Utopian Ideals-
The Reality of People’s Palaces Catherine Wells, FCP 2011-12 1
DAVC10033 Angie Jones
CONTENTS
Introduction
p2
Main body of text
p3-13
Conclusion
p14
List of Illustrations
p15
List of Citations
p16
Bibliography
p17-20
1
The image on the front page shows a detail from the demolition of the now infamous Pruitt Igoe housing development in St Louis, Missouri, in 1972seventeen years after its completion. The complex was designed and developed by modernist architect Minoru Yamasaki in 1955 in ‘a time of post-war prosperity and optimism.’ (J.S. The Economist. 2011:online) According to the same article: ‘The complex was supposed to put the modernist ideals of Le Corbusier into action; at the time, Architectural Forum ran a story praising the plan to replace “ramshackle houses jammed with people—and rats” in the city’s downtown with “vertical neighbourhoods fhor poor people.” (J.S. The Economist. 2011:online) The intentions of the Pruitt Igoe development were good, but the reality was grim. The majority of its inhabitants were from low income families and were essentially ‘forced to endure’ (Ward, 2003:19) such housing. ‘Occupancy peaked at 91% in 1957, and from there began its precipitous decline’ (J.S. The Economist. 2011:online) ‘They repeatedly vandalised it’ (Ward, 2003:19) and you had to ‘had to act tough for the chance to come and go unmolested.’ (J.S. The Economist. 2011:online). Conditions would have been hard to live with. Charles Jencks, a postmodernist architect, when as far as saying, that the day the complex was demolished was ‘the day modernism died.’ (Ward, 2003:19) But what went so wrong? Was modernist architecture, and the principles that the designs were based on, really at fault?
2
Fig 1. Villa Savoye 1928-1931 Le Corbusier
Figure 1. shows the Villa Savoye in France, designed by the architect CharlesÉdouard Jeanneret, better known as Le Corbusier, who’s ideals where meant to be evident in the Pruit Igoe development. Yet Le Corbusier’s designs have had a different response from the public and by those that live in them. Le Corbusier is considered a pioneer of a certain style of architecture which we now call modernist architecture, and is ‘arguably the most influential architect of the twentieth century’ (Khan,1998:230).
There are three principles which help to define modernist thinking and design: 1) Less is more 2) Form follows function 3) Truth to materials. Modernists play on the simplicity and practicality of design whilst using the latest in technological advances in terms of materials and construction techniques; on inspection of true modernist design, these qualities are all present. Modernist architecture is often easy to identify, with clean lines and simple shapes. There is often a ‘repetition of simple shape’ (Ward, 2003:18) with squares and rectangles making 3
up a distinct box-like nature associated with modernist buildings. Other features include: ‘uniformity of design… complete lack of frills… industrial looking materials… [and a] flat roof’ (Ward, 2003:18) Ornamentation was seen as superficial and to modernists, added nothing to the design of the building; it was seen as unnecessary.
The fact that most modernist buildings look similar is no coincidence. There was the idea that the modernist architecture principles and style could be copied and used around the world as a form of blueprint to standard housing developments. This essentially is the “International Style” of modernism. This term was ‘coined by Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson in 1932’ (Khan, 1998:8). It has been considered that ‘Le Corbusier’s works, ideas and writings set the agenda for much modern architecture and planning, typified by global internationalism’ (Khan,1998:230) These transferrable ideas are explained further in this extract from Taschen’s International Style: ‘Internationalism was a mode of operation within a globalizing world, and internationalist architecture- i.e. architecture not rooted to place but transmittable to all sections of the globe and embodying modern and universal principles’ (Khan, 1998:8).
The industrial revolution had brought about new technologies, new materials and quicker and more effective ways to communicate and connect with others around the world. It was a time of great change and it was occurring at incredible speeds. Progress, optimism and rationality were fundamental to modernist thinking. Modernist architects wanted to capture and express the spirit of this industrial and machine age through looking forward. Le Corbusier is famous for stating that “a house is a machine for living in” (The Open University, 2001:online) which references the industrial revolution and the beginning of an era of mass production. This was a belief that buildings should be streamlined and fit for the purpose in which they were created; functional and simple. That people were to live in simple boxes without decoration, is testament to this idea. 4
Such was the speed of change and the ideas of progress, that an aspect of modernity was the idea of creating a universal “utopia” for all. “Utopia” refers to a state of when everything is perfect; a form of paradise where everyone and everything in the world is on a similar level; a democracy between all people. The industrial revolution had a part to play in this democracy, in that products could be mass produced at the same quality and distributed to the masses around the world quickly and at a reasonable price. “Utopia” very much links in with the idea of the “International Style”; a standardiser for design. There was the idea that everyone would live side by side in similar housing and working environments, and that people, even the poorest in society, could escape from the misery of the past. It was felt that through improvements in architecture, a better world for all would follow. So influential and aspirational, modernist architecture was ‘considered the future of urban planning’ (Ward, 2003:19).
5
Fig 2. Casa del Fascio (1932-6) Giuseppe Terragni
Figure 2. Shows the Casa del Fascio, designed by the modernist architect and rationalist Giuseppe Terragni. The principles of modernist architecture had spread and were visible on an international scale; Terragni could be said to be a
“disciple” of the “International Style”. It has been considered that architecturally it is ‘undoubtedly one of the masterpieces of international Modernism in Italy’ (Famous Architects, 2009:online). Interestingly this particular design has been nicknamed as the “People’s Palace” which could be seen to embody the principles of the architectural “Utopia”, defined previously, that would ‘transform the world’ (Ghirardo, 1996:9) and the lives of everyone. This nickname could be in reference to its use as a meeting point and administration office for Italian Fascist rallies.
However, another
possible theory looks at the idea that the building is an example of “Utopia” where even normal people could feel that they have the access to the same standards and lifestyle of those living in “palaces”. The concept of “palaces” 6
very much links in with the idea, aspirations and dreams of living in “Utopia”; everyone would be treated on a similar sort of level.
Such was the mentality and idea that modernist architecture could create a “Utopia” that it soon became the adopted style of many European Governments, to cope with the destruction and loss that many cities experienced as a consequence of World War Two. Modernists believed that ‘humankind can only escape from misery by shredding the past’ (Ward, 2003:20) which is exactly what many people wanted to do following the war. Modernism, and the ideas of change and the speed of change, was about looking forward and forgetting the past; in this instance the misery and hardship of war.
The idea of a brighter future was the emphasis that Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, utilised when he was elected as the Prime Minister of Britain in 1945. Following the war, it was estimated that ‘aerial bombardment had destroyed or rendered uninhabitable 0.5 million houses’ (Gold, 1997:189) It can be noted that ‘Attlee's post-war Labour government built more than a million homes, 80% of which were council houses.’ (Wheeler, BBC, 2011:online) It is post-war that we begin to see modernist principles being applied to local housing up and down the country. The easily adopted “International Style” was ideal to help Britain get back to normal after the chaos and destruction of war. The “International Style”, as a blueprint for design, meant that little thought was needed when it came to how to design and facilitate for the large numbers of people left without a home. The simplicity of the modernist scheme seemed perfect for cash stricken, utilitarian Britain. These ideals and practises became common in local authority housing initiatives, with an aesthetic which has become recognisable, and associated with council homes, even to this day.
Figure 3. and Figure 4. show examples of “modernist” housing erected by Local Authorities keen to house as many people, in a short amount of time, and with a limited budget for such schemes: 7
Fig 3. Carradale House, Poplar 1967-8 Erno Goldfinger
Fig 4. Lansbury Estate, Poplar 1949-52 J. H. Forshaw
8
The modernist style is evident in Figures 3 and 4. with simple box shapes and flat roofs, constructed with new materials; however, the energy and enthusiasm of true modernism, of optimism and progress, is very much lacking. These buildings have come to typify many people’s experience and understanding of modernist principles and architecture.
A similar situation can be observed in other European countries as seen in Figures 5 and 6, and further afield in America, Figure 7, who were also part of World War Two:
Fig 5. UnitÊ d’habitation, Marseille 1947-52 Le Corbusier
9
Fig 6. UnitÊ d’habitation, Marseille 1947-52 Le Corbusier
Fig 7. Pruitt Igoe 1951-55 Minoru Yamasaki
10
The reality of such developments differed greatly from the promise of the modernist “utopia”. The adoption of modernist principles in urban housing programmes should have been the ‘historic triumph of modernism’ (Gold, 1997:3) Local Authority’s just did not have the same spirit, or zeitgeist, that the true modernist architects had The reality that Local Authority’s faced was that they had a minimal budget and lots of people to accommodate. The scale of the situation often meant that they resorted to building high rise tower blocks to deal with the limited space and density of people. People were literally living on top of each other in small spaces, high up in the sky. The density of such developments can be seen in Figure 8.
Fig 8. Detail of a high rise, 1957, Bridgeman Education
11
These developments lacked thought and any real aesthetic qualities. The ‘Spartan aesthetics of [these] modernist buildings were derided as boring’ (Gold, 1997:4) They were seen as ‘concrete cancer’ (Ward, 2003:19) and crime and vandalism were common amongst such buildings. There was true ‘misery from living in an ‘anonymous box in the sky’’ (Ward, 2003:19), which is ironic as modernist’s wanted to eradicate “misery”; the ideals of ‘Utopia’ were certainly not present in such buildings. But what went so wrong?
A primary reason why these Local Authority housing developments were such failures in terms of modernism and creating ‘Utopia’ was that Local Authorities were planning and building housing on such a very small budget. Where money was available ‘many projects of the modernist era were initially successful, and the public came to associate this strong aesthetic with prosperity and progress.’ (Rowe, Student Pulse, 2011:online) Large budgets were often only available when buildings had been commissioned by individuals, who were not asking for projects on the scale that Local Authorities had to face.
However, it is easy to put blame on the lack of budget that Local Authorities had access to; modern aesthetics and ideals are another factor to take into account. The vision of pure modernist principles can be seen to be uncompromising. The ‘attempt to break with the past and forge a… new world of clean disciplined order’ (Ward, 2003:21) is very severe and almost impossible to achieve on a large scale. To a public who live in democratic times, this authoritarian nature is hard to implement. People do not want to live by the modernist belief that a “house is a machine for living”. People as unique individuals cannot just ‘fit into … rational systems’ (Ward, 2003:21) that the modernists wanted to achieve to create universal “utopia”. In addition, that modernists did not favour any form of decoration did not help. People find comfort in decoration and expression and find it a necessary; it forms an identity and is what makes people individual. Severe, flat, concrete facades can be seen as rather dull, and not at all welcoming; they may be structurally sound and functional but they cannot be 12
described as “pretty”, in fact most are visually unforgiving. Modernist architecture in this form, on lower budgets is seen as more acceptable for factory, office and commercial developments. Buildings for these functions do not require the ornamentation that might be found in people’s homes; they house environments for specific purposes and do not necessarily require “comforts”.
13
In conclusion, from looking at the factors which resulted in the demise of Local Authority housing, it can be seen that the Pruit Igoe development, a supposed “people’s palace” was almost destined for failure from the moment it was built. Further
to
this,
many
other
“modernist”
housing
developments
have
subsequently been demolished or have imposing demolition orders. Another example of failed “Utopia” is the Heygate Estate in South London, which became associated with poverty and deprivation, and so was knocked down. Modernists ‘really believed… they could make the world a better place… [and] play a… role in the improvement of human life’ (Ward, 2003:19)
When it comes to urban developments, modernist architects were somewhat disadvantaged in terms of budget, and also that the public were not aware, or did not follow, the principles that modernist architects used in order to create “Utopia”. People were not prepared to live in such a strict and austere manner; the public do not just want houses, they want homes. Such was the failing of many housing schemes that it can be considered that ‘post-war social housing schemes… [have] ruined the reputation of modernism in the UK’ (Living With Modernism, 2/6, 2007:DVD) and possibly further afield. Perhaps then, it comes as no surprise that the postmodernist movement developed; the generation growing up and disillusioned by modernist architecture wanted to put forward new ideas and change. Perhaps the day Pruitt Igoe was demolished was the day modernism died, maybe for the better, for the hope of a new redefined “Utopia”.
WORD COUNT: 2246
14
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig 1. Villa Savoye 1928-1931 Le Corbusier Fig 2. Casa del Fascio (1932-6) Giuseppe Terragni Fig 3. Carradale House, Poplar 1967-8 Erno Goldfinger Fig 4. Lansbury Estate, Poplar 1949-52 J. H. Forshaw Fig 5. Unité d’habitation, Marseille 1947-52 Le Corbusier Fig 6. Unité d’habitation, Marseille 1947-52 Le Corbusier Fig 7. Pruitt Igoe 1951-55 Minoru Yamasaki Fig 8. Detail of a high rise, 1957, Bridgeman Education
15
LIST OF CITATIONS
(J.S. The Economist, 2011:online) (Ward, 2003:19) (Khan, 1998:230) (Ward, 2003:18) (Khan, 1998:8) (The Open University, 2001:online) (Famous Architects, 2009:online) (Ghirardo, 1996:9) (Ward, 2003:20) (Gold, 1997:189) (Wheeler, BBC, 2011:online) (Gold, 1997:3) (Gold, 1997:4) (Rowe, Student Pulse, 2011:online) (Ward, 2003:21) (Living With Modernism, 2/6, 2007:DVD)
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: Butler, A. and Ford, B, 2003. Postmodernism. Herts: Pocket Essentials
Butler, A., 2002 Postmodernism: A Very Short History. Oxford: Oxford Printing Press
Gablik, S., 1984. Has Modernism Failed? London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Gold, G., 1997. The Experience of Modernism: Modern Architects and the Future
City. Cambridge: The University Press
Gold, G., 2007. The Practice of Modernism: Modern Architects and Urban
Transformation. Oxon: Routledge
Ghirardo, D., 1996. Architecture after Modernism. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Khan, H., 1998. International Style: Modernist Architecture from 1925 to 1965. London: Taschen
Ward, G., 2003. Teach Yourself Postmodernism. London: Hodder Headline Ltd.
Weston, R., 1996. Modernism. London: Phaidon Press Ltd.
Wilk, C., 2008. Modernism: Designing a New World 1914-1939. Illustrated edition. London: V&A Publishing
17
Articles: Journal Articles: Evrard, G. 2011. The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical: Scientific Management and the Rise of Modernist Architecture. European legacy-toward
new paradigms 16(1): 117-117
Taylor, C. 2008. From a cause to a style: Modernist Architecture’s encounter with the American City. Dissent 55(2): 123-127
Newspaper Articles: Crace, J., Keys to the Future The Guardian [online] 11 July 2001 Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jul/11/communities.urbandesign
Moss, S., The Death of a Housing Ideal The Guardian [online] 4 March 2011 Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/04/death-housingideal
Additional Sources: TV Programmes:
Homes by Design: Modernism (47) 1998. [TV Programme] Ontario: Sound Venture Productions and Insight Media
Living with Modernism (1-6) 2008. [TV Programme] UK: Double Yousee for the BBC
Understanding Sociology: From Modernity to Postmodernity 1999. [TV Programme] UK: Halovine Video Production
Websites 18
BBC, 2009. Interviews Charles-Edouard Jeanneret Le Corbusier 1887-1965 [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/lecorbusierc1.shtml [Accessed 21st April 2012]
Bristol, K., 1991. The Pruitt Igoe Myth [online] Available at: http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/temp/1991-bristol-pruitt-igoemyth.pdf [Accessed 20th April 2012]
Famous Architects, 2009. Giuseppe Terragni [online] Available at: http://thefamousarchitects.com/giuseppe-terragni/ [Accessed 19th May 2012]
Gallagher, D., 2001. Le Corbuiser [online] Available at: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-thearts/history/heritage/le-corbusier [Accessed 20th April 2012]
Hudson, C., 2008. It was the worst slum in Victorian Britain. Yet its crime-
ridden streets were SAFER than today's [online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033919/It-worst-slumVictorian-Britain-Yet-crime-ridden-streets-SAFER-todays.html [Accessed 16th April 2012]
J.S., 2011 Why the Pruitt Igoe Project Failed [online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/10/americanpublic-housing [Accessed 20th April 2012]
Moore, R., 2012. Pruitt Igoe: Death of the American Urban Dream [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/feb/26/pruitt-igoemyth-film-review [Accessed 21st April 2012] 19
Rowe, H., 2011. The Rise and Fall of Modernist Architecture [online] Available at: http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/515/the-rise-and-fall-of-modernistarchitecture [Accessed 15th May 2012]
Tinniswood, A., 2011. A History of British Architecture [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/architecture_01.shtml#eleven [Accessed 16th April 2012]
The Open University team, 2001. Brutalism [online] Available at: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/brutalism [Accessed 14th May 2012]
Wheeler, B., 2011. What Future for Social Housing? [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936 [Accessed 16th May 2012]
Exhibitions
Bauhaus: Art as Life. Exhibition at The Barbican Gallery, London 3 May- 12 August
20