Critical Regionalism as a Way of Thinking
When I think about this idea of critical regionalism, I just think to myself, "well duh, thats how you should always approach design". The idea of the architecture responding to its region and its existing context and its culture of people seems just like common sense to me. Isn't that what good architecture is suppose to do? But then I start to question things. There are a lot of examples of architecture which I can think of that do not take that approach that I have always thought of good pieces of architecture but not necessarily good in their context. One specific project that comes to mind is the Ascent in downtown Covington, KY. The building itself is amazing to me. Architecturally I find it appealing and structurally I feel it starts to push the boundaries of what can be done. However that aside, I feel like it does not fit in with the surrounding context. It is located in a portion of Covington that is filled with much older houses and has several pockets of poverty stricken neighborhoods. Then you have the Ascent, smack dab in the middle of this with multi million dollar condos inside. Dont get me wrong, the building is beautiful and makes an amazing addition to the NKY/Cincinnati skyline, but when you drive by it it just seems to be random and come out of nowhere. Personally, I would have never thought to build something like that in its area because it does not seem to respond to its immediate region and context, however, not taking a regionalism approach, im not sure anymore that it was a bad idea. It pushes to change the context of the region instead of merging with it and perhaps sometimes that might not be a bad idea.
The Ascent in Context with part of the Cincinnati Skyline
Downtown Covington, the immediate region surrounding the Ascent.
As you can see from the photos above, in a larger context, the Ascent doesnt seem too random, but if you look at the surrounding neighborhood that is around it (second photo) it sticks out like a sore thumb.
This topic is difficult for me because as someone who wants to work in an urban setting, I believe that it's especially challenging to consider regionalism, especially in the 21st century (and beyond). As people become increasingly interconnected in the digital world, architects must stay true to regional conditions that make architecture successful for that area, as you said. Even so, it is inevitable that we will see an aesthetic union of styles across different regions. But if these style perform differently on a tectonic level, maybe it is not a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI think it is only recently (in the larger scheme of things) that critical regionalism has become a widely accepted theory behind design, one that is taught in universities, its principles now existing as second nature for aspiring architects. Prior to this, I think a focus on boldness of form and style was the focus of architecture theory, and realized by the "starchitects." In my opinion, both theories have their own merits, but I think really sublime architecture achieves a balance between the two: making a bold statement, but also being sensitive to an existing cultural, climatic, and social context.
ReplyDelete