1111
and It’s “five points towards a new Architecture”
About
a century ago in the mid 1920s Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret published a
manifesto/declaration entitled "Five points towards a new
architecture", it goes as follows: 1) Supports; 2) Roof gardens; 3) Free
design of the ground plan; 4) Horizontal windows; and 5) The free design of the
facade.
The
following essay will attempt to briefly study, compare and describe the
relationship between the Pritzker Architecture Prize winner start Architects Herzog & de Meuron
1111 garage on Lincoln Road, One of the most active pedestrian areas in the
city and Le corbusier's five points towards a new architecture.
"The supports" Le Corbusier stated that the ground plane of
any structure should be raised 12 to 15 ft from grade, so that "the rooms
are thereby removed from the dampness of the soil”. Even though the 1111 Garage
is programmed to be a mixed use building with more than one specific programmatic
use, the larger part of its function- the garage- was raised about 15 ft from
grade level, Allowing for panoramic views of the City. With help from Landscape
architect Raymond Jungle, The ground level was treated as a continuation of the
Lincoln road mall, both vertically and horizontally, it maintains the 1st
floor height at a comfortable human urban scale.
“The
roof gardens” leCorbusier wrote: “The flat roof demands in the first place
systematic utilization for domestic purposes: roof terrace, roof garden”. The
roof of the 1111 garage was not only programmed with a luxurious loft but
the bridge connecting to its adjacent
building activates and joins together both as one plane. On the other hand and
what makes the statement truly strong is that each platform of the building,
every “roof” of the structure is utilized or could be transformed to hold a
series of different activities.
For
instance: Public and Private corporate events, Art exhibitions, concerts and
even private backyards.
“The
free designing of the ground- plan” states that both the horizontal and
vertical structural system of a building should act independent from each
other. The structural system that carries the floors should be separate from
the ones carrying the partition walls, Allowing for infinite manipulation of
the interior space plan allocation of use. In the 1111 garage one could argue
that the architecture seeks that of parasite Architecture. Essential to
concepts of sustainable designs, buildings whose present won’t affect future
transformations. This building, while preserving its identity and given its
structural qualities, could easily serve as frame completely different service
without the need for demolitions. It is a shining example of architecture that
responds and adapts itself to possible change.
Private event level 6 of garage
Art display under main stairwell
Roof top concert
Aerial view of a private roof top courtyard
Creative usage of urban space by Tadashi Kawamata
Domino house Le Corbusier
“The
horizontal window” for le Corbusier meant a series of things, a lucid way to
see that the walls are not the main structural part of the building and that
the building is being clearly held by a different or separate structure, and
perhaps most importantly it offers a direct connection with the horizon. This
aspect is what is most successful in the building and what really defines the
intention of the architecture.
The
use of horizontal slabs, in reference to Corbu’s theory, emphasizes that the
walls are non-structural; in fact there are no walls to support the slabs, only
irregularly shaped columns that give a notion of uncertain stability. Around
The perimeter, the parking spaces are widely exposed to the horizon, an
infinite frame of visual connection to the city.
“The
free design of the Façade” The architects extended the irregular in height
slabs beyond the supporting also irregular shaped columns or structural system
of the garage. Now generating a rather uncertain sensation of what is really
holding this structure up. In this case the façades is in constant alteration,
in constant movement, in continuous transformation made by cars.
4 comments:
I felt that your comparison between the two was a bit of a stretch in the sense that while you were trying to make a case for its connection to ALL of the Five Points it might have made more sense to distinquish its differences in a clear way. You found yourself in a kind of Square peg / Round hole situation. You should also remember that Maison Domino was a very different project and was probably the direction that might have led you down a more enlightening path. Go back and look closely at Domino as I think you'll find some interesting parallels and even more interesting points of departure.
There are palpable similarities between the included perspective of Maison Domino and the last image of 1111 ... perhaps the structural purity and incorporation of the car in HdM's 1111 is even the pinnacle of Corb's aspirations ... however, what conclusions can you draw from
the connections you are building between Corb's speculative 'Machine for Living' and a reimagined parking garage? What's the significance of your comparison to Corb's 5 points?
This analysis is too descriptive, rather than analytical. For example, it would be valuable to contrast the design of 1111 against the Five Points. Talk about the ways Herzog and de Meuron deviate from the Corbusian norm (such as in the roof garden, the structural supports, and the free façade) and how these deviations might be meaningful. The structure might be a particularly valuable focus of this discussion, since its playfulness has no precedent in Le Corbusier’s work in the 1920s. Talk too about the other aspect of Le Corbusier’s thought from the 1920s: the promenade architecturale, which is transformed into two concentric helixes (one pedestrian, one vehicular), within 1111.
Agree with David. Your approach is too descriptive. The problem with this is: all issues that you raise through a descriptive investigation will mostly lead to obvious associations, which subsequently, lead to arguments that unfortunately you cannot really support --such as that of “parasite” architectures. I frankly doubt that one of the raisons d'etre of this project was to host artist installations.
Had you approached this investigation in an analytical manner –appropriate to analog comparisons between buildings, much of the projective nature of 1111 would have come to light. I would argue that the importance of this building relies on how it responds to the city in its present state, and definitely on how this present reality will be projected in the future through built form. In saying this, to some extent I agree with you, but this common ground of opinions goes way beyond framing horizons and parasites.
Post a Comment