Mies Van De Rohe

Mies Van De Rohe vs. Tadao Ando (Barcelona Pavilion vs Azuma House)

Continuing on modernism study, this week we focused on Mies Van De Rohe. One of the most famous work of Mies is the Barcelona Pavilion. The pure simple structure reminds me of a building called Azuma House in japan (Tadao Ando) from my architectural design class. Some of the sameness found in the two buildings is firstly the modern vocabulary embedded. They both have a simple geometric structure. Barcelona pavilion has straight lines and cubic forms with no curves. Azuma house also, no curves has straight lines and a rectangular form.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9167050&mesg_id=9167060

http://www.arcspace.com/books/Minimalist_Architecture/minimalist_book.html

The two buildings, one for exhibition and another a s a residential unit, make use of walls. For Mies, the walls direct visitor movement , creating continuous turnabouts, not a straight line circulation. They are used to create narrower and wider space for people to experience. While for Azuma house, Ando believed that the walls are one of the very powerful tool of division. They are used to divide space and for that sake only.

The main difference of the two buildings is the materials. Barcelona Pavilion uses exotic luxurious materials like marbles and travertine. They are well-polished. The patterns on those materials are used as spatial divider and help with directing movement. In contrast, Azuma house uses a cheap manufactured material like pre-fabricated concrete, not polished to present what they truly are (real nature of material). So if it is to conclude, the materials for the pavilion are used mainly to direct people whereas for Azuma they are used to present the concept of getting in touch to the real nature. However, the two purposes are under the same modernist idea of using the materials themselves as ornaments (beautiful patterns- Barcelona Pavilion and natural beauty-Azuma).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9167050&mesg_id=9167060

http://www.architravel.com/architravel/building/134

Furthermore, for the overall sense of openness, Barcelona pavilion is a vast open space while Azuma is an enclosed space(concrete box) which create a sense of privacy for residents who live in the busy town. The Barcelona pavilion looks as simplest as it can be with that minimal design of no enclosed wall or a clear hole for entrance. Azuma in the other hand, although the whole site is surrounded by thick concrete box, in the inside the selection of materials, together with the natural lighting effect, wider and emptier space is created (illusion to the eyes).

Lastly. the two building have similar kind of peaceful atmosphere they want to create using natural elements as tools. The Barcelona Pavilion uses water and stone to help create an ideal zone of tranquility. Azuma House uses natural materials like slate and stone along with the open courtyard design to have people get close r to nature which would eventually make them realize the hard ship of life and have a zen mind.

http://lab.visual-logic.com/academia/la-2101-advanced-digital-representation/project-2-0-objectdevice/

http://www.cgpinoy.org/t11809-azuma-house

Le Corbusier and Modernism

This week in my history lecture class, we continued our journey on modernism, mainly focused on Le Corbusier and his work. As modernism emphasizes on revealing the truth, honest use of materials is one of the key. "Mass and surface are the elements by which architecture manifests itself" (Corbu) Buildings' facades are nothing more than walls with holes. One of Le corbusier's design, Unite de Habitation has the entire exterior built with concrete. Noting is polished so nothing can be concealed.

Unite de Habitation

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Briey_unite_d_habitation.jpg

His work is functionalist and socialist (influenced from the current situation/social system at the period of the time), only emphasizing on how how things cam be used. Anything which is not necessary will not be included in his design. For example, his roof has to be flat not only because it is a clean simple design but it also carries another task which is to serve domestic purposes like gardening or relaxation.

Villa Savoye's roof

http://www.mimoa.eu/projects/France/Poissy/Villa%20Savoye

His pilotis are as smallest and slenderest possible. Furthermore as mentioned before that his work is also socialist, Corbu tried to establsh some kind of a new idea to change human living behaviour. Unite de Habitation is identicle on the outside. Every unit is equal on the inside. Corbusier's support system, the pilotis, have to be spaced out regularly and precisely calculated.

Economically and theoretically the idea works. It probably worked so fine at that moment (after WWI and during the great depression decade). The least amount of material use helped save the cost, making housing affordable. Environment and surroundings have effects on people's behaviour. So by making everything equal and the same, personally, even though it looks clean and organized but it was too ideal. Take La Defense for example.

La Defense

http://www.volker-goebel.biz/LaDefenseLeCorbusier.html

Though it creates (or forces) a sense of community and clear functional zoning, the high rise blocks for me almost anonymized the residents. Basically his design did not reduce only materials structure or the overall design but perhaps it reduce d human's value and freedom also. In fact coming to think about the whole city turning into the Unite de Habitation, I see the new issue of boring cityscape which might tire people's eyes. Lastly, the material use, because it was the 'simple clear minimalist' design with concrete and glass which is meant to reveal the truth (only?), the units weren't comfortable to live in (thermal comfort).