Blog Post < Previous | Next >
National Archives
Paradigm Shift - Part III: How Affordable Housing Need Powered the Modernist Movement
In 1900, about 2.3 million people, two-thirds of New York City’s population, lived in tenement housing, known as “cold-water flats.” The population density per square mile in Lower Manhattan at that time was greater than it is today. Living conditions were abominable.
National Archives
Tenement apartments often consisted of just two, small rooms - one for cooking and one for sleeping. As many as 18 people (multiple generations and families) lived in a unit. Some rooms didn’t have windows for ventilation and some “interior” apartments had no windows, at all. Most buildings had two common toilets, per floor, and many apartments lacked running water, having only a single hose spigot in the backyard from which to haul water.
Diseases spread quickly in tenement buildings and they were fire traps because people cooked on poorly-drafted, coal-burning stoves, and behind their brick facades, the floor and roof structures were made of wood.
All of the tenants were renters.
This concentration of people was particularly acute in European and East Coast American cities and the forces for change that it produced had seminal effects on architecture, planning, and housing design.
Modernism
The “Modern Movement” emerged in Europe around the turn of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1914. The dramatic shifts in art and architecture were heavily influenced by the political and social justice movements discussed in Paradigm Shift – Part II: Housing Un-affordability May Be Just Beginning. And the squalid living conditions, noted above, led early “modernist” architects to focus on housing.
Modernist designers were also heavily influenced by advancements in building technology and new materials and construction methods that emerged during the 1800s. They rejected traditional architectural styles with intricate details and ornamentation. But, it’s important to note that this dissatisfaction was not simply for aesthetic reasons but because the existing built environment failed to address the social and humanitarian needs of the era. Traditional housing was expensive to build and its design didn’t serve the needs of working families.
Early modernist architects were convinced that design and technology could transform society and improve living standards for all. They believed that new construction methods (concrete and steel), mass production, and prefabrication would help achieve this. They stressed simplicity, minimalism, and a functionalist aesthetic (“Form follows function” ~ the architect, Louis Sullivan, 1896).
Modernism prioritized human health, hygiene, and safety. Designs employed bold, stark, geometric forms, built using low-cost construction methods and materials such as concrete (concrete floors don’t burn). Designers also used glass and steel to maximize sunlight and fresh air in apartment units.
These were the basic ingredients that produced what the average person, today, would recognize as “modern architecture.”
Although there were many notable architects, whose work contributed to the modernist movement, going back as far as the Crystal Palace in London, in 1851, one man’s career epitomized the arc of the modernist movement. This was the work of Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, the Swiss-French architect, designer, painter, urban planner, and writer, who went by his chosen “starchitect” moniker, Le Corbusier.
One of Le Corbusier’s most influential and ultimately controversial, “utopian,” multi-family, residential concepts was the “Ville Radieuse” (“The Radiant City”), which he proposed in 1920.
Wikipedia
Corbusier imagined soaring, unadorned concrete towers (thus, the "Brutalist" moniker for the style) set in man-made "park-like" landscapes, which became an indelible template for modern urbanism.
(Note that the definition of a "park" for Corbusier and the modernist movement, particularly in Europe, was pretty grim. As opposed to some architects in the U.S., most notably Frank Lloyd Wright, who also envisioned a new way of living but whose work was fully immersed in nature and the local landscape, "nature" was pretty much an afterthought for modernists. In general, our current concerns about environmental impacts did not exist in this era.)
Corbusier's vision was mimicked by architects around the world and adopted for everything from stand-alone commercial office buildings to massive urban renewal projects, to this day.
Worst of all, Corbusier intended that central Paris would be torn down and replaced with his sparkling concrete and glass “ideal.” This horrific concept was evidence of the same kind of anti-establishment, “tear-it-all-down” mentality and disregard for historical norms that we see at both ends of the political spectrum, today, as discussed in Paradigm Shift – Part II: Housing Un-affordability May Be Just Beginning? -- A feverish desire for instant change and total transformation, similar to what drove government-sponsored “urban renewal” programs in the 1980s that obliterated much of the scale and character that make great cities what they are.
Corbusier’s “utopian vision” of stand-alone towers produced some of the most reviled developments in history, so much so that the concept became associated with everything that’s wrong with “affordable housing;” government-built, poorly-maintained, low-income units with high crime rates that were derogatorily referred to as “the projects.”
A notable example was Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, a 2,870-unit, low-income, multifamily housing project designed by world-famous architect Minoru Yamasaki that opened to great fanfare in 1954, only to be condemned and demolished in 1972, after decades of neglect.
HUD
After the novelty of Corbusier’s vision finally wore off in Western countries, it continued to be a housing standard in the post-war Soviet Union and lives on in its contemporary version, today, in China.
Ghost City in China
Pruitt-Igoe might have survived had it been nurtured with ongoing financial subsidies and proper management – as other projects have that were built using the same design concept. But it’s ironic ‘inhumanity’ aside, Corbusier’s vision also had another fatal flaw that has plagued low-income housing to this day.
Embedded in its conception is the conceit that gigantic, standalone housing (‘warehousing’) projects for the “poor” can succeed, while being completely segregated from everything around them.
The invention of mixed-use, multifamily housing
Multi-story, mixed-use, multifamily housing was invented by the Romans in the 1st century BC. Before that time, buildings existed that served multiple purposes but the Romans turned the concept into a standardized, repeatable model – somewhat like the 5 to 6-story, cookie-cutter apartment projects that have sprung up everywhere in California, today. Except, the Roman version was, arguably, better.
The Romans called the buildings “insulae,” and they built hundreds of them in Rome. By the end of the 1st century AD, the insulae housed most of the city’s population.
Insulae were typically 3 to 5 stories high with local shops, restaurants, and other businesses (tabernae) on the first floor (that had very high ceilings) and residential apartments, above. They typically had a central courtyard, for light and fresh air, that had fountains and gardens. Luxury units even had glazed windows, kitchens, latrines, and running water.
Apartment units varied in size and the buildings housed a diverse range of tenants, from lower-class citizens to wealthier individuals. Unlike today, the upper floors were less desirable due to the walk-up and fire safety concerns. (Even though the structure was built out of brick and concrete, the floors and roofs were built out of wood, and people cooked over open flames.)
The insulae were the first, mass-produced, affordable housing model and I would argue that, architecturally, they were as well designed as anything done since.
Romano Imperio
As opposed to the 20th-century modernist’s stark visions, insulae were seamlessly integrated into the fabric of the city and offered residents everything they needed within blocks of their homes.
The development of insulae was privately financed by groups of investors, who backed local builders. Sometimes, the builder/owner might also live in one of the units. Most of the units were rentals, though some occupants (who might also have been investors) owned their units; patricians from outside Rome (members of ruling noble families) would secure the most luxurious units and use them as their pied-à-terre.
However, after the collapse of the Roman Empire in about 475 AD, almost 500 years after the first insulae were built, the Roman’s innovative design concepts remained dormant for almost 1,500 years.
World Events Shape Affordable Housing Goals
In the U.S., the Great Depression and the years leading up to World War II derailed the artistic ambitions of modern architects. The government’s focus turned to helping homeowners stay in their homes (the U.S. Housing Act in 1937 created the FHA to provide financing) and, later, to help soldiers returning from the war purchase homes (The G.I. Bill), most of which were cookie-cutter tract housing in newly created suburbs.
History News Network
The Housing Act of 1949 also expanded the federal government's role in housing development. It authorized billions of dollars in mortgage guarantees, reduced-rate mortgages, and mortgage insurance, and the federal government began to finance, build, and manage low-income, and affordable, multifamily housing projects across the country.
By the mid-1960s, what was now called the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had developed, rehabilitated, and financed millions of housing units in cities and suburbs across the country.
By and large, during the late 1940s through the 1960s, the “architecture” of government-funded and subsidized housing in the U.S. was an afterthought, but it adopted modernists’ ideas about simplicity, functionality, low-cost, low-maintenance, and unadorned buildings for the masses; aesthetics in America would have to wait.
Meanwhile, as Europe was rising out of the ashes of WW II, devastated cities provided architects with a “clean slate.” Modernists were, once again, busy re-imaging the built environment and working on affordable housing solutions. And, once again, Le Corbusier was one of the thought leaders.
It appears he’d learned a lot since his earlier, stark visions and having studied Classical Architecture in his youth, he must have been aware of its accomplishments.
In the mid-1940s, Corbusier proposed what may have been the most important multifamily, mixed-use, affordable housing concept since the Romans. He called it the Unité d'Habitation.
It was a new, repeatable model for affordable, high-density living. The first one was completed in Marseille, France, in 1952.
Photograph by Catrina Beevor
The Unite’ was essentially a town within a building. Corbusier’s stated goal was to create a “vertical garden city” that combined community space and private living. He called it a “machine for living.” He said he was inspired by modern ocean liners that were both beautiful and functional and incorporated multiple uses.
The building had 330 apartment units (23 different types and sizes) and within its soaring, mid-rise, concrete structure, there were interior “shopping streets” with art galleries, shops and restaurants, social and medical services clinics, commercial office space, a hotel, a nursery school, communal gathering/working spaces, laundries, and a swimming pool and a running track and recreational facilities on the roof.
Photograph by Catrina Beevor
There was even a grocery store and a ‘groceries-to-your-door’ service. (A tenant would leave a shopping list in a two-way box near their front door and the groceries are delivered to their apartment the next day.)
The building’s organizational schema was equally innovative. Two-story units, accessed by interior “streets,” were staked in a three-dimensional, interlocking pattern. They spanned from one side of the building to the other, with double-height living spaces, enhancing cross-ventilation, natural light, and views.
This design reduced the number of corridors to one every third floor, greatly increasing the efficiency of the constructed space. To the best of my knowledge, this concept has never been repeated in other, mass-produced, apartment projects.
Click on the image to enlarge
Born out of observing a half century of socioeconomic upheaval, Corbusier addressed social equity and affordability in one, comprehensive architectural statement.
As such, Corbusier’s vision for affordable, mixed-use, multifamily living was a revelation. It was analogous to how the guitar had been around for centuries, and then Jimi Hendricks picked it up and everything changed.
Corbusier’s Unité was arguably the first, new, affordable housing model since the Roman insulae. The closest thing to its magnitude of novelty might be Habitat 67, by Moshe Safdie, in Montreal, Canada.
Wikipedia
Other Unité apartment complexes were completed in Europe, in Nantes-Rezé, France (1955), Berlin, Germany (1957), Briey-en-Forêt (1961), and in Firminy, France (1965). But the concept never gained traction in the U.S.
Unfortunately, in the years that followed, Corbusier’s design ideas were diluted; copying its superficial aesthetic for commercial purposes, devoid of its substantive, social equity intentions.
However, for all its well-deserved praise for breaking new ground and addressing social justice, the Unite’ concept fails to address and offers us little guidance to address some of our most pressing, contemporary housing challenges.
It intentionally retained its “apart from” juxtaposition to the city -- a mindset that has resulted in so much visual chaos in our urban landscape, today, with so many standalone designs all competing for attention. As such, Unite’ ignored its context and the character of the surrounding community, just as Ville Radieuse had, 30 years earlier.
It also failed to consider the need for modestly scaled, infill, affordable housing, financed with private capital (Unité was government-funded), which constitutes the majority of our development opportunities in most cities across the country, today.
To its detriment, the design of the Unité also evidenced its early Futurist, technology-obsessed influences that commoditized human beings and reduced the design of living spaces to a rigid system of dimensions based on mathematical minimums; a way of thinking that has become deeply embedded in the design of "low-income warehousing" to this day.
Le Corbusier called this the "Modular Man."
This stark concept was devoid of any human emotion, diversity, or individuality. It was ultimately an pointless absurdity, similar to how gigantic tech companies think about their users, today: the obsession to reduce the entirety of the human experience to "data."
Finally, the Unité concept never contemplated any form of ownership. Perhaps, this was because the need to house people seemed so pressing at that time (as it is, today) or because, in Europe, being a lifetime renter was more accepted than in the U.S., where owning one’s own home has always been one of the foundations the “American Dream.”
Lately, however, many are questioning whether the American Dream even exists anymore; not just because the price of housing is high compared to what the average family earns, but because of the dearth of programs and legislation that encourage and enable home ownership, which has proven to be the most durable and reliable way to build wealth and financial security.
Next – Paradigm Shift – Part IV - The Assault on the American Dream
For more, see;
Paradigm Shift: Rethinking Housing Affordability
Paradigm Shift - Part II: Housing Un-affordability May Be Just Beginning
Bob Silvestri is a long-time Mill Valley resident, the Editor of the Marin Post, and the founder and president of Community Venture Partners, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit community organization dedicated to bringing the community's voice to government decision-making and funded exclusively by individuals and nonprofit donors. Please consider donating now to support our work.