmitas, utilitas, and venustas, or firm (i.e. structurally stable), utility (i.e. convenience or functional), and beauty.

In architectural discourse the first two are fairly straight forward; it is the latter that itches the mind of so many architectural theorists. While the discussion of beauty has long been the primary discussion in architectural theory, no one can ever seem to come to a conclusion of what a subject term such as "beauty" is suppose to mean (apparently architects don't know what is beautiful).

While I could certainly entertain what others have thought on the subject of "what is beauty?" I don't care to. Beauty is subjective... get over it. But what is interesting about the Vitruvian three points is how they apply to the architecture of today, and, most importantly, how architecture survives.

Consider this : if a wealthy CEO of some large corporation or another wants to build a new skyscraper, but there is a building already on the site this CEO likes, would the possibility of saving this structure be entertained? Would it matter if it was razed to the ground so they have a tableau raza to work with? If the existing building was structurally unsafe, then it would mean more money to save it (as well as creating obstacles in design and construction). DEMO! If the building was a circulation nightmare, or a solid concrete structure that would not allow for changing the placement of walls and is absolutely static, then it would be too much of a hassle to refit the building for new uses. DEMO! Or if it was absolutely the most godawful thing to look at, then why would anyone want to save an ugly building? DEMO!

The Vitruvian three points has little to do with defining architecture today. Rather architecture is something that a building has to grow into. One no longer erects a building and then the world cries, "It's architecture!" No, what makes a building architecture is that it has survived a period of being unloved. All buildings go through periods of being unloved. The Square Colosseum in the EUR of Rome is a fine example of an unloved building. Since the fall of Mussolini the building has stood barren and gated off. But the Italian people probably recognize that it is a fairly nice building and very iconic, but they want it's Fascist significance to die before they begin to reuse it. So it remains unloved, but looks like it might survive this lonely period of its life. Surviving that is what will define the Square Colosseum as architecture, not because historians of architecture say it is, but because it survives due to the three points. It's stable, convenient, and quite beautiful. Why demolish it?

That is how our temporary, mobile, transitional society will define its architecture. We can no longer build Architecture (with a capital A). The building just has to become architecture over time, so long as it survives our need to constantly change our environs at extraordinary rates.

"Nobody loves me." ~Square Colosseum