Duck Duck Shed
Is being a duck or a shed better? According to Venturi they both have their ups and downs. A duck which is the symbol of form follows function explains a buildings ability to broadcast its program to the outside world while a building made to be a shed can be easily transformed into any other program with a simple flip of a sign. Both are needed and both can be beautiful yet the shed gets a lot of hate from younger architects. Can something that simple really be good architecture? Well in the congested world we live in, being able to change a building to fit the needs of the city in a short amount of time is very useful. Its not always pretty to represent a building with a billboard but when done in a way that represents your city (las vegas) the simple shed with a brilliant sign can make walking down the street that much more interesting.
This then comes back to the idea of congestion. The architecture of congestion that Rem Koolhouse talks about comes not in the congestion of people but in the congestion of program. Laying out building programs in a way that is abnormal and spontaneous such as "naked men in boxing gloves eating oysters" represents the city scale shrinking to the scale of the building. Think of the way we walk through new York or Vegas and we point and ask and admire the different landscapes at every corner. Well who's to say we cant do the same inside the building. And a shed, although simple on the outside, can do that just as well, if not better, than a duck.
I believe a lot of it comes down to cost. Assuming the shed and the duck have the same functions at the lowest level, which is easier and more cost effective to produce? The shed. The fact that the shed lacks uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean that the building would be considered bad architecture. I wouldn't say either does a poor job in doing what it needs to do: trap tourists. The signs flashing at you with massive arrows pointing you into where you're supposed to be would do just as well as a barbeque place in the shape of a cowboy hat with outdoor seating on the brim. The part where they split is when that sign costs a fraction of that building and pulls in the same number of customers, which gives the edge to the shed.
ReplyDeleteYou have a really good question in asking whether a duck or a shred is more easily converted into different use. I think both can be converted equally easy or difficult depending on what is happening in the interior. Let's consider the Pompidou for example. In Brown's and Venturi's view, the Pompidou would be considered a duck. When take a look inside, I would say the space is quite adaptable to other functions. On the other hand, a shred could pose difficulty in converting to other uses. Let's consider Rem Koolhaas's Downtown Athletic Club. I would say that it could be challenging trying to convert the indoor swimming pool on the nth floor and the 9th floor where there is a locker room, boxing ring, and a bar - which odd combination.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteWhat would make your experience of walking down the street more interesting... a square building originally designed as program x now with a new billboard or a building shaped like a duck that now houses a place specializing in rubber tires? I think that if we design buildings to be functional in what goes inside them, they lose fascination, like we have to dumb them down. I personally would like to be intrigued by a building shaped like a duck housing rubber tires because it would make me ask questions and want to experience that space because of its lack of sense.