Dear Trivian,

On what you said about what Norberg-Schultz said

I was thinking the other day about what you told me about. You were saying something to the likes of "of course european architecture has angst, it has to struggle against inclement weather (as opposed to Californian architecture, which can be as "classical" as it wishes, opening up to the vast expanses of a mild and friendly climate) " ... something like that. Well, I think I might have misunderstood what you were trying to express and it’s has been bugging me ever since.

In the four types of environments that Norberg-Schultz defines (romantic temperate and nordic climate, classical mediteranean, dessert expanses type, and fourthly, everything in between ) We seem to have misunderstood each-other as to where European architecture stands. We also where probaly referring to different architectural eras. And then I talked about passive houses and we where completely lost. I am truly sorry for this:)

The truth of the matter is, you are an intimidating conversation partner. Now, it’s not your fault, mind you! And I will get better at this, I promise, if you’ll let me.

Yet, that afternoon in the garden, I was at a loss trying to figure out what you were saying and you so politely changed the subject.

Now, let’s straighten this out. I’ll start by unfolding my own train of thought, without referring to where I lost yours.

Our and our homes' relationship with the outside environment is a matter of existential dilemma. It’s a "where do we stand on this whirling rock and what should we do about it" level question. That’s why architects tend to get so smug, come to think of it.

So if we start our reasoning from this point of view, and add Norberg-Schultz’s four types, we get a relationship with the weather and the terrain and the wind and all these fundamentals, a relationship we humans have, mediated by our shelters. To these shelters we add this existential meaning, and they become dwelling, home, space. We can’t survive most climates without our shelters, though they are at their most obviously useful to us the harsher the climate is. Yet we seem to imbue them with more meaning and symbolism the milder the climate is, right? I am referring here to classical greek and roman architecture, to Mayan and Indian and Egyptian religious architecture. Ok, I think I might be going too far into unknown territory for me, so I’ll get back to this mediation role of the house in our relationship with the outside.

The house would normally reflect the said relationship right? So if we take the classical and romantic and dessert types from Genius Loci, we get three different basic relationship types. One laid back, friendly, open, trusting, the second troubled, dark, mysterious, and a third, astronomical, primordial, larger than life.

If european temperate climate is a romantic type relationship with nature, that is, troubled, untrusting etc, then temperate climate architecture mirrors this -you said it- angst. Then, going further (and skipping the bit about postindustrial architecture — you where mentioning Mies I think) I had brushed the idea that passive houses are the new representation of this angst, of this anxious relationship with nature, expanded now into a climate change angst and guilt and fear and... oh God , that’s why all we’re building now is so ugly!

I’ll stop here for now, I want to know your opinion.

PS Found the pink garlic bulbs we talked about at the market, got you some as well.

Speak soon :)

Jo