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.
