4 ms·

Le Corbusier and followers are responsible for quite some ghettos in France and Belgium, and still he's seen as a hero by many architects. As a consequence, in

Le Corbusier and followers are responsible for quite some ghettos in France and Belgium, and still he's seen as a hero by many architects. As a consequence, instead of starting over, money is being poured into preservation and restoration of these monstrosities . An example from Leuven: http://www.cvaa.be/en/project/social-housing-project http://www.cvaa.be/en/project/social-housing-project or Antwerp: http://www.standaard.be/cnt/tp2cvh63 http://www.standaard.be/cnt/tp2cvh63 you can find many more

raverbashing 11y ago
It might be that his constructions resulted in ghettos but it's not his exclusivity (or that the fault lies exclusively due to his way of building stuff) Yeah, some should be conserved (maybe for historical purposes) but sometimes it would be better to start over
agumonkey 11y ago
These aren't even monstruosities. Compared to actual social-architectural catastrophies they're cute. There's a few stuff that went very very bad in this era of urban growth, and Le Corbusier was only part of it. If you look at his first big 'bar' in Marseille, cite radieuse, it was an acceptable concept, spacious hallways, carefully designed flats, with good lighting, good thermal thinking. Then you have national projects that took the idea of 1000s of people in a small land surface and removed all the actual individual value and beauty. It was all cramped and low-cost. Industrialization of social structures, that went sour pretty fast. Even though, based on the ads of the day, they truly believed in doing good and being correct in their proposal.
_delirium 11y ago
Doesn't them being ghettoes mainly have to do with them being occupied by poor people, not the architecture? Europe also has ghettoes in a number of other architectural styles. And in the other direction, Manhattan is packed full of International Style modernism, and yet not considered a ghetto... because it's full of wealthy people.

raverbashing 11y ago

It might be that his constructions resulted in ghettos but it's not his exclusivity (or that the fault lies exclusively due to his way of building stuff) Yeah, some should be conserved (maybe for historical purposes) but sometimes it would be better to start over

agumonkey 11y ago

These aren't even monstruosities. Compared to actual social-architectural catastrophies they're cute. There's a few stuff that went very very bad in this era of urban growth, and Le Corbusier was only part of it. If you look at his first big 'bar' in Marseille, cite radieuse, it was an acceptable concept, spacious hallways, carefully designed flats, with good lighting, good thermal thinking. Then you have national projects that took the idea of 1000s of people in a small land surface and removed all the actual individual value and beauty. It was all cramped and low-cost. Industrialization of social structures, that went sour pretty fast. Even though, based on the ads of the day, they truly believed in doing good and being correct in their proposal.

_delirium 11y ago

Doesn't them being ghettoes mainly have to do with them being occupied by poor people, not the architecture? Europe also has ghettoes in a number of other architectural styles. And in the other direction, Manhattan is packed full of International Style modernism, and yet not considered a ghetto... because it's full of wealthy people.