*Slaps Roof of Building*
Bjarke Ingels is a charismatic, confident, architect who has big dreams to change the world (Mars included). His concepts and creativity are derived from his early childhood years of cartoon creating and playing with Legos. According to Ingels, Legos are not just a toy; they are a tool to learn.
It is clear that Ingels's modular yet flowing buildings are inspired by these building blocks. Although their forms are dictated and shaped by their surroundings, they hardly interact with the surrounding site context as architects are taught from the beginning. His large, in-your-face buildings are created to interact with themselves, and hardly with the people and places within them or around them. His elaborate forms are immediately impressive, but they are out of place and hide the lack of quality of life that is provided within.
For example, the Google headquarters are eerily dystopian, although the goal is quite the opposite. Ingels uses modular forms within a glass bubble, which not only would feel like a greenhouse to its inhabitants but also like a museum exhibit. The egocentric concept claims to be a perfect utopia for people to work, but it ignores the rest of the outside world's issues.
Such is a common denominator with all of BIG's projects. They seem nice at first, but they are actually wildly impractical and disregard basic functions such as logistics and transportation, to name a few. This architecture may be labeled as adaptive, but in the big picture, is it really? One cannot simply slap a green roof and solar panels onto a building and claim that it will revolutionize the solutions to climate change without taking into account the effects of the building itself, means of transportation, and the other millions of issues that are the reason for climate change.
In conclusion, Bjarke Ingels has some fantastic and consistent ideas, but they are generally unresolved and unbuilt; complicated, yet overly simplified.
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important and sometimes missed when we look at more 'fun' architecture that a lot of times these problems of having big and fantastic ideas do go unresolved and unbuilt. I think this can relate back to our studio last semester and some of the problems we never could get resolved. I do remember a quote from Brandon, "just because it was never built, does not mean it wasn't a real project."
Lydia, I relate to your post a lot. I had similar critiques during this week's readings. Exciting form is revolutionary to a point. But when you are ultimately creating spaces for human use, leaving humans out of the equation seems almost unethical. It becomes form for form's sake which is great *in theory* but at the end of the day it's a ton of materials and space and energy going into something that we can't comfortably inhabit.
ReplyDelete