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