German architect Ernst May is one of several designers who makes a case for the idea of functionalism. This would see buildings designed in such a way that met the most basic needs of people, while leave extraneous features behind. An approach like this was perhaps needed in the context of the early 1900s, with Europe being scarred by several years of war. It was a tumultuous period that, needless to say, left citizens in need of adequate housing. In May’s work, Housing Policy of Frankfort on the Main, he argues in favor of equity in the design as one solution. Arguing for both economic and social benefits, May speaks for an ethical approach to architecture that could answer the issues facing people. “...Would it not be just wasting the national fortune to act differently, to draw up plans for every small habitation, to make separate calculations for quantities, to buy the material according to the separate estimates and to carry out separate architectural plans for each individual case?” (May, p.225) Rather than drawing up multiple plans, May presents a one-size-fits-all idea to save time and resources on building. This line of thinking furthermore stands in opposition to a more fluid approach, so as not to extend costs or building time on anything that may be ‘extraneous’. Mays also looks at the issue from a historical context. “...is it not strange that no objection to this was taken in former times, and that opposition came forward in our age of rationalization only?” (May, p.225) The smaller, more primitive dwelling places which met humanity’s needs in ancient times were the same with small variations, and fulfilled their basic needs. A functionalist approach could be accepted today as an answer to housing dilemmas. This anecdote however is where May loses some consistency. The expression that ‘no objection was taken in former times’ with respect to housing needs is made as if the principle could and should be applied to the present. Where the functionalist mindset starts to become a problem within architectural discourse is in how it impacts people at an individual level. A collective, homogenized housing has only regard for the most basic of needs, and doesn’t pay as much attention to what people may need beyond that. A broader approach needs to be observed.
Swedish Architect Sven Backstrom presents a perspective from someone observing the public over time. In his writing, A Swede looks at Sweden, Sven discusses Swedish development during the early 1900’s, and the time surrounding WWII in particular. The impact of the war on Sweden’s materials and building requirements led to “the victorious debut of functionalism” in the country (Backstrom, p.45). The construction of things like factories and general living quarters were of the highest priority (Backstrom, p.43), and this aligns itself well with a design philosophy that places high value on operations alone. Moreover, functionalism was being well received by a younger generation of citizens, who were becoming disenchanted with the history in addition to living through troubled times. “A clean break was made with the past. There was a determination to clear away all false romanticism and all designing in historical styles” (Backstrom, p.45). As mentioned earlier, there is some growing desire within the early 20th century for a “new style”, that is distinct in nature from what came before. This is compounded by the scars of war leaving citizens disenchanted, and technologies of the Industrial Revolution opening the door to new, fresh possibilities. Despite all of this, Backstrom noticed that as life began to settle, a desire for something beyond the functional began to emerge. He saw that for the average citizen, the new style had its limitations. “It was difficult to settle down in the new houses because the ‘new’ human beings were not so different from the older ones…” (Backstrom, p.45). What he’s saying here is that the people of sweden began to want more in the way of aesthetic value, as well as more comfortable lighting, heating, cooling, and ‘little contributions to coziness that human beings are so dependent upon’ (Backstrom, p.45). Functionalism alone was only desirable for as long as people merely required function. While this may be a new era of time, people are still rooted to their pasts. To Backstrom, this made it clear that design could not simply operate on function.
Finnish architect Alvar Aalto echoes the sentiments discovered by Backstrom in Sweden. Once referring to architecture as ‘deeply biological’ (Aalto, p.251), he underscores in his writings the need for a more intimate architecture that responds to senses and emotions. In The Humanizing of Architecture, he observes the more modern approach as being too ‘technical’, and ‘analytical’, failing to acknowledge deeper needs (Aalto, p.77). May’s argument for economic application is valid, but as in the case of Sweden, people intrinsically wanted more from their living spaces than just function. Having lost aesthetics and other comforts which had been formed in their history, the new dwellings were ultimately unsatisfying. In ‘The Architect’s Conscience’, Aalto addresses a responsibility to history, as well as the possibilities present in modernity. “Human life consists, in equal degrees, of tradition and new creation. Traditions cannot be wholly cast off and regarded as used objects which have to be replaced by something new. In human life continuity is a vital necessity.” (Aalto, p.250). This is in response to those who are eager to leave the past behind for a style of their own time and age. To treat the past as an ‘object’ is to treat a fundamental part of humanity as if it can merely be discarded. The modern approach to Aalto is thereby incomplete, and in need of more humanity.
Discourse surrounding modern architecture persisted as the world moved out of wartime. While there were concerns for how this post-industrial world began to lose touch with humanity, some suggested that people need only grow accustomed to what the new world had to offer. American architect Hugh Ferriss’ “The Metropolis of Tomorrow” explores the possibilities of future cities, and the direction that future designers can take with them. In observing the younger architects of the time, he calls them ‘on fire to deal with the problems which are now facing us’. Tendencies that come with city living, as well as new materials, could well usher in a new architecture. He moreover proposes that people need only be exposed to this new architecture of the age in order for it to become a reality of its own. “Many people believe that the novel forms which are just now emerging are devoid of ‘beauty’. Yet when the necessary time has elapsed for the younger architects to formulate their accurate statement...it will again appear that a new truth is inevitably attended by a new beauty…” (Ferriss, 157) A new definition of beauty in architecture will arrive as architects reveal their ideas and plans for an unseen future. It suggests that the way in which people perceive architecture may be changed as they grow accustomed to newer ideas. Once experienced, they will set forth a new standard in the eyes of the public.
When it comes to the general public’s perception, the “Case Study House Program” in 1945 provides one example of how it may be broadened. The program was an attempt to explore new possibilities in a direct and experimental manner. Select architects were to prepare ‘post-war’ housing units for people who to eventually test after the program’s completion. Similar to Ferriss, Entenza states that man ‘does not yet understand the new’ (Entenza, 272), and must therefore be taught in order to become accommodated. While the idea was an educational one, John Entenza’s manner of writing conveys a sense of competition. “For the average prospective house owners, the choice between the hysterics...and those who attempt to ride into the future piggy back on the status quo, the situation is confusing and discouraging...the only way in which any of us can find out anything will be to pose specific problems in a specific program on a put-up-or-shut-up basis.” (Entenza, 272) Designers are placed on a stage, with the public ultimately making observations about what works and what does not. Home-owners would stand at the center of choices, and perhaps determine what sort of architecture is objectively superior. Moreover, he claims that “...this program is not being undertaken in the spirit of the ‘neatest trick of the week’ (Entenza, 272) That is to say that this will not be something transient or short lived. It would instead provide some manner of ‘direction’ for the quality of housing going forward.
Author Katherine Morrow Ford provides a perspective that runs counter to the convictions behind the Case Study in her article, Modern is Regional. “...modern architecture cannot be reduced to a precise formula...Within a given geographical area, experiencing similar climatic conditions, still further departures from a national ‘style’ are brought about as a result of the variety of available building materials and local craftsmanship in the use of such materials...” (Ford, 265). Ford argues that variations in architecture are inevitable. Materials and usage may be common, but there can’t exactly be a ‘modern style’, because buildings will depend on when and where they are constructed. Ford examines this further in a brief comparison between the uses of Wood in the Pacific Coast and New England. “the external structural forms of more northern sections of the Pacific Coast with those of New England…Architecture in both of these regions is of wood, but the character of each is of an entirely different type.” (Ford, 265). The same principles can be found in buildings that exist in similar conditions. There was not one hard methodology. The idea of regionalism can be a reflection of time and place, even if the styles of building are not the same throughout.
One example of the consequences which could arise when historical, and cultural context is neglected can be found in the writing of Hassan Fathy’s Architecture for the Poor. In Egypt, a lack of consistency and cultural representation in the region leads to poorer quality of living. “The houses of rich and poor alike are without character, without an Egyptian accent. The tradition is lost, and we have been cut off from our past...This gap in the continuity of Egyptian tradition has been felt by many people, and all sorts of remedies have been proposed…”. (Fathy, p.443) The design of living spaces fails to respond properly to context, and a sense of identity is lost in the people. Fathy goes on to talk about the perpetuation of this problem, examining the manner in which this architecture is taught. “In the architectural schools they make no study of the history of domestic buildings, and learn architectural periods by the accidents of style...Thus the graduate architect believes this to be all there is in ‘style’ and imagines a building can change its style as a man changes clothes…” (Fathy, p.443). Without proper historical context, the understanding that these architects have of the environment that they’re building for becomes shallow.
A meeting of ideas can be found in the young architects who would eventually go by the moniker of Group 7. They stood as proponents of an architecture that more aptly reflected their changing world, while integrating proper context. One such member was the Italian architect Giusseppe Terrangni, whose writings present a meeting of ideals. For him, the ‘new style’ partially dealt with representing a nation. “...the example of the refinement of art which a country can attain when the sense of a new architecture is understood by an entire nation, and dominates all decorative forms, so that all objects down to the most modest carry its imprint. From the monumental building to the cover of a book...” (Terragni, p.215). Terragni here is speaking about architecture as an extension of its environment. It becomes something that can be understood as being an inherent expression of Germany or Austria. An architect can draw from culture to produce something which can be more readily appreciated by the people who live there. In the ending for the Group 7 manifesto for Group 7, Terragni briefly touches upon expression which goes beyond mere appearance. “...Holland there is blossoming of architectural forms composed of the most rigorous and constructive rationality, perfectly attuned to the country’s climate and landscape. And so...the Nordic countries Sweden and Finland also contribute to the ‘new spirit’” (Terragni, p.215). Here, Terragni commends the incorporation of environmental conditions into a building to meet its needs. In this context, the new style is not a rejection or uprooting of what was already there. Rather, those things all become a part of what informs the architecture.
As new tools and design philosophies emerge, it becomes necessary for architects to adapt and incorporate them into design. However, in building with consideration for the present alone, values discovered throughout history may be lost. A complete break with human traditions is not feasible for the design of living spaces. To have a sense of familiarity and belonging is a part of what provides people with comfort. Architects therefore have a responsibility to uphold that, as much as they might uphold a building’s pure functionality. Compromises can be made between a more modern desire for progress, and what people understand as familiar. This calls upon architects to be more dynamic in their approach to design. To draw from tradition, environment and culture as assets to design are ideas that remain with the practice today.
Works Cited
Aalto, Alvar. The Humanizing of Architecture, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. 1947, pg.77
Aalto, Alvar. The Architect’s Conscience, Karl Fleig, New York. 1957, pg.250 - 251
Backstrom, Sven. A Swede Looks at Sweden, Columbia Books of Architecture. 1943, pg.43 - 45
May, Ernst. Housing Policy of Frankfort on the Main, Blackwell Publishing, Massachusetts. 1929, pg.225
Fathy, Hassan. Architecture for the Poor, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture. 1973, pg.442 - 444
Terrangni, Giusseppe. The Group 7, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture. 1926, pg.214 - 215
Entenza, John. The Case Study House Program, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture. 1945, pg.270 - 272
Ferriss, Hugh. The Metropolis of Tomorrow, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture. 1929, pg.155 - 157
