The Highest grosser.
The world has seen many groundbreaking inventions as a result of the industrial revolution In the 19th century. This eventually added up and upgraded the building systems and technologies too. Reinforced concrete in 1849, elevators in the early 1900s, and steel as a building structure in the early 20th century gave architects a new direction to explore. Cooney Island, Downtown Athletic Club, and Radio City Music Hall were few examples of these explorations.
Cooney Island- Steeplechase
In the 1930s Lee Corbusier proposed a plan for New York City
which is considered to be designed in “distorted reality” which was
disapproved. Nearly 4 decades later Hays describes 1968 as a milestone from
when architecture stopped being a spontaneous reaction to the social course and
started to be an articulation of consciously developed theories. Rem Koolhaas in
late 1970’s supports this argument by commenting on Manhattan as a new “unscripted
“mutation of conventional urbanisms.
If we observe carefully, some of these buildings were not
just mere experimentations with the new inventions, they are also solutions for
prevailing problems at times. When Rem Koolhaas advocated Congestion and
pursued the program as his leading idea, its not just a creative or artistic approach
for architecture like Eisenman idealized. It also entangled with society,
politics, and economics. So I believe his kind of Architecture is not necessarily
a movie that wins Oscars but could be highest grosser by entertaining people, which understands the pulse of the audience and gives them a dramatic experience by also following the economic formulas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how you summed up the idea of blending entertainment and economy. Your text highlights many great points and I am eager to agree with you on the fact that "If we observe carefully, some of these buildings were not just mere experimentations with the new inventions, they are also solutions for prevailing problems at times." But my question to you is, what of the future, why didn't they push these buildings to a point where we could expand, modify, and restructure (socially) them. What do you think was missing?
ReplyDeleteMoh, I think the sense of reusability and adaptability is missing in the ideology of the designers at that time. That's when intellectuals came up and started LEED which is guiding the industry now as you are suggesting. I hope that answers your question, let me know if it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't answer my question at all. LEED is a certification that doesn't really tell how experienced you are, it doesn't mean that you have the knowledge to push a building further, what it reflects though is that you have a tangible understanding of sustainable design, not how to implement it and make it work.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think what was missing was the opportunity to include the general public's opinion into the design process, the architects imposed their own ideals while doing these (again the positive thing about it is that yes they were imaginative), but still they missed something, "the purpose of the building long term, which include adaptable and flexible use of the building as society shift and the built environment sometimes retract or condense itself through change"