Trying to integrate what supposed to be the "reaction" to urban system into architecture as an "action" may seems creative, if not stupid, at the time it's being proposed. But soon it becomes ridiculous not long after its realization. Simply because once it's being "locked" inside of a single piece of architecture, it no longer has the ability to adopt the systematic change, which is very likely to happen soon after any single building's completion. Base on what do we provide this amount of parking space? What if people no longer drive in the city? Can we reuse the parking space? Have you ever used the funny climbing elevator in between its parking levels? If the tower can be easily deconstruction and redone, I wouldn't care that much, yet it is definitely not the case. The wacky trick of architects' sometimes turns the building into an alien of the city. Keep that in mind, architects.
The urban is a dynamic organism, a ever-evolving system, while architecture is the frozen moment of an urban fragment. Architects always try to cross the line, sometimes we succeed, but more often we fail.
-- The vertical parking on the Marina Tower, Chicago
沒有留言:
張貼留言