The Modern Vernacular

There was a short lived discussion group that was a sub-set of the Trad-Arch list serv. It's purpose was to venture past the traditional and classical and propose a New Discourse into the discussion of architectural character. A discussion where the modern was not taboo. It was a contention that modern materials and methods can be adopted in a more humanistic manner. The machine aesthetic nor the tortured blobs of the current spate of starchitects need close the door on advances in technology that can lead to better and more cost effective buildings.

Indeed I find the problems of modernism related more to modernists than to their toolkit. Their intrinsically anti-social plans and shock-and-awe forms have damaged the urban fabric of cities the world over. The steel, glass, and titanium are not to blame.

The challenge is simply this: use the best construction practices of today while making benefit of the wealth of knowledge passed down through the ages. In order to accomplish this, what is required is a thorough and thoughtful analysis of traditional architecture as well as the modern.

In my investigations I've found that the power of the traditional is its continued evolution. This is expressed in the relentless refinement and adaptation of building types as well as construction details. The best solutions are kept and advanced in a pattern reminiscent of natural selection. Simplicity and an austere elegance typify these solutions. The result is a rich body of work that ranges from the humble to the grandiose, rural to urban, and yet still share a common bond of form and proportion. This scalability and adaptability has led to incredible variations within traditional architecture all across the globe. It is the limitless subtle variation possible within the traditional language which allows for each building to be unique yet identifiable as part of a place. You can see this in French villages, Italian villages, Chinese, Japanese, etc., etc., etc..

For all its power of adaptability, however, traditional architecture had a problem contending with the industrial revolution. The needs of the industrialized city were radically different and the slow pace of change which is a hallmark of the vernacular couldn't keep up. New building types came into existence and new building materials and methods were invented as well as conveying systems. The result was the creation of building forms and types that weren't previously feasible. At this point there was a break with tradition and new theories of form were investigated.

In this period of discovery and expansion there were many advancements made in the building arts. Methods of production and construction were devised that improved quality and lowered cost. Yet amidst these advances something was being lost. The language developed to take best advantage of the expressiveness of the new materials allowed for radical variation, but it wasn't as able in allowing for subtle variation. Thus that sense of individuals coming together to form a community, a sense of place, was missing. What took its place was hyper individuality that never found a way to be neighborly.

The dissatisfaction with the troublesome aesthetics of modern architecture gave rise to Post-Modernism. Though you'll be hard pressed today to find an architect willing to admit their work is PoMo, the cartoonish abstractions of classical architecture they created can be seen all over the world. The color palette and out of scale forms of PoMo architecture became faddish and its fifteen minutes of fame were soon up.

After the decline of PoMo there was a resurgence of traditional architecture that bordered on historicism, as well as a return to orthodox modernism. In the intervening years between the decline of traditional architecture and its renaissance much of the original knowledge was lost and had to be rediscovered. While there were plenty of examples to study, knowing what the details were wasn't the same as knowing why and how the details came into existence. Knowing how and why allowed for the further refinement and variation of the details. Not knowing led to a static aesthetic that merely aped previous designs. It was in the search for this knowledge that the key to unlocking a New Discourse was found.

With this key it is possible to bridge the gap between the monotone industrial aesthetic of the moderns and the limitless variation afforded through tradition. It was this missing link that led to the PoMo folly of the 1980's. Misunderstanding of traditional forms as well as a preoccupation with neoplatonism, of course. It is this key that I'll be discussing in future posts that share this title.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens: Architect