Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe, and Alvar Aalto- Modern residential house.

Probably some of the most important names in Architecture during the 20^th century were that of Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe, and Alvar Aalto. Particularly in their residential houses, their designs defined key ideas in modern architecture. This writing will look at the approaches of each architect in the designs for their residential projects and also look at how those ideas changed over time.

              In his early career, Le Corbusier was very much influenced by work going on at the time by the Deutscher Werkbund and figures such as Adolf Loos who stood for the idea that “ornament is crime”. Le Corbusier was very much a part of the L’Esprit Nouveau going on in France which sought to clear the relationship between art and industrial society. From this Le Corbusier took the ideas that industrialism in modern society was leading towards collectivism (Le Corbusier displayed many socialist ideas in later projects). He also seized the idea that the machine had the ability to “display proportions of volume and material” which would in turn create order; something modern industrial society was looking for. Another influence for Le Corbusier was the work of Cubist artists at the time. Le Corbusier praised Cubism for “its abolition of narrative, its simplification of forms, and its method of selecting certain objects as emblems of modern life” (Colquhoun 140).

Model of the Citrohan House- Le Corbusier http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/3444735387_1c383c88b0.jpg

                In Le Corbusier’s Citrohan House (1925), he is using industrialization in the form of prefabricated floor plates and columns, an idea first formulated in his Dom-ino frame (1914). The walls of the house serve a non-structural purpose but begin to fill in between columns and form spaces. The house becomes a simple cubic volume where its structure and tectonics are disguised. Le Corbusier modeled the house in the likeness of Citrohan racing cars where “like the machinery of a car, the technology of the house should be invisible” (Colquhoun 146). It was from the design of this house that led Le Corbusier to publish his 5 points of Architecture that would become a rule system for his future projects.

Villa Savoye- Le Corbusier

                Perhaps the most well-known example of Le Corbusier’s 5 points is the Villa Savoye done in 1931. In it he uses the pilotis, roof garden, free plan, free façade, and ribbon windows. With all of these elements set down in the beginning, Le Corbusier went through a systematic process of incorporating these characteristics so that the end result would be perfected to convey the best sense of order. This work could be compared to an almost neoclassical approach to order; a style that greatly influenced Le Corbusier.

Drawing-facade of Villa Roche with regulating lines- Le Corbusier

                Le Corbusier was also known for using his proportion systems (like the Modulor) along with the golden section to inform the composition of his projects. Another approach Le Corbusier took for the design of his building facades was the use of regulating lines. These proportional and mathematical methods were similar to the process in creating machinery. The Maison la Roche is a prime example of how Le Corbusier used proportion and line to arrange his façade.

Le Corbusier's Modulor 

http://www.galeriedesign.com/images/modulorMan.jpg

                Similar to Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe was surrounded by ideas and figures of the Werkbund and Constructivist movements. And like Le Corbusier, Mies was also influenced by neoclassical and eclectic thought. This is evident in one of his early projects; the Riehl House built in 1907.  His Riehl house is very symmetrical, prism-like structure, with a gable end placed on a retaining wall.

Riehl House - Mies Van der Rohe

http://www.plataformaarquitectura.cl/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/459634239_casa-riehl-1907.jpg

                It was after World War I that Mies began to apply a more constructivist approach to his design. His houses become more like fragmented planes whose plans almost resemble a Mondrian piece in basic outline. There were two ideas that Mies began to stick with, the first being that enclosure should be generalized to the form of a cubic container and not restricted to any specific function, and second, that a building should respond to the fluidity of life. In the Wolf House (1925), Mies uses a series of interlocking cubes to form a sequence between spaces, almost like a flowing and unrestricted stage for function. Mies also explores the use of material by incorporating brick not only into the cubic structure but also for the terraces outside.

Wolf House- Mies Van der Rohe

http://www.ifa.de/uploads/tx_ifafreebox/resize_mies_guben01_01.jpg

                The Tugendhat House built in 1928 marked a transition for Mies. Like many other modern houses at that time, Mies uses a simple geometric form in white. The interior plays with flexibility of space by using screen planes to divide living room space. Mies really experiments with opening up the wall plane by using floor to ceiling windows that look out into the landscape; an idea that translates to his Farnsworth House.

Tugendhat House - Mies Van der Rohe

                The Farnsworth really stands as the symbol to his statement that “less is more”. He uses very simple geometry and overlapping planes along with enclosure consisting of entirely floor to ceiling windows. This was insight into nature for Mies to design such a transparent structure, especially for something as private as a house.

Farnsworth House- Mies Van der Rohe

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IxttN3npY3o/TTpIG81tZrI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/0REjNmmwVsQ/s1600/2+mies_farnsworth-house_blog.jpg

                Another important player in modern architecture was Alvar Aalto. Aalto was again influenced by neoclassical and rationalist thought. However, for Aalto this led him to a New Objectivity and a more modern way of looking at architecture. Aalto was a influenced by functionalism and was also a proponent for the synthesis of form, material, functionality, and aesthetics.

Villa Mairea- Alvar Aalto

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2668/3758595434_99085ddc57.jpg

                As an “experimental house” (Curtis 346), the Villa Mairea gave Aalto the chance to express his new ideas. This house represented a strong connection to nature and a strong sense of regionalism being built with Finnish vernacular tradition in mind. Aalto wrote that “Architecture cannot disengage itself from natural and human factors; on the contrary, it must never do so…. Its function rather is to bring nature ever closer to us” (Curtis 346). For materials Aalto used a pallete of local wood, stone, and brick. Looking at the floor plan, Aalto steers away from “machinism” in favor of a more natural organization. This further exemplifies his stance on connection to nature and begins a movement away from functionalism; something that gives architecture the impetus to move away from classicism and on towards being truly modern.  

Experimental house- Alvar Aalto

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht4L03ppe75kzT312gpXTOfVcI7KugbkGSQuOpXug4990MgOWto0L8a86WCElBiWnR3XER0XszYktj7kMqtSHhqTDIPnhmYPpzZAxtind8QC-4MrcTHhI9lhJw-MOEIYQ4ITmDwkaysL0/s1600/4841412000_b6c813a945_o.jpg

                Another project that embraces nature is Aalto’s Experimental House (1952) in Muuratsalo, Finland. This was very much an introverted house with a white painted exterior and brick laid central courtyard. Aalto really tried to experiment with the material of brick as he incorporated nearly 50 different brick patterns into the interior of the courtyard. Site, material, climate, and landscape were all very important to Aalto, which became a reoccurring theme in his work. 

Adolf Loos and Peter Behren of the Werkbund

Coming out of a time period that was being influenced by the Art Nouveau and Jugendstil movements, Adolf Loos certainly changed the perception and progression of Modern Architecture. With much of his work centered around Vienna, he brought something totally new and original to the scene of architecture and refused to be a part of any of the movements going on at the time.  Through his writing and critique, Loos opened up a very important debate which questioned the necessity of ornamentation and the role of art in design.

                Another important group that operated at the same time as Adolf Loos, and with the same influence on modern architecture, was the Werkbund. They shared similar ideas with Adolf Loos of form without ornament, and through their “Weißenhofsiedlung” exhibition in 1927, they helped to define the international style of the modern house. Among the architects and members of the Werkbund who built at the exhibition included Mies Van der Rohe, Peter Behrens, and Bruno Paul.

Aerial of Weißenhofsiedlung exhibition, Stuttgart, Germany

http://www.weissenhof.ckom.de/01_allgemein/pics/01_luftbild.gif

                This blog will look at and compare plans of Loos’ Muller house and Peter Behrens' house from the Weißenhofsiedlung exhibition.

Adolf Loos' Muller House, 1929-30, Prague

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/villamueller/mueller3.jpg

Peter Behrens' Terrassenhauses, 1930-32, Stuttgart

http://www.weissenhof.ckom.de/02_gebaeude/bild.php?id=434

 Looking at both houses it is easy to see that both architects stuck to the use of simple geometric forms in their designs. From the exterior we see the form expressed in plain white surfaces with simple windows put in. Loos co-owned a construction company that specialized in applying new construction techniques, such as use of reinforced concrete, while architects of the Werkbund were also trying to find universal and modern materials with which their new international style would incorporate. I think that because they both abandoned ornamentation and stuck to such simple geometric forms, Behrens' and Loos’ houses (along with the other Weißenhofsiedlung houses) were quite limited and apt to looking similar.

Figure 1: Geometric stacked and intersecting forms of Behrens's house

                Now, when it comes to the plan and orientation of space in each of these houses; that is where the two begin to differ. Loos is well known for the use of his Raumplan. In the Muller house, I think Loos took a quite innovative approach (as opposed to the more traditional notion at that time) to looking at how spaces in a house relate. The Raumplan set each room at a different level where they were connected by a series of short stairs. Here Loos is transforming the floor plan into space where he is changing the notion that each room must sit on the same plane and share the same ceiling height (Colquhoun 81). From this he creates some unique diagonal views that are framed through openings in the walls.

Figure 2: Loos's Raumplan concept in the Muller house: note stairways (Colquhoun 80)

Figure 3: Muller house room floor height and highlighted stair corridors

                Behrens took almost the same idea, but not to the same degree as Loos. We can see that Behrens is experimenting with volumes (specifically a modular volume) and positioning and intersecting them in space. However, unlike Loos, Behrens does this on a set plane for each floor. From the floor plans it is possible to see that Behrens is taking a simple rectangle that is subdivided into 2-3 bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and dining (also with access to a terrace) and then arranging it to the orientation that he chose.  The orientation had to do with providing occupants access to light and fresh air to reduce the risk of spreading tuberculosis and disease which was a pertinent threat in older cramped industrial city housing blocks.

Figure 4: Modular square/rectangle of apartments intersecting and transposed

                Ultimately I think each house takes an interesting look at volumes in space and how they relate to one another. They both take material into account and discuss the relationship between form and function. These notions of the modern house were truly unique for that time and certainly influenced future architects.

Sources:

Colquhoun, Alan. Modern Architecture. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.

Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture Since 1900. 3rd ed. New York: Phaidon, 2011. Print.

http://www.weissenhof.ckom.de/00_startseite/index.php?flash=4.

Art Nouveau: Horta, Van de Velde, Guimard.

Art Nouveau was a brief but very influential and unique period of time in the history of architecture. It was a time spent in the exploration of new ideas and was very much influenced by the work of Viollet-le-Duc and the Arts and Crafts movement going on in England, while also drawing from the technological and industrial advances of the late 1800’s. Art Nouveau was a definite break from classical style and the debate of eclecticism. It was a truly innovative style of the times where men such Victor Horta, Henry Van der Velde, and Hector Guimard paved the way for new modern architecture.

Illustration in Art Nouveau style by Alphonse Mucha showing the 

nature of organic curves and ornament

Victor Horta was a prominent figure in Art Nouveau as it emerged in Belgium in the 1880’s. The beginnings of Art Nouveau came out of mediums such as illustration, fabrics, and ceramic works. They had a certain specific tie to organic shape and form and also the naturalistic spirit of the Romantic Movement. According to William Curtis, “Victor Horta…seemed a three-dimensional equivalent to the painters’ two-dimensional linear inventiveness” (54). Perhaps Horta’s most significant work in the Art Nouveau is his Hotel Tassel built in Brussels in 1892. It is here we see his use of the modern material and the ideas of Viollet-le-Duc regarding the exposed iron beam and its synthesis with stone. “The principal innovations lay in the frank expression of metal structure and in the tendril-like ornamentation which transformed gradually into the vegetal shapes of banisters, wallpaper, and floor mosaics”(Curtis, 55). It was this focus on structure integrated with organic themes that defined Art Nouveau as an iconic architectural style.  

Victor Horta, Hotel Tassel, Brussels, 1892

  Another Belgian prominent on the scene of Art Nouveau was Henry Van de Velde. Van de Velde started as a painter and was very much influenced by the work of Impressionists and the theoretical teachings of William Morris. From painting, Van de Velde moved into the applied arts of furniture making and interior design, and then from there moved into designing buildings. He was very interested in the idea of ‘the total work of art’ where every part of a building, down to the smallest detail, would carry the same aesthetic character as the overall building (Curtis, 57). Van de Velde was very much a forerunner of functionalism with his view on ornament. He broke the formerly held conception that structure and ornamentation are supposed to occupy two separate spaces.

Example of Van de Velde furniture design

Similar to the work of Horta and Van de Velde in Belgium, Hector Guimard sought to demonstrate the decorative principals of Art Nouveau through architecture in France. He too was influenced by Viollet-le-Duc’s Gothic rationalism and was also familiar with the works of Horta. According to Colquhoun, “His alliegiance to Viollet-le-Duc was even stronger than that of Horta…the Maison Coilliot was based on illustrations in Viollet’s Entretiens and the Dictionnaire”(23). His Paris Metro (1900) is also significant display of Art Nouveau’s natural forms put into ironwork and detailing. Many of Guimard’s designs in iron were able to be mass-produced using molds due to the available industrial capability at that time.

Paris Metro, Guimard, 1900

Overall the work of these three men helped to create a brand new sense of architecture that carried over to influence the thinking of future architects of the 20^th century. Their use of form and structure where tightly controlled by functionalist thought and rationalism handed down by Viollet-le-Duc. It is also their use of material and natural ornamentation that created such a unique style that should never been forgotten. 

Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc

Gottfried Semper, John Ruskin, and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, were three very important men that helped shape the early movement of Modern Architecture in the 19^th century. Through their publication of theory and practice in architecture, they each portrayed unique ideas and elements in regards to built and restored architecture. It is in these differing elements of architectural theory that lead to debate and criticism surrounding their work. Even though some their ideas were disputed against one another, their contributions were significant to the development of Modern Architecture.

Semper was responsible for many key writings, which started with his Four Elements of Architecture in 1851. It is in these writings that Semper conveys his belief that architecture is a reflection of socio-political conditions while also trying to systematically classify architectural forms as a typology. In The Four Elements of Architecture, divides all built form into four categories: the hearth, which represents the central social element, the platform, which serves to elevate the hearth, the roof, which protects the hearth from the rain, and the enclosure, which keeps out the rain and the cold. Semper favored Classical Greek style because he thought that it embodied social values that his Four Elements could be constructed upon. Semper did not appreciate Gothic as Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc. Semper was very much interested in craftsmanship and the technical arts and was later criticized for discounting technological innovation (such as steel). In his famous work of the Semperopera in Dresden, Germany, his style of Eclecticism can be seen in his use of Renaissance, Baroque, and Greek features. In regard to Semper’s view on built and restored architecture, he was not against the restoring of buildings as he approved of his son updating the Semperopera after it burned in 1869.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dresda_Semperoper.jpg

                Unlike Semper, Ruskin was a strong admirer for Gothic architecture. In Ruskin’s The Seven Lamps of Architecture, he describes the seven moral values that he believes are necessary for all pieces of architecture to hold. Ultimately, Ruskin believed that Gothic architecture provided these moral values in its strong connection to religion. Much like Semper, Ruskin also was against mechanization and the innovative uses of iron. Ruskin believed in the importance of nature and its ability to cater to the creative expression of artists and craftsmen. Through this, Ruskin is often characterized as being very emotional in his view towards architecture, that Gothic is the “architecture of life”. These charged feelings also carried over into his view on preservation of old buildings. Ruskin believed that buildings should be left in their original form and to decay in order to properly portray the time period in which they were built for.  

                Viollet-le-Duc was much like Ruskin in his adoration for the Gothic style, but different from both him and Semper in their distaste for the use of iron. Viollet-le-Duc was very much a rationalist when it came to architectural form and style. It was the structure and tectonics of the Gothic style that Viollet-le-Duc was interested in. Viollet-le-Duc believed that true architecture should have a clear purpose and function, as opposed to Ruskin who believed that the ornamentation made good architecture. In his works, Viollet-le-Duc used a mixture of elements and materials which lead to his conceptualizations in material joinery and tectonics.

                                   Conceptualization of stone and steel  Viollet-le-Duc (1864)

 Viollet-le-Duc not only disagreed with Ruskin in the use of iron, but also in his view that architecture can and should be restored. His well-known restoration of the Medieval Carcassonne fortress was controversial and would have been seen as a horrible slight by Ruskin. Viollet-le-Duc was mainly criticized for using material and style not native to the particular region he was building in.

 

                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carcassonne-vignes.jpg

                

Even though these men shared differing views on style, material, and preservation, they each provided a unique commentary on the issues in architecture during that time period. Their observations, theories, and practices ultimately paved the way for the future of Modern Architecture. 

Welcome

My name is Jon Lain and I am a third year architecture student at Ball State University.
I am currently enrolled in the course of Architecture History (Arch329) and this blog site will consist of posts dealing with ideas, discussions, and readings for this class.
Please feel free to comment on anything here!