ARC 6988 Design Methodologies

CULTURE BASED ARCHITECTURE: RECOGNISING THE DIFFERENCE

Kristanti Dewi Paramita

MAAD
2009
arp08kdp@shef.ac.uk
Introduction

Culture and architecture have always traversed and intersected so many times since the age of
the primitive and until the modern era. Cultural differences left their marks on architecture all over the
world as it is commonly known that architecture is the expression of culture. However, the direct
relation between culture and design process in architecture remains immensely complicated. To begin
with, it is a necessity to define the exact meaning of culture before undertaking any further discourse,
since culture has a very broad meaning and therefore there is a danger of having an unfocussed
argument. By definition, Rapoport (1980) articulated three general views about culture. They can be
summarised as follows:

Ones describe it as a way of life typical of a group, the second as a system of symbols, meanings and
cognitive schemata transmitted through symbolic codes, the third as a set of adaptive strategies for survival
1
related to ecology and resources..

In relation to the design process, it is also necessary to separate the culture of the architect and
the culture of the community or the place. Therefore, the architect and the community may have the
same way of life, the same system of symbols, and the same strategies if they come from the same
culture. But if the architect and the community come from different culture, then according to
Rapoport, they will have more or less different ways of life, different systems of symbols, and different
strategies.

Figure 1. Diagrammatic scheme of architects and community with their

cultural difference. (left) in primitive age, (right) in modern era

For instance, in vernacular architecture from the primitive age or even in several parts of the
world nowadays, there is no segregation between the architect and the community because normally
the architect is indeed a member of the community. Arboleda explained this relationship when he
defined vernacular architecture as structures made by empirical builders, without the intervention of
professional architects.2 Thus there is no differentiation between both cultures and there are no
conflicts of interests since they have the same way of life, use the same symbols and codes, and apply
the same strategies. The result is usually that every part of vernacular architecture, be it its technology,
connections with nature or with the social system is all cultural related. Although the typology of the
building is merely simple and less dramatic, its immense level of ingenuity is beyond belief. Bernard
Rudofsky explains this immensity in his book Architecture without Architects by saying (v)ernacular
architecture does not go through fashion cycles. It is nearly immutable, indeed, unimprovable, since it
serves its purpose to perfection.3

Nevertheless, in modern era there is a huge possibility that the architect does not always come
from the society in which he or she is designing for. In fact, the architect could come from slightly or
entirely different place and culture. Therefore, a question might arise regarding the design process
which is how would architects acknowledge the system of symbols and codes used by the other culture,
adapt them in their culture as architects and use them deliberately in designing? This essay attempts to
discuss how culture influences the architecture design process. It aims to reveal the importance of
recognising culture in modern design, from tools to tactics and strategies. Case study will be used to
build up the arguments.

Recognising the tangible and intangible

In every creative process including design in architecture, there are tangible and intangible
parts. The intangible part is obviously the creative thinking itself. However, most of the time architects
start their design process by developing several values, rules, or sets of approaches that mostly are
tangible to narrow down the design problem, set the limits or boundaries and by that concentrate their
creative thinking. Bryan Lawson called these values the guiding principles. In his book How Designers
Think: the Design Process Demystified, he conveys guiding principles as follows:

Whether they represent a collection of disjointed ideas, a coherent philosophy or even a complete
theory of design, these ideas can be seen as a set of guiding principles. This collection of principles is likely to
4
grow and change as a designer develops

Moreover, he also examined these principles by analysing several

components that are highly related to design, such as morality,
decomposition and integration, future, content, client, users, practicality,
radical, formal and symbolic5. Some of these components such as the client,
the users and the issue of practicality are very much tangible. It is generally
known that architects should gather information about these components
as much as possible. However, the issue is how to make the process of this
information gathering and the information itself to be very useful for
architects. Very often architects produce an incredible amount of research,
but then end up with a building that doesnt seem to have any connection
Figure 2. Diagrammatic with the place where it sits.
scheme of the tangible and
intangible parts in In apprehension with this issue, Lawson addressed that in the
designing. modern era, architects tend to accentuate more on the formal part than on
the symbolic part6. Regarding the definition of culture as being a system of
symbols and codes, this means that architects culture nowadays no longer values the communitys
culture itself as it used to, instead it sees it as being nothing but a setting for a building. In his essay
Architecture and Culture, Andrew Benjamin stated this predicament as the culture of architecture
denies its presence as part of human society7. This hesitancy could happen possibly because there is an
anxiety that taking the communitys culture into account will shape the architecture product into
something that is less modern or outdated. In a world that is dominantly ruled by the power of
consumerism, this anxiety would be an unacceptable risk. The relationship between consumerism and
architecture is explained by Tan Kok Meng in the November 2008 issue of the Singapore Architect
Magazine as follows:

Architecture can be defined as a commodity since it can be bought, sold, rented, constructed,
demolished and renovated Besides this, one also buys into a lifestyle provided by the 'design' of the buildings and
environment of such speculative architecture: architecture as an object of consumption in the formation of
8
identities and subjectivities

There is a danger in creating architecture based only on what is considered being trendy, as
mostly done by market-led architecture. Perhaps because this kind of architecture mainly focuses on its
shape rather than what lies underneath. Lawson was also aware of this danger, as he quoted from
Norberg-Schulz (1975) that (s)patial structure is not a goal in itself, but is only relevant if concretises the
spatial implications of a character.9 Therefore, to produce architecture that is relevant with the
communitys culture, it is important for the architects to develop a sturdy attitude towards this
superficial system. This attitude will help the architects to incorporate both the tangible and intangible
parts in a way that could make them develop the same perception about the communitys way of life,
system of symbols and strategies.

Case Study: Hassan Fathy and the infamous New Gourna Village

Hassan Fathy was an Egyptian architect who is famous for his attitude towards the importance
of culture as a basis of architecture. In his essay Architecture and the Environment, he stated architects
position as a unique position to revive people's faith in their own culture10. He initiated the use of
traditional technology for modern buildings in Egypt and critically analysed the role of architecture in
the context of modernisation, as follows:

The role architecture and town planning play in the progress of civilization and culture must be grasped.
While change is a condition of life, it is not ethically neutral. Change that is not for the better is change for the
worse, and we must continually judge its direction. Architecture concerns not technology alone but man and
11
technology, and planning concerns man, society, and technology

Hassan Fathy is mostly known for his housing project New Gourna Village, built from 1945 to
1948. Commenced by the Egyptian Department of Antiquities to relocate the poor community who was
tomb raiders near Luxor, this project is a testing ground for his ideas about sustainable housing for the
poor. The strategy was to persuade the community to build their own village using low technology such
as mud-brick, mortar and bricks that he hoped it will create a bond between the community and the
place. He founded a training center and used it as his tool to teach children and adults how to build
buildings with mud-brick with the hope that in the end they will be self-reliant in their building issues.

Figure 3. Fathys strategies for the villages design. (a) introducing the traditional craftsmanship (b) separate the
human space and animal space for health issue (c) dome as a main shape for climatic reasons

As can be seen from figure 3, he was also very concerned with the issues in communitys way of
life. Most of them live with their livestock under the same roof; therefore he created a well defined
spatial organisation that located the livestock in the lower level and the bedrooms in the higher level as
his strategy to solve the health issues. He created domes inspired from Islamic architecture, with
openings in eight angles to ensure air circulation in the house that is suitable for Egypts hot dry climate.
Everything looked very well-planned and served the architects best intentions, and that is why it is
shocking to realize that in reality New Gourna Village was a failure. The community refused to cooperate
with the architect to build their own resettlement, and declined the governments intentions to relocate
from their houses in mountain Luxor even when it was already finished by using outside resources. The
village was left in tragic condition, abandoned for almost twenty years.

In 1999, a researcher from Israel named Hana Taragan discussed the villages failure causes in
her essay about the fact and fiction in relation to New Gourna Village, based on a novella by an Egyptian
writer named Fathi Ganim called Al-Jabbal, which means The Mountain. This novella is based on the
writers real experience of living with the community in the late 1940s. What is really interesting is that
Ganim described the community as being warm-hearted, kind and trustworthy people as opposed to
what they were considered as the poor, uneducated, ignorant, tomb-raider community. Ganim also
explained the reasons behind the villagers rejection for New Gourna Village and one can see that most
of them were highly related to their culture. For example, they disliked the dome-shaped houses that
the architect created for them, because for them they were associated with graves. As quoted by
Taragan, Ganim wrote in his novella:

She's not happy about the domes the architect superimposed on the buildings since, in her view, only
the tomb of a holy man is topped with a domebut that's a tomb! Why does the architect insist on housing them
12
in graves? She's not dead yet

Moreover, the community also couldnt understand why the architect had to put their animals
away in a different area with where they sleep. Instead of looking at it as a healthier way of life, the
community felt that the architect doesnt understand that these animals are their main source of living.
Taragan explained this misunderstanding in her quotation from Ganims novella:
 "All of us sleep with one eye open and keep the other on the donkey or cow. How could I sleep with the
donkey far away? Who'd watch over him? The engineer? By the life of Allah! The donkey would have been stolen
13
the very first night"

Figure 4. Diagrammatic scheme of the comparison between the architects intention (above) and the communitys
perception (below). It is apparent that they were using different codes from each other.

It is obvious that the community in fact felt they were enforced to fit into the houses, with
artificial spaces that they were just not used to. Taragan used the terms geometric jail14 invented by a
Jesuit lived in rural Egypt referring to the houses. This is because traditional space organisations in the
Egyptian houses do not normally consist of defined spaces, but (t)hey are, rather, polyvalent spaces,
viewed through a social, hierarchical, gender-defined, seasonal prism. It is not by chance that the rooms
of these traditional dwellings are devoid of furniture15 From Ganims explanation, it is apparent that
there are several mismatches in the communitys perception about Fathys design. These mismatches
are indications that the architect and the community did not share the same system of codes and
symbols.

In spite of everything, Hassan Fathy had a clear awareness about the importance of culture in
architecture. In terms of making his own guiding principles, his main concerns were the communitys
culture and their everyday life. However, in regards to Rapoports three definitions about culture, Fathy
succeed to understand the communitys way of life and their strategies of living, but failed to adopt their
system of symbols in his design decision. Instead of using his own symbols in his own architects culture
that collided with the communitys culture and ended with negative responses, he could have
developed a tactical relationship between the communitys culture and his practicality in solving the
problems and compromise both to produce a design that might be accepted better.
Conclusion

New Gourna Village is a very interesting example to look at because it demonstrates the power
of culture in architecture. Architecture is supposed to be very influential by itself, but if it cannot
accommodate the need of its users with their own cultures, they would just abandon it. It is very
important for architects to be aware about this, not only for those who work with a very distinctive
culture. Although Hassan Fathy was an Egyptian and he is supposed to have the same culture with the
Gourna community, he should have learned more about them, how they work and live their lives in that
specific mountain.

Recognising the difference between architects culture and the communitys culture is a
significant part of a design process. It carefully criticises and defines the role of the architect in designing
for the community. For example, by establishing a training center for building techniques, Hassan Fathy
had an intention to teach the community a different way of thinking and living their lives, and that is
how he defined his role. In result to the design process, this recognition will affect the different ways of
engaging with the community, the different tactical relationship between architects and the community,
the different kinds of strategies of designing architecture. All of these processes are very important to
ensure that in the end, the architects culture and the communitys culture will synergise and become a
solid foundation for the architecture itself.
1
Irwin Altman, Amos Rapoport , Joachim F. Wohlwill. Environment and Culture. Springer. 1980. p.9.
2
Gabriel Arboleda. What is Vernacular Architecture?.Ethno Architecture. 2006. Found in
http://www.vernaculararchitecture.com/web/articles/article/06V29-01arts/.
3
Bernard Rudofsky. Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture. Academy
Editions. London. 1964. p.1.
4
Bryan Lawson. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Architectural Press. Oxford. 1997. p.162.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.p. 178.
7
Andrew Benjamin. Architecture and Culture. Architecture Australia. 2003. Found in
https://www.architecturemedia.com/aa/aaissue.php?issueid=200305&article=15&typeon=3.
8
Tan Kok Meng. Editorial:Consume!. Singapore Architect Online Magazine. 2008. Found in
http://www.worldarchitecture.org/links/?http://www.singaporearchitect.com.sg/archive/issue204_99/index.html
9
Christian Norberg-Schulz on Bryan Lawson. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Architectural
Press. Oxford. 1997. p.180.
10
Hassan Fathy. Architecture and Environment. Aridlands Newsletter. 1994. Found in
http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln36/Fathy.html
11
Ibid.
12
Fathi Ganim in Hana Taragan. Architecture in the Fact and Fiction: The Case of New Gourna Village in upper
Egypt. 1999. Found in http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=9710
13
Ibid.
14
Hana Taragan. Architecture in the Fact and Fiction: The Case of New Gourna Village in upper Egypt. 1999. Found
in http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=9710
15
Guy T. Petherbridge in Hana Taragan. Architecture in the Fact and Fiction: The Case of New Gourna Village in
upper Egypt. 1999. Found in http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=9710
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arboleda, Gabriel. What is Vernacular Architecture?.Ethno Architecture. 2006. Found in

http://www.vernaculararchitecture.com/web/articles/article/06V29-01arts/.

Altman, Irwin; Amos Rapoport , Joachim F. Wohlwill. Environment and Culture. Springer. 1980.

Benjamin, Andrew. Architecture and Culture. Architecture Australia. 2003. Found in

https://www.architecturemedia.com/aa/aaissue.php?issueid=200305&article=15&typeon=3.

Fathy, Hassan. Architecture and Environment. Aridlands Newsletter. 1994. Found in

http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln36/Fathy.html

Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Architectural Press.
Oxford. 1997.

Meng, Tan Kok . Editorial:Consume!. Singapore Architect Online Magazine. 2008. Found in
http://www.worldarchitecture.org/links/?http://www.singaporearchitect.com.sg/archive/issue2
04_99/index.html

Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed

Architecture. Academy Editions. London. 1964.

Taragan, Hana. Architecture in the Fact and Fiction: The Case of New Gourna Village in upper
Egypt. 1999. Found in http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-
document.jsp?document_id=9710.