Psychology in post-war residential architecture Final Paper
Divya Chand, Kamila Kaczorowska, Monika Tylutka (Post-war history of Modern Architecture, Prof. Rika DEVOS)
I. Introduction In his chapter on ‘Richard Neutra and the Psychology of Architectural Consumption’ Sandy Isenstadt traces Neutra’s shift in emphasis after the second world-war, from industry and structural expression to consumer issues and psychological perception to legitimise the forms of his buildings- that largely remained similar in style. He argues that while Neutra criticised consumerist lifestyles, he still actively engaged with them, carrying the formative tenets of modernism in his toolkit, to make them more relevant to the changing society. (Isenstadt, 2000) Cities in the 1950s to the 70s experiences a massive post-war boom in production of residential architecture production in the Western world. As cities urbanized rapidly and often in a chaotic fashion, people began to question the effects of mass-production and mindless consumption on their lifestyles and well-being. With the growth of an urban middle class, consumer culture infiltrated architecture culture as well- people sought personal expression and relief in their spaces, as the larger city got out of control. This was accompanied by an anxiety in the role of the architectural profession in this period - architects pondered about their adequacy to cope and positively influence society, and in the creation of residential spatial experiences. Unlike early modernism, machine innovation was taken as given and nothing novel anymore and architects sought new ways to derive and legitimise forms. They sought answers beyond technology and began to reflect more critically on culture, society, vernacular patterns, community behaviours, psychological effects of spaces on a personal scale of the consumer and more. This paper highlights some literature that emerged in the post-war years in the field overlapping psychological and architectural studies, and the emerging field of environmental psychology. We then analyse the works of residential-design by some prominent architects of that era, specifically those who, like Neutra, used psychological theories to legitimise the forms they designed or those who collaborated with psychologists in developing schemes to respond to the anxieties of modern urban development. The Lovell House that launched Neutra’s career, is examined next to projects by Eliot Noyes, Marcel Breuyer, Chermayeff and Barragan, all built in the post-war years. The choice of houses is spread around the post-war years, and while this culture was most observed in the US, we also pick case studies to display the wider reach of the architecture-culture. This is done not just through a spatial analysis but also by studying what the architects wrote about their own projects or interviews of architects or clients of the projects. With a short overview of the house designs, we reach a conclusion about the limited scope of this nature of discource in these years, as designers could only indulge with it in particular high-budget projects and it did not infiltrate into larger public and commercial projects, eventually fizzling out. With political turmoil, frenzied urbanization, inequality in spaces and psychological distress, all being extremely present concerns for today’s urban society, we look at these scattered attempts to draw inspiration for the architecture culture of today.
II. Literature
On the anxiety of machined environments In fiction and in works by psychologists, frenzied urbanisation started to be depicted as a dystopian reality in the post-war years. Mid-century fiction began to depict machines as threatening forces of coersion, and fictional cities served as a tool to explain totalitarinaism. In High-Rise, JG Ballard’s bizarre and bleak 1975 novel, the author presents the worst-case scenario for an architect. The book embodies anxiety with machine oriented modern architecture. A luxury residential tower block, much like a caricature of Le Corbusier’s designs, with imposing grandeur and modern conveniences, leaves its well-heeled denizens isolated from the outside world and each other, and in short order the building descends into violence and chaos (Verdict Design-build, 2016). It illustrates the anxiety many felt in these years about the grand modernist dreams of pre-war architects. In 1970, Stanley Milgram, professor of psychology at the Graduate Center of The City University of New York wrote about the experience of living in american cities and emphasized particularly on the effects of cognitive overload in the psycho-social well being of the city dwellers. Factors like large numbers, density and heterogeneity that modern development came with was analysed as overloads at the level of roles, norms, cognitive functions, and facilities all affecting direly mental health of residents (Milgram, 1970). A lot of this anxiety came from studying and observing what were dire housing conditions for low-income groups of the city, disconnected from nature, in congested polluted environments, with a stressful lifestyle, no space to breathe and relax.
The meeting of Psychology and Architecture Already in 1947, the CIAM IV meeting in Bridgewater aimed to deliberate on ‘the creation of a physical environment that will satisfy man’s emotional and material needs’ and ‘stimulate man’s spiritual growth (Eleb, 2000). A will to service more than minimum subsitence through architecture is observed. In the 1950s, Frank Lloyd Wright was speaking of the experience of happy events and general feelings of happiness as an integral part of what makes a space home (Wright, 1953). International debate on Organic architecture emerged, which claimed to be functional not only from a technical and social point of view but also in terms of the psychology of those who lived in it. The Neorealists of Italy also took to this way of design and consideration, with a search for the best form to free the best energies of individuals and society. Soon, architects and construction companies became keen to engage psychologists. In the 1970s, came the landmark book Psychology for Architects by David Canter, a socialpsychologist. It spawned the whole field of environmental psychology, dedicated to understanding how people interact with the buildings and spaces around them. (Canter, 1975) The interdisciplinary field of environmental psychology was reaching the peak of its influence in the 1970s and included collaboration between planners, architects and psychologists to understand the needs of end users and adapt building designs to meet them. It is interesting to note, how the production of such literature took a long pause as the international style dominantly took over the construction practices in these years. As postmodernism reacted against the austerity, formality, and lack of variety in this kind of modern architecture, the literature and practices of creating psychologically healthy spaces got lost. With the challenges of contemporary life, authors have started to look back onto these works in recent years to look for inspiration. In 2014, Sussman and Hollander wrote a book titled ‘Cognitive Architecture: Designing for How We Respond to the Built Environment’. Winner of the Environmental Design Research Association 2016 Place Research Award, the authors
review new findings in psychology and neuroscience to help architects and planners better understand their clients as the sophisticated mammals they are, arriving in the world with builtin responses to the environment that have evolved over millennia. Discussing the effects of edges, patterns, shapes and storytelling in spaces, the authors argue that the more we understand human behavior, the better we can design for it; echoing Neutra’s sensibilities from 5 decades ago (Sussman & Hollander, 2014). This kind of thinking has also now crossed disciplinary boundaries into the mainstream as books like ‘The architecture of happiness’, targeted at not just creators but all consumers of space, examine how we both shape and are shaped by our private homes and public edifices and explains how our stylistic choices can be used to increase our chances of happiness (De Botton, 2008).
III. Hypothesis We work with the hypothesis that Architects in the post war period continued to design in inherently modern ways but legitimised form using Psychology. This was done to appeal to the consumers and sell a better lifestyle, but also as a response to the cultural anxiety with rapid urbanisation and modernist dystopias. Theories of psycho-social nature were employed to justify the use of the latest styles and techniques and make it appealing to clients. Even though the anxiety was mostly caused by changing urban cultures and density, most of the architects who adopted this rhetoric, designed independent houses with high budgets close to nature, outside the city in scenic location as we see in the following cases. In any case, these projects sowed the seed for a certain kind of spatial practice, rooted in the belief that better spaces can lead to happiness and well being, and are exemplars in the field where environmental psychology and architecture overlap.
IV. Cases Lovell Health House by Richard Neutra - 1929
Figure 1. Richard Joseph Neutra (April 8, 1892 – April 16, 1970), modernist architect. Photograph by Ed Clark.1 Figure 2. Lovell House2
1
Accessed December 12, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neutra#/media/File:Richard_Neutra.jpg 2 Accessed December 12, 2019, https://i.pinimg.com/originals/93/3b/0a/933b0a7935e00409a85978e0baf7c352.jpg,
Neutra’s interest in theories of psychology and psychoanalysis began early, directly influenced by the work of Freud who he was in contact with throughout his life. This growth and reflection is his career is in parallel to a growing psychoanalytic culture in America (Lavin, 2007). We see this best represented in this particular project. Intense amounts of analysis of the psyche was employed in the design of the Lovell house as Neutra worked with the clients. Neutra interviewed the whole Lovell family, even the chef, to understand & meet the needs of a healthconscious vegetarian family. His concepts of transparency, feelings of expanse, proximity to nature and open mindedness were achieved through the use of large windows, glass, a full steel structure and being sunk into the hills.This house which contains an open-air fitness suite, rooms for sunbathing and sleeping out in the open, and various dietary and therapeutic services was created by Neutra at the beginning of his career. It was a novelty in those times, at a difficult to reach position in the Hollywood hills, it looked out to a great natural vista.
Figure 3. VDL Research House – Richard Neutra – 19323
The house clings to the side of a steep cliff; it is perpendicularly suspended to take on the panoramic views of Los Angeles. Since the house is suspended perpendicularly, the volume of the house is disconnected from the street, which is bridged by a concrete walkway that brings the inhabitant into the upper level of the house, which is the living quarters, and issues them down a large staircase encased in glass that leads into the living room and to the pool outside. The lower level of the house, the living room, follows an open plan that leads out to the patio and swimming pool. It’s outside near the pool that one begins to understand the spatial organization of the overlapping planes and the pilotis that support the cantilevering volumes. The Lovell House is reminiscent of Le Corbusier’s style and aesthetic. The stark while walls stand out among the wooded terrain; the ribbon windows offer expansive views and a significant amount of light to enter the interior spaces. It’s clear that Neutra was influenced by the International Style and Corbusier’s villas, so much so that the way in which one enters and moves through the house is similar to Corbusier’s architectural promenade; however rather than ending at the roof garden the occupant moves from the top of the house towards the patio and swimming pool on the lower level. Modern psychology provided Neutra with the tools to design the optimal psycho-physical connection – at least, in theory.
3
Accessed December 1, 2019, https://almadelefantinha.com/2016/09/16/california-living/
Noyes House by Eliot Noyes - 1955 The next example of architectural practice in connection with psychology is The Noyes House, a historic home on Country Club Road in New Canaan, Connecticut, USA. Designed by Eliot Noyes (1910–1977) and built in 1955, it was the second New Canaan house that Noyes designed for his own family to live in. The first one no longer exists.4 The house is a single story structure with a courtyard plan. One rectangular module houses bedrooms (there are five bedrooms for the four children and their parents), while another houses the kitchen communicates with the big open living-dining space. Eliot’s study was tucked behind the hearth—within shouting distance—and the bookshelf was embedded in the chimney, stacked with both board games and Loeb Library classics.
Figure 4. Plan of the Noyes House II5
The two modules are separated by an open courtyard (that can be opened to the surrounding woods or enclosed via two sets of sliding barn doors) and joined by concrete walkways covered by the flat roof of the house. The north and south walls are fieldstone, while the east and west walls are banks of floor-to-ceiling glass, separated by wood and steel columns.6
Figure 5. Diagrams showing two separate identities: the private and public spaces in the house7
The glass butts exactly into the end of the stone and therefore the contrast of the heavy and light materials is strongly felt, the glass windows invite nature into the house. Noyes wanted nature to be a part of the house and new technologies of construction enabled him to achieve this- he could eliminate placing a fire-place in the middle of the house by using a central heating system. It is not the rejection of nature as the international modern style sometimes displayed, but it is a reinterpretation of it- nature coming right in through the courtyard. The “Noyes house” incorporates landscape into the house. He believed that one has to engage 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noyes_House_(New_Canaan,_Connecticut) Accessed December 12, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN2Sg_1o8E 6 https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/preservation/family-comes-first/ 7 Accessed December 12, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN2Sg_1o8E 5
nature – you cannot disappear from it and also the relation between the house and the water plays a major role.
Figure 6. Nature come through the house8 Figure 7. The furnishing process – softness of the added furniture9 Figure 8. Art which becomes very much “life” of the house.10
Starting from this notion of the private and public, an architect got all these things, that added together, made the house very rich and sublime. He focuses on the importance of a home for bringing up a family, and the need to incorporate a very soft side of nature- whether it be the softness of the snow or the softness of greenery that mitigates the sense of hardness of the material he uses. Hooper House II by Marcel Breuer, 1959 The next example is that of Marcel Breuer, a modern architect and furniture designer, born in Hungary in 1902. He was one of the representatives of the Bauhaus school. He strove to standardize furniture and building parts; and as an artist was sensitive to practical and psychological needs of family living. Similar to Neutra, he also focused on the importance of colors and textures, as part of psychological wellbeing in spaces. He began to use warmcolored and rich-textured materials in furniture and buildings to soften the originally harsh impact of commercial architecture of the time.
Figure 7. Picture of Marcel Breuer.11 8
Accessed December 12, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN2Sg_1o8E Accessed December 12, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN2Sg_1o8E 10 Accessed December 12, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN2Sg_1o8E 11 the Bauhaus Archive,Accessed December 12, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Breuer#/media/File:Breuer-Main_entry_image.png 9
In the Hooper house, one confronts an architectural Parents’ Bill of Rights: children to the left side and adults to the right side of the house. "You want to live with the children, but you also want to be free from them, and they want to be free from you" 12 wrote Breuer in 1955, a deliciously dated understanding of the familial balance of power. For this reason, the house was divided into two spaces connected by a corridor with the building entrance. Left part contains bedrooms, baths, and a playroom for children and right, public side of house, comprises of the living room, dining room and kitchen. Because of this separation of space, and privacy of the public, young family members can rest in the bedrooms while adults have a party or meeting in the same house. This concept of privacy and semi-private space was created by screen-walls, semi enclosed spaces, toys and open frame wall to nature. Marcel Breuer, like other architects designed with some sense of psychological effects of spaces, using natural colors and materials in Hooper house. What is also essential is connection with nature, in this building its clear to see this relation. Big windows to landscape and raw surfaces create space for relaxation and focus.
Figure 8. Plan drawing of Marcel Breuer’s Hooper House.13
12
Marcel Breuer Zubin Shroff, Accessed December 2, 2019. https://www.themodernhouse.com/journal/house-of-theday-hooper-house-ii-by-marcel-breuer/ 13
Figure 9.Picture of Marcel Breuer’s Hooper House14
Chermayeff House, New Haven by Serge Chermayeff - 1963 Another architect focused on human needs is Serge Chermayeff. He was a Russian architect and writer, born in America. He wrote the book “Community and Privacy. Towards a New Architecture and Humanism” with Christopher Alexander. It describes the importance of creating private and communal zones, as shown in the example above . They supposed that to keep good relation with inhabitants it is important to make private spaces for any of them and divide them by parents and children.
Figure 10. Picture of Serge Chermayeff 15 Figure 11. Picture of the patio in House in New Haven16 14
Zubin Shroff, Accessed December 2, 2019. https://www.themodernhouse.com/journal/house-of-theday-hooper-house-ii-by-marcel-breuer/ 15 Natale,Darryl,1977, Accessed December 2, 2019, https://circarq.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/chermayeff/ 16 Accessed December 1, 2019, https://www.finehomebuilding.com/readerproject/2013/07/15/aniconic-mid-century-modern-home-restoration-and-deep-energy-retrofit
Based on these intentions he designed his own house in New Haven, built in 1963. In this project, he created 3 main spaces: the living room, bedrooms and the small one for guests. They are integrated with an open courtyard and connected with each other by a long corridor. Chermayeff, and previous mentioned architects supposed that in a family house you need to make a private zone for household members, to reduce stress and anxiety of inhabitants. However, he also thought to keep good relation with family, communal space is needed, so he created a big living room, which is as he said “an ancient family hearth, a natural mixing values” 17. Living room in this house is the only zone that has a doubleheighted spaces, and it stands out against the other parts of the house. During these period residential buildings were designed with the idea of interior’s openness to nature. It was also a crucial part of Chermayeff’s project. The courtyard was spacious and relate to building typography. House has 2 patios, which connected interior and exterior spaces. Like it was mentioned in other examples relation with nature effects on human well-being.
Figure 12. Pictures of Chermayeff House, New Haven
18
Gilardi House and Barragan house by Luis Barragan, 1948. Last case is that of a Mexican architect, winner of the Pritzker Prize, Luis Barragan. He is known as an atypical modern visionary. His projects seemed much different than other modern buildings. He designed based on the local Mexican climate, in style of situated-modernism. He appreciated and drew from Neutra and Frank Lloyd Wright’s work, Their concepts were inspirational for him and affected his designs. However, because of the location, he rejects modern big glass or white walls from each side of the building, but still, he focused on design for a better life of inhabitants.
17
Chermayeff, Serge. Community and Privacy; toward a New Architecture of Humanism. Anchor Books, 1969. 18 Accessed December 12, 2019, https://www.finehomebuilding.com/readerproject/2013/07/15/aniconic-mid-century-modern-home-restoration-and-deep-energy-retrofit
Figure 13. Picture of Luis Barragan19
One of his main part of his projects was light. In Mexico buildings mostly have windows with half glass, Barragan considers it should be removed and architects need to design light regard to the function of rooms. He believed well-designed lighting could have an effect on the wellbeing of the user. Also, he was playing with it and creating different impressions in the interior. Like Neutra, Barragan concentrated on gardens and the house’s landscape. He considers ita very important part of the house. Even in a big city, Barragan designed gardens, but he separated them by walls from public space. It was perfect for people who want to find peace and silence.
19
Accessed December 12, 2019, http://www.franksteinhofer.com/luis-barragan/
Figure 14. Picture of Gilardi House.20 Figure 15. Picture of Barragan house.21
For comparison, we also look at two more houses- Gilardi House, built in 1976 and an older one from 1948, his own house and studio in Cueramaro. After World War II Luis Barragan started to work on the urban project of El Pedregal. His main idea was to make harmony between architecture and landscape in this neighborhood. Unlike other modern architects, he did not use glass walls or big windows around the whole building. However, as seen in the images, Barragan was playing in his houses with private and public spaces, but in comparison with Richard Neutra, Marcel Breuer and others, he was not designing in big/open natural landscapes. These two mentioned houses are in the city centre. Despite this, Luis Barragan still preferred to make houses more private separated from public life, focused on courtyard, nature and its relation to the building. He wanted to separate house and its garden from the noisy city streets. For this reason, he used small windows open to the public space and big windows open to the private space. One of the main parts of his projects were gardens, in Gilardi House and his own studio, architect used big, monumental concrete walls to create private, peaceful yard. This intervention was similar to Richard Neutra, who was also focusing on mental health by designing place to meditate or relax. Colors were also essential for Barragan. He tried to reduce white to a minimum. His choice of colors in projects was deliberate. He used shades of colors, which highlighted the natural environment and effects on inhabitants mood. He believed his buildings were a place for serenity, to “evoke emotions and sensations[22]”.In both examples this method is very noticeable. V. Conclusion With a comparison of these case studies, common design elements and ways of legitimizing form can be found in the practices of Noyes, Breuer, Chermayeff and Barragan to that of Neutra. All buildings are single-family houses and were designed for better mental health and well being, using the latest technologies in construction. In most of examples natural or smooth materials prevailed in houses to create a peaceful space for residents. What connects Noyes, Hooper and Chermayeff Houses is division building on private and public spaces. It is supposed to reduce anxiety and create balance in the family. What is main points in all of the projects is relation with nature and openness to landscape. Houses were designing to make an access to nature or private open space. Psychology confirms that intervention is very important for people to keep a good mental health. When access to vast open spaces and natural landscapes was not possible, like in the case of Barragan’s projects, the focus was moved to create an illusion of nature within high walls, private gardens and courtyards. A strong driving force for the design are the client’s preferences, personality and lifestyle. There is usage of natural textures and pure material properties to create engaging tactical experience and engage all 5 senses in the designs. While all architects spoke of and were influenced by the bad effects of rampant uncontrolled urbanisation, they could only practice what they believed to be good architecture for luxurious homes that rich clients were willing to 20
Accessed December 12. 2019,https://www.sightunseen.com/2018/04/photographer-cb-mexico-cityarchitecture-tour-barragan-house/ 21 Rene Burri, Accessed December 12, 2019, https://www.archdaily.com/102599/ad-classics-casabarragan-luis-barragan 22 Barragan, Luis
fund or for themselves. This shortcoming of the practice still needs to be tackled and further area of research of the psychological effects of spatial design in public projects and highdensity residential buildings needs to be done.
VI. Bibliography.
1. Ambasz, Emilio. The Architecture of Luis Barragan. New York: the Museum of modern art, 1976. 2. Architecture, Failed. ‘Richard Neutra’s Therapeutic Architecture’. Failed Architecture (blog). Accessed 1 December 2019. https://failedarchitecture.com/richard-neutrastherapeutic-architecture/. 3. Ballard, J. G. High-Rise. London: J. Cape, 1975. 4. Blake, Peter. Marcel Breuer: Architect and Designer. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1994. 5. Blake,Peter. ‘Marcel Breuyer - Architect and Designer’ Museum of Modern Arts USA (1949) 6. Botton, Alain de. The Architecture of Happiness. Toronto, Ont.: McClelland & Stewart, 2008. 7. Canter, David V. Psychology for Architects. New York: Wiley, 1975. 8. Chermayeff, Serge. Community and Privacy; toward a New Architecture of Humanism. Anchor Books, 1969. 9. Emanuel, Muriel, et al. Contemporary Architects: Ed. Muriel Emanuel; Architectural Consultant Dennis Sharp; Assistant Ed. Colin Naylor, Craig Lerner. Macmillan Press, 1980. 10. Isenstadt, Sandy. ‘Richard Neutra and the Psychology of Architectural onsumption’. In Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture, edited by Sarah Williams Goldhagen and Réjean Legault. Montréal : Cambridge, Mass: Canadian Centre for Architecture ; MIT Press, 2000. 11. Kennicott, Philip. ‘Marcel Breuer Hooper House II’. Dwell. Accessed 1 December 2019. https://www.dwell.com/article/marcel-breuer-hooper-house-ii-2f1c195b. 12. Lacy, Alberto Ruy-Sánchez, Roberto Tejada, Luis Barragán, Susan Briante, Octavio Paz, Juan Palomar, Carole Castelli, Alfonso Alfaro, Lorna Scott Fox, Álvaro Mutis, Vicente Quirarte, Jorge Esquinca, Mario Schjetnan Garduño, Felipe Leal, and Julio Hubard. "[In the World of Luis Barragán]." Artes De México, Nueva Epoca, no. 23 (1994): 88-112. 13. Lavin, Sylvia. "Open the Box: Richard Neutra and the Psychology of the Domestic Environment." Assemblage, no. 40 (1999): 7-25. doi:10.2307/3171369. 14. Lavin, Sylvia. "Richard Neutra and the Psychology of the American Spectator." Grey Room, no. 1 (2000): 43-63. 15. Lavin, Sylvia. Form Follows Libido: Architecture and Richard Neutra in a Psychoanalytic Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007. 16. Milgram, S. ‘The Experience of Living in Cities’. Science 167, no. 3924 (13 March 1970): 1461–68. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3924.1461. 17. Stoneham, Bryce & Smith, Desmond. (2015). The house and the home: The balance of architecture and psychology within the residential home.
18. Sussman, A., Hollander, J. B. (2015). Cognitive Architecture. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315856964 19. Todd Cronan (2011) “Danger in the Smallest Dose”: Richard Neutra's Design Theory, Design and Culture, 3:2, 165-191, DOI: 10.2752/175470811X13002771867806 20. Verdict Design-build. ‘A Design for Life: The Psychology of Architecture’, 27 June 2016. https://www.designbuild-network.com/features/featurea-design-for-life-thepsychology-of-architecture-4925462/. 21. WikiArquitectura. ‘Lovell Health House - Data, Photos & Plans’. Accessed 1 December 2019. https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/lovell-health-house/. 22. Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Future of Architecture. New York: Horizon Pr., 1970.