4 unités LC - Architecture Insights

But the ‘Unité’ of Firminy-Vert is still struggling, and perhaps this
has something to do with the fact that it is the youngest. It will be
interesting to see, in a few years time, how the state of this ‘Unité’
has changed, if at all. And to see whether the progression of time
will improve its state, as with its counterparts of Marseille and
Briey, or whether it will simply deteriorate it.
Fashion / Ideology
As the ‘Unité d’habitation’ brought together so many of the ideas
that established Le Corbusier’s reputation, they have become some
of the works that most exemplify him as an architect and artist. But
it is not only the physical elements of the design that have
established their fame, it is equally the fact that they represent the
most recognisable fragments of his most famous vision: La Ville
Radieuse.
This fame may in some cases been seen as having certain negative
effects, such as the preserved impractical functioning of the roof
terraces in Marseille and Rezé, and the social difficulties of mixing
tourists and residents (also in Marseille). But the fame has equally
aided, particularly in the cases of the three less renowned ‘Unités’,
resulting in a greater level of general maintenance, with thanks
mainly to architectural, artistic and historical associations that have
subsequently taken interest in their causes.
But it is not simply a matter of aesthetics that is considered in this
physical preservation. Since those that truly make the buildings
continue to live, are the inhabitants that carry out their lives with in
them. And not all of these people are simply interested in history
and styles. For although the majority of the population in the
‘Unité’ of Marseille is of a professional middle-class standing and
see the building as a fashionable place to live, the demographics of
the three other ‘Unités’ is quite different.
215 216
The ‘Unités’ of Rezé-les-Nantes, and Firminy-Vert are both
inhabited by a general working-class population. And the ‘Unité’
of Briey-en-Forêt, although privately owned, has a true mix, not
only of working and middle-class people, but equally of
nationalities and backgrounds. So what is it about the ‘Unités’ that
makes them so attractive to such a broad range of people? And
why is it that they continue to hold such a passionate and
supportive group of residents despite their varied histories,
contexts and conditions?
The answer to such questions is perhaps most eloquently put by
Alan Colquhoun in his essay entitled The Significance of Le
Corbusier –
“On one hand, … his view of architecture as the means of moral
and social regeneration seem seriously flawed. On the other, the
plastic subtlety and metaphorical power of his buildings – their
originality and certainty of touch – cannot be denied. And yet his
indisputable greatness as an architect can hardly be dissociated
from the grandeur of his vision and the ruthless single-mindedness
with which he pursued it. If in so many ways, Le Corbusier was
deluded, his delusion was that of the philosopher-architect for
whom architecture, precisely because of the connection which it
implies between the ideal and the real, was the expression of the
profoundest truths. He occupies one of those rare moments in
history when it seems that the vision of the artist and the man of
passion converges with a collective myth.” 1
For after visiting each of the four ‘Unités’ in France, talking to their
inhabitants, and observing their functioning and existences, one
thing arises above all else: that it is not simply a matter of ‘fashion’,
but equally a matter of ideology. For tastes in fashion are not
universal, and the appreciation of certain architectural styles is a
purely subjective matter. So Le Corbusier may be criticised for his