Constant Theory of a New Babylon - Essay Example

New Babylon New Babylon refers to an anti-capitalistic urban areas designed by Constant Nieuwenhuys. The initial Babylon city was popular for its evil and confusion, but the new one was to be a source of peace and solace, and orders. Le Corbusier in his theory develops axioms that ought to guide the development of cities or urban places. The theorist, Le Corbusie, points out that modern cities epitomise confusion, which became pronounced during the onset of the nineteenth century until today (Le & Etchells 1946, 45). Initially, towns served as tools, but the changes in architecture means that town can no longer meet this functionality. In one of the poems, cities are described as man’s tight hold on nature. The attitude of the poets reveals that in the eyes of architectural philosophers such as Constant Nieuwenhuys and Le Corbusier cities are a nuisance. To the above men, architecture has lost its way due to the confusion and the lack of uniformity, which has become the hallmark of modern cities. In Constant Nieuwenhuys and Le Corbusier’s theories, there is a relentless quest for cities to regain their lost glory, which to them can only be achieved by enhancing uniformity. The modern day cities are problematic which may be attributable to the state or architecture. Looking back, architecture has given us beautiful buildings such the Westminster Abbey and the tower of Piazza. In addition, architecture has also created beautiful cities such as Venice, Nancy and old Paris. However, it is vital to consider the contextual challenges that architecture is encountering if at all solutions will be coined for the appalling conditions of the modern cities. To begin with, it is vital to pose certain critical queries, which should provide guidance going forwards. Is it practical or realistic for modern architecture to hold on to the ideals that have guided architects in the past? Are the ideals of past architecture relevant in the present day? And if so, which ideals should we embrace? In the past, the most dominant values were simplicity and uniformity (Le Corbusier 1976, 32). One of the dominant characters of cities is the disparity in the individual cells or house units, which form the city. Individualism should take an equal share of the blame for the present state of the cities. According to Le Corbusier, there is need to establish certain standards which will guide construction. The emergence of discipline, astuteness and concord are the only factors, which can help the modern city rediscover uniformity, which exemplified past cities. Simplicity in the mode of construction and design were also vital factors, which contributed to the beauty of past architecture and cities (Jencks 1973, 121). For instance, the repletion of the simple window patterns in the procuracies in Venice. The combination of simplicity and uniformity resulted in magnificent structure and cities, which were beautiful and cheap to construct. Local authorities guide development in cities hence; they need to develop plans, which are coherent and uniform. The local authorities have to embrace the above ideals if modern city planning is to improve The Westminster Tower of Piazza In the current political and economic environment upholding the ideals that have guided architecture in past, simplicity and uniformity, may be challenging. For instance, individualism has been a key a hindrance since its will be hard for people to gravitate to one standards and coherent way of building (Padovan 2002, 96). Presently, people want buildings that are unique or suited for their needs. Some people want ostentatious while others want simple houses. So long as individualism continues to guide architecture in cities, it will be even harder to bring back the above ideals, which gave birth, to cities that were regarded as the work of art. Economics has also been a key factor, which has influenced the nature of buildings set up. In central business districts, architecture will always take advantage of vertical elevation. As such, most buildings are high-rise which avails more space. However, the most important concern is the whether uniformity and simplicity may be achieved in such parts of a city (Le, Cohen & Goodman 2007, 162). Most cities have central business districts, which lack uniformity primarily because there are different designs adopted by the architects who design the buildings. However, some of the difference are in architectural designs and materials are obscured by the extensive use of glass in the structure of high-rise buildings (Žantovská & Osley 2009, P. 184). In the current, set up it would be hard to establish common standards for city development owing to individual ambitions and the capitalist nature of the world. Constant Nieuwenhuys and Le Corbusier’s theories point out that today’s cities typify how human beings have destroyed nature. The sentiment are borne out of their belief that nature and cities should be integrated. Cities should be set up in a manner, which allows nature to thrive. True to their sentiment, development in cities has destroyed the natural setting of the surrounding areas. In addition, most cities development boards have never focussed on increasing vegetation in the respective cities (Högner Kroll, Rüegg, Lederer, A., & Sharma 2010, 45). As a result, expansion of cities has only served as a tool to destroy the environment. Presently, there are concerns that the damage caused by human activities is irreparable. The changes in climate are a culmination of refusal to plan better. Many sectors of the economy have made efforts to use methods, which will preserve the environment at the expense of profitability. Similarly, the architecture has to embrace this dispensation, which is aspiring to make human activities more compatible with nature. In fact, Le Corbusier quotes a Turkish proverb, which shows just how wrong the present cities are. The proverb states, “Where one builds one plant trees (Le Corbusier ND, 72). However, in the current set up, the building of cities has only resulted in the destruction of the environment. Below the proverb, Le Corbusier writes, “we root them up” as a way of contrasting the present human trends with what should occur in ideal architectural situations (Le Corbusier ND, 72). The present cities are a representation of the artistic degradation of not only the cities but also of the artistic elements, which characterize architecture. Overall, if the state of the present cities were to improve, it would be critical to embrace ideals, which were the hallmark of architecture, which were simplicity and uniformity. As such, the ideals are relevant, but their application may be hindered by the economic and political challenges of the present economies. Constant, in his theory, postulates about a more organized society. He postulates about how urban centre may be developed in a less destructive manner. However, the theory is radical in its approach, as it requires certain fundamental changes in the economy, which will suite the implementation of the new Babylon plan. For instance, the economy should focus exclusively on fulfilling the needs of the public. In addition, it requires massive automation of activities that require no creativity (Constant & Wigley 1998, 95). Constant makes shrewd propositions that would require radicle changes in politics, economic and the ideals of the people. The theory is pegged upon people embracing collectivism, automation and refocusing our energy towards creativity. The theory would create a different environment in which the architect would express their ideas differently. Theoretically, Constant’s theory sounds radical and reasonable. However, implementing of the theoretical ideas in the present capitalistic societies and in economies dependent on consumption would be exceedingly challenging. The realities of two days world would influence the practicality of this theory negatively. Just like Le Corbusier’s theory, Constant tries to create a uniform society differently (Frampton 2001, 21). To start with, the economies would focus on creativity as all the repetitive economic activities, which require no creativity would be automated. However, this theory demands more changes from the society than Le Corbusier’s theory. Constant’s uniformity focuses on economic activity while Le Corbusier’s uniformity is in architecture. Le Corbusier avoids providing an economic manuscript as to how the economy should change to improve the architecture of the modern cities. Le Corbusier approaches the menace that today’s cities present directly (Seranyi 1975, 43). In contrast, Constant in the theory of Babylon, postulates that the new focus on creativity should be a source of new ideas, which will transform cities. The rationalization of production globally would indeed eliminate some of the problems, which many societies grapple with such as the lack of adequate food supplies. In effect, more of human energy would be focused towards solving more complex problems as opposed to meeting basic needs concerns. Constant theory of a new Babylon seeks to undertake major changes in the society such as redefining the core unit from a nuclei structure to units established based on distance and other parameters that are relevant in a sectorial society (Nieuwenhuys 1974, 5). The units would subsequently create a network that would be a source of service. The above network represents the automation process, which would allow the human beings to focus on creative work. To Constant, repetitive work, which requires no creativity, is a hindrance to progress (Constant 1963, 182). As such, there was a need to set the society in manner, which allows the economy to commit more of its human resource towards creative work. In addition, the sectorial unit set up would rival the established settlements in the production process gradually rendering them ineffective. The theory has established a sequence of events that will guide the process of change from the present economic model to a creativity-based model (Constant & Vinkenoog1963, 251). Unlike Le Corbusier theory, the Constant theory wants to change the globe. Babylon is an analogy, which denotes just how transformational his theory ought to be. Babylon is equated to earth, which is the society that he wants change. The transformational is not only architectural but also economic and political (Constant, Wigley & Zegher 1999, 67). The theory nonetheless calls for a uniformity in the society where the global effort will be focussed on certain objectives. The theory in its ideals and methods seeks to enhance collectivism while eliminating individualism, which Constant identifies as one of the numerous problems facing this society. One of the key strengths of Constant’s theory is the radical changes it proposes on the economy which would eliminate subsistence struggles and refocus human energies on creativity (Kunstnemes 1967, 92). As much as creating a creativity led economy is a strength it is also a weakness for any efforts aimed towards implementation since it would require the world to do away with the present economic structures established such as stock exchanges and a host of other policies, which would expose it implementation to massive resistance (Constant, Wigley & Zegher 1999, 261). Personally, it would make sense to implement Le Corbusier’s theory, which makes practical proposals on how the present cities may be altered and how the future cities should be planned to achieve uniformity. In apposition, Constant theory is radical requiring the change of the human perception, economically and politically, which makes it even harder to implement. Given the liberal nature of the world, the theory would face resistance as it seek to install a utilitarian ideology. Given the setup of the present societies, it would not be practical to hold on to the ideals that have guided architecture in the past primarily because people globally have different tastes based on their incomes, culture, preferences and social standing. As such, architects should therefore seek ideals that are pertinent to the present world, which is guided significantly by incomes. Ideals such as uniformity and simplicity, which characterize the architecture of cities such as Lucca and Venice, all in Italy, have become increasingly irrelevant in the modern architectures. Architecture should seek ideals that will suit the challenges of contemporary architecture. Presently, there has been a focus on sustainability and going green where buildings are designed in manner that makes maximum use of resources such as the natural light and solar energy in order to reduce energy generated from natural resources such as hydrocarbons (crude oil). Bibliography Constant & Wigley, M., 1998, Constants New Babylon: the hyper-architecture of desire, Center for Contemporary Art, Rotterdam. Constant, & Vinkenoog, S., 1963, New Babylon: ten lithographs, Galerie dEendt, Amsterdam. Constant, 1963. New Babylon; ten lithographs, Galerie dEendt, Amsterdam. Constant, Wigley, M., & Zegher, C., 1999, Another city for another life: Constants New Babylon, The Drawing Center, New York, N.Y. Frampton, K., 2001, Le Corbusier. Thames & Hudson, New York. Högner, B., Kroll, C., Rüegg, A., Lederer, A., & Sharma, M. N., 2010, Chandigarh: Living with Le Corbusier, Jovis Verlag. Berlin. Jencks, C, 1973, Le Corbusier and the tragic view of architecture, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Kunstnemes, H., 1967, New Babylon. Constant, Galerie dEendt, Oslo, Le Corbusier, 1976, Towards a new architecture, Architectural Press, London. Le Corbusier, ND, The Cities of Tomorrow and its planning. Architectural Press, London. Le, C., & Etchells, F, 1946, Towards a new architecture. Architectural Press, London. Le, C., Cohen, J.-L., & Goodman, J. 2007, Toward an architecture. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, Calif. Nieuwenhuys, C, 1974, New Babylon Haags Gemeetenmuseum The Hague, 1974, [Online] available at: Padovan, R., 2002, towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies, and De Stijl. Routledge’ London. Seranyi, P. 1975, Le Corbusier in Perspective, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, NJ. Žantovská, M. I., & Osley, J, 2009, Le Corbusier and Britain An anthology, Routledge, Abington, Oxon. Read More

 

Read More