Activate, without Commodifying
“The city is, above all, a social product…”
As we discuss the urbanisms aspired by Margaret Crawford and De Carlo, I think I’m starting to pull some common strings through Koolhaas’ concept of junkspace, principally the idea of activating without commodifying. Crawford discusses how informal social and economic activities, tactics, as she calls them, such as food vendors unrestrained by brick and mortar, and true impromptu markets can transform the urban experience. I think of the ‘pop-ups’ that you hear about in places like NYC, usually related to art in some capacity, bring attention and activity suddenly to an area. These sporadic events seem to, in some way, make the city more attractive, more fluid. In a way, Crawford’s tactics hope to mystify the city, or at least create an impression of opportunity. Everyday rounding the same corner could lead to something different. If allowed, I think this idea can be stretched to intersect some of the interests of Koolhaas, a designed friction/chaos/ chance for something different, all the time. How do we as designers take this to heart. In terms of application, there seems to be a sort of invisible line…. One huge open space, for example, offers a ton of flexibility, hence opportunity, but does that lack of constraints really inspire sporadic activity. Once a public space becomes ‘overdesigned’ theres always the threat of becoming outdated. It’s interesting, at least to me, to interpret these readings as a request for architects to leave some ambiguity in a project, an opportunity for the ‘social product’.
Diller Scofidio, Shed project... essentially a large canopy on a rolling track that can be used to enclose an adjacent open plaza
Charleston City Market, I wonder if Crawford would consider this too organized, regulated to be considered a tactic
Great post. That's such a tough dilemma, how to design, but not over design. How to create a framework for human adaption and experience that doesn't constrain. It's impossibly difficult to try and predict everything that may occur on a blank canvas. Achieving a balance with flexible opportunity is easier said than done.
ReplyDeleteI agree it can be a tough dilemma to find balance between not enough design and too much design. And really, it is impossible to know or predict how a space will really be used and received by a community. I think this is where/when a participatory design process becomes useful. Community participation and feedback can help an architect find the 'right' amount of design.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of these comments in that it is a fine line between framework for filling in and overdesign. I think that no one really has this equation figured out. Some projects predetermine events that may take place, but no one really knows if the public will respond accordingly. Even with participatory design, there are always circumstances that could cause people to not be attracted to a space. For instance, the success of Italian piazzas was attempted in the United States and time and time again proven unsuccessful simply due to surrounding areas or amenities. Take the space next to the Watt Center as an example. There is nothing wrong with the actual plaza, but no one uses it.
ReplyDeleteI found it as a nice connection between leaving space for ambiguity in design and seeing architecture as a social product. I feel that more indirect way of conveying messages through design will make it more open to people interpretations. It will make users curious to explore the space and also intrigue them to use their imaginations.
ReplyDelete