Design Issues

Zach Kaitz

Koolhaas states that the city can no longer be described within traditional categories of architecture, landscape and urban planning as exemplified in his model for Lille. This idea came from the new aspect of cities like New York that blurred lines between inside and outside space as well as public, work and private spaces. Just because you are in your apartment doesn’t mean people from work can’t see what you are doing. What does it mean when a billboards light resonance is part of your apartment? Koolhaas doesn’t care that these lines blur he is actually capitalizing on the fact that structures can group all types of spaces, its providing fluidity to the grid that seemed impossible. The combination of surrealistic fantasy with function was the second coming of manhattanism, the maximum amount of space used while also providing the dissociation of exteriors and interiors alluded to a city that never sleeps. Koolhaas continues his vision of the lumping of spaces as inevitable; towns where everyone works for the same company and the company provides all aspects of living within their community including daycare and car care. When a laboratory and an art gallery can be in the same building imagine the possibilities of collaborations! I thought that Koolhaas had determined using bigness and variety of space to be designed to “reclaim maximum possibility” of the area. His reanalysis of his analysis of what could happen has led him to reinterpret grids and stacked spaces to add new conversation in the surfer world. As for Bigness I think he was going for spectacle and a city inside a city. Cities civilians, structures and vehicles are constantly moving and changing making instability the stable force.
So Bigness makes mini-cities in cities to breakdown the instability so less people bump into each other? This whole bigness thing is a bit confusing.
Shopping used to be the last activity that people had to go outside and “hunt”. I think shopping is really our last link to hunting for food, if you had a better weapon or more skills you got a better meal. Today no one has to leave their home to shop but on average it takes longer than going to town or downstairs or whatever. I would rather go to the apple store and buy my computer there so once I’ve paid for it I can play with it immediately. People don’t all go to the mall to shop even though most buy something. Children will not buy toys online – their face lights up when they see the Disney store or Kay Bee, they’re attracted to the packaging and graphics. Shopping online is a good thing but I do not think it will takeover. Farmer Markets shouldn’t have websites.
I enjoyed the idea that a store can be a museum and vice versa. Most people’s favorite stores have relics and merchandise, reminding you why you associate with the merchandise or the store in general. The LEGO store has glass boxes showcasing the first Lego types to Star War Legos.
 

I think that Koolhaas's ideas for combining traditionally different companies/governing bodies/ect is a more of a relection of how how our society is changing. There is mention of the superstore... one store for all your needs, like the walmart superstore that sells food, clothes, toys, outdoor equipment... its one stop shopping. I feel like Koolhaas's building in Lille is the same way. You can visit congress, the expo center, and whatever else have you.. all in one stop. However, I do agree that everything needs to be carefully designed and planned, and there needs to be flow within the "zones."
And while I feel this is mostly a product of a technology dependant and increasingly lazy society, it does open up the possiblily for innovation and collaboration. Much like Zach stated in his post, the combination of of an art gallery and lab could potentially produce something amazing.
But for the idea of the superstore or the mall going eventually fading out, i don't think that it will happen anytime in the near future. Many people go to the mall for what is the "ritual" of shopping. They go for something to do, as a form of entertainment. Others may just enjoy the "hunt" of finding just what they need, but in the most logical sense, many people like to actually see what they are buying, not just a picture on the internet. As an internet shopper, I feel that buting items online and waiting for them can be annoying, shipping charges, and worrying about providing credit info also take away from teh experience. and thats just it, for some people, shopping is an experience. Many like to go to the flee market on the weekends, or to the farmers market during lent... going shopping for a prom dress, or a wedding dress... many of these things are considered tradtion or a right of passage... so while the superstore may become more super and the megamall more mega, I feel that this is one aspect where computational technology will not take over.
 

oops forgot my name. ^^^

Kelli Dochstader
 

Brigid Gallagher


Architectural "bigness" and monumentality are concepts that are changing because of the changing contexts surrounding them, that is, human behavior. Architecture as a discipline has changed over time, just as society has changed over time. Old fashioned city centers were constructed in traditional ways (small storefronts, etc.) because they offered many products, services, etc.: necessities for people who could get them nowhere else. This set-up also allowed for human interaction on a wide scale because cities used to bring all these people together for these reasons (shopping, dining, entertainment etc.) Then we saw a trend out of the cities, when many people moved into the suburbs. It was only inevitable that new shopping and social centers would be built, but without the grid of the cities and with the advent of new inventions (such as air-conditioning and escalators) now these places took on new organizational patterns and became a new experience all together.
I think it is also interesting to note that not only is shopping itself changing because of the use of the internet and mail-order, but also, with the advent of other new technologies, human interaction is changing. Go down to your local Starbucks or to the mall, and notice how many people are detached from the actual physical environment they are in. Many are on cell phones, laptops, etc. Too busy text messaging or listening to the iPod to participate in the environment around them. Our collective focus has shifted from what is going on in front of us, to focussing on what is going on everywhere else. We do not live and interact in the way that people did 50 or even 20 years ago. We do not form friendships and bonds with the people immediately around us, or in our direct community because we are distracted in so many ways. Besides, why make real friends when you can just live vicariously through the "characters" on reality television? Maybe they are our new "friends"!?!
In the context of architecture, we used to think of the skyscraper as a conglomerate of offices: people working together in these spaces, which is an aging idea, since now many business transactions and "working together" can be done online. Same with the shopping center or megastore, the context has changed already, and I think it will continue to do so. This idea of "bigness" is a little far-fetched, in my opinion. I think it would be hard to decide what to include or leave out in these little "bubbles" of architectural space. The concept of blurring traditional lines of architectural space is interesting but risky, especially now at a time when we are developing new technologies so rapidly that we really cannot predict how they will change us and our everyday behavior(s).
 

David Bellari

When reading these articles I was reminded of a television show I saw this past week. The shows' focus was on the immense structure and diverse insides of the Mall of America. It went on to inform the viewer of the different buisnesses that the mall contained. Inside this "mall" there is a Buisness School, a Highschool, a themepark, and what seems like an endless amount of retailers. If one were to stop at every place of buisness, it would take over four days to do so. The far different buisnesses in this mall are held together by the term "mall." They are all blended into one place. Whens the last time you could go shopping at the grocery store in the same building you could get your highschool degree. This mall says alot about our society and where it is going. We are obsessed with the convienent and the easily obtainable. Society is also obsessed with anything immense or huge. The idea of the "biggest" (or the "best") is a popular one.
Koolhaas' ideas are all around us. His architecture, landscape, and urban planning are being utilized in creating the new.
His Lille contains the same basic ideas as the Mall of America, one place for all your needs even if it does not make sense as to why.
 

Alyssa Crick

Historical notions of "bigness" are constantly changing. The ideas fathomed in the past physically exist around us, but we continue to imagine concepts of space and the constant replacement of what is "new." Cities continue to grow in all directions, but as original space runs out, architecture utilizes old spaces to create new ones. The future "bigness" of the city may not exist in monumental skyscrapers because that idea isn't new anymore. Spaces like Lille demostrate how individuals such as Koolhaas imagine the future. The tremendous amount of growth that has occurred in cities throughout the last 100 years is phenomenonal, and the old ideas of skyscrapers are inevitably going to be replaced with something else. New spaces are especially exciting if they embody new ideas. Artists such as those described in "Strangely Familiar Design" have taken this idea of future space, but drawn it in the opposite direction. Big is not the goal, but small, and portable, and extremely functional. A home that can fit in your pocket may not be immediately adopted by society, but the concept of it sparks countless ideas about how we live and how we will live 100 years from now. Poplations are growing, along with consumerism and our demand for more of everything, yet space on earth is quickly being devoured. New alternatives will need to be developed, and "bigness" may not always be the answer.
 

Niki Zengerle

Reading this article about “bigness”, and thinking about giant structures containing every service and amenity you might require, puts me in mind of old television shows like Deep Space Nine. Rem Koolhaas' vision of bigness seems to translate ultimately into a kind of giant superdome, like an orbiting space station, that contains everything you could possibly need to survive. I think that if we truly embraced Rem Koolhaas' vision of “bigness” we would eventually live our entire existence inside one big mall- a sort of mini city that was completely contained inside an exterior dome. David's description of the mall of America illustrates this concept exactly. Rather than living in the City of Buffalo, we'll eventually live in the “Buffalo Mall Arena”. People won't need to leave unless they are visiting relatives in other Malls. I also agree with Kelli though, I don't think that we will ever embrace “bigness” to the point that we eliminate the shopping experience in favor of a bigger experience like online buying. Human beings are tactile creatures, and unless we eliminate our senses entirely I think we will always want experiences where we can actually touch the products we desire. The same way that people go to an Internet café, instead of just signing on at home, we are social creatures and shopping is a social enterprise. People go to malls, and movies, and Starbucks when they are alone but want to be surrounded by others. I think we are actually going to end up turning the idea of bigness around on ourselves. We will live and work and go to school in the “malls” for the sake of convenience, and then venture out into little park-like areas that contain individual shops to do our browsing and treasure hunting for recreational enjoyment. Eventually I think we are going to become tired of the idea of bigness, and like the fashion industry, which continues to revisit and reinvent styles form previous eras, we are going to opt for reinventing the idea of small personal space.
 

Kristina Nosal

When i was reading the articles i kept thinking about this lecture i went to at the Albright last semester, Karim Rashid. Although he seemed like a very cocky ignorant man, he was showing us the hotel he was building in Athens, Greece. He doesnt use alot of sharp shapes, becuase he doesnt like corners, everything was very curvey, and bright. Apparently he stubbed his toe a few too many times, and now he doesnt want corners.
It looked like an unbelieveable hotel. It had alot of digitally generated designs, along with an iris scanner for check in, and electronic message boards outside of your room. It is very modern, bright and curvliniar. The structure in general looks modern, box like, the usual hotel, but with a bit more color, There are corners on the hotel, but everything on the interior is designed cornerless.
Basically this hotel has everything, you have no reason to leave your room. I can't quite decide if its a good thing to haev the convience of going shopping to one place to buy everything, or if its nice to have to go to a few different stores. I feel like we are becoming so lazy as human beings that its rediculous! Before supermarkets, people had to go to a deli, a butchers, produce stands etc to get all their grocerys now we drive 1/2 a mile and we are at a Wegmans, that is huge and you can even get hot food as you shop--Along with your christmas tree, and all your holiday needs. One thing i do not like about that is it is taking business away from the small businesses/privately owned shops. Everything is becoming corporate.
 

Our culture has been consumed by the connivence, on the go, the faster the better, give it now or in 1-2 business days services. Technology today has turned into the bigger and the BIGGER, it matters not how more convenient things can be made for the average person. The obsession lies with in " how can I make this better" . Society is so engrossed with making things better that it doest matter anymore about the consumer. This might be a stretch to say that all "bigness" is because of the concept of change for changes sake but how much more convinces do we really need? We can now purchase things like mail order brides from Russia over the computer. Wether it is shopping online or in a mall that offers everything, people get a high off of the purchase which is something that will never change. Personally I only buy items off the computer when I can't get it in a store. It also makes people nervous buying things online because you never know how it really looks in person. For these reason the shopping experience no matter how convenient it is made will always dominate to the consumer.

Carolynn
 

Greg Everhart

In dealing with the structural “bigness” of the city and the changes that are taking place in the architectural landscape, city planners need to grapple with the new problem of the virtual human. The internet has brought everyone closer without moving them an inch and the city planners of the present and future need to address this problem of getting people out of the house, or there won’t be a need to have a planned architecture to a city or suburb. When people experience life through their living room, there isn’t a compulsion to go and explore and marvel at the beauty of the structures that exist when everyone can program a 3d model of whatever they can dream up, with no structural limitations or physical constraints to conform to. These pasty humans will have no need for architecture in a grand sense, they will only need a space saving housing structure that will be adequate for their immediate living needs.
Bigness and monumentality are doomed even from a technical or evolutionary point of view. As technology develops the gadget gets smaller. Also, mirroring evolution, as the dinosaurs became more successful, they grew to enormous proportions, but as they got to the pinnacle of their existence and their environment changed, they had to decrease in size in order to survive and adapt to the new situation; not become extinct (ie: birds).
Architects, such as Koolhaas needed to become chameleons to survive the present business climate and in this necessary duality have found solace in their work.
 

I understand that kalhoos saw there was a need to push architecture to innovate from the city's grid strucuture and its astaounding building heights, that due to the September 11th tragedy became pretty representative of dangerous space. So he thinks Bigger, not necesarily taller, but more inclusive of unrelated entities, similar to the citys architecture. An ideal place that provides consumers with everything from services to products, in one spot. But I agree with Brigid that although convenient the idea is risky. the idea of a mini city is a bit claustrophobic. And I feel society insists on enclosing itself alone into confined spaces.
As I finished reading this article I realized that it seems that everyone is preparing for the innevitable. Blockbuster now has a service that delivers movies to you mailbox for your convenience. This is a very comfortable idea, one doesnt even have to return the movie at a blockbuster location, instead we mail it right back to them. I understand how fanatically our society is entering and embracing the world of online shopping and door-to-door mailed products, but I also agree with several of my class peers that the shopping experience is far from being obsolete. I believe a lot of people are and will be overly influenced by this convenience of online access to a million things, but I dont believe it will eradicate the bigger idea that going out 'shopping' represents: the special feel of unwinding, experiencing the new and familiar of other different spaces (open and closed), and interacting with the people with whom we share this considerably large space with.

Katty Marte
 

I meant Koolhass...
Katty
 

Eda Karahan

In my opinion I think that architecture has become over the top. Everyone is obsessed; just like Rem Koolhass with the idea of bigness and monumentality. There is no more concern with the consumers interest, the bigger concern is "the bigger the better". Convenience has taken over as well, sooner or later we'll never leave our houses to do a single thing. As technology grows, architects plan to make everything emensely over-powering. Everything is on the go, the faster the better, the bigger the better, almost coming down to peoples state of mind being "either now, or never" basically. What I mean by "now or never" is that they want what they want NOW, and if it can't be in their hands or at their convenience NOW, then NEVER or forget it, they don't want it. Everyone and everything is in competition, now a days nothing else matters...skyscrapers, houses, businesses, etc..have become so wrapped up in bigness and monumentality they've lost the whole idea of architecture. I dont know if it'll ever really change, and go back to the appreciation of the art of architecture, I guess we'll have to wait and see.