– 2015 Young Architects Program International – MoMA
– New York, MoMA PS1 : COSMO _ Andrés Jaque / Office for Political Innovation
– Seoul, MMCA : Roof Sentiment _ Society of Architecture
– Rome, MAXXI : Great Land _ CORTE
– Istanbul, Istanbul Modern : All that is Solid _ PATTU
Regionalism and Global Diversity
Local vs. Global _ Aldo Vanini
– Pani Community Center _ SchilderScholte Architects
– Chuquibambilla School _ AMA-Afonso Maccaglia Architecture + Bosch Arquitectos
– Center for Health and Social Advancement _ Kéré Architecture
– Thread Artist Residency and Cultural Center _ Toshiko Mori Architect
– Cattle Back Mountain Volunteer House _ dEEP Architects
– Floating in the Sky School for Orphans _ Kikuma Watanabe
– Trika Villa _ Chiangmai Life Construction
– Compact Karst House _ Dekleva Gregoric Arhitekti
– P House _ Budi Pradono Architects
Dwell How
Dwelling in Memory: between rehabilitation and reuse
Dwelling in Memory: between rehabilitation and reuse _ Angelos Psilopoulos
– Row House in Olot _ RCR Arquitectes
– Single Family House in Tebra _ Irisarri-piñera S.L.P.
– Old Stone House Conversion in Scaiano _ Wespi de Meuron Romeo Architects
– Garden House _ Hertl. Architekten ZT GmbH
C3 no.376 (2015 #12/12)
Regionalism and Global Diversity
Local vs. Global _ Aldo Vanini
The overwhelming force of economic and cultural globalization, as the unified model for every contemporary action, produces the disturbing idea that “global” is contemporary and modern, and that “local” is ancient.
The increasing influence of the market on decisions, use of resources and, ultimately, cultural choices, also now commoditized, makes decision makers at every level maintain a conformist attitude that flattens and deadens results. The local community perceives the objects most representative of this formalistic global movement as alien presences, at best useful as landmarks or visitors and tourist attractions.
On the other hand, the reaction to a planetary homologation that ignores roots and references to local cultures and traditions, is likely to lead to a vision, at best conservative, at worst pleased with nostalgic and vernacular quotations. Both scenarios cost us the richness and complexity contained in the answers that architecture could provide in every time for specific climatic and geographical conditions, even developing peculiar building techniques related to the local context.
The contrast between modernity, conceived as adherence to an international repertoire, and local culture of space and building, is a false and ill-posed problem. Regional architectural traditions, only apparently static, are, in any event, the result of an ongoing historical evolution and, for this reason, can and must create their own expression of contemporaneity.
The attention to an architecture generated by local experience, or at least from the confrontation between external experiences and genius loci, is also crucial to overcome the poverty of typological imagination that afflicts the spectacular monuments of global architecture.
New regional approaches to architecture are not nostalgic archeology of folk traditions, but contemporary spatial and anthropological conceptions closely related to the extraordinary richness of local cultures.
Just as the respect of biodiversity ensures the survival and stability of the natural environment, respect for cultural diversity guarantees the survival of an evolutionary architectural thought.
C3 no.376 (2015 #12/12)
Regionalism and Global Diversity
Local vs. Global _ Aldo Vanini
The overwhelming force of economic and cultural globalization, as the unified model for every contemporary action, produces the disturbing idea that “global” is contemporary and modern, and that “local” is ancient.
The increasing influence of the market on decisions, use of resources and, ultimately, cultural choices, also now commoditized, makes decision makers at every level maintain a conformist attitude that flattens and deadens results. The local community perceives the objects most representative of this formalistic global movement as alien presences, at best useful as landmarks or visitors and tourist attractions.
On the other hand, the reaction to a planetary homologation that ignores roots and references to local cultures and traditions, is likely to lead to a vision, at best conservative, at worst pleased with nostalgic and vernacular quotations. Both scenarios cost us the richness and complexity contained in the answers that architecture could provide in every time for specific climatic and geographical conditions, even developing peculiar building techniques related to the local context.
The contrast between modernity, conceived as adherence to an international repertoire, and local culture of space and building, is a false and ill-posed problem. Regional architectural traditions, only apparently static, are, in any event, the result of an ongoing historical evolution and, for this reason, can and must create their own expression of contemporaneity.
The attention to an architecture generated by local experience, or at least from the confrontation between external experiences and genius loci, is also crucial to overcome the poverty of typological imagination that afflicts the spectacular monuments of global architecture.
New regional approaches to architecture are not nostalgic archeology of folk traditions, but contemporary spatial and anthropological conceptions closely related to the extraordinary richness of local cultures.
Just as the respect of biodiversity ensures the survival and stability of the natural environment, respect for cultural diversity guarantees the survival of an evolutionary architectural thought.
