The close relation between structure and surface cannot be underestimated in the world of architecture, even if there are examples of the buildings which give more prominence to one of them rather than the other. This legitimates the tree categories figured out by Simon Unwin; “the dominant structural order, the dominant spatial order and the harmonic relationship between the two”. Throughout the history there have been great samples of all three categories.
The part that Unwin was mentioning to the Temple of Ammon at Karnak was really striking. In ancient times numerous columns had been used to obtain large spaces as in this temple. This kind of a structure is completely unsuitable if you are not using it as a gate or a way to arrive to a larger
area. That is why I cannot understand the logıc behind the telesterion at Eleusis. The same structural plan is used in this place but for a different goal; a place of performing! The columns situated in the structure becomes barriers to block the view of spectators. However the next plan(4th century BC) prepared for the same temple was insisting an arranged order of columns to make the
center arena visible from all the aspects.
Another point which is expressed with nice pictures is the part that the writer talks about Victorian age houses. They were mostly erected in the aim of creating many cellular rooms by using a simple timber-frame structure. They can easily become extended just by addition. The illustration (taken from the book “Analyzing Architecture”) on the right may help you to understand this mentality better.
In the twentieth century some architects comes with the idea that geometrical shapes do not have to be the forms what shapes our life. Actually I liked this idea a lot after examining the buildings mentioned in the text(e.g. Casa Romanelli). This kind of a structure seems more associated with life and nature to me. Buildings with different geometries have a relatively high level of complexity, yet a harmony is stated in them with walls and columns.