 |
Hong Kong, photography: Michael Wolf
|
It's undeniable the contemporary trend of cities to copy others' features/elements. Contemporary?
Since trade between different societies existed, globalization had started. Despite the idea of sharing has been with humanity for ages, for many times these cultural relationships were not developed in a peaceful way, like during European colonialism. Over that period, cultural sharing — or imposition — happened in many different levels, including in terms of space. Architecture in the Americas, for example, is, generally speaking, European architecture.
Then, is it bad architecture? Weren't the Americans (from all the Americas) able to adapt, recreate, add, subtract the European styles to meet their own needs? There are many examples that prove that they were, but even when the ones which are just style copies have their qualities and importance in the history of architecture.
So, if the generic is not a contemporary issue, why it's so obvious when you look at — almost — any major city today? I would say it is because of the last decades' rapid urbanization. World's urban population went from 0.7 billion in 1950 to 3.4 billion in 2009 (United Nations, 2010). How spaces could possibly be full of character and local identity when they were just built? Probably most of what humanity ever built was built in the last six decades. It's too much construction for such a short period of time.
Many questions can be raised from this theme, but, based on history, it's not a big deal to be generic. And, if there is, than it's just a matter of time and these spaces might generate their own identities.
But what is generic? We absorb Koolhaas’ definition without much thought. Everything that is not-specific is, in turn, generic?
ReplyDeleteIf we think that, according to a recent debate, only 2% of what is built could be considered Architecture, then can’t we say that architecture is never generic? But, if you agree with me, how to deal with the specific copies (Gehry, anyone?)??
I think that crying over the idea of identity and locality is a futile discussion - and that we could reach the next level of discussion. Koolhaas’ recognize it as the junkspac, maybe he is right, and that is what we do. As architects, I am sure that we can’t control the other 98% (and I would say, probably, that we shouldn’t either), but one particular scene keeps coming to my mind.
When Andy says to Miranda Priestly that she is averse to fashion, and is outside of its domain, Miranda promptly explains why her blue blouse supposedly “unfashionable" was a direct result of the decisions made in that same room, few seasons before.
Perhaps the only way to influence the built environment that architects have is being more Prada.
Generic City or Traditionalism is the same discussion. Both are based on image, one used by the global capitalism, the other used by the nation-states who insist on a past (and an identity) that is already gone. Both are image-based, equally superficial, both Prada. But nobody is answering the questions of Koolhaas: what are the "advantatges of blankness"? a new amnesia, a new "start from scratch" for everyone? If I have to define "generic", I would define it as the surrender of architecture to the laws of global capitalism. It is not about materiality, neither about aesthetics, it is about the fact that architecture has lost its sociological approach. When a typology is exported globally regardless the climatic constraints, regardless peolpe habitudes and memories, this architecture becomes more a tool of control than a shelter for people. We shouldn't forget that when we think which city or building we want in the future, we are also deciding who we want to become in the future. According to me, this is not a battle of stone versus glass, of prada versus prada, but a battle about us being recognized as citizens with a particular history, climate and habitudes and not as simple numbers. Assuming that identity and culture are shifting processes that are undergoing huge changes due to globalization, architects we should focus on understanding the new communities formed and design accordingly. We design not for a citizen frozen in the past, neither for a the citizen number X of capitalism. We design (as always we did) for people, and people, wheter we like it or no, have their own dreams and memories. And architecture should never silence them.
ReplyDelete