During the industrial period, there was a large movement of the population, shifting from rural to urban cities, in search for employment. This resulted in overcrowding, lack of essential amenities and also in sub- standard housing. Also, since the land prices were on the rise, and the new technology and techniques were now available, people started looking upwards as a way to go – which lead to the rise of high rise buildings. The concept of modern architecture and high rises seemed very attractive when it was proposed. But as the fad wore off, new problems started to present themselves. But the problems were not only due to poor sanitation and maintenance but also of social issues like lack of interaction between neighbours, crime rates, social and racial profiling etc. Some architects had their own ideas to tackle the problems. But it wasn’t that the problems were similar in every part of the world. The ideas of community and privacy in the west were different from those of Asia. Like in Mumbai, the concept of ‘Hindu’ flats - large common space and smaller rooms surrounding them, and also having a toilet attached to every apartment was a popular concept, whereas in the west the architects believed that public and common spaces, along with garden and balconies, was the way to go. The essay attempts to study the Unite d’ Habitation units and how it tried to achieve human interactions on individual, community and neighbourhood scale, with the Marseilles and Berlin units being the main focus.
After the war, all the people wanted were peace and security. It was a time when people started to aspire for a better living, but the land was getting expensive. So the need of good high rise housing was deemed necessary. Unite d’ Habitation has been one of the most discussed and debated about than any other building after the war. Even though the theoretical principles were sound, there were some practical problems with it. The scale of the building in terms of human and domestic qualities has been widely appreciated, probably due to the architect’s use of ‘Modular’ system to define the sizes of the structures. The diagram of the same has also been engraved on the walls of the units. Even though the housing unit as meant to work itself as a vertical city, it can be argued that that it disconnected with other social centres which are located nearby, like the tobacco centre, the tennis court, and the community garden; as most of the services like hotels, restaurants, gymnasium and shopping centres are located in the building itself. It can be said that since most of the facilities are at an arm’s length, it may not have been necessary to create shops and other features inside the building. This may increase communication among the residents but it might make them being indoors most of the time. As Thurston William commented, “one can well imagine that the housewife will have little need and less inclination ever to leave the building at all for days on end.” (Easton, K.; 2020). And this seems a little different to the usual attitude of people in Marseilles. This idea seems to dominate their behaviour rather than to give them a choice whether to go remain indoors or outdoors. There also have been arguments about quality of concrete work and the stark and bright colours in the balconies of the building, which was probably done to decrease the monotony due to the entire structure being made of concrete. All in all, it has a sense of privacy and also an opportunity to have community participation. The Unite d’ Habitation, though having its flaws, can be considered as a good example of modern mass housing.