Laundries are the new luxury:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004370,00.html
An unsustainable trend, but one that reveals that architects
have almost never designed houses for a key aspect of
living, ie laundering (if not outsourced to shared laundries)
usually done in the smallest and/or dankest (non)room in the
house.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, some of the best
work on these issues to my mind is coming from Elizabeth Shove
and colleagues.
See for example:
Hand, Martin & Elizabeth Shove:
"Orchestrating Concepts: Kitchen Dynamics and Regime Change"
Home Cultures Vol.1, No.3 (Nov 2004)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg/hcu/2004/00000001/00000003/art00002
Importantly, the focus there is on inconspicuous or ordinary
consumption rather than conspicuous consumption.
See also the important essay by Dolores Hayden:
"What would a Non-Sexist City be Like?"
Signs: Journals of Women in Culture and Society
Vol.5, No.3 (1980)
http://www.jstor.org/view/00979740/sp040119/04x2778v/0
Cameron
Charlie Breindahl wrote:
>On the Chinese market, a cell phone generation lasts all of six
>months. Technically, after six months the phone still works, but style
>wise it is obsolete and replaced. A cell phone is the customary (and
>expensive) gift from a teenage boy to his girlfriend. Worn on a string
>around the neck and therefore close to the heart, the phone signifies
>a strong and valuable attachment. However, why are some Chinese
>teenage girls wearing several cell phones of the latest generation
>around the neck?
>
>From another part of the world: For a couple of decades, the kitchen
>has been the biggest and most important room in a Danish house. This
>is now changing so that the bathroom is getting bigger, more luxurious
>and inviting. Why is this? Is the average family spending more time in
>the bathroom than in the kitchen? Moreover, what happened to the
>workshop and the garage, which both almost disappeared in the same
>period?
>
>I think the answer to both questions lies in the changing role of
>gender in relation to what Thorstein Veblen called conspicuous
>consumption, but this answer only brings more questions. E.g., what is
>the relation between design or architecture and the traditional male
>role as provider versus the traditional female role of homemaker? If
>the six-month cell phone is a fashion statement, does it matter if it
>works as a communication device? If such questions appear a little
>naïve, then what about the underlying question of the role of the
>designer in relation to our ever-increasing wealth. Is good design a
>question of style? What is the role of the designer in a world of
>fashion statements? And does his or her gender matter?
>
>Best,
>Charlie
>
>
>
|