‘Postwar Living will be on the Brighter Side’

TU Munich - Faculty of Architecture - Chair of History of Architecture and Curatorial Practice Prof. Dr. Andres Lepik - Seminar Exhibiting Architecture. History, Theory and Practice Dr. Katrin Bäumler - Summer semester 2019

“Postwar living will be on the brighter side” [1] Modernist post-war housing dream, but not reality?

An analysis through MoMA’s ‘Houses in the Museum Garden’ exhibition series and the ‘Case Study House Program’.

Anneleen Brandt - ge52jox@mytum.de - ge52jox – Architecture - Master Degree Program .

Table of content

Introduction……………………………………………………………3 The “Houses in the Museum Garden” 1949 – 1954…………………4 Figure 1

6

Figure 2 – 4

9

The “Case Study House Program” 1945 – 1966..…….…………….10 Case Study House 4, ‘Greenbelt House’ Figure 5 – 6 Case Study House 21 Figure 7

11 13 14 15

Modernist dream, but not reality?……………….…………………16 Figure 8 – 9

18

Conclusion……………………………………………………………17 Bibliography……………………….…………………………………19

2/20

“Postwar living will be on the brighter side” [1] A promotional headliner of one of the many advertisements for building materials, that would enable a new way of post-war living, a brighter, enlightened, modern way of living, encouraged

by John Entenza’s magazine “Arts & Architecture”.

“Arts & Architecture” was a Los Angeles based magazine, owned by John Entenza who was devoted to modernism and who used the magazine as a driving force behind his “Case Study House Program”. A program for experimental, post-war, residential, modern house design from 1945 until 1966.

1945, the end of World War II, we’re in a situation in the United States where there is a huge shortage of available housing, with a very high demand. The key is to build fast and cheap. The “Case Study House Program” is situated in this context, with as its main goal to provide small, economic, inexpensive housing that could be reproduced on a broad scale. This was the ideal setting to promote also a new way of progressive thinking about a modern way of living.

Even though this magazine and the whole program were set on the West-Coast, the rise of modernism was definitely not bound to this place, since this was also happening in Europe and on the East-Coast. During this same post-war period, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, East-Coast, organised an exhibition series by the name “Houses in the Museum garden”, over a time period from 1949 until 1954, curated by Peter Blake. This series consisted of three exhibitions, for each of which a modern house was designed by an architect and exhibited in a one to one scale model, placed in the museum’s garden.

The museum organised this exhibition because they felt like the housing problem was the primary architectural problem at that time and that it was of crucial importance to all [2], but also to introduce the idea of modern housing and modern living for the typical middle class American family. Exhibiting one to one scale architectural models was never seen before at MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) and largely enhanced the public’s level of engagement, which definitely contributed to the big success of the exhibition.

The title of this essay was a promotional headliner in John Entenza’s magazine, in this argument it serves as a strong phrase to help capture the post-war modernist idea, but will be argued upon later on. The headliner “postwar living will be on the brighter side” [1], was meant as a slogan for the window company “Libbey-Owens-Ford” to promote their new big insulated windows which would literally enable the customers to live in a brighter home. Nevertheless the phrase

3/20

is also suitable as a general post-war idea, of leaving the darkness of the war period behind, and as an architectural idea of living and building brighter, smarter and more economically. This progressive modernist idea spread by the “Arts & Architecture” magazine as well as by the “Houses in the Museum garden” exhibition series, was very well received by the general public, which will be proved later on in the argument, but in reality, the post-war typical middle class American family did not end up living in these promoted modernist houses. Generally they also did not have the modern lifestyle that was promoted as a dream that would come along with it.

The question is now: What shifted and what went wrong in the translation from idea to everyday reality?

In an attempt to answer this question, we should dig into the “Houses in the Museum Garden” exhibition series and into the “Case Study House Program” and analyse the architecture of the proposed modernist houses and the proposed lifestyle. What might also be of great importance in relation to the previously stated question, is the role of the different media that were used to communicate the new modern ideas to the public.

“The Houses in the Museum Garden” 1949 – 1954 Peter Blake, curator of the “Houses in the Museum Garden” exhibition series invited three architects; Marcel Breuer, Gregory Ain and Junzo Yoshimura, to each design a house that would be exhibited in full scale in MoMA’s garden over a period of time. By doing this, he not only created a ground-breaking new way of exhibiting architecture, but he was also able to communicate new, progressive ways of thinking to a large public. Originally MoMA wanted to have a new house in the garden every year, designed by a famous architect devoted to modernism, but in the end the exhibition only included three houses; which didn’t make the exhibition any less significant nor important.

In 1949 Marcel Breuer was asked to commission a house for the garden, answering to the following guidelines given by the museum: “design a moderately priced house for a man who works in a large city and commutes to a so-called ‘dormitory town’ on its outskirts where he lives with his family.” [3] The museum wanted to demonstrate “how much good living and good design can be purchased for how many dollars”. [3] In order to do so, the museum created a catalogue of every contributor to the house, every contractor and all the materials they used, along with the prices of furniture, materials, decoration, installation costs and so on…[4] The one to one scale model of the house along with the catalogue and a member of the museum staff on site to answer questions about the house, allowed the visitors to make a perfect estimation

4/20

of how much they would have to pay to be able to live in a modern house, as presented in the garden. Comparable with nowadays IKEA visits where different living situations are portrayed to the visitors who are then able to envision the portrayed lifestyle as if it were their own, against a precisely defined cost.

The exhibition itself was not the only medium used to communicate with the public, MoMA also wrote their own reports during the process of the exhibition, which were then sent out to different editors of newspapers and magazines in order to be published, for example to ‘City Editors’, ‘Feature Editors’, ‘Architectural Editors’ and ‘Home Furnishings Editors’. [5] This way MoMA had control over the message spread to the public, which was also used as a promotion or an invitation to come see the exhibition, very similarly to how John Entenza used his magazine to promote his “Case Study House Program” and to invite the public on a guided tour through the houses once they were opened. Besides the possible existence of press releases by independent journalists, MoMA’s press releases definitely enabled the exhibition to have an even bigger exposure.

MoMA’s first press release about the exhibition dates from January 12th, 1949, which was about three months before the opening of Marcel Breuer’s house in the garden on April 14th, the same year. Intended to inform the public about the future exhibition and its content, about the goal of the exhibition and the architect involved, part of the release reads as follows: “HOUSE DESIGNED BY MARCEL BREUER BEING BUILT IN MUSEUM GARDEN Ground has been broken in the sculpture garden behind the Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53 Street, for an expandable house to cost in its full size about $25,000, designed by the wellknown American architect Marcel Breuer. (…) Intended to be built by any local contractor, the house is an up-to-date economical solution for an individually built, architect-designed country home, (…) Recognizing as today’s primary architectural problem the need for adequate housing, quantitatively, structurally and esthetically, the Museum will present this house as good and practical design in the best of materials, equipment and craftmanship. (…)” [6] Added to this, there are details about the house itself, as described by Marcel Breuer, in which he describes the house by narrating the possible living situations, in order for people to relate to it and to envision themselves living in the house, even before it is built.

The house was not only designed for a hypothetical suburban plot of land, with a size of approximately one acre, but also for a hypothetical client, being mister X: a commuting man who works in a large city and lives with his wife and children in the outskirts. Mister X and his family are representatives for ‘the typical American family’. The level in which the client was undefined and very generalised, led Marcel Breuer to design a flexible house, in a way that

5/20

there were two phases of construction, corresponding to two phases in the hypothetical, typical American family’s life: Phase 1, when there are no children yet or when the children are still little, and phase 2 for when the children are older and need more privacy. Flexibility, generated by a more open and adaptable floorplan was a new modernist way of designing, which would also drastically change the way of living in, and utilizing the house.

Figure 1 Marcel Breuer, house in the Museum garden - floorplans [3]

6/20

In phase 1, the house includes only two bedrooms, on the right-hand side of the plan (fig. 1) : A master bedroom for the parents and a smaller bedroom next to it, for two children. Adjacent to the children’s bedroom, there is a playroom, with an outside play yard, which could both be supervised from the kitchen, this allows the mother to cook while the children are playing independently and to keep an overview at the same time. Next to the kitchen there is a service room, which can also be utilised as a guest bedroom, for example for a sitter that watches the children overnight. On the left-hand side of the house there is one big room that serves both as the dining- and living room, with adjacent outdoor areas, each defined for a specific use.

In phase 2, a garage is added next to the living room, with a bedroom suite on the second floor, made possible by the upward slope of the ‘V-shaped butterfly roof’ [7] (fig. 2). At this stage, the house can be divided in two apartments: The playroom and the original two bedrooms from phase 1, will now become the children’s apartment, separated by the kitchen and service room (for common use) from the parents’ apartment, which includes the living room and upstairs suite.

If we would now sum up some of the main modernist ideas coming forward in this design, we get to understand how Marcel Breuer’s design included some progressive changes compared to the conventional houses and the conventional way of living that the visitors were used to: Flexibility, in furniture and room arrangements, to adjust to the different stages in life; Indoor – outdoor connection, to extend the indoor living spaces with outdoor zones, accompanied by big glass facades to ensure a visual indoor – outdoor connection as well; The ‘butterfly roof’, which comes across as a conventional roof turned upside down, which benefits the spaciousness of the house and simplifies the rainwater drainage system; Important attention to the children and the way they can be independent but still supervised easily, which also says something about the different way the mother could live in this house. On top of that, every element and room was designed in a way that the housework would be reduced to a minimum. [6] These elements were all very appealing and convincing, especially because all members of the family (at least of the typical American one), were taken into consideration by designing the house. In press releases during the period of the exhibition it also became very clear how much of a success the house was. At the visit of 50,000 people, the museum released to the press: “The modern house for a growing family (…) has now been seen by over 50,000 persons.(…)

It has proven to be one of the town’s major attractions both to New Yorkers and out-of-town visitors.(…) The high daily attendance average to date is proof of the increasing popular interest in modern architecture and the widespread acceptance of some of its most revolutionary aspects.” [8]

7/20

Already convinced of the success of the exhibition and the acceptance of modernism by the public, the press release from MoMA after that was even more striking. During the course of the exhibition, MoMA had asked his visitors to fill out a survey about the house, so they could grasp the public opinion, which they then published in a press release titled “Modern architecture favoured in poll: Survey of visitors to house in Museum garden reveals majority like new designs.” [9] The press release also indicated percentages of people in favour or against a certain element of the house, for example: The ‘V’ shaped roof was approved by 85% ; The kitchen turned out to be the most popular room according to the voters; 76% was mostly interested in the children’s furniture; The glass walls were approved by more than 80% ; … [9] Based on the grand number of visitors and the results of the poll they held, you could say that MoMA formed kind of a conclusion that stated that modern architecture was making its way up and that people would welcome it with open arms. By releasing these thoughts into the press, certainly even more people became interested and willing to live in a modern way, since it was a public opinion, which can be very influential, especially coming from an institution like MoMA. Despite MoMA’s control of the press releases about the exhibition, it would not be justified to insinuate that they would in any way have forced this modern architecture on the public. The exhibition and the press releases definitely cannot be seen as a kind of propaganda for modernism since they (MoMA) stayed relatively objective and even published some of the (negative) comments by visitors, such as: “I’m old-fashioned and prefer old-fashioned houses.” and stated that one woman even redrew the floor plan in order to make it suit to her family, [9] which will prove to be a particularly interesting statement in the light of this paper.

Even though Marcel Breuer’s house in the garden was supposed to be torn down at the end of its exhibition period, the house was saved, disassembled and reconstructed at the Rockefeller estate in 1950, after Rockefeller bought it to help cover the exhibition costs. (fig. 2) In 1950 a second house in the garden followed, this time designed by the modernist architect Gregory Ain and sponsored by MoMA as well as by a magazine called “Woman’s home companion”. [10] Gregory Ain was a Los Angeles based architect, devoted to modernism, who had experience in building moderate priced housing [11], but he did not get invited by John Entenza to participate in his “Case Study House Program”. (fig. 3) The third and last house of the exhibition series was something totally different. It was designed by the Japanese architect Junzo Yoshimura and constructed in Japan. The house was dismantled and shipped to New York to then be reassembled by the time of the opening in June 1954. In a press release MoMA explains why a Japanese house was included in the exhibition series:

8/20

“The Museum has selected an example of traditional Japanese building for this exhibition because classic Japanese architectural forms have long been regarded by many Western architects as being of greater relevance to contemporary problems than much of the Western tradition itself.” [12] Besides that, the house was also meant as a symbol of the healing relations between the U.S. and Japan. [2] (fig. 4)

Figure 2 Marcel Breuer, house in the Museum garden

Installation view of the exhibition “The House in the Museum Garden” April 12, 1949 – October 30, 1949. The Museum of Modern Art Exhibition Records, 405.3. The Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. IN405.12. Photograph by Ezra Stoller.

[13]

Figure 3 Gregory Ain, house in the Museum garden

Installation view of the exhibition “Exhibition House by Gregory Ain” May 17, 1950 – October 29, 1950. Photographic Archive.

The Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. IN447.6.

Photograph by Ezra Stoller.

[14]

Figure 4 Junzo Yoshimura, house in the Museum garden

Installation view of the exhibition “Japanese Exhibition House” June 16, 1954 – October 21, 1954; April 26, 1955 – October 15, 1955 Photographic Archive, Exhibition Albums, 559.27.

The Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. IN559.39.

Photograph by Ezra Stoller.

[15]

9/20

“The Case Study House Program” 1945 – 1966 As mentioned earlier, “The Case Study House Program” was initiated by the Los Angeles based magazine “Arts & Architecture” in 1945, with John Entenza as its publisher. Eight modernist architects were selected by Entenza himself, to commission a house for the program.

Worth mentioning is that this selection of architects could not be seen as the embodiment of modern architecture in California at that time, but that it was merely a selection of Entenza’s own preferential modernist architects.[16] Possibly also favoured by lasting friendships with for example Charles and Ray Eames. The selection however does not imply that architects like Gregory Ain or Rudolf Schindler were any less modernist or progressive. In total, 36 designs were commissioned and published in the magazine, which also functioned as the main sponsor through donated materials from local firms. In the end, only 24 of them were built.

In the January 1945 edition of the magazine Entenza announces the program elaborately and articulates his selection of architects and their main task as follows: “Eight nationally known architects, chosen not only for their obvious talents, but for their ability to evaluate realistically housing in terms of need, have been commissioned to take a plot of God’s green earth and create ‘good’ living conditions for eight American families. They will be free to choose or reject, on a merit basis, the products of national manufacturers offering either old or new materials considered best for the purpose by each architect in his attempt to create contemporary dwelling units. (…) The house must be capable of duplication and in no sense be an individual ‘performance’. (…)” [1] When Elizabeth Smith, former Chief Curator of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, interprets the announcement in her lecture, she states that it is clear that the houses were really going to be experiments and tests in how to approach modernism, including all the available technology and advances at that time. Apart from that, the architects did not get many instructions, besides that the houses were meant to be, again, for the “typical American family” and that they had to be suited for mass-production. Smith states that this was necessary because Entenza’s goal was “to influence public taste and influence the public industry to accept modern architecture and to reproduce it on a broad scale in the post-war period.” [17] Similarly to the houses in MoMA’s garden, some of the “Case Study Houses” were also designed for hypothetical clients, mister X and his family, who were often a wrong representation of the “typical American family” in the post-war period. For “Case Study House 1” (all the houses were numbered), Entenza describes the invented clients in the February 1945 edition of the magazine: “Let us then presuppose a Mr. and Mrs. X, both of whom are professional people with mutual business interests, the family consisting of one teen-aged

10/20

daughter away at school and a mother-in-law, who is an occasional welcome guest in the house.

In this case, we must suppose that the joint income is sufficient to provide ample but not elaborate living standards.” [18] A household with a double income and (only) one child, who is away at school, would have been a very unusual family situation in 1945 America. This aspect of misrepresenting the clients that actually needed housing in the post-war period, played undoubtedly a big role in the failure of the “Case Study Houses” in becoming what they were intented to be: cheap, mass-produced, economic, modern houses, for the typical middle class American family. A more adequate representation of the typical American post-war family in the late 1940s would have been: A breadwinner father who goes off to work (in war times employed by the military) and a caregiving mother who stays at home with the (multiple) children. Inherently, the program turned out to be not only a case study for housing, but also for households and living in general.

The “Case Study House Program” was active over a timespan of 21 years, from 1945 until 1966. During this period, starting right after World War II until about 20 years later, there was a lot of economical development especially around the 1950s. Technology, materials and the overall livestandards improved, which is also visible in the later commissions for the program.

In this light, it is interesting to compare one of the first houses, “Case Study House 4”, designed in 1945, with one of the later and most famous ones from around 1958, “Case Study House 21”.

1945 Case Study House 4, ‘Greenbelt House’ Designed by Ralph Rapson – never built Ralph Rapson was one of the two designers who contributed to the program who was not from California, although he was already well acquainted to Entenza. Rapson’s design was perhaps one of the most radical and progressive ones [16], but unfortuately it has never been built. He called his design the ‘Greenbelt House’, since the house literally had a green belt going through it. Sketches and thoughts about the design were published in the August 1945 edition of the “Arts & Architecture” magazine, where he describes the ‘Greenbelt’ concept: “ ‘Greenbelt’ is based on the premise that it must create its own environment – that it must ‘look in’ rather than ‘look out’. This is accomplished by creating a large central glazed area that not only becomes the focal point of all living functions but also provides the view – a place where children and adults alike might live and play in close association with nature.” [19] This house was so progressive and would change everyday familylife so radically that it seemed as if it

11/20

were a house from the future. This idea was even enhanced by the private helicopter circling above the green belt, as Rapson drew it in his sketches. (fig. 6) When we compare Rapson’s proposal, to Entenza’s “Case Study House Program” announcement, we can say that the design fits the requirements quite well: First of all the house was as modernist, progressive and radical as it could be, both on the level of architecture as on the level of the proposed lifestyle. In the architectural language, we recognize some important features that are now considered as modernist: The house has a flat roof, slightly tilted upwards on the outside, an unconventional shape, later pronounced even more by Marcel Breuer’s ‘butterfly roof’ for his house in MoMA’s garden. There is also a very close relation between inside and outside, maybe even the most pronounced one of all of the houses in the program. The inhabitants would really become one with nature, also enhanced by big glass surfaces. The living areas are arranged in a flexible, open plan around the central green belt and are very minimal, not bigger than necessary. To answer the question of possibility to mass-produce the house, Rapson developed a modular building system consisting of wooden panels and steel frames, that would allow inexpensive, fast construction. Besides that, as Rapson said himself, the house is directed inwards, not outwards, so in fact it would be possible to place hundreds of them next to each other, without disturbing the quality of the house nor the view.

When we look at how ‘life’ in the house would be changed, Rapson stated: “Perhaps the most important aspect of the greenbelt lies in its personality – the personality each individual family will give it. It may have a large amount of planting or very little, perhaps none. It may be a regular digestable garden, or a graveled area with a small pool – countless possibilities. Here, the individual might grow and develop.” [19] Interesting here is that in this case, the house really does fit all, there is no need to invent a client X that would represent, wrongly or not, a certain type of family. Client X can now truly be every possible client, the house can accommodate them all. This of course is a very important aspect in presenting the house to the public and in getting this radical housing idea accepted. When in this case, hypothetically, 100 % of the readers could envision themselves living in this house, most of the other case study houses were only suited for a smaller group, who perhaps already had an advanced lifestyle for that time.

One of Rapson’s sketches shows this inside green belt (fig. 5), very interestingly in a way that you cannot really tell what is inside and what is outside. Precisely the way it was intended, as a flowing, flexible space, where the inside and outside work as one.

12/20

We also see the relationship of the mother working in the kitchen, watching her child while it is playing outside – which is still inside the house.

Even though the house was never built, Elizabeth Smith made a full size replication of the house, based on Rapson’s sketches and model, for her exhibition “Blueprints of Modern Living: History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses” for the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, in 1989. [17]

Figure 5 – “Greenbelt House” sketch by Ralph Rapson [20]

Figure 6 – “Greenbelt House” sketch by Ralph Rapson [19]

13/20

1958 Case Study House 21 -1960 Designed by Pierre Koenig – built on Wonderland Park Avenue, West Hollywood In 1958, more then ten years after Rapson’s design, Pierre Koenig designed “Case Study House 21”, which was realised in 1960 and became, along with Koenig’s “Case Study House 22” one of the most famous designs of the program. Even today, Koenig’s houses are still widely featured or referred to in popular film culture. This gap of more then ten years also becomes very visible in the later designs. It seems that the further away in time from when the announcement of the program was made (in 1945), also the further away the designs drift from actually meeting the requirements and the goals that were set for the “Case Study House Program”. For these later houses, architects could really start to experiment with materials, building systems and technology, which can also be seen in Koenig’s design for “Case Study House 21”. The house resembled a very minimalist box made out of steel framing, big glass facades and steel decking, with no overhang of the roof whatsoever, which enhanced the minimalist feel of the house. To help to cool the house, which was very necessary due to the Californian climate, the house was surrounded by water circulating around the perimeter of the house, to then get pumped up to the roof and fall down from it again. Another very striking element of the house is the size of the enormous carport, stating the importance of the car. As Elizabeth Smith describes: “A car that would have been the kind of car that people who would inhabit such homes would drive at the time, parked in the driveway. It becomes a representation of a certain kind of lifestyle that at this moment had become much more widespread or that people had become more and more interested in, in emulating and participating in.” [17] It is very clear that the house for “the typical American middleclass family” has now become a house for a more elitist group of people, who had the means to afford the house, the car and the lifestyle. Moreover this house was designed for a couple without children. A very famous photograph by Julius Shulman, set in the house, shows the lifestyle and the relationship between husband and wife living in the house. (fig. 7) The man in the photograph is the architect, Pierre Koenig, representing the husband, Mr. X, of the wife sitting on the couch, Mrs. X, who is in this case a hired model. This fictional couple stands as an image for the dreams and hopes of a post-war utopia, they represent a couple that succeeded in realising the “American dream” in Los Angeles. The photograph also depicts the ‘ideal’ household and gender-relation between husband and wife. The woman is sitting on the couch, as a symbol for her domesticity.

In the mean time the man is using the stereo installation, to show his knowledge of the

14/20

new technology and modernicity. [17] This photograph was later on recreated by a lot of famous people, proving that the houses became more of a cult-object then actual designs for inexpensive, mass-producable houses.

While Rapson’s design still fitted the requirements of the program quite well, it becomes a lot more difficult to fit Koenig’s design into the same category. Even though the construction system of the house might be mass-producable and inexpensive, the house is so site-specific set in the Hollywood Hills, that it would be impossible to reproduce it in a suburban setting, also due to the big glass facades.

Figure 7 – “Case Study House 21” 1958, Los Angeles, CA / Pierre Koenig, architect © Julius Shulman [21]

15/20

Modernist dream, but not reality?

In the course of this essay we’ve already come across some elements that might be an indication of why this modernist housing dream did not turn into reality in the post-war times. A first element that came to light during the analysis of two of the “Case Study Houses” is that the designs, especially the later ones, were not suited for broad-scale production after all. If we were to mass-produce Koenig’s “Case Study Houses”, we would need hundreds of secluded hilltops, overlooking Los Angeles. Another element was the issue of misrepresenting what MoMA as well as John Entenza called ‘the typical American middle class family’. These two issues go hand in hand. What was supposed to be a small inexpensive house for the working man and his family in the suburbs, became a Hollywood hills villa for movie stars. The obtained starstatus of the villa even caused it to become an actual movie set for different films.

Looking at the type of housing the typical American family did end up living in in post-war times, will also help us to understand why they didn’t end up living in those much talked about modern houses. Figure 8 is a picture of one of the Levittowns built in many parts of the United States, this particular one is from Nassau County, New York, 1949. This suburban settlement is built up out of a few types of ‘ranch style’ prefabricated inexpensive houses, provided by the building company Levitt and Sons, who made the homeownership dream possible for many.

When buying a ‘Levitt house’, you pick an option out of a catalogue (fig. 9) and soon after it would be assembled on your plot of land, surrounded by dozens of the same houses. There was no time to waste and the housing demand was tremendous, so it made the most economical sense at the time to put up as many houses as possible, as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[17] Evidently using conventional building methods instead of modern systems and materials like steel, was more economic and received the builders’ preference because of their familiarity with the conventional ways. This resulted also in an overall preference for conventional housing, as Kevin Starr explains: “After the war, however, came that return to normalcy that Entenza and his associates half welcomed and half feared. A million new houses were needed immediately, but the force of this market anchored itself in preexisting prewar tastes and techniques. It had to. Southern California could not wait for such a fragile experiment as the Case Study House program to take hold. The needs and tastes of mid-America as it poured into the South-land had to be met instantaneously.” [22] Another aspect is that a great number of the house seekers were veterans returning from war. They wanted to feel comfortable at home with their families, in a safe environment. What feels more like home than a type of house you have grown up in and lived in your whole life? What feels safer than an enclosed house with small windows to protect your family? Definitely not an unfamiliar modern house with full

16/20

glazed walls exposing your family to whoever is passing by. Going back to the title of this essay “Postwar living will be on the brighter side” [1], we notice the irony in how the conventional housing was preferred above the modern housing and the small windows above the large ones, which implies that they actually chose the less bright option.

Starr also mentioned an aspect of change in perception of modern architecture during the early post-war period. Where in the movie industry of the 1930s modern architecture was portrayed as something of the ideal new world to come, a distaste of technology arose after the war because of its destructive powers, exemplified by the atomic bomb. From the American point of view, the war and also modernism, in the form of the ‘International Style’, had come from Europe, so maybe it was time to return to a cosy-eclectic traditional style America was used to?

[22] According to Starr, this aspect was also the reason that in movies from the 1940s and 1950s, only villains or Europeans (who were often the same), lived in modernist houses, sitting in their Eames chairs while planning their crimes. [22]

It is safe to conclude that even though the post war modernist housing dream seemed to be very popular and widely desired by the public, it failed to become an everyday reality for the typical middle class American family. Modernist housing was merely an experiment at that time and it was not convincing enough on different levels to become a prototype for post war mass housing in America. However, we cannot deny the influence the modern housing programs had through institutions like the Museum of Modern Art and magazines like “Arts & Architecture”, not only on architecture but also on furniture design, landscaping, art, and numerous other fields.

17/20

Figure 8 Levittown “Black and white aerial view showing earliest capes, Wolcott Road looking east.

Curved streets discouraged speeding.”

Levittown, Nassau County, New York November 13, 1949 Levittown Public Library Levittown History Collection [23]

Figure 9 Levittown catalogue for Ranch Models “In 1950, Levitt reduced the number of ranch models to four. The 1950 models included a carport and a twelve and a halve inch Admiral T.V. set built into the staircase.”

Levittown, Nassau County, New York Levittown Public Library Levittown History Collection [24]

18/20

Bibliography [1]

“Arts & Architecture,” January, 1945.

[2]

M. A. Staniszewski, “The Power of Display, A History of Exhibition Installations at the Museum of Modern Art,” Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 1998, pp. 199–204.

[3]

P. Blake, “The House in the Museum Garden. Marcel Breuer, Architect,” Bull.

Museum Mod. Art, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 1949.

[4]

M. Breuer and Museum of Modern Art, “The House in the Museum Garden, Master Checklist,” 1949.

[5]

Museum of Modern Art, “No Title,” No. 56, June 10, 1954.

[6]

Museum of Modern Art, “House designed by Marcel Breuer being built in Museum garden,” January 12, 1949.

[7]

Museum of Modern Art, “House in Museum garden designed by Marcel Breuer to open April 14,” 1949.

[8]

Museum of Modern Art, “House in Museum garden visited by 50,000,” 1949.

[9]

Museum of Modern Art, “Modern architecture favored in poll: survey of visitors to house in Museum garden reveals majority like new designs,” 1949.

[10] Museum of Modern Art, “Museum of Modern Art and Woman’s Home Companion build exhibition house in Museum garden,” 1950.

[11] Museum of Modern Art, “Exhibition house with sliding walls opens May 19 in Museum garden,” May 19, 1950.

[12] Museum of Modern Art, “Japanese house being sent to Museum of Modern Art for summer exhibition,” No. 5, January 19, 1954.

[13] “MoMA.” [Online]. Available: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3251?installation_image_index=11.

[14] “MoMA.” [Online]. Available: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2746?installation_image_index=5.

[15] “MoMA.” [Online]. Available: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2711?installation_image_index=38.

[16] E. A. T. Smith, Case Study Houses 1945-1966, De Californische impuls. Taschen, 2007.

[17] E. A. T. Smith, Lecture: Case Study Houses: Blueprint for Modern Homes.

Indianapolis Museum of Art, Chicago, 2012.

[18] “Arts & Architecture,” February, 1945.

19/20

[19] “Arts & Architecture,” August, 1945.

[20] “Arts & Architecture,” September, 1945.

[21] “Archdaily.” [Online]. Available: https://www.archdaily.com/29457/julius-schulman1910-2009/js04.

[22] K. Starr, “The Case Study House Program and the Impending Future. Some Regional Considerations,” in E.A.T. Smith: Blueprints for Modern Living. History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 131–143.

[23] “New York Heritage digital collections.” [Online]. Available: https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15281coll37/id/2/rec/59.

[24] “New York Heritage digital collections.” [Online]. Available: https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15281coll37/id/33/.

20/20