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
