2 / 16
Vernacular studies were exclusive as well: non authentic aspects and examples were omitted.
Vellinga felt that the notions of vernacular has a historic affinity: it is nothing to do with the
future.
In late 20
th
century anthropology thinking, place, cultures and materials were not static or
place bound. Cultures change and the different experiences of urban and rural and of modern
and traditional begin to merge. Where change has come it was not just a result of
decolonisation and/or modernisation: many traditions were shared by different groups and
could be found in different places. Immigration had seen traditions and cultural ideas spread
to new places and the coming of the railways had had an impact over the years, as well.
Cultural change was adaptive and heterogeneous. The only constant was that culture was not
static.
There were variations in and between countries: e.g. in the UK many rural barns had been
converted, whereas in France rural/agricultural buildings had been abandoned. This was
partly a cultural issue but partly because some buildings are easier to maintain and/or adapt
to new uses than others. Tourism was another dimension in the story of vernacular buildings.
Some building technology was difficult to learn and some buildings more comfortable to live
in.
The most obvious impact of climate change was environmental. There had been disasters and
responses, but the outcomes of such endeavours had been political, economic and social.
Through history political conflict had resulted in destruction, which had led to conservation
projects. Social change(s) have affected places in various ways: some places have seen
gentrification and medical advances have seen the rise of an ageing populations in many
countries with increasing number of elderly people. Other changes have been due to the
economy or insurance or mortgages. Policy has had an effect, for example health and safety.
Therefore the issue of vernacular buildings is more complex: it links to cultural context in a
dynamic way. Research into this area was promising, but the issue was whether vernacular
buildings had become commodified or could be a new inspiration. This questions was
underpinned by qualities and values. Vernacular architecture was still important due to its
links with the qualities and values of locality and honesty.
Questions about vernacular architecture inevitably led to other questions, such as: what is
architecture? In trying to provide answers simple dichotomies were inadequate. The nature
of vernacular architecture was a result of cultural assumptions and history. It was also an
outcome of elitism: vernacular architecture as opposed to (real) architecture.
Vellinga concluded by saying that there were many ways to conserve buildings and there are
many ways to design them. He told delegates we need to accept that culture is not static:
places change and so does technology. So the situation is more complex and dynamic than it
may appear. The contribution of vernacular architecture can best be understood in terms of
its contribution to conservation and to design.