Rem Koolhaas explores different theories of architecture whereby he manages to intertwine history and its relevance to modern day architectural activities. He relates human debris to the concept of space-junk. There is a lot of human remains which have spoilt the universe as he narrates “If space-junk is the human debris that litters the universe, junk-space is the residue mankind leaves on the planet”. This intrinsic human influence on the planet can be highlighted in a different way by giving it an analogy of astronaut activities that no longer exists.
This overview description is attempting to give an aerial approach is a good paradox as far as the description of the junkspace in our urban set up is concerned. This aerial exploration of the planet is not done just in the simplest style of imagination. There is the revolving path from the outer space and the use of satellite images which Koolhaas is trying to give an in-depth analysis on. The author is laying so much interest on the inhabited earth. However, according to me, junks apace should be in a position to influence not just the space which occupied by man alone but also other regions where architectural activities are yet to take effect because the repercussions are more or less the same.
Moreover, the imposition of the satellite observation of our modern day cities may not intertwine well as we may tend to believe. As far us the use of this observatory equipment is in place, proper structural establishment of the same is required. I feel that sustainable architectural design in the modern world should not just rest with the adoption and implementations of technology but the much needed structure should come in handy as well. This natures growth and established structural requirements in architectural designs is quite different from what Rem Koolhaas describes. The author’ junkspace is more or less of places which are below standard. He describes them as ‘non-places’. A case example of the ‘non place’ here is the shopping mall. Other locations which may be considered as serving below standards are recreational centers which seem to be suffering from a lot of imposed conditions. These restrictions are mainly concerned with space. The author is more concerned with the amount of space available eve as these facilities are set up. This is the turning point where there is a clash or conflict between architecture and modernization. The inquiry which is introduced by Koolhaas’ elaborates architectural theories in which he establishes the relevance of history even as the concept of junkspace is argued upon.
Koolhaas outline of junkspace still elicits mixed reactions in regard to the area which is wasted due to poor occupation. This includes that space which is next to the freeway, or even that space which is right next into a residential building. Moreover, there are spaces which still seem to go into waste like the one right next to a shopping centre. These wasted spaces are real economic loopholes in the development of modern cities and their availability may just as well be serving a plastic role which is not beneficial in the overall architectural planning. In my point of view, these left-over spaces are not necessarily junk because they are equally required in the development of houses whether such structures are meant for living or commercial purposes. A space allowance constitutes part and parcel of the design in the architectural process.
Koolhaas depicts even a more elaborate junkspace which exists without the knowledge of people. He classifies them as buildings which were built long time ago and have been consistently used to carry out certain purposes but due to their nature, they have been converted into other uses. He asserts that their conversions into other uses may be due to the underlying historical records which have been as secretive as possible. That is why even as they being adopted for other uses, those who do so may not be having relevant information regarding their historical background. Additionally, such buildings may also be low in value and that is why their conversion into other uses becomes relevant so that they can continue being economically beneficial.
I strongly believe that the actual content of “junk” implies that whatever is being referred to van be put into another application. In other words, there is a possibility of using it once again. For this reason, junk space cannot necessarily be termed as waste or of no use as may be depicted by the author. A junkspace can still be used for other developments. It is only that the space might be lying idle and therefore apparently useless. Additionally, junkspace is given a comparison of human developments which have constant influence around the earth. Junkspace in this case revolves around human architectural establishments. It is almost not possible to separate the influence of junkspace and modernity. To operate within these junkspaces may be posing a real challenge in the architectural world. How I believe it is possible to bring into an end the fears allayed by the presence of junkspaces. This can be achieved through looking at other different ways and means of rejuvenating the junkspaces although in a temporary manner instead of labeling them as lost and perhaps useless spaces. In other words, the junkspace can be transformed into a whole world of beauty and contentment through the use of proper artistic competences and skills. In my view, these junkspaces are not really lost as may be the perception because of the possibility of revamping them into usable sites.
Koolhaas’ interrogation touches on architectural theories whereby he establishes the relevance of history even as the concept of junkspace is argued upon. The remains which were left by human beings play a very instrumental role in this part of discussion. If the remains by human beings are anything to go by, then the author’s submission of the junkspace has a deeper underlying meaning than can be perceived from an open end discussion of the subject. There is an inward human effect on earth and can be described by giving it an analogy similar to what exactly happens when the effects of human activities on the surface of the earth can be sampled altogether.
According to my analysis, the overall description of the junkspace provides a firm ground through which it will be possible to analyse an aerial exploration of the planet. This is not achieved that easily by the author. There are myriad of ways and means used to bring this to the surface. Besides, a revolving path from the outer space and the use of an aerial approach puts the writer at an advantage position in delivering what he believes in.
Koolhaas has put a lot of emphasis on the part of the planet which is not currently occupied by man. However, according to me, junkspace should be capable of creating a long lasting influence not just on the space already settled by man. Other places can still experience the effect of junkspace where architectural activities are yet to take effect because the repercussions are more or less the same. There is often an area which goes unutilized in the process of developing an urban set up plan. Some of it may arise from the reserved areas which are not stipulated for any kind of development. Furthermore, as Koolhaas approaches the issue of free space, he is quick to highlight that there are usually junkspaces which must be there whether practical and modern architectural design practices are carried out or not.
These junkspaces are real economic drains in the planning and growth process of urban centers and their availability may just as well be serving a plastic role which is not beneficial in the overall architectural planning. In my point of view, these spaces may not be junk as the author has outlined in the text because he has specifically noted down some of the useful activities which thrive out of these spaces. They are at the same time needed in the development of dwellings. There are several available options which junkspace can be put into.
It is indeed true that such sites bring out the real artistic challenge especially when modern architectural applications are brought on board. However, I feel that through timely and proper intervention programs, it is inevitable to resolve the menace brought about by junkspace. In so doing, it should be understood that history is the making of the modern age occurrences and as such, it must be interpreted in a more coherent manner. If that is not done, it will not be possible to give a critical address of the past and relate it to the present. It is of great importance to bring history into reality by relating its significance to the dominance of junkspace.
What about the potential that comes about with recycling? From my opinion, recycling which is all about the ability to bring into use again going through some other applications can be a real solution in underpinning the challenge brought about by junkspace. In modern practice, it has been possible for industries to construct monumental sites for instance statues from spaces which have left over. This in itself is a form of re-use which makes sure that junkspace is not wasted. Such sites have then become very important as they are frequented by people. This is a form of utilization which can be appreciated even as the concept of junkspace becomes a gnawing challenge to all and sundry. This further illustrates the possibility of having other alternatives to recycling other than the one being proposed by the author.
In his artistic work, Benjamin makes use of a child comparison to explicitly bring out the state of the modern architecture. In his submission, he attempts to redeem history by first of all expounding on the role played by this ‘child’ in saving the modern culture. This has been given an analogy of a child who is born and with it brings forth all the good and new developments in place. The old buildings which have existed for a considerable length of time, outgrown by age are now brought down to pave way for the new ones which are more vibrant and can withstand the modern requirements. The new building which takes over the place of the old is like a child who is born, grows with time and attains a desirable intelligence to be able to deal with the emerging challenges. This approach can be applied in the development of sites which may perhaps be taking over from the old pieces of developments. The knowledge on recycling in this case can be used to transform the environment beside the application of Koolhaas principle. In a similar way but using a different approach altogether, Benjamin manages to offer an alternative to managing the environment in as much as he explores the concept of junk.
The juxtaposition of the concept of junk goes along way even as Benjamin refers to the child as redemption. The child is viewed as a savior to the older generation and it is from the child baseline that the theme of redemption is developed all along. On the other hand, an adult here is a symbol of lost moments which is definitely in dire need of reformation; a savior is needed to redeem the lost adult figure. This is why the author gives the analogy of a child and an adult.
Moving back to the critiques made by Koolhaas on certain aspects of the public building, it is imperative to note that the author attempts to draw a clear difference between the ancient and modern practices which have been pursued by the public art practices. He expounds that the content of art is not enclosed within the walls of a museum hall but rather goes beyond that simple imagination. He laments the art disposition of the outer world by saying that it is dominated by junkspaces occasioned by increased poor planning which has been as a result of using methods which are dysfunctional and therefore unworkable. There is a strong inclination towards he belief of the content junk because the implication is such that it cannot be applied in a variety of way and yet retain he same meaning at the same time. Although the author’s view of the junk space is that of wastage ad less helpful, an opposing view can still be raised from this fact bearing in mind that not all spaces which are not put into useful application are junk. Moreover, junkspace and the development of human civilization through changing times is not an issue which is less sensitive but it is rather part and parcel of human civilization. If this is compared to human beings, it is found that the influence is of junk space and humanity cannot be separated since they go hand in hand. Junkspace takes the control of human architectural composition. As a result, Junkspce and contemporary times are such close to each other. The very junkspaces may be a potential challenge in the architectural field. There is also a belief that it is not impossible to eradicate or do away with fears allayed by the presence of junkspaces. This can be attained through looking at other alternative ways and means of rejuvenating the junkspaces in a way that it will not leave a long lasting influence. Alternatively, the junkspace can be undergo a change which eventually culminates into an experience of beauty through which various levels of satisfaction cab be derived.
However, I believe that the author’s labeling and criticism of the public art may not necessarily be the authenticated version and reality on the ground. Besides, the art event can be categorized as a period of marked with gross breakdowns. In his artistic work in the Delirious New York, Koolhaas attempts to draw a sharp difference between building designs which are professionally recognized against the current adoptions within the state of urban planning. He argues that architecture and urban planning have pushed along in attempting to strike a balance between the use of materials and the humanistic approaches. The writer describes city life as machinery which draws people into accepting certain type of lifestyle. It is a way of life which seems to be addictive and cannot be easily abandoned by those who live by it. Koolhaas further confirms that this style of urban life and design is not a new eve n t but has been experienced in other places as well. A case example of a region affected by this city feature was Japan during the 1960s when a massive movement called Metabolism took charge and controlled a lot to do with city life.
As the author elaborates more on the junkspace, he also interrogates some of the key aspects which came along with modernism in the twentieth century. The author questions the concept of “program” which was consistently used in the designing of buildings. Although he does not concur with the program practice which accompanied the new dawn in architecture, I am of the opinion that the aspect of using program as the main topic of architecture was necessary in setting up a common standard for use in urban design. There was great need for some kind of design to be incorporated even the upcoming architecture of the twentieth century. The writer contends that the idea behind using “program” as the architectural theme was not real as it was basically accompanied with incoherent humanistic practice which eventually failed to deliver as per the expectations.
In pursuing a similar concept and argument but in a different approach, Koolhaas in S,M,L,XL with his co-authors have elaborated more on the developments of the modern urban set ups. The Junkspace as explained by Koolhaas in the previous readings is latently mentioned here with an attempt of giving a historical evidence of “Manhattanism”. This has been achieved through the use of a myriad of examples obtained from compiled pieces of literature on diverse architectural issues. The availability of space even in an entertainment joint has been ignored or if not so the old fashioned programs have failed the test of designs required.
Additionally, the establishment of aerial observation of contemporary cities may not auger well as most urban establishments may tend to believe. In the application of this observatory equipment, sound structural establishment plays a crucial part. I feel that sustainable architectural design in the modern world should not just rest with the adoption and implementations of technology but the much needed structure should come in handy as well. This natures growth and established structural requirements in architectural deigns is quite different from what Rem Koolhaas describes. The author’ junkspace is more or less of places which are below standard. He describes them as ‘non-places’. A case example of the ‘non place’ here is the shopping mall. Other locations which may be considered as serving below standards are recreational centers which seem to be suffering fro a lot of imposed conditions. These restrictions are mainly concerned with space. The author is more concerned with the mount of space available eve as these facilities are set up. This is the turning point where there is a clash or conflict between architecture and modernization.
Koolhaas is depicting the possibility of the junkspace taking control of recreation as well as belief systems attached to religion. Included in this take over by junkspace is the confidentiality of living a private life. The author expounds on the potential risks posed by the junkspace especially to human beings. Moreover, junkspace has given root to the springing up of other human related outfits such as entertainment such as sporting activities. Although the writer does not bring it out on a plain argument, there is a likelihood that he is opposed to all the emancipation of the junkspace whether it brings good tidings to human beings or not. In my opinion, if the presence of a junkspace will bring forth the best of outcomes which can be embraced by all, then it is most welcome. In this regard, it is better to give more focus on the potential benefits, if any, that can be accrued frond junkspace because the most rewarding aspect of it is functionality. In other words, it would be more sensible to consider the merits and moreover if they outweigh the demerits, then it will be right to acknowledge junkspace as it is.
In tracing back to the Junkspace concept, discussing the space available for the establishment of any city is central to his argument illustrates how junkspace can thrive in areas inhabited by people without their conscience. This sounds controversial even as the author assets that the availability of junkspace can sometimes be identified by external agents. This is however, subject to the type of human settlement which exists in a particular area. He groups them as buildings which were erected long time ago and have been consistently used to carry out certain purposes but due to their nature, they have been converted into other uses. The architectural remains which of human activities are very crucial in this case because human influence in the in the discussion of the junkspace is equally important due to the influence which it leaves behind. If the remains by human beings are at all important, then the writer’s rendition of the junkspace has a deeper underlying meaning than can be perceived from an open end discussion of the subject. There is an inward human effect on earth and can be described by giving it an analogy similar to what exactly happens when the effects of human activities on the surface of the earth can be sampled altogether.
According to my analysis, the overall description of the junkspace provides a firm ground through which it will be possible to analyse an aerial exploration of the planet. This is not achieved that easily by the author. There are myriad of ways and means used to bring this to the surface. Besides, a revolving path from the outer space and the use of an aerial approach puts the writer at an advantage position in delivering what he believes in.
Koolhaas has put a lot of emphasis on the part of the planet which is not currently occupied by man. However, according to me, junkspace should be capable of creating a long lasting influence not just on the space already settled by man. Other places can still experience the effect of junkspace where architectural activities are yet to take effect because the repercussions are more or less the same. There is often an area which goes unutilized in the process of developing an urban set up plan. Some of it may arise from the reserved areas which are not stipulated for any kind of development. Furthermore, as Koolhaas approaches the issue of free space, he is quick to highlight that there are usually junkspaces which must be there whether practical and modern architectural design practices are carried out or not.
He emphasizes that their conversions into other uses is a common feature especially in places where new architectural designs and planning is not actively taking place. If the remains by human beings are at all important, then the writer’s rendition of the junkspace has a deeper underlying meaning than can be perceived from an open end discussion of the subject. There is an inward human effect on earth and can be described by giving it an analogy similar to what exactly happens when the effects of human activities on the surface of the earth can be sampled altogether.
Such houses, according to the author, accounts for a significant portion of the junkspace.
Bibliography
Benjamin W.”Illuminations” London: Pimlico, 1999.
Koolhaas, Remment, Delirious New York: A retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York: The Monacelli Press, 1994.
Koohaas Remment. Logan Airport: A world-Class Upgrade for the Twenty-First Century- Late Twentieth Century Billboard. Spring, 2002. 100:175-190
Koolhaas, Remment, S, M, L, XL. New York: The Monacelli Press, 1995.