In a message dated 09/26/1999 1:09:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> 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".

You may want to look at the definition less literally. For modern housing you
must adjust how you define 'local' and how you define "architect designed."

Information transfer and modern transportation methods have changed the
definition of 'local' to what is commercially sold in, and common to, a
region. For example, ceramic tile roofs are common in the American Southwest,
and would, I think, be considered a characteristic of vernacular buildings,
while in the Northeast, they would not be considered vernacular because they
are less commonly available on mass produced housing.

Furthermore,  while tract homes are 'technically' designed by archtiects,
they are usually mass produced within the tract: the developments are usually
based on one or two floor plans, adapted into several different designs by
the contractor to fit a varietly of standard needs. Therefore, typical
American suburban tract homes do fit the definition of vernacular
architecture. Today's homes are most often made of widely available materials
based upon simple, accessible plans that have been modified to fulfill the
individual needs of the owner.

For further reading on this subject, try checking out Dr. Bernard Herman's
books. He specializes in researching vernacular architecture, and his work is
wonderfully informative.

-Heidi