climate as a catalyst.
Modern architecture is often linked to form and aesthetics. However, in the Global South, climate played a central role in shaping this visuality. Here, design thinking was heavily influenced by aesthetics, climate, geography, and global exchanges (Barber 2020, 110). Modern architects responded to environmental challenges by using creative devices to blur the boundaries between interior and exterior spaces (Colomina 1996, 7). This was especially evident in Brazil and Australia, where European technologies did not suit local conditions, and thus adaptive modernism thrived (Barber 2020, 26). In both countries, architects like Oscar Niemeyer and Harry Seidler treated climate as a central design element, rather than a technical constraint. This essay compares how Brazilian and Australian modernism adapted climatic technologies to reshape interior experience. It then canvases the ultimate displacement of these strategies and how this was enabled through mechanical air conditioning. Overall, this essay argues that adaptive modernism was not purely technical but also positively shaped how people experienced their interiors. In doing so, it asserts that a return to these principles is warranted in the current climate crisis.
Figure 2.
defining climate technologies
Adaptive modernism was enabled by technologies, but not necessarily in a mechanical sense. Design-forward technologies such as solar geometry, cross-ventilation, thermal mass, and humidity control were used to develop permeable, environmentally responsive, and liveable spaces. These devices make a building’s boundaries more porous and climatically active. For example, postwar curtain wall sealed glazing. This hybrid envelope serves as an active membrane, shading, ventilating, and modulating light, thereby merging environmental performance with modernist aesthetics. What appeared as purely environmental science was, in fact, thermal control. This focus on climatic technologies was particularly evident in Brazil, a growing hub of modernist architectural thought. Here, architects aimed to turn climate technology into an aesthetic language.
“What attracted me to Brazilian architecture was the possibility of using our climate to create freer, more open.” — Oscar Niemeyer
*
“What attracted me to Brazilian architecture was the possibility of using our climate to create freer, more open.” — Oscar Niemeyer *
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
brazil:
light.
heat.
shadow.
Figure 6.
As Brazilian modernism and climate-responsive design gained global recognition, the Ministério da Educação e da Saúde do Brasil (MEC) Building in Rio de Janeiro (1936–1945) became an early prototype of modernist architecture (Barber 2020, 67). The architects, including renowned modernist Oscar Niemeyer, designed a tall, narrow structure that set a precedent for office buildings in hot climates. Its dynamic façade was tailored to its location, encouraging new interactions with the environment. The building is oriented south as a pan de verre, maximising sun exposure (Barber 2020, 67). Along with orientation, the use of brise-soleil was adapted to suit climatic conditions, and this adaptation has been frequently reproduced. The MEC thus directly positioned Brazilian modernism as both technically advanced and regionally distinct.
Additionally, the MEC embedded a dynamic approach. The bottom two floors of the building had three large operable louvres that could be adjusted together or independently. This was innovative as the building could be adapted to both seasonal and daily sun patterns (Barber 2020, 5). By controlling environmental heat and light, the louvres also created a rhythmic, graphic effect visible from the street. Inside, they also produced indirect light and shifting shadows (see Figure 5), giving the interiors a gentle, balanced quality. These technologies transformed the façade into a device that managed solar gain, enabled cross-ventilation, and provided daylight, in turn shaping the experience of its occupants (Barber 2020, 68). The localisation of the approach taken also defined a distinct tropical identity and environmental sophistication. After achieving international acclaim, the MEC’s philosophy laid the groundwork for an exchange of climatic strategies in the Global South. One of the architects most influenced was Harry Seidler, a pioneer of Australian modernism.
Figure 7.
australia: translations.
Figure 8.
“Climate is the starting point for architecture in Australia. Form comes afterwards.”
— Harry Seidler
In 1948, Vienna-born architect Harry Seidler spent six weeks in Brazil studying under Oscar Niemeyer (Goad 2021, 2). He later moved to Sydney with the aim of reforming Australian architecture and becoming one of the nation’s leading modernists. Noting similarities between the Brazilian and Australian climates, Seidler developed a distinct philosophy influenced by Niemeyer’s work. This is observable in his debut Australian project, Rose Seidler House.
Rose Seidler House is often credited as one of Australia’s most important examples of modernist residential architecture. The house demonstrates how Seidler adapted Brazilian climate-responsive strategies to the Australian context. Instead of simply replicating Niemeyer’s approach, Seidler tailored it to the Australian climate. He moved the building plan back from the envelope, allowing for a protective canopy that frames landscape views and provides deep shadows (Goad 2021, 11). Moving closer to the house, the shaded north-facing façade and deep overhangs are particularly unique. As shown in Figure 9, these take the form of a deep north-facing canopy with operable shaded visors. Seidler called these ‘covered terraces,’ and developed them to protect the glazed façade, reducing heat gain and creating a cooler microclimate (Goad 2021, 11). Similarly, louvres and sunshades adjust interior light and shadow, while the extended visor offers panoramic views and connects the interior to the exterior. Together, these elements manage glare and enhance passive cooling without relying on technologies like air conditioning (Goad 2021, 11).
The elevated rectilinear form also reflects Seidler’s climatic dynamism and research-based approach (Goad 2021, 11). Rather than relying on universal modernist principles, he developed strategies through comparative research. This did not end at Rose Seidler House. Throughout his career, Seidler systematically compared climate responses in Brazil, Florida, and Queensland, continually refining his shading techniques through this analysis (Goad 2021, 13). Seidler’s approach exemplifies adaptive modernism, where climate is treated as a research problem, shading as an experiment, and environmental performance as a measurable outcome.
Figure 9.
Figure 11.
Figure 10.
the sealed interior.
While both Seidler and Neimeyer pioneered a climatically considered approach, Reyner Banham (1969, 20) has argued that most modern architecture contains a significant environmental contradiction. As buildings became increasingly reliant on mechanical systems during this period, architecture began treating environmental infrastructure as a technical rather than a spatial concern. The building envelope shifted from a breathable, climate-responsive surface into a sealed engineering shell (Barber 2020, 246). This led to prioritising exteriors that guard against the external environment rather than working with it. The advent of air conditioning particularly shaped this shift (Barber 2020, 200).
In the 1950s and 1960s, air conditioning promised freedom from the climate and created uniform interior conditions. However, these comfort standards required high energy use and shifted the architectural focus away from spatial considerations (Barber 2020, 200). This decline also aligned with the rise of economic rationalisation. Globalisation brought with it more uniform building standards and a widespread notion that technologies like air conditioning signified progress. This reduced awareness of climatic design, overshadowing decades of modernist innovation in favour of quick-fix solutions. Air conditioning became a substitute for climate-responsive thinking, resulting in interiors that were increasingly disconnected from the external environment (Barber 2020, 274).
Figure 12.
seeing through climate.
As architecture is an inherently visual system, an architect’s response to climate has aesthetic and experiential implications. Climatic devices thus influence more than comfort. They also reorganise perception and subjectivity. In climatic modernism, screens, louvres, and brise-soleils served as media surfaces that shaped views from both inside and outside (see Figures 13-14). These devices thus structured our public and private lives. As Colomina (1996, 7) argues, the visible (public) and invisible (private) cannot be thought of as independent from each other.
In this way, climate technologies become part of environmental control. They draw a line between environmental performance and experience. Architects like Niemeyer in Brazil and Seidler in Australia understood this and used climate technologies to shift the architectural discourse in their respective countries. In turn, they developed a language of architecture in the Global South that was technically advanced yet did not rely on the disruptive and ultimately detrimental technology of air conditioning. At its core, these examples illustrate that an architect’s approach to climate has both environmental and experiential consequences. It can be a tool that positively impacts how we interact with our homes and environments. But it can also erect barriers.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
return to the envelope.
This exchange between Brazil and Australia demonstrates how environmental thinking shaped modern architecture in the Global South before mechanical universalism took precedence. Brazilian architects used climatic devices to mediate the environment and express a local identity. Seidler adapted these concepts for the Australian climate, creating interiors defined by filtered light, deep shadow, and managed visibility. Yet over time, mechanical air-conditioning has displaced these strategies, undermining the momentum built in these nations.
Given the climate crisis, it is essential to revisit the intelligence of adaptive modernism. Contemporary architecture should return to hybrid envelopes that combine passive responsiveness with selective mechanical support. New solutions must also be developed. Our climatic reality differs from that of the mid-century. Global warming creates more extreme and thus more unpredictable weather patterns (Barber 2020, 110). New solutions must be cognizant of this reality and employ hyper-regional specificity. But, as history shows, climate has always been a generator of architectural possibilities. The challenge now is to recover this environmental imagination before it is lost.