3 ms·
I think that "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the metabolists failed because the buildings they produced weren’t metabolic enough to cope with the ever-
by rodgerd 5y ago
I think that "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the metabolists failed because the buildings they produced weren’t metabolic enough to cope with the ever-changing needs of the city’s inhabitants. Surely, preservation of their work as some kind of cultural relic would be the last thing that the young radicals of the late ’60s and early ’70s would have wanted." is the key quote. I'm sad to see an interesting building go, but it seems like a failed experiment, rather than a monument that should be preserved.
- Tade0 5y agoTheir legacy are modern-day "Microapartments", which on average are not much larger than those capsules.
- Angostura 5y agoFrom the article, it seem like the main failure was in execution. The pods were designed to be replaceable, swapped out regularly as needs changed. In practice, swapping out a single pod was impossible, due to the construction. For some reason, I'm really sad to see this go. I remember it being all over the UK media when I was a kid.
- WJW 5y agoI think that > swapped out regularly as needs changed was the key design mistake, because it glosses over the fact that people get attached to things for sentimental reasons. Even if it were easier to swap out pods, I bet that some people would stubbornly remain in their older pods "because it is the pod I grew up in" for example. Designers in all sorts of fields (even software) often fall for this fallacy, because it would just be so much more elegant if humans conformed to your vision for the world instead of the other way around.
- Angostura 5y agoBut that was the point. Nostalgic folk could keep their pods. Others could go for an 'upgrade'