Is hedonistic sustainability a step in the right direction?
In the TedTalk Bjarke talked about the steps forward of combining multiple programs to create individual ecosystems that become more that monuments within the landscape. Is this new type of architecture a way to not only minimize wasted space but also create a culture that is more sustainable than we have been in previous generations? The factory that not only turns waste into energy but also create a new landscape from its roof is a prime example of moving forward and minimizing wasted spaces that we overlook now. Could you imagine a world where walmarts were no longer big box stores, but looked at programming its spaces like that factory? Even in a more dense areas we should look towards a future where we design to reduce wasted space so that even a place like walmart becomes more, more essential, more sustainable, and more forward to our future.
I think this is an interesting comment. To add on to your thoughts about cross-programming and minimizing wasted space, could this type of thinking eliminate junkspace? This type of thinking could (and should) make good design accessible to all people and work towards a more productive and sustainable environment.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, is the Denmark Pavilion by BIG a folly and, therefore, junkspace?
I would argue that the Danish Pavilion designed by BIG is not a form of 'Junkspace.' True, it does physically guide the user to the interior of structure, but I think that 'Junkspace' goes beyond just the physical characteristics of a work of architecture. In the case of the Danish Pavilion, the continuous loop of activity draws viewers in, but then also eventually sends them back out into the world. However, the idea of bringing viewers into a free and open public space, educating them about importance and impact of sustainability, and then sending them back out into the world with this new knowledge is the primary aspect of this project defies the 'Junkspace' classification.
Delete