Regionalism in architecture as an idea emerged from a critical response to globalized modernism in architecture; one of the main claims of modernism is its general applicability once it separated from the specificities of cultural traditions. Regionalism argues that architecture should be integrated into local conditions, including culture, climate, materials, technologies, etc. This paper, argues that the conceptual framework of “regionalist architecture”, from the outset, never fully considered the “non-west” in the formation of regionalism. The universality of modern architecture and its regionalist other stem from a specific cultural imagination and practice.Regionalism appeared in the late twentieth century in the critical writings of, among others, Alexander Tzonis, Liane Lefaivre, and Kenneth Frampton, who resisted the “trivialization” of architecture in postmodern architecture at the 1980 Venice Biennale. There are two main theoretical groundings of their critical writings: a Kantian dialectic of homogeneity and heterogeneity, and a Heideggerian critique of superficiality in architecture. Seeing from a distance of forty-five years, these theoretical formulations were integral parts of a modernization of architecture in Europe and America since the 17th century. In doing so, a wide range of examples of architecture from the world had been brought into these debates to demonstrate “otherness” in design and theory. This development, ironically, was reductive by being inclusive. The resulting condition, strongly present today, is one of homogenized “global architecture” that is both wonderfully open-minded and disappointingly distorted. The project of reconsidering regionalism in China therefore becomes an important opportunity to reconsider this history of regionalism. It is an opportunity to reframe the conversation. After decades of fulfilling the expectations of regionalist architecture defined in Europe and America, Chinese architecture is poised to take a critical review of its recent past; a review of future possibilities of Chinese architecture gives us a chance to move outside the mode of “regionalist architecture”, towards an architectural practice that will in turn contribute to the richness of cultural resources in architectural design in the global context.To embark on this much more ambitious endeavor, it must begin from ground up; this requires an examination of much deeper forces of cultural production. Perhaps the best way to start is to examine language-thought (pensée-langue), a highly useful phrase coined by the renowned French thinker Fran?ois Jullien. Anything less than this would not do justice to a judicious understanding of cultures and design traditions. Languages gave rise to thoughts and ideas; thoughts and ideas in turn influenced architecture profoundly. It is only through a reflexive examination of these deeper issues that we can engage with a true regionalism.The language-thought traditions in today’s world are descended from two broad methods, phonetic and figurative. The phonetic method, using sounds and notations of sounds as language, is the most common; this is the framework of the so-called “Indo-European” language family. The figurative method uses visual shapes as language, putting emphasis on how words look like and how they match the material world, treating sounds as secondary (although important); this method is the less common, nevertheless equally significant framework of the “Sino-Tibetan” language family. If architecture orders the world, these language-thought methods have a profound impact on how buildings are conceived and constructed, on what is considered valuable and beautiful, and on how we can learnfrom each method the most significant lessons when we consider the future of architecture. This paper argues that a true regionalism in China must engage with this long and deep language-thought method of deploying figures. Chinese culture is grounded in immanent thought, the idea that principles are not abstract; rather, they are embedded in how things work. While the Greek conception of architecture-and its dominant influence on what we consider as architecture today-is very much focused on the discreet object of perfection, the Chinese “architecture” is much more about deployment of figures, just like the deployment of shapes in the Chinese language. This distinction is both profound and far-reaching. The most distinctive feature of Chinese “architecture” is perhaps the garden rather than the building: it is a garden of material things and immanent thoughts; it is the most vibrant and creative part of Chinese “architecture”, in contrast with the rather rigidly regulated imperial buildings. Unlike Greek architecture, Chinese gardens are full of poetic writings, as if to underline the connection between design and language-thought-that do not submit themselves to architecture but assert their own presence. One important aspect of this Chinese “architecture” is the possibility to practice it on an urban scale-something traditional literati garden builders were not able to do-so that the links between cities and ecology are much more sustainable. The Greek “defiant city” confronting nature is in its old ways increasingly untenable; the alternative of a city of ten thousand things may indeed be a great resource for a viable future in architecture.