What was the contribution of public architecture to the development of civilization?

Answer 1

I would argue that there is no useful way of defining one society, past or present, as a "civilization" and another as not. That said, when a past society in Europe or Asia developed as a cohesive unit governed from a central place it also often happened simultaneously that that society erected one or more relatively grand structures (architecture) for collective use and/or for the rulers' use. Examples range from the kiva of the ancestral Hopi to the temples of ancient Ayodhya (in India) and Lord Krishna's palace at Dwarka. These places of meeting, governance or worship obvoiusly served as focal points for the society that erected them and fuelled social cohesion, collective community/tribe/culture self-awareness, and sometimes political unity.

In some societies, though, the community's sacred places and nodal discussion places are in nature, such as the Hill of Tara in ancient Ireland. I do not think they were any less or more effective for cohesion and social development than structures built of wood or stone -- just less visible to historians, sociologists and archaeologists who come along and inspect millennia later.

Answer 2

well obviously without many things "architectural", we wouldn't be such a developed civilization. see, when we use architecture, we build and develop things, hence the development of civilization!