It is not, it is a combination of needs of human, environment, economy, society, and technology.

Dhirgham Alobaydi Ahmed Alshammaa Ali Alfuraty Ghada M.Ismael Kamoona

Dear Ammar,

The achieve of the human requirement is the main purpose of architecture but there are other purposes such as beauty

Regards

This is a question of definition...

A building-like shelter that serves animals is called a building, right?

A building without a functional purpose for humans or animals should be rather classified as a sculpture. And as such it could be significant and important for people (or animals?), but only as a piece of art, not as a building.

Thanks a lot Ghada M.Ismael Kamoona

These are the ideas of deconstruction architecture, which struck the pillars of architecture (functional and beauty). In the design of the Lafitte Park in paris , the Foley was designed, which has no functional or aesthetic considerations, but these ideas have not become common.

It is not, it is a combination of needs of human, environment, economy, society, and technology.

I agree with all the foregoing and would add that all too frequently it is assumed that everything is for human paramount importance. I would welcome the day that we completely consider all life with the same importance that we ascribe to ourselves, for instance (a weird one!) pavements designed to be porous so that groundwater can go back to the nearest place where it came from , as with SUDS, and, here's the weird bit, so that worms can crawl back through holes in the pavement grid instead of being stranded on tarmac or similar material; that we consider all the consequences of what we design and build, whether it be a bus shelter or garden shed, both buildings, or airports or shopping malls, or kennels or zoos (and showing my colours here, definitely not fancy laboratories for experimenting upon creatures who are less powerful than ourselves).

Tanks a lot Dhirgham Alobaydi Grant Gover Ihsan Jasim

Hi Anmar, you might want to look up the checklist of building attributes formulated by the late Malcom Wells. Of fifteen points, one is "provides or destroys human habitat", another is "is beautiful or ugly", and the remainder address aspects of the world that are less immediately of human interest.

I've been thinking about your second question, Anmar. It seems to me if you include any form of symbolism or communication or human experience among building functions, then it's hard to imagine a functionless building. If you try to restrict your concept of function to mechanical behaviours and effects, then even the most impractical building will reflect, absorb, or transmit light, impede or enhance paths of travel, etc. So in this sense, too, all buildings perform functions. On the other hand, there is a sense function whose inclusiveness depends on monetary instrumentalism, so that all characteristics of things whether mechanical or symbolic are equated with their exchange value. Here I'd say an extravagant and pointless building could work out to be dysfunctional or possibly a-functional. Existing only for its own sake. It's a good question to ponder; thanks for posting it.

Symbol and beauty needs also, have deep functional roots.