The movement of regionalism in architecture is an approach that has passed through many different evolutionary stages, which Alexandros Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre have already highlighted in their research.[ ] The purpose of this article is not to outline all these stages, but rather, starting from the time when Lewis Mumford formulated a renewed theory of regionalism exactly a century ago,[ ] to highlight the transformations that this theory has undergone during its evolution, as well as those aspects of it that are still relevant to today's architectural practice. As a distillation of this process, an attempt has been made to document a new term that contributes to the theoretical evolution of this type of regionalism, while remaining faithful to its essence.[ ]
1.1 The main theoretical representatives of regionalism
The positions of an indicative sample of theoretical representatives of regionalism from this period will be briefly examined below, in chronological order, namely, Mumford’s, Tzonis and Lefaivre’s, Frampton’s and Colquhoun’s.
Lewis Mumford was the first to introduce a new dimension to the concept of locality proposing the adoption of an architectural stance directly linked to the foundations of modern civilisation, namely, democracy, science and advanced technology, as a form of resistance to the prevalent architectural trends and as a means of achieving authenticity in architecture.[ ] The above aspects came to be unified by the main aspect of his logic, i.e. the inclusion in the design of the unique elements of each place without ever abandoning the concept of all nations’ coexistence in a modern globalized reality.[ ] Mumford's innovation was that he was able to grasp the spirit of his time and acknowledge the fundamental importance of the interdependence of the local and the global element as a prerequisite for progress in architecture. Mumford's proposals resonated well within the modern movement, with the phenomenon reaching a peak after World War II, demonstrating that collective intellectual progress served as fertile ground for such ferment.[ ] The younger generations of architects in this period began to realize that design is a complex process that cannot be based solely on universal functional rules.[ ]
At the beginning of the 1980s, while postmodern architecture had already emerged, Alexandros Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre, based on Mumford's subversive proposal, yet focusing on the conditions of their time, introduced the term "critical regionalism" for the first time.[ ] It was an alternative proposal for contemporary architects, a conscious departure from the conflict between the modern and postmodern movements.[ ] The two theorists assigned equal value to three major groups of components that pertain to architecture and can shape it; the diverse manifestations of the local past, the syntax of modern architecture, and the wide range of humanities and technological developments at a global level. This kind of approach critically elaborates all the aforementioned components in order to synthesize concepts and elements to be used as tools for producing site-specific quality architecture. [ ]
This new term was directly established by Kenneth Frampton in his writings in the mid-1980s, where he took an important and difficult next step in the formulation of the theoretical framework of critical regionalism; he attempted to explain the concept and proposed it as an antidote to the shortcomings of his contemporary architecture, introducing some proposals with the central aim of resisting the fragmentation of his era.[ ] In an attempt to avoid creating an aphoristic syntax or idealizing the past, Frampton initially proposed an exploratory manifesto around six themes with broad implications,[ ] which he adapted to ten themes a few years later.[ ] Guided by these themes, Frampton identified several fundamental differences between the practice of critical regionalism and that of contemporary architectural trends. The impetuous application of globally advanced technology has led, according to Frampton, both to the devaluation of the relation between architecture and the diverse manifestations of nature as well as to the replacement of the authentic experience of architecture with its visual representations. The former phenomenon has generally induced devastating environmental consequences and often leads to an uncanny sense of space, while the latter reduces architecture, which is at its core tactile and multisensory, to a superficial, scenographic approach. In contrast, critical regionalism seeks to establish a balance between the global culture technology and the already existing qualities of place, through compositions that coordinate form, function and all other aspects of the building, integrating all of the senses into the design.[ ]
The early 1990s were marked by a break in regionalist theory as Alan Colquhoun argued that the approach of critical regionalism involves the risk of oversimplification as well as entrenched perceptions. Thus, he reached the conclusion that the connection with place can no longer be an end in itself for an integrated architecture and that the term regionalism is inadequate to express its multifaceted issues.[ ] In particular, he identified the main weakness of the approach of critical regionalism in the somewhat rigid view of society [ ] and in the failure to place regionalism within the context of a highly advanced, globalized capitalist system in a world of rapid and fluid developments.[ ] In his view, contemporary architecture is dominated by polysemy and a lack of stable values. Acceptance of this perpetual change is required to enable today's architects to respond to their work with integrity. [ ] He, therefore, proposed an architectural practice that aims for"original, unique and context-relevant ideas" [].
1.2. Topodynamic Ecumenism: A New Perspective on Critical Regionalism
Since Colquhoun's theoretical contribution, the discussion on regionalism has mainly been either of a recapitulatory nature, or it is now directly related to the urgent problem of climate crisis. At an academic level, several conferences have been held on the legacy of critical regionalism and its implications for contemporary architecture and continue to be organised regularly to this day. This demonstrates that several aspects of critical regionalism are still relevant to today's architect, who, especially over the past two decades, is called upon to create coherent works in a fragmented era. It is precisely for this reason, however, and in alignment with Colquhoun's perspective, that its legacy makes sense when viewed through a special lens that unveils the evolution it has undergone over time, without the need to maintain its positions within the confines of a defined, conventional architectural movement. In particular, and despite the acceptance of the current individualised architectural approach, it may be worthwhile to assist the theoretical evolution of critical regionalism by coining a new term that is more relevant to the present and future era, and to contribute to the emergence of a new creative theoretical period concerning the relationship between architecture and place.
As mentioned above, one reason for changing this term is that it refers to a specific historical period, i.e. roughly the 1950s-1980s, beyond which the boundaries of movements have now largely dissolved. This term worked well during the period of its emergence and its acceptance as a distinct trend in design, distancing itself from the conflict between the modern and postmodern movements. Today, however, with these issues having been largely settled, the term now seems limiting. [ ] The main reason, however, is the negative connotation and conservative spirit that accompanies the word "regionalism". Regionalism is inevitably associated with localism and chauvinism, and the qualifier "critical" is not sufficient to decisively disconnect it from earlier, nationalist-oriented regionalisms in collective perception.[ ] In other words, the term clings, in a sense, to the past and does not offer a novel perspective on such a wide range of architecture in the present and the near future.
Thus, with reference to the essence of the first formulation of a modern, locally related architecture by Lewis Mumford in 1924, the term I propose today, exactly one century later, is "Topodynamic Ecumenism". It is a term that continues to express the perpetual interplay between two countervailing forces in design, of local specificity within the global scale, highlighting the undeniably important dimension of locality without alluding to regionalism.[ ]
This term derives from Colquhoun's purely rationalist conception of an irreversible universal reality where conventional architectural codes have been decisively weakened by the perpetual transmission of information and by ultramodern technology. In this case, universality refers to a uniformity, to a kind of inevitable levelling from above, and therefore has a negative connotation. Nevertheless, in today's world it is now necessary to accept the power of global dimension, overcoming the theoretical stage that dictates resistance to it.[ ] Taking into account the above condition, the term "ecumenism" is proposed, prevailing over words derived from the word universal. This is because the word “ecumenic” pertains to a holistic framework without implying the imposition of a singular, global condition. On the contrary, it always has a positive connotation and denotes a spirit that is in constant interaction with each distinct local culture, adapting to its own characteristics and its own multidimensional needs. This viewpoint is reinforced when examining the etymology of the term. Ecumenism is derived from the Greek word "οικουμ?νη" (oikoumen?) which is based on the ancient Greek verb “ο?κ?ω - ο?κ?” (oike?) — meaning "to inhabit" or "to dwell," and refers to "the whole inhabited earth." Dwelling is a primary characteristic of civilization, but also the most fundamental aspect of architecture. Therefore, the root of the word ecumenism is inextricably linked to architectural practice.
The composition of the compound word "topodynamic" as well as its pairing with ecumenism to create the final term is based on the logic of Frampton's dipoles, both in terms of content and the contrasting nature of their titles. In particular, in his analysis of the topography vs typology point, Frampton argues that the practice of critical regionalism has the unique topography of each individual case as its intellectual and literal foundation for design. [ ] The designation “dynamic” expands the above condition, pointing precisely to the differentiated, sensitive response to each place and the various manifestations of flexibility in design due to its unique characteristics. Also, by definition, something dynamic has an opposite meaning of something static, suggesting that it is not a fixed set of rules in design, or a mannerism. In essence, “topodynamic ecumenism” in its structure is another synthesis of two concepts that are opposite in content; it states that the general design principles of each architect are dictated to a greater or lesser degree by universal conditions, such as construction technologies, the perpetual transmission of information, and the living legacy of modernism. However, due to the fact that design is always concerned with different cultural perceptions, as well as social desires and climatic needs, it ultimately acquires a completely unique built form that is the distillation of each architect's personal hierarchies.
This term also arises at a time when we are witnessing perhaps more than ever the flourishing of architecture in countries outside the Western world, where, in the wake of their decolonization and amidst climatic and economic crises and unstable political conditions, high-quality architectural works of significant compositional value are being produced. It is an architectural practice rooted in critical regionalism that continues to this day and is the most liberating and promising expression of contemporary design and global architectural heritage.[ ] Topodynamic ecumenism aptly describes this type of architecture, which is entirely contemporary, yet has a profoundly social and often ecological dimension and is motivated by ecumenic concerns, such as protection from inhospitable weather conditions, or the provision of satisfactory quality housing at a very low cost.
Taking into account that issues concerning the dialectical relationship between the global and the local have proven to be particularly timeless and challenging for architecture, this proposal attempts to expand the boundaries of critical regionalism, based on the essence of the ideas surrounding it, without adopting the oversimplified notion that this approach is a sine qua non for the production of significant architecture. Instead, it seeks to provide an occasion for the exploration of different approaches, highlighting the importance of the constant revising of architectural values and practices in the 21st century.
Vasileia Tsentikopoulou
School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, 2024
Citations
Babiniotis, Georgios, Dictionary of the Modern Greek Language, Athens: Centre for Lexicology, 1998.
Colquhoun, Alan, “Critique of Regionalism” and “The Concept of Regionalism” in Architectural Regionalism-Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition, ed. Canizaro, Vincent, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007, pp. 140-155.
Frampton, Kenneth, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance”, in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, ed. Foster, Hal, Seattle: Bay Press, 1983, pp. 16-29.
Frampton, Kenneth, “10 Points on an Architecture of Regionalism: A Provisional Polemic”, in Architectural Regionalism-Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition, ed. Canizaro, Vincent, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007, pp. 375-385.
Goodwin, Philip L. Brazil Builds, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1943.
Mock, Elizabeth, Goodwin Philip L., Built in USA: 1932-1944, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1944.
Mumford, Lewis, Sticks and Stones, New York: Boni and Liveright, 1924.
Rudofsky, Bernard, Architecture without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964.
The Museum of Modern Art, “What is happening to Modern Architecture?”, in Architectural Regionalism-Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition, ed. Canizaro, Vincent, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007, pp. 293-309.
Tsentikopoulou, Vasileia, “Topodynamic Ecumenism”, masterresearch thesis (supervised by Professor Claudio Daniel Conenna), School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2024.
Tzonis, Alexander, Lefaivre, Liane, “The Grid and the Pathway”, Architecture in Greece Press, number 15, 1981, pp. 164-178.
Tzonis, Alexander, Lefaivre, Liane, Critical Regionalism - Architecture and Identity in a Globalized World, Munich: Prestel Publishing, 2003.
Tzonis, Alexander, Lefaivre, Liane, Critical Regionalism - Architecture and Identity in a Globalized World, Munich: Prestel Publishing, 2003, pp. 13-52.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, regionalism in architecture was exclusively intertwined with nationalism, propaganda, dogmatism and tradition in anachronistic terms. In 1924, examples of an alternative, liberatory concept of regionalism were first identified in a book by Lewis Mumford. See Mumford, Lewis, Sticks and Stones, New York: Boni and Liveright, 1924.
For a more detailed presentation of the above issues see Tsentikopoulou, Vasileia, “Topodynamic Ecumenism”, masterresearch thesis (supervised by Professor Claudio Daniel Conenna), School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2024.
Tzonis, Lefaivre, ibid, p. 19.
Tzonis, Lefaivre, ibid, p. 35.
For the controversy between the advocates of Mumford's regionalism and the representatives of the International Style as to the future of modern architecture, see: [a] Mock, Elizabeth, Goodwin Philip L., Built in USA: 1932-1944, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1944, [b] Goodwin, Philip L. Brazil Builds, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1943, [c] The Museum of Modern Art, “What is happening to Modern Architecture?”, in Architectural Regionalism-Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition, ed. Canizaro, Vincent, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007, pp. 293-309.
Until the mid-1960s, several regionalist articles and manifestos were published, for example Rudofsky, Bernard, Architecture without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964. Moreover, these fermentations gave rise to other groups of architects with the aim of renewing modern architecture, such as Team X.
Tzonis, Alexander, Lefaivre, Liane, “The Grid and the Pathway”, Architecture in Greece Press, number 15, 1981, pp.164-178.
The two theorists have highlighted the work of architects from a wide temporal and regional spectrum: from the period of the modern movement, the period when the theory of critical regionalism flourished and matured, ultimately reaching works that reflect contemporary compositional flexibility. Examples include Alvar Aalto, Richard Neutra, Oscar Niemeyer, Renzo Piano, Santiago Calatrava, Dimitris and Suzana Antonakaki.
Tzonis, Lefaivre, ibid, p. 12 and 34.
Frampton wrote several monographs of architects from around the world, pointing out the principles of critical regionalism in their work and helping to highlight alternative examples. Examples include Jorn Utzon, BC Architects and Alvaro Siza.
Frampton, Kenneth, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance”, in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, ed. Foster, Hal, Seattle: Bay Press, 1983, pp. 16-29.
Frampton, Kenneth, “10 Points on an Architecture of Regionalism: A Provisional Polemic”, in Architectural Regionalism-Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition, ibid, pp. 375-385. The 1987 updated text distinguishes ten points of concepts or dipoles; critical regionalism and anonymous architecture, critical regionalism and the modern movement, regionalism and the postmodern, information and experience, space and place, typology and typography, architectural and scenographic, artificial and natural, visual and tactile.
It is interesting to note the similarities between Mumford and Frampton's texts, which are some sixty years apart, in terms of content, but mainly in terms of the general spirit in which they were written. Their core is structured around the decline of the architectural scene, the cause of which is directly related to the general socio-political-economic state of each man's time. Both are triggered by the following similar situations: Due to ever-growing technological development at the expense of all other cultural aspects, the undermining of social values and over-consumerism, architecture (International Style in the case of Mumford and postmodern architecture of the 1980s in the case of Frampton) is deprived of its rich intellectual background, it is identified with mass production and it over-emphasizes the façade at the expense of an integrated, functional design. Both texts are characterised by urgency and a call for immediate action for fear that the situation might worsen in the future. Analogies can be drawn among the proposals they make, with the adoption of a holistic, balanced architectural logic being fundamental. This logic revolves around a creative connection between local and global elements in the compositional process, which is deemed a prerequisite for the production of high-quality architecture.
This does not mean that the concept of place ceases to exist, but rather that it co-exists with other concepts and parameters, serving as one of the many tools in the quiver of the synthetic process. See Colquhoun, Alan, “The Concept of Regionalism”, in Architectural Regionalism-Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition, ibid, pp. 151-152.
Colquhoun's main problem was that [the doctrine of regionalism is based on an ideal social model – one might call it “the essentialist model”. According to this model, all societies contain a core, or essence that must be discovered and preserved. One aspect of this essence lies in local geography, climate and customs…The first thing to note about this model is that it was formulated in the late nineteenth century precisely at the moment when the phenomena that it described seemed to be threatened and about to disappear ]. See Colquhoun, “The Concept of Regionalism”, ibid. p. 150.
In particular, he was concerned with the collaboration of global technology and local culture, arguing that this was the case until recently at least in the Western world, with local economies keeping pace with increasing industrialisation. In late capitalism, however, in recent years, the balance has now tipped in favour of global technology, marginalising regionalism. See Colquhoun, Alan, “Critique of Regionalism”, in Architectural Regionalism-Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition, ibid, p. 145.
Colquhoun pointed out that the monotony and universality of modern post-industrial culture is offset by the fact that modern technology and information transfer allow the architect to freely choose architectural codes and combine them on a level that is unprecedented. Reality is fluid and free and buildings are the results of subjective considerations of many hierarchical data and conditions. See Colquhoun, “The Concept of Regionalism”, ibid, p. 153.
Colquhoun, “Critique of Regionalism”, ibid, p. 140.
Especially if one takes into account Colquhoun's criticism.
My research paper was written in Greek, where "regionalism" is "excessive attachment to the interests of one's place of origin, one's homeland or the place where one lives, without regard to the wider (national or social) interest". In Babiniotis, Georgios, Dictionary of the Modern Greek Language, Athens: Centre for Lexicology, 1998. Tzonis and Lefaivre had themselves identified the weakness of the term regionalism. They had attributed it, however, to the suffix '-ism', which incorrectly refers to an architectural style, without mentioning the negative implications of the term. Perhaps this is because they have written all their texts in English. Interestingly, the word regionalism is more aptly translated from Greek into English as localism, which has the corresponding negative connotation as its Greek equivalent, and not as regionalism. In Tzonis, Lefaivre, ibid, p. 14.
By adding the synthetic component of the Greek word "topos", which is well established and does not need explanation in English.
The concept of resistance proved to be decisive in the formation of the theoretical body of critical regionalism. As Tzonis and Lefaivre argued, regionalism in all its manifestations, even in its nationalist version, has always been associated with the need to resist the imposition of an external force on architecture. In the 1980s, Frampton would make resistance a fundamental stance for a qualitative regionalist architecture. In Tzonis, Lefaivre, ibid, p. 34.
Frampton, “10 Points on an Architecture of Regionalism: A Provisional Polemic”, ibid, pp. 375-385.
It is a phenomenon that started around the 1960s (e.g. with Minnette de Silva in Sri Lanka) and continues to this day (e.g. with Marina Tabassum in Bangladesh and Francis Kéré in Burkina Faso).
|