Does that Go There?
Through the MIT article it is expressed that sometimes building typologies are not always placed in areas that are normal to us. Some examples used include stores being placed under a highway and a golf driving range on top of a taxi office. Most people would think these typologies would never be placed near each other, let alone on top of each other. This article challenges the idea that certain typologies belong in certain areas of a city or that certain typologies cannot go near others.
I think that architecture creates spaces and these spaces can be occupied by whatever typology can fit within these spaces. It does not matter if is a grocery store or bar or sports store. If the program can use the space then I think they should not be stopped from using the space.
I think your argument is half correct, or at least be explored a little more. In the case of Tokyo, and all big cities I might add, placing program where it fights can be a very efficient process. In an urban setting where space is tight, and the only way to build/expand is upward, I agree that there may have to be a mindset of “we take what we can get.” However, in more rural environments where there is more opportunity to expand outward instead of upward, I would argue that IF there is the opportunity to develop a typology structure (or placement) that makes sense to the users of the area, is organized, and logical, then that opportunity should be explored. Haphazard program/typologies can be a beautiful thing in a dense city, but may not be the best approach in all environments.
ReplyDeleteI would argue about the rural aspect because if we can build outward should we if it takes away from the environment and creates wasted space in the forms or hard scape(like parking lots or streets)? Should we instead constrain ourselves to a specific space for a city or town and then once we reach a certain saturation build in a vertical manner instead of continuing out?
ReplyDelete