i’ve always had mixed feelings about le corbusier. on the one hand works like ronchamp and the villa savoye are very inspiring, site specific, intimately human scale (i love those varying punched windows at ronchamp), and groundbreaking. on the other hand his theories, while great theories, were always implemented horribly (here’s a great article/design manifesto partially discussing this that’s worth reading). “machines for living,” is a phenomenal idea; basically it’s the idea that our building’s and homes are really nothing more than machines that enable our lives and such, as such, make living simpler and more enjoyable. his proposal for a “city for 3 million” shows the disconnect between the theory and implementation, or design/livability. additionally, the method of the implementation of “machines for living” and the “tower and the garden” led to 40 years of oppressive public housing in america, but that’s a whole different post. however, the other day i read a great post by sarah rich over at worldchaning.com about australian architect andrew maynard. he has revisited this idea of “machines for living” in what he calls corb v2.0. in his very intriguing proposal lie notions of sustainability, flexibility, mobility, and social hierarchy among others. the proposal for essentially ever fluctuating “neighborhoods” of container ship homes being constantly rearranged is extremely fun. for sake of slaughtering his wonderful ideas with my explanations i’ll just tell you it’s worth checking out.