Vernacular Architecture Discourse

MIDDLE EASTERN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY- ARCH 724- ARCHITECTURE AND DISCOURSE

Vernacular Architecture Discourse Ifrah Asif 4th Year Student in Architecture Final Research Paper Submitted to: Prof Dr. Inci Basa 6th June, 2016

Abstract The aim of this research is to understand what ‘Vernacular Architecture’ might mean now-adays. The research tries to collect ideas of important figures in the field in an effort to explore different discourses that exist today regarding vernacular architecture. The research lead to many multi-disciplinary ideas (anthropology, sociology, technology, environmental approaches), some conflicts which arise due to the ambiguity of the definition of the term ‘Vernacular Architecture’ itself and some biases that are experienced in this field, all forming part of the discourse on Vernacular Architecture.

The definition of vernacular architecture: an ambiguous term Vernacular architecture studies are realized by several disciplines. The effect of this interdisciplinary dynamic on the definition of the concept of vernacular architecture is an extension of the spectrum of buildings it designates. Indeed, for the scholar Camille Welles, who has made a short history of American vernacular studies in an article for the early version of the VAF´s Journal, it has for effect “releasing the term from any particular set of architectural characteristics. (...) By now, it is generally acceptable to define vernacular architecture as common building of any sort.”(Welles, 1986, p. 3) For Mike Christenson, only one constant has to be observed in the history of the term: its scholarly use is constantly in imbalance between a synonym of "traditional architecture" and a synonym of "everyday architecture". (Christenson, 2011, p. 2) In his paper for the actual VAF´s Journal, Christenson also states that this imbalance has an origin in the official first written use of the term. The first written uses of “vernacular architecture” are dated back to the 19th century for the American scholars (Nezar Alsayyad, Dell Upton for example). As a European scholar, Michelangelo Sabatino recognize in Sir George Gilbert Scott’s “Remarks on Secular and Domestic Architecture” (John Murray, London, 1857) the original appearance of the term, like did Christenson (Christenson, 2011; Sabatino, 2008). About a last point in what concerns Europe, in the Oxford English Dictionary, excerpts from the Scott's book are used to illustrate the definition of the word 'vernacular' when applied to architecture. As Christenson has stated, 'vernacular architecture' was in this book actually signifying “ordinary architecture”, “spontaneous”, “of the everyday” but also “traditional architecture” (Christenson, 2011, p. 1).

Sabatino had previously assert: “The subordinate and often times problematic relationship between vernacular buildings and those works by professionally trained architects can be traced back to Sir George Gilbert Scott (1811-78) and his appropriation of the term vernacular from linguistics to describe domestic architecture.” (Sabatino, 2008, p. 8) The Vernacular Architecture Forum: a central actor for vernacular architecture studies The methodologies, theories, history and results from field works are currently centralized in the Vernacular Architecture Forum. Formed in 1980, this organization is in charge of a journal published through the University of Minnesota Press, annual conferences, awards competitions and educative programs. What concerns defining 'vernacular architecture', its Board invites anyone to enter the discussion on a website page: “Vernacular architecture refers to ordinary buildings and landscapes. The VAF acknowledges that there have been and continue to be debates on defining 'vernacular architecture'.” (Vernacular Architecture Forum official website, vernaculararchitectureforum.org, Learning and Training: "What is Vernacular Architecture?”).

Connected to this organization within the same network, there is the International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments of the University of Berkeley. IASTE assumes a clearer definition of the term whereas the VAF is prudent. Following his co-founder Nezar Alsayyad, << Etymologically, for anything to be considered vernacular, it has always been assumed that it must be native or unique to a specific place, produced without the need for imported

components and processes, and possibly built by the individuals who occupy it. In the twentyďŹ rst century, as culture and tradition are becoming less place-rooted and more informationbased, these particular attributes of the vernacular have to be recalibrated to reďŹ&#x201A;ect these changes. Epistemologically, or with regard to our ways of knowing and classifying, the meaning of the vernacular also has to change>> (Nezar Alsayyad, 2006) The knowledge on vernacular architecture: an interdisciplinary product The built environment interest not only architects but also art historians, geographers and anthropologists â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to cite the most recurrent disciplines involved in vernacular architecture studies. What more, the study of a vernacular building would ideally be accomplished by an interdisciplinary team (Vellinga, Oliver, 2006 and Rapoport, 1969). Indeed, the ultimate aim of this kind of research is to understand a built form in what relate it to the epoch that has seen its construction, what relate it to its surrounding environment, what relate it to the people who have built it and live in it. What we could also underline in this objective of vernacular architecture studies is the reason why we cannot actually create categories of research on the basis of the disciplinary origins of scholars. The model of a "Four approaches to vernacular architecture", proposed by the American historian of architecture Dell Upton, is far more explanatory. It is so possible to identify "object-oriented, socially-oriented, culturally-oriented and symbolically oriented" vernacular architecture studies (Upton, 1983).

Studies in Vernacular Architecture Object-oriented studies This "path of inquiry" was mainly followed in the 18 and 19th centuries by architects and art historians. It was traced by scholars in Decorative Arts under the influence of romantic and scientific movements of thought. They were interested into "historical associations and picturesque visual effects". The point of view is in this case holistic. Precise measures, drawings and statements about details and materials of buildings were what they produced. The legacy of these pioneering vernacular studies is a focus on domestic architecture.

Socially-oriented studies The premise of these studies is that architectural forms vary with the historical context, social and economic factors. Scholars assume in this case the building is the best evidence to know about aspects of the past. It comes in addition to the documentary studies and involves collecting data on the context of the building-phase period like the economic evolution of a region.

Culturally-oriented studies This approach was framed by the cultural geographers. The main questions are the relation to avant-garde architecture, ethnicity and the process of acculturation, the creation of an architectural type, the variation of forms by considering architecture as a language. The leader of the field, the American folklorist Henry Glassie has developed a theory on how innovation occurs and new ideas are incorporated into 'local tradition' of building by using a structural linguistic approach.

Symbolically-oriented studies It is about detecting relations within a group of people through elements of architecture: forms, elements of decoration, etc. Dell Upton, who has himself experienced this kind of study, postulates that vernacular builders have to choose a specific architectural vocabulary because they interact within and reinforce by their actions the group in which they live. These studies implicate notions of semiotics of architecture. A building is read as a system of signs and symbols.

Discourse on Vernacular Architecture According to Camilla Mileto (Mileto, Vegas et al. 2014)the body of work on vernacular architecture suffers from some shortcomings that limit the usefulness and reliability of the research on vernacular architecture and hinder the acceptance of vernacular knowledge as potential contribution to contemporary design. The author lists four major shortcomings that need to be addressed and discussed in order to arrive at a holistic understanding of the sustainability of vernacular architecture.

An environmental focus The author says that because of the immense importance of environmental issues in a time of rapid climate change, global warming, environmental pollution and the depletion of natural resources, the focus on environmental aspect of vernacular architecture is understandable.

However, other aspects of sustainability such as social, economic, political and cultural factors should also be addressed in order to fully understand the relation between sustainability and vernacular architecture. <<All around the world vernacular architecture is subjected to the impacts of social, cultural and economic changes, caused by processes of population growth, urbanization, conflict, migration, globalization, unemployment, and rapid technological change. Often intricately related to environmental issues, these processes may have as big an impact on the sustainability of vernacular architecture as environmental pressures, while the lessons that vernacular traditions may provide in such cases may be a lot more difficult to identify, or even to imagine. Restricting our focus to environmental issues only means we end up with a very partial picture of the challenges faced by vernacular architecture, and equally partial understandings of the lessons that vernacular architecture can teach>>.(Mileto, Vegas et al.

2014)

A technological bias The author acknowledges the fact that interest in environmental sustainability goes hand in hand with an interest in material, technological and performance aspects of vernacular architecture. She criticizes majority of studies on vernacular architecture that focus only on the choice of building material, technological and performance aspects of the buildings saying that although the conclusions drawn from such studies are positive but they also very partial and distorted. <<Indeed, bamboo and earth may be recycled, wind catchers can reduce indoor temperatures, and caves may have good thermal properties; but the sustainability of bamboo and earthen architecture, wind catchers and caves is not determined by those technological aspects only,

but to a large extent also depends on other, social, cultural and economic factors. Indeed, these factors may be much more crucial. The cost of labor, the availability of resources, the social needs and aspirations of the owners, the cultural values associated with materials and technologies, the composition of households and families, the everyday behavior of the inhabitants; all those aspects play an equally important role in determining whether a form of architecture is sustainable or not. Similarly, they provide a crucial understanding of why forms of vernacular architecture perform well, or why they do not. In order to truly understand why ostensibly sustainable forms of architecture like, for example, Iranian courtyard houses are nonetheless abandoned and therefore clearly not socially, culturally and economically sustainable; their cultural embodiment needs be taken into account as well as their technological and environmental performance (Foruzanmehr and Vellinga 2011). We need to know the why, as well as the how, of vernacular sustainability.>> (Mileto, Vegas et al. 2014)

A romanticized approach The author criticizes publications of their romanticized approach to vernacular architecture saying that the belief in superiority of vernacular architecture’s sustainability is reflected in the language used in writings, including phrases like ‘the essence of sustainability’, refer to ‘inherent’ or ‘intrinsic’ sustainability or comment on the ‘natural integration’ or ‘happy marriage’ between vernacular and its environment. << It is also reflected in the narrative structure of the publications, many of which are framed within the context of what has been called cultural despondency theory (Sahlins 1999). Within this context, so common in representations of the effect of modernization and globalization on contemporary cultural diversity, vernacular architecture is considered a culturally distinctive and environmentally sustainable form of building that will inevitable be altered and replaced by the unsustainable building practices associated with the modern world. The narrative that underlies most of the recent studies reflects a naïve yet widely shared belief that the way in which humanity relates to its natural environment was somehow more simple, sensitive and appropriate in the past. Although the appeal of such visions of a pre-modern, vernacular world that was somehow more in touch with nature is understandable (after all, they do at least offer the hope that a state of environmental harmony is achievable), it does (as in the case of the bias towards technology) reveal a tendency to draw conclusions based on partial and limited evidence. After all, if life was really that good in the past, why do people so often want to leave it behind?>> (Mileto, Vegas et al. 2014)

Essentialist representations Final shortcoming that the author mentions is the tendency in many writings to generalize conclusions about the sustainability of a specific vernacular tradition so that they become applicable to vernacular architecture as a category which embraces all forms of vernacular architecture. << The assumption that vernacular architecture, as an undifferentiated collective, is innately sustainable and superior to other forms of architecture and that the environmental

sustainability of one building tradition, or a specific element of it, implies the general sustainability of all vernacular architecture, as a distinct category, when and wherever it is found is explicitly stated in many of the writings (see Vellinga 2013 for examples). But it is, of course, a highly problematic assumption; one that underestimates the contextual, plural and dynamic nature of both vernacular architecture traditions and the concept of sustainability and that reduces the diversity, plurality and dynamism of both to essentialist and reductionist representations. Not only is this poor academic practice; as noted, it may also discourage rather than encourage the integration of the valuable lessons from vernacular architecture that some studies do provide by raising the expectations about its qualities and performance to a level that is difficult, if not impossible, to reach, for any forms of architecture.>>(Mileto, Vegas et al.

2014)

Static approach to cultural traditions Dell Upton (1993) argued that the field of vernacular architecture studies, though more or less established and increasingly recognized within the academy, had so far been held back by the limitations of its own assumptions and definitions. Regarding the vernacular as an enduring, but essentially static and passive category that is defined in opposition to the more dynamic categories of the modern and the formal, most scholars of vernacular architecture have tended to concentrate their work on a small number of buildings only. These are the rural and preindustrial log cabins, farmhouses and barns that, in the British context, also constitute the focus of Rice’s attention. Meeting the ideal characteristics of the vernacular, they are perceived to be vernacularly ‘authentic’, having been built by their owners in pre-modern times, in keeping with the values and needs of their local communities, and using local resources and technologies. As a result of this restricted focus on so-called ‘pristine’ buildings, most work on the contemporary use and meaning of such vernacular traditions has, as in Rice’s lament, tended to emphasize processes of loss and decline. In focusing on the pre-industrial rural building heritage, Upton writes, the discourse on vernacular architecture has committed itself to models of ‘acculturation, contamination, and decline, models of impaired authenticity and reduced difference’. Rather than acknowledging and trying to understand the transformations of the buildings in an era of post-modernism and globalization, ‘our tales are tales of woe or tales of heroic resistance (which are simply their complement)’ (1993: 12).

According to Vellinga (Asquith and Vellinga 2006), a major shortcoming in the discourse of vernacular architecture is that it does not acknowledge the heterogeneous, processual and adaptive character of cultural traditions. The author argues that the discourse overall still tends to regard vernacular traditions as homogeneous, static and passive entities that can be classified into geographical, chronological and typological categories. In doing so, the processes of cultural interrelation, merging, change and indigenization that have been increasingly acknowledged in disciplines such as anthropology, cultural geography and history are largely ignored.

Authors like Rice, still describe the arrival and incorporation of new technologies, materials, uses and meanings in confrontational terms, instantaneously viewing them as the beginning of

the end of a distinctive (vernacular) era rather than as an active adaptation and continuation of a living tradition. The vernacular and the modern, it seems, cannot go together.

Vernacular in opposition to the modern Vellinga (Asquith and Vellinga 2006) argues that in the process of naming and defining, the vernacular, as a category, has become reified. In the worthy pursuit of recognition for building traditions other than the so-called Great Ones, a distinctive and bounded category has been created that can be opposed to other categories such as the formal, the modern, the popular and the informal; categories that are themselves in fact as much reifications as the vernacular.

The author says that unfortunately, in doing so, what those involved in the field set out to achieve was partly lost. By interpreting and defining the vernacular in terms that oppose it to the modern, the category has essentially been referred back to a pre-modern past, notwithstanding the repeated reminders that, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the vernacular still comprises the vast majority of buildings in the world. Consequently, contemporary building traditions largely neglected by architectural history (for example, suburban houses, squatter settlements, self-built ‘counter culture’ architecture) have also been ignored in the field of vernacular architecture studies. Besides the interconnections between those traditions identified as vernacular and those that are modern, or popular or informal, and the new traditions that emerge from their creative amalgamation, are not really incorporated into the discourse <<Because of the reified nature of the definition, all changes that take place to the vernacular in the present will automatically be seen as cultural decline and a loss of authenticity. If a building is to be truly vernacular, it will have to be part of a cultural context (pre-industrial, rural, socially homogenous and self-contained) that, in contemporary times, will be ever harder to find. In the process of definition then, though crucial in terms of the recognition of vernacular traditions as forms of architecture, the vernacular has effectively been banished to the pre-modern past by those who championed it, while simultaneously, by not really allowing for change, it has been denied both a history and, indeed, a future. In doing so, the dynamic indigenization or vernacularization of outside (modern, formal, global) cultural influences has largely been ignored. Furthermore the common and persistent stereotypes about vernacular architecture are confirmed, which in turn further affirms the ambivalent status of the vernacular and strengthens the perception that it is irrelevant to the future. With the unstoppable advance of modernity, the vernacular field of study finds itself in a serious predicament, getting smaller and smaller every year. A disappearing world, indeed>> (Asquith and Vellinga 2006)

‘New’ vernacular architecture Howard Davis (Asquith and Vellinga 2006) mentions the term new vernacular architecture while discussing architectural education and vernacular buildings. He points out a contradiction between a ‘healthy vernacular architecture’, which he defines as an architecture that does not inhibit the honest expression of people’s lives and cultures, has traditionally developed through common, culturally embedded knowledge of building, along with the political and economic ability to put that knowledge to use and an attitude promoted by the formal education towards

professional expertise that seems opposed to the idea of a shared, embedded knowledge. He says, << A new vernacular architecture for the twenty-first century must include the worldwide production of some 40 million buildings a year. This need should be met partly through the education of people who can help guide the complexities of building production in ways that lead to buildings that allow the life of people and their communities to flourish, and in ways that minimize negative environmental impacts.>> (Asquith and Vellinga 2006)

Conservative and defensive approach towards vernacular architecture In his book Village Buildings of Britain (Brunskill 2004), Metthew Rice talks about talks about the state in which vernacular traditions in Britain find themselves at the beginning of twentyfirst century. He argues that numerous vernacular traditions today face challenges that seriously threaten their survival into the twenty-first century. The vulnerability of vernacular traditions in the face of forceful processes of modernization and globalization makes it desirable to document, study and preserve historical and traditional buildings before they may be lost or become irreversibly changed Marcel Vellinga in his book Vernacular Architecture in the twenty-first century(Asquith and Vellinga 2006) criticizes this defensive approach of rice saying that Rice has a less than positive perspective on the contemporary status of the British vernacular and, more particularly, on the way in which it is made to respond to the demands of the time and the wishes of its current owners and inhabitants. Essentially based, it seems, on aesthetic and emotional judgements, his view of the vernacular is a static and conservative one. For Rice, British vernacular architecture consists of historical rural buildings that were built before the Industrial Revolution, in a time when villages in Britain were agriculturally based and supposedly selfcontained, and the construction of the railways had not yet facilitated the replacement of traditional materials and crafts with imported modern ones. Although he recognizes that architectural development and expansion is unavoidable in many places, it is a prime responsibility of the householders and developers of today to carefully preserve this ‘pristine’ vernacular of half-timbered houses, limestone cottages and granite farmhouses so that the much celebrated British vernacular landscape will not be ‘spoilt’ any further. Thus, for example, he laments over the way in which ‘overzealous’ conversion has turned too many Cotswold barns into ‘awkward hybrids’ that have been ‘stained’ by the use of ‘particularly nasty treacly brown’ colours and the addition of ‘horrid car ports’, arguing instead that such buildings should be maintained and used in as original a manner as possible (Rice 2003: 95).

According to Asquith (Asquith and Vellinga 2006) the continued tendency of scholars and conservationists like Rice to approach the vernacular as comprising of pre-modern historical and traditional buildings that have to be studied and appreciated in their ‘pristine’ state, and that accordingly need to be safeguarded from the onslaughts of modernization and change, has restricted the scope and development of the field of vernacular architecture studies and continues to hamper the recognition of the vernacular as an architectural category worthy of full academic and professional attention. He says that rather than helping vernacular traditions

develop and endure by pointing out their dynamic character and their potential relevance to the provision of sustainable architecture in the future, it relegates them to the past by emphasizing either their historical or traditional, but in any case unchanging and outdated status.

A holistic and integrated perspective (social, economic, political, environmental) According to Mileto (Mileto, Vegas et al. 2014) vernacular architecture is an integral part of the societies and cultures that produce them. Economic patterns, cultural values, political relationships, religious beliefs, social structures; they all have an intricate relationship to architecture, determining what materials are used, which forms are chosen, how space is used, and result in the huge diversity of ways of building that characterize the vernacular architecture of the world. By limiting attention to the technological and environmental performance of buildings, the importance of the cultural embodiment of vernacular architecture is neglected, making our understanding of the ways in which it relates to its environment partial and distorted.

Critical approach towards the analysis of Vernacular Architecture The author criticizes the tendency of researchers to only discuss positive aspects of vernacular architecture and those elements of buildings which perform well and to leave those cases ,consciously or unconsciously, where the sustainability of vernacular architecture is less easy to imagine. << For every vernacular building that uses recyclable materials or has good thermal performance, it is probably possible to find one that is poorly insulated, susceptible to natural disasters, or conducive to respiratory disease; let alone to find buildings that no longer meet the social and cultural needs and aspirations of the communities that built and inhabited them, that are too small, fail to provide privacy or that are simply too expensive to be built, maintained or renovated. If our analysis of the sustainability of vernacular architecture is to be holistic and fair, such examples, which may lead to more critical accounts, should be part of our sample as well.>>(Mileto, Vegas et al. 2014)

Importance of cultural diversity and inter-disciplinary approach In order to really understand vernacular architecture forms and to learn from them we need to have more holistic, integrated and critical approaches which require inter-disciplinary collaboration of academics working in natural sciences, arts, humanities and social sciences.

According to the author, we need a mind-set where vernacular architecture is no longer seen as a form of architecture that is inherently more sustainable than its contemporary counterparts; where change is accepted and guided rather than lamented and rejected and where it is recognized that the lessons to be learned from the vernacular may be as much about the mistakes that vernacular builders made, as they may be about what they did well. After all, as convenient as it would be, there can be no vernacular â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;fixesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to our contemporary problems; we

will have to embrace and engage the present and future rather than romanticize and get stuck in the past. (Mileto, Vegas et al. 2014)

Approaches to Vernacular architecture and housing discourse Asquith in his text Vernacular Architecture in the twenty- first century discusses different approaches in which vernacular architecture should be studied and collaborated between different disciplines.

Anthropological approach According to Asquith, spatial and activity patterns universal to a culture should be examined.

Anthropological concepts are often ignored in the study of western practices, especially those relating to the daily routines and rituals that shape the way we use our homes. Also, the practice in anthropology when considering the built form has been to concentrate on the house as a symbol of the culture that produced it. The building is seen as an artifact and is studied from within the boundaries of cultural knowledge. Future housing studies need to identify the common codes of practice, in the form of daily activities and routines that structure the spaces we use according to our cultural norms and practices that form the anthropology of space.(Asquith and Vellinga 2006)

Sociological approach To study Spatial and activity patterns as shared by a group or community in the form of daily routines and rituals. The sociological approach is more concerned with the interpretation of the idealized cultural concepts that form the basis of the anthropological approach. The ideas of what constitutes a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;proper familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; have shaped the way individuals relate to each other in the domestic setting and these same ideas have inďŹ&#x201A;uenced the design of housing (Munro and Madigan 1999). There has been little sociological research on age and hierarchy and the relationship between parents and children with respect to space use in a domestic setting. The need is to identify and comprehend space issues not just in terms of the role the family plays or the perceived roles of men, women and children, but in terms of what is important to each individual and how that is acted out in the home. The sociological interpretation of anthropological concepts in relation to domestic space use is a vital step on the way to understanding how the home and family function together, and what changes need to be made to future housing design. (Asquith and Vellinga 2006)

Behavioral approach To study individual spatial behavior as determined by culture or social traits. A behavioral approach to housing research is concerned with the perceptions, interactions, relationships and identities of the individual as he or she assumes their roles within the physical boundaries of the home. This approach moves forward from the anthropological and sociological concepts to an understanding of who does what, where and when, including or excluding whom, in order to

assess the complex spatial pattern that illustrates life at home. Spatial behavior needs to be regarded not as something static or culture-bound, but continuously variable, deďŹ ned primarily by context. For example, the effects of age or gender, from a behavioral perspective can identify perceptions and cognitions that are context dependent, instead of being culturally speciďŹ c. In modern society the house is no longer a text encoding the cultural rules of behavior, or even the whole world view that can be passed on through time (Tuan 1977). The house is seen not to be representing group identity as much as the identity of the individual or individuals that reside within it.(Asquith and Vellinga 2006)

Architectural approach An architectural approach to housing research looks at influence of spatial types on space use and the physical spaces themselves. The house has often been overlooked as a built form worthy of attention by the architectural profession because it is so familiar. Domestic space has an intricate pattern, of which the users are not often conscious and are often only made aware when encountering a different spatial pattern from another culture (Hillier 1996). The architectural approach will also have more relevance once examined in unity with the insights gained from the anthropological, sociological and behavioral approaches. A conďŹ gurational theory of architecture, how spaces are linked to each other, which forms the basis of studies using space syntax as a tool to illustrate space use is valid, but in linking it to sociological and psychological methods it can answer pertinent questions that relate to the very nature of domestic space(Asquith and Vellinga 2006)

References

      

 

Asquith, L. and M. Vellinga (2006). Vernacular Architecture in the Twenty-first Century: Theory, Education and Practice, Taylor & Francis.

Brunskill, R. W. (2004). Traditional Buildings of Britain: An Introduction to Vernacular Architecture and Its Revival, Cassell.

Camille Welles, “Old Claims and New Demands: Vernacular Architecture Studies Today”, Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, Vol. 2, 1986.

Michelangelo Sabatino, Pride in Modesty: Modernist Architecture and the Vernacular Tradition in Italy, University of Toronto Press, 2010 Mike Christenson, “From the Unknown to the Known. Transitions in the Architectural Vernacular”, Buildings & Landscapes 18, No. 1, 2011 Mileto, C., F. Vegas, L. G. Soriano and V. Cristini (2014). Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future, CRC Press.

Nezar Alsaayad, “Vernacular architecture is a nineteenth-century invention” in Lindsay Asquith, Marcel Vellin ga, Vernacular Architecture in the 21st Century: Theory, Education and Practice, Taylor & Francis, 2006 Upton, D. (1993) ‘The tradition of change’, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review.

Vernacular Architecture Forum. Vernacular Architecture Forum official website, vernaculararchitectureforum.org