CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESSThe current importance of this topic, as of culture-environment relations generally, is due to certain changes in the context of design. Traditionally, built form has responded effectively to culture—for example, in preliterate and vernacular contexts. Such environments communicated affectively and fully to users whereas currently there is a concern that environment do not respond and do not communicate effectively. One can still observe effective communication in certain traditional settings, spontaneous(“squatter”) settlements and, to a degree, in popular environments(although partly distored and weakened by controls, regulations, etc.). In the case of professionally designed environments this seems to work less well: frequently they do not communicate to users.
The current importance of this topic, as of culture-environment relations generally, is due to certain changes in the context of design. Traditionally, built form has responded effectively to culture—for example, in preliterate and vernacular contexts. Such environments communicated affectively and fully to users whereas currently there is a concern that environment do not respond and do not communicate effectively. One can still observe effective communication in certain traditional settings, spontaneous(“squatter”) settlements and, to a degree, in popular environments(although partly distored and weakened by controls, regulations, etc.). In the case of professionally designed environments this seems to work less well: frequently they do not communicate to users.
The problem of cultural responsiveness is complicated by pluralism, the presence of multiple groups and subcultures. Most traditional environments were for homogeneous groups and of much smaller scale. In such cases the congruence of culture and built form was much similar and easier to achieve. To consider merely communication, in the present situation cues may not be noticed, if noticed they may be understood; if both noticed and understood some users may refuse to conform. A consequence is that in complex, pluralistic, large-style situations the problem is much more difficult.
What is new, other than this pluralism and large scale, is that firstly many environments which traditionally were vernacular, popular or “spontaneous” are now designed by professionals who typically have not dealt with them and really do not know how to tackle them. Second, in the past designers and clients shared culture, they were typically members of the same group. Moreover clients and users were identical. Currently, none of these conditions apply: designers were very different indeed to users in lifestyle, values, etc., culture. While I have only toughed on a single set of points, I would argue that it is circumstances such as these which lead to the perceived problems, the consequent interest in culture\environment relationships and hence the importance of culturally responsive environments.
