Ever since my Architecture professor introduced this question to me last semester I have been going around in circles with one of my classmates as what defines a structure/building as architecture. The general consensus from most of my Architectural Major peers is that suburban 'cookie cutter' style homes are not, and should not, be considered as Architecture. Most of the arguments against defining tract housing as architecture is that, since each individual house was not specifically designed with a specific surrounding environment and client in mind, it is not considered architecture. What they were saying was that, since the designers of the homes were not exactly putting into consideration the exact location of the house and the people who are going to be living in that particular house when they were drafting the home, it should not be considered architecture because the particular house they designed was mass produced and just scatted across on a plot of land the home building company purchased. My argument for saying tract argument is the fact that architects of large complexes like fancy hotels and skyscrapers also implement this type of thinking when they are designing their structures. For example when an architect is hired to design an office building or a Las Vegas hotel that is 40 stories high many of those levels are identical and just replicas of one general floor plan with slight variations. Just like someone who designs a large residential division in which one home design is just replicated many times over with slight variations. With this reasoning why would homes in many suburban areas not considered architecture ex. (KB, Discovery, Pulte Homes) But large complexes with many identical parts/levels are considered architecture (Empire State Building, Caesars Palace)