Le Corbusier, Alvar Aalto and Mies van der Rohe

In this blog select two architects (Le Corbusier, MVDR, Aalto, Khan) and discuss their methods to generate and develop the open plan in their projects. Refer to readings, internet, projects in your post.
Did the open plan mean different things to different people?

Le Corbusier

Le Corbusier was one of the pioneers of the open plan, when he named it one of his five points for a new architecture. For him, the open plan should have floor space that is free to be configured into rooms without concern for supporting walls. He believed that while the exterior displayed an architectural language, the interior saticified all the functional needs. He showcased the aesthetic qualities that were possible given a free plan. He was also intrigued with the idea that the machine had the ability to “display proportions of volume and material” which would in turn create order; something modern industrial society was looking for.

 For example, in his Villa Savoye, the concept was to have a machine for living. The house was created with a modular design that portrayed each of Le Corbusier's five points. The first point, "pilotis" is expressed as the house is raised on stilts to separate it from the earth, and to efficiently use the land. It is free of historical ornament, and instead very abstract in sculptural design. The color is pure: white on the outside with planes of subtle color in the interior living areas. The interior plan is very open, but the transitions between floors are dynamic, making use of spiral staircases and ramps. He includes ribbon windows, which mimic industrial architecture and provide openness and light. It's equipt with an integral garage and a roof garden that houses both plantings and architectural shape.

Villa Savoye http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/savoye/index.htm

 I think what brought these ideas to the forfront of Le Corbusier's legacy was his interest in urban planing and low income houseing. He believed that the unornamented, open buildings he designed would contribute to clean, bright, healthy cities. Instead of using ornamentation and complex, ridged spacial arrangements, his designs enabled space to be used however the occupant saw fit, without structure getting in the way.  

For example, the Dom-ino Frame is concieved as being independent of the spacial planing. It is a means towards the industrialization of the building process. Its logical independence frees artistic form from its traditional dependence on tectonices, and is now presented as an industrial product

Dom-ino Frame http://www.answers.com/topic/le-corbusier

Mies Van Der Rohe
Mies's designs focused on extreme simplicity. Like Viollet le Duc, he believed in using rationality to drive the creative process; however, he was very much an industrialist similar to Semper. He named this architecture "skin and bones" and accomplished this clarity and simplicity by using industrial materials such as steel and glass. He used a grid, which enabled minimal framework and structure to make open and free flowing spaces. Mies completely abandoned ornament, and instead relied on the materials and geometry to create space that spoke the modern language. 

Mies drew inspiration for his open planed projects from many sources. He valued the ideology of efficient sculptural assembly from the Russian Constructivists. These ideas are portrayed through the placement and materials of walls and columns. From the De Stijl art movement, he valued the use of rectangular shapes and planes, clean lines, and selective use of color. He was interested in the abstraction of space as in the De Stijl paintings. For example with the Barcelona Pavilion, he extended space above and beyond the interior walls, and layered functional spaces. Mies purposely left room for interpretation in these spaces. Adolf Loos was an architect that Mies admired for his disregard for ornament. Mies took Loos's ideas and used them to create simple structure and let his materials be straightforward. 

Barcelona Pavilion (http://bryndakirk.files.wordpress.com/)

Mies also valued the functionality he found in that of FLW's work. However, Mies did not always comply with the functional needs of the user. For example, there is much controversy with the Farnsworth house, because of its lack of privacy. Personally, I can appreciate the openness and the way Mies was trying to connect the house with its surroundings. 

Farnsworth House http://www.theconservationcenter.com

Alvar Aalto
Similarly to Le Corbusier, Aalto retained the empty language of modernism, seeking to fill it with new metaphors. Like Mies, Aalto was  influenced by functionalism, but Aalto valued it in a higher and more dramatic way. The function on the inside drove the shape of the outside. He was an advocate for the synthesis of form, material,  and aesthetics. Aalto steers away from “machinism” in favor of a more natural organization.  His work draws on the forms of the natural world to express growth and movement as a metaphor of human life. Aalto also values the use of spaces that open up to courtyards.

For example,  Villa Mairea combines different living zones within a single space. Aalto uses screens of wooden poles in random clusters to mimic the fir forest visible through wall to wall plate glass windows, and creates a synthesis of modern technology and nature. The abruptly juxtaposed elements and metaphors of nature were a radical departure from the linear logic of the New Objectivity.

Villa Mairea http://www.mid-century-home.com

The Open Plan
I believe the open plan did mean different things to different people. With these three architects, they used the open plan to varying degrees, or to accomplish different goals. Le Corbusier used the open plan to create an order to his buildings. He named it as one of the five points as if it was systematic. Mies used the free plan to emphasize simplicity in form, structure, space, and function. While Aalto used the open plan where it was most functional, or to meet certain needs of the site or occupants. I enjoy certain aspects of all three of these architects design principles. I find it interesting that each of them can have very similar ideas, but use them in such different ways.