Figure 3 - available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Official group photograph, CIAM I, La Sarraz, 1928. The full list of people in the photo includes, from left to right, top row: M. Stam, M. E. Haefeli, R. Steiger, P. Artaria, F. T. Gubler (press); middle row: R. Dupierreux (Institute Cooperation-Intellectuelle, Paris), P. Chareau, V. Bourgeois, E. May, A. Sartoris (obscured behind Guevrekian), H. Schmidt, H. Häring, J. de Zavala, Le Corbusier, P. Rochat (press), H.R. von der Mühll, H. Hoste, S. Giedion, W.M. Moser, J. Frank; third row: P. Jeanneret (hand in pocket), G. Rietveld, G. Guévrékian, L. Florentin, H. de Mandrot, A. Lurçat (hand in pocket), G. Maggioni; seated: F. G. Mercadal, N. Weber, C. Tadevossian. Source: ETH Zurich, gta CIAM Archive (n.d.).

Official group photograph, CIAM I, La Sarraz, 1928. The full list of people in the photo includes, from left to right, top row: M. Stam, M. E. Haefeli, R. Steiger, P. Artaria, F. T. Gubler (press); middle row: R. Dupierreux (Institute Cooperation-Intellectuelle, Paris), P. Chareau, V. Bourgeois, E. May, A. Sartoris (obscured behind Guevrekian), H. Schmidt, H. Häring, J. de Zavala, Le Corbusier, P. Rochat (press), H.R. von der Mühll, H. Hoste, S. Giedion, W.M. Moser, J. Frank; third row: P. Jeanneret (hand in pocket), G. Rietveld, G. Guévrékian, L. Florentin, H. de Mandrot, A. Lurçat (hand in pocket), G. Maggioni; seated: F. G. Mercadal, N. Weber, C. Tadevossian. Source: ETH Zurich, gta CIAM Archive (n.d.).

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The aftermath of WWII not only marked the beginning of a new geopolitical order but also once again brought discourses of architecture and planning back to the frontline of the confrontations between the West and the Soviet blocs. Although the immediate need for post-war reconstruction left almost no time for contextual theoretical development in a...

Context in source publication

Context 1
... the age of twenty-eight, Gabriel Guevrekian stood in the front row of a group photograph commemorating the founding of CIAM in La Sarraz, Switzerland, in 1928 ( Figure 3). Immediately recognizable by his bald head, sharp double-breasted suit, and confident, upright posture, Guevrekian radiates an obvious assuranceall the more remarkable given that he was standing shoulder to shoulder with many of the leading lights of the modern movement, among them Max Ernst, Mart Stam, Sigfried Giedion, Josef Frank, Gerrit Rietveld, and, skulking toward the back of the group, Le Corbusier. ...

Citations

... Hamed Khosravi (2019) sheds new light on two significant exponents of the Iranian theoretical and practicing housing debate: the secretary of I CIAM and well-recognized avant-garde figure Gabriel Guevrekian, who paved the way for ensuing major developments in Teheran fostered by the driving force of the Association of Iranian Architects; then Silvio Macetti (known as Noureddin Kianouri), whose contribution clearly illustrates the application and modification of the CIAM discourse in shaping the post-war neighborhoods and housing typologies in Teheran. Within a framework of social and political changes, their initiatives reformulated the concept of domesticity, the living unit and household, showing a real engagement which led towards the Middle East's first modern metropolis. ...
Article
Full-text available
Far from nostalgically celebrate the 90th anniversary of the second CIAM, which indeed opened in October 1929 in Frankfurt, the present issue is intended as collective work, a springboard which aims to widen the debate over housing experiences beyond geographical and temporal frameworks. The focus of that event, the Existenzminimum, has often been cited as representing a fundamental contribution to the rational design of the modern dwelling. But the debates during that event went beyond the definition of this concept, because demonstrated, on the one hand, how the responsibility of architects would imply the resolution of multiple technical aspects, starting from the typological concern stretching towards the town planning aspects, and on the other hand, the calling to develop a multifaceted intellectual vision of society. Though the title selected for the present issue, namely 'Housing Builds Cities', denotes the different scales of the project, the aim is to achieve a something more. First and foremost, the objective is not strictly confined to a historical understanding of facts around the 1929 congress. Today a critically objective approach is useful to examine past contributions and, if applicable, their actualization. Secondly, this special issue intends to address the CIAMs' theoretical and architectural legacy. The hypothesis on their interpretation suggests that these are still topical issues today. The issue comprises fourteen articles which investigate, through different applied methodologies, the years from the first steps of the CIAMs to the 1929 aftermath, analyze the postwar production and explore many case-studies, of which some are also geographically far from a Euro-centric vision as well as contemporary realities.
Thesis
Full-text available
The evolution of urbanism under dictatorship forms the core of the current research. This thesis is part of a research network at Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, which studies the 20th century's urbanism under different dictatorships. The network has provided a cross-cultural and cross-border environment and has enabled the author to communicate with other like-minded researchers. The 2015 published book of this group 'Urbanism and Dictatorship: A European Perspective' strengthens the foundation of this research's theoretical and methodological framework. This thesis investigates urban policies and plans leading to the advancement of urbanization and the transformation of urban space in Iran during the second Pahlavi (1941-1979) when the country faced a milestone in its history: Nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. By reflecting the influence of economic and socio‐political determinants of the time on urbanism and the urbanization process, this work intends to critically trace the effect of dictatorship on evolved urbanism before and after the oil nationalization in 1951. The research on the second Pahlavi's urbanism has been limitedly addressed and has only recently expanded. Most of the conducted studies date back to less than a decade ago and could not incorporate all the episodes of the second Pahlavi urbanism. These works have often investigated urbanism and architecture by focusing merely on the physical features and urban products in different years regardless of the importance of urbanism as a tool in the service of hegemony. In other words, the majority of the available literature does not intend to address the socio-economic and political roots of urban transformations and by questioning 'what has been built?' investigates the individual urban projects and plans designed by individual designers without interlinking these projects to the state's urban planning program and tracing the beneficiaries of those projects or questioning 'built for whom?' Moreover, some chapters of this modern urbanism have rarely been investigated. For instance, scant research has looked into the works of foreign designers and consultants involved in the projects such as Peter Georg Ahrens or Constantinos A. Doxiadis. Similarly, the urbanism of the first decade of the second Pahlavi, including the government of Mossadegh, has mainly been overlooked. Therefore, by critically analyzing the state's urban planning program and the process of urbanization in Iran during the second Pahlavi, this research aims to bridge the literature gap and to unravel the effect of the power structure on urban planning and products while seeking to find a pattern behind the regime's policies. The main body of this work is concentrated on studying the history of urbanism in Iran, of which collecting data and descriptions played a crucial role. To prevent the limitations associated with singular methods, this research's methodology is based on methodological triangulation (Denzin, 2017). With the triangulation scheme, the data is gathered by combining different qualitative and quantitative methods such as the library, archival and media research, online resources, non-participatory observation, and photography. For the empirical part, the city of Tehran is selected as the case study. Moreover, individual non-structured interviews with the locals were conducted to gain more insights regarding urban projects.