"Where once detailing suggested the coming together, possibly forever, of disparate materials, it is now a transient coupling, waiting to be undone, unscrewed, a temporary embrace with a high probability of separation..." - Junkspace
While Koolhaas's critique on architectural detailing and tectonics has its place, its negative undertones might not be quite warranted. As technology has progressed we have experimented with building materials, allowing us to move to stronger and more flexible materials.
 |
| Renzo Piano |
This joint has a delicate and sophisticated feel. Everything is revealed but there is still an air of mystery as to how this actually stands up. You can start to understand how the pieces might come apart. It could, in theory, be disassembled.
 |
| Castelvecchio, Verona |
This brick wall could also, in theory, be disassembled. This was the building technology of the time. I think we see this joint as more permanent because it has been around for longer, not because of the actual permanence of one versus the other.
Is Koolhaas suggesting that we should go back to this 'more permanent' joinery? Is delicate architecture bad architecture?
It seems that Koolhaas isn't saying that architecture needs to have the "more permanent" joinery of the past, but be built with the intention to last. Many times today we put a lifespan of a building of just a few decades. With thoughts like this, what are the expectations for architecture (as objects) to have an impact on more than a single generation and draw links between generations? Many of the buildings we reference in school are done so because they have stood against the test of time. If the buildings we build today are intended to function differently, looking at these for precedent may loose some of its strength.
ReplyDelete