비판적 지역주의의 동시대적 해석과 한국 건축 사례 적용

Abstract

(Background and Purpose) This study reexamines Kenneth Frampton's concept of ‘Critical Regionalism’ within a contemporary context and explores its applicability to Korean modern architecture. Critical Regionalism is understood as a strategy that embraces the rationality and functionality of universal modernism while critically inheriting local place and materiality. The research addresses the following questions: (1) How is Frampton's Critical Regionalism manifested in Korean modern architecture? (2) How can it intersect with contemporary discourses on climate, digital place, and decolonization? Within the framework of these questions, the study reinterprets Critical Regionalism not merely as a historical concept, but as a critical attitude and a practicable strategy for present and future architecture. (Method) The methodology consists of four stages: theoretical review, critical interpretation, construction of an analytical framework, and case analysis. First, it establishes a theoretical foundation by reviewing the definition and concepts of Critical Regionalism, focusing on the writings of Kenneth Frampton. Second, it critically reinterprets this framework by linking it to contemporary issues such as the climate crisis, decoloniality, and digital placeness. Third, it reconstructs Frampton's arguments into five categories—information/experience, space/place, typology/topography, artificial/natural, and visual/tactile—to develop an analytical framework. Fourth, it applies this framework to case studies including Kim Soogeun's Space Building, Itami Jun's Water-Wind-Stone Museum, and Seung Hyosang's Sujoldang. Through this process, the study elucidates the contemporary significance of Critical Regionalism at the intersection of theory and practice. (Results) The findings confirm that Critical Regionalism is not a style but a critical strategy mediating the tension between global universality and local specificity. The study demonstrates its practical potential in a non-Western context through Korean modern architecture and reveals its expandability within contemporary perspectives such as the climate crisis, decolonial discourse, and digital sense of place. However, the scope of case studies was limited, as it did not sufficiently include experimental architects from diverse generations and regions, nor did it provide extensive practical analyses of current issues such as climate change or digital environments. Future research should address these limitations to further examine the applicability and expandability of Critical Regionalism. (Conclusions) In conclusion, this study reinterprets Critical Regionalism not as a merely historical theoretical construct, but as a contemporary strategy capable of mediating the tension between universality and particularity in architecture today. It can contribute to proposing design guidelines that reflect local climate and materiallity, spatial principles that enhance tactility and sense of place, and strategies aligned with public architecture and urban regeneration policies. This reinterpretation expands Korean architectural discourse and provides a foundation for reestablishing the contemporary significance of Critical Regionalism.