- Oechslin first repeated Loos’s famous self-explanation of his space-making intent, with an emphasis on the last note – “setting free a ground plane in space.” He interprets Loos’s contribution is nothing more than “spatial plan,” showcasing both strong impact from the “English house” from the late 19th century and the attempt to introduce Semper and Schmarsow’s promotion of the notion of space as the “essence of architecture”. In other words, Loos’ spatial construction is not much different from the varying heights of rooms in English houses that he observed and admired, or just an indirect result of the shaping of ground plans and the piling up of floors.
- Regarding Le Corbusier, Oechslin remarked one of, I believe, the most helpful quote from him, “these are the theoretical conclusions of the successive observations made in the worksites over several years.” This can apply to almost every aspect of Corbu’s architectural innovations, with an attempt to understand their corresponding sources. Corbusier tended to simplify the theoretical discussion of his experience and analysis in order to arrive at some sort of “feasibility,” or “prospects for success in establishing fundamental conceptions of architectural design” He was not inimical to “aesthetic formulation”; rather he looked for prerequisites of statics and economy that could lead to new aesthetic results (five points).
- In conclusion, Loos and Corbusier rooted in opposite attitude. For instance, Loos pronounced an architectural revolution with its “setting a ground plan free in space,” Le Corbusier continued to hold firmly to the ground plan. He repeatedly stressed the starting points of everything, whereas Loos spent much more time on site modifying his design.
LIYANG DING 