Re-assessing Local Identity
Re-assessing Local Identity in the Context of Global Architecture_Angelos Psilopoulos
− Wa Shan Guesthouse_Amateur Architecture Studio
− Brockholes Visitor Center_Adam Khan Architects
− Beautour Museum and Biodiversity Research Center_Agence Guinée Et Potin Architectes
− Fogo Island Natural Park Headquarters_Oto Arquitectos
− Sancaklar Mosque_Emre Arolat Architects
− Glass Farm_MVRDV
− Arena do Morro_Herzog & de Meuron
− The Building on the Water_Álvaro Siza + Carlos Castanheira
Persistent and Evolving Traditions
Persistent and Evolving Traditions_Paula Melâneo
− Micro-Hutong_standardarchitecture
− Factory Jaffa House_Pitsou Kedem Architects
− The House Cast in Liquid Stone_SPASM Design Architects
− Gumus Su Villas_Cirakoglu Architects
C3 no.362 (2014 #10/12)
Re-assessing Local Identity
Re-assessing Local Identity in the Context of Global Architecture_Angelos Psilopoulos
There is a wide gap between building and architecture, a kind of distance that the latter needs to cover in order to justify itself against the trivial. Most people mistake it for mannerism, projecting aesthetic quality as the foremost indicator of architecture’s point of exclamation. Architects usually claim an interpretative stance against a given situation, the latter usually being a precedent in building form or program, or the contextual depository of the very land it occupies; it almost appears as if the principal requirement architecture has to meet is to elevate its practice away from the commonplace.
The cases we review here are set against a background. Anything but indifferent to their context, they propose the terms by which their defining elements relate to a situated condition. This is not the sort of overwhelming architecture your academic modernism would herald, nor does it necessarily classify under what Frampton1 coins as “Critical Regionalism”, namely “regional “schools” whose primary aim is to reflect and serve the limited constituencies in which they are grounded”2. What’s most intriguing about these cases is that their “regionality” does not necessarily entail locality for the place of origin of the architects responsible: these are global architectures, in place with a local condition.
C3 no.362 (2014 #10/12)
Re-assessing Local Identity
Re-assessing Local Identity in the Context of Global Architecture_Angelos Psilopoulos
There is a wide gap between building and architecture, a kind of distance that the latter needs to cover in order to justify itself against the trivial. Most people mistake it for mannerism, projecting aesthetic quality as the foremost indicator of architecture’s point of exclamation. Architects usually claim an interpretative stance against a given situation, the latter usually being a precedent in building form or program, or the contextual depository of the very land it occupies; it almost appears as if the principal requirement architecture has to meet is to elevate its practice away from the commonplace.
The cases we review here are set against a background. Anything but indifferent to their context, they propose the terms by which their defining elements relate to a situated condition. This is not the sort of overwhelming architecture your academic modernism would herald, nor does it necessarily classify under what Frampton1 coins as “Critical Regionalism”, namely “regional “schools” whose primary aim is to reflect and serve the limited constituencies in which they are grounded”2. What’s most intriguing about these cases is that their “regionality” does not necessarily entail locality for the place of origin of the architects responsible: these are global architectures, in place with a local condition.
