3 ms·
It's a very light article with a title that over-promises. The fact that Pessac was easily modified appears to be accidental, and the article finishes with a p
by noneeeed 4y ago
It's a very light article with a title that over-promises.
The fact that Pessac was easily modified appears to be accidental, and the article finishes with a passing comment by LC that I wholeheartedly agree with, but doesn't really amount to much.
Feels like something dashed off to somehow prove a point?
I very much like Tim Harford's reporting when it comes to statistics and numbers in life and the news (his More Or Less radio programme/podcast is great) and his older stuff on economics, but his more recent obsession with "cautionary tales" (the title of his other podcast) frequently seems to involve stories that are superficially interesting but frequently fail to convince me that they have a strong point.
- 4gotunameagain 4y ago> The fact that Pessac was easily modified appears to be accidental Why is it accidental in your opinion? Corbusier's Five Points of Architecture[1] specifically dictate free design of f.x. the ground plan, in order to facilitate further modification. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier%27s_Five_Points_of_Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier%27s_Five_Points_o...
- noneeeed 4y agoThe accidental thing seemed implied by the article, that the changes were an act of "resistance", rather than something that was designed for. My comment was more a criticism of the article than of Le Corbusier, whose work I mostly like (much more so than many contemporary architecture). A better article would have pointed to those 5 points, rather than simply repeating one pithy quote, which seemed to be the entire supporting evidence.