I understand that historians and critics need to fit  architects into categories and “movements” in an attempt  to make things more understandable but I think, in the  case of architecture over the last 125 years or so, they  have created the wrong categories. This results in  misunderstanding many architects’ work. For instance,  does Gill’s frequent use of cosmetic arches make him a  Postmodernist or does his distain for ornament make him  a Modernist? 

Instead of modern, post modern, deconstructionism,  minimalism etc. which refers to visual styles, I think, like  Alan Hess has implied, that just about everybody fits into  just two categories. This is a much less superficial way of  looking at architecture.  

It seems to me that all buildings are either Eurocentric (Bauhaus, international style etc. with their intent of a  universal and global value system and aesthetic, (but also  the Post Modern borrowing of European forms and  buildings) or Regional (still concerned with the social and  “beauty is truth” ideas of the Bauhaus but without the  stylistic dogma and with the intent of respecting and  building on local cultural, history and climate). 

Sullivan, Wright, Aalto, perhaps late Corbu and Gill are  clearly Regionalists and Meis, Gropius, Early Corbu,  Nuetra and Schindler are Eurocentric internationalists. I  would put Charles Moore and Michael Graves in the 

Sullivan, Wright, Aalto, perhaps late Corbu and Gill are  clearly Regionalists and Meis, Gropius, Early Corbu,  Nuetra and Schindler are Eurocentric internationalists. I  would put Charles Moore and Michael Graves in the  Eurocentric category. Even though they were challenging  the Modernist status quo, their references and inspirations  were almost always European. Charles’s frequent  collaborator, Bill Turnbull however was an enthusiastic  Regionalist and one of my heroes. 

Regionalist were doing their thing way before Venturi  learned from Las Vegas. But that book was inspirational. 

The first category is about abstraction, whether it is a  Bauhaus factory or a Palladian villa. The second  category is about cultural engagement. 

Historians prefer Eurocentric (both modern and  postmodern) as a “style” because it is clear and repetitive  with rules. The Regionalists vary, sometimes greatly, by  definition since there isn’t a goal to convince the world of  the “truth” of a certain aesthetic.  

In San Diego Ted Smith and I like to say “the inspiration is  in the back yard”. We mean that literally. In one house I  made a rule that every material, texture and form had to  come from within 500 feet of the site. 

I came of age during a period of turmoil in the architectural  profession. After more than 50 years of general  agreement on the modernist design direction, it had  become clear to many that while sometimes very beautiful,  architecture had degenerated into a lifeless Eurocentric  styling exercise. These defects were being challenged by 

I came of age during a period of turmoil in the architectural  profession. After more than 50 years of general  agreement on the modernist design direction, it had  become clear to many that while sometimes very beautiful,  architecture had degenerated into a lifeless Eurocentric  styling exercise. These defects were being challenged by  controversial “Postmodern” architects like Charles Moore  and Robert Venturi. A third, much smaller group, including  myself, was exploring a different direction. Concerned  with finding a more authentic response to their region and  local culture, diverse architects like Bill Turnbull and Joe  Esherick in San Francisco, Patkau in Vancouver, Lake/ Flato in Texas, and Antoine Predock in New Mexico were  creating a more locally sensitive architecture in their  respective regions.  

The noted architectural critic Aaron Betsky described the  essence of Quigley’s work: 

‘Quigley strongly feels that in California the opportunity  to create a more authentic built environment may lie in  the struggle to weave an architecture of cultural  diversity. The real Arcadian Dream will not be a  blending, but a colorful, distinct collage of dislocation.  He is interested in a celebration of local architecture as a  form of regionalism, understood not as an end in itself  but as a means of transcending provincialism and  enriching cultural reality. Rather than subvert the  conventional Californian ways of building and detailing,  Quigley tries to embrace and co-opt the status quo in  order to explore the utilitarian vernacular and its  intriguing possibilities as a noble and even civic  architecture. Quigley tries to embrace and co-opt the status quo in  order to explore the utilitarian vernacular and its  intriguing possibilities as a noble and even civic  architecture. 

In reviewing the West Valley Library, San Jose Mercury  News architectural critic Alan Hess described it as “nothing short of brilliant. It is everything that great  public architecture ought to be: a blend of present and  past, practicality and art, all tied together in a package of  extraordinary wit, sensitivity and pleasure…… It’s a  design that points the way to a distinctive architecture  that captures the essence of our region: the balmy  climate, the rich history, the creativity, the progressive  lifestyles. And there’s not a cliche in sight.