BIG Buildings, BIG Neighborhood?
All this talk about Bjarke Ingels Group brought me back to my study abroad experience in Copenhagen, Denmark. During weekend explorations of the city, I managed a bike ride down Ørestad Blvd. a very "interesting" ride.
Ørestad Blvd. is home to 3 BIG projects, "Fields" the largest shopping center in Denmark, multiple housing complexes and a elderly care center with unique formal qualities, an interesting sports complex, and a crazy hotel...just to name a few. As I biked along this boulevard, one by one my attention was grabbed by the shapes and colors of each building I passed.
Here is an example of what you could see as you progress through Ørestad:
We discussed in class that Bjarke Ingels Group, "Child of Koolhaas", takes the idea of DIAGRAM to FORM, but adds the element of ICON. What happens to an icon when it is crammed right next to another icon? This example reminds me of previous discussions in the blog about Iconic architecture needing "normal buildings" or junkspace surrounding it in order for us to appreciate the beauty. If icons are surrounded by icons, does each building lose some of its "wow" factor and the iconic nature? And what happens when an entire neighborhood of a city is lined with "Icons"? Or maybe these icons are being built in the hopes of attracting "normal" buildings and more people...
A note about the area:
Brian and I did the same bike ride down Ørestad Blvd. a couple of years ago! Disclaimer though: I gotta start by saying that I am a BIG fan and we specifically went to Denmark to see his projects so this post is super biased... BUT...I agree with you. Although I enjoyed the ride (minus my fall haha), I couldn't help but wonder how many more commissions would he get for the area, if they would rename it to Bjarke Ingels Bldv.? The amount of work he has done in that stretch is impressive but it is also, like you mention, iconic. I do think though that that is not a bad thing. There are definitely other buildings around it and there will be more that don't look like those. But, when is it a good balance between the iconic and the mundane? Who calls that shot? Although I very much enjoy his architecture, mostly because it makes me happy, I do see an end to it as well as not being successful everywhere else. Sorry, this probably already got too long but going back to all buildings being iconic, maybe that scenario would look more like a post-postmodernism neighborhood. A sort of Disney like situation yet a real one as opposed to simulacrum. I do wonder too, but I don't think that will ever happen naturally, it seems to me that it could only happen if it was intentionally done.
ReplyDeleteI also wrote about Bjarke Ingels and while his work is super interesting normal is definitely not a word I'd use to describe it. It's anything but normal, and I think you're right it has become iconic which I find to go against some of his projective architecture values. For example they're so iconic they start to put on a show, no longer being "cool" as discussed in the reading. His designs sometime come across much more critical until you can really dive into the diagrammatic concept behind the design.
ReplyDeleteI did not realize all these buildings were on the same street. When you look at each of them individually I think they are all beautiful buildings on their own. Although I feel like you have to actually be there and travel down the street to feel the affect of what you're talking about, I don't think the presence of each building takes away from the other. Each building still has a "wow" factor. But I do agree that when these buildings are grouped together, they lose some of that interest.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Iconic Architecture is one that derives in the minds of the elite. As architects, the relationship of a building should compliment the environment that it is designed in. I think that iconic buildings are good, but there is an everyday quality that architecture should maintain in order to make Iconic building design unique. The ability to design iconic structures and ordinary structures takes the same amount of consideration but one is more recognized than the other.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the expression "two is company, but three is a crowd." Basically, there's a tipping point for how much iconoclasm you can have in one place. I can imagine that as an amazing bike ride, stopping to take photos and explore, but living there seems like it would be exhausting. Everything is out of scale with what's around it. Its like mentally jumping from big (no pun intended) to small over and over again.
ReplyDelete