What do you think?
Rate this book
Verso una architettura
Con questo libro, apparso nel 1923 (e pubblicato la prima volta in Italia da Longanesi nel 1973), Le Corbusier avviò il suo irruente dialogo con il pubblico e gli architetti destinato a svilupparsi nei successivi quarant'anni in innumerevoli pubblicazioni e in opere costruite e progettate tra le più importanti dell'architettura moderna. Oltre a essere il primo testo della collezione dell'"Esprit Nouveau", il libro, che enuncia i fondamenti di una teoria architettonica di straordinaria modernità e singolare forza innovativa, costituisce uno dei maggiori documenti della cultura parigina ed europea di quegli anni.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1923
380 people are currently reading
9662 people want to read
About the author
Le Corbusier
279 books225 followersCharles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, better known as Le Corbusier; was an architect, designer, painter, urban planner, writer, and one of the pioneers of what is now called modern architecture. He was born in Switzerland and became a French citizen in 1930. His career spanned five decades, with his buildings constructed throughout Europe, India, and America. He was a pioneer in studies of modern high design and was dedicated to providing better living conditions for the residents of crowded cities. He was awarded the Frank P. Brown Medal and AIA Gold Medal in 1961.
Le Corbusier adopted his pseudonym in the 1920s, allegedly deriving it in part from the name of an ancestor, Lecorbésier.
Le Corbusier adopted his pseudonym in the 1920s, allegedly deriving it in part from the name of an ancestor, Lecorbésier.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 198 reviews
February 21, 2019
Is this a foundational text that gives me a better framework for understanding 20th-century architecture? Yes. Did I strongly dislike it? Also yes.
In fairness, it’s hard to get in the mindset of 1923, and I think the past 100 years haven’t been kind to elite European men who believe their opinions constitute an immutable and universal truth. For instance:
“Decoration is of a sensorial and elementary order, as is colour, and is suited to simple races, peasants and savages. Harmony and proportion incite the intellectual faculties and arrest the man of culture.”
But even apart from his irritating self-certainty, I found myself strongly disagreeing with his perspective. His mantra “the house is a machine for living in” claims that the modern man, who sees efficiency and austerity in his factory job, feels an existential alienation when he returns to his home:
“His town, his street, his house or his flat rise up against him useless, hinder him from following the same path in his leisure that he pursues in his work.”
I think this is a fundamental misstatement of the modern problem – to my mind, the old and familiar, the colorful and decorative, provide a sense of comfort and repose from the alienating pace of the modern world, which subjects humans to a rate of change we aren’t built to withstand.
But then again, maybe this idea of “the modern problem,” that there is a fundamental epochal question which must be answered, is itself a concession to a Corbusian conception of the world. I’m not saying it’s not influential, it’s just not my thing.
In fairness, it’s hard to get in the mindset of 1923, and I think the past 100 years haven’t been kind to elite European men who believe their opinions constitute an immutable and universal truth. For instance:
“Decoration is of a sensorial and elementary order, as is colour, and is suited to simple races, peasants and savages. Harmony and proportion incite the intellectual faculties and arrest the man of culture.”
But even apart from his irritating self-certainty, I found myself strongly disagreeing with his perspective. His mantra “the house is a machine for living in” claims that the modern man, who sees efficiency and austerity in his factory job, feels an existential alienation when he returns to his home:
“His town, his street, his house or his flat rise up against him useless, hinder him from following the same path in his leisure that he pursues in his work.”
I think this is a fundamental misstatement of the modern problem – to my mind, the old and familiar, the colorful and decorative, provide a sense of comfort and repose from the alienating pace of the modern world, which subjects humans to a rate of change we aren’t built to withstand.
But then again, maybe this idea of “the modern problem,” that there is a fundamental epochal question which must be answered, is itself a concession to a Corbusian conception of the world. I’m not saying it’s not influential, it’s just not my thing.
May 21, 2015
When I was in architecture school in England, Corb, as we called him, was the master (and Alvar Aalto the disciple). He stated the case for modern architecture so convincingly that it seemed the only possible altenative. In his hands, it was beautiful and practical, and also economical. He had a zen spareness about his work, and a sculptural gift. His drawings and his furniture are exciting, without being gaudy. Quite the opposite. He exemplified Less is More. And he taught me, and a generation of architecture students, 'the discipline of the route.' Buildings, as he taught us, are not experienced whole, but as a series of experiences. Orchestrating those, and making sure that the visitor is always oriented to the whole, is the basic given of good architecture, like writing a grammatical sentence is a given for a good writer. Unfortunately, this is often forgotten today.
This book is his concise statement of his philosophy. Most architecture since then either follows its dictates or rebels against them.
This book is his concise statement of his philosophy. Most architecture since then either follows its dictates or rebels against them.
March 19, 2009
I don't like the way Le Corbusier writes, but this book is epic. As a student of architecture I learned a lot from this book, mostly about the five principles of Modern Architecture. It isn't a boring book, but you have to be careful to interpretate some things he writes. It is definetly a must-read.
November 5, 2011
OK, this is a loaded review: this book and its author are my betes noir (excuse my nonexistent/incorrect French...the least revenge I can have...) - facile and mystifyingly still persuasive to generation after generation of architecture students and True Believers, despite the empirical evidence of the damage it wrought and the dubious actual quality of the man's work (this review being by someone who worked, practically lived, in the Carpenter Center for four years...and that building, unlike any other by Corbusier, WAS beautifully executed thanks to Josep Lluis Sert [exec. architect] and armies of Maine boatbuilders doing the formwork, not to mention Harvard footing the bill...it's cool sculpture, in the end, and studio space CAN be in most anything...but it's a dire environment and devoid of charm as a human habitation...). I can only say, the emperor remains naked to me...ok, go back to your Gauloises and Adorno now.
June 18, 2020
The Swiss-French architect Charles-Edouard Jenneret, better known as "Le Corbusier" (1887-1965), was so innovative in his choices of building materials, arrangement of mass and flexibility of purpose that his very name became synonymous with "modern architecture." In this 1933 book, originally published in French as Vers une Architecture, he championed the use of cast concrete, plate glass, open staircases and curtain walls, designed ambitious public-housing schemes (and had most of them built), and saw his projects spread over the world.
This is an absolutely marvelous book and fundamental to any understanding of 20th-Century architecture. It is profusely illustrated with line drawings and black-and-white photographs; no color, alas.
A typical cast-concrete granary of the era (Hutchinson, KS, USA):
Cité de Refuge, Le Corbusier, Paris, 1933. Per curbed.com:
"[T]he innovative, 11-story building featured a series of internal concrete columns, floors without load-bearing walls, and a sealed glass curtain wall. This was almost two full decades before curtain wall construction became widely used in the United States":
United Nations headquarters, New York City, 1952 (beyond the scope of this book):
This is an absolutely marvelous book and fundamental to any understanding of 20th-Century architecture. It is profusely illustrated with line drawings and black-and-white photographs; no color, alas.
A typical cast-concrete granary of the era (Hutchinson, KS, USA):
Cité de Refuge, Le Corbusier, Paris, 1933. Per curbed.com:
"[T]he innovative, 11-story building featured a series of internal concrete columns, floors without load-bearing walls, and a sealed glass curtain wall. This was almost two full decades before curtain wall construction became widely used in the United States":
United Nations headquarters, New York City, 1952 (beyond the scope of this book):
August 1, 2024
"The House is a Machine for Living In"
Towards a New Architecture is a work that has had much influence on modern architecture. It was published in 1923 by a Frenchman with the pseudonym Le Corbusier. It is written in the style of an illustrated mission statement, and it outlines his basic theories of how architecture should shape our world. He advocated for a modern, functional, and socially conscious approach to building design. The writing style is simple, engaging, and persuasive in the English translation.
One example key concept he stated is that “Architecture is a plastic thing.” By this, he means that architecture is a malleable art form, much like plastic or clay; meaning that architects have the power to shape and mold space according to their vision and the needs of society. This highlights the creative and transformative nature of architecture. Architects can manipulate space and the people who use that space. If you go downtown in Atlanta between the mega buildings, not the skyscrapers, you quickly get an idea of the role architecture has in shaping urban lives.
I could apply his ideas by looking at modern Japanese architecture. Japanese architects after WWII had numerous problems to deal with in reconstructing a society. The architect Kenzo Tange chose to respond to the issue of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima by designing the Hiroshima Peace Center and Nuclear Park. Notice that these were intended to shape not only physical land use, but a mindset of the people. Kenzo Tange also built the Yoyogi 1st Gymnasium in 1964. I’ve audited a few online courses on Japanese Architecture through the University of Tokyo. Most of the classes I audit are through Harvard’s humanities department, because they have numerous literature and music classes that I enjoy. The class lectures at U of Tokyo are in Japanese with English subtitles, but excellent for those interested in Architecture.
You might say that Tange’s Japanese architecture is different from the ideas espoused by Le Corbusier. Tange had studied Le Corbusier and chose to synthesize the old Japanese styles with Le Corbusier’s modernism to postulate what modern might look like if Japan had proceeded to the modern age at their own pace; utilizing modern principles and a Japanese ascetic. The results are fascinating, as was Kenzo Tange. He was the beginning of the five generations of Japanese modern architects after WWII. He likewise grappled with some of the housing problems Le Corbusier addressed in his years of work. So, an understanding of Le Corbusier is helpful in any geography today.
Le Corbusier was a controversial figure who was a Mason and had Fascist ties. He was anti-semitic, and besides agreeing with eugenics; he seems to have had a vision of a class-based society and the division of resources based on that. He has been criticized for ignoring cultural sites and other issues that affect human rights. His ideas of architecture seem a bit sterile and lack a pleasing ascetic to me. (That is an opinion of course.) Though focusing on the utilitarian, his principles are quite valid and really are basic to any understanding of modern architecture. He had a big hand in designing and urban planning of the modern city of Chandigarh in India.
It is important to place Le Corbusier within the context of his era. He was born just after the industrial revolution and therefore was keen on the idea of mass-producing houses. I imagine he would probably have loved how they are stacking shipping containers in modernist villages today to house people in large numbers in some cities. In China, it is possible to rent a lockable ‘sleep-pod’, much like a plastic coffin, just big enough to sleep in safely at night in a closed space. While serving basic human needs at the lowest level, these leave a lot to be desired in the human sense. He felt that humans must change their mental filters for what is expected in housing. I doubt that mental filters are as easy to change as that.
Besides the ascetic interest in architecture for its own sake, I have always been interested in the psychological and social aspects; how the use of space and building design effects human beings within their own mental space. This book is a great introductory resource. He discusses not only buildings, but the design of automobiles, ocean liners, planes, and factories. The paperback is full of photos and illustrations and is probably available at your public library.
Towards a New Architecture is a work that has had much influence on modern architecture. It was published in 1923 by a Frenchman with the pseudonym Le Corbusier. It is written in the style of an illustrated mission statement, and it outlines his basic theories of how architecture should shape our world. He advocated for a modern, functional, and socially conscious approach to building design. The writing style is simple, engaging, and persuasive in the English translation.
One example key concept he stated is that “Architecture is a plastic thing.” By this, he means that architecture is a malleable art form, much like plastic or clay; meaning that architects have the power to shape and mold space according to their vision and the needs of society. This highlights the creative and transformative nature of architecture. Architects can manipulate space and the people who use that space. If you go downtown in Atlanta between the mega buildings, not the skyscrapers, you quickly get an idea of the role architecture has in shaping urban lives.
I could apply his ideas by looking at modern Japanese architecture. Japanese architects after WWII had numerous problems to deal with in reconstructing a society. The architect Kenzo Tange chose to respond to the issue of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima by designing the Hiroshima Peace Center and Nuclear Park. Notice that these were intended to shape not only physical land use, but a mindset of the people. Kenzo Tange also built the Yoyogi 1st Gymnasium in 1964. I’ve audited a few online courses on Japanese Architecture through the University of Tokyo. Most of the classes I audit are through Harvard’s humanities department, because they have numerous literature and music classes that I enjoy. The class lectures at U of Tokyo are in Japanese with English subtitles, but excellent for those interested in Architecture.
You might say that Tange’s Japanese architecture is different from the ideas espoused by Le Corbusier. Tange had studied Le Corbusier and chose to synthesize the old Japanese styles with Le Corbusier’s modernism to postulate what modern might look like if Japan had proceeded to the modern age at their own pace; utilizing modern principles and a Japanese ascetic. The results are fascinating, as was Kenzo Tange. He was the beginning of the five generations of Japanese modern architects after WWII. He likewise grappled with some of the housing problems Le Corbusier addressed in his years of work. So, an understanding of Le Corbusier is helpful in any geography today.
Le Corbusier was a controversial figure who was a Mason and had Fascist ties. He was anti-semitic, and besides agreeing with eugenics; he seems to have had a vision of a class-based society and the division of resources based on that. He has been criticized for ignoring cultural sites and other issues that affect human rights. His ideas of architecture seem a bit sterile and lack a pleasing ascetic to me. (That is an opinion of course.) Though focusing on the utilitarian, his principles are quite valid and really are basic to any understanding of modern architecture. He had a big hand in designing and urban planning of the modern city of Chandigarh in India.
It is important to place Le Corbusier within the context of his era. He was born just after the industrial revolution and therefore was keen on the idea of mass-producing houses. I imagine he would probably have loved how they are stacking shipping containers in modernist villages today to house people in large numbers in some cities. In China, it is possible to rent a lockable ‘sleep-pod’, much like a plastic coffin, just big enough to sleep in safely at night in a closed space. While serving basic human needs at the lowest level, these leave a lot to be desired in the human sense. He felt that humans must change their mental filters for what is expected in housing. I doubt that mental filters are as easy to change as that.
Besides the ascetic interest in architecture for its own sake, I have always been interested in the psychological and social aspects; how the use of space and building design effects human beings within their own mental space. This book is a great introductory resource. He discusses not only buildings, but the design of automobiles, ocean liners, planes, and factories. The paperback is full of photos and illustrations and is probably available at your public library.
October 8, 2012
Much of what Le Corbusier advocates for in this book is terrific, though I wonder if he actually believed his own words. In practice, he fits the mold of a conventional engineer, while the prose of this work is written with lofty, creative, artistic sentiments. Le Corbusier's philosophy was largely detrimental, not beneficial, for society. His super blocks created isolated ghettos, his planning utopias ultimately influenced urban renewal horrors. Ironically, his actions were at odds with his words in this book, and consequently comes off as disingenuous and superficial, though much of the ideas are notable.
March 5, 2025
i have had enough of the french
January 24, 2013
I read this book for a class assignment, I was looking forward to it because Le Corbusier is the biggest influence of the modern era of architecture, his principles are still up to date and architects all around the world still learn and apply his theories today (though I am not sure they should).
I found interesting to learn his reasonings for sustaning his Principles of Architecture,and for a thorough understanding I recommend also reading: The Athens Charter where his influence is noticeable on the statements about city planning.
Apart form reading this and other books of his, I think it is much interesting and insightful to study his projects (real and theoretical) because they demonstrate how possible (or not) it was for Le Corbusier to stick to his principle and make them work (most of them didn't). I have also read about his life and relationships with clients and other artists and colleagues (which is fascinating to me)and one can learn that his personality affected his work enormously; and tragically I concluded that his ego and stubbornness didn't allow him to accept reality (I think he really disliked people)and adapt his theories to people actual needs.
In conclusion, Le Corbusier taught me that, even when you have The Solution, it is impossible to change people.
I found interesting to learn his reasonings for sustaning his Principles of Architecture,and for a thorough understanding I recommend also reading: The Athens Charter where his influence is noticeable on the statements about city planning.
Apart form reading this and other books of his, I think it is much interesting and insightful to study his projects (real and theoretical) because they demonstrate how possible (or not) it was for Le Corbusier to stick to his principle and make them work (most of them didn't). I have also read about his life and relationships with clients and other artists and colleagues (which is fascinating to me)and one can learn that his personality affected his work enormously; and tragically I concluded that his ego and stubbornness didn't allow him to accept reality (I think he really disliked people)and adapt his theories to people actual needs.
In conclusion, Le Corbusier taught me that, even when you have The Solution, it is impossible to change people.
May 16, 2018
I'm giving this book a four star rating, not because it is such good reading, but because it and the ideas of Swiss architect Le Corbusier were so influential in making the world as we know it.
His model of separation of work and residential sectors of cities, with vehicular traffic on the edges was followed all over the world for much of the 20th century. All those apartment blocks--both luxury and urban renewal--are the direct descendants of his tower in the park plans. So was the draconian remaking of cities by removing old housing and changing street patterns. Ditto, although a little indirectly, for the suburban communities where you must have a car to get around, where through traffic goes around development, and where a corner store that you could walk to is non-existent.
The model lies behind a great deal that is wrong with our cities. Read the book, and then think about what a mess it has brought about.
His model of separation of work and residential sectors of cities, with vehicular traffic on the edges was followed all over the world for much of the 20th century. All those apartment blocks--both luxury and urban renewal--are the direct descendants of his tower in the park plans. So was the draconian remaking of cities by removing old housing and changing street patterns. Ditto, although a little indirectly, for the suburban communities where you must have a car to get around, where through traffic goes around development, and where a corner store that you could walk to is non-existent.
The model lies behind a great deal that is wrong with our cities. Read the book, and then think about what a mess it has brought about.
October 27, 2023
Oleks ma seda lugenud 100 aastat tagasi..
Read
May 8, 2019After years, I finally decided to read Le Corbusier in full-length form. It's pretty much the nearest thing modernism has to a manifesto, and by that, I mean modernism in all its forms. The premises are simple: tradition is restrictive, things should be functional, and our art should take our technological advances into account. These all seem like good things to me.
Of course, a lot of his beliefs seem naïve now -- the idea that good architecture = good people is thoroughly, thoroughly flawed. But it's important to read books like this, ones that suggest things could be better, because anyone who tells you that we are living in the best of all possible worlds deserves a kick in the pants.
Of course, a lot of his beliefs seem naïve now -- the idea that good architecture = good people is thoroughly, thoroughly flawed. But it's important to read books like this, ones that suggest things could be better, because anyone who tells you that we are living in the best of all possible worlds deserves a kick in the pants.
Read
October 11, 2020in which corbusier attempts to be architecture's rouchefoucauld. ambitious but confused, modernism deserved a better manifesto.
August 12, 2025
corbusier is a fucking asshole
April 2, 2024
Undeniably monumental with the ideas Corb presents, and shifted architectural pedagogy and practice forever. Could definitely have been shorter and more succinct, but greatly enjoyed seeing the argument for modernism build throughout this. Drawings were 😮💨😮💨
February 1, 2023
Fantastic book. Disagreed with most of it.
April 20, 2024
L’arte è poesia: l’emozione dei sensi, la gioia dello spirito che valuta e apprezza, il riconoscimento di un principio assiale che colpisce il fondo del nostro essere. L’arte è questa pura creazione dello spirito che ci mostra, a certe vette, la vetta delle creazioni cui l’uomo è capace di arrivare. E l’uomo prova una grande felicità a sentirsi creatore.
August 9, 2024
To all people giving this a low rating:
Don't forget that this is a manifesto aimed towards an audience of architects, engineers and other artists living in the 1920s.
It criticizes the then still popular, but fading in popularity, styles of romanticism such as neoclassicism, Victorian architecture, Belle Époque, but even goes back to baroque, or further the renaissance. And puts the past in the daylight of a post war era. A war that happened after the optimism of futurism (a sort of ‘failed’ modernist art movement. The war sort of ended the movement). This book was written in the twenties, the optimistic time after the war, and this book is the groundwork of modernism: a new way of thinking that is still relevant today. Not all of it, but mostly still relevant: it's also history.
So some of it may seem dated, or totally wrong... Like when he explains how the roman renaissance and french baroque is a failure. How rococo of Louis XIV is a failure. But he had a vision, wanted to maybe shock, and wake people up and make them ready to embrace the modern lifestyle. Comparing architecture to engineering, which is totally different, and being influenced by something like a steamboat or the then new airplane. He wants to lift architecture above enginering. It is more than engineering, but just as with engineering, which solves an engineering-practical problem, architecture also solves an aesthetic and almost philosophical problem: architecture determines the soul of a culture and the lifestyle of the people.
Also keep in mind when he talks about maids, barbarism, peasantry (probably translated from le peuple in French, which has a bad connotation in comparison with the word people in English) , and other descriptions on what would now be described as racist or whatnot. This is a 100-year-old book, and we are currently living in a time of cancel culture. We are currently very sensitive to these kinds of terms and opinions. But that is not a reason to doubt his architectural views. You have to see through it.
EDIT - had to add this part after thinking about it Remember that his solutions to build social housing projects for millions at a time, by building huge skyscrapers in a very mechanical, clean and effective way, "a machine for living", is his solution for the sad situation the poor working class of France after World War 1 was in. And he tried to improve the living qualities of the cité's in cities where people lived with huge families on top of each other in each others dirt. He tried to do something about it. So see those social projects in light of those times and not the projects they are today. Do also be reminded that social housing based on his idea in certain communist, or ex-communist countries as Russia, eastern Europa or North-Korea is a failed version of what is here envisioned.
It's a shame I only read this now, this would have helped me a lot when I was a student. Because his explanations on axis, grids, the plan, mass, light, surface is really clear. And it will help you understand his vision.
Don't forget that this is a manifesto aimed towards an audience of architects, engineers and other artists living in the 1920s.
It criticizes the then still popular, but fading in popularity, styles of romanticism such as neoclassicism, Victorian architecture, Belle Époque, but even goes back to baroque, or further the renaissance. And puts the past in the daylight of a post war era. A war that happened after the optimism of futurism (a sort of ‘failed’ modernist art movement. The war sort of ended the movement). This book was written in the twenties, the optimistic time after the war, and this book is the groundwork of modernism: a new way of thinking that is still relevant today. Not all of it, but mostly still relevant: it's also history.
So some of it may seem dated, or totally wrong... Like when he explains how the roman renaissance and french baroque is a failure. How rococo of Louis XIV is a failure. But he had a vision, wanted to maybe shock, and wake people up and make them ready to embrace the modern lifestyle. Comparing architecture to engineering, which is totally different, and being influenced by something like a steamboat or the then new airplane. He wants to lift architecture above enginering. It is more than engineering, but just as with engineering, which solves an engineering-practical problem, architecture also solves an aesthetic and almost philosophical problem: architecture determines the soul of a culture and the lifestyle of the people.
Also keep in mind when he talks about maids, barbarism, peasantry (probably translated from le peuple in French, which has a bad connotation in comparison with the word people in English) , and other descriptions on what would now be described as racist or whatnot. This is a 100-year-old book, and we are currently living in a time of cancel culture. We are currently very sensitive to these kinds of terms and opinions. But that is not a reason to doubt his architectural views. You have to see through it.
EDIT - had to add this part after thinking about it Remember that his solutions to build social housing projects for millions at a time, by building huge skyscrapers in a very mechanical, clean and effective way, "a machine for living", is his solution for the sad situation the poor working class of France after World War 1 was in. And he tried to improve the living qualities of the cité's in cities where people lived with huge families on top of each other in each others dirt. He tried to do something about it. So see those social projects in light of those times and not the projects they are today. Do also be reminded that social housing based on his idea in certain communist, or ex-communist countries as Russia, eastern Europa or North-Korea is a failed version of what is here envisioned.
It's a shame I only read this now, this would have helped me a lot when I was a student. Because his explanations on axis, grids, the plan, mass, light, surface is really clear. And it will help you understand his vision.
August 17, 2007
I really loved this book. Lecorbusier, one of the founding fathers of the modernist movement, puts forward his arguments for society's embracing the 'mass production spirit'.
It's common knowledge that it hasn't really worked out as he expected it to but so much of what he has written has contributed to architecture. This book is full of innovative designs which unfortunately inspired poor implementations (high-rise poor areas all over the place). however, that says more against society's treatment of the lower classes than against the value of lecorbusier's ideas entering the public domain.
I could not help smiling while reading some of lecorbusier's more outrageous declarations. Every third sentence in this collection of essays is a maxim. but i guess it's necessary to take into account that he was fighting against a tide at the time and in order to instigate change (like anybody else attempting to do the same) he needed to be forceful.
I often disagree with him and he's often completely wrong but this really is a fascinating book.
p.s. i have a nagging suspicion that he is the man who gave architects the feeling that they could be smugly ambiguous in their writings (although unfortunately so many don't have the philosophical foundation of thought that he does).
It's common knowledge that it hasn't really worked out as he expected it to but so much of what he has written has contributed to architecture. This book is full of innovative designs which unfortunately inspired poor implementations (high-rise poor areas all over the place). however, that says more against society's treatment of the lower classes than against the value of lecorbusier's ideas entering the public domain.
I could not help smiling while reading some of lecorbusier's more outrageous declarations. Every third sentence in this collection of essays is a maxim. but i guess it's necessary to take into account that he was fighting against a tide at the time and in order to instigate change (like anybody else attempting to do the same) he needed to be forceful.
I often disagree with him and he's often completely wrong but this really is a fascinating book.
p.s. i have a nagging suspicion that he is the man who gave architects the feeling that they could be smugly ambiguous in their writings (although unfortunately so many don't have the philosophical foundation of thought that he does).
February 10, 2008
a bit esoteric and socialist for my taste, but i spose i can still appreciate what Corbu is about. in a very broad sense, this manifesto is his urge to keep the pace of architecture at the pace of the rest of society's advancements. he points out the simple efficiency of things like grain silos, and how we strive to make our airplanes and automobiles as functional and streamlined as possible, but our houses haven't changed. where we differ begins with this statement:
"The house is a machine for living in."
other themes are things like being true to the time and purpose for which you are designing, and creating the new rather than making surface copies of the old.
it's a bit of a dry read, but if you're into architecture at all, Le Corbusier is a must
"The house is a machine for living in."
other themes are things like being true to the time and purpose for which you are designing, and creating the new rather than making surface copies of the old.
it's a bit of a dry read, but if you're into architecture at all, Le Corbusier is a must
November 4, 2010
I'm not a student of architecture by any means, but Corbu is a visionary. Perhaps this is why his ideas about architecture and society may seem either funny/crazy or scarily authoritarian to us today. Writing during the 20's he couldn't have known about Hitler or Stalin and the danger of trying to create a literal utopia. He accurately reflects the more optimistic sensibilities of the time. A recommendation: Read this one and then Jane Jacobs "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" for a great introduction to major themes of twentieth century architecture and/or city planning.
December 12, 2020
A must read for every architecture student.
It was interesting to dive into Le Corbusier’s mind to discover how he became the architect he was. There are a lot of similarities to his way of seeing his world a century ago and how we are living now.
”The elements of architecture are light and shade, walls and space. The arrangement is the gradation of aims, the classification of intentions.” ”Contour and profile are a pure creation of the mind; they call for the plastic artist.”
His manifesto is universal and timeless.
It was interesting to dive into Le Corbusier’s mind to discover how he became the architect he was. There are a lot of similarities to his way of seeing his world a century ago and how we are living now.
”The elements of architecture are light and shade, walls and space. The arrangement is the gradation of aims, the classification of intentions.” ”Contour and profile are a pure creation of the mind; they call for the plastic artist.”
His manifesto is universal and timeless.
October 18, 2015
must read for architects
September 23, 2021
I'd had two prior "interactions" with Le Corbusier before reading this book. The first was via James Scott's "Seeing Like A State" (in my view one of the towering works of social science) which I read in late 2018. There, Scott had persuasively argued against Corbusier-ian high modernism. Oscar Niemeyer, the Brazilian Marxist architect who'd been influenced by Corbusier, had designed Brasilia with an eye towards high modernist goals of legibility, functionalism, and scientific notions of order. It had, however, quickly became clear that Brasilia was a failed project: high modernism did not take into account the fact that urban space was complex, shaped by people as much as they were shaped by it. There thus arose in Brasilia town squares that no one used because all sense of pedestrian traffic had been destroyed, and residents who were ghettoised into "superquadra", based on their occupation and income statuses. A destroyed social fabric, in essence. Moreover, the entire effect was aesthetically monotonous: drab and uninspiring, it caused feelings of alienation in people, and gave the dystopic vibe of a Benthamite panopticon. I decided I disliked Corbusier.
The next time I heard about Corbusier was while walking around the streets of Haifa and Tel Aviv in March 2019 with Waleed Kakabi, an architect who headed the building conservation team for the City of Haifa. I mentioned to Waleed how many "International Style" buildings there were, and how ugly I thought they were. Waleed, deftly brushing aside my confident ignorance, kindly decided to give me a short but thorough survey on the Bauhaus school and modernism.
Waleed explained the intensely democratic ethos of modernism: houses had to be mass produced for a quickly growing population, but, so the founders of Bauhaus believed, this did not mean that aesthetics had to be sacrificed. Function and individual artistic vision could be unified. He explained to me how the houses were designed to maximize on light, how regulating lines worked, making the houses wonderful to live in even if, by my uneducated standards, they were ugly.
Later, Waleed and I got to talking about Corbusier (or, rather, he talked and I absorbed) and his influence on the latter Bauhaus school (Bauhaus had started in Weimar, but being mostly Jewish, most of the architects had immigrated to then mandatory Palestine after Hitler came into power. This is why Israel has the highest per capita number of International style buildings). Waleed was, in fact, in charge of conserving one of the most important Bauhaus buildings - the old Technion building in Haifa's Hadar HaCarmel neighbourhood.
I also mentioned to Waleed that I had visited a number of Louis Kahn buildings. I lived in Philadelphia at the time, and on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, the buildings most frequented by architectural enthusiasts were the Gothic revival "College Hall", followed by Kahn's modernist Richards building. Waleed and I got to talking about how Corbusier had influenced Kahn (whom I liked). By the end of my time with Waleed, I had come to understand modernism a little bit more, and I decided that i didn't dislike Corbusier that much. Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner.
After finishing this book, I now think that I kind of like Corbusier.
Corbusier envisions modernism as responding to the needs of the industrial age, both in terms of housing, but also in how cities and urban life more generally is structured. Modernism saves architecture in multiple ways: From a building perspective, it refocuses architects on what really matters in the actual trade of architecture; taking into account mass, surface and plan - which for Corbusier are the three necessary considerations in architecture. From the point of view of philosophy of aesthetics, modernism sees architecture as a means by which raw materials are assembled in particular ways in order to establish emotional relationships in human beings, affectively linking human beings with their built environment. Finally, modernism displays a a social ethos: mass production, which modernism is uniquely situated to bring forth, is seen by Corbusier as democratically solving the problems of the industrial age without any need to compromise on aesthetic beauty.
A Corbusier-ian maxim: Architecture has nothing to do with the various "styles". Styles "are to architecture what a feather is on a woman's head; it is sometimes pretty, though not always, and never anything more"
So Art deco, with its influence from the cubists and the Vienna secessionists; eclecticism (a la Gaudi's Sagrada familia) etc. are meaningless, nothing more than fanciful experiments that have no social ethos and thus do not respond to the questions of the time. Instead, modernism calls for an architecture that ties the functionality of buildings with purity in form; an architecture that transforms the built environment into something that is to be lived in and interacted with by human beings.
There is a risk that such an ethos as Corbusier puts forward here necessarily leads to brutalist buildings, as indeed happened in England from the 1950s (and we seem to all have agreed that brutalism is ugly). But perhaps the social ethos and the democratic nature of it all outweighs the drabness? Regardless, Corbusier's insistence that the architect goes beyond utilitarian aims; that she is not merely a builder or an engineer but rather someone who, in addition to possessing the requisite building skills, also uses her art to produce buildings that are aesthetically pleasing, ought to make us hesitant in attributing to him the view that all he sought to produce was ugly houses for poor people.
All in all, shoddy writing that was sometimes too polemic, but the ideas were weighty and greatly interesting. I learned a lot.
The next time I heard about Corbusier was while walking around the streets of Haifa and Tel Aviv in March 2019 with Waleed Kakabi, an architect who headed the building conservation team for the City of Haifa. I mentioned to Waleed how many "International Style" buildings there were, and how ugly I thought they were. Waleed, deftly brushing aside my confident ignorance, kindly decided to give me a short but thorough survey on the Bauhaus school and modernism.
Waleed explained the intensely democratic ethos of modernism: houses had to be mass produced for a quickly growing population, but, so the founders of Bauhaus believed, this did not mean that aesthetics had to be sacrificed. Function and individual artistic vision could be unified. He explained to me how the houses were designed to maximize on light, how regulating lines worked, making the houses wonderful to live in even if, by my uneducated standards, they were ugly.
Later, Waleed and I got to talking about Corbusier (or, rather, he talked and I absorbed) and his influence on the latter Bauhaus school (Bauhaus had started in Weimar, but being mostly Jewish, most of the architects had immigrated to then mandatory Palestine after Hitler came into power. This is why Israel has the highest per capita number of International style buildings). Waleed was, in fact, in charge of conserving one of the most important Bauhaus buildings - the old Technion building in Haifa's Hadar HaCarmel neighbourhood.
I also mentioned to Waleed that I had visited a number of Louis Kahn buildings. I lived in Philadelphia at the time, and on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, the buildings most frequented by architectural enthusiasts were the Gothic revival "College Hall", followed by Kahn's modernist Richards building. Waleed and I got to talking about how Corbusier had influenced Kahn (whom I liked). By the end of my time with Waleed, I had come to understand modernism a little bit more, and I decided that i didn't dislike Corbusier that much. Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner.
After finishing this book, I now think that I kind of like Corbusier.
Corbusier envisions modernism as responding to the needs of the industrial age, both in terms of housing, but also in how cities and urban life more generally is structured. Modernism saves architecture in multiple ways: From a building perspective, it refocuses architects on what really matters in the actual trade of architecture; taking into account mass, surface and plan - which for Corbusier are the three necessary considerations in architecture. From the point of view of philosophy of aesthetics, modernism sees architecture as a means by which raw materials are assembled in particular ways in order to establish emotional relationships in human beings, affectively linking human beings with their built environment. Finally, modernism displays a a social ethos: mass production, which modernism is uniquely situated to bring forth, is seen by Corbusier as democratically solving the problems of the industrial age without any need to compromise on aesthetic beauty.
A Corbusier-ian maxim: Architecture has nothing to do with the various "styles". Styles "are to architecture what a feather is on a woman's head; it is sometimes pretty, though not always, and never anything more"
So Art deco, with its influence from the cubists and the Vienna secessionists; eclecticism (a la Gaudi's Sagrada familia) etc. are meaningless, nothing more than fanciful experiments that have no social ethos and thus do not respond to the questions of the time. Instead, modernism calls for an architecture that ties the functionality of buildings with purity in form; an architecture that transforms the built environment into something that is to be lived in and interacted with by human beings.
There is a risk that such an ethos as Corbusier puts forward here necessarily leads to brutalist buildings, as indeed happened in England from the 1950s (and we seem to all have agreed that brutalism is ugly). But perhaps the social ethos and the democratic nature of it all outweighs the drabness? Regardless, Corbusier's insistence that the architect goes beyond utilitarian aims; that she is not merely a builder or an engineer but rather someone who, in addition to possessing the requisite building skills, also uses her art to produce buildings that are aesthetically pleasing, ought to make us hesitant in attributing to him the view that all he sought to produce was ugly houses for poor people.
All in all, shoddy writing that was sometimes too polemic, but the ideas were weighty and greatly interesting. I learned a lot.
September 14, 2020
Hard to imagine that a book written in 1931 by a French architect could apply so readily to the varying problems faced in multiple 21st Century fields of study... in my case in regards to military design.
I swapped the word “architecture” for “military design” in one of the sections and here’s how it read:
“Military design finds itself confronted with new laws. Disturbed by the reactions which play upon him from every quarter, the military designer of today is conscious, on the one hand, of a new world which is forming itself regularly, logically and clearly, which produces in a straightforward way things which are useful and usable, and on the other hand he finds himself, to his surprise, living in an old and hostile environment ... there reigns a great disagreement between the modern state of mind, which is an admonition to us, and the stifling accumulation of age-long detritus. The problem is one of adaptation, in which the realities of our life are in question. To pass the crisis we must create the state of mind which can understand what is going on.”
I swapped the word “architecture” for “military design” in one of the sections and here’s how it read:
“Military design finds itself confronted with new laws. Disturbed by the reactions which play upon him from every quarter, the military designer of today is conscious, on the one hand, of a new world which is forming itself regularly, logically and clearly, which produces in a straightforward way things which are useful and usable, and on the other hand he finds himself, to his surprise, living in an old and hostile environment ... there reigns a great disagreement between the modern state of mind, which is an admonition to us, and the stifling accumulation of age-long detritus. The problem is one of adaptation, in which the realities of our life are in question. To pass the crisis we must create the state of mind which can understand what is going on.”
October 6, 2023
Considero que éste libro es de interés para todos los que hemos hecho de la arquitectura nuestra profesión y espero que cualquier colega, estudiante o interesado en la arquitectura se anime a leer éste libro atemporal.
August 29, 2020
อ่านไม่รู้เรื่อง
November 20, 2022
3.5 stars. Interesting thoughts. He kind of lost me in all the talk of Greek architecture (because I'm just not a fan).
October 18, 2024
Corb strikes again
October 7, 2020
Corbusier turi stiprią objektofiliją Partenonui.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 198 reviews