The 1930’s proved to be an important moment in the transformation of the architectural society. New forms brought about the period know as ‘International style’ of which expressed a basis for new individual invention. During this time Society as a whole began evolving as the automobile became more popular among households, thus cities began to grow and urbanization was in full effect. The advancements in the Architectural realm led designers such as Alvar Aalto, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier to start what is now know as the Modernist Movement. These architects among many others shaped the way we view architecture and defined their approach through a progression of designs, of which residential will be examined in this blog.
Charles-Eduard Jeanneret, later know as Le Corbusier was an internationally known and influential Swiss architect and city planner. His vision of an ‘ideal city’ pioneered studies of including theoretical plans for skyscraper cities and mass-produced housing which sought to provide better living conditions for the residents of crowded cities in crisis. Influenced by the ideas of nature and its simplistic geometrical forms Le Corbusier combined the functionalism of the modern movement with bold, sculptural expressionism. In his formative years, Corbu “absorbed many different influences and tried many different forms of expression before he found his true way” (Curtis 165). Belonging to the first generation of the ‘International School’ such as the likes of Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier excelled in the movement providing deep wisdom and a rich illustration of ideas. These concepts later formed one of the most influential architectural books of the century, Towards a New Architecture 1923. After settling in Paris, Le Corbusier along with painter Amédée Ozenfant formulated the ideas of Purism, pioneering an aesthetic based on the pure, simple geometric forms of everyday objects. “Jeanneret and Ozenfant, strongly objected to developments in Cubist art, particularly the decorative elements. [They] wanted a return to more basic forms mainly inspired by modern machinery” (Lecture). His early work joined the functionalist aspirations of his generation with a strong sense of expressionism. Le Corbusier was an architect who made a studied use of reinforced-concrete construction: his pursuit eventually led to the invention of the ‘Dom-ino’ skeleton 1914 (Fig.1).
“The Dom-ino frame embodied the industrialization of the building process… in which the columns and floor plate constituted a prefabricated system independent of walls and partitions” (Colquhoun 141). The use of the free floor plate, independence from structure, vertical stacking, and an idea of mass production can be seen in his designs such as Maison La Roche, Villa Stein, Villa Savoye and Maison Citrohan to name a few. In the latter work mentioned Le Corbusier implemented his theories in which he established through his writing Five Points of a New Architecture 1926. He prescribed the rules of a new architectural system, of which consisted: pilotis, the roof garden, the free plan, the horizontal window and the free façade (Colquhoun 148). In the case of works such as Villa Savoye in Poissy, France (Fig. 2). Le Corbusier created a building based upon his principles of architecture, and the idea of the house as a machine for living. These programmatic elements yielded a simple building that followed his five points of architecture. With its structure raised on slender concrete pillars or pilotis the building was lifted off the ground; a free and open floor plan allowed for the interior structure to conform to its own functions; long horizontal strip windows were utilized for lighting and views; and the roof terrace reintroduced nature to the city as well as replaced the green space the building footprint disposed of. The broad application of the system strove to work on a formal, symbolic and structural level. “Le Corbusier used various regulating diagrams; the place of the right angle, the golden section, the logarithmic spiral, the pentagon. Each of these geometric systems provides a specific kind of equilibrium and character” (Lecture). 
While not as nearly renowned as Le Corbusier in France, Mies van der Rohe proved to be a distinguished actor in the realm of Germany’s architects. In Mies’s work, two opposing tendencies struggled for dominance. 1) The enclosure of function in a generalized cubic container not committed to any particular set of concrete functions, relating to his early allegiance to neoclassicism similar to Le Corbusier. 2) the articulation of the buildings in response to the fluidity of life (Colquhoun 171). The resultant architectural formation was very similar to Le Corbusier’s yet the approach was very different to their perceived conditions of modernity (Lecture). Mies spent a much greater time than Corbu designing homes in the neoclassical style and in fact saw a greater success. His early designs focused on “ symmetrical two-story prisms” (Colquhoun 172) such as the Riehl House in Berlin 1907 (Fig. 3). The house is conceived in a simple and practical style with references to the architecture of residences of the early nineteenth century. The emphasis of the house lies in its gabled ends, one of which seems to grow out of the retaining wall.
After the war Mies’ design conventions transform from mimetic eclecticism to Constructivist abstraction. “He began to take a strong anti-formalist position: ‘We know no forms, only building problems. Form is not the goal but the result of our work’” (Colquhoun 173). His early Constructivist projects were exemplified in works such as the Wolf House, Lessing house Project, and Concrete Country House. The Wolf house depicts a system of cubes broken down into smaller interlocking forms utilizing local building materials and brick. Similar to the Lessing House project these plans form a rough pyramidal composition of two and three stories achieving sequences in echelon.
To touch on the progression of Mies’s development the Tugendhat house focuses on his next stage. Similar to the Riehl house the building is lodged into a sloping site however instead of using brick as the primary medium the cubic mass is held by monolithic white planes. (Fig. 4).The Tugendhat house as well as one of Mies’s more infamous works the Barcelona Pavilion seek support by an independent grid of columns, at first similar to Le Corbusier’s free plan the system works in unison with the wall planes. Mies gradually began to open his enclosed works over time to frame views of nature. This I believe can be depicted best in his design of the Farnsworth House (Fig. 5).
Leading the discussion on nature presents Alvar Aalto who strongly pursued the incorporation of this element throughout all his work. His prototypes were well adapted to the scale of the landscape and the stringencies of the Nordic climate (Curtis 454). Aalto is seen as the father of the modern architecture movement however rarely gets the acclaim to the extent of Le Corbusier. This Finnish Modernist questioned the mechanistic premises of the new objectivity as did the likes of several others – including Le Corbusier. Returning to natural materials and traditional details Alto like Le Corbusier retained the ‘empty’ language of the new movement, seeking to fill it with new metaphors (Colquhoun 201).
In the Villa Mairea at Noormarkku, taut curved walls faced with wood sidings are contrasted with sharp-edge brick walls painted white thus showing a tacticle sens of industrial and natural materials. The ground floor plan (Fig. 6) shows how the house respects and appreciates the landscape by wrapping around. In the living room – which like Mies’s tugendhat house combines different living zones within a single space – screens of wooden poles in random clusters become metonyms for the pine forest visible through wall-to-wall plate-glass windows, creating a synthesis of modern technology, artisianship, and nature (Colquhoun 202). Aalto’s Villa Mairea proved to be an important move from functionalism. 