Maybe “junkspace” is good for us.
I view junkspace as being an architecture without true meaning.
A wasted architecture that has given up its ability to connect with the context
while proposing no tactic in which to improve its surrounding community. Commercialized
architecture has shifted into this category. It has become all about the revenue
that it can accumulate, while creating a congestion like no other during the
holiday season; examples of this being malls, outlets, etc. And unfortunately,
it has taken over the current building industry.
But is this a bad thing? Are these spaces detrimental to our
society? In a way, no, they’re actually good for us. They allow us to
appreciate the good pieces of architecture and the spaces that do propose a tactic
in which to improve our society. The junkspace, simply put, continues to
present itself as a precedent of what not to do, allowing us to learn how to
create spaces that won’t be classified as “junkspace”. It is a learning lesson,
and it is our duty as designers to lend a hand in solving the issue.
I like how you addressed the point of view that perhaps junk space isnt actually a bad thing. I agree that there is a need for a lot of "junk space". Not all architecture has the ability (or the budget) to be some grand piece of art. The issue however, is what you addressed, using past examples of junk space as learning examples from the future. These spaces serve a need and will continue to serve a need, but how can we as architects design them such that they are adaptable to these changing needs? If the structures have the ability to adapt and change use over time, then does that eliminate the outcome of them becoming a "junk space"?
ReplyDelete