Flirting with Surrealism: Le Corbusier's Maison de Beistegui Apartment Roof Garden

Flirting with Surrealism: Le Corbusier's Maison de Beistegui Apartment Roof Garden

by Victoria Shingleton

The Beistegui Apartment designed by Le Corbusier stands out as an outlier in his work.  While it exemplifies one of his principles with the roof garden, many fixtures are more decorative and ornate than his typical clean Modern lines, flirting with Surrealism.

The Parisian apartment was commissioned by a wealthy client named Charles de Beistegui who was a collector of surrealist art and liked exaggerated imagery and overstuffed furniture.  However, there are some spaces of the apartment which are surreal without necessarily being influenced by Beistegui, such as the roof garden.  While a roof garden does follow Le Corbusier's five principles of modern architecture, the fanciful furniture, fireplace, and grass "carpet" suggest a surrealist experience.

The purpose of the project was to create a penthouse, not necessarily for living, but for hosting parties.  While the garden was located on a rooftop with wonderful views of well-known Parisian monuments, Le Corbusier designed the garden wall so that it would actually restrict the views from the garden, turning the great monuments into tiny pieces of art sitting on the shelves of his outdoor living room.

The roof garden was comparable in size to a living room, and the walls were approximately five feet tall.

While the apartment itself was lit by candlelight, the backyard was very advanced.  All of the hedges on the rooftop were controlled by hydraulics and could be raised up and down to control the view.

The rooftop garden was also detached from the house and required a separate stair to reach.

The apartment was located in such a central location.  Above, I diagrammed the views from each facade and how the roof garden manipulates the vision of different points.  Each wall has a different monument visible beyond.  Yet, only the tops of each are visible, as if they are trinkets sitting on top of living room shelves.

I cut out just the roof garden which sat on top of the apartment.  Without the fireplace and decorative furniture, the structure appears very modern and fits in well with the rest of Le Corbusier's work.

I found the Beistegui Apartment very interesting in how it differed from Le Corbusier's typical style of architecture, and I wish there was more information available about this design.  However, this is typically omitted from collections of Le Corbusier's works.  Unfortunately, the apartment has since been destroyed, and there are many missing documents, so the most we have to remember Le Corbusier's experiment with surrealism are the black and white photos.

Harmony in Juxtaposition

PHILIPS PAVILION

(Le Corbusier)

JENNIFER LENN

        Architecture is viewed as a monumental and sometimes a permanent work of art dedicated to the fabric of its surrounding city. But not every building we see is classified as "architecture". If only some buildings are classified as "architecture" because they are considered works of art, and some exist as only "buildings", then how is it decided what is or is not "architecture"? In an era when the term "art" is used so subjectively, it is important to recall that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What one may see as "architecture" may be nothing more than a simple structure serving a function and vice-versa. As an architecture student, I have began to do my own analysis of what classifies as "architecture";  deciding for myself what is or is not art and examining why I see it that way. In doing so, it is important that I keep an open mind and that I am able to appreciate architecture even if it does not pertain to my own view of "architecture". Analyzing the Philip Pavilion has encouraged me to look past y first impression of a building and appreciate it for what exists beyond my own first impressions. 

        Over the past four years of education in architecture, I have developed my own list of characteristics which I look for to define a successful project. I tend to classify successful architecture as the following: 

~ It responds to its surroundings appropriately without boasting

~ It takes advantage of present day technologies to be more economical

~ it is practical

~ It creates a symbiotic relationship between all of it's elements

~ It is sustainable

~ It gives back to it's community

        These are the six minimal characteristics that differentiate a simple building from architecture. Le Corbusier, however, far exceeded these characteristics with his Philips Pavilion in 1958 with his partner, Iannis Xenakis who contributed  to the building design while also writing music for the finished space. Philips Industries commissioned Corbusier for this pavilion to showcase their technology at the World's Fair. Corbusier worked side by side with Xenakis to create a pavilion that perfectly juxtaposed two different experiences within spaces. 

       Not only does the team succeed in clearly defining a threshold between inside and outside experiences but they also do so in using mathematical hyperbolic paraboloid forms and innovations in technology. The ending product, Philips Pavilion, is an artistic result of perfect harmony existing between mathematical design and construction innovations to create a form that follows function. The walls of the structure are made of rough slabs and cast in place by a moveable scaffolding. They are supported by a double network of cables that are suspended along the parabolic forms which are made of reinforced concrete. The interior is just as complex as the exterior in an effort to emphasize the acoustics of the music and also showcase the technologies of Philips Industries. An installation of 350 speakers complement the assortment of lighting methods along with film projectors, sculptures and more. The intense form and acoustical settings of the interior provide a clearly defined and remarkable experience of the space. 

        Although this piece, overall, stands out quite dramatically from its surroundings it is doing so in an incredibly successful way. Corbusier made efficient use in technologies and collaborated very well with his Xenakis. The harmony which exists between the two architects is, no doubt, reflected in their final project. At first glance, Philips Pavilion is not a structure that I would particularly declare as impressive architecture because it stands out so boldly from its peers. However, I was able to look deeper into the structure and design of the project to see the reasoning behind the moves made in the Pavilion, which really allowed me to appreciate it much more than I would have initially. The fact that such a distinct juxtaposition between interior and exterior spaces based on the mathematical forms is quite artistic and impressive. The use of the hyperbolic paraboloid forms to enhance the acoustics even further justifies the need for such a complex structure. The piece, all together, is a perfect product of the synchronization of harmony and juxtaposition in architecture and those who create it. 

SOURCES: 

http://at.or.at/hans/misc/itp/newmediahistory/philipspavilion.xhtml

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Philips_Pavilion.html

Experimental is Professional is Experimental

By Tyler Silvers

There exists a tenuous distinction between “experimental architecture” and “professional architecture.” The industry and profession of architecture can be said to be based on a refinement of an individual’s architectural ideas and theories over the life of a career. The only manner by which to understand more fully the personal and cultural implications of one’s designs is to begin with some form of study, some form of experimentation; whether that be through the use of temporary structure (which provide a more suitable environment for architectural experimentation) or more permanent ones in built form (which constitute a more costly form of experimentation). Using this logic, “experimental architecture” will eventually refine itself down to becoming a more professional form, and “professional architecture” is always experimental; thus a distinction between experimental and professional architecture is difficult to identify in the big picture.

Professional architecture is experimental. To a certain extent, any and all people who put into practice the processes of architectural design spend their life defining and refining their interpretation of “architecture” and “design.” For example, Le Corbusier, who had great influence on the development of modern architecture began to develop an architectural theory based on five simple driving concepts (pilotis, free floor plan, free façade, ribbon windows and rooftop garden) early in his career and continually worked to refine his theory with each new project that he confronted. His experimentation with the five points led his designs from the traditional Dutch style of his 1905 Villa Fallet (which most people would never link to the architect due to its severe divergence from his commonly understood theories) to the fully modern culmination of his architectural theory: the 1928 Villa Savoye. The architecture of Le Corbusier, arguably one of history’s most influential architects, can easily be considered “experimental architecture;” but his career was one of the best examples of “professional architecture” in history. Thus his architecture was fully “experimental architecture” and, simultaneously, constituted a “professional architecture.”

                                                          Villa Fallet                                       Villa Savoye

Temporary architecture is experimental and experimental architecture will become professional. The construction of a temporary structure assists architects in the definition and refinement of their architectural theories, which, as previously discussed, are based on experimentation. Like a life-sized model, architects can study differing effects that they are trying to achieve with no long-term pressure present in the construction of permanent structures. For example, Mies van der Rohe’s 1929 German Pavilion exists as his first “essay” of sorts about elements of architecture. The architect focuses on blurring the distinction between interior and exterior, the relationship between floor and slab and a multiplicity of movements based on a simple gridded plan. From his studies at the Barcelona exhibition, van der Rohe refined his architectural theories to lead him to the designs of the 1956 Crown Hall for IIT and 1968 Neue National Gallery in Berlin. Van der Rohe’s construction of the temporary German Pavilion gave the architect a unique opportunity to experiment with architecture and essentially acted as the starting point for his career. Based on this idea, the experimental qualities of architecture led only to a more and more “professional architecture” – one with solid ideas and refined theories. In this way, “experimental architecture,” over time, becomes or leads to “professional architecture.”

German Pavilion                                                       Neue National Gallery

Although the analysis of these big name architects can easily apply to the concepts that have been put forth, the same ideals exist for architects everywhere. From the time that we begin our modern day architectural education, students work toward developing their own architectural theories. Perhaps based on an influential career of history, perhaps based on their own design aesthetics; perhaps developed and followed early in life, perhaps developed as a result of experimentation over time. Nevertheless, everyone who puts into practice the processes of architectural design work to develop these architectural theories over a lifetime. The distinction between “experimental architecture” and “professional architecture” may exist, but if it does, it will not last for long, as one cannot exist without the other.

Evoking Reactions

By: Tyler Norton

What should be the main goal that architecture aims to accomplish? Adolf Loos once said, “Architecture arouses sentiments in man. The architect’s task therefore, is to make those sentiments more precise.” Some would disagree with Loos. Many think that sustainability, function, and form, among others, should be the main focus. While these are all important aspects of architecture, I agree with Mr. Loos. Architecture should be all about tailoring to people’s wants and needs and seeking a reaction from each individual who experiences the building. Without the individual, there is no reason for architecture to exist. There are plenty of examples of buildings that do just that and each architect accomplishes this fundamental goal in different ways.

One building that does a beautiful job of triggering a reaction is Le Corbusier’s Beistegui apartment. This work has a distinct surrealist style, especially the garden area. By definition, the aim of surrealism is to evoke emotion by stimulating the subconscious. The Beistegui garden does this in multiple ways. For instance, surrealism focuses on the incorporation of spontaneity, the emphasis on irrational, and representing things as they usually aren’t. The fireplace located in the garden meets all of these qualifications. The fireplace is irrational because a fireplace would never actually be found outside except in surrealist architecture. Le Corbusier generates a reaction from the individual by provoking the subconscious through surrealism.

Although it is not technically architecture, Maurice Nio’s 2004 Touch of Evil project is another example of architects evoking reactions from the public. The point of this project was to give expression to the technical spaces throughout cities and to bring life to a normally anonymous space. The red plastic covering the otherwise completely gray space provides and unexpected relief from the normally monotonous continuity of the city’s technical space. This evokes surprise from the viewer and invites creativity and imagination. As mentioned in class, the structure could not be changed; it just had to be added to. Therefore, Nio had to get creative. Instead of changing the architecture, he had to change the way people perceived the space. As well as provided unexpected relief, he also added the sense of touch to the experience. People are able to feel the texture of the red covering, which in turn adds to the moment. All and all, the way that Nio artfully induces a reaction from the individual is by changing the perception of the area.

           

            The final example that I would like to talk about is the Moses Bridge by RO&AD architects. Aside from being inventive and aesthetically appealing, it is also a great example of architecture that creates a reaction. It is interesting even to people who have no background in architecture. It evokes emotion and delight from the visual aspect but it is also very well thought out and focuses on the local culture and history. The bridge was designed to be “invisible” because the area was originally a fort and the architects wanted to keep the idea of a moat separating the enemies. Another way that the bridge connects to the individual is the idea of Moses. With the Biblical reference, it further evokes emotion from the viewer.

           

            In conclusion, all three of these examples seek to create a reaction by stimulating the subconscious, changing perception, and evoking emotion respectively. This is important because the reaction of the viewer is what connects architecture to its target audience: the individual. Without the individual, architecture would have no purpose. That is why the main goal of architecture should always be to focus on the reaction of the person experiencing it.

 Sources:

http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2011/11/moses-bridge-by-road-architects/

LIVING IN A STEAMSHIP

VILLA SAVOYE

Le Corbusier

(written by: Jennifer Lenn)

       Imagine living in a steamship. Yes, a steamship. The idea does not, at first, appear very "cozy". At first glance, a steamship is not built for person to live, but rather for a person to work. The steamship is a design brought about by the need to transport goods and therefore is a machine for transportation. A "machine" is most likely the last thing that would come to mind when someone is piecing together their dream home. The sole purpose of a machine is to fulfill the duties for which it is intended to master and lends itself to only existing in order to serve as a functioning element of human society. In 1929 this idea of mending the concept of "machine" and "house" was pioneered by a Swiss designer, urbanist, writer and architect by the name of Charles-Edouard Jeannereet or more familiarly known as Le Corbusier. 

       The Swiss architect, who later became a French citizen, immersed himself in his fascination with the machine age of the 20th century. He particularly was interested in the technology of the steamships because of the innovative engineering and the modularity of their design. Le Corbusier felt that the steamship not only was inspirational in its engineering but also in the concept of its design. Being the "machine" that it is, the steamship holds only what is necessary to serve its function; no more and no less. Corbusier sought to expose the parallel of this concept between machines and architecture. So much so that he published his "Five Points of Architecture", where he clearly defines the necessary components of architecture in the form of a simple list. 

Corbusier's five points are these: 

1. Pilotis (slender columns)

2. Flat Roof Terrace

3. Open Plan

4. Ribbon Windows

5. Free Facade (a facade that is free of structural members)

       In addition to his "Five Points of Architecture", Corbusier also designed one of his greatest contributions to the modern architecture of the 20th century. He designed a house emulating his five points to create a modern take a French country house located in Poissy, France. With his inspiration from the steamships he designed a house that illustrated the sole necessity of each of his five points so perfectly, in fact, that it describes his famous statement, " The house is a machine for living." 

       PILOTIS  The pilotis serve as the structural support for the upper level of the villa. Their slender design creates a subtle reference to the surrounding trees. As the pilotis become part of the surroundings, the upper portion seems to be floating above the picturesque background. In order to add to the visual and structural strength of the pilotis, the core piece in the center exists as the central location of the plan but is also painted green to fade into the background which enhances the "floating" of the upper portion. The placement of the pilotis defines a circulation for an entrance which wraps around the entire building and directs you inward to the main portion. Corbusier accommodates for the owner's vehicle by providing a wrap around driveway leading into a garage on the lower level where the rest of the maintenance and service areas exist. 

       FLAT ROOF TERRACE The flat roof terrace on the top of the upper portion of the building reclaims the green area of the building footprint. Corbusier uses this space for domestic purposes such as gardening, relaxation, and entertainment. 

       OPEN PLAN The open plan is made possible by illuminated load bearing walls that allow for an open circulation through out the majority of the house. While it is an open plan there are clearly defined thresholds between public and private spaces.

       RIBBON WINDOWS The white facade is delicately dressed with the seamlessly bending ribbon windows. These windows negate any form of hierarchy that may have possibly existed between the void  FREE FACADES. They also inhibit the perception of interior and exterior from the outside. They do not fully become clear until they are experienced from the inside. 

       Throughout the entire space the visitor's experience is completely defined by Corbusier's ability to use the promenade to control the views and movement of the visitor. Using the pilotis, Corbusier sets up an approach to the building that makes it appear to be floating within a picturesque scene. At a closer view, the visitor is welcomed by an obvious path regulated by pilotis that direct you around the house to the main entrance. Once inside, the plan is more open and allows for more interaction with the spaces but eventually forces an upward movement to the green terrace. The roof terrace contains a ramp that eventually slows the visitor's pace to give attention to the views and enforce a more intimate pace by which the views can be more appreciated. 

REFERENCES: 

http://www.ultimatehouse.tv/article.php?id=2

http://www.archdaily.com/84524/ad-classics-villa-savoye-le-corbusier/

Le Corbusier, the Surrealist.

By Jordan Grant

Le Corbusier, a name inescapable in the study of architecture, is the topic of this next post- or, rather, to be more exact, his work on a Parisian apartment for eccentric millionaire Carlos de Beistegui. This work stands out from the fabric of Corbusier’s body of work as extremely unique since its design heavily relies on the eccentricities of the client, so it is important to understand Beistegui first before discussing Le Corbusier as a surrealist.

Beistegui came from a rich family with a history in art collections- his uncle’s collection is now displayed in the Louvre. He was a world traveler, well-studied and at the center of the social scene in Paris during his lifetime. He’s often regarded as one of the most flamboyant figures of the 20th century and his parties were considered some of the best Paris has ever seen. By the 1930s when Beistegui contacted Corbusier in regards to designing his penthouse apartment, he has already obtained a large number of surrealist portraits in his art collection, and perhaps his apartment itself can be considered one of the greatest works of surrealist art that the collector ever obtained.

Surrealism was a movement that began in the early 1920s with Paris regarded as the most important center of surrealist works.  This philosophical movement centered on the concepts of unexpected juxtapositions, non sequitur, and surprises. It sought to uncover the creative potential of the unconscious mind. As Salvador Dali mentioned himself, "Surrealism is destructive, but it destroys only what it considers to be shackles limiting our vision." When the concept is applied to architecture, it is allowed to break out of what is considered normal or necessary and become a work of art that creates an environment that removes the shackles that are limiting our vision.

Now, keeping both the client and the client's love of surrealism in mind, take a deeper look in to Corbusier’s work for Beistegui. I don't claim to be an expert of any sorts- rather, these are my own observations and ventures into guessing what they may mean. Perhaps the story is best told through photos; from the winding narrow staircases to the mirrors to the furniture, it’s surely a surrealistic experience. Corbusier’s intricate and technologically advanced additions to the house include a camera obscura in the form of a telescope and a movie screen for projection that lowers as a chandelier rises. However, the rooftop garden has always been considered the highlight of the penthouse, which is rumored to have been helped in the design by none other than famous surrealist Salvador Dali.

One of the first similarities that appears is the sparseness of landscape. The rooftop garden of the penthouse has been designed so that only two monuments appear in the skyline, something not often seen (especially from such great heights). It's similar to some of the works by Dali, in which a limited skyline is shown. The images below show the similarities of the limited skyline:

Another recurrent items is mirrors, a popular subject of surrealists. Whether the mirrors were placed by Beistegui or Corbusier I know not, but they strengthen the ties to surrealist art- where heads are often shown disconnected from the bodies similar to how a head appears to be floating in a mirror.

While I've only begun my research on Beistegui and his apartment, which is difficult to find as it is one of Corbusier's most underrated projects, I believe that it is a fascinating topic that ties together art and architecture of the time in the 1930s.

Sources:

http://www.rasa.net/writings/corbubeistegui.html

http://mondo-blogo.blogspot.it/2010_10_01_archive.html

How Architectural Design Moves Us, Literally

By: Chris Melton

Our third lecture in our Contemporary European Architecture class centered on "Moving Landscapes." This concept has two key points: How the user moves through the landscape, and how the idea of landscape has become mobile through architecture. For my blog post this week, I would like to discuss how architectural design should move the viewer through the project, and thus enhance the experience of the structure, and in turn, the site or landscape as well. Today I would like to explore this concept by analyzing two of Le Corbusier's works, and how they relate to this subject.

Our starting point this week was the architectural concept of the 'promenade,' which, at its core, is a starting point to move through an area. Promenades should lead the viewer to the area beyond through both views and vistas, or lack lackthereof. The first work I would like to discuss in its use of promenade is a particular work of Le Corbusier's. This work, which was an apartment commission for Charles de Beistegui, is a stark style deviation for Corbusier. Beistegui was an avid collector of art of the surrealist movement, and this apartment's design, whether through commission or initial design or a combination thereof, seems to reflect this surrealist movement at times, and perhaps played to the artist within 

Corbusier himself.

Surrealist aspects aside, the Beistegui apartment uses this concept of promenade throughout its structural design. As shown in the board above, the placement of thresholds throughout the apartment tends guide the user into the next area. Corbusier uses this in a few different ways. One example is by juxtaposing large openings next to smaller ones to promote a certain circulation that then creates both public and private spaces. Another example of this is done by his placement of staircases that either promote or demote movement to certain areas. The stylistic, spiral staircase below, pulls the viewer up to the first public rooftop area. This first area is a walled garden with select cut outs that give very specific panorama views of the site and city beyond. These allow the user to experience the specific vista that can only be viewed from that spot. Corbusier also crafted a second rooftop garden that is actually very different from anything else he has ever done. Using a second, separately styled staircase, he promoted a softer movement, that then created a more private space above. This second roof top garden, through both the high walls and furniture elements inside, is very surreal. With baroque furniture, a false fireplace, and a large mirror, this private area seems to be almost out of a surrealist painting itself, and is very quite interesting from this architect.

While the Beistegui apartment is a very interesting work to analyze, the best example of promenade would be Corbusier's design of Villa Savoye. Corbusier design uses this concept to not only pull the viewer through his structure laterally, but vertically as well. He designed the central stairway and ramp (shown above) to allow unseen light to flood down, and thus pull the user to the rooftop garden above. But, this is only one of his takes on promenade. Corbusier's use of his own five points on architecture in his plan of Savoye also led to the structure of the villa to become a promenade to the site around it. Not only does the design of Savoye pull the user through it, views from the interior leading the user to the next room, or garden (shown below), or etc; but the running windows, free plan below, and roof garden pull the viewer's eyes away from the beautiful structure that surrounds them, and into the site beyond. This, I think, is where Savoye's true beauty lies. The architectural design doesn't ever stop the viewer; instead it creates a rhythm that not only leads the viewer through the structure, but into the landscape beyond. The viewer never stops and focuses on one aspect for too long, as there is always another element yearning for attention, pulling on the senses. 

Through his use of promenade in his designs and his creation of these gathering spaces in the form of roof top gardens, I think that Le Corbusier is a great example for how architecture itself is 'moving landscapes.' The idea that promenade can lead the viewer through the structure, and craft such a specific yearning into the landscape beyond, plants the seed of movement through the landscape into the user's mind. An idea that won't go away until it is sated. The second idea, that landscape is mobile, can be seen in the form of both works' rooftop gardens. These hortos conclusus gardens have not only literally elevated the landscape, but have moved the nodes of the circulation to the roof. This promotes a need to stay, to experience, and to view the area beyond, that previously didn't exist. While Le Corbusier didn't ever physically move landscapes, his use of architecture design certainly changed how his patrons viewed and experienced the landscape of his sites; and through that fact alone, his designs were successful.

Planning Social Change

By Shawna Hammon
Lecture - "Moving Landscapes: Promenade"

A comparison of Le Corbusier’s plans for Algiers and Paris.

Plan Obus for Algiers

Plan Voisin for Paris

At first sight we wonder how two very different city plans could come from the same architect?  Despite the stark differences in form – one is curvilinear while the other is strictly geometric – the plans share the same architectural concepts and the cities were searching for the answer to the same question: how to deal with the development of slums that have led to an urban housing crisis.  Le Corbusier believed that modern forms of architecture and new construction technology and materials like steel, glass and concrete, would elevate the quality of life for tenants of lower incomes.  He offered newer programmatic solution that did not allow for community social interaction and celebrated the development of the automobile with a transportation hub at the center.  Both projects were designed on the premise that the historic city would be destroyed to make way for his new utopian and fanciful ideals. Unfortunately, Le Corbusier’s ego trumped these projects as his designs were meant to make money for the cities; very little was designed with the occupants in mind. 

"From right to left, from east to west, you see the 'great East-West throughway of Paris' which embodies the future of Paris and offers the City Council the chance to launch a gigantic financial enterprise, a 'money-making' enterprise = a source of wealth.   Since 1922 (for the past 42 years) I have continued to work, in general and in detail, on the problem of Paris. Everything has been made public. The City Council has never contacted me. It calls me 'Barbarian'!" - Le Corbusier

In 1922 Le Corbusier developed a scheme for 3 million residents titled Ville Contemporaine (Contemporary City).  At the center was a group of 60-storey skyscrapers built of steel and curtain wall glass – a new material at the time.  He envisioned a transportation hub at the center and thought airplanes could be flown between buildings.  Pedestrian paths were completely separated from roadways and the car was a celebrated part of the scheme.

Three years later Le Corbusier’s 1925 Plan Voisin for Paris consisted of twenty 60-storey skyscrapers that covered the city center, similar to those he proposed for his “Contemporary City" scheme.  His plan was stark and it segregated tenants based on income.  He did not gain the support of French industrialists as he had hope, although the project was originally sponsored by an automobile manufacturer.

Le Corbusier spent the next several years reformulating his ideas about the urban landscape.  In 1935 he published Radiant City, which organized tenants based on family size rather than social class.  However, he still took no care of the past in order to build what he thought was a better future.  It was over this ten year period that he designed Plan Obus for Algeirs.  The plan was composed of a business center at the docks while the residents were housed in a curved, 15 km, fourteen story apartment block with a highway on top that stretched around the bay.  His plan would have housed a staggering 108,000 people.

Although Le Corbusier was distinctly out of touch with the needs of society surrounding him, we can still applaud him for his ideals of architecture as a motivator to social change.  His visions of a city were prophetic in that we see many of these high rise elements in today’s cityscape and there is certainly a strong sector of our industry that believes architecture is a vehicle for social change.  

Sources:

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=961

http://www.designbuild-network.com/features/feature54191/

http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/art-history-le-corbusiers-2