Globalized Sin: The Shortcomings of Globalization and the Importance of Regionalism in Architecture
Disciplines
Architectural History and Criticism
Abstract (300 words maximum)
At the turn of the twentieth century, architecture stood at a crossroads: should it carry forward the traditions of the past or embrace a new vision for the modern world? The decision to move forward led to the rise of modernism, a movement born from a desire to address the urgent needs of an industrializing, rapidly changing society. Groups such as CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne) formed to redefine architectural practice in response to new social, technological, and economic realities. However, while modernism aimed to be progressive and people-centered, it ironically became rigid, and its leaders became gatekeepers for what architecture should be on a global scale.
Architects such as Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe understood that architecture must serve human needs, however, their universalist often abandoned specific cultures and regions. In seeking a one-size-fits-all solution, modernism failed the very people it claimed to serve, committing the greatest sin in architecture. This paper will explore how that contradiction emerged, and how later architects such as Álvaro Siza and Jeanne Gang have reoriented architectural practice towards a more contextualized, regionalist approach, that respond more authentically to the people it is meant to serve. Rather than demonizing globalized architecture, the goal here is to understand its limitations, learn from its missteps, and argue for a more nuanced, inclusive vision of architectural practice—one that places people, culture, and context at the center.
Use of AI Disclaimer
no
Academic department under which the project should be listed
CACM – Architecture
Primary Investigator (PI) Name
Ehsan Sheikholharam
Globalized Sin: The Shortcomings of Globalization and the Importance of Regionalism in Architecture
At the turn of the twentieth century, architecture stood at a crossroads: should it carry forward the traditions of the past or embrace a new vision for the modern world? The decision to move forward led to the rise of modernism, a movement born from a desire to address the urgent needs of an industrializing, rapidly changing society. Groups such as CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne) formed to redefine architectural practice in response to new social, technological, and economic realities. However, while modernism aimed to be progressive and people-centered, it ironically became rigid, and its leaders became gatekeepers for what architecture should be on a global scale.
Architects such as Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe understood that architecture must serve human needs, however, their universalist often abandoned specific cultures and regions. In seeking a one-size-fits-all solution, modernism failed the very people it claimed to serve, committing the greatest sin in architecture. This paper will explore how that contradiction emerged, and how later architects such as Álvaro Siza and Jeanne Gang have reoriented architectural practice towards a more contextualized, regionalist approach, that respond more authentically to the people it is meant to serve. Rather than demonizing globalized architecture, the goal here is to understand its limitations, learn from its missteps, and argue for a more nuanced, inclusive vision of architectural practice—one that places people, culture, and context at the center.