Response to Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattandelirious

The views of optimists and pessimists about postmodernism and constructivism staunchly oppose each other as the events of modern architecture marry the perceptions of both the optimists and pessimists into a perception that is represented by a piece of architect where people go through different experiences. The resulting architectural designs in the minds of the architects represent those perceptions that do not agree with the natural laws of science and technology because some of them were accidental and not consistent with their thinking. However, successive architectural designs provide evidence of how the laws of nature and the dynamic evolution of modern thinking merge naturally into some coherent thinking that neither represents the optimists nor the pessimists exclusively.

The author states that “emerging from the elevator on the ninth floor, the visitor finds himself in a dark vestibule that leads directly into a locker room that occupies the center of the platform, where there is no daylight. There he undresses, puts on boxing gloves, and enters an adjoining space equipped with a multitude of punching bags (occasionally he may even confront a human opponent)” (Koolhaas 155). This is a description of an architectural design that is used to express modernism, which is in sharp contrast with the perceptions expressed in constructivism.

I agree with the statement because constructivism and modernism express opposing views where modernism represents the dynamic changes that occur in society and the need to adopt them. On the other hand, constructivism is simply a representation of the pessimistic views of people that are opposed to the new ways of an emerging society. I find the statement very strong because it provides the basis for constructivists to adjust the new thinking in society.

The author states that “it is not a locker room but an incubator for adults, an instrument that permits the members – too impatient to await the outcome of evolution to reach new strata of maturity by transforming themselves into new beings, this time according to their individual designs” (Koolhaas 157). The author points out the nature of modernists who are impatient and do not want to wait for an environment that is not evolving as quickly as they could like.

I agree with the statement that people can only develop if they accommodate new ideas and innovations into their lives. I find the statement quite focused.

“The New Yorkers did not hesitate to criticize the design of the pool. They were all against modernism; now ignoring the specular decline of their profession, their own increasingly pathetic irrelevance, their desperate production of flaccid country mansions …the agonies of irrelevance” (Koolhaas 310). The New Yorkers were shown clearly that they preferred the old lifestyle and designs that reflected their way of life. An example is their preference for the Manhattan building that had been designed by architects who were guided by the principles of constructivism.

I disagree with the statement because not all New Yorkers were opposed to the new designs proposed by modernists, despite many preferring to support the constructivists. The constructivists represented the events of the time. I find the statement problematic because it does not provide a balanced view of the perceptions of the people who were at the reception when the pool was designed. After all, the group consisted of modernists and constructivists.

Reference

Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: a retroactive manifesto for Manhattan, New York: Monacelli Press, 1994. Print.