I can't say I loved this book because, then, I'd be lying. I've never really liked Le Corbusier, from the first time my professors introduced him to me; I've always felt this snotty entlitement to him that he tries to disguise, but it doesn't work for me.
Of course I appreciate his work and how he changed the world we live in, but there's always in his person somehting that makes me stir away.
Half of this book was okay, another half of it was unbearable. I enjoyed the way he generally describes architecture and how it influences people's lives, but when he started analyzing it in depth I just wanted to rip my hair off. As I've said, with him there's constantly that snotty entlitement that I can't bear.
I feel like I would have passed without reading this. It's still a good book, of course, but it requires a knowledge that a lot of freshmen in architecture don't have. When you write a book, specially one of this kind, conceived to spread knowledge, you just can't use weird metaphors and change the course of your dialogue every two sentences. Once I met an architect, who told me "and if they tell you things about 'liquid space' and 'provocative space', don't worry about it. They just don't know how to put it in words". And that's what it feels like. I must insist, he makes some interesting points and metaphors, but I still believe that, if your reader isn't able to understand you, and thus, gain your knowledge, then you're not a good writer.