An Ideal; Not A Justification

 

I think the great secret of why Critical Regionalism has been dominating this generation of architectural academic and professional influence is that it is both widely applicable and culturally savvy. In the 21st century’s issues of global identity and ultra-connectedness, people are panicking for any semblance of micro-communal identity. After a century of universalist wars and infrastructure as well as linguistic colonialism, communities around the world are alarmed and even defined by feeling threatened. Insert… critical regionalism. Critical Regionalism claims to provide a way for technological innovation to occur without the historic destruction of local identity that has been associated with industrial growth. 

Ask anyone what defines a culture uniquely from others, and they’ll likely name language, food, history and…the built environment. We live in architecture, and our interactions with our environment reinforces narratives and values in our lives that have resounding effects for generations. So, when critical regionalism attempts to offer to protect that identity while also being responsive to the global economy, it’s attractive.

However, it’s important to understand that Critical Regionalism is an umbrella term for many different, albeit tangential, movements. In addition, it defines a common conceptual ideal more so than a collective effort, as individual design groups could absolutely have opposing approaches to the same goal that will inevitably have unintended spatial and societal effects. While one architect may be considering the unique climatological influences of a site, another may seek to build off of the historical and socio-economical dynamics of that same site and produce entirely different architecture despite working under the same mindset. Thus, I’m more for using Critical Regionalism as an ideal to be informed by than a theory to use as justification for design decisions.