Leaders of Junkspace
West Edmonton Mall, Alberta, Canada
House II, Peter Eisenman
built as a study of form & geometry, not a a functional living space
In my opinion, today's architects have become the leaders of the 'junkspace' culture. It seems that the general tendency (possibly led by developers and money) is to cram as much program as possible into our designs, trying to create efficient, mixed-use buildings that satisfy every want or need a person could ever have. I understand that the intention is for user convenience, but hasn't it started to feel overwhelming? After reading Crawford's "The World in a Shopping Mall," I can't begin to imagine how an architect could think that a water park surrounded by shopping to be even a remotely natural relationship. By creating an all-in-one space, we are diminishing the size of our world to the extents of a mall's parking lot. Even the urban voids in cities are seen as problematic; planners are always looking for ways to turn vacant lots into usable public program. Do we really need this much program and is all this overlapping program actually beneficial to the user? To me, program is the major pollutant of public space. Architects are dreamers, we are always trying to come up with solutions to better the general public's lives. But what is wrong with functionless space? Can architects take a step back from this over-programming and design functionless space? Or do we let it generate on its own, allowing users to define its program? I think it might be too drastic to go back to simplifying spaces for one particular function, as it doesn't seem efficient, but can we find a way to create less over-bearing, all-in-one buildings? I agree with Koolhaas's statement that "Junkspace is the sum total of our current achievement; we have built more than did all previous generations put together, but somehow we do not register on the same scales (175)." Design is flourishing in the postmodern period, but the majority of this design is overshadowed through the conglomeration of overbearing and overwhelming 'functional spaces'.
"... what is wrong with functionless space? Can architects take a step back from this over-programming and design functionless space?"
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that architects need to be acting as thinkers and dreamers, but who is paying for conditioned space in a mall that is functionless? The architect in this scenario is trying to convince a client of something that they will need but will not profit the company.
I think it needs to be a healthy mixture of both, functional and functionless, compression and release, squeeze and ease, movement and pauses... the variety and contrast create interest.
ReplyDelete"To me, program is the major pollutant of public space."
ReplyDeleteWhat a brilliant line. I agree that, as architects, we think that we need to design so much that it spills over into over-designing spaces. Much in the same way that we leave white space around drawings in board layouts to allow each drawing to breathe and establish its own importance, we need to leave some functionless "white space" in our designs that allow a break from the oppression of fixed program.
I agree with you about the value of the non structured or functionless space. I t is a shame that quality spaces that offer freedom to users are being lost because of developer that only think about profit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jimmy. I think architects sometimes are afraid to just let something be. They are afraid of the regret of excluding program. And, maybe more realistic, they are afraid of public dissatisfaction with their work.
ReplyDelete