A Question of Style

Author: Nick Deitch

Today, within the contemporary discussion of sustainability, I cannot think of any premise more obsolete – for, as we have learned, energy is not an unlimited resource and technology too has its limitations. Even the sun has its locational, seasonal and directional biases. And what we call “modern” today is actually a broad array of architectural quests for an elusive relevance – a searching which I believe is rooted in the vast irrelevance of sprawl. The placelessness of sprawl provides little of relevance to inform the architect about what the building ought to do. And so the architect is left to guess and grapple with an appropriate response, meaningful at least to oneself - or to fall back on the familiar languages of “traditional” architecture, often made vague by ignorance or the absence of traditional townscape, materials, craft and construction methodologies.

And what of our own heritage and our own contributions to the traditions of architecture? Let us not forget that those previous traditional languages evolved out of a meaningful relationship with their time and place of origin. There was an intrinsic connection between the essential characteristics of an architectural “style” and its region, rooted in climate, materials and craft of the locale. Without question, technology has impacted the relevance of these fundamental design influences. Yet I would argue that to simply abandon the notion of regional design relevance would be to ignore one of the essential ingredients in creating architecture that is of relevance in its own time and place. Likewise, to impose a strict historicism, whereby architecture is required to pretend that it is of a previous time, will result in an artificial and neo-precious coziness at the cost of genuine meaning and authenticity.

The New Urbanism, if it is to participate in the realm of innovation, offers the opportunity to create a new layer of contemporary relevance. Through the thoughtful imposition of a transected neighborhood Regulating Plan and Form-based code, we can clearly direct the particular role that each building and each parcel needs to play in the creation of the larger place, and reinforce the notion that not all parcels are created equal. Yet, if that code imposes a “traditional” architectural style without thoughtfully addressing the unique issues of region, evolving cultural concerns and factors of sustainability, the result will likely manifest in an imposed irrelevance no better in spirit than the architecture of sprawl. We have the right and the obligation to continue the adventure Borges speaks of – to contribute to our own history, our own traditions, informed by the past yet relevant to the issues and technologies of our time.

How does this translate into form based code? Just so, it is the form of the building we are most concerned with, not its style or its skin. It is the relationship of building to street and building to building that most strongly work to create the form of the City. New Urbanism must not stifle innovation out of fear that our towns will be less delightful if they are not rooted in a traditional historicism. Architects are innovators by their nature, and that innovation is as important now as it ever was. Our urban codes must assure that the adventure continues. The essential role of New Urbanism then is to provide us with the larger plan and the tools to assure that in the end result, the various pieces come together to form a cohesive whole with a clear sense of place – a vital, functioning neighborhood, town and city of our time.