I’d like to add a few points to Roger’s very reasonable remarks. First, the fact that works of architecture can be seen both functionally (i.e., in terms of broadly utilitarian purposes) and aesthetically does not distinguish them from many other works of art. Consider stained glass windows, Native American pottery, woven rugs, masks used in tribal rituals, etudes—all of these may have both functional and aesthetic purposes. You might also consider artworks that are designed to promote political or ethical change. It might be thought that what is distinctive about architecture is that it is essentially functional. Is it the case that it is not possible for something to be a work of architecture unless it has a utilitarian function? This is tricky, but I would be hesitant to say yes. (Consider architectural follies.) Second, I wouldn’t put too much weight on the idea of an aesthetic object. Works of art may do a range of thing: represent, express emotion, express a view of the world, exhibit form, etc. They may also provide aesthetic experiences (or experiences of beauty), but this does not seem necessary for art status. Hence, a work of architecture may succeed artistically without being an aesthetic object or serving strictly aesthetic purposes. Third, even if a building only served utilitarian functions it wouldn’t follow that we would or should treat its designer as merely a means to some end. (Of course a building that only had utilitarian function might not count as a work of architecture.)