Extract from material gathered during the work on the competition for a university campus and a 120-multifunctional tower.
Peter Eisenman during a lecture in Vanderbilt University:
"I have always argued, that one of the ways one can understand culture and where it is through its architecture. For example in Princeton University you can measure the changing climate of relationships and the evolution of Princeton by which buildings were towers. In Princeton the first tower was the Chapel and it stayed that way for 30 or 40 years until after the War. The second tower was the Library, so the shift from the sacred to the secular. As Princeton became more and more secular institution even admitting women. The third tower at Princeton was the Administration building which was another sign of the movement of the times, the application of Administration and Management in our educational processes. The forth tower was Math and Science tower showing the movement toward the sciences at the Liberal Universities."
Now, we are a couple of years later and maybe it would be handy to define the current shift of paradigm. What will be the next good reason to have towers, if any. - reaching out for the divine, striving of human kind for self-assertion, an ambition of a single powerful individual? The most of the program for the competition tower that was developed was concerning the so-called auxiliary program - essentially voids with public spaces. Are then the towers with stacked piazzas the future of the business or is it just a dead end? Will communities ever be able to finance such investments and under which circumstances?
No comments:
Post a Comment