Junkspace
Validity of Junkspace?
Koolhaas’s term and discussion of junkspace is in a way troubling to me. He labels the style and typology of architecture as “junk” but then does not continue to criticize it. Junk space is an enclosed space to hold people and things without a connection to the context or the exterior. I find the only defensible qualities of this to be that it serves the purpose of providing whatever need for which it was built or the ease in which the architecture can be renovated, updated, and added on to, but it is obviously not the “best” solution for that problem. I can’t decide whether I think it is valuable as architecture or if it’s simply some cost driven architectural band-aid. Is there a better solution that can become more responsible and efficient? Rapid renovation
No connection to the outside world. It could be anywhere.
Rapid renovation
I struggle with what it means to be "connected" to your context and the outside. You're right with your first photo - it could be anywhere. But what would contextualize it? Adding lots of glass so you can see outside? I think saying architecture should be fully contextual is a nice sentiment but how does that really happen? The reality is that lots of building programs CAN exist in lots of places. An architectural example that comes to mind is the use of materials. Unfortunately sheet rock has whitewashed the interior of buildings where all the sudden buildings are anywhere and nowhere.
ReplyDelete