Although, on closer reflection, if I were to replace “architecture” with “nature” in your spread, it would still make sense, and maybe even sound better to me : “… Nature encompasses all senses. Not only is nature a visual entity, it appeals to your aural and tactile senses. Even the smell of fresh pine sap can affect the way you experience both nature and yourself. The way noise bounces off trees and is dampened by the forest, and the smoothness of the moss under our feet ….” and so on.

Would that suggest then that architecture – even though made by man not by nature, and therefore ‘un-natural’ by definition – tries to compete against nature? Or is it just that we are longing for nature and therefore interpret all these natural attributes into architecture?

To me, one element of good architecture is if it is inspired by or does have a dialogue with nature – but that still doesn’t answer where one stands against the other. Any thoughts?

“All architecture is shelter, all great architecture is the design of space that contains, cuddles, exalts, or stimulates the persons in that space.”
Philip Johnson