I am currently reading Brain Brace Taylor's book on Corbusier's Cite de Refuge. This project has raised several questions for me, some about designing for the homeless but most about architecture and the role of an architect.
Conceived as a place of refuge for the homeless by the Salvation Army, Corbusier designed the building in accordance with his architectural theory of a machine for living. It seems to me Corbusier was so intent on the building enduring as a monument of modern architecture that he ignored the very thing the building was designed for. The people.
When problems became apparent with the building's construction (including the lack of ventilation and shading to compensate for the south-facing glazed curtain wall) Corbusier was adamant that amendments should only be made in keeping with the original design ethos. As a result, the opinions of the building's users and the wishes of the Salvation Army were put secondary to the architectural expression.
Should architecture endure as a monument to its conceptual theories? Or should it respond, provide and adapt for the people who inhabit it?
No comments:
Post a Comment