The Typical Plan poses the same issues as a person with no opinions. “Typical plan is minimalism for the masses” (Koolhaas 1995, 4) where it poses little problems for people because there is nothing definitive there to have a problem with. While there is little there to have issues with, that means there is also little present to get behind because purposely, the “Typical plan is as empty as possible” (Koolhaas 1995, 10). It is the complete opposite of Kevin Lynch’s imageability, where in the Typical Plan, “You can only be in Typical Plan, not sleep, eat, make love” (Koolhaas 1995, 4). At least Raymond Hood made design decisions around his values of Christianity and for the businessman. But while the Typical Plan is defined by having no qualities, it unconsciously pushes America to Hoods capitalistic focus.
The Typical Plan being an American plan truly shows America’s capitalistic values to strip man to just a worker if even city designs are pushed towards bettering business. The Typical plan’s “only function is to let its occupants exist” (Koolhaas 1995, 3) to work in an office space. It feigns flexibility. The typical plan is not intended to be a gymnastics gym, a restaurant, or a spa. The Typical Plan is a false choice, only being open spaces for offices like how all skyscrapers are.
Hood similarly feigns that flexibility in his idea of the City Under One Roof. It was already suggested in his church design, that providing life for people all in one place is actually forcing people’s lives to revolve around what the designer chooses. In the terms of City Under One Roof it hides the idea that it is just enabling people to work more with less commute and falsifying a “fun work environment” from bringing entertainment and home closer. As seen with the overworked Japanese businessman, the direction Manhattanism Architecture and the Typical plan push America is the recipe for the citizen’s downfall.
Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York, 1978.
Koolhaas, Rem. Typical Plan, 1995.
Great response Mia – both a great summary of the key ideas as well as a highly considered response to each of them. I’d be interested to hear more about how an idea of a plan (Typical Plan) can ‘”feign flexibility,” and how that “false choice” plays a role in the design process. Oftentimes talk of this period inevitably lead to films such as The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, cubicle culture, and the blasé man.