In every architectural project, at some point, the concern of naming the style of the project arises.
The first question is why it should have a name…. The answer can be given from an academic perspective, to catalogue it historically as such, and to be able to identify it as a movement that responds to certain cultural circumstances or fashions.
From another point of view, there is the issue of being able to present the project to society, or sell it with a defined identity.
Now, names are invented, or they come out organically as a sociological response, and they define a way of facing the world and identifying with something in order to feel part of it.
Sometimes, people resort to recreating previous architectural styles, such as “colonial” or “modern”, which belong to responses to specific historical demands, such as the conquest of new territories with traditional Spanish architecture, or post-war developments, with new world views, agreed design principles, and the use of new construction technologies.
As far as current styles are concerned, Minimalist and Parametric are mentioned as examples, and old styles have also been hybridized with their new versions, such as Modern Vernacular or Modern Brutalism, which are identified with large design firms or with spontaneous trends, naming new versions of existing styles with local modifications.
Ultimately, is it a good way to start a project? Probably not, since before defining the style, the issue of its sustainability should be taken into account. In this sense, the most appropriate criteria are those that take into account some principles of vernacular styles, since they are normally those that respond to the social, material and climatic demands of their environment.
According to these concepts, capricious, decontextualized styles, thought only in terms of photography, or social insertion, are not a good starting point, since they do not necessarily allow the incorporation of concepts and strategies for reducing their ecological footprint, neither in their construction, nor in their useful life, and which permanently and wrongly transform the built landscape.
Currently, “sustainable or green” is defined as a style of its own, which should not be one of many options, but rather a way of designing, building and living, which may have a formal tendency different from another. What sustainability does demand in its craft is a certain functionality in its composition, which responds to the place, topography, climate, urban or natural context, the materials and local labor.
