Have a close look at Le Corbusier’s drawing of the Radiant City above. How would you characterize his vision of the ideal city? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the layout you see here?
-
Brandon Davis
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
natashap, 
congo96, 
eddietastic, and 22 others are discussing.
msmith92 8:50 pm on March 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would say that his vision of the ideal city is more about building up than out. Obviously, a major advantage of this is that you have large green spaces in between the industrial buildings. In terms of actual land space used for buildings, it is very small because most of the population density is concentrated above the ground level. This probably means that although there is a lot of green space, it is all public as people would not have access to private yard space due to the high-rise nature of the living spaces.
jenniefrench 5:10 pm on March 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The first thing I saw about this drawing is how uniform the buildings all are. It is as if all the spacing, all the design is meant to be fairly uniform. The positive – it appears to be ‘egalitatian’ – everyone lives in a similar looking place regardless of income. The negative – it doesn’t foster the cultural diversity that makes a city (an Ecotopia) function and be so vibrant.
jonl 11:48 am on March 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As stated in the post previously, uniformity is probably the main characteristic of Le Corbusier’s drawing. An advantage is having a lot of and easier control over the spaces, particularly for maintenance (it’ll all be the same). A disadvantage will likely involve housing prices and probably overall property value of the city. In addition to looking pretty dull and boring, people might get lost with how similar every corner looks.
roypat 5:13 pm on March 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It seems as if symmetry is a key component of his design/planning, as is uniformity. The buildings are all the same, he goes with a very high-density concept. I actually quite agree with this idea of building up rather than outwards, and I think that high density is a good thing as long as it can be interspersed with appropriate mixed-use concepts as well as green space. All the lines are very straight as well. It reminds me of how certain streets in Paris were planned – very long, and straight, with a clear path. However, there are inefficiences in transportation here. With everything planned in squares or rectangles, if transportation doesn’t take the hypotenuse, it’s an efficient way to reach a destination.
sharonshi 11:55 am on March 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As said above, the layout of the city seems very symmetrical and uniform. To be honest, it all seemed very dull. Every part of the city will be the same, eradicating all sources of uniqueness and individuality that each city embodies. The photo attached was labeled “The Radiant City”. However, with that the photo showed, it seemed not to be radiant, but plain. An advantage of such a layout is the fact that large green areas can be included. Since buildings are built upwards instead of outwards, there will be more area for the “green spaces”.
emilym 10:13 am on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The tall buildings in Le Corbusier’s “radiant city” would make the city densified, ever though he left space for green spaces within the city. The uniformity of the buildings seem to imply an egalitarian approach in which people of all income levels would be living together. This uniformity, however, do not seem very realistic for any city, and does not give the city much character. It is as if one square block was just copied over and over until the needs of the population are met.
katehaxt 1:40 pm on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I can imagine an ultra-planned city like Le Corbusier’s being really efficient. I think you’d get low environmental footprint and egalatarian living conditions which would presumably lead to less crime, less violence and less substance abuse. Also if you have a city where everyone has a safe, efficient home I’m sure you’ll get happier and better looked after children, more people in work (leading to a bigger tax base and better community services..). I acknowledge that the city looks dull as anything and I’d miss character filled neighbourhood as well but I think that we should acknowledge that those are pretty middle class concerns. To people living in the streets or in sub-standard housing it would be life-changing to be included in an apartment building with everyone else.
alyumam 9:47 pm on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Have a close look at Le Corbusier’s drawing of the Radiant City above. How would you characterize his vision of the ideal city? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the layout you see here?
Le Corbusier`s Radian City, as others have recognize, seems to have a uniform as well as a symmetric shape, (depending on the chosen area ). Overall, to my taste, a bit monotonous.
A positive element i find in this city are the roads or highways, or what it seems to be such. They seem to be well distributed and running closely along what it also seems to be buildings. In addition, the cross shaped buildings make me think they might have some function, however I wonder what this one could be. Despite of that, the roofs have no green areas and the bottom parts seem to be have few trees.
I guess since this image was created in 1935 does not represent the todays` interests and needs population has.
youngblutt 7:38 am on April 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As stated above, Le Corbusier’s city is dull in it’s uniformity but my thinking is a bit more like katehaxt, in that human creative expression can be found in a plethora of varieties, that buildings might resemble each other is really a middle class consideration and probably shouldn’t be a major component of future urban planning, especially if we consider ourselves to be on the verge of irreversible environmental degradation and broadening social inequality. Sustainability, affordability and efficiency should reign and we can find ways to outlet creative expression, such as a return to interest in nature’s creative expressions.
bgibson 12:42 pm on April 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This vision of the ideal city is definitely characterized by high density apartment buildings surrounded by large green spaces. There is certainly an element of symmetry in the design of the city, as each residential complex each seems to be allocated one “block” of green space. If nothing else, the symmetry and lack of variety in the city may make it confusing to navigate (especially for older people), which could keep people off the streets. I imagine that although all the buildings are drawn with identical designs these could easily be replaced with unique designs, the main idea I get from this illustration is Le Corbusier’s ideal of high density housing surrounded by green areas. Like Alyumam noticed, there does appear to be a highway running along the bottom of the illustration, quite close to what looks like the city center. The city is clearly optimized for travel by automobile (crossing 6 lanes of highway on foot… no thanks) and I don’t see any evidence of light rail or other public transport.
brenden 9:15 pm on April 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s vision of the ideal city is characterized by high volume housing (apartments), separated by green spaces. Le Corbusier also strongly advocated the consolidation of roadways into a limited highway system and high speed public transit. There is a very symmetrical design to the ideal city which I find to be visually pleasing. However if every city were to look the exact same, our society would look like something Orwell’s 1984. The advantages of Le Corbusier’s ideal city are an increased amount of green space for all, decreased c02 emissions (through the consolidation of transit and increase of plants which trap c02). The notable disadvantages are the loss of individuals ability to own their own land and live separately. I feel that it would be a tough design to implement as individuals generally like to have privacy and live with some distance separating themselves from others (ex. living in the suburbs or countryside).
paige 9:48 pm on April 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I can see what he was thinking and why. But that image just makes me think of congestion. Building up for housing is great, and green space is great, but what happens on a sunny day when all of those people who live there go outside to enjoy the green space, they will be piled up just as they are in the living situation. Transit is good but there will be incredible rush hours and noise. It just makes me a little overwhelmed to be honest.
Jason 2:39 am on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I feel as though Le Corbusier’s vision of centralized high-rise buildings for maximizing population and minimizing land use make a lot of sense. However, there may be some issues. For instance, high building could have a lot of safety problems in the case of an earthquake. Furthermore, I feel that building cities in this way will only get us so far. Just because we are building up instead of out doesn’t mean that our cities will be sustainable. We still will need land for agriculture.
sampethick 8:20 am on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As pretty much everyone has already noted the picture gives you a sense of uniformity when looking at it. It’s esthetically pleasing, but one thing that popped into my head when thinking of an answer to this question is that cities are full of the widest variety of people who all range from the widest variety of wealth. So one problem that might occur from Le Corbusier’s Radiant City is that if all of the housing is the same we’d have to assume that the pricing is pretty much the same; and we know that in cities there is housing for people who have low income and housing for people with a higher income, so where does Le Corbusier’s housing fall? With his ideal city will there be anywhere for people who can’t afford to live in these buildings? I do though understand the appeal, it looks really nice, there is lots of green space and it definitely seems efficient.
Joyce Lin 1:19 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The uniformity that everyone above as well as myself, have noticed is part of the standardization of space characteristic of modern architecture. LCB’s vision involves increasing density by maximizing the height of buildings on minimal space and making simple forms using glass and concrete. The buildings are identical and geographically anonymous. That is my critique of the biggest flaw in LCB’s vision. This vision removes character and culture and the history of a landscape. This can contribute to an identity loss for its inhabitants.
On the other hand, I appreciate LCB’s vision of making open space available to people and building high rises to maximize light and fresh air. In its uniformity and standardization, LCB’s vision offers an equality in urban spaces that are so often imbalanced and polarized.
erikaw 2:51 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The first thing that came to mind when looking at this drawing is that Le Corbusier focussed on green space and efficiency of living (capitalizing on vertical living), but that all of these spaces are very public oriented. Instead of each person having a small plot of land (aka a yard) where they can do gardening and grow food and whichever other leisurely activities they desire, it is instead a larger shared space. In my opinion these spaces would not be utilized as efficiently because they are shared, and people may not have the same interest or respect for them as they would if it were a private space for them and their families. The only trouble with this is that it takes up more space and would then be set up more like a modern day suburb, where most people don’t utilize their gardening space anyways.
tsung 8:01 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s concept of a modern city encompasses green spaces, seperated functions as well as density and efficiency. After looking at the photo I do notice these traits in his ideal city. The amount of green spaces is notable, however the city seems rather congested, dull and very inefficient in my opinion. Large roads separate buildings and it feels as if large amount of cars and volume of people are concentrated in the centre making the space very congested. I feel as if he is trying to bring nature closer to the people and the core of the city, however these green spaces don’t look like “small-scale” garden but rather, very large and takes a great amount of space. I think he is trying to incorporate the idea of a community garden into the downtown core which would be quite nice if done right.
I do notice the great distance between buildings and the use of large highways as a means to connect and move people. His ideal city doesn’t seem to promote sustainability as these roads are the main means of moving around. Rather than using large highways that take up a great amount of space, it would be better to use this space to construct and bring functions of the city together. Le Corbusier indicated that an ideal city would have separate functions, however, the city can be much more efficient with people being able to walk and gather things within a certain area. Currently, his ideal city requires great distances between the different functions.
nytsuen 8:49 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
His ideal city is very symmetrical, aligned and is obviously building up rather than out. The city seems to be split evenly into 4 squares with the highway in between and the high buildings will be able to accommodate a growing population. However, it is SO structured and symmetrical that it seems to lose out on any character or flare. Every city, like Vancouver, has its own perks. A beautiful recreational center, a mall, a skating rink, a museum, monument and a beach. All these things MAKE the city and MAKE Vancouver what it is. Without them, the city would be lifeless and unappealing. Le Corbusier does a good job in accommodating as many people as he can; however, it feels very prison-like. A prison can accommodate many people and is very uniformed, but it lacks pretty much everything.
Danni 9:30 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The standardization of architectures promoted the uniformity of the city appearance. The increasing amount of high-rises leaded to a limited space could be occupied by each person. The view of the ideal city was so limited, but it collaborated a large amount of population into a limited amount of space. It was good that people get closer to each other, life become more convenient. More green could be put in between, if it is possible. However, privacy could become a concern because of those kind of high-rises layout. The closer the people located may evoke conflict as well.
midara 9:39 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
His standardized planning of city indeed holds more population than the garden city planning, and I guess one advantage of this is the better interconnectivity between areas because the purpose of different lands are planned and located carefully. However, the uniformity of living area may not suit everyone’s lifestyle; I see least diversity in living condition, and lack of personal/individual spacing in his design. Moreover, highrise building and architectures have to be carefully planned and constructed, and may not suit every continent/land. Regions with frequent earthquakes, seashores, deserts, and areas where the problem of soil liquidification exist are not suitable for such city planning.
phoebe 2:03 am on April 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s drawing of the Radiant City looks very standarized and uniform. I agree with everyone else that it seems rather dull and restrained seeming to force everyone to live in the same cookie-cutter apartments with equally spaced similar public land. I think a huge disadvantage in this scheme is that it forces everyone to live too closely together and gives no private land for freedom. I think a sense of freedom along with the idea “My house, my kingdom, my rules” is one of the central feelings of middle-class North Americans and to force everyone to live in apartments and take away their backyards/ private space seems to be invading on their privacy.
Also, many apartments have no pet rules which would raise the concern of those living with dogs/cats. True, there are also many apartments that allow pets, but they are usually more expensive than those that don’t which would be a concern for lower- income families. Not only do they have to live more closely together, they might also have to give up a loved family pet because they are not able to rent a place that allows dogs.
Keaton Briscoe 3:29 pm on April 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think his vision of the ideal city shows that he wanted his city to be spaced instead of cluttered. I also think that his design exemplifies uniformity in the buildings. It is also very obvious that he wanted to build veritcally, rather than horizontally, which promotes more space for green living. However, I think that the space he has opened up because of the high rise buildings will eventually be used by all the people who live in thes high rise buildings and the city will eventually become too densified and very cluttered.
eddietastic 3:43 pm on April 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I feel like his city is beautiful in the sense that it is very put together and symmetric which sows how architecture has really developed over the years. furthermore, the plan for the buildings which seem to have changed from big vertical palaces and mansions into high apartments which are more efficient with the increase of population that we see today
congo96 12:30 pm on April 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s idéal city is an efficient one. Space is used to host as many people as possible while allowing for green spaces. The advantages is that you can have a higher density population without necessarily having a larger city in spatial terms. As far as disadvantages go cities with high population like that are extremely crowded even with high speed transit systems. New York is probably a close realization to Le Corbusier’s vision and people talk about how you can just lose yourself and how nobody really cares about people since there’s so many. An example of that is the often told story of the man dying from stab wounds on the sidewalk and no one stopping to call 911.
natashap 10:14 am on April 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It’s an interesting concept – building up rather than out. One of the main advantages of his concept is that not very much space is needed, yet there is still green space. It seems to be the opposite of efficient though, to have residential, business and recreation in different areas of the cities.