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