The first reading is about Raymond Hood, and Rem Koolhaas does a great job of drawing the reader in with a clever delivery, definitely a mix up from other readings so far, and the focus of this text is examining Hood and his ideals related to architecture in New York City, and the balance of architecture with humans functioning within this architecture; with the city as a third variable. , “Architecture is the the business of of manufacturing adequate shelter for human activities..the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposite ideas in mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Additionally, “The secret of Hood’s success is a radical command for the language of fantasy-pragmatism that lends Manhattans ambition – the creation of congestion on all possible levels – the appearance of objectivity.” (173) Lastly, “Manhattanism is the only program where the efficiency intersects with the sublime.”(173-174) These quotes relay the main points of the article well, and how Hood tries to find balance between his architecture and the human living experience in a city. New York City is the focus here, and I found it interesting how Hood believed no interactions the outside environment, as seen in the Typical plan, even as much as step foot on the sidewalk, is a little extreme, and something I do not agree with. I like Hood’s intention on attempting to create this dynamic, almost this “utopia” in his head, but from real life experience, not interacting with other environments and experiences is not healthy, so I somewhat disagree with Hood’s thoughts, sometimes frazzled and all over the place in the text. In conclusion, Koolhaas does a great job of of engaging the reader with his writing style, and presenting an intriguing virewpoint on the role of architecture in the city and its relation to the human, everyday experience.
Koolhaas. 1978. Delirious New York.
Koolhaas. 1985. Typical Plan.
Great quotes Max, I think you’re summarizing the readings well. I especially liked reading of your points of contention, and that how, as history has shown, there is often a major gap between a sincere utopian vision with its practical results. And as you’ve mentioned, Koolhaas himself plays a formative role in creating this image of Hood – I wonder how much of your opinion is seated in the results of Hood, or the narrative procured by Koolhaas?