Building culture and regulation of rural regions
Abstract: Rural architecture diversity is an immense wealth of Europe. Countryside in the Western Europe preserves its building traditions, but vernacular architecture in post-socialist countries was relegated to open-air museums and replaced by modernistic urban villas. After the 1989, recent history was condemned again and building in the countryside followed global trends, with euphoria for all foreign examples, like Austrian villas, gaudy colors, Canadian cottages, or bungalows. Today, the overrated individualism leads often to arrogance to the surroundings. The result of those buildings is rambling image of the village. There are hard regulations, like requirements for the roof slope. While “catalog houses” often meet these regulations, original architectural project solutions, that search how to harmonize building with landscape, may be rejected because they are in conflict with roof regulations, for example. It wouldn’t be easy to set up the regulations to not to restrict different approaches, that we wouldn’t even think of today. Soft regulations methods are education, public awareness, good design and good examples. Natural progress in rural areas is done by imitating neighborhood. Countries with an unbroken cultural tradition are developed not only by inner principles - traditions, but also by some architectural and urban regulations. Architectural requirements for materials surfaces are common in Brittany. In Saxony they are trying to restore a historical structure of the villages. Regional color palette is used in Scandinavia. Local building Act forms the appearance of Swiss villages and it is "Aesthetic Commission” in the Netherlands. Regulations are generally seen as a benefit: The builder has a guarantee that the surrounding environment will keep certain characteristics and values. Are regulations suitable also for the post-socialist countries and of what kind?
