Subsequent to the end of the saga that was the Second World War, two important figures, John Entenza and Siegfried Giedion produced their unique epilogues regarding the birth of postwar residential architecture. While both Entenza and Giedion claim that creativity and imagination are of utmost concern when it comes to the conception of postwar architecture, Entenza diverts to the economical and affordability factors of postwar residential architecture, whereas Giedion focuses more on the aesthetic qualities of postwar housing and the abolishment of the term “International Style”.
John Entenza, in an ability to provide developers with an understanding as to how modernism is affected by modest means[1], created the “Case Study House Program”[2], which turned out to be one of the most innovative experiments in American residential design. The Case Study House Program involved the designing and building of a series of economically efficient houses by several prominent architects, such as Charles Eames, Eero Saarinen and Richard Neutra. These houses would then be open to the public for educational purposes before being sold. This project was brought up to make use of the best materials to arrive at an economically efficient solution, thereby providing the average American with a house he can afford to live in. Entenza believed that man would express himself in the way he wants to be housed in the future. The one thing that would stop man from achieving this goal would be his resoluteness to stand by the old norms, as he would have not understood the new yet.
Siegfried Giedion on the other hand, claimed that the western world has once again realized that human experience plays an important role throughout one’s day-to-day life. He goes ahead and further declares that the term “International Style” is a complete misnomer, as is the term for any other architectural style[3]. Instead, he generated a new term for postwar housing – The “New Regional Approach”[4], which could be the architecture that suits the environmental factors of the region it is built in. By giving the examples of some apartments and row houses built in Brazil and Cuba, respectively, Giedion tries to imply that the modern architect should not strive to produce an exterior façade that adheres to the traditional buildings in that region. The transformation of postwar housing at that specific time often depended on the development of new production methods and materials, but according to Giedion what was most important was the development of what he claims to be “the new aesthetic”[5]. Being an admirer and greatly inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s work, where the architecture adapts itself to the site or the client or even portrays Wright’s innermost ideas, Giedion declares the main focus of his article – “What we need today is Imagination more than anything else”[6].
Although John Entenza and Siegfried Giedion both emphasized that imagination and creativity is what the postwar architect should adhere to the most, their primary concerns took a slightly alternate paths. While Entenza’s main consideration is that postwar housing be economical and affordable for the average American, Giedion believed that the appearance each postwar residence be unique in its own way, and not abide by old traditional customs. Even though Entenza and Gideon’s concerns on the designs of residential architecture greatly differed, they managed to influence numerous upcoming architects in the postwar era.
[1] John Entenza: "The Case Study House Program"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition 270-272.
[2] John Entenza: "The Case Study House Program"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition 270-272.
[3] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
[4] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
[5] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
[6] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.
As the architect finds his way through the 21st century, he should have the ability do combine the thinking and execution of both real and imaginary realms. While Ben Van Berkel, Caroline Bos and Rem Koolhaas all agree on the fact that the “new architect” should have the unique ability of accomplishing several tasks, from both the real and the imaginary, Van Berkel and Bos claim that the future architect should have an unbiased view while playing with ideas in the real and imaginary realms, whereas Koolhaas asserts that the architect should focus on the abstract realm over the physical realm (see Fig. 1).
Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, in an attempt to indicate the responsibilities of the architect as they enter into the 21st century, describe what they believe “the new architect” should do. By “dressing the future, anticipating coming events and holding up a mirror to the world”[1], they demonstrate how the architect should be both a designer and a scientist. While a scientist performs experiments based on facts in the physical world, a designer has to focus on the abstract idea that then blends in with the physical, creating what they claim is the architect’s practice: “a limitless virtual studio”[2]. By blending the imaginary with the real, the architect would be potentially fusing the two worlds providing the administration in “an endless seamless system”[3].
Rem Koolhaas, on the other hand, was impressed by the fact that modernists, like Frank Lloyd Wright, had the aptitude to pull off a sense of perfection, simplicity and completeness in their work. However, he believed in the fact that the architect of the future should focus on contemporary forms, rather than being a modernist. According to Koolhaas, in the past 15 years, the cities that have been created or pictured have “been conceived in a sort of unconscious utopia”[4]that concealed the full abilities of the contemporary architect. Koolhaas remarks that it is impossible to focus on the ideal in the contemporary world of the 21st century, as the incongruity shown by both the architect’s ideas and the complexities of daily life. Rather than portraying the physical and abstract realms, Koolhaas symbolically uses the idea of the form as the real and the void as the imaginary. He states that by voids are “the principle lines of combat”[5] and should be focused on more, over the real and actual, simply because it would be easier to control void rather than controlling form. More so, there are numerous opportunities one can seek and achieve when interacting and designing abstractly using the void. By being a contemporary architect, as Koolhaas says, one must have the ability to work in both physical and virtual domains, but must focus on the virtual more than the physical. Koolhaas himself divulges the fact that he, as time goes by, tries “more and more not to be modern, but to be contemporary”[6].
Although the three visionaries – Van Berkel, Bos and Koolhaas – all emphasized the idea that the “new architect” should balance the dexterity of adapting to both the substantial and intangible, their opinions compelled them to take alternate paths. While Van Berkel and Bos considered that the architect should have an unbiased view of both the real and imaginary, in order to cause a seamless blend of the two, Koolhaas believed that the imaginary would lead the architect into the future, compared to the real. Even though their concerns on the dexterity of the “architect of the future” greatly differed, they managed to pave the way for the up and coming contemporary architects in the future.
[1] Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, “The new concept of the architect”, Architectural Theory V.2., Mallgrave ed., p.581
[2] Berkel and Bos, “concept”, Architectural Theory, 581.
[3] Berkel and Bos, “concept”, Architectural Theory, 581.
[4] Rem Koolhaas,”Toward the Contemporary City”, Design Book Review 17 (Winter 1989): 15
[5] Koolhaas, “City”, Design Book Review, 16
[6] Koolhaas, “City”, Design Book Review, 16
There are numerous ways that a city can portray itself through its distinct characteristics. Certain aspects, such as the façade, the program, and the movement of people through the spaces all lead to the shaping of a city’s personality. Adolf Loos and Ernst May embody two extreme outlooks on the spectrum of city representation. While Loos’ main concern is that the city should form a unique architectural style that portrays the true nature of the city, May believes that each residence should be made in a more industrialized setting, promoting the idea of mass production. These polarized views have sprouted different opinions of the portrayal of the modern city.
Adolf Loos dives straight into the discussion by proclaiming, “The Potemkin city of which I wish to speak here is none other than our dear Vienna herself”[1]. The Potemkin City was based on the idea of creating an exterior façade to deceive onlookers to believe that was the true nature of the city. When taking Vienna into consideration, the people were bent on misleading the outsiders to believe that Vienna was a city of aristocrats, and none else. This strengthened Loos’ idea that Vienna was a ‘hollow shell’, where people were more concerned with the ornamentation of the exterior than the working on the inside. This led to Adolf Loos’ venture into linking the private (the interior spaces) and the public (the exterior façade) of the building. In order to address this, Loos suggests that the city should possess a personality; an architectural style that portrays the true principles and ethics of the city and proceeds to create a sense of everlasting pride.
Ernst May, on the other hand, was highly influenced by the success of mass production in the age of industrialization. May believed that it would be extremely inefficient to use the income of the city to create innumerous plans for each residence, not to mention the vast differences in calculations and variety in materials. May claims, that by establishing the idea of a “collective element”[2], the city would grow to be one meant for the people. By implementing the concept of mass production, May surmises that a city should create a uniform style of residence through a similar process. Creating these monotonous residences, in May’s belief, would “quiet down architecture”[3], rather than the chaos of embellishments and the promotion of classes that rose in
Although Adolf Loos and Ernst May both kept the modern city as the object of utmost concern, they had different opinions of how the city should work, in contrast to how it was working at that specific time. While Loos’ main consideration is that the city should form a unique architectural type that reflects on it’s true nature, May believes that each residence should be made in a uniform monotonous method, representing the process of mass production and the idea of economic efficiency. Even though Loos and May’s outlooks on the portrayals of cities greatly differed, they managed to master the application of their ideas into their work.
[1] Mallgrave, Harry Francis. "Adolf Loos, "The Potemkin City"." In Architectural Theory Volume II: An Anthology from 1871-2005. USA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 98-99.
[2] Mallgrave, Harry Francis. "Ernst May, "Housing Policy of Frankfort on the Main." In Architectural Theory Volume II: An Anthology from 1871-2005. USA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 224-225.
[3] Mallgrave, Harry Francis. "Ernst May, "Housing Policy of Frankfort on the Main." In Architectural Theory Volume II: An Anthology from 1871-2005. USA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 224-225.
Theory as a whole is a vast topic to cover, but when confined to the realm of architecture, terms such as architectural theory, contemporary architectural theory and theories of history come into play. From the article by Fil Hearn, as well as the collaborated work of Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, it is certain that[TT1] an architect cannot design ideal buildings without the guidance of architectural theory and intensive forms of practice. Despite their agreement, the two articles offer different forms of advice to the reader.
Taking architectural theory into consideration, which resides in any perception of what a building should turn out to be, Fil Hearn regards it to be both “a property and concern to all who evaluate buildings, either as observers or as users”, in his article, “Ideas that Shaped Buildings”. Hearn also states that the cutoff points of architectural theory are more tightly interpreted through validated treatises. Using the most well renowned treatises of Vitruvius, Hearn was able to come on terms with his declaration that with the impact of both theory and practice, one would not be able to design and build to the most ideal and effective ability. He goes on to strengthen his claim by declaring that “theory enables and inspires”. Despite his compelling declaration, he discloses the fact that because architectural theory delves with questioning and judging how architecture should be; it is generally forgotten about and used only as a vindication for a specific standpoint.
Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, however, state in their article, titled ““Give me a Gun and I will Make All Buildings Move”: An Ant’s View on Architecture” that architecture is being considered as a static object, and not the fluent series of metamorphoses that it really is. Taking the example of Etienne Jules Marey’s “photographic gun”, the article suggests that perhaps the application of architectural theory would be able to “transform the static view of a building” into a free-flowing “story” that is able to portray its actual face. However, when practice comes into question, the article states that the 3-Dimensional AutoCAD renderings are extremely impractical, as they cannot answer several questions, such as those regarding the budgeting, the evaluation of practitioners and logistical information. Latour and Yaneva claim that the classic method of drawing and making physical models, alongside architectural theory, form the foundations for designing and constructing a building. This is due to the notion that every time a new constraint comes into play, it is of utmost importance that a new
way to draw must be devised to make the design fit in place with the other constraints. The idea that several models and drawings form vital objects stimulate the imagination of the client and users further strengthens their claim.
It is evident from the articles that the authors Hearn, Latour and Yaneva all agree on the fact that without the influence of architectural theory and practice, architects would not be able to design and build “perfect” buildings. What is conflicting about the two articles is that the latter specifies that the use of making models and intensive drawing and sketching should be preferred over using computer software.
Ever since the years of Vitruvius, the human body has been a primary reference in the field of architecture. According to Vitruvius, the proportions and placement of organs in the human body are ideal and flawless. Developing from those claims, Vitruvius suggested that the most significant structures should be designed off of the human body. He discovered that the ideal human body could be placed fitted into a circle and square. This was portrayed into a drawing: The Vitruvian Man, signifying the direct relation to creation, nature and geometry (Refer to Fig. 1). Several years later, by surveying the structure of the human form in comparison to urban planning, Le Corbusier was able to reincarnate Vitruvius’ ideals through the embodiment of modernization in the city of Chandigarh, as well as making it co-exist with nature’s preservation (Refer to Fig. 2).
Fig. 1: Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci – describing the relation of art and science; the relation of the human form and geometry.
Fig. 2: Map of Chandigarh (Left) and Human Form (Right) – Similarity in placement of programs and functions.
After the independence of India in August 1947, the Prime Minister of India at the time, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, established that a city be built over a 100 miles north of Delhi, unencumbered by convention and tradition in a country with great history and culture, struggling to be one of the up and coming modern countries in the world. The site over which this awe-inspiring city was to be built was chosen by P.L. Verma, the chief engineer for The Punjab and P.N. Thapar, a director of public works in Punjab. The two initially selected Albert Mayer to lead the design of the city of Chandigarh, with the aid of his partner, Matthew Nowicki. However, due to the tragic death of Nowicki, Mayer had to withdraw and thus gave Corbusier a red carpet entry to design the plan of Chandigarh.
On his arrival to Chandigarh, Corbusier was taken aback by the vast plains he had to cover placed flawlessly with a panoramic view of the hills nearby. This picturesque view, in the eyes of Corbusier, was only missing one thing, the element of man. The fundamental sketches of this city are depicted as “a square containing a cross axis” [1] with the capitol complex forming a primal northeastern axis towards the nearby mountains (Refer to Fig. 3). As the idea developed, this axis was brought further into light, forming, in Corbusier’s words, “a single monumental link connecting the body of the city to its symbolic head”. This monumental cross axis, almost similar in function to the Avenue de Champs-Elysees of Paris, constitutes various consequential banks, government offices and large hotels, and plays a role of a “spine” in the human body of Chandigarh, connecting the two principal public areas of Chandigarh – the Capitol complex and the Civic center. Another vital area of the city is “The Valley Of Leisure”, or the recreational park that emerged in an abraded riverbed that runs through the city of Chandigarh. Intended by Le Corbusier to be an area for relaxation and solitude, all forms of transportation were prohibited to go over and through the area. Furthermore, in an attempt to rekindle the lost relationship between man and nature, Le Corbusier designed special low lamps that bestowed residents of Chandigarh with the view of the stars, skies, waters and mountains, in absolute silence. This area, in the words of Corbusier, was built so that “the citizens of the new city may escape the humdrum of city life and enjoy the beauty of nature in peace and silence”[2]. It is in such areas in the city of Chandigarh that one can find a near comparision to the lungs of the Vitruvian Man – clean, safe from smoke, pollution and other disturbances. Another notable element in the planning of Chandigarh was the industrial area. Initially meant to be separated from the residential areas with a barrier of trees, as Mayer planned. However, according to Corbusier, the industrial area of Chandigarh were meant to be the “arms” of the human body of Chandigarh – constantly functioning and transporting goods and raw materials without having to go through the city.
Fig. 3: Primary sketch of Chandigarh with topography.
The concept of using Vitruvius’ ideas of the human form in planning the city of Chandigarh was displayed in the placement of the Capitol Complex, which functions as the “brain” of the city. The complex comprises of three major buildings – The Secretariat, The Legislative Assembly and The High Court (also known as The Palace of Assemblies). Positioned ideally in the upper edge of the city, the Capitol Complex functions as a point of intensity and a center for ritualistic processions. The Capitol Complex is multi-functional, serving as a center for urban-based activities and trade. The buildings of the complex are arranged meticulously to avoid the monotonous system of symmetry, A long walkway permeates through the plaza, as if extending the passage formed by the colossal boulevard through the civic center. Buildings such as the Assembly and High Court close the cross axis on either side of the plaza. An unusual aspect of the complex is that the high court is not positioned consistently across the axis, thereby enclosing the plaza space and builds a “directional thrust” away from it.[3] The assembly, on the other hand, is positioned perfectly on the axis, providing a relation to The Secretariat. As a result, these buildings define a closed space between them as well as create a free flow throughout the complex. Trees were planted to enhance the architecture, providing a gist of nature in the concrete jungle of the capitol complex.
Among the monumental structures in the Capitol Complex, one such structure that emphasizes Corbusier’s implementation of Vitruvius’ teachings is the Palace of Assemblies (Refer to Fig. 4). Built in 1962 to face the High Court and provide equilibrium to the monumental structures in the Capitol Complex, the Palace of Assemblies was designed such that it complemented the High Court’s simplicity with the application of more dynamic elements. Defying his typical designs, Le Corbusier incorporated curves in his buildings, which he previously claimed to be the source of chaos and uneasiness in architecture. This was displayed in several of the buildings in Chandigarh, including the Palace of Assemblies.
Fig. 4: View, Palace of Assemblies.
With a square plan and distinct portico facing the plaza and High Court, the Palace of Assemblies embodied the idea of curves, in an attempt to create a more “Indian” style. One of the most significant alterations in the design of the Palace of Assemblies was the enclosing of the assembly chamber and council chamber in a massive hyperbolic chamber and a smaller rectilinear chamber, respectively. Amazed by the industrial cooling towers on a trip to Ahmedabad, Le Corbusier resolved to implement that specific design into his Palace of Assemblies. The assembly chamber would be enclosed by the huge cooling tower shaped structure, and the smaller council chamber enclosed with a more orthogonal rectilinear structure[4]. According to the overview of the Palace of Assemblies, the assembly chamber appears to be a major point of interest. The floor plans of the Palace of Assemblies can be compared to that of a human cell, where the curvilinear tower structure can be compared to a nucleus (Refer to Fig. 5). The structure of the cell creates the basis of all living organisms. In the same manner the Palace of Assemblies, based off of this design of nature, is the foundation behind the operation in the city of Chandigarh. Without it, the city would be completely dysfunctional.
Fig. 5: Floor Plans, Palace of Assembly, Chandigarh (Left) and Human Cell (Right) – Similarity in structure.
Based off of Vitruvius’ concepts of the incorporation of the human form into architecture, Le Corbusier was able to rekindle those ideas on a much larger scale by designing the city of Chandigarh. From the human cell, to the functions of the brain and the proportions of the human form, Corbusier took all these levels into consideration. In this way, Corbusier executed Vitruvius’ ideas and paved the way for more modernistic approaches to urban planning in the twentieth century.
Bibliography:
1. Evenson, Norma. Chandigarh. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
2. Evenson, Norma. The Indian metropolis: a view toward the West. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Pages 157-159 and Pages 166-169.
3. Wreke, Stuart, and William Howard Adams. Denatured visions: landscape and culture in the twentieth century. New York: Museum of Modern Art ;, 1991.
4. Futagawa, Yukio, and Takamasa Yoshizaka. Chandigarh, the new capital of Punjab, India, 1951-. Tokyo: A.D.A. EDITA Tokyo, 1974.
Image Sources:
1. Futagawa, Yukio, and Takamasa Yoshizaka. Chandigarh, the new capital of Punjab, India, 1951-. Tokyo: A.D.A. EDITA Tokyo, 1974.
2. From Lectures
Living in a twenty-first century world, where almost every sort of necessity is available at one’s fingertips, the issue of personal, as well as public health and hygiene is very sporadic. However, when one takes into consideration history’s two most prominent urban city planners, Baron Haussmann and Le Corbusier, it comes to notice that Baron Haussmann indirectly enforced the principles of sanitation and hygiene upon the city dweller by widening the streets and clearing off the so-called “unfavourables” and providing greater chances for the leisure of the bourgeoisie, whereas Le Corbusier’s obsession with health led to the enforcement of running tracks, pools and sun terraces, all of which provide spaces open to the elements and hence encourage a reconnection with the natural environment, as well as promoting the value of exercise.
The roads of seventeenth-century Paris were claimed to have been extremely dirty, congested and narrow. There were peddlers and traders screaming their necks off to sell objects or services. There were entertainers playing their instruments past sunset, creating a loud ruckus. There were even several “parias” – outcasts, such as prostitutes, thieves and beggars wandering through the streets at any given point of time. Napoleon III, the then president of France realized that something needed to be done to the rising wealthy upper class families, well-known as the “bourgeoisie”. One of the main reasons as to why Napoleon hired Baron Haussmann to renovate the whole city was to remodel it into a city with better amenities, such as safer streets, a more empowering emphasis on hygiene and sanitation as well as more amicable shopper-friendly communities. Baron Haussmann, with his great knowledge of the city of Paris, superimposed his ideas right onto the city. By implementing long, straight and wide boulevards with cafes and shops on the sides, Haussmann’s ideas resolved a new form of urban frameworks that resulted in a positive influence on the routine lives of Parisians. By pushing the street vendors and peddlers away from the main boulevards and avenues and widening the streets, Haussmann managed to maintain wide, clean and sanitary streets, thereby enforcing the ideas of health and hygiene to both the bourgeoisies and lower classes of Paris. In fact, a lot of periodicals in France at the time claimed that the streets had become so much more hygienic, than they seemed more home-like than homes. For example, in the newspaper Le Figaro, Delvau claimed “Its houses are dirty on the inside, while its streets are swept every morning… All the luxury is outside – all its pleasures walk the streets.” [1] Some newspapers even went as far so as to claim that the street offered better shelter than modern apartments. For example, Victor Fournel asserted that “One doesn’t live in them, one perches…always in a rush to leave and seek out a little air, a little peace and rest in the street…”[2]
Haussmann’s technique of imposing the ideas of health and hygiene somehow were overlooked over the years, as Le Corbusier, one of the world’s most famous and well-known modernists had a completely different outlook at the city of Paris.
According to Le Corbusier, the present-day city is moribund; the fact that there is hardly any geometry, symmetry and overall openness which, according to him, bring pleasure to the everyday urban-dweller’s eye. He also claimed that he architect has become a twisted sort of creature that has grown to love irregularity, stating that they inspire him to develop ways to move around them. Le Corbusier asserts that the only way to save the “life” of the city was to be uniform, and not erratic and unsystematic. In fact, Corbusier goes on to state that repetition, the result of a geometrical layout leads to the perfect form, ideal for building a metropolitan city, be it New York, Paris or even London.
Corbusier argued that in order to perform and succeed in such a task, one must decongest the centers of cities - increase means for getting about and increasing the number of parks and open spaces. Specifically focusing on the last “rule” laid out by Le Corbusier, it was clear that he frequently stated that he aimed to bring out a lost connection between man and nature through the wonder of architecture. With the rise of industrialization, there was an apparent situation in which natural elements such as sunlight and foliage had become “invisible” to the public. Le Corbusier stated that this “temporary divorce” between man and the outside was resulting in a loss of authenticity of architecture. He tried to bring back this forgotten connection in hope that he could use “modern architecture as a promoter of good health”.[3]
Corbusier, in his Ville Contemporaine and Plan Voisin, tried to firmly enforce personal health onto the metropolitan denizen by implementing several running tracks, swimming pools and skylights in his buildings and projects, which tried to strongly bring back the disregarded connection between the human being and the beauty of the exterior. Corbusier implemented these “sport areas” on rooftops and terraces, which he claimed was a strategy to encourage and maintain good health. Other techniques Corbusier used to enforce this idea was by more approachable methods, such as providing access to sunlight, fresh air and a clear view of the greenery and foliage outside whilst shielding his clients from unfavourable climate conditions. What is interesting to note about his approach to nature is that he implements it into this project in a way that it manifests itself into a role than services human needs.[4] Hence, by implementing nature to serve human needs and positioning several structures used for exercise, Le Corbusier almost seems to be a father figure to The Contemporary City, as if forcing the “child” to partake in methods of personal health and fitness.
On looking back at both Baron Haussmann and Le Corbusier, it is evident that both these renowned planners had their eyes on the personal health and hygiene of the metropolitan city resident. It is also evident, however, that both of them enforced it upon the denizen in completely different ways. Baron Haussmann indirectly enforced it upon the citizen by widening the streets and clearing off the peddlers, unfavourables and opening up more opportunities for the leisure of the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, Le Corbusier directly enforced his ideas of the denizen’s personal health and fitness by placing structures for health and exercise, portraying himself as a father figure to The Contemporary City, which, in my opinion is a more effective method in personal health, hygiene and overall fitness of the modern-day metropolitan city dweller.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Marcus, Sharon. Apartment stories city and home in nineteenth-century Paris and London. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
2. Saalman, Howard. Haussmann: Paris Transformed. New York: G. Braziller, 1971.
3. Evenson, Norma. Le Corbusier: the machine and the grand design. New York: G. Braziller, 1970.
4. Dummett, Emma. Journeys of Discovery. Edinburgh: eSharp, 2000.
5. Etchells, Frederick. The city of to-morrow and its planning . London: Architectural Press, 1987.
[1] Marcus, Sharon. Apartment stories city and home in nineteenth-century Paris and London. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
[2] Marcus, Sharon. Apartment stories city and home in nineteenth-century Paris and London. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
[3] Dummett, Emma. Journeys of Discovery. Edinburgh: eSharp, 2000.
[4] Dummett, Emma. Journeys of Discovery. Edinburgh: eSharp, 2000.
Originating from Chinese architecture, the Japanese form of architecture developed over time with the help of several dynamic changes throughout history. A key element of traditional Japanese architecture is its heavy influence from Zen Buddhism. One great example of such spiritual forms of architecture is the Katsura Imperial Villa, constructed in early 1600 C.E. Designed by Prince Hachijo Toshihito and his son, Toshitada during the Heian period, The Katsura Imperial Villa helps evolve social life through the enhancement of peace and tranquility, which are considered to be goals of Zen Buddhism, as one goes moves from the gate, through the entire complex.
It is often noted that the main ideas behind The Katsura Rikyu were the concepts of Zen Buddhism, a religion through which, if followed accordingly, bestows upon the follower the state of enlightenment. It understates theoretical knowledge by means of realization, through meditation and right conduct, called “Dharma”. By attaining “enlightenment”, one achieves total detachment from desires and needs and hence obtains total satisfaction.
In order to attain what is considered “enlightenment”, one must be in an environment of complete and total tranquility, with all objects in one’s surroundings pleasing to the eye. Right-angled rooms are not only idealistic in their aesthetic quality; they provide residents with maximum use of space in that particular room, thus pointing out the functional aspect of the right angle. This can be observed from the highly orthogonal plan of the Katsura Rikyu Complex. From the exterior wall of the entire structure to the angle between the walls of each room to even the placement of materials on the floor, right angles have been implemented all over the Villa, thereby enhancing the peacefulness one asks for to achieve enlightenment. Minimal angles are also considered pleasing, as an untrained eye will capture only drastic changes in the angles of a room. As a result, the front of the Ko-shoin that faced the pond was set at an angle of 19 degrees southeast, which was considered the best for observing the reflection of the mid-autumn moon on the pond (Hashimoto et al).
Clearness and clarity are also important aspects of Zen Buddhism in view of the fact that a clear mind is one that is devoid of distraction and desire, giving one a clear view of their goals and thus, a clear path to enlightenment. In order to implement this idea of a clear view, Princes Toshihito and Toshitada provided the Ko-shoin and Chu-Shoin with a feeling of emptiness, and the Shoji screens alleviate the bright sunlight that encompasses all the rooms. The Chu-Shoin, on the other hand, is covered with a mild yellowish mud from Osaka that imparts a feeling of nature in the Villa, and somehow gives off an impression of lucidity (Isozaki et al 2005).
The garden enclosing the Katsura Imperial Villa in the center of the complex is truly spiritual in nature. Possibly Designed by Kobori Enshu, one of Japan’s most renowned landscape architects, this garden has been designed such that a visitor may not have a complete view of the entire Villa until the very end (Ching et al 2007). There are stone slabs set in a particular pattern, set to ”take” the visitor to a specific area of the Villa, as well as smaller pebbles set in a specific order to point to a deviation. This garden possesses the Villa to such an extent that the walls appear designed due to the reflection off of the pond. The well-known Moon Viewing Platform, or “Tsukimidai” is a significant element in the Katsura Imperial Villa, as one obtains a full view of the pond from the platform, an ideal location for one to feel attached to nature and experience oneness with it. The Tsukimidai was used to observe the Moon during certain times of the year, and was considered a great event in traditional Japanese culture. It also pertains to Zen Buddhism through the idea that the Moon is considered a source of enlightenment in Zen literature and stories.
The five teahouses spread out in the Katsura Complex hold great importance in both traditional Japanese culture and Zen Buddhism. Developed through time, the Japanese tea ceremony, called “Chado” is a means to attain inner peace by preparing tea, leading to the path of true “enlightenment”. The two most well-known of the five teahouses are the Geppa-Ro, known for its distinct L-shaped structure on an artificial hill, and the Shoken-Tei, also well known for its unique blue and white checkered panels painted onto the tokonoma and fusuma. These are followed by the Shoka-Tei, constructed on the highest ground of the complex, the Onrin-Do, a shrine built in honor of the Hachijo-No-Miya clan and Shoi-Ken, known for its extravagant velvet wall design. These teahouses emphasized the gravity of importance of the tea ceremony in Japanese Imperial culture giving the royalty the idea of being closer to enlightenment than the ordinary people (Okawa 1975).
Another fascinating aspect of The Katsura Imperial Villa is the placement of the three main shoins – The Old Shoin (Ko-Shoin), The Middle Shoin (Chu-Shoin) and New Shoin (Shin-Goten). The three shoins, although built in a certain order, rather form a path, as if passing through life and time – the past, the present and the future. Regardless of the fact that the shoins may not have any specific distinctions from each other, save the height of the roofs, it has been created so as to inculcate the passage of man through life, childhood, middle age and old age, giving one the feeling of passing through time and contemplating the change within himself, but also the change in Japanese architecture through time. The Shin-Goten, designed by Prince Toshitada was designed with a greater sense of dynamics than his predecessor, Toshihito. This is noticeable in the Katsura Imperial Villa, as the Shin-Goten is more decorative compared to the Ko-Shoin and Chu-Shoin. It has also been found that the Shin-Goten was used as a more private space.
On noticing how one edges closer to enlightenment as soon as they enter the gates of the Katsura Rikyu, one notices how Princes Toshihito and Toshitada implemented the ideas of peace, tranquility and contemplation, all considered to be ideals of Zen Buddhism, and came to create what is considered to be the pinnacle of Japanese architecture in the Heian Period.
Bibliography:
1. Hashimoto, Fumio, and H. Mack Horton. Architecture in the shoin style: Japanese feudal residences. Tokyo: Kodansha International;, 19811980.
2. Isozaki, Arata, and Virginia Ponciroli. Katsura imperial Villa. Milan: Electa Architecture ;, 2005.
3. Ōkawa, Naomi. Edo architecture, Katsura, and Nikko. New York: Weatherhill, 1975.
4. Ching, Frank, Mark Jarzombek, and Vikramaditya Prakash. A Global History of Architecture . Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley & Sons, 2007.
Japanese Architecture (VDA #131) is different from other regional forms of architecture by its distinct lightness (VDA #38), simplicity and refinement (VDA #58). The first image that comes to mind when one thinks of Japanese architecture is the intricate design that adorns the façade (VDA #24) of the structure. However, one such structure (VDA #53) that defies that idea is the Katsura Rikyu, a villa meant to be an abode of luxury and tranquility for its designers, Prince Hichijonomiya Toshihito and his son, Prince Toshitada.
The Katsura Rikyu, also called the Katsura Imperial Villa and the Katsura Detached Palace, was built in the 17th century in Kyoto, Japan. One would enter the complex through the gates and come face-to-face with the villa, which consists of three main buildings, namely the “Old Shoin” (Hashimoto), “Middle Shoin” (Hashimoto) and “New Shoin” (Hashimoto) as well as the main entrance, called the “Miyuki-mon” (Hashimoto). These structures, which are made of orthogonal rooms, connected through a zigzag pattern, direct from the southeast to the northwest direction. The entire complex makes use of two main forms of Japanese architecture, the shoin (VDA #137) style and the sukia (VDA #176) style. The villa was designed based off of the principal ideas of Zen Buddhism (GHA #513), attempting to exude a feeling of tranquility, which is supposed to help during the auspicious tea ceremony. There were seven teahouses, containing rooms called “Chashitsu “(Hashimoto) designed all throughout the complex. The guests would enter these auspicious buildings through the “nijiriguchi” (Hashimoto) to perform in this important ceremony. There are also three main structures in the middle of the gardens called “Furu-shoin”, “Naka-shoin” (Hashimoto) and “Miyuki-den” (Hashimoto). On the whole, the villa is composed of several large structures with very geometric (VDA #52) organizational (VDA #53) qualities.
Materials (VDA #161) have been given a lot of importance in the Katsura Rikyu, as is important in traditional Japanese architecture. The complex was designed with natural materials such as wood (VDA #276), bamboo, stones (VDA #236) and vegetation (GHA). The villa and teahouses were designed with plastered (VDA #188) earthen (VDA #221) walls (VDA #266), giving the walls a contrast with the raw wooden post-and-beam construction (VDA #106) that constitutes the pitched (VDA #209) roof (VDA #208). The shoji (VDA #137), or movable screens in the house are made of translucent rice paper (GHA #515). On the whole, the building gives off a rustic look with the thatched (VDA #107) roof and wooden flooring (VDA #94).
The gardens within the Katsura Imperial Villa are stunning, to say the least. This complex reflects the ideas of the relationship between nature and architecture as shown in several forms of traditional Japanese architecture. Kabori Enshu, one of Japan’s most popular landscape architects (VDA #11) of his time planned out the complex. It covers over 50,000 square meters. And goes around the complex in a clockwise direction. The stones placed on the grass that seem to have been placed randomly are in fact set as footprints wandering through the compound. There are hedges with particular apertures in them that provide certain views (VDA #59) of the lake and the villa. For example, at a certain point on the path, there is a pine tree that blocks and gives importance to the view. One notices the careful balance planned out around the complex and the stones slowly change to stairs as one climbs onto the deck. Throughout the garden is a stone path that is outlined by moss, pebbles (VDA #224) and gravel (VDA #224).
The interior of the Katsura Rikyu also reflects the Zen Buddhism ideas of peace and tranquility. The villa was measured and planned the traditional way, using tatami (VDA #137) mats. The rooms are separated using sliding doors (VDA #62).
The teahouses in the complex are considered to be the most important structures in the whole imperial compound. The most important tea pavilion (VDA #24,27) at the villa is said to be the “Shokin-Tei” (Hashimoto). It is said to be a typical Japanese pavilion, and has different perspective (VDA #59, 72, 73) views from each side. What is unique about the Shokin-Tei is the door to the “Ichi-no-ma”, or first room. It has a very unique blue and white-checkered (VDA #184) pattern (VDA #53, 265) that stands out against the plain textured (VDA #52, 53) surface of the shoji screens in the shoins.
Another critical structure in the Katsura Rikyu is the “Furu Shoin” (Hashimoto), which contains a platform that extends out past the deck (VDA #93), or “engawa” (VDA #137) and is used for observing the moon.
After observing the Katsura Detached Palace, one can see how traditional Japanese Architecture was highly worked out but simple in structure, and so subtly applies Zen Buddhism and nature as architectural elements.
