Critical Regionalism

REPORT SUBTITLE

Harsh Bhati | H.O.A. | 21 March, 2019

PAGE 0
' The phenomenon of universalization, while being an advancement of man-kind, at the same
time constitutes a sort of subtle destruction, not only of traditional cultures, which might
not be an irreparable wrong, but also of what I shall call for the time being the creative
nucleus of great cultures, that nucleus on the basis of which we interpret life, what I shall
call in advance the ethical and mythical nucleus of mankind. The conflict springs up from
there. We have the feeling that this single world civilization at the same time exerts a sort of
attrition or wearing away at the expense of the cultural resources which have made the great
civilizations of the past. This threat is expressed, among other disturbing effects, by the
spreading before our eyes of a mediocre civilization which is the absurd counterpart of what
I was just calling elementary culture. Everywhere throughout the world, one finds the same
bad movie, the same slot machines, the same plastic or aluminum atrocities, the same
twisting of language by propaganda, etc. It seems as if mankind, by approaching en masse a
basic consumer culture, were also stopped en masse at a subcultural level. Thus we come to
the crucial problem confronting nations just rising from underdevelopment. In order to get
on to the road toward modernization, is it necessary to jettison the old cultural past which
has been the raison d'etre of a nation? . . . Whence the paradox: on the one hand, it has to
root itself in the soil of its past, forge a national spirit, and unfurl this spiritual and cultural
revindication before the colonialist's personality. But in order to take part in modern
civilization, it is necessary at the same time to take part in scientific, technical, t political
rationality, something which very often requires the pure and simple abandon of a whole
cultural past. It is a fact: every culture cannot sustain and absorb the sht.ck of modern
civilization. There is the paradox: how to become modern and to return to sources; how to
revive an old, dormant civilization and make part in universal civilization. '
—Paul Ricoeur, History and Truth

Critical regionalism emerged as an architectural concept during the early 1980s. For leading
theorish such as Kenneth Frampton, critical regionalism was an 'architecture of resistance
seeking 'to merkate the impact of universal chnkzation' and 10 reflect and serve the limited
constituencies it which it was grounded. This paper examines critical regionalist rhetoric.
particularly its emphasis on resistance. as a theoretical construct that inadvertently
marginal-ized and conflated the diverse architectural tendencies it championed, The
reception of Mexican architect Luis Batragan as a critical regionalist is high-lighted to
analyze torn* of critical regionalism's most problematic assumptions, implications, and
effects.

The term critical rrgionalitm first appeared in print during the early 1980s. in essays by
Alexander Tzonis, l.iane Lefaivre, and, a little later. Kenneth Frampton. These described a
type of recent archi-tecture that engaged its particular geographical and cultural circum-
stances in deliberate, subtle, and vaguely politicized ways. In making this engagement,
critical regionalist architecture was said to eschew both the placeless homogeneity of much
mainstream mod-ernism and the superficial historicism of so much postmodern work.
"The fundamental strategy of Critical Regionalism," Frampton wrote, 'is to mediate the
impact of universal civilization with ele-ments derived indirectly from the peculiarities of a

PAGE 1
particular place." Critical regionalism thus aimed "to reflect and serve the limited
constituencies" in which it was grounded and "cultivate a contem-porary place-oriented
culture." In this role, it was said to mark a form of resistance-a decided reaction to
normative, universal scans dards. practices, forms, and technological and economic
conditions. If critical regionalism was found difficult to define much beyond this and to be
lacking in stylistic unity, this was because it was a method or process rather than a product,
and the process varied widely according to individual situations." Critical regionalism has
been an influential architectural con-cept whose application remains widespread! Yet as an
intellectual construct it can be highly problematic. When applied, as it has often been, to
the architecture of developing. postcolonial nations, the term critical
regionalismexemplifies a phenomenon described by the urban historian Jane M. Jacobs:
"Just as postcolonialist tendencies have always been produced by colonialism, so colonialist
tendencies necessarily inhabit often optimistically designated posrcolonial for-mations.”
Critical regionalism is such a formation. Identifying an architecture that purportedly
reflects and serves its locality. but-tressed by a framework of liberative, empowering
rhetoric, critical regionalism is itself a construct most often imposed from outside, from
positions of authority. The assumptions and implications it bears have undermined its own
constructive message and con-founded the architecture it upholds. The case of the Mexican
architect Luis Barragin is revealing in this respect. Barragin's mature work—from the
Gardens of El Pedregal, begun in Mexico City in 1945. to late houses such as the Casa
Gilardi of 1975-1977—has frequently been upheld as critical regionalist. (Sec Figure 1.)
However well intentioned and beneficial to his reputation, this designation of Barrag4n's
work is an appro-priation. a form of colonization along the lines that Jacobs describes. To fit
it into the critical regionalist paradigm, writers have neglected or distorted much of the
architecture's primary content and char-acter. This essay. arguably another variety of
appropriation, uses the reception of Barragan's work as a lens through which we might
observe some of critical regionalism's more dubious implications and efkcts'

Postmodernism and Critical Regionalism in Global Architectural Discourse

in the 1970s and 1980s

PAGE 2
Postmodernism was a movement which was born out of the failure of
Modernism.Modernist principles of universality and monumentality started to fail by the
1960s with the biggestexamples in housing being Pruitt Igoe, St Louis and Ronan Point,
London. This lead to a shift of ideology and creation of a group with the philosophy

of using “region”
11
as the main factor todefine a building.Post modern used region and looked at the
different aspects of it which included different
cultures and the vernacular. The movement encouraged, “mixing their own
professional tastes and
technical skills with those of their ultimate clients-
the inhabitants,”
12
in term of Jencks. Themovement also tried to create a complex relationship with its
client by looking at different culturesand traditions and trying to act according to them.
This allows it to be expressed in many different
ways like sculptures, ornamentation and decoration. These ideas can be seen
in Robert Venturi’s
headquarters building for Nurses and Dentists, which is considered as one of the
earliest projects inwhich post modernistic ideas were used in an aggressive way. The
building used traditional moldingand symbols to decorate the façade and also used the
form to react to the site where it waslocated.One major difference between
modernism and post modernism was the
13
playfulness whichcame with the movement. As the principles of contextualism and
pluralism allowed the architectsthe structure to become more organic and sculptural,
which was completely opposite of themonumentality and rigidness which modernism
brought with itself. One big example of this
playfulness can be seen in the Hans Hollein’s Abteiberg Museum in which the
building units are all
very different but fit together in a very organic way enhancing the effect
of the form.
Post modernism reached its height during the 1980s but as the movement reached its
peak,a group of people started to feel that the craziness and chaoticness of
postmodernism sometimeslead the buildings to look extremely tacky, because of which

PAGE 3
they started to look for a style whichtried to find a middle ground between these two
movements. This shift gave birth to
“Critical Regionalism
.
”
14
This new movement focused on creation of architecture that followed thetradition and
simplicity of modernism but also tied itself to the geographical and cultural context
ofthe site. Frampton the biggest spoke person of the movement states that the
influence from thevernacular should not be taken directly but should be interpreted in
progressive ways to connect tothe geographical state of the building.The critical
regionalism became extremely famous among architects who worked in placeswith a
distinct cultural history of their own as it gives them an opportunity to make the
buildingwork more vernacular while maintaining the modern style. One of the best
examples criticalregionalism is the Bagsvaerd Church in Denmark designed by Jorn
Utzon. The church uses a veryspecific concrete shell vault which was inspired by
traditional Chinese pagoda roofs. This design alsoallows light to enter to building
only to bounce on the curves of the shell to be diffused throughoutthe space. The whole
church is made of concrete, aluminum and glass and is painted white giving ita very
moderns look.As these two movements became came into the picture, they started to
make their waytowards the other parts of the world. Specially in newly independent
parts of the world like India,Pakistan etc. These movements provided local architects
with an opportunity to combine their local traditions and cultures into a modern and
progressive looking structure, also symbolizing theirideologies of growth and progress to
the world.

The Beginnings of Postmodernism and Critical Regionalism in India

During the 196
0’s India was a new
developing nation emerging from the colonial past. Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had the dream of making India one of the world’s
leading countries both
in terms of economy and ideology. He dreamt of an India which was progressive and ran
on theprincipl
es of democracy and secularism. An integral part of Nehru’s vision was the
infrastructure
and architecture of the nation. As India just came out of a violet partition, there was an
urgent needof building new capitals and adding extensions to existing cities

PAGE 4
15
. The first city to be developed wasChandigarh. Even though Corbusier was not the first
choice for the project, the Prime Minister was
very impressed by Corbusier’s modernistic ideals calling it “be a new town,
symbolic of the freedom
of India, unfette
red by the past,”
16
Even though Chandigarh was not the only Indian city to be designed
17
, it was by far the mostinfluencal one. The project was supposed to be way more than
just a building project for theIndians. It was an opportunity for them to see the free-
thinking approach they might derive from a
master’s modernist’s creative response to the particular challenges and
opport
unities encounteredin India
18
. The project was focused on casting new minds, so that in course of time they
wouldeventually develop a new Modern Indian Architecture.
The influence of the project was just as Nehru had imagined. Modern architecture
becamethe new style of developing India. A lot architects tried to use Post Modernist
principles to designbuildings in India. These buildings took influence from their context
and recreated them in amodern fashion. These principles were just not limited to the
form or the function of the buildingbut also incorporated the local decorations.
Habib Rahman’s Gandhi Ghats in Bankipore, West
Bengal
19
is one of the earliest and most famous projects which came out of this
combination.Rahman tried to show a union of all religions in the building taking a cue from
the fact that thebuilding was supposed to be a memorial for Mahatma Gandhi. The
building was a stylized hybrid inwhich modernist representations of iconic architectural
forms of the regions main religions werepresented. The building has a tower which is
designed in traditional Hindu profile capped a largeIslamic dome. A large cantilever
comes out from the building on both sides representing the waythe Ghats come out to
the river. Rahman though was not happy with the design as he called it a
“compromise” between the traditionalists and progressives.
He wrote to an architectural forum

PAGE 5
“Architecture in India today is practically dead”, “I do not feel that a good
modern architecture will
develop her
e in the near future.”
20
Some of the architects, however, continued to reinvent the styleto fit the Indian
context more, resulting in buildings like The Hall of the Nations a permeant
pavilionstructure in Pragati Maidan, Delhi by Raj Rewal.Some of the architects,
however, tried to find different ways to deal with modernarchitecture in Indian
context. They did not agree with postmodernism as the simple answer andthought that
trying to represent traditional designs in a modern fashion was not the right way. This
group tried to combine Nehru’s ideas of creating an “Indian Modern style”
with architecture. They looked at the traditional styles and symbols and created
designs which responded to these symbolsdirectly. This style of approaching the local
took its precedents from the movement of CriticalRegionalism, which focused on getting
influenced from a wide variety of vernacular motifs andenvironment in the region to
form a dialog with the site which would be projected in a modern way.This approach
proved to be more successful than Post Modernism as it avoided the debate
oftraditionalists and progressives

21
which plagued Post Modernism. The movement was also able toconnect more with its
site and the people, as the influence came directly from the local history. Thisstyle
matched the Nehruvian vision perfectly which focused on creation of a
national style in
“connection to India’s own architectural traditions
.
”
22
Many young Indian architects were inspired by this movement. Charles Correa being
one ofthe leaders of this group pursued it throughout his carrier. Jawahar Kala Kendra
in Jaipur is one ofthe example of this dialog created by Correa in his designs. Apart
from Correa many youngarchitects joined this movement
23

like B. V. Doshi who’s des

ign for the IIM Bangalore shows a

PAGE 6
detailed study of the local materials and courtyard designs. Doshi’s
Amdavad Ni Gufa
, is an anotherproject which plays with the different kinds of domes found in the region
to create an undergroundspace.

Conclusion
Seizing modernism and latest technologies, we are soo much fascinated, that a blindfold
has appeared in on our eyes stopping us from realizing the importance of our regional,
cultural and traditional relevance, the importance of our own identity. In today’s age of
Globalization, the revitalization of a culture’s heritage and traditions through architecture
is a means to resurrect local identities and encourage a psychological sense of belonging.
Paul Ricoeur’s question: "How to be modern and to continue the tradition, how to revive an
old dormant civilization as part of universal civilization" is a big query, one of thereasons
behind abandoning our modern traditional architecture and adopting modernism. This
research paper is to bring up the importance and need of critical regionalism in India, ways
how it can be adopted in a defamiliarised manner through examples of some of the
architects of the late twenties - early twenty-firstseries and their design theories. Many of
their designs are great examples of bringing our identity backthrough the means of
vernacular architecture in modern framework, through traditions principals using modern
techniques, through green architecture in regional context using modern technologies, also
designing buildings using the connotations behind regional ethos and principles, through
understanding human emotions and their connectivity with spaces and environment and
bringing that out beautifully in modern framework ……. And Soo on gives a perfect answer
to Paul Ricoeur's question. Critical regionalism should not be adopted at our conscious
level but should be accepted at subconscious level keeping our own individuality.

PAGE 7