Junk/Space. An Oxymoron?
Does a building’s stability determine its worth? Rem Koolhaus makes many, many assertions in his essay “Junkspace,” and one is that modern architecture is designed to be changed. It will mutate over time, whether it is due to sub-par construction and materials or a consumer-driven society that puts a shelf-life on program, moving on when something else is shinier. A building and its program are “now a transient coupling, waiting to be undone, unscrewed, a temporary embrace with the high probability of separation…”
The Great Pyramids of Giza
(Is this a negative attribute, though? I think back to buildings that have affected me in my life, and I wonder if there is a certain correlation. It is true, indeed, that many significant buildings in my mind are so significant because they have lasted. There is a history and memory embedded in the walls that would be virtually impossible in modern buildings – simply, I believe, because they won’t last long enough, and, if they do, because they have turned into a storage facility. Yet, this logic seems to forget that the Colosseum in Rome served as housing and marketplace in the Middle Ages, and in fact has gone through a multitude of changes in its long lifetime. It almost seems convenient that Koolhaus picked the pyramids to reference instead.)
I see a lot of worth in Koolhaus’ issue with this constant mutation of buildings. It is easy to compare it to society, as he does, by asking if we are a mini-construction site ourselves. There is an obsession with the cosmetic, the plastic, and people are constantly modifying their outer appearances in search of a greater happiness.
 |
| Northwoods Mall, North Charleston, SC |
The issue that I find with agreeing with these assertions is that for every example proving his point, I can also think of counterexamples. There is a church in downtown Charleston that is now a high-end bistro, and the quality of space and ingenuity of its renovation is quite memorable. And, in all honesty, I have so many great memories shopping with my family and friends in malls that I must think there is something of quality there, that it isn’t just ‘junkspace.’ In all honesty, the mall back home has more meaning to me than the great pyramids do, because I have memories there. There is so much more to architecture than these blanket statements, and, whether good or bad, the experiences that we have with buildings can make them live, stable, as they were when we inhabited them, in our memory forever.
That is a great point. Adaptive reuse was not really mentioned much by Koolhaas. Take for example the cigar factory. It sat idle for many years but now is extremely desirable after a smart renovation. I also agree that there are counter examples for many points and yes the pyramids are very important, but adaptive architecture might be necessary in our world where trends are changing very quickly.
ReplyDeleteAdaptive reuse is a really great solution when possible! I believe that he tried to find the best or at least the interesting in architecture around him at the time. If we can do the same with junk space then I think we are on the right track!
ReplyDeleteCool post Lindsey, and I agree with Kevin on that end, we are living at a different time. Adaptive reuse is a great way to rethink how we can keep architecture on track when it comes to designing junkspaces. As designers we not only have an obligation to rethink how to make a sustainable and beautiful architecture, but also how do we use the things that we have by reviving their potential through technological progress and mindful design decisions.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I like how you brought up the church that is now a high end bistro in Charleston, and to me, it is probably a dumb idea (the building still stand but what about its core value and meaning, its history and purpose)? The renovation might be great, but it contradicts many of Charleston's foundational values as the "Holy City" by example (unless I am interpreting it wrong). Also I believe there is always a limit in how to approach old buildings especially churches, and religious spaces. I am just confused as to how can that make sense? Church turned into a bistro, pretty weird theoretically, but from a designer standpoint (which can shift views depending on context and societal needs, etc..) I might understand why Charleston allowed that to happen. Trying to bring in more young people into the peninsula sometimes require an extra step, and Charleston being a place that millenials are loving more and more, it is beautiful to see how the city is adapting to keeping up its young population needs. However, the question is, how do you find balance and protect the value of your buildings overtime, that's when junkspaces come into play, and it is not always a good thing to turn a church into a bistro.
Agree with you 100%! There are major pros and cons behind these adaptive reuse decisions, and we as architects have a responsibility to weigh those and the impact it will have on the culture and environment of the place.
Delete