How has modernist design tradition informed the way we build cities today?
The earliest beginning of “modernization” is attributed to the industrial revolution, which first took place in Britain from the mid-1700s to mid-1800s. The development of large scale iron production resulted in a large amount of iron making their way into buildings by the late 1700s, which resulted in more efficient structural elements, wider beam spans, better lateral stability as well as less fire-hazardous structures due to metal being non-combustible. While buildings during this time used technologically advanced materials for practical reasons, they still looked like traditional buildings, such as being embedded in traditional masonry and adhering to classical proportions and visual styles.
The building that is commonly accepted by many to be the first example of “modern architecture” is “The Crystal Palace”, which was a 990,000 sq. ft. building (Duke Magazine, 2019). It was almost entirely made of slender cast into iron frames that sustained large sheets of plate glass. By the 1830s, technologies of the industrial revolution made it possible for windows to be made significantly larger than ever before. However, what made the Crystal Palace revolutionary was not only that it was tall, light, and open, but it also seemed to defy conventional structural expectations. Prior to this, all buildings were expected to have a solid and sturdy base, with architectural elements getting progressively lighter as it went up the building. This was not only true physically, but also aesthetically. Classical architectural principles emphasized this hierarchy of visual elements. To design a building that looked top heavy not only seemed to defy the laws of physics but also defied long-held aesthetic principles of western architecture.
The Home Insurance Building in Chicago which was completed in 1885 is often credited as the world’s first skyscraper and also best illustrates the up and coming modernist architecture principle of that time (Marshall, 2015). Many construction projects in Chicago during this time opted to use metal framing as opposed to timber due to the fact that most of Chicago was destroyed during the great Chicago fire of 1871. This building became the first tall building to be entirely supported by a structural steel frame. Steel is even stronger and more lightweight than iron, which not only meant buildings could be much taller, but window opening could also be much larger, which is especially important at the ground level where retail shops are typically located. These early skyscrapers paved the way for modern office towers and retail buildings that we see today.
Even though new, revolutionary materials and technologies were used in construction throughout the 1800s and buildings were starting to divert away from classical aesthetics, most of those design decisions were made for practical and economic reasons. It took until the turn of the 20th century for the elements of modern architecture be rationalized and standardized into a set of formal principles. In 1896, Louis Henry Sullivan, an American architect and the “father of modernism” published an essay titled “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered” where he coined the phrase “form follows function” (Bentacur, 2012), which meant that the end result of design should be derived directly from its purpose, and the ways buildings are used and the types of construction materials available should determine the design. The dictum had the effect of introducing the concept of “function” in place of “utility” in the sense that it encompassed all criteria of the use, perception, as well as the enjoyment of the building, not just practical but also aesthetic, cultural, and psychological. This principle of modernism went on to influence a generation of architects and designers.
In 1919, a German architect named Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus School in Weimar, Germany (Bayer, 1938). Bauhaus teaching asserted that architectural form should be simplified to bare essentials of function, and the building should not beer any ornamentation that does not follow the structure of purpose of the building. At the center of the modernist dream was a planned environment for family life and social interaction. These values made their way into how buildings were designed. Generally, Bauhaus buildings would have smooth facades, flat roofs, and cubic shapes with white, gray, black, or beige as primary colors. Floor plans are open and the furniture is functional.
Haus am Horn, an experimental residential house built in 1923 in Weimar, Germany, best illustrates the Bauhaus tradition (Fiederer, 2017). The primary design for its spatial concept is the honeycomb. The house comprises of one main space which is the living room which is circled by several adjacent smaller spaces. The hierarchy of different spaces is noticeable from the exterior, whereas the main space is visible through a larger cube at the center of the structure. This house best depicts the Bauhaus way of modern living and incorporates the social demands of a family without domestic help in the industrial society. From the construction point of view, the Bauhaus was interested in making use of new methods of specific types and standardization which can be replicated to mass production with the goal of reducing building costs.
In 1920, a Swiss architect called La Corbusier co-founded a journal called L’Esprit Nouveau which advocated the idea that architectural design should be divorced from historical references and associations (Corbusier, 1986). He also introduced urban planning theories arguing that residential and commercial amenities should be zoned entirely separate from one another. He noted the positive influence technology had played in peoples’ lives with revolutionary inventions and said that “a house should be a machine for living in” (Corbusier, 1986). They made use of steel, glass, and concrete in their projects to construct buildings of radical design such as the skyscraper. Nonetheless, these concepts were pretty radical for the time and while there were significant groups of architects and designers championing these ideas around the world as early as the 1920s and 30s, most of the world was not ready to get on board yet.
The Heidi Weber Museum or the Pavillon Le Corbusier, known for its brightly colored panels and floating steel roofs greatly helps in illustrating the Le Corbusier architectural convention (Molloy, 2013). This building testifies Corbusier’s celebration of the use of steel, glass, and concrete with which he explores freedom through modularity in which the design is completely open but infinitely flexible. The building comprises of two main volumetric elements, a two-story rectilinear volume sitting on a concrete pavilion floor and above it a floating parasol roof-structure. Two sets of these cubes are slanted on top of one another to construct the two-story height of the building. The roof stands on four rectangular supports that are made of welded steel sheets. All necessary building elements such as walls, doors, and windows are bolted into these frames. The way these prefabricated cubes have been designed, they make for a completely open ground plan that can be divided as needed. In this manner, Corbusier uses standardized parts of a building to construct individual forms instead of uniform repetitions. Enamel panels in primary colors and glass cover the main volume of the building. The panels are of standard dimension, one-third the size of the steel cubes and their respective colors are distributed throughout the building’s exterior with a perceptible rhythm.
In the 1940s, as the design trend emphasized on bare essentials of function, minimalism or reductivism design came into being after modernist architect Mies van der Rohe said: “less is more” (Craven, 2018). This trend emphasized on the frame of the structure, open floor plans with few if any interior walls, using lighting to exaggerate geometric lines and planes, and integrating negative spaces around the structure as part of the overall design.
However, it was not until after World War II that modernist architecture garnered a huge rise in popularity (Raffel, 2019). In the aftermath of the war, massive reconstruction projects took place all over the world, and due to the unprecedented scale of devastation that occurred, there was a demand for economic construction processes and efficient urban planning methods like never before. The modernists felt a strong sense of social responsibility in which architecture should improve the living conditions of the public. This notion seemed so promising and progressive that the masses came to associate this strong aesthetic with prosperity and progress. Many public housing projects across the world implemented modernist construction and planning strategies, but modern concepts of sleek minimalism and purity of form were also embraced by capitalists and wealthy elites, especially in the United States.
Nevertheless, modernist design tradition has also addressed contemporary urban issues like community alienation (Dempster, 2015). At the Chicago ‘State of the Art of the Architecture’ modernist architects came up with pioneering and very economical solutions to transform urban ghettos. These low-cost flats were renovated by stretching out prefabricated three-to-four-meter floor extensions known as verandahs on each level alongside each flat and peeling off the grimy grey walls. The tenants who once felt “insular spatial denunciation” reported that their way of living has changed as view comes into their spaces (Dempster, 2015). They now have pot plants and bright rooms, an enhanced amenity and more recreational and living space.
In some configurations, there can be even higher density with multiple bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, and living spaces. With other improvements, there is flow through ventilation and more interior light so bulbs can be turned off, thus reducing energy demand. This is all at a very minimal cost for the taxpayer in comparison to complete demolition and extremely high construction costs for the replacement of buildings.
Studio Gang Architects based in Chicago also proposed co-locating police facilities in community centers with sporting, recreation, and internet cafe facilities which will encourage police recruitment from the alienated communities with social interaction, forums, and educational programs. The architects believe that by building such spaces prejudices from both sides can be eliminated (Studio Gang, 2019).
Modernist buildings have redefined the urban landscape based on the conviction that for a home to be fully functional it should have the purity of form of a well-designed machine. This standard may work just fine when applied to a commercial building, but households would not align with the idea of operating like a machine in a clockwork fashion. Some contemporary modernist apartments even go to the extent of dictating the interior furniture design to maintain a pure visual appeal throughout the whole building. Doing away with the comforts of a home from the domestic interior may encourage purity within the design, but it does not do a lot in terms of creating a homely feeling. In fact, the masses have demonstrated a rejection toward modernism citing it as monotonous, ugly, and even dehumanizing.
The main innovators of the modernist movement held a firm belief that in creating a more functional architecture, a better world would ultimately follow. The elements that the modernists detest, ornamentation and iconography, would have all been written off as superfluous decoration. According to Scott Brown and Robert Venturi, popular critic of modern architecture, claim that “these decorative elements make verbal and symbolic connections through space, communicating a complexity of meanings through hundreds of associations in few seconds from far away (Venturi, 1972).” It is a superfluous piece of decoration that definitely references history, and technically serves no architectural function, but it provides context and denotes purpose.
Moreover, the idealist concept of “form over function” often falls short in reality as there are not many buildings from the past that stick to their original purpose that they were built for. Whether it’s a home, workplace, or a community center, functional activities are always in flux and programmatic needs are always changing. The criticism of modern architecture is not in the materials that it uses, but in its strict and formal principles that cannot adapt to the shifting needs of a changing society.
There is no question about the fact that a more innovative architectural style would improve towns and the living condition of the public by solving design problems and by keeping up with the latest technology, but it often fails to address problems of the economy and political consideration.
References:
Betancur, Oscar E. “Form Follows Function: Jan Tschichold’s New Typography.” Savannah College of Art & Design, 2012.
Bayer, Herbert, et al. Bauhaus 1919–1928. The Museum of Modern Art: Distributed by New York Graphic Society, 1938.
Corbusier, Le. Towards a New Architecture. Dover Publications, Inc., 1986.
Craven, Jackie. “Modern Architecture and Its Variations.” ThoughtCo, 22 Dec. 2018.
Dempster, Quentin. “Architectural Solutions to Poverty and Community Alienation.” ABC News, 1 Nov. 2015.
Fiederer, Luke. “AD Classics: Haus Am Horn / Georg Muche.” Arch Daily, 12 June 2017.“Industrial Revolution.” History.com.
Marshall, Colin. “The World’s First Skyscraper: a History of Cities in 50 Buildings, Day 9.” The
Guardian, 2 Apr. 2015.
Molloy, Jonathan C. “AD Classics: Centre Le Corbusier (Heidi Weber Museum) / Le Corbusier.” Arch Daily, 24 Jan. 2013.
“Polis Station.” Studio Gang.
Raffel, Amy. “Architecture Since 1900.” Art History Teaching Resources.
“The Beginning of Modern Architecture.” Lumen Learning.
“The Great Exhibition of 1851.” Duke Magazine, 30 Nov. 2006
Venturi, Robert, et al. Learning From Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Traumawien, 1972.
