"Which may be why there is no architectural equivalent, though there clearly should be, of the Locavore. There's regionalism, of course; a term worn out (if not exactly in) by the British critic Kenneth Frampton. But regionalism is every bit as dull and worthy as it sounds, producing only a kind of ersatz vernacular; traditional Malay longhouses or Ndebele huts only with aluminium windows, waterproofing membranes and air-con.
Which isn't what I mean at all.
The "loca-tect" (you see how the language is traduced?) should provide as strong a counterpoint to globalism as does the Locavore. She, or possibly he, would build not only from local skills and materials but in a way that responds to local climate, manifests local memes and embodies local stories.
Why? Partly because of the edifice equivalent of the food-miles argument. (What, architecture-kilometres?) But mainly because that's how you make a culture more than just anonymous global pap."
So, what do you all think?
Like it or hate it? Hate it but agree with her basic point?
I must say myself that i think she is judging Kenneth Frampton's idea of regionalism a little two harshly...
It was always an idea that i rather liked.. And Kenneth is the man. I was rather inspired by his
while i like the idea of 'local design', i'm afraid that it wouldn't do much to make a region's design either better or worse - just more local. the idea is a great one on the surface.
but, unlike organic kale from the farmer's market vs trucked-in iceberg from the kroger, local architecture can be about as beige as imported. usually moreso, unless the architect is challenged to do more.
i've always been an advocate of local talent but the emphasis should be on talent first.
But Frampton's regionalism is really still globalist modernism with local 'inflections'. Should the local be limited to being just 'inflections' of some 'universal' spatial system?
Agfa,
You are right that the local needs to be real and not just a facade or ornamental add on.
Yet, i think that fundamentally, in order to do regionalism one needs to have at least, an understanding of the local, a sensitivity. And while this may be expressed superficially it is better than no response to context..
New Jargon Watch-Locatect
Via the Sydney Morning Herald
Forget about flavour and paint the town beige
"Which may be why there is no architectural equivalent, though there clearly should be, of the Locavore. There's regionalism, of course; a term worn out (if not exactly in) by the British critic Kenneth Frampton. But regionalism is every bit as dull and worthy as it sounds, producing only a kind of ersatz vernacular; traditional Malay longhouses or Ndebele huts only with aluminium windows, waterproofing membranes and air-con.
Which isn't what I mean at all.
The "loca-tect" (you see how the language is traduced?) should provide as strong a counterpoint to globalism as does the Locavore. She, or possibly he, would build not only from local skills and materials but in a way that responds to local climate, manifests local memes and embodies local stories.
Why? Partly because of the edifice equivalent of the food-miles argument. (What, architecture-kilometres?) But mainly because that's how you make a culture more than just anonymous global pap."
So, what do you all think?
Like it or hate it? Hate it but agree with her basic point?
I must say myself that i think she is judging Kenneth Frampton's idea of regionalism a little two harshly...
It was always an idea that i rather liked.. And Kenneth is the man. I was rather inspired by his
Seven Points for the Millenium
Should be in the "makes me cringe" thread. Agree that she is too hard on Frampton and there is nothing wrong with the word 'regionalism.'
while i like the idea of 'local design', i'm afraid that it wouldn't do much to make a region's design either better or worse - just more local. the idea is a great one on the surface.
but, unlike organic kale from the farmer's market vs trucked-in iceberg from the kroger, local architecture can be about as beige as imported. usually moreso, unless the architect is challenged to do more.
i've always been an advocate of local talent but the emphasis should be on talent first.
But Frampton's regionalism is really still globalist modernism with local 'inflections'. Should the local be limited to being just 'inflections' of some 'universal' spatial system?
Agfa,
You are right that the local needs to be real and not just a facade or ornamental add on.
Yet, i think that fundamentally, in order to do regionalism one needs to have at least, an understanding of the local, a sensitivity. And while this may be expressed superficially it is better than no response to context..
i don't think that regionalism is bad - as you say, it's better than no response to context! But there are deeper forms of regionalism.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.