I really wish people explored such concepts more. There's gotta be a balance between "every unit/thing/room is a modular entity" and "the building is static, take it or leave it". If I had to guess, there seems to be significant inertia and friction in the whole process. You can't build something unless you have some money, and if it involves buying and/or demolishing existing structures, you need even deeper pockets, making it "sticky" (as it's a discontinuous function).
The economist in me in partially hopeful that there is a way to address such an inefficiency.
os2warpman · 29m ago
Nakagin is lauded by artists and designers but fell into disrepair due to low occupancy rates.
Apparently a sufficient number of people don't want to live in microscopic hamster cages, no matter how cool they look, not even as pied-à-terres.
user_7832 · 1m ago
I think it's less of the size, and more of other things like amenities, and imo, those tiny windows.
I have lived in (modern) rooms not much bigger. For someone living by themselves, it's not bad at all. And lots of people do live in such sized spaces - eg hotels, or cities like NYC.
I have no idea how expensive the rent there was, but if it was low enough, in a large city with enough people on a tight budget, lots would be interested. Heck, with the current housing shortage in many places (like NL) where even getting a place to stay is a challenge, there would definitely be takers for such a place.
keiferski · 6m ago
Japanese culture has different ideas than the West when it comes to preservation vs. rebuilding structures, which is ultimately rooted in the fact that it’s an island with typhoons and earthquakes, and thus architecture tended not to last long, historically at least.
This is also why you see so many articles online about buying cheap houses in rural Japan: because typically new owners will demolish old buildings like this rather than refurbish them in the way a building is in Paris or London.
My guess is that the Nagakin became a little too retro and run down, and the lack of this preservation culture meant that no one really wanted to live there. It would probably still exist and be in good condition had it been built in say, London - like The Barbican, for example.
Oh, I have seen these photos before but without context. Does anyone knows if there is any architectural photography book just about it? I would love to have it!
I guess early 70s might be pushing it but I'm having a hard time imagining that you could tear down a building like this in a European city without city conservationists getting officially involved.
drivingmenuts · 1h ago
I think the Japanese don't get quite as invested in buildings of the past. They don't preserve and/or re-use buildings like we do in the US. Great for advancing architecture and design - not so great if you want to preserve history for some reason.
jasonjayr · 44m ago
IMHO, being an island on the Pacific rim, I think Japan has had centuries of "Well, that structure was lost to [insert natural disaster here], guess we'll have to rebuild". Whereas, Europe has "Its amazing that this structure has lasted through [insert any number of man made disasters, wars or disputes], we should see how much longer it can survive"
The economist in me in partially hopeful that there is a way to address such an inefficiency.
Apparently a sufficient number of people don't want to live in microscopic hamster cages, no matter how cool they look, not even as pied-à-terres.
I have lived in (modern) rooms not much bigger. For someone living by themselves, it's not bad at all. And lots of people do live in such sized spaces - eg hotels, or cities like NYC.
I have no idea how expensive the rent there was, but if it was low enough, in a large city with enough people on a tight budget, lots would be interested. Heck, with the current housing shortage in many places (like NL) where even getting a place to stay is a challenge, there would definitely be takers for such a place.
This is also why you see so many articles online about buying cheap houses in rural Japan: because typically new owners will demolish old buildings like this rather than refurbish them in the way a building is in Paris or London.
My guess is that the Nagakin became a little too retro and run down, and the lack of this preservation culture meant that no one really wanted to live there. It would probably still exist and be in good condition had it been built in say, London - like The Barbican, for example.
An interesting article on the ephemeral idea: https://www.archdaily.com/1002972/the-eternal-ephemeral-arch...
Given these all happened around the a similar period I'm not surprised. It's cool to see the things that provided inspiration to others.
https://youtu.be/6SwvtBxxp2w
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel