Steve Mouzon from The Original Green Blog posted a few thoughts about The Simpler Way, in which he describes how buildings used to be built utilizing local materials and building methods, and how those same building methods can be used adapted to build a range of structures from a utilitarian farm shed to a refined mansion. He calls this spectrum the Classical/Vernacular Spectrum.
Go read Steve’s post and then come back and read my comment to him below. I completely agree with Steve’s thoughts, but as I read through the post I felt that there was an underlying issue that had not been brought up: the question of why?
Steve, I agree that this architectural “image goo” is a problem, but it seems that there is an underlying issue that is not being discussed. The question we need to ask is “why do people build with architectural goo?” I think you answer that partly in talking about marketing strategies, but even the slickest marketing strategies will fail if they are not based on what ‘the people’ want. As an American culture we not only want our own little Portofino, we want more, bigger and faster (which is ironic because houses in Portofino are probably fairly modest in size). This consumptive desire is in my mind the thing that allows those marketing strategies to work. And it makes sense that to put the ‘more and bigger’ into a new house and still pay the same, you have to use cheaper materials – the “goo” that you speak of.
I for one, long for people to build on the Classical/Vernacular Spectrum. Your description of that spectrum (your terminology?) really conveys the core issues: “The better thing to do is to figure out how to build in a place, then figure out how to make that way of building more or less elaborate according to the needs of the job…” I think the question for our society and us as those who desire to change it is, “How can we change the underlying consumptive drive?” I don’t know, and I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
Original Green is an excellent collection of thoughts and Steve is always adding more. Check back with him often or subscribe to his posts, you won’t regret it.
The below reply from Steve: (we had comments disabled and he was kind enough to email us.)
Matt, thanks so much for the thoughtful comments! I’m wondering if the problem doesn’t result from a subtle misunderstanding? Here’s what I mean: “The people” aren’t the ones building with architectural image goo, for the most part. It’s the developers and their builders. Why? We all know that Portofino and other similarly great places turn up again and again in focus groups hosted by development companies. So it’s natural for them to say “we’ve gotta build Portofino.”
But what if that’s not what the people are really saying? What if it’s not Portofino itself, or the Cinque Terre themselves, that people are actually wanting? What if the thing they really want, but can’t adequately describe, is the mysterious sense of harmony and appropriateness to its region and its context that these places all embody so deeply? This sense, I believe, is the real key… and is something we need to understand far better than we do now. My upcoming Original Green book deals with it to the limits of my understanding of it, but this warrants far more study and comprehension.