Column kudos; as to the wall ...

I get that the proposed wall for the U.S.-Mexican border is an antiquated way of keeping out undesirables [“Basking in Trump Wall’s Shadow,” March 19]. We should work with our neighbors to the south (not just Mexico) to fix problems (gangs, drug lords) that cause people to leave in search of better opportunities.

But I think if we are going to build the wall, and we apparently are, we should embrace the opportunity to do it right the first time instead of spending billions more to fix poor construction.

So I support quality architectural firms engaging in the process. And they should not have to waste time justifying themselves. Mark J. Grgurich Roseville, Calif.

A unique aspect of architecture within the arts is that with few exceptions, a work is achieved using other people’s money. In our capitalist society, this means that architectural clients are usually wealthy individuals or institutions and that architects tend to skew toward those who furnish them with commissions.

It’s a mercenary arrangement worthy of exposure, as architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne’s column does quite well in saying. However, it is not the only mercenary arrangement that plagues architecture; another is its coverage by the media. Architectural criticism is usually concerned with aesthetics, and because of this, such coverage assumes an element of fashion, where novelty is promoted at the expense of other concerns.

Architectural criticism requires a deeper consideration of what architecture really means in our sustainable world. Ideally, such coverage will consider how a project reveals many of the forces at work in society: aesthetic, economic, social and ethical. Hawthorne’s weekly columns are an encouraging development and a welcome departure from the previous traditional architectural reviews. Ed Salisbury Santa Monica