11/20/12

Identity

By: Denver Sells


            In a modernist city, the corporation building becomes a symbol of the city.  For instance, the Sony Center in Berlin, has become a great symbol in the city, and it also serves as a corporate center for the Sony corporation.  This has been the new norm since the 1950’s after the Second World War, with the construction of new flagship buildings.  This has always been of interest to me, for instance, I grew up in a small town, but I was still close enough to a medium sized city that has skyscrapers.  One of which, a brand new one, is owned by the local energy company: Duke Power, and is meant to be their flagship building and contribution to the skyline of Charlotte, North Carolina.  But, what happens when they run out of money due to the recession and have to lay off workers?  Simple, a new tenant moves in and takes over most of their building.  Bank of America, which has expanded out of has consolidated into this one building (after already having their own skyscraping flagship building as well,) has adopted this one as their home as well.  The interesting thing about this, is that it is still referred to as Duke Tower, even though Duke does not inhabit even half of it.  This brings in an interesting dichotomy of name branding a building, and who actually owns it and has the rights to it.
            Another thing we talked about in this lecture was the Vitra campus, with which I have a bit of a problem.  Specifically with the Zaha Hadid building.  To me, this is a complete failure as an architect.  A lot of my classmates respect Zaha Hadid and enjoy her architecture and her as a successful architect.  But I disagree; I feel that her fire station having not been designed to actually be functional shows a complete failure as an architect.  To me, an architect is supposed to design a space that is inhabitable and functional as its form, whether new construction or renovated space.  If it does not meet this functional need, then it is art.  Art is observed.  There is no function in art because there doesn’t need to be.  It is there simply to be, and that is its function.  Architecture is there to be used and Zaha Hadid did not meet this requirement.  So, her building now stands as an art piece.  This is not the only Zaha Hadid building I have seen either.  Her Modern Art Gallery in Cincinnati, Ohio is almost along the same lines, yet works because it is an art piece.  It is meant for art, therefore its function is to show off art, which it does quite effectively.  Her firehouse on the other hand, does not meet this, also this comes into fruition with several other “big name” architects, such as Corbusier’s Villa Savoye and Mis van der Rohe and several of his pavilions.  They start out as pieces of working architecture, but then are just too far extruded into the subconscious of their brains to create this new “radical” shape and idea, which ultimately does not work as its original function and ends up being an art piece, to be admired.  This is not architecture to me and thus why I have such a problem with this admiration of these projects as wonderful architecture pieces to be looked up to.









No comments:

Post a Comment