BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC61303/ARC2224) SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (AUGUST 2016) [10 MARKS]

NAME: CHEN EE DONG ID: 0321181

LECTURER: MR LAM SHEN FEI TUTORIAL TIME: 2-4 PM

SYNOPSIS NO: 4 READER TITLE: TOWARDS A CRITICAL REGIONALISM

AUTHOR: KENNETH FRAMPTON

From ‘Towards a Critical Regionalism’, Kenneth Frampton discusses Critical Regionalism as a form of

resistance towards the issue of placelessness and its relationship with other world cultures.

From the statement ‘…to remove itself from both the optimization of advanced technology and the

tendency to regress into nostalgic historicism or the decorative…’, Frampton defines Critical Regionalism as a

resolution to the problems derived from Modernism and Post-Modernism. The former dictates functional

architecture void of identity, whereas the latter references architectural styles of the past for the sake of aesthetics,

resulting in whimsical, meaningless design. From my understanding, Critical Regionalism cannot simply mimic

native forms. It adopts and applies the cultural style of a region in a measured and meaningful approach, with

examples stated by Frampton such as taking inspiration from the topological context and local architectonics. An

example of Critical Regionalism can be reflected in Saynatsalo Town Hall by Alvar Aalto. The contextual relevance

is maintained through the usage of traditional brick and wood, but yet translated simultaneously using modern

principles of functionalism. Upon reading Frampton’s discourse, I find Critical Regionalism relatable as I now

understood the importance of capturing the genius loci of the site in the attempt to design a space which will not

be deemed ‘totally out of context’.

The second part of the text delves deeper into the modern crisis of placelessness. Frampton highlights

how the Megalopolis has been adapted to the point where urban design has become theoretical but has no

significant contribution to real world development. For example, there was hardly any element of locality in Post-

Modernist skyscrapers such as the Petronas Towers which completely disregard regionalistic features such as

materiality. Argumentatively, it is effective as an iconic landmark but the contextual relevance is lost as it is not

representative of true Malaysian architectural style. Heidegger’s outlook upon defining spatial boundaries is also

complementary to the idea of Critical Regionalism. From what I have interpreted, boundaries are not determined

by inanimate walls to denote the end of a space, but rather defines the beginning of a space through the various

type of activity conducted within. Using terms such as ‘precondition’ and ‘prerequisite’, this is in line with

Heidegger’s and Arendt’s perspective on how human activity and presence is the key to creating meaningful spaces

as a form of resistance against the issue of prevalent placelessness. Foundation of cities, as mentioned in Arendt’s

work, are evidence of resistive power generated from the co-living and collectivity of people.

In conclusion, I agree with the concept of Critical Regionalism as an strategy integrative with other world

cultures as I believe that architecture should be complementary to the context, but also adopt modern progressions

to maintain both contextual and technological relevance along the pace of time. Frampton’s discourse highlights

the role of Critical Regionalism as a didactic and valuable reminder to create architecture which is humanistic,

incorporating elements familiar to the site in a sensitive manner along a sensible design appropriate with our time

and age.

WORD COUNT 480 WORDS

Key points (2.5)

Appropriateness of Terminologies (2.5)

Clarity in Opinions and Reactions (2.5)

Logical Progression (2.5)

DATE: TOTAL MARK & GRADE

ASSSESSED BY:

SYNOPSIS DESCRIPTION

ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

Grades Marks Key points (2.5) Appropriateness of Terminologies (2.5)

Clarity in Opinions and Reactions (2.5)

Logical Progression (2.5)

A 1.8 - 2.5

Evidence of outstanding understanding of Key points through clear explanation

Appropriate use of Terminologies In discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories

Outstanding Clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with strong Logical explanation

Outstanding Articulation of logical expressions ending with well-developed paragraphs

B 1.5 - 1.79

Evidence of understanding of Key points through reasonable explanation

Reasonable use of Terminologies In discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories with Minor unfamiliarity

Reasonable clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with Logical explanation

Reasonable Articulation of logical expressions ending with well-developed paragraphs

C 1.25 - 1.49

Evidence of Some Understanding of Key points through acceptable explanation

Acceptable use of Terminologies In discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories with Noticeable unfamiliarity

Acceptable Clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with satisfactory explanation

Acceptable Articulation of logical expressions ending with some ambiguous statements

D 1 - 1.24

Evidence of Some Understanding of Key points through not quite acceptable explanation

Evidence of Terminologies however poorly communicated in discussing The Issues/ Concepts/Theories With

Weak Clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with Lengthy explanation

Poor Articulation of logical expressions ending with noticeable ambiguous statements

F 0 - 0.99

Insufficient Evidence of Understanding of Key points through weak explanation

Insufficient Evidence of Terminologies in discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories With

Improper opinions and reactions. Not Matching the Issues/ Concepts/ Theories -Inadequate Reasons

Unable to Articulate / illogical expressions. Poorly written synopsis.