Brune, Collert, Kramer 1 Critical Regionalism in Kansas Kansas has a long history of and deep loyalty to Vernacular Architecture. However, Vernacular Architecture is growing obsolete and irrelevant in our ever-modernizing, technologically advancing world. Rather than relying on Vernacular style to give modern architecture a sense of context and place, theorists like Kenneth Frampton advocate using Critical Regionalism instead. It is similar to, and yet remains distinct from Vernacular Architectural practice. Like Vernacular, Critical Regionalism emphasizes a sense of place as essential to building design. Unlike Vernacular, however, Critical Regionalism allows for evolution of its style while maintaining close ties to placeness. Very few writings exist about Critical Regionalism in Kansas. In addition to making a distinction between Critical Regionalism and Vernacular Architecture, the Critical Regionalism of Kansas must be defined, and will be done so using the four aspects that comprise Critical Regionalism— culture, politics, history, and place. In his book Critical Regionalism: Connecting Politics and Culture in the American Landscape, Douglas Reichert Powell defines Critical Regionalism as a way of “articulating our sense of what is unique about a particular spot on a landscape with a critical awareness of how that spot is part of broader configurations of history, politics, and culture… Simply talking about the place, or more specifically the local, is not enough.” (18). In other words, mere Vernacular Architecture is insufficient when considering the context and locality of architecture; history, politics, culture, and the like must be taken into account. Omitting even one of these factors would leave any observer with a misrepresentation of the design basis. Contextually based architecture cannot rest on geographical setting alone. It must go deeper than that, beyond simply the physical location.
Brune, Collert, Kramer 2 On the opposite side of the style spectrum, Critical Regionalism also grew out of a reaction to the International Style. Kenneth Frampton claims, “If any central principle of critical regionalism can be isolated, then it is surely a commitment to place rather than space” (481), placing external context above a well-designed internal space in the grand scheme of a design concept. The International Style by definition created a universal way of designing architectural spaces. It required flat pads upon which buildings could be erected. Critical Regionalism counters this impersonal universal style by incorporating a site’s natural shape. The removal of unique topography from the land results in the kind of placelessness that the International Style breeds and Critical Regionalism seeks to avoid. Although a withdrawal from the International Style is a large factor in the development of the theory, a distinction from and avoidance of Vernacular Architectural style is vital to understanding the true essence of Critical Regionalism. As the spearhead of the Critical Regionalism theory, Kenneth Frampton is careful to make a distinction between Vernacular Architecture and Critical Regionalism. Critical Regionalism distinguishes itself from that antiquated style which remains relevant only as a historical reference. Tzonis and Lefaivre ask in their essay Why Critical Regionalism Today?, “How is it possible for regionalist architecture to be anything more than, at best, a sentimental cosy indulgence in nostalgia for a bygone era?” (485). Vernacular relates more closely to Romantic Regionalism than Critical Regionalism. They criticize Romantic Regionalism and the Vernacular for “citing highly typified regional fragments and gluing them together in a fake, a pastiche, kitsch, good only for commercial facilities, restaurants, hotels, and other emporia” (485). While Vernacular was once an important means of construction, it has lost that relevance due to modern methods of construction and
Brune, Collert, Kramer 3 globalization of style. Romantic Regionalism, as related to Vernacular Architecture, has become a hodge-podge collection of traditional elements bordering on—and sometimes falling into—kitsch. Tzonis and Lefaivre go on to ask, “How is it possible for such a regionalist architecture… in its ‘as-if’ overfamiliarity to be anything but a kind of architectural pornography?” (485). By focusing primarily on tradition, Vernacular Architecture and Romantic Regionalism risk falling short of relevancy, landing amidst nostalgic and outdated methods and aesthetics that have been passed over for being obsolete. Conversely, Critical Regionalism seeks to holistically consider locality and history without solely focusing on the past. The overfamiliarity of Vernacular Architecture has brought it beyond irrelevant and towards a lazy way of nostalgically hearkening back to antiquated customs. Vernacular Architecture has deep roots in tradition and locality. In Kansas, it relies heavily on the “personal experience and cultural traditions of early settlers” (Nimz 2). The pioneering spirit of these early settlers permeates the Vernacular Architecture, as well as the Vernacular character, of Kansas and its residents today. The stereotype of hardy farmers who work with their hands carries through the way that Kansans see themselves as well as how Kansans are seen by outsiders (Shortridge 87). In the survey Vernacular Regions in Kansas done by James R. Shortridge, the only counties specifically outlined as being different from the whole of Kansas—Wyandotte, Johnson, Douglas, and Leavenworth—all occupy the easternmost side of Kansas. These counties are more densely populated than the majority of the other counties in the state. This higher density leads to different lifestyle choices, as farmers occupy the majority of the “plains” of Kansas. The residents of these four counties tend to work in the larger metropolitan Kansas City area, or at the University of Kansas. Included in these counties is Johnson County, nicknamed “Snob Hill” by
Brune, Collert, Kramer 4 Western Kansans (Shortridge 89). Johnson County represents the very antithesis of the positive Kansas Vernacular salt-of-the-earth stereotype. This view of the typical simple, handmade Kansan can also be seen in the Vernacular Architecture style, which is defined by simple lines and relatively small proportions (Nimz 6). Critical Regionalism seeks to tap into this kind of local spirit and long history without garnering a wistful outlook toward design. The Critical Regionalism of Kansas is closely tied to the Vernacular, however it remains distinct. Unlike many locations throughout the United States and the world over, Kansans appreciate and advocate the stereotypes assigned to them by outsiders (Shortridge 91). The people of Kansas are proud of the way that the world views their culture: as a farming culture. The conservative nature of Kansans’ political leanings stems from their conservative lifestyles in general. The state of Kansas was built from the ground up by the hands of its first settlers (Nimz 3). The people of Kansas wish to protect this rich heritage, which causes them to tend more toward a conservative existence. The history of Kansas within the scope of Critical Regionalism rests in the Vernacular styles of its early pioneer settlers. Place, especially the places in which these pioneers originally settled, is of vital importance to Kansans in particular. As noted by the Kansas residents in Shortridge’s survey, the three most prominent areas in Kansas are the Flinthills, the Blue Hills, and the Gypsum Hills because of their “combination of physical and historical visibility” (84). Nonresidents perceive Kansas as never ending, never changing, flat farmland. Due to this homogeneity in the landscape, Kansas residents tend to cling to any variation that exists in the topography (Shortridge 84). They strongly associate themselves with these places, most particularly the hills and valleys.
Brune, Collert, Kramer 5 However, the architecture unique to Kansas does not reside solely in traditional, antiquated Vernacular. It goes beyond that. Along with being a hardy, proud people, Kansans are also very resourceful. They have come to terms with the fact that energy is in crisis right now, and are beginning to take steps to reverse that. Kansas is blessed with a bounty of resources that are currently being used in developing and growing methods of renewable energy. One particular example of the simple yet powerful statement of modern architecture unique to Kansas is the city of Greensburg. Due to natural disasters typical of Kansas, Greensburg sits in a window of opportunity, given the chance to develop into a fully energy independent entity. It epitomizes Kansas’ persistent drive to remain independent as well as resourceful. The critical regionalism of Kansas is concerned with sustainable development, furthering the quality of life for its residents, and keeping close to its roots—all of these most especially exemplified in the rebuilding of Greensburg. Critical Regionalism is not a concrete style of building, but rather a scope with which to look at architecture. The four aspects of Critical Regionalism—history, culture, place, and politics—make it different from simple Vernacular Architecture, and also tie smoothly and directly in with the local style and context of Kansas overall. The steady, simple, farmtown life permeates Kansas culture, while the technological advances throughout the state encourage the residents to push for a sustainable built environment. All of these factors affect Kansas’ typical architecture through Critical Regionalism.
Brune, Collert, Kramer 6 Works Cited Frampton, Kenneth. “Prospects for a Critical Regionalism�. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture. New York City: Princeton Architectural, 1996. 468-482. Nimz, Dale. "Identifying the Earliest Buildings in Kansas, 1820-1861." Kansas Preservation 34.1 (2012): 1-7. Powell, Douglas Reichert. Critical Regionalism: Connecting Politics and Culture in the American Landscape. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2007. Shortridge, James R. "Vernacular Regions in Kansas." American Studies 21.1 (1980): 73-91. Tzonis, Alexander, and Liane Lefaivre. Why Critical Regionalism Today? Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture. New York City: Princeton Architectural, 1996. 484-492.