To critics he carries the blame for every urban problem from sink estates to gridlock; to admirers Le Corbusier was a unique architectural visionary. TimesOnline
i have to disagree because he seems still relevant to the beginning of this century on many levels. in developed countries, it may not be as significant an issue to think about modern socialist agenda of providing dwellings for urbanmen as market is the major force which still shapes our cities. in eastern europe, i read that recent developments are like a minor turned an adult with certain freedom to build whatever you can in this sort of a void without the layer mediation of the planning authority as long as it is profitable. in the states, new urbanism seems to have been more favorable form of development, but we build high risers in the cities in south korea. recently, housing markets suffer because of the over-supply of middle class apartments. it is a phenomenon which needs to consider almost a retro-modernism in its profound sense. plans of apartments have become very efficient and functional but nothing too exciting. at this point, i have to ask why loft has not become more fashionable. to extend this line of argument, morphology and typology should come into the debate when planning a building or a town. zaha did a terrific work with phaeno science center to take the morphology of unite to another level at the same time to blur the notion of typology. i tend to associate typology with a program, but high-risers, other than the slab and the structural material, concrete, have mutated away from modernist buildings. in terms of urban morphology, no developers build plattenbaus anymore, but nonetheless, buildings and whatever green/public spaces you can squeeze inbetween buildings are not different species from utopian modernist urban morphology of corbu, mies, hilberseimer, gropius... also, in order to deal with organic settlements of slums of poorer regions, is it possible not to consider modernism?
i was not a fan of corbusier in the slightest from looking at photographs, but when i saw corbusier's la tourette in person, i was dumbstruck and realized i was nothing but a stupid damned fool saying idiotic things. i did not understand one iota about the master. nearly two decades later, the power of that space continues to resonate.
Feb 15, 09 11:44 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
4 Comments
Ok, at this point - enough with the Corbu.
i have to disagree because he seems still relevant to the beginning of this century on many levels. in developed countries, it may not be as significant an issue to think about modern socialist agenda of providing dwellings for urbanmen as market is the major force which still shapes our cities. in eastern europe, i read that recent developments are like a minor turned an adult with certain freedom to build whatever you can in this sort of a void without the layer mediation of the planning authority as long as it is profitable. in the states, new urbanism seems to have been more favorable form of development, but we build high risers in the cities in south korea. recently, housing markets suffer because of the over-supply of middle class apartments. it is a phenomenon which needs to consider almost a retro-modernism in its profound sense. plans of apartments have become very efficient and functional but nothing too exciting. at this point, i have to ask why loft has not become more fashionable. to extend this line of argument, morphology and typology should come into the debate when planning a building or a town. zaha did a terrific work with phaeno science center to take the morphology of unite to another level at the same time to blur the notion of typology. i tend to associate typology with a program, but high-risers, other than the slab and the structural material, concrete, have mutated away from modernist buildings. in terms of urban morphology, no developers build plattenbaus anymore, but nonetheless, buildings and whatever green/public spaces you can squeeze inbetween buildings are not different species from utopian modernist urban morphology of corbu, mies, hilberseimer, gropius... also, in order to deal with organic settlements of slums of poorer regions, is it possible not to consider modernism?
i thought it was a nicely written commentary. kudos.
i was not a fan of corbusier in the slightest from looking at photographs, but when i saw corbusier's la tourette in person, i was dumbstruck and realized i was nothing but a stupid damned fool saying idiotic things. i did not understand one iota about the master. nearly two decades later, the power of that space continues to resonate.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.