Junkspace
Even after the
discussion on Tuesday, I’m not quite sure if I actually know how to define
“junkspace.” There were so many examples in the reading and so many ways to
interpret it, that I find the concept of junkspace rather confusing… It’s
almost as if everything becomes junkspace no matter what you do (especially for
architects)?
I think the concept is
especially strange now after going through six years of architecture school,
and always being told how significant flexibility and adaptability is when
designing buildings and/ or spaces. But now a part of me is wondering if that’s
true? In terms of sustainability, having a modular or flexible system is better
for adjusting to changes in program. But at the same time, why are buildings not
built to last? When people decide that they are sick of a certain building or
typology, they’ll just demolish it, change it, or build a new one. So maybe it
would be better to design buildings that are meant to last and go un-changed?
I agree with your concerns. Who's to say some new technology won't eliminate all energy and conservation concerns, and Sustainability becomes a meaningless gesture? With issues such as these, I feel you should no longer be asking "what is best for architecture? what is best for my client? what is best for the world? what is best for humanity?" Ask instead, "what is best for me?" Find an architecture you are content with, and move forward from there.
ReplyDeleteOn a separate note, love the images. They each depict junk space in different ways, yet both have such depth of personality and expression.
I agree with Will on the images!
ReplyDeleteAbout your blog though, I think the term "junk space" will only grow more ambiguous as long as people are concerned with fast design and quick results. In such a fast paced world, people seem less concerned with things lasting and more concerned with what's on trend. I think creating quality, lasting buildings starts with convincing people why they're important.