Critical Regionalism vs. Romantic Regionalism

Critical regionalism is a hot topic of debate garnering strong reactions or confusion. This is because critical regionalism is often misunderstood.

Critical regionalism in architecture, in its essence, postulates that architecture should be grounded in its location and that it should be responsive to the social, environmental, and cultural factors that influence a place. It presents itself as a response to the globalization of architecture and the increasing homogenization of buildings worldwide by tapping into certain features that are region specific. The reading by Lefaivre and Tzonis defines Regional architecture as "incorporating regional elements into the design to adapt to local conditions and criticalizing an architectural order that claims universal application." This is where the problem begins. 

There have been instances throughout history - Rome, England, Germany, etc. where the idea of adopting a singular style of architecture as an overarching style for a particular geographic area was attempted and eventually resulted in failure. In my opinion, such attempts failed because critical regionalism transitioned into romantic regionalism. The reading describes romantic regionalism as a tool that uses architecture to make its users "conscious of their distinctive shared past" and as a "spatial trigger for activating the group's collective memory."  However, familiarity from nostalgia doesn't last forever. Romantic regionalism remains static, resisting change, and unyielding to developments which leads it to become outgrown. 

Critical regionalism makes sense to me because it roots and optimizes the building to perform in its context, which is what we're all trying to do as architects at the end of the day. So we mustn't mix the two up.