Don't knock the vernacular

I appreciate Frampton's opinion on how architecture should analyze the local character of a site, yet reinterpret it with contemporary terms, as opposed to focusing on making the architecture "match" the existing context. However, I find that this continued operation on new design will ultimately reinvent what that existing context is, for future buildings. This shift towards modernization seems to imply that many cultures may have to ultimately sacrifice elements that make them truly unique. Ricoeur's essay touches on this point when he discusses the "monotype" effect that current globalization has had on the world. The paradox becomes: "how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old, dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization."

It seems that Frampton's suggestion of responding to natural context, while respecting the traditions of the past is the answer, but is that the case? I could argue that there is room for a direct correspondence with vernacular architecture in a conscious way from the architect. Isn't that what we've been taught over the years? Respond to the existing vernacular, always keep in mind the context. And I feel that some cultures adopting this mindset of combining their traditions with "futuristic qualities" is a line that must be trodden on carefully. Where is it too much that we are forcing this modernization on existing cultures and when is it not enough to achieve the delicate balance of globalization and regionalism? At the same time when are we holding too tightly onto the past, and when are we moving on too quickly?


Tulsa Tornado Tower, 2015, by Kinslow, Keither & Todd, Inc


Seoul Municipal Building (2013) by iArc Architects

(and when is historic regionalism just a very bad idea?)