Vernacular architecture, southern zone and northern zone compared

You see it most clearly in Italy, but also in any areas south of the Alps in Europe and eastward, along the Mediterranean to the Middle East and onwards to South Asia. You also see it south of the US border in the Americas: a continuous positive development in urban, vernacular architecture. Let's call this architectural area,  the "southern zone" for the sake of brevity. I'd like to compare it to the "northern zone" using central Germany for that, and central Italy for the southern zone, as examples. 

In the northern half of this divide, vernacular architecture has suffered a severe break as a result of the general influences of modernism and specifically the ideas of Bauhaus and its relatives, imitators, and inadvertent followers. There, building has become angular, industrial, grey and cold. The general reputation of "modern architecture" is that of emotional and functional sterility, mainly because of its northern zone incarnations. There, because of war or "urban renewal"  or rampant development destroyed enough of the old to build the new in massive quantities. This sterility is most acute with official, industrial, and corporate building but also in residential urban, even suburban building.

In Northern (Anglo) America this sterility in the vernacular style is coupled with a kind of chintziness, a cheapness of construction, intended for short term existence or quick turnaround within the real estate market. In Anglo America, the industrial aspect of modernism has been completely and uncritically absorbed, without the original revolutionary and aesthetic ideas, in part because it fit an already persistent no-frills, short-term, earth-is-merely-a-steppingstone mentality. In the US, place (and earthly life) is something you merely move through. Vernacular architecture is on the level of military barrack, a temporary station. Churches, farms, stores, homes are built as temporary warehouses, sometimes patched up a little with mass produced classicist decorations to add "class" or cozyness.

In the southern zone, too, there is some non-vernacular building which is horribly cold and detached, mostly because it involved architects who probably had their eye on high modernism, or because some state agency without public input. But the general landscape is not shaped by a few official buildings, but by the general trends in vernacular construction, which could range from completely self-built, to moderately professional building involving architects.

To put it very bluntly, the southern zone is much more beautiful, because humanity creates beauty there. In the north (with plenty of exceptions of course) the vernacular tends towards hideousness, enthusiastically. If you don't agree, go and compare central Mexico with the US Mid-west, or Havana with Jacksonville, or Naples with Duisburg. Latin America and latin Europe are much more beautiful than Anglo America and Northern Europe; that's a subjective assessment, of course, but I'm willing to defend it. If cleanliness and order are an important of your aesthetic, then this relation would be reversed. I recently talked to someone in my home town, who advocated more organized intervention and rebuilding in some of the most delapidated but romantic aspects of the town. I mentioned my appreciation for Naples, where a certain casualness and collaborative aesthetic makes for overwhelming beauty, and my disdain for Germany's overly anxious modernization. He countered that Naples is a terrible example, because there the beaches are dirty and shameful. He sees things in terms of order and cleanliness, places in terms of economic activities (tourists bathing, for example), which to him signify responsibility and pride. He must have completely missed the Naples I enjoyed.

The built landscapes of the southern zone are mostly beautiful, joyous, rich in detail, full of life. Usually there is also grit (various layers of dirt due to less than perfect maintenance). In places like southern Italy you may add hanging laundry to the picture (a.k.a "life"). There is harmony between the individual building and the mass of buildings. Most importantly, there is harmony within the full range of historical periods. A 20th century building next to a 16th century building, despite stylistic differences, may look perfectly harmonious, as if the basics of human needs and collective taste have remained consistent.

In trying to understand this break – between the pre-modern and modern in the North and the lack of it in the South – I've looked at several possible culprits.

Protestantism's visual severity

The notion that protestants are against fun is an old cliché, so I won't dwell too much on it. The basic theory is that when protestants (Germans, Swiss, French, English, Dutch) protested the hegemony and decadence of the Catholic church they did away with imagery (iconoclasm) and decoration in their churches and buildings. The church responded with the counter reformation, making their churches even more fun and lascivious (the Baroque). Church buildings and the religions of rulers of course influence the culture of building greatly, so it makes sense that in protestant areas, the built environment is less joyous, indicating seriousness and solemnity. There have been many references to modernism being an extension of protestantism. So, it could be that the northern tendency to make the built environment look dreary is a subconscious imperative to be solemn, serious, but also in line with modernist fashion. The words to be feared in the north are "decorative" and "frivolous" (unseriös -  in German - literally un-serious) and superficial (being only on the surface, instead of being visibly structural  – an essential modernist notion). 

The north's greater degree of industrialization.

Northern England, Belgium, Northern France, Central Germany — these are the (European) areas of the industrial revolution. The built environment there is accustomed to being dominated by progress, instead of romanticism. In Northern Italy, the Po region is heavily industrialized as well, and is less pretty than the areas further south. It could be that the collective aesthetic is formed by whatever dominates politically and economically, in this case industry. As a result, vernacular structures end up as dreary as industrial ones. Maybe, the art of making things beautiful simply gets lost in the face of overwhelming context. An additional element is that industrial areas are often newer, historically, and so less layered in terms of human habitation, showing a shorter spectrum of architectural creativity, which in turn affects the creativity of the vernacular. Or is it that the same tendency to industrialize, to prioritize work and functionality, also lowers the emphasis on fun and frivolity?

World War II and the "break with the past".

The notion here is that any kind of pedestrian, non-academic architectural beauty is associated with the past and thus rejected. Even though the Hitler era lasted only 12 years, it is associated with all previous fraudulent nativism and local folklore, with the bourgeoisie, with conformism and primitive hierarchy and only gradual advances. Modernism advocated a rupture, a revolution, and resulted in "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", that is the traditions of the vernacular, popular, bottom-to-top approach. Architecture, as currently taught, and even the vernacular kind, is managed from the top of the hierarchy, from the architect or "builder," the craftsman merely executing the concept (see Mies van der Rohe). Any evidence of visual warmth or errant crafted detail became taboo in the North. Craftsmen have to pretend to be industrial, to be the tip of the pen. This didn't seem to have happened as much in areas less destroyed by and feeling less guilty about world war II (Italy has a less radical rejection of Mussolini, Spain an even less radical rejection of Franco). In the south, the entire building seems to be formed by its surrounding culture, not some trendy builder looking for attention through rupture, and conforms to the whole while also expressing an individuality.

Climate and color harmony: the use of warm "impure" colors.

Color preferences in Germany and Italy, and in the "northern zone" and the "southern zone" are completely different. In the northern zone, things are either too grey or too vibrant. Greyish hues are very mixed: there are all kinds of dreary reds and browns. Whites are pure white, colors are very bright, such as green, which is usually a weird lime green, reflecting the color of grass in all seasons. In northern Europe there is a lot of rain, and winters are mild, so grass and tree trunks remain green all year. In the south, grass ranges from olive to beige. When Germans think of color, they think of bright, pure colors, like those of flowers and fruit and grass. In the south, colors are part of an immense spectrum, and rarely "pure". Grey is simply another color on this spectrum. Or, to put it very simply: In the built environment of the south, colors are always part white and part black. A typical row of buildings will have hundreds of shades of red, yellow, blue, green, but always pastel with some patina. Colors are held back and mixed, and become completely compatible with each other. The southern color palette allows freedom of collage, because the colors are not pure (unlike a Mondrian painting, the epitome of modernism and protestantism). They stick to the rule: hues of equal value (intensity) and sufficient impurity (patina) can be mixed infinitely. Everyone involved seems to understand this principle in Italy, also in nearby countries, with decreasing consistency westward and eastward (countries of the Caribbean region have their own harmonic rules, using very bright colors). I am sympathetic to the argument that climate is very important here, that the color of the sea, the land, the air influence the collective aesthetic. Italy is sunny and hazy (colorful but muted), Germany is grey and bright (and evenly lit). The caribbean is colorful and clear (not hazy), etc. So, the climate creates a color context which is more or less subconsciously "matched" by human creations.

Modernism as a mask for fascism
A recent, excellent article in Der Spiegel discusses the intricacies of postwar construction in Germany, and makes the point that in West Germany Nazi architects were re-integrated into the work force and continued their rather cold aesthetic under the label of modernism and Bauhaus. This doesn't explain the ugliness in the rest of the northern zones, but makes an important link between fascism and modernism, which are usually presented as opposite directions. The standard notion of fascism as retrograde (traditional) and modernism as progressive is undermined by the point that modernism, mostly in architecture, has a fascist component. I prefer to think that architecture, as a client-financed or applied art which requires significant up-front monies is simply much more likely to aestheticize power, than other "freer" arts such as literature and the visual arts, which can afford to be more personal and counter-cultural.

From: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,702856,00.html

"These architects were quick to pretend [deny] that they had absolutely anything to do with the bombastic architecture of the Nazis and their megalomaniacal ideology. After the war, Speer's architects hid behind Bauhaus, the modernist style initially developed by Walter Gropius and others before 1933. Because the Nazis had persecuted its followers, being associated with Bauhaus was good for one's career after the war -- and it allowed them to actively promote modernism free from historical ballast." 

Which if of these factors is more important, and are there more to consider? Below are some images taken in Naples, italy, and Duisburg, Germany. Both are busy working class cities, although Naples is not as industrial and Duisburg is much smaller. Duisburg, as part of the Ruhr District, is typical (maybe a caricature) of the dreariness that is common in Northern Europe, despite the fact that residents are so often immigrants from more southern parts of the world. Naples is typical of southern Italy's grit and beauty. The comparison isn't meant to be fair, rather I am trying to contrast representative examples of the difference between the North and South. Below are some snapshots I took on walks and from the car.

Far view of Naples. All colors fit together. None are too intense. All contain some white and black (or brown).

Naples street view: A modernist/internationalist building, (a building Darth Vader might love) on far right, dreary and hideous, but rare in Italy. Vernacular 20th century buildings in the center, full of life and warmth, and the usual 19th century building on the left, equally lively and warm. If you squint at both of the warm buildings you could notice that they average out to the same color, which is a muted yellow with both white and black infused.The newer building is just a little bolder in how the elemental colors are presented.

A very similar situation, only reversed left to right. Internationalist, 20th century, 19th century.

Another Naples street view. All are 20th century buildings, without the dreariness. Even the cars seem an integral part of the color composition.

Duisburg, Germany. Are they TRYING to be depressing? Are they trying to conform to the weather? What causes this?

More Duisburg. All colors are cold, all shapes are blocky.

Duisburg again. These are pre-modern, so there's at least some curvature allowed. Here they are trying to not be depressing in their choices of color, but they go to far. It's what's called "Farbenfroh", meaning "color happy". The colors are way to intense and primary, and there's no patina (exceptions are the light yellow and the brownish ones in the back). The buildings don't fit together, in terms of color, they need muting.

Duisburg; what I call provincial postmodern. Dreary, angular, psychopathic, non-functional. There is a lot of this in Germany (and in the Northern Zone) and it's baffling.