Comparison and Analysis of Architects: Le Corbousier and Leon Krior - Essay Example

?Introduction Leon Krier and Le Corbusier are two modern architects with two different focuses. Krier is an advocate for seeing cities as a whole, inthat each building must be harmonious with every other building. He also was concerned about the way that streets lay, as well as the urban spaces that populate the city, including parks and waterways. In this way, he really was a city planner, and he did not necessarily subscribe to a personal style. His only concern was that buildings look good together and the cities are constructed in the best possible way. Le Corbusier, on other hand, had a very different focus, and that was putting his signature touches onto this buildings, so that these buildings became extensions of his personal aesthetics. He was interested in geometric shapes and nature, and, later, became influenced by buildings of the past, such as the forms found in neo-classical styles. In this way, Le Corbusier took the foundations of how he conceptualized buildings and married this foundation to architecture of the past, and this was how he came up with his signature style. Both men had different focuses, although there is one thing which linked them – both wanted to ensure that there was harmony between the individual buildings and their surroundings. Le Corbusier wanted to ensure harmony between the buildings and the natural surroundings. Krier wanted to ensure harmony between one building and all the others surrounding it. Discussion According to Porphyrios (1984), Leon Krier is an architect which conceives of cities as a whole, and that his buildings are conceived to be part of the larger whole. He needs to conceptualize the town or the city when he designs his buildings, because simply constructing a disembodied part of the city – a building - is not of an interest to him. This, according to Porphyrios, makes Krier a “heterosexual. All his single buildings have real or implied partners” (Pophyrios, 1984, p. 12). Or, as Pophyrios, his buildings belong to larger groups, and these groups and families are conceived as being a part of the need of the society to which they serve. In this way, Krier is not narcissistic. His buildings are not reflective of what he wants and he conceives, but, rather, what the city needs and wants. The city is the focus of his design, and his buildings are not isolated works of art. The city itself is the work of art, according to Pophyrios (1984). As such, Krier states that that the physical and structural complexity and density of a city comes out of the social and cultural complexity of this city. He conceives of urban blocks in terms of how they can form complex urban patterns – some urban blocks are more likely to fit together to fit into patterns then others would be. His mantra is that “urban blocks should be as small in length and width as is typologically viable; they should form as many well-defined streets and squares as possible in the form of a multi-directional horizontal pattern of urban spaces” (Krier, 1984, p. 43). He conceives of cities being made of building blocks, such as streets and squares. It may either form the streets and square or it may result from a pattern of streets and squares. He envisions that, in a European city, the building blocks are small and typologically complex in the urban centres, and, as the buildings grow away from the urban centres, the building blocks grow typologically larger, then finally dissolve into single free-standing objects. This is most pronounced when the building blocks are of the industrial age, as opposed to the pre-industrial age (Krier, 1984, p. 44). Krier also states that the periphery of the cities eventually become more of a part of the urban centre. When this occurs, the gardens which were a part of these peripheries soon become crowded, as well, with residential premises and artisans' workshops. This is considered to be, according to Krier, internal densification and exploitation of the urban blocks. This densification and exploitation also leads to the final destruction of these peripheral blocks, opening them up to criticisms by Le Corbusier and Gropius (Krier, 1984, p. 45). Krier further critiques the structure of cities by stating that the periphery of cities tends to have large blocks that includes gardens and parks. That said, according to Krier, the gardens and parks cannot be a repetitive system, because, if they are, they give the blocks an air of being a single architectural object, and this makes these blocks take on an “institutional barrack-like character” (Krier, 1984, p. 45). The large urban block is not desirable to Krier, either. He states that the problem with city blocks is that they are too large, and, if they were smaller, the city would not have to resort to badly lit courts and light-wells, which is what caused these cities to have polluted streets and endless corridorial spaces (Krier, 1984, p. 46). Krier was also savagely critical of suburbs. In his mind, there should be the city and the country. The marriage of the city and country, according to Krier, is a happy one, forming a “heritage of building, culture, language, knowledge, or instruments and goods” (Krier, 1984, p. 103). The suburb, on the other hand, is like a cancer. While it cannot survive without the city, it nevertheless attacks its city like a parasite attacks a host body. Because it builds its own infrastructure and mobilises its own colossal machines, it strangles the city which it surrounds and tears out its heart. The suburb may never be a city, according to Krier, no matter how many well-constructed buildings it may contain (Krier, 1984, p. 104). Krier further sees zoning as destructive to a city. This is because zoning essentially makes a city an assemblage of parts. This is akin to dismembering a human body. Zoning destroys the physical and spiritual society within the city, and makes the city a “sum of buildings and functions” (Krier, 1984, p. 105). Zoning prevents a city from having the correct measure and form for it to survive, and, even if the territory is rich and fertile, the society within it will be poor. Zoning is the way to turn “the most beautiful cities into the worst enemies of man,” and is the enemy of the city and the countryside (Krier, 1984, p. 105). Krier conceives of the city a being composed of a large complex of small buildings, as opposed to a small complex of large buildings. The small buildings are ordered and arranged in a tight urban composition, and this forms the network of square and streets, alley and courtyards. He does not conceive of the buildings taking any one kind of form or one type of organisation. This is evident in his conceptualization of the School St. Quentin-en-Yvelines and Berlin-Tegel. The former is a school complex, the latter is a conceptualization of a city within a city. Tegel is a self-contained part of Berlin, and his goal was to make a proper town within the city. With Berlin-Tegel, Krier envisioned that the well-loved buildings that we have known for centuries - our theatres, public baths, libraries and schools – would be located around the squares, along the lake and inside the residential area. As the meeting places of the town, they have the most prominent part of this conceptualization. As for the architecture, Krier envisioned Classical architecture, and they would not be composed of concrete, aluminum or plastic. The streets would form new routes, and the programme would be broken up as much as possible into typological components (Krier, 1984, p. 88). The school St. Quentin-en-Yvelin is another conceptualization of Krier. For this, he emphasizes a large complex of small buildings, as opposed to the “prison-like structures” which are often emblematic of the schools which are built today. The library would be the public square, and the nursery and infant schools would be on either side of the Avenue du Lac. The Avenue Publique would have the library and the main assembly buildings, which would be used by the local public in the off-school hours. A pediment of restaurants would dominate the assembly square. The gate to the lake would open to a big square which would feature a view of the lake and the grandes allees (Krier, 1984, p. 115). Thus, Krier is clearly more of a city planner than an architect. For him, each building is in a marriage to the other buildings in the city, and he dealt with cities and complexes as a whole. This was clearly more important to him than making the individual buildings a reflection of who he was. In fact, one can say that the term “individual buildings” would not apply to him, because this was not how he worked. More than designing any one building in any one style, or putting an individualistic stamp on any one building, he first needed to know how it would fit into the city at large. t It was only through this conceptualization that Krier was a successful architect. This was not so with Corbusier, who was much more well-known for his individual buildings as opposed to his city conceptualization. Whereas Krier was interested in the aspects of the city- such as the size of city blocks, the amount of space and greenery, the need to see the city as a whole as opposed to the sum of its zoned parts – Corbusier was interested in composing buildings according to his vision and his personal desires. He would be considered to be one of the narcissistic architects described by Pophyrios (1984). Nevertheless, the buildings for which he is famous are magnificent, indeed, and totally original and personal to him. This is not to say that Corbusier did not give city planning some thought and critique. He did, and this led him to be critical of the city of Paris in the 1930s. He presented to Parisian city officials a plan for the city center, which was rejected in favor of developing low-income housing at the periphery of the city. This was a move that Le Corbusier denounced as “cancerous” and a way for the city go from admirable to a city with “nothing left inside it bu the soul of an archeologist. No more power off command. No head. No powers of action. No genius” (Bacon, 2001, p. 228). Still, the genius of Le Corbusier lay in his conceptualization of individual buildings, not his conceptualization of cities, and this is where his fame lie as well. One such building is the monastery of Sainte Marie de la Tourette, which is, according to Baker (1996) to be “an outstanding example of Le Corbusier's genius” (Baker, 1996, p. 2). This monastery combines modern elegance, with its emphases on forms, spaces and light, for utilitarian means and spirituality that is transcendent. His influences are the medieval buildings that formerly housed religious communities, such as the Cistercian monastery of Le Thoronet in Provence (Baker, 1996, p. 2). The major difference between the two monasteries was that the older monastery used stone, and La Tourette used reinforced concrete. Both churches are also constructed in such a way that a series of circles can be drawn, which link together the various parts, putting each of the parts into harmony with one another. The main facade has a similar structure. This monastery, as with the older monastery, thus emphasizes harmony and harmonious relationships between the buildings. Yet each part of the monastery is distinct, as each part of the monastery has a different function from the others, and each form of the parts emphasizes the function. This is accomplished by contrasting between the forms. The newer monastery designed by Corbusier also is candid about the functional elements of the sanctuary, the church, the novice chapel and the atrium. The monastery at Tourette combines many of the elements which are considered to be signature with Le Corbusier. These include a marriage of present with the past in a dynamic interaction, as Le Corbusier was very influenced by the principles established by architectural designs of the past, while keeping in mind the true significance of these buildings. Architects who attempt to copy the past, without realizing the true significance of the architecture, contributes to the sterility of the nineteenth century architecture, claims Le Corbusier. Other elements which are Le Corbusier's signature which were contained in the Tourette were the uptilt of the roof through a dramatic exploitation of the slope and the exaggeration of the vertical rhythms of the pilotis and window mullion of the western corner. Another signature is the pinwheel formation of cells around the court (Baker, 1996, p. 5). Another hallmark of Le Corbusier is that he saw architecture as being related to nature. In other words, he saw the geometric patterns in nature as being a basis for his architecture. His emphasis on natural forms may be seen in another architectural masterpiece, the villa fallet, which he designed in 1905 as a young architect. Built on a steep sloped terrain, the house is on the highest part of the grounds, and the main facade faces south. It was also built with local materials, allowing the color scheme to blend in with its surroundings. The house is built with stone, wood, wrought iron and stucco, and is inspired by natural forms. The landscape's contours are reflected in the balcony's iron rails and window mullions, along with the ornamental sgraffito on the facades and the support of the large eaves. Le Corbusier further showed his influence of nature on the architecture, as the ornamentation of all the facades of the Villa Fallet are based on the form of the pine tree, including its branches, cones and needles, and these are reduced to a strict geometrical figure, such as a square or a triangle. Thus, Villa Fallet “therefore shows one of the constant elements of Le Corbusier's thinking and work already in place: his unerring interest in natural forms and, more specifically, their underlying essential properties. Geometry and nature would go on to co-exist in a fruitful dialogue throughout his career” (Baltanas, 2005, p. 12). This villa was designed at the very beginning of his career, when Le Corbusier was between the ages of 18 and 19. Yet he was already showing his flashes of genius, and the villa was a harbinger for later buildings. This is because it showed Le Corbusier's influence of nature. This is seen in the geographics of the building, along with the decorations and the way that the building blends in seamlessly with its surroundings. Moreover, Le Corbusier also took nature into account when designing the windows, as the south window was designed so that the occupants of the home could take in the spectacular view surrounding the home. Le Corbusier's emphasis on nature also took the form of making sure that buildings were built with local materials,and this was the hallmark of two other villas designed by Le Corbusier – the villa stotzer and the villa jaquement. As with the villa fallet, these villas were steeply sloped with substantial overhangs, to protect the structure from the snow. The buildings also represented an incipient expression of modernism, where geometry plays a key role, and both buildings displayed a clarity and volumetric autonomy. As with the earlier villa, these villas featured a coexistence of nature and artifice, and Baltanas (2005) states that this was a metaphor for Le Corbusier's earlier life, as his father was a laborer and his mother a musician. Thus, his father's profession was concrete, his mother's abstract, and this is how he approached his work, by marrying the concrete with the abstract. While there are foundations to his work – the use of natural forms and natural materials, the blending of buildings with the surroundings, the use of geometry and slopes – Le Corbusier also refined his work by his world travels, and the influences that he found in different countries. For instance, in the Near East, he was attracted to mosques and wooden houses of Constantinople, and, in Greece, he was deeply impressed by the Acropolis and the the Parthenon design. This sparked his interest in neo-classicism, which was gaining popularity in Germany in the early 1900s, and, instead of abandoning his earlier aesthetics of natural form and regionalism, he married the two concepts, and this was seen in his work on the Villa Jeanneret-Perret. It showed the evolution of his thinking after seeing the world's architecture, in that it emphasized spatial richness, instead of surface details, while still emphasizing geometry in its cube-shaped elements. The garden entrance to the plinth of this villa is non-linear, and upwardly weaving. This makes the approach to the house slower and less direct. The main facade, which faces south, has a good effect on the winding route. Inside the villa, the neo-classical influence is felt, as it featured four central columns which surroud the daytime spaces of the dining area and a semicircular apse. The windows on the upper floor are set under the eaves, and these form a horizontal strip, with more neo-classical columns which are decorated with plant motifs. Its walls are pristine white, its form geometric and the villa features a pergola on the terrace, and this makes the villa, according to Baltanas (2005) to seem “closer to the clarity and the sunshin of the Mediterranean than the darkness and harsh winters of the Jura mountains' (Baltanas, 2005, p. 23). As a further take on the motif of architecture meeting nature, one may look at the Villa Stein-de-Monzie, which was designed in the mid to late 20s. In this villa, the slab is broken down so that the villa gains maximum contact with the landscape, and this is further developed by subdividing the slab into a series of terraces which extend the interaction between the internal and external spaces. This villa also reflects Le Corbusier's emphasis on geometry, as the roof garden has a route from the top half of the cylindrical enclosed area, which moves out to the front, piercing the barrier plane before returning inside while descending to the raised terrace by traversin ghte north an east sides. The main theme is that there would be a continuous interaction between internal and external space, and this was accomplished by breaking down the slab into a series of terraces (Baker, 1984, p. 164). Conclusion Le Corbusier and Leon Krier were substantially different in the way that they conceptualized buildings and the way that these buildings fit in with their surroundings. Specifically, Krier saw his buildings are being a part of a larger whole,and, in this way, he was really more of a city planner than an architect. For him, the buildings were not a reflection of his particular aesthetic, but, rather, were reflections of utilitarianism and city form. The buildings served a function, and this was what concerned him, along with the fact that the buildings must form a coherent whole for the city. Not for him would be a hodgepodge of buildings with incongruent styles within the city centre. He was also concerned with spaces and blocks, in that these are what cities are made of. Le Corbusier, on the other hand, had a different focus. His focus was not necessarily on planning a city, but planning individual buildings, although he did express an interest in keeping Paris from the plan that the city set forth for it. His individual buildings, unlike Krier, did not reflect his individual aesthetics, and this evolved over time. What was unchanging was his use of geometry and his belief that buildings forms should mimic nature and be harmonious with their surroundings. He refined these basic building blocks with this trips around the world, which brought different forms, including neo-classical, into his buildings. Therefore, these two men were different in their focus, although they would be complementary, as both were concerned about the marriage of buildings with surroundings. Le Corbusier was interested in marrying his buildings to the natural surroundings; Krier was concerned with marrying his buildings with one another. Bibliography Bacon, M. (2001) Le Corbusier in America. London: The MIT Press. Baker, G. (1984) Le Corbusier: An Analysis of Form. London: Spon Press. Baker, G. (1996) Le Corbusier: The Creative Search. London: Van Nostrad Reinhold. Baltanas, J. (2006) Walking Through Le Corbusier. New York: Thames and Hudson. Krier, L. (1984) “Urban Components,” in Leon Krier: Houses, Cities, Places. London: Architectural Design. Porphyrios, D. (1984) Leon Krier: Houses, Cities, Places. London: Architectural Design. Read More