Tectonic architecture

Much of ideas of tectonic architecture seem to demand a serious reconsideration of the origins of building, its humble beginning as a shelter to keep the rain out and warmth in. True, many of today’s architecture seems to have lost its fundamental goal of providing shelter. Many of futuristic designs, when built, leak or gets too hot. Identity of an architect as a builder is gradually forgotten, and argument between engineers and architects become louder and louder. Building should function before it is beautiful, and often its functionality is what many find most beautiful.
But still, there is a thirsty need for architecture for it to be more than a shelter. With injection of additional meaning, shelter becomes architecture, a product of culture and expression of thought. Tectonic architecture seems to argue that buildings should remain a building. According to the articles, expression of construction is the greatest poetry in architecture. In a way, their argument chain architecture to the ground.
Avant-garde architects and tectonic architects seems to be standing at an opposite ends of the spectrum. Both arguments seem equally powerful. Futurist seek to violently push the possibilities upward, while tectonics seek to build a firm foundation.