So are the buildings that are being constructed today (simple homes
specifically) vernacular?  Because your definition would exclude them, being
built/designed by architechts and all.  Yet, I would not classify the
typical American home today as belonging to the "elite".

Caver Chris  ^V^


----Original Message Follows----
The difference between vernacular (or "folk") architecture and regular
architecture, as defined in my American Studies and Cultural Geography
courses, was that folk/vernacular architecture is made up of those buildings
built by local people, and that "regular" architecture is made up of those
buildings built by architects -- experts, elites. Perhaps this will throw a
cat among the pigeons.
Your friendly geographer
Hilary

At 01:4 PM 9/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
 >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Mary Christina Manning wrote:
 >
 >> But isn't all architecture affected by these elements?  What
distiguishes
 >> vernacular from "regular"?
 >>
 >>
 >
 >I would put forth that vernacular="regular" and non-vernacular="weird"
 >
 >vernacular is also likely to mean "old, before they developed
 >the stunning taste that we have now" or "old, before we developed the
 >horrible economic pressures that force our buildings to be so ugly"
 >
 >i fear it is somewhat subjective.  alas.
 >
 >(alassie?)
 >
 >-brad
 >
Hilary Lambert Hopper

"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood me."  - Alan
Greenspan

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com