The real junkspaces are the buildings most often celebrated

The idea that the field of architecture and design more generally is often pretentious is not new or uncommon and while my previous posts have railed against the Modernists for their we-know-best attitude, perhaps best exemplified by the CIAM conferences defining what can even be considered "architecture," Koolhaas espouses a similar dismissiveness in his classification of junkspaces. It reduces useful spaces to places to be merely tolerated, or even suggests that we shouldn't tolerate them. I'm not one to argue for capitalism and commodification generally, but I also don't think we should pass such strict judgement on the places that have developed for their use. Especially in the 80s-90s-and 2000s, malls and similar spaces held functions beyond those of mere commercial exchange, even if that was the backdrop it was set against. Malls ands similar spaces provided a place for teens especially to go and socialise, to potentially escape difficult situations at home, and to exercise and test their freedom and independence. For those things alone I would argue against their classification as junkspace.

The condescending and pretentious attitudes that seem to abound in architecture, and the design fields more generally, seem to so often be celebrated rather than called out as what they are. Not every building needs to be a work of art, and in fact, they really shouldn't be as those vanity projects are often not very useful or accessible. If anything, I would say these celebrated monuments that spend money and resources for no reason beyond vanity should be considered junkspaces. The idea that architects or designers somehow know better than the people they should be designing for who have lived experience is just plain wrong. We can celebrate architectural achievements and innovation for those things, but we should not do so at the expense of the mundane architecture that forms the backdrop of human life.