FOLK ARCHITECTURE.

Architectural traditions encompass not only the types of structures designed and built, but also the ways in
which buildings are arranged upon the land, the methods and materials of construction, the functions that
different structures serve, and the social, cultural, economic, and political milieu associated with particular
architectural conventions. The term "folk architecture" is often used to draw a distinction between popular or
landmark architecture and is nearly synonymous with the terms "vernacular architecture" and "traditional
architecture." Therefore, folk architecture includes those dwellings, places of worship, barns, and other
structures that are designed and built without the assistance of formally schooled and professionally trained
architects.

Folk architecture differs from popular architecture in several ways. For example, folk architecture tends to be
utilitarian and conservative, reflecting the specific needs, economics, customs, and beliefs of a particular
community. Folk architecture also represents a community's cumulative wisdom about solutions to particular
problems. For this reason, folk architectural traditions are organic in that they have changed over time to suit
a people's priorities and values or to overcome challenges posed by certain natural settings. Indeed, one of
the most essential qualities of folk architecture concerns its ecological character. That is, folk dwellings and
structures are adapted to the local environment and usually reflect the natural characteristics of a place or
region. On a global basis folk architecture is most commonly associated with rural or small town locations.

Numerous folk architectural traditions exist within the United States, echoing its diverse cultural composition.
For purposes of manageability, two broad traditions can be identified in the United States. These are
European-derived and American Indian derived. In many ways these two categories fail to capture full range
of types and styles but provide a useful starting point nonetheless. European-derived folk architecture is
emphasized here, but both traditions have shaped the character and development of Oklahoma's folk
architecture, particularly its dwellings.

Of the settlement hearths established in colonial America, three contributed significantly to the emergence of
distinctive regional differences in such things as agriculture, foodways, dialect, and folk architecture. The first
of these hearths centered on the Chesapeake Bay and Tidewater region of Virginia and Maryland and
contributed to the emergence of the region referred to as the Lower South or Tidewater South. The second
hearth grew out of the Puritan settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and played a part in the creation
of the New England or northern region. The third developed in southeastern Pennsylvania and Delaware and
was the starting point for the emergence of the Middle Atlantic or Midland region. The westward expansion of
settlement gradually extended the domains of these regions beyond their initial hearths, carrying New
England influences across the upper Midwest and Midland influences across the interior South. As a result,
Oklahoma finds itself squarely within the Midland domain, although geographically it straddles the ecological
boundary between the eastern woodlands and the western plains.

Midland folk architecture shares a number of identifying features. It is initially associated with notched log
construction. By the latter part of the nineteenth century, however, wood-framing techniques had replaced log
construction. Midland folk architecture also includes a modest number of distinctive floor plans. The basic
building block of the Midland house is the Midland single pen, a one-room structure approximately eighteen
feet on a side. Some scholars distinguish between log cabins and log houses. While both are single-pen
dwellings, the former is a temporary and more rudimentary first-generation dwelling. Across the western half
of Oklahoma the dugout was typically the first kind of single-pen dwelling. Most dugouts were eventually
replaced by sod houses, which in turn were replaced by wood-frame houses.

Another slightly larger, one-room dwelling is the Midland hall-and-parlor house. A rectangular house, as its
name suggests, its interior space is sometimes partitioned into two rooms. Both single-pen and hall-and-
parlor houses occur with considerable frequency in Oklahoma.

Enlarging the single-pen house gave rise to several different kinds of gable-ended, two-room Midland
structures or double-pen plans. Placing two pens side by side created a Midland type known as a
Cumberland house, and placing the second pen such that the chimney was sandwiched between the two
rooms created a saddlebag house. Gen. Douglas A. Cooper's home at Fort Washita may be the most visible
saddlebag house in Oklahoma. If the two pens are detached, leaving an open space or breezeway between
the two pens, the result is a dogtrot house. Dogtrot houses are known to have been a favored house type in
Indian Territory well before the Civil War. Moreover, the Southeastern Indians had adopted notched log
construction and built both single and double-pen dwellings in Indian Territory. Sequoyah's home near
Sallisaw provides an example of an early-nineteenth-century single-pen log dwelling.

Double-pen houses could be enlarged by creating a second story, and the result was a Midland type known
as an "I-house." I-houses are two-story houses that are two rooms wide but only one room deep. Thus, when
viewed from the side, they appear unusually narrow. Both urban and rural examples of double-pen and I-
houses exist in Oklahoma, but I-houses are less common here. One of the most notable examples of a
dogtrot I-house in Oklahoma, and possibly one of the oldest, is the home of Chief Greenwood LeFlore near
Swink in Choctaw County.

Although Oklahoma is situated within the Midland region, its folk architecture has been shaped by southern,
and to a lesser extent, northern influences. Two southern house types diffused into Oklahoma and have
become closely associated with the state's folk architecture: the shotgun house and the southern pyramidal.
The distinguishing features of the southern pyramidal include a square floor plan with four rooms, sometimes
a central hall, and a steeply pitched roof that rises to a pyramid or slightly truncated pyramid. The southern
pyramidal may have one or two stories, and although it resembles the foursquare house, it possesses a very
different developmental history.
Simple structures usually intended to provide only basic shelter suitable for the surroundingterrain, witho
ut concern for following any architectural style; built of local materials andavailable tools by people who
would inhabit them.

The architecture of the Philippines reflects the country’s

complex cultural identity. First colonized by Spain, then
Japan and finally America, Filipinos joke that they spent
400 years in a convent, five in a prison camp, and 45 in
Hollywood. This complexity finds its creative expression in
the work of these six post-war architects, whose vision
simultaneously captured the country’s history while looking
towards the region’s future.
 Manila street scene | © Pixabay

Leandro Locsin
Leandro Locsin (1928-1994) was in some ways a quintessential Renaissance
man. A brilliant architect, interior designer, artist, and classically trained
pianist, Locsin was also a keen art collector, amassing a sizable collection of
fine Chinese art and ceramics during his lifetime. It is for his buildings,
however, that he is remembered. From airport terminals to memorial chapels,
arts centers to stock exchange structures, Locsin left his mark on the urban
landscape of the Philippines.

Locsin was determined to reconfigure western architectural mores for a

Filipino audience. His most substantial contribution to Filipino architecture is
the Cultural Center of the Philippines, a collection of five buildings that
demonstrate the architect’s drive to find a vernacular form of modernist
architecture. The National Theatre building within the complex is a good
example of Locsin’s trademark style. Known as “floating volume,” it consists of
a two-floor-high block of travertine marble cantilevered 12 feet into the air. The
theatre harks back to traditional Filipino dwelling huts, but on a monumentally
modern scale.
Despite the wide range of buildings Locsin created, all of them have one thing
in common: concrete. His ability to make this most monolithic of materials
appear weightless, and to elegantly combine Western brutalism with
vernacular elements, led Locsin’s peers to dub him the “poet of space.”

UPLB Public Library, designed by Leandro Locsin | © Julia Sumangil/Flickr

Ildefonso P Santos
The father of Philippine landscape architecture, Ildefonso Paez Santos, or IP
Santos as he was known, created some of the best-loved urban spaces in the
Philippines. Landscape architecture, which deals with parks, plazas, and
green spaces, was a little-considered element of urban planning in the first
half of the 20th century. However, Santos changed that, carrying out
pioneering work that, after four decades in the profession, led him to become
National Artist for Architecture in 2006.

One of his earliest successful projects was the Makati Commercial Center, an
outdoor shopping mall in which the shop fronts and walkways were
interspersed with garden trails, fountains, and public artworks. This led him to
be commissioned to revitalize Manila’s Paco Park, the work for which he is
perhaps best remembered. A former Spanish cemetery and Japanese
ammunitions store, the park was transformed into a national park in 1966.
Between 1967-1969 Santos revived the park’s grounds and incorporated the
original park structures, including memorial sites and fortification walls, into a
space for urban recreation.

View from the pathway at Paco Park | © Wikimedia Commons

Pablo Antonio
One of the first exponents of modernist architecture in the Philippines, Pablo
Antonio (1901-1975) is revered as a pioneer and the foremost architect of his
time. This success was perhaps unexpected for a boy who was orphaned at
12 and who dropped out of his first architecture program. It was during his
studies at the University of London that Antonio began to shine, completing a
five-year program in only three years. He went on to revolutionize popular
architecture in the Philippines, eschewing the fashionable neo-classical style
for his own version of art deco. Antonio was acutely aware of the demands
made on architecture by the unforgiving Philippine climate. Buildings such as
the Galaxy Theatre, the Far Eastern University, and the Manila Polo Club
display practical innovations such as natural ventilation systems and
sunscreens, all of which are rendered in Antonio’s signature style: clean lines,
strong shapes, and simplicity. As Antonio’s son Pablo Jr explains, “for our
father, every line must have a meaning, a purpose. For him, function comes
first before elegance and form.”

Far Eastern University by Pablo S. Antonio Sr. | © Wikicommons

Juan Nakpil
The son of veterans of the Philippine Revolution, Juan Nakpil (1899–1986)
was committed to the belief that architecture built in the Philippines should
reflect its culture and people. In his early career, Nakpil spent time studying in
the United States and France, absorbing the lessons of international
architecture. When he returned to Manila in the mid-1920s, Nakpil applied his
new-found knowledge to Filipino structures. He worked on the restoration of
the home of national hero Jose Rizal and, like Locsin, took inspiration from
traditional stilt houses, remaking them in cantilevered concrete on a mammoth
scale. His own holiday home was designed along these lines, combining
traditional nipa roofing (made out of natural materials) with a poured concrete
base. Nakpil worked on dozens of buildings across the nation, from the
Manila Jockey Club and the Quiapo Church, to the Mabini Shrine and
government departments. Despite his determination to make buildings
specifically for Filipino citizens, some of his designs were considered too
radical by the public. Nakpil’s stainless steel pylon, superimposed over a
granite obelisk memorialising Jose Rizal was unpopular and was soon
removed. But Nakpil’s failures were few, and he remained one of the
Philippines’ most popular and revered architects until his death. He was
named a National Artist for Architecture in 1973.

Quiapo Church, Manila | © shankar s./Flickr

Francisco Mañosa
Francisco ‘Bobby’ Mañosa has been challenging architectural convention in
his native country for five decades. He displayed an artistic temperament from
an early age and remained a keen painter throughout his life. Along with his
three brothers, Mañosa eventually chose to pursue architecture, and before
long became the “outspoken champion of indigenous architecture,” thus
popularizing the idea of Philippine architecture for Filipinos.

Mañosa’s distinctive style, known as Contemporary Tropical Filipino

Architecture, is a heady mixture of seemingly incongruous elements. Coconut
lumber, rattan, shell, thatch, and even indigenous textiles are juxtaposed with
hypermodern materials: metal, glass, concrete. The Coconut Palace at the
Cultural Center of the Philippines complex typifies Manosa’s style. Its coconut
gourd roof, coconut shell chandelier, and pineapple fiber bedcovers are
infused with technological innovation for the modern era. In 2009 Mañosa was
designated a National Artist in Architecture.

Carlos A. Santos-Viola
An urbane young man who enjoyed lawn tennis and playing the saxophone,
Carlos Santos-Viola was also a gifted architect. He was a devout Catholic
throughout his life, and many of his best known designs were executed for
the Iglesia Ni Cristo, a Filipino religious group. Santos-Viola created churches
for the group all over the archipelago, designed in a style quite distinct from
that of his contemporaries. Instead of the monumentalism of Leandro Locsin
or the art deco simplicity of Pablo Antonio, Santos-Viola chose to incorporate
Gothic and Baroque elements into his modern churches.

The Central Temple he built for the Iglesia Ni Cristo shows these revivalist
flourishes working in harmony with Santos-Viola’s passion for geometric
shapes and, perhaps more than anything else, functionality. The desire for
functionality informed almost all of Santos-Viola’s work, and he was fond of
asserting that “the structure must not only look good but must also be made
well.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG9DI-5r0Pw