Culture vs Nature: Topography, Context, Climate, Light, & Tectonic Form

I find Kenneth Frampton’s fifth point of critical regionalism to be the most interesting.  He describes a tension between a sensitive response to local considerations (topography, climate, light, etc.) and the “optimum use of universal technique.”  These regional responses are what give architecture its meaning and significance.  It seems almost intuitive that a building should respond to the specific site and culture in which it is located, yet so many buildings today are built by applying universal strategies.  I believe this comes from a fear of trying new things and an over-reliance on “the way we’ve always done it,” driven mostly by a belief that non-traditional design is risky and highly expensive.  

I fear that if this is truly the case, this aspect of critical regionalism is hopeless as a viable strategy in practice.  We cannot expect clients to be willing to pay more for specialized construction out of an ethical responsibility to respond to local context.  However, I disagree that “incorporation of such factors must almost by definition be fundamentally opposed to the optimum use of universal technique.”

Our challenge is to make the incorporation of these factors actually more optimum than the use of the universal technique.  We see this in projects like Lacaton and Vassal’s Mulhouse housing, which uses prefabricated greenhouse structures in a way that is arguably more optimal than a more traditional strategy, especially when the quality of the space that is produced is considered.  Proving the mettle of critical regionalism requires us to challenge ourselves to be innovative and rely less on doing things strictly the way we’ve been taught to do them.   

   

http://www.metropolismag.com/January-2016/Game-Changers-2016-Lacaton-Vassal/