Architecture or Revolution

[Amy]

It took me a bit of rereading to fully grasp what Corbusier was trying to say in this essay. Corbusier wants to eliminate old ‘styles’ of architecture and replace them with new architecture that embraces new technology. Corbusier can see other sectors benefitting from new technologies and mass production and this is changing the mindset of man. He says that men of the past were centred around the family unit because their jobs abled their life to be led that way. In Corbusier’s present, work life has changed with the fast-paced nature of production, so the spirit of the worker no longer exists. Alongside this, houses are still existing in the past, the machine for living in has stood still while mass production has moved everything else into the future. Objects of novelty are everywhere so the nature of society is changing as well as the working environment. This in turn is affecting family life in the home (which is already not functioning); ‘the family everywhere is being killed.’ Therefore, it is architects and the home that needs to change to stop the inevitable revolution.

I understand the logic, but it feels all too arrogant from Corbusier’s side. I understand that architects have a duty because the built environment has a large part to play in people’s quality of life, but to me it feels like Corbusier is saying that architects (and himself) are the sole saviours to the working class man, and that they would be saving them from themselves (the revolution). It all seems too much of a gross generalisation and he also questions the intelligence of the working man which is just unnecessary.

I have however enjoyed reading this book as a whole. It’s made clear to me where so much of my architecture teaching from university has come from. It’s interesting as well that a fair bit of Corbusier’s frustrations with the architecture profession is still true today. It is very slow moving and resistant to change.

- Praise Architecture