CREJ

DECEMBER 2016 \ BUILDING DIALOGUE \

In the Details

lifeless. We lack appreciation of the implications of Louis

Kahn or Corbusie working in India and Iran, as easily as they

worked in France and Connecticut. We focus on the deficien-

cies rather than the epic successes because we have the luxury

of relative peace to do so. The very same programs that created

public housing for returning veterans (the largest expansion

of public and affordable housing ever) – and created a place

for Jews and Germans to live together – specifically exclud-

ed black Americans and created conditions for many of our

current societal tribulations. Throwing the baby out with the

bathwater in effort to create a singular humanity wiped away

huge swaths of rich cultural heritage, and it is fair to blame

Modernism for erasing too much local culture. Location felt

anonymous and continued to exclude. This shortsightedness,

in the spirit of looking outward, ignored the interior struggle.

As withmy grandmother and her smoking, this neglect of the

local context gave rise to the end of this era.

Emerging from the environmental awareness of the 1970s,

Gen X architects responded with a newmantra: “Think global,

act local,” which presented amanageable way of looking at the

existential global threat of climate change. There were many

popular “isms” during this period trying to replaceModernism

– some richly aware of location, but most characterized by a

complete absence of location. In contrast, LEED and the green

building movement inadvertently emerged as a counterpoint

to these “isms,” presenting an accessible, site-specific toolkit for

responding to climate change with a global perspective, which

may be the real Modernism of our generation. The idea of

location manifested as simultaneously global and local, now

including concerns such as air, water, daylight and culture.

Today, there are local movements in architecture, which re-

spond to climate, culture and local opportunities, while still

respecting global ideals. Regional examples, such as Glen Mer-

cutt in Australia, Vo Trong Nghia in Vietnam, the Miller Hull

Partnership in Seattle, and Snohetta in Oslo, are broadly emu-

lated for evolving a new modern architecture. A global (small

m) modern architecture, which embraces the relevance of lo-

cal materials, local climate and local craft, contributes to global

health in the same way that local food movements improve

our relationship to the land and local beers are rebuild local

culture. Architecture rooted in location contributes in ways

very similar to local food and craft beer.

For those of us who build today, we are charged with de-

veloping our understanding of location around the balance

between thinking globally and acting locally. As Denver grows

and prospers, decisions on housing, design, architecture and

urbanism are made every day. Many of these decisions are

made, evaluated and criticized based on a context, which too

often sees “local” only through the limited lens of property

values. I believe it is possible to have discussions about growth,

not as “us” versus “them,” but as a civil society, growing Denver

toward common values and goals, such as accessible housing

for all, maintaining and broadening the reach of prosperity,

and, yes, global peace. Denver’s current growth is as much a

product of its international airport as its local beer, and the

urban fabric will be richer when we consider “location, loca-

tion, location” within the context of a global place with local

impacts.