“Exposing the supremacist echo chamber of traditional architecture" - a reaction
A rebuttal wasn't really needed. But we did it anyway
The publication ‘Identity Hunters’ dedicated an article to our platform, our work, and the work of our colleagues who advocate for more beautiful, livable environments.
The article contains multiple accusations, alleging that we promote nationalist sentiments, glorify traditional architecture as part of a supremacist ideology, and perpetuate exclusionary practices.
You can read it here: https://identityhunters.org/2024/05/11/exposing-the-supremacist-echo-chamber-of-traditional-architecture/
At first, we were flattered that someone put so much effort into an article featuring our platform. We were also a bit amused, as the criticism directed against us seemed so flawed that it didn’t even need a serious rebuttal. The article is poorly written, the arguments are self-contradictory, and the tone is hysterical.
To our shock however, we learned that the ‘Identity Hunters’ website wasn’t just someone’s personal blog but is linked to a course taught by Dr. Pablo de Orellana and Dr. Nicholas Michelsen at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. Since it is connected to a prestigious university, we have no choice but to respond.
Additionally, we will investigate how it is possible that a publication related to King’s College is a place for articles such as these.
First, because the university’s own patron, King Charles III, has a strong affinity for traditional architecture and shares the values we at The Aesthetic City stand for. Second, because the article seems to have a malicious purpose. It seems intended to cast suspicion on our platform using the fallacy of ‘guilt by association,’ but mostly by misrepresenting our viewpoints. If it weren’t abundantly clear from our content, our platform aims to improve the lives of people from any background, culture, and way of life. We deeply respect differences and true, bottom-up democratic processes.
‘Identity Hunters’ describes itself as a project that “aims to investigate and understand how identity and difference are politicized by nationalist politics.” Let this be clear: we do not identify with nationalist politics in any way whatsoever.
Choosing to write this article might seem like an overreaction since we are aware that we have a large audience. As a result, we will probably drive more attention toward this obscure publication than it deserves. However, as the website states, it is connected to a respectable institution. Thus, a firm reaction is warranted.
The creation of this rebuttal was, apart from being a serious enterprise, also a fun process. At The Aesthetic City, we enjoy taking intellectual sounding word salad articles and dismantling them in little pieces, to assess the mistakes in thinking, misrepresentations, and fallacies. In this article, as you will soon discover, there are plenty.
Limited understanding
Firstly, the article demonstrates a very limited understanding of what traditional architecture is about and reveals the narrow worldview held by the author. Although we are accused of having a limited understanding of architectural theory, we have reason to believe that it is not us, but the author, who is showing ignorance. It seems that the author can only view a phenomenon like traditional architecture through a lens of political left-right dichotomy, power struggle, and victimization. The author seems not to have fully watched or understood our video on beauty, nor to have seen other videos by The Aesthetic City, listened to our podcast episodes, or even read the mission statement of our website to understand our real mission and worldview.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F47c888e5-4540-4230-be27-a14c8ab1c13a_1474x886.png)
Had they made any effort, we would not have had to write this article, as the author would not have misrepresented our views on various matters. This brings us to the following point:
Misrepresentation
The article selectively uses our video about beauty to argue that The Aesthetic City believes beauty is determined solely by the number of people visiting beautiful European capitals. This misrepresents our main argument, which is that people are attracted to spots with certain qualities, not just to European capitals. We use European capitals as an easily relatable example for a wide audience, but we could have mentioned traditional Moroccan villages, Chinese hutongs, or Nigerian Hausa architecture as well – each of which has the qualities of beauty we describe in the video. This could be an oversight on our end, but as the rest of the video is so clearly about the general principles that lead to beauty, we assumed this would be clear to any viewer.
![Hausa architecture - Wikipedia Hausa architecture - Wikipedia](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4b05692c-95de-4276-a426-71e34fa63ee5_3008x2000.jpeg)
Conveniently, the discussion of biological and neurological research suggesting strong preferences for certain types of architecture is ignored. As a platform that takes scientific inquiry extremely seriously, we are interested in all forms of evidence available to us. In contrast, the current architectural establishment does not seem interested in eye-tracking research by Ann Sussman and Justin Hollander, or in polling results showing broad democratic support for traditional architecture among all parts of the population.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd5f1ed26-4b69-496b-9b3f-2de2e79d8bee_1012x1434.png)
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F99a78e02-ba57-4c44-a868-7294127c38eb_1304x886.png)
This results in the article misrepresenting our views by suggesting that we consider only Western traditional architecture as a source of beauty. In reality, we strive to understand the underlying principles of beauty that are universal and applicable across all cultures, peoples, and architectural styles.
Self-contradiction
The author claims that The Aesthetic City is ‘supremacist’ and aims to impose a certain vision of architecture upon others. At the same time, the author claims that The Aesthetic City panders to populism – either through our interest in the widespread popularity of traditional architecture or through our interest in widely held views on beauty. Which is it? Are we imposing our view of architecture on others, or are we championing what a large majority likes to see in their cities?
We don’t see any evidence that we are ‘channeling the architectural preference of a powerful minority group’ and imposing it on others. Instead, we see exactly the opposite: we challenge the architectural preferences of a powerful minority group and empower a wide majority of the population, which, according to our research, would like to see change.
![File:National-Gallery-of-Art-East-Building-I-M-Pei-National-Mall-Washington-DC-Apr-2014.jpg File:National-Gallery-of-Art-East-Building-I-M-Pei-National-Mall-Washington-DC-Apr-2014.jpg](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcf95c2a5-eee9-40de-b582-7919119528c7_748x600.jpeg)
We see a different ‘powerful minority group’ than the author. It consists of leading architecture firms, property development companies, authors, thinkers, and other well-connected intellectuals, and it is decidedly Modernist. Their Modernist stance is hard to debate, as anyone looking at leading architecture magazines, websites, and architectural curricula will discover. This group has true power over how our cities look. Meanwhile, according to the polls and studies available to us, around 75% of the population prefers traditional and classical architecture. This is a conservative estimate. To be clear, this number includes people of all backgrounds and views on life, not just a ‘small, powerful minority group’. In short, claiming we want to ‘impose a view on architecture’ held by a select few on others is not only untrue, but a complete reversal of the facts.
Now, let’s move on to some of the individual claims.
A call for an ‘Ethnocentric Cultural Revival’,
This is another misrepresentation of our worldview. The Aesthetic City celebrates the diversity of rich indigenous architectural traditions and crafts around the world. These traditions have often existed for thousands of years and have been fatally disrupted by the international adoption of modernist architectural thought. Although modernists like to pretend otherwise, modernist dogma mostly negates local architectural traditions. Traditional forms, styles, or methods are only allowed to be used when they are ‘reimagined’ or ‘reinterpreted’ through the hegemonic modernist worldview, as any literal reference to tradition is immediately attacked as ‘reactionary’.
![Musée Yves Saint Laurent Marrakech / Studio KO | ArchDaily Musée Yves Saint Laurent Marrakech / Studio KO | ArchDaily](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4dca8ffd-ca0d-453a-add6-0d172f8c4a39_2000x1349.jpeg)
We think this attitude isn’t only hostile; it’s also backward and not inclusive. Indigenous traditions deserve better. A diversity of architectural traditions enriches our lives and our cities, making travel worthwhile. If buildings in all cities look the same, why travel? Building traditions in developing countries are even more vulnerable and have suffered even more from imposed modernist ideology. The fact that we like to see local traditions embraced again does not come from a wish for a ‘cultural revival’ or nostalgia. Instead, it comes from a love of traditions, a desire to preserve indigenous knowledge, and a wish for the present to be more interesting and pleasant.
Supporting a ‘Supremacist Vernacular’
The article speaks about ‘supremacist vernacular,’ which is an oxymoron. Vernacular architecture is architecture that arises out of the needs and priorities of a people, out of the availability of local materials, and in response to the local climate. To say this bottom-up type of architecture is somehow ‘supremacist’ is absurd, as it almost always develops bottom-up. It is not imposed by an architectural elite, as modernist architecture often is.
Local vernacular architecture is the most democratic, natural form of architecture imaginable. People build vernacular architecture not because of national pride or nostalgia, but because it’s often the most pragmatic solution for their climate, the availability of local materials, and local craftsmanship. Of course, local cultural sensitivities and preferences do exist. However, those preferences are often not national but regional or local. For example, not all architecture in France is the same. Instead, the architecture of France is a rich tapestry of regional and local types, suited to local needs and preferences. Additionally, a wide majority of people love this form of architecture, according to most studies. Then how can it be seen as oppressive ‘populist cultural hegemony’? It’s just popular, not populist.
‘Idealizing uniform society & glorifying national pride’
The author claims that we ‘glorify historical structures that symbolize national pride and an idealized uniform society.’ A single look at reality proves the author wrong. Very diverse populations seem to enjoy the same local vernacular architecture equally, either as visitors or residents. For example, ask some of the many thousands of Turkish-Dutch, Moroccan-Dutch, or expatriate families living happily in homes built in Dutch vernacular styles. Or consider some of the thousands of tourists who all seem to enjoy traditional Dutch architecture enormously. Another interesting example is the project ‘Le Medi,’ a neighborhood that refers to Moroccan traditional architecture in a Dutch setting, Rotterdam.
![704P-F009 704 Le Medi bevordert sociale cohesie 704 Le Medi bevordert sociale cohesie](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc2dd584a-e2ac-4583-8e31-a0b6d2847893_1024x688.jpeg)
It shows the opposite of what the author claims: it introduces Arabic cultural elements in a Dutch context, and it is still very popular among Dutch residents. This proves the experience of beauty is about more than a ‘hegemonic cultural worldview,’ ‘nostalgia,’ or an ‘idealized uniform society’; it is derived from universal principles.
Links to nationalism
The article accuses us of being nationalist and glorifying traditional architecture as part of a supremacist ideology. We must firmly address this serious accusation. Our goal is to remain as apolitical as possible. We do not identify with nationalism, nor do we pander to nationalist sentiments. Our interest in traditional architecture is not driven by nostalgia for the past but by the tangible benefits it brings to modern life. Anyone who examines our content will see that we portray traditional architecture and craftsmanship as pragmatic solutions for contemporary issues, aimed at enhancing the well-being of all people without exclusion.
We do recognize that some people are drawn to traditional architecture for nostalgic or nationalist reasons. We are aware that architecture can be weaponized for various purposes, which we condemn. We also realize that weaponization can happen with anything; architecture has been used by various regimes for their purposes. The Stalinists used classicism, as did the Nazis. But if we continue looking for faults, the ideas of Modernism aren’t innocent either; the ‘existenzminimum,’ a concept invented by Bauhaus graduates, was directly applied to the design of the German destruction camps in WWII.
Because this topic is such a minefield, we like to keep it very simple: we look for easily observable evidence about how certain types of architecture and urbanism improve people’s lives. As we see overwhelming evidence in favor of traditional architecture and urbanism, we believe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. It is only rational to choose the best solution.
Oh, the irony
The ironic thing is that the author does not realize that by opposing traditional architecture, he or she supports the actual status quo.
To make it abundantly clear: the current status quo, or the ‘hegemonic architectural discourse’ is still Modernism, an inherently Western European school of thought mainly founded by German, Dutch and Swiss architects. This school of thought has not only replaced indigenous European architectural traditions, but also those in Africa, Asia and South America!
These more vulnerable cultures suffered from Modernism most, as local crafts, jobs and techniques got lost, and dependency on Western construction methods and products was created.
We find the author caught here, because of ignorance about the subject and because of a hasty assumption that we only care about traditional architecture in Western societies.
But there is more irony: while we aim to be apolitical, inclusive, and neutral, it's ironic that the author, who accuses us of waging a 'culture war,' is far more invested in this conflict than we are. The misrepresentation of our views to fit a certain narrative reveals the author’s deep entanglement in the culture war he or she decries, suggesting a projection of his or her own agenda onto us.
Final thoughts
As stated earlier, we feel this article is a flawed attempt at discrediting our work. Still, we welcome discourse like this, as it shows what kind of adversarial forces we face and how they think about the world.
The author uses the postmodern method of deconstructing the phenomenon of traditional architecture, and places it fully within their narrative of systemic oppression, power struggles, victimhood and relativism.
We feel this is a far more divisive way to talk about architecture than ours.
We aim to find solutions that are loved by as many people as possible, we want to have a serious conversation about the importance of beauty in our everyday lives and protect valuable traditions that have survived for generations and are currently at risk of being lost forever.
Yes, we don’t hold our punches when it comes to criticizing Modernism, but our critique will always be based on evidence and logic, or it will uncover hypocrisy, fallacies or lies.
Articles like the one in ‘Identity Hunters’ show why we can never stop with our work, as smear articles like these will always appear.
Happily, with articles of this quality, there is no need to be worried.