Of
the architects we have studied recently who embraced the concept of the free
plan, two whose design methods are quite interesting when directly compared are
Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.
While the two shared some fundamental values and an affinity for the
free plan, their individual definitions of free plan and other points addressed
in their designs differed substantially.
The work of both Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe can be recognized
largely by their free plan spatial organizations. The building plan had moved from segmented
spaces enclosed by intrusive, heavy structure to a now flexible structure which
allowed spaces to be arranged in any way desired to best suit function and
context. Building structure was
organized on a grid, and partitions became freed from any load-bearing
responsibility.
Villa Stein - Le Corbusier |
While flexibility
was the main objective of the free plan for both Le Corbusier and Mies van der
Rohe, its purpose and the manner in which that flexibility was utilized
differed between the two. Le Corbusier
approached his projects with a very scientific mindset. His five points of architecture—pilotis, free
plan, free façade, ribbon windows, and roof gardens—and his modular, repeatable
structural systems became the interchangeable building blocks for nearly all of
his projects. Houses designed by Le
Corbusier became like products of an assembly line, each having its own
variations on the design formula and its own identity, but pieced together from
a definitive set of components. Free
plan allowed him to do this with ease in his projects, such as Villa Stein or
Villa
Villa Savoye - Le Corbusier |
Mies van der Rohe
approached his projects with the same enthusiasm for free plan as Le Corbusier;
however, Mies van der Rohe took the “free” quality of the free plan to another
level beyond that of Le Corbusier. His
designs were much less rigid than Le Corbusier’s, and they allowed for much
more flexibility and multifunctionality.
He dissolved the building center and the conventional four-walled room
as spatial organizers. Instead of the rigid,
heavy boxes of defined space acting as a container for a specific function as seen
in prior architecture, including that of Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe opened
everything that could be opened and then some.
He completely liberated the plans of his buildings, providing minimal
division where absolutely necessary for issues of privacy. Many times it was as though he started with a
block of open space, conservatively carved out small pieces for service space, and
what was left was a large, light, airy volume of space which promoted ease of
flow and felt far less claustrophobic than the traditional
50x50 House - Mies van der Rohe |
Farnsworth House - Mies van der Rohe |
Le Corbusier and
Mies van der Rohe both valued the concept of free plan in their designs, but
for seemingly very different reasons.
While Le Corbusier was very scientifically minded, his approach to
spatial design was much more regimented than that of Mies van der Rohe, and the
freedom of his free plans largely related to his freedom in design as opposed
to Mies van der Rohe’s freedom of function and use in the free plan. Both approaches, however, allowed the
architects to design buildings to the best of their ability that they believed
would support the needs of occupants in a unique way.
Works Cited:
http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/Villa_Stein_-_de_Monzie
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/Corbu.html
http://www.architakes.com/?p=5801
http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment