Le Corbusier was not happy about this. When he finished the penthouse on the Champs-Élysées for Charles de Beistegui in 1931, it was a modern apartment with clean and simple spaces. When the multi-millionaire moved in, he redecorated the space with his favorite Baroque furniture. Against the white walls of the solarium on the roof garden, Le Corbusier allowed a non-working fireplace almost as a joke. But then de Beistegui added a lavishly decorated clock and a pair of ornate candle holders. A mirror with an elaborate oval frame was hung halfway above the wall.

Le Corbusier should have seen this coming – de Beistegui was famous for his extravagant parties and love of the Empire style. Any modern design would be an imposition on his flamboyant client. He still took on the project because he felt it was an opportunity to test his ideas for the roofs of Paris and to realize a piece of his Plan Voisin. The solarium illustrated his agenda for the city. Enclosed by high walls on all sides, one can only see the grass, the four walls, and the clouds in the sky. This “open room” was completely cut off from the Parisian panorama. Le Corbusier announced the modern invasion of Paris by blocking out the nearby Arc de Triomphe – interestingly, a monument built by Napoleon to celebrate the victory of his invasions.

It is reasonable to accuse de Beistegui of raiding of an ideal design. But it would be equally fair to defend his rebellion against Le Corbusier’s assault on Paris and his client’s lifestyle. A building can be a statement, but it’s never an abstract piece of art. It has context and it contains the layers of life and activity. After all, clients, the city and its history are not architects’ enemies.

As a gridded, material-less superstructure of modernist grandeur, Superstudio’s Continuous Monument represents an angst of over-saturation. Their series of photomontages represent a dystopic potential outcome of international banality – an earth engulfed in a surrealist monolith. While beautiful and breathtaking, the visionary imagery was in fact a criticism of modernism’s global invasion of the built environment. The renderings were never intended as realistic proposals, they simply warned the public that without opposition, criticism and/or an alternative, our urban and natural fabric may disappear.

Think of your most beloved work of architecture. Now imagine an urban condition as an infinite array of that singular work. It may be blobby, it may be sleek and simple, but it would be your only option for residence, entertainment, leisure, and any other activity. As a work you cherish, this may sound optimal or even utopic. Yet other inhabitants, now also obligated to occupy your ideal aesthetic, may not find it as surreal. Soon you too would realize how diluted your experiences had become. In the context of today’s design spectrum we face a similar invasion of uninflected design proposals. Urban design projects continue to be rendered in singularity as offices propose their ideal aesthetic over all aspects and scales of urban renewal. Projects continue to propose re-build before re-use, even in an era of sustainability. Sure, deep down every designer thinks his or her proposal can change the world. But there is no one “perfect” option. Is it not that very diversity which makes our great cities so great? Superstudio’s expression is only one premonition of the imprisonment caused by… more

Human Wu

Jonathan Hanahan