“Communing with Cuture”

Landscape architecture and buildings in a coastal resort on the Kona Coast. Before development, this location was just bare basalt from lava flows. A little of that remains as broken fill stone at lower left. All the plants have been planted. The sky and ocean in the distant background are as natural as they are anywhere else, these days.
What do you think? Is Architecture clearly the subject? Do the title and/or description necessary and/or sufficient for qualification?

I don't think the architecture of that hotel is the focus of this pic. The title fits the photo, but the photo doesn't fit this group which we've defined as being about buildings.

Another case: Architecture, or Shadowplay?

This one was in the submission queue. I marked it “Save for Later”

WalrusTexas:

yup, shadow play, not architecture.

InnAtElmwood:
A mentor called this “Campus Sidewalk Design”: observe the footworn paths, and pave them.
Good policy for this group, I think; i.e., the membership has little interest in landscape architecture.

How about this bridge/boardwalk? I saved it for later.

WalrusTexas:

I'd waiver a moment and then vote "Approve"

Oops, I just denied that photo. It looked more like engineering to me!
I guess this is the dilemma we have by having more than one moderator. One person's architecture is another person's poison, to bastardize a proverb.
I also just denied a photo of a fountain at the Vatican and a large, stone, sculptured head (Aztec?).
It seems that some things are definitely architecture and some things are perhaps, on the fringe of it.
Short of The Boss writing a ten-page list of what's in and what's out, we'll have to live with it.
When it all boils down to it, no-one's life is in jeopardy if their photo misses out on appearing in a Flickr group.

Robert E C:
LOL!
I have been inconsistent about bridges. When I first acquired the group, there seemed to be support for them. Lately I’ve been thinking that the Ponte Vecchio in Florence is architecture, but the Golden Gate in San Francisco is engineering. I have the luxury of offering an invitation to “Anthropocene” as an alternative. If I have doubts, membership in over 100 groups tells me it doesn’t need this one.

Anyone else have a suggestion for decision criteria for bridges?

I would generally think of them as engineering as well unless they have architectural elements such as one might see on a building. So, the Home Memorial Bridge in Cleveland I'd say is fine because of its Guardians. Ponte Vecchio, yes, architecture. Rialto in Venice, yes architecture. Manhattan Bridge? No. Brooklyn Bridge? No.

WalrusTexas:Yes, some bridges have architectural features; I approved a shot of London's Tower Bridge yesterday on that basis.
I agree with you (and The Real Frank Lynch) that bridges like the Golden Gate and Brooklyn Bridge are pure engineering and have few architectural connections.

I’ve also accepted Roman aqueducts, because of the arches, but really that’s a stretch.

I’m inclined to accept the Brooklyn Bridge for its architectural elements, despite its undeniable history as a major advance in engineering technology. This particular example might be rejected for emphasis on people in the streets. Comments? I left it for later in the acceptance queue.

WalrusTexas:

I'd click "Approve"

"Corner Cases" suggests a specialty subcategory--structures on street corners. That would be interesting to explore. Groups already exist that are dedicated to the subject, but they have so few members that their surveys are quite limited. Architecture Unlimited members could do it up royally. What do you think?

Richard D. Price:
Feel free to start a thread. 😃

Hey, Boss. No wonder you sent out an SOS for moderation help! I 'checked' about 40 shots this morning (Oz time), another 44 half an hour ago and before I signed out just now, there were another 11 posted. No problemo, but yes, way too much for one Walrus! 😀

Robert E C:

Fun fact: Flickr notified me that they were starting a new feature, “What’s New” (top of the Explore menu), and that Architecture Unlimited would be featured. At that point photos went straight into the pool without moderation. That had been going on for a while, and occasional spot checks didn’t show routine disregard for the theme, but I didn’t think “benign neglect” was appropriate for a featured group. As you say, a heavy burden for a single moderator. Also unfair to the members to make them wait 24 hours—or even 12—for daily curation, only to find that they landed out of sight on page 2, or occasionally even on page 3.

Grateful to you and all the Moderators, working as a global team to maintain quality and responsiveness. Somewhat miffed at Flickr, which 1) doesn’t show the group in the “Welcome to Flickr!” Landing page; 2) buries highlighted Architecture groups under “Travel and Adventure”; and 3) doesn’t even include this group in that category, at least as far down as I have ever scrolled. So WTF, Flickr? Anyway, the group is better, thanks to you!

WalrusTexas: I seem to have time on my hands; you can make me a mod if you need more.

Ceiling over subterranean rail station.



Five Points MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority)
Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

13 April 2025.

Thomas Cizauskas:

I'd say your MARTA station qualifies to be in this group.

Thomas Cizauskas:
I have rejected some abstracts that might have been photos of buildings, but I just couldn’t tell. This one is somewhat abstract, but clearly architectural, so it qualifies.

Love this:

But does the prominence of the crane—often an essential tool for realizing architectural vision—qualify the image as Architectural?
Meanwhile I’ve invited it to Sublime Shapes.

WalrusTexas:

Sublime for sure; architectural it is not.

My fellow Moderators, Although newish to moderating this group, I’m already sick of deleting photos that have little or nothing to do with architecture. I suspect some photos are in the group because the poster has hit 'Select All' in their group list!
I administer a couple of other Flickr groups and have laid down a few rules/guidelines for them.
What do my fellow moderators think of putting the following as the #1 sticky 0n the Group’s Discussions page?

The following are guidelines for this group:
• No bridges. With rare exceptions (e.g. London’s Tower Bridge, Venice’s Bridge of sighs, etc), bridges are usually more engineering than architecture. There are many Flickr groups for bridges.
• This also applies to towers, ships, jetties, cranes, etc.
• The main subject of the photo must clearly be architectural. A tree, a fountain, a cow in a field with a building or buildings in the background do not qualify.
• Murals are not architecture.
• Multiple similar photos of the same thing will be pruned down to the best one.
• Photo subjects must have at least a little architectural merit.
• Please give your photo a title and indicate where it is – geotagging is preferred.
• NO AI generated images!.

Robert E C:

These are pretty good rules—thanks!

Given that we are “Architecture Unlimited”, I’d be inclined to accept a tin shed as frame-filling subject of a photo, and reject a landscape that only had incidental buildings in the distance.

Robert E C: all good; yes, put them in the top sticky as well as the rules section of the overview page

Rob Coates Those rules seem fairly fair.
I rejected a picture of a cinnamon bun yesterday with a mountain in the distance! I’m assuming that was submitted in error.
Certainly a title indicating location helps.

Any movement on rules? If a Group doesn't have any rules at all, it's pretty much open slather and hard to justify us removing posted photos IMO. (I removed the tin shed in a field bit)

Hey, Boss,
Being a nerdy type, I've been keeping a note of how many Architecture Unlimited photos I've been moderating; 918 in the past 10 days.
The sooner we have some rules/guidelines on the Group Discussion page, the sooner I can start pointing to them with a standard comment when I reject photos of bridges, murals, etc.

Robert E C:

Sorry, I’ve been preoccupied with real-world obligations. Action today.

WalrusTexas: Apologies, Ron.
Being a retiree, I sometimes lose sight of the fact that some people do live in the real world. Cheers from DownUnder 🦘

Robert E C:
Also retired, but still the world intrudes. 😃

I mostly used your list. Subject to continual improvement. I often see sets of 3 images—wide, medium, tight—that probably should pass the “Unlimited” bar. Copying the list to the front page will have to wait, because the dogs must be walked.

Yes, it's an excellent guide, Ron. Sorry if I came across as a grumpy old man (my wife reckons I could have stared in the film) but I was getting frustrated by the photos posted of things clearly not architectural. Regards, Rob.

Fellow Moderators: FYI I have started posting the following comment in some photos I've rejected: This photo has been removed from the Architecture Unlimited group. See the Group Guidelines on the Discussions page regarding non-compliant posts. .
A few Flickrites have replied and apologized - I think many posters don't realise their bridge photos are more engineering than architectural and are okay with our rules.
So far, no death threats!~ 😀

Just asking why this photo of Blackpool Tower was rejected. There is plenty of architecture into which the tower is built. There is a fairly detailed description of the complex that tells you about this Grade I building. Also, there are already 150+ photos in this Group already, where it is taken at almost every angle and distance possible.
flic.kr/p/2roT8cU

I would suggest that if you don't want photos of bridges that the Group Description be updated.

Group Description
Architecture//Architektur//Arquitectura // アーキテク -

All types of buildings & constructions - photos of buildings, bridges, aqueducts, towers etc.

All styles and periods from ancient to modern.

Good point. I hadn't seen that - too far down the page! 😀

Now the practice and the description are consistent.

But are they right? It would be good to hear from the membership. Clearly highways are engineering, not architecture. But are there objective criteria that tip a bridge into architecture?
The Bridge of Sighs in Venice and the Ponte Vecchio in Florence are clearly architecture.

Where would you draw the line?

I've just written a book about art which has a long chapter about definitions. You can find it in ResearchGate. The conclusion I reached was that "it all depends..." In general the same goes for your problems with this group. I have tended to put my photos into the group if there is a substantial portion of a building visible in the photo even if it is mostly about the chimney or a tree in front of it. But that is because I use groups for my own purposes of classification, not, originally, as a means to garner views. And that, in the end, is where the definitional crunch lies. Art lives in art museums, but what about the wonderful flourishing of street art in the last 15 years? And, more of my own interests, what about rock art? Likewise with architecture. Sure we might recognise that the Parthenon really did have an architect, but what about Stonehenge? And what about Pyramids. I mean in Teotihuacan the original argument was that they were not tombs as some of the Egyptian ones were... And so on.

Clearly the Parthenon is architecture. One could argue that Stonehenge was designed as a calendar, but clearly it was and is also a temple—to celebrate the changing seasons.

The Egyptian Pyramids are tombs. The Eiffel Tower was and is a tourist attraction. We do not generally accept mausoleums and monuments. Still, these were milestones in architecture—introducing new concepts in design, materials, and construction.

Teotihuacan was a city. Wikipedia calls it “the site of many of the most architecturally significant Mesoamerican pyramids”, which were the focus of cultural life. Honestly I can’t imagine drawing a line that accepts Wembley Stadium and Centre Pompidou but excludes them.

Did you have an opinion on bridges?

Yes. I agree about the bridge of Sighs in Venice and the Ponte Vecchio. Also, I consider Tower Bridge, mediaeval bridges that incorporate defensive towers and the wooden covered bridges in the US which all have details added to them that are not strictly necessary for them to function.
However, bridges are designed by engineers, and while part of their brief may be to come up with something aesthetically pleasing, they are always required to place structural integrity and economy at the top of the list.
Thus, most bridges are built with just the optimum number of structural members, and no more.
They may be pleasing to the eye or even beautiful (I'm thinking here of Maillart's elegant concrete bridges in Switzerland and many of the ubiquitous, modern cable-stayed bridges), but they are primarily built for the purpose of crossing a gap, and that's it.
So to me, for this group, the line is drawn between bridges that are purely functional and that minority that have some non-structural embellishment added.