Large-Scale Regionalism: Impossible or Indifferent??


In Tuesday’s class we got into a discussion about the scales of regional architecture and it was pointed out that in large buildings, it is difficult to get into the details of regionalist design. Gensler was identified as an example of such a global designer, not spending time to study the “peculiarities of a particular place” (Frampton). I disagree with this notion, because to me, getting beautiful details even at such a large scale is what makes a good architect. To say that such details are impossible is a sign of indifference to me. Gensler, like many other firms, represents an economic architecture, creating globally-acceptable designs quickly and at a manageable price. Often, these projects are done so fast that small details (often beautiful and intrinsic to the design) are left out in favor of the overall aesthetic of the building. In contrast, critical regionalism-based architecture requires time to study the local culture, the people, the landscape (both urban and natural), and how life in this region of the world works. This is the difference between an intentional, designed building and a building created only out of necessity.
            “Big-box” stores should also be analyzed in this context. In most cases, these companies have a store image (global design) that typically gets replicated regardless of the location. The only changes made to this general image are the results of local codes, where brick might be required or a neon sign might not be allowed. This in no way can be considered vernacular design, as the changes are done after the fact, basically slapped-on to get approval from the local review board. Again, this is brand replication, a form of global design that does not involve critical regionalist thinking done by a skilled architect.

**Not saying that Gensler is a bad firm in any way

Comments

  1. I agree that it is definitely possible to incorporate all the aspects regarding critical regionalism in a large scale building- it doesn't have to just be in small scale works of architecture. For example, when we did our case studies in Kate's Pro Prac class, my group looked at a large high school in Atlanta designed by Perkins + Will (similar firm to Gensler) and the environment they were able to create through light, materiality, etc was actually very beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Architecture like any other fields does have a step child version of itself, that treats space as a commodity.
    It's good that we realise this as the next generation of practitioners, so we know how to handle such clients and expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I completely agree. It is not always possible to justify critical regionalism or context but that does not mean there has not been any thought gone inside a building or a design. As we discussed in the class briefly large Urban areas sometimes have their own definition of critical regionalism, their own type of context and concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it is less about the actual size of the project and more about the approach, goals, and context surrounding the project. If the bottom lime is the most import then critical regionalism will probably suffer, but is there a way to successfully find a balance?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it is important to not put Critical Regionalism into a style box. Many more rural, smaller scale projects have become a sort of symbol for critical regionalism, but the aesthetic outcome really has little to do with a Critical Regionalist design. It could look like almost anything depending upon where it is.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts