Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
ARSNET

Articles

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2025)

Architectural impermanence: Tectonic ecology of the Sumbanese traditional house

DOI
https://doi.org/10.7454/arsnet.v5i2.171
Published
2025-10-31
Article downloads
0
Submitted
2025-09-30
Accepted
2025-10-30

Abstract

This research proposes tectonic ecology as the framework for understanding the impermanence of architecture, challenging the views of permanence in architecture and positioning impermanence as an ecological building practice. This study explores the idea of impermanence in vernacular architecture as a living spatial practice, acknowledging the growth, decay, and regeneration taking place in such a context. The research focuses on the Sumbanese traditional house in Weelewo Village, Southwest Sumba, as a case study. The Sumbanese house is constructed with natural materials and utilises joinery without using nails. The study collected data on the local construction practice through fieldwork, which included open-ended interviews, model-making demonstrations, observations, and documentations. The study reveals how local building practice understood the concept of impermanence through three interrelated principles that define the traditional house’s tectonic ecology: layered, disassembly, and regeneration. The findings demonstrate that disassembly is the mechanism of tectonic ecology, enabling the temporal transformation of materials and sustaining buildings' capacity for regeneration. The exploration of tectonic ecology contributes by offering a framework of materiality and building practices that value impermanence. In doing so, such architectural practices emphasise the rhythm of the environment, as rooted within the wider ecosystem.

References

  1. Ara, D., & Rashid, M. (2016). Imaging vernacular architecture: A dialogue with anthropology on building process. Architectural Theory Review, 21(2), 172–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2017.1349817

  2. Bech-Danielsen, C., Beim, A., Christiansen, K., Bundgaard, C., Jensen, T. B., Madsen, U. S., & Pedersen, O. E. (2012). Tectonic thinking in architecture. In A. Beim (Ed.), Udstillingskatalog - Towards an ecology of tectonics (pp. 1–22). Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts.

  3. Beim, A., & Hvejsel, M. F. (2016). Everyday tectonics? Clarifications of concepts. In P. J. Cruz (Ed.), Structures and architecture: Beyond their limits (pp. 179–186). CRC Press. 

  4. Bocco Guarneri, A., & Habert, G. (2024). New vernacular construction: Environmental awareness and territorial inclusivity. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1363(1), Article 012114. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1363/1/012114

  5. Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they're built. Penguin Books.

  6. Clamagirand, B.-B. (1997). Australia and Oceana: Wewewa (Sumba, W). In P. Oliver (Ed.), Encyclopedia of vernacular architecture of the world (Vol. 2, pp. 1102–1104). Cambridge University Press.

  7. Dabaieh, M., Maguid, D., & El-Mahdy, D. (2021). Circularity in the new gravity—Re-thinking vernacular architecture and circularity. Sustainability, 14(1), Article 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010328

  8. Deplazes, A. (Ed.). (2005). Constructing architecture: Materials, processes, structures; A handbook. Birkhäuser.

  9. Fascari, M. (1996). The tell-the-tale detail. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.), Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: An anthology of architectural theory, 1965–1995 (pp. 498–515). Princeton Architectural Press.

  10. Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in nineteenth and twentienth century architecture. MIT Press.

  11. Gregory, F. (1998). Uma Mbatangu of Sumba. In G. Tjahjono (Ed.), Indonesian heritage: Architecture (Vol. 6, pp. 42–43). Didier Millet.

  12. Gunawan, Y. (2017). Rumah adat and Marapu of Indonesia's Sumbanese vernacular. In S. Piesik (Ed.), Habitat: Vernacular architecture for a changing planet (pp. 148–151). Thames & Hudson.

  13. Leatherbarrow, D. (2009). Architecture oriented otherwise. Princeton Architectural Press.

  14. Leatherbarrow, D. (2021). Building time: Architecture, event, and experience. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.

  15. Leatherbarrow, D., & Wesley, R. (2018). Three cultural ecologies. Routledge.

  16. Moe, K., & Friedman, D. S. (2024). Tending building. Places Journal. https://doi.org/10.22269/240207

  17. Mross, J. (1997). Australia and Oceana: Wanunakan (Sumba, SW). In P. Oliver (Ed.), Encyclopedia of vernacular architecture of the world (Vol. 2, pp. 1100–1101). Cambridge University Press.

  18. Oliver, P. (2003). Dwellings: The vernacular house world wide. Phaidon.

  19. Oliver, P. (2006). Built to meet needs: Cultural issues in vernacular architecture. Architectural Press.

  20. Schmidt, R., & Austin, S. (2016). Adaptable architecture: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315722931

  21. Schwartz, C. (Ed.). (2017). Introducing architectural tectonics: Exploring the intersection of design and construction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735467

  22. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.

  23. Solihin, L. (2018). Uma mbatangu: Arsitektur tradisional Sumba di Kampung Adat Ratenggaro [Uma mbatangu: Sumbanese traditional architecture in Ratenggaro traditional village]. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa.

  24. Yatmo, A. Y., Paramita, K. D., Suryantini, R., & Atmodiwirjo, P. (2019). Cooking the material: Investigating the space of architecture material production in Central Java, Indonesia. Proceeding the 2nd ICSCI-Sustainable Energy, Environment, and Infrastructure toward Smart City Planning, 25–34.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.