Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance - Kenneth Frampton Evolution and Critical Regionalism – Hadas Shadar

By Robert Musial

To begin, both of these articles were written at a different time period.  Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance was written in the 1983 while Evolution and Critical Regionalism was written in 2010. This is a 30-year difference. The Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance focuses on the modern architecture aspect and how regionalism is lost but in Evolution and Critical Regionalism Hadas Shadar focuses on vernacular architecture, modern architecture, critical regionalist architecture, and the evolution of architecture. Also, Hadas Shadar has a specific section about the critical regionalist architecture in Israel. In general, Kenneth Frampton focuses on the past while Hadas Shadar argument is geared more towards the present.

Hadas Shadar places an emphasis on the local architecture. For example Hadas Shadar states, “ Projects cited in the professional literature that are planned as completed products neglect on of the most prominent characteristics of local architecture: the ability to change and adapt to the varying human and culture conditions of the residents using them” (Shadar, H. ). This again reemphasizes the evolution of architecture and how the local culture change existing to architecture into their daily needs. Hadas Shadar explains this theory by showing different residential complexes in Israel built after World War II and how they have changed in 50 years. For instance, Hadas Shadar explains that, the people did not make major changes to adapt to modernist plans because the plans suited their way of life but, they have changed the structure themselves by adding external spaces (Shadar, H. p.238). This shows how the modern architecture and vernacular architecture can be viewed as evolution into regionalism.  In contrast, Kenneth Frampton discusses Jorn Utzon’s Bagsvared Church uses both modern / global desigTo begin, both of these articles were written at a different time period.  Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance was written in the 1983 while Evolution and Critical Regionalism was written in 2010. This is a 30-year difference. The Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance focuses on the modern architecture aspect and how regionalism is lost but in Evolution and Critical Regionalism Hadas Shadar focuses on vernacular architecture, modern architecture, critical regionalist architecture, and the evolution of architecture. Also, Hadas Shadar has a specific section about the critical regionalist architecture in Israel. In general, Kenneth Frampton focuses on the past while Hadas Shadar argument is geared more towards the present.

Hadas Shadar places an emphasis on the local architecture. For example Hadas Shadar states, “ Projects cited in the professional literature that are planned as completed products neglect on of the most prominent characteristics of local architecture: the ability to change and adapt to the varying human and culture conditions of the residents using them” (Shadar, H. ). This again reemphasizes the evolution of architecture and how the local culture change existing to architecture into their daily needs. Hadas Shadar explains this theory by showing different residential complexes in Israel built after World War II and how they have changed in 50 years. For instance, Hadas Shadar explains that, the people did not make major changes to adapt to modernist plans because the plans suited their way of life but, they have changed the structure themselves by adding external spaces (Shadar, H. p.238). This shows how the modern architecture and vernacular architecture can be viewed as evolution into regionalism.  In contrast, Kenneth Frampton discusses Jorn Utzon’s Bagsvared Church uses both modern / global design on the exterior, but the interior is more regionalism architecture with the celling being curves of culture (Foster, H. 1983, p24-25). This shows that Jorn Utzon was able to build a church that is a globalized design and still apply regionalism architecture all in one time rather than seeing an evolution into regionalism architecture. 

To conclude Kenneth Frampton states that, “1960’s have since become progressively overlaid by the two symbiotic instrument of megalopolition development – the freestanding high rise and serpentine freeways” (Foster, H. 1983, p18). In other words, after the 1960’s development was taken over. With this happening there was a lot high-rise buildings being built that were being stamped over and over again to accommodate to the population of 1960. With this development there was repetition of same highways and high rise.  While Hadas Shadar stated, “After World War II in Europe there was a need for quick, efficient and cheap housing solution, combined with the need to mend the destruction following the war” (Shadar, H. p. 231). Hadas Shadar also stated, “Europe and isreal, public housing was characterized by reproduction: identical housing structures were laid out with large spaced between them in open areas, creating extensive areas having undefined use and lacking ownership” (Shadar, H. p. 231). This shows that after World War II they were more concentrated on the rebuilding of the city rather than the concentration on the regionalism and culture, which lead to development.  With lack of concentration on culture and regionalism, the building complex has evolved and changed in years to the way they lived life by. Hadas Shadar explains multiple times how buildings evolve into the culture of the people and while Kenneth Frampton speaks more of the awareness of regionalism and culture that in the future designers need to be aware of their context. Both articles examine regionalism at different time periods but there are still many similarities between them even though the articles differed in 30 years.

n on the exterior, but the interior is more regionalism architecture with the celling being curves of culture (Foster, H. 1983, p24-25). This shows that Jorn Utzon was able to build a church that is a globalized design and still apply regionalism architecture all in one time rather than seeing an evolution into regionalism architecture. 

To conclude Kenneth Frampton states that, “1960’s have since become progressively overlaid by the two symbiotic instrument of megalopolition development – the freestanding high rise and serpentine freeways” (Foster, H. 1983, p18). In other words, after the 1960’s development was taken over. With this happening there was a lot high-rise buildings being built that were being stamped over and over again to accommodate to the population of 1960. With this development there was repetition of same highways and high rise.  While Hadas Shadar stated, “After World War II in Europe there was a need for quick, efficient and cheap housing solution, combined with the need to mend the destruction following the war” (Shadar, H. p. 231). Hadas Shadar also stated, “Europe and isreal, public housing was characterized by reproduction: identical housing structures were laid out with large spaced between them in open areas, creating extensive areas having undefined use and lacking ownership” (Shadar, H. p. 231). This shows that after World War II they were more concentrated on the rebuilding of the city rather than the concentration on the regionalism and culture, which lead to development.  With lack of concentration on culture and regionalism, the building complex has evolved and changed in years to the way they lived life by. Hadas Shadar explains multiple times how buildings evolve into the culture of the people and while Kenneth Frampton speaks more of the awareness of regionalism and culture that in the future designers need to be aware of their context. Both articles examine regionalism at different time periods but there are still many similarities between them even though the articles differed in 30 years.