Bigger isn't always better
"Bigness is ultimate architecture."
As the human population continues to grow and technology expands our capabilities, it seems only natural that architecture too would expand -- in size, scale, scope, ideas... you get the point. But this idea of 'bigness' goes beyond the monumental. Koolhaus describes bigness through five theorems, where after a certain point, the scale of the project cannot be defined by context. It seems to me, that once context becomes irrelevant, so does the architecture. It is at this point that we should perhaps step back and consider the question: How big is too big?
It seems natural that architecture would continue to grow with the population. There will come a point in time where land will be sparce and the only way for architecture to grow is up. But what does this mean for the future of cities and urban centers? How many people can you actually pack into these spaces before it becomes too dense? And what does this mean for infrastructure? As I was reading these Retroactive Manifestos, I found it hard to wrap my head around what these conclusions meant for the future of architecture. I was especially intrigued by Denise Scott Brown's observations in Las Vegas:
"Valuable traditional techniques should also be resuscitated by their application to new phenomena; for example, when Nolli’s mid-eighteenth-century technique for mapping Rome is adapted to include parking lots, it throws considerable light on Las Vegas."
American cities were very much designed around the car. For some cities, like New York, this meant the city was gridded to make it easy for cars to travel. In cities, like Las Vegas, it became centered around areas like the strip where large, brightly lit signs were the main attractions. It has become clear in recent years though that the car cannot survive in the city. Like Brown points out, you have to have a place to park the car and the parking lot will define the figure ground of the city. Beyond the landscape, cities like Tulsa are being affected heavily by heat island effect because of the creation of asphalt deserts.
I agree that as soon as context becomes irrelevant, so does the architecture. This notion reminded me of the dystopian future cityscapes of both the Blade Runner films, primarily seen in the dark and dense streets and foreboding pyramidal nodes and skyscrapers. How do we solve the problem of density when building bigger and building upwards results in Blade Runner's Los Angeles?
ReplyDeleteThese architects that we were tasked to read from seem to be pushing the role of the Devil's advocate when it comes to "What if?" I think Rem Koolhaus wants to question the monumentalism and scale of the growing city without really considering the outcomes. Vertical Neighborhoods have many great qualities, but there is a point in time where size would diminish good design.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting that we question what happens as American cities as our population goes up. We have always spread out, but whether it be for practicality or a social change, people no longer want to drive over an hour to get from one side of a city to the other. They don't want to drive a half an hour sitting in traffic to get groceries. I think that a huge problem has been our zoning laws in America. We tend to say "this area is business, this area is retail" which makes it difficult for walkability and small businesses in cities. If the people who design and focus on infrastructure look at ways to improve other modes of transportation I think that will resolve a lot of issues.
ReplyDelete