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