1. IntRoduCtIon

INTRODUCTION

The time has come to gather the old into the new, to rediscover the archaic qualities of human nature - I mean the timeless ones. To discover anew implies discovering something new. Translate that into architecture and you’ll get new architecture - real contemporary architecture. Architecture is constant rediscovery of constant human qualities translated into space. Man is always and everywhere essentially the same… Modern architects have been harping continually on what is different in our time to such an extent that even they have lost touch with what is not different, what is always essentially the same. This grave mistake was not made by the poets, painters and sculptors. On the contrary, they never narrowed down experience; they enlarged and intensified it; tore down not merely the form barriers as did the architects, but the emotional ones as well.1 (Van Eyck 1959, as cited in McCarter 2015, p.82)

In the field of sustainable and socially responsible architecture, the 1964 exhibition at the MoMA in New York by Bernard Rudofsky marks a turning point in the way we seek for solutions for an environmentally friendly architecture. Architecture Without Architects a book based on the exhibition of the same name, is an attempt to break down the narrow conceptions of the art of building by introducing the unfamiliar world of vernacular architecture (Rudofsky 1964, p.3). Bernard Rudofsky, an Austrian writer, architect, collector, teacher and social historian, was able to put this anonymous architecture at the center of attention and identify the diversity of harmonious relationships between the architecture and its environment. He (1979, p.18) states in his other book The Prodigious Builders (1979, p.18) that our overview of vernacular architecture is distorted by a lack of documentation. Since Rudofsky’s exhibition brought this undocumented part of architectural history to light, vernacular studies

have now become a growing focus in a wide range of research, especially in the field of sustainable development. A new trend of ecological design studies inspired by vernacular has emerged.

Nowadays, sustainable architecture refers to the materials, construction methods, use of resources and ecological design of a building with a view to its long-term operation. Until now, the technological and morphological approach has been priviledged for the most part. In recent years however, a shift in thinking about how long term change can go beyond the technical sphere is beginning to position sustainable architecture in a much broader framework. Paul Oliver, an architectural historian and writer, famous for his 1997 monumental work Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World , the fruit of ten years of extensive research, advocates an interdisciplinary approach in regard to vernacular studies. Oliver criticizes this systemic morphological approach, that only focuses on forms, neglecting the functions and symbolic values of the habitat (1976, pp. 22-29). By contrast, he mainly promotes an anthropological approach to understand the forms, use and meaning of vernacular architecture. Accordingly, a correlation of technical approach can be made between sustainable and vernacular studies.

The first book dealing with vernacular spatial setting was published by Amos Rapoport, architect and writer, in House Form and Culture, published in 1969. Through more than hundreds of academic publications, he analyzed the elements that determine the habitat and came to the conclusion that culture is most important in the built environment. Rapoport (1974, pp.166-167) assesses the systemic approach to architectural studies as one-sided explanations of climate, materials, technology, site, economy or religion, adding that they are primarily cultural and are powerless to

explain the variety of forms. As stated by Rudofsky (1964), vernacular architecture is above all a community art produced by the spontaneous and continuous activity of people, since then, this new ecological design inspired by vernacular should also be put in its true context, i.e. the sociocultural sphere. In order to move forward, architecture needs to distance itself from this too long-applied morphological and technical approach. The purpose of this dissertation is thus to express a critical view of vernacular studies.

No one can say what will become of our civilization when it has really met different civilizations by means other than the shock of conquest and domination. But we have to admit that this encounter has not yet taken place at the level of an authentic dialogue. That is why we are in a kind of lull or interregnum in which we can no longer practice the dogmatism of a single truth and in which we are not yet capable of conquering the skepticism into which we have stepped (Ricoeur 1961, p.283).

Although the representation of Thai cultural identity in contemporary architecture is in decline, Thai culture has always been strongly anchored in its rich traditions and beliefs. In the mid-19th century, in order to address the threat of colonization by Western powers, the Thai king and the country’s social elite decided to adopt and implement Western notions and technology as a means to present the modern image of a civilized nation and thus to be regarded as equal to Europe (Tharavichitkun 2011, p.1). Since then, the westernization of Thailand has led to a progressive decline of traditional values, a process which is increasingly influenced by globalization, resulting in a crisis of cultural identity in the Thai built environment. The question therefore arises : How to define a contemporary Thai architectural identity ? The architecture of developing countries such as Thailand is caught in a conflict of two divergent necessities: on the

one hand, the aspiration for progress and access to universal civilization, and on the other hand, the will to preserve a cultural heritage. In other words, “How to become modern and return to sources ?” This paradox was raised by French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1961, p.329). All too often, it is the former objective that prevails, when modernization is misguided by a driver for development which places technology at its core – given that contemporary architecture is governed by the industrial construction sector. The same applies to sustainable architecture, it often tends towards the technical dimension of ecological design and economical concerns and is less committed to the more fundamental concerns of human values, such as the social. This thesis aims to initiate a deeper reflection on the latter – how to return to sources – and investigate the social dimension of architecture as a primary need to be met for real sustainable development.

The objective of this study is therefore to investigate how to recreate social cohesion as a solution to the loss of Thai identity in architecture, especially to redirect modern architecture so as to reengage history, human nature, and local buildings tradition. The ambition of this thesis is to investigate vernacular Thai architecture in its intimate relations to social imperatives and community values. It will also consider the ability of vernacular architecture to “keep and transmit meanings” in the service of helping human establish an “existential foothold” (Norberg-Schulz 1981, p.5). To limit the scope of this dissertation, I will analyse the case study of the traditional Thai house typology in Central Thailand, displaying an architecture that was born directly from the needs, beliefs, traditions and daily life of Thai people, an architecture with meaning that Thai people can identify with. As a matter of fact, Southeastern architecture, is rarely taught in Western universities. Not only Thailand remains the only country in the southeastern Asian region that has not been under colonial rule, but

its traditional architecture has hardly been influenced before the advent of globalisation. Central Thailand region is the one with the largest urban development and therefore the one most affected by this duality of needs. Following in Rudofsky’s steps, I choose to study the Thai house for its human-centred aspects.

To frame this research, this paper seeks to bring a new approach of vernacular studies by introducing the ‘in-between’ concept. This concept is brought about by the search for archaic beginnings of architectural spaces, considered as elementary and fundamental. Here is a first definition of my own observations of such spaces. The in-between can be defined as an intermediary, transitional or mediating space between inside and outside. It can be identified as a space that generates social encounter and that is largely born of vernacular architecture, e.g. patio, arcades, courtyard, galerie, atrium, veranda, porch. Commonly, these places offer a free space of circulation or appropriation. This thesis sets out to explore how the definition given by Aldo van Eyck (as cited in McCarter 2015, p.82) “the in-between that reconciles conflicting polarities such as public and private”, will be an essential element of this research. I would also like to explore the strategies of the ‘in-between’ through the lens of three architectural theories : Genius Loci by Christian Norberg—Schulz, Critical Regionalism by Kenneth Frampton and Relativity by Aldo van Eyck. All three share a viewpoint according to which, in order to create a meaningful place, architecture must represent cultural identity values, as a means to express the essence of being, an existential and fundamental need. Hence, my attempt to bring a critical view on vernacular studies by highlighting the ‘in-between’ concepts in the traditional Thai house typology case study. Thus, the hypothesis is the following: How ‘in-between’ vernaculars can restore social cohesion and redefine Thai architectural identity ?

This research paper is presented as a theoretical approach illustrated by a typological study of the traditional Thai house. It aims to analyse the in-between vernaculars that will be used to determine factors for a meaningful contemporary Thai architecture and proposes guidelines for creating a Thai architectural identity. The first section, attempts to define the ‘in-between’ concept, which constitutes the theoretical corpus divided into four parts. The first three parts will analyse the ‘in-between’ concept from each theoreticians’ strategies : Genius Loci, Critical Regionalism and Relativity. These different theories are summarized in the fourth part as a clear definition of the ‘in-between’ and then synthesized in the form of analysis diagrams. This will be applied to the vernacular study in the second section of this paper. The second section presents the case study of the traditional Thai house typology in Central Thailand. Five vernacular ‘in-between’ will be presented then analyzed as archetypes : The area beneath the raised house, the terrace, the veranda, the porch and the varying levels. A synthesis of the in-between vernaculars concludes this second section, highlighting the key points that will be used to create the project.

15