Architecture is conceived through a long process of study, design, planning, and construction that often takes years or even decades to complete. The result of this process is design, that at it's inception was appropriate for present, but upon completion is already a relic of the past. This begs the question, how can buildings constantly change to adapt to a world constantly in flux, or even, what if the conditions of society change so drastically that a project is simply unable to be completed?
With the country in the midst of an economical recession, the profession of building is hurting. Large scale developers are finding that more and more of their properties are becoming vacant, putting a hold on new construction due to financial restrictions. Further more, these developers design based on the bottom line, with no consideration for the multitude of fluctuating factors that really determine the success or failure of a project. This leaves their schemes without the ability to adapt as society changes. There is no better example of this than the "Xanadu" project in East Rutherford, NJ. Here a competition was held between three developing companies (Mills Corp., Harts Mountain Industries, and the Westfield Group) with the winning development proposal belonging to the Mills Corp. Judging for the three schemes boiled down to three numbers, cost of construction, yearly revenue, and jobs created, of which the Mills Corp. claimed "Xanadu" would cost $1.3 billion (and destroy the East Rutherford's downtown), produce $2.29 billion dollars a year (not counting the revenue it would steal from East Rutherford's downtown), and create 19,498 permanent jobs (not counting the jobs it would destroy in East Rutherford's Downtown). The project broke ground in 2004 and was set for its grand opening in 2007, yet by 2007 only the parking garages had been constructed. Come 2009, lenders were pulling out of the project as construction came to a complete halt with the exteriors of the building completely finished, interiors completely empty, no money remaining for construction, and an increasing anti-Xanadu attitude taking hold of the public. Currently, governor Christie has been making plans to pour government money into the project and complete it as it was initially proposed. However, does it really make sense to construct a project envisioned 7 years ago and that has already failed once? In my opinion, it does not. Too much has changed and it is time to take what has already been built and transform it into a project that is relevant in the present... with that said I will leave you with an image of the current state of Xanadu (remember the exterior is completed despite how unfinished it may look).
Ben, wow that's a hideous building huh?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, while I was reading you three sentence description I started thinking about new construction that is happening in rapidly developing countries around the world. Take China for instance, where foreign architects and designers are asked to design entire mixed use complexes the size of small cities in a matter of weeks, and see their drawings realized within a matter of months.
Although the buildings implementation is very near to its conception, I would argue that this process in its own way very dangerous. Which brings me back to your thesis about the mediating factors in a design. I think when looking at these new developments, one could make the argument that in some cases, the more mediating factors the better. Do these mediating factors, while being born out of the present, help a building stay relevant into the future somehow?