Posted by  Paul Malo on May 10, 2002 at 16:49:16:

In Reply to:  Re: Contextualism posted by Will Hayes on May 10, 2002 at 14:00:24:

OK, Will, so you picked an distastful example and then generalized from it to propose a general rule. You assert, "Such buildings are nearly ALWAYS inferior. . . ."

But is a steel-stud box, clad with Dryvit, somehow preferable in a historic neighborhood to a honest masonry building? Come on, now. There are traditional modes of vernacular construction that are as viable today as they were when used in the 19th century. There's nothing inherently wrong with a bearing wall, is there? Why do you suppose that the brick building must be fake?

Again, double-hung windows work as well today as they did in the 19th century--so what's wrong with using them, when all the other buildings in the neighborhood have double-hung windows? Is this "dishonest," or is it really about the designer wanting to make a "statement"?

If you find buildings that are not modern in character are "nearly ALWAYS inferior to their historical models," is it really because you discern the style not to be modern, or is it because the designer was inept at designing (or building honestly) in any other style?

Vernacular buildings can have as much integrity as trendy buildings--often more. Barns generally are great buildings, as authentic today as there were when built. Much regional architecture, regardless of period, was designed with regard for climate and local materials--which is more than we can say for many modern structures.

Responses:

• Re: Contextualism and Vernacular Building Will Hayes 10:33:57 5/11/2002 (1)
  • Style, Contextualism and Vernacular Building Paul Malo 09:01:25 5/12/2002 (0)

Post a Response -