It's all about tectonics!!
I have to be honest, at first I thought Critical Regionalism and Contextual architecture were basically the same thing and could be used interchangeably because it was all about fighting placelessness. This isn’t true obviously because what Frampton advocates for not reducing the climate, culture, tectonics to ‘indigenous’ forms.
What I appreciate about Frampton’s take on critical regionalism and that he advocates for things such as topography, tactile light, climate, and TECTONICS. In my opinion, this is asking that architects not design in a vacuum - but really consider every aspect of their sites. I think that this pushes the designers to come up with creative tectonic designs. This then I think makes it harder for people to design for places they haven’t been.
I also think that this type of architecture really engages all of our senses, from the visual to tactile, sound… (perhaps not taste but you never know). I think that then pushes us to design for more than just the visual realm - not designing for the money shot or Instagram able moment but really consider the spaces and when they feel like. This concept reminds me of Juhani Pallasmaa’s ‘Eyes of the Skin’ and the fact that the dominance of the visual in architecture has weakened our other senses when we design.
I worry about a building you can taste (except probably Frank Harmon's Seven Sisters house where you can pretty much taste the salt in the air), but your point is well taken. I agree that critical regionalism is a great way to completely engage the user. It isn't about the money shot and it never should be--it should be about the full experience. Though I would say that that full experience shouldn't just be about the 5 senses. There should be a sense of the community and the history and the Place as well.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you and love being reminded of those memorable buildings which did not just engage my eyes.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for Instagramable buildings, these can be a bit disappointing when you visit them. You have seen images of it, you go visit and stand where that shot was taken from, looks as cool as in the images you saw, but sometimes, there is not much else to it, and then you wonder about your purpose as an architect.
I think this also ties into the idea of architecture as memory. When a work of architecture is so incredibly connected to the space and culture in which it occupies, it becomes indelible. I think of a specific monument that I visited in South Africa and everything about it from the form, to the tectonics, to the location and spatial relationships makes the space memorable.
ReplyDelete