Origins of the Modern House

The basis on which Modern Architecture was derived was the need for a new style that could be contributed to history and would push towards the future rather than looking into the past. Some of the greatest inventions come for the early 20^th century as well as some of the principles on which architecture is reliant on today. Many people can be chosen as a viable source of modern architecture, but there are three in particular that stand out and truly gave the world of architecture something that will never be forgotten. Le Corbusier, Alvar Aalto, and Mies van der Rohe were the leading men of their field during their time and their ideas are still incorporating in the design process today. In the remainder of this text, the approaches that each architect took in the process of design as well as the key ideas that each of them developed in order to be so prominent in the world of architecture will be discussed.

Le Corbusier is one of the most influential architects of modern architecture which is somewhat ironic because of his love of the classicism, especially the “‘masculine’ classicism of ancient Greece” (Colquhoun, 138). An easy point in which one can clearly see a change in Le Corbusier’s thinking was in the publication, L’Esprit Nouveau, in which the Le Corbusier introduced his theory of the object-type. In his writing, Le Corbusier praised Cubism for its simplification of forms. Reading this and looking at many of his life works, one can clearly see the connection. Although, he continue to design interiors in the neoclassical style for many years which he learned from his teacher Perret, all of that was about to change. It is strange how people who start using a similar tool, end up using it in a very different way. The previous sentence is in reference to reinforced concrete. Although Corbusier was taught a particular way to use the material, he took the idea to another level.

The use of reinforced concrete in the building process for Le Corbusier was a way to industrialize the building process. This ideology leads Le Corbusier to the idea of the Dom-ino frame which is illustrated in the figure below. This system is simply composed of structural columns and concrete floor plates. This system of building allowed for the interior was as well as the exterior walls to be positioned with freedom. This simple concept could very well be the birth of the open floor plan concept that was strongly utilized by many architects including Mies van der Rohe. One of the first projects to use this system and to be designed for the purpose of industurializion (in response to the mass production and industrialization of the automobile) is the Citrohan House built in 1925. Not only does this house display the widely space structure columns near the base on which the mass is settled, it also introduces something new made possible by the Dom-ino system. This idea, similar to the idea of the free floor plan, is the free façade which allows for the placement and the size of window openings to be at the architects discretion. The absolute freedom is clearly seen in the size of the windows as well as the openings near the top for the terrace.

The design of this house along with many other works and influences lead Le Corbusier to an ideology about architecture which he believe should be the fundamental starting point for any design. These ideas are presented as Corbusier’s Five Points of New Architecture which are pilotis, the roof garden, the free plan, the horizontal window, and the free façade. A work of architecture that represents all of these ideas to exactly as Le Corbusier had intended is the Villa Savoye. The exterior displays the pilotis, the horizontal window and the free façade. The floor plan below shows just how flexible and interior could be using this system and the adjacent image is that of the roof top garden.

  

Alvar Aalto’s real contribution to modern architecture may not have happened if it wasn’t for his departure from Neoclassicism and Rationalism, from which Le Corbusier began as well, to the logic of the New Objectivity. This style is represented in his design for the Turku Fair competition of 1929 which is credited with introducing the new style known as New Objectivity to the Finnish public. This depart is seen clearly in his design for the Villa Mairea. This residence with its use of space as combined living zones, wall-to-wall plate-glass windows is comparable to the style of Mies van der Rohe in his Tugendhat House. This marks a slight transitioning form the New Objectivity style into what people now know was modern architecture. It has been said that through designing the Villa Mairea, Aalto “sloughed off the last inherited skin, and revealed his true nature” (Curtis, 349).   Also, the use of natural materials, such as wood, in contemporary ways, as if they were new technology, is a notable change in modern architecture and Avlar’s style. The usage of materials in new ways gave rise to his designing of furniture as well.

 An example of the way that Aalto experimented with materials and tried to find a way to use them to accomplish different effects in a design is clearly evident in his design of the Experimental House. The layout is also example of how Alvar tried to incorporate nature into the design in the way he use the courtyard as a way to frame a piece of nature for the residents.  These changes were only the start of the development of Aalto’s style which went through more changes especially after World War II. More specifically, the replacement of rustic brickwork with white plaster and marble facings along with the increase of complexity in the designs may have been his most important step throughout his career. This few, but prominent changes, may have been reasons Aalto’s building programs changed to buildings that are more symbolic such as concert halls and buildings like the Vuoksenniska Church. Even though all of these changes occurred, “what remains constant in Aalto’s work is its drawing on the forms of the natural world to express growth and movement as a metaphor of human life” (Colquhoun, 204).

Last on the list is a man who took the idea of the free floor plan and the idea of incorporating nature in architecture out outside of the “box”.  Much like the architects previously discussed, Mies started with a reliance on historical ideas and developed throughout his career. In his early work such as the Riehl House in Berlin, Mies van der Rohe was still using and eclectic style and much like the rest of his neoclassical houses, it was “symmetrical, a two-story prism, with minor appendages” (Colquhoun, 172).  It was soon after this that his style began to change and develop into something that is more recognizable as a work by Mies.

The Wolf house is the start of Mies’s transition in style and where he started to define many principles that will be trademarked later as Miesian. Having an artistic educational background, Mies started to show Constructivism and hints of De Stijl in his designs. This is evident in the Wolf house which is a series of interlocking cubes.  One might infer that Mies’s ideas about architecture and his style of design changed with the commission of one single building as well as “summing up his discoveries to date”, the Barcelona Pavilion. Apart from the Tugendhats residence, the Barcelona Pavilion was Mies’s first steps an open floor plan and the use a spaces for more than one function. This style of design began with simple abstractions of what a wall and a window traditionally were considered to be. This is clear in the design of the pavilion with its free standing and intersecting planes which seemed to have transformed from an abstract painting to a physical division and definition of space.

It was not long after that each of his underlying principles became entirely clear in the Farnsworth House. The Farnsworth house was to be a redefinition of the home and how it is perceived by others. The house, along with the ideas of the open floor plan, looked to display the confines in which a person lives in its simplest form. With a complete simplification of structure, which can be compared to Le Corbusier’s pilotis, the house is basically two identical planes separate by eight steel columns and glass walls. The walls are what gave the Farnsworth house the connection to nature.

All of these architects are significant in history for redefining the way a house is built, lived in, and how it connects to its surroundings. Although each of them started with similar ideals about architecture, over time each learned to develop their own thinking about the way architecture is perceived by others.  It is to them that many architects look to for answers to toady and because of them many architects try to develop new, individual ways to solve a common problem such as the house.  

  

The Strive for Modern Housing

                Adolf Loos was a major contributor to the modern style and was a visionary. He looked at the process of designing a home in a very different light which ultimately lead to changes in architecture as well as “influence on the succeeding generation of architects, particularly Le Corbusier” (Colquhoun, 73). Many try to reinterpret his style which has been the cause for many of his ideas being present in the work of today’s architects. One characteristic of his life that lead to the development of his style, among many, was his fascination with everyday objects. He looked at many of the objects in contrast to, “the pretentious inventions of much self-conscious art” (Curtis, 69). It was been understood, or perceived by many that Loos’s designs were just simply white cubes that did not display any ornament and seemed to just have windows cut out with a template. Loos felt as though ornament may not be necessary to the design of a building. One might very well draw these same conclusions upon first glance at the Rufer House built in Vienna, Austria in 1922.

                Not only is the house simple from the exterior but is also simple in structure much like that of the Josef Frank house that was constructed during the Weissenhofsiedlung in Stuttgart, Germany 1927. Both of the houses seem to rely on exterior walls as load bearing structural support for the buildings. It is clear in the Rufer House by Loos that the exterior walls along with the central column are the basic structure. The benefit for Loos in the decision to move the loadbearing walls to the outer reaches of the building was that he was then able to be flexible with the interior walls which allowed him to define a path for the users. On the other hand, Frank’s floor plans seemed to be a little more open on the upper floors of the building.

                In addition to the exterior loadbearing walls, bother of these architects seemed as thought they had similar views on ornament. Much like the first image, Rufer House,  the image of the Josef Frank show the plain, white stucco exterior. This was a common feauture of the Weissenhofsiedlung mainly because the material was very new at the time.  Where Josef differents from Loos is the amount of windows. It is very clear in the elevation of the Frank house that having natural light in the building was important in the design. In contrast, the small and mimimal amount of windows that Loos includes on the façade suggests that Loos what people to focus more on the interior. Although Loos had a method which was similar to that of Baumeister in Hoffmann’s story Councillor Krespel, in which, “the square plan and its random windows which obey the secret rule of interior (Colquhoun, 82).

             The approch that Loos took in designing this house also made for the different in the layout between the Rufer House and the house by Josef Frank.( It is important to note at this point that the building by Frank was not a single residence but a duplex.) The duplex by Josef was very symmetrical in the layout of the floor plan as well as the placement of exterior elements such as the window and balconies. Adlofs plan was clearly not symmetrical and different in layout on every floor where as on the floors on Franks building there was remnents of the previous floor.

                Maybe this then presents the idea that even though each of the buildings had exterior load bearing walls, each architect made the decision for different reasons. Adolf,  in my opion, did this so that he could then have freedom with the interior walls and partions. Frank may have created the strong exterior walls as a boudry for the layout of the interior spaces.

                Many of the ideas present in this text goes to show how to individuals can set out in the same time period, with the same tools at their disposal, be striving for a similar successful residental building, and end up with different buildings that are looked at today for different reasons. Even though the buildings had many similarites, the role of that building and their work play a different role in the development of modern architecture and design practices today.  

Art Nouveau

Viollet-le-Duc Sketch

                Art Nouveau, in terms of architecture, is something that can be described as organic and ornamental with its use of undulating, asymmetrical lines which were often are an imitation of plants, flowers, and the like. Along with the elaborate ornament, Art Nouveau had a way of creating unity between the aesthetics of a design and structure, much like the style of Viollet-le-Duc. Many figures from the Art Nouveau period as well as the period itself are important to the creation of Modern Architecture because it gave rise to a new form of thinking. This new form of thinking during the Art Nouveau can be linked to the attempt to replace classical architecture. There were a number of people that fell into the Art Nouveau style and pushed boundaries and ideas, but, three figures that not only did just this but also paved the road into the Modern Architecture style are Hector Guimard, Hand Van der Veld, and Victor Horta.

                Victor Horta is the first of outstanding architects from the Art Nouveau period and happens to hail from the birth place of Art Nouveau itself, Belgium. Curtis wrote in Modern Architecture: Since 1900 that, “…the architecture of Victor Horta, which seemed a three-dimensional equivalent to the painters’ two-dimensional linear inventiveness."  Horta, who studied under a neoclassical architect, went on to explore the relationship between the natural world and architecture as a whole. It showed in many of Horta’s designs from the exterior to the interior. An example of this which shows Horta’s involvement in the Art Nouveau period and his exploration with organic forms and structure is his first major work, the Tassel House in Brussels.

Tassel House - Horta

Staircase of Tassel House

       

Although Horta’s style seems very free and organic, there is always a sense of formal order in his plans that can be found. Victor’s experimentation with from, structure, and most of all the use of steel is one reason he can be considered as a precedent for the Modern style.

Garden in Kalmhout- Van de Velde

           Next, is Henry Van De Velde who is not only known as an architect but also a painter. Having a background in painting, with nature as the subject of many of his works, it was natural for Henry to fall into the Art Nouveau category. Van De Velde got his start in architecture by designing a house for himself near Brussels. Not only did Van De Velde paint and design buildings, but he also designed furniture. It was his furniture designs for Paris art galleries that are responsible for bringing Art Nouveau to France (all-art.org). Van De Velde’s major contributions to modern style were through his teachings in Germany as well as his depth in interior and furniture designs at Boekentornen University Library in Antwerp.

Banquette - Van de Velde

Boekentoren University Library - Van de Velde

Last but certainly not least, Hector Guimard was part of the French Art Nouveau movement. Much like the two designers mentioned before, Guimard paid special attention to the organic form and the ornament in his designs. In comparison to Horta, Guimard was a pioneer of the Art Nouveau style in France and got inspiration from Viollet-le-Duc.  If fact, as Colquhoun states in his text, “… his allegiance to Viollet-le-Duc was even stronger than that of Horta.” Some of Hector’s earlier works were based off of illustrations made by Viollet-le-Duc.  Also, Guimard designed and was well known for the entrances of the Paris Metro. It is evident in this designs that Hector was making a strong analogy between metal structure and plant form.

Paris Metro - Guimard

It was not long before the time of Hector Guimard, Henry Van de Velde, and Victor Horta that many aspects of a building such as structure, ornament, furniture, and even interior design were considered to be separate parts of a design. In many cases, different ideas were used in the design of each, but, the Art Nouveau movement which was defined by the style and thinking of these designers brought all of these aspects together into a single philosophy. The idea of using structure and ornament together or even using structure as ornament is a characteristic of the Modern style and is seen time and again. It goes without saying that these men were design pioneers of their time and may have been the same for the future.

    

                 

Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc

Modern Architecture is a subject that is the most difficult to understand in terms of style and design. Many architects during the 19^th Century struggled to become original in their styles as well as the meaning and thoughts behind the architecture. There are three significant individuals from this time period who had understanding and ideologies that were similar in some aspects but different in others about architecture and the course it would take in the future. John Ruskin, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, and Gottfried Semper, the main subject of this blog post, all published ideas throughout their lives which are still significant in today’s academic world when try to understand Modern Architecture. The simple reason for this is that their very ideas paved the path into Modern Architecture and a new era of thought and creativity. For the remainder of this post I plan to compare and contrast the beliefs and ideas of Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc on the broad subject of Architecture.

Semper, unlike Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc who admired Gothic style architecture, took interest in Greek architecture. During the Greek period, many of the buildings were designed to fit the needs of people during the time which is why Semper took an interest in Greek architecture.  Semper was an advocate of function in a building which is clearly represented in his book, “The Four Elements of Architecture”. The book shares his belief that all buildings should integrate the four elements (hearth, substructure, roof, and enclosure) in order to be functional and fit the needs of people.  Much like Viollet-le-Duc, Semper takes the rational approach to design which differs greatly from the emotional view Ruskin takes on architecture. Semper focuses on structural technology when designing. This does not mean that ornament was foreign in his style.  Semper clearly believed in eclecticism which is evident in his design of the Semper Opera House.

http://travel.roro44.com/europe/germany/Semper_Opera_Dresden_Germany.jpg

As stated before, Ruskin’s preferred choice in architectural style was Gothic which may be one of the only common factors between himself and Viollet-le-Duc. The understanding and reasons that each individual admired the Gothic style was one of the major differences that lead both Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc down separate paths. Viollet-le-Duc admired Gothic architecture for the structural technology which can be considered a rational approach as opposed to Ruskin’s emotional approach. Ruskin credited the ornament and the craftsmanship of the Gothic style as evidence that it can be considered architecture.

Being interest in the structure of the Gothic style, it is easy to see that Viollet-le-Duc was very interested in steel and iron and how it could be incorporated into his designs and restorations. These major two defining characteristics of Viollet-le-Duc are two major subjects that Ruskin opposed greatly. Ruskin believed in stone as the only suitable building material along with a few native materials such as plaster. Material was something that Semper and Ruskin had common beliefs about. Each of them believed that material should always be displayed in its true form and the materials should not be mimicked. Finally, Ruskin, Semper, and Viollet-le-Duc each had different opinions of restoration. Viollet-le-Duc clearly thought that it was a good thing; he felt it was a way to bring part of present day into history. Viollet-le-Duc’s work was mainly restoration and he did not try to restore buildings to their original state, rather he redesigned the parts of the buildings that were lost. Ruskin’s beliefs were simply this, restoring a building is one of the worst forms of devastation a building may encounter. Semper, lastly, lands somewhere in the middle in his approach to restoration. Semper simply tries to bring the building back to life with the same amount of passion and style with minimal change even though there is some occasionally.    

  

Introduction

The purpose of this blog is to discuss ideas presented by authors regarding modern architecture. The readings are a part of the Arch 329 course at Ball State University, History of Architecture II: Modern Architecture 1830-Present. I am currently a 3rd year architecture student at the College of Architecture and Planning. Comments are welcome, thanks.