Residential Architecture

Le Corbusier, Alvar Aalto, and Mies Van der Rohe and their contributions to the residential scale.

Le Corbusier

The most straightforward of the three, Le Corbusier had a very straightforward approach.  His infamous "Five Points of Architecture" create a checklist of elements that one can find time and time again in his work.

1. Pilotis
2. Free Facade
3. Open Floor Plan
4. Roof Garden
5. Long Window of the Facade

The pilotis were the first and most important aspect of Corbusier's residences.  They elevated and provided a framework for the house.  These were reinforced concrete stilts that created the skeleton for the house. The next four elements are intermixed.  One need not come before the other, however, all are intertwined and create the language of Le Corbusier.


The free facade is an envelope of non supporting walls. These walls hang along the exterior of the building and accommodate the architect's needs.  Along this facade, a long window needs to be incorporated.  This allows a cascading of light into the spaces within the building. These long bars of windows create a unique ambiance within Corbusier's spaces.  The open floor plan is achieved because of the skeleton that is created by the pilotis.  Load bearing walls are not to be placed within the interior of the structure.  As a result, simple dividing walls are placed to create a variety of different spaces.  Last, but not least, the roof garden. Unfortunately, these frequently look as if they are simply balconies with plants dropped in.  His intentions were good with these spaces, however, they simply do not appear to have been given as much thought as some other spaces within his buildings. 


In addition to his Five Points, Le Corbusier was influenced by the concept of purism and modularity.  He was interested in the aesthetic of the machine and how the basic forms inspired and created movement.  He loved pure proportion and clean geometries.  Color was secondary to form and the golden ratio was the ideal shape.


The golden section influenced many architects in France at this time, and like many of them, Le Corbusier could not help but experiment in how it could create custom modularities for the masses. 

 Maison Domino:  This rendering of the structure helps to express the idea of the pilotis and how they were so fundamental to the structure.

Villa Stein: A clear display of the long band of windows along the facade as well as a peek onto the roof garden from below.  Beautiful development of purism.

Villa Savoye:  Another display of the pilotis and how they elevate the structure and are fundamental to the framework.  Various photos help to illustrate the machine and create movement within this interesting form.

 Alvar Aalto

A man of many trades, Alvar Aalto showcased his talents in glassware, furniture making, jewelry, as well as architecture. He reflected the Scandinavian craft in all of these works, but in his architecture he adopted minimalism and it's pure form, incorporated industrial and natural materials, made sure his creation respected the climate as well as the landscape, and used many curvilinear forms.

His work can boil down to two main things: 

the Indigenous Building + the Modern Design Language.

Baker House: Boston, MIT.  Aalto distributes the private and communal elements within the serpentine form.  It contrasted the sleekeness of buildings in America at this time, and was something that Aalto took great pride in.

Finlandia Hall:  This concert hall definitely reflects Le Corbusier's work.  The pilotis appear across the bottom giving it the sense of floating.  Also along the "free facade," the band of windows appears. Not exactly to the expression of Corbusier's, but they do have the banded effect because of their repetition.

Mies Van der Rohe

 

Mies' response to the built environment of residential architecture all came down to, "reduce every problem to essential simplicity." He wished to enclose the various functions of day to day life into a series of cubic containers as well as articulate the buildings in a response to the fluidity of life. In addition to these main points, another vital thing that Van der Rohe believed was that the relationship between the craftsman and his product had not been destroyed by the machine. This set him apart from many.

Haus Lange:  In this building, the attempts to define activities within cubes is very apparent. At the same time, Mies' approach to the fluidity of life is also successfully achieved, so much that this space now is used for galas and art shows. 

Tugendhat House: The plan repeats what is shown in his Barcelona Pavillion, and also utilizes many expensive materials in both projects.  The hillside allows for a dynamic play on the "cubes of activity."

Brick Country House:  This project was never completed, but shows the evolution of Van der Rohe's thoughts.  He moves from the clear defined cubes into a more fluid movement that quite literally flows into the landscape.  The plan holds spaces as opposed to grasping them.  His three dimensional interpretation was not quite as successful as his two dimensional, but given more time and energy, this could have been a very interesting compilation.

Adolf Loos and the Werkbund

“Changes in the traditional way of building are only permitted if they are an improvement. Otherwise stay with what is traditional, for truth, even if it be hundreds of years old has a stronger inner bond with us than the lie that walks by our side.” –Loos

“Does it follow that the house has nothing in common with art and is architecture not to be included in the arts? Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument. Everything else that fulfils a function is to be excluded from the domain of art.” –Loos

“Man loves everything that satisfies his comfort. He hates everything that wants to draw him out of his acquired and secured position and that disturbs him. Thus he loves the house and hates art.”  -Loos

These three quotes by Adolf Loos are a glimpse into his very bold opinions.  Summarized, they all boil down to a few points:

• ·         A desire for better and more vital society
• ·         A necessity to move forward into modernity
• ·         Elimination of all unnecessary items
• ·         A coexistence of traditional and modern

 These driving forces all contributed to Loos’ obsession with building use.  His focus on the ways each space is used helps to bring his design back to the basics.  He eliminates ornament, minimizes waste, and optimizes his resources.  The majority of his focus is on the interior spaces.

He states time and time again that every piece of his architecture is solely for purpose and not ornamentation. However, he successfully reveals beauty without the decorative ways of the past.  He achieves a balance of respect for where the design originated from in history, but at the same time moves forward with bold gestures.  

This photo of the House of Michaelerplatz shows how Loos beautifully constructs these stairs without ornamentation.  The reflective surfaces add an additional dynamic that could not be achieved with simple matte materials.  These illuminated planes create another dimension to the design that decorate without ornamenting.  They add that additional aesthetic value.

In contrast, I have chosen to look at the Mart Stam House of the Werkbund exhibition of 1927.  The Werkbund was a cultural analysis of the German Romantics, not a new bold idea.  They looked back to the German Romantics  to create a harmonious artistic production.  Their series of sixty plus houses showcased a simplistic façade with a plain flat roof. 

As you can see in these floor plans, there is a slow progression of space, and possibly class rank in the floor plan as you move from left to right.  While they maintain the same module, these spaces hint at a different variety of families living in close proximity to each other.  The house furthest to the right showcases  a piano and extra balcony space in its floor plan. This apartment also has an additional spiral staircase that seems to be for it’s own personal use.   Other staircases seem to be shoved into the corner for vertical circulation.  Loos does the opposite. He throws them front and center and celebrates the idea.

In conclusion, all the photos I could find of the Mart Stam house and the rest of the movement were rather plain and simplistic.  Even though Loos was trying to stray away from the ornamentation of the building, I believe he was more successful in “decorating” the spaces inside.  Loos had similar intentions with his facades, a look of simplicity, but his still have a more inviting feeling than those of the exhibition. 

Art Nouveau

Art Nouveau

                The underlying forces behind Art Noveau can be narrowed down to a few basic concepts.  The first, the one that most people immediately notice, the flowing organic form.  This imitation of nature was definitely vital to the success of this period.  Not only did many pieces possess this organic form, but it also served a purpose.  It must not only be for ornamentation, but also be absolutely necessary to holding the piece together, many times even structurally.  The third and final thing was clearly an obsession.  All of these artists took this new concept and ran with it.  They designed everything from the structure, to the ornamentation on the wall, to the clothes people would wear in these spaces.  Hector Guimard, Victor Horta, and Henry Van der Velde were three influential people of this time and were under the influence of Art Nouveau at it’s peak.

Hector Guimard:

                Hector Guimard was one who took France by storm with this movement.  He had a serious commitment to the ideology of Viollet le Duc.  He “integrated the new decorative principles into a coherent architectural style”1.  Guimard was provided with the opportunity to design the School of Sacre Coeur in Paris and the Maison Coilliot in Lille.  The illustrations alone from these buildings inspired many architects and designers to incorporate these ideas into their own work.  Guimard  found it necessary to carry the analogy between metal structure and plant form further than any other architect of his time.  

Victor Horta

                Architecture was a passion of Victor Horta in which he received Beaux-Arts training.  With this training, he mixed a neoclassical style with Viollet-le-Duc’s rationalism and constructed a series of houses throughout Belgium.  He received many commissions from domestic clients who shared his socialist views.  Some describe his style as a “whiplash style in France and abroad. [By] rejecting historical styles and embracing new materials, Horta laid the foundations for modern architecture.”2

Henry Van der Velde

                Henry Van der Velde’s influence on this time period could not have been accomplished without Willy Finch.  In 1982, these two created a decorative art movement that paid it’s respects to the English Arts and Crafts Society through their painter’s group, Les XX.  After awhile of work, they slowly became less associated with the industrial arts and were more recognized along the fine arts.  Through this experience, Van der Velde had the opportunity to present a series of lectures.  These lectures were published under Deblaiement d’Art meaning The Purification of Art. This zealous doctrinaire allowed him to express the joy he found in his work and influenced the overall movement. Like many involved in this movement, Van der Velde designed everything from chairs to entire buildings. 

1.       Colquhoun. Modern Architecture.

2.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Horta

Ruskin and Viollet le Duc

Two people so similar, yet so very very different.

                Eugene Viollet le Duc and John Ruskin were two theorists of the Gothic Revival.   While they stood behind two very different podiums, their voices were occasionaly found to be harmonious. 

                Ruskin was very much right brained and driven by his religious beliefs.  He was well known for his speeches and for his writings, many of which spoke highly of Viollet le Duc.  In Viollet le Duc’s writing, Ruskin is never mentioned by him personally.  When Pevsner compares the writing of the two of them, he definitely puts Viollet le Duc on a higher pedestal.  I find it interesting though that while Viollet le Duc himself does not mention Ruskin, his superiors do.  These superiors go out of their way to talk about Ruskin who is not directly involved.  I think that this speaks to Ruskin’s works and ideas despite Pevsner’s unnecessary animosity. 

                In the Seven Lamps of Architecture, the personalities and beliefs of these two men become more evident.  Overall, Ruskin speaks of these things in a less direct manner.  He leaves his views open for interpretation.  Viollet le Duc is very straightforward.  It is a clear checklist of what is black and what is white.  He saw gothic architecture as reason and science.  Ruskin looks past that and moves to the essence of man in respect to his architecture.  “A foolish person builds foolishly, and a wise one, sensibly.”  Rather straightforward, but the writing clearly tries to pick at the core of these people and their motives.  He believed that you could look at these buildings and figure out more about these people, and put a high value on the artist who ornamented the building.

                The artist was important to Ruskin.  The details of their work in addition to the actual building were also considered architecture.  However, the only way this ornamentation was considered to be high art was if it was a painting or carving of natural objects.  Viollet le Duc put a high price on the designer.  Their ability to think logically and create a cohesive plan put them above the rest in his eyes. The words of these two men frequently preceded them, but they were not completely full of opinions, both men were hands on and also had their opinions about restoration.

                Ruskin saw beauty in the imperfections of buildings.  “Imperfections is in some sort essential to all that we know of life.  It is the sight of a state of progress and change.” He also believed that if you, “remove the surface, you have killed the building.”  It was his priority to restore things to their original glory. Viollet le Duc however, respected the ideas of the past, but looked for ways to make them more innovative.  Viollet le Duc had a strong understanding of what once was, but looked to make his own rendition of them.

                While both of these men clearly had their differences, the one thing they could agree on was the fact that these gothic buildings were a reflection of all of the working classes combined.  It required the work of many to produce the final product.  While Ruskin admired all of the fine details done by individual craftsman, Viollet le Duc admired the designer for their overall composition and sense of place.  

Sketch done by Ruskin with serious attention to the details of the walls.

 

Composition by Viollet le Duc giving more of a general sense of the place. The details are more washed out.