Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A couple things that caught my ear. Not sure what to think of them yet:

How he said there's controversy in the project he mentioned at the beginning in Europe b/c the people there are weary of the "newness"

I thought it was interesting how he does not have a permanent home because he must live near his work

I didn't catch all of what he sad but he mentioned that America was too pragmatic for some reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Europe thing makes sense for the most part. With the exception of Frankfurt, I can't think of a big European city that has embraced large-scale modern architecture.

London has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century one building at a time.

Paris forces all the modern architecture to go sit in a corner by itself.

Spain? Dunno. Haven't been there.

Austria, Scandinavia, BeNeLux? Nope. Nope. Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Very interesting interview conducted by Marianne Wellershoff, of Der Spiegel, talks to Rem Koolhaas, Dutch Architect and founder of OMA (The Office of Metropolitan Architecture), about many topics ranging from his new building in Milan (Fondazione Prada), to preservation, to reuse, and demolition. As the top of the page reads:

 

Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas talks to SPIEGEL about the new Fondazione Prada museum he designed in Milan, the danger of turning cities into historical Disneylands and his desire to raze an entire neighborhood of Paris.

 

 

A very good read overall. Here were some good take away from the interview:

 

Spectacular Architecture vs. Intelligent Architecture

 

"KULTUR SPIEGEL: Not every functional building is worth retaining for aesthetic reasons. It's easier for architects to make a mark with an iconic new building than with a conversion.

Koolhaas: Our ambition has always been to create the most intelligent possible designs, not the most spectacular ones. With the Fondazione Prada we spent a great deal of energy mapping out the relationship between old and new. The outlines of the old structure's windows, for instance, are projected onto the half-transparent surfaces of the new building by daylight."

 

The Fate of Brutalism and Its Worth in Greater Architectural History

 

"KULTUR SPIEGEL: And what do you think of the concrete architecture of the 1960s, a style known as brutalism? Should it be protected or torn down?

Koolhaas: We should preserve some of it. It would be madness for an entire period of architectural history -- that had a major influence on cities around the world -- to disappear simply because we suddenly find the style ugly. This brings up a fundamental question: Are we preserving architecture or history?

KULTUR SPIEGEL: What is your answer?

Koolhaas: We have to preserve history. Future generations, after all, should understand the past. To achieve this, we need to selectively preserve history -- and a building can represent history. When you stroll through Rome, you embark on a journey through over 2,000 years of history. That's wonderful."

 

The Shift In Challenges, Urban Design, and Lifestyles

 

"KULTUR SPIEGEL: These days, many people prefer to live in old buildings than in new ones. Where does this trend come from?

Koolhaas: In my generation, it was all about tackling new challenges. We identified with the ideals of the French Revolution, namely liberty, equality and fraternity, and in that kind of culture, people were very interested in new things. The new generation is more concerned with comfort, security and sustainability. It is in keeping with this lifestyle that people want to live in buildings with a history."

 

The Decline in Government Financing of City Building

 

"KULTUR SPIEGEL: But taken together, skyscrapers determine a city's skyline. These buildings belong to private investors. How do you feel about the fact that hedge funds and super-rich investors have more influence on a city's atmosphere than the public sector?

Koolhaas: Before the 1980s, the decisions were made by cities. Since then power has shifted toward private investors. Nothing good has come of this for Holland. The area between Amsterdam and Rotterdam has been completely developed and connected with freeways lined with the predictable junk food restaurants. I regret that cities no longer have money to even pursue a vision of their ongoing development.

KULTUR SPIEGEL: Government agencies can still exert a great deal of influence through building permits and building regulations.

Koolhaas: Not as much as before, when they had enough money to build their own projects. But different cities take different approaches. Here in Rotterdam, investors are given a great deal of freedom. During Hans Stimmann's term as Berlin's building director, he kept a much tighter rein on what was built in that city."

 

To read these and the rest of his comments in the interview, link is below:

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-rem-koolhaas-about-the-fondazione-prada-a-1031551.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an interesting article, but a few takeaways from it:

- Most buildings have a 30, not 25 year lifespan, but that usually involves "without significant changes". You can renovate, remodel, or restore that, and that number will reset. Usually, most buildings tend to have at least a 100+ year functionally in terms of actual integrity, and even that's a guess. The original White House in Washington DC was rebuilt in the late 1940s under the Truman administration because the original 1820s White House (having been rebuilt after the British torched it) was in danger of collapse, having wooden floors and unauthorized additions (adding lofts, etc.--and a good way to ensure your building collapses is adding unauthorized floors. Back on subject, however, it is true that whole neighborhoods are basically demolished and rebuilt in that same timespan due to slowly rebuilding the housing stock.

- Despite his complicated "some buildings are useable and some are not" criteria, the proposal to renovate the factory did still hold true to the "lifespan" idea if you accept renovating, remodeling, or restoring, like replacing the windows with gold leaf (or something)

- I agree that the problem in Europe and Asia that's developing where enough buildings are being designated as UNESCO Heritage sites that it's impossible to build new stuff, but that's not a problem in America like it is elsewhere.

- Paris may have some ugly and outmoded buildings, but that doesn't mean that everything should be torn down, nor is it right to take the haughty position of "miserable and mediocre architecture because at the time aesthetics weren't taken into consideration". Well, to be fair, I don't really know what those buildings look like (European buildings built after WWII were especially ugly, at least Eastern Europe), but at least coming from a position where American architecture in the 1960s had its own flavor (and France being solidly Western Europe, would be heavily influenced by the United States), that seems highly ignorant, especially seeing as "modern" architecture seems to go out of date just as quickly, and some architects work without engineering, producing an expensive and highly problematic building.

- "A homogenization process like the one that takes place during gentrification is anti-urban." Yeah, I agree, that's why I hate townhomes.

- Koolhaas laments about the government no longer having as much control in building as it once did, which isn't bad. It was private investment that built most of the skylines in America (especially Houston), not governments.

- I wonder what Koolhaas would think of Houston? I mean, a lot of Brutalism has disappeared (some school in the Greenway Plaza area, I forgot what it was but it had a Costco as redevelopment) but some has remained and was renovated (Houston Post, Alley Theatre), with demolition and rebuilding happening on a pretty regular basis to form a constantly changing urban fabric.

- Another contradiction I noticed that wasn't talked about was when Koolhaas was complaining about chain restaurants along highways (gee, sounds familiar) he mentioned that "I regret that cities no longer have money to even pursue a vision of their ongoing development", but if there was a "vision", wouldn't that basically being homogenization of sorts, and he should just wait the 25 years (or less, restaurants tend to have a shorter "shelf life" than most other buildings) for something new to appear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I wonder what Koolhaas would think of Houston? I mean, a lot of Brutalism has disappeared (some school in the Greenway Plaza area, I forgot what it was but it had a Costco as redevelopment) 

 

The Taj Mahal!

 

1280px-HoustonISDWhiteHQ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interior architectural design of the HISD building was significant, as well. I was fortunate to experience it. 

I agree with the idea of preserving examples of architectural design. Design opinions can change over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interior architectural design of the HISD building was significant, as well. I was fortunate to experience it. 

 

Indeed. The interior was probably more interesting than the exterior. In the early 90s my job occasionally required me to visit an HISD department head who officed there, so I got to wander around inside quite a bit. It was an easy building to get lost in if you didn't already know your way around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Rem Koolhaas

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...