Look But Don't Touch
The points that were brought up in class in reference to Junkspace were very clear to me after explained. After the reading my understanding for each of these elements was at a crossroads because Koolhaas seems to be harshly critiquing some of his own stylistic practices, which is oddly honest of an practicing professional, let alone an architect. During the discussion in class the elements of junkspace were brought up and made me wonder what we are doing incorrectly or how can we design better. We are asked by clients to design buildings that contradict practices that we try to preach, and in turn we end up with buildings like the hotels in Atlanta, that create interior spaces but reject the exterior engagement.
"Transparency only reveals everything in which you cannot partake"
In design I have always viewed the use of glass and transparency as a positive aesthetic. Allowing light into a space, the abstraction of a space seeming larger, interior and exterior communicating with each other, etc. But this quote makes me think about the times where I have seen architecture that separates or feels like a look but don't touch mentality. This method is used in capitalism and allowing people to look into a space and see what is occurring, but you have to pay us to get in here. At the end of the day, I get it and I understand this as a marketing tool, but its a dilemna that we juggle as we want to create space that invites and includes but we have to understand that we work for a capitalistic economy.
"Transparency only reveals everything in which you cannot partake"
In design I have always viewed the use of glass and transparency as a positive aesthetic. Allowing light into a space, the abstraction of a space seeming larger, interior and exterior communicating with each other, etc. But this quote makes me think about the times where I have seen architecture that separates or feels like a look but don't touch mentality. This method is used in capitalism and allowing people to look into a space and see what is occurring, but you have to pay us to get in here. At the end of the day, I get it and I understand this as a marketing tool, but its a dilemna that we juggle as we want to create space that invites and includes but we have to understand that we work for a capitalistic economy.
Your comment about transparency is really thought-provoking. In his text, Koolhaas mentions that transparency disappears but you're saying that it still exists, through marketing. The seller is using transparency to show the consumer what he/she CAN have, enticing them into the building, enticing them to partake. So has transparency gone out the window, as Koolhaus suggests, or has it been re-framed and more important in today's society?
ReplyDeleteGreat observations. Transparency can work in two ways. In some cases, glass provides information, giving visitors a view of what they will find once they enter the space. In buildings such as public libraries, architects can use transparency to extend an invitation to those on the outside. However, as you highlight, transparency and access are not synonymous. As illustrated by the Atlanta Marriott, transparency--when used to represent aspiration or luxury--can become a symbol of exclusion.
ReplyDeleteSooo I commented and then it dissapeared. Here's my 2nd take at what I originally said, but not as intellectual:
ReplyDeleteYour proposition about the use of glass vs. Koolhaas' is frustrating. I agree with you; generally as designers we design with glass to make things more open and welcoming but I guess to the lower class it could be seen as off putting as Koolhaas brings to our attention. I wonder where the balance in this is?