72 <strong>PROSTOR</strong> 1[43] 20[2012] 60-73 V. IVANKOVIÆ Le Corbusierov model Unité Znanstveni prilozi | Scientific PapersLiteraturaBibliographyIzvoriSources1. Abram, J. (2003.), Le Corbusier à Briey, Histoiremouvementée d’une Unité d’habitation, Jean-Michel Place éditions, Paris2. Avermaete, T. (2005.), Another Modern, NAiPublishers, Rotterdam3. Barsac, J. (2005.), Charlotte Perriand; Un artd’habiter 1903-1959, Éditions NORMA, Paris4. Collins, C.; Collins, G. (1984.), Monumentality:A Critical Matter in Modern Architecture, HarvardArchitectural Review IV: Monumentalityand the City, The MIT Press: 15-35, Cambridge,Massachusetts, London5. Colquhoun, A. (2002.), Modern Architecture,Oxford University Press, Oxford6. Ferro, M. (2001.), Histoire de France, ÉditionsOdile Jacob, Paris7. Fishman, R. (1982.), Urban utopias in the TwentiethCentury: Ebenezer Howard, Frank LloydWright, Le Corbusier, The MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, London8. Le Corbusier (1924.), l’Urbanisme, G. Crs, Paris9. Le Corbusier (1925.), Almanach d’architecturemoderne, G. Crs, Paris10. Le Corbusier (1930.), Précisions sur un étatprésent de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme, G.Crs, Paris11. Le Corbusier (1937.), Quand les cathédralesétaient blanches, Plon, Paris12. Le Corbusier; de Pierrefeu, F. (1942.), La maisondes hommes, Plon, Paris13. Le Corbusier (1945.), Les trois établissementshumains, Denoël, Paris14. Legault, R. (1997.), L’appareil de l’architecturemoderne: new materials and architectural modernityin France, 1889-1934, The MIT Press,Cambridge15. Mumford, E. (2001.), Case: Le Corbusier’s VeniceHospital, in: The Emergence of Mat or FieldBuilding [ed. Sarkis], Prestel Harvard UniversityGraduate School of Design: 45-54, Boston16. Mumford, E. (2002.), The CIAM Discourse onUrbanisme 1928-1960, The MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, London17. Mumford, L. (1938.), The Culture of Cities, HarcourtBrace & Company, Orlando18. Mumford, L. (1968.), The Urban Prospect, Harcourtand Brace & World, New York19. Ockman, J. (1993.), Architecture Culture 1943-1968: A Documentary Anthology, ColumbiaBooks of Architecture; Rizzoli, New York20. Overy, P. (1997.), The Cell in The City, „Architectureand Cubisme” [ed. Blau, Troy], The MITPress and CCA: 117-140, Cambridge, Montréal21. Sbriglio, J. (1992.), Le Corbusier - L’Unité d’habitationde Marseille, Parenthses, Marseille22. Smithson, A.; Smithson, P. (1970.), Ordinarinessand Light, The MIT Press, Cambridge23. FLC (2005.), Le Corbusier - Plans, 5-8 (2), Paris24. FLC (2006.), Le Corbusier - Plans, 9-12 (3), Paris25. *** (1950.), Le Point No 4, novembre 1950„L’Unité d’habitation de Marseille”, Paris26. *** (1958.), Œuvre Complte 1952-1957 [ed.Bœsiger], Éditions Girsberger, ZürichArhivski izvorArchive Source1. FLC - Fondation Le Corbusier, 10 Square duDocteur Blanche, 75016 Paris, FranceIzvori ilustracijaIllustration SourcesSl. 1. FLC, Vol. 8, 5/19Sl. 2. FLC, 19212Sl. 3. FLC, L3(20)9Sl. 4. Foto: autorSl. 5. FLC, 23112ASl. 6. Nepoznati izvorSl. 7. FLC, 17322Sl. 8. FLC, Vol. 8, 6/19Sl. 9. Foto: autorSl. 10. FLC, L1(12)37Sl. 11. Arhiva autora
Znanstveni prilozi | Scientific Papers Le Corbusierov model Unité V. IVANKOVIÆ 60-73 20[2012] 1[43] <strong>PROSTOR</strong> 73SažetakSummaryLe Corbusier’s Model UnitéSymbolic Significance in the Post War Reconstruction in FranceThis paper, which considers Le Corbusier’s visionof Unité in the context of some worldwide attemptsat redefining what was once known as a universalModern style, gives an analysis of a specific type ofarchitectural design and a commitment to a monumentalhousing concept. In an attempt to analyze atendency Le Corbusier used to oppose earlier in hiscareer, this paper also aims to argue that the Unitéin Marseille was a breakthrough in his work followedby a new and final creative stage in his careerdevoid, however, of a meaningful vision of thebasic architectural and urban planning tasks.After the problem of linking classical values withmodern technology had been solved to a certain extentwithin the context of L’Esprit Nouveau in the1920s, Le Corbusier changed his initial strategy inthe 1930s. Slightly perceptible change and insecurityappeared for the first time in his work althoughthis fluid change had little in common with a strongsense of uncertaintly that imbued his writings anddialogues in the 1950s. This was a period when auniversal modern style in architecture and urbanplanning, based on the principles put forward by theCIAM (in particular the Athens chart) between thetwo world wars, came to an end. It is well known thatLe Corbusier joined the neo-union leaders headedby Hubert Lagardelle and Philippe Lamour who wereclose to Saint-Simone’s antiliberal technical élitistsin the period before the dominance of L’Esprit Nouveau.Therefore the first changes in the 1930s werejust a return to the earlier pre-Esprit tendencies. Politicaland ideological turning point initiated by theend of the war, which became noticeable in his workin the 1950s, resulted in his declarative orientationtowards socialist principles. Nevertheless, he remainedfirmly committed to the evolutionary tendenciesof the 1930s in terms of his style and aestheticsand was on the track of a creative breakthroughwhen - after disintegration of the L’EspritNouveau philosophy - he turned to classical, Platonicvalues relying on technology solely as a practicalmeans of their implementation.Change and insecurity in his work became moreintensive in the postwar period coinciding with thepredominance of democratic principles in his stillauthoritative (and partly even totalitarian) way ofthinking.Some implications of a relatively mild change of hispolitical opinion and disappointment in collectiveideologies became clearly visible in his aestheticsof exposed concrete and megaconstruction as anexpression of ”democratic masses”. This conceptwas discussed by the end of the Second World Warby Jose Louis Sert, Sigfried Giedion and FernandLeger in their 1943 manifesto Nine Points on Monumentalityas well as by Elizabeth Mock, a curatorfor architecture in MOMA in New York who in 1944required monumental monuments of a ”democraticarchitecture”. In the 1950s James Stirling wrotetwo essays published in Architecture Review aboutLe Corbusier’s work in this context, i.e. the contextof organic design.In the last point of Nine Points of Monumentality,Sert, Giedion and Leger put forward their vision ofa monumental structure that would be perceivedbeyond its functional aspect. It was meant to acquirealmost lyrical values. Architecture and urbanplanning would in the near future win the so-called”new freedom” and reach a degree of creativityusually associated with painting, sculpture, musicor poetry. Le Corbusier was the first to anticipatethe manifesto aspirations and give a monumentalcharacter to a residential building. To present hisconcept of new monumentalism he chose a versatilematerial that can be easily formed by pouring itin a mould in order to build monumental and demandingstructures. These ideas were already embodiedin the guiding principles promoting whitenessand massive size in Vers une architecture in1920.Le Corbusier’s choice of a monumental expressionfor apartment blocks such as Unité in Marseille,built almost in the manner of a monument and hisdefinition of aesthetic principles of apartmentblocks in general (primarily in relation to the conceptRoque and Rob) reflect all the complexity of LeCorbusier’s approach: his ambiguous and evenpolysemic interpretation of a new aesthetics of a”collective endeavour” whose protagonists wereorganized hierarchically in a rigid social structure(the family) which is, similar to the Unité itself,closed within its own experimental preoccupations.The rigid scheme of Le Corbusier’s conceptof a family is in fact his definition of a ”new society”.This definition, published in OEuvre Complète(1958), focused on two basic units: a social groupas a form of community (unité) and on the otherhand what we could call today a ”conventionalfamily”. Moreover, it emphasizes a certain pre-civilizationconcept of a tribe organization.It was Le Corbusier’s new concept of a postwarfamily. However, his rigid insistence on a particularmodel of housing and a concept of a communityled him into the concept of an industrialized societybased primarily on demographic growth andmass production. His approach might be thereforetermed autocratic despite his declarative humaneprinciples. In this context Robert Fishman elaboratedhis comparison with Rousseau whose workwas criticized for having a certain authoritative(even a totalitarian) aspect based on his idea thatthe public will-power is a genuine expression of thewill-power of all citizens. This is precisely the fundamentalshortcoming of Le Corbusier’s ”controlledfamily”.The elaboration of the topic of this paper pointsout that Le Corbusier entered a new, mature andcomplex creative stage much earlier than it wasusually thought.This final stage of his career was coloured essentiallyby insecurity and doubt as well as a complexapproach to urban planning (habitat) issues. Thisphase in his career started much earlier than the10 th CIAM conference in Dubrovnik and a worldwideturning point encouraged by the members of Team10 and even before the construction of the MarseilleUnité. It was the period (late 1940s), when hefinally chose his conception. At the same time aparallel process was going on: transformation ofsocialism into totalitarianism on the one hand andtransformation of a co-housing unit (falanstere)into a form of prison on the other.VEDRAN IVANKOVIÆBiografijaBiographyDr.sc. VEDRAN IVANKOVIÆ, dipl.ing.arh, zaposlen jena Katedri za urbanizam Arhitektonskog <strong>fakultet</strong>aSveuèilišta u <strong>Zagrebu</strong>. Pod pokroviteljstvom VladeRepublike Francuske završio je dvogodišnji poslijedoktorskiznanstvenoistraživaèki projekt u FondationLe Corbusier u Parizu. Autor je više od 20 znanstvenihradova i nekoliko nagraðenih struènih natjeèajnihprojekata.VEDRAN IVANKOVIÆ, Ph.D., Dipl.Eng.Arch. works inthe Department of Urban Planning of the Faculty ofArchitecture of the University of Zagreb. He wasgranted a two-year post-doctoral scholarship bythe French government for a scientific researchproject in the Le Corbusier Foundation in Paris. Hehas published more than 20 papers and receivedseveral awards for his competition projects.
Change language