Let Junkspace be Junkspace?
Shopping malls, airport terminals, department stores, and traffic = Rem Koolhaas' idea of Junkspace. Created for consumer capitalism and stripped of architectural detail in order to satisfy our ever-changing consumerist society. Designed to be "modular" in order to fulfill the next wave of consumer demand and replace the last, shopping malls, and terminals. etc., lose their opportunity to be a well-designed architectural space and result in Junkspace. While that may be a true opinion for some, but at the end of the day - does it matter? There are many types of architectural typologies around the world that dedicate themselves to thoughtful design and crafting spaces to meet the needs of a specific user. Sometimes that means a highly intricate and unique design, while in other instances, it's copy-paste. Junkspace like shopping malls and airport terminals is designed for the consumer. Consumers in these spaces are temporary and fleeting, just like the merchandise that cycles in and out. There is little to no appreciation for the space, just "what am I going to buy next" so what difference does it make if it was designed to a "one size fits all" style? Let the Junkspace be Junkspace that serves a temporary user group, and allow architecture that provides real meaning and value to be appreciated elsewhere.
That is an interesting perspective. Why worry about these specially designed spaces when it's built for a consumerist purpose and wont be appreciated the same. While I do think that this can be detrimental to environment it creates and those surrounding it, I do wonder if some of the consumerist architecture is a typology in its own that can be looked at. We see big box store that have been around for decades with the sole purpose to stand as a warehouse for inventory and a point of sale. Do these spaces warrant the same level of detailing and design as another program such as a cultural center or office building?
ReplyDeleteI think the value of architecture diminishes year after year due to the fact that architecture and its importance is being taught less and less early on. We grow appreciation for things once we understand and I think the "consumer" is uneducated enough to want these junk-spaces without the thought of what the implications are. If they did understand or knew enough, these everchanging, consumeristic, repetitive styles of architecture would be built less or even no more.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting thought. All architecture doesn’t have to be great architecture. Sometimes a building just needs to merely exist in order to serve the purpose of housing goods for us to buy instead of being a sculptural piece of art for us to marvel. The grocery store isn’t beautiful, but we all appreciate that it's there when our groceries run out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. Architecture is for the people, and even if we don't like it or the profession may not like it, people are our catalyst and Junk is the response sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting idea, and I agree with it. I don't believe all architecture should be astonishing or else wee be just walking around getting bored by every building. I agree that some buildings need to just serve their purpose and allow for temporary usage, as these are places that people probably won't spend a lot of time in.
ReplyDelete