Of the architects most well known for the Modern movement in architecture, it would be a safe bet that most people would point towards Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe and Alvar Aalto as the most well known and most influential. As with those that came before and are still appreciated, it is because each had his own style and theories that drastically influenced how they approached each project. The methods appealed to people at the time and still do today, but why? What was so different?
Le Corbusier was a French architect and painter. A purist, he believed in abstraction to the point of identification, but only a little detail. Even in his early works, Corbusier tried to abstract the house down to its most basic aspects. This created the ever present flat roofs in his work (which sometimes worked to his disadvantage, like the Villa Savoye). An early example of this would be in his Ozenfant House. A very square, rectilinear home, it had a flat roof, a very open floor plan and the beginnings of what could be called his 5 points of architecture (very early stages).
 |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Corbusier_1933.JPG |
 |
| http://www.livingprinciples.org/wp-content/ uploads/2011/07/dominohouse_525.jpg |
 |
| http://images.bibliocad.com/library /image/00000000/5000/ozenfant --house-and-studio_5910.gif |
He also, would use a method known as the Domino System. To be completely honest, I don’t really see how he could claim this as his idea or how it’s even a big deal. It’s a method seemingly used all the time. It involves a slab for the floor and stairs, generally placed in specific locations, right above each other. It’s either a system that I, as a modern day viewer of architecture, have become so familiar with it’s seems ridiculous that someone actually had to come up with the idea or I’m not completely understanding it. However, as it could essentially be done through a precast system, it was easy and efficient to create, which made it very useful in the time before WWI. This system is visible in his Cook House, where there are three floors, two of which are slabs, with the stairs running up near the middle of the structure. Throughout the design and creation of these structures, Le Corbusier slowly worked on his major theory of architecture, which he later called the ‘Five Points of Architecture.’
Le Corbusier’s Five Points of Architecture where something worked on throughout his five decade carrier. They were:
- Free Façade
- Ribbon Windows
- Pilotis
- Free Plan
- Roof Garden
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/ thumb/3/3c/VillaSavoye.jpg/248px-VillaSavoye.jpg |
These five points can be seen very clearly in his Villa Savoye. The perimeter of the house is raised up on thin columns, giving the house a light feel, like it is floating. The pilotis was the key factor in allowing all of the other points to exist within his plans. The free façade is expressed in the open parts of the walls, which resemble the windows, but merely allow view from the upper open space. The long windows around the home are ribbon windows and the roof garden is just that, a garden on the roof (the Villa Savoye was a bit of a problem for Le Corbusier, one of the few who benefitted from WWII as he fled the country before he could be sued for the leaky roof). Finally, the free plan, made possible by the pilotis, was the ability to slot different sized and shaped rooms into the skeletal frame of the building.
 |
| http://www.designclassics.cn/upfile/20107168144895802.jpg |
 |
| http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/ jpgs/chicago/farnsworth_house_gmad06_3.jpg |
 |
| http://thearchitectureprogram.com/wp-content/ uploads/2010/09/MiesSrCrownHall.jpg |
Mies Van der Rohe, a German architect, also a flat roof enthusiast, was a lot less expressionistic than Le Corbusier. Many of his works, like the Farnsworth House and Crown Hall at IIT are simple modular or cube forms. The expression was not in the form of the building, but in the material. The very functional form, which looks almost mass producable, and the use of only a few materials is a theme that can be seen in almost all of Mies work, from his residences to his sky scrapers, it was steel and glass that made up the majority of the building’s appearance.
Another key aspect of Mies’ work was his open plans. Much like Le Cobusier, Mies tried to open up the floor plans of his buildings. This creates a multifunctional space, with only the truly private areas (i.g. the water closet) to be opaque. Rather ironic, to have an almost completely flexible program space within something so rigid as the cube.
 |
| http://www.ivarhagendoorn.com/files/ photos/barcelona-pavilion-8.jpg |
It is an interesting thought that when you look at some of Mies’ work, one can be reminded of the work of Adolf Loos. While there’s not a huge expression of form, there is tremendous expression of material. The Barcelona Pavilion, is/was one of the best examples of Mies’ work. He used panels of thick colored glass, marble and reflecting pools to create the most simple of possible structures. However, unlike Loos, who constantly worried about the separation of inside and outside, public and private, there seems to be no such worry with Mies, who used mostly glass as the wall of the structure.
 |
| http://www.nndb.com/people/453/000114111/alvar-aalto-1.jpg |
Alvar Aalto, a Nordic architect, had his similarities and differences to both the aforementioned architects. The main difference he had with them was his lack of a free or open plan. Open space was less likely with Aalto as most of his spaces were planned and programmed. However, Alvar did have his similarities to the others. He believed in the purity of form and had a great love of material. He really wasn't too much like Le Corbusier, though.
 |
| http://www.designboom.com/history/aalto/house/04.jpg |
Aalto drew many of his influences from nature. A fine example can be found in his Experimental House in Finland. The materials he used, such as the brick and wood blend closely with nature. Unlike Le Corbusier who strove for his buildings to have a floating impression, Aalto's buildings, like the Experimental House, were built with deep connections to the ground.
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/thumb/e/ec/SaynatsaloTownHall4.jpg/ 800px-SaynatsaloTownHall4.jpg |
Aalto believed in having the building reflect the site, nature and anything else that may influence the building. Like in his Säynätsalo Town Hall, he specifies each and every room and their program. He also, relates it to the site with his material choices and his interior courtyard. Another thing Aalto did well was think about human interaction. The corridors are well heated, even for the public to sit on a warm seat.
Three of the most well known architects of the time are so for a reason. They did excellent work and each brought out his own style. Le Corbusier brought out a lofty and function follows form kind of buildings. Aalto designed buildings close to nature and highly ingrained in the earth. Meanwhile, Mies disigned flexibility within rigidity, which brings forth it's own ironic concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment