Building upon a short Wednesday evening presentation he gave at Rice, Koolhaas opened with discussion of historical preservation, a topic that elicited mixed emotions for the architect while, at the same time, offered a window into his approach to the built environment.
"Preservation is a highly artificial term," he explained. "History happens and leaves its traces . . . I have to say, I prefer history without preservation."
— houston.culturemap.com
15 Comments
I think Koolhaas has always been a bit too ironic for my tastes. He doesn't seem to have any core convictions... he studies Metabolism or Preservation to see if he can steal any tricks but he doesn't really believe in anything. His work is like a Tarantino movie, a collage of style that don't generate from any idea of place, culture or humanity.
Who are you exactly to be judging the 'core convictions' of anybody? A milqtoast posting comments like 'Koolhaas is too ironic for my tastes' ought to check their own core in the mirror. Write something comparable to Delirious New York, or even better, read it, instead of weighing in on the 'collage of style' that is Rem Koolhaas.
What I'm saying is that Koolhaas is a stylist--who believes that style and context are separate. Many designers believe this but I don't (he wrote about the CCTV "it's subtext is f--- context." Which could be translated to f--- the chinese people. Why create a building that the media loves but the chinese people mock and loathe?). Part of the reason why Wang Shu won the pritzker was because he has an opinion about that kind of architecture which also informs his own design.
Part of being a designer is in taking a stand for something. This is the very meaning of 'having a core'. How are you supposed to create if you can't respond to what you value and what you don't? I wouldn't make a career out of just criticizing people, but just because someone published a book doesn't give them a free pass. Sarah Palin has published too, but I don't take her words as sacred.
Also note to OMA: charts, maps and graphs are meaningless when divorced from humanity and culture
Rem Koolhouse is a hustler. He dosen't believe in preservation, but in his mannicured Holland, many a historic towns are preserved in Amber. I'd love to see his flippant additude turn on a dime it they proposed to teardown the heart of Amsterdam for one of his phony creations from an equally ironic competitor.
They train architects to be hustlers, to say outlandish things with a depressive face so that somehow it'll seem plausible. No one can top LeCorbusier's plans to destroy the heart of Paris, but today's modernist l'enfant teribble's give him a run for his money.
Preservation in Houston....how ironic!
Koolhaas has done a lot of great writing, but it's ridiculous (and yes, maybe forced) to assert that preservation is an evil. Society will preserve what it values and will replace what it doesn't value. Not to stereotype (though Koolhaas would do the same when it comes to cities) but Europeans seem to resent their history and value the dumb-vibrance of America (as they see it). While Europeans may take their historic buildings for granted, Americans have to hold onto whatever history they have in an unrelenting creative destruction around us. But now, more people are moving away from the suburbs and back into the cities.
And yes, I think Koolhaas would have a much different view of the matter if Amsterdam or Rotterdam were being demolished for new developments.
darkman, i agree with you regarding RK, but am puzzled by your comment that 'charts, maps, and graphs, are meaningfless when divorced from humanity and culture.'
why is that?
Darkman,
I have very little interest in defending Koolhaas or getting into an argument... but... As someone who actually heard him speak on the matter of preservation, it is painfully obvious to me that you have not, and you are making very strong and passionate arguments based on a paragraph summary of his talk. Your descriptions and conclusions of his thoughts on preservation are entirely wrong.
miesian and jk3hl--- I think that RK can take overexagerrated stances that aren't accurate, and they can have real consequences (I'm just a young designer, so I don't have that same clout, but I can comment on an archinect board)! I'm actually familiar with the admittedly more nuanced approach of RK regarding preservation--however, the main crux (as the media regurgitates it), does solidify as anti-preservation, despite his defense of 70s architecture.
Paul Golderberger wrote about a year ago on the same type of RK talk, "I tend to think that this fear is exaggerated, and that the real characteristic of the architectural culture of this time isn’t that it’s imprisoned by preservation, but that it has co-opted the avant-garde."
The fact is there is no concrete theory on preservation for a reason, because society judges for itself what it values and doesn't, not architects or media people. If society decides that 12% of architecture is worth saving, then that is what it has chosen. But RK nor anyone else can make that decision because they don't have to live with the reality or consequences of it. Maybe the need isn't for RK to come up with a grand theory on what should be preserved, but instead a system where people can better choose what is working for them and doesn't--the best way we have now is Capitalism, but there are other tools that can help. RK might disagree and favor Totalitarianism (see: CCTV).
As far as charts and graphs are concerned, RK seems to draw specific lessons from in regards to his own architecture (like the Maison a Bordoux, still my favorite OMA building because it is the most humane), but when it comes to learning about cities (like Houston) he studies charts, maps and looks at the city from an airplane window. Delirious New York was good because he actually wrote it as a younger, more open person, from the ground level. See my point?
Also, I'm hard on CCTV and love Maison a Bordeaux is because of ethics. The CCTV is a well designed gun. It will cause harm on a great number of people. On the other hand, the Maison a Bordeaux is designed for the purpose of helping just one person and for this reason it is much larger and greater than the CCTV.
But it all goes back to whether you believe that style and form is separate from ethics. If you make this separation, it allows you do become an engineer of design that has bad effects.
Keeping a bunch of old shit isn't "humane"
Rem is simply being the journalist again pointing out that preservation has become like hoarding.
seems to me like post rationalization. He is defending his position with an ideal that fits his past doings, future aspirations, and position as a global architect. He is a global architect, so he must create a globalist ideology to justify his position. If he was a local architect he would preach regionalism, If a local architect was a global architect he/she would preach globalism. We invent ideology to justify our art. As architects we just want to build great shit but society demands rational behind our decisions so we give it to them . What is the song about? What is that painting representing? Most artists just paint what they want and then fill in the narrative to please the wide eyed chicken hawks. If preservation gets in the way of our vision, or threatens to delegitimize our doings, then we just create a theory to rationalize it. Its easy. Humans are selfish apes. At the end of the day we all just want to be great. This is why ideology is stupid imo. Just admit that we are driven primarily by our desire to create great art, and to be great, not to fullfil some deep agenda. If I want to build with 4 foot thick concrete walls, and some environmentalist says that it has a huge embodied energy footprint, then I just claim that it will last for 2000 years, divide the footprint by 2000, and twist the logic to ease my burden. If Romney can get more votes by changing his position on abortion he does so because his primary goal is to one day have his face on a coin. I laugh when people elevate the human species past these natural tendencies.
"As soon as you look at the world through an ideology you are finished. No reality fits an ideology. Life is beyond that. ….”
I agree with Jia-x, that many designers, architects, architects or any ambitious people want to be great and will build a theory to justify what benefits their career and perspective. But, the stakes are higher in design than art (a purer expression of idea or form). Design has to live in the world. We have to live with their discussions. To be a designer is to have empathy--to not is a contradiction of terms. If you are not designing for people but for magazines or worse an evil purpose like totalitarianism than you are not a designer but an asshole.
There is no such thing as "Global" architecture or "Regional" architecture, and old and new are not a measure of quality. Whether using modern or old materials, measures of quality are: how does it relate to its context, use, and people? (Firmness, commodity and delight) Again, look at the CCTV for contrast--it's an extremely elitist, off putting use of modern engineering, hovering above the city like an unwanted stranger looking over your back. But the Seattle Library is an open, inviting structure, built for a noble purpose.
I give Corbusier credit because he was at least ethically and poetically minded when he naively designed those towers, because (with many modernists) thought they were cleaning up the dirty slum of the city. In a way RK is similar, cleaning up the old for the new, but his criteria seems to be only stylistic, not quality.
But also, if we are going to live in a "post-empathy" society than I guess Romney is the president for our times.
Just look at the difference between the Seattle Library and CCTV if you want to argue about how style and context are separate. It reminds me of a quote, "style is substance called to the surface."
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.