3 ms·

Mea culpa, I did get emotional after the first paragraphs.

• ggm 3y ago
  It's a valid point. I mean yes I was a bit terse, but really? your initial "hot take" so to speak aligns with where modern architecture has got to: He was revolutionary, he was iconoclastic, he was also a bit bombastic and he didn't live to understand the consequences of some of his theories which are a-social and demand cars more than the 15 minute city goals we now look for. I really value some of his stuff. At a distance even the towers can be impressive, and people still love the Marseille complex, and his church. A point made in the article is that not everything he did was on mega-scale. It wasn't all Brasilia and Chandigarh. He helped launch modernism and I live in a unit with floor to ceiling glass wall-windows, and a flow from the outside into my living spaces. Bits of his design sensibilities, Gropius, Mies Van Der Rohe are in that.