While I didn’t comprehend much of what Rowe and Koetter were explaining through their chapters of the “Collage City,” their criticism on modern architecture and some of the most well known architects at the time was very clear. They describe modern architecture in the introduction with phrases like “hard-headed” , “tragically ridiculous”, and “a never-to-be-imagined nightmare” 1.
They also seem to be, in my opinion, sort of mocking the role of the architect in joining the relationship of science and the people in the context of cities by addressing them as “desperate ‘obligations’ “1. From what I understood, they believe there should be a focus on these things (science and the public opinion) but in an adaptable way. This is also supported by the last chapter (at least I think lol) we read “Collision City and the Politics of ‘Bricolage’” discussing the concept of bricolage. Arguing that using science to solve modern problems isn’t good enough because it doesn’t factor in other problems like politics shows that this relationship needs to be balanced which becomes very different since the people inhabiting cities are constantly changing.
Lastly, I want to highlight one of the questions they present at the end of “After the Millenium” which is “Why should we be obliged to prefer a nostalgia for the future to that for the past?” 1. I interpreted this as them believing that modern architecture was overachieving in their urban planning and use of technology (like Le Corbusier’s Contemporary City) and also saying there’s nothing wrong with preserving some old aspects, once again asking for a balance.
Rowe, Colin, and Fred Koetter. 1983. Collage city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.