Is architecture science, engineering, or art?

Who will pay for your shitty "artistic" dreamworld?

Most people settle with functional decent looking building and don't want to pay extra taxes just for some kind of dream world.

the separation of art/engineering/science is a disease on the modern education system. they all use the same human ingenuity. the greek word 'technic,' origin of 'technique' was applied equally to scientific and artistic endeavors. at one point there was hardly a distinction between the artist and the artisan.

bunch of stemlord bullshit. majoring in engineering or science doesn't disqualify you from developing an aesthetic practice. it demands it.

Aesthetic architecture always draws tourism, and just generally makes life better. Taj Mahal is a good example and alone brings in over 3
million dollars a year for just existing. I have no doubt that a healthy culture of producing aesthetically pleasing and idealized architecture would pay for itself in the long run.

Look at the beautiful aesthetics of south American cities like cartagena or Italian villages like Atrani. And the massive revenue they recieve from tourism. Millions of people who pay thousands to fly to these places just to look at them for a week.

And Honestly who gives a fuck about the price of living somewhere that gorgeous? Life is short. You can spend your life around beautiful human things or you can spend your life in a particle board hellhole that's "functional" and cheap. Or continue with what we have now in most
modern cities which is a grab bag of functional garbage, and unlivable and unbelievably expensive "artistic" garbage. Smashed together into incoherent nonsense.

The Taj Mahal also represents a lifetime (adjusted for inflation) investment of $10 billion dollars over the past 400 years. That structure isn't paying for itself by existing. Monumental architecture is staggeringly expensive.

Yeah. It tends to only be done by neurotic people obsessed with a particular women or God they want to worship

That being said, these things are culturally significant and should be made more often

We could recreate the Taj Mahal nowadays way cheaper probably, with synthetic materials that look the same and probably last longer

From a former such stemlord, cheers.

It's a combination of the three, but it's more an art thing than anything else. Just ask any architect, they're going to tell you this. They don't like being compared to engineers and they are not exactly scientists.

All three.

Civil engineering puts function first, architectures puts art first and it should remain as such, building should be a kind of competition between the two sides otherwise if you let only one side get their way you either end up with depressing commie blocks or dysfunctional modern "art" buildings.

Good science is good art