Frank Lloyd Wright vs Le Corbusier in Modern Architecture - Coursework Example

Frank Lloyd Wright Vs Le Corbusier in Modern Architecture Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier were visionary architects who have influenced the twentieth century architecture and the modern architecture. Lloyd was born in Wisconsin and brought up by his mother, after his parents divorced. This situation helped shaped Lloyd’s views about the family unit, which he later regarded as the center of society. On the other hand, Le Corbusier was born in Switzerland, but later moved to Paris in 1916. While in Paris, he became famous for revolutionizing the Parisian architecture and the modern architecture. He believed in central organization and in great cities. He held the opinion that a great city is inevitable, and therefore, the beauty and freedom of great cities intensified the aspects of central organization. Both Lloyd and Le Corbusier had no formal training in architecture, but it is amazing how they emerged as the best architects of their era, and produced great works that influenced modern architecture. According to Colquhoun, the term “modern architecture” is ambiguous and can be understood in different ways by various people. First, modern architecture may be used to refer to the buildings built in the modern period, irrespective of the philosophies and ideologies of the architects behind the architectures. One might also understand modern architecture as a type of architecture that is distinct from other past architectures, as it struggles for change, and to stand out. In this context, the later definition of modern architecture is appropriate and applied in this discussion (9). Le Corbusier, apart from architecture, was a philosopher, and a painter. He developed new modern theories, while producing good paintings and architectural works. Le Corbusier architectures mostly served the needs of the middle-class people. He took this path as a way of reducing the gap between the rich and poor, as during his era, there was a great demarcation between these two categories of people. Some of his famous architectures that fitted the middle-class people include the domino house and the radiant city. However, domino house is the most popular work of Le Corbusier. This was highly adopted by people after the Second World War. The war had resulted in the destruction of homes, and therefore, more people needed new homes, which they could build at a fair cost, considering the effects of the war on economy. Domino house was the most appropriate design during this time. This is because it was simple, easy to build, and did not require plenty of building material in its construction, above all, it was liveable. Therefore, most houses during this post-war period were built in Le Corbusier’, Domino house design. Frank Lloyd on the other hand, held an assumption that architecture focuses more on the majority people in the society, who are workers. Therefore, less focus of architecture was on the wealthy few in the society. During Lloyd’s era, industrialization was being experienced at a higher rate. Technology was advancing at a higher rate too. In addition, most workers were laid off their work as machines took their place. In this era therefore, technology and machines, were at the heart of the society. Lloyd therefore, incorporated the element of machine in his architectural works. Lloyd hence, did not choose to focus on the man-made ornaments in his architecture, as machines had taken the place of human labour. Lloyd settled on simply machine made to his structures, which in the form, itself, becomes ornamentation. By doing this, Lloyd mediated between man and machine elements. All this was evident in his design the Robie house. In this house design, Lloyd incorporated elements of nature and machine in the architecture. People living in this house design are able to experience the nature outside the house, and at the same time experience the element of machine in the design, which was also brought out on the chairs. Both Frank Lloyd and Le Corbusier share same ideals of architecture, by incorporating machine-made elements in their design’s structure and furniture. This shared architectural ideal is now regarded as modern architecture. Both Frank Lloyd and Le Corbusier lived during the period of industrial revolution. These two shared a conflicting opinion about the organization of a city. While Frank Lloyd believed in decentralization, Le Corbusier believed in the centralization of cities and the urban environment. He thought that this was a way if addressing the expectations, and serving the needs of the modern society that was slowly emerging. To him, the compact city model in cities would be socio-economically beneficial based on its concept of density, and this would enhance the relationship between human beings and nature (Goncalves 30). However, with contradicting views, Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd tried to address the problem of insufficient urban structure in cities during the industrial revolution. This had compromised public health, quality of the environment, and growth of cities during the twentieth century period. The same problem is shared with the contemporary cities. The factor of environmental degradation applies to both the 1920s cities, and the modern cities, and in both cases, this mainly roots from the energy consumption, which results in substantial environmental changes, as well as contributing to air pollution in the cities (Goncalves 30). Le Corbusier, arguing for centralization of cities, recommended the compact city model for cities. Long buildings as opposed to low buildings characterized this model. Le Corbusier argued that this was the best model for a modern city and society. If this model was to be applied to the cities, it meant that all the buildings in the city had to be demolished, including the neighbourhoods. This ignored the local context, and meant a one-time revolution into a modern city. This compact city model was criticized by urban planners and architects, on various grounds and was not applied in the city architecture due to its unrealistic nature. Le Corbusier, still determined to develop an architectural model for a modern city, later came up with an urban plan in 1922, with the title, “Contemporary City.” This plan was for close to three million residents and consisted three different house designs. Compared to his compact model, this urban plan received less criticism, as it was quite applicable in that period. In 1933, Le Corbusier developed another plan, “Radiant City,” which would cater for 1.5 million people. In this plan, buildings would occupy only 12 percent of the space. The remaining 88 per cent was meant for fields and green areas. This plan was founded with the concept of urban socialization in mind, leisure, and space for nature in an urban environment. In 1929, the ideas of Le Corbusier were adopted in cities’ regional planning. Regional planning was mainly based on open spaces in cities, and tall buildings, which were all Le Corbusier’s ideas. He was contracted to design buildings in the city. In his design, he promoted his “super-density city” notion. He designed 1.5M high buildings that accommodated close to 1000 people on each hectare. Le Corbusier’s design and architectural proposals influenced different international regions. These regions too adopted Le Corbusier’s designs and plans in their cities. Such regions include Genoa, Stockholm, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Rio Jadineiro, Barcelona, among others. This therefore, shows the impact Le Corbusier had in the modern architecture. Le Corbusier’s city model was considerate of space in urban areas. That is why he adopted the concept of tall buildings in order to create more space in cities. This also was environmental conscious, as the spaces allowed for green nature, thus enhancing the environmental quality of cities. The tall buildings also addressed the large population in urban centres, which was raising concerns during the industrial revolution. Le Corbusier’s contemporary city has always been contrasted with Lloyd Frank’s “Brodacre.” While Le Corbusier was mainly interested in urban architectures, Lloyd Frank was mainly concerned with the architecture of rural and suburban buildings. He however, is still of great importance to the modern architecture. Most importantly, the modern architects can still learn a lot lessons from Lloyd’s ideas. For instance, the modern architects on how to address the problems they encounter while doing domestic extensions. From Lloyd Frank’s “Usonian houses,” modern architects can learn much about the concepts of space and fluid ease, and how they can manage these in their works. It is proven though that the concepts of space and fluid ease, as applied in Usonian houses is applicable today, as most architects have applied these, and it made a difference in their works. Lloyd’s sometimes did not start his designs from scratch, but managed to incorporate variations on the already well-devised themes. He was also popular for his good and extravagant houses that went at a low budget, suiting the needs of the middle-class people, who were the majority of his clients. Most importantly, Lloyd’s Usonian houses has been and remains influential in most domestic planning today, and is popular for its space and fluid ease implications. Comparing Le Corbusier and Lloyd Frank’s architectural works, Le Corbusier’s works were largely sophisticated and hard to get grips with. On the other hand, it is argued that Frank Lloyd’s designs were quite simplistic and detecting them was quite easy. There is a number of different studies conducted on Lloyd Frank’s designs and Le Corbusier’s designs. These bring out the differences between the two architect’s works, based on various reasons and facts. Le Corbusier’s works are mainly based on his theories and ideas as a philosopher, and his life. Although most studies do not pay attention to this, Le Corbusier’s work was also influenced by his prowess in designing, as well as his keenness to the smaller details of function. These aspects are quite evident in most of his designs. Both Le Corbusier and Lloyd Frank employed and valued the function of space in their designs. Many of Le Corbusier’s devices are still being utilized by most architects today, same to those of Frank Lloyd. The most common element of Le Corbusier’s designs that is highly utilized today is the introduction of the double volume. This serves the function of space provision, and generally, a sense of spatial release. This also applies to Lloyd Frank; the most popular and highly adopted element in his designs is whereby he introduces the aspect of space through the diagonal flows between rooms. This therefore, shows that these two past architects shared similar opinions and concerns about the aspect of space in the interiors, in their designs. Notably, it is possible to compare how Lloyd Frank and Le Corbusier managed to capture and achieve a sense of space in their designs. Le Corbusier ensured a sense of spaciousness and flexibility in his designs, even those of the residential units that were planned tightly. It still amazes most modern architects how Le Corbusier managed to this in such plans. Le Corbusier’s elements that influence space and flexibility in a house are those that are unmovable in nature. These include plumbing and furniture of large sizes. In his designs, these were fixed in a specific point, and the remaining space in the room left fluid. This is evident in the La Ville Radieuse. This approach is quite similar to Lloyd Frank’s approach. Lloyd Frank in his living rooms, made use of mobile furniture, as well as built-in furniture. On the contrast, Lloyd’s furniture were mobile but heavy to allow for movements, while Le Corbusier’s furniture were light and could be moved from one point to another. Another contrasting aspect between Lloyd Frank and Le Corbusier’s designs is that Lloyd was concerned with designs that would provide cosiness to middle-class nuclear families, as he specialized in domestic planning. On the other hand, Le Corbusier’s designs were mainly meant for the wealthier technocrats, as well as the modern lovers of art, who viewed cosiness as cloying. Nonetheless, Le Corbusier is credited for developing built-in and movable elements in hose designs. This is an idea, which most mid-20th century architects adopted in their designs as well. This kind of design allowed a great deal of flexibility. These served to change the function and mood during the day and during different seasons. However, this Le Corbusier’s residential plan was only adopted for the better part of the 20th century, and is rarely used today. Nonetheless, it is a design that is worthy to be recovered today. Le Corbusier believed in modern architecture, and he tried to support this concept, as seen in his works. Some of his designs that were criticized and considered impractical were those that he thought would bring a change in the world of architecture. Le Corbusier believed that change is inevitable. According to him, every human age exhibits different elements of evolution in different spheres. He thought that in every era, human beings developed new tools, which they would use to address the new needs that emerge in society, as each era experiences new needs after a couple of years. To him, humans are known to throw away old tools, which they no longer use, as these have outlived their purpose. Le Corbusier applied this mentality in his designs, and thought that it was unjust to reproduce past designs, which he considered out-dated. Therefore, Le Corbusier incorporated the elements of industrialization, especially machines, in that present era, into his designs, to produce unique designs that represented the era of industrial revolution. However, Le Corbusier evolutionary ideas faced sharp criticism from the conservative architects of that day, who embraced past architectural designs. Technology and its role in the twentieth century was an important factor that influenced the works of both Lloyd Frank and Le Corbusier. Lloyd Frank shared the ideas of the socialists of the nineteenth century. However, just as Le Corbusier, he was not conservative in the context of architecture. He therefore, was not confined to the traditional forms of architecture as the other conservatives. Both Lloyd Frank and Le Corbusier possessed ideals that were unique and intercepted between the nineteenth century socialist hopes and the twentieth century advanced technology. While Le Corbusier had deep interest in the twentieth century skyscrapers, Lloyd Frank was interested in the twentieth century automobiles, as he believed in their capabilities of transforming the modern life. All these personal interests in Lloyd Frank and Le Corbusier can be felt in the types of designs they developed. Lloyd used the twentieth century element of automobiles to develop a concept of time and space in his designs. Since he was concerned with planning for rural and suburban areas, he brought out and emphasized this modern concept through the superhighways that he used to connect different homes in his designs. As for Le Corbusier, he incorporates a modern concept in his designs by basing his plans on skyscrapers. For instance, his “Radiant City” and other plans were made up of skyscrapers. He also emphasized on modernity in his designs by use of sophisticated techniques of building, which were not a replication of the past techniques. Both Lloyd Frank and Le Corbusier valued style in their designs. They all believed that their styles must fit in the modern context, unlike those of the conservative architects of that era. They desired to utilize modern machines that would transform the aestheticism of their designs. Equally, they both anticipated the use of new materials for construction. They desired to move away from the traditional construction materials and adopt different materials, which would help enhance the modernity in their designs. They therefore, adopted the use of concrete, as this was not widely used in the eras before them. This was yet another element, which set their designs apart, and made them stand out from the others. Works Cited Colquhoun, Alan. “Modern Architecture.” London: Oxford University Press, 2002. Connors, Joseph. “The Robie House of Frank Lloyd Wright.” New York: University of Chicago Press, 1984 Etlin, Richard. “Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier: The Romantic Legacy.” London: Manchester University Press, 1994. Hoppen, Donald. “The Seven Ages of Frank Lloyd Wright: The Creative Process.” London: Courier Dover Publications, 1998. Goncalves, Joana. “The Environmental Performance of Tall Buildings.” New York: Earthscan, 2012. Millais, Malcolm. “Exploding the Myths of Modern Architecture.” New Jersey: Frances Lincoln Ltd, 2009. Read More