Nearly every aspect of life was redefined in the mid nineteenth century during the industrial revolution. Fundamental changes occurred in agriculture, textile and metal manufacture, transportation, economic policies and the social structure. Yet somehow architecture did not catch the bug, buildings still reflected the past with their stately capitals, columns, and other unnecessary fluff. This matter puzzled the young artist Le Corbusier; he believed that “we should make a machine for living”, and our buildings should reflect this newfound consciousness that has been adopted in the rest of our society. These ideas were the catalyst of an architectural revolution. Le Corbusier led the way in a movement that strove to bring architecture to the technological age, while still respecting the revered geometric proportions of the past and the beauty in simplicity.
Avi Friedman. 1995. The Evolution of Design Characteristics during the Post-Second World War Housing Boom: The U.S. Experience. Journal of Design History. Volume: 8. Issue: 2.
Though the Modern style continued to dominate high class business environments, designers were becoming more experimental, conforming less and less to the principles laid out by the pioneers of the Modernist movement. The free thinking masses of the new decade somewhat clashed with the rational and functional mind of dominant Modernist force Le Corbusier, who throughout his career detailed numerous guidelines, including his ‘Five Points Of Architecture’ which were to be followed in order to create a successful piece of design.
With health and wellness as a topic that is still very relevant as there become more urban developments, it is valid proof that Wright’s and Olmsted’s design principles and theories are useful precedents for contemporary designers.
The Arts and Crafts Movement originated in England in the 1860s and became popular in the United States during the 1880s. Many important architects, designers, and historians had a part in establishing the popularity of the movement. The goal behind the reform was to “change the working conditions of craftspeople while improving the quality of design” (Harwood, May, & Sherman, 2012). During this time, industrialization was rapidly increasing, and the Arts and Crafts era focused on design values from “medieval-like craft guilds” (Harwood, May, & Sherman, 2012). Many considerations were made during this period, including the promotion of efficient space planning to adapt to human needs. Another focus was on establishing harmony with nature and design unity within individual spaces. Quite possibly the most important feature of the reform was honesty of materials. Structure and function were among the most highly regarded characteristics of the craftsmen’s handiwork (Harwood, May, & Sherman, 2012).
Correspondingly, Katie Llyod Thomas shares similar views on how modernity has increasingly concealed tectonics. She conceptualizes how materiality is secondary to form with hylomorphism in her Architecture and Material Practice. “Hylomorphism, which understands materials as a subset of matter, does not provide a way of positively distinguishing materials, and underscore the architectural tendency to use materials as mere finishes,” says Katie.6 Modernity has instigated materiality and tectonics to become inferior to the architectural form; therefore, concepts and spaces are given more importance and further worked on more attentively, leaving materiality till the end. As Katie mentions, materiality in the design process of a student is in fact consider in the later stages, where it is discussed as a technical issue rather than a conceptual one.6 Materiality and tectonics is a conceptual joint, it is the structure that forms an architectural expression, represents an emotion, and it is what creates a space. Considering all factors, materiality shall not be left to discuss at the end, but worked on as the design is developing, therefore working on form alongside materiality and
Abstract: Contemporary architects have a wide variety of sources to gain inspiration from, but this has not always been the case. How did modernism effect sources of inspiration? What did post-modernism do to liberate the choice of influences? Now that Contemporary architects have the freedom of choice, how are they using “traditional” styles and materials to inspire them? Even after modernism why are traditional styles still around?
In that case, if we agree that design has a redirective connotation and inspires some sort of shift, is it possible to challenge those established hegemonies that govern us, and if that is possible which are the positions of action? Can design
Le Corbusier’s Vers Une Architecture (Towards a New Architecture) is focused on the architectural qualities of “the machine”. He states that “the house is a machine for living in,” where the principles of architects should be to make the house suited for its purpose, as if it was a machine. This restates the argument that functionalism is more important than appearance, and that progress comes from architects abandoning the concept of traditional styles and decorative effects. Le Corbusier understood that architecture has nothing to do with various styles because functionality will always come before the subjectivity of appearance; he saw the aesthetic, not as just another style but the substance of architecture. In which he drew parallels
On September 3rd 1856, Louis Sullivan, the “Father of Skyscrapers”, was born into a nation that faced the precipice of change. Modernism had just begun to enter the minds of philosophers around America. Sullivan was attracted to the early modernist ideas over the late modernist one, believing that he could perfect the buildings that he produced into functioning storage units. This belief was undoubtedly influenced by events that were occurring in the nation during the late nineteenth century. One of the most influential events was the Great Chicago Fire. After the Great Chicago Fire, Sullivan realized two key pieces of information. The first was that his works could be destroyed at any time, therefore he didn’t attempt to spend an extensive amount of time designing his building. The second was that one of the main reasons that the buildings of the time were made out of wood which could easily burn. To fix that problem, Sullivan needed a material that was sturdy yet not flammable to replace what had previously been a city based on wood. The Industrial Revolution achieved a solution for Sullivan’s dilemma. Steel, a substance created by infusing a small percent of carbon into iron, allowed for taller, sturdier buildings with lower cost in terms of affordable housing. Urbanization took hold of Chicago as well during the eighteen eighties and nineties. As immigration grew in America, the need for more affordable housing grew correspondingly. The creation of Sullivan’s steel based skyscrapers was the answer to the problem. Although he died April 14th 1924, Sullivan influenced many architects that would complete his dream of a fully functional Chicago. Louis Sullivan’s modern style of functional architecture was molded by the same forces...