Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Koolhaas

    Uploaded by

    Ksenija Pantovic
    43 views11 pages
    Koolhaas architecture

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Koolhaas architecture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    43 views11 pages

    Koolhaas

    Uploaded by

    Ksenija Pantovic
    Koolhaas architecture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 11
    KIM DOVEY AND SCOTT DICKSON University of Melbourne Architecture and Freedom? Programmatic Innovation in the Work of Koolhaas/OMA The work of Rem Koolhaas/OMA has long been identified with the attempt to break with architec- tural ideologies embodied in spatial programs. Programmatic innovations include the production of fields of social encounter, new functional juxtapositions, and forms of spatial segmentation. These are designed to resist the role of architecture in reproducing social roles and structures — to enable certain freedoms. This paper is a spatial analysis of two recent projects that reveal both achievements and limits to this project. Koolhaas’s work succeeds through a certain magic; and some of the free- doms are illusory. Introduction Koolhaas’ designs ae blatantly straightfor- ward... [O]ne and only one cultural aim ives the work... to discover what real, between orchtecture and freedom. Kins! ‘The success ofthe work of Koolhaas/OMA in professional discourse rests strongly onthe claim to be an architecture of emancipation. This paper is an examination of this claim and a critique of two of his buildings through the lens of an adapted method of spatial syntax analysis. This may seem an odd coupling because spatial syntax analysis, as, developed by Hilie and Hanson, isa stucturalst critique of buldings and urban structures that would surely be anathema to Koolhaas.’ Yet our adaptation of such methods isnot intended to be reductionist. Rather, i is an interagation and exca- vation of the spatial program and a ctque of the ‘ways in which architectural ideologies may have been deconstructed, reconstructed, o* reproduced Todo this, we wil fist set aside any formal citque of Koolhaas’s work except as it informs this task, ot because such formal expression is any less inter- esting oF innovative, but because it is better theorized, Indeed, its all that many erties see of his wrk Buildings as Spatial “Fields” The works of OMA have been termed the “social ‘condensers of our time.“* This reflects a return to the early moderist imperative toward an architec ture that would remake the habitat and habits of everyday if. However, this is not a return to the socal engineering reflected in ideas like the “socal condense” Rather, it sa vision fueled by the formal and social multiplicities of urban life, a vision reflected in the name of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, which we ead as both an architecture of the metropolis and an insertion of the metropolis into the architecture. Koolhaas's work is strongly ordered by trajectories of movement through the builing. The role of vertical movement via escala~ tors, stairs, ramps, and lifts isa key to the order that is st up, as they become the modes of access to fields of encounter or “event-filds” Koalhaas is inspired by the notion of an architecture of libera- tion in terms ofthe multiple “freedoms” for new forms of action that architecture is seen to make possible. Space is programmed for indefinite func tion and chance encounter. Koolhaas seeks an architecture that can resist the imperative to become a diagram of social and institutional struc ture, which he tems soci mimesis. For Kipns, Koolhaas’s version of “freedom’ isnot an overt resistance to authority but rather a fm of programmatic sabotage: Self Acc Eduction More ikea sadist than a surgeon, he has begun to knife the brie, hacking away its at even its flesh, until he has exposed its nerve... The focus on these reductions is always on dlsestablishment, that, aways on excising the residues inthe project oF un ‘warranted authority, unnecessary governance {and tired convention. Reductive dsestabish- ‘ment provides the crucial stratagem in each of Koolhaas recent projects, the intellectual ‘modus operandi by which the architect begins to transform the design into an instrument of freedom, Koolhaas seeks an architecture that encourages an iruption of events, social encounters, and opportu rites for action. Rather than designing with a particular hierarchy of spaces and narratives of spatial movement in mind, he generally works towards a spatial structure that allows a multiplicity ‘of choices for pedestrian flow and encounter. Koo hhaas wants to “liquefy rigid programming into non-specific flows and events... to weave together exterior, Interior, vestigial ané primary spaces into a frank ciferentil matrix that rds the bulding of the hackneyed bourgeois niceties of cosmetic hierar his." Koolhaas often designs interiors af they were exteriors, importing lessons from exterior urban 1 Soe ra Une Fos a ets space into interior space. These interiors ae often designed as fields of play or atifcal landscapes that dissolve boundaries between inside and ‘outside, between architecture and metropolis. Such spaces ae often functionally open and visually transparent to maximize social encounter. Jameson situates Koolhaas’s workin the context of the prevaling socal dalectcs of publiity/privacy and freedom/ contol in what he terms the post-cil society, He suggests that Koolhaas’s work enables patterns of free play within a rigid spatial order the originality of Koolhaas is that his work oes not simply glory differentiation in the conventional plurals ideological way: rather he insists on the relationship between this randomness and freedom and the presence of some rigid, inhuman, non-diferentiated form that enables the differentiation of what goes (on around it? Thar is an intersting connection herewith what Aen suggest is sh in architectural thinking from a focus onthe architectural obec to 2 fous on field relation, paralleling the development of field theory in mathematics & field consists of contingent relations forces, trajectories, and patterns of movernent such as those that gover a flock of bids. Alen describes eld conditions as “any formal spatial atx capable of unyng diverse elements while respecting the identity of each... Fieldcondtions ae btton-up phenomena: defined nat by overarching geometrical Schema butbyintiate local connections” The fields a material condtion rather than a dscutsive practic. Allen draws analogies between fied theory and architectural attempts to encourage a sporta= nelty of action. He suggests tat systems with “permeable Boundaries, lexbleintrralrelaton- ships, mile pathways and uid hierarchies are capable of responding to emerging completes of new urban contexts.” A major innovaion in Koo haa’ wok les inthe extent to which he has a Cy Linear Pian. Fanned or Branching Plan Permeable Network ‘or Ringy Plan Linear Fanned or Networkor Syntax Branching Syntax Ringy Syntax utilized such strategies inthe interiors of buildings ‘where they contibute towards the emergence of new kinds of social space. The promise here is that the fild-like nature of Koolhaass work opens up the work to multiplicities of experience and action This idea of the building as 2 “field” rather than an architectural object entails a shit in critique from forr to spatial analysis. To what extent do these designs restructure socal space or reproduce familiar spatial structures? Spatial Syntax Methods of spatal syntax analysis, ist developed by Hiller and Hanson represent an attempt to reveal a deep social structuring of architectural space. From tis view buldings operate to consi tute socal organizations as spatial disposition; architecture mediates socal reproduction though spatal “genotypes.” These are not forma types or archetypes but custrs of spatial segments struc {ured in certain formations with ytactic ules of sequence and adjacency. Genotypes ae seen as institutionally nd epstemolagcally embeded. The foams of schools, offices and houses are reproduced from a limited number of spatial genotypes. Each of thes linked to spec soci institutions (school corporation, fais) embodying forms of knowiedge produation, and reproduction. The work of Hler dane Hanson i widely perceived wth the Rel of architecture as positivist and reductionist. though we share some ofthese concerns, Koolhaas programmatic imevtions demand analysis and critique in terms of the link between spatial struc- ‘ure and institutional authority. Syntactic analysis is the most sophisticated available, Not enough space is availabe here for mare than a cursory account of spatial syntax, and there area range of analysis techniques. Our analysis i 2 loose adaptation of syntactic analysis that translates the building plan into a diagram of how life anc social encounter is framed within i Figure 1 shows haw similar plans with different access points yield quite different syntactic structures and ilus- trates tee primary cluster relations: the string (or ‘enfilade) with no choice of pathway, the fan (or branching) structure with access controled from a single segment, and the rnay network or permeable structure with multiple choices of pathway. Archi- tecture inevitably involves combinations ofthese the, The linear syntax is an enflade of spaces with controlled movement, which is common in tradi- tional centers of power (such as Versailles) and in some mader retail bulings (with an entry at one tend and an exit atthe other)” The network syntax is fined by a choice of pathways and is often called permeability. The fan is characteristic of ‘bureaucratic organizations with large numbers of cells controlled by a hallway. When a linear syntax is combined with 2 Fan, the result tree a linear seties of fans. key dimension of syntactic analysis 's the degree of network connectivity or “inginess” versus a tee-Ike hierarchy of spatial contol. The network structure is defined by its multiple and lateral connections, many possible pathways edb idiliabrnemettaaae. through it, and dispersed control. Tree-tikestruc~ tures conti} cieulation and social interaction in certain key access spaces. Thus, a hallway of foyer thats the only access to a cluster of rooms has @ high evel of control over the fon of everyday life. ‘The permeable network or rngy structure offers, ‘many possible pathways and diverse encounters; the flow of life through space is only loosely controlled ‘Another key characteristic is the depth or shal~ lonness of any segment from the nearest extemal entry paints and the overall depth of the structure. A deep structure requires the traversing of many segments with many boundaries and points of contro. The diagrammatic method shows the spatial segments ofthe building layered int levels of depth so thatthe level ofa space indicates the shortest route from the exterior. Depth s an impor- tant mediator of social relations both between Inhabitants (kinship relations or organizational hiet- archies) and between inhabitants and vistors. Domestic space is often structured along age (adult/eid) and gender divisions ints deeper Segments, wile mediating contact between insiders and visitors in shallower space. The syntax of dsc plinary institutions (prison, hospital, asyium, school, and factory) locates subjects under surveillance deep within the structure." Many contemporary buildings, those of Kool- haas among them, are designed with flowing and Fragmented spaces, pursuing deliberate ambiguities of enclosure, visibility, and permeability. What happens to spatial genotypes when they are subjected to such tactics, and does syntactic anal- ysis make sense when space is nt clearly ‘segmented? It sour view thatthe analysis s worth the effort so long as it is coupled with a serous \waming about the status ofthe diagrams. The siagrams are not plans they are designed to reveal ‘the modes of access and canal through the spatial structure. The diagrams have a mimetic relationship to the plan but are not mechanically derive from it foxes on the diagrams include both separate rooms and semi-separatd spatial fields. They are neces: sarly interpretive, but they have an empirical basis In the lows of movement through the buildings For our purposes here, the diagrams should not be read mechanically but s fields of sociospatial encounter. ‘The spatial structure f a “structuring structure” of what Bourdieu terms the habitus, the embodied divisions and hierarchies between things, persons, and practices that construct the social wor. Our “positions” within buildings lend us our “disposi tions” in social ife; the spatial “dhision” of our world becomes a “Vision” of our word. The build- ings we inhabit, our habitat, our spatial habits, all reproduce our social word. Syntactic analysis opens ‘up many questions. What kinds of agency are ‘enabled and constrained by the particular building (genotype within which it structured and whose interests are served? How is everyday fe bracketed and punctuated into sociospatially framed situations and locales? How does achitectute frame the socal gaze through structured realms of visiblity? What regimes of normalization are enforced and in whose interest? Hiller distinguishes between “long” and “short” (or deep and shallow) models of interior space: the lang model conserves and reproduces status and hierarchy, whereas the short model generates new possibilities for social relations: A ritual i along model social event, since al that happens is governed by rules, and a tual typically generates a precse system of spatial telationships and movements through time. ‘A party isa short model event, since its object Isto generate new relationships by shufing them in space, and this means tat rules must be minimized by using a spatial “short model.” In short mode! situation, space evolves to stuetute, and often to maximise, encounter density. ‘A permeable network of spaces and the open plan have long been inked to practices oF social freedom, yet any confiation of physical enclosure with social constraint, or of open space with bert, is. dangerous one. Buildings ae increasingly called ‘upon to produce anilsion of freedom coupled with the realty of control and survelance. Tans parency may be used to couple a proiferting gaze with diminishing access.” And freedom of associa tion within a particular social group can build the Socal capital of that group vs-B-vs other groups. This is what Hiller and Hanson term the correspon- dence mode! of urban space in which spatial zones “correspond” to social groupings. High corespor- ence is when all those who share a spatial zone aso share 2 social label A high level of corespor= dence is relatively deterministic of patterns of social encounter: space operates to exclude random encounter and to keep “difference” at distance. A non-correspondence system will mix people of Giferet social identity; is a spatial model that breeds encounter with difference, There isa social logic to the boundary between exterior and interior space in that interior space is mote strongly struc- tured and segmented: the carrespandence mode! prevalls with a primary function inthe reproduction oF social relations. Ths Is countered by the non correspondence model more common in exterior space. Each of these i in contradiction: random encounter would undermine the socal repeaduetive function of interior space, and the determinism of Interior structures would kill urban diversity. Ths i precisely what happens in urban space when tree- like genotypes (such as the housing enclave) invade public space. Koolhaas is attempting the apposite, Playing with this tension between inside and outside, using the encounter structures of urban Space to effect innovations in interior space This attempt at 2 forced fit between spatial fields and spatial syritax is surely a contentious issue ‘and one which we cannot deal with at ary length here. The concept of space is very slippery and changes meaning between disciplines and between different ideologies within architectural theory. in general terms, Hiller’ definition is more empirical and materialist, whereas Koolhaas appears to adopt @ Deleurian epistemology incorporating ideals of smooth space"® Yet the wotk ofboth rests upon shared claims about the importance of social encaunter and shared concems for architecture as “machine.” We now move toa spatial analysis of two of Koolhaas’s recently completed projects Factory of Learning: ‘The Educatorium at Utrecht ‘The Educatorium for the University of Utrecht was completed in 1997; it houses a cafeteria, two large lecture theaters, and a custer of examination rooms, (See Figure 2.) According to the project architect's statement, it was conceived asthe hub of ' campus servicing Fourteen Facuities and research facilis, a “rendezvous and exchange point, creating 4 new canter of gravity” which sto “embody the university “experience the socal encounters of the cafeteria space, the leaning and exchange in the auditria/classrooms, and the Individual tes of passage played out in the exami- ation hal." There was a deliberate attempt to ‘generate diverse fooms of sacal encounter in the bulding: “seeking potential overap between the programs and encouraging exchange between the users of its diverse functions, whist allowing a pragmatic and nearly autonomous use of individual spaces. This architec’ statement introduces a series of key phrases and metaphors that have become the primary frameworks of citique in other Journals The characteristic blurting of inside and Dutsde in OMA projects i described through the ‘metaphor of the “synthetic landscape.” The entry to the building is described as a ted ground plane and urban plaza thet then continues as an interior sloping “field” upon which the two auditora are placed lke Figues ina landscape. This rising floor plate, which folds upwards and back to become the Pinwrmnentictormsintise Stat shihedinnaRIA. wall and thea roof of the building, deseribed by Koolhaas as @“sacal magic carpet.” an urban land scape of play and socal encounter imported into the architecture. (See Figure 3.) The floor that folds into @ wall has become the icanic image of the building: one of the photographs provided for jublication shows a skateboarder “surfing” the Curved surface ofthe interior landscape, One of the auditoria has an entire wall pen tothe view and is dserbed as an amphitheater set in the landscape Examination rooms are aso described as interior landscapes that are able tobe flexibly subdivided for different functions. & permeable spatial struc~ ture is deliberately designed “to act as a network in which students and users are free to eicover their ‘own alternative shortcuts and to ‘rt’ through (the) building. Rather than attempting to ectate ‘any particular pattern of use, the design of the educator seeks to create a synthetic landscape ‘open to inclvidual choice" Circulation areas are designed as a series of “pause spaces” for impromptu hanging out between exams or lectures. The spatial analysis diagram (Figure 4) shows 2 building that is accessible, shallow, and highly permeable, The bulding is accessed publicly hrough eleven entry points From the exterior and other buildings. Fora building ofthis size and complexity this is avery shallow structure indeed: all major spaces are accessible within sx levels of depth. With the exceptian of service spaces (which have been omitted for clarity, there are no dead- lends whatsoever. The building has tee major functional “attractors”: the auditors, examination rooms, and the cafteria— each of which is coupled vith a major socal circulation space. These three zones are organized vertically withthe cafeteria on the ground flac, auditoria above, and the exam rooms occupying the upper levels. The major cicu- lation spaces and routes between them are Lunenclosed. (Spaces enclosed by doors are marked by datk frames on the diagram.) Four major fayers (oF “pause spaces” form a series from the ramped plaza on the exterior to the main foyer, which leads ‘Upwards tothe flded fayer and then back to a balcony foyer outside the examination rooms ‘Although the plan has a high evel of permeability with a multiplicity of pathways, the main foyer aso ‘operates asa contol space through which all of the ‘open circulation systems witin the building pass. (Gee Figure 4) The Educatorium is repeatedly described in the iterature as a “factory of earring,” a phrase that resonates with Koolhaas’ aesthetic, his machine metaphors, and the role of the university a5 2 knowledge factory While knowledge is produced in the research centers and staf offices deeper in the university (inthe spokes of the “hub”), fragments ofthis knowledge are revealed inthe spectacle of the lecture theaters, discussed in the foyers and cafeteria spaces, and then examined in the enclosed rooms above. Markus has shown how the spatial structure of the lecture theater surounded by a field of highly permeable socal space dates fram the enlightenment: here knowledge i brought into the light from a deeper source and discussed in Socal space." Knowledge is legitimated in part by locating its sources in deep spatial programs The communication from lecturer to student is reversed in the examination roams, in which students perform for lecturers and knowledge is tested under ritual conditions of surveillance, This fs what Hiller describes asthe long model of spatial planning derived from the reversed spatial syntax of discipl nat institutions of the enlightenment that place subjects uncer survellance deep within the spatial structure. Inthe sense that this bulding is seen as the “hub of the university, one would expect to find staff offices and laboratories (the production of knowledge) on the branches ofthe tree-ke struc: ture. The spaces where student pesformance is legitimated are found deep within the hub. Here, the Educatorium becomes partly reverse, inductng its subjects into regimes of normalization and surveillance in relatively deep space. The exam nation zone is five to sx levels deep within the building: it does nat receive the level of architec: {ural attention of the shallow zones and does nat figure in the published photographs in magazines. Here the Field of play stops and work begins. Although all examination rooms have mute points of entry, they are each end points to spatial ‘movernent. The shortest utes of access and egress Lsoroun | FOLDED FOYER bea nea oe Bacony-Fover [Sui] jx) ser TE san (Bax) are car [Sea] icles fare Rare MANFOYER sar sur (Ea ser FOYER ny PUCARIMP —COFETEAIA pessepsny gy y tte TT ‘Oher Bulings Citic Acs to these levels are not through the open foyers but via the enclosed stair andthe elevator. (See Figure 4) ‘One can read the Educatorium as a radically Innovative building tits shallow levels with a conservative depth. The socialization of students, contact between students and staff, and the delivery and sharing of ideas all take place in the relatively shallow network of social spaces, Yet the Grading of student performance, the leitimation of institutional knowledge, remains deeply embedded in the spatial structure. The two key metaphors of “synthetic landscape" and “factory of learning” reflect the ways thatthe field relations ofthe land- scape have been imported into the factary to urbanize the building. Yer the synthetic landscape ofthe folded loor/wallroof does not encompass the examination rooms wherein the building more closely resembles the instrumentals of the Factory. Graafland has suggested that Koolhaas’s work is & somewhat Faustian practice that embodies » dialectic between the freedoms he seeks and the ‘wee-lke institutional structures in which such prac~ tices are embedded Ths enals 2 certain acceptance of prevaling social and economic forces, the rejection of an architecture that simply resists authority in favor of a reojpaltk wherein the desire forthe new is harnessed to make what one can in a

    You might also like