Regionalism of Liberation

“[Regionalism of Liberation] is the manifestation of a region that is especially in tune with the emerging thought of the time. We call such a manifestation ‘regional’ only because it has not yet emerged elsewhere. It is the genius of this region to be more than ordinarily aware and more than ordinarily free. Its virtue is that its manifestation has significance for the world outside itself. To express this regionalism architecturally it is necessary that there be building – preferably a lot of building – at one time. Only so can the expression be sufficiently general, sufficiently varied, sufficiently forceful to capture people’s imaginations and provide a friendly climate long enough for a new school of design to develop.”

-          - Harwell Hamilton Harris, “Regionalism and Nationalism,” address to the North West Regional Council of the AIA, Eugene, Oregon, 1954

I didn’t make the connection until reading the material for this topic, but our history/theory course from our semester in California was essential a study of critical regionalism. From Gill to Neutra to Schindler to Harris, we delved deeply into the ideas and the work, so much so that regionalism as an overarching theme was not apparent until now. These mid-century masters we came to know and love were a group of critical regionalists, developing a uniquely Californian aesthetic that we all know well as the foundation of the American mid-century modern movement.

The above quote from Harwell Hamilton Harris directly displays how critical regionalism and the global city coincide, and we see from history, how his and others’ ideas spread outside of their original regional context, Southern California. Their body of work was so vast, so experimental, and so well-known, that it influenced, and continues to influence, almost all of our designs today in some way. The essential elements that emerged from their experimentation, for instance varying ceiling height based on the importance of the space (“roundplan”), color everyone’s architectural knowledge today.

This directly shows how critical regionalism, when it takes on the characteristics mentioned by Harris, can influence the global city. Today, as we continue to move toward a more global society, where does this notion of the “regionalism of liberation” fit into architectural discourse? Are we still able to have a truly regional aesthetic that can take enough from its context to influence the world? Or do we have too much global influence to start with, that this trueness in locality cannot flourish like it once did?

Havens House, Harwell Hamilton Harris

ced.berkeley.edu

ou.edu