Is regionalism a rejection of popularity


In the reading “Critical Regionalism”, the authors talk about regionalism in a way to suggest that it rejects the cultural acceptance of the architecture of its time that was “imposed by a power perceived as foreign and illegitimate”. The authors suggest that this was a form of protest and almost tactical by nature, although I see that view, I do not necessarily agree with it. In my opinion regionalism took flight because architects were realizing that modernism does not fit into every context and a world with one style becomes bland. Before regionalism, I would argue that context did not play a large role in design, the notion that a building could be placed anywhere was almost a standard. Today, we play with regionalism through understanding its vernacular and Charleston is a great example of that.

A place where vernacular is taken to a whole new level through not only design, but regulations from community members. I always wonder why the unique architecture of Charleston doesn’t appear in more places, especially to attract tourism in other cities. Is it respect for place?




Comments

  1. I think regionalism is a lot more complex than people think. Its usually used as a blanket term to describe that the stone came from a local quarry, but what about the design? What does regionalism mean for the size of the home? The way the doors look and work?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think there are different levels of understanding, which I think goes for a lot of what we talk about in this class. The first is your average citizen and the second is someone aware of the nuances and subtlety of architecture and design. The average person gets a sense of nostalgia from Charleston because it conjures images of "old America". It has beautiful colors, palm trees, and unique churches. People then learn the history to go with it and it all makes sense.

    People like us notice things such as long porches on the ocean side of the house and narrow building widths which directly respond to the climate. This is why we know Charleston couldn't exist in the north or out west.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, critical regionalism was in response to international style at the time, but I think it was re-defining the architecture culture and vernacular within the place. And I think that this differes from place to place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is my understanding that critical regionalism arose as a direct response to universal design - which is defined as essentially bland, modern architecture. If I correctly understand your comment about how critical regionalism came about, I believe I have a slightly different thought on the matter. I feel that, as a concept or practice, CR is still a fairly small subset within architecture. Still today, the majority (or at least a significant portion) of buildings designed by architects are bland and placeless. So, I think that because the practice of CR is in the minority, it is safe to say that it is counter-culture, and in a sense, a protest to the norms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As critical regionalism responds to a specific place, it seems that a style could not be moved and used in other places (at least successfully), but Charleston and anywhere along the east coast brought styles from Europe that were adapted for the environmental and cultural specifics of the area. Who's to say people won't move and blend their history with local culture?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts