Legacies of Pre-modernism
Patricia Prayogo 16072007 Theory into Practice 18/19 1
Fig. 1. Green marble. It is to Loos’s credit that he thinks of marble not merely in terms of its material reality but in what Demetri Porphyrios has called the “stylistic density” – that is “the coded meanings that classicism has already assigned to it”. Of all the materials that Loos utilized in his projects, marble is perhaps the one that he is most closely associated with. 2
“Be not afraid of being called un-fashionable.” Adolf Loos
3
While the works of Mies or Le Corbusier were the centre of attention of the conversations on architecture internationally, Adolf Loos’s innovativation with creating of interior spaces was not yet understood and considered modern at the time (Furjan, 2003). 
4
Fig. 2. Villa Muller; Slabs of green Greek marble encase some of the walls; parts of the house are panelled with mahogany and laquered wood, Delfttiles, silk prints, floral wallpaper and travertine.
In Loos’s own words, “the building should be dumb outside and only reveal wealth inside…” In designing the interior, Bell (2011) says that Loos acted as an architect, as well as a psychologist. This perspective was valuable as it made environments for specific people with their individual needs. The priority when designing the house was, to him, that it was not built for those who saw it from outside, but to those who lived within. 5
Chapter i: Adolf Loos
Adolf Loos (1870 –1933) was one of the most influential European architects of the late 19th century and was an eminent figure to the foundations of the entire modernist movement. Ahead of his time, Adolf Loos would have belonged to a ‘pre-Modernist’ position (Furjan, 2003).
The Austrian architect had a very practical attitude towards architecture and a great aversion to the application of “falsity through the use of appropriated ornamentation” in the buildings of his native Vienna (Tournikiotis, 2002). He produced a series of controversial essays that elaborated his own architectural style while critiquing the avant-gardism at the time (Loos, 1998). Loos’s minimalist attitudes are reflected in the works of many legendary architects such as Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe. His buildings were, at first, less pleasing to the Viennese public, which resulted in less recognition and appreciation at the time. Although, many of his works revealed the roots of the modernist movement through their clean white walls and purist forms. Le Corbusier himself even considered Loos’s ‘Ornament and Crime’, “a Homeric cleansing” of architecture (Corbusier cited by Johnson and Langmead, 2013); revealing the magnitude of his impact on modernist ideologies.
6
7
Chapter ii: The Legacy - Raumplan
One of Loos’s greatest legacies is the Raumplan; which is the design of spatial continuum within a building that is realised by a manipulation of elevations and materials, in addition of the minimal use of ornamentation (Loos, 1998). In Raumplan, Loos makes the most of building volume by planning spaces freely and not confined to a single storey (Jara, 1995). He advocates designing every room around a specific purpose, which offers an alternative to the open-plan design as in most modernist architecture.
Fig. 4.Volumetric diagram of functional spaces in Villa Muller. The building program dictates the fenestration and facade.
8
Fig. 5. Villa Muller street facade.
9
The phrase form follows function is often used when discussing the principles of modernism. It asserts that forms should be simplified; that architectural designs should bear no more ornament than is necessary to function. The Raumplan questions the old notion of “void�. He believes that space is an enclosure (Twombly, R., 2005). Meaning space was to be the imperative element that dictates the form, as it is where humans reside and spend their most time in, not the exterior.
10
The following pages analyzes the development of Loos’s Raumplan through a timeline of his buildings.
11
Streiner House (1910) The irregular fenestration is a result of designing from the inside out. But Loos also believed that windows function purely to let light in, not to let people look through (Loos, 1908 cited in Le Corbusier, 1925), which coincidentally is a comparable design consideration that Corbusier made for the ribbon windows in Sainte Marie de La Tourette. This design practice for windows is applied in many of Loos’s buildings after the Streiner House. Colomina (1996) mentions that in a lot of Loos’ buildings, the windows are either opaque or situated where it is hindered by built in furniture.
Fig. 6: Due to building codes, the front and back sides is seen as more symmetrical, while the two sides contained irregular window distribution.
12
Scheu House (1913)
Fig. 7. Stepped terraces of Scheu House
This house was the first in which a flat roof was used as an outdoor terrace. These radical terraces played an important role in the development of 20th century architecture in a time where the use of flat roofs was subject to a great deal of controversy (Rosa, 1996).
13
Rufer House (1922) Was considered the first work that reflected throughout the entire concept of Raumplan on the interior spatial organization. The simple structural scheme of the house (load bearing external walls) creates the advantage of reducing the internal dividing walls to a minimum.
Fig. 8. Section of Rufer House. Red indicates the travelling route from the main entrance, through the atrium and library, public domains, bedrooms, being more private to the attic, the family’s private auxiliary space. The interconnectivity of spaces marks the domains and zones of the different users. 14
Loos started designing off with the family’s space, the bedroom, living, kitchen, etc. He then organises them into volumes, which acts as the fundamental blocks of the building. The multilevel organization on a single floor results in the house emulating a natural landscape internalized through interconnecting volumes.
Fig. 9. Rufer House in a typical suburb of Vienna. It takes a simple cubic form.
The Rufer house is somewhat a statement, as the house was deliberately shaped as a cube, with totally blank walls and irregular fenestration. While the exterior is somewhat cold and absurd due to its fenestration, however the space inside is highly ornamental, expressing his concerns on how architecture, form, and ornaments should be related to daily life, not an object for the rich to show off (Loos, 1998). Thus, space should be the focus of all architecture. 15
Villa Müller (1930) In Loos’s view, the Villa Muller was the best application of Raumplan. The building is distinguished by its cubic shape, with flat roof and terraces, irregular windows and clean white façade; a culmination of Loos’s style. In the villa, rooms have each a distinct style; Country-like, Oriental, Scandinavian, etc. The juxtaposition of styles and eras enhances each space, creating an intense contrast where every room is a surprise in itself.
16
Fig. 10. Villa Muller
“I never play with the facade, this is not where I live,” Loos once remarked. The plans he drew for the villa reflect his conviction that houses should be built for their inhabitants, not people passing by.
Fig. 11. Section. Each floor is a classic example of Loos’ Raumplan with splitlevels, short staircases and multiple landings.
“My architecture is not conceived in plans, but in spaces,” he said in 1930. “I do not design floor plans, facades, sections. I design spaces. For me, there is no ground floor, first floor, etc. … For me, there are only contiguous, continual spaces, rooms, anterooms, terraces, etc.” 17
Chapter iii: Case study - Tzara House
I have chosen to do a case study analysis on the Raumplan on the Tzara house. The house’s multiple entrances, dynamic circulation, and siteawareness of material has given the most, amongst other buildings, inspiration to my design considerations.
18
An architecture which is gentle and refined, but provocative nevertheless.
19
Tzara House (1925) Built for the famous Dadaist artist, Tristan Tzara. The house became a symbolic residence in Montmartre Paris. The Tzara house is the only built work in realized by Loos in France. Since 1975, it has been a registered historic monument and is an exemplary for modern architecture today.
Fig.12. The raised dining room can be seen clearly but seems inaccessible from the living area. Loos’ play of heights creates a barrier without using walls; consequently, the two rooms could be open to each other despite the difference in finish floor height. The ceiling holds a recess because the floor above it is raised, therefore, emphasises more the difference of territory between the living and dining room.
20
Fig. 13. Diagram of circulation. Red indicates the main staircase that results in a voyeuristic spatial quality. There are two systems usable to vertically cross the house from the ground to the top: a staircase in the garage, on the west side of the Tzara house that goes up to the kitchen, and a separate continuous staircase that connects the basement directly to the second floor and continues as a spirallike path all the way to the third and fourth floor.
Rooms are separated by several different types of staircases, which can be seen either as links or breaks in the spatial continuum (Tournikiotis, 2002) . In the Tzara house, the rooms evolve around the main staircase, allowing visual relationship between the many rooms, giving the interior a voyeuristic quality (Fabrizi, 2014). Loos designed the circulation of the house in such a way so that the storeys merge and spaces could relate to each other. The rooms are close in proximity but not touching; continual space is what Loos had wanted in a Raumplan design. (Loos, 1908) 21
The Parisian house’s 5-storey façade is divided vertically using two different material finishes: the bottom half is brick construction and the upper half is white plaster render. The first two storeys were intended for rent and Tzara’s actual living spaces were on the third storey and above. The stone material used for the first few floors is the same material used for the existing wall adjacent to the house as could be seen in. It seems the choice of this material acknowledge the traditional building features in the neighborhood and establishes an aesthetic connection with the existing retaining wall. Thus, giving the impression that this part of the house belongs to the community. Loos seemed to have used these materials in particular to accent the Tzara house affiliation with the area, instead of using ornamentation to follow the typology of the neighborhood. Fig.14. Same brick of retaining wall and bottom house facade
22
23 Fig.15. Tzara house split facade
Fig.16. Tzara house on steep terrain.
24
The house sits on a disadvantageous terrain, and as a consequence, necessary extensive work had to be done to contain the ground, involving the construction of large walls on solid foundations. Loos’ intentions to use materials to divide a façade goes beyond simple technical and functional requirements, as could be discerned in the Looshaus in the Michaelerplatz (Vienna, 1910). If on one hand the split of the façade denotes two different intended purposes (rent on the first two levels and Tristan Tzara’s house on the upper floors), on the other, it traces two different geometries. It is a tactical design that lets Loos outline an (almost) perfect square. The square is a pure geometric figure that by its simplicity of design gives rise to the effect of disadvantegeous environment. (Gravagnuolo, 1995)
25
Chapter iv: Raumplanning for Peterlee
The cube echoes some of the fundamental components of Loos’s architectural designs. The need for even sunlight distribution resulted in voids of that later become internal courtyards within the building. The courtyards design have spatially inverted the voids into functional volumes.
26
Fig. 17. 1:200 massing (1 cube = 300x300cm)
27
Fig. 18. Section. The design proposed dividing the interior into interconnected multi level spaces arranged on the basis of their importance.
28
Each room is proportioned in accordance with its purpose. The raumplan influences the exterior organization and the dynamically shifting volumes of spaces.
Fig. 19. Diagrammatic arrangement of room volumes. Seperated into 4 different buildings with common functions. The simple rectangular facade of the buildings, hide the intricacies and the play of levels. One must enter and explore inside in order to enjoy the spatial experiences.
Workshops Showroom
Restaurants Rental shop
29
Reference List
Bell, D., 2011. The Irritation of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 64(2), pp.113-126. Colomina, B., 1990. Intimacy and Spectacle: The Interiors of Adolf Loos. AA Files, (20), pp.5-15. Colomina, B., Loos, A. and Corbusier, L., 1996. Privacy and publicity: modern architecture as mass media (p. 73). Cambridge, MA: mit Press. Furjån, H., 2003. Dressing down: Adolf loos and the politics of ornament. The Journal of Architecture, 8(1), pp.115-130. Gravagnuolo, B., 1995. Adolf Loos: theory and works. Art Data. Jara, C., 1995. Adolf Loos’s Raumplan Theory. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(3), pp.185-201. Johnson, D.L. and Langmead, D., 2013. Makers of 20th-Century Modern Architecture: A Bio-Critical Sourcebook. Routledge. Loos, A., 1998. Ornament and crime: Selected essays. Ariadne Press. Maciuika, J.V., 2000. Adolf Loos and the aphoristic style: Rhetorical practice in early twentieth-century design criticism. Design Issues, 16(2), pp.75-86.] Risselada, M., Loos, A., Corbusier, L. and van de Beek, J., 2008. Raumplan Versus Plan Libre: Adolf Loos [and] Le Corbusier. 010 Publishers. Rosa, J., 1996. Adolf Loos Architecture 1903-1932. The Monacelli Press, NY Tournikiotis, P., 2002. Adolf Loos. Princeton Architectural Press. Twombly, R., 2005. Raumplan: Adolf Loos, Frank Lloyd Wright, residential space, and modernity. Annual of Psychoanalysis, 33, pp.191-205.
30
Bibliography Fig.1. Author’s own work, Green Marble. Fig.2. Polak, M., Villa Muller interior, [online image] <https://www.1stdibs.com/blogs/ the-study/adolf-loos-villa-muller/> Fig. 3. Adolf Loos portrait, [online image] <https://www.radio.cz/en/section/arts/ learning-to-dwell-adolf-loos-at-the-riba-in-london> Fig. 4. Author’s own work. Volumetric diagram. Fig. 5. Elasticeye, Villa Muller street facade, [online image] <https://wewastetime. com/2016/10/15/villa-moller-adolf-loos/> Fig. 6. Jackson, K., 2017, [online image] <https://theculturetrip.com/europe/austria/ articles/a-viennese-neighbourhoods-hidden-architectural-secrets-and-mysteries/> Fig. 7. Spiluttini, M., Scheu House terraces, [online image] <https://www.azw.at/en/ event/haus-scheu/> Fig. 8. Author’s own work, Scheu House section. Fig. 9. Ledl, T., 2018, [online image] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufer_House#/ media/File:Haus_Rufer,_Adolf_Loos_2.jpg)> Fig. 10. Polak, M., Villa Muller exterior, [online image] <https://www.1stdibs.com/blogs/ the-study/adolf-loos-villa-muller/> Fig. 11. Author’s own work, Villa Muller section. Fig. 12. Blanc, P., 2013, Dining room [online image] <http://www.presidentsmedals. com/Entry-14080> Fig. 13. Author’s own work, Circulation diagram. Fig. 14. Istvan, 2008, Tzara house entrance, [online image] <http://farm4.static.flickr. com/3094/3370424062_c622552c27.jpg> Fig. 15. marklarmuseau, 2014, Tzara house facade, [online image] <https://www.flickr. com/photos/marklarmuseau/16187756934> Fig. 16. Blanc, P., 2013, Tzara house on steep terrain, [online image] <http://www. presidentsmedals.com/Entry-14080> Fig. 17. Author’s own work, Massing models Fig. 18. Author’s own work, Section Fig. 19. Author’s own work, Diagram
31