The interrelationship between modern architecture and utopian design is ever present in the architecture we are surrounded by in society today. Yet behind the facades of these buildings, lies a great deal more purpose and meaning that defines this 20th century revolution. This radical movement in architecture saw traditional design and ways of thinking completely re-evaluated within their context in society. Coleman’s thesis explores the relationship of these vital movements in architecture, while investigating a dissimilarity between projects of a ‘utopian’ or ‘visionary’ style. This essay will explore what defines modern architecture as well as utopian thinking, in both of their downfalls and triumphs and how these styles can be distinguished. Following, an evaluation of utopian and visionary will be made; assessing the importance and value of these concepts in architecture, both in present and past contexts. To evaluate these definitions and explorations of these concepts within architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City will be analyzed and assessed against the points Coleman makes throughout his thesis.
Exploring Modern Architecture and Utopian Studies
Coleman describes modern architecture as, “…conventionally characterized (no matter how questionably) as having been fundamentally utopian in its aims and delusions”. This 20th century architectural movement was a significant shift in thinking from anything previously explored. A new analytical approach was applied in the way of thinking about architecture, assessing the function of buildings with a simplistic and rational use of space and materials. In many cases minimizing the use of ornament, an extremely different approach to the past. The main figureheads of the movements were Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius, having a great influence of the reassessment of public space and the community, designing some of the most well-known public housing schemes in Europe. Modern architecture is described as having a ‘utopian mindset’, although what makes up a utopian style and how can this be defined within architecture? Coleman explores this definition by outlining a series of four key points: “Social and political content; a significant level of detail in the description of what is proposed; elaboration of a positive transformation of social and political life as key to what is proposed or constructed; and, not least, a substantive-ethical and aesthetical-critique of the present informed by a critical-historical perspective”.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
If a design is made up of these four points, Coleman describes, it should be considered as utopian architecture. This social and political focus is what makes utopian architecture so distinguishable. It is important that a definition is established, “Utopia is not about taste… or about relative levels of novelty or strangeness”. Utopia is entirely about designing for the creation of the perfect world, bettering the built environment and the community that is immersed in it. It is about using architecture for more than built form, but to form society and improve civic life. As Coleman describes, “Utopia and architecture are pervasive, contributing in equal measure to the very fabric out of which individual and collective lives are made”.
Goals like these do not come without criticism. Because of this goal for reaching perfection, the likelihood of success is near impossible, which creates the reputation of utopian architecture being unrealistic and unattainable. For example, Coleman’s thesis explores two authors, Rowe and Koetters, who explore the flaws in utopian design from the outset. It is their belief that, “…the peculiar admixture of blind faith in technoscience combined with a desire for a return to paradise ensured that modern architecture would be the enemy of urban life”. While utopian architecture did have many flaws, large portion of people at the time focused on these imperfections, rather than the overall focus and goal of utopian thinking and this is where it was greatly misunderstood. Coleman’s thesis describes this ongoing misunderstanding that was present within society: “Although modern architecture was often as brutal in its effect on the traditional city…the most valuable component of the absolutist utopianism … commitment to the betterment of society, supposedly achieved by making a new and better organized, more hygienic and often strangely park like world over the traditional city”. This emphasis on a betterment of society is what lies at the heart of utopian practice and thinking, although utopian thinking was not the only radical concept at the time.
Utopian and Visionary as a General Concept
It is important to first note that utopian and visionary are not interchangeable terms or concepts. Yes, some may say that their iterations and design concepts are of a similar nature, although these two concepts must not get confused when relating the terms to architecture. Coleman’s thesis explores the distinction between the two in great detail, as having a comprehensive understanding of their difference is so important. A simple way to begin to understand the difference: “…while visionary is bound up with unreality, utopias vocation is to act upon reality”. This demonstrates the core difference between the two. Both striving for a better plan for the future, their grounds for design come from different foundations.
As Coleman describes it: “Visionary suggests something inspired, imaginative, creative, inventive, ingenious, enterprising, innovative; insightful, perceptive, intuitive, … resourceful, idealistic, romantic”. Visionary concepts plan for the future, without conscious assessment of values such as social or politic, “…visionary may be a retreat into impossibility as a way of escaping the limitations of the present”, yet still have an emphasis on designing for the future. Visionary does not aim for the perfect state, but a better state, therefore making it more attainable in practicality.
Utopia may include similar aspects associated with visionary, yet the fundamental values of utopia, in regards to social and political values and importance, is what visionary lacks, differentiating the two. Coleman explores the way the two concepts differentiate in a clear way: “A further definition locates utopia squarely within the province of architecture and urbanism in a way that no visionary does: ‘A place, state, or condition ideally perfect in respect of politics, laws, customs and conditions’”. This quote clearly demonstrates that the core values that are at the heart of utopian thinking is what truly differentiates visionary from this concept. This clear focus on an analytically approach to life and designing for these elements, results in a society with evidence of utopian thinking all around us and in the way we practice each day, whether we are aware of it or not. This demonstrates that even if utopian thinking had flaws, its approach to societal impact is still relevant, and always will be. As Coleman explores: “Imagining a better life than the existing one, a life that does not yet exist but one that could and should exist-the eternal source of ‘utopian thinking’ that never runs dry”.
Analysis of Broadacre City
To assess the validity of Coleman’s thesis further, an analysis applied to a real-life example must be made. Modern American architect, Frank Lloyd Wright’s (1867-1959) Broadacre City reflects Coleman’s thesis well. The heart of Wright’s practice was centred around form and function, with emphasis on a harmonious relationship with nature. Wright’s challenge was always for “buildings to grace nature, rather than disgrace”, he wanted to combine this with the goal of helping people live within environment.
Out of the 1,114 works designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, a collection of these were associated with a bigger concept Wright designed, but never came to life, by the name of Broadacre City. This project had extremely mixed view point from the community, with people describing the project as both utopian or dystopian (opposites). As Coleman explores, based on a definition by the Oxford English Dictionary, “dystopia is an imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible’, the opposition of utopia”. So, if these two terms are distinctively opposites, how could they both describe the same project?
It is recorded that some critics viewed Wright’s concept of living in the country in a small, controlled settlement as the evil seed that spawned America’s sprawling suburbs. Whereas other people viewed the concept as a prescient forerunner of the pared-down sustainable life that will be mandatory in the twenty-first century. Wright brought to life this concept after the stock market crash of 1929, seeking a way to improve the physical, social and political life of American culture at the time, a utopian focus, similar to Coleman’s exploration.
Broadacre City was made up of a Four-square-mile area, for 1,400 families, once acre of land per family and designed for each adult to have an auto-mobile. Wright designed various roads and highways to maximize organization and convenience with the occupants travelling to work or other activities in a safe way. Within the city a series of small non-polluting factories, decentralized schools, monorails, traffic system and farms were arranged. With the home design for each family being very similar. Overall, this design had a great focus on political and social benefit.
Several goals that Wright was aiming to solve included easing American congestion, consequently creating suburbia. While designing a functional block for each family, concentrating on peace, comfort and necessity. His main focus was on balance; embracing new technologies while living cohesively with your surroundings, in both design and materiality. Although, contrasting this, his other greatest focus for Broadacre City was incorporating the new Model T automobiles into citizens lives. Broadacre City became the ultimate depiction of Wright’s critique and view of modern life.
Wright’s design reflects many similar focuses as raised by Coleman: the focus on social and political betterment, in search for the ‘perfect’ design for function and form. Although other factors, which were not realized at the time, inhibit the ability to reach the level of perfection being aspired too. For example, the lack of understanding about the harmful environmental effects as a result of use of cars. Assessing the project in its context, CO2 emissions were not something that could have been considered, as the problem was not realize at the time. When assessing the plan and principles for Broadacre City further, it is evident how both utopia or dystopia positions are present.
Conclusion
Once assessing modern architecture and its interrelationship with utopian thinking, it is interesting to evaluate the value and importance of it in architecture. Making a strong distinction between utopian and visionary projects aids our knowledge and appreciation for these idealistic concepts and highlight their value within architecture, but also our societal thinking.
With Broadacre City as evidential support for the arguments presented by Coleman’s thesis, it should now be clear that there will always be an ongoing battle to reach a state of utopia. As Coleman describes, “Is it inconceivable that utopia could be achievable, even on a building-by-building basis, to produce a condition of numerous utopias in among the banal products of mainstream architecture and urban design practices?”.
The closet way to reach utopia within a community is to aspire for the fundamental goal that drives utopian thinking, even if this goal is not achieved, as a result of this pursuit, it is evitable that social reform, even in the slightest, can occur.
Bibliography
- Alofsin, A 2011, ‘Broadacre City—Ideal and Nemesis’, American Art, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 21–25.
- Coleman N, 2014, The Problematic of Architecture and Utopia, Utopian Studies, Vol.25, No. 1, SPECIAL ISSUE: UTOPIA AND ARCHITECTURE, Penn State University Press, pg. 2-20
- Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, 2017, ‘Revisiting Frank Lloyd Wrights Vision for “Broadacre City”’, https://franklloydwright.org/revisiting-frank-lloyd-wrights-vision-broadacre-city/
- Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, 2017, ‘The Life of Frank Lloyd Wright’, https://franklloydwright.org/frank-lloyd-wright/
- Ganjavie, A 2014, ‘The Role of Utopian Projects in Urban Design’, Utopian Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 125–149.
- Hyde, T 2015, ‘Architecture, Modernity, Crisis’, Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 2–3.
- Maxwell, Doug. 2018. 'Was Frank Lloyd Wright's Architectural Vision Sustainable?'. Presentation, Youtube, , 2018.
- Royal Institute of British Architects, 2019, Modernism, https://www.architecture.com/explore-architecture/modernism
- Watson, JMM 2018, ‘The Suburbanity of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City’, Journal of Urban History.
- Whyte, IBB 2004, ‘Modernity and architecture’, in Tracing Modernity: Manifestations of the Modern in Architecture and the City, Routledge, pp. 42–55.
- Wise, ER & Valley, HR 2013, ‘A gradual reawakening: Broadacre city and a new American agrarianism’, Berkeley Planning Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 133–149.
Stuck on your essay?
