contemporary conundrum
To discuss architectural validity, in my mind is always a tricky subject. There seems to be an inclination in the world of the educated that certain styles are better than others at being 'valid' in the modern world, instead, I feel that this is nothing more than opinion. My statement is not to be mistaken for stating that every building is equally desirable, or in fact equal in any way. However, I would happily state that the Wal-mart on 18 mile rd is equally as architecturally valid as the Sagrada Familia.
I think that as we as Architects spend our entire life devoted to the art and science of designing buildings we find it easy to dismiss those buildings which are not designed to the highest standards. In my view at its core, the purpose of every building is to complete a goal, be that a gathering place for hundreds of Catholics, or a place for the lower middle class to gather food for the coming week. A building need not be a masterpiece to be appreciated, and I think that as Architects this is particularly difficult to accept, but surely we must see that if we can only accept one type of architecture as valid, then it will only lead the profession into a new rut within a short time. Monotony dulls the experience of the extraordinary. In Charleston, SC for example, where 'historical preservation' has deemed nearly any change of the current typology as invalid, it is hard to tell whether a building was built in 1805 or 1995. Each new structure simply looks to its neighbors and does what it can to blend in, but then to the untrained eye the true historical significance of those buildings which have managed to stand the test of time, the fires, the wars, and the flooding, they begin to sink into the murky bog of unintelligibility.
Koolhaus puts this tendency quite eloquently "Metropolitan architecture thus defined implies a 2-fold po-lemic: against those who believe that they can undo the damage of the Modern Age—i.e., the Metropolis itself... and against that Modern architecture which... has tried to exorcise its fear of chaos through a fetish for the objectiveand to regain control over the volatility of the Metropolis by dispersing its bulk, isolating its components, and quantifying its functions, and render it predictable once more"
I believe this to be why I find the concept of retroactive manifesto particularly interesting, to forgo judgment and simply observe that which surrounds us and attempt to learn from it is not an easy thing to do. It is in this spirit I would like to return to my original comparison of Wal-mart and the Sagrada Familia, and place them both on the scale as set forth by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. That is to say the comparison of a building as a decorated shed or as a duck. I would make the argument that both of these structures would fall under the duck category. The Sagrada Familia is a place of worship, a beacon to the people of Barcelona to remind them of their religion, and that religion's presence in the city, and it is designed as such. Eye-catching spires and delicate buttresses create a unique experience and a strong presence in Barcelona. On the other hand, the Wal-mart is a warehouse at its core, a place to store bulk quantities of food, clothing, electronics and other consumer goods so that its customers may come and go as they please and purchase what they must as they please, and it is also designed as such. A large open floor plan, inexpensive construction so that it can be built quickly, and any necessary equipment to store those goods within. Neither building claims to be something that it is not, they are both designed to be what they are and are streamlined in that way. Neither structure is claiming to be something that it is not, and both would be recognizable as such regardless of advertisement.
Koolhaus puts this tendency quite eloquently "Metropolitan architecture thus defined implies a 2-fold po-lemic: against those who believe that they can undo the damage of the Modern Age—i.e., the Metropolis itself... and against that Modern architecture which... has tried to exorcise its fear of chaos through a fetish for the objectiveand to regain control over the volatility of the Metropolis by dispersing its bulk, isolating its components, and quantifying its functions, and render it predictable once more"
I believe this to be why I find the concept of retroactive manifesto particularly interesting, to forgo judgment and simply observe that which surrounds us and attempt to learn from it is not an easy thing to do. It is in this spirit I would like to return to my original comparison of Wal-mart and the Sagrada Familia, and place them both on the scale as set forth by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. That is to say the comparison of a building as a decorated shed or as a duck. I would make the argument that both of these structures would fall under the duck category. The Sagrada Familia is a place of worship, a beacon to the people of Barcelona to remind them of their religion, and that religion's presence in the city, and it is designed as such. Eye-catching spires and delicate buttresses create a unique experience and a strong presence in Barcelona. On the other hand, the Wal-mart is a warehouse at its core, a place to store bulk quantities of food, clothing, electronics and other consumer goods so that its customers may come and go as they please and purchase what they must as they please, and it is also designed as such. A large open floor plan, inexpensive construction so that it can be built quickly, and any necessary equipment to store those goods within. Neither building claims to be something that it is not, they are both designed to be what they are and are streamlined in that way. Neither structure is claiming to be something that it is not, and both would be recognizable as such regardless of advertisement.
Comments
Post a Comment