Ah, defeated architecture...

I have been reading Kengo Kuma's Defeated Architecture for a long, long period of time. Not finished yet. It was more than architecture and it takes time.

I have a passion to architecture...I love it with a passion and hate it also with a passion...blah blah. But I'm not a systemetic thinker on the subject matter blah blah. It appeals as massive undertakings over, around and beneath us. You might have felt it incredable in an aeroplane (on which you can fly!!! Ho!), but what you might have neglected is the building you are in everyday - not just a shelter over your head like a tree or a cave - it's a sophisticated piece of work that makes you safe (sometimes to an extend of danger- -') by every means. It's great. And it all the time makes me think human is great - Architecture is a reflection of human desires - and the ability to turn desires into...architecture.

I do have a strong criticism to modern city architecture. From an aesthetics point of view, cities are ugly with massive mansions, skyscrapers and stadiums that only eye on their own function and their so-called design. The innovation to modern architecture is a total failure. Look at the cities without a character (if their 'modern' character is what you think character is, you are a person with character, congrats.) and are so functional - that they are paradise for offices (physically speaking, office boxes), trade fairs (gathering halls), shopping (product-dominant exhibiting squares, where only the products and the cash matter), commercial ads (billboards making you desire for fortune), entertainments (gathering rooms with alchohol and sex)... I suddenly understood that this is the funtionalism in modern architecture when I read Kengo Kuma. A funtionalism that requires non-character in architecture, in order to meet the mobility and separation features of modern living.

Now we look at suburbans. Suburban architecture do not have characters ever since the modern movement either. I have once upon a time appreciated the suburban ring of sattellite cities regarding them as a smooth paste of personal properties and communities. Here I'm not going to speak the social dimension of this planning, but observe it solely on architecture. It was a positive part about the movement towards modernization, in terms of privacy, independence and freedom - I mean in architecture. Again from an aesthetics point of view, suburbans don't look ugly because, I consider, the abovementioned 3 values has promoted diversity in designs. I always regard it as a symbol of liberalism in nations such as US and UK, comparing to the highly planned territories as Germany, Japan and China (or Hong Kong) - again, referred to architecture. Their policies are towards a more organized and united urban planning to achieve the functional objective. Going back to liberalization, Home Mortage policies has made it possible to 'own' a house easily and execute almost absolute freedom on it (if not mention the rights of banks). It is possitive to the creativeness in architecture design.

However, when I went to suburbans in the west and east coast of USA and now the UK, and simultaneously started to read Defeated Architecture recently, I had a feeling of being duped by a policital campaign. On one hand, I started to doubt the surface liberalism in these housing policies - does it seem so good just because people are guided to think it good? Is it liberal only to the wealthy? This is from what I saw and experienced. I stayed in a poor area right down to Beverly Hills and right next to Santa Monica in LA, in a black area in Brooklyn New York, and now in a nice middle-class home area in a nice middle-class city (all-red in the voting map of Britain forever) in UK. I saw it myself that Home Mortage policies is not a pleasant gift to the poor, is a burden to the middle-class, and is nothing to the rich. So who cares about the architecture? Only people who earn a living from it. We can explain why architects are elites in the social class. Because they are not working to the needs. (I have an instinct to talk about lawyers...!!!)

On the other hand, Kengo Kuma has given me a satisfactory explanation to my doubts: professional, from an architect's angle and in-depth, from his responsible thinking. He talked about the modern movement in architecture from the 20th century, starting from economics on land then Keynes' intervensionism and its relationship to government policies which has a huge impact on modern city development and the middle-class 'boom', including the mortage policies. He has analysed the work of modern architects such as Le Corbusier and Peter Ellis thoroughly. I looked out of my window, I observed houses when I run across the lands, buildings when I travel to Newcastle, London and Cardiff, I read pictures I took in the States, and I can find what Kengo Kuma indicates. The key to modern is to get rid of characters, so that we are in a 'purer' world of economic mainstream, commerce domination, finance driven and culture popularity. As stated before, architecture is a reflection to human desires, the key to modern has left in those buildings (and it lasts almost forever! - another crucial point to observe when analysing the impact of architecture.)

One last thing to add is the recession at this moment of time. Yes it's about housing! Yes it's about mortages! And yes, they cannot pay the loans...well this book was written in 2004 though.

While modern is about driving off characters, post-modern is boasting the utmost characters. But it is overstated. - Some thoughts are beingn organized. This is to be continued after I finish the book, perhaps.

I was intended to write a review on the first half of the book. But I didn't even have time to start writing. So I put up the pieces as above. To be continue...