The Neutral Space
Koolhaas describes his skyscraper as having a different
lifestyle on each level – a building where the extremes of society are in such proximity
to each other but don’t necessarily conflict. In this building, the elevator
and steel frame remain neutral and take on the same role as the streets of past
cities: where politics can occur in an area without association. This can, in a
similar way, be applied to Scott-Brown’s Las Vegas, which she describes as “the
built artifacts of a set of subcultures.” Here, I would argue that the streets,
and even the shells of the buildings themselves (depending on their signage)
can be considered the neutral ground, with the inside of the buildings and the signs
truly representing, or even being,
the different lifestyles/subcultures that both Koolhaas and Scott-Brown
mention. If this is the case, do the signs in Las Vegas inhabit the
same space without being in conflict? Do they, like Koolhaas' skyscraper, "frame the coexistence of each layer without interfering with their contents?"
In Koolhaas's skyscraper, it seems that there is an emphasis on the generic-ness of the frame. That anything can happen inside each floor, that these activities can be replaced with any other activity without affecting the overall structure of the system. I would argue that the system, in the case of Las Vegas, is the strip. The signs, the casinos, the restaurants, the shows have changed rapidly and without hesitation to satisfy the whims and desires of tourist. But the allure of "the strip" remains. The strip is the destination--and it will always be there as the structure for an ever changing landscape of neon.
ReplyDelete