Blog Post — Ironies found in Le Corbusier’s “Towards A New Architecture”

Time is a privilege that I have, to be able to read the thoughts of Le Corbusier during a time that I was not a part of but am able to look back from a third-party perspective and understand it in a different way. With time and with different lenses that I can look back on it with, I can start to analyze and understand how the great leaders of modern architecture started to make sense of the world that they were living in. Corbusier was living in a time of rapid change and uncertainties. Witnessing the World Wars happen, which in turn encouraged a great deal of change in the technological world. Industrial processes were becoming more streamlined and more uniform building materials were a result from this. The way Corbusier analyzes how the technological advancements changed the way they built the world during the 20th century feels similar to how I have been noticing our current society change as these new technologies advance even more. He begins to touch on this point towards the end of his book,[i] where he beings,

“It would quickly be seen that the tools that man has made for himself, which automatically meet the needs of society, and which till now had undergone only slight modifications in a slow evolution, have been transformed all at once with an amazing rapidity. These tools in the past were always in man’s hands ; to-day they have been entirely and formidably refashioned and for the time being are out of our grasp.”

We currently have never lived in an era of such rapid change. Everything moves faster each day and grows at an exponential rate, and sometimes it’s hard to imagine how these changes can go any faster than they already are. When I reflect on these thoughts, I see strong parallels between our society now and how Corbusier was looking at his, then.

Time also gives me the privilege of a fresh perspective, detached from the emotions of the political climate at the time when Corbusier was writing Towards A New Architecture. After reading it in its entirety, there were ironies in the book that were extremely apparent to me, however I can’t help but think if I had read it at the time it was published, I may have felt the same way as Corbusier. In his last section of the book where he delves into the needs of the human and how architecture is affecting the way we live, he goes on to say,[ii]

“The machine that we live in is an old coach full of tuberculosis. There is no real link between our daily activities at the factory, the office, the bank, which are healthy and useful and productive, and our activities in the bosom of the family which are handicapped at every turn. The family is everywhere being killed and men’s minds are demoralized in servitude to anachronisms. Every man’s mind, being moulded by his participation in contemporary events, has consciously or unconsciously formed certain desires ; these are inevitably connected with the family, an instinct which is the basis of society. Every man to-day realizes his need of sun, of warmth, of pure air and clean floors,”

There are apparent ironies in what Corbusier is stating here and the way he believes we should be building architecture. While he tells the reader that it is basic human instinct to want clean air, warm sunlight, clean floors, etc., which I agree are basic human needs necessary for a healthy life, is contradictory to the way he proposes to design this. He suggests we build this new environment directly worsens the environment even more and perpetuates the air quality issues, which is the root of what Corbusier claims is necessary for humans. The advancements in industrial techniques, allowing for now the machine to do the work and not the man, exponentially sped up the building process specifically by creating uniform building units, like steel beams, columns, girders, cutting wood into nominal dimensions and not using it in its most raw form, producing glass with exact dimensions. This level of accuracy had never been experienced until the industrial revolution, and with this new level of precision allowed for new types of building, and overall faster building. Builders were no longer taught the craft from their elders and passed down their knowledge and techniques from generation to generation. Now, it has broken up the process of building into small tasks and designating those tasks to specialized individuals who only handle that small part of the whole process. The disconnect with this mindset is that the machines that are making these new building materials are not sustainable, and only contribute to the worsening air quality. In addition to this point, the capitalism that currently runs this country does a poor job at regulating the way factories discard their materials and waste, and the chemicals that they discard into the air, which again only worsens our surrounding environment and in this mindset that the industrialization of our world is solving problems, only creates a whole new set of problems that following generations will have to fix. My last issue with this particular point Corbusier makes comes back around to Man himself. Corbusier stresses the point that architecture is meant to better the life of the human and a healthy environment and home is essential for a healthy human,[iii]

“The primordial instinct of every human being is to assure himself of a shelter. The various classes of workers in society to-day no longer have dwellings adapted to their needs ; neither the artisan nor the intellectual. It is a question of building which is at the root of the social unrest of to-day ; architecture or revolution.”

Yet another issue I have with this point he makes is that the use of machines and unregulated factories is that it inevitably leads to the exploitation of its workers, especially during the time period this piece was written in the early 20th century. This is yet another example of Corbusier suggesting to alleviate one issue in society with yet another issue, by trying to solve the housing issue at the time with industrialized and mass produced modular housing that can be uniform and applied to everyone, however the means of creating this perpetuates another issue of poor working conditions and worsening the air quality. In another one of his pieces he goes deeper into this concept by pumping pure air into his buildings,[iv]

“Alas, the machine age has, as it were, shuffled the cards — the age-old cards of the world. Since the machine age, the product of progress, has disturbed everything, couldn’t it also give us the means to salvation? …Multiplicity of climates, play of seasons, a break with secular traditions — confusion, disorder, and the martyrdom of man.…I seek the remedy, I seek the constant; I find the human lung. With adaptability and intelligence, let’s give the lung the constant which is the prerequisite of its functioning: exact air.…Let’s manufacture exact air: filters, driers, humidifiers, disinfectors. Machines of childish simplicity.…Send exact air into men’s lungs, at home, at the factory, at the office, at the club and the auditorium: ventilators, machines so often used, but so often used badly! …Let’s give man the solar rays which will penetrate the all-glass facades. But will be too hot in the summer and terribly cold in the winter! Let’s create ‘neutralizing walls.’ (And ‘sun control’).”

The idea itself of creating this perfectly sealed homes where “exact air” is pumped into them to manufacture this perfect environment that will protect you from the outside environment, I can understand how at the time this was proposed it may sound ideal. During the first World War where it was the first time where the air you breathe could be jeopardized at any moment because of gassing, this was a new concept that had never existed before. I can see how in a time of emergency this would be a good solution to protecting humans in a time of need and creating a sanctuary through architecture and design. However, it is not a sustainable solution, and I felt disappointed when I read it originally that that was the solution Corbusier proposed. To keep consistent with the ideals that he states in his work, I was expecting Corbusier to propose a solution that would support his social belief with a conceptually similar architectural solution. Initially when I had learned about this idea of “exact air” I could not help but to draw parallels to when Western colonizers came to the Americas and forced Native Americans out of their tipis and into built, more western homes. In a way they thought they were helping the native Americans, by trying to “improve” their standard of living by making it more compatible with what westerners know, however, they were completely displacing communities that the Native Americans had built and as they lived in the more traditionally western constructed home, sealed up with walls and windows, it was a sharp contrast to the airy tipis that they were used to and had major impacts on their health and well-being, killing many of them because of the effects of the drastic change. While I think the intentions behind creating pure air is admirable, the way of going about it seems hastily done in Corbusier’s proposal, and although I don’t have an answer myself to how to successfully fix it, I think as a new generation of architects it is our responsibility to take these environmental and social issues seriously because architecture itself has the power to alleviate these problems. It is evident that Corbusier does not dismiss these same sentiments in his writing as well, because he does touch upon the social impact that design and industry has on humans, [v]

“The eight hour days! The three ‘eights’ in the factory! The shifts working in relays. This one starting at 10 p.m. and finishing at 6 a.m. ; another one ending at 2 p.m. Did our legislators think of that when they granted the eight hours day? What is the man going to do with his freedom from 6 a.m. till 10 p.m. ; from 2 p.m. till night? What becomes of the family under these conditions? The lodging is there, you will say, to receive and welcome the human animal, and the worker is sufficiently cultivated to know how to make a healthy use of so many hours of liberty. But this is exactly what is not the case ; the lodging is hideous, and his mind is not sufficiently educated to use all these hours of liberty. We may well say, then : Architecture or demoralization—demoralization and revolution.”

This is where Corbusier begins to touch more on the idea of the impact design has on the well-being of humans. the rapid change in industrialization at the time I believe can be seen comparable to the current state of rapid change we are in currently in 2019. Almost 100 years later and time moves faster and faster than ever before because of the technological advancements that lead from one step of progress to another. I think this is the point where, architects need to start looking at that past, which seems cyclical in its events, to start anticipating changes that will occur in the future and develop a skill set to be able to solve the problems effectively when they occur. It seems that though the exact problems that occurred in the early 20th century are different than what is occurring now, however the nature of the problem is still the same. In the nature of the problem, there may be commonalities found in the way you find a solution, so I believe it is crucial that analyzing work like Corbusier’s writing is to be developing a system of how we as architects begin to tackle the issues occurring now. With the environment literally deteriorating around us as we speak, new reports come out seemingly almost daily about how fast it can all collapse at the rate we use materials, handle our waste, and use our fuel. What I have learned the most from reading Towards A New Architecture is the ability to take these cases that have happened in the past and dissect them into how the approaches were successful and unsuccessful. By doing this, it can start to direct how we problem solve today, and hopefully slow down the damage that we are causing with our current way of building (and living). While it was eye opening and thought provoking, reading Corbusier’s work, it opened my eyes and made me more aware of how architects can directly impact society’s issues at the time. The way we design has a direct impact on the human and the way we live, and I can’t help but wonder why there is not a more stressed importance on this profession, and a bigger push for seeing architects as problem solvers at the city, and country level, and not just the building. I will always find myself coming back to Towards A New Architecture finding something new every time I read it.

---

[i] Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture, “Architecture or Revolution” pg. 271

[ii] Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture, “Architecture or Revolution” pg. 277

[iii] Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture, “Architecture or Revolution” pg. 269

[iv] Le Corbusier, The Radiant City: Elements of a Doctrine of Urbanism to be Used as the Basis of Our Magine-Age Civilization (1933), pg. 42.

[v] Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture, “Architecture or Revolution” pg. 275