Critical Regionalism as a Guide to Creating Better Public Space
“The
bounded place-form, in its public mode, is also essential to what Hannah Arendt
has termed “the space of human appearance,” since the evolution of legitimate
power has always been predicated upon the existence of the “polis” and upon
comparable units of institutional and physical form.” - Kenneth Frampton
Much of our discussion last week was centered on
the topic of public space versus private space, but in the writings of Kenneth
Frampton, we are called to question the very existence, or absence, of defined
places – public or private. Several times throughout his essay, Frampton points out how the absence of
the “place-form” and consideration of place have resulted in the creation of “placelessness”
in architecture and urban planning. Frampton describes urban planning’s
“current tendency to reduce all planning to little more than the allocation of
land use and the logistics of distribution.” However, I find a deeper
explanation of the importance of place, and one’s connection to place, in the
writings of architect W.G. Clark (who is arguably a good example of a critical
regionalist architect from Southeast). In an essay by Clark titled
“Replacement,” he explains that the characteristics of a site, or place,
correspond to three aspects of humanity: body, mind, and spirit.[i] Thus, to create architecture of resistance
one must understand the significance and importance of a place through these
three channels before establishing a defined place in which the built
environment – public or private - can exist.
W.G. Clark’s reminder to architects to consider the
physical, cultural, and spiritual places of a site echoes Frampton’s assertion
that Critical Regionalist architecture must be more informed and shaped by the
site, than modern, avant-garde architecture, which in contrast, shapes the site
to accommodate its needs. Frampton
explains that for architecture to relate more closely to nature, one must
consider the five realms of Critical Regionalism: topography, context, climate,
light, and tectonic.
However, I find that the
writings of W.G. Clark can, once again, aid in a deeper understanding of
creating a more direct relationship between architecture and site. Clark distinguishes engagement with the site
as “settlement” which is distinct from simply “abiding in a place.” He writes, “Settlement implies a benign and
sympathetic occupation, the selection of a specific and favored place, and the
engagement of that place to meaningful use; settlement is the establishment of
home. Our growth is opposite of establishment.”[ii]
Perhaps the crisis of
public space in today’s world results less from debates about the level of
“designing” that is appropriate for public space, but is more an issue of
architects and designers not truly understanding the places that they are
designing. Using the words of architects and thinkers like Clark and Frampton
as guiding principles in our efforts to understand a site better, can we create
better public space?
Comments
Post a Comment