Fragmentation, individualization and globalization are all words of the past. The attempts to create spaces and places that protect the individual and harbour communality have only given rise to tension between internal and external, private and public, art and utility, the artist and the plumber. In these dualities, we have exhausted the design of private life confined within a building and public life that is produced on the streets. Like Venturi, I am in favour of ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either – or’.
Utopia, in the words of Thomas More, is described as an island that is nowhere. ‘It is a place which has no place’. Is this why most of the visionary projects are represented as either foreign to an existing city or as a new city starting from scratch. It is always easier to work on a blank canvas that extends into infinite space.
My utopia wants to be situated within the context of an existing city. As buildings are constructed and deconstructed at rapid rates, the only stable factor in a city is the circulation on the streets. If the 70’s focused on architecture of transient circulation, I will focus on architecture of stable circulation. It will no longer just be about focusing on the external sculptural form and the constant state of flux of the interiors. It will be about both that and the relationship of the stable ground of circulation in the streetscape. It is the creation of a maze in the city where you are allowed to embrace the transgressions of change, the rapid patterns of growth and destruction that you are never able to escape. In other words, it shocks people by not proposing a new architectural language but by proposing a stable curated path, a sacred space as to where they may both bear witness to the mish-mash of different architectural styles and isolate it from themselves. It is a circulatory sanctuary of the metropolitan city.
It is still very broad and I am trying to narrow it down.