Disclaimer: I'm not an architect. I'm a civil engineer and urban planner by training, and I engage with architecture most of all as a curious amateur.

As so many others I've been fascinated with the question of what makes so much historic architecture feel more appealing than so much modern architecture. I've seen a lot of bids for explanations - that it's about proportions, the ornamentation, the materials, patina and mature trees framing the buildings and mature vines embracing the walls. (not to mention survivor bias making the comparison between old and new somewhat unfair)

And while these factors may explain some of the difference, I've nonetheless found these explanations to be ultimately unsatisfactory, because there *are* modern buildings that I find appealing even though they have modern(ish) proportions, minimal ornamentation, modern materials, little patina and immature vegetation.

So I've continued to reflect on it, and I've found one difference that strikes me as a special and enchanting factor that is prevalent in old architecture, rare in new architecture - and which is present in the modern architecture I do find appealing:

Microclimate diversity.

This is my own term, and I'll explain it in the following.

Microclimate is an existing term, which refers to very local climates as determined by temperature, sunlight, wind and humidity, combining to more or less comfortable hyper-local climatic conditions.

The adjacent term, "microclimate optimization" is an increasingly used term in new architecture. This is often meant as microclimates that are comfortable as much of the time as possible, and/or which don't overheat during heatwaves. This means there's often most attention devoted to spaces along south- and west-facing walls, which are most at risk of overheating. Microclimate specialists often recommend trees and other vegetation in these places. Meanwhile, the north facing or more shaded spaces are often relatively neglected by the microclimate specialists, as they don't need any special treatment to become comfortable during the heatwaves. Furthermore, the microclimate specialists may make sunlight analyses, and find the spaces adjacent to north facing walls to receive too little yearly sunlight - again, focusing on total yearly appeal - to have potential to appeal for occupation. So oftentimes the microclimate specialists will recommend that these spaces aren't developed for occupation, and that they can be used as utility instead - parking, storage, passage etc. That they're made as non places, in other words.

Altogether this approach yields a relatively monotonous fabric of microclimates. Low microclimate diversity.

By contrast, much historic architecture reflects an almost opposite approach, where instead of trying to make every space comfortable as much of the time as possible, the goal seems to have been make a variety of different places which are comfortable at different times. This, I think, achieves a much wider operating envelope than the optimization-oriented approach:
The coolest places remain pleasantly cool much further into the heatwaves than the contemporary "optimized" microclimates;
The warmest places become pleasantly warm much sooner in the spring (or even winter) than the contemporary, "optimized" microclimates.

There is a wealth of historic and even pre-modern geometries that altogether exemplify amazing microclimatic diversity. Chip Sullivan's "Garden and Climate" is my favorite book on this. Robert Brown's "Design with Microclimate" is pretty good, too. They don't use the term "microclimate diversity", though.

The central insight I want to spell out is that that much appealing architecture is enchanting not because every unit of surface is optimal or pleasant all the time, but because it includes a *variety* of spaces, which supplement each other, combining to accommodate virtually every scenario. This diversity enables a dynamic or rhythmic use, throughout the time of year and time of day:

  • Places along south facing walls to enjoy the winter midday sun (like many japanese gardens);
  • Places on the grass to enjoy that everything's blooming in early spring (like many european royal gardens);
  • Places in the shade with lush vegetation and trickling water to seek refuge from the oppressive sun during daytime at the height of the heatwaves (like many older Mediterranean courtyards);
  • Places open to the west to enjoy the golden light of the setting sun (like many of the most used plazas);
  • Plazas and streets which overheated during the day, but which give off residual heat yielding long pleasantly warm summer nights

This, of course, isn't something you can easily spot at first glance - especially if you're not looking for it. But since you're looking for it now I bet you'll start to notice.

I've attached some pictures which I hope exemplify microclimatic diversity. I don't think they're particularly good. I'm working on assembling a more satisfactory catalogue.

submitted by /u/Bergliot
[link] [comments]