by Albert Dijk
“In my opinion the new public space, with Las Vegas as a prominent example, leaves no room for the discussion, an indispensable condition for the public realm. People communicate on a shallow level, mostly by signs instead of direct contact. The buildings will become signs, like it is in Las Vegas. ‘Indeed, if most of architecture has become surface, applied decoration, superficiality, paper architecture… how can architecture remain a means by which society explores new territories, develops new knowledge’ or encourage the discussion brought forward by new knowledge, new arguments, different culture. Like Tschumi puts it, we need new instruments to reach a new architecture of the public space. Still the basic principle of his architecture is to create conditions for encounters. Architecture should not continue to create spaces with one forced interpretation. People should be able to create their own opinion and see other interpretations. Only this will lead to a healthy public sphere.”
“To reach architecture that can summon the discussion there are different strategies. It should make the utopia visible, which is now repressed and concealed. By decontextualising, combining or new interpretations we can make it visible again. And when we see it, we are able to discuss it, and form an opinion; the discussion.”
From Buro A.D.