Mugsum mud hut, Cameroon
(file licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
license).
This is another in my series of posts inspired by 1000 Awesome Things, the Webby Award winning
blog written by Neil Pasricha. The series is my meditation on the awesome reasons why I was
and continue to be attracted to the art of architecture.
Vernacular architecture is
a category of building characterized by high adaptation to local needs and
traditions. Typically, architecture we regard as vernacular utilizes pre-industrial,
indigenous construction materials and methods, forthrightly addresses climate
and geography, and relies upon highly evolved skillsets of local craftspeople. It
is very much context driven, particular with respect to its time and place. Most
consider vernacular architecture to be absent pretension, and genuine in the
sense that it principally evolved through trial and error over many generations,
by way of transferred wisdom, the outcome being a culturally distinct built
heritage. Vernacular architecture is not the product of academically prescribed
“styles” dissociated from regional constraints and the imperatives of site,
setting, and context.
Most of the world’s
buildings are ordinary and vernacular, and not designed by architects. Nevertheless,
the range of architectural expression is as broad as the multitude of local
building traditions is vast. Just some of the countless examples of vernacular
architecture types I can cite include the Kath-Kuni style of architecture in
India, the Ma’dan reed houses (mudhif) of Iraq, the Ab-anbar cisterns of
Iran, the Mugsum mud huts of Cameroon, and the shotgun houses of the southeastern
United States. Each of these examples represent a regionally and culturally specific response to a very particular set of considerations.
An Ab
Anbar cistern in a qanat water system, located in the Iranian desert
city of Naeen (photo by en:user:Zereshk)
Interestingly, many do
not believe architecture designed by professionals can be vernacular because,
as a Wikipedia article on vernacular architecture notes, they argue the very process of
consciously designing a building makes it not vernacular. The article further
cites architectural historian Paul Oliver, who defined
vernacular architecture as an “architecture of the people, and by the people,
but not for the people.” Oliver elaborated
by saying “. . . popular architecture designed by professional architects . . .
does not come within the compass of the vernacular.”
I disagree with those
who maintain that professional architects cannot, by definition, design within
a vernacular tradition. Certainly, architects can extend such a tradition by
means of critical regionalism, an approach to contemporary design that adapts
to local climate, specific site conditions, and the availability of regionally sourced building
materials and construction labor. Regardless of whether a building is designed
by its users or by trained architects, it should be tied fundamentally to its geographical
and cultural setting.
The
AWESOMEness of vernacular architecture resides in the many socio-cultural,
socio-economic, and environmental lessons to be learned by architects like me
from its expression across the considerable legacy of historically distinct regional
cultures. These humbling lessons are directly applicable to the work we do
today. Whether the design-related concerns are associated with respecting
nature, ensuring optimal building performance, reducing pollution and waste,
encouraging social cohesion, or preserving a cultural landscape, architects should
approach each new project they undertake as an opportunity to seriously consider
and learn from the established, local vernacular.
Next Architecture is Awesome:
#26 Details
No comments:
Post a Comment