Koolhaas' Everest
"Why should a man climb Everest? Because it is there." Lyrics by Public Service Broadcasting, Everest
Koolhaas has opened the gates for design and design intention that opposes the ostentatious philosophy of "form follows function." Ironically, I had opened Koolhaas' writing about Bigness and his comparison to Everest while listening to the song Everest. The parallels were uncanny, to the point that Koolhaas' opening quote matched the ending lines of the song.
The idea of Bigness in scale has been evident both in the natural and built environment. "Only through Bigness can architecture dissociate itself from the exhausted artistic/ideological movements of modernism and formalism to regain its instrumentality as vehicle of modernization." (Koolhaas, 8) Koolhaas came into the profession at an appropriate time for this movement in thought of Bigness. Just like those who climbed Everest for the first time, architectural Bigness was uncharted territory in which Koolhaas was able to latch to and create dynamic experimentation of what his interests in physical congestion could be.
Although Koolhaas drove forward projects in a "synthetic experience" (Koolhaas, 326) that was provocative in thought for what happens if mixing programs, the upcoming generation of professionals should avoid the same study (particularly that in America where towns and cities seek specific identities through their architecture). Just as Everest was an untouchable entity for most, Bigness in architecture had barely scratched the surface when Koolhaas began to push the idea. Fast forward to today, Bigness is what most strive to achieve: primarily in "critical mass" (2), which gains autonomy internally but loses it externally. The writings that support Koolhaas' works and thoughts have always respected and interested me. I believe that others in the field do not necessarily need to agree with his logistics but recognize the role he played in seeing projects reverting a subtle yet strong stance in fitting into context of the surrounding environment instead of seeking to be the primary feature of a location.
Hey Sarah! I'm curious to know where your personal stance is on Bigness in architecture. In response to "Why climb Mount Everest? Because it is there." I will ask you to look up pictures of the trash piles on Mount Everest. We as a society are wasteful. At a time, Mount Everest climbers were respectful to the mountain, but as more and more people climbed, the more waste was created. In terms of buildings, let's look at the Burj Khalifa. The tallest man made 'mountain' in the world. Following in the footsteps of trailblazers before them, the developers and architect reached for the sky, and created the tallest building on Earth. The result has been a testament to modern engineering, and also a waste of space. A decade ago, two-thirds of the tower remained vacant, and thankfully these days it has reduced to about 20% of spaces being vacant. This is still alarming. Why build empty shells? Why climb a mountain that creates waste when we can hike a mountain and leave nothing wasteful behind?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you are saying. That is why I focused on the comparison between Everest and Bigness in architecture. Everest serves as a tourist attraction for climbers (but I certainly will not take away the physical and mental strength needed to accomplish it). It has been done, the uniqueness has faded and what lays in wake is those that neglect the original integrity of a pure, untouched ideal.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is something to be said for the "Architectural Bigness" in the sense that we do it because we can. Similar to the way Zaha Hadid used parametricism because we could. This same mentality is seen time and time again throughout the rapid developments of technology like you pointed out in your comment on my post. Sending Bezos to space just because, cloning animals, altering the DNA of plants, conquering the largest mountain on earth, etc. Certain advancements can and must be made with the argument of research and the potential doors we could open with that research. However I do also agree with some of John's points in the sense that we need to analyze if we are doing more harm than good in many of these endeavors. I believe a cost benefit analysis would be revealing in how damaging some of this "progress" has been.
ReplyDelete