“Rethinking Critical Regionalism”

 

At first, I was trying to understand the notion of “Critical regionalism” and found this from Wikipedia - “Critical regionalism is an approach to architecture that strives to counter the placelessness and lack of identity of the International Style, but also rejects the whimsical individualism and ornamentation of Postmodern architecture. The stylings of critical regionalism seek to provide an architecture rooted in the modern tradition but tied to geographical and cultural context. Critical regionalism is not simply regionalism in the sense of vernacular architecture. It is a progressive approach to design that seeks to mediate between the global and the local languages of architecture.” – Okay, this is convincing. 

Later in the article by Kenneth Frampton, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance in The Anti-Aesthetic”, it seems to me like Critical Regionalism is not what it sounds like it is. Frampton’s Critical Regionalism does not promote vernacular architecture in harmony with regions. Critical Regionalism is not a universal idea that is applicable globally. Critical Regionalism looks more like sustainable, environmentally-conscious architecture. However, there is beauty in his ideas. His anticipated method of embracing the landscape and environment is more practical and should be adopted. Architects should analyze local character and reinterpret it with contemporary terms, rather than adapting the traditions directly.

Critical Regionalism argues against imitating the past and being cautious of fully implementing the future. That instead we should deal with what we have now. The context of now, the environment of now. Today, in front of us, what we have is the huge question of environmentalism. Can the concepts of Critical Regionalism be appropriated under this discourse?