Architectural critique of buildings after 1400

¶ … architecture of the Alamo in San Antonio Texas from Michelangelo's point-of-view. Specifically it will critique the building from the point-of-view of architect Michelangelo, who is totally unrelated to the building's design. Michelangelo will critique the building according to his own architectural values and beliefs. The Alamo is one of the most famous American buildings. Parts of the original buildings in the Alamo compound are more than 250 years old, but according to many European architects, that is simply nothing compared to many of their buildings that have been standing for centuries. Michelangelo was a noted painter and sculptor, perhaps one of the world's best. He was also a noted architect, and as he stands before the present day Alamo in San Antonio, Texas, he has some definite ideas about the style, the materials, the symbolism, and the very heart of the building.

Here I stand, in the modern city of San Antonio, so far removed from my home in Florence. Crowds of tourists bustle about me, eager to get inside the ancient building that means so much to the history of Texas. Before me is the building they call "The Alamo," and it is far different than the works of my own in Italy. I understand this small, unassuming building, so different from our own beautiful and ornate homage's to God was at first constructed as a mission. It was more than one building, but a compound of buildings that included many buildings and the church building itself. This was the third mission of several constructed in the area. Called Mission San Antonio de Valero, was built in 1724, and is now known as the famous "Alamo," where one of the most famous battles in Texas history took place. That does not concern me. The stone, the mortar, and the sweat that went into this building do.

My first thought as I stare long and hard at this building is that it is rather small. In fact, many other buildings here on the square far outweigh the Alamo. Built of native stone, the Long Barracks of the compound date back to the 1724 timeframe, while the first church was constructed in 1744. However, it did not stand, and the roof collapsed into rubble that filled the building. I think the architect did not have his plans so well set in his head. I found it not a simple exercise to create the dome on St. Peter's in Rome, but it still stands today, which is more than I can say for the roof of this little building.

I will concern myself mostly with the church building of the complex, for it is here that most of my architectural interest lies. This building was first used as a mission to convert surrounding tribes of Indians, and yet, it is rather plain and unassuming, and seems less of a testament to God's goodness than I would have liked. I see that the original plan of the church itself followed a time-honored cruciform plan, of which I heartily approve. This plan contains a "long nave crossed near its eastern end by a short, broad transept" (Tarin). These rough walls that I touch are over three and one-half feet thick, and I can tell they are of an inferior quality of limestone, it is a wonder to me that they have stood this long. While most of the walls are roughly finished, those of the central facade and front comers were obviously carefully cut and fitted, as an honor I suppose, to the work of God conducted within. This is a good sign. I understand that originally the intent was to build a "barrel-vaulted roof, supported by stone arches, and a dome or cupola over the crossing" (Tarin). However, as I noted, the roof caved in, and was eventually replaced with a gabled roof of far less beauty but evidently strong enough to withstand the time the building has stood. It is a shame, the entire facade would have benefited with a domed covering, I believe.

The mission inventory of 1793 described this facade as "a showy and impressive piece of Tuscan architecture," with arched doors surrounded by elaborate floral carvings, twisting columns, and shell-topped niches for statuary. Although the facade was never finished, it is possible to project its intended design, based on similar Early Baroque style facades erected in Spain and its New World provinces. Many have said this building, especially the facade which holds the most interest architecturally, is in the Early Baroque style that was quite common in Spain and its colonies in the 1700s. Some have described this facade as "a showy and impressive piece of Tuscan architecture,' with arched doors surrounded by elaborate floral carvings, twisting columns, and shell-topped niches for statuary" (Tarin). However, I find the facade quite common and uninteresting. I would much prefer to see a more ornate and intricate style, such as the style I employed in my final plans of the Piazza del Campidoglio in Rome, which was completed after my death. Rather than rely on the "traditional" as the style of this early Texas mission relies, I used other, new techniques that would live on after I was gone. One expert writes of my work on the Piazza, "[H]e articulated his new ground floor loggia with a lintel instead of the usual arches, supported by Ionic columns. The bays are divided by an order of colossal Corinthian pilasters that rise through both stories to support a magnificent entablature surmounted by a balustrade and statuary" (Hibbard 295-296). I feel it was well executed, modern, and unique - terms I cannot use often in gazing at the Alamo.

However, while my misgivings about the building are many, I can clearly see that in context, the style and design were befitting of the time here. San Antonio was little more than a bend in the river when this building was conceived and built. The facade is quite symmetrical and pleasing to the eye, and delights me with its simplicity when I think of the terms that dictated the building's design. The architect of the time did as much as he could for the space and for the needs of the mission's users. While it is not in the style I would have developed, it certainly is a fitting building for an early settlement. I must remember my buildings were created with many more people in mind, and they were surrounded by other buildings and used my many more Italians. The Alamo served its purpose, and that is one of the main functions of a building. However, function is only one part of architecture. Beauty and form are also parts that make up the whole, and here, function is primary, form is second, and clearly, beauty was last on the architect's agenda. The long, clean lines of the buildings, square and efficient, do please me, and the attempt to add some distinction with the distinctive "hump" over the central entrance certainly does add a measure of interest to the overall design. Again, the symmetry is the most enjoyable aspect of the building for me - it projects the clean lines and elemental purpose of the entire structure.