On 8/15/2011 3:03 PM, krf...@aol.com wrote:
Any thoughts (non-ad-hominem if possible) on this, one way or another?
If we're going to have this sort of thing, maybe we can make some
suggestions about not creating eyesores in the process.
Al,
I've been thinking of the architecture and art philosophy that arrived
here with the beginning of the gentrification. The Radian/Hub, the
cages on 40th, the Clark park redesign, and the parklet all invoke an
immediate industrial feeling, as you and Liz both observe in the parklet.
Several themes of design become clear when comparing the 4 projects.
Much of the general design philosophy has long been piloted in big box
malls and fast food restaurants.
We live in the most utilitarian era in the history of Western
civilization and this is the immediate theme conveyed with the obvious
sterility of all 4 designs. The designs convey that all are temporary,
disposable and for commercial use only. The industrial features are
meant to convey power, safety, separation and modernity, which helps
mask the cheap mass produced building materials. Additionaly, there is
no interpretation, deep meanings, or detail remotely suggested in the
intent. The individual design messages of each project are immediate
and singular.
And with the use of either clashing bright or deathly metallic or gray,
artificial colors, and paint textures; the viewer knows that the values
of society should properly be tense and anti-aesthetic around these
projects. Beyond taste, as you refer to, the viewer feels viscerally
that aesthetic sensibilities are not simply unimportant in all 4
projects but taboo distractions. No one will want to sit and meditate
near any of these projects!
The steel cages at the western end of Penn's campus (40th St.) give an
omnipotent singular warning about the line of demarcation. Cages are
feared by a large segment of the population. That project doesn't
require much individual discussion. It's an industrial warning barrier
symbolizing a prison.
The parklet also uses an elongated steel cage with a wooden blinder for
those seated. And the orange and purple chairs and tables, as in Clark
Park, are immediately felt as a warning. The clash to the surrounding
natural colors and architecture is obviously meant to be offensive, but
the artificial bright colors clearly deliver a warning. (People in our
area understand that the bright colors announce both a class or police
warning, as well as a customers only warning.) Warning designs are now
meant to deliver a sense of security to customers, who exist in a state
of permanent siege. The parklet, with its warnings, is viewed as safe
place for quick tense consumption.
The Radian is reminiscent of the highway road sheds, which were once
used to hold mountains of rock salt along lonely highways. The design
creates a clear imposing separation above the brick and mortar city, and
invokes the isolation one might feel as one passes quickly through on a
deserted suburban highway. The viewer senses there are mighty
industrial barriers in the fortress, like a suburban gated community
would call forth. There will be no mixing with the city for those
individuals behind its tin walls.
To conclude, the design philosophy of each project invokes the following
features: industrial strength, temporary/disposable intention,
commercial use only, strictly utilitarian/anti-aesthetic principles and
powerful singular messages of barriers and segregation.
The parklet is designed with all these features because it is a place to
quickly consume products from the business it is attached. It is not
meant to be inviting to strolling pedestrians, who are not drawn to
quick consumption of the offered products. No one wants to linger
beyond consumption time, like the architecture and colors that fast food
joints and box malls convey.
Thanks for the discussion,
Glenn
