Le Corbusier

H. Allen Brooks, Editor

Essays by
Rayner Banham
Tim Benton
H. Allen Brooks
Alan Colquhoun
Charles Correa
Norma E venson
Kenneth Frampton
Daniele Pauly
Vincent Scully
Peter Serenyi
J erzy Sol tan
Manfredo Tafuri
Stanislaus von Moos
Andr Wogenscky
Iannis Xenakis
Princeton University Press
Princeton, New Jersey
((Machine et mmoire":
The City in the Work of
Le Corbusier
by Manfredo Tafuri
translation by Stephen Sartarelli
Jn designing rhe Beisregui penrhouse on rhe
Champs-Elyses (1929- 1931 ), Le Corbusier was well
aware of giving life ro a place rhar could nor be
srandardized. If rhe Pavillon de I'Esprir Nouveau of
1925 was conceived as a " maison de srie pour un
homme couranr" (srandardized house for rhe
conremporary man), rhe penrhouse for Charles de
Beisregui was merely a place for exrravaganr
receprions for a social circle anxious ro absorb every
avanr-garde, whi ch ir consumed as rhe laresr
fashion. ' Le Corbusier, in a lerrer of July 5, 1929, ro
hi s clienr, declares his inreresr in rhe subjecr "paree
qu' il esr un programme-vederre (Champs-Elyses)"
(because ir is a srar projecr) and "paree qu'iJ propose
une solurion des t oits de Paris, donr je parle depuis
15 ans" (because ir offers a solurion for rhe roofs of
Pars. rhar I have been ralking abour for 15 years ).
2
In rhis aparrmenr, for which no elecrric lighring was
originally planned-only candles, which, according ro
de Beisregui, alone gave off " li ving" lighr3-Le
Corbusier used rechnology ro make hedges disappear,
operare rhe movemenr of doors and parririons, and
projecr cinemarographic images onro rhe mobile
screen in rhe living room. Thus we have rechnology
in rhe service of a game. But de Beisregui 's guesrs
were condemned ro rhis game: ir is no accidenr rhar
iris only by remaining "enrombed" in rhe upper
cockpir and by using a periscope rhar one mighr
enjoy rhe enrire Parisian panorama.
Moreover, on rhe uppermosr rerrace rhe high
walls give a view only of fragmenrs of rhe urban
skyline, such as rhe rops of che Are de Triomphe and
the Eiffel Tower. Bur rhis is nor merely an adoprion
of Surrealisr poerics: rhis square space, rhis "chambre
a ciel ouvert" (room wirh open sky) is free of rhe
game-ir is a final landing place where le silence and
le grand la1"ge ( rhe wide-open space) dominare, a
garhering place rhar no longer has anyrhing ro do
wirh rhe desires aroused by rhe boite a miracles
siruared below. Irs message will have ro pass rhrough
the dance of forms on rhe Algerian hill s in urc.ler ro
shape rhe "lisrening spaces" of rhe capirol of
Chandigarh. The Beisregui penrhouse is nor part uf
any urban planning program: on rhe conrrary, ir is a
Precious coffer for a worldly elite, a group quite
differem, in irs sociological and cultural
characrerisrics, from rhat ro which Le Corbusier
would have preferred ro dedicare his soluriuns for
reforming rhe modern universe. And yer, rhis very
projecr gives many hinrs of Le Corbusier's posirions
regarding urban rhemes, a subjecr on which his
rheorerical writings remained, nor accidentally, silenr.
Firsr of all, rhere is rhe derachment frum rhe
merropoliran specracle: rhe forced separarion in rhe
Champs-Elyses penrhouse, a deliberare obsrrucrion
of rhe aerial panorama-a norion as dear ro Le
Corbusier as ro his friend Sainr-Exupry. Derachmenr
is prerequisire ro dominance over universal laws: rhe
eye frusrrared by Le Curbusier's penrhouse is rhe
same eye thar wishes ro gaze wirh rhe sublime and
passive indifference uf rhe flneur who contemplares
rhe grear rhearer of merchandise wirhout
compromising himself by buying and who makes a
show of rhe passing riff-raff.
The disrance inrerposed berween rhe penrhouse
and rhe Parisian panorama is secured by a
rechnological device, rhe periscope. An "innocenr"
reunificarion berween rhe fragmenr and rhe whole is
no longer possible; rhe inrervenrion of artfice is a
necessiry. Bur no rechnological artfice mediares rhe
discourse berween man and le grand large, that vast
ocean of rhe whole revealed above rhe final terrace.
The sea of grass and rhe grear ocean of sky are
carefully delimired by sacred walls: Le Corbusier here
dictares rhe rerms of a discourse rhat suspends rhe
cusromary dimensions of space and has as irs
precondirion a meraphysical separatiun, rhe rupture
of all usual connecrions. The attirude of mind
implicit here is nor one rhat projecrs, bur rather one
rhar wairs.
In rhe Beisregui penrhouse, rhis poerics of
lisrening is presenred as rhe final srage uf rhe
"journey" rhrough archirecronic and rechnical
appararus, and, more imporranrly, as <ljl alternarive
ro rhe unobsrrucred view of rhe metropoliran
panorama. Above all of rhis is rhe "grear void," rhe
place rhar does nor come inro conracr wirh rhe space
of human rrade, rhar is nor part of the universe of
ends. The si lences rhar may be experienced in ir
inexorably derach themselves from rhe rheorerical
203
204 ''Machine et mmoire '": The Ciry in rhe Work of Le Corbusier
landscape ro which Le Corbusier relegares his social
messages. The importance of rhe fact that Le
Corbusier placed this space of separation in the hearr
of a metropoli s should not be underesrimated.
Because of irs locarion, rhe Beistegui penrhouse
serves as an excellenr litmus test for revealing the
hidden moti ves that guide- and not always
consciously-Le Corbusier's approach ro the urban
phenomenon. Indeed, in this work unsettling
metaphors predominare, metaphors that build up ro
a chambre a cief Ozt1/ert that speaks the language of
myrh: rhe suspenses, absences, and expectations
inhabiring that empty space express the very
meaning of the p hrase objets a raction potique.
Bur how can one reconcile this poieJi.r with the
necessiries imposed by the fashionable myth of
rationali zarion? In orher words, is ir possible ro
incorporare inro such poiesis a theory of rhe " new
ciry"? Le Corbusier avoids answering such quesrions,
at leas r unril 1929, rhe year of his trip ro Larin
America. And in any case, he makes no reference in
bis vasr Iirerary polemical ourput ro these issues in
relarion ro rhe subj ecr of urbanism. Traces of rhe
universe presenred in the chambre a ciel ouvet"t , on
rhe orher hand, would larer appear, as has been
suggesred, in the Plan Obus for Algiers; but chis
uni verse would also shape, in full , the realizarion of
rhe capirol of Chandigarh.
This does not, however , mean thar Le Corbusier
was of rwo differenr minds. Rationalization muse be
carried out in a rder ro be surpassed, in order ro
recuperare orher universes of ends. Such a
perspecri ve can be gleaned from more rhan a few
passages of Le Corbusier. But even in examining his
ea rly urbanisric models, ir is necessary ro clear che
ground of cenain prejudices rhat have become
common fare.
Too often, indeed, Le Corbusier's urbanism has
been viewed as rhe ultimare goal of bis research.
1
According ro chi s inrerpretarion, in all of Le
Corbusier's works- from the Maison Dom-ino ro rhe
Cirrohan cell ro rhe lmmeubles-villas, wirh first rhe
Ville RadiettJe and rhen rhe TmiJ tabli.r.rements
humains as the final synrheses-rhe archirecr's idea
of city gives us a picture, on a srnall scale, of rhe
enrire p rocess of his research. Bur clearly rhis is an
inevitably reducri ve inrerpretation. Not only is it
difficult ro grasp from rhis standpoinr rhe full
richness of a plan such as the Obus for Algiers, bur
ir is also impossible ro appreciate rhe fundamental
distance berween Le Corbusier's rheory and his
producri on. Thus one mighr at tack Le Corbusier for
what his writings and urban plans seem ro say-
perhaps judgi ng individual projecrs ro be incoherent
and contradicrory- by refusing ro see, in those
conrradictions, "faithful" discrepancies and essenrial
differences. What is certain, on rhe orher hand, is
that Le Corbusier's norion of the ciry is direct!y
related ro rhe long and laborious developmenr of rhe
nineteenrh-cenrury strategies aimed at conrrolling
social behavior. An examinarion of the fiches of rhe
young Charles Edouard Jeanneret ar rhe Bibliorheque
Nationale of Paris ( 1914- 1915 ) makes ir possible ro
trace the sources of his later elaborario ns: we find
Le Corbusier familiar with Der Stadtebau of Stbben,
with the texrs of Unwin, with Hnard's tztdes sur
les tran.rformations de Pars, wirh rhe volume by the
mayor of Brussels, Charles Buls, L'Esthtique des
ville.r ( 1893 ), wirh the wri tings of mile
Vandervelde ( Les Villes tentaculaires, 1899), Luigi
Einaudi ( La Mtmicipali.ration du .rol, 1898), and
Charles Lucas ( Habitation a bon tnarch, 1899)-nor
ro menrion his marked interese in Anarole France,
Zola, and Benoir-Lvy, as well as in rhe rradirion of
French Classicism from Tiercelet ro Cordemoy, ro
Blonde l, Laugier, Blidor, and Parte, and an explicit
rejection of Piranesi.5
Do we, rherefore, have in Le Corbusier a
synthesis of classical tradirion and ninereenrh-century
models? Thus far we are srill in the realm of the
general, at rhe periphery of rhe problem. But we
move a srep forward with the di scovery of rhe
rheorerical formulation of the housx as machine a
habiter in an 1853 writi ng by Adolphe Lance.
"Would ir nor be possi ble ," writes Lance in his
review of rhe Trait d'atchitecture by Lonce
Raynaud/' "ro go even furrher and plan our buildings
and houses by taking inro accounr rhe person who
frequenrs or inhabits rhem, nor only ro determine
their general arrangemenr and distribution, but also
''Machine et mmoire'': The Ciry in rhe Work of Le Corbusier 205
ro imroduce rhousands of specific comforts, services,
and rime- and energy-saving devices that rhe
adaptaran uf new procedures from science and
indusrry could provide for dumesric life? A home is
an insttument. a machine .ro to speak. rhat not only
serves as a shelter for Man, bur ... must conform
ro his acrivity and mulriply the producrion of his
work. Industrial consrrucrions, workshops, plants of
every kind are, from rhis viewpoim, almos r full y
achieved models worthy of being imirared." Comf ort
is, from rhis perspective, ro be found in rhe
mechanizarion of services, necessitating new spatial
appararuses: what we have here is an ideology that
assumes rhe primacy of human labor by economizing
time and energies. The affinity between rhis and
similar propositions of Le Corbusier is immediately
evident.
But Lance's theories are nut the only ones in the
air in ninereenth-century France. lt is useful to see
rhem rarher as segments of an ensemble of
proposirions and straregies that include Csar Daly's
ideas on rhe transformari on of archirecrural programs
and rhe larer proposals for domesric environments
regulared by "flows," as well as rhe experiments
prompring rhe realizarion of such cits ottvri'ete.r as
rhe one near Le Havre ( 1847) which Daly himself
approved, and the Cit Napolon, jointly developed
by t he archirect Veugny and rhe administraror
Chabert ( 1849), which was rhe firsr to be srare
financed. Nor should we forget the Cit Napolon of
Lille ( 1860), also rhe produce of collectivistic and
Saint-Simonian inspiraran, built for approximately
one rhousand poor people. ln this project the rheme
of the flexibilit y and adaptability of rhe units
appears-the partitions within a space of 4 merers
square assigned ro individual families are mobile,
while numerous other housi ng projecrs of the time,
more or less inspired by rhe phalansrery, familistery,
and rhe Panopticon, seem fully ro exemplify cardinal
points of Le Corbusian rheory. Thus, correspunding
tu Thodore Charpentier's projecr for an ecunomically
auronomous Cit de I'Union near Pars ( 1849) are
the projecrs for cits de chenns de j e1' dispersed
across rhe land and linked ro rhe natural environment
(1857)-foreshadowings of rhe Ruadrown of Chambless
and che "rechnological picturesque" on which the
linear uropias of rhe rwemieth century would be
based-and rhe arodomes ufJules Borie ( 1865 ), which,
along wirh rhe models of Fourier and Godin, were
already hailed by Serenyi as precedenrs of Le Corbusier' s
"impossible reconciliarion" of the individual with the
collecrive _7
Bur we must nor ler ourselves be confounded by
purely formal aspects. Georges Teyssot has shown,
through poi nted analysis, that in rhe ninereemh-
century projects of collecrivisric inspiration in which
vanguard rechnologies aim at crearing "exacr
environmems" the defense of progress and of rhe
myth of associationism is subordinated ro the
crearion of perfect machines,
8
machines above all
capable of controlling and guiding, through types of
dwelling, rhe social exisrence of the "dangerous
classes." The rheme of hygiene is thus wed ro
themes rhat proclai m-through the use of rhe new
technologies-the inevirability uf a form of progress
thar muse see rhe working classes as parricipants.
The collecrivism expounded by the physicians and
hygienists of the nineteenth century is infused by a
pluraliry of disciplines, rechnical developmems, and
ideologies, not the least of which are Benrham's
"happiness for all " and Grandu's "balanced"
imervenrion,9 which see in rhe pulitics of services a
condirion for the spreading of wealth; in rhe
ubiquituus control of behavior, the premise of
stability; and in the invemion of residencial models,
valuable politico-economic srrategies.
The Sainr-Simunian "colonies," the projects
born as fil iarions of the Panopricon, the phalanstery,
barracks, refuge homes, and monasteries, all delimit,
endose, and separare. Only by creating hererotopias
did the collectivisrs- many of rhem Carholic
socialisrs-believe rhey could rationalize, arrange,
and individuare. The proletarian "NoaJ arks" are
"cities of refuge" for "guided exisrence", rhe fact thar
they derive from rhe barracks and the hospital thus
has a rarher eloquent meraphorical value.
Brian Brace Taylor has irrefutably demonsrrared
thar in his Cit de Refuge Le Corbusier-;n adhering
ro rhe srraregies of General Booth and ro rhe
programs of rhe Salvaran Army uf the late 1920s-
206 ''Machine et mmoire": T he Ciry in rhe Work uf Le Corbusier
creares a device rhar claims ro be perfectly
hererowpic.
1
Collecrivisr ideology in che use of
spaces and in rhe artificial and srandardi zed control
of che environment inevitabl y gave rise to a
fragment, in irself complete, of rhe tOtaliry of
exisrence as planned and ordered by an all -inclusive
and ubiqui tous technical design, an exernplttm, on a
reduced scale, of che possible bene fits of rhe " plan."
And che facr thar che technical insrallations p roved
to be unworkable was due less w rhe clients than to
che considerable strains of idealism contained in
Le Corbus ier's poerics.
11
The insrruments of
mechanical reform for che crearion of a regulared
sociery and rhe principies behind che devices put ro
use by ni nereenth-century reformers seem, accord ing
to Foucaulr's interprerari on,ll w reach rheir
fulfillment in rhe proposirions ser forth by
Le Corbusie r in rhe early 1930s. T his fulfillment is,
however, a hindered, defecri ve, imperfecr one. Thi s,
of course, is due w che sidesteppings necessitated by
dynamic realities rhar challenged rhe rigidity of che
"social engineering" in which Le Corbusier placed his
trust. The " imperfecr machine" of rhe Cit de Refuge
is, neverrheless, an all us ive here roropia: rhe strategy
contained t herein expecrs ro be able t0 expand
evenrually w che entire surrounding space.
Teyssor himself, however, has shown how rhe
collecci vis r scraregies carne w be defeared, around
1850, by a more refined approach based on indus tri al
citJ composed of workers' cottages rhar went
beyond the mil irari zed concepci on of labor scill
visible in rhe ironworks and mi ni ng sertlements of
che first half of che nineceenth century (Le Creusoc
and Anzin ). This new scraregy involved such models
as rhose rhat emerged vicrorious ar Mulhouse and at
Guebwiller and rhar, via che ideas of Frdric le Play,
paved che way for che ideologies affirmed by che
Parisian Expo of 1867.
11
The pri vare worker's
cottage unired che plan for eli minaring che
p roleta rian "disease" wich rhe myrh of che hearrh
and che land as che antidore for lose individual and
social "health." In rhe ideology of che privare
worker's home ninereenth-cenrury philanrhropy
focused on an insrrument of social reform and
exrensive cont rol of mass movemenrs: rhe
derermination of needs, indeed rheir very production,
rakes che shape of a projecr tO srablize rhe family cell
in places thar are rhemsel ves p redecermined by che
demands of p roducrion. Moreover, as a service
apparacus, chis house "p roduces production": such
can be surmised from che resul rs of an inquiry by
Alfred de Foville inro housing in rural France, a
srudy with which Le Corbusier was quite familiar.I4
lt is sig nifi cant rhat from che srart che young
Jeanneret-influenced by che reaching of Howard
and Unwin-attempced co experi ment with housing
models related ro che second scraregy mencioned
above in his srudies un Hampsread and Hellerau, in
che garden suburb at La Chaux-de-Fonds ( 19 14) ,
and che projecrs for Saintes and Sai nt-N icholas
d' Aliermont (1917), and char Iarer he experimented
wirh models from che collecrivist rradicion. le is
equally signi ficant rhat in che Ci t contemporaine
rrois mi llions d'habi tants ( 1922) he scrove t0 make
che rwo models coexisc. Bur whac seems tO me most
important here is chat, in che early 1920s, his
reading of rhese same sources could have bracketed
rheir underl ying scrategies. This was noc che result of
analycical myopia. The facr is rhat when che new
insrruments of mass informarion began ro cake
hold, urbanisric srraregies were arciculared and
rhen fragmented, which tended ro reduce che
significance earl ie r att ributed ro che fo rm of housing
ins tallarions. lt was chi s overall rearrangemenr that
Le Corbusier miscook for a power vacuum. His plan
ro educare che civiliJation machiniJte presup poses
aurhori carian decision making, bm ir also calls for
participation from below: rhe differential space chat
opens up becween che rwo is filled by an apologa for
cechnology chac nevertheless assumes exquisicely
formal feacures. The synrhesis of
rradicion and ninereenth-century models occurs
precisely in che following way: only formally may che
resulrs of srraregies in which power and knowledge
are concealed and in which central importance is
assumed by praxis-oriented vocabulary and che units
of discourse insinuated into che discourses pracriced
by che subjecrs be rraced back ro schemata rhat reveal
che allegory of plans radiating out from a cenrer.
This cenrer later proves tO be a cenrer of power, an
auctoritas thar incorporares the esprit de sy st'erne of
che ancien r?,iwe; and rhis center is presupposed by
a place, the arch itecr's laboratory, where technology
becomes "rransparenr" due t0 its ability to ass ign
form (a form hence ordered, legible, and connecred
ro a system of hicrarchies) tO the multiplicity of
languages into which che old syntheses have
disintegrated.
Hence, there is a bipolar relationship between
rhac urbanism that is understood ro be a "home of
rechnology," in which the "accursed" multiplici ty of
languages is "forced" to find a hearth common to all,
and che centerless rnttltiversurn of rhe conremporary
metropolis; it is one among a number of bipolariries,
including those between rhe individual and collective,
nature and artfice, Apollo and Dionysus, the
archaic and "futurable," that reflect a Manichean
represenrarion of reality thar hopes to build bridges
toward che "subversi ve inrenrions of Surrealism."
1
5
However, our inrerpretation of the Beistegui
penthouse brought us face to face with a poetics
comprised of "differences. " Is it nor perhaps possible
ro interprec che illuminisrico-authorirarian valences
presenr in Le Corbusier's ideological formulations
as consoling compensarion for the irreparable
comradiction bet ween che call for synthesis and the
infi nite multiplicacion of che forms of knowledge and
power?
The porrraic of rechnology painred by
Le Corbus ier is indeed an ambiguous one. Though the
following observaran has already been made
regarding rhe "five points" on which his architecture
is supposedly based, ir might also be applied to
Le Corbusier's rules of urbanism: by replacing codes
previously believed to be natural with arbitrary ones,
he effects a series of negations and nullificari ons-
nullificarions of rhe hierarchies imposed on rhe
relationship of edifice ro narure and edifice ro road,
nullificarions of srreer axes as elements of functional
and visua l coordi nation, nullificarions of rradi rional
zoning mechanisms. His firsr gesrure is rherefore
one of nullificari on; rhe Dom-ino plan is rarher
"Machine et mmoire": The Ciry in rhe Work of Le Corbusier 207
explicit in rhis respect.
16
The will behind che new acr
of creation is founded upon nihilisrn-a good reason
to reexamine the young Jeanneret's relarionship ro
and attitude abour rhe work of Nietzsche.
The open terrain cleared by nihilism becomes
arbitrarily repopulared by "consrructions." Values-
rhose of the inrellecrual elite poinred to by men such
as L'Eplattenier, Schur, ProvensaP
7
-and ethics-
even those of Ruskin, if we go by rhe inrerprecation
of Mary Patricia May Sekler
18
-are invoked to fill
rhe void left behind by the nothingness on which rhe
meraphysics of technology is based. A synrhesis of
nihilism and synrhetic principies: such, apparently, is
the impassable trail that Le Corbusier hoped to blaze
through the stifling forest of the modern universe.
All of which presupposes a crisis of modernity: che
inability of chis universe to creare the instrumenrs of
redemption necessary tO save ir from its own
nihilism. For chi s reason, such instrumenrs must be
founded on something orhcr ; they will have to speak
the language of the nihi lism of technology, in a
class ical synrhetic mode.
But where is the synrhesis of Le Corbusier? Is ir
to be found in that schematics, classi ficat ory and
finally na"ive, embodied in the urban models of 1922
and 1923, in the Charte d 'Ath(mes and the Tro
tablissernents; or is ir tO be found in that dialectics
that worked its way through his painring phase of
1928- 1932,
1
9 reached a high poinr in che Villa Savoye,
and was broadened tO che territorial scale in che Plan
Obus? Certainly, boch these instances are matters of
synrhesis.
Befare Ronchamp, Le Corbusier never placed
his trust in a language comprised of pure differences.
However, there is no doubt that the messages
expressed by his architecture speak metaphorically
of a represenracion of che metropolitan rpttltiversum
in a manner much richer and more problematic
than is reflected in his urbanism: we saw rhis in che
Champs-Eiyses pemhouse, and the same could be
demonstrated for che spatial di alectics of the vi llas of
the 1930s.
Indeed, after 1922, his urbanism, wi th the
parta! exceprion of rhe plans for Algiers and for the
208 "Machine el mmoire": The City in the Work of Le Corbusier
capirol of Chandigarh, is dominared by a conceptual
poverry rhar inevirably minimizes che complex
problems inherenr in che conremporary city and
counrryside. Le Corbusier's main concerns, in facr,
are all of an anachroniscic narure: delimiring,
classifying, differenriacing, and scandardizi ng are all
operacions chat lead up ro che absolute of che
planned unir. Given chese premises, it is not
surprising that Le Corbusier should have placed his
hopes in che prophecies of decision-making
authorities whose power would be unequivocal and
cenrrali zed: moreover, ir is significanr that such
authorities would evenrually become incarnate in
Lenin and Mussolini , in che circle of Huberr
Lagardelle , Philippe Lamour, Pierre Winrer, and
de Pierrefeu, in che Fronr Populaire and che
Vichy governmenr.
20
The auctoritas dreamed of by
Le Corbusier, in fact, cakes che form of a ghost ro
whom he gives che name of Colbert.
21
The synrhesis
that forces rogether che banal materials of che Purist
painrings, which resises, in che painrings and
drawings made after 1928, the divisive presence
of che feminine figure- bearer of "differences,"
which imposes itself as the primary fi gure of a
calculabilicy-prediccabilicy announced in che urbanistic
plans- this synrhesis may in fact be justified only in
relation ro that phanrom of power. Rather than
acknowledge che acrion of a plurality of fluxes, a
plurality of pracrices chac necessarily defy any unified
represenrarion, Le Corbusier prefers ro enrrust ro che
irreality of a phanrom an ephemeral guarantee of
totality for his own ideas. This explains why he
looked back ro classical sources-Greece, fe grand
siecle, Abb Laugier-to confirm hypocheses of che
machine age that had nevercheless been applied, or
ar least dreamed, over che course of che nineteenrh
cenrury. Thus, given hi s extreme conflict with che
nineteenrh cemury, we can say that only che forms
of the straregies and devices developed in that
cenrury are of interese ro Le Corbusier; chis is what
was meant when we spoke of che "bracketing
performed by the architecc in this regard.
Simplificati on and wi ll to synrhesis: we are
dealing here ,with tools thac can hardly be called
modero. And yet , it was wich precisely such tools
that Le Corbusier confronred che explosion of
inrerconnections and che disinregrarion of all
"organicity" occurring in the modero merropolis.
The Vitte radiettse is not a furure-orienred
proposition, but rather an idea cast abroad on an ark
built outside space and rime and run aground on the
shoals befare the island of utopa. Of course, the
Vitle radieu.re claims its language to be absolutely
transparent, claims ro be able to say all that can be
said about che irreconcilable dimensions that
inrersecr without forming recognizable cemers, claims
ro be able to establish the p rimacy of a logos for che
innumerable languages of rechnology. But ir is a
stranger to che game of chance and che arbitrary on
which che negarive avant-gardes were founded, rhough
they too were in search on an " iconography of che
shattered." In chis light, che substance of Le
Corbusier's anti -avant-gardism, his atracks on che
Futurists and Surrealisrs, becomes more visible. With
his urban models, Le Corbusier opposes che
"magnificent illusion"-so called by Barrhes
22
-
"which enables one ro conceive of a langtte ourside of
power, in che splendor of -a permanent revolucion of
Langage," to t he authoricy of an asserrive langue that
demands repeti cion (in Moscow as well as in Pars or
Rome).
2
3
ls it any wonder, chen, chat chis asserrive
langtte, made up of signs rhar g ravitare roward che
srereotype, should show itself ro be closely linked to
a monocheisric idea of power, represenred as in-
dividuum? Le Corbusier lees his ideologies oscillace
between che Sainr-Simonian tradirion, an obscure
and a corporacivism conraining within
icself a cheory of elites; they are very much pare of
che currenr of ideas circulaci ng among rechnocraric
groups, such as che Redressement francais,
24
in che
1920s.
The "industrial symphony," ro
Le Corbusier, can only be founded on a novum
organttm, on an organic body of decisions, on an
internally solid pyramid, a pyramid opposed ro che
desrruccive cacophony of real conflicrs, but also
alternarive ro atonal construcrions.
Given rhese premiscs, ir is no surprise that
Le Corbusier's urbanism avails itself bf slogans raken
i.
1 ark
1 rhe
y
be
on
ough
1e
!V' ith
le of
1 of
:har
is or
e
ro
e
n
f
e
en
from Laugier ; that ir adopts types such as the a
redent t ypes already developed by Hna rd ; that ir
draws from the morals-hygiene-aestheri cs triad so
dear ro che nineteenrh-century srrateg ies and
proposes chis again as a p rincipie for rhe salvation of
che modern ci ty; or that it borrows, from a 19 13 text
by Robert de Souza, procedures for the perfect
sunning of

The pos tliberal ciry

prefigured by the V ille Radieuse poinrs ro a
surpassing of rhe civilisation rnachiniste irself
through the accelerarion of development processes
ensured by the machine plan. Bur such a machine
muse continually srri ve for more: the "ill ness" of
modern times will be vanquished when rechnology
shapes che entire universe as a whole; rherefore,
cechnology muse point ro a conrinuous and perfect
proccss of becoming.
Only by rheir rotal immersion in the flow uf
chis process, according ro Le Curbusier, can conflicts
be eliminared: "la ville, devenue une ville humaine,
sera une ville sans classes" (rhe ci ty, once ir has
become a human ciry, will be a classless ciry).l
6
Parrici parion in the plan will ensure irs perfecr
funcrion ing; in this we even hea r an echo of the
volunrary and universal alienation foreseen by Jean-
Jacques Rousseau.
However, the rechnolugy thar is supposed ro
cure rhe "ills of civili zation," thar is supposed ro
crush rhe egoti sms of rhe nineteenrh cenrury, reses
on synrhet ic represenrations, on devices that atrempt
to translate intu reality the dreams of rhe modern
cenrury par excellence, the nineteenrh. Furthermore ,
it can also be said that technology, for Le Corbusier,
as well as for t he technocratic ideologues on whom
he leaned for support in the 1920s, does not admit
political reality as an externa) limir. On the contrary,
technology lays siege ro the polirical realm, clai ms to
appropriate its languages, and presenrs itself as a
form of knowledge endowed with power. To politics
is left only the task of execution.
But ir should be repeated thar there is more
to Le Corbusier rhan this reductio ad unurn of
the serpentine ubiquity of power, this na'ive
overdetermination of the aurhori ty of the p lan-le
despote
2
7- as logocenrric synrhesis. Inrerpreting
\!achine el mmoire : The City in the Work of Le Corbusier 209
Corbusian architecture in rhe light of thc evolurion
uf his urbanism is not only reductive, as srated
above, bur disrorting as well. We should rry rathe r ro
consider the architect's research as an investigation
into the li mi ts of a utopia of language. (N.B.: the
utopia of language is not the language of utopia. ) Ir
is, in fact , wirhin che limirs of the archi tecronic
ubjecr that Le Corbusier succeeds in creating theater
out of the game of slippings rhat he plays while
combaring codes as they es tablish rhemsclves.
Hence, we are dealing with an arch irecrure
situared in a conceptual framework rhat has painting
and urbanism as its upper and lower boundaries: that
which may be tes red within these limits assumes the
form of residuum or trace; in the archirectonic objecr
ir becomes the open margin. In the latter, the
materials brought rogethe r problematically- and ever
more problematically-over the course of Le
Corbusier's srudy in painring come into conflict with
the assertive demands of hi s urbanistic theory. The
villas of rhe l930s, as well as the Cit de Refuge and
the project for che Palace of rhe Soviets, const it ute
the thearers of this confl ict: che language herc aims
not at torality, but rarher ar bringing inro discussion
the barde that the different hypotheses of space are
waging among each orher. It is this side of Le
Corbusier rhat acred as d irecror and srraregisr of
these dramas of confl icrs that should be seen as a
las ring inrerprerer of the "age uf poverry" and not
thar other side, which prefigured and made apologies
for inevirably anachronisric furms of dominion over
chis age.
But does our argument still prove valid when
confro nted wi th the p lans for Algiers, which are
closely connected, as is known, ro the ideas
formul ated for the cities of Latin America?
28
In the
Plan Obus, Le Corbusier seems ro wanr ro shatter all
disciplinary barriers: the fi gurative wrld of thi s
painring directly invades rhe structuring of the urban
machine, which is, nevertheless, represenred as a
si ngle architecronic objecr. Indeed, precisely because
architecrure here finds irself devoid of its own limits
as object, ir is capable of exploding, of liberaring
itself from the consrraints that forced ir ro remain
within arbitrary margins. All the metaphors that had
210 .. Macbine el mmoire": The Ciry in rhe Work of Le Corbusier
previously been forced to speak all egorical languages
now find rhemselves able to spi ll over inro rhe
spatial environment, to take fui! possession of
nature, to reshape ir, to subdue ir. The desires thar
were frusrrared in rhe Beisrgui penthouse irrupr in
Algiers, rwisring before rhe sea, swifrly fl owi ng in a
stream of fluxes, clenching in rheir coils both nature
and history, joyous ly and victoriously dancing upon
the hills of Fort-l'Empreur.
Ir is significant that rhis vicrory over
"differences" comes about rhrough a structural
organization that assimilates both the perfection of
rhe n1achine and rhe unexpecred, chance, mutability:
the whole is an organic exaltation of the forms. By
spreading like magma into reality, technology-or irs
image- subsumes ir, dominares ir wholly: speed,
which acts as protagonist in the lanes installed on
the roof of rhe zigzag block, forces rhe observer to
make accelerared and simultaneous readings, which
correspond ro the interchangeability and mobiliry of
the residencial cells below. The public is invired to
cake part in the festivity p repared by chis fragment
of perfecr producrivity devoid of residua-ir in fact
embraces even the "bad tasre" of irs users-and the
feas t coincides with a radica l esrrangeme nt from all
sense of place, with a "being torn away," with an
acceptance of the laws that rule the immense
biomorphic machine.
29
And this machine, in
spreading out and contracting, meraphorically
revealing its functioning, becomes charged wirh
mythical values. The new Acropoli s contemplares,
from above, rhe barde of technology against nature:
ir is no mere chance that one grasps its signifying
signs with a sense of vertigo.
Le Corbusier seems already to know whar
Heidegger would later say on this subj ecr, namely,
rhat technology is in essence poetic, rhar producrion
and poies share common roots. And wherever the
productive fully discloses itself in striving for
absolute dominance over the future , myth reappears.
But why does Le Corbusier reserve this
reconci liarion bet ween rechnology and myrh only for
cities of developing countries? And why such
insistence on Algiers, where Le Corbus ier attempted
to creare for himself a nonexisrent clientele in the
years of rhe grear crisis?
Le Corbusie r did make an ''official'' response
regarding t he world role he ass igned ro Algiers
within the Medirerranean sphere: a pivota! element
in an entente latine-Paris, Rome, Barcelona,
Algiers-according ro rhe polirical programs of rhe
Prlude group,
10
rhis ciry was inrended by Le
Corbusier to become rhe tete de I'Af riqtte. But
Algiers is also a place wherc anorher civilization is
expressed, a culture in sorne way similar ro rhar
explored by Le Corbusier in the a y a ~ e d 'Orient of
his youth. In Moslem culture, in rhe customs and
habits of "simple men," Le Corbusier seeks not so
much t he signs of rhe "noble savage" as rhose of a
primeva! mode of existence, a cosmic disposirion, a
trust in rhe order of the great ocean of being, now
lost, but which t he plan is called upon ro recuperare
at higher levels. This prerarional existence is charged
wirh eros: von Moos was correcr in poinring out che
symptomaric nature of rhe drawings made by Le
Corbusier on t he rheme of Delacroix's Fermnes
d 'Aiger.5
1
The case that end oses rhis model of existence,
which must be singled out as a memento ro rhe
colonizers, is rhe Casbah. Ir assumes, in Le
Corbusie r's eyes, a value not unlike that which he
attributed to t he Charrerhouse of Ema or to rhe
monasrery on Mount Athos. And yet, a very carefully
p reserved Casbah is inserred into thar image of
rhe machine as perfecr process, t he Plan Obus: the
Casbah is rhe anrirhesis of rhis perfecr process,
bur it is thus necessary and invoked. lt is no
accident that in the 1931 project rhe Casbah is
passed over by the new city: the figure of rhe bridge
here appea rs in all its metaphorical subs tantialiry. A
bridge, in fact, connecrs two extremes: rhe residences
on rhe hill and the command post facing rhe sea.
The Casbah is isolared, untouched, and untouchable,
a timeless model thar paradoxically cannot be
reproduced. The "modero" is forced ro "flow" over
rhis srrucrure, which possesses a language rhar
cannot be reduced to rhar of rhe rourine and
accelerarion expressed by rhe "machine" rhar righdy
n the
onse

leme nt
of rhe
ion is
1a t
?nt of
ll1d
>t so
of a
on, a
now
:Jera re
:ha rged
ur rhe


he

rhe

:y. A

l.
ble,
ter
1tly
surrounds it. And yet, rhe meraphors of ephemerality
and accelerari on need to be rel ared back ro rhe
Casbah, ro rhe metaphor of an ancie nt rime that
knew no crisis. The bridge in rhis way rakes on
unsertling meanings. Thrown ove r an
anthropological relic that rhe acriviry of coloni zation
could nor desrroy, ir accenruares rhe fundamental
''diffe rence" rhat secretly undermines rhe uniry of the
overall "machine. " Le Corbusier himself is insistent
abour rhi s differe nce: the Casbah , in its absolute
orherness, cannot be subjecred ro rhe Jogic of the
new sig ns rhar convulsively inre rlink rhemselves on a
territOrial sca le; ir can only remain whar ir is, foreig n
ro rime, foreign ro rhe modern, indifferent ro its
desrinies. As silenr wirness, irs funcrion is ro grant
myrhical depth to the conflict berween rhe immobile
and rhe rra nsi enr that ir itself iniriared and rhat runs
rhrough che e ntire plan.
The facr rhat the plan for Algiers is concei ved
as an acc of ext reme violence againsr narure and as
an arcempt ro build time and space ab imis- and
hence as an acr of cosmic refoundation-is not
unrelared ro che role Le Corbusie r a ttribured ro rhe
preservarion of rhe Casbah. "La Casbah n'esr qu' un
imme nse escalier, une tribune envahi e le soir par des
millie rs d'adorareurs de la nature" (The Casbah is
norhing but a vast srairway, a plarform invaded every
evening by rhousands of worshipe rs of narure),
12
wri res Le Corbusie r, who wenr on ro note, in a
secti on drawing of the Casbah irself: "chef d'oeuvre
urba nisrique-ceJJule, rue, et re rrains" (a masterpiece
of urbani sm-ceJJs, street, and g rounds ). The
terracing sysre m of rhe Casbah would lare r serve as
inspirarion for Le Corbusier's "a mphirhearer" of the
urba nizarion of Nemours ( 1934- 1935) and-with the
media ri on of rhe models of Sauvage and Sarazin,
srudied afte r 19 15 H_ for rhe Durand de velopment
proj ecr near Algie rs ( 1933- 1934). But rhe Casbah is
nor a model rhat can be standardized. Ir is a symbol
of perfecr " res r" in a maternal interior, in the
fullness of an embrace , symbol of a humanity that
srill remembers a time of happiness. The Casbah 's
time is an eterna! present. The rime of rhe "new
Algiers" is that of the total uprooring from all here
.. ,\!achine Id mmoin:": The City in rhe Wo rk of Le Corbus ier 21L
and now, che rime of unsururable wounds, of a
moving-eve r-onward rhat re nde rs all lingeri ng
impossible: a rime when happiness can no longer be
even remembe red. (The re is no "rime" for
remembering. ) For chis ve ry reason, rhe rwo
structures, borh of rhem integral, are juxraposed.
Between rhe m rhere can be no intercourse, nor even
a clash, at rhe limir. The void exrending be nea rh rhe
bridge thar sepa rares che rwo is the visible residue of
the unfarhomable space rhar occupies rhe ruprure
generared by rhe monume ntal "difference" staged by
Le Corbusier.
One cannot fail ro refl ecr upon the fact that
Le Corbusie r so ca refull y isolared hi s urbanisric
experience in Algie rs. Only a shadow of ir a ppears in
his plan for Srockholm; rhereafter, rhere are no signs
of even rhe memory of rhat complex research: in
re rms uf merhod, rhe class ificarions of rhe "Arhens
Charrer" resorr ro rroubling simplifica rions;
14
the
plans for Barcelona, Anrwerp, and Buenos Ai res
constitute more or less academic applications of
already resred models; and rhe urban plan for the
Zln valley is given over ro rhe repetiriveness of
sra ndardized objecrs, affording a glimpse of the larer,
posrwar plans.
The e ros discovered in Algie rs makes irs mark
instead on Le Corbusie r's painting and sculprure: in
the "Ubu' and "Ozon" seri es, for e xample,
biomorphic, meraphys ical e nvelopme nrs dominare.
But rhe Stadtkrone of rhe Plan Obus was also an
envelopment, wirh surrea li stic characrerisrics, and ir
roo made anthropomorphic allusions ro che
me mory of Arabic wriring and ro primiti ve
dolmens ( rhe same rhar would reappear ar
Ronchamp). Whar in rhe Plan Obus is designed ro
go inside a " machine" e nsuring irs significarions is
des rined ro reemerge, isolared, as an enigma ric
fragmenr. But ir is precisely rhe rupture of all
fi ctional unity thar Le Corbusier experimenrs with
in rhe 1940s: the sculptures made in collaboration
wirh Joseph Savina bear wirness ro rhi s. Hence,
eros is seen as lacerarion, ruprure, rendency rowa rd
an otherness- the universe of absolures a nd
rotality- that is necessarily and conrinuously
212 "Alacbine et mmoire ": The Ciry in rhe \XIo rk of Le Cu rbusier
elusive: while Le Corbusier is renouncing che
immanence of hi s roralizing hyporheses, che
multiversttm, the overwhelming plurality of the
forces rhat penetrare che subject as well as
intersubj ective relati ons, falls upon his formal
world. All that remains is to give expression ro
this battle. Le Corbusier's architecrure thus becomes
a kaleidoscopic theater in which cyclopean wars are
staged. His late architecture is a g igantomachi a:
fragmenrs of certitude heroically battle figures born
out of che "listening" ro "unutterable" languages.
The fact that the result of the clash cannot be
decided prevents this architecture from falling inro
sickness."
All chis is not without consequence for
urbanistic theory. Already the tmit of Marseilles
presenrs itself as an enclosed whole in exaltation
of a "second language " tha t penetrares the
inrersrices of this extreme homage to the
coll ectivist dream: and this second language
expresses the conditions that bind che object ro its
solitude, force it ro pretend to be a "type," and
chain it ro its condition as fragmenr of a rotality
destined to remain merely thinkable.
If che Cit de Refuge is a heterotopia that
tends to exceed its own limits, the unit is a
solution that makes a fundamental refusal ro
exceed che limits fixed for it: it is no coincidence
that the first work exalts transparence and the
second opacity (pan de verre versus bt on bmt ).
Both che rransparent and the opaque render
"experience " impossible. But the opacity of the
tmit accentuates che isolation of che community
brought together wirhin it, nullifies all uropian
features, brings the project back ro che presenr
rhar ir contains. A transatlantic monasrery and
familisrety, the unit is rooted ro che soil by
means of its monumental pilotis, but this
anchoring does nor Jet us forget thac we stand
before a fragment, a slice, isolaced, of che linear
syscem that once confronted nature and broughc ir
back to itself in Le Corbusier's urban dreams for
Algiers and South America. Behind che brutal
assertiveness of che unit's forms hides a
declaration of demystification.
lt is at Chandigarh that the deeper subject of
the Marseille unit, rha t which cannor be
"standa rdi zed" or reduced to fi gurari ve formula,
reaches its culmination. Ir is no longer the figures
of unity, process, and che projecrile launched
against rhe furure but rather those of isolation,
finiteness, and interruprion that form the basis of
the capirol of Chandigarh. The differences that
appeared in the Beisregui penthouse reappear here:
but where they coalesce in the penthouse inco a
si ngle object juxtaposed with "Paris, capital of the
ninereench century," in Chandigarh they go on to
surround with emptiness an entire complex
inexorably separated by an urban hypothesis
formulated for a country still at che threshold of a
contradictory development.
In fact, ir is well known that at Chandigarh
Le Corbusier merely corrccted, regularized a nd
standardized-the Seven Vs, zoning units, etc.- the
already existent plan of Albert Mayer. ;
6
Moreover,
though he repeatedly and loudly proclai med that
the Ville Radieuse, rhe city of rhe new age, of
optimism, and technological planning, would rise
up as rhe capital of the Punjab, it is diffi cult not
ro have misgivings about his assigning ro Maxwell
Fry and J ane Drew rhe nocla! poinrs of the urban
body, and his bestowing upon Pierre Jeanneret,
after resci nd ing the three-year contraer of che two
Britishers, che office of Chief Architect and Town
Planner.
Le Corbusier seems to crear che planning of
the city as a purely professional matter: ir should
be enough, he thinks, ro apply che previously
elaborated theoretical corpus, appropriately revised
and adapted ro che lndian situation; he refuses,
having completed rhe plans for che capi rol, ro enter
inro a discourse that cannot be expressed with
these means. Bur chis gives rise ro a separation
that we should not hesitare ro see as being
consciously sought. On the one hand is the ci ty in
which urbani sm and architecture speak common,
everyday, inevitably conventional rongues; on che
orher, the Acropolis, where a modern "builder of
symbols" seeks ro converse with time, nature, and
being. The separation wrought by Le Corbusier in
che body of Chandigarh is perfectly classical.
But the new Acropolis does not, like its Greek
ancestors, contemplare che apeiron from che safery
of ics finice components, even if in ir che solirude
ro which objeccs are bound does rake on cosmic
connota nons.
Norhing in fact joi ns rogerher the gigantic
volumes of rhe Secretariar, the Parliament, and rhe
High Courr of Justice: norhing-neither roads,
perspectiva! allusions, nor formal triangularions-
helps the eye ta situare icself with respecr ta rhese
rhree "characters," which weave among chemselves
a discussion from which rhe human ear is able ta
garher only weak and disrorred echoes. lndeed, rhe
modeling of the terrain, rhe dislocarion of levels,
rhe mirrors of water, especially the Pool of
Reflection,\- are all there ro accentuate
discont inui ries and ruprures. The observer is
presented with a space comprised of absences, an
impassable , alienat ing space: as one climbs up ta
rhe prominences designed (and not complecely
realized) by Le Corbusier-rhe artificial hillocks,
the Monumen t to the Marryrs, the Tower of
Shadows-these absences become even more
unsettling; descending inro rhe Pool of Reflection,
rhe absence and multiplicarion of enigmati c echoes
turn inta silence.
All rhat remains is ta run through and across
the three immense objeccs, first testing their
radical hererogeneity and rhen trying ta burst their
compactness. But heterogeneity and compacrness
already are words from a coded language that
speaks through differences. It is difference, and not
dialectics, that holds the rhree volumes togerher:
they speak through their distarrions, revealing that
the space separating them functions to prime the
mulriple elecrric ares. Those rhree objects, indeed,
can be said ro be "desi rous" in a real sense. Above
all , they desire ro overcome the condirion rhat
chains rhem to this form and this place; they
desi re ro come into conract with each other and,
furrher, ta inte rlink with each other in a single
tangle of forms. (The role given rhe governor's
palace seems, in fact, ta be a peripheral and
interpretative one.)
The harmony of relarionships, of which Le
Corbusier speaks in bis letters to Nehru and which
supposedly resides in che symbol of rhe open hand,
"Macbine el mmoire .. : The Ciry in rhe Work of Le Corbusier 213
assumes problematic overtones in the realized
work. The allegories with which the work is
spri nkled allude to a course of initiation at the
culmi nation of which the language of archetypes
is supposed ta link up indissolubly with a
hyporhetical catharsi s. But no "thread of Ariadne"
is provided for such a course as this. With eyes
fixed on che elusiveness of the origin, the
structures by which the capital of Chandigarh is
disarticulaced "will the future"; but they no longer
dare to predice rhe forms of this fut ure. The
objecrive is rather to fuse the memory of the
origin with rhe tendency taward surpassing the
present: rheir desire for eternity arises from their
being situated at the cenrer of di vergent temporal
fluxes restrai ned within a single place; and the fact
that this place contemplares from afar the
Himalayan range is certainly not insig nificant.
The capital of Chandigarh is indeed siruated
at the limits of space and time. This very fact
legitimares irs meramorphi c games. The truncated
cone of the skylight of rhe Assembl y Hall recalls
ancient minarers- in a 1953 sketch Le Corbusier
designed a truncared cone with a spiral sraircase-
but ir is also an echo of an industrial cooling
tawer. On the other hand, in the profile of rhe
roofing of the Parl iamenr's gigantic pronaos one
recognizes rhe palm, here truncated, of rhe main
ouvette.
This cruncated allegory is signi fi canr,
surreptiti ously inserted as ir is by Le Corbusier
into the body of his archirectanic srrucrure.
lnterrupcions, slippi ngs, and distartions indeed
pervade rhe language of rhe larer Le Corbusier: at
Chandigarh they are essenrial to the dramatization
of rhe forms. The three great "desiring objects"
seek ta shatter rheir own solitude: the Secretariat
through irs incl ined ramp and the broken meshes
of its fa\ade gradations; rhe Parliamenr rhrough
the disrortion of the geomerric solids that
dominare it like hermetic rorems; the Hig h Courr
of Justice through the bending of the brise-sofeit
and the giant enrrance stairway. But the
interchange rakes place only at a distance: tension
informs chis dialogue among symbols that have
lost the codes that once gave rhem the value of
214 ''i\1achi11e et mmoire ": Tht Ciry in rhe Work uf Le Corbusier
names. Ir should now become clearer why che
capirol complex is so definitively isolared from rhe
body of rhe city. In ir, everyday language is not
s poken; rhe "words" of che archirecrure do not
play among rhemselves. In ir, we find rarher rhe
sacredness of names remembered by Le Corbusier.
In suspending his desi re ro bring ro fulfillmenr
rhe uni verse of technology, Le Corbusier is seeking
ar Chandigarh rhe essence of rechnology irself,
linking irs emblems-diffracrion, displacemenr,
pluraliry-ro rhe poiesis of rhe primeva!. Of rhe
"projecr" of rhe V ille Radieuse nor a trace remains;
rhe consrrucrion of myrh, which ar Algiers was
unired wirh rhe machine's song of vicrory, here
presenrs irself in irs pure srare.
For Le Corbusier, none of rhis implies a return
ro esoteric culture. Ar Chandigarh, rhe culture of the
"great initiates"-of Schur, Provensal, Pladan-
which had nouri shed in rhe young Charles-Edouard
Jeanne rer the myrh of an inrellecrual minoriry ro
whom rhe artisr mighr reveal che "word" of his
inner self, ro be larer poured our as a "gifr" ro the
grear masses, clashes wirh che memory of che eterna!
return announced by Zarathustra, the proragonisr of
che book rhar Le Corbusier picked up agai n in 1959
(Augusr 1) for the first time since his inicial reading
of 1908.3
8
Le Corbusier had arrempted ro go beyond
rhe "cancer" of rhe grear city: like Zararhusr ra, he
had nor lisrened ro rhe invirarion ro srop ar its gares.
But his "going beyond"-as Georges Bataille would
later nore-had been vitiated by an "lcarus complex."
Le Corbusier had "fl own" over che great city: the
flighr is very often invoked ro avoid "crossing." And
yet , in his very observations "from above" Le
Corbusier encounrered still anorher Niet zschean
metaphor, rhat of che eterna! recuro, the eterna!
recurrence of peace and wa r, as well as che
inrersecrion between che infinire pasr- rhar which
shines ar rhe momenr when che mmoire
immlontaire is working- and rhe will of rhe future.w
And we know well rhat in Nietzsche the unutterable,
the very rheme of che larer Le Corbusier, appears ar
the crossing of rime and timelessness.
The Open Hand, too, speaks of this. Beyond che
explanations of ir offered by irs author, chis symbol
announces the opening up of infinite possibilities,
lefr in a nascenr state, in waiting. The hand is the
mediator, as regards the world, of every human
project . Open, ir is no longer operarive; in this
posirion it is restrained. Bur perhaps ir assumes a
second meaning, one thar eludes Le Corbusier
himself, despire its conti nua! reappearance in his
formal uni verse from the monumenr ro Vaillant-
Couturier on. The main out-erte does not in fact
express only a " will ro power" lefr indeterminate. In
its ambiguity ir also expresses a "will ro cessation," a
halt. In order ro modify rhe rules of the game that
governs rhe desrinies of rhe world, ir seems ro say,
one muse make a srrategic move capable of breaking
up che game irself, of sropping rhe "bewirched flow"
of evenrs. lt is no accident rhar Le Corbusier
es rablished a direct relation berween the Open Hand
and che Pool of Reflection.
But none of chis is an inviration ro rerreat inro
ascericism: it is, rather, a search for new fronriers for
the space of che utterable. On rhe near side of such
new fronriers rhere is urbanism, an instrumenr that
has become convencional, now devoid of rhe carhartic
potencial previously accorded ir.
Thus were rhe impracticable utopas of the
1920s and 1930s shattered; Le Corbusier's critique
has now come ro exert itself on disciplinary limits as
well. In chis sense, rhe main ouverte is che outermost
limi r rhe "will ro planning" runs up agai nsr. "There
exists a modero rragic emblem", wrore Aragon in Le
Paysan de Paris: "ir is a kind of great sreering wheel
thar rurns and turns, unguided by any hand." A
steering wheel wirhour a hand: rechnology assumed
as desriny, as the " infernal" foundation of " what is
mosr modero," rhe limitless calculabiliry and
organizabili ty of all rhat lives. The Ville Radieuse
wanted ro guide such a mythological steering wheel;
irs ceaseless morion is whar che Open Hand opposed
wirh irs oscillaring metaphors, which are e ndowed, ro
use Walrer Benjamin's phrase, "wi rh a feeble
messiani c srrength."
Notes
l. See L'Architect e, Ocrober 1932, pp. lOO 104: Paolo Melis,
" JI 'cadavere squisiro' di Le Corbusie r, Pierre Jeanneret
e Charles Beisregui," Controspazio 9, No. 3 (1977): 3 7;
Pierre Saddy, "Le Corbusier chez les riches: L'appartement
Charles de Beisregui," Arcbitectme, Mottvement. Contimt
"19 < 1979>: 57ff.; Saddy, " Le Corbusier e I'Arlecchino,"
Rassexna 2, No. 2 ( 1980): 25-32.
2. Letter from Le Corbusier ro Charles de Beisregui of July 5,
1929, Fondarion Le Corbusier, Pars.
3. See Charles de Beisregui ro Roben Bascher in Plfli.rir de
Frcmce, March 1936.
4. On Le Corbusier's urbanism, leaving as ide what has been
wri rren in general monographs or in texts concerning single
projecrs, see, among orhers, H. Allen Brooks, "Jeannerer and
Si ne: Le Corbusier's Earliesr Ideas on Urban Design," in
In Search of Modem Arcbitecture: A to Henry-RuJJell
Hitchkock, ed. Helen Searing (Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press,
1982), pp. 278- 297; Paul Hofer, "Le Corbusier und die Sradt,"
Batten und Wohnen 15 (1961 ): 67- 72; Lewis Mumford,
"Yesrerday's Ciry of Tomorrow," Architeclural Record 132
( 1962 ): 139- 144; Claude Parent, "Le Corbusier et l'urbanisme
moderne," L'Architecture d'Aujo1trd'htti 113/ 114 ( 1964):
v- vi; Harry Antoniades Anthony, "Le Corbusier: His Ideas for
Ci ries," ]ottmal of the American butitttte of Planners 32
( 1966): 279- 288; Anthony Vidler, "The Idea of Uniry and
Le Corbusier' s U rban Form," Architect 's Y ear Book 15
( 1968): 225- 237; Norma Evenson, Le Corbusier: The
Machine and the Grand Desi[?n ( New York: George Braziller,
1969); Kenneth Frampron, "The Ciry of Dialecric,"
Architectttral Desig1z 10 (1969): 54 1- 546; Martn Pawley,
"A Phi1istine Attack," Architectttral De.ri[?n 4 ( 1972 ): 239-240;
Ernesto d'Alfonso, "Dalla cellula alla ci tta (Le Corbusier
1920- 1925)," Parametro 5 ( 1977): 40 45; Anthony Surcliffe,
"A Vision of Uropia: Oprimisric Foundations of Le Corbusier's
' Doctrine d' urbanisme,' " in The Ope1z Hand: E.rsay.r on
Le Corbusier, ed. Russell Walden (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1977), pp. 2 16- 243; Thilo Hilperr, Die /tmktionelle
Stadt: Le Corbmier.r Stadtt,ision-Bedinf!,tm;en. Motit e.
Hinterr;riinde ( Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1978) ; Frampton,
"The Rise and Fall of the Radiant Ci ry: Le Corbusier
1928- 1960," Oppositiom 19/ 20 ( 1980): 2- 25.
5. See Phi1ippe Duboy, "Charles Edouard Jeanneret a la
Bibliorheque Narionale," Architecture. Mouvemem.
49 ( 1979): 9- 12. On Piranesi, Le Corbusier wrires:
"Ail the reconstrucrions of Piranesi , rhe Rome plan and rhe
tight-rope composirions rhar have so dreadfull y served the
Ecole des Beaux-Arts are nothing but porticoes, colonnades
and obel isques! lt's crazy. lt's ghastly, ugly, imbeci1ic. Ir
is not grand, make no mistake abour rhar. In rhis sense the
law of Pladan and the 5 orders would indeed be welcome"
(Fondarion Le Corbusier, Pars, Box BN). For rhe rexrs of
rhe Le Corbusier 1ibrary from before 1930, see Paul Turner,
"Catalogue de la Bibliorheque de Le Corbusier avant 1930,"
Fondation Le Corbusier, Pars, 1970 ( 16 pages mimeographed).
6. Adolphe Lance, summary of rhe Trait d'architecture of
Lonce Raynaud, in Encyclopdie d 'architecture, May 1953,
"\lucbine et 111111oire": The City in rhe Work of Le Corbusier 215
cired in F. Bguin, ''Savoirs de la ville et de la maison du
dbut de 19'"x- siecle," in Politiques de /'habita/ (1800- 1R50),
ed. Michel Foucaulr (Pars: Corda, 1977), p. 306.
7. See Perer Serenyi, "Le Corbusier, Fourier, and the Monasrery of
Ema," The An Bullen 49, No. 4 ( 1967): 277-286, reprinted
in Le Corbu.rier in Perspecthe (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :
Prenrice-Hall , 1975 ), pp. 10) 116. On the srraregies
concerning workers' housing in France, see, aside from
Politiques de l'hahitat. Roger Guerra nd, LeJ Origines du
logement socJI en France (Pars: Editions ouvrieres, 1966) ,
Ira la n edirion ( Ro me: Edizione Officina, 1981) revised and
enlarged, with an essay by Georges Teyssor, .. ' La casa per tutti ':
per una genealoga dei ripi ." Among the influences on
Le Corbusier's residenrial architecture we should nor forget
rhe familistere, wirh rwenty-four lodgings and a carefully
srudied air circulat ion, dug up in 1868 by G.E. Boch in rhe
equestrian arena built in 1855 ar La Chaux-de-Fonds. Marc
Emery, who ca lled arrenrion ro rhe edifice ro ensure irs surviva l,
observed rhar ir is one of rhe firsr consrrucrions influenced
by rhe familist ere of J.-B. Godi n and rhar, as ir is si tuated
only a few merers from rhe Grenier resrored by rhe srudents
of rhe Eco le d' Art, ir could ha ve had an influence on rhe ideas
of rhe young Jeannerer. See Marc Emery, "SOS: un
familisrere a La Chaux-de-Fonds: le manege," lY/erk/
Archithese 29/ 30 ( 1979): 75.
8. Georges Teyssot, "' La casa per tutti ,' .. in particular pp. xli and
following (see N<) re 7 ). Teyssot also esrablished he re
(p. xlviii ) an "essenrial conrinuity among rhe objecri ves of all
rhar which conrributed ro rhe formation of rhe disciplinary
corpus of architecture from ... the first hygienist and
rechnological argumenrs of around 1830 up ro rhose
recapitulated in a fixed and totalizing form in rhe ' Arhe ns
Cha rrer' of 1933."
9. In his manual on "social relief," rhe Baron de Grando wrires:
"There are rwo obsracles which public adminisrration must
beware of: ir must avoid doing too much and doing roo
lirrle .. .. But public beneficience . .. above all needs rhe
concurrence of this acti ve chariry which seeks, examines,
surveys, and adds ro irs materi al assisrance the benefit of moral
comfort." J.-M. de Grando, Le Visiteur du pauvre ( Pars:
L. Colas, 1820), p. 383. On rhe nuclear family as social
mechanism, see Lion Murard and Parrick Zyberman, "Le perit
rravailleur infatigable ou le prolraire rgnr," Recherches
25 ( 1976): 195- 228, and Gilles Deleuze, ''L'ascesa del socia le,"
Aut attt 167/ 168 ( 1978): 108- 114.
10. See Brian Brace Taylor, "Technology, Sociery and Social
Control in Le Corbusier' s Cit de Refuge, Par s 1933,' '
Oppositions 15/ 16 ( 1979): 169- 185, and the more complete
rreatment by rhe same author, La Cit de l?efuge di
Le Corbusier (Rome: Officina edizioni, 1979).
11 . Sheddi ng light on rhis marrer are rhe works by Brian Brace
Taylor menrioned above; see also Taylor, Le Corbtesier at
PeJSac (Paris: Spadem, 1972), and Eleanor Gregh, "The
Dom-ino Idea," Oppositiom 15/ 16 (1979): 6 1- 87.
216 ''Machine el /Jt mwire ": The Cic y in che Work of Le Curbusie r
12. See Michel Foucaulc, DiJcipline and Ptmish: The Birth of
the Pri.ro1z. rrans. AJan Sheridan ( New York: Pamheon, 1977).
13. Georges Teyssor, .. ' La casa per rurri,"' pp. lix and foll owing
(see Note 7).
1' . Alfred de Foville, F.nqute mr les conditiom de l'habittltion
en France: les maisons-ty pes (Paris: Noel, 1894 ). See also
Brian Brace Taylor, Le Corbusier tlt Pessac.
15. Kennech Frampron, Ediror's lmroducrion, Oppositiom 15/ 16
( 1979): ll , but see al so the proposi tions set fonh on this
marrer by Charles Jencks in Le Corbttsier and the Tragic
Vieu of Architecture (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Uni versity
Press, 1973 ).
16. Useful sources on the "five poinrs" as a catalogue of negations
are as follows: Laurenr Israel, "Les pilotis"; Fernando Montes,
"L'Hypochese lumineuse: la fenecre en longueur"; Patrick
Germe, "Purer ec libert: plan libre"- all in
Architect ttre. Mouvement, Contimtit 49 ( 1979): 39ff. An
inrerprecarion of the Maison Dom-ino as a refleccion of a
"moderni sc or self-referenrial condition of sign" may be found
in Perer Eisenman, "Aspeccs of Moderni sm: Mai son Dom-i no
and che Self-Referenrial Sign," Oppositions 15/ 16 ( 1979):
11 9- 128. On rhe orher hand, 1 find unacceptable rhe relacions
esrablished becween che " rransgressed grids" of Le Corbusier
and che oscillaring rhychms of sevemeench-cencury
Mannerism in rhe article by Barry Maitland, "The Grid,"
Oppositiom 15/ 16 ( 1979): 91 11 7.
17. See Paul Turner, "The Beginnings of Le Corbusier's Educacion,
The Art Bulletin 53 ( 197 1 ): 214- 224; Turner, "Romancicism,
Rationa lism, and rhe Dom-ino Syscem," in The Open 1/and,
pp. 15-41; and Turner, The Education of Le Corbttsier (New
York: Garland Publ ishing, 1977).
18. Sec Mary Patricia May Sekler, The Early Orawings of Charle.r
Edouard ]eanneret ( Le CorbttSier), 1902- 1908 (New York:
Garland Publishing, 1977); Sekler, "Le Corbusier, Ruskin,
the Tree and the Open Hand," in The Open Htmd, pp. 42- 95.
19 See Maurice Jardor, Le Corbusier. dessim (Pars: Edirions
Mondes, 1955 ); Stephen A. Kurrz, "Public Planning, Priva te
Planning," Art News 71 ( 1972) : 37-41, 73- 74; bur more
imporram, see Daniele Pauly, "Dessins et peincures
1928 1932," in Le Corbusier. ltl ricerca paziellte (Lugano:
Federazione Archiretti Svizzeri, 1980 ), pp. 181 ff. See al so
Karherine Fraser Fischer, .. A N acure Morre, 1927 ," Opposi-
tions 15/ 16 ( 1979): 157- 165; Sranislaus von Moos, "Le Cor
busier as Paimer," Oppo.ritions 19/ 20 (1980): 89 107; and
rhe book by Luisa Martina Colli, Arte, artigiallato e tecnica
nefla poetica di Le CorbMier (Rome and Bari: Larerza, 1982).
20. It is hardl y necessary ro underline rhar our analysis has
nothing ro do with rhe criticisms of Le Corbusier as prophet
of the "inhumaniry" of merropolitan cencralization and rhe
grands ensembles. See, as an example of such inaccurate
attacks, Jacques Riboud, Les F:rrettrs de Le Corbusier et leurs
comeqttences (Pars: Editions Mazarine, 1968) (also published
earlier in Revue politique et parlemerztaire, February 1968);
bur see also Martn Pawley, "A Phil isrine Attack." The ries
berween Le Corbusier and rhe va rious poli tical groupings
from which he drew support have been repearedly analyzed
in recem years. On his relat ions wi th regional isr syndicalism,
technocraric and righr-wing French groups, rhe From
Populai re, and the Vichy government, see Kenneth Frampton,
"The Ci ry uf Dialecric"; Anrhony Eardley, "Giraudoux and the
Arhens Charter," Oppositiom 3 ( 1974): 83 90; Roberto
Gabetri and Cario Olmo, Le Corbusier e "L'L:'sprit Nouveau"
(Turin: Einaudi , 1975) ; Roberr Fishman, "From the Radiant
Ciry ro Vichy: Le Corbusier's Plans and Polirics, 1928-1942,"
in The Open Hand, pp. 244 283; and Thilo Hi lperr, Die
/tmktionelle Stadt. This lasr work is imporranr for correcring
some ea rlier inrerprerarions. See also Giuliano Gresleri and
Dario Marteoni, "La naturalita logica degl i evenri: Le Corbusier
da Vichy a ' Propos d'Urbanisme,"' inrroduction ro rhe ltalian
translarion of Le Corbusier's A propos d 'Urbanisme (Bologna:
Zanichell i, 1980), pp. 7 24, and rhe article by Mary McLeod,
" PlaiZJ: Bibliography," Oppositiom 19/ 20 (1980): 185- 189
( with summary and index uf rhe maga zine Plans ar
pp. 190- 20 l ). Concerning the relarions between Le Corbusier
and lra lian fascism, see Mimita Lamberri , "Le Corbusier
e l'lralia," Annali del/a Scuola ormale Superime di Pisa,
Classe di Lertcre e Fi losofa , series lll, vol. 2 ( Pisa, 1972 ),
pp. 81 7-871, with abundanr previously unpublished
documenrarion; and Giorgio Ciucci, "A Roma con Bortai,"
l?assegna 2, No. 3 (1980): 66- 81. For Le Corbusier's relarions
wirh rhe Soviet U nion, see Jean-Louis Cohen, "Certe mysrique:
L' URSS," Architectttre, Mottvement, Contimt 49 ( 1979):
75- 84, and Christian Borngraber, "Le Corbusier a Mosca,"
I?assegna 2, No. 3 (1980): 79-88.
21. Le Corbusier, Une Maison. tm palais ( Pars: Cres, 1928), p. 228;
Prcisiom mr 1m tat prsent de l'architectttre et de
( Pars: Cres, 1930), p. 187; Le Corbusier, La Vil/e
radiettse ( Boulognej Sei ne: Edirions de I'Archirecture
d'Aujourd' hui, 1935 ), p. 249.
22. Roland Barrhes, Lerton inaugttraie de la chaire de Smiologie
Littraire du Cullege de France, prononce le 7 janvier 1977
( Paris: Seuil , 1978).
23. See Jean-Louis Cohen, "Cet re mys rique"; Giorgio Ciucci,
"A Roma con Bortai"; and Ciucci , "Le Corbusier e Wrighr in
URSS," in Socialismo, citta. architettttra: UIUS 1917-1937
( Rome: Officina edizioni , 197 1 ), pp. 173- 193.
24. Ir should be poinred out that it was for the group Redressement
franrtais-an organi za rion uf rechnocrars devoted ro a
revitalizarion of the counrry rhrough rhe efforrs of an
" industrial eli te of inrelligence, ralem, and characrer"- rhat
Le Corbusier published his pamphler Vers le Pars de !'poqMe
machiniste (supplemenr ro rhe group's bullerin of February 15,
1928).
25. Roben de Souza, N ice. capital e d'hiver (Pars: Berger-Levraulr,
19 13). See also Pierre Saddy, "Le Corbusier chez les riches."
26. Le Corbusier, La Vil/e radiettSe, p. 38.
~
ed
;m,
on,
rhe
ltt"
a m
2,"
ing
ld
aer
ian
na:
od,
9
;ier
J OS
ue:
):
28;
'ille
gie
>77
1at
que
15,
ult,
..
:s.
27. Le Corbusier, La Vil/e radieuse, p. 154.
28. Regarding rhe impact of Larin America on Le Corbusier,
see Le Corbusier, Prcisions. Regarding rhe plans for Algiers,
see Le Corbusier, ''Le plan d'amnagemenr de la ville d' Alger,"
L'Architecture Vi1ante, Ocrobe r 1932; Le Corbusie r, La Vil/e
radieme, pp. 226 240; Giorgio Piccinaco, "Metodologia di
Le Corbusier," Casabe/La 274 ( 1963 ): 16- 25; Sranislaus von
Moos, Le Cor!msier: Element.r of a Sy nthesis (Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1979), pp. 200 206; von Moos, "Von den
' Femll)es d'Aiger' zum ' Plan Obus,"' Archithese 1 ( 1971):
25- 56; Edmond Brua, "Quand Le Corbusier bombardait Alger
de ' Projets-Obus,"' L'Arcbitecture d'Aujuurd'bui 167 ( 197.) ):
72- 77; Manfredo T afuci , Architecwreand Utopia (Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1976 ), pp. 125ff.; Marcello Fagiolo,
"Le Corbusier 1930: progerri per l'America Latina e per
Algeri ," Ottagono 44 ( 1977): 21-4 1. See also the imporranr
cssay by Mary McLeod, " Le Corbus ier and Algiers,"
Oppositions 19/ 20 ( 1980): 55 85, which gives a complerc
hisrory of Le Corbusier's advenrure in Algiers.
29. Inreresring observarions on the anthropomorphism in rhe
architecture of Le Corbusier, which may also be releva nt for
his urbani stic projecrs, may be found in Timothy Benron,
"Le Corbusier's ' propos archirecrural,"' in Le Corbu.rier. la
ricerca pa::iente, pp. 23ff.
30. The program for a "Lat in entente" was publi shed in the first
issue of Prl11de, rhe morro of which was : "The true man is che
Crafts man. The expression of che Craftsman is che labor union
inregrared into rhe Stare." An explanation of the mea ning
of this use of the te rrn prelude" is offered by Pierre Winre r:
"Therefore, since we are in a Prelude betwcen Fascism and
Collecrivism, we claim our place along this line of
dema rcation." (Pierre Winter, "Forma rions nouvelles,"
Prlude 7 11933 J: 3.) The ca l! ro the authority of the group
behind Prlude, an organ "of regionali sr and syndicalist
action," is hence anything but concrete, as Thilo Hilperr has
correcrly observed in Die funktio1lelle Stadt , note 4.
31. See Stanislaus von Moos, "Von den ' Femmes d' Alger' zum
'Plan Obus."'
32. Le Corbusier, La Vil/e radieuse, p. 233.
33. On the residencial amphitheater uf Nemours as a "Casbah
of modcrn times, in sreel and cemenr," see La Vil/e radieu.re
p. 315. Le Corbusier's interes e in the maiJUilJ a grttdin.r
uf Sauvage and Sarazin is documenred by a fiche of ca. 19 15.
ee Phil ipp<.' Duboy, "Charles-Edouard Jeanneret a la
Uibl iotheque Nariona le," p. 12. As Mary Patricia May Sekler
rells us in The Early Drauzgr, p. 326, Sauvage offered work
ro Le Corbus ier in 1908.
.)4. On rhe Athens Charrer and the problcms concerning irs
drafting, scc Reyner Banham's rcview of Le Corbusier, Tbe
Atben.r Cbarter, trans. Anthony Eardley (New York:
Grossman, 197 3 ), in }ournal of tbe Society of A rchitectural
1/i.rt orian.r 33 (1974): 260- 26 1. Sec also A. Eardley,
"Giraudoux and che Arhens Charrer"; Marrin Sreinmann, ed. ,
"Macbine el mmwire '': The City in rhe Work of Le Corbusier 217
CIAM: Dokttmente 1928- 1939 (Basel and Srurrga rt:
Birkhauser, 1979); the solc issue of Parametro, 1976, No. 52
( Da Bruxelles ad Atene: la citta /tmzionale), and rhe essay
by G. Ciucci, " IJ mito Movimenco Moderno e le vicende dei
CIAM," Ctuahella 463/ 464 ( 1980): 28-35.
35. On Le Corbusier's projecr for the Zl n val ley and his relarions
with che Bat'a industry, see Jean-Louis Cohen, " JI nosrro
cliente e il nostro padrone," Rassegna 2, No. 3 (1980): 47- 60.
Le Corbusier did not "discuver" T o m ~ Bat'a ( 1876 1932 ),
rhe "Ford of Central Europe," until 1935, rhough borh
Tretjakov and Hyacimhe Dubreuil, propagandist ofTaylorism
with ties ro Le Corbusier, had taken an inreresr in him.
Le Corbusier's interese was rhe result of a letter from Franrisek
Gahura, archirecr of rhe Bat'a industrial buildings.
Le Corbusier's plan for che valley is polemical as regards
che garden ci ties planned by Gahura , but it did not sufficienrly
impress Jan Bat'a. The same sort of failure was in store for
Le Curbusiers plan for Hellocoun ( Bataville ) in 1936 as well as
for che Bar'a pavilion project for rhe Paris Expo of 1937.
Le Corbusier goc his revenge in 1957, when he refused ro
supporr Jan Bat'a for the Nobel Peace Prize. Le Corbusier's
failure regarding rhe Bar'a industry is significant : Toms and
Jan Bat' a both seem ro ha ve had all the characteristics of rhe
" leader" so dea r ro Le Corbusier's ideology, jusr as rheir
production ancl propaganda srraregies seem ro have grear
aff inir ies with Le Corbusier's planning ideas. But Bat'a is nor
Fruges.
36. Of the vast bibliography on Chandigarh, we should like ro
mention rhe Oemre complete, vols. 5- 8, passim; Norma
Evenson, Chandip,arh (Berkeley: Universiry of California
Press, 1966); S ten Nilsson, 'J'he Neu CapitaiJ u/ India.
PakJtan. and B,mg!ade.rh (Lund, 1973); Maxwell Fry,
" Le Corbusier ar Chandigarh," in Tbe Open Hand,
pp. 35 1 .%3 ; Madhu Sa rin, "Chandigarh as a Place ro l ive In,"
in The Open Hand, pp. 375-'i 11 ; Stanislaus von Moos, "The
Pulirics of rhe Open Hand: Notes on Le Corbusier and Nehru
ac Chandigarh," in The Ope11 Hand, pp. ' 13-45 7.
37. The connecrion between rhe Pool of Reflecrion and the Open
Hand is cstabl ished from the start by Le Corbusier. See h is
lerrer ro Nehru of July 21, 1955, in Le Corbusier !ui-meme,
ed. Jean Peri r (Geneva: Edirions Rousseau, 1970), pp. 116- 117.
In many ways, the Pool of Reflecriun seems ro be a furrher
devel upment of the meraphors conrai ned in che "chambre a
ciel ouverr" of rhe Beistegui pemhouse: descending inro ir,
racher rhan ascendi ng ro the heighr of a pcnthouse, one is
supposed ro remain in rhe company of one's own solitude,
while rhc symbols of rhe g rear values disappear. Better
yet, une is supposed ro cunrract inro the fi na l and unirary
symbol of rhe Open Hand.
38. In his copy of Tlm.r Spoke Zaratlmstm. Le Corbusier nored
on Augusr 1, 1959: "] have not read this book since 1908
(quai St.- Michel, Paris) = 51 yea rs = my li fe as a man. Today,
having plundered rhese pages, 1 discover sicuarions, acts,
218 ''Machine el mmoire'': The City in the Work of Le Corbusier
decisions, destinatiuns, which are the achievements of a man.
1 have decided tu mark rheir pages."
39. lt is, therefore, possible tu assen a close connecrion
berween the Jeanneret who in rhe years of La Chaux-de-
Fonds perceived che modern as crisis, rending w group
wgerher che secretf of the machine and uf nature, and che
Le Corbusier who built, in rhe works of his maturc
adulthood and old age, a " language of crisis ... Cas ting light
u pon che rheme of the uait in rhe yuung Jeanneret, Jacques
(;ubler concludes a penerraring essay in rhe fullowing
manner: "Le Corbusicr will sing of the deed uf the violent
restoracion of the ancestral heritage, bui lt with calm and
reason." And the symbol of this herirage- ac La Chaux-de-
Fonds as well as at Chandigarh- is la rache. Gubler,
"jeanneret et le regionalisme: du sentiment a la raisun,"
l lrchithese_) ( 1981 ): 31- 38.