sier, on other hand, had a very different focus, and that was putting his signature touches onto this buildings, so that these buildings became extensions of his personal aesthetics. He was interested in geometric shapes and nature, and, later, became influenced by buildings of the past, such as the forms found in neo-classical styles. In this way, Le Corbusier took the foundations of how he conceptualized buildings and married this foundation to architecture of the past, and this was how he came up with his signature style. Both men had different focuses, although there is one thing which linked them – both wanted to ensure that there was harmony between the individual buildings and their surroundings. Le Corbusier wanted to ensure harmony between the buildings and the natural surroundings. Krier wanted to ensure harmony between one building and all the others surrounding it.
According to Porphyrios (1984), Leon Krier is an architect which conceives of cities as a whole, and that his buildings are conceived to be part of the larger whole. He needs to conceptualize the town or the city when he designs his buildings, because simply constructing a disembodied part of the city – a building - is not of an interest to him. This, according to Porphyrios, makes Krier a “heterosexual. All his single buildings have real or implied partners” (Pophyrios, 1984, p. 12). Or, as Pophyrios, his buildings belong to larger groups, and these groups and families are conceived as being a part of the need of the society to which they serve. In this way, Krier is not narcissistic. His buildings are not reflective of what he wants and he conceives, but, rather, what the city needs and wants. The city is the focus of his design, and his buildings are not isolated works of art. The city itself is the work of art, according to Pophyrios (1984).
As such, Krier states that that the physical and structural complexity and density of a city comes out of the social and cultural