On Koolhaas’s “Culture of Congestion”
As seen throughout history, architecture can be viewed largely as a product of the culture that it was designed for. And as problem solvers, architects not only design buildings to be structurally sound and functional, but we really seek to design spaces for the times and people that we believe will be utilizing them. We hope to create environments that people will benefit from in a multitude of ways. In “Life in the Metropolis” and “The Culture of Congestion,” Koolhaas writes his views on the expansion of urbanism in which the traditional guides to city design are abandoned since they have become outdated. He saw the metropolis lifestyle as a far different beast to tackle as the density of the population and the infrastructure play an important role in its culture.
“It’s architecture promotes a state of congestion on all possible levels, and exploits this congestion to
inspire and support particular forms of social intercourse that together form a unique culture of
congestion.”
The idea of stacking a variety of unrelated functions within the same building seems like an intriguing proposition; however, in order for it to be successful, as I would imagine Koolhaas would have intended, the building would need to house a variety of people of different income levels and classes of citizens in order for it to unite the whole in one which I believe Koolhaas seemed to overlook in his example of The Downtown Athletic Club. Such a building, although it would provide a space for people to benefit from in multiple ways, would be of more harm to the society and culture as it invokes this idea of the separation and segregation of classes.
In a way, this made me question, just as architecture is influenced by or often reflects the culture of its time can architecture influence or inspire a new culture altogether?
I would agree with your note that any kind of direct separations between social and cultural classes would be detrimental to an overall society. However, with your example of the Manhattan Athletic Complex, I feel that the same thing is happening but in a different direction. With all the amenities available, I feel like it would only allow for the upper-class to use the building while alienating the middle to lower classes thus retaining the same problem that you were talking about from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI wrote of a similar narrative to my understanding of the metropolis and its inequality to the people who probably need this lifestyle the most. While the skyscraper is an efficient building style, it lacks representation for lower income. As to the culture of the metropolis and urbanism, it is often viewed as the ultimate lifestyle that people with more money can afford while the people with lower income are on the outskirts of the city but actually supporting the city for their living. I think that the culture of urban living is changing and being better understood as an opportunity for equality and diversity in living.
ReplyDeleteI do like this idea of a variety of people of different income levels and classes coming together in one place, but I also agree with Cam in the sense that the skyscraper today, unfortunately isn't designed for the lower income people in mind. I think as designers, it is our job to help bridge this gap.
ReplyDelete