Architectural Thoughts: Millowner Building in Ahmadabad by LE CORBUSIER

To understand the Millowners Building at Ahmadabad, we must briefly take a step back into Le Corbusier’s mind and architectural devices which he developed since the 1920s.[1] Kenneth Frampton, a Brittish architect, believed that the primary motivation behind the Millowners Association building and other Indian works of the time begins with the Villa Baizeau projected for Carthage. Through an analysis of the Carthage, we unravel the architectural device of the parasol. The parasol theme was first touched on through literature in Le Corbusier’s Precisions of 1929, but realised in Carthage. The parasol with its flat slab top was conceived to manage cross-ventilation and sun control. Hence in Ahmadabad, where the weather consists of harsh summers and torrential monsoons, the parasol allows for both shade and shelter in an alfresco environment.[2]

Another source of antecedent Le Corbusier displayed was a Neo-Palladian principle which was initially brought forth in his self-published book on the subject of Une Maison - Un Palais - in 1927. This book explicitly displays Le Corbusier’s architectural thinking in regards to the relationship of Villa-laboratory investigations and large-scale problems.[3] Generally, “this principle argued that by virtue of honorific treatment a house may become a palace and conversely, that a palace may be graced with all the convenient informality of a house”[4]. The honorific qualities which is evident in the Millowner Association building is the “deportment and frontality of a palace”[5] such as it’s institutional presence about a double-story breeze hall entry; long access ramp; and the positioning of the clerical staff and restaurant on ground floor to establish a ‘palatial’ hierarchy[6]. Before moving on, it should be noted that the honorific ramp deserves a closer reading.

The device of the ramp is similar to that of Villa Garches of 1927 and Villa Savoye 1929.[7] The ramp for Millowner Association has been detailed so it becomes almost like an ornament. The length of the ramp allows visitors to ascend a story high arrive at the entry hall and evokes a grand approach and a start to the architectural promenade. To the left of the ramp, is a low concrete wall with a sloping top profile. This shape both permits for protection against falling off the ramp, water run off, makes a good butt-lock rest and also provides a sense of openness. On the right are massive handrails supported by thin rods seeming like elements which grow out of the concrete ramp. Together, they speak as a set of devices portraying heavy and light and of new modern materials.[8] In addition to that, like Villa Savoye where the ramp takes the voyager through a journey to the roof top terrace, this ramp deployed for the Millowner Association building also proceeds on and up to the roof-garden where there is the promised unobstructed views.

In addition to the Villa Savoye, the Millowner Association building takes on various concept which were investigated in the Maison Cook. This includes:

● the elevated piano noble on the second floor, for more private functions

● the partly open ground floor for service and circulation

● double floor height third and forth floors for public functions[9]

Dialectical oppositions was another concept constantly at play for the entire composition of Le Corbusier’s work in Ahmadabad. Twentieth century architects were obsessed with the opposites. For Le Corbusier, opposites were juxtaposed as a means of attaining a resolution of opposites to successfully preserve the identity of the building and it’s constituent parts. These opposites at times may be contradictory elements to manifest a kind of synthesis that brought together diverse cultures, historical context, environments, social-political issues and psychological forces in a manner which still enables theses factors to hold their individual identity.[10] Le Corbusier’s take on opposites includes: an elliptical meeting hall which evokes activeness set within a more passive orthogonal basic cube.[11] Furthermore, the elliptical nature of the meeting hall in plan further conflicts with its inverted parabolic parasol form in section.[12] Another area of conflict is the closed elliptical forms of the bar and cloak-room against the open sculptural form[13] of the dog-leg staircase.[14]

The sunbreakers also communicate a dialectical opposition. The vertical but diagonally slanted in-situ concrete brise-soleil on the western façade opposes with it horizontal appliquè sun screening (a form derived from the Curruchet House in 1949) on the Eastern façade.[15] Furthermore, these open facades contrasts against the north and south enclosing brick walls.[16] Similarly, the exterior shell of a concrete material, also juxtaposes against the stone-faced interior.[17]

The brises soleils once again appears as a major compositional element, and they seem to be badly oriented. Those on the north west side are angled to in a way where the sun will penetrate into the plan. However from analysing Le Corbusier’s initial drawings, it suggests that he had mistaken the sun-path diagram, hence made a fundamental error in the design of the Millowner Building, allowing for such unwanted sun penetration.[18] In saying this, there have been debates by some architectural critiques the angle direction of the brise soleils for the purpose of optimum wind flow. However these critques have only proposed this as a possibility as there have not been any drawings to support such claims. [19]

[1]GA page 2

[2]Kenneth Frampton. Le Corbusier. (London: Thames & Hudson, 2001), 194-195.

[3]Alexander Tzonis. Le Corbusier: The Poetics of Machine and Metaphor. (London: Thames & Hudson, 2001), 85.

[4]GA page 3

[5]Frampton, Le Corbusier,195

[6]Ibid.

[7]GA

[8]prasad page 302

[9]Ahmadabad sketches pg ...

[10] Reference required

[11]Frampton, Le Corbusier,197-198.

[12]GA 4