The Eames House (also known as Case Study House No. 8), is a landmark of mid-20th century modern architecture. It was constructed in 1949 in Pacific Palisades, California (a suburban neighborhood of Los Angeles) by husband-and-wife design pioneers Charles and Ray (Kaiser) Eames, to serve as their home and studio. Unusually for such an avant-garde design, the Eames publicized the house as a thoroughly lived-in, usable, and well-loved home. While many icons of the modern movement are depicted as stark, barren spaces devoid of human use, photographs and motion pictures taken at the Eames house reveal a richly decorated, almost cluttered space full of thousands of books, art objects, artifacts, and charming knick-knacks as well as dozens of projects in various states of completion. The Eames’ gracious live-work lifestyle continues to be an influential model.

The design of the house was proposed by Charles and Ray as part of the famous Case Study House program for John Entenza’s Arts and Architecture magazine. The idea of a Case Study house was to hypothesize a modern household, elaborate its functional requirements, have an esteemed architect develop a design that met those requirements using modern materials and construction processes, and then to actually build the home. The houses were documented before, during and after construction for publication in Arts and Architecture. The Eames’ proposal reflected their own household and their own needs; a young married couple wanting a place to live, work and entertain in one undemanding setting in harmony with the site.

A site near the coast in Pacific Palisades, on a wooded bluff that was once part of Will Rogers’ large estate, was selected. The design was first sketched out by Charles Eames with fellow architect Eero Saarinen in 1945 as a raised steel and glass box projecting out of the slope and spanning the entrance drive before cantilevering dramatically over the front yard. The structure was to be constructed entirely from “off-the-shelf” parts available from steel fabricators catalogs. Immediately after the war, though, these parts were in very short supply. By the time the materials arrived three years later, much pre-construction time had been spent picnicking at and exploring the lot where the house would stand. After a period of intense collaboration between the Charles and Ray, the scheme was radically changed to sit more quietly in the land and avoid impinging upon the pleasant meadow that fronted the house.

The new design tucked the house sidelong into the slope, with an 8 foot (2.4 meter) tall by 200 foot (60 meter) long concrete retaining wall on the uphill side. A mezzanine level was added, making use of a prefabricated spiral stair that was to have been the lower entrance. The upper level holds the bedrooms and overlooks the double-height living room. A courtyard was also introduced, separating the residence from the studio space. This revised scheme required only one additional beam. The 17 foot (5.1 meter) tall facade is broken down into a rigidly geometric, almost Mondrianesque composition of brightly colored panels between thin steel columns and braces, painted black. The entry door is marked with a gold-leaf panel above. An existing row of eucalyptus trees was preserved along the exposed wall of the house, providing some shading and a visual contrast with the house’s bold facade.

Of the twenty-five Case Study Houses built, the Eames house is considered the most successful both as an architectural statement and as a comfortable, functional living space. The brash sleekness of the design made it a favorite backdrop for fashion shoots in the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps the proof of its success in fulfilling its program is the fact that it remained at the center of the Eames’ life and work from the time they moved in (Christmas Eve, 1949) until their deaths.

The Eames’ family maintains the house as an occasional residence. They have overseen the conservation of the structure and have preserved Charles and Ray’s collections and decor. The studio is used for the continuing work of the Eames Office.

References

Steele, James (1994). Eames House: Charles & Ray Eames (Architecture in Detail). London & New York: Phaidon. ISBN 0-7148-4212-5.
Smith, Elizabeth A. T. (1989). Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-69213-9.

Eames Foundation Official site

Flickr set of photos of this home - photos above from here

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

The Thorncrown Chapel in Eureka Springs designed by the architect Fay Jones is a remarkable building. The chapel and the site reminds me of Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp, especially in its intimacy with the forest. While I sat on one of the pews, contemplating the splendor of this edifice, classical music (from a CD player) that softly filled the interior was stopped. What followed was the beginning of another type of music - the sound of silence. Of course it wasn’t totally silent. I could hear the rustle of leaves near by, and the wind; yet the harmony of the diagonal purlins, the transparency of the windows looking intimately into the forest and the whimsical play of light seeping into the interior to form patterns; created a sound more compelling than the classical music played earlier. Someone once said that “Architecture is music in solid form” and here was the evidence.

The Thorncrown Chapel also lends credence to the idea that ‘lack’ shapes creativity - the church had trouble raising the finances to build the chapel and all the building materials were delivered to the site by hand. Fay Jones created a jewel within the forest in two ways. First, the chapel stands out totally demanding all visual attention from onlookers and second, paradoxically , the chapel is a prism through which the beauty of the forest and nature can be admired. It is not a stretch to say that the Thorncrown chapel supports a theology where nature and the divine are intertwined.

Yet for all the chapel’s glory, I can’t help thinking that it’s mystery is compromised by its transparency. The chapel is too open. For a religion like Christianity that thrives on mystery and a gradual unveiling of revealed truths, the lightness of the chapel seems to be at odds with its creed. Part of what makes us human is the desire to attain rewards slowly. Medieval literature abounds with tales of young men arduously trying to win the favor of young damsels to no avail. Instead of being discouraged they persist, relishing in the hunt. The Thorncrown chapel reveals its splendour too quickly.

Perhaps the lightness of the Thorncrown chapel is a reflection of our society’s desire for immediate answers.

There is a famous house by a famous architect that I find intellectually beautiful.  That I would be honestly thrilled to own.  Because to me it’s a piece of art.  But where do we draw the line between art and architecture?

Now the home I am talking about has always caused a stir.   Dr. Farnsworth, the owner herself,  signed off on the project every step of the way.  She had wanted a weekend home.  But when it was done Dr. Farnsworth was less then happy. The architect Mies Van Der Rohe said “Less is more.”  She responded that “We know that less is not more.  It is simply less!”

In fact she wasn’t less then happy - she was enraged.  She took it to court.  She took it to the press. She started a major American debate.  Now, it was the ’50’s, oh excuuuuse me - “mid-century”, so of course some folks had to throw in the idea that the house was communistic, and we are talking RED SCARE here not Hippy-Trippy.

What I find remarkable is that the architect was amazed she didn’t like it.  Seems he had never meant it for any kind of real family living.  Mies took this work, he thought she believed in, and created not so much as a home but a pure idea of what is architecture. He wanted to minimalize it to its barest bones - to bring architecture he said, “to almost nothing.”

What do you think?  Was it much ado about nothing?  Is it beautiful?  I can find some serious faults with it just looking at it and I know of some more I’ve read about it.

So I agree that some ideas can be art.  But Art in 3D doesn’t mean it’s good architecture.

Please please please — if you don’t know the house look it up.  It’s a jewel and you can see that it really influenced our idea of what a home should be.  But mostly I’d like to hear what YOU THINK.  The debate about this house has never ended — some come on jump in the fray!

photo from: (official national trust historic site)

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/index.htm

Could Gehry have paid significant attention to Expressionism in school ? And if he did, was it a conscious or subconscious attempt to stem the tide of Expressionism’s waning influence in the field of architecture?

Gehry’s architecture resembles Expressionist Architecture not only in architectural form, but in ’spirit.’ Expressionist Architecture has been defined as a manifestation of an  ’eruption of the soul’ (Theodor Daubler) and the sensuous curves of buidlings like Guggenheim Bilbao and the Walt Disney Concert Hall protray that.

Frank Gehry may or may not agree with my premise, but anyone familiar with the Expressionist Architecture that flourished in Europe in the early part of the twentieth century will agree that Frank Gehry’s architecture is the bastion of Expressionist Architecture in this century.

Architects are trained to be students of architectural history and the sculptural forms of Expressionist Architecture would catch the fancy of any architectural student with an artistic bent. (I loved the sculptural forms of Erich Mendelsohn’s Einstein Tower and made a bas relief of it as a class project).

In an interview on the PBS program; the Charlie Rose Show; Frank Gehry revealed in passing, that he listens to a lot of classical music. This prompted Charlie Rose to ask if classical music influences Gehry’s work, to which Gehry replied “I don’t know, I guess it (architectural concept) comes out of it.”

Of course many factors influence architectural form, but it is not a stretch to say that the intervals of rest and movement in classical music - not to mention its harmonic form and abilty to describe inner human feelings; have influenced Gehry’s work also.

Expressionism and Music are like that inseparable old couple who complete each other and can’t be alone. The German word ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ which means ‘total work of art’ has been used to describe Expressionist architecture and Richard Wagner’s music. Both these inspire people to think of the totality of human experience.

The Walt Disney Hall dramatizes the musical performances  that take place within it. Guggenheim Bilbao seems to be in communion with art pieces that are displayed there.

Expressionist Architecture was a breath of fresh air in a stifling environment filled with utilitarian architecture. Perhaps the popularity of Frank Gehry’s work indicates that though utillitarian architecture may be functional, we need beauty and the freedom to express ourselves.

Like any other art, architecture must be experienced before one can write adequately about it.  Bruce Goff designed many remarkable buildings but I will comment on one of two I have visited and why I think, his work needs to be revisited.

Bruce Goff - a child prodigy who started working in an architectural firm at the age of twelve was the Dean of the College of Architecture at the University of Oklahoma in the 1950s. His creative spirit looms large in that school where his remarkable architectural renderings and those of his students hang on the walls around the College. Like Frank Lloyd Wright, he took pride in drawing and saw the art of drawing as part of the architecture that would take shape. Nowadays, I fear drawing is seen as a means to an end. Like the ancients who created myth, Goff saw drawing as a vehicle to articulate our humanity. The purpose of myth was not to give an historical account of heroes but rather to try to articulate the inexhaustible dealings and feelings of people. It is to Bruce Goff’s credit that he had the skill to translate his ‘dealings and feelings’ from drawings into architecture.

The Pollock House in Oklahoma City, reveals a mastery of color, light, space, illusion and materials. Like Gaudi and Wright, Bruce Goff had a profound respect for nature and local materials. Like Frank Gehry, he was a sponge that soaked Classical music and was inpired by Balinese artistic traditions and the Pollock Hosue reflects this. Spaces flow into other spaces. Mirrors deceptively create greater depth in the rooms. Like repetition in music which sustains a moment and creates a sort of infinity of that moment, the enlargement of the rooms by the mirrors challenge the certitude that three dimensional space is all exists.

The pool and the sound of water flowing recalls Feng Shui and an Eastern reverence for nature and stillness. His daring cantilevered roofs show a disdain for conventions and throw down a gauntlet at gravity.

He had a fascination with a blue-green color - some of his other buildings have bluish-green stones.

People are trying to conserve a lot of his buildings.

Neither he or his work should be forgotten.

Three years ago Daniel Libeskind delivered a lecture titled “Building Places from Memories.” As I watched the webcast, I said to myself, “Modern Architecture has exhausted its limits and become what its tenets cannot support.” What I mean by that is that early proponents of Modern Architecture like Le Corbusier sort to create Architecture that was purely programmatic and functional. Thinking was limited to reasoning and architectural projects were created by “solving the utilitarian needs” of the clients.

But it was extremely refreshing to hear Daniel Libeskind talk about how the integration of reason and sensory experience in Jewish thought has influenced his architecture in such a way that his buildings must be experienced not only with the eyes - but with all the senses. In fact in the lecture he said that just “seeing” architecture is idolatrous.

He talked about numerous projects from the Jewish Museum in Berlin to the proposed Freedom Tower at Ground Zero - stating that they embody his desire for architecture to shrug off its utlitarian role and be something more. He quoted Adolf Loos who said ”in life we have buildings but in death we have Architecture.” Think about that. In other words, Adolf Loos was trying to say that there are many architects who have given up trying to make fantasy a reality. Fantasy will remain in the realm of the dead.

But according to Libeskind, limiting the power of architecture this way, makes us less human. The ability to fantasize makes us human. We have an innate ability to imagine whatever we want and anything that stunts this capacity can be seen as harmful and I would say that utilitarian architecture is in that category.

Imagination springs from memories - of events, myths, experiences and so on. In the Freedom Tower project he talked about visiting the Ground Zero to be inspired by the “voices of the site.” Again and again architects have expressed that the site has a voice which must be listened to. These voices are the wellspring of imagination.

The Freedom Tower’s beauitful searing structure is a symbol of freedom. Perhaps the Statue of Liberty was a source of inspiration for Daniel Libeskind. In the lecture he talked about seeing the statue for the first time on the ship which brought him to America. He said it was hard to describe the feeling he had when he saw the beautiful lady on the horizon. Even as a child he felt that the lady would promise him peace and the environment to fulfil his potential.

His was not just a logical conclusion but a marriage of reason and sensory experience. He should be applauded for attempting to achieve this in his buildings.

To listen to the lecture click on http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/ and look for Daniel Libeskind: Building Places from Memories.

The mystery of Glass, Expressionism and human aspirations are themes that I have tried to reflect on in my blogs. Watching Cesar Pelli’s lecture at Princeton caused me to think about our fascination with the glass skyscraper. Cesar Pelli has built some of the tallest glass buildings in the world - the Petronas Tower and Philadephia’s Tower are notable examples. What is it about those tall shimmering fanstastical structures that have fascinated us from the beginning of time? Phrases like “the city on a hill”, “the Eternal City” - conjure up images of cities where the buildings we dream of are arrayed in all their splendor - like a beautiful bride. Why is it that white as I said in another blog denotes majesty, beauty…purity?

There are critics who have denigrated the “beautiful” saying that aesthetic taste is subject to the eye of the  beholder….but who is not swayed by the Petronas Twin Tower in Malaysia? All arguments cease when you see it. There are some songs, some works of art that leave you speechless and afterwards greatful for the experience.

You may laugh but is it too much of a stretch to say that Cesar Pelli’s Latin sensibility has had a role to play in his admiration for glass towers? Latin American countries are known for the beauty with which they play soccer. They play soccer with a passion that can be likened to romantic love. They care about the ball. Their dribbles and the music blaring from their supporters in the stands - which is in cinch with the play on the field; show a sensibility that is different from how Europeans play the game -except for Spain, Italy and Portugal (all of which were heavily influenced by Latin culture).

Is the tower a virtuous metaphor like the young beautiful virgin? Throughout history certain symbols, whether a white horse, a unicorn; even Santa Claus have served the purpose of pointing us to a beauty - a way of looking beyond our limitations as human beings and embracing what could be.

Perhaps this is way we like glass skyscrapers so much.

To watch the lecture click on http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/ and scroll down to Cesar Pelli: The Public in Architecture.

Have you considered living in the forth dimension?  When we move into a high-rise building usually we feel lucky if we have the choice of where to put some of the interior walls.  Most commonly we are left to choose between one floor plan and another.  There may be a choice between one of two models - maybe one or two sizes. But now there is, in Miami at least, a new way to build your condo even if you are buying into a high-rise.

About 100 years ago artists like Picasso and Braque decided to try out a new way of looking at things.  Cubism was born because rather then looking at something, like a row of boxes, from the typical horizontal view point, Cubists broke out of that mold. It was a revolutionary way to see space. Boxes could be viewed in multiple contexts and from multiple viewpoints.  In this century it appears that the architect Chad Oppenheim with the Miami firm Oppenheim Architecture + Design, has broken the dimensional mold again and in his own way is applying Cubism consciously or subconsciously, to the artistic medium of architecture.

In a building that is going beyond the box, you buy cubes of space and then you decide how they are being placed together. You can arrange your cubes of space horizontally of course, vertically which is nice, and then you can go beyond any expectation for a high-rise.  You can tell Oppenheim you want the cubes to meet diagonally, have an open space (they are calling them “voids”) for say, a garden, and even leave the building and jump out into space.  In the CUBE building that wouldn’t be a balcony jutting off the side, it would be the entire cube of space, 625 sq ft.   Like in the style of Cubism the objects, in this case, living spaces, are broken up and looked at from an abstract perspective.  Chad Oppenheim, says of it, “ The original inspiration was my thesis project at Cornell, an idea of creating a vertical neighborhood, with people building and defining their own domains similar to how they do so in horizontal developments of single family houses.”[i]

To further complete the cubist analogy, many cubists felt that time was the 4th dimension and time was best represented as a cube; the very center of the cube being the current reality of the person.  In the CUBE it works out that time will stay current because the CUBE system isn’t just great for the original buyers of the condos, it also makes it easier for future residents to remodel.  Future laborers with sledge hammers can go through walls sure, we expect that, but how about the floors?  Oppenheim wanted all of CUBE’s users to have endless possibilities but, as he puts it, with a laugh, “We didn’t want to give them a leash to hang themselves.”[ii]

They achieve this by grouping the necessary elements - plumbing, electrical, air treatments – in a central core.  This is a classic technique in Modern architecture which here is being refined and taken to another level.  In the case of this building aptly named CUBE, Oppenheim met with his engineer, Ysreal Seinuk and asked “What if we do the structural system on the outside, a girded, diagonal bracing, so we don’t need sheer walls coming down internally?”[iii] Together they found that by placing a strong steel frame on the exterior to carry the load of the weight, the building becomes more economical, and since the floors are not cantilevered or sources of support, they become as non-essential as a dividing wall.

The building starts construction this year, 2008 in Miami’s design district.  Specifically it will come to be at 50 NE 41st St, Miami FL 33137.  It will stand 22 stories high.  If you wanted to buy into it the prices as of September 2007 are charted below.  Join up with this generation’s architectural Picasso, Chad Oppenheim, and sculpt out a new kind of living space.

The Ringling School of Design has been in Sarasota since 1931 and has a strong Interior Design program. There are two high schools in Sarasota, Riverview and the Sarasota High School Addition that were built in this particular Regionalist Modern style by one of its strongest architects, Paul Rudolph.

When we say Sarasota School of Architecture we are not talking about a specific school in Sarasota.  The term is used to describe a sensibility that was practiced and applied to buildings in the area, just as the Hudson River Valley School of Painting was not a school but a category to describe painters. In the latter case, the term described artists who were inspired by the drama of the landscape along the shores of the Hudson River.

In the Sarasota School of Architecture the prevailing point of view is shaped by early mid-century modernism, one step away from European Bauhaus.  This is especially true with the work of architect Paul Rudolph who studied directly under Walter Gropius, a leader of the Bauhaus movement.   Other architects known for working within this style are Mark Hampton, Gene Leedy, Victor Lundy and Ralph Twitchell.

Architect’s working in the Sarasota school of architecture were innovative, they incorporated much of the technology that had come out of World Was II.   They pushed the use of concrete and plywood, and applied new forms of insulation, such as “Cocoon” which was used to insulate naval ships and later as insulation on The Healy guest house one of Sarasota’s archetypical homes.  They worked with cantilevered roof lines and hanging decks.  On slab construction added to the horizontalness of their buildings, and made sense, as in Florida the water table is very high in most places and even a shallow hole can be filled with water rapidly.  This creates a simple reason not to have basements.

Sarasota School of Architecture gives us homes and public buildings in the west coast Sarasota area of Florida and its surrounding areas such as Tampa. (Today it’s an hour and a half away, from city to city by highway - when it’s not near a commuting time.)  They are sleek, streamlined and one storied.  They are built to take advantage of views and give a sense of open space.  They used sunshine to create patterns and intentional shadows. When these structures were built they were often lauded by architectural magazines of the time.  They are only now being rediscovered.  A group was born out of a tour of these buildings that took place in 2001. Known as the Sarasota Architecture Foundation it has organized to protect the buildings and allow them to be known to the international public again.  Even so, like many mid-century buildings works by these architects and in this style continue to be demolished by those not understanding their historic value.

Along with philosophical ideals there are strong environmental influences here also. The architects embracing the sunlight, breezes, play of shadows and generally horizontality of Florida are prevelant among this style.

It’s important to realize that many American northerner’s moving to the area were not aware of the Florida vernacular style of the “Cracker House”, which had evolved to deal with the special elements of the local environment.  The Cracker homes for example, dealt with one of the side effects of all that sunshine – the heat.  Cracker houses subconsciously employed different aspects of physics to cool the air and create interior breezes.

Meanwhile “Snow Birds” were often copying the heavy styles more familiar to them, there are buildings throughout the state that would have been very comfortable in New York City’s suburb counties.  The architecture of the southern part of the state has also shown the impact of Florida’s developers, which have from the 1920’s until today, sold the idea of Mediterranean-Revival style homes.  This style does have its bit of appropriateness; Florida was initially settled by the Spanish and the property of that country until 1819.   Another issue to keep in mind today is that in the 1940’s and 1950’s air conditioning was not a regular feature in homes of in this area and many months were very warm.

Miami, The Big Orange, has always had a connected history with The Big Apple.  Perhaps the most obvious is the amount of flights between La Gaurdia and Miami International, which means a constant flow of thoughts back and forth between the fashion capitols of the East Coast.

Now the two cities have another commonality.  New York City has the Hearst Building, built by architects Foster and Partners, of London.  Miami is sprouting a green core; with COR as its first green high-rise.   This is all good with the mayor of Miami, Manny Diaz.  Diaz sees the future of Miami’s success in melding new green concept architecture and development with the attitudes and technologies possible to keep Miami’s unique beauty a place of tropical joys, thriving on less dependency of old school energy sources, avoiding the smog and many dehumanizing factors that have occurred when other cities have become world class contenders.  Diaz is a strong advocate of enforcing incentives for Miami and in Florida incentives for building green.  This is similar to the Florida Keys now. Down there a point system rewards you for building and incorporating issues such as using cisterns rather then relying on water piped down from Miami-Dade County.

Planting the seeds for this high profile project is American Miami-based architect Chad Oppenheim of Oppenheim Architecture + Design.  Working with Ysreal Seinuk, a favorite engineering collaborator, and energy consultant Buro Happold, Oppenheim has come up with a 25-story $45 million dollar architectural groundbreaker.  It’ll be located at 4035 NE 2nd Ave, Miami Florida 33137.  You can find realtors on the web selling spaces in it, even though ground was just broke July of 2007.

He’s growing a building here that is not shy to show its connection to the earth.  As Oppenheim says in interviews, “for examples, with the wind turbines on the roof, it looks like a green building – whereas so many other sustainable projects look like generic buildings.”   In fact, just one glance at one of the simulated photos of the building and people are stopping to learn more because of the beauty of its open “skin”.  The buildings exterior is an eye-opening scattering of circular cutouts.  Not just a decorative element even that hot and groovy new circular look to the Miami horizon has an earth friendly reason; it’s actually more efficient to have diagonally clad griding rather then vertical.

That’s what it’s about - beauty, efficiency and eco-friendliness.  Like Oppenheim’s building CUBE where he redefined the box, COR is new, hip, and “un-square” growing up like a tropical coconut palm, sleek, beautiful and sustaining.  COR includes photovoltaic panels, and solar heated hot water.  That visually interesting structure provides a mass that is insulating and allows the temperatures to rise and fall efficiently inside; boasting gardens and shade so that residents can use the space to actually enjoy the special natural ambience of the of the city they have chosen to live in, bright skies, impressive night views, far off thunderheads and breezes blowing to the beaches.

Making a building green it makes sense to include in the a broader shape of community, keeping people near the things they need rather then cause them to get into a car adding to traffic and fuel uses.  So far there are offices, a gym, café and retail store waiting to join this COR lifestyle.  The building is going to be urban without a doubt, but will feature sustainable details like bamboo floorings and long lasting materials such as stainless steel home appliances.

Summing up his thoughts on how buildings like COR can be built and be not just environmental successes but financial triumphs as well, it appears that he agrees with Mayor Diaz when he says, “As architects, it is our responsibility to lead the way, but it ultimately takes great clients to follow the idea through.  No one wants to pollute their environment or do something bad.  Everyone wants to do green, but it all boils down to cost.”  In COR’S case lessening the marketing costs by creating a building that almost markets itself.  In Miami’s case the government providing incentives for architects working on eco-friendly projects.

Hopefully with the Apple and the Orange going green and doing it with aplomb, positive publicity, and fiscal success, the idea will grow.  Architects and their clients will see the need and the market for innovation that returns two desirable shapes of green - greenbacks and green cities.