What Comes Next?
After reading Koolhaas' article "Junkspace", I have come to a few conclusions. Junkspace continues to exist because its the world we live in today. If a new architectural style were to arise tomorrow, it would only be a matter of time before other writers, architects like Koolhaas would talk about them in similar manners. Junkspace, to me, is a two sided coin, one that provides interesting experiences in some moments but detrimental in others. Sometimes, it provides architectural experiences that couldn't be achieved otherwise.
With that being said, what is next in the "world" of architecture? Over the past 200 years, the style and role of architecture has changed dramatically. In this day and age, we are continually trying to change the way we do things, never being satisfied with the result. For what purpose you might ask? It seems that reverting back to older habits and always referencing what came before is the easiest way for doing things, but often times not in the same way things were originally done. By taking interesting aspects from multiple architectural styles, we are seeking to create architecture that is an imitation of what it is referencing. With every good building or public space, their are thousands of others out there that just don't work. So how do we change this? I think part of it has to deal with how systems are integrated in today's structures. Sometimes they really work and go along with the conceptual framework of the building, and others are an afterthought or " the product of an encounter between escalator and air conditioning.
In the architecture of old, building systems were never an after thought. They were integral to the design of the building, if used at all. The modern age has given us the power to condition spaces, systems for plumbing, and electricity , but we have taken advantage of these. The more and more systems that arrive, the more complicated the architecture gets. Maybe the architecture of the future will stay away from this approach, making better usage of the buildings that we as architects create.
With that being said, what is next in the "world" of architecture? Over the past 200 years, the style and role of architecture has changed dramatically. In this day and age, we are continually trying to change the way we do things, never being satisfied with the result. For what purpose you might ask? It seems that reverting back to older habits and always referencing what came before is the easiest way for doing things, but often times not in the same way things were originally done. By taking interesting aspects from multiple architectural styles, we are seeking to create architecture that is an imitation of what it is referencing. With every good building or public space, their are thousands of others out there that just don't work. So how do we change this? I think part of it has to deal with how systems are integrated in today's structures. Sometimes they really work and go along with the conceptual framework of the building, and others are an afterthought or " the product of an encounter between escalator and air conditioning.
In the architecture of old, building systems were never an after thought. They were integral to the design of the building, if used at all. The modern age has given us the power to condition spaces, systems for plumbing, and electricity , but we have taken advantage of these. The more and more systems that arrive, the more complicated the architecture gets. Maybe the architecture of the future will stay away from this approach, making better usage of the buildings that we as architects create.
Comments
Post a Comment