Is architecture leading us to our own demise ?

Walt Disney Concert Hall by Frank Gehry (reflecting a Dystopian world)

To begin with, I was not blown away by Blade Runner. The reason might be because I am living in the 21st century and already witnessed the emancipation of technology and globalization and how far they can go. Thus, I believe that the movie was a reflection of a corpse, a dead body walking.

Why so? 

Well, I believe that architecture is a breathing discipline, it reflects human at their best, at their worst. It is about who we are and how we dwell in the universe, not just on earth. There is an interconnection between everything. Somehow, in the movie, there is no trace of human life. By that, I mean, there were human but they didn't even interact with each other, there is a lack of emotion, there is a lack of belonging to a place, and even the buildings look like strangers to their inhabitants. 

To that, can be added the setting of the movie. The absence of nature and the lack of daylight, the dirty and busy streets, and empty and silent buildings were a reflection of extreme architecture. An architecture that is on its own, an architecture that is driven by science and capitalism, not humans. 

However, Rem Koolhaas theory about the Metropolis and how it can shape us in contrast to what architecture can be, helped me approach the theme of the movie a little better. Indeed, as Koolhaas highlighted, "Bigness destroys, but it is also a new beginning, it can reassemble what it breaks." And we can see that the end of Blade Runner was a reflection of that quote when the replicant " Batty" understood and acknowledged that he was bound to perish and that there is a limit to everything. And the bird flying after his death was a symbol that again, "Bigness can reassemble what it breaks."

Looking at big cities and how some buildings are driven by pure capitalism, not human or societal needs, is a reminder that we aren't headed in the wrong direction when it comes to architecture as a theory and what it should be, but it is rather an alarming reason that we have to understand what it means to live a life dominated by science and technology at the price of humanity and reason. 

But architecture has always been rational since the beginning of time and so it should be (as an aspiring designer I want to push beyond my talents and build not just mere buildings but buildings that will challenge the way we think about life and the unknown so that the next generation can do better and more). We are innovators and explorers and that means, limits should never exist in our minds when it comes to drawing and making. Nevertheless, the question is, what is the purpose of an architecture that doesn't reflect how we feel although emotional needs are there? and what is the purpose of an architecture that redefine how we should interact and communicate with each other (traditional vs modern way of communication [using social media vs meeting in person] )?  

Do we as architects want to build buildings that reflects human more or less, or do we want to take our talents and limits as architects to the extreme without slowing down or thinking back about the importance of creating spaces that are whole, not perfect but whole? There is a thin thread between these two questions but the answers, in my opinion, lie not in the designer mind, but rather, the answer is often found in our ability to abandon our egoistic nature to want to build things for the sake of evolution and globalization without remembering the fact that we might be leading ourselves to our own demise as human beings. 

Can we challenge our utopian ways of thinking to create a dystopia that is more sustainable AT LEAST.

At the end of the day, architecture might survive but the specific question is what about us, will we make it ?