Sick Buildings, Healthy Houses by AA School

SI CK BUI L DI N GS, H E A LTH Y H O USE

Diploma History and Theory Studies - December 2013 Rethinking Architecture through Medicine Tutor: Eva Eylers

By Kate Finning

Contents 1 Note 2 Part 1 - Sick Buildings 4 Part 2 - Explicit Health 15 Part 3 - Implicit Health 22 Bibliography

Cover Image: Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: C. Constant, ‘E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 53, no.3, 1994, p. 274.

- Note -

My brother, now thirty years old, has for most of his life suffered from air-borne allergies. Although not always the case, quite often his symptoms have lead him to the point that he feels he cannot continue his daily activities anymore. Despite being extremely motivated and reluctant to complain, all of those around him acknowledge the negative impact his allergies have on his quality of life. Having been told for the majority of his life that his symptoms were in most part due to an allergy of pollens and dust mites, namely hay fever, such advice did not seem accurate as his symptoms are present throughout the year. The hay fever symptoms would often be accompanied by sinus infections, the most debilitating component of his condition. Earlier this year, new allergen tests revealed something which had not been noticed in tests prior, that he was allergic to the airborne mould which originates in the air conditioning units of buildings.

Part 1 - Sick Buildings

“... the type of architecture that was meant to inoculate its occupants against disease has become a major source of disease. People are becoming physically allergic to architecture. New bodies will probably have to be designed. A new theory of architecture is likely to follow.” 1 Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) is not a new consideration but it is still widely misunderstood and no single cause has been identified. Classified as such during the 1950s, it has been noted that such recognition coincided with the technology which led to the proliferation of air-tight buildings, namely air conditioning. 2 At this point it is important to note two considerations in regards to the consideration of ‘health’ and buildings in the contemporary context. The first, termed Buildingrelated illness (BRI) pertains to health concerns which put not only the occupants, but the visitors and the passers by of a building at risk, the most well known of which is Legionnaires disease. The second, the aforementioned Sick Building Syndrome relates more directly to the building’s occupants and is outlined by the World Health Organisation as; “a syndrome of complaints covering nonspecific feelings of malaise, the onset of which is associated with occupancy of certain modern buildings.”3 Symptoms reported fall within five criteria and include complaints such as fatigue, irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, or skin, and this is all outside of the consideration of any psychological negative impacts. 4 It would seem that today the greatest weakness in the acknowledgement and treatment of such a syndrome is precisely such non specificity. Despite inconclusive evidence on the subject, certain considerations are emerging as central to the consideration of a ‘sick’ buildings and thus inversely what constitutes a ‘healthy’ building. The major focus of current discussion pertains to the air quality within a building.5 Again, although inconclusive, it has been reported B. Colomina, ‘The medical body in Modern Architecture’, in Davison, C. (ed.), Anybody, Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1997, p. 238.

Goldman in J. Rostron, ‘Sick Building Syndrome: A review of causes, consequences and remedies’, Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, vol. 7, no. 4, 2008, p. 291.

J. Rostron, op cit., p. 291.

Ibid., p. 292.

In 2011 the World Health Organisation released a report entitled; Environmental burden of disease associated with inadequate housing within which it outlines the relationship between indoor air quality and asthma onset in children.

that buildings which are air conditioned have a higher rates of symptoms than those which are naturally ventilated. 6 In light of this fact, standards have been set for the fresh-air content within such mechanical systems but they are relatively ungenerous, usually with the main aim of diluting body odors.7 Additionally, considerations of temperature, volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted from building materials, and airborne dust, all contribute to the increasing awareness of the indoor air quality of buildings and the impact this may have in the case of ‘sick’ buildings. Thankfully, the case for questioning our reliance on indoor air conditioning systems spreads far wider than health considerations. In particular, the growing awareness of Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) has allowed the questioning of energy-reliant systems such as air conditioning. So too, a lighter reliance on mechanical systems makes economic sense. However, of enduring concern is to consider the more immediate effect this has on our interior environment, and thus our health. While the technical aspects of building biology rest largely outside the role of architects, we must acknowledge the trend during the last century towards the nearhermetic sealing of our buildings against all external weather and air conditions and consequently a disregard for the non-mechanical means of climate control at our disposal. Indeed, one does not have to look far into history to see a common sensibility in this regard. Thus, we look to modern architecture of the early twentieth century for both conscious and intuitive pursuits of a ‘healthy’ architecture again, through which, particular attention is given to quality of indoor air.

J. Rostron, op cit., p. 294.

Ibid., p. 294.

Part 2 - Explicit Health

The vigor with which modernism concerned itself with health was unprecedented in architecture. Such considerations are in most part attributed to the discovery by Robert Koch of the tubercle bacillus in 1882 and in particular, suggestions that the disease was caused in part by, “unfavourable climate, sedentary indoor life, defective ventilation and deficiency of light.” 8 Modern architects offered designs for the requisite change in environment. Such aims became most explicit through the designs of tuberculosis sanatoriums but soon through domestic design also, to the extent that houses themselves would come to resemble sanatoriums; “we finally get to the houses, they have themselves been turned into sanatoriums”. 9 Thus in accordance with the many scientific metaphors adopted by modernism, 10 the house as “machine” could also be understood as a contrivance for protecting and contributing to the health of the body. The medical metaphor remained a sideline for many modernists, but there were those who considered it a prerequisite for the new architecture and would make concerted efforts to communicate the virtues of architecture for the cause of the healthy body and mind. Architectural theorist Siegfried Giedion’s text of 1929, Liberated Dwelling was accompanied with the subtitle Light, Air, Opening which was again a reference the perceived causes of Tuberculosis.11 So too, the Californian architect Rudolph M. Schindler would contribute his own understanding of the topic in six articles, amongst the few of his written manifestos, for the Los Angeles Times, entitled Care of the body in 1926. Invited to contribute to the column by its author Dr. Phillip Lovell, himself a drugless medical practitioner and determined naturalist, Schindler outlined the aspects which he saw as central to the consideration of the new type of architecture, that was, a ‘healthy’ architecture. For Lovell, as it would be for 8

Quoted in B. Colomina, ‘X-Ray Architecture: Illness as Metaphor’, Positions, 2008, pp. 31-32.

B. Colomina, ‘The medical body’, p. 230.

10 Forty, A., Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary for Modern Architecture, London, Thames & Hudson, 2000, p.87.“In the pursuit of a language free from metaphor, modernism tolerated only two particular classes of metaphor, those drawn from language, and those drawn from science.” 11

B. Colomina, ‘X-Ray Architecture’, p. 32.

Schindler, health was “more than a question of comfort”.12 More specifically Dr. Lovell, whose column had brought him increasing success in his practice, extolled “the benefits of natural foods, on sunshine, and on abstinence from ejaculation if not intercourse.”13 In regards to health, as it pertained to architecture, Lovell invited Schindler to contribute his practical guidelines for the attention of the home builder interested in health. Schindler’s articles constituted the topics; Ventilation, Plumbing, Heating, Lighting, Furniture and lastly an article entitled Shelter or Playground. For Schindler health as it pertained to architecture would be particularly a matter of hygiene, again attending to the perceived causes of Tuberculosis. His articles addressed specific technical aspects, so too included less empirical advice for furnishing the ‘healthy’ home. Schindler would soon be afforded the opportunity to build a house on exactly these terms for none other than Dr. Lovell himself, and the house’s attention to health can be best read through a simultaneous reading of Shindler’s Care of the body, and Giedion’s categorisation of Light, Air, and Opening .

12 R. Schindler, ‘Care of the body: Six essays for the LA Times 1926’, Oppositions 18, Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1979, p. 74. 13 G. Marmorstein, ‘Steel and Slurry: Dr. Philip M. Lovell, Architectural Patron’, Southern California Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 3/4, 2002, pp.248-250.

Schindler’s Lovell Beach House, Newport Beach, California of 1926 can in many respects be regarded as the coalescing of his considerations for the “health house” with his architectural explorations on spatial terms.14 The house, sited on the corner of 13th street and the beach promenade, the beach facade facing south,and the entrance and main facade oriented west, the house was raised on repeated reinforced concrete stilts. 15 (Fig 01) Touching the ground at fifteen points, such elevation provided the requisite beach view surpassing neighbouring houses, privacy from beach onlookers, and formed a sheltered outdoor playground for children, so too Schindler had hoped that the sandy beach could continue into the building envelope. Such interpenetration of indoors and outdoors would become central to Schindler’s conception of space as he would outline in Shelter or Playground; “The distinction between indoors and the out-of-doors will disappear. The walls will be few, thin and removable”16 and it is such an endeavor which revels the most contrasting characteristic of the Lovell beach house with homes of today. By considering the house not as a self-enclosed unit, but as the coalescence of internal and external spaces, Schindler could afford the benefits of both to the house’s inhabitants. Indeed it was through this consideration that Schindler could attend to the ‘healthy’ requirements of adequate Light, Air, and Openings, and through a close reading of the house’s predominant west facing facade and the corresponding cross section we can observe much ingenuity in these regards. The site for Lovell house was not ideally oriented. The preferred south orientation, although facing the beach, was located on the sites narrowest width thus leaving only the west face as the principle facade. By orienting the house predominantly west, Schindler could make use of the street as the entrance to the house so too, he could ensure maximum views across the beach laterally. Thus all major balconies and patios face west, but in doing so put the external and linked internal spaces at the risk of over exposure to the strong, low westerly afternoon sun. (Fig 02) To overcome this, the west facade is stepped back from the second, to the ground floor 14 A. Sarnitz, ‘Proportion and Beauty- The Lovell beach house by Rudolf Michael Schindler, Newport Beach, 1922-1926’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 45, no. 4, 1986, p. 375. Schindler would later write on the topic of space, he published “Space Architecture” in 1932 in Dune Forum trying to explain his understanding of space in architecture. 15

Newport Beach is one of the few Californian beaches that faces South.

R. Schindler, op. cit., p. 84.

Fig. 01.Site Plan. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House, 1926. Source:http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca0448.sheet.00001a/resource/ (Accessed 12 December, 2013).

Fig 02. West Facade. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House, 1926. Source: http://storm.usc.edu/~leiker/final.html (Accessed 12 December, 2013).

Fig 03. West Facade - Cross Section. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House, 1926. Source: http://www.studyblue.com (Accessed 12 December, 2013).

with each balcony’s overhang affording shade to the next. (Fig 03) Additionally, the second floor patio is itself beneath a deep overhang and opaque concrete balustrade, thus providing a protected outdoor space for the adjoining bedrooms. 17 This space would be designated as a sleeping patio by Schindler, and is justified in his Ventilation article; “we are more and more aware of the beauty and healthfulness of sleeping out of doors. The bedrooms are slowly degenerating ... and our beds are placed on an open porch.” 18 Such practice was an assured reference to sanatoriums and their design for the curative incorporation of fresh air. 19 By ensuring fixed external shading to the west facade, Schindler enabled expansive glazing for the maximisation of views without the need for internal drapery or obscuring shutters. 20 So too, he allowed the freedom for the sleeping and living spaces to be opened for ventilation in turn allowing the entrance of fresh air “at the height of its level density”.21 Schindler’s prescriptions for natural ventilation continued further, in particular he considered first, the stratification of indoor air into layers, and secondly the insufficient exchange of air, necessary to overcome. At the Lovell House we can see the strategy of floor level and clerestory operable windows which enable the necessary exchange of indoor air as well as its circulation through the vertical layers of air specifically through the double-height living space. 22 (Fig 05) Natural ventilation served the dual purposes of fresh air (health) and passive cooling (comfort), for the location of Venice Beach, California however the latter would be of secondary importance. Despite being of a relatively mild climate zone, with average annual temperatures with maximums of 22oC and lows of 9oC,

the

house would have beneﬁtted from the cooling winds provided by the Paciﬁc Ocean in the summer. However, although being a beach house, attention to the Heating

17 A. Sarnitz, ‘Proportion and Beauty’, p. 380. Some years after the completeion of the house the clients asked Schindler to enclose the porch. by way of operable French doors Also, “Later as occupants found that getting wet was one of the disadvantages, the open sleeping balcony/cabins were glazed in.” M. Campbell, ‘What Tuberculosis did for Modernism: The inﬂuence of a curative environment on modernist design and architecture’, Medical History, vol. 49, no. 4, p. 475. 18

R. Schindler, op. cit., p. 75.

19 M. Campbell, ‘What Tuberculosis did for Modernism: The inﬂuence of a curative environment on modernist design and architecture’, Medical History, vol. 49, no. 4, p. 465 & 475. 20

R. Schindler, op. cit., p. 80. Schindler prescribed no more coloured glass or heavy drapery.

Ibid., p. 75.

22 Although floor level openings cannot be identified from the available documentation, for the purposes of the admittance of fresh air at floor level, full length openable glazing has been included. 23

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA0764 (Accessed 10 December, 2013)

(Top) Fig 04. South Facade. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House, 1926. Source: http://www.naturallymodern.com/ (Accessed 12 December, 2013). Fig. 05. West Facade Cross Section From South. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House, 1926. Source:http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca0448.sheet.00001a/resource/ (Accessed 12 December, 2013).

Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days of the site reveal a higher burden of heating the home rather than cooling it. 24 This indicates that Schindler’s primary concern over ventilation would have been for health, but it is with heating in mind that we turn to his third article on precisely that topic. For Schindler heating as it related to indoor air quality most often gave rise to poor internal conditions. Namely, he bemoaned the contemporary technology which required air as the primary means of heat transference, thus demanding the internal environment to be completely sealed from the outside. In his article About Heating, Schindler discussed radiation as an acceptable form of heating but derides the common practice of covering radiators. He then continues by envisioning a future where; “The house ... will keep us warm by means of direct heat rays emanating uniformly from the walls and the ceiling”. 25 Unfortunately no such system existed and indeed still does not and from the available documentation it does not seem that any radiators were used originally. 26 Their absence, but still the requirement to heat the house throughout the cooler seasons explains the centrality of the fire place on each of the three levels of the house. (Fig 06) For Schindler the fireplace as well as being for heating, was central to the social cohesion of the household. Schindler outlines that its place in the room should not be surrounded by a mantel, nor should it obstruct the room’s circulation.27 (Fig 07) The Lovell house’s fireplaces are a direct built manifestation of his writings on the subject, and although no doubt contributing to the warmth of the home, can be considered predominantly an issue of comfort rather than if strict ‘health’; “The flame is one of the most enjoyable luxuries of our lives”.28 From elements such as the fireplace and sleeping porches, we may understand the built implications Schindler envisaged for a healthy and comfortable house, but also one that would follow his structural and spatial concerns. Indeed Schindler was skeptical of the prevailing functionalist and purely mechanistic ideologies, adoption of which was often unquestioned, and through his collaborations with Dr. Lovell For California Climate Zone 6, taken from base 18oC, HDD 794 and CDD 667. Source: http://www.pge.com/ includes/docs/pdfs/about/edusafety/training/pec/toolbox/arch/climate/california_climate_zones_01-16.pdf (Accessed 10 December, 2013) 24

R. Schindler, op. cit., p. 79.

A. Sarnitz, ‘Proportion and Beauty’, p. 375. Only ﬁve interior photos of original house survive.

27 R. Schindler, op. cit., p. 79. “The ﬁreplace and its hearth should be moved toward a quiet corner out of the path of the trafﬁc lines in the room...” 28

Ibid., p. 79.

we can see the manifestation of a possible alternative. In viewing the Lovell house through the prism of its concern for a healthy indoor air quality we may extrapolate considerations which can be of particular beneﬁt in light of today’s ‘sick’ indoor environments.

Fig 06. Floor Plans. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House,1926. 1: Playground 2: Fire Place 3: Sleeping Porch. Source: Davies, C., Key Houses of the Twentieth Century: Plans, sections, and elevations, London, Laurence King, 2006. p. 51.

Fig 07. Living Room - Fire place “a quiet corner away from the path of traffic”. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House,1926. Source: Sarnitz, A., ‘Proportion and BeautyThe Lovell beach house by Rudolf Michael Schindler, Newport Beach, 1922-1926’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 45, no. 4, 1986, p. 381.

Fig 08. Bedroom Interior - No visible signs of mechanised heating.. Rudolph M. Schindler, Lovell Beach House, 1926. Source: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca0448.photos.014329p/ resource/ (Accessed 12 December, 2013).

Part 2 - Implicit Health

While we must not overlook the importance that the explicit pursuit of health had in Schindler’s Lovell house, and his later domestic works, we must acknowledge the more promising aspect that a reading of modernist architecture may afford to today’s incumbent consideration for health in the home, namely its implicit or intuitive aspects. That is, to regard the consideration of health as inherent in the modern house proper. For this we look to another beach house of the same year, Eileen Gray and Jean Badovici’s E1027 of 1926-1929. 29 Unlike Schindler, Gray and Badovici did not express exuberance of the virtues of hygiene in the home, in fact they would bemoan the “excessive intellectualism” through which hygiene was often employed; “[the] misunderstood concern for hygiene makes hygiene intolerable.”

This in many ways could be read as a

corollary to Schindler’s critique of functionalism, but more likely alludes to Gray’s consideration of comfort and hygiene as a belief which sits outside of dogmatic prescriptions and rather, is implied by any concern for architecture with respect to the human body; “The art of the engineer is not enough if it is not guided by the primitive needs of men.”31 Thus the consideration of ‘health’ as Schindler would have classiﬁed it was nothing more than the consideration of life within the home, or what Gray called the “joie de vivre”. 32 However, a close reading of E1027 reveals similar concerns and techniques to the Lovell house, particularly in regards to indoor air quality and non-mechanised climate control. In designing a vacation home for herself on the Côte d’Azur in France, Gray selected a secluded site which embodied the “savage” landscape she admired.33 (Fig 09) Set on the steep hillside overlooking the Baie de Roquebrune, Gray was afforded greater choice of orientation than the restricted site of the Lovell house. 29 C. Constant, ‘E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 53, no.3, 1994, p. 269.For this paper the house has been referred to as predominantly Gray’s design, although Badovici would have supervised the technical aspects of the house. 30 D. Ryan, ‘Sunshine and shade in the architecture of Eileen Gray’, Architectural Science Review, vol. 53, no. 3, 2010, p. 340. 31

Eileen Gray quoted in P. Adam, Eileen Gray: Her life and work, London, Thames & Hudson, 2009, p. 216.

D. Ryan, op. cit., p. 340.

P. Adam, op. cit., p. 91. As opposed to more gentle landscapes.

Fig 09. Hill Site. Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: Hecker, S., and M端ller, C., Eileen Gray: Works and Projects, Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993, p. 63.

Fig 10. Plan Diagram distinguishing between circulation routes of owner and housekeeper. Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: Hecker, S., and M端ller, C., Eileen Gray: Works and Projects, Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993, p. 70.

What results is the very near optimum orientation for passive climate control.34 Such circumstances were not accidental and in fact, were intrinsic to the planning of the home as a direct response to the movements and activities of occupants within the home. 35 (Fig 10) The resulting plan sees the main living space, adjoining outdoor spaces and sleeping areas (both Gray’s and the servant’s) all oriented towards the south. (Fig 11) With the southern aspect optimised, E1027 could make full use of solar gain throughout the day. For although reaching average highs and lows of 28oC and 20oC in the summer months, the site was not usually warm, as reflected in its heating degree days which are almost double that of its cooling days. 36 This is reflected in E1027 through the use of tiling in the living room which would capture and radiate heat underfoot, heating radiators can be seen in the bedrooms, so too the balustrade shade cloth could be removed to expose the body to warming rays.37 (Fig 12) (Fig 13) Such use of heating techniques adhere to those prescribed by Schindler in his article and provide the ideal accompaniment to the techniques of natural ventilation Gray would employ. As Schindler outlined, heating was particularly a problem for the indoor environment as it necessitated the sealing of the building envelope. To overcome this, Schindler proposed the “not noticeable constant exchange of air throughout the house”,38 such technique is best exampled through the external shutter design in E1027. For the south facade, the strip window at E1027 has been treated as a “layered membrane”. 39 (Fig 14) Through traditional Niçoise external shutters, the interior of the home is afforded flexibility of ventilation, privacy and views. Of particular interest is the sliding panel shutter design, where a gap between the tracks and the wall ensures constant ventilation even when the shutters are closed. So too, their horizontal elements were able to be manipulated at choice.40 (Fig 15) Throughout the house Gray has enabled the perfect balance of views and privacy,

D. Ryan, op. cit., p. 341. Nice, France optimum orientation would be 173o from the North, E1027 sits at 212o.

35 Ibid., p. 341. This was also said to be an architecture that would allow the natural reading of time throughout the day.

Nice, France. Taken from base 18oC, HDD 1377 and CDD 722. Source: http://www.worldweatheronline.com/ Nice-weather-averages/Provence-Alpes-Cote-Dazur/FR.aspx and http://www.degreedays.net (Accessed 10 December, 2013) 36

37 L. Samuel, S. Nagendra, and M. Maiya, ‘Passive alternatives to mechanical air conditioning of building: A review.’ Building and Environment, no. 66, 2012, p. 61. Thermal mass may also be utilised for passive cooling. 38

R. Schindler, op. cit., p. 75.

C. Constant, op. cit., p. 274.

40 Ibid., p. 274. Badovici held a patent for the terrace window mechanisms so we may assume that he contributed to the technical aspects of the shutter designs.

light and shade, cool and warmth, and indeed the house leaves the “degree of exposure to the outer world a matter of choice.” 41 By following these modern examples in light of the contemporary condition of the environment within buildings, we must consider that we have much to learn. Indeed it is a relative loss which has been experienced through our exuberance for mechanical air conditioners. In light of today’s reassessment of indoor air quality, enabled through attention to Sick Building Syndrome, we need not reach far into history in order to finesse current conventions. In particular the case studies of the Lovell beach house and E1027 reveal similar considerations, including; that passive climate control is a function of site considerations, 42 that heating is as important as cooling in the consideration of ‘healthy’ indoor air, that the ideal system of shading is a hybrid of external and internal, 43 and where possible flexible and lastly, that such considerations naturally result in the the degeneration of the ‘weather sealed’ building envelope. Whether we classify these as spatial, environmental or health considerations is superfluous.44 Instead, it would seem that in order to overcome the potentially ‘sick’ internal environment we must not only question mechanised air conditioning, but also the spatial implications it has enabled and thus as architects the consequence of today’s built environment on its inhabitants.

Ibid., p. 274.

L. Samuel, op. cit., p. 54.

43 Ibid., p. 60. Also external overhang more effective at reducing heat gain than internal shading. So too controllability is a key in hybrid of external and internal shading systems. 44 It is with hope that the paper has revealed the dissolution of these categories and that any consideration of the subjective experience of architecture cannot sit outside the regard for its climatic environment within the building.

Fig 11. Floor Plans. Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: Davies, C., Key Houses of the Twentieth Century: Plans, sections, and elevations, London, Laurence King, 2006. p. 71.

Fig 12. South Facade Shading devices. Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: Constant, C., Eileen Gray: An architecture for all senses, Tubingen, Wasmuth, 1996, p. 94.

Fig 13. Bedroom Heating radiators visible at right. Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: Constant, C., Eileen Gray: An architecture for all senses, Tubingen, Wasmuth, 1996, p. 102.

Fig 14: Building envelope as layered membrane. Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: C. Constant, ‘E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 53, no.3, 1994, p. 274.

Fig 15: Badovici’s para-vent window patent. Eileen Gray, E1027, 1926. Source: Hecker, S., and Müller, C., Eileen Gray: Works and Projects, Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993, p. 101.

Adam, P., Eileen Gray: Her life and work, London, Thames & Hudson, 2009. Campbell, M., ‘What Tuberculosis did for Modernism: The inﬂuence of a curative environment on modernist design and architecture’, Medical History, vol. 49, no. 4, pp463-488. Colomina, B., ‘The medical body in Modern Architecture’, in Davison, C. (ed.), Anybody, Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1997, pp.228-239. Colomina, B., ‘X-Ray Architecture: Illness as Metaphor’, Positions, 2008, pp.30-35. Constant, C., Eileen Gray: An architecture for all senses, Tubingen, Wasmuth, 1996. Constant, C., Eileen Gray, London, Phaidon Press, 2000. Constant, C., ‘E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 53, no.3, 1994, pp265-279. Davies, C., Key Houses of the Twentieth Century: Plans, sections, and elevations, London, Laurence King, 2006. Garner, P., Eileen Gray: Designer and Architect, Köln, Taschen, 1993. Givoni, B., Passive and low energy cooling of buildings, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1994. Hecker, S., and Müller, C., Eileen Gray: Works and Projects, Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993. Hubbard, D., ‘Ventilation, Inﬁltration and Air Permeability of Traditional UK Dwellings’, Journal of Architectural Conservation, vol. 17, no. 3, pp59-73. Marmorstein, G., ‘Steel and Slurry: Dr. Philip M. Lovell, Architectural Patron’, Southern California Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 3/4, 2002, pp.241-270. Polyzoides, S., ‘Schindler, Lovell and the Newport beach house’, Oppositions 18, Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1979, pp.61-73. Rostron, J., ‘Sick Building Syndrome: A review of causes, consequences and remedies’, Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, vol. 7, no. 4, 2008, pp.291-303. Ryan, D., ‘Sunshine and shade in the architecture of Eileen Gray’, Architectural Science Review, vol. 53, no. 3, 2010, pp.340-347. Samuel, L., Nagendra, S., and Maiya, M., ‘Passive alternatives to mechanical air conditioning of building: A review.’ Building and Environment, no. 66, 2012, pp.54-64. Sarnitz, A., ‘Proportion and Beauty- The Lovell beach house by Rudolf Michael Schindler, Newport Beach, 1922-1926’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 45, no. 4, 1986, pp.374-388. Schindler, R., ‘Care of the body: Six essays for the LA Times 1926’, Oppositions 18, Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1979, pp.74-84. Smith, E., and Darling, M, (ed.), The Architecture of R.M. Schindler, Los Angeles, The Museum of Contemporary Art, 2001.