The practice of criticizing theory
All the architects we study have something we can pull from
to add to our toolbelt of knowledge. When we start to examine the theory topics
of crisis, form, language, and projective there were things that were
applicable and a start to “good” architecture.
One topic that I found particularly interesting was the
post-critical architecture. This is the kind of architecture that big name
schools glorify and teach students to focus on. While this kind of architecture
is diagrammatic and focused on program and function, how do these structures
help the surrounding environment? Rem Koolhaas played a large part in the
success of this movement. In my opinion, the success of Koolhaas’s designs is
for how evolutionary they were. In some of his projects, there were things that
lacked in the design such as the sensitivity to the types of people that would
be using the space. The focus was on a certain population, and I believe that
is the case for most of the post-critical projects we have looked at. When I
traveled to Seattle, I visited the Seattle Central Library designed by Koolhaas. The unique
structure makes the public curious about the space inside and by the way the
interior was organized, it gave the space even more beauty. What lacks in
beauty is the fact that the homeless is a massive population that use this
facility. Because of the limited thought about this user group, the building cannot
function to its maximum capability.
I was left with the question of how far we can take this theory of post-critical architecture. We are in a time where this style of architecture is adored. Some of the more well-known architecture schools are taking this theory and pushing the limits in design. What parts of this theory will be taken to the next generation of architecture and what should be left in the past? Is there a way to keep these structures simple while being sensitive to its site and culture? I believe that as the next generation of architects, we need to be aware of the past and analyze what theories we need to bring with us, what we need to be critical of, and what we need to leave in the past.
Post-critical architecture has allowed architects to reengage with society and its complexities. I am concerned for the future of architecture if we only design within set rules. It is important to remember that we are thinkers first and designers second. We have to constantly question the powers in place that govern the way we live and the way we practice.
ReplyDeleteLibrary design has always intrigued me because of its ability to offer a more creative design to a diverse public. Homeless people or those in poverty depend on public services like the library for many resources like internet usage or job finding. I wonder if Koolhaus participated in any focus groups in the Seattle community to understand the public's, including the homeless, needs and their input during the design phase.
ReplyDeleteDesigning for public use, especially in cities, always seems to be a tricky subject. Do we design for the public or private use? Do we exclude user groups like the homeless or make concessions for them? I think the sensitivity of the subject is something that tends to be tossed to the waist side when we consider client wants and budget for these public buildings.
ReplyDeleteDesigning for the homeless should be a part of any good public design, but society would rather hide them away and not talk about them like the weird uncle in the family. Society and capitalism in general have to change before this is a more normalized group to design for. Can we do that with architecture alone? Im not sure... The struggle is the money has to come from somewhere in order to make facilities for them.
Delete