Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

l f

J

-~··

1: -=, .. -·* ,

a\

,,

, LE CORBUSIER'S UNITE D'HABITATION A. SLAB FOR All SEASONS ?

A Thesis

presented to

The Faculty of Architecture

University of Cape Town

In fu If i I ment

of the requirements for the Degree

Master of Architecture

by

Uri Pinchas Avin

November 1973

.-

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non-commercial research purposes only.

Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.

S Y N O P S I S o··F T H E S I S

Most arguments about high-rise housing are waged in the.

shadow of Le Corbusiero The pervasive effects of his dogged

half-century spent advocating the benefits of high-rise dwel I ing /;

are sti! I everywhere apparant. His watchwords - "solei I, espace,

verdur~","le grand gaspi I !age du temps moderne", "les services com­

muns", "I es pro i ongements du I og is" - are st i I I in one form or another

the u It i mate weapons of the apohg i sts and detractors of high-rise, and

the Unites,in particular, have become the touchstone for much of the

slab-building arounda

In view of al I this, one would expect that there exists a

solid corpus of critical works explicating Le Corbusier's precise

position whose meaning, as a result,would unambiguously and by common

consent be implied whenever the Corbusian Freudian-father is invoked.

The~e are not however, any such rigorous c0itical studies of Le Corbu­

sier's housing proposals and among the general works that do exist,

I ittle concensus ~nd indeed some contradiction exists on the defini­

tion of the Corbusian solution; that is, on the question of the Unites

proper context - the planning matrix within which it fits. The Unite

itself, its genesis and its ultimate canonization, has been the subject

of even less objective investigation.

This study set out to fi I I that gap; in the course of my

research it was found that Le Cor~usier's supposedly-consistent proposals

concealed during their long evolution many shifts,dlsjunctions and non sequjturs. This uneven and disconnected dialogue between the former

and latter parts of Le Corbusier's 'oeuvre' that is described in this

· study reveals the Unite finally as being not at al I firmly embedded

in or clearly resulting from his overal I design contexts and housing

proposalss It stinds,final ly,as a separable declaration of Le

Corbusier's particular understanding of the psycho/visual nature of

human perception, and this is judged to be an inadequate and over -

exclusive raison d'etres

:-

--". ----

· C O N T E ij T S

CHAPTER 1: i NTRODUCT I ON , UNITES OF "APPROPRIATE SIZE"? •• ; ••••• ~.;.i•i•i.i.Page 1

CHAPTER 2: THE CHANGING CONTEXT CONSISTENCY OR tONTRADICTION? •• ;.~.;.;.~ ••• i.;.;.Page 22

CHAPTER 3: CONTEXT THE UNEASY RESOLUTION ••••••••••a•••••••••Page 132

SELECTIVE Bl BLI OGRAPHY .i.~.i.;.;.~ ••• :.i.;Page 153

/

,,,. < I

__________ :,...__,. ___ . ·---~.---------

C H A P T E R .. 0 ..N E

INTRODUCTION ~

UNITES OF "APPROPRIATE SIZE"?

This enquiry, as the title implies, setsout to

establish the contemporary relevance of Le Corbusier's

most cherished housing prototype= What lessons does

the"Unite"hold for us?

This sounds a simple enough questiqn and sug-.

gests an equally simple method of enquiry; if the bui Id­

ing is indeed a prototype, examine one such bui It example

and reach conclusions about its validity and utility as

a model. And this is what the critics mostly do; using

the Marsei I le Unit~ as the invariable example, since it

was the first-bui It and thus best-known, opinions are ex­

pressed about its success or failure as a model a

But both the abbreviated reference to the build-

1ng as the "Unite" and this apparently straightforward

critical method mask a very real complexity that our 1n1-

----------tial question must properly reveal.

For the ful I title of the Unite is the "Unite

d'Habitation de Grandeur Conforme" - which can be trans­

lated as the"lntegral Housing Unit of Appropriate Size")

Immediately, new shades of meaning appear -- in which

sense 'Appropriate' and to what?

Clearly the ful 1· title invokes something more

than just the bui I ding itself, and even as regards only

the bui I ding, the qualification 'Integral' imposes a stan-

dard to be met. Simi I arty critics discussing the Unite

must assume (tacitly or exp I icitly) a context within ~hich

it is 'Appropriate' and I ikewise the adequate representa-

b

o~C

8

~-~. .,;:..._~::c ·-·c''

d[~]

~:; 2

7."'l~;

--~ -

Une unit8 «d0 grMdeur conform a» 1 HDbHer 2 Travailler 3 Se cultiver o Cit8-jardin horlzontale b Cit8-jardin verticafe c Los prolongemonts du logis

fig. 1

A 'unitO' of consistent size 1 Living 2 Working 3 Cultural a Horizontal gnrdon-city b Vertical garden-city c Extensions of the home

1. This transl,,tion which, I believe captures the

nPC"("ssnry ov<'rtonC"~, i:;; niy nh·n. AltC"rn,,tivc:' V<"...,_

sionf:. I hnvc romr ilcro~~ int'l t1d<" '~t .. "'ind,,r<l-~i :<.'­

Unit(,' .. 'llnitt: of consi sfc-nt si :<'', 'llni tt- .. ,f

proportion,,te si=e', '!lousing Unity of congr·uent

si::c'. Through non-tP1.1nsl1.1tion of the wopJ

'Uni t.1' one I oses its intention to conve>· the

idea of 'wholeness' or :entity' as well as the

notion of a finite unit or measure, or, using a

word sti I I dearer to Le Corbusier's heart, that

of an organ. The search for the right measur-,

or scale for an enterprise of any kind, is true

of al I Le Corbu.sier's work and is of profound

importance in grasping his intention. He uses

the word 'Unit~'. in a number of ways. In the

present work,though, its use wil I be taken to

refer to the kind of building exemplified at

Marseilles, Nantes, etc. An example of the

wider kind of usage of 'Unit~' nomenclature

is Fou~d for example in the Oeuvre Complite,

Vol. I V,p.72. (f'.:] 1)

1

r--

tiveness of whichever Unit~ is being discussed: These

_are nearly always value-judgements made as a matter of

course -- after al I Le Corbusier was so pro I ix a polemi­

cist that there is surely little doubt about the nature

or proper context of the Unite!

When we look to the sources and contexts assumed

by 6ritics however, we find no such unanimity.

Sherban Cantacuzino would have us understand that

"the theory of vertical I iving proposed for a whole city

in the 'Vi I le Contempbraine'has taken form in one or two

solitary examples, of whfch the most distinguished is the

Unite at Marsei I les" 3 from which,· he believes, it fol lows

that "it is important to. remember, therefore, that the

sense of social isolation which the uniqueness of the Unite

must give its occupants is precisely the opposite of what

was intended."4

Kenneth Frampton moves the ontogeny eight years

forward and continues to draw similar conclusions

Only unintegrated elements of the Vi I le Radieuse were ever to be builta Already pre-figured as free-stand in$ 'communes', in the ere-war projects for Nemours ~1934) and ZI in (1935), the Unites d'Habitation which were erectid out of context after the war, were to suffer, as might have b~en predicted, from both physical and social isolation,,5·

Dennis Sharp sees the Unite emerging at Marseilles

thus: "The culmination of Le Corbusier's quiet wartime

thiriking was seen in the massive 'Housing Units' (tinite

d'Habit_ation) at Marsei Iles, a residential complex designed

. . I I f k " G pr1nc1pa y or wor ers.

2.There ~ere, in all, five separate Unit~s built

between 1947 an_d 1968 and many more projected.

.3- Sherban Cantacu::ino, Great Modern Arc.hitecture,

P• 90.

4. Sherban Cantacuzino, Great Modern Architecture, pp.91-92.

5. Kenneth fr.impton, "Jhe City_ o_f: Di ..ilcctic",

Architectural Design, October 1969,p.545.

6. Dennis Sharp, A Visual History of Twentieth

Century Architecturei P• 192.

;.(.

r

!'--

Both Martin Pawley and Norma Evenson discuss the

Unite as a single fragment of what was meant to be a lar­

ger design for Marsei I le-South,. Pawley e I aborates that

"This large bui !ding, notwithstanding its close relation­

ship to some of le Corbusier's urban projects of the 1920's

represents for the first time the architect's answer to

the prob I ems of construction cost, i and v a I ue, maintenance

and sheer 'practicabil ity,."7

Robert Furneaux-Jordan invents a generic context

for the Unite as bui It at Marsei I le: riThe block is of

course only a fragment of Le Corbusier's complete city ..

There should be six, teri, twenty such blocks spaced out

over half a mi le of parkland, each with its twelve acres,." 8

This is presumably meant as a faithful setting fcira build­

ing that "was in a sense, the culmination for a I ifetime's

,work and thought".,' Though how this re I ates to the asser­

tion repeated here by Furneaux-Jordan that the building was

originally designed "for humble working people" is not

clear,. Was it then a universal prototype or one spec,-

fical ly for working classes?

Lewis Mumford is content to evaluate the Unite at

Marsei Iles 'as is' on the blithe assumption that "It em­

bodies al I the features Le Corbusier regards as essential

for seemly urban I iving"wand is a : .. ~a~unique so~t of dwel­

ling, a compact solution for the whole problem of urbanism,

a modern version of th at Fourier i st ph a I anstery, i so I ated

and self~contained, whose occupants need not leave the build-

1ng in order to play, to exercise, to go to school, to visit

7. Martin Pawley, le Corbusier, p.17.

8. Robert Furneaux Jordan, le Corbusier,p.81,

9. Robert Fu.rneaux· Jordan, le Corbus i er, P• 78,

10. Lewis Mumford;. The Highway and the C fty,

p.69, and P• 78.

:5

their doctor or their dentist, or to market."~

Carlo Cresti repeats the Fourier analogy seeing

the Unite as the result of an uncompromising, ever-impro­

ving and converging design process:

When !'Unite d'Habitation. and its unprecedented forms became an integral part of the Marsei I le I andscape, the eye I e of the 'to-ii_o-pJ-.a.r:i.n__i ng revo-1.ut ion' \\l'as __ com i ng fulT~cTrcT;., The soc, a-l _§nd ~- . ~~--. ---·~- ~·---·--~---~-.----~--- - ---·--··- -c -~ -·- . pofTEical ideal of al I-embracing harmo11y 'Grande i=la'rmorirert;~-put f-or\\l'ard by Fourier in his ''Phlan­stery' project, pursued by Le Corbusier, became a working real itya,r11u The shades of Utopia pale before such persistent and consistent proposals and any extremes, due to early ambitions, are eventually resolved as the overal I design progresses., 11

Norma Evenson echoes the Fourierist origins and

adds·to the requisite contextual backdrop that" in his

conception of communal I iving, Le Corbusier cl aimed to

have been influenced by monastic society. "12

These t\\l'O

inputs, the Fourierist and the monastic, as wel I as the

modern ocean I iner analogy, Peter Serenyi regards as pivo­

tal to the "invention of the Unite concept in 1922d3

and

this heavily influences his conclusion that "It seems ••••

that ideal I y at I east, each apartment of the Marse i I I e

block is designed for a single human being, I iving com­

pletely alone, while sharing the advantages of a larger

collective order,."14

This sampling is fair indication of the wide

range of backdrops thought necessary to a~ understanding

of the Unite d'Habitation. And indeed, one may perhaps

argue that they are al I right~ that the Unite must truely

be seen as the most-evolved end-product of a widely rami-

11. Carlo ·cresti, Le Corbusier, P• 36, 37.

l:J.. Norma Evenson, Le Corbusicr: The Mach.ine

and the Grand Design, p.32.

15. l'l·t•:r ~c-r<"nyi, "t.<' Corhu~i<'r, Fourif"r and

the Mon,1sh•1·y of ·[111<1", 1\rt Ru I I C't i n1

Dcccmb~·r, 1967, p.ZS1.

/4 Peter Sercnyi, "Le Co1•busicr,Fouriar and

the Monastery of Emil", Art Bulletin,

December, +967, P• 286.

4

fied and highly com~lex process; that there is no single

optimum environment for it other than a broad generic con­

cept in which al I the sources partake without mutual cancel­

lation; that this is the veritable slab for al I seasons.

Certainly from amongst the many writings of ~e Corbusier

himself one can advance enough evidence to support al I these

positions and we need not even go to such lengths for,at

the drop of a hat in virtually any of his later books Le

Corbusier does the job for us:

In fifty years the search for a dignified dwelling has led us from the Carthusian monastery of Ema to what has now been achieved -- that is, to conception, then to creation, and then to construction of the Unit~s d'Habitation de Grandeur Conforme. An immense amount of labour has entitled us to write of this book and make this notable claim: the creation of a bold and effectiv~ dwelling, bringing with it the basic pleasures,.

The "basic pleasures" were defined in the Athens Charter of the CIAM (city planning)a

In 1922: Salon d'Automne de Paris, a proposed Contemporary City with 3 mi I I ion inhabitantsa

In 1925: Pavil Ion de I 'Esprit Nouveau, "Plan de Paris", actual ful I-scale I iving eel I (dwel I ing) equipped with common services.

From 1931-1935: study of the "Radiant City", symphon!c city-p!a~n!ng ~roeosal for modern ti~es (a machine-age c1v1 I 1zat1on)s .

In 1942 (ASCORAL), the book "Les 3 Etabl isse­ments Humains" (The Three Human Establishments) was written (published in 1948).

Al I of this (from 1922-1957) tried out, applied, perfected by confrontation (that's what city plan­ning means) -- in the over~I I plans for Paris,for Stock ho Im, Buenos Ai res, Bogota, Nemours, in A I ger i a Algiers, etc. etc,. --with purely architectural re­search: dwel I ings individual houses, civic buildings, etc., etc,. 15

Here we have, then, gathered together for us by

5

/5. Le Corbusier, Nursery Schools,pp.9-10.

.... ,

the Master himself, the stream of experiences, events a~d

projects that culminate in the Unite d'Habitation. The

I ine connecting the contexts selected and cited by critics

is made here to run unbroken through most of theses Not

only, must we then assume, does the Unite spring directly

from each of a number of specific sources, but, as Le Car­

busier te I Is us, it unfolds over the years, nursed with

great perseverance, in a consistent way, to become the ··

standard it finally doesa With great pride Le Corbusier

would look back on this effort and echo a credo first trum­

peted in "L'Esprit Nouveau" -- "It is necessary to press on

towards the est ab Ii shment of standards, in order to face

the problem of perfection"~G

The Unite, seen in this I ight, wi I I embody and

imply al I the ideas and currents traced out down time for

it is nothing but the diapason of consonant orchestration

and of a true score.

How true is al I this?

Maurice Besset, I ongt i me friend of Le Corbus i er

and perh~ps his most i I luminating critic has this to say

about Le Corbusier's consistency with respect to the de­

velopment of the 'pi lot is' in his work.

It is rare indeed for any invention of his to be the fruit of~ single intuition, to take at once a definitive form. Even in the case of those elements which he cal led standards, the initial invention provided mere1y the point of departure for a series of re-elabora­tions, and reinventions, which fro~ the initial premises, draw different and sometimes contra~ dietary meanings: it is this perpetual reviewing and stating of a given problem that Le Corbusier cal led his "pati~t se

1arch", and that he opposed

·l6. Le Corbusier, Vers une Architecture, p,123

17. Maurice Bessct, Who was L_e Corbusier;p,75,

~

... I

to passive, gratuitous, unfruitful i l lumination,. 17

On the surface of this p~ssage we see a crack that could

al low in the thin end of the wedg~!•a• and sometimes con­

tradictory meanings"c Were this held more generally for

Le Corbusier's work, it \vould be nothing else than the ad­

mission of a change in kind rather than in degree, traceable

through Le Corbusier's supposedly consistent development,.

Besset is too close to Le Corbusier to desire or to be able

to damage thel Master's monolithic structure and pursuesthis

critical option no further,.

Unfortunately, even those critics that are unham­

pered by the Corbusian charisma, and who roundly damn the

work of his hands, even the best of them, are sti I l beguiled

by his verbal patina, and assume a consistency in his vision

and tend thus to bury him utterly, rather than sePectively.

For if, in point of fact, Le Corbusier is incon­

sistent through time, if there are significant major shifts

of ground which pass by more or less unacknowledged, then

· to what precise context is the Integral Housing Unit appro­

priate? If the Unite or embryo-Unite does have quite a

different meaning depending on the situation within which·

it is viewed, then before we c~n make any assessment of its

contemporary relevance we must surely examine these various

situations closely in order to correctly establish which,

if any, qualify as the 'correct! or'intended' context.

17'

;. .. '

We have set outselves up to examine contexts for

the Unites-- with a view to establishing whether the mean-.

ing of this unfolding prototype is consistent through timea

Now there is a group of concerns to which le Cor­

busier was undoubtedly faithful from beginning to ends

These conce~ns ·are the underlying and fairly abstract prin­ciples thatat~e ultimate justification for everything that

Le Corbusier said or didu In essence they amount to the

belief in MaR's ineluctable involvement in two fateful sets

of relations: that between Man and Nature -- Le Corbusier sometimes added 'Cosmos' to this bi nom i a I --and th at be­

tween Man and his Fellow Men -- usually phrased as the

Individual/Collective binomial. This constitutes Le Cor-

busier's unvarying view of the Human Condition and al I of

his attempts were directed towards a true resolution both

within and between these dualities. For Le Corbusier, it

was this essential resolution, this critical HARMONY, that

was the goal of al I planning and it was his belief that

the techniques of the New Age offered unprecedented oppor­

tunities for re-establ~hing the time-hat lowed hegemony

of this Harmonyu These ~nchanging tenets of faith were embodied

1n the form of principles which were also physical design

goals. Here is a fairly concise and complete version of

these goa Is cu I I ed from Le Corbus i er' s I abyr i nth i ne 'Rad-. . C. , 11, 1 ant I ty 11

I. The city should provide I iberty for the individual and the benefits of collective action

'

1e,. The book itse If wi 11 be referre·d to as 'The Radiant City' in this study to distinguish

it from Le Corbusier's project of 1930 which wil I be cal led the 'Vi lie Radieuse'.

8

on both the material and spiritual plane. 2s Al I ·urban planning should be ultimately based on the human scale. .

-r-j. Urban planning should fix the relations between the various places devoted respect­ively to residence, work and leisure acc6rd- ~

, i rig to the t' h yt h m of the i n h ab i t ants ' d a i I y j_ _ __<:3ct i Vi tyai ~--4. Housing should be considered as the cen­.! traf element in all urban planning. -r=-5l'I The material elements at the disposal of

the urban planner, and which it is his place to combine, are: sky,trees,housing, places of work, places for communal activity (inclu-ding leisure activities), and traffico~ .

%0 These goals, which were to become axioms for_CIAM, though

they fo~ceful ly define the scope and priorities of plan­

ning, do not extend to the determination of a very specific

physical environment. The demands for the functio~al zon­

i~g of cities, the incorporation of natural elements into

the city, the primacy of housing, insistence on human scale,

and so on could actually be arranged in any conceivable num~

ber of ways depending on the precise manner in which they

are put into practice.

These generalized goals are steadfastly reflected

1n all Le Corbusier's output ( see Table la ). -In

so far as some lend themselves to being related to Fourier­

ism or Monasticism, as fo~ example the first-principle

clearly does, these connections are val id.

But this is not the ground-on which the questions

we have asked must be settled; these principles gave rise

fu an interdependent series of particular design strategies

and it is to these that we must turn to pursue our enquiry.

I~ Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, p. 188.

20. CIAM are the initials of the Congr~s lntcrna·

tionaux d'Architect~re Moderne.

;

r

The first deliberate, comprehensive and all-embra­

cing programme incorporating such strategies only beca~e

possible for Le Corbusier after 1930, wheri the architectu­

ral revolution could clearly be ~een as a fait accompl i and

its extension into the sphere of urban and regional plan­

ning appeared necessary and Logically unavoidable. With

a new confidence and sweep of vision born of this 'neces­

sity', Le Corbusier, moving to the hel~ of CIAM in 1933, was steering the Modern Movement towards the certainties

vouchsafed him by his design of the Vi I le Radieuse three

years earlier. Here is Le Corbusier's version21

of these

design strategies presented in the guise of a "resum~ 22

of the answers given to the questions about housing" by

the 1933 CIAM delegates. an A house is made up of a floor on a foundation, a water-tight ceiling, and wal Is that may either let I ight through them or not. This unit may ei­ther be placed on the surface of the earth itself (spread out) or be superimposed in vertical columns of 10,20, 30, etc. Modern techniques (steel and cement) wi I I now permit us to create these "arti­ficial sites"m . b. By using modern techniques, houses can be made soundproof,, c •. Aside from its habitable area, housing should_ include certain indisRen_s_able extensions="(psycl10::"' I ~9.)' ana pnys i o I og_~):~a~-igntanagre.enit:)'-.1!. er;:" By tal<Tng advantage of modern· techniques per­mitting us to increase the height of individual buildings, the city's past tendency to spread in area can be reversed: it can contract. e. Building taller housing units wi I I permit the introduction into the city, whether artifi­cially or naturally, of green areas, and n·atural elements (water, trees)a

10

2L Thot the clcor imprint of le Corbusicr's

hcovy · honJ. i,. upon tl,i s pt·our-ammc is ,1pp<1rcnt

1,hen we compare this ostcnsi blc 'rc,sum6' with

what actually appeared in the final Athens

Chorter which resulted from this,~he fourth

CIAM gathering. Many items critical in

le Corbusier's thinking -- the notion of soundproofed dwe I .1 i ngs wi tli in ta 11 I arge

housing units with common services as the

only combination capable of compacting the

city were excised from the Charter.

2'2. le Corbus i er, The Radiant City, P• 1S8.

f. The safety, efficiency and hygiene of our cities have been disrupted by the invention of new high­speed vehicles. These have made the introduction of a new kind of traffic classification essential: the pedestrian should not have to share roads with automobi Iese gn Different kinds of traffic should not be al~wed to mix. They should be separated according to their functions (speed and weight); h. Traffic lanes should be independent of the means of access to f-ous i ng uni ts 111

i. No housing should ever run alongside a traffic I -----·-·-·-- - ··- -------- -ane.

~R. The new high-speed vehicles necessitate greater distances between intersections, and therefore a de­crease in the number of streets. I. The i~troduction ~f ~ommunal services in domestic life could lead to a saving in the area of'the indi­vidual housing unit. Such communal services I ighten domestic L9 bou~ and free wives for more useful work. m. The organization of such communal services wil I necessitati the building of housing units on~ larger sea I e. n. This new housing unit wil I be in accord with the new traffic system. o. These new housing and traffic systemswi I I provide space for a new system of green areas between the· housing units,. p. The park outside each housing unit, wil I contain the nu~series, children's playgrounds, primary schools and areas for daily sporting activities or re I axat i on11 z.3

The interdependent and overlapping nature of these

provisions is clear (See_ analysis in Table I b ), as is

their rather self-serving progression which too neatly clin­

ches everything into~ readily interlocking total s61ution"

not only to housing but to urban organization generally.

There is the inescapable feel in~ that the inventory is a

post-hoc rationalization of a synthesized design th~t has

1 I

2.5. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 189.

t·

already been settled: high bui I dings (point d.above) for

example, wi I I not necessarily create a contracted city nor

automatically al low of the introduction of natural elements

into it (point e. above); only a particular density and a

particular proportion of ground coverage in conjunction with

high bui I dings can make these happen; the establishment of

new larger-scale housing which, mirabi le dictu, perfectly

fulfi I Is al I the earl ier~mentioned environmental objectives

(points m-p above), also smacks of working forward from a

particular preconceived.design solutiona What gets confused

1 s any c I ear sense of the actua I generating goa Is; instead

we are more or less offered options for sett I ing the actual

hierarchical sequence of strategies.

This is not suprising since Le Corbusier himself

said of the Vi IJ~ Radieuse plans that"The necessary explana­

tions about the modern City- the Radiant City- are infinitely

co·mp I ex: each question ricochets back onto the others in every 24

direction" and, by way of elucidating them, Le Corbusier imme-

diately thereafter points to the very high densities achieved in

the Vi I I~ Radieuse as its most crucial qua I ity, al lowing of the

reduction in internal distances etc. Elsewhere, ,however,

shifting the order of priorities, Le Corbusier proclaimed that:

J'ai ete le premier a proclamer que la vi I le moderne doit etre un pare immense, une vi I le verte. Mais, pour me permettre ce luxe apparent, j'ai quadruple la densite de la population, et j'ai --au I ieu de les distendre--raccourci les di stances. 25

Examples like this could be multiplied.

With a view to resolving the question of actual priorities

we have 1 \veighted' the strat~gies in a table:z.G( Table I (b) )

·~

24. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, p.106.

2:;. Le CorbuAicr, .Prr.ci A ion,., P• 268.

2.eo'.This table is based -~n-.Le Corbusier's

lengthy 'resum~' earlier quoted but certain points have been pruned or sub-divided for the suke of clurity, simplicity und brevity. To determine 'bonding value·,·, the 'dots' have

been given numerical values from 1-4.

according to the degree of inter-imp I ication supported by

any one measurea. The resulting hiera~chy of.the most

heavily 'bonded' strategies is as fol lows :

Housing Units on a larger scale

Extensive natural areas

Ho~sing's extensions: Spa6e, Sun, Verdure

Taller Bui I dings

Separation/Specialization of al I Movement

·Introduction of Common Services within Building

Development of Body/Mind in immediate verdure

These results do not, however, give us any clear

indication of priority;they do show which strategies result

in being the most powerfully justified within the system

as a whole, but this is not necessarily the same as being

th~ generators of the systema 'Housing Units on a larger

sea I e', for ~xamp I e, is to be seen as th.e · most I 09 i ca I out­

~ of the system, but not necessarily the first genera­

ting priority;;

The only method, it appears to me, of establishing

the generating strateg.~~ is to examine the application of

al I the strategies in practice with an eye on whether the

most 'bonded'ones retain their supports down timen A tra­

cing of consistency, mutation, or abandonment down time 1n

relation to Le Corbusier.'s most characteristic projects

should leave us with a firm empi.rical ~nderstanding of th~

Unit~s true conceptualc.Prxt so that we c~n proceed to eval­

uate i ta

There is, however, another facet to the principles

ahd strategies elaborated to date, which, for al I its beihg

,J

·1

1n the shado~ of Le Corbusier's writings and work, is

nonetheless critical to their understanding and must

therefore be examined for the .I ight it can ultimately

throw on the Unite as a solution.

am referring to the implications of both

design principles and strategies for re-organization

of areas far broader than the physical sphere alone;

the major consequences for the re-structuring of society

that are the inevitable result of believing in certain

ends and means for the harmonized I iving environment.

Le Corbusier (and therefore CIAM by and large) was al­

ways ambiguous about acknowl~dging this strat~ of is~ues

as a problem worthy of serious and detailed attention,

though he often stumbled upon it~ Shortly after the

adumbration of the design.strategies earlier quoted at

length from The Radiant City, Le Corbusier went on to

state that:

Any practical realization of these principles depends upon the development of the economic system. Research into the correct solution for this problem is not part of the architect's professional task. Architects and city-plan-ning experts can only resolve the technical problems of urban redevelopment within the limits imposed on them by the economic system/7

Le Corbusier ignored the manifest internal contradiction

inherent in this position -- _how can an integral part

of a system e~visage any alternative to it without free­

i~g itself frbm that system's mental bonds •• a.whi le yet

being warned that this is out of bounds? Not· one page

14

2.7. Le Corbusier,· The Radiant City, P• 189.

earlier, however, Le Corbusier asserted that the CIAM

Congress' "strictly technical investigation" had led

them to:

••• envisage the problems revealed in al I their simultaneous reality: Anthropocentrism: Human biology cind psycho­logy ( the individual ). Sociology: ( Col iectivity ). General Economy Authorities: Administration and Executive.m

The section immediately fol lo\ving on'this one is, in

fact a detailed excursion into the realm of socio­

political thought=

Thfs problem the inter-connection between

planning and politics was to haunt Le Corbus i er, 1 n

one form or another, al I his I ife. His fut lest coming

t? grips with it coincided in time with the development

of the principles and strategies already described --that

1s, 1n the early Thirties. It' is again the tome, The

Radiant City, that furnishes us with the best overview of

the social-planning measures that were deemed necessary.

Table le ( Page20 ) collects al I these requirements

from various parts of.the book under the rubric 'AUTHORITYr.

and indicates their extensive mutu~I inter-relation as

wet I as their strong relationship with both the other cate-

gories already described. The tightness and integrity of

al I the three strata of concerns i~ apparent. What is

also apparent on examining these 'Design Consequences', ts

that al I this 'Authority', must, in reality, ,erecede or,

,;

28. le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 1'.~1,.,

at least, accompany the implementation of the ful I gcimut

of design strategies. That is, that al I the measures

constituting Le Corbusier's 'theoretical' concerns,either

tacit or imp I icit, appear to require simultaneity of opera-

. tion for consistent application t6 be maintained down the

Ii ne.,

Returning to our earlier intention of correlating

Le Corbusier's projects with his various 'theoretical' con­

cerns in order to establish consistency ( or lack of it)

and determine what were his gen er at i ng strategies, it is

clear that we must add this most recently uncovered strata,

then, to the I ist against which the projects- must be mea­

sured.

This composite process is visually. depicted 1n

Tab I e Id (Page 21)

The immediate impression gained from this Table

1s that there was a definite movement from a position of

maximum support for the projects on al I fronts to be one

of reduced and uneven support. The Marsei I le Unit~ 1 built

1947-52, is in these terms seen to fal I transitionally. If

what the Table depicts was, in fact, a process of withdrawal

from an early stance which fulfi I led a set of integrated

desiderata ( except at the level of most generalized prin:~

ciples), then we must beg]n to question Le Corbusier's much­

vaunted blanket avowals of methodologic~I consistency.

It follows, furthermore, that i.t needs to be asked

whether the Unit~s of 1952 onwards can be appropriately seen

1n ter~s of earlier coritexts where, mutatis mutandis, they

or their forebears may wel I have had a different meaning"

IG

Unavoidably then, we must take a close look at

the phenomenon pi~tured on our tableg If the signifi-

cant changes here implied did take place, to what should

they be ascribed and how did these affect the genesis of

the Unitf d'Habitation?

17

CHAPTER T W 0

THE CHANGING CONTEXT -CONSISTENCY OR CONTRADICTION?

!' -.:, 1' ,.::, I ,.::, I \l) ..::," ~'::I .,;, '° \l) -a -a .,:, . ~ . w, ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ W W W W N N ...,, - I O I O o.Y'~ . v,._ V\ ~ ~ w Q \Q N

co j :i:: l n : en - ,- (I) - ~ > · < > < ~ I ~ ;: f g ~ c> ~ ~ ~ ~ ;= 5 ;: ,.. I v, "" C, - "' ..., o :i;; ,.. - ,.. - ,.., o -1:,; .o o c:: rn rn rn rn z - - > :>("') - z ;;tJ :'J ::0

I

r- e> i=::: ,., o (/) -o -;,, (I) n r-> ~·ri, > 0

~, ~ G~ °' ;: ~ t/l

1

(1) r1i rn M ·, ::: ' C 3': I C I ~ ;' '

11

'. o'1 o. e ·0 o ei{ ;· -ci- l')\ 0 IO\ I O 1·,....,.-.-,.-,,_,.t-y-;t-o'"".-pr_,o,-:-v .... ,,."-~or-,-~..,..,..,v""',-.--u,-.~ ,..........,.,-c-r.,..ty __ -···---

, v ~ W W i & bcnof1ts <1f C-,l lcct,vc Action

I· i~1 ii) CJ O O e @ ®IO @ C O I ®."' 2. ~li'lnning. pl'ioritic&-Sky,Sun,Ycrd1;1rc,Hou!-i I __ , -· --1---- I 1na,Wo~kplaccs,Co111mun.:il ploccs,C11-culat1on

" I ;---i-~, ·--1?r=-r~ ' . , , I I I .. - . . . . . . . . i, L!J~~·~-·~ J ." -0 l.~ L" . o_ 1 © J Et, I @ I e : u i th<, huni.m s~,1 IC

Ii' ?i.=,-,1 ....,, Io le, j iT~:"}~.·?,'" f?\W).1 tJ.\ t~.:llb ff,"~ t'.\t .. ~; 1. NEW Bu1 LD1NG'nc11NoL0Gv ! V V !Sit "" ....J!~IUI~ .... ~ V ~ \J~

,:' ®f() ! ·e ~, <rJ ~~~TGv ~ ~ (jl .(i 2. souNDPRooFrn owELLING -~NIT I ~Te 1 o ~ o OI@ .. · ~I~&>.- ~ ~ ~ 3, HOUSING'~ EXTENs10Ns.:sPACE,suN,YEf:OURE < I: ~lo O @ 0 0 ® ~@ 0@ e $ 4, TALLER BUILDINGS h --·

~ Ql_o o e o c ~I~ o I)@ 0 Ck)· s. c1Tv_ coNrnAcrs 1N AREA

r. o_/_!_~~~ ~ ~!~ ® @ • 0 ~ _!_:_EX~~~~=~-~-NATURAL AREAS : .

11

Q) ! ~ I~ C) IO . ® '9 @ G @ ~ '1 ® ! 7, SEPARATION/SPECIALIZATION OF ALL MOVEMENT .. -L-- ------ -·-r-- --

o I $ o ® o © ~ G ~ G G @1@ s. @10 ® ~ o o~e @eo@l•.1

I--·

,_~io Oj~fo O@ e.);) @~0®

I i J!>').. ,~ t!5t,tfiir, ! I · :s _J;;t··/~~ J:f. 0 ~-@ @ :.. ~- ! 0 Q : 11,\l'O~EN'S FflEEDOM FROM CHORES & FOR

€2) 10 ,~ G © 0 ® ~@ 0 @ 0 (1j) I 12,REDUCED AREA OF INDIVIDUAL DU, "

-ofo o @o-O®f>@G@0®,---.-··--4-~-i---i----r---

__ SU_Q _ _i Cl ~ 0 0 @ @ \\) @ Q} G ~ I 14,DEYELOPT .'oF BODY/MIND IN

--·-r- - -I;_"\

01°1(1)1®! 0 01010@~@0@1, ·-----· -•-- ---r,--,

I 1;i,;~1I (:!'1:~ f.)i'li. /.'..,~ titll O II n • "'T"n",T" ,, ' ' ' • • • i' ¥ 0 )f~e @~~vii,¥~ C

i ¥ j 0 }f @i * f; @ 4j :If }f • @ ~3

• 1--~ i o. -5:, ~ ~ ll ·0 @) @ e (l) @> G 0 4,

:o.o *~~1

o C®GQ>@ti)& o '· ·-i-- -~ ·-- ---- ,_ -· -o , o ¥ 0 o o @ @ 0 e e o I e 11 ~-

·--·1 - 1.,... - ·o o .@ ~ (j Q-~~~AUTHORITYf~stitutions ensuri!)!)

HI. 0 i O I ""' ~o-·- A; A -~r,M ''.7\ .f.t;\ ,,,_ ~I 8, AUHl0RITY.t'? in~titu~e I\C\; food supr>ly ~ 1 • ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ system cl 1m1nat1"9 1111ddlaman.

:~T~o G ,n '-o·--~ ~ -~ /~ ~ @ G ~AUTH0i0-i\·-~~~rt-.;-fT~tci1t~ \i;;;I , . v V 'i/J ~ V ~ shopp I n9 - ·

·~·1-n () 0 () I e~ ~~, 6?~ iii' ~ ~.m Q\ I . 10;,,~TH~ldTY ~o rcdu,ce 01' I imitcities,

:':{:l: :t.

C) Strongly.exploited

G Moderately exploited

C W~ekly' exploited

0 Ntit exploited

0 Choice offered

¥ Not applicable

J;J.. Not indicated

Strong connection

Moderate conrrection

O Weak connectidn

0 ·No connection

(~) Table I ~epicts an evolution in Le Corbusier's

projects that can be briefly summarized as fol lows:

The first phase of roughly ten years, from 1920

to 1930 was, for Le Corbusier, a period when the concen­

tration on developing the new architectural vocabulary re­

sulted in the creation of a large number of different

housing prototypes= (See Table l I a ). These varied in

iize cind purpose, most of them being in low-rise form

and in a low to medium density bracket. those dwel I ing

units (DUs) designed as eel ls of larger apartment blocks

being compensated for loss of ground-contact. The ,m-

pl ications of these studies for the wider context of socio/

political planning were sti I I relatively mi Id.

The next phase, which can also conveniently be

fitted into a decade, that from 1930-1940, saw a radical

shift from the development of individual dwel I ing-unit

prototypes to the design of apartment prototypes which was

the result of Le Corbusier's involvement \vith large-scale

total urban planning where the relevance of the prototypical

individual DU dwindled. An intensely wide-ranging enquiry

into al I facets of urban I iving produced a comp I icated sys­

tem of checks and balances where, in a situation of dramati­

cally increased densities, a smaller variety of fairly mini­

mal. 'sealed' DUs was compensated for by benefits from exten­

sive large-scale physical and social-pl~nning measures,which

focussed on the whole city as an integrated organism.

Lk

r-

A retreat from major social-planning initiatives

at the end of the next decade into a more neutral physical/

organizational framework had the effect of undercutting

some of the housing system's former strengths (while para­

doxically making their realization more feasible) without

any paral lei re-adjustment of the actual DUs; these last

had now solidified into a ver~ion of Le Corbusier's ear­

liest and most-loved DU type and manifested certain endemic

failings,.

The I ast phase,· from 1950-1960, is one of impasse;.

events and the contradictions within his own system having

overtaken him~ Le Corbusier attempted a reversion to a

melange of pristine 'strengths' which, in practice were 1n-

ca~able of fulfilment,. He had thus, final recourse to

verbal consistency only, transmuting the earlier once-func­

tioning solution into symbolic terms,. These, and elements

of Le Corbusier's insights into 'psycho~visual' man,remained

to prop up his housing solution, which had become sufficiently

dissociated from its context to be considered in a new I ight

and more or less i.n its own ~ightg

With a view to fleshing out this precis, we propose

to consider the salient changes in the realm of housing and

related areas evinced by th1'-ee selected projects1.and to,,

establish their causes and effects.

t:s

1 . . The criteria for selection have been either

the evident generic nature of the project,

or its obvious importance to Le Corbusier

himself or its significance as a 'deviant'

case.

T H E V L L E CONTE MP OR A I ·NE Les "lmmeubles-Vi I las proposent une formule neuve d'habitation de grande vi I leu Chaque appartment est, era real ite, une petite maison avec jardin, situee a n'importe quel le hau­teur au-dessus d'une chausseeu Mais la chaus­see, el le meme, est modifiee; el le s'eloigne des maisons, des arbres envahissent la vi I le; la densite des qu~rtiers d'habitation demeure la meme qu'aujourd'hui, mais les maisons mon­tent plus 'haut, sur des perspectives consider­ablement elargies» La crise de la domesticite est un evenement social inevitable qui reclame !'organisation des services communsQ Les "lmm­eubles-Vi I las", par les moyens co-operatifs de ravitail lement, proposent la s~lution meme des Hal les Centrales de grande vi I len 2

This pithy quotation moving from a description

of the eel I through the housing system to.the level of

socio-economic planning is pregnant with directions for

the future; it also i I lustrat~s the design methodology

Le_ Corbusier pursued, believing it to reflect Natural

Lsw:- "du dedans au dehors" -- al I things move from the

inside to the outside .. 3 It is, thus, both desirable and

logical to treat each project in the order of Ce! !,Shel I

and Contextu

1 9 2 2

Judging superficially from the various i I lustra­

tions of the Vi I le Contemporaine made from 1922-1925, it

wbuld at first appear that only one dwelling unit was de­

ve I oped/to be rep I i c ated throughout· the who I e scheme,(fjs Z-4-) whether in the "lotissements fermes a alveoles (closed

honeycomb developments) or in the "lotissements a redents"

(setback developments0 Th~re is some:_~vidence to sug­

gest that this was not the case howev~r, and that the

double storey apartme~t~vj I la that Le Corbusier presented

:z.. le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol. I ,p.41.

3, It is interesting·to note that frank Lloyd

Wright preaches precisely the some rule of 'organic growth.' from within to without. In fact, I om generally struck by the paral-. lei principles and goals of these two Masters which_because· of their differing cultural milieux however, manifest them­selves in completely different ways,

..£.'t"

r

A

{/)

~

~)

Une tcrrassc-jardin (Jardin suspendu) - r{'>~~J!il,,,/'-' -~ . j k--::f~ . ;1 ,n some detai I was destined for only the "lotissements !I~~ ,· ~n :erm~s.," S'.nce this DU held centre-stage, we shall examine - s:ff_.:·-~i~_;ffl,••, ...... ;:. g_ 1t f1rsta (f'3~s-7) • . . • 'l;~~!: li~"'~~~f:;:- ·.'. _;Ir ~I

The most str I k Ing feature of the DU was I ts ur- rt"tf~1. tr< .... J.L':?{.;)] ttf\. '::: '.:h i 'i! ('(;! mi 1. 1 /;. ,, ...;~,. ·XJl r -===.:.:.-.;,, \ .. , I

b / d • th • 1 h• h b ht 1• ht d t.:.l, • .J.-1,:',,·,·.I· VT;o:·c"};c,,..,-,-. ~--.~/ .,,f•>-•:, an gar en 1n e air w 1c roug -19 , greenery an ,.~- .~_.:-.<r;\:>.:.., __ \:::•i-_·:'?/~<_--~·".':?.%-,~.,,,__ !;.,:;/ff···J;,•~_~.1-

- \;IJ~,.f:,,:,~...,,,' 'y I ~~C\ '--';.~l., / . ~ ~:f,.. HJ:: ~( C:v

vent i I at ion deep into the ce I I, vi rtua I I y doub I ed the act- t 1·""} "~~"·· ·,""l:/J.- · ' ·w .:~t\l·?~ ' ... P,.:1\rV,I'· f.~•',,~ -"':~)'li

ual facade length, provided a sound barrier between apart- ~- 5 ~-;:··. - •lj·-..:f:~-;4i:-'·~~-.. ~~i~ IJ.g. , '1J1 ~' :~,~;··""~ I~ . - -:.--::-;.

ments and compensated for the garden and ground-contact ~w·rdttt:11;t,~--/,J-~ ,. ,.._:--..::--..~~=:_;\ \ .JJ-tttillJ ., .;?~ ,., ~'::,,. ~ ~ traditionally available to suburban housesa The planning -r . of this DU bore some resemblance to Le Corbusier's earlier

prototype, the Ci troh an I of 1920 ( {i_j 8 ) --- not ab I y the

double-height fiving room with mezzanine -- but was designed

to be multiplied as a eel lular unit with integral open

space, something the Citroh~n type was able to achieve with

I ess economy and f I ex i bi I i ty .. (;~?)The hanging garden a I so pro-··

vided separate I ight, prospect ·and ventilation to the mezza­

nine bedroom, a function performed by the side ·wal I of the-·

Citrohan. Other noteworthy features are the 'neutral'posi­

tion of the staircase about which the house is zoned, the

genero~s provision of toilet faci I ities (especially in re-

lation to 'contemporary standards').and the space-standards

general.ly -which are sufficiently generous to absorb extra

beds etc. This DU remained unchanged between 1922 and

1925 when the sc~le of the complex was increased; it

merely turned about to face the parkspace within the

court,, (fi3 10)

was

The density of the "lotissements ferm~s" is given

as 305 PnPaha (122p.p.an) and 52% of the ground is said to

be covered by bui I ding, the remaining 48% being given over.

fig. 7

fig. G

I ~I'" I / 'r·-----1

~J trrJ. ~----1:0 51~] "If-=--.,,,.::::.._ ------,r· 1;:tt!ili! u[yi r~;;J1-:: ®, .. ""'--' I .l:!r;'._U ,' .... - t· ~-' • ' E.::-:~~,, .. ·p~,,.,.~~~

y~·,,-v ''1 ..__ ~ I -

~- ~~\\ . . ' . \ \

---'~~---....:-..J Un lhing-room

9i...:I'''"'",..~ ·,- -., ·H- ' I .:~q_p,"' ,,;,!;"'1 \ < ct ,.,1. o:;:1, • .1,_ • I --iif'='i::::C"==:::• ::o===·== - n-, f J, .... ,,.•11 L__j _;"=';::.,__

ii!ti,trn~}dQb,.,.,.Hc.<n ~I ·l1j I ~. :j-

..... ,.1, w ,, ' ;:::;:;:Jt u Ari ~H'""" 0 t·

0

12 .o %Af ~ · (:I • ~- w,;~ ·~ (/' ~ 0 . ( 1,,~1 '<M-'><·•,..... -/ ,i/) 0 I " ] 0 'r -VU\t'4~A0D~

;l a ( ) c:-:) ~ ~ ~=i ? -'.~ 6 . L....J \..Jp /.! ~.

!ii

-~ ~L~ I . ~~ z Rt DL cLu,~~L )j b~·· - 21' )= -· -I ---- , .:.~ - . -\ ....

f~"'C.L' I I ~

fig. B

·---,·~-~~~

<-~

E~~tt~~!~££,i!,;:j ~ ;- ! : r:..:.,;~ ~;;~..:;12~1 !4~""'1i '! t>'-"i-1 I 1 •• , : i · ;!1 ! I • ~.... • ~:-'~' -- ... ~~it;···., ~~ . .:,(-,.......,....-,r-,,-,:- . . ~ ·, ~(,-,,,_:....oJ_L.:J,--"-'~··•"--- .J .i:~'--"'" Ji,lll."-.......C.SC ~- :-., __ .,,,__ra,1 .rn L't4 ,

. . i · .o. D ['J ~c--·,R1 + 'IT· - 11r'} C O ~ ·j (~ ,.;:·:·~~~--~~!l .~ ·---t f . ~~. \ ' l r , ~ ry -- ' ~~- ~- . ~ r~::J·-""·"··-·~-·;,_~,-,,-0 ,' I ITif L.,.,.,.,._Ji} .. ~~ .. \1 ~2:::~~:~~~;::::~:~:::~-;...-:z~:":"·~:.;~;:~~~~~:'~:::~·:::::::J fig. 9

fig. s

~ . '11 :o c::::i j<• •·•r;/ '_: jOU\RJUM

--'--IL..J.;. \ l,.!

Terrasse

lrr2rr~} J~BR.t. a°'-'OOtR

I'' '--' A . ·gg11: 0 'SU

"\~TffJi 1----i .. l-~

~ i iffiITrri___uilUJiw""' n

Entresol

n=~=:J4;*S·l~Dl f©w~ .. 0 ::,~Al.LC.

Q -- \\ <) ,0 ~cu,~H~ C) OJ~ ., .. C. ;e;:::J ~ 11' ill ion.~ · ill1

l{ez-_de-chaussee

27

r-··

0

to gardens and sports grounds. The density of the ulotis­

sements a redents" for "I uxury d\ve I I i ngs", is given as

much the same --300p.p.h.(120p.pffa:)-- but here the percen­

tage of open ground is almostdoubled to 85% while the build­

ing's comparable developed length wil I be found to have

been alm~st halved.

How has this been achieved?

The answer would appear to be hidden away in the

corner of a drawing in "The Cit~ of Tomorrow" and in its

caption ( fi_J 11 ). This"special arrangment of great im­

portance" is none other than the kind of interlocking sec­

tion used by Le Corbusier for the later Unites, which was

supposedly first crystal I ized by him only in 1936r in the A

1 lot No. 6 schemea There is however I ittle clarity and

some confusion (for example, the three corridors give

access onto nine levels, not twelve,as claimed) as to

how these DU s with their hanging gardens actually inter­

lock. The only way in which the section can be interpre­

ted is shown opposite ( fi.3 /;2.; ) and c I ear I y resu I ts in a

new kind of extremly large apartment-vi I I~ that le Cor-

busier nowhere subsequently elaborated. An alternative

solution, having some similarity to Le Corbusier's and

more feasibly scaled could hypothetically be devised ) rfi.3stf,15

( f'3 !3 ), and indeed Le Corbusier's Wanner buildings,..of

1928 came close to realizing this, but the resultant block

depth would only be about 46 feet (14m), the same as for

the Vi I las-lmmeuble closed type, and some way off the 65 feet (20m) claimed by Le Corbusier for his 'system'. Le

Corbusier used the same interlocking 'system' for the re-

~ p.p.a. will always be used to mean people

per nett acre. Density figures are based

on my own measurements unless otherwise

indicated.

fig. lZ

f'ig • I :3

I f I l l I I I I

!~ Q I

2 'I

• V ~ V ~ ""' Jc: ).I.

I 0..JW -fl,): (,..)-.1y-; (/'( \ J '4-FW fW-1 0\ stvrxr I · ..

'

~b

fig.1.f Deux coupes en trnvers des immeublcs

\~A~XER OF.~l:VE lP:?:4/:!9

fig. I 5

~ .. ,, ,:----; . r ----- · -i-··-3 ,··;_-~·,,_._] L= ~~~~-·--- n . ", ,• L I • ' I . : .'J---~ ;~_I_ ! I • -~-· ; --.. • .~--~, 11:i I . :':)

-i'~~?'~~~;'.~~~~'.'''r.;:?"-1!r- -r-sJ ,,b"'\ .. i/ !)OD ~I .i- ' i . . - .LJ . ---,,,,,.,, . 1 - [ L -- . - f ;;;1,i ~' Ir}. J C') . · - i~ . ~::[¥rnUSJ---rt-1l~ c~J __ · _____ La_p f~'/~[~f ~-~ ··::=:=:-===....~~~

.Premier ftage nee eouloir gfofral

~·- -----lf ·-·· =--.;.;..·· -:..;...~..;.__;- -

1, ~ . ~--~~"-~1,i= if{ ___ 'J~~~~ '~ i\l F,.·11b;·: []ITt/~=,'':':';:'::-:·::IT -·. r· ··" . 1 / · , : <.. ~:'t:Hr.:.:.:·;;~r:='~r::: :--: -

I ·., . . .. f;;:; ,,,,J · · i \,~ r-'."'! .

>·_ ~~i,~~fn~l~1c=:1 - 1~·L1·: .. :_J · I .·· ···!JJ I

.. -J '-~· ~> :z::::: I :-1 f __ ~-- " - _}- r 1 . ~_j j: It . _ _t;ID ,. ·-·- I}<" V I ·- '. ,,, -'

'{:7:'....... 'l1~- .· ::L_ -t 1 _____ J _ _ 1 .. -·

'it ll:

Dcu::ril!me t!to.ge

ii

b.. '

dents of the Pl an Voisin ( f.3 19 ) but here too omitted

to i I lustrate its workings. 4

The broad vistas and open green spaces gained

for the 'luxur~' redents rested, then,on the shaky founda­

tion of an undisclosed redeeming section. This section

postulated of apartments looking both ways across the

large spaces that the setback pattern, freed from the ad­

J01n1ng streets, had succeeded in creating.

It is germane to ask at this point why Le Corbu­

s1er did not do the same for the "lotissement ferm~s" as

for the setbacks.

The answer would appear to I ie in the need to

feed the common services provided on the ground and first 5

flo6r levels of these 'standard' housing units directly

and continuously from the bordering streets.(ht~Though Le

Corbusier said that the reduced superblock size of 400m x

200m was used" since this is the best dimension for the

intersecti6n of streets": this module's patent lack of

smooth connection with the larger road infra-structure

of the rest offue city, its increased road surface area,

the problem7 of reconci I ing its grade-separation system of

traffic with the "redent's" horizontal separation system,

must make one question whether Le Co~busier's assertion

was not too sanguine• (Ct,lt<fiYt frjs 1?i-3 2")

The more I ikely reason for the reduced super­

block is to be found I believe, in Le Corbusier's search

for the correct'population module' for the common·ser­

vices combined with the need to maintain a density high

enough to make a pedestrianized city viable:

[.. \<-; .... _ }-: '_.;/

,~

fig. 17

fig. /6

_jl

: ;: '~."\){:I-:,,,• t ••

.•+.The pencil sketches for·the·Ville R;,dieuse show Le Corhu~ier investignting an over­

lopr,ing-typc section which, in the <'vent,

wng not used; it bears no simi lurity how-

ever, to thot described in the 1925 rcdcnt.

I -·· ... ··- ". - ---.--.....;.. ..... - - -- I t, ff._j. ,

\. ,· . _::, .·. : - ,,,.,. . [I::) [.< . r

.. ' rs1. J Cr:..= ,.,.,~-=-> -·. J. ·)··· f~,~~\ ' .. ,~:,:'"':::; £1 ~~"'":.;.: .. 7 '···~. ..::__,-< 8 , . ,. 'I J t; ... • . '-7 •

'. ;«~~4~ _..;:~L;::.:, ,,:;;~ ~~-' ... ~~~~~.ltt.~~ • '..h fi -,,!.,,,]

5. Le Corbusier used the word 'Stondord' to

distingvish the •1otissemcnts ferm6s" from

the "redents"; ony less neutral word than

'standard' would have invoked a degree of

non-egalitarianism that he preferred to avoid

G. Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow, P• 215.

7- A prob I em made to disappear when the two

are shown together.({j/7)

I· I .. ~

"' >'. ~

., '>

I ~ 7. "'

I :., "' ::; ,:: . • •

" .-

. tin •rl

·<t-i

· I I I I I I· I

"The idea of groupirig 660 flats, which means from 3,000 to 4,000 i nh ab it ants, in such a block of closed cell-I ike elements is to make of theme sort of community, the creation of which ~ould bring about freedom through order. There would be six staircase wei Is and six entrance hal Is to serve the ~60 flats on the five storeys•••••a" 8

A count of DUs in the entire court complex wil I

reveal a total of 340 (68 DUs per- floor x 15 floors)rather

than 660 flats. The disparity between the number of flats

of the apparently discrete court complex and Le Co~busier's

'service module' of 660 flats can be accounted for by look­

ing at the quantity of DUs served by the six elevator cores

which feed to both sides of the street thus doubling the

quantity of DUs being served ( BU ). Le Corbusier

could thus have what he considered to be the kind of popu­

lation required to support a 'common services' installation

(food storage, restaurant service, domestic service and

laundering) as wel I as, by redu6ing the size of the courts

laea increasing their number of sides per given area, main­

tain an adequate density.'

This does, admittedly, create a situation between

blocks that is similar to the "corridor-street" Le Corbu­

sier hated so fiercely and it comes as no surprise the~e­

fore, that in his next attempt to create an overal I proto­

typical urban solution in the Vi I le Radieuse, Le Corbu~ier

ihtegrated the comma~ services into the system of the freely

meandering redents.~

Le Corbusier's emphasis on the lmmeubles-Vi I las

tends to obscure the fact that only one-sixth of the city's

overal I population was actually intended to I ive in them.

_..~

& Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow, p. 217.

Sr' .. iHPLQ·4¥i-i•"',-.·4%U'-Wi.t-iM,11Mif@::1'.15!341i#fiU

A. A m D V V

I ~-~ 1··Z--§·~·1 ~n I fig.ZI

iffi%:•1 .. ·UU\G·W&S®Pt{

A -~ ...

Ght3f.4Mi:t\ Mi M§';t;i;;Z.Q

IA El "V

!ltP,U;·, ~,:rmn-SC%Jfui&J~··P@W: i&l4i'9CUGK:, ?k-WJW:at

~- The sense in which Le Corbusier used the

word 'community' in the previous quotation

should not be confused with any sociological

notion pf thi 'absolute' or 'correct' size

for a community; it simply represented the

number of DUs arrived at as a result of cer­

tain organizational considerations (common

services and density needs) which promoted

maximum operational efficiency. The 'commu­

nity size" of the larger redent superblock

which_did not need to taken into account these

considerations to meet road-efficiency require•

ments was proportionately increased.

~. In the Ville Contemporaine, the redents are not

furnished with common services presumably be­

cause, as 'luxury' housing where the "crise dans

la domesticit,• did not apply, these would be un­

necessary. The redent~ thus enjoy the further

benefit that their ground floor villas rest

dJrr-7tly amidst verdure.

r·· ..

Two out of the total three mi I I ion inhabit~nts of the

Vi I le Contemporaine, those "who could only I ive to ad­

vantage outside the 6ity" I ived in a dormitory"garden­

city" and commute:ldaily to either the city'sbusiness

centre o~ to its "Industrial Centre",. That this is nb 'after-thought~ community' but an integral part of

the conception is clear, for example, from the road and

rai I way infra-structures which are patently designed to

handle the commuters:(&zz,Z3Jfhe fol lowing quotation descri·­

bing the city's population makes the point quite clear;

This consists of the citizens proper; of suburban dwellers; and of those of a mixed kind,. (a) Citizens are of the city: those who work and I ive in it .. (b) Suburban dwellers are those who work in the outer industrial zone and who do not come into the city; they I ive in garden cities ·· · (c) the mixed sort are those ~ho work in the business parts of the city but bring up their families in garden cities. This would enable us to formulate and resolve the fol lowing problems: 1., The ~,. as a business and resident i a I centre. 2m The _Industrial City in relation to the Garden Cities (i.e. the question of transport). 3a The Garden Cities and the daily transport. of the 1vorkers,. Our first requirement·wi I I be an organ that is compact, rapid, I ively and concentrated: this is the City with its well-organized centre.· Our second requirement wi I I be anothe~ organ, supple, extensive and elastic; this is the Garden City on the periphery. 11

fig.22

fig •. 2~

Indeed, the in~er city can only be the compfct,pedese~trian-

r-.--,--.--. ~,. - Ht,r-, - e.v..utuc. ----

RAILWAY SYSTEM! SUBURBAN AND MAIN LINES

The infer-urban .sy:tem; the t11bu, fallowing the main arterier ,'. the 011/er loop . J_JJfem of one-way trajjic; the main linu.

~ff "'l.'tcl;E¥.,TZl:.c..~~1-"'r,~;;-E,~.q~.:;"r,:;µ --r-;,,.,;;

~ ~:-: ,i r·

ff:l;j

. ........ ; o_.a __ s "·-···-__ _ l1lT(~1( f'l!((ONl~t'..

~•u"u rr.e.• ft.ut•

A dir.gta,"!1 Jfar;,h:g th~ rtlalfrt imporlc!1tt of JITttlJ in a grut til), The. bltz,J: linu gi:11 thl ~ idtb of tU 1/ru/1. Thi1 .l.)J/1111, wbi(h i11ditalr1 1J·hat i.r nttdtd tmd,r J}Jt 11ra1 tomlitions. iJ ,1/J1ol111r!J. tanlrary lo IIN prtJrn/ J/al, of 1bi11gi (u, th,

diagram al IU b,ginni.,g of :li, ,bop1tr). ·

It Le Corbusier, T~e City of Tomorrow, pp.161-62.

...

tr ansversab I e p I ace it is bee ause- it houses on I y a sma !'I

fraction of the population, and that at densities no higher

than those obtaining in the Paris of the T\venties. 12

Le Corbusier paid considerably less attention to

the surrounding Garden-Citie~3than to the inner city.These_

· were depicted on the plan as a'normal' single-home-on-plot ( f.g 24-)

subdivision at the low density of between 20-30 p.p.asALe

Corbusier had not yet developed his massive opposition fo

the suburb~ as the source of the great modern wastage -­

'I~ grande gaspil I age'-- of people, time and resourcesi

that was to mark his later discussion of the subject;

nevertheless~1ere was something about them that bothered

him: The present-day solution, which exists al I over the world and is looked upon as ideal; it consists of a plot of roughly 400 square yards with a I ittle house in the middle. Part of the plot is a flower· garden, and there are a few fruit trees and a tiny vegetable garden. It is comp I icated and difficult to keep up, and involves endless pains (call it the romantic simple I ife if you I ike) for the householder and his wife to keep things tidy, to weed it, water it, ki I I the slugs and the rest; long after twi I ight the watering-can is sti I I on the go. Some people may cal I al I this a form of healthy exercise. On the contrary, it is a stupid ineffective and sometimes dangerous thing. The children cannot play there, for for they have no room to runabout it, nor can the parents indulge in games or sports there. And the resul~- of al I this is a few pears, and apples, a few carrots a I ittle parsley and so on. The \vhole thing is ridiculous,. '4

Le Corbusier was according.ly driven to envisage ·an alt-·

ernativ~ 'healthier'state of aff~irs which, while pre­

serving the same density of development, deployed the.

/:Z... What has contracted most dramatical ly,of

course, is the ~ity centre; 'everything' is fitted into 24 cruciform skyscrapers;

the "hi~eous" Central Market (Les Hal les) has been. excised from the city centre thanks to the common services. Shopping,

cultural and other urban functions find

.their place in the open spaces between the skyacrapers and are surrounded by

trees. -- Le Corbusier;The City of To­morrow, P• 246,

~- Le Corbusier used this phrase to mean low-, density ~s, a use in no way related to

Ebenezer Howard's garden city ,idea.

_.;11'>

14·LCb" _ e or us1er, The City of To~~rrow,_pp,202-203,

A C:ONTEMPORARY CITY

fig.24-

I-··

houses vertical ly1 and consolidated and redistributed the

private open space formerly around the individual houses

so as to create large areas for sport "at the foot of the

dwe 11 i ng",. and for numerous kitchen gardens (fi3s. 25-27),

which were sti I I to be privately owned, but were to be

efficiently supervised and cultivated by a farmer, who,

undertaking responsibi I ity for al I the heavy work, would

be in charge of every one hundred such plots. Thus the

garden-city inhabitant had his routine office or factory

work balanced and enriched by a I ife of sport and agricul­

tural I abour and in this way "he becomes a oroducer". ,G

This emphasis on the creative and beneficial uee

. of I e i sure is of no sma 11 i mportan.ce .to Le Corbus i er; it --- .

is his answer to the looming challenge of increased lei-

sure time due to the ~horter working-daya Hence his re-

ite~ations that "the possibi I ity of engaging in sports

should be open to every inhabitant of the city. And it

should take pla6e at the very door of his dwel I ing"a 1~

We have now covered all points bearing important-

ly on Le Corbusier's .housing proposalsm These are shown

to their best advantag~ when offset against the environ­

mental qual.ity of a city I ike Paris, whose counter-image

they consciously were: in these terms hii model city ( at

the same residential density as ~aris and with.in its per­

missible bui I ding heights)had, by virtue of exploiting a

new sc~le of organization, opened up gr~en areas for the

enjciyment of the b6d; in sports at the foot of these ap~rt­

ments; furthermore, t~ secure some relief for the less

affluent from problems of obtaining domestic help, a sys­

tem bf 'common services' had been installed. Le Corbusier

·also made provision for thbse inhabita~ts who would trade

:5 I

15. These OUs which le Corbusier cal Is "la suite directe dcs immeubles-villasn are illustrated only by two per~pective re.fer~ ings. These indicate that the DUs were mo~e akin to super-imposed Citrohans ~ith their ~ore generous roof terraces, than to the villa-immeuble type.

/G, le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow, P• 206.

16. le ~orbusier, The City of Tomorrow, p.199.

.... l

~~{"'-~ . . I ,;_."""'~': ·--0 P . ,.. ~ (1' r\ I ~Jr ~,\ " ~{,I

'i:..;__..;--.\1 •:. <'I I ~t,1 · fj • 'l ~. ' ,, . " •· /)_ ' L. .. i . -

;--i :._. ~. _J·:O' , f~ rl_. _, ' 8- ""71 ~;m w' 1 ·, fh :n _,.ill.-. !' t•-=°Li:::l [...m ITT m; ~0 ,-,'i..._ l t:f.h,.,.:\--Al Fi fl \:...11,.:., l (:ii,;:' iJ; .J ) ?= tk: : LlJ J'=J-1..h~ L_ = , - r , = ,.__ I, "-'" .. 1 , i,?-C:'-: - \ ':;;J r. , , ' --•rd :-'!:I ~~ CJJ:;:~3;.~..-~t#~~'=LCT'=!ThdU,,....lTI.:~1[ ~ ~ IJ.J{ © )0t't \lcdfJ: i~ \~ ill I.T}~~~~,,~ =-~ Q ~ll

~-......-,. ••• ,. ,,., •• ,,,,-c .. :.:.>:.·-L~~.;,'..:,C?:.~-= .. · --'7:"-...,,,..___·-~~· ~ !;.:"";, r~ ~· .1,- ,, _j' :--:-J,\.:J,M..,.i;;:..,.. ·,·p· ., ~-j,' ~--=--./··!•:·::.:. ~I r 11;-r-,· .... ~.:-..-,.~.-..~·~\'.~.}~~~;~~-- ...... ~,.-·r,".",~.-ir

0

'\.•\ fj~,,::~.!-~-wl.~\,u-~,m-,J...~J/~\..-~· ~:_;::.,~il.:'1~ -LJJ:i}h~~•.•-<:r.*f' .. · ~..!,/l,\'0!fa''-:.,,!•'''1' =--·--"-.. •. :-=:c=.:::aa::=41"-· .• ,.~----. ..,.,=•!c:~ ... :.,:m,.,,__\:'=-"-=='•''""' ~.ci· ~-' 'i/ ,~'.b'?.0=1,:..'~57 --.":.-.......::-.___..:;;;:: ~ - ~-;;.~±:~J~;-~~=~~ l~~::=--=::~=-:::~:?~~.,7:;,i•;:::.~~:---=-- .. -. . J (/ - ~7c-=__ -~ -- . ·:.1

fig • .2.5

/,Pf(ltrt,.•!,. .. "T 2fOIS5.(lt)•iW""\

~~;jp..~ fomC:'.?-i__J

J,\!t~ ... p·a.c,r.t."'(1'17 ~..,.

Lotissemcnt 11. « alv~olcs » pour cites-jardins

4-00,,,! s ,o~r, 1$)'"''

cu:::1.A~ 1~0 roil

DD 400.,,,

~tt~\]

j~ftt h:'~>·J,.;;;; ...:.c.JJ:_-,a

1 .Joo--------

~

' ' l ' i I I i : iuflil.1 l i ,~,-~· !Tu i i ! I i I i ii ~ ! 11 ! 11 J I llJ i- I i ! 111 ! ~n~~·m i ~r.m 7.'{.c.-,::;,, ,n;:.-.,-,...: .:.r~ ""'tT.:".I=-~ , .. "11~~ ,, · ·.J". ·t I Si:'>;.~, ire(. .... 'k ',,.<:>.;'i."w:~.8w5s.'·~:.>~h1'.dt;;_l.,~ ?• ;~ &::-...:

~~~~ ~l~~~;;~~~I ~;~~ [±ill~=;--,=~; ~f 1 1 ;---rn+h~!f, i-:1h-~+""-T Kfi~L. -1 rrr"''.~? Z~F7°1Ti+P ·

'·+---'-l--1.,,1 .... ,. ---·-'-r-~--.-,..1..:---1..:-d--1 .• ..;.. •.. lffi+-·n-1-LL.,._, ,.'•1,.,iliffij J_ : 1 ; 1 , ·•1·:- i'· · LI r : 1 lf . : · , L. 1 1; ! 1 1 ; : 1 1 ! : i ·-·~ in: , ;

g.-,~l-~-=,I . . ~ =--~=-==k:'!--==- - . -m~--k==il: , h=•·· · ! ! , l 1 , ~:: ;~ • ! ! I '. : ri: i : i I I I i U , i i l l I J I i ! 1 1 • . ,u:: ~-U1 ! j ! I I ! · ..,.-,--,...,..,. 'l,~·c ~~,--~r-·,...,,,·~:...c;~r::;·lll'R'c'7"•~·;.J~.w~ ·l- .-,,-..,,._,"°'. - .. ;a--.,.-_o., • .• ,,, _'i,i'., ~!"->:-~~.,.. .... -,."-'.:>.~iiror:1111,c'5i.t: ,,rill b:'·· l ¢, J;· .. _- .. ·~Si

;Yl·:f:~;=.=:~: ~~-=---·-:::\f;;:\:;ri ··-----~--«-:f·,:i;;;.;,,ti··!:~~-~~~·~ fi~:~:~:~.;r2;;;~ L"· !>I:' ... '~'"'""''•"'""'~"'' ""' ~.,,,,._,.,-, . ., ~w,,I~ :~1 f.";}f!LJ ~~-L~~~ ~~.:~:It-;,~,,,,~~~,--~~*~-!~.;;;~i ~?::~::f :_~~ ~.., .... UJ: :~--.l,•-"' (~--~"*'·'~.:-\•'fr.C.t·, .. :hi.Ir~,..._._~ .,v·t~Au. ,, - ,'""'::-.>-."" ~ -r..:...._.,.~,-;._,.,., . ..,., . ..lJ,.J.....-; · ·"'--«-·""'r·,~~e.,...Jf...>=: ---,~. i, ..... m·rr · P--_.,' ',n;.1~., .. ,. :,;I ;.,;,;, ... ,,•1.l.u1rliil:!ITTI lj1lp1l'tfYifl'' I! i:,

1-}--:-=r ~.:1~ i { ::!·;"~~~~:~-·:~ '-~7 : · · ·: · . ··. : . : r..u.~1 1~ ~ ; .: . ; ~

§~

:\n:1lyi-t1..ln,:i. k::ii -100 m: <le tC'rr:i.in rl..,t.:t:u.•rl:~ :l ch:vp:e h:tbit:lnt tl"nnc <'itC·janlin: r.!:li!--1rn ct ,h:·pead:lucc-s. !10 !I. 100 m1: :'.';<JO m: ~nt 1.·onl-:1cr.:::s au:< i·L'i,iu.t,•,.;. ,·L•rger. ptJt:t;n. p:1rt1•rr(' 1!1·11ri. tt'rrP·pi,:in. 1:11tn•ti1'11 al,.-nrl,;rnt, c·u(;t,,;:x. l·t.:aih:c: r:,p· [•ort: •1nc·l•1uc~ h.•tl~·~ c!C' carottl'~ c-t_ i:n pa:11t•r di: po.it('~. 1l !1°y n J•v:1it •le tcr·

.. r:dni de jcr x. )(':l rnfaul . .:i;, k~ hot1i?!1'-"." rt le" frmmt.•.!I nc pruH·:it 1•:1, joucr. ne l'l'Un·11t J•:B fain: (I'! ~pMt. Lt' !!Port 1loit. 110.:,·oir !'le foire- .!l t~Hllc hl'l!f<' et toU! Ir . .:. Jo11r~! el ii tloit sc foir,) :iu piut rnl•1!:t!' ,ll· 1:\ :n:iison ct non sur Ir.• !1•r:-:1it1!1 :\ st!\11t·~ oi'I: Ile voul qnt!' lr:a. pro[(·~::ion1:•·l:-1 C't ll'3 oisifs. Po::.on~ ic I•rnhil·nu~ plu~ lu:,:i,j1:t.•111c•11t: mai:,,.011 :,0 n1::: ja~tlin d':t.~n::11l'nl. :-,om: (c-c jar,t:n et t°l''.t"' 111:tt~un -nnl -;,1(!11,··, :\ rt•l.·tlL .. d::n1 .. .:.,.'·l' ,,:1 :i ,_; 011 I~ rn•'·trr·~ :111-,IL·~--11,1, tlu ~ .. P. ,br.ic ,1,--~ :,!ro11111·mer1t!i ditt-1 -.: ,\ :,h·t:rih':i ll •• \:i pictl <11•,; n::iison~. ,Jr ,·n:-11•:, lerr"'-in.i c.h• j~u;,c

.... : . ~ •.. u. I;.: l.,.; ..• , • I,. I 11 ITTITT . I. I; ·L; I; I! I 1 r ;:t:,;:·r;•, •·--r•-cJi 1,;.n· ... - ..... ,-.-..--.'<J . .,_~-U~:-'I' 'o~..;-1--:,',o iEttj' ~'l; Ii I._-~,._ 1; .• , ·)' '\"°''·,\•~~,. ·le· . .!i'~'t:"'<>..ll,,,1 -'·i,'-·- .t'·~·-Pt.·;t 'I· -~,) ,,..~,c'.\• I _ ... !!'I~~-~~.:.. r .; ..:..,.:::.~-~~ -.:1.1,.. ~ ;,_r~_ ... ~!:t.~~~..;~""S""·~ b .,f . .:..~~. , -::.:5. -1'.'~ .. -.-

tt;;fr"::·;/"ij n~f~;iri-~:;:;frM.nS<,,=•~U'J1v;~J~:-~:t;~ ~7;;.~1{[;- ' ''·U"·"'"t' ~-·'-·m·i: - i..in 2•h •"';""'·~.ii tl·'·~·--·atk·

~~~~~~.· ?-·~.:~~:~:.;~ =~~~7..~·-· .-.. ~~ -:--~-·~&~ .~ .... :,-. «:=::-2 \r·~~-·-~:~ ~~.--~~·,:. -~sl. ::i·-=~~~: 'i ~~~ ~r..,a~.:...c..~Dlf1t*~·~ll:~~-~0 ~'.t' •u_,'!;ci;; i l\.!r."'Z..;.c:n - : 1 , · : , 1 Iii- ; ,,~, i ! ; , 1 : 1 1 1 i · : IJ. r _IJ_! 1 1 1 n ! 1 1 , 1 , · ;:i: : , 1 : , ': , r~1 ! ,-~ '-,,!;,:-.,.ntmtnrrr,1i,.;.--rr-tt1:trrr+tr-rtJ ·r:rJILt:..]t 1h·r;1 r-;·d

· • J;a 11.;.1., ..... , ruu1. : 1,,.,,.,.,.-· •"" .. ' ......... , .. . 1footliall. tl'nni.i. et<'.) .'\ rai~ou Jj.: 1~0 m: p:u 1'n:i.i~C'r1. ·

Pinn <le situation -.fig. 2G

fig. 21

i'-·-

the advantages ofsns of I iving within walking distance from their ~ork-for the

benefits of a private ho~se and garden within easy commu­

ting distance of work. ·

It is easy to perceive in the Vi I le Contemporaine a.

great number of revolutionary imp I ications for the exist­

ing order of things: private I and-o\vnersh i p, sources of

finance, removal of Shopping and the Central .Market, trans-

plantation 6f· urban population~ ·snd so on, are amon~

the important questions r~ised by this project and re~uiring

both method~cal solutions and the authority to impose them.

Le Corbus i er, \vh-i I e not una\vare of these prob I ems, was too

busy developing and sorting out housing prototypes, elabora­

ting the Five Po~nts of a. Modern Architecture, establishing

the hegemony of Order and of the Right Angle, to properly

address himself to their solution. He had I ittle doubt,

though, that th~se pr~blems were soluble:

If we ask, therefore, whether such operations are possible or if the necessary steps of expre­priation_and indemAification are within the bounds of practical politics, we know that they were possible under Haussman and the Emperora - ,, And they are possible under our own democracy·aisoa

Le Corbus.ier's faith \vas grounded in his belief that

he was me~ely a harbinger of inevitable events, attending

u~on the bi~th of a phenomenon inherent in the times which

must express itse If phys i ca I I y, for "arch i tec~ure is the

expression of the way of thought of an·epoch". ,' This cer­

tainty gave rise in Le Corbusier to a great enthusiasm. It. was an enthusiasm for the New Machine Age that he believed

\vould ins.pi re al I men who had· seen the beautiful vision and

:i!J

19- Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow, P• 256.·

would then drive them to action. Al I that was needed was to

present men with this vision and both the d~s~re f9r:arid~the

means of its implementation would come of th~ir own,accord,

spontaneously.

Beauty, which as it-were waits upon creative powers, becomes incarnate in some new creation, Beauty, ivh i ch is born of action, inspires enthusiasm and provokes men to actions••••••s• • ~ a • • • • n n • m a " n m ~ = s c a • a M u • n • a • 3 a n • a z = • • a • • • a a a a

In that glowing and harmonious moment of construc­tion ~nd enthusiasm; pride wi I I be born and satis­faction in achievements adequately conceived and capable of development and grandeur.2°

40

20. Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow, pp.~41-42.

~/

V I L L E R A D I E U S E 1930

What an abortive undertaking, mere idle cere­bration these somewhat miraculous and magical seeming planning ideas would be, these suggestions for the re-organization of traffic, for re-partition­ing the land, for using the whole of the air volume above a city for Ii vi ng quarters, if, by some pro­found and gross piece of~stupidity at their very conception, they had not been determined a priori by the fundamental notion of human happiness, which is: a man in the city; a man at home, comfortable at home, happy in that homea~

This passage, part of Le Corbusier's preamble to

the presentation of the Vi I le Radieuse DUs, is further evi­

dence of his golden rule of working from the inside to the

outside from the internal structure of the eel I to the

structure of the city at largea The reader, taking Le

the Corbusier's statement at face value, and nurtured on

standards of the Vi I las~lmmeuble, would be justified rn

looking forward' to a DU even richer in amenitya

Nothing could be further from the reality. The DUs.

presented in The Radiant City are strikingly less· wel I

endowed than those of the Vi I le Contemporaine: there are no

hanging gardens nor any private open space at al I; interior

double Volumes have vanished and ihe size of the whole apart­

ment has shrunk to about one quarter, from being based on

52m2 per person to 14m2 per person. Nor did this shrinkage

"ti

21. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 143.

have any convincing precedent in Le Corbusier's design

of apartments ti 11 then: the two apartments bui It as

prototypes at Weissenhof in 1927, even excluding their

extensive roof terrace area, are considerably more spa­

cious than the apartments intended for the Vi I le Rad­

ieuse (See Table I ldpc152)despite the apparent generic

similarity of thesingle-storey moveable partition type(p,i.zs) (-f/553+-3"!). ~

apartment to the Vi I le Radieuse DLisc The only apart-

ment design with space standards equal. to those of the

Vi I le Radieuse DU and similarly exploiting differences

between day and night time activities to confer an added

measure of spaciousness, is the "Project d'un lmmeuble

Locat if" of 1928/29 ( f13s 29- 3').. These ingenious p I ans

do contrive, however, to retain a double-volume hanging

garden and~ by virtue of their width and shallowness,

al I r60ms are provided with excel lent natural I ighting

and vent i I at ion.,

One could plausibly argue, though Le Corbusier

nowhere stated this, that the external open space of the

Vi I le Radieuse DU has had to be sacrificed to the newly­

introduced air conditioning system's need for sealed

facades., 22 Regarding the reduced space-standard of the

Vi I le Radieuse DU, ~ne could point to a concern, common

among the socially idealistic architects of CIAM, for

the provision of low-cost mass-housing i~ a turope slum-

ridden and desperately in need of housing. And indeed,

Le Corbusier derived his standard of 14m2 per per;on

from the 1929 "Loi Loucheur", w~ich amongst other things,

,~, 11i-~ . I: L,!j,

=L., - - - UJ

~

-..... 1-.J:j

I~·~. 83--ffFffi ~:~ for;, I [ l w O H ,_, -i ~ A V '.""

BAO It + t

Re~·de·chauss~e

fig. 28

22.. 1h1!> ru..cSof\ i'!t .=s .. ~,e sl:-ed bj Kenneth Frampton,ffThe City of Dialectic: Architectural Desjgn, October 1969, po54L.

4 .......

j_

,---

-----,---t -. ·--

--·-..----

·-. b.O

•rl Cf-.l

advocated for housing a provision of 45m2per 6.-inhabi­

tants iue• 7m50m2

per person{3

Russia was at the time

proposing a standard of 9m2 per persona Viewed in

these terms Le Corbusier's position is not extreme and

indeed he berates the Russians for their "figure of 9m2

which wi 11 cram the individual Ii ves concerned; where­

as my 14m2

wi I I provide airiness, freedom, and elbow-. h • h t • t I • ff

24 room 1n w 1c o organize n1ngs.

Le Corbusier was not, however, seeking mere~y

to create economical mass housing for the underprivi­

leged masses; -- "I had already satisfied myself to

the point of certainty that a human eel I of 14m2 per

inhabitant could provide a basis for calculations that

would lead to the expa~sion and flowering of men's I ives

in a machine age":5 It is, however, difficult to recon­

cile this enthusiasm for tightening up space standards

with Le Corbusier's earlier more open-handed approach.

The explanation for this apparent inconsistency

1s to be found not in the DU itself but in Le Corbusier's

intentions for the Vi I le Radieuse a; a whole. His basic

objective was to make avai I able to a_l_l the citizens of the

Vi I le Radieuse those advantages which in the Vi I le Contem­

poraine only the inner-city inhabitants had enjoyed. To

a~compl ish this he had to postulate enormously increased

densities for the Vfl le Radieuse and this in turn entailed

drastically reducing the size of the individual DU'sn Le

Corbusier, however, would not al low that this was the

causal pattern underlying the Vi I le Radieuse since he

24. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P•\lt-5

z5. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 11\,~

., Z3. Le Corbusicr's extrapolation of 14m- per

person from this standard is tend~nti ous

in the extreme:

"Let us begin with the figures envisaged

by the Loi Loucheur: 45 sq,meters per 6

inhabitants; i.e. 7.50m2per person.This

Loucheur-type domestic unit can be occu­

pied by 6,4,3 or 2 persons, If we suppose

an equal space avai I able in al I of these

arrive at the fol lowing:

44

four categories,we

in a unit occupied by 6 people:7.50m2per person

" 4 " " " " 3 "

" 2 n

., : 11. 25in~ "

:1Sm2 "

:22~50m2 H

giving an average of '14 sq.metres per person.

14 sq,me_ters per person. Magnificent ! " (Le Corbusier,. The Radiant City, p.107.)

~

wished to giv~ the impression that his solutions were

freely arriv~d at rather than imposed upon him by the

pressure of necessityn Hence he declared that "it

was using this figure of 14m2 per occupant that we were

able to arrive at the extremely high population density ~

of 1,000 to the hectare in the residential areas" where~

as, in fact, it was the desideratum of a density of

1000 persons per hectare that compel led him to scale

down his spatial al location to the figure of 14m2per

occupantn We are arguing in other words, that the

Vi I le Radieuse DU is an instance where the order of in-·

vention proceeded from an outside constraint

to the determination of an internal solution

contracted DUa

density­

the much

Working within these tight space-provisions,

and limiting himself to a single storey DU ,Le Corbusier

resorted to various measures for preserving a degree of

spaci~usness and flexibility: the wide horizons embraced

by the window-wal I, apart from any other functions they

perform, are also thought of as compensating for the smal I

eel Is of the Vi I le Radieu~e ( f13. 7:Z ) -"log is petit mais

vue etendue"; sliding partitions created larger play-areas

between children's bedrooms that could also be used by the

~est of the farni ly; free-sfanding c~pboard units stop

short of the cei I ing, al lowing its continuity to suggest

increased spaciousness.

-:z~. le Corbuaier, Thr. Rndinnt City,p.114. ·

~· ;&f-.• ~-..,#

Ma~:/ I

. .,. A a:t..r-·. ~ &p 9-- /-.PR_

/·.,..1~f I{ on= ·'G

'"

~

,!-,..

I.• I I t t t t If I I It• t t 1 1 t 1 \JI •••••••• ' ••• ': •.••• e , • ' .•.. , . ' .. •, ..... .

~; 4 /'"_: l.,,;r:.; ..... 4 />"'"'."' ·

~~~~ _---

~{lt-i~'.~~-"'. ~~~ ~ "\ /rr-~fJ,t - ~

~i;,. .'~ ''-*~'' (·)'?~~~ - r-=-003~

ad~/

fig. 32.,

45

L,, I

Further noteworthy attempts to mitigate the difficulties

arising from decreased DU area and the reduced privacy

inevitably arising from the above measures, are the re-

6rganization of access to the service areas and children's

bedrooms so as not to infringe on the I iving / dining space

and the placing of service areas between parents'and child­

ren's domains to promote aural and visual privacy. (~~3+-3~

Whereas in the Vi I las-lmmeubles we are presented

with only one prototype~ a considerable variety 1s presen­

ted in the case of the Vi I le Radieuse, this being achieved

by a simple incresse in DU width along the facade or by

an increase in DU depth or by exploring both directions

simultaneously ( f!J 3 ~ )11 The only constraint on apart-

ment depth for Le Corbusier was his desire to retain natu­

ral I ight and ventilation to habitable rooms~ (a depth-con­

straint that Le Corbusier saw as significantly modulated by

DU height) and for this reason service functions are at the

DU's rear. The parents' bedspace, invariably also located

at the rear of the larger apartments, appears to be thought

of as a minimal sleeping-cubicle-with-toi let-faci I ities

only, its direct connection with the I iving space, suggesting

that this area is really an extension of the parents'realm.

The simple r~lation of the DUs to an access corridor -- or

"interior street" -- means that, depending upon the ori~nta­

tibn of the parent-block, they can be either single or double

banked,.

Z1. Le Corbusier does not indicate his in­

tentions regarding the housing of smailer

families in the Ville Contemporaine. That

the Villas-lmmcublcs arc capable.of incor­

porating smaller DUs, though with a pro­

portionate loss of their exceptional ame­

nities; is evident from the example of Le

Corbus i"er 's Wanner bu i Id i ng projects. · (Perh<>ps the smaller fumily_ DUs urid those

for couples or singles were meant to be

4G

\oused in the central skyscrapers where, on

one occasion, Le Corbusier said half a million

inhabitants wourd I ive.)

the "street in the A. air" 182t~IJ;~f1:~1:~!Wf II the ap1rtments r- p p p ~

fig. 33 I ~ B '& C E. It '

Al/~;; 1:=r~ C C. <.

the apartments B. the street in the air

the apartments

... - ... - - -- . .. ............... -· .... - ... -

fig. 34

'

f ----------

1. I X 14 m1

(see numerical table on p. ll4) Bachelor apartments

S: fitted Jiving room. T: washbasin and w.c; C: kitchen

.~

:;.-- ------ ·;. --a -B&, '.:·_ ==...:..;. ... ~~

If'\. ~ I ·1 t , ' ·. \:. \ 'I .. ,

r~1l ~I. :®i LYJ LJ'. 1 .

fig. 34

Furth« study of the a:ll, 14 m• per person (see page 143} •?plicablc to the housing constituted by the great .. iaduct, cle\·ation 100 meters (see pages 144,145 etc.): 'ittie by little, it C31I house 180,000 p<Qple. In reccni years scvei31 other studies have been made of a sim.:ar subject and published in various magazines. They have rcs.ulted in establishing a new, efficient heigh: for the home: 4.50 meters.

~OD~,----.. -:§

D i: ·, .o-: 0 . 3 5'-0 2 A,. .:. V ,· , . :_OJ:; ~1-1~ I I

p ~~ C - ~ ~r::,

~· :~1:-"· "'-",:[ ... :..Ju.::i '-':::L1J.l':.:::.J-.J=f1<.==.==ae=,oa=Jil

fig. 3G

i:;:-=. DI ,·-----~--o· -r--o~l' ----_,, : ' ,t :V\'. _. . ': ' r:1··

·-- ----,- .. .

~l'y. , ·. , S,. / : , JJ·· :1:,.\<f-}-

33• 2 x 14 m•

(see numerical table on page 114) Apartment for couple.

fig. 35

J. '

C

D0 fod[O~·- :~ 0 :1~~- -V't

~I , , ,. - d.= =-10 's I I 1- , --

E -~ :._ - - -0

C 0

• 111 _ • I : _ I :

\J I ' ' 'I

p' :I

fig. 37

!_ ~

~,

' r-·,

T •- -----·

I

5. 4, 5 or 6 X 14 m•

Family with 2 children of different sexes or 3 or 4

children of both sexes.

-4-/

'

0 0

II!

C

fig. 38

o_ ,or~qorra· ·-/~ -, - , , . E T - ' ' ---1 · , · · i-

6. S, 6, 7, or 8 x 14 m• Apartment for family of 3 children of both sexes or 4,

r . t..:.

i

- ' \ ' ·--p ' \ ·1: - s ' . ' ' . ' t - . - . - - -- - --5, or 6 children.

JdeaJ arrangc.mcnt of closets.

[IJo 0

p.

7. 7, or 8, or ·9, or JO, o·; II, -or 12, etc. x.14 m•

Apartment for family with 7, 8, or 9 children, etc.

-rnfl'; '°J::

~l-C? LJ ? t::+1 oo -- ' I ;/ I I.LI 01 I I LJZ?\ l_i j, q;,1 I , , , : ~· o·.J

-~'

t • ' I I • s . ! I . \ ' \

0 I

o:

E

... 1 ,r-·--

'. \

\:TT \ .. I 1-T IT I

. l_I I ·;j

l ·µ, . ., 1 I ~ 1 I l

j'ri-·~-"c:TI/~~ifij ·~~..;-1.,J L ' ... ~. ,, .+' ...:...i..1..:.~Lc..iU' ' 1 'J.; ilJJ . I --ritti7 l - · .-;-;:;

~

-~-,-,--•:;:_~_, :!1: :i:::;;rl_. ,~..,._J 'J_ \ rg·_ . . ·--· · .. - ·-·-t r11:~_;: ::::~:t:.i~.si±b O 'VI/' f- -1 , · · .

,......... ~JrE ''f''[''=i\L) 0 1-1 ! . ' p ' \.. qrrt ...... ---1-d[· 'i I> I ~~ I I • ...... .. ~, aJ.r·~il:j - C ..• '' .11, L ' ·.' ' '' -. ~-r=--"1 i·::: - ._ •

1

, I . .-it=! ""'· __ :v I L Q ' --/ ~ --, . ·. ' • ,: . rpl~! Q I -- __ J :uf T j .. J_ .... · ·-· - --- . :fJ1LLJ

r fig. ";;9

48

.... '

We earlier pointed to the Vil le Radieuse DUs

being unpresaged in Le Corbusier's earlier work; they

were also to have no sequelm The nature of Le Corbu-

sierts dissatisfaction with these DUs is contained 1n

comments he made two years ~fter their design:

The basic housing unit of 14m2

per inhabitant was evolved from data that included the current local regulations governing housing. These in­cluded a minimum height per storey of 2 meters 60 centimetersm This can be improved upon. Our "correct breathing" air-conditioning system wi I I enable us to create much more efficient designs based on a new height for houses of 4 meters 50 centimeters divisible into two storeys of 2 meters 20 centimetersm With this dimin-shed height, the floor area al lo~ted to ea6h inhabitant can be reduced to 10m. A slight diminution in the volume of the whole bui I ding wi I l also result, and, in consequence a further diminution in the city's area as a whole. But what is amazing is that the most outstanding result wi I I be an improvement, an increase in the joie de vivre of the occupants, in the quality of comforts avai I ables An increase of the basic pleasures. 28

There is some sleight of hand here. A reading of Le

Corbusier's feelings elsewhere in The Radiant City

wi 11 pf'clinly reveal that behind the alleged spur of

the "correct breathing air conditioning system" to -

wards "much more efficient designs", I ies the root­

desi~e to have dwellings based on the 4.50m / 2.20m

height sub-divisions:

Reader, had it occurred to you that i figure (that two figures), representing the city

4?

'2.S. Le Corbusicr, The Rodiont City, P• 146.

2~. Le Corbus ier, The Radiant City, P• 52.

;--

ordinances about the maximum height of the home, could hem in your happiness? The omnipotence of harmony ..... a.resides in the figure which determines the height of the home,. 2.9

Though even further reduced in size then this DU had no con­

notation of being a 'minimum home': "Behind this glass wal I

4.50 meters high wi I I stretch the 'room to I ive in', that

vast essential area where the human animal can feel at ease­

adequate room, circulation, movement.~a•a••The maximum I iving room must be created".~

Not o~ly was this DU with double-volume I iving room

a 'rediscovery' by Le Corbusier of an earlier theme in his

work that he had. "instinctively" ( as he had it) used 1n

the Citrohan (1920), Ozenfant (1922) and La Roche (1923)houses;

it ~as an echo of the funamental and time-ha! lowed" natural"

scale of men's houses a height-type,so to speak:

"Lets look at the past: ••••11aaa- an economic and efficient height had naturally been adopted: 2.20 meters. In the course of my continuous travels, I have observed this rule has held good down through the centuries;"i 31

Certain that he was on the roy~I road of truth, Le Corbusier

would nbt again be deflected from it, and al I his subsequent . I ~

apartment DUs were based on the 4.50 2.20m. sub-division;

i.e. they were commited to being double-storeyed.

What then, do these new DUs look I ike?

Apropos of them Le Corbusier says:

It was on this basis that we drew up our plans for Algiers, Stockholm and Antwerp. And on the same basis that we suggested a design to

.30. le Corbus i er, The Radiant City, P• 53. t

31. le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 51.

50

.3.2,. This was adjusted after 1945 to conform to

the Modulor's dimensional scale to become

4.8Cm/2.26rn.

.33. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 146.

!-

to the· municipality of Zurich for eloquent apartment house intended working-class fami I ies.33

a most for 300

. t

There were however, no DU plans i I lust~ated for Stockholm

or Antwerp, and the perspective rende~ings of the latter

do not ih fact, suggest the existence of double-storey

DUs ( fj 41 ); the DUs of the Algiers scheme ( to be used

under the I inear viaducts) are actually of the single-

storey, 14m2 per person typea The DUs of the "eloquent"

Zurich apart~ent-house referred to,

to be designed on the basis of 14m2

( and this excludes the area of the

these last - mentioned DUs (fr4Z-4~)

prove, on measurement, 2 per person and not 10m,

double-volume)~4

While

do give the impression

of a considerably more spacious environment owing to th~

double-volume, there can be no doubt that in terms of the

flexibi I ity and quantity of actually usable space, they can-

not compare with the single-storey units of the Vi I le Radieuse/5

As in the case of the Vi I le Contemporaine, we are

once again left with an unsubstantiated claim for a redeeming

DU, based on 10m2 per person, and having its own spe6i·al pro­

perties and imp I ications.

Le Corbusier's intentions for this new DU, even if

unfulfi I led in any project between 1930-34, the years tn

which The Radiant City was written, are hevertheless cl~ar

~ ·r-i~ ::1 . . -~~ ./ :·~

'

I j .

d. t I . , ~ 1 Ra I an . f, '-,~ .. "'" : J , .

. , -G,· 1 l ·q-., h~. --~ C]: [ ! ~ t"

from state~ents a~d from sketches inserted in The

City probably roundabout 1933: ,·

fig. 40

·--- ! r-"'.:;,· I l l :1- ,~,. I I I

:-- i -----·,• ·­-l---~·

:;> I

34-. Thi" cc,lcul,ition, ,,nd all others in the

T,,blc ITd Oil p.15.z , incluJ_cs 'scPvicc .ire.is'

(toilets, kitch~n, storage spuce) since

this is the way le Corbusier arrived at his

areo-per-person figures.

35. It is surprosong that le Corbusier did not,

at this stage (i.e. 1930-31), move directly

on to the Unit6 Interlock section solution;

he had obviously been close to it .in the

redents section of the Vi I le Contemporaine

(1925) and during his visit to Moscow in i930, he would have undoubtedly seen the numerous

housing projects by various modern Sovi~t

architects embodying precisely this sectional principle. (f13s +;,4-7) In similar vein, le Corbusier's lmmcuble

locatif in Zurich (1932) displays a complex

interlocking principle on its facade, while

the very obvious sectional opportunities are not fol lowed up. (f,J40)

- + Q±Q~· ' •I• •· U!,\~\J ~.\A~•\i\ 1 ,\ A ~;•' '! j 1

r""l !- ---i+-J I I I I). D,. u .. 1 H ~~' p 11,f-Fl I>' .__l~--!-~-=-·-,--J.,-~. ~

.\-t-"-i~j. rt.;' , ~.\ ; A : I\ i ,I _...._, ' i---, -•I

1 -- 1 ,--, 1-' · ' I > ' i . n n i-· I · . .__J , , ._,..., , ·

~II j 1; ~ t. • II J L!:..__; ' . l---"::''."..:~ .• - ,_ ···- • • - -· -- . . -

r : I II i • j .. : ,I ·-i ., ;I, " ; ~ q· ., " ~ I r""'i ..__+---1

-~.i--.;.,-1, :,i-+-j.,, H~'"' ' ... L!::.. "· ' '.. • ' . • c\ Ii l .\ ! . II I l\;::9 .\ _J_ ,\ .~ r-'-- il J A,., ---: I : ! --1· '-·-

.-2 ~-' i__.__ ,, '-- " -~ I O : t. : I .

Deux coupes schema ave~ !'emplacement cles appar­tcmcn!s ·dans Ies facades

-- ·----- J (.I.CL" ..... ~

f""·

L

r I

_.--ra=o-n· .. 11 d__b ! !:! ...... -~1

1

1! '?0 ~~N- j:i r ·-< ll h:\I I ,\II I \. . ·. · 1 r ,. . •

i,:.C.-r--: 1 . /fn I : :_-. ·.: it:=:-_~ ' 11:.b.l ,,1 IEii:t-t:: : 'i' , · r... . · . f'· -, .. :.::.c1 , 1·L / . . t·I 1H=d i• _1• -~-.:ti f .µ : ~I; :·· .. ~· .: ., I ,.. ·.. . ! I . i. i'. l:G=i' . : ;/I . jl,u:..I ··EB , \' _ .. 1.:11.II 111· ~-J. 1·· .. ll ( l , l , ;1-,..J. • . 1\ m I I ·1iL_:;- El :l'f:i (i\' ~

-1i ,1;- I ' :1 u ffi "u§ ..:,,..... I ,,,-· ,-;·I •.• • W..l" i·L.. /"

_!!I ll·\ttrt:: 11n] _.,-- (

JJlr@~\£1·""' ~-J-i · I /8 I •• • ,~~ ••111 _.,,..,,.- 11

1

1 _,_,.._, ..... ~. rL' .!'

0 tJJ o.':· ·/t! i·f!::'= ... 3 w · i:,n . ·; ··_·: -

1

1

I~~~ : (1·l1IL IL ;_;:i-.: if=j:~5"!\) : . f ' . / .- _.· .: I- f;.'-::i~ WOil~- fl · · · I, ~........ " I .. !! i~=;:-;.::.:.:-_7;, H.\l:ill. lb- : ·. :.M IL.J;j ~- .. -.. l f . . . .• •• !1 il : l:±l .· ...... ·.-,,

,I l_ ---- --_p _':t··;,.u: I IL l•,1.1.l:J~! (~~'l I ,-~~

--.---,i!:..-c1.:?......... ~j f L,t,'::l I _/ Ii

~~=w wn«[Q] · k . L

INNr-:HE S'l'H,\.SSE

'ftl f' ~1 t TfI I)! ! =,= Tyne A pour Quatrc pcrsonnes Type 13 pour six personncs

fig. 42 fig. 43

• 11

(gP y i

1

oll.l l<. ' ' / ' ,1

l;I / li,\l 1,11. li~-.J. ~ I , , .. :. Ii

.... ·:· . .... "j . . . ; . ,:cJ:1~:i'ii~;/

''Bl y, ·1 I! 1.,- I '1;

'I H (' '1!

~ ==

Type C pour huit pcrsonncs

· .. , ... ',

Vue dans la salle et le bar, cuisi_ne ai1 fond

fig. 45

..,,-

.,;~

fig. 44

w.-. ~' '

I INSJIIUwm.11 '1AM

f~q -,,n,, e rf.i:"}n·· i ;\{1l : ~~!~',. ri. ~ -·. i.

. °t~-. ,'<'~ '

. c.•'"''~o.~0i~( :lz~,. .. c.•''tF-'~,·~~;~,\ ~\ ~ 'Sj.rf r~J P-.t;-.:.. "7,.,

'

- '~ ~~\\" .. •,' -''~-I... :y "\,," "'~~,... "'-t / ( y O. '

GROUND FLOOR Collectlve Facllltles

fig. 4-G

lffl'"ACINU1d( JT 1JI

~1_g . 8~H

. R~.

JI~, j i· '· l :_~

. ;'if:,' • .

~ ;·~.''l.i

~§1 \~···i~ .. if,(!' if~. \ . ~}.....c(. ! ,<e~

~

},),,_,i~Z; <;,z.f~fj): . t~ .}:i::;,~-,/1, • .. ... ,l,_\'l,":.." '(}

ACCESS FLOOR

IUMINUI

LIVING UNITS Upper and Lower Levels

04-

----~

.~ 1,.

~f

r--('

P A 3 P E 3 H n JI A H bl R Y E E H

l'D:n: ra~n=rcr~~--~

',\

,::U.;::i:, El LJ .. n I iH:qfJTc511(LJ L}'. JE3 Iii~ ~'..'.:.. · .. · .LJ_ f-1 :I 1a:li:!ilo IC JU ! __ . t;-~

IJQ ' ,·,.]·::~::':':);j c:J -:-:-.:. :, .

. rz );(:. 3

f!Yfff:fi' .,.,,, '\:~::~·- ~ CJ "ff,, ··~1~- ~ ~-.~~~.:::::>.. ·.:, t

...x·,~·:";,,>..~

fig. 47

n ml il·i lJ. !

Jj

..

Again:

If we adopt 4~50 meters as the height of the home, the glass wal I wi I I be of the same he1ght; consequently, the sun's rays wi I I penetrate far inside, very deep into the home. So we can make the home deep; so, a home that is relatively narro\va"SG

make a drawing: (f.!J42:i) In front of every apartment, contiguous glass wal Is constitute the facade(A,A)A.a)a The home is behind it, in depth ( L),. The interior street leads to the door of each home (R). If the building complex has an east-west orientation, the homes are placed on either side of th~ interior street. If it is orientated north-south, homes wi I I be placed only on the south.

This depth-wise disposition of each home is a departure from the traditional ways ~f stringing out each home al I along the facades, T, Tl, T2 ..

Several ways (shown in section) of grouping around the interior street can be adopted. Either: homes 1 and 2 around an interior street. Or: homes la and 3a on either side of an interior street. With I iving air Av not even the least I ittle nook is left stag­nant.

Let's read the new solution: with LT, I ex­press the most intense uti I ization of tradi-tional methods. For 16 homes, for instance, the building would have a length of !!1..!}. a

With the new arrangements LN, the bui I ding . -

....... c;.--r;,--,-r:· c

,n. t..<.<Z..... n

ffff.H±B Lr -;,6~=-

5!>

.3:;. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 53.

37· Le Corbu" i er, Tho Rodi ont City, P• 43.

ti!. .~§1: t.. tg:~)f lj 4~; L . l "':f. ~ A! 1.. t.. :4 - J.S- A• '- ,..,.._i::._

~ - ' J .r.; L 1.. :'I' .. , L . ,t I • •

~LN

j!ij/~tw• ~

A~': . .-... , ,, / , - .

,'3 .. ,.,,. ,/ .,, .. . ... ..-µ_

-

~;? ··.~

tW l..:o ~u.. itf,,,9.«.,

fig. 4&

@J /... rp"tlJ.~'

·[& M- re:w_ =

... ,.

wil I have a length of m'n', or in other words, one third as mucha

Whereupon the traditional city which ex­tends over an area VT wi i I extent only (new city) over VN: one third as great an area.37

The sectional sketches clearly show the crystallization of

the Unitf interlock section; its relation in the above

passage to the need for re~ucing the developed length of

continuous I inear blocks (redents) so as to compact the

city, is evident.

If, 2

as has been argued, the reduced DU of 10m P•P•

or 14m2p.p., had its origin~ in theNgh densities required

by the Vi I le Radieuse, it was also reinforced by a new

"souped-up" conception of the common services : in a ques-

tionnaire drawn up by Le Corbusier at CIAM 111 in 1930 and

addressed to al I archjtects, this reinforcement is made

exp I i cit:

Supposing that the principle of communal· services expands more and more (nurseries, gymnasiums for daily physical culture sessions, food supp I i es, I aundry - a I I services which wi I I facilitate the running of the home and proportionately reduce the real volume of apartments), what is the· minimum I iving area which you would al lot to each resident ? 38

In this sense the common services are a compensatory devi.ce

for ·th\~ sma I I DU, re I i ev i ng it of "unnecess ary!'ftmctJ ons

and vesting these in other more efficient frameworks, to

38• Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, p,60

The same point is made by one of the

strategums quoted earlier on :

:,«:>

"The introduction of communal services in domestic life could lead to a saving in the area of the individual housing unit. Such communal services I ighten domestic labour and free wives for more useful work."

(Le Corbusier, .The Radiant City, p.189.

~

tne presumed mutual benefit of both,. The DU

is no longer therefore, the self-contained and self suffi­

cient eel I that it was in the Vi I le Contemporaine where the

common services, provided for the less affluent only, were

envisaged as a measure for relieving the domestic staff

crisis and circumventing the need for a central city market.

The Vi I le Radieuse eel I now has essential reciprocal exten­

sions into a larger organizational system. This extension

~xplains; for example, the fact that the kitchens of the

Vi I le Radieuse DUs rem~ined the same minimum-sized 'cock-

pits' whether they served on~ person or ten.

Applying this kind of logic to other aspects of

the shrunken DU, we shcil I uncover another strata of common

services: the free space avai labl~ in and ibout the rooms

of the Vi I las-lmmeuble DU where children might ~lay with

friends, parerits hold parties, the family db their physi­

cal jerks or a hobbjepursued, are el i.minated i~ the Vi lie

-Radieuse only to be "returned" elsewhere on a larger scale

in the form of clubrooms and meeting rooms, a large commu~

nal hat I and gymnasium, continuous open space with solaria

and greenery which are amongst the elements placed within,

or on top of, the redents~ The uni imited green space con­

taining creches, kindergartens, primary scho<,ls, footbal I

fields, tennis courts, and swimming pools just a shout

away from the apa~tments. ( fj· 4-J ·)is yet another compensa­

tory device which further widens the ambit of the extensions

of the home --"les prolongements du logis"-- thus investing

the word-image "home" in the Vi I le Radieuse with wider asso­

ciations,.

57

-;..-: -- .. -: ... ~, -~

I ,.,-

- ,..~., --> ••

--.

;;

--

. ~ ·rl "Cf-I

These wide~ associations must always be seeri to

underlie the word "eel I" when Le Corbusier uses it i-n re­

lation to the Vi I le Radieuse if we are to do that DU justice

when we contrast it with earlier, more generous prototypes;

only from this standpoint does Le Corbusier's claim for the

centrality of the eel I in the Vi I le Radieuse make sense: "It is now time to offer a justification for these studies of mine, and I can think of no better one than their own ori­

~~ g i n: the ce I I " ..

This viewpoint means, of course, that eel I and con-text inter-imply one another quite directly.. A quick glance

at the. Vi I I e Rad i euse p I an wou Id seem to substantiate this.

physically, since the overal I environment of the redents is

created simply by the continuous· multipl~ation, virtually ad i.nfinitum, of the eel Is, \vith no interveningu'2,~ta different

' (ffr50) · order, to fracture this continuum,. A closer look at the

more detailed plans wi I I however reveal a subtly differentia­

ted hierarchy of various or9anizational s·ystems that do, 1n

fact, relate to separate sections of the continuous redents

( fij- SI ) ,. These systems, \vh i I e each of them seeks its

own most effective level of operation, are al I related to

one basic module : DETERMINING THE BASIC HOUSING UNIT: MODULE: MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF 100 M, ON FOOT FROM APARTMENT DOOR TO ELEVATORS, RESULT:

2,700 RESIDENTS - HOUSING+ COMMUNAL SERVICES +

NURSER I ES + SCHOOLS.. 40

This module of 2,700 residents is based on the deep narrow DU of 14m2p~p3 or 10m2 P•P• discussed earlier.

59

3~ Le Corbusier The Radiant City, p.143.

~- ~I ~~~,· l'----"__J· 1JL' . ,-:---1 (J ~~.,.,r11 ~ 1 :;,--;;-----r .t -:-- --~-- -~:--~~s~:~~-:~:ir: , __ . Y----·-r·-

,-- 1! · y, if;;'};,,,;l~~Jf~ : ;

1)1;0·· --- - : ~ .... __ ·-:.~~1~~-j~~,(-·-----;,-911~ r >. I "jj;J.-=r:'.A"··J·~~~-::k--,,:,, . ' . I I · , •.: ~ ,,) , , ~- 1 ,-..:,~ - ,, I ; ~. . -"""'n '·,y1,,;1 . {' I "., ... - 1~- ,_..,....,,,d1 - •. , ·

~=~~~~~'] =. -=-~- '~J-·c\ ~')(_7,'.:-,c~·l'"'~'=' -. r~ ·-"'···'.--"-~- •,,--,-~_j'\.",. ~-' ,i1,_,, __ . ___ ~_ ·-·. ·-··· J

HRI r- wo·1~f:s~ll,:fl 1D?.-JLJ1fl~---1 r:o ~r----i··: 11 , f' L.J1 ,.Nc ··. !/,1" . '. j j~LJ· _JI :..J ,'

D ~~JJ1/r--ot~-~\Jr J>(J---r-~I:]~-.: · n ~....,~-h-;-:-r.-£c-=!,~ r::-i-~~~ J.,_. : ·. ,F~ d,~~rJ=L ..... :;;~ ·~-:>.r,-'."-',:!:J"'i,J :!r.J. u,·J',£ [I'.~• I· i.~r.i,_-;:,r->..1:.,:,:-·p'...l,~.Lrr·i'.:.,-:-L"I .

;,';;~.J:{ii-:,G-;~~!.' ~":'c:l. I. :e:.1~: t'Ebi:::.-WJ:-'{;.~~.'.,fl.:.;[_""'.j; · . 'D.r-:;:Yi7'"1.I:u-0;;rr: 0 i...1 r j· • :·' k 1ITT,r='iD~,EPi-Jl~'::l:.:7j

-_:- . \.?1.Se;A...!E-ij'J.:.r-~:f:'1::~1> ~- :~JJq¥11....i51~ifJ3;1:0q _ .f1..:.n:..n-iI'T:.rflctF0 ,,1 c-:! J·· (:m· ,ff.:.'S.; L::'• ;.J!-.. ~ ., ,:.i :1~1

~~_,~W.$=81r;: i.i~ - ::~_1~'{~:~rrl1i

··;:..n:--.:·. ~:: ;_--· ·.~ ·1-:. •7_}· '. I-' :-11··" ;.: ;: ::~·;_ .::'. r~-r3~.-;!.~I . "-CTs.::.:lf:1~ ....[i_J-!;1:<'.~~--' •; · ~'t:l}i..:.r,.J_~:r.d;,_;:~

:··'-~',rif'LP\?i'.]JJ·...:rfl..T'f;j-;!j'"--i':7:'.r _ i· 'f:_'Sf•fl_:r"%.fi·~~;-r-r: \.n..r:;;:;....n/"-.v~_JJ r [. : :~ ~ ;U.1.i,.;,q~52J.J.fl,.:.A'.:...0±~Y" :- ;- -~:r.::·. - .-;_t -:: 2._-:-1, .. ··- ,: ·.,·:·c.:, ~!4"::'"~. -ri:,·~~JA:=;,::;:...:..~·.· ;ttd!-.:..- t.:.r~...:I' !_., r,..._, ~ r..,. ;l r""<''. ·,:.r-i .. ,J_ ,,.L,---:_w· ,r,· ,J-.-1-~

__ }-,lC'1--'&_f.l;_&Dt'.}--,.;~-I~ :_ n fr':;;,aJ.J".'.:i'J£_J:0.:j::J:2-i&_ --)ff!it_;"?-,,.J-fi::J;''i.:r:!:"LJ"' . .,ff.• firl) ;-(. · 1,. -. FN. :"'i..Fl'/!:-iTT~P..~(?7'-D - .

/

7 i~~4T:V_-~?-O<~~t/;f"] : J' 'r~} !g-f1~~:ifl~2~'.:I){l ;,-.,;:r ,~ .•. rtr.:- ~t:.r.ir1. . -. •. ·\e. .. · :;1 ""I'W •-{fl,;. .. ,R~, -'--'~~.z:c~t · 1;::::;1 · · ; i:r.J.':ti:i.:'.J;.;£.~fu.J:,';:u;J...£..,,;.l:J_ ---·-·r··-~ ~-- -r:;::z l----~=}n~·-· <lj'~\_····>.:y----· .... - "Ji. -- L----.... ···- I, ... --· ~ '. .... J ill.-JL ::>ZL- ··-·='"· !

fig. 50

40- Le Corbusier, The Rodi ant City,· P• 162.

'-·· r

r I I

,._, - ,..,, ..... ---- ,. e""' ., - ......... -.. "" -·­ ,.,,. - •:;;,;) .---, .

-"' -

,-.,..,...---,...__,·\

,,':it-. . . ~~\01~

·· _llll I

~

~~~ [~Jf:9~1,:~.

'----r.,,------,-.:; .... ~=-<J ·,v_.,. -i;::;=1

~e,-,,;~--. · .. :' -r ~

l r-·

..

. \ .,._~ - ,.,,,, --~

--- .. "" - ,,,., I ,r._-,

- ,..,, - ,.. -~

- ..... - ,._, ·­ ,.p

- ,. .. - .. '""""'

. J.

. i -

I :::

' ;;

I

There is an important 'hidden decision' involved here

which fixes ~he population module at 2,700 per elevator

core and that is the choice of a specific number of sto­

reys for the •redents". To increase the density of the

Vi I le Radieuse, Le Corbusier was ·also obi iged to increase

the number of storeys beyond that of the Vi I le Contempo­

r~ine, whose five double storeys were designed to cbnf6rm

to the building regulations of Paris. Ignoring such

'l '~,,,, T · :"!:"~°(~~ ·:i,!2~ ···· ·· ·! ~ t._.··r~l[ii7 1: !r:12··:)l~~,t-j ,;_"7JI. ~' /' · __ :

1 ;'.I ~j\:i __ lir~-! I , •..• ,.·>··; J@F.,. li1··IT:o:- , __ .. 1 , • : -:'..:c·D · \.;: ill· ._:_._. J I I ·:· ' . .· 1! I L.._; __J I .=,; I

(~ .d II:· ' [;~~tJ I 11

9 ~Jd · IH I [=----i \c-:

·: ,,.i"t L,~ ~ , . :·~. .1r1 o~T1 '·· i kn1

11

:0?7D_i>} ... JI_ :~ (~21 rM, .JJ 1 1 •

~~- ·Jt . ~ ,-v .;~~;=~~n:· ···· ~·~=dr."1n·:::.~L, ;:.· I [ I, !1

-~ l'~'s'h l · ~f\• I! · I i ! :).l '~;-:~c~· :lJ Ji\ ~ ;;§:cf,~~ l£: I 9 c,. ii ml 1 I~ Lit 1Jf1ID f) ;,I I n~ . . .·. t ·· · . ~,i IJt~:· ~~~ I

I l ''I . 1~:~ l~-~;1·.-~·, ]I G~ k :d I :~ I~, z . .7=.-= r f~~ -=--!.·.::q~ ~t!i -~~: .. :.'.!: ~lY ;,W 1- 1·~1··,c-,z,© ~---~LJu~---~· ,;;,::· 'l '" . U

I ·,=·-·--:/! 'I·",- · "'''' I ., · · , a-r.:__ : \•. '1•1 • ,.,, I I ~ i)..":: __ ,,_:,_ -··=:'J -, . ~ :• : G::::···' •

F",0~'.::;;;;;;t;:;;;:;:_, __ "'re. - ~·. :-~c. 0 ,;·c·. ., J:ic-~-=,;_:;·_> 't

INr .. _ ,~·· .,.... · ·· , r · · · ):_<r·· · · ·· · ·• ··:,'i

1 . ~ l!O'l -=== ., .. __ ,, l Id, L, ~

considerations in the Vi I le Radieuse, Le Corbusier fixed

the maximum height for residential buildings at fifty

metres from the ground, which al I owe~ of ten double sto-· 1

reys, the two lowest being given over to the common ser­

vices above the pi lot is, which alone punctuate the contin­

uous open space at ground levela This rather crucial pre­

scription of 50ma which mµst have been a very considered

one, since Le Corbusier wa~ to fol low it in al I his subse- fig.5Z A: 'i\liTOSTIU.DES" HE,\li•LACENT "IHJES"

H: ",\IJTO-l'OHTS" quent high-rise housing schemes, he neither justified nor

elaborated upon in the Vi I le Radieuse; all we have, al­

m6st by the way, is a casual presumption of its self-evident

r at i on a I i t y :

Finally, since exact air is mechanically distri­buted by pulsation, making it possible to bring I ife to I imitless volumes of buildings, we can adopt a reasonable height of, say, 50 meters,for apartment houses. As a result of this vertical solution, open spaces, or parks (P), .become avai­lable in front of the house and behind itn ~

The single elevator core of_ the module fixes the posi­

tion of the p~rking garages- auto ports - at the foot of the

elevators and in this way, Le Corbusier w6uld have us believe,

l O Herc. we have adopted a basic unit for the highway network measuring: 400 X 400 meters (we even tried a unit mc:isuring 400 ;< 200 meters on this particular working drawing, but it is pointlessly cluttered);

2° According: to the pro.'<imity of :my given neighborhood to the city"s main traffic arteries, we have allotted the different sections of highway adequate widths of, variously: 24 m., 16 m., and 12 m.;

3° Next. or.c considers the intcrsections: this is a residential neighborhood, therefore the traffic is not abnormally heavy; we have illustrated one fairly important intersection, then other. simpler or very simple ones;

4° The highways run all the time t~rough open parks, outside the houses. Qc .. casiooally. however, they do run through the buildings. \Ve have indicated three different wa)'$ in which this can occur;

s• The highways arc connected by branch roads to the auto-ports built up outside the main doors to the apartment units;

6° Inside each of these doors is a vertical transportation system. Each of the doors bcrc serves 2, iOO residents;

7° The auto-ports provide for the temporary parking of taxis or private vehicles; 8° Beneath the auto-ports arc garages for residents' private cars. The garages

arc linked to the ·auto-port by two one-way ramps, one leading up9 the other doY.11.

41. le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 43,

determines the sea I e of the entire road infra-structure ( f,j -s:z... ) :

~

The basic.module once accepted (maximum distance from any given apartment door to elev~tors:100 meters),the astonishing ground plan above, is the result: this traffic network is both necessary and adequate to provide total facilities for a city of one and a half mi I I ion inhabitants, al I. the various sectors included;~

The apparently greatly reduced number of streets must .be

balanced against the knowledge that the road infra-struc­

ture on the plan, which is 5 metres up in the air; has·an

identical one on the ground underneath it for service vehi­

cles and public transport (f,:5s.s~.54-·), and that the corridors

within the redents are thought of, . Ii tera I I y, as interior

street.s( This was where, for example, the pol iceman's

ne\v beat \voul d be,,)

Doub! ing the population module of 2,700 provided

the "housing unit" which was the basis for the common ser­

vices and "prolongements du logis"

Each main door ( in this ii lustrat1on) intended for 2,700 residents. Two doors: 5,400 residentso This figure seems to provide a useful size of "housing unit" (divisible, moreover, into 2 x

·2,700). Each of these units is therefore pro­vided with its individual set of servicei d1rect­ly connected with family I ife: communal services (catering and household suppl ies);nursery (with

G:.t.,

* le Corbusier, The Radiont City, P• 169.

''It ·.14

.~e. ~

«:In(:iJl.1.ATION

a direct I ink to one of the interior streets(l')· kindergarten, open-air playground in the park(2'); primary school (3') in the pa~k" Bet~een the ages of 1 and 14, children wi I I have ~I I necess~ry educa­tional establishments outside their own front door, in the park (none of the present-day street dangers)·~ fig •. 53 42, Le Cor?usier, The R.:l<liant City, P• 162 •.. ~ .

'

~,,.1,7~~1! It is clear from this passage that, as in the Vi I le Contem---. ·~ z·;~ ...... ~ tr1',-,.,,,~ ... ,. ;fr'.~};t!//;}J

. . \_.,, ,/('t,Af!~ ~~~,1!&"'1:~1J,.Ll:t,:.-,,,,;Ji . ,:-'.-f;.~:;7.,~ pora i ne, the superb I ock resu It i ng from the road i nfra-str-uc- ·, (4f\:ri·>;: ~ &,Ii ,j•··•].f.'.:7;-i::tf;,.>f·~~~ '\\:·2:·,:,,,:@

\ 17<i .. ~s· ·,·~~ .,. .. ,i-.,-, p _.~~ tt;;//·'·:;:~-- · I® .1te~.iJ ·~·

~ l~!s 1-'"' r&\., --, ~~ITuai,lJQ :::;;::i~ fig. 54 ~-~~-·~···,.~ .. ,, ...... ·---~--~=~:.$,. .... ,.,_ .. ~~., .... , ......... ,,.. .. ,......... -··

:--

structure does not in itself, constitute a neighbourhood

that is meaningful in any sense; rather, four or eight

(depending on whether we choose 2,700 or 5,400 residents

as the basic unit) purely organizational modules happen

to constitute a superblock containing 21,000 people and

measuring on the ground plan 400m x 400m; the only bene­

fit that appears to accrue to the housing from the super­

block is that this sub-division seems to form the basis

for providing one major~orts faci I ity, though the i I lus­

tr at i ans, it must be added, are insufficient I y extensive

to fully bear this out. Certainly the "redents'"visual

continuity and the sameness of their environment would

not appear to indicate any intention of creating "neigh­

bourhoods"• ( fiJ 5 G )

Al I the physical and organizational -strategies

that re-inforce and support the Vi I le Radieuse high -

density DU sh9uld be seen, on a more profound level; as

being directed towards the manipulation of a non-physical

resource -- the twenty-four hours ~f the solar day.

Architecture, city planning, our. happiness, the state of our consciousness, the equi I ibrium of our individual I ives, the rhythm of our collective duties are al I governed by the 24-hour cycle of the sun.43

ThJs credo had found expression by 1930

busier's touchstone-diagrams ( f0.5~ his analysis of society and its ii Is

)

as

1n one of Le Cor­

which underpins

wel I as his solu-

0J

. ii-~~il. ~~~~~lf(t4

la joume, solaire de 24 h,ur.s : ... . .. the twenty-four hour solar day mi,.,,., de nos mtrepmes urbanistiquu : •.• the me:,sure of our to"'n-planning advcnni=

fig. 55

43. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 104.

.L

l / \

11

. {

~

solution for them. Le Corbusier's notion of tim~4ts·

the p I anner' s most basic yardstick and resource, 1 s a

fruitful viewpoint from which to discuss the Vi I le

Radieuse contexta

As Le Corbusier saw it, the time spent by

urban society's great mass of men and women at 'work'

was meaningless and onerous and their so-cal led leisure

time merely an anaesth~tizing escape from their sordid

I iving conditions -- al I a far cry from the basic recipe

for human happiness--the resolution of the Man/Nature

and Individual/Collective binomials. Though this sad

state of affairs had been brought about, both directly

and indirectly, by the Uncontrolled invasion of the

first Machine Agt5 it was \vi th these very same means,

only rationalized and cont~ol led, that Le Corbusier

hoped to save the situation; not that the rationalized

machine would of itself provide meaning in I ife -- it

wou.ld merely create time; · time for the men by reducing

their quota of work hours and time for the women by

freeing them from household chores. This free time, 4&.

"the true working day of machine civi I ization" would be

fi I led with meaningful content by virtue of the provi­

sions of the Vi I le Radieuse, which would thus restore

the Man/Nature and Individual/Collective e~~il ibrium

( -f;j.S7 )11 Al I this is summarized in a passage in Le

Corbusier's commentary on the Antwerp project of 1933, his purest and most trenchant real-I ife application of

Vi I le Radieuse principles:

G,)

44-. On occasion a aistinctly obsessive note

creeps into le Corbusier's pre-occupation

with time and its effects -- perhaps apt

in a watchmaker's son.

45. Thi,i period, which le Co.rbu,iicr• J.,fined

1.lS the llhlt:ftincrs rirst Oil\! l,unJl'cd yc,ll"S

of t',IJhtciuus Jc~Lt·uctivcncs~, ~tl·l!tclh..:J

from 1830-19JO, which wc1s when the l'ir!!t

portent of its inevita.ble failure appeared

in the form of the world-wide econo~ic col~.

I apse (Wa 11 Street er.ash and its reverbera­

tions in Europe in the form of unem~loyment

and strikes~· The date for the commence­

ment of the millenial second Machine age was,

however, progressively deferred in step with

le Corbus i er' s setbacks but it. was· re-pro-

c I aimed with unflagging perseverence til I the

end.

4G. le Corbusier, When the Cathedrals Were

White, ·p~ 177.

.FiS 57

~. Pj~ ! tutiu; 6u.u,. ul. /

~~~({ \ \ [fl ~~-~ -'- -

_..,- ~,' --::-:,,, 1'

~~4 . c.).A...

f%t~ r-·-

Indeed, I if e in the machine age ent it I es us to expect, in the near future, a work day so short­ened that of the 24 hours in the solar day, a considerable portion wi I I be left free. Today's public officials have the obi igation to prepare faci I ities capable of occupying tomorrow's lei-sure time, devoted to recuperating physical and nervous energy:'sports practiced at the foot of each house, solaria and beaches as part of the roof-gardens, etc; room set aside for chi ldrear­ing (to breed a healthy race and give the chi Id special care starting at birth); places for -study, for meetings and group activities, in appropriate rooms and hal Is. And finally, the freedom of the individual is guarenteed by the soundproof home, flooded by sun I ight and opening, not onto the traditional street, but, onto the sky and an expanse of parks,, 4 7

Ther~ is to be no place near the dwel I ings of the

Vi I le Radieuse ther,for the old concept of leisure, a con­

cept "synonymous with amusements, with relaxation: movie

ho.uses, fishing, hiking, visits to amusement parks"r no

place for "futile political squabbles in caf~s", no place

for shopping or even id I e wi ndov,-broMi ng near home. A I I

. these, together with their traditional habitat, the corri­

dor-street have been sacrificed for the sake of a bright 4-J·

"intensity in consecrated work and leisure", whose aura

bathes the home and its environs,. (f,35 58,59)

,j \J ti.I c,~- _} -c.c J

We are now in a position better to understand Le

Corbus i er' s burgeoning ani·mus towards the· suburbs. which

found powerful expression in The Radiant City subsequent to

his ~xtensive travels in the late 1920's and early· 1930's

through European, South American, North Arne~ican and

Soviet capitals and countrysi·des,, These travels added

(,,o(O

4-7. le Corbusier, The Radiant City, p.272.

48· le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P-• 151.

4,9, le Corbusier, The Home of Man, P• 112.

...... SJ

·,,_·--

J

---=r--­: -:j ·· . . . ' -·

: ,.

fuel to th~ fire of his earlier enmity towards suburbia

which we quoted in connection with the Vi I le Contemporaine;

to this basically anti-petit-bourgeois bias is added Le

Corbusier's antipathy to the"disease" of suburban sprawl

paralyzing the world's cities with its massive wastage -­

"la grande gaspi I I age du temps moderne".. The fol lowing

extract i I lustrates the variety of standpoints from which

Le Corbusier attacked the horizontal garden-city, opp6sing

to it the tenets of his own beneficent solution

,, • ., ,, ,. •.9. arden cities as opposed to 1..1rban .. concentration~ Of these. two contr~dic-. tory states, one must be-chosen, the ~ne

· which avoids waite (of time of energy, of money, ·of land),.. ·

~The garden city leads to individual ism,, In reality, to an enslaved individual ism, a sterile isolation· of the individuali It brings in its wake the destruction of social spirit, the downfal I of collective. forces; it leads tq annihilation of the col­lective wi I I; materially, it opposes the fruit­ful· application of scientific discoveries, it restricts comfort; by increasing the amount of time lost, it constitutes an attack upon freedom,.

For the sake of o~e per6ent of s6ciety or one tenth of one percent -- for the sake of the people who are wel I off and whose needs it can satisfy-- the garden city plunges the rest of society into a precarious existence,.

Whereas urban concentration favours the introduction of "communal servites",,

A mirage: decentralization, lowering popu-1 ation densJty to 300?' even 150 inhabitants per hectare, with the pretext of. giving the.

.countryside back to the city man. Sheer i 11 us.ion and falsehood, as the reality shows;, (fi.;-f>o)

(:, !j

50. le Corbusier, The Radiant City, p. 38.

.. ·~ .. rr:

0,~-

"1 ((2, ~>1-.. ---:~· I\.£,, 0~. .

41 ~~-j.-~f..-[.[~~=-=- ..:,. 1 " ' ~~~C,.''.'-)(. - .. ---- .

. ...~ ·~~ ,.. ~.-1., C~1..,r-,..... ~ / G·:i

~

_t· . ,,.,__,,, ') • ...,, / ., r-R"~:'J ~,.· .n ;1~-• • =t~.!_l(Jf.-k' .• ,, . . ~r~:r,ril ij:rr) i)'R,'1 ~., __ ..,......::--. rrrf, · -a>,.:-·~------· · .---- .

.-o:::--~-r,-~-~ .c• ~-~::-----

~ r:'.c -- .,,, ,::, ~:,;,-

~~~

IMI, /M "-1,(,CI- ~ ~; 11;~·,-1,, ~ ·'l~ :

fig.GO t:£.c..' .... 1- r:..t.1.:11.~~·: ("' ~ ·n,~i'-..~.~

51. This density was also that of the com­

pacted residential district of the Ville

Contcmporiline!

· I b~lieve that, on the contrary, the popula­tion densities of our present cities --300 or 400, even 600 (overpopulated zones) per hectare-- should be raised to 1000 by the prodigious resou~ces of modern techniquesa Then communal services can be multipl iid, then genuine freedom can be achieved in the heart of family I ife, freedom instead of domestic slaverya ~0

The Vi I le Radieuse,as may be suspected from the

~bove passage, ignores the question of· socio-economic ~roup­

ingso Unlike the Vi I I~ Contemporaine~and the Algiers pro­

ject of 1929 which differentiated as regards location ( and

in the case of the latter,. also in DU size) between "stand­

ar~" DUs and those for "the more iomfortable"; the Vi I le

Radieuse, as applied prototypically to Aritwerp, "distributes

residential neighbo~rhoods evenly over the city. There

are neither poor nor we~lthy neighbourhoods nor any sort of

~f distihc~ion made to mark them off; probably this classi­

fication wi I I come about of itself."53

In this conscious minimization of class divisions

and in his treatment of other large-scale· meas~res imping­

ing on the socio-economic and socio-political spheres, Le

Corbusier believed himself to be merely the instrument of

the positive potentialities of the times which required only

to be discovered, disc I ose·d and deve I ope do Thus, . for ex­

amp I e, he discovered that "modern society.is better prepared

than its predecessor for collective discipl ines~o~=••"54

L~ Corbusier was·now·having se~ious second··thoughts

as to whether the actuat implementation of al I the measures

6'1

@

5Z. This distinction was admittedly minorl le Corbusier avers· in The Radiant City thbt in the Vi I le Contemporaine he had"created the·

prototype of a class•css city •••• "

6.3. le· Corbusier, The Ra•1i ant City, P• 276.

The reader will recall, for example, how

the ne·w concept of I e i sure enshrined in the Ville Radieuse was intended to contri­

bute towards this withering away of the

proletariat ••

-- ··- -- -·-- . ----.. -----------· - - -· ~4: le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 37.

:-

requir~el to realize the Vil le Radieuse was still"possible

under our own democracy" as he had argued in 1925. That

the book The Radiant City is "dedicated to AUTHORITY", 1s

in itself an indication of the drift of Le Corbusier's thought. The envisaged compass of such Authority can be

gathered from the list, based on ideas repeated through­

out the Radiant City, that is furnished in our lntroduc-· tory section:

1. AUTHORITY for al I change to be vested in the correct physical plan.

2a AUTHORITY for wholesale requisition of land.

3n AUTHORITY for population transplantations within and between urban and rural areas.

4. AUTHORITY to reduce. or limit cities absolute size and extent.

5. AUTHORITY to curtai I extent of. shoppihga

6. AUTHORITY to institute a new food supply system eliminating the middleman.

7. AUTHORITY to 'rationalize' industry to produce useful consumer goods only. ·

8. AUTHORITY to use energies thus freed to rebuild the 'humane' New Age cities.

9e AUTHORITY to protect the time salvaged from 7 and 8 as leisure time for al I.

10. AUTHORITY for institutions ensuring creative intense, disinterested leisurea

Having thus prescribed al I the wide-ranging

changes flowing from the "correct physical plan" Le

A• 70

Corbusier more or less stopped short; the seriousness and

depth of enquir~ characteriting the physical plani of

the Vi I le Radieuse have by and large no para! lei in Le

Corbusier's didac~ic and exhortatory "discussion" of the

accompanying processes of social, economic and political

changem There exists a contradiction between his con­

viction of the masses approval of al I these changes ("The

masses wi I I always go out to meet those who have something

to give"f the apparently desperate need he discerns to

redirect the general ·wil I of the masses ("We have an im­

mense programme of social education before us that must be ~"' put into ef feet very qui ck I y indeed":) and the abso I ute dis-

regard he evinces for certain rights assumed to be inal ien­

able to these same masses ('Do away with les Hal !es? Yes:.1

That must be made quite clear. But does'nt that. also

mean doing away with thousands of little private businesses? 57

Of course· : ")

Le Corbusier, less confused on the more techinical

aspects of these changes -- I ike,for example,the question

of financing the huge building operations implied by his

plans;-- delivered himself of long explanations backed up

b~ figures, calculated to show how, once the land was taken

over by the authorities and the-owners -were compensated at

current I and va I ues, the proc (mat i o~ of the ne,11, efficient

super-den~ities would dramatic~[ ly increase the value of

land, whose re-sale would then pay for the increased scale

of building operations etc. etc. But the clearly harsher

imp I ications involved in pursuing some of the other objec-

·tives to their logical conclusions,· Le Corbusier could not,

rl

~,. Le Corbusier-, The Radiant City,_ P• 153.

56. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 146.

57. Le Corbusicr~ The Radiant City, P• 116. ·

would not, ·or dared not, spel I but openly; here, as in.the

Vi I le Contemporaine, he sidesteps this ultimate issue by

puttingfue ~art before the horse: "The auth6rity wil I

fol low the plan, not precede it~. And through what magi-

cal agehcy ~ we are entitled to ask, would the plan then

come into being in the first place? Le Corbusiers answer

echoes that given to the same question concerning the Vi I le

Contemporaine: it is 'people~s 'enthusiasm for the happi­

ness clearly imp I ied in the physical plan that wil I generate

the necessary action;

Yes, AUTHORITY:· decisions as pregnant with consequences as a declaration of war. A cal I to arms in the field of orga-nization. Action and conquest. ·

First of al I, the mobilization of enthu­siasm, that ,electric power source of the human factorym Then, al I the.other kinds of mobi I ization that enthusiasm wi I I drive us on to. Mobilization of th~ land andef people and the production we need to make our plan a reality. Action~ The ad-vance. The great advance at last, once the p I an is est ab Ii shed. 55

/:l,

· .5B. Le Corbusier, The Radiant .City, pp.344-45.

:--

M A R S E L L E - S U D

and

We can reasonably infer from the text, captions

I lustrations of the Marsei I le-Sud project~that al I

the Unites there depicted would be similar in type and size to the one actually realized on the Boulevard Miche­let, which is also included in the design ( f0.Gl, 0 4- ).,·We

are also going to assum;'0

that the DUs within al I these

Unites are identical to those projected for the Michelet

Unite.,

The Unite DUs appear to correspond, 1 n essence,

to the intentions apparent in the most evolved DU sketches for the Vi I I~ Radieuse (Compare figs. G~ and ~3 ):

this schematic correspondence is however, undermined by

their considerable difference in size: the 'ideal 10m2p.pa

DU of the Vil le Radieuse has distended into another 'ideal'

DU based on 20m2pup3 This increase in area is the re-

sult of a DU envelope that is deeper by 3 meters than the

Vi I le Radieuse block-depth of 18m, and presumably (sin~e

the 'poltergeist'Vi I le Radieuse DU was never fulfi I led 1n

the flesh) also wider by some unknown amount~

Le Corbusier passes in silence over this doubling

of the space co-efficient, continuing to talk of the new

DU in terms identical to those used for the earlier DUs.

·/ ; \· ·, ;:_,.:·

-';\ 53.

73

Like many of his urban planning schemes,

Marseille-Sud was not commissioned by any

authority, but was a self-imposed labour

of love. The project is rather wistfully

introduced in the Complete Works:

WL'entouragc ~reserver~ !'Unite du

boulevard Michelet et la sauvegarde de

son principe (so lei I, espace, verdure)

devaient un jour conduire le ministre de la Reconstruction~ demander b Le

Corbusier de donner son idee sur !'urban­

isation de "Marseille-Sud"•••s

(L~ Corbusier,Oeuvre Complete, Vol.V.p99)

The desi~n consequently, has no constraints

imposed upon it 'from a~ove' as at Chandi-

garh for example; its limitations arc

those accepted and imposed by Le Corbusier

himself.

lc/J. This .:,ssur11ption must be qu..il ified: Le Cor­

busicr• >,cs .:.lso busy in 1951 with his entry

for the Strasbourg housing competition in

which he proposed t"o Unites and a circufar

tower, The DUs for these, as wel I as the

Unit6s themselves differed in some signifi­

cant respects from the one built at MarseilJes;

these differ~nces, moinly omissions, were the

result, I assume, of economies imposed_either

by the brief or by Le Corbusier himselfJ or

by the logic of the specific situation, Le

Corbusier's rather guorded discussion of the

changes in the Strasbourg Unit6s, contrasting

with his obvious affection for the Marseilles Unite, would seem to suggest that the latter

was the preferred example at the time,

j--·-

------------

Coupe transvc_rsale

-~ NORD

-fig. G;'J,

J~Jn-Jat'.[u::=::--i- ·i s 1

1._jJ I ,_;. . =-· -i

r==;;;l'.:.JDJ!!'" '.MlMU.~ -'·A·I ~~I 5

A·

9 Ii' 3

1 Rue lntericure 2 Cuisine 3 Salle commune 4 Chambrc des parents 5 Chambres d'en!ants 6 Salle de bains 7 Penderie 8 Douche 9 Loggia brlso-solel

,1

A·~ I

91 3 !

I

I

- ""."" ·1 I 17 t;: ;,-_-, 6_ 1. · ~- -.

1:11111~?.fl ¢, -,---·-.;i,\

t~~.;'i1'""'u~4r·1' ,-~o, L , ;,,,,-_,.,;1;.,;., 9 I • . . ·~;°~t~{{)) 17 r'il!ifllll!II ): .. :,}''.·\:;i; I • tm~at . •,r,,::,1,;· '~-~· ~~

.~·'H- . IA ,h::f'"'t1 ' ¢:i r,~wlill~-:;, ~"""1i, ··r1r:...-__ ... F .. _, .. Hfiiiioi:~1m1----~w- . r;1·

1 mi;i;;-;<!fu;

1_ · · 2·1 I \" .

9 ;:{t\f:J13 f1_jj 1 u 13 9 3 .. . . - .. ~ fnfiiTTiJn ------~E~-

·---------·-----

.........

"'• C-0--~ 4•

§EjlBP---~-·-i i.)~ 4: l. :A'· . ~ ~,-; -· l_

.,,,~ ,.,~ t.. . :" CtC,.. ~A: c..

OH- A ,_ !'\""'- A, L /--::-:-, -

Ii. . ' A fig. G,3

74

-~---.

·f ,; ...

fig. &4(~)· - '·\ 'I

\

Marseille-Sud .

·:·:.

. .. . ... -~ ...

·>··.

~ ; . ,,

121-1. 1··--:,_ •

UrbnnlgatJon do

Marseille-Sud (MlcheleO Pion gGmlrol .Volumo ball

Indication a titre d'ex .. empledo l'occupalion du torraln- par:

a) Unites collccfr,es ver­ticalos

b) Maisons famlliales nvec pelou~e3 com• munes pour l'enfanco

~: Urbanisation de

. Marsellle•Sud (Michelet) Sccteur th~orlqu8 Circulation

RCsoau lnt4r1Cor -· Distributlo11 pour lcs c:a .. teoories: cat. A: V 4 ct V 5, clrcu ...

· Jation lenlo mlxte: autos, pilttons

ont. B: a} rnmifico.tlon des V 3 = rootc, par-­king gornoes

b) Allment.:i.tlon par VS ct VG (autos lent et 'lti· los - orango) par V 5 et V 6 (pi6ton.s ,eul'l -jaune citron)

cal. C: a) Allmentnllon par VS et VG (autos·lont cl v6• los - oranne}

b) AilmcntaUon par Vs ct V 6 (plCtons souls -Jauno citron)

cat. E: Allmentatlon · par V 7 (pi6tons !louts -· aulo~ oar auto• rls:itlon)

,~

L'innovation de l'appartement type "V-R" se trouve dans sa position en travers du bloc b~ti, et non en longa Un appartement n'occupe que 3,50m, 4,SOm ou 5,50m de la facade. De la, la forte densite atteinte. Jamais l'ap-partement n'est considere comme "Minimum"a Certaines fonctions peuvent se contenter d'une surface reduite, mais le coeur de l'apparte­ment (la sal le) ne doit jamais etre une cage. Au contraire: de l 7 ~space manmaasaam~msamnaa

c a a • a • • • s a m a ~ • • = u • • s a s u a s ff a a m c a • w e a a • • c • a e a a On arrive meme a des types tres reduits d'ap­partements, mais, tres amples, toutefois.~1

This suppression of factual contrasts between two given de­

signs in order to achieve their correspondence at a more

abstract level wel I exemplifies Le Corbusier's faci I ity

and need for rationalizing divergent elements into a 'con-

sistent'package-deal. Rather than allow, f6r ~xample,

that this larger DU constitutes, in its more generous pro­

visions of space, a design that is different and more satis­

factory th~n ~arl ier determinations, Le Corbusier feels con­

strained to suggest a congruency between the two designs in

question.,

Judging by the plan of the Unite DU, it may not be (

immediately apparent that we are in the presence of a new 1 and unexampled amp I itude since its extreme length and nar- j

rawness ( a ratio of approximately 1:6) evoke an impression

of con'striction ( fJG5 ). In actual fact, only the child-

ren's bedrooms, when the common partition is closed, could

be ( and 6ften have been) described as constricting. The

·, l

\ I

\

/G,

GI,( Le Corbueier,Ocuvre Compl~te, Vol.fll, p.SZ.

!--

Appartcment pour famlllo do 2 a 4 enfants (type superieur)

Coupe longitudinalo sur une «couple de cases». Una rue lnterieure dessert les appa_rtements

longitudinal section through a "compartment couple". An In­terior .street serves the apart­ments

liingsschnitt durch eln «Woh­nungspaar». Eine innere Strasse fuhrt zu den Wohnungen

Appartement pour famllle de 2 a 4 enfants (type lnf{)rleurl

Plan d'appartement type superieur

1 Rue lnterlcure Interior street lnnere Strasse

2 Entr6e 3 Salle commune avec cuisine

Living-room with kitchen Wohnraum mit KOche

4 Chambre des parents avec salle de balns parents' room with bath Elternzimmer mil Bad

·S Casiers, penc;eria, placards, planche a repasser, douche pour enfants

6 Chambres d'enfants 7 Vide de la salle commune

Plan d'appartement type lnferieur

fitS". G5

•

:~., t 1 I' It lfdW a I t ~-,. et ~-~··---,·-·-i--~:-:r••-• -I ---Ht#--,,._ ,.,tt ...... - ' lU .1 -\.,

~ Ila-IT! In .. ? ~·· ... \\l\j 7;

H _[

i[71 ~0

~ ' 6 __ rr ·----·filXJ 1 1 M I K

I JLQ;

·•.t ===i '- !!\ I : .. ·- . . . . ;) L,-u~~-,.-,.!

~~··.· . . . r--1\

J 9 ~~ . . I q ........ ~. [j ~.· .L[i~

L!!J' . ' MP< • " •. , •• ,··~.;,. ·-Jj .. !, --t

j r, ~8 111=1~8 .~ ~ "i"-=·-ctcrrc: t:1.....,.,,, --- ... ,,.,c .... ..,.,. ·;u.;;u=d .. 1 f;l

C:.d·_ .. , . J~ I . ;-Fi1 .· .-.~~ ii .. f)

J li,11.·)~ II · : ·. I : .... I

JI . . I

i'----~J ·1

I-[~ r- ,_, • L~I UJ SJ ?. ~ . ll T i'1 It . !tJJ if~1i~~~~1t./

-!11. h ; . . . '1'![ .1-4.11 l, I: : '- / ,: . ''"1'!t

1 !G=,:"-;-° ,_./ .. 3 :,ii [ f;, r-r. '·\I I • 0 . . ·:11 1:' ,:

~- .DI l\: oDD ~<D O !::ij r' C I m, . 1. - D • , .A ., ·I·

If :/',.;,,~10001:: .. D D / 'V _Q Hi ~;~1:~-~ O< ~- 11 -'""-i...-1~: r·~1 ·------,·il~ _

1 al H,J ... J I ..,.~ .... J ••·~--· --,

c~~

~~~~~re~~L"'= e---;~ ,.,...., 0· - ~: ·[i----- Hi uj!i ~ //[11 1, 1::f ! _ , , · F~-1-,· k/ / / .• .~ · 1

- - H ' ii ii·:.ij \ ~ F1l o

1

-. ":LlJr lJ~ o f!! . ~ l(i\ ]:\ _ -- ···--··.: 1-=, 1= · D ::\! ·,

1 1,,i L ~ A7Lb :0 ... . ... -----· _/ o 1111lr ,

'fj · ~/ !'. ··· · 'Or,_ . . 0 . ---, )__:!1 , 1\,

l!L O , ! ~,, 'ol:=--.-JfJ! vv. · U_ -.-----·~r_ '-~,1\)..J !1j/J~ 0 I,,· \JI,..-\;'··.,,..~ .. ..=, - • .._.,.,..,_===•---c ,, _ _., 1

,1.~ / . '1 -~ .. ';,0,-•. ~I 1 •- -~ ,~, . . oo·•, .,, ........ -5~ .. --__ ..:__:..:..:_...:..:_.-..:;.;.,r;,,7'"! T"'J ~ i i"!"i-r1,, .. o_==·aonr

general plann.ing of th~ DU lays itself open to criticism

on the grounds of a different;kind of constraint -- that

on privacy ..

The potential of the large double-storey dwel I ing

unit for a home with more amenities and greater privacy

th an the hum bl er d\ve I I i ngs of the Vi I I e Rad i euse that were 2 based on the formula of 14m P•Pa, are seen to be largely

vitiated in execution: the overlooking mezzaninescon-

taining either the I iving/dining rooms ( "inferieure"type)

or the master bedrooms ("superieure"type) suffer from and

create obvious privacy problems; the location of the

interior staircase within the I iving space further violates

privacy (especially if one concedes that, as in the Vi lie

Radieuse, the I iving room, by virtue of its close connec­

tion with the main bedroom, is an extension of the parents'

realm); while opportunity for greater spaciousness in the

chi ldrens' domain has been provided by means of a sliding

partition, this is at the cost of privacy and soundproofing;

the kitchens have I ittle opportunity for modifying an open

relationship with the I iving/dining space.

In making such an issue of privacy, one is not

being captious or arbitra~y; Le Corbusier considered each

man's right to "meditation in a new kind of dwel I ing, a

vessel of silence and lofty solitude" a pre-requisite for

"healthy mental activity"./fh66)0n numerous occasions; he

cited with deep approval Pascal's apophthegm: "the despair

that,always,results for men from the inabi I ity to remain

long enough in their own rooms".GZ The derogation of

It::,

fig. GG

c;,'.2,. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, p. 67.

'--

privacy· impi icit in the design of the Unite OU constitutes,

therefore,a very serious instance of self-contradiction on

Le Corbusier's part.

Such shortcomings are surprising in view of the

adroit handling of similar issues in the Vi I le Radieuse DUs;

they are even more unexpected whe.n we set the Unite DUs against

their direct precursors, the dwel I ings of Le Corbusier's pro-"

ject of 1936 for Paris' 'diseased' I lot No. 6 (fi.3so-,, ).

Here, within a DU area more or less equal to that

of the Unite ou:3al I the aforementioned problems are resolved;

mezzanine spaces c~n afford to seal themselves off from

spaces below, or at least modify their open relationship with

these, since they have access to their own light and v~nti la-

tion; the staircase, now dog-legged, is neutrally placed

within the DU and is closely related to apartment access;~the

childrens' bedrooms having proportions different from those

of their counterparts in the Unite DU do not need a sliding

partition to create the kind of space that games or group­

entertainment require; the kitchens, separate from the I iving/

dining space and with a neutral access of their own, have

direct I ight and ventilation from the external window wal I. A

The abi I ity of the I iot Dus to achieve these resolutions 1s

clearly a function of their width advantage of one to two

metres over the Unite DUs which are only 3.66m (12feet)wide.

In a preliminary scheme for the Marsei I le Unite

( f0.7Z ) Le Corbusier attempted to introduce some of the A

I lot DU's benefits into the riarrower Unite. envelope, as wel I

b 3. The p I ans are drawn to the I arger of the

cccompanyino dimensions. The smaller ;

reRttlt in a OU aren of 91m2 for thA bnsic·

crossover ,type DU; the snmc Unit6 DU's area

is 98m2•

7'9

~. '

H-...-.,

---...;_

_-~--j

in

,_

1~

l

,0

. -

' I g. '"

I :,

;;.

;.

C

{

1

3

5

•·u Z·J'D 2 o·.1;

4

6

Appartements a 2 ou 3 personne~) par travees de ~,50 m: Nord

Nombre <.!'habitants Nombre d·ap:Jar~eme11ts Nombre des couloirs •

Hauteur tuta~'.! du hitiment. non comi)ris pi\otis et services corn muns

60

30 5

41.25 m 4310.6-3 m:l 13S4,30 m~ ~60.75 rn~

-1-Cube total (sails services communs) Surface habitable • Cube <.!cs anDartcments Surface d'un appartement 46,20 m'

1

3

5

I 0 1000

II Oo<) ~TV~IO

l <) j

ii 0

kl,!~ I 1.~·,--t- ·:r=·1{:c=;,.-t-- ,,.,.

1,,..t: t~ fYflCi

11 ~;::~~~f~t~'rttltu!iL:.t/.; ,. ~iiif~~l~~~

Dr Jru,,o ~

() 1 I,~

Ir o uo[Jo j!o_ o . D

Etage superieur

(,)'x!x"/:l

] &~-x~~>->, ,-~ I.SJ__ ,---, ,v, . r-L· -,-!-• ;.<)< ;,. .•. .

· ~:}·---l) ;,'.,J\ · /~-t--~~ViU.U• ci,.,, '--,A··: ~~~, ; ?~f_ffi :·. LJ ,--,, -B9J'23t-~~ I

I . , · v,. ·<YX>'.'x_xx·., '~ ..... ?:,>(:,,;{<'~'<!x~<j ~>2J "'"" ' --~pmx , ~/v>>, ID:,_.,..,, ...,_.o I , • ,i ·t:::c_,,,;

/''"..:'- -; " Y',>5<,j ~

D i onci o~ol

Jfllfl: 0 t

oO l E;,:'J_,.__,, x >-'xx· "''"-:;?£1 ?§ji l -t.s~.:.:z;:=l: /,<r)6<Sz..,·1~.::~.,~,ff Hi... -l k:;;,~ ...... ~. t '< ,. ~)>·< il Lt! 1" .. , ·--I X' /,,y: ?5,)

/.Y/>,>·. ,

Etage median

.. r---L--::--=--- ,,_. r ~. ·1 O , D ~ I • --- I ;1000 ! 00 ' r;: ol

;- fT'IOI(> 0 l .. - -n·uw_, r1_aA,U.tr t.,u-t O , """'" •. ,.u. . I

oc .~~:~, 1~-4 ........,.~ I 1='-----~p1p,:;:.';f,~ '"'" "'f'"''!"::S::.~~

' ~~~ _,, ~~,U u'ci®''" -~-,"~ ~ - j. 1·-

_____________ .J..f•t·:JfJ

C" -,roa

Etagc inferieur

2

4

>-5> ., ,.,-50

,,_.

l

6

fig.GB

· IL i·u 1{~~:;}2 ff" Type III (Appartements a 4 personnes) par tr_avees <le 5,50 m:

Nombre tl'I,abitants Nombre tl'Jpp::.rtements Nom~re ,Jes couloirs • Hauteur tot:ile du b!itiment. non compris pilotis et services

6~ 16 s Nord

A communs •

Cube total (sons services communs)

Surface h:i.bit~iJie • Cube Jc,; app1rteme;its

:ourface u'ua appartcment

40.00 m 4060.00 m3 1403,84 m' 3378,00 m3

88.00 m"

-1-I. ":)IIIIU,J.U/; _

~~

r

l0

ooo~

fio Etage ,-;nperieur

H .. ri,rnuuu.r

ii;.~~?;;;:~

D oO

D or-

E~--~S~ J.ms J

~!t~~IE I

i .~.\ !'ilt~ 11"30

OU ,si:-o

Etage inferieur

Appat'tements Est-Ouest

,

i

La surface ncccss,ire pour un habit~nt varic de 15.2 m2 a 23.l m' fig. (;,'.)

s·so OU/ ;·p)

81

2

:-

1 { •• j ~1Et~~ 2

• ' l.·15" )

'" Type I (Appartemeuts a 6 persouncs) par travees de 5,50 m:

Nombrc tl'habitants

!~ombrc d'anp:ine:ncnts Nombrc des couloirs .

60 10. 5

H:.t?i\r:n tc,!:ile d;.i !::";.!i::·C-lli, ?10n 1.'orn:n!s jlilotis t.!i servi..:es

co!;:muns

Cuhc total {sans scn·ices communs) Sur focc habitable Cu/Jc tics appartemcnts Surface <l'un :1ppartement

VlfE uus,uE

37.50 m 3500,00 m3

1250,00 m' 296S.OO m3

125.00 m'

11,,1.:rr:

"2

0

0

I [2l §;Ji1 .. ~~n Etage E ' • D upcr1cur

l

0 !O

0 aoo

0

rrsr,1,1,:r wrrt~ #4.A,III":$ D

Etuge median

__!.1·00 ,;;·, ____ __:_ __ :__

Etagc iuferieur 0

/p

Nord A

un apnarter,tent

2

j .,.

f'ig. 70

Nord

A

un a.p~artcmcnt

1

un appartement

+ • 11-111_1_ I l +_ ~ l===i-"· '

z.u

2

Type II (Appurtements ii 6 pcrsounes) prtr tra,;ees <le 5,50 m:

Nombrc <]'habitants Nori1brc d'appartemcnts

Nombrc des couloirs .

60

10

5 H:iuteur totalc du batiment, non compris pi!otis et scrv,ccs

communs • 37,50 m

Cuhe. tutal (sans services communs)

Surface habitable Cube <les appartements S11rf:1ce c.run ~pp::irtemcnt

~,:~·

QD rucKT1

0

D o

D D

IIIFl.ff,1J

O<J

C1th,11rJ •

Etage supericur

Et:1ge median

- •1r,uor~io.,1-

•

r•""''

. -

~

I I _-;.. \

_f!'O ., -1;,·50

Etage inferieur

3~03.13 m3

1200,55 m~ 2SiS.OO m3

J :?rl.05 in!:'

DL_ a

I

JlJc::::=:J D ~ D 0 ------

S.W.E

·,._...,.,..

fig. 7/

5:,:; HO

8:.(.

2

,,

'

·­'

projecting a wider DU type. But none of these efforts

nor any of the other richly inventive aspects of this

planning scheme, were read back into the final Unite

plans. At about the same time that Le Corbusier was

drawing up the final Unite DU plans, his cousin and ex­

comrade-i n-arms, Pi err.e Jeanneret, was presenting s i mi-i ar proposa Is re I at i ng to an apartment house project (f,5 5 73-75)

whose DUs were based on a larger width module (18feet)

the advantages of which they clearly demonstrated"These

DUs combined some of the flexibility of the e~rlier

single-storey Vi I le Radieuse type DUs with the double­

volume and double orientation benefits of the Unite-type

solution. And al I this was achieved with a consider­

ably tighter space co-efficient than the 20m2per person

of the Unite DUs~ viz. 14m2

per person, the same as for

the early Vil le Radieuse DUs. Jeanneret's DU range,

in addition, permitted of an increase in the size of the

li~ing/dining space as the number of bedrooms increased

something of which the inherent geometry of both the A

I lot and the Unite DUs did not al low. This same geo-

metry further conceals a pitfal I, this time unconnected

with the DU width, which the Unite DU does not succeed A

in avoiding, despite the fact that in both the I lot DU

and the pre I iminary Unite DUs, Le Corbusier made the nec­

essary adjustments within the sectional interlock's geo-

metrya These adjustments were to the end of ensuring

that the mezzanine space was always used as the parents'

fig. 7Z

~ --'""'----''-. I •I :·,: ,:/· :·

l rfl: ~ LLJ:

.,·,·-- J

·,.,.

Niveau 3 / Level 3

-'T-·

I tt!

'i_· L

· .. ' '

Niveau 2 / Level 2

-

*

. l~ ' . . ~ . !L ., i ·F1.·~~-

::-r-_. -:_. Nivp:111 1 ~v~~ '"f fnt~rim11r~ J I AvP.! 1 with int~rn!\I ~h'P~t

;:x· I

-r--:

:!i

?E::!. . i

~\;

83 =

_. -;;; I

c <O

a. (')

C

:,

~ C

., E

C

., E

., ca " 01

2 vi

. ., 0 "'

~

vi a. a.

~

C'i O

! <

( a..

<(.

):

a.. V

1 u.J

0 <

V1

.,;

u.J

-~ 0

~ <

( ~

>-

,_ u.J

V1

11.J 0

u.J t>

v, ·o

p

UJ

q .'!

(/)

z <

...J a..

l

t/)

<O

. u

Wl

z 11.J

,¥.( •r-l

• ...J ~

G-l

Cl.

1. Sa 1ie cocnr:ic;~e. - 2. Cc:i1ine. - 3. C loison vii re~. - 4. Chambre. - 5. Cabinet ~ .... h;i~:!r: c-~r.'iorena~f ~oit ur. b!.-:,c brlc·douche# soit u~~ hak_v1oire. - 6. \V.-C. - 7. Rnr,Jc~t:r.t. -- 8. \/esi:aire.

IS.:,-

--------··-·--···---

· 11 hF~-1~r:aJ~~1:.J<i01~1i>·g:~.~· ;·~tic , . ,· : :_> . ft' { I >f ~ 1~9-1/ ? ; 111

11!' ; ··~, ( --•til\ ., jT

..- I n -' -· - >· . - • ---·- ..-- ! .-- ·-- - -· c.; ~"', r·'r ·1 ,_.; r-:.. < __ ! ·-· ··-· ----- :;t

-- 11 '-· . ,_. ·:.'· ' /, ,• ' ·.

--T----~---t:..·: . .-:-~- .. - . ,._~--= --~,- --- ··-. .::.:->/-----1. ·1 ---· 0\:·- :., ~~~ r --f~- · ~~:-_: t~ . \ -. --·. _._- ' /

0 _.J : ,.--- - r ',-....... , I '-·· i (\__,.._)

f·- 4 i

4

•' l ~ r-- t

1 . :-·11·-1 i t_ 11 i 1 I ! : t

A.Pf€rUEMENT A 2 N!VEAUX.

PLANS DES APPARTEMENTS

t l ! [ ~ ; : [ ; ~- __ ,.; ' I I . : 1 t ! . t ---

f. --- -·-1 --·; L-l

. . r---~=- .f~~-' i· . ' --i . \ I : I :-l' ~ ---- · ______ , r ' i 1i·

. ) cir~ ~-; C :~;~-Ll~lf -:\~; ' / . f111

It. .,. .... - .. . "'!I ! : I -- I_ I '-: !I I . -T -..~·-_c=-:,·.,r_-- -=--~ =··-·-- - - - .'; -- ' .J . I ~

rvPEs 1-~~)-~;~t:~~I~c;:~~Ifft(~--t;i,:·~::· J,. --·-------·--·--·---·-··-·-

I 'if

~:".".'--..;..._::...:~.::.~~o··. · .. ''.r··· •.· f=·'·"-f7'"·,··11 <'·.,: . t, I//· i

f:;l : ~H~:~ \'. ~y: i l-,. n :·.·,·t .. · .. ..-..·.··· f:Yli i~·~· ··1·"-t··r r~-!.

! --- I , : t

! ·1 i. ; :- "-i

'. ~, 2 - i ; 1 __ l· :..~ ,· .. O

I I 4 L~J J r~ -'=".:=-S· J ]. t l r~-- , I r 1 t:: LL.. : I • ••.. ' 1 . ' V n h· . d fi.'l I d-.::.~t - ,___H [i--J :16,1 i o l LJfL ]Dir, i;;:l'>}iLYH •

·_ ~~~~~~ REZ-!O'E -CHAU SSEE.

fig. 75

L'ARCHlTECTURE D'AUJOURD'HUl

~-r.rr: 1~r>:~--t . J 7 i l' \ l:. ~----- ·-~---,-~ .. :.c:.::.~";7'"" s ··=:·I .

r1 r 1·1 :·, 11 ·1>/<~ y( "'""" , ='-~=- . . ~. • ! l I ; i I L,·/ . . ' .. ·,'-.1 ,,~1 f ; t qrc~1:~~::'~:<~:/>, ~ · ,·;,• =~~=1~ .. f .. ,.'..,,,,,,_.,., .... ,, ;.... ' .. ·-·11· -,~,....___...,-.

l·-', ' I I ,. • 1 I ,.· I---- ; .

: I t .· I I t,:

I I ' ;', ; I I !J. : 1 ·4 ,--H 4 , r: I

. •... ! . LILJ' r·f\l f . ' I : I !..J t (> ' ' ,,, L[--"~=i -· I ! . ii r. !1 ~\

, /i ~) ;

. --- !I_ __ -- ci::Y - .~: -"-'· ---·· -1 ~,l,,--,--f-1

:,; "l·- ... '\-· V..; l?--t--1·,('.J-· -+ . ! 0 ,..._}----'-~ ETA GE. -~c) ..• _ 1 _____ !._t __ ...:....,

- ~,--·--------- --------·W...--

APPARTEMENT A DEUX t,!IVEAUX. r 1 , )

l ,

1 I i,

-·--· -- - -- ,.1~-c:5-) ' ' . ·, ' . l · __ i ___ ·--------·----~ . (?i--: ,:·:-.-/.··1 7 J RcZ-DE-CHAUSSEE.

l ,--1, .. .J, r ,,·.···.:t L w::, -~~::.. -~ m <' . : : . ·"'":.· . : ! ~.~ : ' . t: :~~~~y, r-r :-, i ; :· ~, • .. , v ··T· 1 fYr;r·",, '" 1

•

k/~1xJ?(l~~' !~J: "' , i,, > ~k\T: .. ~ff_c, f', : '-; . / n I le- -·-! ; 1 1.. ; • .. --'--------- \}-_~· ' . f,. ! i, ' ______ }.~j l ·· c=-=,~3,~ f ~ (' '-·-· = !=· I _j ''; '· ' __ rJ·' ., · ;~- ' ' ~ ~r ___ .. ,i

; 0 ·;_,', '..::. . ·-····---· - r. 1 · -~ AJ t--. ; ·~ . . ... ~.,,_"\ . . . ' .J . • r ~"'q ··, ., ~ (, __ - <'~~' h i \ "'- i_ ; j :

-~~~~~~\;\l:~~- -,~:~T=t!~ .,,

~

bedroom, while the remainder of the apartment was differen­

ti~l ly.organized according to whether it ran above ("super­

i~ur" type) or below (ninferieure" type )the interior street. II,

In the Uriite however, the play layout of DUs is identical

for both "super i eure" and" infer i eure" types, irrespective of

the obvious inequalities that result. To half these DUs,

then, the nob i I i ty, . "the sense. of the sacred"~ \vh i ch was

meant to be_ introduced· into each home through the i nstrumen­

tal ity of the double-volume I iving-room would simply not

app I y.

The selectivity of Le Corbusier's allusions to the

Unite DUs betrays his awareness of. the fault -- the "super­

ieure" type is always the one that is described and ii lustra­

ted. This obvious shortcoming in hi~ design rem~ined un~

corrected for twenty years ti I I he came to bui Id his fifth

and last Unite at Firminy in 1960 ( fij.7G). In the interve­

ning Unites the problem was simply eliminated by the dis­

ap.pearance of its cause -- the DUs double volume .. CA- The dic­

tates of economy and, perhaps too, a private admission by

Le Corbusier of the mezzanine's obvious disadvantages, per-

suaded him to accept this thrust at the very heart of his

doctrine for dwel I ings.

In mitigation of the rather unfavourable verdict

which appears to be rendered upon.the Unite DU when compared

with so~e of its pr~cursors, one may point to the Unite's

provision of private open space in the form of loggias, an

n= . ..::.J]'·­_ _J[·-.--e:_1! ,;

fig.76 1·-au1·1 II I I

ri

~ ""~ I: \

rn ~ I' ;:LE. I 1~•~ .. o I,

=Ji!'., J!) j :1_·!· I I

[

-c·~i,· J Li ,I I ::~".oj ·~I :Bi .~.·.~ .. fgjl :

· il--J! I _,. ::;~l=-i --b::D p ~ :.i.l

~i's,, J;; -r---·-·i:-. -]+~~~ \~.~~ 11 ) rn ·= 1i ·

b ri n,: i L.: '. t

= cm:il'L. 11~rvrt,A"-~ · \

=r2f _fi

W.11. ___ , i·~. 1 •

/ .-J ~J: : , _____ J) 11 _.,,,, .. ,1 I I , ,

'-==-J: :=·: ::::': 'f1' ll ..... _. -i.;_

~;, ()

Ji:i 1-

11' ,. .b,( ... <, n ~ -· -:-.- --

- ,, . 11 '

-·-1-~:_.,:!i ') ,1 __ ··1 ~~-;} 'l !I r- -!: i

II. .. .. J' ! I .--:~ i: :

Ji~~:! i. __,Q! I I '3J3 i · i ; Ft"1 I! i.

gi Lli ,! ;

-ll" -r 11 :.

__::=r:-.:ll ! b ·111

---!.--

* Le Corbusier, Mise au Point, p,31,

80

<c,4. It is not strict I y true to sny the the

double volume wns eliminated; le Corbu­

sier cloimed thot it hud really just been

to the side of ~he staircase; Speaking of

these modified OUs in the 1951 Strasbourg

Unite ( fr:J 77 ), le Corbusier soid :

nPar rapport oux appartements type Ede

I' Uni t6 de Marse i I I e, I a di ff6rcncc cssen­

t i e 11 e est la suivantc: la chombre des

porents vo jusqu'uu pan de verre, le vide

de double houteur 6tont lot6rol, cot~·

escal ier.n

(Le Corbusier, Oeuvre Compl~te, Vol.V,p.106.:

This is u rather hollow claim ( fi3 76 ); th,

former g I ory is gone· (fijs. 7J,80) •.

I l·c-i I/ i. -. ,·::

I /

~1

······· 11~ \\

-·· ,,.,.,.,.,_.,_~~\ ... _______ ,. ___

·~

!~

/\I _

__

_ _

J

.L

. I i . l

---

j ,[

Ai

. \-!.~

l :

'¥•' .:.1 I v

\ ,-~

J 0 ,/·L_

1

!\ 0

IJ iJ

1rb ~ !'w

--; ·, " .

_r_5 :fEJ

1~ ;:~---~

J I ·;~

-, i:r=::;

1

[ ____ -

Ir-·· I

I ~

i I • I

-""' 1~

I . \--:;-·

' ..

. QO •r-1

·. Ci-I

· ...

·/-:·,;.

·:;; . .-:

......... .. .}. ·-1~. ~--.,, .. ~ · .

A

amenity avai I able in neither the Vi I le Radieuse nor I lot

scheme~

Though Le Corbusier made great play of this in­

novation, the loggia, in point of fact, was not motivated

by the desire to provide private open space, but resulted

from his taking advantage of the need for brise-solei I.

That this is the order of priorities is borne out by Le

Corbusier's own reviiw of the invention of the brise-

{}v

.t-

{.,,

so lei I, ( fij· 81

where, with an accompanying explanatory drawing

), Le Corbusier avers that:

fig. 81

••• des locaux de hauteurs differentes qui sont prote~es par un brise-soleil proportionne. (22)aJ Par exemple: en a, le local etant' tres haut, I e br i se-so I e i I est p I us profond pour qu'i I puisse produire son effeta~•• (22)b) En b, la hauteur etant plus faible, le brise-solei I est reduit proportionnel le­ment • 65

This principle is evident already in the.design of an apart­

ment house in 19 39 ( {i_J- BZ). I n the Unite, by contrast

through inserting an intermediate hor i zonta I I ouvre, Le Cor-

busier 'saved' himself terrace space. Even so, in terms

of Le Corbusier's brise-solei I principle, the terrace should

have been 8 feet deep rather than 4, since the loggias depth

was calculated initially on the assumption that two louvres

wou Id be used, but one was removed in execution (cf&s-8t5SS),

presumably as a trompe-l'oeil to reduce the apparent height

of the bui I ding. We have obviously travel led a long way

from Le Corbu~ier's 'urban garden in the air' of the lmmeubles

Vi I I as. G<o

'1..-? D

Ltv/ e,-~~-

1. ?.-t.l , ~ ~ -J

W\ 1J.l:'.:j (:"/ 1/ .......

65. Le Corbus·icr, Ocuvro Complctu, Vol. IV, µ.107.

GG. [v~n lhc 8cnc1·0us l>utJ0u1• t,!rru1,;c.s of the

1933 Dur.ind s..,tb.ick .ipµ.i,·tm.::nts ( ftJ.!'33 ) wi II be seen, 011 cx<lmir1iltion, to l1ilvc their

origin not in .iny Jcsire for priv.ite open

space, but in the wish to secu~e simulta­

neously the benefits of both view and sun

which, as it happened, lay in opposite

directions.

89

, ..

l/n ••i'f•.;i( Ct111a1ttt ~vurdnt

A cross-wall flat

'i

11-=rf-luT~l-uj·JjTi ~ !1 I ! I I ,,-- . ,

II 1

: 'r-Hl .

U1;1'.' - :· , itl_q_1.JLU~

i tL i I I.JI i I i if ' " rH _:_' H..____ ~ .~R±trlli iii · ~ p 1_!_1 I I n-r rrrr, i n-rH · "11 !;-Ti I' I I;.

'LI L _I _i_. HJ;

La coupe

The section

La galerie

The gallery

I

jcnv•<•"

fig. 82

'----.....____Jo ; I r.!-,- i!

<; ,._,,

~~ f,,J

\~ These le~lmical conquesrs, ,chen subjected lo the law of the African sun, can lake an

unexpected form. The entire section of this edifice is ruled by the sun, the landscape, and the aim of gii:ing to each drt•ellcr pleasures hitherto lhe prerogative of ccrtain·primes : an exceptional dweI/ing.

A : the apartment reached by the interior road; B: its outside exrcnsion·s. Sport on the ground:

the hori:;on is prcsenl every minute in life.

~;

fig. 83

.. _ '

-· t·

. Pi

. =r

"( __ /

/ ;/ -

•

\ I !\

/ \

, I I

l . )

j

) l

f

\ I I I . \ \ \ \

I I I rt . ; I I i I ! i \ I I \ I I I I I I I \ I l

It is worth noting the natu~e of Le Corbusier's

initial grasp of the wider opportunities offered by the

brise-solei l's 'invention':

J'ajoute en terminant qu'en a,b,ou c, les diaphragmes obturateurs pourront etre ex­terieurs OU interieurs a volonte; le dis­positif du brise-soleil est tel, desormais, que !'initiative personnel le peut inter­venir sans trouble et sans dommage pour !'attitude exterieure des bitiments. Un ordre imperatif est apporte par le brise­so I e i I I u i -meme et de r r i ere I u i , I a Vie peut se derouler a volonte dans ,~infinie

7 variete des goutes et des besoins individuels.b

This prospective freedom for the individual recalls Le

Corbusier's even more 'permis~ive' Algiers project of 1930

where not only the facades but the entire internal area

and exterior arrangement of the dwelling were open to re­

solution by the inhabitants' ovm initiative: (fi.J.SG)

The architectural aspect is stunning, The most absolute diversity within unity. Every architect wi fl bui Id his vi! la as he I ikes; what does it matter to the whole if a Moorish-styli vi I la flanks another in Louis XVI th or in Italian Renaissance? c:;1,

This freedom so rich its potential, congealed, however, in­

to its fixed 'optimum' designs along the I ines of the Unite~

and Le Corbusier fol lowed an increasingly hard I ine towards

'personal.ization' of the individual's environment.

It would appear then, by way of summa~~that the

Unite DUs did not fulfi I the promise inherent in some of

9z

f.7. Le Corbusier, Oeuvre Compl~te, Vol. IV, P• 107,.

(:.B. Le Corbusier, The Radiant ·City, P• 247.

I"-

Le Corbusie~'s ~arlier dwelling-prototypes, nor did they·

provide the standards of privacy and amenity that Le

Corbusier held to be so essential for" assuring a maxi­

mum of liberty to the individuai;=~ and provoking a real

fulfilment of family I ife"=~

fig. 8G

-l

:;..,..--;...;;:': - -

J3

G~. Le Corbusier, Concerning Town Plannlng,p.67•

i-·

SHELL

In the preceding section on the Vi I le Radieuse,

the reader wi I I recal I that some essential aspects of the

individual DU could only be comprehended in terms of its

relationship with the overal I context of the Vi I le Radi­

euse; thus, for example, the need for super-densities,

the function of the common services within the "redents"

and of the "prolongement du logis" in .the greenspace out­

side, the question of meaningful leisure, al I tended to

account for and support decisions evident in the design

of the individual DU.

When we turn to make asimilar enquiry for the

DUs of the Marsei I le-Sud project, the first and most stri­

king difference to be observed between it and the Vi I le

Radieuse is that the continuous"redents"of the Vi I le Radi-. A .

euse (or of the I lot Nos6 scheme, for that metter) have

now become discrete units, that is Unit~s. Proceeding

on the assumption that Cel I an9 Context are interdependent,

we immediately have to as~ how the introduction of dis­

crete shel Is has affected the~ui I ibrium of those strate­

gi~s that manifestly supported the DUs iri the Vi I le Radi­

euse. For one thing, the population density postulated

~.,.,.

~

of the Vi lie Radieuse 1000 Pap.h. has been reduced in

the.Marseille-Sud Unites to only 500 p.p.h. (See Table p. )

The Unites clearly contribute to this decrease end can

be seen, i~ a ~ay, as snippets of"redent" n This dramatic

decrease in density; apart from its other imp I ications,poses

a large qu~stion mark over the logic of retaining a DU-type

evolved ·specifically to support an increased population d~n­

site in a situ~tion where such high·d~nsitiei are no longer

envisaged~ Nor can the increase in DU size from 10m2 to

20m2 be interpreted as Le Corbusier's adjustment to a quite

new situation of lower density since a DU of increased size . A

was posited, it wi I I be remembered, in the I lot No.6 scheme

which was~ true Vi I le Radieuse type fragment based on a

d~nsity of 900 P•Puh., onry slightly less than the'required'

1000 P•Pmh• In particular, the narrow width of the DU,

whose express advantage was claimed to be. its faci I itation

of greater density through a reduction of the developed

length of the "redents", makes I ittle sense, and is indeed,

as we have ~een, a hindrance in a situation I ike the one ex-.-empl ified in the Unites of Marseille-Sud, where developed

length is not an issue.

The other feature of the Vi I le Radieuse that le

Corbusier invoked to reinforce the argument in favour of

the diminished DU was the installation of the common ser­

vices. These have been retained in the Marsei I le-Sud Uni-~,a

tes ( assuming th .. at they are a I I intended to· rep I i cate the ·

· one bui It on th~~Boulevard Michelet) and to the extent that

certain of their domestic functions were absorbed into the

95

i,-

common services, there i~ some residual logic in their A

being the same -size as those in the I lot No.6 in spite

of a context of reduced densities; thus for example,

~he Unite DU's kitchens remain the same size for a 2-

person or 10-person eel I, as in.the Vi I le Radieuse.

This kind of reasoning however, does not seem to have

been followed through consistently be Le Corbusier,since

when the range of common services ~as pruned in later

Unites (in some cases to virtual el ~mi nation), there

was no corresponding compensetory increase in the pro­

v1s1on of space or equipment within the DU (in some of

these Unites there was even a significant decrease).

Undeterred, then, by the drop in population

density and what it might imply or by the later dimi­

nished range of common services, Le Corbusier persisted

in proliferating a DU ~hose basic rationale had been

seriously weakened.

In the Vi I le Radieuse, density was clearly a

function of the number of people whom it was intended

to accommodate within the redents and this, in turn,

d~termined the number of people that would relate to

their organ i z at.ion a I _sub-systems • Accepting I i ke-

\v i se that the Unites were the agents of a I owered den­

sity and were con6eived of as retaining much the same

organizational syst~ms i~eD common services instal la-

9G

l"-~'

i n st a I I a/• • ;, a

tions and the"prologements du logis", we may logi-

cally expect the number of persons within them to bear

some similarity to the number which was considered nec­

essary in the Vi I le Radieuse for support of its systems;

this would imply a population of approximately 2,700 per

elevator core (based on a maximum walking distance along

the interior street of 100 metres) and a grouping of roughly

double this figure for common services and "prolongements

This expectation is, how­

Unites of Marsei lie-Sud: the

du logis" (See pGZ )a ever, not fulfil led by the

Unites, their interior streets extended to nowhere near

the lOOm. I irnit,are intended to contain only 1,600 people

each and this population also serves as the unit for the

common services. What appears therefore, to be a sig-

nificant inconsistency-- and one productive of a serious

diseconomy~ or at any rate, a significant revision of atti~

tude -~ is nowhere either explained or justified by Le Cor­

busier~

At almost the same time as the Unite plans were

being conceived, we actually do find Le Corbusier produ­

cing a Unite scheme that conforms more closely to earlier

prescriptions (-(-i:Js 87,86)-but this is the first and last

ti me he combines Unites ·in this way;. the project, in any

event, was one of the very few ~ot included by Le Corbu­

s1er 1n the volume of his complete works -- a sur~ sign

that he did not value it overmuch 11

'j I

f--

... -..

l

,,

,)

:;, .. _. .. /.~

~: ..

,. .\',

>. C

0

..c: .µ

C

<C

.µ

ro C

:::,

0 ~ I-

L.

Since Le Corbusier was so mysteriously unforth­

coming as to the reasons for this decrease in population

module which characterizes the Unit~ scheme, we must do

some investtgating of our own to try to establish a

rationale, or the lack of it,for this development.

The first occasion after the design of the Ville

Radieuse on which Le Corbusier projected an urban housing

prototype that was, by ftirce of circumstances, non-contin­

uous and free-standing, was in 1934 in the Bastion Ke! Jer­

man des i gn, intended as a 'I i ve' exhibit for the I nterna-

tional exhibition in Paris in 1937. Le Corbusier's

first submission for the exhibition, which fel I on deaf

ears, was a plan for a large Vi lie Radieuse "redent" frag­

ment outside the city ( f..55.89,~o); the Bastion Ke I I erman

project which fol lowed sought to retain that same principle

on a restricted site:

"Sur ce terrain, notre th~me se modifie dans la forme, tout en conservant le meme principe: sur le Bastion, nous con­struirons une "Unit~ d'Habitation" de 4,000 habitants".( f!J· ')! ) 70

Here then, in the form of a Y is a Unit~ which comes close

to satisfying the population modut! 0 ~~~Bl~~d for the Vi I le

Radieuse systems. ,., Describing his I lot Noe 6 scheme two years later,

Le Corbusier ·seems to be speaking in terms of the earlier

Vi I le Radieuse modules and is so confident in fact, of the

adequacy of the doubled module for the comm6n services,

'.! \

,o. Le Corbus i «ir, Des Canons, p; 11.

9~

._ .

~Jll EfJJIJ

.

I ] I r 1·. nr r -~lr-1-..J

.· 1:

11 l

I : r 1: J,:

~~.~~ l-l~~

'·

that the retailers, earlier blasted out of existence in

the Vi I le Radieuse, have now been reincarnated in more

exalted spheres:

Au paradis des petits commercantsn••• Une unite d'habitation comporte 2,700 habi­tants, c'est-a~dire 2,700 mangeurs et buvers, c'est-a-dire 2,700 cl ientsR On p~ut conjuguen deux unites ensemble et obtenir 5,400 clients pour une cooperative de ravitai I lement qui sera contr81ee par les habitants eux-m&mes et geree par des special istes~ bouchers, epiciers, etCnn•

Le petit bommerce sera done tue? Pas du tout. Au contraire. Le petit commerce sera sauve~ I I suffit de trouver la forme des con-trats uti les entre le groupe cooperateur d'achat et les detai I lunts qui auront pour mission de prendre en charge a d~s c6nditions determinees la marchandise et de la vendre dans des condi­tions normales de beneficea•••••=•••••n••••••• • • s a s • a s n • a • • a a e n a m a • • m • a a • m n • • • m • • • ~ • a a a A s • s #

5,400 clients representent la valeur d'une petite vi I le qui s'est assur~ le nombre de bouchers. utiles, d'epiciers uti les,de merciers uti les et qui est si fortement organisee que les achats peuvent se faire directement de provenance directe, en province. 71 ~

Just 10 year~ later, though, Le Corbusier is describing~.~

the'same' prototype in the fol lowing terms :

•••• Another reason for the provision of dwel I ing units of an adequate size i.e. for 1,000, · 1500, or 2700 1nhabitantsa Bui It on these dimensions, the d1vel I ing unit al lows the orga:.. nization of innumerable common services and extensions of the home, for instance : physical culture, medical services, and preventative m6dic~ne, sport at the foot of the dwel I ings,

·1v1

'"71, le Corbusier, Des Canons, p. 89. '

~ ·-· ~/Jlt-<tt ~ . ~~ .- f 2 3 a'°~ ~~tr" 1'r.wt-~l5 ~~~

~cf.,:;·\~· i... -~+ "[;vJd~,10..,~.5

iJ k ~ .()I

~·.· '/:,.'.,~

. -·: ·.

~.. ·=~1ijlfJE\i \c~·r.i· -.... ·--~ _:; ' . ' ' Ll~ . /, -~.I ·., I .,~u,r,~•<:.:. ..

f ~' I -l,y {.,~ , hJ;-v-. . . f, . -

f~,, 1:1 4:11 ·· .. ,r,··

fig.~2 72, le Corbusi er, Concerning Town Planning, P• 76.

A G._ CA~-

~'l ~

»-~CA~:~

plo11gc11r dishwasher ttcttoycur cleaner cuisi11icr cook pr,paraticm de mets food preparation A cross section B long section puaicult11re child welfare ~

.: organization of services on hotel I ines for foot and domestic work, etca etc=, and finally the achievement of a separation of pedestrian from automobile (which is no mean advance).=

The slide down to the lower population module evident here

1s seemingly no longer accompanied by any rigo­

rous concern for the Iright' number of people required to

support a range of common service installations; though a

variety of Unites was developed in the Thirties and a

choice of these was offered du0ing the years 1941-1946, the reason for this variety was connected neither with the

size of the Unite nor with the question of common services:

The inhabited quarter in the form of "habi­tation units" furnished with common services and with extensions of the home; the form of these dwel I ings of which the heiijht does not exceed 170 feet may be Y-shaped (a), para! lei (b), or normal (c), or 1t may be in the form of rectangular or arabesques" The choiee of forms wi I I depend on the nature of the site, its topography, and its vistas. 73 Cf0 'J3)

It was the lowered population module per Unite that contri-

fig. ~.3

buted to and paralleled the decline in densities (Table lib p.l~l) (mentioned earlier in connection with the DU) that was dis-

cernable between 1941-45. This lowered populati6n module

was not, however, a necessary cause oftthe decreased densities; · re a1ned _ Le Corbusier could equally well have the larger building

' ~

modules more 'logical' for the common services and merely

adjusted their spacing to conform to his density require­

ments~

16..c..

T 1

13. Le Corbusi-er, Concerning Town Planning, p.56.

t·

The decrease in population module is seen to

have no functional rationale then; both the retention

of the Vi I le Radieuse-type DUs and their final contain­

ment within a shel I of finite size (1600 people)

appear to bear no c~nsistent relation io Le Corbusier's

. ear Ii er work:1 We are at a loss to know which are the

criteria that ultimately determine the "Unite of Appro~

priate Size", nor do Le Corbusier's abstra~tions on

this subject ~eal ly clarify the matter:

Ainsi se reconstituent, dans des conditions de nature· retrouvees, I es p I us anc i ennes formes des groupements huma ins, I es p I us efficaces notions de sol idarite, les plµs nature! les proportions s'opposant ~ la mon­struosite des rassembl.ements tentaculaires represintes aujourd'hui par les vil~es de la civilisation machiniste. Le hameau reappara'i't; I a commune reappara'it, co I I ec­t iv ite bien proportionnee: la "commune ve rt i ca I e",, 74-

The sugg~stive vocabulary used in the above des­

criptioh, together with its accompanying i I lustr~tion

( fij J4 ) , imp I y that. the "human grouping" est ab I i shed

by the·Unite can be validated as "natural" or "correct"

1n terms of a sociological or socio-anthropological frame

of reference: In this connection, we may·recal I that

1n the Vi I le Radieuse the raison d'etre of al I Le Corbu­

sier's physical manifestations resided in his desire to

create more free time for men and women and to establish

the conditions which might enable them to use it for their

own i mprovementm Le Corbusier thereby put his fodt

103

74-. le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol.V,p.105.

'\ ~

""

f'ig. 94

I;... I

firmly inside sociological territory and though his 'en~

quiry' was more hortatory than rigorous, it is in this

territory that the foundations of the Vi I le Radieuse ulti-

mately rest. In view of this stratum of his thought, . i

and in view of the imp I ications contained in his descrip-

tion of the Unite above quoted, it behoves us to examine

the Unite in its wider context as part of the Marsei I le­

Sud scheme in order to ascertain whether any 'socioiogical'

rationale for it is there·revealed.

' Before we can embark upon such an investiga-

tion, it is necessary to ascertain whether it is val id in

the first place to view the Mars ei I le - Sud scheme as a

si,gnificant prototype in Le Corbusier's work. What has

been revealed of this project would not seem to put it/ in

the same catego~y of importance as the previous two pro­

jects discussed -- the Vi I le Contemporaine and the Vil le

Radieuse -- nor has it been shown to be the next step in

Le Corbusier's evolutionary development.

Critics, generally, have accorded the Marseille­

Sud scheme I ittle or no attention and such coverage as it

has received has tended to connect it sketchily with the

Marsei I le Uriite and/or equally has pointed to it as merely sketchily . A ~ .

demonstrating Le Corbusier's 7~V circulation principle~

The contemporary Bogota and Chandigarh plans, both of whi~h

hold.some major characteristics in common with Marsei 1,le""

/04'

,f5, "Sept V_o i es" - Seven. Routes.

·-· I

Sud, have invariably been the subject of a far more de~

tailed scrut.iny, particularly Chandigarh, which tends to

be seen as the climax of Le Corbusier's 'late' carrer.

Apart from the work of the Fifties, though, were there

not amongst the twenty-odd projects that fi I led the years

between the Vi I le Radieuse (1930) and Marseille-Sud (approx­

imately 1950) any which have a greater claim upon our

attention than·the last named? What of the regional

planning system of the "three human establishments" 'in­

vented' in 1942? What of the famous St. Die plan of

1945, the sketches for which, after al I, "signalent pour · 7G )

la premiere fois la morphologie des Unitese"(fj· 95

These developments and any others in the years

1930~1950, intrinsically important or refined as they

may have been, did not, I contend, have the same fate~

ful meaning.for Le Corbusier's "oeuvre" as the one we

are about to discuss; they al I exhibited to a greater

or lesser degree (·with the exception of the Izmir scheme

of 1948) most of the essential characteristics associated

with .the Vi I le Radieuse, and such change~ or innovations

as were evident did not create any synthesis that could

convincingly be cal led new. Most of these modifi6ations

can be seen only as.tending towards something substantially

different in kind from th~ Vi II~ Radieus~n This tendency

found its denouement in the Marsei I le-Sud project and was

there provided with an accompanying theoretical rationale

more explicit, and less equiv6cal than that sustaining

I-.-,

~---~-~--~:::-=:_:---~. . -~;=~ ·- -~,._;,;;;- - -____ ;_-~-- -~- .. --~~-~- -- - . ____ ._ __

- ------

-fig. 75

76. Le Corbusier, Oeuvre Compl~te,Vol.V,p.12.

either Bogota or Chandigarh. This rationale is con-

tained in one of the periodic theoretical essays that

pepper one's path through the Complete Works and whose

invariable repetitiousness leads to a kind of highway

hypnosis that conduces to a glossing-over of content,

even when, as in this case, something new has been

smuggled in. The essay in questionj while theoreti-

cal, is quite clearly related to the Marsei I le-Sud

project. It is Le Corbusier's last attempt in his

writing to evolve any new thoughts. The rational~,

I ike that of the Vi I le Contemporaine, and Vi I le Radieuse

before it, is presented in the form of a design proto-

type to which the Marsei I le-Sud scheme(which immediately

fol lows the essay in the Complete Works) close~y approxi~.

matesn Numerical data used in the essay is drawn in·

fact, from the Marsei I le-Sud project. We shat I there-

fore be within our rights \vhen, in the present discussion,

we shal I refer to the'Marsei I le-Sud prototype'n

JOG

::-··

The Marsei I le-Sud scheme proposed new densities,

and a new system of circulation: it incorporated a volte­

face on the question of the common services, a reappraisal

of the location of the "prolongements du logis", a new pos­

ture towards the functiori of shopping, the intimation of a

significant shift on the issue of time-usage and leisure,

a seriously revised attitude towards housing types, and

it imp I ied palpable modifications regarding the processes

wh~reby al I these changes w~re to be implemented. The

most searching effects of these changes was the dissolution

of the very tightly inter-connected systems of the Vi I le

Radieuse and their detachment from the housing component,

the discardment of some of them and the reconstruction of

others into a far looser organizational framework embodied

1 n the"sector" ( f.Js. 9e, ,i 7 ) :

89.Le secteur est une consequence de la V3 ainsi qu'un amenagement moderne du carre espagnol (venu de la Rome antique) qui regle les traces des vi Iles americaines. · 90.Le secteur est en fait un.premier stade de l'amenagement urbain moderne. I I peut contenir de SPOO a 20,000 habitants. I I est consacre a 1'habitation seulement. Mais i I possede sa rue marchande avec les artisans, I es boutiques, I es divert i ssements quot i -di ens, I e mare he du secteur re I i e aux Ha I I es centrales (la col lecte et la distribution des denrees avec controle au prix et a la qua! ite).

91. La V4 traverse le secteur et peut se

~ •• -:;• f'-.,:,. ~, ,.:. ·"' :

IU/

C'est ll !'occasion. de l'etude pour Bogota (rapprochement des · «cuadras» espagnoles de 110 m de cote) que fut cree le «secteur»,

unite autonome d'urbarrisme, d'cnviron 800 x 1200 m

,, 11 \ .. 11 '' 1 rH4r1,111+ ::;~t~((~~f{\ '> JG,afij~rH

ii~\~J/¥: !

~_··--·::;, ~; r111ro~_--, 1 •.. ,,.,_,_··

11i/t}1 :~0,,1~§1°i1

)i i,·'"'J~/1~ ..... Et~1 ,i('S/:~ DI (I}.(( ~

1-\.

n

# ~. r.-a dr'C' t:..._~ . /,';Mo

Un secteur M ~-. marche du secteur E •• ecoles S •• sports

fig. 9G

77, Le Corbusier, L'Urbonsime est Une.Clef, p.49, and p.51.

~ -

-:- -......io..L.. __.__.___ -... ~------ -· - - ---- --~~"'. - --- - -

raccorder a la V4 des secteurs contigus, realisant ainsi une continuite de I~ rue marchande.

92. Le secteur est traverse perpendicu -lairement a la V4 par la V7 ou sont les eco I es, I es sports, etc. (Ia jeunnesse).

93. La disposition et la hierarchie des 7V permet de realiser des agglomerations residentiel les de type "vii le-verte", assurant aux enfants la securite totale des jeux et de repos hors de la presence des veh i cu I es. 77

fig. ?7

The c I ea rest ·schematic representation of the sector and

7-V principles is to be seen in Le Corbusier's Master plan for Chandigarh ( f);JB ).

In contradistinction to his expositions relating

to the Vi I le Radieuse's organization which always began

by emphasizing its contraction and de~sity, the ab6ve de­

scription of the "Sector" is ~6nsciously neutral regarding

such questions and concedes a very great range of permissible

densities within the sector (though apparently without any

corresponding adjustments to the system). This description

was formulated in 1954, after the "Sector's" use in thi

Bogota, Marsell le-Sud and Chandigarh plans; the open atti­

tude expressed towards the number of people comprising a

sector is,I believe, a reflection of the low densities

per "Sector" forced on Le Corbusier by the circumstances

at Chandigarh rather than any indication that he now fou~d

acceptable densities so low as to encoura~e urban sprawl (5,000 people per Sec·t~ would work out to approximately

. fig. 78

~handigarh

l :. ,

I

1 i i

I ·!

,,~~ ~ ~. - . ~~. \

20 people per acre, which· is unacceptably low in terms of

of his outlookc Le Corbusier was, in fact, patently un-

happy with the 'infi 11' of the Chandigarh plannti-ng solution:8

but for the sake of making it appear that al I his. work pro­

ceeded according to a consistent theory, a drive we have re-··

merked on before; he saw fit to include the lower density

registers in his account of the "Sector".

It is rather in the plans for Bogota and Marsei I le-

Sud, ,..,

both of which coincided with the appearance of the 7-V

and Sector principles, that we ma~ discover what Le Corbu­

sier's intentions and preferences on the issue of densities

really were and what were the ramifications tRat flowed

therefrom a Of the two~Marsei I le-Sud furnishes more com-

plet~ information and is, in addition, considerably more ex­

plicit as regards the treatment of the exi~ting environment.

When discussing the Unite DU earlier, ·we mentioned

that the Unite's densities \"ere half those ·of the Vi I le Radi-

euse housing componenta This does not, however, give the

ful I picture. Uni ike the uniform and even pattern of the

housing redents in the Vi I le Radieuse which included within

their ow~ green space, educationaljrecreational and cultural

faci I iti~s, the Marsei I le-Sud prototype contained several

kinds of housing that were set apart both from the continuous

swathes of green--space which incorporated these facilities and from 1· i near shopping streets ( fy.1o2,103); th us where as In

the Ville Radieuse the·distinction between gross and riett

housing densiti~s had I ittle meaning~ in Marsei I le-Sud this

109

78. "I h,we c"onceived a capital for the Punjab." ••••

.............................................. but the programme ~rovided by the authority is banal and unimaginative, both for the housing

and for the istitutional clements of the town. Now!,ere yet h.:ivc the fund.:imcnt.:il problems of

Town Plunning been put, the problems of economy,

sociology and ethics, the conquest of which wil I make man the master of his civilisation."

( le Corbusier,Oeuvre Complete, Vol .V,p.11.)

79. · The Complete Worko do not provide ubsolute

CI nr i ty rc!)ard i "!.I the Joto ter. i ch the Mnr­

sc ~11 es-Sud scheme should be be ascribed/

though the project is· filed under the ddte­

heading of 1951. Le Corbusier says· in the text that "Cette nouvelle Gtude est nGe au

moment _o~ apparut la 'Rigle des 7-V'~EI le en fait application."

ro.

(Le Corbusier,Oeuvre Complite, Vol.V, ·p.113)

This would fix the scheme's conception be­

tween 1947 and 1949, contemporaneous with the first studies for Bogota.

In Ronotu, .:, nro~~ drn,.ity of l50p.p.h. (1,tOp.,,.n.) ;,. projoct.-,d only for tlw r,,­

devclop,•d ccntr.:il part of the city i.hich it ,...,,. intt,nJcd would ,1l>>10l'b the existi,;g

650,000 inhal>ito.1nts, at the ti~c· widely

and thinly spre.:id ({i,'j5 · n.lOD); provision·

for an additional anticipated one mi II ion ·inhabit~nts is ~ketchy. ~nd is accomp~nied

by no density·c~-efficie~t1 the 'demonstra­

tion sector'.· a·round th~ 'core' (fij !Of )is

not typically iized, nor judging by the fili­gree road infr•structure in the other •ectors,

does it contain a typi~al cross-secti6n'of housing.

·;....· ..

. :, 0.

0 0.

C

"' (I) <>

. <ti u ·;:

... E

:, C

: ..

. '.c

.-• (I) l:: ·,

0

~~

! C

, ·:

C

i~ I

nl

'{j

C

i~~

.. I-.!!' Ull I

" 0 .

e>

U

0 •

.,,_,

" -0 C

~ ·;;_

" -0 C

.5!

~ ~ a

-"

~

0 u

, E

".

0 o

a 0

. 1:;

.J.

6

- .. _ _....._ ...... -fig. J02

'-

vs

V3

-------------------------V4 ,,.-=

I I I

i23-1 ~ U,banlsatlon d.o

· Marsclllc•Sud (Mlchclot)

Sectour thcorlque Volumo bdtl

Application U l'unlt6 d'hnbltntlon L.C. Bd. Mlcholct

cat. A: La grand'ruc cnt. B: a) Type unlt6 d,hab!Jntlon

l.C. b) Tours

CJt. C: Malsons fomll!.:tles ,wee pc .. lousos communes pour l'en­

. hinco cat. D: Lotissemcnts cxistnnts c.:i.t. E; Bi:\ndes vorks t\"'.OC ~co!cs,

clubs, sports

V 2: Grand troc6 urbaln V 3: Alimcntntion des scctcurs V 4: · Ruo marchnnde V 5: C~ndult aux portcs

dos mnlsons

fig. [03

becomes an essential distinction, for while the Unit, in

clu;ters, has a density of 500 PnPahn (200 PmP•an) the

overal I gross density of the projeet is 230 p.p¥h~(92p.p.a •. ),

about a ~uarter that of the Vi I le Radieuse. Tfiis \.,rould

mean, if we were to fol low Le Corbusie~'s rather simplistic

reasoning, cities roughly four times the size of any bui It

along Vi I le Radieuse I ines. And indeed, whereas the Vi I le

Radieuse was planned to house one-and-a-half-mi I I ion people

· in an area 5km.x 3km. an a~ea 5kmax 10km. would be required

to house an equivalent number on Marsei I le-Sud principles!1

. This is not to say that these.principles are an

invitation to urban s~rawl; they sti I I demand relative com­

paction (fi.3.104 ); but they db mean that as applied to cities

the size of Bogota (1950 population: half a mi Ilion, antici-·

pated population for planning purposes one~and-a-half mi Ilion)

or Marseilles (1950 population 750,000), the important walk­

to-work gbal realized in the Vi I le Radieuse is no longer

capable of attainmenta Easy pedestrian access to the busi-

ness centre and cultural core of his cities was important to

Le Corbusier as much for the"essential joy" of walking in-the

b6som of nature en·~oute to these points, as for the spiritual

nourishment and "participation in collective work" that were

meant to occur upon arrival therea In the Vi I le Radieuse,

indeed, the footpaths led not only to the city's cultural

centre, they 'ir~fgated' its entire surface: "Where does ~his

fluid net\vork .of paths lead to·? Every\.,rhere in the city, h

8l, Bogota, for example, was intended to house 650,000 people in the central area of

I I .u

6km.x 4km, while le Corbusier'sBuenos Aires scheme of 1938, planned according to Viii~ Radieuse principles envisaged three and a half million inhabitants within a 6km

0x 6km~···

area •

8:Z.. le ·corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 125.

' \:3

t~'._

.. Table 5 : Standards of Space required for a Nelghbourhood of 10,000 Population (Alternatives Proposed by Various Sources)

(Relating Housing Areas to Remaining Areas as a Means of Arriving at Gross Neighbourhood Density, as well a's Net Residential Density)

•l 'Housing Manual 1944' &. 'Design of

Dwellings 1944' City of APRR

(Dudley) London Plan Le Corbusier · New Inner 'Density of Rosidential

Cent. Concen. (interpolated) · (Contemporary~ Towns Man!horpe Keeble London: Urban Areas 1952'

Normal Devel! (a) (b) Purdom City),' r;~nt.6-\ (UK) (UK) (UK). Slone Author 'A' 'B' Table 10 Tables 5,6,7

Housing 100 83 100 50 125 25 / ! 400 140 285 83 33 100 100 175 105 ' ·1 rm,o l l l l Schools and 17 17 7 20 l

I 50 50 17 4 I 7 5 13 Playing \ Fields r ;

' ' l I 110 . 14~ Open Space 50 40 40 40 30 { 100 10 40 '14 42 60 . rpsaod 6 5 6 I ! 5 5 5 Offices ! Community }, }, '

}10 25 i

Centres, 3 3 I 10 r233

3

I t25 40 7·9

Churches 40 I I I ~ ; Public 2 2 ! 2 5 B!dgs 1

{Service I

I r18 ! Industry, 4 4 4 10 i 100 50 4 ~ I I 4 34 4 ' W/shops ! Main ! Roads, 17 14 17

\

J 14 J 12 I 117 87 10 . i

Parking \ (allot-

\ + 100 ments) ·------· ··--· ---··--- -I

TOTAL 199 168 180 115 200 65 fO~ \ 760 • 260 518 168 86 195 180 351 202

Av. net ., (50 ac. for

residl. 100 120 100 200 \ allotments 300 100 100 57-2 145 . density

\ ,7, l , and 300 ac./

fig.104 >p.p.a. 10,000 Gross n'hood for Town

f:"' 50 60 60·6· 97·5 Centre 116 55 fs>,v R-,Jr,,...,;a,,.,, \(_} 'l-{1jl D&""'ii_:; Addll.

J..ivt'lj '(rte) o/s in ~ Town green belt 20-30 ac. Density: 40·5 30 70

, $2, the shortest routes"

In.the much distended Marsei lie-Sud prototype

such walking as would take place would be within linear

green swathes which would contain the continuous pedes­

trian paths. as wel I as functions formerly within the

equipotential greenspace of the Vi I le Radieuse: one of

the effects of this arrangement is to render meaningless

an important functional argument in favour of the pi lotis

of the housing units, an argument which had typically

been expressed as follows:

Since the apartment bui !dings are on pi lotis the pedestrian may go \-Jhere he I i kes; 100% of the ground is left free for the most complex neb-Jork of pedestrian movement, &3

and one shouJ-dadd also, for vehicular routes (separated

from pedestrians to be sure) should this prove necessary

in any given context. With specific routes provided in

the Marsei I le-Sud scheme for the absorption of pedestrian

movement, its housing uni ts, espec i a I I y considering how

~idely spaced they are, need not any longer be raised up

on pi lot is to assure a sufficiency of free and universal

movement for al I.

The lowered density of the Marsei I l~-Sud proto­

type, apart from repercu?sions it has on the spread of the

city, its pedestrian-tr ahsversab i I i ty, and thus the v a I i ~, · ..

dity of the pi lot is, also makes necessary an adjustment

t~ the traffic system so as to establish a new road eco­

nomy suited to the less intensive land use: the through~

II~

83. Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 299.

~

traffic V3's delimit a superblock area (Sector) roughly

1,200m x goom, though the earlier Vi I le Radieuse 400m.

intersection module is sti I I retained fo~ the branch-offs to the in-sector road reticulation layout. The

Vi I le Radieuse 400m x 400m grade~separated system has

thus evolved into a larger-scaled and more differentiated hierarchy that is al I on·-grade the more easily to serve the various housing types.

This larger superblock has in fact begun to

take on a life of its own, in a way that did ·not charac-

terize the earlier Vi I le Radieuse superblocks. The facilities formerly relating to the nredent" module of

5,400 people have now been expanded into the V4 and V7

systems which are intended to serve an entire sector of approximately 16,000 people.

With this concern for the superblock-as~a module, Le Corbusier takes a step in the direction of the position

staked out by Clarence Perry, Clarence Stein and Cos Des­cribing Chandigarh,_ he observes~

The V4 is the gathering place for the intense sector of activity of city I ife. The V4 is the route which wi I I provide each sector with its own character. Consequently, each V4 wil I be differemt from the others and wi I I furnish sp~cific ch·aracteristics which are indispensable for the creation of a great variety through the, city and the furnishing of elements of classi-f i c at i on for · the i n ha b i tan ts. 84

As soon as he permitted the introduction of low-rise hous­

ing as an alternative to Unit~ types, Le Corbusier opened

11,

SJ4- ·le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol. VI p.· lOli!

...

the door to the possibi tity of creating a social focus common to both, grudging I y at first ( fi.g.1os ) but quite

exp I icity I ater on. ( h-1or,; ).

What has happened to the· common services amidst

all this? In all five pages of the article in the Complete

Works containing the theoretical propositions supportive

to the Marsei I le-Sud project, there is not a single refe­

rence in the text to the role of the common services.

Corbusier's descri-~tion of the continuous V4 shopping street would seem to indicate why:

C'est sur leur parcours que sont les services a Ia vie quotidienne: les nourritures (le marche, l'epicier, le boucher, le boulanger, etc.); l'entretien (l'electricien, le serru­rier- lepj-iarmacien, le dentiste, le cordonnier, l'uni-prix); les distractions (le cinema, Jes bib I i otheques, I es sa I I es de conferences, I es cafes etc.); la securite (la police). Et ainsi de suite ••••• • 85

The function of the common services has quite obviously

been subsumed into the V4's. That this is the case is tacitly corroborated

by the way in which Le Corbusier, at the begin~ing of

the article, portrays the housewife in her kitchen (frJio7):

he posits a direct I ink between her and the outside

world's "gift of techniques"; previously any such 'gift'

was always procured through the mediating agency of the

common services. There is another note s-truck in the. same passage and in the one fol.lowing which is.equally

.... d..

~ II ll. <!1])

C.

(!) " horizontal garden-city " (traditional single houses). · About . -f. (e) and with more difficulty about (f) are arranged crechcs, ig •105

maternity centres, primary schools, conference balls, adolescence clubs, clubs for men and women.

Urbanlslo Le Corbuslcr 85, Le Corbusier,Oeuvre Compl~te,Vol,V,p,106,

NOUVEAU QUARTIER d'HABITATION

Oonslt6: 350 A 400 habitants

. ~ l'hectaro

@ Scr,lcos communs

fig,. I O(p

fig.107

Ir ~ o vi.~i»tl-if u·~---~~! ~W.~:.r."{f A.

11.,o.~-f,·~ ..... 1,. ~~ ,-',

. ...,,fi~-"t''f"'':•., ':., •'

A~°F>!i:f~llllit. . -t~y:~~\'8~ . .

-';~.,- I-,_ Us~

I~fo,J ,.,. .;.i-, °'d<i\. ')

unprecedented: under the heading "Les deux jambes de la

mattresse de maison ou l'urbanisme a domicile", Le Corbu­

s1er declares:

I I est un I ieu dans lequel s'ecoule une part decisive de !'existence de la matt­resse de maison: SQ cuison•n••~•~•~•~••• 8 S a • S a 9 a S W • m 8 U D ff a D S S 9 8 m D 8 • a a S S a S 8 8 • a a • m • Nous occuperons la cuisin comme l'apparei I de pi lotage, permettent de nourrir, a savoir: preparer l es mets; cui re, I aver, ranger. Ceci peut tenir dans un carre de 2 metres de cotea Et les deux jambes de la mattresse de maison, le soir, ne seront pas gonflees de fat i g u e ,. BG

So al I the strenuous efforts to save the house-

wife from being chained to her kitchen, to furnish her with

free time and in that way to free her for her own self-improve­

ment, to which end the provision of the common services was

intended to be the means, seem to have been abandoned for what

is tantamount to a glorification of the "mattresse de maison

f I . ,,a7 I est a ses ourneaux preparant es nourr1tures:a•••• t 1s

now the compact planning of the kitchen that wi 11 ease her

lot, rather than any ideal of a fut ly-serviced household.

Such an ideal, in fact, begins to look somewhat antiseptic

when set against the atavistic aspiration suggested by Le

Corbusier"s "L' abri de groupe fami Ii al le "Feu", le "Foyer" aa

and against the corresponding . image of f am i I y I if e ( f~- 10s )

enshrined in the frontispiece of his book The Marsei I le

Block11

Our assumption, made right at the very beginning

of this discussion, that the Unites of the Marseille-Sud

I I /

8G, le·Corbusler, Oeuvre Compl~te, Vol. v, P• 104

i7. le Corbusier,Oeuvre Compl~te, Vol.V,p~l04.

aa. le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol. V, P• 104.

r

~- -118

. fig. 108

·THE FIRE •••. THE HEAR Tii ; •• Focus of long standing tradition . meeting place of the famliy

scheme were similar to that on the Boulevard Michelet,

an assumption which fol lowed Le Corbusier's rather gene­

ral statement to this effect, cannot thus be borne out;

In Marse i I I e-Sud, Le Corbus i er has argued h i•mse If into

a position where the common services can have no place8S?

Understandably he does not expose this contradiction8

In terms of our highlighting of the inconsistent rela­

tionship between the Unite size and the common service

module, a Unite of 1,600 people without common services

is less i I lbgical than one ~quipp~d wit~ these. This

does not make the module more logical though, since Le

Corbusier simply abstracts the common servicesfrom the

Unite, leaving it unaltered in al I other respects,.

The"prolongements du logis "have a fate simi­

lar to the common services: the tennis and basket-bal I

courts, soccer fields, running-tracks and swimming-pools

that had been placed with such delibera·t;;"ion"at the foot"

of the Vi I le Radieuse redents the better to ~ncourage

that phy~ical exercise by men and women ~hich would "fill 'JO

them with joy and optimis~ ", have al ,ngren compressed· in-

to the I inear 7-V green swathe so tbat to enjoy thim now

requires a special trip.

The notion of an "intensity in consecrated lei~

su~e" is no longer invoked and s~ems to have given way

tri an acceptance, albeit tinged with iro~y, of the little

pl~a~ures of everyday I ife on the V4:

II ';l

a, In projects for "I inear-industrial cities"

at La Rochel le (1945), St. Gaudcns (1945)

whose populations vary between 10,000 -35,000 inhabitants, ~nd where the"Sector"

principle is not used, Le Corbusier's in­

sistence on the inclusion of common s~r­

vices is more credible though not necessarily

more logical since al I these Unit6s house

1,600 - 2,000 people.

?0, Le Corbusier,· The Radi·ont City, P• 65.

Au long de la V4 s'al ignent les boutiques les petits steliers d'artisants, les cafes les cinemas, etcamama••=•a••o•~a=e•a•m•=•

. . .

••~•~ans a•.• s c • a a D c =•mm a• mm s m •ft• ma a an a••• g

. Oeuvre . Corbus,er, • '} I, Le I V ·p.106. Vo • ' Complete,

120

On y circule, on y ach~te, .on y discute, on s'assied aux terrases des cafesa. lei s'ecoule la petite vie quotidienne, pue­rile mais equi I ibreea Ce type de groupe­ment urbain prend la forme d'une cite I in­eaireparcourant le paysage et puisant sa seve au long de son qxe la ou passent les automobiles au ralenti, les velos, la sont les pietons sur les ~arges trottoirs a

-§1 . £it \10 o,d · · Rl!1 0 ~i . . . .·. .·. ., . ·Sl~:i;i;\;,;r

~:..~t;%:~,~,h~b~~:,i:~f..,., .. :c;··5ii 1 fr<':t::~,fj,;,~'.'.\}i;\l!'fs,'8>\.5"¢:~ 12 ~ 1· i i . ··;-, a·.S ·. So·2 a l

I' ombre des arbres. 91

Given the much-mellowed and newly-permissive

attitudes evinced by Le Corbusier in the foregoin~ cita~

ti ons · re I at i ng to our present discussion, it ought. to

come_as no surprise to find him n~only_ in~orporating

the existing areas of traditional low-density housing

into his plans for the Marsei I le-Sud prototype but him­

self introducing "maison fami I iales d'un etage". These

last are not, to be sure, the same as typical suburban

lot-developments; the label given to this. low-rise famiiy ~2 . .

~ousing --"~nit's horizontales d'habitation'~- of itself

suggests something quite differenta But this does not

materially alter the fact that what we have here is a

plain acknowledgement on ·Le Corbusier's part of a family's

need for ground-contact, "maison fami I i~les avec pelouses

I ' f ' 3 d h . . . . communes pour · en an ce''an t at Is an Import ant concess I on,. What may come as a surprise, though, in view of what we

J{ Jtr . . \t~ .. t. t . .§

.. 66 ~

92. Le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol. v, P• ~06.

'}3. le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol ,V, p, 115~

121 94. This can be convehiently summari~ed bye drawing

end caption in The Home of Man, p. 73 ·: (f1510,)

have thus far been givento understand c~ncerning Le Cor­

busier's attitude to urban housing~4 js the numerical

weightings he assigns to the different housing categories

in his scheme .(f:J.110) If \-Je add to the Tab I e that are a and

population represented by the existing housing95that is

accepted into the Marsei I le prototype (s=f.j-1oz, ), the numer­

ical importance of the Unites in the resultant distribu­

tion would be even further dimisheda

Despite the obviousimportance of Le Corbusier's

unexpected importation into the Marsei I le~Sud·scheme of

a low-rise/mediuien~~~{) p.p,,h,i or 100 p.p,.a.) housing com­

ponent (i.ea the 'unites horizantales dihabitation'), his

treatment of it is fleeting and purely diagrammatic.(~-&·' 0 ~)

Enough is shown, however, to piece together, with the aid

of e~rl ier comp~rable schemes, what Le Corbusier's general

design attitudes are I ikely to be in this case.. The

dwel I ings·would probably be partly raised off the ground,

thus creating a sheltered open area underneath the house~

without however enclosing any other private open space

beyond the dwel I ing envelope in the way of gardensr yards,

etc. A possible model for this housing-type is the M.A.S.

house (1939) (f:5· 111 - 113 ) which was basically a single Unite

eel I that was potentially horizontally extensible as in the

St. Baume and Roq projects ( f 1j- 114 ); another usefu-1

indication of Le Corbus i er' s genera I intentions is the

Barcelona housing.scheme (1933) for immigrant peasants

(which was part of the larger Barceloria 'Macia'plan).

· The urban agglomeration laid out as a "green city": 100,000, 200,000, 500,000, 1 or 2 millions of inhabitwtls. .J~l,

I:-~---~x In its heart, thr. civic centre. The town, unencumbered by any marginal va.g11ries, abuts sharply upon the meadows. Suburbs arc forbidden and zminuitcd.

n:t=JJ1r _

fig. 110

fig. 109

'j15. le Corbusi~r describes this c,,tcgory, D, on the di .:i91•em ( S...fiJcoz) as fo I I ows :

En O .-:rrh'-:rni ~~r.nt cl' anc icn·g ha~nt',1ux, b~ur~s

ou vii l~g~s trnvers6s g6n6ralement_par les

"chcmins des ~ncs". Ainsi I~ vie continuere-t­

el lc ~ s!6couler·au long de sa piste la plus traditionnelle.n

(Le Corpusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol. V, p. 107).

Enonce des densites

!\ tn-0nu II~ ',l...;_• I>-<-. '/'v'v:i.,w.-4"?..a;r-!-'·

.e.-,.:: Ir'> twu. ADJ. : .. /;Ji;;•,,

r5zflJ.Jr~·i,··l:H~ · ft...;,._..---.-.... _......_~~.\~-~~

.51 ffii!ffi-Hf\\fJ\ffifffi:i£3

" {,,\/h;_.,-tz: C,. tft,).ri,1;;;/t~ " ~ "'"""'- v·!-1,ti u.J.e...-.--

o..u. 11 J<,w,· CJ,> ~~·t,v·~~ ?'~'/''""1·~····- (''[1 •. -r:.c;,,..._ r.-er,o r:.; I..V V /1.E.fY.~d-,: -°:: · "~ ~..J\C;>

_BZ. "~ \Je;vM'~·

~ ~ .:.:.~;/~~-.:.~~:.i,{a:,,!'"' .t::t· l'.rO ..,.Q'.:V\,·~. ca . v · ::-e,Uit-\'.t:7. -- ..1._,_,_ . ~-,"¥~ .. ...;.~.:.r-_,...,,_::r,.'......;:._~

c::.- A1 ,~'.-r:·. rf! ·t,,:.I. I f1=1 V"''7'(;'~. -~ """? D ,vv,nvi ,.,...._.., ... ,,. ;::.

0 ~ <;) ""'"c!'Wwf-~,..c1-~~ • ,;,,,t./;.,.e..~-.s--l},...._t.,..." ~. r.,. _., . .,,_,,· 'L.-'.' '·c·· ,J·''''"'"l~~l-,.':,,;·r,,,

., •' ,L/:). V 1 '',Jll\,_<.;),Y~- , (;.~ /:." £*,VIT""-fl.. t fA-R.;-i TietJ: . . . '· . ... . ,._,.

'11.1. C( . • -~~ /v'l'~iu ··:· ·3 - · ,:t'":7,.. __ · f-:w:7l' - • - • "i~~r./'-.,fi....;, A. '.:) .-::,v. ·f.;)V.L.1 ,,'D,MI-.. ,, : .. · . . 1V11,:'1o,»5,, /IW•VllJV.

,·; s 1. i~ ,. . c;p:p I'.; tO"D?J '~re ~\3' i b/ '~ • f· .!)2._· \:15:':·_ L\-:® __ . : (;':-·ti) ~(,G f~;;.~;;; 4~"l .ff?"3~ ~ . ,.,. . . . , · ··'> ~ ~·1 :{"'" ,.., + \ --L 1Cl·

i d zao 2.~: ]2.S7ro ift\,/ t',C\i k·::4 l · -" ·:.·· ./.. ·:_ ·.· .. ·: _, '··:·:: .. ~~\.i· ·: ~·· . r~:~~

D- -1~-- ~:. ~"'F · . · ~-·r,.,c:, .. 3 ,.,. . r ;..- , . ,c ...... ,, ; . <',.-:-'.f ,:1-,.~'.'i?" rvo,; . - ,• ,,~ •. , •-''1 - -

I fm l -~

f'~.::r ·

I ~

g

-',

N . Ql)

I •rl .C

j.i

Though in the Barce Iona scheme (fjs. 116"- /17 ) both I ayout and

DU's were more tightly planned than is the case at Mar­

sei I le-Sud, the layout managed to achieve a convincing

degree of integrity and variety, largely because it com­

pletely eliminated the motor car (as did Le Corbusier's

other schemes of this ilk at St. Baume, Roq and Rob); At

Marsei I le-Sud, however, though Le Corbusier talks of a

"Separation totale de l'auto et des jeuxa Le terrains

de jeux sont accumules sur l'autre face des maisons,a ~

l'abri du bruit et des dangers" this in practice proves

to be unconvincing, and the complexities of this scale

of design are handled with a lack of clarity and sophi-

stication that is unusual in Le Corbusier's work. Certain-

Urbanlsa~ion de Marseille-Sud (Michelet) Secteur iheorique Circulation

Reseau lnMrieur Distribution pour les ea. tegories: cat.A: V4 et VS, circu­

lation len:e mixtc: autos, pietons

oat. B: a) ramif:cation de'S V 3 a= route, par­king garalJ~S

b} Alirr.en!.:i.tion par V 5 et V 6 (autos lent et ve­los - orange) par V 5 et V 6 (pi~t:ins seuls -jaune citron)

cat. C: a) A!imenta:ion p.:3.r V 5 et V 6 (autos lent et \r~

los - or.!.:ige) b) Alin~entation

par V 5 et V 6 (pif!tons seuls­jaune citron)

cat. E: Alirnent<1tion par V 7 (pietllns. seuls ·• aulos par auto· risatio:i}

1.1~

96. le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete, Vol; V, P• 113.

fig. 1/5

ly the proliferation of roads and 'hard areas' (presum- \\ N .>:;X\4,t'· . :>n:~-;:-ably parking) within the low-rise housing area begins to J _/;t--,\· ,)?,/ ~/ ·__ · -~-rj -~. • ~~

. ' I I' ! I . I • ,.-., " .f,4'-......:.--( "' "" .. '" • • : ! ~g;;;~~ \ . {:·/! '/ ._..t:~l,~?- ·,_ c:-· . ~ \ \ :i::J:1~ 91 ve r I se to doubts about the supposed econom I es of the J. · \~ £' · ,,, :i ! · 4;:;.:,. ,,f:.<'~,-.-,;z~-"--,,_

• • • ' I ~ ... ~ ,{;::-;~ ~ I ~·~ - ....... ~:.~· ,~~-::~~~ ·~;t;~tl~ f I I 19ree ~nd of the 7-V system,. ( t'J l/5 ) ,:._____·y.7, ____ ~-:.--_ . ..,-1,--J'~/L}.~~.:.._;-~,,..,;~~'""':-~;-. ~Q?{!tit~

Another variety of low rise

se1l le-Sud scheme, not elaborated at

even more interesting than the above,

housing in the Mar­

al I, but potentially

1s the row-house

accommodation provided along one side of the shopping

streets (Category A SG6. t_r 103•11~Though the quantity of this

type of housing was to be ·severely I imited to prevent

"natural" market forces from creating the horrors of a

'corridor-street', this unprecedented concession on Le

Corbusier's part to mixed ftinction zbning of this kind

is a significant one.

I,.,..,"...,,_--;-:,.=-~·,,.,"' ... '~ ~~)'l-;>&,:,Z~ ~-, . <~~ --..::C---~ ' I """',... ""' , ;: ... :-:c·;/:".·:::s··:::,~:"--"':t..'-.-""'G.;;.~i:~=.-··-.. · -~ · -( ,.~, l \to~_;.~~~~"!-:.i-..?....,... ~"Y,:'. • • --~ ... ·.~~~ h"' ,~. I .---,~-;::l .· ii-..;:: · \ I •----rs· ·~'·~~,~,;;4·.,-~~.1· o .• , .... .,.~·-:>· , ,· .• ' . • , I -~•-, .,_.,,,. .. ......., ,, •• -.. • ...........,. ,i; I ,...,. ,:'f',,.:. \ ~- \ : (,;._ C •• 'co '·.;:": .. .;,'.;,i,.,;,-'>;; :,:h·, ; ~?,f;;.:j$'.J./ .,;:-... ' , ,r.• -: //~-- ~,: '

. i ·- • ;I' -- • '~j ,r:l~.,. '"' ' . ' ;\J ' t ~:;:s~#'~iit' "/:~?='/~_.:, ·. ~r\~~~ '\~: i '.\ • - • --~,: • \--~ 1: ~7,--::,.,,,-:-,,..J-.'~n.,: ~ .. ;:-.<6~. 5.~--~..,,...~~.; I/'·· -' 1}}-; ,.,--;.~\~~:I!';:\ L,' ,-,~/,(,'J:fc/,>' ' '-=- {!~~·~,,. \' 1, -~· .• ·• '.._:< .. ,'-= __ ,..c:,i;, ___ ._J.----·~,---- '. '\ i 1 •• .-·;•:'\ ~-~1-.:.,iL-'-'~~ -., 1''.••' ~ ~~.:--::--:~~ ~ . '- - •• -....._ ---- 1 ~ JI \ i ~- ~-:.(;c·· > ·. · . ! . · !~ . ·ml(~•'-(>:") ~·- ':··•·'\ ~7Jf.· . r. :::~ [ \ ,_, .. · ·,.,~~-n-: . i;?V)' ?7.;/" ,..,~- , . ,...-·· .. /;<",,.~ '"'" ~ ! • ~- :"\.,. '-' -v..,~ · .. __ t ri· .I/ a ',\_"'-~0/'~ l[_:-L1

/ ,~~~~~·,.' ·,. i 3~ ~. • I ;- "- J » '- ,)"· ~ ~ I' ~ '\- O • , ·; i ' : I . ~ ,,.. . .,,-/ -..:.-....-·,-. t j - ~ " ' • • • • ; • I i • • .... "':;;:<' /y -:/ ~,i J S---, .: " ~ .- ':} . -• 1 ) , • ~ : i /:_ \ ';~~;~c1 1l·\/~~-~~~fv.---.· .. (C I ·11:_,;," ;,-L it./; '. /,),?/,'~~~/;,_, /. i § ~}~{{ ',;.y'""'~:,· ~- y '- :----~ : t/ ... ·. ~-"r-v. Is~li:."Y' .. ~~ ._.,,,.,-·lv~-----::x , ! - ._,_. .'>.. ·~'~''-'::·'? .. --•,~~~-~'?',;3\~ .. ~·!!1 _\.;;:,L--· .,· '-. , ' ·' .·.I ~" .,;·,.· m: ;i · ~,;,~Y, "'"'l"-" ,;;-',-?E>.-.,,·· . .,_....,.--- T ' -. . ' 'I (/ A.'-~ " // ' " ,.., .,- ~ --- - - .. - . ' · r .•. ·-:· · - ·~-,.(·:.~' - rt __ ~ :::. ... "'!::~"":::--;;.;..,:;;.-:..;~. ;_1)·., ·-\~ ./'·~°{'<'::;_, '<'}!_ _ _;,t--~tt,7::[fif;";;/~--i;~~~~~

stit21~J~~~:;1t1 .. -

fig.117

__J ,-;-tfi1:~

•I'' t( l~-: Ll 11 :1&li~

r,~ :rcva,~r11rr1,;a t;. I [J I I

'----;---' ~­l(O!'lftf?'I:

' I :Ji/

£ . .

;

PILOTIS i

I 1-

1 I I

I

J ~1 I

_:-- ---f __ : ---~1--:~~~1--~:r~;0·_--r-.-~ · ~­-u[I \ ~ . ~<,t ::: --_! ., , I l __ , ::, .• :-=::i lJUT!J r-' 1 h::=Lu~,::~··:',: .. '-' .. :-i I h , c-=:;t=,·: " ..• .:::;,l:_l_l_ n,1 .. ~-\.":·:. LJ ~d ·, :-.l.....'"i ,·1 i::-_ : .. :. -· · I .. · '·1 :0 -~ ·-=-·•:::=Ji I l=·: .,,.~" ·. ,, .- . I I ·' . ·, '; ~-. . ".".,. ·' \,

~ _J_.JJ_>"'~F\"J ((u1111J_ u_. ~ ·i L. . \ • ~ 11m.

~- -.·, i: . E : f;:;; 1• '. 'r r •· . u . _ I I }··,· \-:,,, ' .. \ . :...,.>,--,-.,-.·-,:c-;,, ~ t: .. _ ,._. utl· · 1

.·, ,~

.. 1 nJ:)' --~ ,-.. iE,;:i:(. ~ ,f D, ~ ] V'\· l .. Ft.1r·-..,~-, .. $?.-}"'' ·'".:·-.:.. .. ~ JI I · "'' . '}'\b-se--'" "' . ',oa .. , , 1 J,:-,i !~ : .,.-.,.,,, -;,=,::, u t':ro.":="" . ·I\;\' '· --~ ·,1 . '· ·., ~-- --...... r ~;--i <t- --=~--'"' ~-...,;;:;r-= __ ~~

fig. 116

\,\,;¢" .... \.o\'-"' .. ~

BARCELONE, LOTISSEMENT 1933

.,..~.,,..

COUPE

REZ. DE CHAUSSEE ETAGE

\ :L.4

Aspect des facades des maisons

Le projet definitif

LL•l

We are, jt is by now clear, talking about an

approach quite different in scale, technique, intention

and mood to that characterizing the Vi I le Radieuse. 1n

Marseille-Sud, numerous aspects of the prevailing urban

pattern have either been compromised with or accepted:

the superimposition of the.design upon the established

co~figuration of the area does a minimum of violence to

existing road networks whose meandering shopping-street

ribbons are pressed·; into service as the project's V-4' s ( Cf +j,s. f/B,11Jfrll>); furthermore, much of the existing sma I I-·

sc~~e housing has been incorporated into the scheme in­

tact. ··l .. '· ' ,.

·:;, . :~ ~ ' . ..,_,...,...,, ... 11'" ... ""::---~

::- . ~ '

;~ .

. ;.r l• --·-. .:- ... -, .....

\ \ --~--~~:·,~·· ··. 8\f· • '/rf:~: ,·. \_· .. _..,. ·o t" '- . . . fl · · ~- ' ·/~-' ,·' .. ,.

;~~-.+~f-=_,,c/. ' . ~:: _~.::~----- --·--fig.rrs

Solid b!st..J:, -LM<.eS .,..,_1,-~1:1, ell-i.St'if1:1 roM IN'-p?Jf.,,.,.. c../vnr t-W,...C i :S n:tait,..ia

,~.,·

~ .. _~ ... --... ~_...,, ,.,If,,,,.

~ ·' . ~-R.01/lr.~ ~,,,,,,-;:--, •. "'s ... ,"1 •.. ,._ ... ~·!!:--- ~~..... ._ ,, -~::,1\- ,< •• -',)_...... . L .. \'-

. . ., , v·· ,··.:: /.......... . . ... ,..:-\ ..._ ..,-, • > I\ •,;._1'-~~"..:;>'" • . ....._

• "' \· ;:v ' ",\ <..' ,...,,,__ ~--. .,-,. ..... ,.,.,., .. ,..,._ r _., • ·! ·. ,., '\~.\I..."-- _;--,.. ··:·· . ,. , .. ~~ \- / \~/,y~·th,..,.,,. ~:f .. 1, I

~

" •. ::.:,- · -~..,..,,- 1.r'i .• J )Q "-, ., J( ;• . ··~\;=, ' .~.:,,. ; r.. •! \tt !6f>~.J ..... I.it,~-/\, '

. ;~ /· ~-- . ::,.,.\. y /\\ ~~~ r, -~""-r,·~, J: ~,. \ '•• ...::; 1\ ,.\ I:. \ J ~~. r/,; U.("P ~~/,, ~ ~ .. -.-,A..~~· ~ l. \,. ..... .. -. :, ' x: "V ' . • -? ~ l •,

~-t' \ \ : -..:.%c.;,'!> .;.;.,;.( \ \ .,.-. ~-~... 1. \ l~ f ~~ •\ (. 't'/,/',\ 1

. • I '-· ~\ .......... .,..., _ • 0 .. 11, ... "' · f\\' X . · '-<- . · •. . rl'..a · r\ .. -;.t-:~;":."!;""-'on \_ \"' ~ ~,-1,1,,.,,..,:, "\; '"' .f-> • · . .,,. .-f ~ •·,~ I · ·I

t":~~--:· . 1r-. '¥ -;;•· ru,~1,.v,,;.2•• ' \ '< ~ ,. • ', /. '" ,... ) • ••. I ... t ,/ ; ; '-;,," i • ,1. .,. cf< 1:r-~;"" • .,,;,• ,: . _/ . . ' •

•• ~ I I. ,,.,, •. ••' ..__......,.,. t'pR,~ \;..._....- ' & .. ·-· ..... ~; ~ ..... ,.7"' "" .... -\ a .••• I • • •• , .... ~.,. .. .__,.,,:,1, ....._ . ; . ' ..... . . ~~ . . '\· '•, .... \ . ~

' "'i-?. ,/t,"..'::.. '· "'' ... v!. ---::::·~~ .. \~·-·~.:::.t-, ~-. k !U -~~DU' ,,,.. ,·' . ,_,.. ,, . ( 7::-..,.J\.'--::'{{ , ..... ,:./Jr •. ..i .. 'C)Y ,. . ···-~-

"'"!-../, • "'" ,.., r•, \.~.0 \,,,• • •r....... ..... ,•-, M .,_,_ ••• •• ,-1:r. ' ... ;.,' I ,. ~ -"'"· - '-...._

,• ~;:--.::::!:..":::?.:..._::·:::/: -- -- _·_·___ ~~ - -- -- -- .

The project clearly then, is one which does not depend

for its success on a massive injection of new inter­

dependent systems int6 a given context, but which,through

the separabi I ity of its constituent elements, can be

phased into existing situations without a legislative

revolution. Accordingly, in the text accompanying the

project and in the essay preceding it, there are no

desperate appeals to Authority as the only instrument

capable of bringing about its realization. Absent too

1s the usual hal labaloo about the technological wonders

of the new machine age write large on every horizon.

After the Second World War, ~hich had demo~­

strated that technology as a weapon in the hands of total

Authority could command the support of the masses for the

most inhuman and destructive causes, the theoretical founda­

tions of CIAM ( and of Le Corbusier) -- new technology, the

need for implementational authority and faith in the masses- \

no longer retained their former apolitical innocences

This radical undermining of its philosophy threw

\

' CIAM into some confusion after the war and there was much \

soul-searching and much talk'of 'human qualities' and ~

'human techniques', 'social contacts' in smaller neighbour­

hoods 'human friendliness' in the newly-discovered 'heart

of the city' and so onm

Many of the revisions evident ~nd many of the in­

stances of retrenchment in the Marsei I le-Sud scheme should

I 'L. Co

against this background of shifting values arid changed

times.?7

Marsei I le-Sud's considerable concession to esta­

blished patterns of I ife appears to be accompanied by a

provisional, patient and tolerant attitude towards the

very difficult question of the acceptabi I ity by society-" at-large of environmental change: C'est par la qual ite

de chacun des individus que !'architecture moderne fran-

chira l'etape decisive".% We have here a change of

heart which was even more marked in the forum of CIAM

where the roughshod trampling over the man-in-the-street

by we-know-best-architects that had been characteristic

of its deliberations in the Thirties, was now being

seriously questioned. Though Le Corbusier could not

go as far as his co I I eagues in these sou I --=searchings, 1~

he began to evince a new-found concern for tradition,

custom and permanence under the influence of which his

earlier celebrations of the shining-new environments of

the Machine Age and the joys of accelerating renewal

suffered a decline. Thus the attitude expressed in,

"Tomorrow there wi I I be new beauties,new truths •••••• )

the day after tomorrowaaa•• Bui in this way I ife is ful I

·~nd beautiful. We do not presume to dictate the course /00

cif imperishable things of the future," had been modified

by 1944 to : I

Part of the daily environment; their.familiar traits unite the present with the past.Custom for some of them a thousand years old, has made of them the companions of 9ur I ives. This

\

/00,

101.

/ 'L,/

,7. In a similar sense, Le Corbusier's euphoric _belief in tlie feasibi I ity of the Vi I le Radieuse

should be seen in relation to the phenomenal

idealistic upsurge in Soviet architecture and planning in the late Twenties and early Thirties, when, in the eyes of many West-European avant­gardi sts, both the means and ends of the good life .seemed just around the corner.

J8. Le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete,Vol.lV, p.150.

'f}. · A pol icy stiltement at the Bridgewater CIAM (1947) contains the resolution:

H

Encourage CIAM groups to ke~p in touch with the public needs and observe the progress of the public's understanding of ~CIAM principles,with the object of assisting modern architecture to develop in symp,1thy with the ;;spirations of the people it serves." (S.Giedion, Decade of New Architect~re,p.17)

Van Eesteren, for example, one of the 'old guard' leaders was talking of"contemporary 1-i'fe" in these terms: "Those banal fragments display to us a reality that we may not find pleasing, but that we can­not but accept"

(S.Giedion, Architecture, you and me,p.86.)

Le Corbusier, Aircraft, above fig.36.

Le Corbusier, Talks with Students,p.5lr

friendly pa6t with one's environment is something to considern From it, we can get a feeling of security, of belonging, and in just this we have the secret,the precious source from which al I architec­ture springs,. 101

These changes in Le Corbusier's outlook, the im­

pact of which was reflected in the Marsei I le-Sud project

had the effect of progr~ssively undermining the raison

d'etre of the Unite as a housing type. In more specific

terms, the Unites of Marsei I le-Sud, stripped as they are

of a high-density context, integral common services and

the immediate environment of functional green space, begin

to look like just another housing option rather than the

touchstone for a new way of I ife.

Marsei I le-Sud was, effectively speaking, Le Corbu­

sier's last statement on the large-scale organization of the

u~ban fabric and its housing pattern. 'Effectively speaking'

is used advisedly here, since in h~s competition entry for

the reconstruction of the centre of Berl in (1958)Le Corbusier

did attempt a final reversion to some of the pristine strengths

articulated in the Vi I le Radieuse.

But even pr1or to the Berl in competition entry, he

was already showing signs of uneasiness with the toned-down

organizational systems that had been al lowed into the Marsei I le-

Sud scheme. The uncompromising boldness, the purity, the ro2. ·

"Homeric" world of the Vi I le Radieuse held allurements he could

not easily resist; so just.five years after Marsei I le-Sud, we

see Le Corbusier retracing his steps in the direction of the Vi I I e Rad i euse •• ,;,;

128

{OZ, This is the heroic phr,,se lo Corbusior

uses in his 1964 cpi logue to the reprin­

ted ond transl ut.ed edition of The Rudi ant

City, with reference to the Antwerp plan

(1933). •

r-

while at the same time attempting, rather•disingenuously,

to keep open the option of the later less intense approach:

Arithmetic of the Radiant City: By bui I ding 50 metres high, al locctting 14 square meters of dwel I ing to each resident we wi I I erect bui I dings covering 12% of the surface of the sitem Sti I I avai !able: 88% of the ground surface to arrange the separation of pedestrians from cars, to set up schools right at the foot of each house, sports faci I ities at the foot of each house, etc••••m••••• Density can go as high as 1000 people per hectare~ Likely figures are 200,300,400, 600. The city becomes greenn (Buldings of the "redent", or setback type, as in the 1935 Radiant City.) And if we adopt Unit~s of the"Marsei I le MM!" trpe: 3~ hectares for an optimum Unit~ (2000 resi­dents)=500 people ler hectare.

1000 residents per hectare 500 residents per hectare

are prodigious figures, capable of sett! ing the modern problems of city planning.

Whereas "the individual house" yields a den­sity of 100 people to the hectare, an appal ling \vaste,. 103

But the Vi I le Radieuse machine had not been put ';

through its paces for some twehty years and its performance

in the Berl in plan could not reproduce the spectacular gains

achieved by the original: the hoped-for density of 1000 p.p.h.

was realised, but the critical balance between sky, sun trees1

steel cement, and tarmac ~as quite upset ( f0- 121 ); the en­

deavour to integrate a DU based on 20m2 per person into a

.129

Jo3. Le Corbusier, Nursery School•, P• 21.

t (

,i-, .. •-..c.,-,.,

f ..... ·

-••

, • ....__ •••• •--

~·

,.. _ _

,,...,.. _ _

.,.._, _

_ ~

--...-. _

_ ...__.

__

_ •_

,

-~

i ._

I

C

.; IQ

"' ;; I

i I

mass housing configuration and the need to make provision

for the mushrooming demands of the automobile placed an in­

tolerable strain upon the whole system,as a comparison be­

twee~ the Berl in scheme's environment and that of the Ant­

werp scheme of 19 33 makes c I ear (Cf. f-js ,v...tz.3 ) •

The year 1958 witnessed not only this demonstra-

tion of the inadequacy of the most cherished of al I Le Cor­

busier's excogitations but also the col lapse of CIAM at the

hands of a new generation of militants over-reacting to the

excesses of the old guard even as in their turn they had over­

reacted to the physical horror of the slums of Europen Le

Corbusier,sensing in advance, it ?eems, the· direction 1n

,which things ·\vere moving and concluding, evidently, that it

al I spelled impasse, if not the end of the road, as much for

himself as for CIAM as he knew it, sent notice of his abdica­

tion already in 1956 to the tenth congress of C!AM in Dubrovnik.

It is those who become 40 years old born around 1916 during wars and revolutions, and those then unborn, now 25 years old, born around 1930 during the preparation of a new war and amidst a profound economic social and political c~isis, thus finding themse Ives, in the heart of the present p~riod, the only ones capable of feeling~ actual problems personally, profoundly,the goals to fol low, the means to reacih them, the pathetic urgency of the present situaion. They are in the kno\v• Their predecessors no longer are, they are out, they are no longer subject to the direct impact of the situation.

I.:) I

C H A P T E R T H R E E

CONTEXT THE UNEASY RESOLUTION

Despite the planning impasse Le Corbusier had

reached by the Fifties and notwithstanding what I have

interpreted as his admis~ion of this, he continued to

project the Unite as the answer to the problems of urban.

housing(or housing of any scale in whatever context for

that matter)and was quite content to.propose the erection

of single Unites, as isolated elements, completely removed

fr0m any larger scale context from which they might have

derived functional support.

We have seen that as an element of the Marseille­

Sud context, the Unite had in fact, become quite dissociated

from its former support systems and was deriving no s1gn1-

ficant benefits from being grouped together with other Unites

(other than sharing~ pa~king garage) and was thus eminently

separable from this context ·to the extent that it cciuld be~

r~garded as an alt~rn,ative housing option in its own right. At the same time, however, it has been argued that the Unite

exhibited characteristics which certainly did make sense in

earlier contexts but whose retention in later ones has to

be regarded as ii logical and unjustified in view of the dis­

junction that came to characterize the relationship between

the Unite and its matrix or context.

Are we to assume, then, that Le Corbusier, 1 n per­

sever1 ng with a Unite shorn now of al I contextual justifi­

cation, was acting more or less out of force of habit? Or

was it out of his characteristic desire to appear consistent,

or even out of a belief that the Unite was, as it were, a

I ~.,_

synecdoche for the treasure~chest of the Vi I le Radieuse?

There may be some truth in al I of these assumptions

but the grounds on which Le Corbusier chose to justify the

Unite in his last fifteen years point rather to a stubborn

faith in certain specific qu~I ities that, as he saw it, con­

tinued to inhere in and animate the Unite quite irrespective

of whether the structure, taken as a whole, sti I I enjoyed

contextual support and justification. The mere presence -

or survival- of these qua! ities or attributes in the Unite

\-Jas, apparently, justification enought for its perpetuation

in toto.

The qualities her[eferred to operate on a more meta-

physical and symbolic plane than those aspects of the Unite

we have considered to date and at this more exalted level

they continue to relate to Le Corbusier's p~ime concerns -

the Man/Na-ture and the Ind iv i dua I /Co I I ect i ve bi nom i a I Sa,, The

stratum of justification compri.sing these qualities had, 1n

fact, always been present in Le Corbusier's verbal output,

but it tended to be subsumed under other categories of justi-

fication for the greater part of his carrer; Towards the

end, though these qualities cameto be his chief source of

reference and justification and as such were raised to a

new prominence.

Individual /Collective

The seSrch for a 'sociologic~I' .rationale for the

Unite hinted at by Le Corbusier in a passage cited earlier

I

/33

leads to a dead end; h~ said nothing further about the

specific social benefits which might be expected to accrue

from I iving in Unites of the Marsei I le-Sud type. And

while he continued to speak of the Unite's role in creat­

ing a 'collectivity', he did so in generalized and largely

symbolic terms:

•••• les hommes aiment a se grouper pour s'entr'aider, se defendre et economiser leurs effortsasm•c•••s•aeaauaasamnm•c•aanascsnaasaa Le rassemblement des foyers realise les phe­nom~nes d~entre'aide, de defense et securite, d'economie et d'epanouissement de la sol idarite industriel le capable de servir ~ des buts fra­ternels, cadeau des techniques modernes. 1

The mere fact of an agglomeration of dwelling units

raised up for the eye to behold --"nothing that concerns the

the surface can exist other than in terms of height. Here 2

1s the key to al I solutions"--has in itself, in the manner

of an ideograph, ~~ady become an emblem of the collectivity,

of man-writ-large;

L'homme seul est faible et indigent; s'il se groupe en unites de bonnes dimensions, i I acquiert une puissance gigantesque.-3

The empathetic chord that Le Corbusier assumed ~ould be

struck in the beholder at the sight of this symbol that

"stands upon its muscular legs as an image of human upright­

ness and dignifies al I its individual units within a single

embodiment of the monumental human force which makes them. 4

possible" would be reinforced tenfoJd, he believed, by the

literal imprint of the human scale throughout the building

through the use of the Modular.

1, le Corbusier, Oeuvre Compl~te, Vol,V.p.105.

Z. le Corbusier,The Radiant City, p.198.

.3. CIAM 5 --"logis et loisirs" P• 28.

4-. Vincent Seu( ley Jr. Modern Architecture,

p.44.

/34-

It is only on this ideographic, symbolic leve1

that the Individual/Collective binomial may properly be

thoughtof as being embodied in the Unite; in this in­

terpretatiQn the terms of the binomial are understood

to have been reformulated so as to have reference to

the Unite's visual impact, its power of scale and its

proportion. The term, ~Unite de Grandeur Conforme"

takes on in this I ight a very specific meaning: "appro­

priate size" becomes simply whatever size accords with

the rules of plastiri form~ Looked at in this I ight

there is sound vi sua I I og i c behind Le Corbus i er' s de-

c Is I on not to increase the length of the Unite to the

I i mi ts he had postu I ated i ti theory ( -fiq. 124- ) even though ...,

this meant that both vertical circulation and commoh

services were under-uti I ized -- since in this way he

avoided the visual duality such an increase would have

brought about,. Simi I ar l y the dee is ion taken . Pound-;:

about 1945, to move the common services to halfway up

the bui I ding was equally a product of visual logic:

"Le centre commercial de !'Unite se trouve ainsi veri­

tablement en son"c~ntre", compte tenu de la troisi~me

dimension". 5

What we have here, in fact, is a shift from

an earlier positioh which viewed human participation

in an environment in functional terms (provision of

physical faci I ities on the basis of whi~h the new lndi~

vidual/Col lective relationship was meant to develop )

to a position where human participation was seen to

~'~. -~-.._ .•MY,;/ ,,_--r:-('>,·._.;:,;..;

'I~ /,_.,.,~/,,.,;,---. • .. I

r--~ ........ ,,...e,1,..f·~ .. ! ~ Y-< • '----...__.) "1 ;i) ~ru.,,._,n._hh-, ·

lU1U1DJHITJQ11UUILUJBJ1IIB.:t 1TTfflTff1THTITJJ\.l:!TffiHITIT/Im.1n:r

/01:,i,., ><- 100..,..

·. ~-~--. J~~ ~V-V,::.v-,_ u- ~~

fig. (24-

-5, L' homme et I 'Arch i tectu.re, p. 17.

I .:>'::>

( Speci a I issue: Le_ H<?mme et I 'Arch i tcct(1re

Unit~ d'Habitation a Marseilles de Le

Corbusier, No's 11-14, 1947, )

proceed from symbolic/aesthetic identification, or, as Lipps

h d · f "E. f .. h I 11 a It, rom In a ung,.

This proclivity may be i I lustrated, and the point

amp I ified, by way of an example: Le Corbusier, in a -=.paper

delivered at CIAM 8 in 1951, consisting mainly of per~~

sonal anecdotes upon the subject of "The Core (of the City)

as a place for the Expression of Human Life~ recounted the

experience of witnessing a production of The Merchant of

Venice, staged -- in a Venetian pi azzettaJone of whose houses

had been takeri into service as a stage-set:

Our amphitheatre of spectators was surrounded by three-storied houses whose windows were fi I led by the occupants and their friends. To the left a shop had been rented and here a fore­stage had been bui It to the side, in front of the canal a We found ourselves in the midst of a st age set th at \vas i tse If a I i ve. I assure you that it was an extraordinary - an overwhelming­experiehce to be present at this spectacle. When I came away I was intoxicated, moving in a world of fantasy ••••••••• eassawaaa•••n••••a••········· • a • a a a m • m o • • a a s • • a • • S a • • • a • • a • a a • c • • • • 9 • 8 • • • n e a • Why was this performance so good? G

At this point one would ordinarily expect the quality of

the experience to be characterized by reference to 'total

immersion in I iving theatre' or something of that kind;

instead, Le Corbusier veers off in quite a different direc­

tion:

Because of something to which I want to draw your attention. There are certain exactly proportioned spaces of perfect harmony which one could describe as places of 'visual accoustics' - places 6f such perfect proportions that the onlooker is made one

I .::>la

G. CIAM 8 - The Heart of the City pp.45-46.

7. CIAM 8 - The Heart of the City, pp.45-46.

with the surroundings. Move away a few paces and you no longer experience this: the harmony is broken or you are no longer in the play. 7

a This cast of mind that leads Le Corbusier to

derive an emotional experience of great intensity from

a happy concatenation of purely physical and spatial

rapports~lso under I ies his conviction that the Man/Nature

binomial is brought to fulfilment in the Unite.

Man/ Nature

Perhaps this issue is best introduced by refe­

rence to an argument that Le Corbusier puts most succintly

in vi sua I shorthand in The Home of Man ( fi,j- l:Z5 ) , though a

s i mi I ar idea is· evoked in other ways in other p I aces (-fijs !Zh·!zs) ..

It is to the end that he may gaze and meditate

upon a bounteous vision of unspoiled Nature that Le Corbu­

sier puts man in the cubic eyries of the Unite, to the end

that he may gather a harvest from his meditation and come

to realize both his smallness and greatness in the Universe:

••• Man is in a kind of cyclone; he bui Ids sol id

houses to protect and sh~lter his heart. Out­

side, nature is nothing but indifference,even terror. The clouds come from far away, go far away, calm or broken up; sometimes the sky is blue~ By itself the grand sport of the sky ~ffects our hearts. Duality appears in the contrast between the unfathomable march of the elements and our precise, careful I ittle calcu­lations as sublime as they are puerile, estab-1 ished in the heart of the tumult. 10

J.37

6. Compare le Corbusier's priorities in his analysis of the Roman Forum in The Radiant

City: "the Forum is a meeting place for

collective action: it encourages such actions by the nobility of its ordered design and

'J.

the charm of its proportions. Everything

ln it is synchronism and synthesis ••• "

(p.186),

fur Le Co1•bu8icr, one muMt remember•, the

most elevating emotion possible w<>s the

experience of what he cal led "L'espace

indicible" ("Inexpressible space'):

wit is not the effect of the subject chosen

by the artist, but a triumph of proportion­

ing in all things~- the physical properties

of the work as well as the fulfilment of the

artist's intention, control led or uncontrol­

led, t~~gi_ble or intangible,•••••••••••••••

•••••Mt1•••••••••••••••••11aeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Then a fathomle•s depth gapes open, al I walls

are broken down, every other presence is put to flight, and the miracle of inexpressible

space is achieved,

I have not experienced the miracle of faith,

but I have often known the miracle of inex­

pressible space,.the apotheosis of plastic

emotion-. H

( Le Corbusier, The Modulor, Po 32)

to. Le Corbusier, When the Cathedrals were

White, P• 161.

0 ~ ri lla :t :~~~.cJ

a nian, his sl,y, · his tree, his tcall.

· fig. r 2,5

"

i-d"i.Vl'11\L -~~..{,)_t}_.o..,Q....C ~.V:.

. ..,,.._ ... ·-··..1•:''.···'

_J ~·. ~)

52~ u 1);,.?/1 • · ~t"-· _:;, L .. ~•-••.v• .. t

TVith equivalent bu.ilt volumes, 011e can live in a "garden " city, or in a town of the type " radiant" city.

ff710 will be prfrileged, the inhabitant of the r,arden city or that of the new quarters of habitation?

_t~II~

/38

Let us 11.0t forget that our eye is ·five feet six inches above the ground ; our eye, this gar.e of c11try of our architectural perceptions.

~~ . ~ . .

A1~ , I~~~ ~-1r710,1t11r _ . l~-;p

A man, . his sl.y, his tree, his wall.

And the "essential joys" hat·e entered the dwelling. Nature is inscriberl in the Iea.,e, a part is signed with nature, Trees are present

in the room of the dwelling.

fig. /2,r;,

fig._ 128

~

fig. 127

\ l

-D~ · I L "

,I I

' ,, ... ,.,t:.-».""''""'"~;;;::::;:::::.~ =~'1Af"'',~.~1:.!J :; · .. :~ i.~>!~':;...-_.r~,fr':l'f'..:/J;Jy:fi_; .... ~:·;:;~·:· ';J.~h .. -.,;.;.tr.:-

)39

-=~ ~T~=~r=.~=~=.~ ~~,z.,,;:P" ~ ~ • : ' . .

t- r:.J -,,..w~-·- . .. .~~:'ft¥.£-.==

. ~. ·~ ..,, t b ~l.t;"'C>'('?' ti' . ~,:,:,, ... 0- .,.;,;:-~-.:.•==~.:-.-,,.....-~·.,.• ,:.? ~ .·-.··~~~~ trr:~~c~_ A~~-:1Fo~_~}~18~ ~ .. ~k{;; _ fli)· · · ~0-.,,, f, v;.~,,,_-."Y'-'" '1-7 ~ ..

ij ~--·~~· {~~.·: -~~~~~(¥-· ~~~ ·~ i ~ A.A.··· · r~~~ .(>~ . •

I~·. 1t~, · .. :W·J

To clwcllings high above the ground is offered the s1iectacle of the shy and all its movcmcnls ·and its colours, its.forms throughout the seasons. A distant hill appears. From· below push the green domes of the tangle of trees. The town is "grew."

O_f evident importance in the above passage is the

position of the perfect, geometric crystal of the

(which Le Corbusier believed embodied the essence

laws of naturef1 with nature 'as found', that Is,

juxta­

Un i te,

of the

"Left

free, wi Id or cultivated •••••• a ... independent and whole;

no longer crushed under the w6ight of bui I ding 'develop~

ments' •• ,.. a vision of beauty, natural and sublime wi fl ,2

enter the homes of men through the \vi ndow",. ( ff3. 12'))

It is vital, as Le Corbusier sees it that 1n

this re I at i onsh i p Nature be perceived from a he i ght1;3 a

great extent of space and greenery be visible and the

horizons re~ain distant. Generalizing his own exper-

ience into a response he believes to be true of al I men,

he decl·ares:

Yet if I climb up to the platform of the Eifel tower1the very act of mounting give~ me a feeling of gladness; the moment is a joyous one, and also a solemn one. And in proportion as the horizons widens more and more, one's though seems to take on a large and more comprehensive cast. Similarly if everything in the physical sphere widens out, if the lungs expand more fully and the eye takes in vast distances, so too the spirit is roused to a vital activity. Optimism fil Is the mind. For a wide horizontal per-spective can deeply influence us at the ex­pens~ of I ittl~ actual troubleansn••Alpine climbers alone enjoyed the intoxication of great he i g ht,. 15

The visual expansion that comes from being 'elevated'

in the Unite lookouts, then, catalyses a psychic expansion

fig.lZ~

14.

140

fl. Thl!SC ~c Cur-l>u~icl" sct~M .. ,::1 111,1thL~1th1tic,11;

they ,u•c only dllll~1h.1blc to hum"1n intcrprc­

tution th .. ough mlln's gcornetr-ic constructions,

which in the new Muchine Age, approximate ever more closely to these mathematical purities; "Never before the advent of stee I and r.c.

had ~ur calculations got so near to nature. We have now tapp~d the very heart of the laws of matter; establ i~hed a close corres­pondence with natural forces."·

(Le Corbusier, Sur le Guartre Routes, p.22)

12, Le Corbusier, Sur le Guartre Routes,p.53)

_.,. r-l l Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow,p.184.

It fs pcrhnps.morc·thatt coincidence· that the

Ei fel tower, up which Le Corbusier would regu-

1 arl y ascend to ponder Paris and which could

thus plausibly have provided him with·a·mea­

sure on which to base the 'good height'; has its first platform at 57m. from _the ground,· a height corresponding almost to the metre to

the roof terraces of th~ Unites •. {{rj5-131,!3-Z)

15 Le Corbusier, The Radiant City, p·.106.

. :I~: • ,, .\ "

"• f ,a " . ~ 'II '-

·,,~ .. \

Sun, space, verdure : " essential joys." Through the four seasons stand the trees, friends of men. · . · ·

Great blocks of dwellings run through th.e town. What does it matter ? They are behind the screen of trees. · ·

fig. 130

141

/.3, 0

There was however a strict height I imit. of SOm set by le Corbusier

for his dwei"lings, The·reader may recall that in our earlier discussion of the Vi I le Radieuse (!iee p<ol ), le Corbusier was

shown to have glossed over this important determination without justifying it, Francois de Pierrefeu, a collaborator of Le

Corbusier in the editorship of ·the magazine 'Plans' in theThirties who writes the first section of The Home of Man volunteers the following 'reasons' for the height I imit;

How high is it reasonable to make an apartment building? Close discu~sions upon the various

.elements involved, discussions confirmed by ex­perien~e, have led urbani_sts of several countries, chief among them the U.S.A., Holland, and Germany to agree upon SO metres, say 160 feet. Beyond such a height increasing difficulties, psycholo­gical, structural, economic, would make illusory an extra gain in height. Fifty metres is about

the height of the slopes bordering the average

valley down which a river meanders; such also is the general I imit governing monas.tic foundations

that have successfully resisted the onslaught of centuries, Here is a rule then that might wel I rem~in val id in our ·times since it once more in­vites .men to think befvre they act. (Le Corbusier, The Home of Man, pp.26-27)

· Maurice Besset ascribes this height limit to le Corbu­

sier's desire to have his apartment-dwellers remain near enough to the ground to recogni:e natural features, and though le Corbusi·er never confirms this in no many words, it is a

plausible explanation of the value he placed on the tree­"Man's companion" (The Radiant City, p,41)

"The tree is an element essential to our comfort,

and its presence in the city is a sort of car .. ess,. ·a kindly thing in the midst of our seve~creations".

( le Corbusier,. The City of Tomorrow, p~237.).

Conversely, as seen from the ground, from within the spaces of the 'green city' a building SO metres hi~~ was stiJI capable

· of being screened by trees, so that ·the "severe creation.s"·would

not· dominate but would merely be a necessary counterpoise to the erabesques of greenery ( _f:J. /3,0 ·).

~

~' _L

' fig. -1.2..L_

fig. 13z

L""'i'L.

Vue du haut de ln. tour Eiffel

Vuu de la tour Eiff<>l -·---··----'-------

1n the minds of their inhabitants,~more especially of the

young who wi I I be exalted by the feeling that they dominate ~

spaceu and in whom wi I I be awakened "!'esprit d'enterprise

qui est~ l'aise dans I d u 11 es gran s espaces.

The belief in the power of the high view and of the

horizon was deeply rooted in Le Corbusier's weltaanshaung: 18

already as early as 1911, in his travel journal, he had given

espress1on to the view that that level horizon, seen under

certain conditions of I ighting, had the power not merely of

generating optimism , exaltation or enterprise but of

actually propel I ing one to a perception of the absolute ••• ~9

Je crois que !'horizontal ite du toujours m~me horizon et surtoutt en plein midi, l'uniformit~ imposante des materiaux per~us, i nstal I ent en chacun I a mesure la plus humainement perceptible de I'~ absolu. :z.o

/43

le;, Le Corbusi_er, The Home of Man, p.26.

17. Le Corbusier, Oeuvre Compl:te, Vol, l,p.112.

1$, Le ·Corbus i er' s cxper i ence of aerop I ane flig~t reinforced this "invitation to meditation" (a rapture that his boy­hood excursions up the Jura Mountains ho<l already implonted)J ofter his first

flights over South America in 1929, le Corbus i er obser~cd that: "De I' av ion

j'ai v.v des spectacles qu'on pourrait appeler cosmiques. Ouellc invitation~ la meditation, quel rappel des verit~s fondamental de notre terre~ •

(Le Corbusier, Precisions, P• 4.)

·20. Le Corbusier, Voyage d(i L'Orient,p.125. I

I?• Retracing one's steps through Le Corbu­·sier's perspective renderings of his urban projects, one notices that they ~re fnvariably drawn 'from a height' that would create a horizontal I ine out of their dwel I ing's rooftops.

Our investigation into the ev61~tion of Le Cor­

busier's housing proposals as seen against their changing'

contexts yields the fol lowing conclusions: the Unite, as

finally elaborated, is a housing option that claims major

gains for its inhabitants in respect of their relationship

with nature and their fef low-men in terms of assumptions about its symbolic power and the effects on the psyche of

the high view over green space; for these benefits to

accrui, the only contextual requirement is enough green

space. roundabout the Unite; once Unites are grouped to­

gether, this green space requirement, in practice, autho­

rizes a distancing of at least 200m between Unites which

results in a maximum nett density of 400-500 p.p .. h.!!(!,"j.133 );

a range of support systems that in the Vi I le Radieuse was

embedded in the ho-using component or surrounded it and

thereby anchored it in a specific context and helped forge

a -particular life-style has in Marsell le-Sud been with­drawn from this comp6nent and reconstituted so a~·to·for~.

. ---:.. .. -· . . . .

pa.rt of ·a larger-·st:ciled system 'irrigating' \vhole neigh-ffigl.34-) · • • -- . • • • •

bourhoods"'on a basis of compromise \111th ex1st1ng I 1festyles;

the effects of this withdrawal on the Unite were however,

never compensated for, thus leaving it with cert~in cha~ac­

teristics and weaknesses that hark back to a cocoon phase in

Le Co~busier's development long-since discarded.

The upshot is that if we·take the Marsei I le-Sud

scheme to represent the final stage in his elaborati6n

14··-i'

fig. 1 J3

a context, we are confronted with the irony that his de­

sign for the Unites of Marseille-Sud se~ves only to point

up their separability from this context as entities 1n their own right»

In view of this, it makes no sense to claim, as

have some of the c0itics quoted in the Introduction, that

justice can only be done to the Unite by appraising it as if it were part of the Vi I le Contemporaine or Vi I le Radi­

euse projects: the Boulevard Michelet Unite moreover, can­

not upon examination ~erve ~s an example of the Unite-type

s i nee, as \ve have pointed out, its over-abundant (in terms

of Le Corbusier's earlier standards) common services were

shortly to be excised under the Sector-dispensation» The

analogies that are commonly drawn between the Unite and

'total institutions' I ike the Fourierist phalanstery or,the

monastery are val id, therefore, only in r~lation to the Unite

in its Michelet form, which was a tran~itiortal one. It was

transitional also in the sense that Le Corbusier was contin­

ually making selective modifications to its structural system

as wel I as to the DU plans and its 'ideal' number of inhabi­

tants stabi I ized only in the mid-Fifties at 2000 people when

additional DUs appropriated the space formerly occupied by

the mid-building common services» It was, furthermore, only

in his last Unite, at Firminy (1963) that Le Corbusier ironed

out some of the prototype's most Berious design shortcomings.

The notable strengths that were a feature of the housing

of the Vi I le Contemporaine and the Vi I le Radieuse -- the generous

DUs of the former (which compensated for the loss of ground-contact,

·14,

private open space and 'loose fit' generalJ·y associated with

a~private house) and the breadth of vision of the latter

(which compensated for a tighter DU by augmenting ·the home

with closely inter-woven supplementary systems that combined

to promote a new I ife-style) are not in evidence in the

Unite;

Further Le Corbusier's uncompromising insistence upon

the Unite~ superiority to traditional suburban housing begins

to look somewhat less convincing when set against the low-ri~e

medium-density housing element included in the Marsei I le-Sud

scheme. This aspect of Marsei I le-Sud, in fact, constitutes

a chaflenge to the entire raison d'etre and alleged indispen~

sabil ity of the Unite as a type, a challenge whose seriousness

may readily be guaged when we consider that if the density of

the"maison fami I iale" component were to be raised by only

50 p.p.h. from 250 p.p.h. to 300 p.p.h., it would be possible

to abolish al I the Unites of Marsei I le-Sud without having to

concede any increase at al I in the project's overal I area.

Alternatively, if we were to replace the Unites with the

"maison fami I iales" at the den~ities recommended by Le Cor­

busier, it would be necessary to increase the total land area

of the project by only 20% which, since pedestrian-transvers~

abi I ity of the city has in any case been forfeited while the

vehicular infra-structure remains wel I-articulated, there is

not I ikely to be much overload on the scheme's 7-V system.

The density differential between the 'maison fami I iale'(250

p.p.h.) and the Unites (SOOp.p.h.) is seen, therefore, to be

considerably less significant than might at first sight ha~e

J4C.

appeared. The general principle unde~lying the whole of

this argument is that really dramatic gains in compaction

with respect to gross residential area can only be achieved

in the lower ranges of the density scale. (fr$-13 )

The gains in green space brougft about by the Unites

of Marsei I le-Sud, are seen, upon examination, to be of ques­

tionable vlaue; they,lay themselves open to the cwiticism

voiced (as a fear) by Le Corbusier himself in the course of

a discussion on the Vi I le Contemporaine in The Radiant City:

I was fi I led with a great anguish lestthe immense open spaces that I was creating in ourimaginary city, spaces dominated by the wide sky on al I sides, should be "dead" spaces I was afraid that they would prove ful I only of boredom, and that the inhabitants of such a city would be seized by panic at the sight of so much emptiness., 2.1

At Marsei I le-Sud the green space is essentially visual green

space which comes to I ife 6nly in the eye of the man-behind-

the-window a Le Corbusier's careful removal of the

Unite from any relationship with nodes of activity and his

conscious neutralization, through the use of pi lotis~f~ts , ..

activity-generating potential at ground level are auguries

of.green space that wi I I be not only excessive and 'boring'~

but given the realities of the urban situation, also quite

unsafe.

Assuming, nonetheless, that a 'sufficient' amount of

open green space is needed within the housing context as

communal space, and assuming furthermore, that a degree of

\ "t /

'.21. le Corbusier, The Radiant City, P• 10'7

Land needed for housing 1,000 people at various densities

Gross Net Population Population Housing Total Land density density Land Requircmcntst p.p.a. p.p.a. (acres) (acres)

20 24 42 50 30 40 25 33 40 59 17 25 50 83 l2 20 60 115 8·6 16·6 · 70 159 6·3 14·3 80 222 4·5 12·5

!Assuming 8 acres per 1,000 people for other land uses (sec footnote to para. S). -·

fig. 135

( I'"""'-' 1112€:5fO[::Wf:1cJ... Ma.$ ,; k!JC,.w pt;-vt,J(,~ It; H.M..S.O. p~GC«.-.)1 fS'.<.,o; L~~ 191,5)

14-S

Land saving as density increases (acres)

17 8 5 3·4 2·3 1 ·S

compaction is regarded as justified in order to limit the

city's spread, these are desiderata that would seem to be

quite capabte of fulfilment by the low-rise, medium-density

component Le Corbusier came up with in Marse ii le-Suds At

the same time, a resolution along these I ines offers some

of the fami I iar advantages of detached DUs such as: owner­

ship or private open space, 'a greater I ikel ihood of indivi­

dual identification with the home-as-turf, privacy between

DUs,a degree.of flexibility as regards possible alterations

to the DU both inside and out, the pol icing of public open

space through the DUs closer association with paths and

routes, a wider variety of options than is generally available

in apartments for regulation of the public/private interface,

immediate access to car and garage, a scale compatible with

the traditional housing fabric, and so on.

It is gain; such as these that (outwardly at least)

are closerto the hearts of most peopl~ than gains of the

iind Le Corbusier envisaged the Unjt~ as conferring~ It is

obvious however, that there comes a density break-point be­

yond which the above-mentioned gains are increasingly compro­

mised in any low-rise high-density project on account of the .. closing

1nof the building-environment and the escalating diffi-

culty of retaining good vehicular access to DUs. This break­

point appears at present to be roundabout 500 p.p.h.(200p.p.aa)

It may be argued therefore, if residential amenity be

indeed our first consideration, that densities for family hous­

i~g:at any rate, shou1d generally not ~xceed the figure of 500

f4-'j

p.p.h. and in the case of low-rise, medium-density Chousing

should not be ~uch more than half of that. It fol lows

on this basis that where we have a Unit~-type with a density

no greater than 500 p.p.h., as is the case at Marsei I le-Sud,

it wi I I need to offer most of the advantages noted above0

(or surrogates for them),advantages which are characteristic

of low-density housing in order to justify itself. But even

high-rise structures with densities in the order of 1000 p.p.h.

(400 p.p.a.), which would be a response to particular situations

of exceptional opportunity -- comercial, cultural or scenic -­

where a fixed location for very large numbers of people would

be warranted, even such bui I dings if they presume to offer

family accommodation(~ wi I I need considerably to upgrade the

so-cal led 'average' or 'standard' apartment which most of them

currently boast if housing that is raised up in the air is to

'make sense' and is to be viable and acceptable as family

habitation.

150

TABLE I I d AREA PER PERSON FOR PROJECT'S D

..... ~ .. ,·,······················ :,:,:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:·

....... ' ...... . ............... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. ... . . . ..... . Io o'' o, •••''' ••

DU

DU

DU

(IN M2

)

WELLING UNITS

nett area

+ Double Volume

+ Double Volume + Private Open

Space

···-------·-------------

- - --VILLA SCAWOB -- - - ... ·-- -·- - -

1~10 VI L LA AU soi,rn Mtt<

1919 TROYES -

MSN MONOL ICJ20 CITROHAN I ----1922

---

ViTLA VAUCRESSON MSN,, OZENFANT VILLE CONTEMP. I MM II V I L LAS I CITROHAN I I MSN. ARTISTE WUt< Kt.t< ::, ti::, t. a MS~. [AR/ JEAN

1921 / PARENT'S HOOSE--~ l<J24 MSN. RAMBOULLET

MSN. LIPSHITZ/MIEST MSN. ARTISANS HQUSl~G,. LFGE

ICJ2C, PESSAC CITE UNIVERSITAIRE VILLA MEYER PLAN "VOISIN" IMM. VILLAS II (REDENT) IMM. VILLAS I I (COURT) LOT. AUDINCOURT LOT A LVEO LES

1926 MSN. ARTISTE SOUL. MSN. COOK MSN. GUIETTE MSNS .. MINIMUM

1927 VILLA GARCHES I W-HOF CITROHAN TYPE I W-HOF MINIMUM TYPE I I ~1SN. PLAINEX µIls VILLA A CARTHAGE

VILLE D'AVRAY IMMa V .. WANNER IMM. POUR ARTIESTES I MM. LOCA TI F VILLA SAVOIE

1929 "MA MA I SON'' URB. MONTEVIDEO IJRB. SAO eAULO URB. RIO URB. B. AIRES PORTE MAILLOT ... MSNS. LOUCAEUR MSN A BRUXELLES

I""'°' nA\/ c--111 C"C" r

0 IO •I -19 - _39 -- -~ 40_ - so 6,0

; :

'i I .I I I

I : I ··- - ·-

: :::::: =~:::{::::i:::: I

I

i :: :::::. - .. . . . I

-==· ::::: ::::::: . .. .

-!

:::::~

..

.... . . . .

I

.. . . . .

iffl:::i::tt :::::: ... ...

. ·.·.·.

....

888 II

I

TABLE I I d

MSN A BRUXELLES !1930 PAV. SUISSE

IMM. CLARIE:

-

AREA PER PERSON (IN M2

) I V lilA MAN DRfil

URB. A LG I ER 'A' VILLE RADIEUSE

1-.+-i I I I

FOR PROJECT'S DWELLING UNITS •

Pl89888888H88W

·fl"··························· :•:•:•!•!•!•!•!•!•!•!•!•!•!·

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

DU nett area

MSN. ERRAZ. CHILI 1932 IMM. LOC. ZURICH

EXPCf-'37 PROJ. A 1933 IMM. P. MOLITOR

URB. BARC. HMACI~" I UR 8-.._GE}.! E.~ ~ =-:-;-;-----+-+-+-+-+--+--+-~f----+-+-!--1--1

URB. STOCKHOLM UR s-; ANVERS

,...\ ---PET~ MSN "- ALG_ERI ;~~:::::f: ::· r DURAND ALGER

MSN. LOC. ALGER. :::~ ...

DU + Doub I e Vo I ume~ VI A DUCTS A LG~B_ i RENTENa ZURICH . ' -

==~== ;•;

I LQIIS. BARCELONA N:!~···1.1.1 1g34 URS. NEMOURS ~-' __ I MM. LOC. P Afffs-- .

!, •• '

1 3 S_Ms N ,. Au MA Tl~°Es I I I I I · 1 I I I I I I I MSN. WEEKEND . I I I

DU + Double Volume1---~UR~B--:-ITT:"rmc~-+ P • t o -RB~-cnr-·---+---+--f----+

riva e pen IMM. RUE FABERT Space IMM. NEMOlJRs______ ---1-+ _ _,___

MSN. CHICAGO !1936 URB. RIO 11

ILOT INSAL NO 6 PLAN PARIS

, .. ~ 1 1932 MSN. JAOUL

I EXPO I DEAL HOMES --t-+-l--+--t-t-~---+--

1238 PONT DE ST. CLOUD URB. BUENOS AIRES

1 9 3 9--s~T AT. Ros co f'r-----+1--+-i --11-+1---+1 ·-+-~·--+--+--~+- -

MSN,, ARUNDEL 1----~P-LACE MA IR IE

STAT. SPORTS VARS 1-'-------"--'-~--=--.c

MSN. M.A.S. -1-Q4-0-~~LA~NNEM CONTREM

.LANN EM I NGEN !EUR MSN. MURONDIN RES. PEYRIS:~N. AFRIC~

~:;:

:;:

1942 CJJ E LI N .. I NnTDTTIOS..-,1-.----l1'----+1-+-1 +1 -+-1 --11---1--1-+--1 +1--1--1 -+l----+1--1--1 --111

IQL!.4 PLAN DIRECT. ALGER UNITE HAB. TRANS. t

---- ·-----~-----.,..,,.---· --- ·--- ------ - ,,-------~-- ... -··-----·-

TABLE I I d AREA PER PERSON (IN M2)

FOR PROJECT'S DWELLING UNITS

!88B88888888I

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:.:.:•:•:•:•:•:•>:•:•:•:,:,:, .·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.···<

DU nett area

DU + Double VolumE

DU + Double Volume + Private Open

Space

LOGIS PROVH TRANS. URB. ST. DIE

I 94.'i URB. ST. GAUDENS URB. ST. GAUDENS IIR~A_ ROCH .. IPA_LL. URB._LA ROCH./PALL. UNITE MARSEILLES

IOAI') IINITF MAR~EILLES ·>>. •.·.·.

1947 MARS.-VEYRE UNITES ANTHONY 7-V STUDIES

1248 ST,. BAUME A • .· .. ·. - •!•·>

ST. BAUME B URB. IZMIR 'ROQ' A Ill(;:;: 'ROQ' B 'ROB'

J0,1Q MSN. CURRUTCHET IQc;Q MSN. FUETER

URB. BOGOTA 1951 URS. MARSEILLES-SUD

UR"E:rtiAR~ E I L LtS-::; uu CHAND~ MASTER PLAN IINITES STRASBOURG -~: IQ'i2 UNITE NANTES •·.· .. •.· MSN. JAOUL PEON'S HSE. CHAND. AHMED 3 VILLAS CAB. CAP-MARTIN

1953 LATOURETTE IQ'i'i VILLA SARABHAI 1956 VILLA SHODAN

UN I TE BERLIN 1qc;7 MSN. RURALES LAGNY

UNITE MEAUX :: : UNITE BRIEY UNITE 'CAMPING' CAP-MAR\TIN

~V. BRESIL . 8 ORB. BERLIN

~fTES-WfT"!l RENAULI

·-

I

...

:;:;:;. . . . . . . .

I

* web-like, 'carpet' prototype

• row-house prototype .A. single or paired house prototype

• high-rise_prototype ________ _

1914 DOMINO : ai -riin,----vinA-SCFl\l'CI~---- --- - __ ,_

~~~1{~71rr [@LT/iL__ :_ ---t--=-=--i.§tr~9_1fO]:__ _ Ir= .J.9'.!Q.._i;;JJJUl\N _ _L_ · 1.2_2:! VILLA VAl1CIIE$SON

-· - - --~fSN-;--oiENFANf ___ _ V f[fE -C,)NT(~fp~

-----1MM ,_.Y.__I_J_l.A~ T------i ___ CJ.IRQJJA!'Lll,=------+--1'1--4--

MSN. AIUISH -. --·-woR i::ws- ·irs·~. ---·--+---!"' ----MSN:--[AlflJEAW T91.rLl'AR£~P~s -,:1Q_u~c-· --- · ill.A____ MSN, _RAMROULLET ____ _ ____ MSN ,_LJPSII I fljJif.ESJ ___ J\SN ,_AlfUS_ANS __ _

1225 ~~~~-}gG_,. _LEGL_ __ ~r---~11-~~~trH~:~. TA '~+l~

IMM,VILLASII REDENT __ --:,IM~f. VILLAS ,-,- COURT~-~-+-+-+-!

-- t§}· A~~~bt~~Ulff . !926 MSN, AllTISTE 801/-~l.---P•~-1--+ ----~jS.li.____CO_QJC____ _ __ ___ MSN ,yU I ETTE _____ -+-+,..+-+-,

MSNS, MINIMI/M ·• I 12-=?.Z...--i!Mf,-g-1'i~gti{rrnr-E --H ---w:1rnri1 If.JI MUWTYPt i.

l9is=1If~t-b{HnxG_F 1 =1 ___ VI UE D 'AVRAY .,c------'--t--i--+--+-

1 ~J"!__._','_,_W1\_N_N_EJ~ 1 ___ .,_,,LMH .. __ f:_QUR __ AIU I ESH'- ,

IMM, LOCATIF .• 1

----vn:LA --si\VbTE .·- -1 l!f29-.r,;,-oiiiTSON'' l ---1m lf~·-mwrrYi n £0 ___ .LJRB.__SAO P_AULQ -+-- _J -----'URB-L-BJ_O___ I __ ___,wrn_._!l_.JLR~.s 1 ,

PORTE MAILLOT _, i ~lStl$__,_~QU_C[i!;__UR l_,__,

-,---6-----~~l}--\5if~~~li_ES I ' -fil __ 1H11-:-cIAkfr__ •+-- _

VI I I A MAN DROJ._·----->--'-' t'--'-_.

-~1f-clkxbf~ni~' •,--Y ·---·- MSN, -ERRAZ, CHILI 'i932-I MM; LOC, zu- RI CH.-~---1,--+! ----- - 1·; -. -- . oJ ---· -- -

T9JJ -~{t-i1~-~~'.t~\i~~~-n--~i- -~ ___ urrn~clt-lf. v-E --- --i-.__.:-

u,rn. STOCKHOLM ; ~-~NITRr , --

u .. ;-,aac, , I ~ii~~~i~~!n:~ -·: -~ m-r-1JR1f;-11tM\lliUS , . ----n.A'Mr-w,;orcQs-r----- -_..,. ,Ct • - ____ ..lfiffi, miv-, 21110 en ________ JMJ.I, ~U,lC_, __ PAI: I~ -------j--!-1--1-f 935 MSN. All MA rnrs ------1--4--1-- -

Onn9itins mcnsured in DUs per acre

i~~~"''. ··01g1P:1sf~ff;sc;e1nt= I 22_YJ.L.!A _VAO,HSSO~ ....L. µ

MSN OZENFANT - -~ --VILLE-CONTEMP~

_JJ.1M; vrcrrs--r , 1 , 1

__c_fJJ{._Q./i_,\N I I I 1 MSN. ARTISTE I I

----woR KE!srs-Hsr.;- '- - - --,1- - 1 -~lS-N~-uirnEAN_____ - -.----+---l---+--i-+--+--+;-i--

13 7-15,\l{f.NT3f)-j_QJJ:;';(==-----I-~'---: :- - -- -- -----~+- - .. I

I 2 MSN, RAMBOULLET I ,__ __ Msr:l:-ITPS1TfTZ/J.ffEst-- '-'-'-·- -· -=--~ -,_ -· --1--~ 1l----

__ _}1Sli,JRIJ.$__,\NS_ -rl--'--____ _JfQUS_ll'lG-1.E.G[__ _ _ _ . I 2L___P_!::~~AC___ •11 __ --+-+- _ ~ittA~~ffi,~IMKE -+- · 1---+-+-j··-+---

>-----'i~~:jgg~~~~j! L I Q2o-MSN, ART I STE BCUI., ----+-l-+--+--+--+-+--+-+--l--+---+--+--+-+---1---+-+--1-­

,__ __ .~IS ti J_9_Q t:_ . __ -+-+-1--1-4-1---+-+--+--+---l-+--1---~J.\S NJJJ LF;lJE _______ 1----1__.__._.-1--1--:>---+-..--+--l--.;_--J--.--;.--i---+---+---+-

--~l1S ~!?.dllJl..JJHJ~1 -- - _..___ 1927 VILLA GARCHES

1----·-_-w-=HOF -c"nkoliAN1Yf>i: -w:Fmrm N nwr.rTYPr-=----1---1-1-1-~-+--1-~+--+-+---1-1--1-+-+---+-+-+--

2L.fl_~l.lt~gHA G£__ _ , 1------'-v J J,.J-L!l.:M'RM'------1--l--1--1--1---+--4---1---1--1--1,-1---+--+-+---4 -+-,--;­

HIM, V, WANNER 1-----'l}JM_, POUIL~Jn ,·~E-s=TE--S--l---l--l--!--l----l---+--.--__ --1---+--+--1~,---+~--l- I -

IMM, LOCAT IF -VTlTAsAVOIE____ ,

2g---"f.fA-iirATSON',- , 1 I , R!f;)lOlfftYT1ffi5 i I · 1 ---m~g:=jfg:=e~uTo_____ '-- - ; : ++·:-

___ JJEJh_!l__,_AfRt;_s 1 1 1

PORTE MAILLOT ' I 1 - MSNS, LOUCH EUR - I T i

MSN A BRUXELLES ; • ! I [JQ__J'A'L,_fill.l_SS~ ,-~- • , I ;

__JMf.l..___cJ..ARJL I i l

1-----'-L.l.LU\A.tillRQI .__ .---+· I t URB. ALGIER 'A' I I !

1---~VILLE RADIEUSf

19 r-¥-~~-;{S~~-~-i(f~~+~~ I l ·1 i I I-+++ I I I I I I I : I __ EXPO ')z __ PIWJ. _A

I ~i~~::AR~~~!,-~~~IA" .,,_,.i.---r:1 _J_ Ll ·_-r-1_ LLL ~ ,__ __ URB ,_GfJiEYr:---1-------;IJRR, STOCKHOLM ___ _

l,,u 1il)r., 1n 11 a

. FU14ClU:DllIJSr-JIii"\• OU¥, ZUIClClf__==t-1=/-I· -1-j:-·ti-tt-t= 1----:.,0m.-:-~~oc-. ~P~RJ.$. 1--++ -1--1- I I I I l--1-

101( U~M All UA'TUl:'"C"

D no direct ground-contact

a di rcct ground-contact

4 ilssoc i ated dwe I I i ngs v------ ·----·-·--····------· V apartment dwel I ings A single dwel_l ings __

* contradiction

a intermediate 0 ----

r--l:~:-:rg~: ~A:nt~-=--=·~+-H--++-f · f + r·

'.i,.-.-.---···....-· ,.......,,.. ........ ·-·-·"!.---------·-- I MM• ~U,'!C , .. PAR I$ __ ---· l.9.J.5 ____ f1SN,,._ Alf MAJ!!~~------'--·'

MSN, \\El Kr.Nil --·--ww;··11cL1.oc01nff·---- ~-- ··· ·--··111w.-vAU.[[.ZUN _________ .Wi - ----·-··1~1M:·1rnCFAHEIH_____ ·--. --·-··1MM-:·Nrnou1:s · ···--··--· ___ ~iSN_, Cl.I I CAGO -----12.36 lllifl, 1110 11 -·- I LOI· 1NSAL. NO o-····

PLAN PAIIIS -·--·-.!.9}t __ HSN ,_.,JAOU_[.,__ .. _ ...

EXPO I DEAL IIOMl:S ---m+ =-----11~;~~g~1~:~t2~1~=L=ti-i-

-·Msk-:-,;r~UNDEc·--···-·--PLACE MA IR I c------f-1--1--

;.:._ si°Ar.,_SPOIITS VAIIS-- -·

1 MSN.M,A,S,. . ... 19.4.Q __ LAN.~ fJ,l_COl'fl:RE~I_ _. ______ __:_ . ~-· ... ______ lAN!:iOLJNGENJl;.IJR_ _ '

iISN, MURONll IN 194z--·11Es:-P(Yiffs·.-N--:-iCT'RlCA ---- CTlTT w.--TNDTJS-r.-· ~-4--__,.,1-..

PLAN DIRECT, ALGER -19,-4-4--'uN°!iEJAB;~:rn ANS::;_-_--+--1--l'!'!!I ___ lOGJS. rr.rn.Y ..... IRAN:$_. ___ ~--i-

. IR!l, ST. DI E ll_4.L_Jll{ll..1. SL GAUDENS __ --la!..lllli ___ lll.Hl ,. ST, __ GAlJlllEN$ __ __ _...u,rn._ ... LA.Jrnctt. PALJ,., __

--- :J~lIE L~A~~~~ L{~~ Lh__~.--1---1-+--1

194.6-.UN.IILll.ARS.LI..L......,· '------l--+--1-1-1 I 947 MARS , - VE YR E ... CTT------+-+-f-1--.

UN I TES ANTHON ___ zt..;:;-V_Htm I ES ·.:..:...:..-~--f--!-.+--f--, 19-4.L_ .. sJ.._fl~lJ./.lf_A _________ _

Sl, HAUME B --- lllW, -, ZM 1=R-=-----..+--.--1-i.~

'flOO' A ---,, ROO' Bi--------+-1-+-'l-l

----; iioil··-·~--~-------l-----4--i--1-19.4.9~1sK;· CURRUTCHET ---- __ _ J..9.i.Q __ I1S~._.(U_E UB --+--1-~--1

UI/B, HOGOT A rfs1···-11iiil;-~1Am;t iTtts-=-srm--'- - • -----uRs:··1,fARSETTCts::suo -­

c11AN11, MAST(R l'L1\N --··-· UNJf.E.S.=::S.IR.ASB.Q..llJiG·-·- -· - -· -~ lliL.Jlt-JJJ.fJ.,:\~JES . __

MSN, JAOUL --·-·1;E6iif7 SfiS c:-·-c1/lifflr:--- - -. --·--MfMto·rvTLTAS ---· - .

cMr;·cAP:.-lrfAF~i' 1N -•- -l]IJ=l}i.J:..01,JRtTff ________ -·- -· 195.5._ VI I.LA SARABHA l'-----f-+-+-+-1956 VILLA SHODAN ---UlffJ.CBfff[ffr... . ---+--1--1--1-.

!.9..5L ..... }1SN, RllRAl[S LAGNY ___ _JJNJ T E_ME;AUX ..... -----'1--+­

___ UN I TE BRIEY ----·-·-· UNITE 'CAMPING' CAP-MAR --·rAv:·1rntsTL _____ _

~ur.n-:-non1rr-- -r959-uN irrs-·w1rn "RENAU[T T%r-·uNlTrTrRMINY~'--.::.=~==-4--L-1.l-J1-J-1-__

TABLE 11 a

PROTOTYPICAL HOUSING --------· ·--·-·-·-----··-----

~

Q ~:~Wi.J~~~H _:: ·:: _: -· .... -,-. - :i · MSN. ll'(EKEND ---- - - -· -· • f -urrn·.-·11ru-oc01.mr-- 1m 111-· __ .,_,_,_......_....._.. __ , _ _,_ __ ~_ : 1

URB-:-v'An.E:rz1rn-- · - 1 1 t ... ---,~m:-·RuCfABERT .. ·-- r t---iM~i~-irrnouRs·--··--'-'- ..... ·-· -- ·· ·- ·•- - - ·--~·-!....+.-, b--,.,sJ.r:--ciTitAco -- --.--+-t-µ.23.Q__IJF.B ! .BJ O_ I I ... .... _ tr , I LOT INSAL NO()'.° . -- I T r-·--PLAN-PARIS ... I I

~~7 -_J;Js·N~ .. A.o~TI..... ·-•-EXPO I DEAL HOMES --'-- - .. '-· - - .... -· ,_,_ .• -·· -- ..

~

PONT DE ST. CLOUD____ ... .. --· -t--t---1.i1(S:-B[iENOS:f1Rrs--- = =-·-=-.. - -- ..... -'- - = - -....... '""' ··+-l-­

snT:-Ro\;col'r· -

~

~fsN:-Mru~DE1-·-·----+-++-+-l-+-+-+-+-j........l,-l--+-r-1-PI.AcC MA°flfr E '---

~=20Rrs VARS +tjy 11 ~9.,1_0 --~~~'1{f~6~irmi------=.=,=. --- -~-'H :-+ ' t-

'ANN FM J NGEN I EUR ~--,__,_ 1-r" : HOME Of MAN FORMULATION P.63 '--'- ---1-..L-..... - • . -IT9iiZ--Jr£S;"Pnrrrs:,:--m'Tn '-----'CnrT fN":""1 ~[DTJ::, 1 • 1 1 ...._ • .

1 _ P°CANDIR~AL~ER .L.I. -1---lil4.4...........llJJ_LliAB, TRANS, _ ~. • 1 ·--r-. O.GJS .eR.QY.,....IRANS. _ 1 1--:-____ _.,.Ull B .......... s.r • D I E 1 - 1 -' 194 5 llR!J., .... H..,_G_;\J!DENS • ·- . I -y-'-----"lll,(!i.JL__GAUDE~_S .. 1 .1 ' __ _.uR B..,__1.A_RO.CH2£AJ..1 .. _ IQ 1 --~u&e... __ lA_R.9J:tl.,/.hU1..__ . . .. _. ... . L. · .J.9A~~tlliltl:~ • • • !!l!f! ... - !' : · rs .: 1947 MARS,-VEYll.f: ~ ~ Ill a,'- : I

f------lllb'JlE.S_.~fil.HON y I H. __ :: . .J ' ~ 7-V STUDIES I 1 ... -1-, -1948 SJ......jl_t\(JME A

+·Ill+-+----"7S;T. BAUME B URB, IZMIR 'ROO' A

,---~RO~ I I

I B.9 ... li.'... I I t..1...24..,..-.,.g __ MSl:!..._GU.~R.llTCHET , 1f--l!95.Q__'1SN.....£.Y{HR I I

11951 ~~~~;-~-~-~-~nLLEs=suo--!I~ =--~ I ; : ~URB:r.fi\RSETCT.TI::sun--- ·= I ...,-,-

~

~-Fflfilclf]l~~(j~~~~ ,.._ · . .,. ·:-=r= Jl.L~_ANTES I i N. JAOUL I f oE~ ~J:t.~J ..... _.91rAN o • · · · -· , 1 1

1-----<.i\J:!M_f;_D.......3 .YJ_l,_LAS 1-+-

b_ru~~~fot~~r~~RTI N 1 • ;

e55 VIL!,A._$.All·A·BHAI I i 6 VILLA SHODAN I :-:::W..lIOl.F:KUN___ T

J..251...__MSN. RURALES LAG~Y

~+H-~tt~~---- __ffif I 1 :r:1=tt1ff · · ~}E\~~~MPING' CAP-MAR(u r1n , , I , , , I

I ~-umr:-13tR I. IN !T959·-uwrrrs-1;rirn·REmurr -· · · · , , 1.1_~4... __ IMQ:.tFTR~ ___ JJ _l J_ Li±l:iJ_t.LU_tJ_liJ ·-

.L

TABLE 11 b NETT HOUSING DENSITIES

'==. _JPIO'I, __ ,,,.,._, _l.iil\1\.11 ____ ~~--...l- ..... - . tl· t-· h-=-::-..,._---,.---:IMH• .I.QC, l'AR.l .. i ____ ..... [_ . __ _

!.9J.L-~~-:-t~t~:~g~5---- !+- - 11 ,- .....

,----wrn--;,1ctlOCOUlff ___ ...J .... V- - ·-p -·-1----imf:-RtlE-rABERT _____ - ·-1i,- -- 0 - ....

-·--·-~\tf ~-fi~rg~[;~·-·-·-··-=-...-: i +-=-,:. ·· ~ J=

tiiicv1t]iJ}t£l\o (, ~R;== ~ ~ t' EPLAN PARIS_ _ __ ) ··--J..2.;lJ __ M_SN_._JAQ_UL__ _ ~A·- ... ··- ....... 0,. .... ~,! ~1,i~!1.!!!s_~~?~~-- --- ·: .v... - - : ~ ~:~

~r~~:im¥-- =4· -~1--c o-­~-~Hi!=1~~H~-v ~Rs - ·= ~rY === 81+

___ MSN,M.A.S. -------i•t ......... __ .. Di .... ... ;lQ._ LANNEM_CONrnEM ------,·/- ___ ...... n1f' _ _1.AN.NE . .M.JNGENJ [UR_ __ ,+t-+-t.--0 -

1942--l~~ -: ~g-i~~~~~N~AFRTcr tc-·Hl+-f-1---rr...1 £ U .. 1G":.:.lliQ!-!.S 1 , 41 ±51' lI-l!J

P~_,\N_QJ REQ.I_, {\~~-ER ~I f-· -- Cl'-r..i;• :,L_Jl!<UL.!!AedRANS. . ~- -~CC

1----,l.OGJ.S .. J'L@'..,....rn..tiNs..._l~ _i_ I!"'_--= ...... ___ .,.11,[IB.._S.1..........!LLL ____ !J,. ~L "·- g -

IA5__llfill...L....S..J.,-9.A\1PI_N~ A_ _iY.j_ ~r- Q __ _,l,JR_e._,,_fil,. GAl!!.J]EN$ _____ >- . ..J""J-,-,- Cir- _ 1----..u"Rli .. _LA....ROCII, J'.AU., __ ,- 'v'i~-e--.-~+ --~~'tl~1;iarffi-~l, __ --~~- ---- Q/-=t=

l .6--1lliilLMARSLLLL.E.S ...1... I MARS,-VEYIIE 19 DI

-~~~_:1_1!tr . -! I -~~26·;-.Lf .!:UR ~ D -

._---,'°"Roo·-a-· · · ---~6~· ~ !--~ 19..4~1.S.t-i ... _CUEll_Uli!!.ET A C) __ 1.9..5.Q __ MS_t:l..._fJ!EJJ:;II __ I~ -+··- ---· 1951 8~t-f1~%~~:.1nts-=-su1r·- ~- ~~- ..... --g -* ---Tllrn·;···MARSn rrrs=sufl·-- ·- - · = -- -

~

c°fTANri;-°t,iASTLICPLA,f ___ ,__ t ...... -

---}fill}fj~{~~jl_Q!Jj{I; ____ ~= ;1:.=~ -8 .-= J MSN, JAOUL A · • ···-···-,--· -mfID-- -·,-1- ··r-··- --~~~~0~r~nt~h;..-·-:·-== 5- ·- --

l,;7'f·--[.,..-rournTrc-· ··-~ ·· ,.._ ·--- -+-·- -

~iHHrfl~ntT' ·!' __ ,_ ,----~ -1 1957 s~~.:i~~lEtl~JAGNY .:. . iv

08:j~

__ .......,YN..!T_E_}1J;~UX___ "?.-. _. 1

_

---~ll=N,...,I T_E..Jl.!U EJ ...... l._ ...... 2' D 1_ ~ UNITE 'CAMPING' CAP-MAR Ii I

---PAV:-til~tS IL - - rv D :~-URB-:--Rrnuir-- - ....... ~ T9scr-nN rrrs· WHH °RrnAm:r--- -'il,- - - 0 - -ff!T64-0N1Ti:FTRMTNY -~ - - - or-~- --~-~~~-1

TABLE II C

~WELL! NG TYPE / GROUND C~NTAC!J

-

S: E L E C T E D

BOOKS'"

Abrams, Charles,

Abrams, Charles,,

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

The City is the Frontiers (New York: Harper and Row, 1965)

Housing in the Modern World. (London: Faber and Faber,1966) I Alexander,

Article Christopher~· The City as a Mechanism for Sustaining Human Contact -in Environment for Man: The next fifty years, ed. Wi I I iam J. Ewald.

. Aregger, Hans and Otto Glaus,

Architektur, 1967) High Rise Bui I dings and Urban Design. (Zurich:

Banham, Reyner,. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. (London: Architectural Press, 1960)

Banham, Reyner, Guide to Modern Architecture. (London: Architectural Press,1962)

Banham, Reyner, The Architecture of the Wei I-Tempered Environment. (London: Archi­tectural Press, 1968)

Bauer, . Catherine, Modern Housing,.

Benevolo, Leonardo, Origins of Modern Town Planning,. (London: Routledge and Paul Kegan, 1967)

Besset, Maurice,

Besset, Maurice,

New French Architectures (London: Architectural Press, 1968)

Who was Le Corbusier,. (Geneva: Skira, 1968)

Bel I, Gwenn and J 11 Tyrwhitt (ed.), Pelican, 1972)

Human Identity in Urban Environment.(Middlesex:

Blake, Peter, The Master Builders. (London: Go( lancz, 1960)

Boudon, Phi Ii r,pe,

Broady, Maurice, Science, 1968)

Lived-in Architecture. (London: Lund Humphries, 1972)

Planning for People. (London:National Counci I for Social

Bury, JaP11T11, France 1814-1940. (London: Methuen, 1954)

Cantacuzino, Sherban, Great Modern Architecture. (London: Studio Vista,1966)

Carey, Lynette and Roy Mapes, The Sociology of Planning.(London: Batsford,1972)

Cate, Curtis, 1971)

Ant6ine de Saint Exupery: His I ife and times. (Lo~don: Heinemann

Chermayelf, Sergei and Christopher Alexander, Community and Privac~. (Middlesex: Penguin, 1966)

Choay, Francoise, Le Corbusier. (Brazi II ier, n.d.)

Conrads, Ulrich, Programmes and Manifestoes on Twentieth Century Archictecture. (London: Lund Humphries, 1970~

Co I Ii ns, Peter, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture. (London, Raber~ 1965)

C~eighton, Thbmas Hawk (ed.), Bui I ding for Modern Man - a Symposium (Princeton: University Press, 1947)

Evenson, Norma, Le Corbusier: The Machine Age and The Grand Design. (London: Studio Vista, nsd11?)

Ewald, Wi I I iam R11 , Envi~onment and Change: The Next Fifty Years. (Bloomingt~n: Indiana University Press, 1968)

Fourier, Charles, Textes Choisir~ (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1953)

Fry, Maxwel I,

Fry, Maxwe I I,

Fine Bui ldin9it (London: Faber, 1944)

Art in the Machine Age. (London: Methuen, 1969)

Gans, Herbert, J. i

Giedion, Siegfried,

People and Pl ans.(Middlesex: Penguin, 1972) . .

A Decade I::if New Architecture 11 (Zurich: Girsberger, 1951)

Giedion, Siegfried,

G1edion, Siegfried,

Giedion, Siegfried, University Press,

Walter Gropius (London: Architectural Press,1954)

Architecture, you and me. (Harvard: University Press,1958)

S~ace, Time and Archite~ture. (Cambridge Mass., Harvard 19 7)

Goodman,: Paul, Communitas"' (New York: Vintage Books, 1947)

Gutman, Robert, People and Bui !dings. (New York: Basi~ Books Inc., 1972)

Hoffman, H. One Family Housing: ~SoJution to the Urban Di lemma. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1967)

G.B= Housing and Local Gov. Ministery of residential areas and higher density, . Planning Bui letin No.2a (London: H.Mas~o., 1962)

Howard, Ebenezer, Garden Cities of Tomorrow= (London: Faber, 1898)

International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM 0

5) "Logis et Loisirs". (Pa~is: L'Architecture d'A~jourdhui, 1938)

International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM 8) "The Heart of the City". ' (London: Lund Humphries, 1952)

Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Middlesex: Penguin, 1964)

Jacobus, John, Twentieth Century Architecture 1940-196i.

Joedick~< Jurgen, A History of Modern Architecture.(London: Architectural Press 1959).

Johnson, York:

Phi 11 ip, C., and H.R. Hitchcock, Norton, 1966) ·

The International Style~ (New

Jones, Owen, The Grammar of Ornament. (London: Cenaritch, 1868)

Jordan, Robert Furneaux, Le Corbusier. (London: Dent, 1972)

Kaufman~ Emi I, Three Rev~lution~ry Architects- Soul l~e~ Ledou~ and Leguien. (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1952.)

Kopp, Anatole,

Kamenka, H.

Town and Revolution. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1970)

Flats (London: Lockwood, 1947)

Katz, Robert, lntensitv of Development and liabi I itv of Multi-family Housin Pro,jects. (Washington D.C., Federal Housing Administration, 1963'

L~ Corbusier (Charles Edouard Jeanneret) ,Vers Une Architecttre (Collection de · !~Esprit Nouveau, Paris: Cres, 1923.)Translated as 'Towards a New Architecture. (London: Rodker, 1927) · .

Le Corbusier, L'Art Decoratif D'Au,iourdhJ:!,i• (Collection de I 'Esprit Nouveau,Paris: Cr~s, 1925.) . ·

Le Corbusier, Urbanisme. (Col lectio_n de I 'Esprit Nouveau, Paris:Cres< 1925) Trans-lated as 'The City of Tomorrow' (London: Architectural Press, 1947)

Le Corbusier, 1928)

Une Maison Un Palais. (Collection de !'Esprit Nouveau, Paris: Cres~

Le Corbusier, Precisions Sur Un Etat Present de !'Architecture et de l'Urbanisme. (Collection de !'Esprit Nouv~au, Paris: Cres, 1930. New edition in 1960,Vincent Freal)

Le Corbusier, La Vi I le Radieuse. (Editions de !'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, Paris: 1935.) New edition translated as "The Radiant City"_(London: Faber, 1964)

Le Corbusier, Quand les Cathedrals Etaiint Blanchesman••nVo a e Au Pas Des Timides. (Paris: Pion, 1937. Translated as "When the Cathedrals were White",New York:1947).

Le Corbusier, Des Canons, Des Munitions? Merci, Des Logis S.V,P 2 (Editions de l'Archi-tebture d'Aujourd'hui, Paris, 1938'

Le Corbusier,

Le Corbusier,

Le Corbusier,

Aircraftn (London: The Studio, 1935. )

Destin de Paris. (Paris: Sorlot, 1941)

Sur les Quatre Routesm (Pa~is: Gal I imard, 1941)

Le Corbusier, La Maison des Hommesa (P~~is: Pion, 1942) Translated as "The Home of Man • . (Architectural Press, London: 1949)

Le Corbusier, Entretiens Avec les Etudiants des Ecoles D'Architecture. (Paris: Denogl, 1943). Trartslated as "Talks with Students"

Le Corbusier, Pro os D'Urbanisme. (Paris: Bourrelier, 1946) Translated as "Concerning Town Planning: London: Architectural Press, 1948)

Le Corbusier, United Nations Headquarters. (New York: R~nhold, 1947)

L~ Corbusier, New World of Space. (Boston: The Institute of Contemporary Art, .1948)

Le Corbusier, Le Modulor. (Editions de !'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, Paris: 1950). · Translated as "The Modular". (London: Faber, 1954

Le Corbusier, Modular I I• (Editions de !'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, Paris: 1955). English Translction:(London: Faber~ 1958.)

Le ·corbusier, Translated

Le Corbusier,

Le Corbus i er,

Le Corbus i er,

Le. Corbusier,

Le Corbus i er,

L'~~lt~ d'Habitation de Marsei I len (Mui house! Le Point, 1950) as "The Marsei Iles Block" (London: Harvil I Press, 1953)

L'Urbanisme est Line Clef. (Editions Forces Vives, Paris: 1955)

Les Plans de Paris. (Editions de Minuit Paris: 1956)

Le Voyage d'Orienta (Editions Forces Vives, Paris: 1966)

Mise au Point. (Editions Forces Vives, Paris: 1966)

Nursery Schools. (New York: Orion Press, 1968)

Le Corbusier and P. Jeanneret, Oeuvre-Compl~te. Vol. I. 1916-1~29; Vol.I I~ 1929-1934; Vol. 111. 1934-1938; . Vol a IV. 1938-1946; Vol,. Vn 1946-1952; Vol. VI. 1952-1957; Vol a VI I. 1957-65. (The first six volumes published by Girsberger, Zurich. Vol VI I I- Last Works.

Lynch, Kevin, Site Planning. (Cambridge Mass: ~liiT• Press, 1971)

Moholy-Nagy, Sibyl,

Mumford, Lewis,

Mat r .i x o-f _ Man • ( London : Pa I I Ma ( I , 196 2)

The Highway and the City (Londdn: Secker and.Warburg, 1953)

No~berg-Schultz~ Christian, Vista, 1971)

Existence, Space and Architecture. (London: Studio.

I

Ozenfant, Am~de~, Foundations of Modern A~t. (London: John Rodker, 1931)

Papadaki, Stamo(ed.), Le Corbusier, Architect, Painter, Writer, Essays (New York: Mac mi I Ian, 1948)

Pawley, Martin,

Pawley, Martin,

Petit, Jean,

Architecture versus Housing. (London: Studio Vista, 1971)

L~ Corbusier. (London: Thames a~d Hudson, 1970)

Le Corbusier - Parle. (Edition Forces Vives, Paris: 1967)

Pevsner, Nikolaus, Pioneers of Modern Design. (Middlesex: Penguin, 1960)

Reiner, Thomas, The Place of the Ideal Community in Urban Planninga (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 1962)

Riboud, Jacques, Les Erreurs de Le Corbusier et leurs Consequences. (Paris: Editions Mazarine, 1968)

Scully, ~incent,J~., Modern Architect~reu (New York: Brazil ler, fourth printing 1967)

Sert, Jose Luis, Can Our Cities Surviver (London: Oxford University Press, 1942)

Sharp, Dennis, ' 1972)

A Visual History of Twentieth Century Architecture.(London: Heinemann.

Smithson, Peter and Al is6n,

Smithson, Peter and Alison,

Ordinariness and I i9ht. (London: -Fab~r, 1970)

Urban Structuringu (London: Studio Vista, 1967)

Stevenson, Anne and Judith O'Nei I I, High Living. (London :Cambridge University Press,)

Tint, Herbert, France since 1918. (London; Batsford; 1970)

Team 10, Primer, edited by Alieon Smithson, (London: Team 10, 1965?)

Tetlow, John and Anthony Goss, Homes, Towns and Traffic. (London: Faber, 1965)

Voisin, Gabriel,

Wi ebenson, Dora,

Wingo-Lowdon (ed.)

Men, Women and 10,000 Kites. (London: Putn~m, 1963)

The Cit~ lndustriel le. (London: Studio Vista, 1969)

Cities and Space (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press,1963)

Yorke F.R.Sa The Modern Flat~ (London: Architectural Press, 1937)-

PERIODICALS

Alexander, Cai::.

Alexander, Cm,

Alexander, C.,

Brol in, B11C11,1

July, 1968

"Peru Scheme", Architectural Design,Apri I 1970, ppa193-96.

"Changes in Form", Architectural Design, March 1970,p,p.122-25

"A City is not a Tree7 Design, Vols 206. pp47-55.

"Mass Housing: Social Research and Design", Architectural Forum,

Banham, Reiner, "Painting and Scupture of Le Corbusier", Architectural Review, June, 1953, p,p;45-48.

Banh am,

Banh am,

Reiner,

Reiner,

"The New Brutal ism", Architectural Review,December,1955

"A Home is not a House", Ar8hitectural Design, January,1969

Bauer, Catherine, "The Social Front of Modern Aichitecture in the 1930's", Journal of S0ci~ty of Architecture Historians, pp.48-52

Chapin, F., and Highhaven, Henry, "Household activity Patterns ~nd Land Use~ J.I ,P.J. August 196?, pp223-31

Co I quhoun, A I an, "Displacement of Concepts", Architectural Design, Vol.4,1972,pp236-42

"Constructivist Architecture in the U.S.SmR11 1917-32", Architectural Design, February,1970.

Cornell, E11 "Le Corbusier, Manifesto7 Architektur Nom10, 1966

Crane, David,

Crosby, Theo ,

Dari a, Sophi a,

De Mare, Eric,

"A Theory of the Dynamic City", Architectural Design, Apri I 1960

"To Le Corbusier despite Enchantment", Studio, January, 1968,pp.52-53

"Le Corbusier, Sociologue de l'Urbanisme" Seghers, Paris 1964-

"The New Empiricism", Architectural Review, 1948

Drew, Jane, "Le Corbusier, a personal note", Town Pl a,nnin_g Institute Journal Vol .51 November,1965

Dreyfus, Jacques, Review article, French Urban Studies, A.I .P. Journal November~ 1968, ppg402-408

Eichler, E.P., "Idea vs; Reality" Dialo~ue vol.4. 1971, pp.33-43.

Emery, P~As "Du Role des C.I aAmMs dans l'historie de l'urbanisme de contemperain", Architecture d'AuJhourd'hui VoL 132, February, 1967

Frampton, Kenneth, "The Humanist vers~s the Utilitaria~ Ideal" Architectural Design, March 1968, ppi134~36.

Frampton, Kenneth, Review of Le Corbusier, Architectural Design November 1969 Frampton, Kenneth, "The City of Dial~ctic", Architectural Design, October, 1969,PP•

541-546.

Golantie, Ervin, "Corbu's Tightrope", Progressive Architecture,June, 1967

Glazer, Nathan, "The limits of Social Pol icy", Commentary, Vol. 52, No.3 September 1971, pp.51-58

Goldfinger, Ern5, "Le Corbusier", Architectural Design, October 1968

Green, Christo~her, "Leger, Purism and the Paris Machine7 Art 1970a ~p.54-56

December

Gutman, Robert, "Site ~tanning and Social Behaviour", Jour~al of Social Issues, Vol. 4, 1966, pp.103-114

"Habitation - Collective et Urbanisme", Architecture d'Au,iourd'hui, January 1948 Noi 16

Habraken, N.J. "M~ss Housing", Architectural Design, January 1970 pp32-38

Harris, Britton, "The I imits of Science and Humanism in Planning", Journal of American Institute of Planners, vol.33 Noa5 September 1967

Hicks, VmTs, "Corb at Pessac", Architectural Review 1967.

Hitchcock, "Le Corbusier", Progressive Architecture, October 1965 pp232-237, November 1965, ppi198-201 ·

Hoover, Robert, C., "A View of Ethics and Planning7 A.I .P.Jo pp293-304

"Housing P~imer- low and Medium Rise7 ArchitectHral Design, September 1967

Howard, Seymour, "living with Corburs Unit~", Progressive Architecture, Vol.51,pp91-97

"In Search of a New Monumentality: Symposium," Architecture Review, September, 1948

James, J.R~, "Residential Densities", Architectural Design, Vol I , 1968

Kristo I, Irving, "Urban Civilization and its Discontents, Dialogue, Voli4 no.1., 1971~

le Corbusier, "If I had to te~ch architecture", Architectural Design, February 1960 (Reprint of 1938 talk) pp86-87

le Corbusier,

"le Corbusier.­

Le Corbusier,

"Address A-A School", Architectural B~lding News:January 1948 pp17-18

'His impact on four generations", RISA Journal October 1965pp.497-500

"A symposium", Architectural Association ,journal, vol.74, May 1959.

~Le Corbusier's Unit~ d'Habitation7 Architectural Review, May 1951

lynch and Rodwin, "The Theory of Urban form~ A.I. P. J. Vol.24, No.4 1958

Mc Harg, I, "The Ecology of the City", A.l,1PcJm Vol.38, No.5 November, 1962

Mc Harg, ·1, "The Place of Nature", The Annals of the American Academy of Political Social Science, Vola 352, March 1964

March, Lionel, "Homes beyond the Image», Architectural Design, September 1967 pp434-436

Michelson, W. "An Empirical Study of Urban Environment Preference" Ami .P.J. Nov~mber,1967

Nivola, Consta~tino, Review of "Who was le Corbusier" by Maurice Besset, Forum, December 1969 pp.~0-61

Petit, Jean, "le C6rbu~ier - Propose: des Unit~ d'Habitation 1960 enseries •••",1 Zodiac 7, 1960, PPm39-49 . .

Pierce, J.S. "Architectural Drawings and the Intent of the Architect", Art Journal) Vol.27 No 1 1967 p.48

"5 Q~estions ~ Le Corbusier", ~odiac, Vfl, 1960, pp50-55

Rappaport, A, "Complexity and Ambiguity in Environmlntal July 1967

Design", A.I .P.J111

Ragghianti, Ccl111 "Le Corbusier ~ Firenze", Zodiac XIJ, 1963, pp.50-55

Resow, Irving, "The Social Effects of the Physical Environment" A.I ,,PaJ• May 1961, Vol. 27, no2o

Rogers, e,, "Le Corbusier's Daydream~,Casabel la

Santos, A and A~ "Mass Housing in Central Cities, (Independent Study C1 M0 P. 1968)

Schmitt, R111 C., "Density, Health and Social Disorganization", A.I cP.J. Vol.32, Nol january 1966

Serenyi~ Peter, "Le Corbusier's Changing Attitude towards For~", Jourhal of the Society of Architecture Historians, Vol. 24, March 1965, pp.15-23

Serenyi, Peter, "La Corbusier, Fourier and the Monastery of Ema, Art Bui letin,Vol, -XLIX December 1967, pp277-286

Smithson, A and P, "Criteria for Mass Housing" Architectural Design, September 1967 PP=393-394

Smithson, A and P, "Density, Interval and Measure", Architectural Design, September, 1967, pp428-431

Smithson, A and P, "The Function of Architecture in Culturffiof Change" pp.149-150

Sonnenfeld, J, "Variable Values in Space and Landscape: An enquiry lnto the Nature of Environmental Necessity," Journal of Social Issues, Vol a XXII, No 4, 1966 pp71-82

Spade, R, ''Review of'Pessac' · by Phi I ippe Boudon, A1:.chitectural Design, September 1969

Special Edition: Art et Architecture, Architecture 'Aujhourd'hDi, November 1965

Special Edition 6n Le Corbusier, Architectural Forum, October 1965

Special Edition on Le Corb~sier, Progressive Architecture, October 1965a.

Special Edition on Le Corbusier "Preliminary Assessment" various Contributions in Progressive Architecture, November, 1965

Turner, J., "Barriers and Channels for Housing Development in modernizing Countiies~ Architectural Desi9n, May 1965

Turner, J •. , ~The Squatter Settlements - Architecture that works", Ekistics, January 1969

Turner, Ji, "Housing Priori~ies Settlement Patterns and-Urban Development 1n

Modernizing Countfies," Aal sPmJu 1969a ·

Vidler, Ai; "Idea of Unit~ and le Corbusier's urban form," Architecture Year Book, No 12, 1968, pp.225-237

Wogensky, Ai,"Le Corbusier et la Forme Habitable", Architecture d'Au,iourd'hui, February 1967.

2. 6 \~ G~ \g7~