The reading which struck me most was Le Corbusier’s “A Contemporary City”. In his radical thesis on the nature of the modern city–what it represents in the greater context of humanity, and what purposes it should therefore serve–is built on a scornful examination on the cities of today, or as he might have labeled them, “of yesterday”, as lagging decades behind the advances of the modern industrial world. In his own words, Corbusier decries that “building is the one economic activity which has so far resisted industrialization”, and has “thus escaped the march of progress” (175) of modern society. Upon this conviction, Corbusier presents his vision which is as radically forward to most as existing cities are radically backwards to him. Corbusier is highly persuasive in his rally cry against the stagnation of the urban planning of modern day cities. He employs sound reasoning for his arguments in favor of a city that meets the needs and wants of modern man, and he does so through the methodical use of clear and concise logic. He breaks down the population into different groups in order to take into consideration their role in the city (166). He subdivides traffic into similar categories, designing infrastructure specific to each of those groups’ needs (168). He then does the same by breaking the city into designated areas based off of population density (174). Add to this emphasis on organization his “basic principles of city planning” (170), and you have an argument designed with all the careful craft of an architect. In fact, Le Corbusier had me quite compelled with his vision…that is, until I saw the rendering of his city of tomorrow. The stark contrast between his refreshing humanistic philosophy on city planning, and the monotonous nightmare of concrete high rises that were his vision all along, to me exemplifies something great in theory, and utterly horrifying in practice.
As for the Architectural titan Frank Lloyd Wright, I found his “A Home in a Prairie Town” to be a quaint look into his philosophy on contemporary suburban living. Though it was not on as large of a scale as Le Corbusier’s essay, Wright’s article gave insight into his own design philosophy at the time, and how he envisioned contemporary life. The four-house block presented in the article made an efficient use of resources (land) while still offering a more open-air way of living. The houses are, in my belief, deliberately low-impact to their environment. They do not detract or draw attention away from the raw beauty of the land, but rather exist as a discreet, elegant extension of it. This aesthetic does appear to me as heavily influenced by eastern aesthetic, specifically Japan (speaking not from knowledge of architecture, but rather what I know of Japanese aesthetics). I believe the key principles of Japanese Aesthetics Yugen, Kanso, and Fukinsei can all be found in his proposed design. It is clear that Wright’s design precepts different from that of Corbusier, and that is, I believe, an extension of their different beliefs on the impact man should have on his environment. Corbusier of course favors a more vertical, towering, progressive design agenda which matches man’s industrial progress, whereas Wright was more a student of the natural world and saw design as opportunity to complement nature rather than juxtapose it (or such is my impression from these readings).
Wright, Frank Lloyd. “A Home in a Prairie Town”, 15. In Ladies Home Journal. Philadelphia: Curtis Publishing Company, February 1901.
Le Corbusier. “A Contemporary City of Three Million Inhabitants.” Essay. In The City of To-Morrow: and Its Planning, 164–77. London: Architectural Pr., 1947.