THE CORBUSIAN DREAM: SOCIOECONOMIC POWER IN 20TH CENTURY SOCIALHOUSINGAND MASTER PLANNING INTRODUCTION
To understand the emergence of 20th-century social housing, one must first analyse the global economic timeline and resulting class struggle in city master planning. Government housing schemes have always had a political power theory for the underprivileged class, a way to embrace, ignore or diminish their part in society, as architecture is not only symbolic of power but a fundamental component of it (Gokhale, 2014). The demise of social housing is, thus, adversely linked to the neoliberalist theory of restructuring the governing body away from social insurance, intensifying the power relations between the two entities (Cupers, 2020). This essay indisputably uses Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin (1925), La Cité Radieuse (1933) and the city of Chandigarh (1949), case studies which crucially reflect the timeline of economic events, to show the capitalist power-progression and financialisation of Le Corbusier’s utopian plans, and the epistemological shift of power between the ‘capital’ (governments, architects) and the ‘labour’(residents, users). Through utilising Karl Marx’s political economy theory, and Michel Foucault’s philosophy of power/knowledge and madness/reason, this essay expands on how dividing users based on their socioeconomic disposition creates classism in society and results in a tyrannical regime of power in social housing and, thus, master planning.
Literature Review
Alook into the early 19th-century feudal society shows the grotesque methods of instilling power and fear within class hierarchies.Although physicality is left behind and the regime of authority is less visible, modern-day society has merely removed the complexities from the class conflicts (Marx, 1888); however, their uncertainty remains. The limits exceed physical but have now entered one’s soul and mind. In his ‘Communist Manifesto’, Marx (1888:9) divides the opposition of class into two wholes; ‘Bourgeoisie [upper class] and Proletariat [working class]’. The socioeconomic status of the bourgeoisie gives them power to exploit the proletariat within the capitalist method of production. However, Marx (1888) argues that the unification of the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie’s authority structure, thus
achieving a harmonious society. Continuing with Marx’s political economy theory, the two ‘wholes’could also be seen as representative of capital (upper class) and labour (working class), each a product of antagonistic capitalist classifications, juxtaposing the ironic ideals of union and harmony in Le Corbusier’s urban theories. However, the world economy as seen from The Great Depression, the decade-long economic crisis in 1929, unravelled many things which the upper class tried to hide, unknowing of their own system’s theory; chronic debacles of a power-embedded system that only benefits the capital.
Michel Foucault argues that these power relations are validated by ideologies generally accepted as ‘truths’or ‘knowledge’(Fruhling, no date); thus, power and knowledge are ‘two sides of the same social relationship’(Cowton and Dopson, 2002:193). The term ‘epistemological’is derived from the Greek word episteme, meaning ‘knowledge’and ‘reason’, therefore, defining the philosophy of knowledge and justification of the reasoning (Martinich and Stroll, 2023) As classist ideologies have long been rooted within modern architectural discourse and practice, residents living in dilapidated high-rises receive a bad reputation due to the discrepancy of socioeconomic status between the architect and themselves (Cupers, 2020). The architects impose their ‘knowledge’on the residents, dictating through their epistemic bourgeoisie lens and ultimately deciding the needs of a community facing constant alienation (Cupers, 2020).
In order to comprehend his social outlook and political agenda, Foucault’s theories should be taken out of context to dissect them for the value they pose to architectural apprehension. His notion is representative of tools to gain knowledge of society, one that is flawed. In his ‘History of Madness’(1972), Foucault introduces the paradox of madness in society as, again, two entities: the ‘madness’and ‘reason’. The creation of madness, he argues, is the causation of powerful states using the ‘disease’as a political leverage to create hierarchies within society and establish new classes (Foucault, 1972). The theoretical division of the user and architect into two can also be applied to this equation, in this case, the alienated ‘mad’ being the users and the imposing ‘reason’the architects. Foucault accounts for this division due to there being a lack of discussion between the two, ‘as though [they are] dead to one another’(Foucault, cited in Fontana-Giusti, 2013:53). These epistemic divisions and the
vanity of capital are elements which have transformed architecture into what it is today: a discipline which serves not the proletariat but the capitalists.
FINANCIALISATION OF POST-WARARCHITECTURE
Power hierarchies can be seen existing amongst the bourgeoisie who impose them on the proletariat, suggesting a system of control beyond what the proletariat can see. Following the mass destruction of infrastructure during WWI, intense rebuilding commenced globally, and governments, for the first time, were responsible for providing shelter for their citizens (Whitwell, 2020). However, in a capitalist system, the financialisation of architecture is inevitable, and every class struggle is inherently political (Marx, 1888). Thus, with classism remaining a powerful influence in 20th-century society and the likes of post-war social mobility unfeasible, power structures in the built environment revealed signs of decay as the reconstruction of the French economy began. Social housing production was slow in France; Le Corbusier designed the Maison Dom-ino in 1914, shown in figures 1a and 1b (Boesiger and Stonorov, 1995:23), a concrete skeleton of a modular housing unit as a cheap solution for war-torn regions in France and Belgium (Santiago, 2022), yet, the bourgeoisie would not sponsor his idea.
The French government’s commitment to social redemption fell short. Whilst premium social housing was being built for the government elites (specifically the French), immigrant soldiers and their families were left to live in run-down huts (Santiago, 2022). This racial and economic segregation was nothing new for stigmatised France, yet, compared to present-day
France, where the residents of social housing are predominantly working class (Santiago, 2022), the power motive of the government can be questioned. Power relations and socioeconomic influence in social housing are thus revealed through the government prioritising financial capital, whether building and up-keeping premium social housing for the bourgeoisie or confining the proletariat in decaying social towers.
In a capitalist society, architecture is viewed as an investment vehicle rather than a structure for shelter (Whitwell, 2020). Capitalist power within the built environment becomes evident when looking at post-war brutalist social housing; Le Corbusier chose concrete as a material for its reduced costs and practicality, allowing quick construction and occupancy. Profit gained from social housing had power over the people, and young architects, such as Le Corbusier at the time, had little authority over the government. The faster the architects’ designed and the taller they built, the more profit the government made. However, in the aftermath of WWI, the demographic of social housing changed; The towers of class segregation were marketed for the industrial workforce, the proletariat (Cupers, 2020). The dwelling one lived in was representative of their socioeconomic class, and due to the financialisation of architecture and increasing social immobility, the working class were dependent on any help they could get from the government (Cupers, 2020). Referring back to Foucault’s theory of power/knowledge, the government held epistemological power, therefore knowledge, to dictate the trajectory of the users’lives; the people had no option but to believe the ‘truths’of a system which disregarded them. Young architects, in this theory, could be put into the same category as the users. Their efforts at giving value to government commodities are exploited, and the worth of their labour is reduced to nothing more than a tool in the governments’production process (Choonara, 2009).
PLAN VOISIN
Le Corbusier focused on creating modular housing for the benefit of the public during WWI, however, his theories soon changed post-war, directing their priority from labour to capital. The design of Plan Voisin resulted from his greed for order, which most cities lacked while recovering from the war. Baron Haussmann’s reconstruction of Paris in the mid-1800s was met with criticism regarding the social engineering of his master plan. The historic streets of Paris, where the bourgeoisie and proletariat could once rub shoulders, were demolished to
create distinctly power-structured, socially segregated areas (Willsher, 2016) Haussmann pushed the poor to the city’s outskirts by increasing the central dwelling prices, achieving his vision of a more beautiful Paris at the cost of the underprivileged (Willsher, 2016). Ironically, Le Corbusier considered this new Paris chaotic and saw the ornate iron bars along the French balconies as unnecessary (Fishman, 1982). He imagined superficial structures, as seen in figure 2 (Boesiger and Stonorov, 1995:69); cells, he called them (Le Corbusier, 1929), which followed function and did not distract users from their routines.
Plan Voisin (later developed with the same theories and renamed to The Contemporary City (Fishman, 1982)) entailed geometrical zoning in its urban planning, seen in figure 3 (Mateja, 2020:online), which Le Corbusier (1929) argued was the principle of architecture. His plans called for the total demolition of Haussmann’s central Paris, where he would instead lay skyscrapers and high-rise residential blocks housing 78,000 people (Fishman, 1982). Naturally, his hierarchal theories pleased the bourgeoisie clients who sponsored them. The
SECTORA
SECTOR B
SECTOR C
SECTOR D
layout of Plan Voisin included prefabricated skyscrapers demonstrated through his model shown in figure 4 (Fondation Le Corbusier, no date:online), which would be offices for the elite society consisting of scientists, artists and industrialists (Hall, 2014). He would house them in vertical luxury apartments allowing for 85% of the ground space area to remain open for green space and entertainment complexes (Hall, 2014), creating a city which is ‘one uninterrupted park’(Le Corbusier, 1933:113). Exiled from this elite zone, however, were the proletariat dwellings, where only 48% of the ground space was left open and their gardens nestled amongst satellite units on the roof (Hall, 2014). The elite’s power can be seen from this classist built social housing, revealing itself through the cracks of financialised urban planning, ‘fear of madness and dread of unreason’(Hacking, cited in Foucault, 1972:xii).
Le Corbusier’s narrative was straightforward; architecture should be functional and machinelike, a way in which to solely retain and ‘[contain] the people that lived in them’(Le Corbusier, 1933:65).Although he called Haussmann’s segregated Paris a ‘[monstrosity] created under the very noses of the populace’(Le Corbusier, 1933:90), his Plan Voisin was no different; a city with a robot-like hierarchical system with zero regards for user input as ‘[t]he design of cities … [was] too important to be left to the citizens’(Fishman, cited in Hall, 2014:241). The architect was consumed by greed from the elite sponsorships, shown through his urban iterations where he shifts the power from labour to capital. The class disparity between Le Corbusier, a wealthy architect, and the working class users, secluded from the forefront of his design, reflects the socioeconomic power relations in his negatively designed urban space which he communicates ‘through the merciless language of non-madness’ (Foucault, cited in Fontana-Giusti, 2013:52). His neoliberal approach with the bourgeoisie as the administrative power and the proletariat accepting of their order is similar to Foucault’s depiction of the ship of fools, where the town officials exiled madmen from the town borders in an attempt to purify their homeland: ‘His exclusion was his confinement, and if he had no
prison other than the threshold itself he was still detained at this place of passage. In a highly symbolic position he is placed on the inside of the outside, or vice versa’(Foucault, 1972:11).
LACITÉ RADIEUSE (THE RADIANT CITY)
Le Corbusier was an impressionable architect who based his social agenda on global economic and industrial events. The Great Depression resulted in a halt of sponsorships, and Le Corbusier’s utopian city theory changed again; he was forced to face the dishevelled compromise of reality, a reality in which capitalism no longer favoured him and his grand plans (Fishman,1982). The order he pursued in Plan Voisin proved unreliable in the declining global market (Fishman, 1982) thus, he continued designing, finally arriving at his Radiant City ideals. His new scheme, a ‘rational body of knowledge’(Le Corbusier, 1929:17), was now centred around the virtue of family, which he presumed upon the residents.All inhabitants, regardless of socioeconomic status, would live in identical apartments named Unité, and apartment size and location would differ based on the size of one’s family instead of their class hierarchy; he declared himself a radical anarchist who ‘thought neither of rich nor of poor but of man’(Le Corbusier, cited in Fishman, 1982:231). The entertainment and cultural centres which were elite-exclusive in Plan Voisin, could now be used by all residents, and the skyscrapers, before only utilised by elite offices, were now providing jobs for all (Fishman, 1982). The ‘mad’and ‘reason’could coexist in his utopia, as division and exclusion, analogous to madness itself (Foucault, 1972), had been removed.
However, ‘[w]ithout an end to capitalism there can be no end to exploitation’(Choonara, 2009:35). Marx (1888) argues that in order to transform society, inequality in capital-labour relations must be tackled at the roots. The removal of class divisions did not erase the power disparities in Le Corbusier’s design but instead brought a more dictatorial rule. Le Corbusier replaced the fossilised capitalist administration by enforcing his ‘knowledge’onto the lives of his contained residents, taking on the responsibility to direct the ‘senseless in search of their reason’(Foucault, 1972:10). He had power over every aspect of their lives, everything down to the furniture in each apartment which was to be identical, and the hours of recreational time which one was granted per day (Hall, 2014). All that he presumed a family would need would be contained in the Unité, the tower block shown in figure 5 (Boesiger, 1995:180), like nurseries, restaurants and tennis courts; the family was ‘free’from capitalism but under the
control of the architect’s built environment. Le Corbusier’s conceited power complex can be seen in The Radiant City’s completely authoritarian society, which he argued was individual liberty based on an ‘inalienable, unquestionable truth’(Le Corbusier, cited in Fishman, 1982:164). His ‘truth’was administrative; thus, his power represented and was derived from his knowledge. Le Corbusier’s utopic theories can be interpreted as the causation of his ‘madness’‘[remaining] silent in the composure of knowledge’(Foucault, cited in FontanaGiusti, 2013:56). He put ostentation and industrialism above the function of his theories, consequently creating a power hierarchy in his master plan and within himself (Stevenson, 2015); although class hierarchies were removed, his authoritarian order was imposing, thus, resulting in a tyrannical regime of power between the architect and user.
THE CITY OF CHANDIGARH
The Great Depression was overlooked at the arrival of WWII in 1939, and governments were again facing a tremendous housing crisis. Le Corbusier’s first design was realised after the war ended; the Unité, high-rise residential blocks seen in The Radiant City, were finally beginning to get built in France and Germany. However, Le Corbusier did not believe in fragmentary planning.All elements of his urban plan were to coexist together to create the post-war order he envisioned, yet his theories were deemed too utopian for war-torn cities (Fishman, 1982). That is until, across the globe, the two-hundred-year British colonial rule of India and Pakistan ended. The division of the two countries in 1947 resulted in Lahore, the capital of Punjab, being given to Pakistan, leaving India to construct its new capital,
Chandigarh (Fiederer, 2018). The Indian Prime Minister Jawarharlal Nehru was strongly influenced by the modern colonial approach to industrialisation and was eager to overtake Western brutalist developments by constructing a ‘city unfettered by the traditions of the past’ (Nehru, cited in Prakash, 2002:9). To achieve his vision, he hired Le Corbusier, rejected by many for being too radical (Hall, 2014). The project began in 1949 and resulted in 9000 indigenous residents being displaced (Prakash, 2002), a small sacrifice for Le Corbusier, who finally had the opportunity to construct his social theories into reality. WWII was the last of many global conflicts the architect had to endure, and he responded yet again with unwavering plans of order Le Corbusier personally took on the design of the masterplan seen in figure 6 (Fynn, 2017:14), and argued with the other architects to enforce his one-size-fitsall social ideology, eventually taking complete control of the detailing.
Chandigarh mimicked colonisation in more ways than one; the act of dedicating a prestigious Western team to reconstruct the post-colonial city emphasised the power discrepancy between the architects and the users, in a way perceiving the Indian public to be ‘voluntarily admiring the West’(Prakash, 2002:12). The plans for Chandigarh reflected Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin ideals rather than his improved, anarchist Radiant City; he believed he could aid his European social organisation approach (and gain profit and status whilst doing so) by ignoring the needs of the Indian population and turning his focus to that of the visual form (Hall, 2014), thus overlooking the users and strengthening his social power over them. Le Corbusier remained loyal to his ‘truth’; he used Chandigarh to fulfil his previous unrealised plans of creating an industrial capital for the bourgeoisie, with no regard for the existing indigenous residents with whom he did not converse, therefore, creating unequal power and capitallabour relations.
The class segregation in Chandigarh’s residential sectors was blatant and could be seen in the numbered hierarchal divisions in figure 6 (Fynn, 2017:14).All sectors had education and commercial facilities, reflecting his design for Unité. However, the decline of quality and government supervision in lower-income areas enforced neoliberal theories and resulted in increased social immobility due to the division of daily amenities which deterred all interlacing of class. The social housing was intended for government employees of various ranks; based on their income, the officials would be located near sector one, the prestigious Capitol Complex containing government buildings which Le Corbusier segregated to create a visible power hierarchy, or displaced to the lower zone slums on the city perimeter which were chaotically growing due to migrants in search of job opportunities (Prakash, 2002). The housing disparity in different zones can be seen in figures 7 and 8 (Fynn, 2017:165/172). The scale of the masterplan also meant that the city was heavily motorised (Prakash, 2002), something that the socioeconomic disposition of Chandigarh was unprepared for; proletariat residents did not own vehicles to travel the long lengths of V2, shown on the masterplan in figure 6 (Fynn, 2017:14), and thus remained contained in their sectors, forming their divided communities. Le Corbusier’s purely aesthetic and neoliberal approach diminished the city’s need for an integrated community and focused on providing private housing for his elite clients, reflective of his hierarchal power theories.
Although it was not under his responsibility, Le Corbusier oversaw the modernist designs of private dwellings in wealthy sectors to be individualistic, whilst the homogenous design for lower-income sectors was deprived of the spatial model called ‘appropriation’(Cupers, 2020). Le Corbusier’s theory for social housing hindered this strong human desire; his designs for the socioeconomically weak users were artificial, denying them the imaginative appropriation and possession of their habitat and resulting in deteriorating buildings which promoted hierarchies and lacked self-expression, ultimately resulting in capitalist products which merely evoked accomplishment in the architects and their sponsors (Cupers, 2020).
Nevertheless, supported by Marx’s political economy argument of working-class union, the class divisions came with retaliation, the result of being ‘trapped in a prison of alienation’(Choonara, 2009:54). The Indianisation of the city began after its completion, once the Western ‘knowledge’was no longer imposed on the users (Prakash, 2002). Much to Le Corbusier’s dismay, the epistemological shift of power was underway. Proletariat users who did not influence the initial production began to influence their surroundings, as seen in figure 9 (Fynn, 2017:180), adding tin sheets over their doors for shade and wheeling food carts on their streets for business (Hall,
2014). Le Corbusier failed to apply his disillusioned order theory on mechanised cities to India, a country with rich culture and traditions, as he put surface-level profitable designs over the users, thus, the ‘phantasmagorias of latent Corbusian dreams’(Minuchin, 2012:254) was proven to be nothing more than theoretical means in pursuit of capital and power.
CONCLUSION
In principle, this essay investigates the power relationship between the architect and workingclass user in the context of social housing and master planning, reflective of the Marxist class division theory of bourgeoisie and proletariat. The essay began by exploring the core theory of Marx’s (1888) political economy, arguing that in a capitalist system, the exploitation and alienation of labour is unavoidable, thus, put into the context of Le Corbusier’s utopias, the lower-class residents are inevitably oppressed by his capitalist master plan due to their socioeconomic disposition.Analysis of the gradual financialisation of post-war architecture argued the causation to be the government’s neoliberal pursuit of financial capital. This showed the multifaceted nature of power relations that exist not only linearly between the architect, building and user but also between the government and architect.
Foucault’s (1972) theories on madness/reason represented the class discrepancy between Le Corbusier and the residents, highlighting how his disregard for the ‘mad’when laying out his master plan was inherently classist and showed the unbalanced power between the bourgeoisie and proletariat in social housing. Foucault’s theory on interchangeable power and knowledge (Fruhling, no date) also demonstrated the residents’forced dependence on the government and Le Corbusier’s knowledge due to their socioeconomic and societal status, identifying how they used this to exploit power over the people. The analysis of Plan Voisin and The Radiant City followed, suggesting the timeline of global economic events and their influence on Le Corbusier’s knowledge. His unrealised urban plans, although showing a shift in socioeconomic agenda, represented his greed for totalitarian order. Lastly, Le Corbusier’s only realised city of Chandigarh was studied to show how his planned class hierarchy and integration of Western knowledge posed poorly in reality. In these case studies, the contrast of capital/labour, bourgeoise/proletariat and madness/reason maintain their relevance, as in the Corbusian dream, society is always disciplined to divide into two entities; without one, the
other ceases to exist, thus attaining dependency and forced reliance on the administrator’s knowledge and power.
Although he could not achieve his goal of becoming the authority figure of a collectivist industrial city, Le Corbusier’s realised and unrealised master plans show the epistemological nature of power relations in his theories The physicality and economic influence of social housing in his master plans inherently shape how one lives their life, from the segregated sectors in Chandigarh forcing one to divert their route to the on-site building amenities in the Radiant City’s Unité coercing one to remain ‘contained’. These elements have political and neo-liberal design manipulation to create power within architecture and, as a result, power over the people. However, Le Corbusier fails to comprehend through his bourgeoisie lens that the key to proper order in society is not through constructing new cities and environments with dictatorial and capitalist principles, but through allowing the present communities and built environments to coexist regardless of socioeconomic differences; only then will true harmony be obtained.
REFERENCE LIST
Boesiger, W. (1995) Le Corbusier - Ouvre Complète: Volume 4: 1938-1946. 14th ed., Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Boesiger, W. and Stonorov, O. (1995) Le Corbusier - Ouvre Complète: Volume 1: 1910-1929. 18th ed., Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Choonara, J. (2009) Unravelling Capitalism: A Guide to Marxist Political Economy. London: Bookmarks Publications.
Cowton, C. J. and Dopson, S. (2002) ‘Foucault’s Prison? Management Control in an Automotive Distributor.’ Management Accounting Research, 13(2), pp.191-213.
Cupers, K. (2020) ‘Human Territoriality and the Downfall of Public Housing.’ In Cupers, K., Gabrielsson, C. and Mattsson, H. (ed.) Neoliberalism on the Ground: Architecture and Transformation from the 1960s to the Present. [JSTOR]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp.357-382.
Fiederer, L. (2018) AD Classics: Master Plan for Chandigarh / Le Corbusier. 6th October.
ArchDaily. [Online] [Accessed on 8th January 2023] https://www.archdaily.com/806115/adclassics-master-plan-for-chandigarh-le-corbusier
Fishman, R. (1982) Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century : Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. 1st MIT Press pbk. ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fondation Le Corbusier. (no date) Plan Voisin, Paris, France, 1925. [Online] [Accessed on 8th January]
http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=6159& sysLanguage=en-en
Fontana-Giusti, G. (2013) Foucault for Architects. [ProQuest Ebook Central]. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Foucault, M. (1972) History of Madness. Edited by Khalfa, J. Translated by Murphy, J, Khalfa, J. (2006) London: Routledge.
Fruhling, Z. (no date) Foucault’s Concept of “Power/Knowledge” Explained. Zachary Fruhling. [Online] [Accessed on 6th January 2023]
https://www.zacharyfruhling.com/philosophy-blog/foucaults-concept-of-power-knowledgeexplained
Fynn, S. (2017) Chandigarh revealed : Le Corbusier's City Today. 1st ed., New York: PrincetonArchitectural Press.
Gokhale, V.,A. (2014) ‘ATiny Whole World: Sustainable Design Lessons from the Architecture of Underprivileged Classes.’ In Elleh, N. (ed.) Reading the Architecture of the Underprivileged Classes : A Perspective on the Protests and Upheavals in Our Cities. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp.137-150.
Hall, P, (2014) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. 4th ed , Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Le Corbusier. (1933) The Radiant City : Elements of a Doctrine of Urbanism to be Used as the Basis of our Machine-Made Civilization. Translated by Knight, P., Levieux, E. and Coltman, D. (1967) London: Faber.
Le Corbusier. (1929) The City of To-morrow and its Planning. Translated by Urbanisme (1987) 8th French ed., New York: Dover Publications.
Martinich,A., P. and Stroll,A. (2023) Epistemology. Encyclopedia Britannica. [Online]
[Accessed on 4th January 2023] https://www.britannica.com/topic/epistemology
Marx, K. (1888) The Communist Manifesto. Edited by F. Engels. English ed., [ProQuest Ebook Central]. Minneapolis: Lerner Publishing Group.
Mateja,A. (2020) A Study of Plan Voisin.Andrew Mateja. [Online] [Accessed on 7th January 2023] https://www.andrewmateja.com/copy-of-rethinking-hierarchy
Minuchin, L. (2012) ‘Material Politics: Concrete Imaginations and theArchitectural Definition of Urban Life in Le Corbusier’s Master Plan for BuenosAires.’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), pp.238-258.
Prakash, V. (2002) Chandigarh's Le Corbusier: The Struggle for Modernity in Postcolonial India. Studies in Modernity and National Identity. Seattle: University of Washington Press
Santiago, E. (2022) French Mass-Produced Housing in the Crucible of World War 1. 21st March. Platform: Provocative Timely Diverse. [Online] [Accessed on 8th of January 2023]
https://www.platformspace.net/home/french-mass-produced-housing-in-the-crucible-ofworld-war-i
Stevenson, C (2015)Architectural Husbandry. In Odgers, J , McVicar, M and Kite, S. (ed.) Economy and Architecture. London: Routledge, pp.73-85.
Whitwell,A. (2020) The Dream and Decline of Post-War Modernist Social Housing in South London. 9thAugust. Medium. [Online] [Accessed on 5th of January 2023]
https://medium.com/@alex.whitwell/the-dream-and-decline-of-post-war-modernist-socialhousing-in-south-london-ee525f353ef6
Willsher, K. (2016) Story of cities #12: Haussmann Rips up Paris–and Divides France to this Day. 31st March. The Guardian. [Online] [Accessed on 6th of January 2023]
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/31/story-cities-12-paris-baron-haussmannfrance-urban-planner-napoleon
PARK HILL SUN PATH DIAGRAM
ROBIN HOOD SUN PATH DIAGRAM
ROBIN HOOD ACOUSTIC QUALITIES
PLAN OF LEVEL 3 ROBIN HOOD ESTATES
PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF APARTMENT CORRIDORS
(estudio ibanez, 2019: online)
(Wilson, 2022: online)
ROBIN HOOD ESTATE - PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED 2018
