To be honest, in comparison to past weeks’ readings I struggled a little more with understanding this text. In my opinion, the format of Rowe and Koetter’s “Collage City” evoked the title, as it felt like a few advanced ideas followed by a bunch of supporting points jumbled together like a collage. That being said there were still points I found interesting.
For one, I would never have have thought to consider Main Street in Disney World as any sort of architecture but the comparison on pages 44-45 between Disney and a NYC skyscraper was thought-provoking. Rowe and Koetter described this comparison as “two worlds of illusion and fact, of publicity and privacy are insulated. Inter-dependent but separate, they may possibly be equal, but, in no way are they to be integrated” when speaking about the hidden inner workings of Disney World and the sub-basement of skyscrapers (Rowe and Koetter 45). This emphasized that there is always more than what meets the eye in architecture; a skyscraper is not just a pretty building, just as Disney World is not just the happy characters and facades. They also described Disney World as “a symbolic American utopia” and brought in Robert Venturi’s quote that it is “nearer to what people really want than what architects have ever given them” (Rowe and Koetter 45). Venturi’s statement in particular caught my attention because I would disagree. I wouldn’t go to Disney World primarily for the ‘architecture,’ but I chose to go to Chicago last spring break specifically because of the architectural influence in the city.
I am looking forward to this week’s discussion as I am hoping that hearing how other people interpreted “Collage City” will allow me to understand it better.
Citations:
Rowe, Colin, and Fred Koetter. Collage City. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 1978.