Critical Regionalism was first introduced in the 1970s oppose the ‘glorious period of Post-Modernisation’. Modernisation, according to Alexander, ‘rolled back the index of happiness in negative spectrum, served terrible interests.’ Although, Post-Mdernisation was a counter-response to Modernization, it also lead to architecture that was placeless, universal and was overtly symbolic of the past. Both, Modernisation and Post-Modernisation were representative of top-down ideologies and norms. And both had ignored the (complex) reality of the context.

​

Hence, in 2002, they started talking about Realism, as an extension of the theory of Critical Regionalism. The idea had not succeeded due to two reasons: first reason was the perception of Regionalism as a Nationalist or Fascist ideology. Alexander is aware of spin-offs of the idea of regionalism, which have exploited the idea to indulge in overtly nationalistic architecture. The other reason could’ve been the apparent backwardness of the movement. The argument in this case was that we had to move away from agrarian societies instead of making way towards one; away from disease, tribal wars, and so on.

​

The attitude of Critical Regionalism was meant to be that of being true to a region. He cited the example of such a concept as a part of Western History. Vitruvius described the region (‘regionum’) as having its particular climatic conditions that creates a regional architecture as opposed to classical orders. He rationalized it further by pointing out that geography and climate influences the behavior of people, therefore temperate regions create the most balanced individuals. The conclusion is explicitly political; as he goes on to say that Romans are allocated this ‘excellent, temperate region in order to rule the world.’

​

Alexander argued that Rome is also one of the first experiments to create a global nation-one mind for the entire world-by means of a universal toolbox for construction. The Persians and then the British then followed this.

​

He showed an example of Casai de Crescenzi, an architectural collage that was assembled from antique Roman buildings in a new composition. It was meant to be an independent, emancipatory, autonomous symbol for the ‘Renovation of the Senate’. Here regionalist architecture was used to aid a political movement.

​

To further elucidate his point of view, Alexander gave an example of the Picturesque gardens; ironical because of a fake landscape, quite contrary to an idea of a ‘free’ and ‘natural’, that was imposed on the foreign lands by colonists. He refers to such gardens as an illusion, where the hills and valleys are fake. The gardens were interestingly designed in the basis of rules applied to ancient temples. The will to dominate the whole world with a set of principles can be compared to certain globalist tendencies.

Globalisation, propounded as a means of restoring equality and liberation, was indeed representative of socio-economic inequality, marked by concentration of wealth, economic disparity and environmental degradation. The interaction between regions was maximized, in order to create a seamless, borderless world. But the new technological and institutional developments have not ensured equal distribution of its fruit. Developers, who he believes, are not interested in the future of society and ecology, control the business of building. Money has no moral and social conscience and thus incentive of profit should be eliminated in order to create a harmonious society, but he also agrees that it’s not the ideal case.

​

Regionalism for made available to all by American capitalists- as a way of branding and creating daydreams for a consumer society. This ‘Regionalism for sale’ notion gave way to a mirage society (Example of a MacDonalds’ outlet in Korea modeled after a traditional monastery). It creates external images and prototypes, which, he believes, disturbs the ecological balance.

The Realism argument stemmed from this notion of a globalised world.

​

(What is the idea of local/national/global? In times where there is a frivolous ‘exchange of ideas’, what is true to a particular place, anyway? What does a national/jingoistic attitude entail and how does it benefit the lives of the people?)

​

He asks for an architecture that is embedded in reality-of real people, real values and real society versus outside values, outside fantasies and outside interests. Examples of buildings from China and South America, where the issue is of importance, according to him, are relevant to his argument. One of the buildings is shown using agrarian prototypes of the past, not nostalgically, but to use certain climatic considerations embedded in older models and to bring a community together.

​

Realism is described as a kind of Anti-colonialism, wherein particular identity of groups is brought forth. 

 

(What is the use of fractionalizing, when we are part of a larger society, accepting of a broad spectrum of ideas?

‘I think the Indian diaspora has a very strong sense of Indianness; though that’s not always good. Nationalism is very problematic everywhere because it closes us. And we live in very troubled nationalistic times all over the world, including India.’                                                                                                                      

-Anish Kapoor, visual artist, on Narendra Modi’s political ideologies.

How can gated belief systems be of good consequence? Isn’t this the origin of a lunatic fringe?)

​

What is the nature of monuments( or star buildings in today’s terms) ? None, according to Alexander. Monuments, he says, only make a city beautiful. It doesn’t work like acupuncture; for instance, Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (a great building) did not bring about social and cultural happiness. He believes that we relate to a building emotionally and not rationally – a degree of familiarization is important. 

​

(Why, isn’t this a condescending way to look at people? Architecture, has been talked about as a form of art, and art mustn’t patronize-it asks of an observer/user to think.) 

​

He further discussed the idea of yacht, born out a tendency to be cut out from reality and land. The presentation ended with an image of a tropical forest (‘It is not architecture’), a harmonious and collaborative creation, interdependent and diverse.

​

Liane Lefaivre’s presentation focused on social housing in Vienna. She showed examples dating back to the Post-World War I period. The foresight of the government to invest in housing at a point in time when the world was trying to fight economic depression was brought forth, the projects were diverse, each having its own ‘context’ in terms of the end-users (college students, multi-ethnic societies, women-only groups) and thus it was interesting to know that there wasn’t a generic, rubber stamp trend in the housing sector.

​

(How is consistency in the environmental quality of different projects ensured? What is the ethnographic consideration for each project and how is it determined-how, then, can the building respond to a certain kind of people and their lifestyles?So, is a housing project inherently universal in its approach?)