Reading Response #2

The four categories of applied form-making made sense, although I was skeptical and almost annoyed at description of “blobs” thinking that they really did NOT need their own category of form-making because they were so rarely realized and most of the time ridiculous. Of course there is merit to the use of new technologies and pushing the limits within the realm of such applications, but to make things that have no meaning other than “just because I can,” I have a hard time accepting. I corrected my patterns of thought while reading this though; I acknowledged that just because I do not agree or understand the process/concept behind form-making to create blobs; does not mean the strategy is not a legitimate one.

Another passage that intrigued me was that of thematization. Even after reading this text, I find it funny to realize that all the projects I can think of that fit the form-making of this strategy are either unsuccessful in general or NOT what I like. Thematic architecture. Las Vegas. Las Vegas has its merits and the absolute potential there for experimentation is incredible, but to what I hold as “good architecture”, it does not leave a real experience; it draws users for the purpose of entertainment but in the most elementary and blatant forms. JUST like an amusement park, Las Vegas attracts but is not necessarily concerned with what the user then asses of the quality. One completely off-the-topic example that may clarify my point: when I was younger, I remember going to a furniture shop with my father. He was looking at a hand-carved wooden coffee table, and after a few minutes of observing it, he asked me to look at the underside of it. Although the table was beautiful and intricate on the outside, any part of the piece that was initially hidden from you lacked any sense of care. My father explained to be that that was difference between good and bad design…and thinking of Las Vegas makes me think of that statement. The city has arguably all the ingredients available for the success in attracting millions of people to its buildings, but pays no attention to the simple qualities of occupancy, spatial experience, and even human factors (basic CRUCIAL elements in “good” architecture) once the user is snared up.

This is also applicable to projects like those promoted by the New Urbanists. Because they tend to design for one way of life, they are only basing their solution or critique on only one precedent. I just think of Leon Krier’s development of Poundbury, which takes its precedent from the “small-town” way of life and aims to design around that theme but with a modern society. Applicable to one theme, to one way of life, even though it is at the scale of a town.