ABSTRACT
The construction of glass façades and concepts of modernization are still strongly linked in many cultures around the world. Environmentalists, conservationists and traditionalists have been criticizing such links since the beginning of major usage of glass panes in buildings. This perception of modernization has certainly intensified since the advance of the modern movement in the beginning of the twentieth century. In Chapter 1 we discussed the role of leading architects in the early twentieth century, such as Sant’ Elia and Otto Wagner, in seeding and promoting futuristic architecture or modern architecture based on glass and steel that has no particular links to the socio-economic context. Norberg-Schulz also indicated that ‘socio-economic conditions are like a picture frame; they offer a certain space for life to take place, but do not determine its existential meanings’ (Norberg-Schulz 1980: 60). In many ways, these views were largely adopted throughout the twentieth century. At the start of the twenty-first century, architecture is facing different challenges that need new concepts to address not only its relations with nature (as described in Chapter 2) but also the questions of global versus local architecture, with the attendant political, socio-economic and cultural complexities (as discussed in Chapter 3). There are also issues related to the emergence of virtual environments as alternative ways of living and the impact of the reality/virtuality on identity and citizenship. The earlier discussion in Chapter 2 suggests that glass façades are partly a product of socio-economic and political forces and that our contemporary construction industry is completely bound up with socio-economic and political conditions. Hagan (2001) compared the façade design to textile art: as we dressed ourselves in textiles, she argued, so we dressed our shelters with them too. Fashion design can indeed be seen within socio-economic contexts. However, just as there was debate at the beginning of the twentieth century, many architecture theoreticians deny the assumption that architecture is the production of the interplay of socio-economic variables and emphasize the need for this link to be readdressed in the twenty-first century. We need to look into the debate over whether consciousness structures the world or the world structures consciousness. The argument shows an intention to separate culture from people. Leach (2002) has criticized the very notion of ‘place’ and has argued that human beings have the capacity for accommodating and adopting the new worlds offered by new technologies. In this sense, computers and mobile phones have transferred the idea of physical space to encompass a real experience of virtual place. Describing the age of the megalopolis, Lyotard explained that even the concept of ‘dwelling’ is marked by a form of passage rather than place occupancy (Lyotard 1988).
