Reading the text, I reflected on how often we fall into the trap of only using standardized construction methods and focus on active rather than passive climate design strategies. Many excuses come to my mind, like limited knowledge and inexperience of us as young architects, time and money constraints, strict building norms, guidelines and regulations in Switzerland, strong weather variations between winter and summer and extremely high expectations for user comfort.

To what extent is it possible to implement the design approaches showcased in the exhibition catalogue by Setiadi Sopandi and Avianti Armand within the Swiss context?

Architects are framed as part scientist, engineer, and cultural interpreter with creating shelters that protect against the elements while embodying local identity.

How might the education system better prepare architects for this multifaceted role? And how can we, as architects, equip ourselves to meet these demands?

“Despite the monotonous and predictability, the idea of tropicality remains vague and inconclusive. Identical to the idea of identity, the tropics was never been a fixed territory”.

Setiadi Sopandi’s “Tropicality: Revisited” addresses the problematic attitude of architects in Indonesia, struggling to move within the duality of topicality and identity. In its essence, the historical building expressions found in vernacular traditions of Indonesia already show a reaction towards the tropical environment, yet also incorporating specific cultural attitudes. However, architecture in Indonesia has somehow rejected the idea of vernacular, in part stemming from an an attitude dating back to the colonial times. The attitude which still exists to this day, that subliminally rejects the “pribumi” or native Indonesian, whilst in parallel, the emphasis of cultural pride being an integral part of the general education especially in post-colonial times.  This duality of identity I find very fascinating, as it fights against each other.

The rejection of the realities of the tropical conditions by directly implementing imported international architectures directly relates to the rejection of one’s identity. The author also mentions this briefly: “Perceived as problems, the tropical elements are often instantly “solved” and forgotten by the glazed and air conditioned skyscrapers”. It is evident, that the colonialist mindest of the idealization of the west is still very prevalent in contemporary times. Paired with a lack of independent architectural and urban theory basis within the context of the tropical, it is easy to fall into the tendency of inappropriately implementing western architecture as a band-aid solution to “fix” the problems of a tropical reality.

All things considered, within our post-modernist, consumerist-centered society, comfort seems to be the highest priority. Without an architectural theory to lean on in the design process, it isn’t unsurprising that one turns to the surface-level solution: hot environment -> cool down with ac. Having grown up in Jakarta myself, I can attest to the fact that its inhabitants subliminally ignore the climatic conditions, in turn depending on modern technologies to solve the humid and hot conditions. Similarly to Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta’s landscape could be interchangeable with that of a western city such as Sydney.

In Sopandi’s show, he showcases how vernacular architecture can be embraced to “solve” the ever-looming problem of the topical climate, also by destigmatizing the vernacular forms of expressions by transforming them into contemporary passive technologies fitting more appropriately to its context.

Upon reflecting on both the primary and guest reading, they are both interconnected in the philosophy it is trying to bring across. Identity is so strongly tied to a region, which in turn is strongly tied to its climate. As the climate and its history shapes the identity of a region. Implementing regionalism as a way to show respect to the environment in which a building is built on, also helps its inhabitants to be able to identify themselves with it, by an interweavement of its many different aspects such as indirect symbolism, modern and traditional technologies as well as environmental awareness all lead to an increase in the value of a building, which in turn has a potential to transform an urban fabric and improve the current problematic conditions, such as a lack of identity within the built sector.

The idea of "tropicality" has long been tied to identity, with Indonesian architecture grappling with both its cultural identity and the challenges of the tropical climate. The environmental conditions of the tropics—such as heat, humidity, and rain—are seen as both problems and opportunities. While some architects view tropical elements as obstacles to be solved with technological fixes like air conditioning and shading devices, others seek to celebrate and integrate the tropics into their designs. The modern discourse surrounding tropical architecture is influenced by global environmental concerns, tourism, and the complex cultural and political history of the region.

The exhibition "Tropicality: Revisited" highlights twelve Indonesian architects' responses to these challenges, showcasing a range of innovative approaches to tropical architecture. These works reflect ongoing debates about how to balance comfort with environmental sensitivity, cultural identity with global influences, and tradition with modernity.

How can contemporary Indonesian architects balance modern design techniques with the need to respect traditional, climate-responsive building practices in the tropics?

In what ways can tropical architecture evolve to address modern environmental concerns, such as energy efficiency and sustainability, while still celebrating the region's natural elements?

My main take-away is that "tropicality" is a constructed notion - originally related to climate - that finds its roots in the context of colonisation; but that can also be - and has been - used by the locals to their advantage. While fundamentally exoticising, the concept can be seen as a useful notion to develop sources of income, but is also an important anchor for people in the construction of their architectural (national?) identity.

On another note, the authors interestingly point out that the labelling of Indonesian architecture as (simply) "tropical" has had the negative effect of rendering all the richness of nuances of this architecture invisible to everyone: first to Europeans but - as a consequence of European architectural theory hegemony - also to Indonesians themselves.

«Respectable Malaysian architect, Jimmy Lim, once said that Malaysia – as well as the rest of Southeast Asia – had only two seasons: “hot and wet” and “hot and wet and more wet”. Despite the monotonous and predictability, the idea of tropicality remains vague and inconclusive.”

How do you design and plan with that amount of uncertainty?

The text calls for a rethinking of architecture in tropical climates by not only using the West as a benchmark. Instead, greater attention should be paid to local traditions, sustainable building methods, and postcolonial perspectives.

“Early colonial roof form had short overhangs and left most of the walls unprotected. These features eventually possessed problems. In low lying marshy lands, water sipped through walls causing mould and heavy damage to the structural integrity. Exposed bricks were easily encased by mould and disintegrated. …” - Was another topic that stood out to me: To what extent does the Western notion of ‘tropicality’ still shape contemporary architecture in tropical regions? A question that cannot be answered in our discussion: What could a radically new approach to architecture in tropical regions look like, one that consciously distances itself from colonial influences?

I am asking myself, if the main problem is not the contemporary buildings that lack character but the old traditional buildings that are not preserved. Since I would argue that in Switzerland we do not build that differently than the rest of the world and we also suffer from internationalised architecture. But we have well preserved medieval parts of the city or chalets in the mountains that reflect Swiss identity.

To what extent does the concept of "tropicality" reinforce or resist colonial and postcolonial power structures in architectural discourse, and how can contemporary architects navigate these tensions in their design approaches?

I was particularly interested in the considerations of how the local population deals with the climate. Vitruvius believed that advanced civilizations could not exist in southern, hot regions because the climate made people lazy and less strong. However, there were several early high cultures in the Indonesian region that thrived in the conditions around them. The advantage of the tropics is that people are never exposed to extreme weather conditions. The climate merely shifts from hot and humid to very rainy, yet still warm. Therefore, heat can be countered with shade, and during rain, one seeks shelter. This leads me to wonder whether the climate in the tropics should truly be viewed as an adversary, or if it can be used to support more open building forms? How could vegetation (especially shade-giving trees) be integrated into the urban landscape to help regulate the climate?

One important theme is to break away from Western standards. Instead, they should use building methods that are suitable for the climate. One example of this is passive cooling technology, which can be used instead of air conditioning systems. It is important to see the tropical climate as a resource, not a problem.

Architecture is about more than just the buildings themselves; it's also about how people see and interact with these spaces. The ancient Roman architect Vitruvius thought that hot climates were associated with backwardness. But the Indonesian way of life shows the opposite. This makes us wonder what tropical architecture could look like in the future. It should distance itself from the colonial era, but also address current environmental problems.

The challenge is to combine modern architecture with traditional construction methods that are adapted to the climate. How can modern design principles be combined with the sustainable strategies of indigenous architecture? How can tropical architecture be developed further by adding plants and natural elements? The exhibition Tropicality: Revisited shows this, but also has new ideas.

Tropicality is often seen as unfamiliar or even scary, but I think this fear comes from not understanding it well and fearing the unknown. In reality, the tropical climate is not as extreme as people often think. The text also talks about the political side of tropical regions, showing that they were never fully controlled like other places.

Colonial Europeans struggled to make their architecture work in these climates, while local architecture developed as a way to adapt to the environment. Later, Indonesia adopted modern architecture, which raised questions about identity since colonialism and the country’s different traditional styles had already shaped it.

This makes me wonder if “tropicality” is a too general term. It was first created during colonial times and includes too many different regions, climates and topographies. Because of this, it doesn’t fully reflect the variety of tropical environments. Would it help to use more specific terms to describe these different climates?

waterfield@arch.ethz.ch

Reading the text I wonder whether it reflects quite strongly the conditions required for a specific type of architect which we recognise today, ie, a provider of design services to a middle and upper class. Nearly all the examples are private residencies or hotels, or temporary structures for Biennale’s.

To what extend was a movement through modernism (in my reading as a technology of 20th century growth) a necessary requirement for the growth of that middle class, before they can become powerful in restating a specifically indonesian middle class identity. The examples are mostly private, is there also a state driven history not represented in the book.

The publishing of the book itself tells a stoy related to the type of state that we might be talking about in 2015. What are the conditions required that this book can be published in Germany in the English Language, in a cooperation between a government ministry and the city of Frankfurt.

What role does architecture play in the soft power of that state today. And in this case what is at play? At a time when there is a growth understanding for climate change and an interest in tropical building conditions in the West as a means of finding out tools to deal with heat in European cities. Or when tourism plays a major role in a nations economy, what is the book seeking to project?

What does it seek to do? And behind it, is there another history or another type of architect, which today is not considered legible as a tool of soft power.