What's Up is Down
After today’s lecture about the designs of Rem Koolhaas and
specifically the Seattle Public Library, it left me thinking about the notion
of categorization of programs. I saw this project in person last summer, and
now knowing more about the design process I would have looked at it differently. In this project, Koolhaas
designed elements as a whole new architectural experience and did not fall into
simplicity. Instead, he designed what was conventionally designed high as low and
what was low as high, such as a mass of books on the top floors as opposed to
the lower. Additionally, he did not fall into specific categorizations of
programs, he integrated what would usually be “back of house” into mainstream spaces
throughout the project. In this way, books themselves could become a space for experience.
Because book storage is placed in a spiral, it creates connections between
certain elements on each floor and creates small private spaces, often used for
other uses today besides research. Another element to this project is the subversion
of the relation between patrons and librarians in consequence of the “backwards”
programming. Because section was the drive for the design, the section drawings
came first and then the plans, and as a result structural elements become
protagonists of form. Overall, I loved learning more about this building that I
had visited, and it made me completely rethink how I had originally thought
about programming in architecture.
I really enjoy the freedom that Koolhaas brings to design and the way we think about program and I feel like that's highlighted in the Seattle Public Library project. Designing in section seems to have created interest in the three-dimensional aspects of the design rather than just thinking in plan.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting after hearing about this building in today's lecture that designing in section seems to be an architectural theory in and of itself. Very similar to the "form follows function" ideology, there's almost a "plan follows section" ideology that's come about in architectural design and education.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clever to use programmatically necessary objects as a mechanism to create space. Flipping the conventional forms of a familiar program type is also an interesting method of design, although it begs the question, when do we implement practical, realistic spaces into these form-based moves that seem to be done just for the sake of flipping something? Sections are helpful tools for understanding spatial organization and roof forms, but so are plans, where people tend to experience architecture the most. This is my personal opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natalie here. I don't see the sense in flipping around program just for the sake of being different. But, how Laurel described the project is really interesting to me since she's visited the library in person. It seems like she didn't seem to notice the flip in program organization when she was there (without knowing what we know now). Maybe the natural human experience of a place lets us absorb new arrangements without confusion, as long as we're being observant of the spaces?
Delete