Sublime in architecture and function

I got an email from my friend last week who works in the art world. The reflections we shared had to do with the way art and design are separated by use. Essentially that architecture has a use or function, which renders it hard to classify as sublime.

I think that the sublime is outside of our made up parameters and it is not hindered by definitions.
If the sublime can appear in things created (such as art and literature) what would prevent it from existing in architecture?

A teacup does not know that it is a teacup. I could argue that there is such a thing as 'useless' architecture. It is architecture just for architecture's sake (a sort of fetish where the purpose is the experience) or architecture that holds great architectonic quality but is not user-friendly or fulfilling it's original purpose in a logical way, let's say it is not functional.
Although, it was traditionally agreed for a very long time that good architecture should be able to accomplish 'the three attributes' firmitas, utilitas, venustas (stability, utility, beauty).

Axel Schultes and Charlotte Frank’s Crematory in Berlin