l?{{sn¡ül,F

WITHOUT RHETORICAn Architectural Aesthetic 1955 -797 2

ALISON & PETER SMTTHSON

Thc lll.l.T. PressCanrbridge, Nt¿ss¿chusetts

Uffi ttUfiiiUtt[ttttltlWUttUttttUt

R.r ió9

First published in 1973 by Latimcr Ncw Dimcnsions

O Alison and Peter Smithson 1973

No parr of this public¿tion m¿y bc rcproduccd or transmittcdin any form wirhout permission in writing from !he publishers.

!'irst MIT Press edition. 1974

rsBN o 2ó2 19119 9Library of Congress catalog card numbcr: 7l I 1737

Computerised origination

Printed in (irc^t Britain

by Aurosct, Brentwood, Essex.

CON'TENTS BY THEMES

I I 3 The 'fifties / The response !o the imp¡cr of Americanadvertising.

14 - l8 Without tbetoric I Cdlm ^s

en ide^|.

l9 - 27 Mies van der Rohe /'l'he American rradirion of carefüldetailing in erpensrr e marerials.

28- 41 Reperition / the open space-structured building,'¿c¿sJire, calm, green, urban p¿tte¡n.

42 - 43 Mies and metal.

44 - 49 An itude\ ro m(.baúitms and setuire:.

50'58 The Doric Order ¿,smetaphor.

59 65 Mecbanisms ,zn d ss¡r,icei must become idee.

66 77 The form Lazgzage of architecture-

7 8 ' 94 A sensi bility for hu man patterns an d collcctivc builtforms.

95 lndex

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their thanks for the use ofrh€ quo!¿rions in ¡his book. While ever¡ effort has been m¿deto trace rhe or¡ginal publishers, rhis has not proved possible in¿llcases.

When le Corbusier ¿ssembled l/¿¡s Ufie Arcbitecture, he Eave royoung architects everywhere a way of looking at the emergentmachine servcd society, and from that, a way of looking atantiquity end a rationale to support hjs personal aesthctic.Viollet{e-Duc had performed the same sewice to ¡rchitectsbefo¡e le Cotbusier' the role they pl¿yed is traditional to thedevelopment of architecture. In this essáy, based on materialwritten betwcen 1955 ¿nd 1972, we try to do rhe same as thesearchitects trfore us.We writc to make ourselves see what we hevc got in theinescapable prcsent . . . to give ano¡her interpretation of thesam€ ruins . . . to show a glimpse of anotier aesüctic.

The real implications we¡e hidden from us when we startedü;nL;ng out our pos¡tion and response to rhe advertiscmcnrsconlained ¡n rhc glossy magazines of the 'fifties. Our intcrcsrand fascination were a seeming anachronism to our NewBru talist stance unless 1or read the adr crüremenr imrges ¿s

r isual telegrams with a specially loaded me.srge aboutpossibilities for the immediatc future.

Full p¿ge ¿dver¡ismcnr,wom¿n's Home Comp¡nion,

viLl¿ ¿r cárches, u¡dcrrestoratio¡ Suñmer 1954,photographcd durins visirwirh Alfred Rorh who h¿dworked on the dr¿wi¡gs

NB: the modü¡ ván onlycones half way up theg¿rdse which wes m¿de fortall cars ¡har ladies couldget into ir dxsr-co¿ts ¡¡d

Scorning the sociologists of th¿t time for collating pastaspirations, we tu¡ncd to this forevcr renewed source m¿teri¿lso th¿t we could be in e position to give form to people's¿spirations at the same moment as they discovered they hadtiem-1954 was for us a key year . . . Americ¿n adv€rtising cqual toD¿da in its impact of overlaid irnagery . . . that automotivem¿steryiece the Cadilhc convertible parallel with thc ground,four elwations classic box on wheels . . . the start of a newway of thinking by CIAMI . . . the revaluation of the work ofGropius . . . üe rcpainting of the Ville at carches; ell theseevcnts we sclccted ¿s meaningful and encouraging. We belicvedNew Btut¿lism2 to be the direct line development of theModern Movement.

1 De{clopcd by Teañ 1o after Oite¡lo i957.2 Coined on sisb¡ of¿ newsp¡per pa.agr¡ph he¿ding wh;ch c¿lled (by

poor translation of Beton Brut?) the M¡rseilles Uni¡é'Brur¿lism ina¡chirecturc' .hat was for us: 'New'. both bec¿usc we ceme ¿fter l€Corbüsier, 2nd in respons€ to the going literary style of theArc¡ire.rur¿l Revjew which - at the start of.he 'fif¡ies w¿s rünning¿rricles on rhe New Mo¡ument¿lity, tbe New Empiricism, rhe NewSentime¡taliry, and so on.

I ri. lirst offoür full páse zdvc¡rismen¡r, t¡dies Homc Joú¡nal,.arly'fifiies.

Woods, Rodilnsky, c¿ndilis,te Corbusiefr site s¡¿ff,M¿rscillcs, on Í(Df ofUnitó during co¡strucrion..1.)52.

'lhe coining of the name New Brutalism thc English only¡hink in t€rms of words made possible the rccognition inEngland of those ideas we had dcvelopcd in our first workingycrr<. fhe neares( Ihing ro vrhrr ne werc looking for w.1s thenbeing buik in Marseillcs by le Corbusier.r I undrmentrlLy borhthe Modcrn Movcmcnt in its heroic ph¿se ¿nd our ide¡s of thattimc used as their measure traditional Japanese ¿rchitecture ¿s eunderstood through photographs seen in Europe.'lhis European idea and im¿gc ofJap¿nese erchitecturc seduccdthe gcncration spanning 1900. Through Japanes€ architecture,the longings of the gene¡ation of c¿rnier and Beh¡ens foundform . . . prodrctngin le Corbusier the purist ¿esthetic of thesliding screens, continuous sp¿ce, the power of white and earrh

I Secn by us during const¡uctio¡ f.on the outside only;seen complcredat rh. CIAM opcning pany durins Aix en Prov€n.e congress (C¡AM9),S€prembe.l953.

'sd

9

's d 09óI

I

7,8,9 & l0oppoír¿, Hunsr¡nton,Norfolk: Sccond¿ry Moder¡School at thc timc theconstluction wls f inühing,195 3: photogrlpherNigelHcndcrson.

colours on the rendered wall . . . in Mies, the sructurc and thescreen as absolutes.Our understanding - and so it might have been for Mies wasLhxt for the Jap¿nese ¡heir fonn wál only part of ¿ generalconception of life, ¿ sort olre\erence for the netllral \ orldand,rrom ihar. for the matcri¿l\ ol Ihe built world.a It is rhisrespects for marcrials - a realisation of lhe affinity which canbe established between building and man - which was at theroot of ou¡ way of seeing and thinking about things that wecalted New Brutalism.6Therefore for us, our Hunst¿nton School - which probablyowes as much to Japanese architecture as to Mics - was the fi¡stre¿lisation of our New Brutalism- This pa¡ticular handling ofmaterials, not iD th€ craft sense but in intellectual lpp¡aisal, hasbeen ever-present in the Modern Movement, as indeed familiarsof the €arly Gerñ¿n architects have been prompt to remind us.?What is ncw about the New Brutalism among Moaements is ¡hatit finds its closest affinities not in a past architectural style, butin peasant dwelling fo¡ms, which have style and are stylish butwerc f¡ever modish: a poetfy without rhe¡ofic. we see

architeclure as a di¡ect statement of a w¿y of life and in thepast ordinary, prosaic li[e has been most succinctly,economically. rers€ly exprcssed in rhe peasant farms and theimpedim€nta of Med¡tenanean rur¿l life thar le Corbusier hadmade respectable.¡

7

8

Thc Ja¡enese hlm Gale of Hell r lo54 r showcd housc\. a mon¡Lery;nrl ñ,1i.. iñ có!Í, r f.r rhe lnr time.

neirencc in thc essay in atchitectu,aL D.sigei brt the word iúplies a

certa;n sensu¿liry, a cen¡in qu¿lity ¿nd luxury of mereri¿l th¿t reflectsmore rhc subscquenr use of bronze by Mics th¿¡ the quality we sensedwh.n w€ first looked on rhe poveny-strickcn s¡d. ofJap¿¡csE¿dit¡onát peasanr building.

No¡ much to do with the Brutalism that popularly becam€ luúPedinto the stylc ourliD€d in Rey¡q Btnh^m's Tbe Neú Rrutdlisn,A¡ch¡tecrural Pres, 19ó6-

See W¡hcr SeC¡l r lene, .n A.D., Frbru¿ry 1954.

P.rh¿psfollowing" rr-dirioral l.rench avcnuc of srud). Cahie^oiluU-piarc phorogr"phs .ho$ ilC r5e ,egional styles of Fren(h ta'mr erc,werc published at the turn of the century.

Thus the epparent ?)ol te-face frcm display to concealúent -that we instandy h.d ao take wh€n finding the form of theHouse of the Future for üe Daily Mail ldeal Home Exhibition195ó, where we had to essume that ¡he aspiratiorx visible in theadvcniiing of the 'fif¡ies had been consumed and üemachine-served society already in existence. To arrive ¿! thepoint where w€ could so brief ourselves for the House of theFuture, wc had tak€n both advertising aDd the ordinaryproducts of industry seriously.

.l

I

Origid¿lly ¿t kast upw¿rds d¡e air w¡s safc; c¿ch m¿n on looking upowncd ¿ piccc of sky, bc his Erritory howcv$ $ sm,.ll. Now it ñnorso: ¡ t¿ll bu¡ldi'rg. . . u¡seD cyes could bc looking dow¡ ar you . . .

from highcr up the hum of nachinery, cxh¿usr funcs. . . for rhcü¿velle¡ ¿ ncw frccdom . . . for th€ €veryd¿y lifc, ¿ ¡oisc, a paráfincloud. . . cvcn w¡lk aw¿y on to a mounr¿in slope, thdc can bc th;

AS in DS, m¿nurcripr in preper¿tion 1971-72: A-S.

I I Di¡gram of thc Hous. of the Fütu¡c: ldcll Homcs Exhibition, r 956.

vERTITAL IUEE 0f |jNBRtAIUID PPTVAII Alp,

I

. í- -,'- -:r---

,^

Traditionally thc fine arts depend on the popula¡ ar¡s for ¡heirvitality, and the popula¡ a¡ts on the finc a¡ts for theirrespect¿biliry. It has been said that things hardly'exist'beforcthe fine ártist has made use of them¡ they are simply part of thcunclassified background material against which wr pass ourlives, The t¡ansformation from everyday objecr ¡o fine artmanifest¿tion happens in many ways: the object can bedtscovered - bbjet troü1,é or I'ort brut - rhe object itselfrem¿ining thc same; a literary or folk myth can aise; or theobject can bc used as ¿jumping-off point and is itself- tnüsformed. Le Corbusier in Volume I of his oeuvle Compl¿te

' describes lrow the 4rcbitectural ntecbdnism of the Maison- Ciúohan (1920) evolved: two popular art devices - the' a¡Tangemcnt of the c¿fé (e small zinc b¿r at the reer with a largc' window on to the sheet), and the close vertical patent glazing

ofthc suburben factory we¡e combined and t¡ensformed into

qklD

12 Kitche! of the House of

photogr¡ph c.o.LD.

lhe kitchen of the Unitá,influenti¿l in the early'f ifties: photogiapherKarquel f or L'A¡chitecilre

a fine art a€sthetic. Two worlds each fully developed in th€irown right are put together as ¿ new form. This 'architectu¡almechanism' served le Corbusier all his working life and towardsthe end of it produced the Unité d'H¿bitation in Marseiltes- TheUnité d'Habitarion demonstrates the compl€xity of an artm¿nifestation, for its g€nesis involves popular art, historic ertseen ¿s a pattern of social organisation not as a stylistic source(observed by le Corbusier ¿t the Chartreuse D'Ema 1907), mdideas of social reform and technical revolution 'patiently'worked out ove¡ forty years, during which time the socia-l ¿ndtechnological milieu, pardy as a result of his own activities, metle Corbusier half-way.

Why certain folk art objects, historical styles or jndus¡¡i¿laxtifacts and methods become important at a p¿rticular momentcannot easily be explained.

Gropius @rote a booh on grain silos,le Corbusier a book on aeroplanes,and Cbarlotte Perriand ^ it uas saitl brougbt a ne@ ob¡ect totbe office eoery morning;but in tbe 'fifties, ue collected'ads'.To the a¡chitects of the 'twenti€s, j¡dpd, wes the Jap¿nese houscol p''ns and paintings. Lhe house \ iLh ir' roof olr. rhe planebound ¡ogeúer by thin blrck Iine!. r'l o quote Cropiu.q rhewhole country looks like one gigantic basic design course'). Inthe 'thities, Jdpd, meant gardens, the ga¡den entering thehouse, the tokonoma. For us in the 'fifties, it would hav€ beenthe advertising, the objects on the beaches, the picceof paper blowing about the st¡eet, the throw-away object a:rdthc pop p¿clage ¡ Ira L n ould h¡ve erciLed us had vr e gone thererhen.r0 l-or in Ih^se d3j. we collected 'ad( .

9 Coúúent d¡ his first trip to J¿p¿n, undert¿ken o¡ly in tbe 'fi{ties.

1O By the time we got there in 19óo, rbe be¿cbes we¡e picked cle¿D ofdriftwood, etc.. for flowe. aú¿ngements; the pxveñe¡ts were not onlyswept but washed, the road pollütion súch th¿t notbing was worthrescuing; pop-pack¡ges were the worst Ameic¿¡ - only tickets to Noh¿¡d Kabuki the¿trcs presered the old stand¿rds- This stitl seens ¡o¿pply in the 'seventies, rhat some p¡per objects of tr¿ditló¡¿l typehave suwived bec¡üse oftheir co.nections.

t4 Full p¡gc rdvcfti$m.nt,kdi€s Horne Journ¿1, 1960.

To undemand the advertisements which appeared in thc N¿r¡Yorker or ladies Home loamal tllle'], yor had to havc taken acourse in Dublin literature, reed e ltnr¿ arucle on Cybcrncticsand majored in Higher Chinese Philosophy and Cosmc¡ics. Suchadvcrtiscments, ¡hose which did not try to sell you the productexcep¡ as a natural ¿ccessory to a way of life, were packcd with

11

i¡fo¡m¿tion data of a sryle and standard of living which theywere simultaneoüsly inventing end documenting; good'images'whosc technic¿l virtuosity was almost magical so that one pagemust have involved as much effort as the building of acoffee-ba¡. This transient thing wa-s making a biggercontribution to our visual climate th¿n any of the fine arts: wecould not ignore thc f¿ct ¡h¿r oneoftherr¿dirional lunc(ionsof fine art, the definition of what is fine and desirable fo¡ theruling class and therefore ultimately what is desired by allsociety, had at that moment been taken over by the'ad-man'.The equivalent of the Dutch f¡uit and flower arrangement, thepicture that reminded of the Grand Tour, more recently theplates in the Wonders ofAfric¿, or the Machine Age, was to befound in the'glossies'bound up with a thro*away object.As fa¡ as architecture was concerned, the mass-productionindustries had already revolutionised h¿lf the house kitchen,bathroom, laundry, garage without the intervention of thearchitecti and the curtain well and the modular pre fabricatedbuilding were causing us to revise our atcitude to therelarionship between architect and industrial production. Byfine art standards the moduler pr€-fab¡icated büilding, which ofits nature can only approximate to the ideal shape for which itis intended, must be a bad building, yet generally speaking theschools and garages which had already been built with systemsof pre-fabrication were especially successful in their modesty,the cese with which they fitted into the buiit hierarchy of acommunity, when compared with buildings by fine artarchitects operating in the same field. By fin€ art st¿ndards thecurtain wall too coüld not be successful ¿ screen whosedimensions ¿re unrelated to the underlf ing form andorganisation of the building it is wrapped around but theresult was again an improvement on what the fine ¿rt architect

and, perhaps less paradoxically, on wh¿t tbe'de\e oper/¿rchitccr'- ua! Lhen doirg ro ci¡) buildirg..So ordirary life in the liftie< rcceircJ lmp rlscs tronmass-producrior ¿dvertising ai"ned al es¡rbli.hing ¡ uholcpallernof liie.....principle....mor¿1r...¿in....aspirations . . . standard of living. Advertising fe1l into the rolethc church o¡ce plaxed: we had to somehow get the measure ofthis intervention if we werc to rnatch its powerful and excitingimpulscs with our own. Only the fine arrisr.rn ¡hnose to <tress

11

..t..

15 Mx¡illn Monroe, pin-up of¿¡ris¡s ¿¡d ¿rchitects.'fifties

'Mor. rlr¿n ¡he¡o ¡al¿moun¡olencrgynus¡beconsüñedinholdi¡gone's ow¡ in ¿ hostile worLd.'

'l¡ ther.fore c!ñe ¿bou¡ ¡h¡t ¿bihy to hold out rs¿i¡rsr nrass

r,ggestion, n) honesrl) diffcr hom thc.oDvic¡ions¿nd€n¡husi¿snsofo¡c's best f¡iends did m moDen¡s of crisú .ome n) depend upon ¡hemregorical bclicf that ¡ mrn s p.im¿ry ¿llcgia¡.c k ro hisvisio¡ ol ¡h.truth andrharhe is undrr obliga¡ion ¡o !ffi.n it.

Jane Addams: Pe¡.c ¿¡d Bre¡d in Times of \ryar, Ki¡gs Crown Press,

N.Y..1945

13

l6

quier, cle¿n country-

risiror: field kitclrens

tea! \uter r¿p: Ktu8€r

photog¡aphcd 1970,

wh¿t he considers is unreasonably neglectcd, or play downthose forces which he feels over-stressful.There is a story about Bcrthold Brecht, that he once asked astage carpenter to iix up a curtain track in his New York¿p¿¡tmenti the man did it beautifully, and with its mode ofope¡ation discrect and hidden: Brecht told the man to t¿ke irdown and fix it so its r¿il and strings were exposed: 'l want tosee ho\& it worls. We should l,k( ¡o be ¡w¿re ho$ such ¿ ¡hingwo.ks. but no¡ necessarily ro \ec i¡ uork.'r lorinourriewrhe_invention of the for¡nal means, whercby, without display orrhetoric, we sense only the essentiel presence of the mechanismssupporting and servicing ou¡ buildings, is the very hcart ofpresent day architecture, To make our mechanismsl2 speakwith oü spaccs is our cent¡al p¡oblem. We would say to theman who hid the cu¡tain track, "That's finc, now let's persu¿dethe lift manufecturer to silence his lift": such is the chang€demph¿sis from a time of few machines to the time of many . . .

of the rare message, to the time when all kinds of messages ar:e

scnt to us almost incessantly . . . a time when few people livedin cities to the time wheÍ mos¡ do.When our standards were set for us by the Church or Kings,later by the Maúie and Banks, those were the times forbuildings which announcedpo?r¿r with a loud voice. Now whenmany forces influence us, the time for rhetoric oi sny kind inindividual buildings has pessed. When the few h¿d c¿rs üen wasthe time for rhetoric ¿bout the machine. ofviolence as an idcal-When ¿ll have machine energy - cars, trrnsisto¡ radios and light

to throw about, then the time has come for the lyricism ofconúol, for calm as ¿n ideal, for bringing the Virgiliar dreamthe peece of the countryside enjoyed with theself-consciousness of the city dweller jnto thc notion of thecity itself.This after all was le Corbusier's dre¿m. This is wh¿t draws us tohis c¿pitol group at Chandigarh; its patrician sense of sp¿ce, irscalm, its control. It is a place where you can brc¿the and feellike a ma¡. This is why we incre¿singly appreciate the orderedflow of traffic along routes special to traffic . . . tb¡ the scnse of

1 I Neithc ¡ecessdrily did Drech.; this is simply ¿ p¿rable.

i2 And .emember ou¡ mechanisms inclüdc óür cárs, delivery vehi.les,r¿ilw¿ys, únde¡ground .ailways, monor¿ils, ¿nd so on.

L4

t7 ch¿ndig.rh, Sr¿re c¿pir¿l ofthc Punj¿b: tr corbusier:model of cápitoL Buildings,model m¿keis Rattan Singh

ene¡gy ordered ¿Dd conEolled.'fhis is why ü,e €njoy rhe truetown-room forwalking only,Iik€ the Burlingron or thePiccadilly Arcadc, rhe urban salon ten feet wide, detailed to beseen from three feet ¡way rnd nor filry, expensive. highlycontrolled, not aggrcs.ivé only the d'oor sigrs are diifeántfiom \hop ro shop - crvilized, mind releasirg.

l5

l8láf¿yerre P¿rk, Deroit: Miesvan der Róbe: 195 9: photo-gI¿pher C-H. woodwáld.

This is why wc know instinctively that a reduction o{ u¡bandensitics is ¡ human n€cessity: we know when we areoverc¡owded no matte¡ how cleverly stacked one on another. 13

This is why we will return so often to Laf¿yefte P¿rk jn De¡roitto feel again its decent calÍ\ its openness, to study its methodsol pur ring the c¿r in it \ place, ¿ll achieved withou¡ ¡hr¡oric.This is why the Chase Manhanan Benk fascinalcs itstechnology and its mechanisms are under cont¡ol it has norhetoric.This is why wc ¡hink about the Hochschulc fur Gestaltung atUlm - of its c¿sc, of its ordinariness that has a kind ofundcr.t¡red lyricism which i. lull of potenti¿l and d.res notdi\nrrb ¡hc Dc¿ce of thc hrllside on which it is 'iru¡led.

rl r" *.f.gi."l rc..r, .,owdin8 means violencc, 'ome

scrcnr srs ruggcstwe sh¡ll declin€ from the süess disc¿s€s of overc¡owding lonS beforcrhe populat;on incree oveffu¡s thc food suPplies.

1ó

19Chasc I'l¿nh¿tran Bznk, NewYork, Skidnorc, Owings ¿nd

^rle¡rill: photographed 1 9ó1,

20Ulm' Hochschúle firr Cest¡hung,I'tax Bill: phorogr¿phed 1956,P.S.

Ch¡ndigarh/Lafayctte P¿¡k/Chase MaDhattrr)/Ulm :rre for us thebuildings r:f the hinge-point.Starting with our 1952 city housing project Goldcn Lanc weh¿ve been concerned with what form the house and thc groupof houses - should t¿kc. We would say ¡hat the form of thehousc groups should be such that cnch individu3l can choose hisdegree ofcont¡ct... or protcctjon... and tierebv pleasurc . . .

in the machine-scn'ed society.wh¡rever ration¿l aides to ordering or lorm-firdi,?g rhcrc ¡retcchniques to establish identity, to uncovcr useful pattcrns ofassociation, and so on thejzrz¡ that Aldo van E)¡ck talks¿bout from thc discreditcd knorvn to appropriatc unknowD issurely an aesthetic one. And of thc archi¡ccts at work in ourlifetime it h¿s been Mies ven der Rohe who has jumped so oftenand so rvell into thc unknorvn, in spitc of superficialappcarances. Our debt to N'lics van drr Rohe is so great ia isdifficult to discntangle what are our o\vn thoughts so oftcn h.vethey been thc result of insights reccivcd from him. Certairrly wehave been profoundly chang€d by two thcmes of his lifc's rvork,first th¿t to makc ¡ thing rvell is not only a moral impcrative,bur it is also ¡hc xbsolute bmc of plc¡sure in use. ln ordinrryAmcric¿n lifc the rhings which are wcll made and give plcas.rreare mass'produced and mxde of mctrl: norv Mies ah'r'ays lovcrlmerel sincc the dal s of the silk Erhibi¡, ¡nd ive crn sensc th¿rhe c.rmc gadullly ro scc that Amcric¡n m€tal tcchnolog,v couldbe madc to respond to a more ex¿rct proportioning and molcsubtlc profiling then m¿rbie. Aftcr 900 L¡ke Shorc Drive,Chicago, his usc of mct¿l extrusions L¡ecane at thc same timemore exact ¡nd lr¡utiful end more normrl to thc Americ^ncultur€. With tlre¡¡ he built a kind of loving nrutr ity. 'l his isthe great lesson of his Iatcr y€rrs.Then therc is his orher thcme the m¡chine_celm ciry. Mics w¡snever inte¡crtcd, not even in 'G' da) s, iI] machinc_age rhctoric.Hehad a bankcr's calm, a love of orderliness and quict builtinto him. That hc ¡lweys srood close to both nco-classicisln ¡ndto de Stijl is bccausc they sharc the secrct of thc ordering olclcments to effcct a gcntle, live, cquipoise. Mies' buildirrg gror-tps¡chjcvc this equjpoise lr,ith the peoplc, cars and rrucks ofordin:uy lif€.Mies v¿n dcr Rohc's thoughts ran vcry dcep and are not ctsily¿cccssil¡le it could be susp€cted not cven to himself .rnd

22commo¡wc¡lih PromenJdc

^prrrnenrs, Chic¡go: Ilics v¿n

d.r Rohc: 1953 56, dcr¡ilolcxt¡usioñs füm;ng skin, phoro-

Jsaph.d r958. P.S.

2to p ? o st r ¿ : Ilr

^y crte Pú l<'

most r.ccnt block of the l¿¡c'sixties, phorographer c. ll.

r9

z3

Silk factory at KrefeldlMics van dcr Rohe: 1932'13:photogrEphcd 195 5, P.S.

although the revived Chicago Schoolla w¿s a litcr¿lconsequence of his work and tc¿ching, the re-dircction of themain stre¿m ofaxchitecture itself, which instinct tclls us is inhis work, will ¡akc some years to comprehend ¿nd to growuPon.Mies was alrcady a third the way through his work in Americawhat might be said to be his Krefeld pcriod wes ending and hisEuly Amcric¡n period beginning - whcn we became consciousin architecture. In his head Mies van der Rohe never lcftcermany; in its m¿terial aspect, his work grew out of ¿ traditionof perfection of det¿il ¿s ch¿racrcr ised by the Altcs Museum -for even ¡he earlicst Mies workr5 :s m¿de with materials of rhcfinest quality detailed with great care - thc matble, travertinc,plate glass, and nick€lplated steel of the Barcelona Pavilioni thevast veneered-wood doors and careful brickwork of the KrefeldHoures-Mies h¿d a special feeliag fot materíals as lurary; it is seen in anobvious way in the photographs of early cxhibition work, in theTugendhat House ¡nd thc latcr Seagram Building, but it is in allhis work: it is there in the flat, wide, rendered wall sudace at

14 Murphy Associ¿t€s, erc., etc.

1s Mies wÉnt ro Bcrlin wben he w¡s 19.

20

'Scbinkcl's D¡s Alte Muscun (1824-28) w¿s ¿ bc¿utiful büilding. Youcould lc¿rn cvcrything in ¿rchiterture from ir- ¡nd I triedtodoth¿t.'

'Berl¿gc w¿s! man of gre¿t serbusness who would¡otaccepr anythingrh¿r w¿s f¡kc lnd ir w¡s he who h¡d said that nothing should bcbuiltth¿t is not clcarly consiructcd. And Berlagc did cxacdy th¡r. And hcdid it to such án ext€nr that his f¡mous build¡ng ln msrerdam, ThcBcu6, h¿d a mcdicvalch¡hcE. wirhout bcingoedidal. He usrd brickin thc my thc media¿l people d¡d- Thc idc¿ of¿ clear consrructio¡c¿me to me theré, ¡s one of the fundamcf,t¿ls rve should ¡cccp r. w€ c¿n¡¡lk about that c¿sily butto doit¡noteasy. k isvcry difficulttostickro ¡his fuDd¡ncntll consrrúction. and thcntoclev¿teittoasÚucturc.'

'l Dust mlke it clerr ü¿r in rhe English langu2ge you c¡ll evcrythingsFuctut- In Europc we do¡'¡. we c¡ll .] sh¡ck ! sh¿ck ¿nd not a

st¡uctlrre- By structurc we have a pnilosophical id€a. fhe sr¡uctur€ isúe who¡e, Éom top ¡o bortom, ro ¡he l¿sr dcr¿il wirh rhc same ideas.Thar is what wé call structure.'

' - . . we ¡rk of a rosc only rh¿¡ ir be¿ ¡osct wc ¿sk of¡ por¡ro o¡ly th¿tirbe¿ potato. Philosophic¿lly spe¿king, clnly th en do they exisl.'

'Archirecturé bcgins whe¡ ¡vo bri.ks¡rc put c¿refully rogerhcr.'

'ArcbiÉctur€ dcp.nds on ¿¡ epoch, it is r¡ot ¡ fash¡on, nor is ksomethingfo.ctcrn¡ty, itis¡ part ofán epoch. Tou¡dc6t¡ndan epochmens ro undersBnd irs ¿rs¿r¿¿ ¡nd norcvcryrhing rhat yoü sc.. Butwh,t isimpo¡t¿nt in an cpocb isv€¡/d¡fficulr ro find outbecaúse ther€is ¿ rcry slow unfolding of thc g¡ear form. Ihat gre¿t forñ cannot bcinrcnrcd by you or me but wc ¡rc working on it wi¡ho!¡ knowing it.And when ¡his grc¿i torn is fully u nderst )d,thentheepochisovcr-thcn there is somcthing new. ¡¡a¡ishow lsceit.'

S¿yings of Micsvan dcr Roh€: Perer Cartcr: A¡chitectural Dcsigr,March 19ó1. P€tcr Ca¡rer h¿s ¡lso publ¡shed Mies Urban Spacc',Architects'Yc¡r Book XI: Elek Books.

thc \triLJDischesr¡rsse Housing(1925), bringing our theessrn.'c of cement rendcring :r .uch and pla¡ irg a part in theway wherclry the ordinariness ol ¡he programme and thc sitc israised to a kind of digniry. And. thc brick of r he L.rnge House(1928)16 isashrick asbrickcanbc.., dour.puriran,

r ó Represendng Mics' ¿uitude afrer rhc wcisscDhofseidlung? Bcforc -sonewhat rhctoric¿|, idflúenc€d by school of Aús¡erdan and by Theovón Doesburg r .Iftcñ¿rds toughc¡, ne¿rer to Oud.

2l

24Mies van der Rohe:1925:photo8raphed 19ó3, P.S.

22

25det¡il of b¿scme¡t wi¡dow:phorogr¡phed 19ó3, P.S-

¿bsolute . . - th€ luxury rests in the fact th¿t the observer isrnade aw¿re of the essence of e¿ch úaterial; in this attitude Mieswas amazi¡gly consistent.In the United States the tradition of careful detailing inexpensive mate¡ials cen safely be said to have been founded byMcKim, Mead and White. Following this tradition, the wo¡k ofSkidmore, Owings end Merrill in the 'sixties was the only¿rchitecture in the United St¿tcs that foreign architectsregarded as re¿lly American. And, as with Detroit cars of th¿ttiú€, for€ign architects admired it wiüout the restr¿ints thatwould have oper¡ted had it been a product of thcir own culture.They admired it for its uffnatched technological competence.They were, of course, perfectly aware that its underlyingplanning models were those of the late Be¿ux Arts; banal,overblown, official; but the expertisc that was brought to bearlifted the product into the category of the new. This is whatfascinated them, the hinf of a otber arcbitectul¿ outside theüaditions of Europe and Japan. It only became apparent in thelate 'sixties ¿nd could be seen in very few buildings - and onlya breath of it can be felt in the works of the founders of thenadition McKim. Mead and White - but there was no doubtthat Skidmore, Owings and Merrill's Union Carbide and ChaseManhattan B¿nk buildings in New York were so well made and

23

25detáil of b¿senent windów,photographed 196 3, P.S.

¡bsolutc . . . the luxüry rests in the fact that the observer ismade aw¿re of the essence of each materiali in this ¿ttitude Miesw¿s ¿mazingly consistent.In the United Stalcs the tradition of ca¡eful detailing inexpcnsivc materials can safely be said ro havc been founded byMcKin, Mead and White. Following this Eradition, thc work ofSkidmore, Owings and Me¡¡ill in the 'sixties w¿s the onlyarchitecture in the United States that forcign architcctsregarded ¿s really Amcrican. And, ¡s with D€troit cars of thattimc, forctn architects admircd it withour [hc restra¡nts th¿twould have operatcd had it bcen a product of th€ir own culture.They admired it for its unmatched technological competence.'fhey werc, of coursc, perfectly aware that its underlyingplanning models wcre those of the l¿te Beaux Arts: banal,ovcrblown, official; but th€ cxpe¡tise tha! was brought to bearlifrcd the product into thc catcgory of the ncw. This is whatfascinated them, thc h\nt ol drlotber drchitecture oufsidc thetraditions of Europc and Japan. It only became apparen¡ in theletc 'sixties and could be seen in very few buildings and onlya brc¿th ofit can be felt in the works of the founders of thetradition McKim, Me¿d and Whitc but there was no doubtthar Skidmore, Owings and Merrill's Union C¿rbide and ChaseMrnhattan Bank buildings in New York were so weli made and

21

26Feder¿l Rese¡ve Bánk (r, l¿t),McKim, Mead ¿n¿ white:chase M¿nh¿rt¿n Bank (¿,/A¡¡), Skidmore, owincs and¡4errill: photog¡¿phed 19ó3,P.S.

of such expensive m¿teria.ls that they aroused the strong€stcargo cult feelings in foreigners, and we¡e ü'uly hlnts of unearc bite cture |utre.'lhc bretth ol anotber archítecture in the fo¡nding firm can stillbe experienced outside the University Clubt? ¿nd seen in thepl¿tcs of the Madison Squ¿re Presbyterien Chu¡ch.rB Theseexteriors ¿re detailed in a way outside of a foreigner'sexperience of the possible. In no real Renaissance building wasso much trouble taken. Ibis sort of perfection only appearcd inbuildings as rare as the Parthenon or the Ise Shrine,re and theywere Lrsing repetition, sameness, before it became machineperfected, when it was quite another thing.No bollard in Edwa¡dian Engiand was so well m¿de as those at

17 Corn€r of 54th and 5rh Avenue.

18 Paul wenzel, Mau.ice Kr!l<ow, A Mo oglcph or th¿ @ork afMcKin,M¿drl d ¡l white 1879-19 75, A¡chirectl]r¿l Book Publishing Co., N.Y.(1915 & l¿ter). The¡e see,ns to be no mode.n biography of this fi.n.

19 Perfectio¡ of ne\rness, atr¡ibutable to the rebuilding of rhe shrineflery tuenty years (next rebuild 1974). In f¿cr ir is impossible for usto s¡y how much ofthe precision we see in phoiog¡¡phs of he rod¿y isdue to te$nological improvements o¡ even to the influence ofMcKim, Me¡d and white so inpressionable áre the Japanese; rhe ArrNouveau h@vily coun¡er influenced their wooden buildingsirhey h¿vebeen unde¡ Americ¿n B¿nk sryle influence since r926 or so.

24

27 I$, small sto¡ehou3c.photogr¡ph.d r9ó0, P.S,

the Weshington Alch;just as today the squ¿¡e-section lengths ofg¡¿nite that lie so simple, so expensive, so eloquent, betweenthe pavement and the büilding at rhe extension of the Museumof Modern A-rt New York are impossible for us,2o for we ¡rcoutside th¿t special tradition of concentration and expenditur€on dctail which Americans enjoy. ln the 'sixties the lavatori€swere what we envied most of all: those luxe vit¡eous enamelledpartitions, the thick-glazed pans, a¡rd the flush brush-finishcdstainless towel dispensers: all from catalogues. What a culturcth¿t could produce such pleasures for evdry manl And theyreally were potentially for most men, as Detroit showed.There seems to be a straight line from the frame house ro rhePepsi Building of how to go ¿bout ¡hings, a facility which comesto Americans without special thought. Those Americanarchitects who are thoughtful ebout t}Ic Íraking of spaces -H.H. fuchardson or Loüis Kahn - make a European sort ofarchilectu¡e-Büt even with the example of Mies among them, Skidmo¡e,Owings rnd Menill could nor have bridged the gap fromMcKim, Mead and White to üei¡ 'sixties cargo-cuk srylewi¡hout Richard Neuua, fo¡ Neutra wes the Flrst to make the

20 But ¡ot pahaF for Bclinc¡s, for in thc tÉdition of thcir pávemcnts,Mic' usd gr¡nit¿ sl¿bs on th. podium of his Murúm.

25

29

Erccrion of t.adirion¿L balloonfr¿ñe - but he.e in the fofm ofrow houses in c.1949 exercisei¡ pref¡bric¿¡ion ¿nd speed

2a

SrilL from a Lalrel¿nd Hardyfiln: ivherher this rr¿ditionalconstrú.tion wrs unde610od¿s a real house by ¿ldiencesoutside the USA at rhe dmeis deba¡ab1el European¿udien.es prob¿bly a$umedrhe frane to represenr a f¿rnbuilding or lack of money ó¡

precise glamorous: perhaps this is an old Viennese talent.Neutra's houses, as they exist in photographs, are so polished,so perfect, as to seem impossible to achieve, ¿s if their buildersall wore white gloves and t¿bi and had their bárh-house hurerected as the first building on site in the Jep¿nese manner: as ifthei¡ owners never had an unpresent¿ble moment or l¿id down apair of snn glasses. The photographs have a kind ofde-materialised glamou¡, almosr that of soap and toilct pap€radvert¡ements (although which came first is difficult to rell)that is specially, even uniqueiy American, roored no doubr onthe standards upheld by the pioneer women of Tbe Líttle Hausestoric s.'?I This Americ¿n cargo-cult arch itecture of technologyis un-exportable; it is a much lesser rhing rhat is exportable.Wh¿t S.O.M. did witb the Leve¡ House w¿s of the ürmosrbanality - without good proportions, meaningless in thetownT¿ttcm (routine Emile I{oth pclversely enough mademore sense), its language illiterate but it was precisely for this

21 L¿ür¿ Ing¿lls wilder, ¿itde House o, tl)¿ I'taiti¿, A Puffin Book,Penguin Books, 19ó8: p.12. "'You mus¡ mjnd your m¿nnerq even ifwe are a hu¡dred Diles from ¿rywhere . . . ir isn'r good m¿nners rosi¡g ¿t r¿ble. O¡ when you're e¡ring", she ¿dded, bec¿use rherc üs no

z6

31 FulL page advcrrismchr forroilei papcr, L¿dies IIomeJournal, mid fifties.

30Rrcquet Club, [lcKi¡r, i\'ledd

¿nd whi¡e: Leve. IIousc,Skidmore Owi¡gs and Mcrill:Olfice Building, Eñilc Rorh:phoiographed I957, Ir s.

reason it h:rs become a unjve¡sal model; it was not frightening,it m¿de no dem¿nds. Lev€r House did not 'makc Miesacccptxblc'for Mics still had secrets and these frightened; Leve¡House had none. Thcre was nothing in it which could not becopied by an avcrege te¿m of ¿verage architects with a fai¡amount of money ¿nd a fairly devcloped indusrry, and a LeverHouse could give thc illusion to a forcign ciry that it had agenuine technologicel culture: the glamour wirhout the rwocenturies ofefforr.22But no copics of Chase Manhattan Bank will be built; it witlnever be a model, for it is built with unimaginable wealth and

22 The acccptancc oi the 'automtic miu' camc in rhe 1790k: scc RogerRu.ling¡me. .4rd.¡t?¿s t¡¿t b!;h Atuetica, Siíncr Kcy Books. 1955.

27

resources: iike the pyramids and almost equ¿lly remote, for ittoo has its secr€t. The secret of being quite su¡€ whar to do: asecret that has been held in turn by Egypt, by Greece, byRome, and so on,The identifying characteristic of a technological culo¡e wouldse€m to be th¿t its key objects appear as a by-product ofconcenEation not on 'o1d-world' notions like tbe discipline, büton perfection of process end of det¿il. Certainly the strongesthlnts of the emergence ol onothcr a/.hitrc!u/p a-e :n

multi-storey buildings with a great deal of repetition, wherewhat Americans know most abour in thei¡ bones -mass-p¡oduction, process, control, etc becoÍrcs the co trolrather than any notions of composition, o¡ ¿rt.2 3 We have hadmuch slighter hints in Europe with the ea¡ly He¡tfo¡dshireschools ¿nd from the bcole Prourb - bürfheir achievements aretoo incomplete to ¿ssure us that we have indeed a rechnologicalculture.

A Scor.h educ¿tor who recenrly visircd America considercd ir vérysüange that wjth ¿ rem¿rh¿blc i¡dúsúial developmenr all ¿bour us,¡ffo¡di¡g such ¿n¿zi¡g edu cxrion!1 opportu¡iries, our sch ools shoutdcontinually cli¡g to ¿ p¿st which djd nor fir rhe Americen rcñper¿,mcnt, \ras not ¿d¿pted to ou. ¡eeds, ¿¡d nadc no vigorous pulluponour f¡culties. Hc concluded th¿t our ed!.¿rors, overwhclhed by .he!/.¿ndvigorol Amp,..Jn,ou.n).ser-roo,,mid o.e,^ Lp,.'L\,indusüi¿l situ¿rion ¿nd ¡o ext¡act i¡s e¡ormous educarion¿l v¿lüe. FIelane¡tcd rhxt th¡ l¡ck of courage ¿nd inltl¿tive failed not only ro firthe .hjld for ¿n intellige¡¡ and coDscious pdriciparion in industri¿llifc, but th¿t it w¡s reflected in rheilrdustri¿l developmcnr jrsctfi rh ati¡dusüy h¿d frlle¡ back into o1d h¿birs, ¿nd .epea¡ed r¡¿ditionalmistxlcs unúl Ane¡ican citi€s exhibired süp endous exrcnsions of themediev¡l¡ms i¡ the n¿dirion¿i chetro, dnd ol the bidcousness in rhcBlack Cou¡¡ry of l¡nc¡shire.

IId contended rhar rhis co¡dnio¡ ¡ tbe iDqi¡¿blc.esulr ofsepar¿ti¡g educatioo from conremporary life- Educerion bcconesunrc¿L ¿¡d f¡r fctc¡ed, white i¡dusFy becomcs ru¡htes and m¿¡cri

J¿ne Addans: Tbe Spirit of Youth and ¡he cjry Stree.si M¿cmiLlan,N.Y_. 1912.

23 He¡ry Russcll Hirchcock's jnüodüc¡io. to the S.O.M. book seems forhim ¡o be qui¡e ex¡r¿ordi¡arily lacking in insight and objecriviry; itscompdison of tbe achievement of the 'inregr¿rion of the ¿rrs' berweenS-O.M. on tlrc one hand ¿nd Mies v¡n der Rohe ¿nd 1e Corbusier on rheother, ¡ eitbe. an ¿berration or else ¿ comic nisu¡destanding of whát

32

Economist Building, St J¿m.s's:extrusion det¡il of residentialbuilding facadc, photosráphcdSpring 1964, P.S.

Yet boü American and European architec¡s appear to have losttlc old secrets of repetition just when they usc it most. As a

common building procedu¡e repetition rerely involves reallylarge numbers. One can talk ábout thousands. tens of thou(.rnd.even hundrcds oI rhousands o[ standard doors, srandardwindows, standard rnetal shutters (in France) . . . standard doorplus frame plus door furniture, standard kitchen storage units(in Sweden) . . . and few of the healy large-panel buildingsystems, in thcse the re¿l adventages of serial production couldbe got; continuous refinement and cheapness. But in buildingparts made of wood, or aluminium extrusions, or of pre-castconcrete, hundreds only are needed to write offjig, die, ormould costs, and it is tlese repetitions in hundreds that we arenormrlly dealing u ith. we have the same sort ol numbcr ollfte-pal¡s r\¿t were common in the pa.t. only now we hrre themiracle of making them so easily. Looked at in this w¿y wehave incredible means avail¿ble to us. With these werydaynumb€rs w€ could use repetition ¿s Bemini did turn it off and

29

on - change gear with it, so ro qpeak . . . the idca of repetitionis not something to be foughr against.But as we have seen in the United States through its nativetr¿ditions ¿nd through the presence there of Mies van der Rohe,in a single building-type (offices), in a single m¿¡erial (metal),industria.lised repetition has led to üe perfection of thetype-object and to the decencies of a building techniquethoroughly, repetitively, used- In the past such dece¡ciesmitigated - even made invisible - formal inadequ¿cies, butthese decencies are certainly not normally available today.Every formal error and inadequacy is horribly obvious.How is it tha¡ industrialised buildings can be so c¡ass when evennow great p¿rts of London o¡ Paris or Boston which surroundthe lives of many of rheir dcsigners consist of streets, froñ theme¿nest to the grandest (almost all speculalively built), whosequ¿lity - good or b¿d depends on how well reperirion wash¿ndled: a repetition tha¡ \ a( necessary to rhe profir ot rheirbuilders as well as bcing t}e natural discipline of eighleenth andnineteenth century designers?How is it that some undcrstanding has not crept in through rheskin of present-day designers fiom üis €xposure, even thoughthey have never been taught about it? For example, from ourown exposure, we are at ease with repetition when:

tbe elements repedted seem to deríae fiom tbe ifrteútion of tbewbole of wbicb tbey form tbe part,tbe elements seem to gain tbeir meaning only in rcpetition, i.e.Ttere not prc-co ceibed or designed in tbe abstract as one and

tbat uben put together the elements seeth coTtoentional, tbqt is,well tnderstood by all, and tbat one can imagíne tbere are man!more in tbe same family of tbings.

We a¡e aware that the quality we admire in the generalarangcment of possibly the only successful larg€-scale post-warindustrialised p¡e-cest reinforced concrete building complex yetbuilt - rhe Universi¡y of East Anglia arises from lhe classicalarchirects' skills: that in it repetition has been h¿ndled with thetraditional understanding about size and scale ¿nd measure.Are there any other sorts of understandings? There is certainly

30

rl UnneFit) of East Anglia ü¡dcr conrruciion: Dents Lasdun & P¡r¡ncrs.

anoth€r l¡¡er tredition, that of ¡h€ Crystel Palace, in which thesurface is a regula¡ly seamed gless skin which has no¡ep¡escntational function as to stfucture, or enangement, ordetcrmin¡tion of the thing it covers. The decision on the size ofthe unit of repetition for a seamcd glass skin is similar to anyorher decision on ¡he unit si¿e of sheet material - with sronefacings or glass it is traditionally relatcd to rhc whole of whichthe units form par¡, but with plywood or patent-glazing üe uniris alhost certainly in practice that of the standard economicsize (o¡ sizes). When a building is made of standard pieces itwould seem that it should be thought about in te¡ms of thest¿ndard sizes of thos€ pieces, the whole bc derived f¡om thepart in some way - an inversion of the classicel tradition.when the skin of a building is glass, or tinted glass, what isinside is prctty explicit anyway. That inside can be the carrierof the fo¡mal ide¿ i¡ üe t¡aditional way, or can become rhescaffoldingof a grapbics of o c atpa tion in dte Eames'a way,rhar is, part of e kind of visual conve¡sation belween t¡eimmovablc inside, the seamcd glass skin, and a graphicequivalent of the occupiers' activitics.Are there any further t¡ad;tions or understandings which wouldhelp us wi¡h rcpetition?When we oursclves are mo ved by tcpetition it is by very grand,very simplc affairs; a.ll dominated by big-scal€d, repeeted fo¡ms,a¡d bent or curved on plan so that repetition in a mechanical

24 E¡m.s Cclcbr¡tion, ,4 t.bitectural Deign, Scpr.ñb.t t966.

3 5 ¡¡lerior of E¡mes Hoüse:visited in 1958, P.S.

3+Opportt¿j r¿lm Housc, K€w,Intcrior from g¿Llery:photogr¡phed 1970. S.S.

sense seems nlclted away.2sThe amphithcrrtrcs at Arlcs or cl l)jem . . . the aqucductoutside Tunis . . . any long curved railway viaduct . . . on ¡hese

25 The use of lighr in 'So¡ et Lumi¿re' shore on only one sec¡ion ¿ndfroñ ¡n'unatur¿l'Iocattun such asground level. which c¡n makc suchxnsüccessfúl flat rcpetirivc buildings ¿s Versailles or Blcnhe;mmoñentlrily s€cm m¡.vell{,us is ¿ rclared ph€nomcnor-

33

36BerLin Tenplehof : phorogaphKunst und Bild, Berlin,

the combined play of light and perspective makes all partsdifferent yet comfortingly placed by the tre¿d of the mainmeasure - much as a field's form can be better seen ¿ndenjoyed when the plough reveals the form of its surface throughthe play of light on the ¡egular repetitive furrows.

Somewhere in these grand simpler affairs is an old secret weh¿ve lost for certainly in the Royal Crescent in B¿th, and inthc Bernini colonnades before St Peter's in Rome - an elementrepeated is hamessed to e ground-geometry ¿nd to an u¡banidea ofseeming great natu¡alness and humanity; both use agiant-order, yet we are happywith it, notnumbed or bored aswe¿re with the f¿c¿de and the inside ofSt Peter'sr in both is the locktrtween the buiit formandthecounterpartspacewhichproducesüesense of wellbeing.'?6Could it be th¿t why we like Lasdun's E¿st Anglia st¡dentclusters is bec¿use they are connective, they have a front and a

back and counterpart sp¿ce. There is a living id,ea, barnessingrepetition. Th¿t is what we tried to do at Robin Hood Gardens,

26 But lt is not tbe conven¡ion¿l end pavilio¡s ¡nd ¡ccentuated centresrhougl¡ features of both buildlngs th¿t deáte their sense of being

34

,4

*14',,

37

Univereity of ¡ast A¡glia:De¡ys ksd¡n ¡nd P¿rrneú.

38

Robin Hood GardeDsi c.L.C.Housing: phótogr¡phed 1972,

to effecr a lock between built-form and coünterpar¡ sp¿cci withthe old rtick rowards rhis end of bcnt ground forms (evenüough we arrived at these ürough client-direction). It wouldseem es if a building roday is only intcresting if it is morc thanitself; if it charges the space a¡ound it with connectivepossibilitics; especiall.y if it docs this by a quicmcss rher untilnow our sensibilities could not rccognise as architecture at all,let alone see rhat it presents us with the new softly smiling faceof our discipline. ll is probably fairly easy to s.. íhis ne*-f"".in rhc gentlc, intuitive facadcs of the Eames Housc, but to scc itin the careful, coldly ordcred, fecades of Mies v¿r¡ der Rohc'sbig urban projccs will to mosr for ¡while ye¡ be an in¿cccssiblest€P.

\¡

"\

g

I

I

'waw Nví'É

-;r'\'s--6wvñ\á"ni"

39 Robin Hood c.rd.ns: cxtcnsioñ diásr¡m: p.S.

P" 3.?0:5 : cl. 36

Silk Facto¡y at Krefeld,Mies va¡ de¡ Rohe, 1932-31:enta¡ce: photoS¡¿Phed 1955,

Befo¡eMiesvan der Rohe left Germany'? he had alreadyestablished this mode-shift in the discipline of ¿rchitecure itselfwhich made itsclf more and more obvious in his work inAmerica cspecially after the mid 'fifties, this shift can be seenemerging in the skin studies of the Friedrichstrasse officebuildirig, Be¡lin (1919) . . . the glass skyscraper (192G21) . . .

the conc¡ete office building (1922). It beg¿n to be seen inactuality on the street fac¿de of th€ ¿pa¡tments at theWeisenhofseidlung Stuftgart (1927) ¿nd in the layout of rhebuildings in front of the main factory at Krefeld (1932-3 3). Inthese workq two separate but reciprocal ideas are emerging . . .

an almost autonomous, extremely well made, ¡epetitive,neutralizing skin . . . and an open-space-smrcturedbuilding-recessive, calrq g¡een, urban pattern. These ideas

27 In 1938: he w¿s the¡ 5? years old.

a7

_l

I

4lt¿f¿yerte Park, sir€ plr¡:

dcsigncd r9ss.

atrained r heir- pu resr sr aJ€ in Lafayetre Park in Deroi¡,r! by farthe mosr civilized d we lJ ing-quarter rhis century. A place full ofpotential, and of lessons. By discreet means - of trifficseparation and to-the-whole-ciry-scaled urban srrucrure - wasbrought into Derroit and amazing orher ¡dea of how life couldbe lived with machines. Lafayene Park is still the only newsecrion of an old ciB ¡ha¡ isreallv rcneuins. and of t'his o¡oiecrit is diflicult not ¡o say too mucÉ and so biínt the impaci oiectually going üere.In the leter ¡¿ll blocks, tlle skins are wen mote neuttalized thanbefore and the parked molor-cars are kept even more out ofsightt boti an aspect olMieschanging in rhe facc of changingcircurnstance;carrying our a kind ol private tuning-up ofihjconceptafter the experience ofthe firsr stage.2e -The project was published in the joinr nzÁes: Ludoig Mies oandet Robe and Ludtig Hilbe\eimer tnd ricre is no d-oub¡ thatthe open spacesFuctured urban panern wes one ofHilberseirner's life's ¡hemes. . . a vision shared.

28 Designéd 1955, built 1959 onwards.

29 Thcc w¿s ¡ consideBb¡e gap bcrween rhe first ¡nd second sr¿scs,prdütubly duc ro rhe death ot Mies' raiúrut clicnr in u aiF;¿sh intorhe Ear Rivcr, New Yo¡k.

42t¿youts ¿nd ¿xonomctric of

Irdwig Hilb$eiñer. The large at-thewhole-commuoity-scale central open-spaceappea¡ed ovc¡ end over again in Hilberseimer's studies, as indecddid repetition (especially in those competition projects he didbelore leev¡ng Gerrnany), but repetition in Hilberseimer becemeobsessive and curiously life-e<cluding. Wirh IVlies. this is hardlyeverso,30his r€petition is life-including, his feel for it can m¿kethe multiplied thingmagical in its very multiplication. This is aknife-edge phenomenon, most easily obs€Nable in rhe restoredStoa of A¡talus in Athens.Repetitior as ¿ quality in itself (a quali¡y üet has beenmisinterpre¡ed as 'endlessness' by critics when they heve foundrepetition used as a formal technique by Mies) seems to h¿vebeen first uscd consciously in Hellenistic archítecture, and this¡e¿ches us in its most potent visual form (or at least, did, b€forethe Americans lebuilt the Stoa of Attalus!) in th€ precise ¿ndbeautiful - if aseptic axonometric drawings of the ago¡as ofG¡eek towns in Asia Minor made bv Germans in the periodfiom 1 9OO to 1940.31 On reflectionl a repetitive almoit nostautonornous ncuoalizing skin does appear in ltalianRomanesque - notably ¿t Pisa (cathed¡¿l 11th century,campa¡ile l2¡h century, baptistery 12th-13th centuries), ¿nd invarious 11th ccntury buildings in Venice of which the rebuild(16th century) in the Pazza San M¿rco of the Procuratic

30 Alnost dw¡ys thc c¿se wi(h Mirs followers.

31 one campaign of the excavatio.s ¡t Pri.nc sc€tr to h¿v. gon. onhetwEn 189t-1898, tl¡e resutts b.ing published i¡ Berün in 19'04, justin rim. fo¡ Mics' ¿Íival thft in 1905, it is tenpting to think.

39

40

+5

I-ós level colonn¡dc, S¡oa of

^rt¡lus: photogmphcd 1958,

43

opp¿si¡¿j Stó¿ ot Arhlus:

^rhcns Agora,

^¡rcrican.\c.!aiion and rcconsrruction:photognpbed I958, P.S.

,l,t

oppori¡¿, Sao ciov¡nni

phoroS¡aphed l9ó8, P.S.

46

Scrnini cólónnadc, sr Pe¡els,Romc: det¡il: Archirc.iuralD6ign, Aügusr l97l :

phorographer M. Lchmrnn.