Local Identity with a Landscape Lens
In the essay "Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance", Kenneth Frampton breaks his six points down into:
1) Culture and Civilization
2) The Rise and Fall of the Avant Garde
3)Critical Regionalism and World Culture
4) The Resistance of the Place-Form
5) Culture Versus Nature: Topography, Context, Climate, Light and Tectonic Form
6) The Visual Versus the Tactile
While each of these points have very interesting topics on universalization/critical regionalism, they each agree on a common idea; that architecture should not neglect regional (cultural identity) and respond to its site context. I'd like to focus on the 5th point, "Culture Versus Nature..."
The first point in this section they mentioned topography; topography is one of the prime drivers of creating a sense of place. Without the low country in Charleston, marshes wouldn't be apart of the "Charleston identity". Without mountains in Colorado, what would one think of when they envision the beautiful and natural state? Stone mountain in Atlanta has been used in many cultural references, songs, music videos, and stories as apart of the 'place' of Atlanta. Removing these cultural elements removes a sense of place. While one could say this is a solid start to criticizing modernism and how we approach prepping a site for construction, the domination, domestication, and destruction of the landscape goes far deeper than that.
When one looks at vegetation, this is the primary creator of a sense of place. While topography is important, we can not envision a place without any vegetation. It's more obvious for a user to notice topography; being able to decipher the differences between the plains, rolling hills, mountains, or low country. In regards to vegetation, this is not as obvious. The average person can distinct between an evergreen and a deciduous tree, or some types of vegetation whether you see grasses, shrubs, sub-canopy or a larger canopy tree. These layers of vegetation is what gives a greater sense of place (whether one notices or not). Those who attack a site with a flattening or clear cutting strategy, are diluting the site to nothing. Destroying the natural sense of place.
Lets envision a world without topography, things would not be the same, regions would loose their identity: no more skiing in Colorado, not more whitewater rafting in the Carolinas, etc. Now, let's imagine a place without vegetation. Let's assume for the argument that we don't need vegetation to live and somehow we maintain consistent levels of oxygen without vegetation. Without vegetation there is nothing! No marshes, no grass fields, no tropical trees at the beach, no massive 100 year Oaks in California.
One can argue that architects chat about topography all too much without considering what vegetation can really do. Vegetation is a place, it literally changes drastically depending on the region, microclimate, etc. I can go to any state with lush vegetation, the topography may be extremely similar throughout the state, but vegetation will be wildly different at a much smaller scale. Vegetation on the north side of a mountain will be different from a south facing mountain. Creating pockets of spaces with different feelings. Vegetation is the arguably primary driver on a sense of place. We can not forgot this!
Where does one get materials? Through the natural environment. Most of the built environment in the U.S. is made of wood. Critical regionalism states to built with local natural materials. If this is the case you should be using local trees. This goes back to the original "sense-of-place-giver".... vegetation! I'd make the argument, that until architects unite with landscape architects and have a holistic understanding of vegetation, we can not advance our theoretical goals of critical regionalism without a deeper understanding of the natural and what the natural contributes to a sense of place.
I think your focus on the 5th of Frampton's Points brings some useful discussions to light. There is no doubt that we should bring local nature into designs far more than we do. It makes for a better living environment and is a wiser use of materials. Since the beginning of time humans and nature have been at odds with each other. For almost all of human history nature has consistently come out on top. Nature has given us much and it has also destroyed what we built. The rapid advancement of technology has given humans the power to clearcut and rapidly degrade the natural environment quicker than ever before. It may be true that we sometimes go too far asserting our dominion over the natural world but I'm confident that it will balance out as things always do. We are already learning to be more aware of our impact on the environment, so we just have to find the ideal balance to reside in harmony with the natural world.
ReplyDelete