a promenade through other spaces

126
 the sleep of rigour

9/
A PROMENADE THROUGH OTHER the whole these developments remain unexamined by critics and
ignored by architects. That this is so may not be due entirely to lack
SPACES of will as much as to the conflict between the existing modes of
criticism based urban models and the characteristics of ‘non-
Preface
urban’ spaces.
The architectural discourse around modernism and postmodernism
This essay is a part of a larger study into certain architectural
has perpetuated the idea of a classical urban model as the norm
concepts and their relationships to urban and non-urban spaces. It
against which we measure the successes and failures of alternative
will focus mainly on concepts and theories of movement. The first
models and new and emergent spatial concepts. This is
part will examine the picturesque promenade and its re-invention
compounded by the tendency to frame the urban model as the
in modern architectural theory and practice.3 This present part will
positive term in these evaluations.1 At the same time it is now
pick up on the idea of the architectural promenade and examine
commonplace knowledge that the concept of the city has
how it relates to a particular suburban context. The object of study
changed radically since the beginning of modernism. Most
is the architectural promenade in the La Roche-Jeanneret houses
discussions, focusing on in methodology rather than content, have
designed by Le Corbusier in what was then a suburb of Paris.4 The
left the concept of space mostly untouched. When discussed, it is
promenade will be analysed with respect to this context and
always the space of the city, urban space, which comes under
against other theories of space and movement such as those of
question. While this is going on changes are happening in all those
Henri Lefebvre, Michel de Certeau, Wladislaw Strzeminski and
spheres which I will group under the rubric of ‘non-urban’ space.
Katarzyna Kobro. The final part will continue the study of
This includes the suburbs, edge cities, ‘pedestrian pocket’ towns,
movement and non-urban spaces into the present examining the
urban peripheries, the rural landscape, industrial parks and natural
works of contemporary architects who have been influenced by
landscapes. Some of these changes are being brought about by
these theories and who have worked extensively in non-urban
phenomena such as ‘big box’ retail development and new town
contexts.5
developments based on the principles of ‘new urbanism.’2 Yet on

1 “Despite the size and constant growth of the body of work on the concept of
modernity and the modern city, there has been little discussion of an area of the city
which was indubitably a site of modernity: the middle class suburb.” Kathleen Adler,
The Suburban, The Modern and ‘une Dame de Passy,' The Oxford Art Journal, 12:1,
1989, p.3. I would include here, as an example of postmodern discourse based on the
urban model, most of the material written on cyberspace and cybercities. See, for
example, the comparisons between the concept of the ‘flaneur’ and the ‘web surfer.’
2 ‘Big box’ development is a phenomenon in which large warehouse-sized retail
outlets are built with fixed economic life-spans as short as 10-15 years. ‘New Urbanism’
is the name given to new town developments with higher densities than traditional
suburbs and often including mixed use program. There is very little literature on the ‘big
box’ phenomena apart from a few newspaper articles. Most of my information was
obtained from a study packet prepared by the Municipal Arts Society of New York. This
was issued to selected architects to prepare a study of the impact of ‘big box’
development within city limits. For ‘new urbanism’ see Pedestrian Pocket Book, A New
Suburban Design Strategy, Doug Kelbaugh, ed., Princeton Architectural Press, NY,
1989.
3 See Chapter 8.
4 The site is now within one of the outer arrondissements (16th) which constitutes the
city of Paris proper.
5 This paper never materialised in its intended form although Chapter 10 follows the
intention to a great extent.

127
a promenade through other spaces

Introduction to design.9 This sketch hints at one of the major differences

The La Roche-Jeanneret houses are the first in the series of mature between La Roche and the other houses.
house designs that Le Corbusier built in the 1920’s.6 The house was
built for a wealthy art collector, Raoul La Roche, who had both Le
Corbusier’s and Amedee Ozenfant’s paintings in his collection.7 It is
located at the end of a cul-de-sac in Autieul. It is not
distinguishable from Le Corbusier’s other houses built in the twenties
by its clientele (upper middle class), use of the five points (pilotis,
free plan, free facade, fenêtre en longueur, roof garden), or its
location (upper middle class suburb). Programmatically it is
distinguished by the inclusion of a picture gallery. What I will
propose is that the house is unique in this set in that it displays a
certain attitude towards space and its site which are rejected by Le
Corbusier in the designs for the houses that followed,8 and that this
attitude arose from both the non-urban character of its site and the
confluence of Le Corbusier’s ideas at that time about architecture,
some of which were in development and others which were in the
process of being abandoned.

Description of the House

In the sketch illustrating Le Corbusier’s four typologies, (fig. 1) the
first, based on the La Roche house, is described as the easiest one

Figure 1 Le Corbusier’s ‘Four Typologies’ sketch

6 The villa contains two residences, the smaller being for Le Corbusier’s cousin. In this
paper I will concentrate on the portion built for La Roche. There are implications in the
presence of a second unit and to the fact that at various times during the design
phase there were as many as four units proposed for the site. These, however, fall
outside the scope of this paper. See Tim Benton, The Villas of Le Corbusier, 1920-1930,
Yale University Press, New Haven, 1987, for the history of the design of the house.
7 Amedee Ozenfant was Le Corbusier’s collaborator in the journal Esprit Nouveau.
Ozenfant’s house and studio, designed by Le Corbusier, is the other ‘first’ villa often
cited in historical texts. Ozenfant’s house, however, does not utilise the free plan, roof
garden or use of pilotis. For this reason it is not seen as part of the series which play with
variations on the theme of the ‘five points.’ It does contain, however, a fully worked
out architectural promenade.
8 See appendix for list of villas considered in the series.
The remaining three typologies are all inscribed within a pre-given
volume, while the first has no perimeter constraint. The program is
free to distort its perimeter to satisfy the needs of the interior
program. This has conesquences for the relationship between the
exterior and the interior, and hence for the status of the relationship
9 ‘Genre plutôt facile, pittoresque, mouvementé...’ from Oeuvre Complète de 1910-
1929, Le Corbusier et Pierre Jeanneret, Verlag, Zurich, 10th ed., 1974. The second type is
described as ‘tres difficile,’ the third ‘tres facile, practique, combinable,’ and the fourth
‘tres genereux, on affirme a l’exterier une voloute architecturale...’

128

between the house as an object and its site as a field. Because of
the varying volumes and perimeter shape, the house is freer and
more able to ‘fit’ into its context. For example, the gallery forms an
‘el’ which ends the cul-de-sac while the projecting bay at the
opposite end marks the beginning of the negative volume of
space captured by this ‘el.' (fig. 2) In addition, there is an
indentation behind the gallery in order to preserve an existing tree.
Other indentations along the back of the residential portion allow
light in from the south. These manipulations serve to break down
the massing and inhibit reading the house as a pure volume or
unified statement.
Figure 2 La Roche as seen from the cul-de-sac
The Influence of De Stijl
In addition to these gestures there are other, more significant,
aspects which distinguish the La Roche house. During the design
process, Le Corbusier became acquainted with the work of De Stijl
painters and architects through the exhibit Les Architects du
Groupe ‘De Styl’ at L’Effort Moderne Automne held in Paris in 1923.
Bruno Reichlin has documented how the design of the La Roche
house was modified after Le Corbusier saw this exhibit.10 Changes
included widening the window areas so that these would no longer
read as openings in the wall, but rather as planes. These changes
10 Bruno Reichlin, ‘Le Corbusier vs. De Stijl,’ in De Stijl et l’Architecture en France, Yve-
Alain Bois, Jean-Paul Rayon, Bruno Reichlin, and Nancy Troy, (eds.) Pierre Mardaga,
Liège, 1985.
the sleep of rigour
begin to make ambiguous the difference between the interior and
the exterior by eroding the sense of enclosure. (fig. 3) At this point
the house begins to resemble less a carved object and more a
manipulation of space by the placement of planes. This kind of
manipulation further allies the house with the spatial theories of De
Stijl. Gerrit Rietveld explains:
“If, for a particular purpose, we separate, limit and bring into a human
scale a part of the unlimited space, it is (if all goes well) a piece of
space brought to life as reality.”11
Figure 3 view outwards from inside the triple height entry hall
Rietveld’s house for Mrs. Schröder-Schräder demonstrates this
attitude towards space, as does Theo van Doesburg’s unrealised
project, Maison d’Artiste. In these two projects the interior space is
developed as a piece of the exterior space framed between
planes. (figs. 4-5)
11 Gerrit Rietveld, ‘View of life as a background for my work,’ in T.M. Brown, The work
of G. Rietveld, architect, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1958, p.162.
129
a promenade through other spaces
Figure 4 Rietveld Schroder House
Figure 5 van Doesburg Maison Particuliere
Kurt Forster has interpreted the La Roche house in a similar way:
“Entrance into the [cul-de-sac] is also a conceptual entrance into the
sphere of Le Corbusier’s architectural definition of space. The
continuous pattern of the fenestration and the countermanding
displacement of the facade plane strongly suggest a reading of the
outer walls of the building as mere membranes. During the early
twenties Le Corbusier came to think of facades as screens with only
minimal volumetric definition.”12
The house is not constituted as an object in space, but as a portion
of space made visible, an alteration of the already existing space
of the cul-de-sac. Neither of the preceding houses, Besnus and
Ozenfant, displays this open and planar definition of space. (figs. 6-
7) More significantly, none of the houses that followed used this
concept of space either. The question remains, why did Le
Corbusier experiment with this spatial concept and in this house
only?
12 Kurt Forster, ‘Antiquity and Modernity in the La Roche-Jeanneret Houses of 1923,’
Oppositions no. 15/16, Winter/Spring 1979, quoted in Richard A. Etlin, ‘A paradoxical
avant-garde, Le Corbusier’s villas of the 1920’s,’ in Architectural Review, January 1987,
no. 1079, p.22.
130
Figure 6 Villa Besnus
Figure 7 Villa Ozenfant
The ‘Fifth’ Type and the City
To answer this we need to propose the idea of a fifth type in Le
Corbusier’s taxonomy of house types. This fifth type is represented
by the Villas Cook and Planeix, both nearly cubic in proportion and
inserted into continuous street facades. This infill strategy is
characteristic of dense city fabrics and delineates a particular
spatial concept of the city. If we consider that the innermost and
densest parts of the city are also its most chaotic, noisiest, and
active zone then we begin to appreciate the importance given to
the ‘urban facade.’ This facade represents the division between
the public sphere of the street and the private space of the interior.
With a domestic program this membrane takes on an added
significance; it is the barrier between the city and the place of the
individual, the idea of home, of reflection and rest. Ambiguity
between inside and outside are not qualities which are
encouraged by the space of the city. For this reason, urban
facades are often conceived as opaque, thick barriers, a threshold
to be carefully controlled. This was not, however, the case in the
quiet cul-de-sac where the La Roche house is situated. However, it

does not explain entirely why Le Corbusier was able to entertain
the idea of an interpenetration of exterior and interior spaces.
The Flirtation with Sitte
Richard Etlin has shown that early in his career Le Corbusier was
influenced by Camillo Sitte’s book City Planning According to
Artistic Principles.13 Le Corbusier prepared a manuscript on urban
planning, in which he used Sittesque street designs based on
picturesque planning principles. Here the street is considered a
promenade space, hence the interest in it as a landscape. Etlin
writes, “[Le Corbusier] was very taken with this version of an urban
architectural promenade.”14 We will come shortly to examine the
architectural promenade, but we can note that if the street is part
of the promenade, then it must be considered spatially. This means
affecting and relating the built structure to the spaces that lead to
it. It begins to explain why Le Corbusier was sympathetic to ideas
which would allow him to open up the closed volumes of the
house to the spaces of the cul-de-sac. Although this strategy may
not be desirable in the context of the inner city, the quiet cul-de-
sac was the perfect site for experimenting with the idea of an
extended promenade.
We can note here also, that Le Corbusier did not repeat this idea
of an extended promenade. This can be explained in two ways.
First, Le Corbusier later changed his mind about picturesque
streetscapes. He attacked Sittesque planning ideas with the
following:
“Man walks straight because he has a goal: he knows where he’s
going. He has decided to go somewhere, and he walks straight there.
The donkey zigzags and dawdles, absent-mindedly, zigzagging to keep
clear of the big stones, to evade sloping ground, to get in to the shade:
he takes the least possible pains.
13 Richard A. Etlin, op.cit. p.22. The first essay to deal with Le Corbusier’s relationship to
the ideas of Camillo Sitte is H. Allen Brooks, ‘Jeanneret and Sitte: Le Corbusier’s Earliest
Ideas on Urban Design,’ in Helen Searing, ed., In Search of Modern Architecture: A
Tribute to Henry-Russell Hitchcock, New York and Cambridge, Mass, 1982.
14 Ibid.
the sleep of rigour
The donkey has laid out all the cities on the continent, including
Paris...
The religion of the donkey path has just been set up.
The movement started in Germany, the result of a wrong-headed
book by Camillo Sitte on town-planning, glorifying the curve and
demonstrating its peerless beauties.
The curving street is the way for donkeys, the straight street is the
way for men.”15
In this rejection we can see that the street can no longer be
considered a space for promenading, it is a space of rational
movement.
Second, few of his other houses are on sites which provide the right
conditions for an extended promenade and an appropriation of
the exterior space as integral. In the cases in which the site could
have been manipulated to provide these, such as at Garches and
Savoie, he did not do so. At Villa Savoie, Beatriz Colomina has
shown that the site is subservient to the house.
“In framing the landscape the house places the landscape into a
system of categories. The house is a mechanism for classification. It
collects views...The house can be in any place.”16
The site is taken in by views, and does not have the dialectical
relationship between site and house that is developed at the La
Roche house. (fig. 8) At both Garches and Savoie, despite the
complete freedom that the sites provided, the exterior spaces are
dealt with rationally. These exterior spaces are the spaces of the
rational intellect (“You have got to think ahead, to the result”), it is
a space where expedience counts; it is the space of the urban
mind. (fig. 9)
15 These extracts are taken from Maurice Besset, Le Corbusier, To Live with Light, Skira,
Geneva and Architectural Press, London, 1987 p.151. Their original sources are not
cited.
16 Beatriz Colomina, ‘The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism,’ Beatriz Colomina (ed.),
Sexuality and Space, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1992, p.113-4. The
arguments that Colomina presents are not without their problems, and even in these
short extracts there are conclusions that I find problematic. However, these comments
come closest to communicating the relationship between the house and its site that I
am after.
131
a promenade through other spaces
Figure 8 framed view at Savoie
Figure 9 view of exterior of Savoie
The La Roche House and the Architectural Promenade
Before continuing with questions about the spatial specificity of the
La Roche house and its site, it is necessary to take a closer look at
Le Corbusier’s idea of the architectural promenade.
Formal Characteristics of the Promenade
For Le Corbusier the promenade is not functional concept but an
organisational one. It is also the process by which one discovers
several of the other preoccupations in his work; the natural ground,
the ‘double height’ space and the roof garden as a reconstituted
ground. These other items form the frame for the promenade, so
that although the promenade is not necessarily a single route
(there are often different paths and ways of moving) it is bound
symbolically within the system.
“You enter: the architectural spectacle at once offers itself to the eye.
You follow an itinerary and the perspectives develop with great
variety, developing a play of light on the walls or making pools of
shadow. Large windows open up views of the exterior where the
architectural unity is reasserted...Here, reborn for our modern eye,
are historic architectural discoveries: the pilotis, the long windows,
the roof garden, the glass facade.”17
17 Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, Oeuvre Complète de 1910-1929, Verlag, Zurich,
10th ed., 1974, translation from Tim Benton, op.cit., p.43
132
The roof garden, a new man-made ground, is always the
termination of the promenade which begins at the ground now
given over to circulation (rationalised space). The relinquished
ground and the piece of relocated ‘nature’ on the roof constitute
opposite terms within which the house is framed and explored by
the promenade.
The La Roche house, with its unique spatial conception has a
different promenade than that of Le Corbusier’s other houses.
Because the other houses establish some ‘distance’ from their
respective sites the promenade becomes a hermetic device,
striving towards a formal unity that is begun on the exterior. The
promenade is put to work to:
“...classify clearly and simply the ‘architectural events’ which occur at
every stage of the promenade, to envelop the complexity of it in a
‘unity’ which would transform the house - itself a simple architectural
event situated in an always infinitely complex site - into an element of
order and serenity.”18
At La Roche, however, two conditions work against unity. The first is
the integration of the street as part of the space of the
promenade. Richard Etlin suggests that the promenade at La
Roche does not begin at the front door but at the entry to the cul-
de-sac.
“The architectural promenade in turn began upon entering the cul-de-
sac, ordered according to Sittesque principles.”19
The promenade is thereby not working towards the unity of the
house, but the integration of the house and its site. The second
condition is the way in which the promenade (along with the triple
height entry hall) relates the interior and exterior from inside the
house. The bridge passage, crossing the hall, is framed on one side
by a glazed wall and by an opaque low wall opposite, which forms
a spatial inflection towards the exterior space rather than to the
hall though which it passes. (fig. 10) From the gallery the views into
the dining room or hall space are seen across the exterior space,
18 Maurice Besset, op.cit. p.74.
19 Etlin, op.cit. p.22-3.

integrating this space into the house. Another gesture is the small
balcony at the foot of the gallery ramp which projects into the
exterior space as a momentary detour at the start of the ramp up
to the library. (fig. 11) These experiential re-connections to the
exterior, opposed to the captured views of the outside world that
are found at Villa Savoie, work against the unity of the house as an
interior.
Figure 10 Bridge and window wall
Figure 11 Projecting balcony
The ‘Double Height’ Space
A look at the entry hall at the La Roche house raises two issues
concerning both it and the ‘double height’20 spaces in general.
The first is brought to mind by a passage from Henri Lefebvre:
“A balcony is perfect for the street and it is to this placing in
perspective (of the street) that we owe this marvellous invention of
20 The ‘double height’ space can be found in at least 14 of the 19 houses that
constitute the ‘series.’ At La Roche the hall space is three levels high, but is referred to
as a ‘double height’ space when compared to others in the series. The ‘double height’
space has become a rhetorical spatial figure in domestic architecture in France, and
not only for those following the work of Le Corbusier. Le Corbusier discovered the
concept of the ‘double height’ in a cafe in which a mezzanine overlooked the main
space at the ground level.
the sleep of rigour
balconies and terraces from which we also dominate the street and
passers-by. For want of these you can always be content with a
window, as long as it does not look into a dark corner or a dank
interior courtyard - or onto a forever deserted lawn.”21
Why does Henri Lefebvre prefer the balcony? It is a space between
two things, a space that participates in the space which is being
observed. By contrast, the window is a frame which constructs the
viewer as a voyeur. A viewer on a balcony, however, participates
in the space of the street. At La Roche there is a balcony, a bridge
and three lookout corridors from which one can see and be seen,
and which are always related to motion. The ‘double height’ is
never simply a space to look into but one that is ‘qualified’ by
spatial practice, usually including a stair or ramp, which, when not
in use, remains a signifier of movement. Moreover, the ‘double
height’ space is defined as a space that can be experienced at
multiple levels. There is always a way to occupy the space at an
elevated level, and so consequently, Le Corbusier provides at least
either vertical circulation or a balcony in these spaces. (fig. 12) The
‘double height’ space is also used to establish the binary
opposition between public and private. The ‘double height’
Figure 12 Villa Cook
can be seen as a place, a square, or semi-exterior space around
which the private spaces are organised. We have here one half of
21 Henri Lefebvre, in Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas (trans. and eds.), Writings
on Cities, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996, p.210.
133
a promenade through other spaces
the analogy of the house as a small city and the city as a small
house.22 All of the above reinforces this space as a public sphere,
the peripheral movement acting as a thickness between it and the
private sphere. It is not sufficient that the major space be marked
symbolically by its greater scale, but that it is also marked
programmatically by the activity of uses around its perimeter. Thus
at the La Roche house the scissor stair terminates at a balcony
overlooking the hall at mid level. (fig. 13) This leads either over the
‘bridge’ to the dining room and bedrooms, again crossing the hall,
or to the gallery. From the gallery there is a momentary step outside
on the balcony at the foot of the ramp up to the library, which
again overlooks the hall. (fig. 14) We have then the idea of the
promenade at once working against the ‘unity’ of the house, and
working in conjunction with the ‘double height’ space defining the
focal space of the house. At La Roche the status of the promenade
is not easily determined, as it is difficult to separate the two issues
raised above - the idea of spatial practice in and around the
‘double height’ and the definition of this space as a public arena.
To explore further Le Corbusier’s conception and use of the
architectural promenade, a detour is be necessary to the work and
theory of two Polish artists who were working simultaneously on
concepts concerning movement in architecture.
Figure 13 Scissor stair in hall
Figure 14 View of library overlooking hall
22 This is Alberti’s metaphor quoted by Peter Eisenman in his introduction to Aldo Rossi,
The Architecture of the City, Opposition Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982, p. 9.
134
Temporality and the Promenade
Detour: Strzeminski and Kobro
Wladislaw Strzeminski and Katarzyna Kobro practised their art and
developed a theory called Unism in the 1920’s and 1930’s in
Poland. Their art and theory are often characterised as a variation
of constructivism, although it was their rigorous criticism of Russian
constructivism that led them to develop ideas which differed from
their contemporaries. Among these are their comments on
architecture. Strzeminski writes:
“1. The elements of architecture are:
a) places where a man stops during any activity;
b) motion when he passes from one activity to another.
2) The aim of architecture is an organisation of the rhythm of
consecutive motions and stops, and thereby the forming of the whole
of life.
3. The final goal of architecture is not the building of convenient
houses; it is also not the blowing up of abstract sculptures and calling
them exhibition pavilions. Its aim is: to be a regulator of the rhythm of
social and individual life.”23
This may appear similar to Le Corbusier’s notion of the architectural
promenade, but we will soon explore a number of key differences.
What is striking is the emphasis on temporality and movement.
Architecture is not defined as an object, as style, or as use. It is,
instead, movement and the organisation of social life which are its
purpose. Even in their more general statements, activity is
privileged over the object. They write:
“The union of man and space is the action of man in that space. We
come to know space through actions. The vectors traced by the
actions of man in space are: the vertical station of man and every
23 Quoted from Yve-Alain Bois, ‘Strzeminski and Kobro: In Search of Motivation,’ in
Painting as Model, MIT Press, 1990, p.134, taken from Wladislaw Strzeminski, ‘The
Principles of New Architecture,’ 1931.

object, the horizontal of the environment that he encounters on both
sides, and the depth, before him, of forward movement.”24
Within their art, specifically Kobro’s sculptures (Strzeminski was a
painter and typographer), movement and temporality are active
ingredients in the conceptualisation of the work and its experience.
Strzeminski and Kobro write:
“The spatiotemporality of the work of art is related to its variability.
We call spatiotemporal the spatial changes produced in time. Those
variations are functions of the third dimension, of depth, which,
although momentarily hidden, nevertheless reveals its existence while
transforming the appearance of the work of art, the appearance of
each form, in creating variability; when the spectator moves, certain
forms present themselves, others hide; the perception of these forms
changes constantly.”25
Figure 15 Kobro sculpture
For example, one cannot comprehend a Kobro sculpture by
looking at it from a single point of view. Her sculptures transform
themselves as you move around them, parts appear, some
disappear, and then re-appear, while others are transformed.
24 Quoted from Bois, ibid. p.146, taken from Strzeminski and Kobro, ‘Composition of
Space, Calculations of Spatio-Temporal Rhythm,’ 1931.
25 Ibid. p.151.
the sleep of rigour
(fig.15) But this would not be significant in itself (this could be said of
all sculptures) if it were not for the fact that there is no proposed
unity. There is no ‘object’ (the sculpture itself) to be discovered. This
is because the subjects of these works are the spaces that they
make and the movement and time that it takes to experience
them. Moreover, this space is not limited to the space contained
within the sculpture itself, but is intended to take in the space of the
spectator; hence her sculptures are not sat on bases (which would
create a pictorial ‘space’ separate from that of the spectator).26
A final point about Strzeminski’s and Kobro’s conception of space
and movement; because they believed that depth was always
‘momentarily hidden,’ that is, at any given moment what one sees
is a two dimensional image, three dimensionality, space itself,
could not be experienced or made apparent, or tangible, unless
one was in motion. One must transform
“‘...depth into breadth,’ to render visible that invisible object which is
depth (‘whenever we stand to observe the work of art, depth is always
hidden from us’), to solicit the spectator’s movement...”27
Depth, space, and three-dimensionality are concepts which are
never experienced directly, only inferred and therefore,
constructed.
Because Strzeminski and Kobro never built any architecture we
cannot examine the direct application of their theories.28 We can
only imagine what an architecture could be which is based on
movement, temporality, and ‘the regulator of the rhythm of social
and individual life,’ and whose social intention was one of
transformation.
26 ‘Sculpture is part of the space around it. One must not be detached from the other.
Sculpture enters space and space enters sculpture.’ Katarzyna Kobro, ‘Sculpture and
Solid,’ Europa, no.2, 1929, from Constructivism in Poland, 1923-1936, Hilary Gresty and
Jeremy Lewison (eds.), Kettle’s Yard Gallery.
27 Bois, op.cit. p.151.
28 Kobro did design a project for a nursery school, but it was precisely what Strzeminski
said architecture should not be, ‘the blowing up of abstract sculpture.’ See Bois, op.
cit. p.135.
135
a promenade through other spaces

Temporality and Le Corbusier conclusion at the end of any journey, but finally to let them play at
Despite the emphasis on movement Le Corbusier’s conception of freedom and action all the while. Everything works out; the play
the promenade excludes temporality as an active ingredient in seems tumultuous but nobody gets hurt and everybody
conceptualisation and experience. Whereas Kobro kept the wins.”31
process of moving and perception open ended, with no Here is the key difference between the Corbusian promenade and
conclusion to the promenade around her sculptures, Le Corbusier what Strzeminski and Kobro had proposed. Le Corbusier’s notion of
put the promenade to the task of defining concepts. In this way the temporality was hindered not so much by his universalising
movement along the promenade acts as a trace. This idea of tendencies but by his recourse to abstract natural models. The
‘tracing’ is criticised by Michel de Certeau: active temporal ingredient in Le Corbusier’s thinking was the curve
“It is true that the operations of walking can be traced on city maps in of the path of the sun and the day/night opposition. This recurrent
such a way as to transcribe their paths...But these thick or thin curves theme is found in architectural sketches, drawings, paintings,
only refer, like words, to the absence of what has passed by. Surveys murals, and tapestries. (fig. 16) Because of this reductive model, the
of routes miss what was: the act itself of passing by. The operation of promenade and the idea of movement potentially contained
walking, wandering, or ‘window shopping,’ that is, the activity of within it, in de Certeau’s terms, that is, in terms of the acts, the
passers-by, is transformed into points that draw a totalizing and ‘fleetingness’ of movement was not available to Le Corbusier.
reversible line on the map...The trace left behind is substituted for the
practice. It exhibits the (voracious) property that the geographical
system has of being able to transform action into legibility...”29
The Corbusian promenade does not encourage wandering
because there is no variability in the way the house functions.30 The
clear divisions into public and private dictate functional stability, a
stability which is antagonistic to wandering. The promenade, in
fact, acts to make things known; it is the tool by which the
organisation of the house is organised, discovered and learned. But
once understood, as a model, one can predict the outcome. This
aspect of the Corbusian promenade is somewhat like the baroque
promenade as described by Vincent Scully.
“All movement is around fixed points. It is a union of the opposites of
order and freedom. The order is absolutely firm, but against it an
illusion of freedom is played. […] It is therefore an architecture that is
intended to enclose and shelter human beings in a psychic sense, to
order them absolutely so that they can always find a known
Figure 16 Sun path diagrams
29 Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988, p.97.
30 One could suggest that Rietveld understood better the notion of variable function in
the Schröder-Schräder house. 31 Vincent Scully, Modern Architecture, Braziller, New York, p.11.

136

Temporality and Rhythm
Another aspect which is striking in Strzeminski’s text is the direct
reference to the organisation of rhythms. This recalls Lefebvre’s
ideas on rhythmanalysis and the aspect of temporal cycles.
Lefebvre’s conception of cyclic rhythms is more complex, however,
so that rhythms in different periods overlap producing what
appears to be chaos. But within this perceived chaos certain
rhythms have more weight, marking certain moments, acting as a
foil for other rhythms.
“To this inexorable rhythm which at night hardly abates, are
superimposed other, less intense, slower rhythms...These last
rhythms, (those of schoolchildren, shoppers and tourists) would be
more cyclical, with big and simple intervals...”32
Lefebvre explains that, seen from his window, one might begin to
suggest that what this rhythm consists of is a spectacle. But he
rejects this stating that “The characteristic features are really
temporal and rhythmical, not visual.”33 And if not visual, then they
are not material form. If this is so, does this mean that these notions
of temporality and rhythm are outside the purview of the
architect? With respect to the relationship between form and the
actions within them de Certeau states: “The long poem of walking
manipulates spatial organisations, no matter how panoptic they
may be: it is neither foreign to them (it can take place only within
them) nor in conformity with them (it does not receive its identity
from them).”34 The relationship is dialectical, so that the architects is
not solely concerned with producing form, but also with what those
forms organise in terms of practices. Strzeminski and Kobro are
closer to this notion that what we have so far seen in Le Corbusier’s
work. But this is not to say that there are not significant aspects of
the La Roche house.
32 Henri Lefebvre, ‘Seen from the Window,’ Writings on Cities, p.221.
33 Ibid., p.223.
34 de Certeau, op.cit. p.101.
the sleep of rigour
La Roche as In-between
The La Roche house is situated between two conflicting attitudes
towards space. It can be seen as lying between the early houses
built in the Jura, detached houses in a natural landscape, and the
prismatic and abstract isolationism of Savioe and Garches. Both of
these models establish relationships to their sites; they are not
ignored or irrelevant, but their roles are different.
This in-between status of La Roche, however, is what is of interest. To
what space does La Roche belong? Let us note that Lefebvre’s
comments above on rhythmanalysis are based on his view from his
window (not a balcony) somewhere near the Beaubourg, that is,
the heart of Paris. This is a place where the greatest density of
disparate activity occurs. De Certeau’s thesis on walking is based
on the walking experience of the city, his account beginning atop
the World Trade Center in New York City. We should remain aware
that that any house is always more functionally stable than the city
it is in. It is much easier to conceive of contradictory spatial
practices and the invention thereof in the city than it is within the
confines of a house. We must also differentiate the idea of walking
from that of a (Corbusian) promenade. A promenade may be seen
as a rhetorical version of walking. Walking can occur within a
system but is antagonistic to a promenade. The promenade
determines, marks, and punctuates. The Corbusian promenade is
not a system, but a definitive device through which we may
decipher his work.
It is somewhere between these differences, or despite them, that
lies something still unseen but promising. It is something between
the dense frenzy of the city and the sleepy cul-de-sac. It is
something between the notion of the inside and the outside.
Despite the many transformations the city has undergone,
descriptions of it, such as those by Lefebvre, Simmel, and Mondrian,
still sound familiar. The city may still be in need of the wall, of a
protective membrane between the propositions of domesticity
within the ‘chaos’ of the city. But these spaces have been subject
to a long period of attention and experimentation. The quiet cul-
137
a promenade through other spaces

de-sac of La Roche has now been absorbed into the city. It is still The Villa Series
quieter there than in the centre, but it is the city nonetheless.
Beyond this are many more ambiguous spaces, problematic 1922 Atelier Ozenfant, Paris
spaces. And in these spaces we are either proposing to urbanise or 1922 Villa Ker-Ka-Re/Besnus, Vaucresson
remain silent. What I would suggest is that history, theory, and 1923 Villa La Roche-Jeanneret, Paris
practice, remain alert to the bias of the city, looking for moments of 1924 Villas Lipschitz-Miestschaniniff, Paris
recognition of other spaces. 1925 Villa Marcel/Casa Fuerte/Mongermon, Paris (project)
(1997) 1925 Villa Meyer (project)
1925 Esprit Nouveau Pavilion*
1925 Petit Maison
1926 Petit Maison d’Artiste/Ternisien a Boulogne, Paris (demolished)
1926 Maison Guiette, Antwerp
1926 Villa Cook, Boulogne, Paris
1927 Villa Stein de Monzie, Garche
1927 Villa Planeix, Paris
1927 Single Villa for Weissenhofsiedlung, Stuttgart
1927 Double House for Weissenhofsiedlung, Stuttgart
1928 Villa a Carthage, Tunisia
1928-9 Villa Church/D’Avray (demolished)
1929 Appartement Beistegui, Paris (demolished)
1929-31 Villa Savioe, Poissy

*It should be noted that the esprit nouveau pavilion is a prototype

unit for a block of residences. It is therefore not developed in the
same manner as the other houses in this series.
Some of the comments in this paper are the result of first hand
observation of some of the houses. These include, Ozenfant, La
Roche (including interior), Lipschitz-Miestechaninoff, Cook, Planeix,
both Stuttgart houses, and Savoie (including interior).

138