Can architecture be both exciting and efficient?
When facing congestion culture, different architecture in different cities show different attitudes. Like Koolhaas, all programs can be stacked in one building to help people save time and space. You can also make full use of every inch of land, like Made in Tokyo. Koolhaas's attitude towards congestion can be understood as open-source, and Made in Tokyo is throttling. Which way is better? There is no absolute right and no absolute wrong answers. Large-scale commercial complexes can solve some people's problems but at the same time lose the uniqueness and irreplaceability of the corner buildings in Tokyo.
People who hate commercial complexes must not be because of their buildings' efficiency. It might be that the universality and infinite reproducibility of mixed-use complexes make people have fewer opportunities to experience some enjoyable or surprise moment.
I feel like the leading cause of this loss in the “enjoyable” or “surprise” moment is the predictability in the lack of identity. Developers for multi function buildings are very similar to box stores in my eyes where the goal is to maximize profits at the expense of any uniqueness or identity. Most importantly it denies it’s context the opportunity to be represented within the building typically. Tokyo represents a unique attitude to building however, pitting unlike programs to each other. A train station AND a department store? Yes please.
ReplyDelete