AAD_SU21_075

Fengyi Zhang Columbia GSAPP

Master of Advanced Architectural Design

Graduate Portfolio 2021

01/ Bridgin'

Advanced Studio V Professor Laurie Hawkinson Fall, 2020

Divisions across the United States have widened and deepened over recent years — to such an extent that the general public’s confidence in the media and politics have been damaged, almost beyond repair. These divisions have been further fueled by the Covid pandemic, which has brought to light extreme racial and class inequalities across the US, causing much tension. Such a polarized social and political climate has greatly hindered any efforts to advance climate policies, or facilitate any real change, especially amongst the local population. In order to transform our approach to change — for climate research and policies to have an impact on local and nationwide communities — the Climate School must be fully integrated and woven into the political and social landscape; operating as a center for both research and exchange.

The Climate School must seek to cultivate and maintain a close relationship with its local community. Transparency, communication and exchange will be key. The School’s location and design should be open and accessible to all. Located at a crossroads in Manhattanville, The Climate School will operate as a bridge, elevating the subway, and connecting the two sites divided by Broadway. The building will not only connect the community to the School, but open up the research to the public, and facilitate a more fluid exchange.

attanv

ille C

ampu

Co

mm

uni

ties

s

cal

Manh

Lo

Using the construct of the courtyard as a template for facilitating exchange and communication, the buildings on either side of the new building bridge over Broadway, will take the shape of two courtyards: facing the new campus and residential buildings, respectively. These courtyards, along with the large circulation ramps generate more public space, and allow for natural light to flood the new campus building. Inviting researchers, students and the public alike, the site will encourage exchange, learning and transparency. The vertical circulation of the public around the elevated subway, through the building, and vice versa, will provide connection and transparency within the local community.

Subway Line 1/ Broadway

Section 1

Section 2

02/ Open Work Advanced Studio VI Professor Enrique Walker Collaboration with Timlok Li, Marcell Sandor, Jerry Zhao Spring, 2021

Half a century ago, metabolist Kiyonori Kikutake conceived of a building that was monstrous within its context. The Miyakonojo civic center, an icon of Kikutake’s core beliefs, was demolished in 2019 with over 80% of residents voting for its destruction. The nature of this remote semester brought a unique opportunity to revisit the “monster” who failed to metabolize, to rethink open work, and the simple task of doubling. Our team raised questions such as “How does one double something that no longer exists?” “What is the definition of Civic Space today?”. Ultimately, we propose a simple solution to rebuild the building again. We define doubling as doing it again, and as the multiplication of volume.

Looking back to look forward, we identified the artificial ground as the key focus of our rebuild. Like a stone in a pond that casts rings of ripples to its surrounding parts, the artificial ground dictated how we designed the rest of the civic center. The end condition is perhaps never final; one that can not be claimed ours, but subjected to decades of future reuse and reinterpretation. In the end, doubling becomes the most sincere form of open work.

Sky House 1958

Izumo Shrine Administration Office 1963

Toku'un-ji Temple 1965

Hagi Civic Center 1968

Miyakonojo Civic Center 1966

げ 柱 る は ︒ 義 層 空 す は 間 る 空 を ︒

間 ⽴ を ち 定 上

03/ The Least We Can Do Advanced Architectural Design Studio Professor Emmett Zeifman Collaboration with Terry Tang, Xian Wu Summer, 2021

If industrial "lofts" were the hearts of revival for urban center during the late capitalistic periods, then the suburban office parks of the post pandemic era is the next new frontier.

Our site located in Princeton centered around education as the main criteria of its developments. We observed a high GINI index among all other alike sub-urban town within Jersey State. Simultaneously, we recognize that our local site is heavily populated with private institutes and lacks public educational programs. (none of which offers associate degree programs to segregated population).

Considering the increasingly present climate issues, we propose a Public Community College with specific department in Climate studies. The core of our design lies in the auditorium and library space. Acting both as the activator as well as inter-connector, the core sparks heavy participation from both our education community and surrounding populations. Lastly, the least we can do is a provocation to how we approach design in the post-pandemic area. Asking what is the least we can do is our attempt to achieve the most.

Floor 1-3

Floor 4

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Floor 4

04/

Critical Regionalism’s Problematic Past, and Divergent Future:

How has Critical Regionalism tried to avoid the pitfalls of regionalism, and forge a more promising future ?

Architecture: The Contemporary (Ideas and Concepts from 1968 to the Present) Professor Bernard Tschumi Spring, 2021

Over the past three decades, globalization has undeniably transformed architectural practices and styles. On the one hand, it has afforded architects with greater opportunities to work outside of their own cultures and regions, at scales and with a certain freedom, that would’ve been otherwise impossible.

Nevertheless, the phenomenon of globalization has brought with it a number of drawbacks. As Jay Wickersham highlights, globalization has proven to be, in many ways, deeply problematic: “Are we creating vital and original new architectures, or are we homogenizing cities and landscapes and obliterating regional differences? Are architects helping to strengthen and develop the economies of host communities, or are they acting as unwitting tools of inequality and repression?”1 What is clear, is that with the rise of what can only be said to be deeply regionalist issues in architecture (such as the circular economy, and volatile climate change), universalistic responses have done very little by way of repairing, or resolving the problems.

Emerging in fear of such a sweeping generalization of culture, Critical Regionalism aimed to simultaneously conserve individualism (local heritage and traditions), whilst embracing modernity.

Broadly-speaking, Critical Regionalists sought to create modern and practical spaces that complimented local cultures, without disrupting, or mimicking them. Since the term was coined by architect Alexander Tzonis and historian Liane Lefaivre, in their 1981 article The Grid and The Pathway, ‘critical regionalism’ has taken on various forms, and served as a favorable alternative to the threat of universalization in architecture.2 One of the most prominent interpretations is that of historian-theorist Kenneth Frampton, in Towards Critical Regionalism.3 Despite their slight variations, both definitions of Critical Regionalism postulate that its fundamental strategy “is to mediate the impact of universal civilization with elements derived indirectly from the peculiarities of a particular place.”4 1 Jay Wickersham, “Code of Context: The Uneasy Excitement of Global Practice”. www.archdaily.com.

2 Alexander Tzonis, Liane Lefaivre, “Why Critical Regionalism Today?” in A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, Critical Regionalism: Architecture and Identity in a Globalized World (New York: Prestel, 2003), 488.

3 Kenneth Frampton, “Towards a Critical Regionalism; Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” in Hal Foster, Anti-Aesthetic. (Washington: Bay Press, 1983).

4 Vincent B. Canizaro Architectural Regionalism: Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition. (New

With postmodernism’s steady decline and deconstruction’s lack of viable solutions, conversations around Critical Regionalism have begun to re-surface. The theory’s direct acknowledgment of local environments has seen it emerge as a viable solution to a number of contemporary architectural issues, including the rapidly evolving climate crisis. Nevertheless, the project of Critical Regionalism doesn’t come without its own limitations. An issue that has overshadowed Critical Regionalism since its conception is the somewhat paradoxical nature of regionalism. The extent to which a ‘region’ can be identified, and delineated — dissected from its roots, and abstracted from divergent contradictions — is highly debatable. Not only does this call into question the meaning of the term ‘region,’ but it threatens to destabilize regionalism altogether.

How can regional cultures be deciphered and defined, if they originated in relation to multiple parallel local and national cultures? As Kenneth Frampton concedes, in Modern Architecture: A Critical History: “all cultures, both ancient and modern, seem to have depended, for their intrinsic development, on a certain cross-fertilisation with other cultures.”5 It therefore appears seemingly futile to attempt to dissect and divorce regional cultures from one another — especially when trying to identify them.

The above-mentioned ‘cross-fertilisation’ of cultures, has led to strong associations being formed; connecting and intersecting cultures to the extent that their existence is irrevocably intertwined. One could say that these ‘cross-fertilisations’ are what eventually led to the broad generalization and homogenization of local cultures — nevertheless, they are also what led to their creation.

The rapid increase in the rate of globalization means the problem of defining a what constitutes a region has never been so crucial as it is now. Regional cultures are cultivated in a world that has become, for the most part, a “global economically and technologically interdependent whole”6 — that is, they are so intwined and interlinked that it has become almost impossible to isolate them. Exchanging ideas and practices across cultures, languages and regions, has become an integral aspect of contemporary architectural practices. The prioritization of an architect’s mobility, over their regional knowledge, has further led to the loss of identifiable regions; rendering regionalism obsolete. As Tzonis and Lafaivre question, “Given this loss of region, how is it possible for regionalist architecture to be anything more than, at best, a sentimental cozy indulgence in nostalgia for a bygone era.”7 In this sense, regionalism — including Critical Regionalism — appears to be fundamentally flawed. At a time when culture is becoming a global concept, and regional differences are disappearing, Critical Regionalism emerges to restore the particular — nevertheless, in order to do this, it must be possible to identify and define regional particularities that have long been in decline.

In an attempt to salvage what was left of regionalism, Tzonis and Lafaivre argue that Critical Regionalism, for its part, marks a different, “more original movement.”8 They argue that Critical Regionalism serves to respond to the problems posed by globalization, by expanding the definition of “placeness” and incorporating a certain fluidity. Frampton agrees, citing that regional culture should not be considered to be“immutable, but rather as something which has, at least today, to be self-consciously York: Princecton Architectural Press, 2007).

5 Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 5th edition. (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2020), 596.

6 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 484.

7 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 485.

8 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 485.

cultivated.”9 Rather than exploring new ways of defining regionalism or identifying regionalist elements, Tzonis, Lafaivre and Frampton deflect from the essential problem. They develop the tradition of Critical Regionalism by redefining regional thinking as inherently self-reflective — “a regionalism that is selfexamining, self-questioning, self-evaluating, that not only is confrontational with regard to the world but to itself.”10 Regionalism should no longer seek to define regions, to delineate and conform to their archetype (as with the case of Romantic regionalism and Picturesque Regionalism), but interrogate and challenge the local and cultural specifics of a given site or project.

What Critical Regionalism seeks to preserve, is not visual or emblematic aspects of local cultures, but a certain skepticism towards newness and invention. Frampton, in particular, advocates for “an approach in which the tactile would surpass the visual, the tectonic would win over the scenographic, and the hybrid would be favored over the homogenous.”11 In other words, a building should be built with a certain self-conscious awareness of its surroundings, and the impact it has; in other words, a building’s ‘political agency,’ or its capacity to bring about change. This does not mean that Critical Regionalism forces architecture to conform, reside in harmony with, or necessarily improve its surroundings — but it should interact with, or acknowledge them, in some way.

To summarize, buildings of the Critical Regionalist style do not need to be contextualized to the extent that they are assimilated to a culture or an environment — but they should acknowledge the cultural, social or geographical context in which their built. What becomes pertinent, here, is to assess what is an “authentic” use of regionalist elements? Is it possible the criteria for Critical Regionalism has become so large and all-inclusive, as to avoid the obsolete nature of regionalism, that it has encouraged the mere simulacra of tradition in spaces devoid of explicit references? On the other hand, one could also argue that Critical Regionalism now serves as little more than a tool for silencing criticism of architecture’s global standardization. This is due to the fact that Critical Regionalist architects are not restricted by their culture, nor by their background. Regardless of an architect’s regional expertise, or the quality of a building’s contextualization, they may employ the term ‘critical regionalism’ to denote or validate a project. Hence, does Critical Regionalism fulfil its promise of cultural, social and geographical specificity? Or does it use superficial ties to facilitate its exploits?

Here, it becomes important to re-consider the term ‘critical’, and assess whether it presents more problems than it solves. Tzonis and Lafaivre define the term ‘critical’ as to “challenge both the world as it exists and underlying world views.”12 They stipulate that ‘critical’ architecture is selfreflective, and self-referential.” A building is ‘critical’ “when it contains, in addition to explicit statements, implicit metastatements that make the beholder aware of the artificiality of her or his way of looking at the world.”13 They continue:

An essential characteristic of critical regionalist buildings is that they are critical in two senses then.

9 Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 315.

10 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 488.

11 Léa-Catherine Szacka, Véronique Patteeuw. “Critical Regionalism for Our Time” www.architectural-review.com

November 22, 2019.

12 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 488.

13 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 488.

In addition to providing contrasting images to the anomic, atopic, misanthropic ways of a large number of current mainstream projects constructed worldwide, they raise questions in the mind of the viewer about the legitimacy of the very regionalist tradition to which they belong.14

Here, Tzonis and Lafaivre tacitly adhere to the Kantian notion of autonomy, stipulating that “critical works challenge not only the established actual world as confrontational works do, but the very legitimacy of the possible world views which interpret it in the mind.”15 In this sense, Critical Regionalism’s primary objective is to provoke reflective questions in both the viewer and architect; to reveal to both (the subject and object of self-reflection) the extent to which a building’s existence impacts its local environment. Critical Regionalism’s objective is, for all intents and purposes, to reinsert the viewer and architect into the environment through a self-reflective lens. Here, Tzonis and Lefaivre come to terms with the fact that the global economy, culture, and advances in technology, can no longer be simply dismissed or ignored. They argue that Critical Regionalism should not necessarily be considered contradictory to global trends, but oppositional to their byproducts. Such a concession reveals once again the cracks in regionalism’s authenticity.

Furthermore, this is where Tzonis departs from Frampton’s discourse on the subject. Frampton remains deeply invested in those “peripheral conditions” that “explore local environments, vernacular elements and material cultures,” and rejects universalization on the basis of its tendency to optimize technology, rather than assessing its particular potential. 16 Frampton insists that Critical Regionalism should treat “transitional zones with a capacity to respond to the specific conditions imposed by the site, the climate and the light,” rather than resort to global tendencies.17 In 2003, Tzonis and Levaivre voice their concern, referencing the danger of rendering Critical Regionalism obsolete through its reduction to regionalism: “despite our warning regarding the objective to employ the concept of regionalism, it was repeatedly misused.” They continue:

In reality, it came to mean the opposite. Rather than being used critically – even when it was used together with that term [critical] – it was transported back to its obsolete, chauvinistic outlook.18

Although this stance serves them well, Tzonis and Levaivre’s criticism of Frampton reveals an ideological doubling: they reveal the term ‘critical’ cannot be successfully employed as meaning both ‘self-reflective’ and ‘outwardly critical’, simultaneously. How can Critical Regionalism be outwardly critical of the byproducts of globalization and inwardly self-questioning, without manifesting as a paradoxical? Despite Tzonis and Levaivre’s enthusiastic conclusion, claiming that Critical Regionalism “has emerged as one of the most exciting approaches in architecture today,” it stands as resolutely problematic.19 14 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 490.

15 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 489.

16 Léa-Catherine Szacka, Véronique Patteeuw. “Critical Regionalism for Our Time” 17 Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 620.

18 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 10.

19 A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, 491.

For differing reasons, Frampton comes to a similar conclusion. In 2013, he appears to abandon Critical Regionalism altogether. Fredric Jameson’s reading of Frampton in The Seed of Time, leads Frampton to conclude: “any vestige of regional otherness and identity has preciously little capacity to resist the subtle spectacular domination of corporate power.”20 This is important as it signals Frampton’s disillusionment with regionalism altogether. In the essay Towards Agnostic Architecture (2013), Frampton argues that it is not because we lack the resources, nor the techniques, but we are“unable to muster the necessary political will to effect a decisive change.”21 Frampton goes on:

We are totally deluded by the Society of Spectacle and thereby rendered impotent as a body politic, and by the repression of alternative modes of being, by which we might still be able to save ourselves.22

Rather than concede to “the hegemonic power of the “universal” West”, or compromise the political agency of regionalism, Frampton proposes a new, more radical alternative.23 ’Agonistic architecture’ is defined by Frampton, as an architecture that is both engaged with, and acutely aware of, its political agency. In fact, the term ‘agonistic’ itself is taken from Chantal Mouffe’s political theories on agonism — a term stemming from the Greek agōnistēs, meaning ‘contestant’, from agōn, meaning ‘contest’, which is often used to describe the healthy competition between equals. Agonism is not only the celebration of conflict and confrontation, but it implies a deep, serious concern for the other.

According to Mouffe, agonism is essential to political life, and a clear sign that a “democracy is alive and inhabited by pluralism.”24 Frampton’s use of the term “agonistic” is thus an attempt to restore agonism to contemporary architecture.

skills, concepts and styles, alongside the ideological doubling of the term ‘critical’, has altogether led to Critical Regionalism’s conceptual demise. It is clear that despite the term’s popularity (mainly due to its opposition to global homogeneity, and concern with the particular) it is considerably flawed. Perhaps Frampton is right in moving onto looking more closely at the crux of the issue: architecture’s political agency and cultivating the political will to engage with important local matters.

Bibliography

Canizaro, Vincent B. Architectural Regionalism: Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity and Tradition. New York: Princecton Architectural Press, 2007.

Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism; Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” in Hal Foster, Anti-Aesthetic. Washington: Bay Press, 1983.

Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 5th edition. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2020.

“Towards an Agonistic Architecture,” Domus 972 Sept. 2013.

Not only does Frampton view ‘agonistic architecture’ as a means of revitalizing pluralism in architecture, but as a means of reminding architecture of its political power. As Frampton explains: “In my view, it is precisely this ever-changing fashionable emphasis on the decorative or minimalist envelope that has effectively robbed architecture of one of its most fundamental attributes, namely, the timehonored mandate to organize and orchestrate the space of public appearance in a culturally significant manner.”25 Here, it becomes clear that what Frampton is striving to do, is to revive the necessary political will in architecture to effect change. Critical Regionalism not only falls short of this, but it provides architects with so many concessions, that it arguably loses all of its substance and authenticity.

In answer to the question as to whether Critical Regionalism might forge a promising future, it is hard to say. On the one hand, a number of critical issues facing architecture today — including the circular economy and climate change — require a more intimate engagement with regional elements if they are to make any headway. Nevertheless, regionalism’s increasingly instability due to the global transference of 20 Kenneth Frampton, “Towards an Agonistic Architecture,” Domus 972 (Sept. 2013).

21 Kenneth Frampton, “Towards an Agonistic Architecture,” 972.

22 Kenneth Frampton, “Towards an Agonistic Architecture,” 972.

23 Kenneth Frampton, “Towards an Agonistic Architecture,” 972.

24 Chantal Mouffe, “Deliberative Democracy Or Agonistic Pluralism”. (Institut für Höhere Studien, 2000), 34.

25 Kenneth Frampton, “Towards an Agonistic Architecture,” 972.

Lefaivre, Liane and Alex Lefaivre. “Why Critical Regionalism Today?” in A. Tzonis, L. Lefaivre, Critical Regionalism: Architecture and Identity in a Globalized World. New York: Prestel, 2003.

Mouffe, Chantal. “Deliberative Democracy Or Agonistic Pluralism”. Institut für Höhere Studien, 2000.

Szacka, Léa-Catherine and Patteeuw, Véronique. “Critical Regionalism for Our Time” www.architectural-review.com. November 22, 2019.

Wickersham, Jay. “Code of Context: The Uneasy Excitement of Global Practice”. www.archdaily.com.