Is it worth it?
Though Rem Koolhaas's buildings look fascinating and iconic, as I am studying his buildings in detail during the lectures, I feel it sometimes misses rationalism and justification. There seems to be no thought of the cost and resources behind it.
During the lecture, I asked the professor about the reason or justification given by Rem Koolhaas for keeping the heavy book storage at the top level in the public library. And the answer was to be unconventional! While it’s okay to be unconventional, shouldn't the reasoning behind doing things also be meaningful? Our designs have a big impact on the structural design of the building. I think there should be a valid reason to do something, at least we have been taught like this all our lives. Sometimes, it begs the question, is it worth it?
Whereas the reading, Learning from Pop, emphasizes the significance of looking beyond conventional architectural influences. She makes the case for incorporating concepts from ordinary life, art, and popular culture into architectural design. It talks about consumer culture and asking people what they want which should be in my opinion ideal. It talks about symbols and signages which are important architectural elements too. I agree with that. That’s a huge part of architecture.
I have to disagree. I believe that venturing into the unconventional and challenging established norms can carry significant meaning. Without breaking boundaries and exploring new approaches, the field of architecture would lack excitement and innovation. Not everything needs profound meaning; sometimes, the purpose could be to stimulate fresh perspectives, encouraging a reevaluation of accepted standards and norms.
ReplyDeleteI agree Divya, why only in the past 50 years that architecture doesn't need a reason to be unconventional and innovative does not make sense. I also believe challenging norms just to challenge norms is a waste. You could make the argument that it is purely art - I like to think of garden follies, no real function but nice to look at - but I believe good architecture has to strike the balance between art and utility, not prioritizing one over the other.
ReplyDeleteDivya, I agree because our main goal as architects should be a responsibility to our environment and designing for the future, so why should we be making design decisions that waste precious resources and create unnecessary strain on the environment? Some studies show that the construction industry is responsible for 50% of climate change - what world are we leaving behind for the next generation if we are making important environmental and cost decisions in design just because they are "out of the box"?
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is very interesting and I like the question of is it worth it? because it is well suited for a debate. I believe there is certainly an intrinsic value in pushing the boundaries of what is possible. However, considerations of scale, cost, and recourse use are also just as equally important but are most often what is sacrificed in the process. My personal view of the success of some of these types of projects largely depends on its return on investment not just for the owners, but also for its benefits for society and our planet. Throughout almost all of human history, we have endeavored to build amazing structures for all kinds of different reasons. Was Brunelleschi pushing the boundaries of the dome construction in Florence a waste? One must weigh the costs with the added benefits to society and human achievement and sacrifices are always necessary. There lies the importance of retrospective thought.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides to this argument. I definitely think some architects try to be unconventional just to do it and say they're different. However, we do need people in this field who think outside of the box and don't limit architecture to what we have been told it can be. Without the designers, like Koolhaas, we would just be building the same things again and again. For me, I do like my designs to have meaning and purpose behind them, but I do think that we need people in the field who think like Koolhaas to challenge what architecture can be so that our field does progress.
ReplyDelete