Twentieth‐Century Architecture

697 Pages·2017·6.654 MB·English

by  Harry Francis Mallgrave (editor)

Introduction
The Project and Projects of Modern
Architecture
David Leatherbarrow
What is modern architecture?1 Strange as it may seem toask this question today,
aftermorethanacenturyofanswersbythemovement’sprotagonists,apologists,
andhistorians,theneedtorethinkthisbodyofworkisnolesspressinginourtime
thanitwasinthepast.Nodoubtthereexistssomeconsensusaboutwhichprojects
were especially important and influential; this volume presents 50 that will, we
trust, seem sensible choices to most readers, more or less. But the basis for that
consensus, the reasons why some, and not other projects, have been judged to
be especially, if variously, modern are not self-evident. The date of construction
or of conception is not enough, for not everything that was built or designed in
thetwentiethcenturyexpressedthemodernityofthetime.Norwerethebuildings
thatweresaidtobemodernconsistentlyso,forformalelementsandkindsofartic-
ulationthatappearedtoobserversasnoveloftenconcealedtechniquesofconstruc-
tion that had been used for centuries. One should not say that adherence to pre-
modernwaysofbuildingoccurredbyaccident,orthatitwasaresultofadesireto
deceive onthepart ofdesignersorcritics; somemeasure ofcontinuity isinescap-
ableinthesortsofhistoricalchangethataffectthematerialandspatialdomainsof
culture:cities,gardens,buildings,orrooms.Techniques,forexample,accumulatein
the history of building construction, new methods cooperate with old. Factory-
made elements manufactured with the newest (today, digital) methods are still
assembled on structural foundations built into sites according to long-standing
methods. Likewise, modern arrangements of inhabitable settings, in houses or
libraries, for example, do not erase; they transform, alter, or modify earlier pat-
terns.Thehistoryofcitiesshowssomethingsimilar,fortheirculturalandhistorical
richness gives them the capacity to absorb even the most unprecedented of
insertions – and be better for it. All of this is to say that even the most strident
proposalsareneverclosedinonthemselves.Modernarchitecturewasnot“spoken
intothevoid,”evenifAdolfLoos,whopublishedessaysunderthistitle,saidthings
and invented configurations that had not been said or seen before.2 Only by
accepting the idea that modern projects adhered to inherited conditions as much
as they rejected them can we understand why Loos admitted, “I am a modern
architect because I build in the manner of the ancient Viennese.”3
2 Introduction
Whilemany modernistswouldhaverejectedLoos’statement,evenalittle his-
torical study shows that no surpassing is ever complete, or desired. Advances
always depend on “conversations” with predecessors. Rarely are they viva voce,
of course; they are instead asymmetrical, because the past, having passed, cannot
answer back. Yet silence does not prevent significance. For architects with non-
dogmaticmindsitseemstohaveinvitedunendinginquiry.Who,amongthemod-
ernswestillstudy,didnotsaybothyesandnotoworkfromthepast?Becausenot
oneoftheconversationsbetweenmodernistsandtheirpredecessorswaslimitedby
or concluded in the twentieth century – not Tadao Ando’s with Louis I. Kahn,
Kahn’swithLeCorbusier,orLeCorbusier’swiththeancientGreeksandRomans–
weshouldnotbesurprisedthatstilltodaywefindithardto“sumup”whatmodern
architecture was or is all about.
Modernity, and by implication modern architecture, has been famously
describedas“anincompleteproject.”4Rightlycelebratedandoftencited,thisonly
reverses the direction of the observation we have just made: twentieth century
modernismreachesforwardintoourpresentjustasitextendeditselfbackwardinto
its past.
Norwasthereonlyonenewarchitecture:firsttherewasthemodernismofthe
“pioneers”;afterthiscamethetranslationsofformerlynewvocabulariesintolocal
dialects; next followed the modernism of those who built in different regions
throughouttheworld;andthenstillanothermoderntraditionemergedasaresult
ofthecriticalassessmentsthatcalledforarenewalofearlyimpulses.Thehistoryof
modernarchitectureislessalineofdevelopmentthanafieldofsequential begin-
ningsandreturnings,includingfalsestarts,realinitiatives,andrenewals,eachela-
borating new possibilities that appeared thanks to changed conditions.
Thereis,asaresult,ahistoryofthehistoriesofmodernarchitecture.Through-
outmuchofthetwentiethcentury,reportsonthenewarchitectureinsistedonthe
novelty and progressive character of its exemplary projects. The Latin stem modo
canbetranslatedas“justnow.”Fortheearlyhistoriansofthemovementanacute
sense of the unprecedented character of conditions just now meant stopping the
clock of earlier ages and starting another one for the new time. According to this
premise, historical change is not transitional but successive, distinct ages precede
and follow one another; the Gothic, mannerist and baroque periods occurred in
blocksorchunksoftime,hewnoutofthelandscapeofthepastbyhistoricalscience
in order to be viewed independently, as separate and sequential architectural
approaches.
Two histories of the 1920s that were particularly emphatic about the epoch-
making advances of modern works were Adolf Behne’s The Modern Functional
Building (1923) and Walter-Curt Behrendt’s The Victory of the New Building Style
(1927).Tosomedegreethesebookswerebothhistoriesofthemovementandpro-
posals for it, simultaneously retrospective, as Behrendt announced that a victory
hadbeenwon;andprospective,becausehis“history”setforthanagenda.Noless
progressive were Henry-Russell Hitchcock’s Modern Architecture: Romanticism and
Introduction 3
Reintegration (1929) and Alberto Sartoris’ Gli elementi dell’architettura (Elements of
Functionalism, 1932), even if they had sharply different interpretations of what
wasessentialaboutthemovement.Twoothertexts,bothpublishedin1936,like-
wise accented the unprecedented character of avant-garde architecture: Nikolaus
Pevsner’s Pioneers of the Modern Movement from William Morris to Walter Gropius
andGeorgeNelson’sBuildingaNewEurope:Portraits ofModernArchitects.Butper-
hapsthemostinfluentialandwidelyreadaccountofthisepochaltypewasSigfried
Giedion’s Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New Tradition (1941).
In the postwar decades, however, as the work of the modernists was coming
under the tough criticism of a younger generation of modernists, the progress
of the movement was reassessed. To some degree Giedion’s use of the term
“new tradition” suggested or anticipated this turn, by placing the modern period
amongtraditionsthathadcomebefore.Withoutdisavowingthelinearityofdevel-
opments, later historians offered what might be termed “regional” accounts, in
boththegeographic anddisciplinary sensesoftheterm: theworld-wide locations
ofthenewarchitectureweredescribedandinterpretedandthethemesortopicsof
modern innovations came under closer review – the expressive, technological,
political, or environmental characteristics of the new ways of building. Historical
works in this second group included Bruno Zevi’s Storia dell’architettura moderna
(1950), Reyner Banham’s Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (1960), Leo-
nardoBenevolo’sHistoryofModernArchitecture(1960),KennethFrampton’sModern
Architecture: A Critical History (1980), Manfredo Tafuri’s The Sphere and the
Labyrinth:Avant-GardesfromPiranesitothe1970s(1980),andWilliamCurtis’Modern
Architecturesince1900(1982).Twomorerecenthistoriesshowthefullcomplexity
oftheinheritance:AlanColquhoun’sModernArchitecture(2002)reaffirmsthepro-
gressive character of modern architecture’s several movements in their nuanced
variation,andJean-LouisCohen’sTheFutureofArchitecturesince1889(2012)shows
the amplitude and richness of its geographical and cultural diffusion.
Additionally,inrecentdecadesmuchhistoriographicworkhasfocusedonsingle
figures, limited time frames, and under-studied territories. The result is an abun-
dance of material that complicates the story of modernism. Partly because of this
richness,fewtodayarewillingtoacceptepicnarrativesofthewholeperiod.Addi-
tionally, thereisconsiderable doubtabout thevalueandmethodological assump-
tionsofsuchaccounts.Theambitionseemstohaverunitscourse.Butthedifficulty
of the task and hesitations about method cannot free us from the basic task of all
history writing: to tell a story, about architecture and for it; and also about the
worldsitbuilds.Forsuchastorytobetold,selectionsmustbemade–forwholly
inclusivetabulationsofeventsstillwantanexplanation–meaningthatchoicesmust
bemade.Thesemustbeguidedbythedoublerequirementforutmostplausibility
(approximating objectivity) and intelligibility.5 For this second requirement to be
fulfilled,imaginationisrequired,forhistoricaltracesarealwaysincomplete,terms
are often used with ill-defined meanings, and the protagonists generally remain
silent on their primary motivations. The historian’s imagination, of course, limits
4 Introduction
theaccount’sobjectivity.Oneneverthelessattemptstoreconstructasequencethat
rectifiesallavailabledata,seekingarenditionthatisinferiortononeotherinlike-
lihood.Anintelligible narrative alsorequiresjudgmentsabout importance thatin
turninvokethehistorian’ssenseofwhatindeedisarchitectural.Noneofthiscanbe
avoidedifthedesireforbothexplanationandunderstandingisacknowledged.Itis
notonlythebreadthandsystematicunityofthereportthatisimportant,butalso
the depth and singularity of the understanding the story creates.
Accordingly,thehistorian’stasktodayistodescribeavenuesofdesignpractice
thatwereopened,pursued,andthenabandoned,waysofworkingandofthinking
thatinitiallybuiltuponearlierachievementsbutlaterdiverged,foundtheirfooting
in the particularity of a given historical moment, but then sought to recall topics
that have always defined the discipline. Concern for “classical,” “primitive,” and
“vernacular” traditions, for example, went hand in hand with the celebration of
contemporarypossibilities.Toseethehistoricaldepthofprogressivepropositions,
weneedtolookbeyondtheclaimsofunprecedentednoveltybytheprotagonistsor
theirapologists.ConsiderthisexamplefromLeCorbusier:“Iwishitwerepossible
forthereader,byaneffortofimagination,toconceiveofwhatsuchaverticalcity
[theVoisinCity]wouldbelike;imagineallthisjunk,whichtillnowhaslainspread
out over the soil like a dry crust, cleaned off and carted away and replaced by
immense clear crystals of glass…”6 Despite what seems a rather thoroughgoing
erasure, the clearing recommended in this transformation allowed the city’s axes
tostaywheretheywere,alongwithwhatLeCorbusiercalledthegreatcreationsof
thepast:Invalides,Tuileries,PlacedelaConcorde,CampdeMars,andtheÉtoile.
One does not have to accept his preference for monuments over fabric to see his
desire to assimilate the new into the old.
Aclearrendering ofthis assimilation emerges whenwetakea closereading of
thefullspectrum ofarchitectural tasks: thework ofintervening inagivensite, of
interpretingaprogramofuses,ofselectingmaterials(manyofwhichwerefamiliar
butusedinunfamiliar ways),andofdetailingconstruction.Whatmightbecalled
thedifferenttimesofarchitecturalwork–theprehistory,currentexpectations,and
futurepossibilitiesofthesite,program,materials,andlaborpractices–werefolded
inonthemselves,asifthepasthadbeennothingmorethanarecentpresentandthe
futureapresentyettocome.Itispreciselythisinterlapsingthatisthesubjectmatter
ofhistoriesthatseektocatchthegrowthandcontinuityofthemoderntraditionat
its source: the actual practices of design and construction, which is to say project
making.
The basic premise of this book’s structure is that a particularly good way of
understandingthehistoryofmodernarchitecture(includingthemodernarchitec-
tureofourtime)isbylookingagainatthetradition’skeyprojects.Wewouldlike
thistermtodescribeworksthatwerenotonlybuiltandpersisttoourtime,evenif
altered, but also those we can no longer see because they were destroyed or
intended to be temporary, or even only drawn or modeled. A history of projects
canaddressandexplainthethemesthatpersistthroughawork’sseveralstagesand
Introduction 5
alterations, as well as the concrete and limited conditions that allowed and
expressed those changes.
Giventheweightofourhistoriographictraditionandofournaturalizedsenseof
distinctagessucceedingoneanotherintime,comingtogripswiththeinterlapsing
justmentionedmeanslookingagainatbuildingsanddesignswethoughtweknew
perfectlywell.Eachofthe50chaptersofthisvolumeisanexerciseinthattask.When
abuiltprojectisnotthetopicofstudyitistheideaofone,asrepresentedindrawings
ormodels.Insomecasesworksthatwerebuiltdecadesagoremainstandingtoday.
Other significant projects were destroyed or modified beyond recognition. Still
othersweremeanttobetemporary.Anothersetofprojectsthathavebeenimpor-
tantinthishistorywereneverbuiltatall.Regardlessofthecurrentstateofapartic-
ular work, its projective dimensions are the essential subject matter of the
50 chapters that follow. Although different interpretative instruments and proce-
duresarerequiredforthedifferentembodimentsofaproject(built,altered,tempo-
rary, or unbuilt), there seems to be no good reason to rank one kind of
materializationoveranother.Asshowninthechaptersthatfollow,architecturalpro-
jectshavethecapacitytoabsorbandintegrateideas,materialfacts,culturalnorms,
and possibilities, as well as questions internal to the discipline of architecture.
Becauseitrefusesanycategoricalseparationoffactandidea,ofanydiscretecondi-
tionandrecurringtheme,thereisperhapsnobettermediumofarchitecturalhistory
thantheproject.Anewstoryofthemoderntraditionunfoldsasaresultofthisfocus,
eventhoughthecharacterswhoplayleadingroleshavenameswehaveheardbefore.
Theprojectspresentedinthebookhavebeengroupedintosixchronologically
structured sections, the subtitles of which introduce the term world. Our basic
premiseisthatthemodernarchitecturalprojectisaninstrumentofworldbuilding.
Thebook’ssectionsshow,however,thatdifferentunderstandingsofthearchitec-
tural project corresponded todifferent sensesofthe worlds thatwould result. We
distinguishthewaysprojectswerealternatelyanticipatory,imaginative,construc-
tive, recursive, interrogative, and engaging. The story that results is thus an
account of the modern period as well as an elaboration of the different aspects
or dimensions of project making in these years. The ways of doing architecture
and of world building that emerge in this story are modern architecture’s gift to
the present, representing at once an inheritance and a set of tasks.
Notes
1. ThisquestionwasusedasthetitleoftheMuseumofModernArt’sfirstvolumeinits
Introductory Series to the Modern Arts: What is Modern Architecture? (New York:
MuseumofModernArt,1942).Thatwasnotthefirsttimeithadbeenasked,norwould
it bethe last.
2. SpokenintotheVoidisthetitleofacollectionofshorttextsbyLoosoriginallypublished
underthetitleInsLeereGesprochen(Paris:GeorgesCrès,1921).Hisregretwasthatthe
audienceheaddressedseemedunabletounderstandoreventohearwhathehadtosay.
6 Introduction
3. AdolfLoos,“EineZuschrift,”Trotzdem[1910](Vienna:GeorgPrachner,1982),111.Inthis
instance,asisthecaseformanyothers–perhapsmost–inthemodernperiod,thenew
architecture distinguished itself from the recent by returning to even older ideas and
elements thought to be fundamental.
4. JürgenHabermas,“Modernity:AnIncompleteProject,”inHalFoster,ed.,TheAnti-Aes-
thetic (Port Townsend:Bay Press, 1983), 3–15
5. These observations and those that follow onhistoricaldescriptionare guided by Paul
Ricoeur’sdescriptonofthehistoricalcraftofMarcBloch.SeePaulRicoeur,“Objectivity
andSubjectivity inHistory,” inHistory and Truth (Evanston: Northwestern University
Press,1965),21–40.ThebestintroductorytextforBlochisMarcBlock,TheHistorian’s
Craft (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953).
6. LeCorbusier, The City of Tomorrow [1924] (London: Architectural Press, 1929), 291–2.
Bibliography
Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. London: Architectural
Press,1960.
BehneAdolf.TheModernFunctionalBuilding[1923].SantaMonica,CA:GettyResearchInsti-
tute for the History of Art and the Humanities 1996.
Behrendt,Walter-Curt.TheVictoryoftheNewBuildingStyle[1927].SantaMonica,CA:Getty
ResearchInstitute forthe History of Art and the Humanities, 2000.
Benevolo, Leonardo. History of Modern Architecture [1960]. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press,1971.
Block, Marc. The Historian’s Craft.New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953.
Cohen, Jean-Louis. The Future of Architecture since 1889.New York: Phaidon, 2012.
Colquhoun, Alan. Modern Architecture.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Curtis, William.Modern Architecture since 1900.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,1982.
Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1980.
Giedion,Sigfried.Space,TimeandArchitecture:TheGrowthofaNewTradition.Cambridge,
MA: Harvard UniversityPress,1941.
Habermas,Jürgen.“Modernity:AnIncompleteProject.”InTheAnti-Aesthetic,editedbyHal
Foster, 3–15. Port Townsend: Bay Press, 1983.
Hitchcock, Henry-Russell. Modern Architecture: Romanticism and Reintegration. New York:
Da Capo, 1929.
Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow [1924]. London: Architectural Press, 1929.
Loos, Adolf. Ins Leere Gesprochen. Paris: Georges Crès, 1921.
——— “Eine Zuschrift.” InTrotzdem [1910]. Vienna: Georg Prachner, 1982.
Museum of Modern Art. What is Modern Architecture? New York: Museum of Modern
Art, 1942.
Introduction 7
Nelson, George. Building a New Europe: Portraits of Modern Architects [1936]. New Haven:
Yale University, 2007.
Pevsner, Nikolaus. Pioneers of the Modern Movement fromWilliam Morris to Walter Gropius.
London: Faber & Faber, 1936.
Ricoeur, Paul. “Objectivity and Subjectivity in History.” In History and Truth. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press, 1965, 21–40.
Sartoris, Alberto. Gli elementi dell’architettura funzionale sintesi panoramica dell’architettura
moderna.Milan: U. Hoepli, 1932.
Tafuri,Manfredo.TheSphereandtheLabyrinth:Avant-GardesfromPiranesitothe1970s.Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
Zevi, Bruno. Storia dell’architettura moderna. Turin: GiulioEinaudi, 1950.
PART I
The Early
Twentieth Century