ACADEMIC DISSERTATION

DOMESTIC DETAILS Examining traces of unconventional lifestyles at the Maison de Verre and the Schindler House through the medium of architecture

Philippa Skingsley

Front page image: View from the main salon onto the front facade of the Maison de Verre Back page image: R.M. Schindler’s studio in the Schindler House A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the BA Architecture Honours degree, Newcastle University, 2015.

Copyright Š Philippa Skingsley, 2015. All rights reserved.

DOMESTIC DETAILS Examining traces of unconventional lifestyles at the Maison de Verre and the Schindler House through the medium of architecture.

Written by Philippa Skingsley

120187337 | Newcastle University

“In pure architecture, the smallest detail should have a meaning or purpose.�1

ii

- A.W.N. Pugin

ABSTRACT

This dissertation studies the communicative value of the architectural details of the private home. It focuses on the characterful details of buildings and their ability to insinuate the social lifestyle of the inhabitants and the cultural circumstances during the buildings’ procurements. It centres around two case studies: the Maison de Verre by Pierre Chareau in Paris, and the Schindler House by Rudolph Schindler in Los Angeles.

Introducing the topic with an abbreviated history of the architects, the clients and the design of these two peculiar dwellings, I demonstrate the distinguished nature of the two environments. An extended analysis follows, examining how the two homes express the unconventional relationships and micro politics of the two families. This is extracted from my analytical response to the revealing details, ranging from the layout of the homes to the intentional positioning of a fireplace, carried out during visits to the properties, together with reviews of the technical drawings available and the use of secondary sources.

Finally, a comparative study of the Maison de Verre and the Schindler House will be addressed, concluding that Schindler was striving to trigger a new cultural beginning in American residential architecture, whilst Chareau concentrated on creating his design based on the personal traits, ideals and requirements of the activist Dalsace couple. Both architects proved to be great authors of their work in telling the story of their creators. iii

CONTENTS PAGE

Abstract iii Acknowledgements v List of illustrations vi Introduction 1 Chapter One: Setting the Scene 4 1.1 The Outsider 4 1.2 A Real Californian Scheme 7 Chapter Two: The Bigger Picture 13 2.1 The Storytelling Machine 2.2 The Communal Experience

16

29

Conclusion 41 Bibliography 45 Appendix 49 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mary Vaughan Johnson for introducing Pierre Chareau’s Maison de Verre to me in 2011. She gave a captivating tour that brought to life the Dalsace family and allowed me to explore on numerous occasions this architectural masterpiece. Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on the subject and your infectious energy.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my dissertation tutor Adam Sharr. Your book Reading Architecture and Culture: Researching Buildings, Spaces and Documents proved to be an invaluable resource for this project. Your aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and enthusiasm for my topic proved to be a key motivation for this independent study.

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Front page image: Francois Halard (photographer), Dominique Vellay, La Maison de Verre: Pierre Chareau’s Modernist Masterwork (United Kingdom: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2007); view from the main salon onto the front facade of the Maison de Verre Back page image: Grant Mudford (photographer), Kathryn Smith, Schindler House (United States: Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., 2010); R.M. Schindler’s studio in the Schindler House Figure 1: Halard; top of the grand staircase though a perforated metal screen Figure 2: Kevin Park, La Maison de Verre (Blogger, 2012) <http://lamaisondeverre.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/site-map-of-house.html>; a map of the sixth arrondissement in Paris, situating the Maison de Verre Figure 3: Kenneth Frampton, ‘Maison de Verre’, Perspecta, 12 (1969), <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1566961>, p.84; the scaffolding around the original hôtel-particulier Figure 4: Frampton, p.84; the steel framework underpinning the top floor apartment Figure 5: Frampton, p.84; the insertation of the three new floors within the steel structure

vi

Figure 6: Halard; an engraved plaque with the names of the contributors, on the bottom right hand corner of glass brick facade Figure 7: Mark Phillips,Schindler-Chase House (Blogger, 2012) <http://kingsroadhouse.blogspot.co.uk>; a map of Hollywood situating the Schindler House Figure 8: Mudford; view of the gardens from the Chace Studios Figure 9: Mudford and Smith; building the redwood frame on the Marian Chace studio, April 6 - 24, 1922 Figure 10: Mudford and Smith; tilting a concrete slab into place, March 28 - April 24, 1922 Figure 11: Mudford and Smith; forming a concrete slab on the concrete fondations, March 15-30, 1922 Figure 12: Mudford; The Schindler hallway, with Pauline’s studio to the left and stairs to their sleeping basket to the right Figure 13: Mudford; view of the Chace studios and their outdoor living area at the Schindler House Figure 14: Halard; the main salon of Chareau’s Maison de Verre Figure 15: Halard; the steel framed bookshelves in the main salon, protruding out towards the glass brick facade Figure 16: Halard; a passage leading from the waiting room to the consultation room of Docteur Dalsace’s clinic Figure 17: Halard; the glass paned entrance hallway featuring Chareau’s furniture Figure 18: Halard; the 31 Saint Guillaume courtyard showing the Maison de Verre lit up, internally and externally, at dusk Figure 19: Halard; the main salon showing how daylight diffuses through the translucent glass facade Figure 20: Halard (edited by author); floor plans of the Maison de Verre Figure 21: Halard; Chareau’s free-stranding doorbell Figure 22: Halard; the main staircase, seen from the side, showing the sliding and pivoting panels that separate the staircase from the medical clinic Figure 23: Halard; Docteur Dalsace’s private staircase leading to his bureau vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 24: Halard; the central staircase leading from the first floor to the top floor Figure 25: Halard; Madame Dalsace’s trapdoor, leading to her boudoir from the master bedroom Figure 26: Author; sketch of the perforated metal screens that shield the main staircase from the medical clinic Figure 27: Author; rough plan of the main staircase screens, showing their subtle motions Figure 28: Author; sketch of the metal tread of Docteur Dalsace’s private staircase Figure 29: Author; sketch displaying Chareau’s swivelling side table Figure 30: Author; sketch illustrating the motion of the curved door handle that leads into the secretary’s office Figure 31: Halard; Docteur Dalsace’s consultation room Figure 32: Halard; Madame Dalsace’s boudoir, with views onto the garden and the trapdoor unfolded Figure 33: Halard; Docteur Dalsace’s bureau Figure 34: Halard; the fireplace in the boudoir, andin the top left corner, Madame Dalsace’s passe-porte Figure 35: Author; rough plan of the door that slides into the Docteur’s bureau when his wife enters or exits her boudoir Figure 36: Halard; the fireplace in the boudoir, andin the top left corner, Madame Dalsace’s passe-porte Figure 37: Halard; the wooden bookshelves sheilding the top floor Figure 38: Halard; a screen concealing the sanitory cubicle in a bedroom Figure 39: Halard; the double-sided cupboards in the bedrooms Figure 40: Mudford; one of Schindler’s ‘studios Figure 41: Mudford; the seemless thresholds between the interior and exterior Figure 42: Author; diagram of the pinwheel that mimics Schindlers floor plan, and below is a rough plan of the four studios viii

Figure 43: Mudford; the Schindler wing entrance and their ‘sleeping basket’ that sits above Figure 44: James Campbell ,Schindler House (2014) <http:// jamescolincampbell.com/schindler-house/>; the ‘utility room’ Figure 45: Mudford; exterior views of the Chace studios, displaying the harmony between the concrete slabs and the gardens Figure 46: Mudford and Smith; diagram of the landscaping of the gardens Figure 47: Mudford; detail of the ‘sleeping porches’ Figure 48: Mudford; fireplace with copper hood in Pauline’s studio Figure 49: Mudford and Smith; Schindler’s ground floor plan, 1922 Figure 50: Mudford and Smith; (edited by author); floor plan of the Schindler House highlighting the three wings of the dwelling Figure 51: Mudford; R.M. Schindler’s studio Figure 52: Mudford; Pauline’s studio Figure 53: Mudford; Cylde Chace’s studio Figure 54: Mudford; Marian Chace’s studio Figure 55: Mudford; the concrete slab walls with the slit details Figure 56: Mudford; view from the court onto Pauline’s studio, highlighting the redwood cage Figure 57: Halard; view through the perforated metal screen of the balustrade, from the top floor of the Maison de Verre Figure 58: Mudford; Pauline’s studio, looking out onto the shared outdoor living space

ix

INTRODUCTION

Buildings are artefacts of their time and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;evidence of the cultures that made themâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.2 Architecture, whilst being a study and practice of the built environment, equally considers the role of human integration within a space.3 The architectural features of a structure have the capacity to communicate the relationships of its inhabitants and the cultural principles of their community. A building at first glance has the ability to present itself against a cultural background and time period, but the true nature of a design speaks through the unique architectural details. They allow a deeper insight into the social values and characteristics of their creators, for where one lives can say a lot about the person.

This dissertation will explore the reading of these details as exemplified by the intricately tailored Maison de Verre designed

by Pierre Chareau in Paris in 1928, and architect Rudolph Schindlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unconventional private residence in Los Angeles in 1921. This comparative study will focus on how the houses and their details embody and anticipate the lifestyles of the inhabitants in relation to prevailing cultural priorities. The first chapter will situate both buildings in their historical contexts and explore the values of the architects and their clients. It will also examine the sociocultural environments and how these structures were designed, procured, and constructed. The second chapter will analyse the spatial and structural themes

1

of the dwellings and my personal readings of these two houses.

Finally, the third chapter will conclude with a comparison of these case studies and expand upon reading architecture for the values apparent in it.

Figure 1: top of the grand staircase though a perforated metal screen

The reason for choosing these two private homes as case studies for this dissertation was because, although broadly contemporary, they are both wonderfully peculiar approaches to domestic architecture and represent unconventional principles for their time. I was able to visit both the Maison de Verre and the Schindler House and conduct my own exploration and analyse the physical spaces. In addition, the technical drawings found for each property were reviewed for a more detailed examination of the spatial layout and of particular thresholds. Secondary sources research and literature review work was also conducted through a variety of books, online resources and media to give some alternate perspectives on the subject.

Notes 1 Augustus Pugin quoted by Laura Dushkes, The Architect Says: A Compendium of Quotes, Witticisms, Bons Mots, Insights, and Wisdom on the Art of Building Design (United States: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012).

2 Adam Sharr, Reading Architecture and Culture: Researching Buildings, Spaces and Documents (United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2012), p.3 3 Ibid., p.3

2

3

Chapter One:

SETTING THE SCENE

THE OUTSIDER La Maison de Verre

Figure 2: a map of the sixth arrondissement in Paris, situating the Maison de Verre

When considering the cultural and social aspects of a building, one must study the historical context of its construction. In the 1920’s, European architecture was beginning to integrate traditional elements with new social demands for modern technology. The French architect Pierre Chareau is claimed to have played a significant, yet modest ro le in the modernist movement.4 Born in Paris in 1883, he started his career as a draftsman for a traditional furniture maker. By the early 1920s, he had designed numerous apartment interiors for bourgeois clients, known for his use of ‘elaborate wood and metal pieces with movable parts that reflect a taste for refined machinery.5 The Maison de Verre was his first full-scale architectural project, although he was not a certified architect at the time. Doctor Jean Dalsace and his wife Annie had been given the original hôtel-particulier that the Maison de Verre was to replace by Annie’s father upon their wedding.6 The Dalsaces were good friends of Chareau’s and admired his innovative flare to such an extent that they commissioned him to build them a family home and the Doctor’s medical practice. Madame Dalsace was an avantgarde art collector and socialite. Her husband was a famous gynaecologist who was president of the movement promoting family planning. They were political activists, a forwardthinking couple within the social milieu of Paris.

4

Chapter One: SETTING THE SCENE

La Maison de Verre was started in 1928 and completed in 1932, and is considered one of the iconic homes of the modern movement. When the Dalsace couple received the 18th century hôtel-particulier, they had every intention of knocking it down and starting again from scratch.7 Unfortunately, the lady who lived on the second floor refused to move out, forcing the Dalsaces and Chareau to come up with a new solution. They decided to permanently underpin the existing second floor with steel,8 resulting in a sufficiently large volume beneath to accommodate three new floors; Chareau had to work around the supporting steel columns and he decided to leave them exposed and freestanding (Figures 3-5). The cantilevering structure allows the front façade to be free from the steel structure, letting it stand independently. Chareau’s choice of materials was fundamental in the stability, as well as the atmosphere of the building. It also led to the name the “Maison de Verre”, meaning “House of Glass”, after the material that dominated its image.

Chareau showed great expertise in modifying the feel and form of the available space. He avoided the use of solid, stationary walls where possible and instead chose to use manoeuvrable partition walls. This created a mechanical marvel that permitted the Dalsace family to make subtle changes around them, in order to accommodate their needs at a given time. The Maison de Verre was designed and procured in an artisanal manner, seen as the work of a true craftsman. Each individual element, from the glass bricks to the door handles were fabricated to order, and assembled meticulously on site, resulting in a slow and expensive construction. The house is a machine, with all its nuts and bolts placed purposely so that the final result works as a whole. One might think that this would give the house a cold and brutal quality but, on the contrary, everything pivots and slides effortlessly and the mechanical features are so delicate and easy to manoeuvre that it seems to result in a perfect harmony between the technology and the user:

Figure 3: the scaffolding around the original hôtelparticulier

Figure 4: the steel framework underpinning the top floor apartment

“For architects, it represents the road not taken: a lyrical machine whose theatricality is the antithesis of the dry functionalist aesthetic that reigned through much of the 20th century.”9 It must be stated that the Maison de Verre, seen as an overall individual achievement in the history of modern architecture, was a collaboration between Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet, a Dutch architect who kept a low profile in relation to the buildings he contributed to, and the skilled metalworker and craftsman Louis Dalbet who contributed to the fabrication of the mechanical toys and structural elements (Figure 6).10 5

Figure 5: the insertation of the three new floors within the steel structure

As you walk through the typical Parisian entrance door of 31 Rue Saint Guillaume in the stylish sixth arrondissement of Paris, you find yourself standing in a courtyard in front of a large glass box. Although one could argue that the Maison de Verre is an interruption in the continuity of the Haussmannian buildings of the neighbourhood, it is hidden away and shielded from the public eye. It may look like the odd one out, but it reflects the personality of Chareau himself, considered by architects today to be ‘an outsider’.11 Although it received initial criticism for its controversial nature, the Maison de Verre is a unique and significant contribution to 20th century architecture. Since its construction, it has proven to be a touchstone for architects throughout the world, including Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, Jean Nouvel, and many others.

Few buildings have the capacity to continuously surprise and impress like Pierre Chareau’s Maison de Verre

Notes 4 Emerging in the early 1900s, Modernism was one of the pivotal movements of the century, and can be recognized through its simplification of form and sense of spatial exposure. This architectural revolution occurred predominantly in Europe and the United States of America, and both continents brought different qualities and trademarks to the table. Whilst many Modernist themes were universal, the true nature of a design could be found through the architectural details.

5 Nicolai Ouroussoff, ‘The Best House in Paris’, Arts / Art & Design (The New York Times, 26 August 2007) <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/arts/ design/26ouro.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> [accessed 10 September 2014].

6 Valerie Nuyanzina, Carla Gruber and Stephanie Wong, by Kevin Park, La Maison de Verre (Blogger, 2012) <http://lamaisondeverre.blogspot.co.uk> [accessed 12 October 2014].

7

Kenneth Frampton, ‘Maison de Verre’, Perspecta, 12 (1969), 77–109+111– 28, <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1566961>, p.77

8

Ibid., p.79

9

Ouroussoff, The Best House in Paris

10 Cinqualbre, Olivier, Pierre Chareau: Architecte, Un Art Intérieur: Ouvrage Publié À L’occasion de L’exposition ‘Pierre Chareau, 1883-1950’ Présentée Du 3 Novembre 1993 Au 17 Janvier 1994 Dans La Galerie Du Cci, Centre National D’art et de Culture Georges Pompidou(France: Centre Georges Pompidou Service Commercial,France, 1993) 11 Frampton, p.79

Figure 6: an engraved plaque with the names of the contributors, on the bottom right hand corner of glass brick facade

6

Chapter One: SETTING THE SCENE

A REAL CALIFORNIA SCHEME The Schindler House

Rudolph Michael Schindler, born in Vienna in 1887, has been seen as a first-generation modern architect. In 1914, he sailed to America in search of a new environment in which to design. He rejected academic architecture and was drawn to exploring industrial methods and materials, a simplification of form and the attentive manipulation of space. Starting work at Ottenheimer, Stern, and Reichart’s architectural firm in Chicago, he actively sort to meet the noteworthy American architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Schindler admired Wright’s ability to step back from the compartmentalisation of the traditional Victorian House, ‘the boxes within a box’12 and introduce what felt like a dynamic movement and arrangement in house layouts, along with innovative methods of construction. After many letter exchanges, Schindler joined Wright’s firm at the end of 1917, writing: “The room is not a box – the walls have disappeared and free nature flows through his houses [...] He is a complete and perfect master of any material – and modern machine techniques are at the base of his form-making.”13 During his time in Chicago, Schindler met Pauline Gibling, a woman of insatiable curiosity about the new social, political and artistic movements. Rudolph and Pauline got married in 1919, despite their disdain for traditional institutions. On their

7

Figure 7: a map of Hollywood situating the Schindler House

8

9

Chapter One: SETTING THE SCENE

visit to Wright’s Taliesin Studio, they were so inspired by this building that they started to discuss the idea of building their own studio. On a business trip for Wright’s Hollyhock Houses, Schindler developed a particular appreciation for the climate and landscapes of Los Angeles, and in 1920, the Schindlers moved there with the intention of building a space of their own. Around the same time, Clyde and Marian Chace had also moved to Los Angeles, and through connections with architect Irving Gill, the two couples became good friends.

Clyde was a draftsman and engineer and Pauline and Marian had previously met at University.14 Sharing a desire to build for themselves, on November 11 1921 they decided to start to plan their joint studio/house. To keep costs low, Schindler was the architect and Chace the builder, so it would be an entirely self-built building. The 100x200-foot lot on North Kings Road was already confirmed by the 21st of November (Figure 7).

It’s safe to say that the Schindlers were the driving forces of the innovative use of materials, construction methods and spatial arrangement of the project (Figures 9-11). Inspired by a camping trip to Yosemite in 1921, their objective was to produce a ‘social campfire’15 to seek the same freedom and tranquil surroundings in their own home. It was a shared vision that Schindler and Pauline saw for their future house.

He brought architectural form to her passion for a revisionist lifestyle.16 This resulted in a distinctly unfamiliar approach to residential building that presented an order in which conventional room types were to be eliminated. There is no living room, dining room or bedroom in the house. The house is composed of four large studio rooms, a central utility room, a guest suite and a garage. Each member of the household was assigned a studio. ‘Sleeping baskets’17 were provided as beds in each studio. The exterior and interior are made up of tilted concrete panels, redwood, wallboard, copper, canvas and glass; all kept in their natural colour to expose their pure tones (Figure 8). Schindler’s spatial exploration through geometrical organisation expanded to the extremities of the site through the gardens.

Construction was finished at the end of 1922 with the internal fittings and furnishings still to be installed. The gas and electricity took a few weeks to be fully up and running and none of the inhabitants had beds to sleep in – ironically the idea of creating a communal camping-like experience in the house was achieved somewhat too well in these first months as the two couples camped out in their shelter. The house was finished by 1923 but, in 1924, the Chace’s moved to Florida after accepting an offer to join Marian’s family Figure 8: view of the gardens from the Chace Studios

10

Chapter One: SETTING THE SCENE

business.18 Artists, writers and political activists came and rented out studios for periods at a time, so the social scene of the Schindler House was ever shifting. By the end of the 1920’s, Rudolph remained the only original resident of the house, and stayed there until his death on August 22nd 1953.

Unfortunately, the architect got little recognition for his home whilst he was still alive. Many features of the house possessed the fundamentals of modern architecture but it was mocked until the late twentieth century. Phillip Johnson said: ‘I didn’t like the house, it looked cheap and the housekeeping wasn’t good […] I didn’t go see anything else Schindler’.19 Ironically, a year after Schindler’s death, Johnson revised his views on the house:

Figure 9: building the redwood frame on the Marian Chace studio, April 6 - 24, 1922

“R.M.Schindler was among the great pioneers of modern architecture in this country (USA) […] His singleminded devotion to the main principles of architecture are extraordinary and should serve as an example to the younger architects of our time”.20 It has been suggested that Schindler did indeed become a noteworthy contributor to the modernist movement, only recognised decades too late. His audacious originality, it is claimed, broke tradition and uncovered a new beginning in American residential architecture.

Notes

Figure 10: tilting a concrete slab into place, March 28 April 24, 1922

Figure 11: forming a concrete slab on the concrete fondations, March 15-30, 1922

12 David Gebhard , Schindler (United Kingdom: Thames and Hudson LTD, 1971), p.9 13 Ibid., p.11 14 Kathryn Smith and Grant Mudford, Schindler House (United States: Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., 2010), p.16 15 Smith, p.20 16 Robert Sweeney, ‘The Schindler House’, MAK Center for Art and Architecture, Los Angeles (MAK Center 1994 - 2015) <http://makcenter.org/ sites/schindler-house/> [accessed 8 October 2014].

17 Smith, p.30 18 Ibid., p.26 19 Ibid., p.39 20 Ibid., p.38

11

Figure 12: The Schindler hallway, with Pauline’s studio to the left and stairs to their sleeping basket to the right

12

Chapter Two:

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Figure 13: view of the Chace studios and their outdoor living area at the Schindler House

The anatomy of a building, from its overall structure to the detail of a door handle, has the ability to tell the story of its owners and the principles of the society they were conceived in. The implication that architecture can be read does not suggest that there is only one approach to the reading of a building. There is no right or wrong interpretation of a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social and cultural message and there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters.21 This chapter will present my interpretation of the architectural expression of the Maison de Verre and the Schindler House, in addition to a study of the technical drawings and what they convey with regards to the social principles of the inhabitants.

The private home is one of the most interesting types of architecture to study when one is examining the anticipations of the architectural detail. Being a smaller scale of building than say a hospital or school, it exposes a closer connection to the relationships and ideologies of the inhabitants, a more intimate exposure to everyday habits and individual tastes. The architect of a private residence must find a balance between his or her style and the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desires and requirements in order to create a successful design. It may be the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s job to plan and realize a house, but the role of the user is just as important in the arranging and rearranging of their home.

A lot can be said about the nature of a family, purely through

13

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

the architectural expression of their home. Only so much can be deciphered from the plans, sections and elevations that demonstrate the technical qualities and spatial layout of the structure. One must read in between the lines to get to the social and cultural influences and underlying interaction between the solid and the senses. This is what can be told through the three-dimensional experience of visiting a building and studying the small details that reveal a further awareness of these sociocultural traits. These details may be small quirks in the design of furniture, or it may be a spatial relationship between rooms. Nevertheless, all these idiosyncrasies contribute to the bigger picture of the founding owners and their established culture.

Notes 21 Sharr, p.8

Figure 14: the main salon of Chareauâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Maison de Verre

14

15

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

THE STORYTELLING MACHINE La Maison de Verre

The Maison de Verre is bursting with character through its unique exterior and interior and use of transparency and materials. Modernity, from an architectural point of view meant adaptability, practicality and comfort,22 and that was something that Chareau executed beautifully, fitting in respect to his background as a furniture designer and his involvement in the C.I.A.M organisation.23 He shifted away from the influence of tradition to introduce a new industrial approach to architecture, to the extent that the Maison de Verre defies accepted classification;24 ‘Chareau was daring: which is why he did not refute the past’.25 The house not only displays a skilful manipulation of materials and creates a flexible and adaptable environment, but equally expresses social connection through the architecture. It provides a sense of order and offers striking originality in terms of the design. Chareau was known for developing strong relationships with his clients.26 He paid great attention to understanding their needs and desires.

This resulted in a distinctive hierarchy of public and private, emphasized by the idiosyncratic staircases and varied levels of transparency. Moreover, the Doctor’s medical practice, bureau, and his wife’s boudoir, convey a possible perspective on the couple’s quotidian lifestyle and relationship.

From the exterior, the Maison de Verre does not reveal very much. As you enter the courtyard at 31 Rue Saint

Figure 15: the steel framed bookshelves in the main salon, protruding out towards the glass brick facade

16

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

Figure 16: a passage leading from the waiting room to the consultation room of Docteur Dalsace’s clinic

Figure 17: the glass paned entrance hallway featuring Chareau’s furniture

17

Guillaume, you are struck by a looming glass brick façade with a glass corridor running underneath it (Figure 18). The first word that comes to mind would not be “house” or “home”.

The unrevealing verticality and translucency of the exterior conveys a secretive quality to the house. Chareau’s extensive use of glass allows the composition to be ordered through the interplay between opacity and transparency. He used a special translucent glass brick, called the Nevada glass block made by Saint-Gobain,27 to create the iron-framed glass panels of the front façade. Their weight and solidity demonstrate an almost impenetrable barrier between the exterior and interior. Ironically, from the inside of the house this barrier is blurred somewhat as Chareau also succeeded in creating the sensation that the inside and outside almost merge together, as the light that diffuses through the glass façade into the main salon imitates illumination that is experienced when in the open-air (Figure 19).28 At night time, the façade was lit up by stage lights that are mounted on a steel structure in the courtyard (Figure 18). This was to ensure you could not see what was taking place on the other side of the glass brick. The bricks on the front façade as they are seen today are unfortunately not the original ones that Chareau installed, as they were at risk of deterioration about twenty years after construction and were replaced replicas of the originals. The glass on the garden façade however is still the authentic material from the initial construction (Figure 16). The exposed ground floor corridor is paned with transparent glass, as is the inconspicuous front door that runs perpendicular to the rest of the façade (Figure 17). This displays a more inviting approach than the rest of the house. The varying levels of transparency could be seen as an analogy for the day-to-day living and private nature of the Dalsace family; a series of veils to conceal the activities and affairs of the Dalsaces home, equally providing a sense of theatricality to the building.

This parallel could be taken to the extremities of rue Saint Guillaume. Pierre Chareau was given a space that was encircled by nineteenth century buildings; the house is fundamentally hidden from public view. His choice to have a somewhat neutral yet eye-catching front façade to the house gives a sense of aesthetic harmony with the surroundings.

It was a courageous move from the audacious couple to undertake such a daring project, as it did not conform to typical Parisian residences and traditions, making it one of the first shocking modern homes in Paris. It is said that Le Corbusier, who was working on his own houses nearby, used to peek into the courtyard during the construction.29 This isolation makes the house even more mysterious than its front façade.

The ‘translucent fluid membrane’,30 that is the glass box, is

Figure 18 (above): the 31 Saint Guillaume courtyard showing the Maison de Verre lit up, internally and externally, at dusk

Figure 19 (below): the main salon showing how daylight diffuses through the translucent glass facade

18

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

mirrored in the encompassing manner of the surrounding apartment buildings, containing the house and garden from the external streets; another degree of concealment.

This emphasizes the genuine seclusion that the Dalsaces’ achieved in the middle of a crowded district of Paris.

The arrangement of the house displays a hierarchy of public to private throughout the different floors, alluding to the domestic etiquette of Dr Dalsace and his wife. ‘Pierre Chareau realised a structural tour de force of three luminous floors’31 having created three storeys from the original two in the previous hôtel-particulier. The rooms of the house are divided according to their function and their user. When planning the layout of the house, Chareau separated each floor to a different activity; the ground floor is Dr Dalsace’s medical practice, the second floor is the living area and the top floor is allocated to the private bedrooms and bathrooms (Figure 20). There are also servant’s quarters that run all the way up the left side of the house. Unlike most homes built at that time, there was no service door for the servants. This meant they entered the house through the same door as Dalsaces and their guests. Although the family lived a bourgeois lifestyle, Jean Dalsace was a member of the French Communist Party and believed in a respectful accord between social classes. As you proceed through the front door, depending on the purpose of your visit, you would be directed down a different route. For example, if you were one of the Doctor’s patients, you would be led through the side corridor that goes off the main hallway and leads straight to the receptionist’s office.

A freestanding buzzer located outside the front door gives you a choice between “service”, “visiteurs” and “docteur”, each with a different sound, a clever and efficient detail installed by Chareau (Figure 21). This, although sharing an entrance, illustrates the separation of domestic sectors and allows a visitor or client to state the intent of their visit before entering the house.

The five staircases of the house also highlight this distinction of spaces. Each staircase is unique in its construction, material and character. The most dominant of these is the central grand staircase that leads up to the main salon (or living room) from the ground floor (Figure 22). The handrails are barely a foot from the stair itself, providing no extra support for the user. This means that people have to support themselves and almost forces them to focus on their posture. Each end of the staircase hooks into the floor, giving the impression that the staircase is floating over a void as nothing supports it from the bottom 19

Second Floor

First Floor

Ground Floor Servants quarters Private bedrooms and bathrooms Social, entertainment spaces Medical practice

Figure 20: floor plans of the Maison de Verre Figure 21: Chareau’s free-stranding doorbell

20

Figure 22: the main staircase, seen from the side, showing the sliding and pivoting panels that separate the staircase from the medical clinic

Figure 23: Docteur Dalsaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private staircase leading to his bureau

21

Figure 24: the central staircase leading from the first floor to the top floor

Figure 25: Madame Dalsaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s trapdoor, leading to her boudoir from the master bedroom

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

or from the sides. Chareau has suspended it so cleverly that the stairs appear to be levitating and have a weightless presence. This is the only likely route that guests would use to ascend to the first floor. It can also be closed off from the ground floor by effortlessly pivoting a curved door and swivelling panels made from glass and perforated metal, leaving an element of disclosure for those peering up to the first floor for a look in on the Dalsace’s private life (Figures 26 and 27). The direction of the staircase points away from the courtyard and creates anticipation in the route that leads to the main salon, displaying once again the theatrical character of the Dalsaces in their welcoming of guests.

Figure 26: sketch of the perforated metal screens that shield the main staircase from the medical clinic (fig.22)

Figure 27: rough plan of the main staircase screens, showing their subtle motions (fig.

22 and 26)

Figure 28: sketch of the metal tread of Docteur Dalsace’s private staircase (fig. 23)

There is a second staircase leading from the ground to first floor located just outside the door of Dr Dalsace’s examination room that leads up to his private bureau (Figure 23). It can be interpreted as a masculine stair, uncomfortable for women to use, as the steps are made of strips of solid metal that intertwine like chicken wire, leaving gaping holes for the heels of female footwear to fall through (Figure 28). Through this observation, one can assume Mme Dalsace would have rarely used this route to go upstairs, hence creating a personal and private passage for Dr Dalsace to use to move from his workspace to his recreational space. Finally, there is a staircase in the servant’s wing used solely by ‘the help’, creating a subtle social divide in a bourgeois attempt to hide the servant activity.

From the first to second floor, there is a main staircase parallel to the lower grand staircase (Figure 24). This leads up to the level consisting of bedrooms and bathrooms and the most private part of the house.

Furthermore, in Annie Dalsace’s boudoir in the north corner of the house looking onto the garden, she has a form of attic drop ladder that folds down from a trapdoor in the floor of the master bedroom (Figure 25). This is a rather unusual form of stair in a bourgeois house, and anticipates Mme Dalsace’s desire for personal space. This use of an industrial invention may reflect her interest in new industries. Overall, there are three stairwells from the ground to first floor, and two leading from the first to second floor, suggesting a decrease in the accessibility of the higher social spaces. This architectural restraint communicates a sense of reluctance for guests or clients to vertically venture up the house, corresponding to the private persona of the Dalsace home.

Having looked at the vertical relationship of the distinct levels, it is also important to examine the horizontal distribution. For Chareau, manoeuvrability meant versatility.32 There is a clear connection between design, social tendancy and ease of use. The ability for a threshold to vary its degree of transparency depends on whether spaces that merge together or remain divided are desired.33 The flexibility and fluidity of space is undeniable as you are walking through the corridors, or standing in the middle of the main salon. It permeates through every detail, from curtain rails to pivoting doors. Chareau was successful 22

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

Figure 29: sketch displaying Chareau’s swivelling side table

Figure 30: sketch illustrating the motion of the curved door handle that leads into the secretary’s office

23

in making these spatial features discrete yet effective in their impact and embodied the flexibility of the house. The interior consists of sliding glass doors and perforated metal panels that have been cleverly organised as a series of vertical planes of space and proceed from the front of the house to the garden.34 There are folding screens that mark off the limits of the patients’ waiting area, providing a partial transformation of the space. He treated doors as junctions rather than closures. Furthermore, discrete steps and platforms on each individual level mark off separate spaces and rooms to distinguish purpose for each room; ‘the space and the movement change at every step’.35 Chareau installed swivelling side tables, surfaces that fanned open and pull-out flaps in the furniture for use when required by the inhabitants (Figure 29). He had created a form of tactile architecture, to the extent where it is hard to tell where the furniture stops and the building begins. These small yet functional details all show how the Dalsaces wanted to be in complete control of the internal workings of their dwelling; the puppet masters of their home, physically and socially.

It is a modernist truism that every design decision should stem from an idea with a purpose and Chareau made sure that every last detail was fitted for a reason.36 This can be especially appreciated in the clinic part of the house. Dr Dalsace was a forward-thinking gynaecologist with a loyal patient list. He was the leader of the family planning movement and specialised in matters of infertility, a relatively taboo subject for that time. He was respected and trusted by his patients. When designing the waiting room for the clients, Chareau installed horizontal windows that were positioned above seated eye level so that those waiting could not see into the garden where the Dalsace children would play. It is suspected that this design detail was purposely situated so as not to upset some of the Doctor’s infertile clients watching the children while they wait. The door leading from his consulting room to the secretary’s office has a specially designed curved door handle. It appears to be an afterthought, but it is yet another one of Chareau’s articulating details with a narrative. An upward arc has been set into the door and the doorknob is lower than usual. As Dr Dalsace opens the door to his patients, the handle slides gracefully up the arc allowing him to remain upright and courteously invite in his clients, rather than having to bend down (Figure 30).

The desk in his examination room, designed by Chareau, has a retractable writing table in order to decrease the distance between Doctor and patient whilst they are talking (Figure 31).37 The matters that were discussed in this room were not conversations that patients would want to be overheard. These translations of gesture through design suggest the Doctor’s Figure 31: Docteur Dalsace’s consultation room

24

Figure 32 (above): Madame Dalsaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boudoir, with views onto the garden and the trapdoor unfolded

25

Figure 33 (below): Docteur Dalsaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bureau

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

bourgeois grace and respect in receiving and dismissing his patients and putting them at ease during his consultations.

Chareau made sure that each member of the family had their own space to enjoy privately, if desired. Mme Dalsace had her boudoir that faced the garden at the back of the house so she could survey the children when they were playing outside (Figure 32). As mentioned previously, there are the fold-down stairs that lead to the master bedroom that she shared with her husband. This meant that she was able to move from the top floor to the middle floor without being seen by anyone but her husband. Along the back wall of the boudoir is a picture frame rail, where she used to hang her latest art purchases.

Being a Parisian socialite, she was up-to-date with new artists and writers and was interested in political affairs; it is believed she would rather receive a Picasso than a diamond! She was a woman who liked to entertain, but possessed a private persona. A small pivoting door tray in the corner of the room on the wall that is shared with the dining room, supports a tray allowing servants to bring her food or refreshments through this passe-porte if she did not want to leave her boudoir (Figure 34). If she did want to leave, a sliding door would lead her into the dining room. This sliding door however, once pushed open, slides into Docteur Dalsace’s bureau, notifying him that his wife had left her boudoir. A door to his bureau is adjacent to the sliding door, resulting in this sequence of small shifts that signals the entering and exiting of the bureau or boudoir (Figure 35). In addition, a section of the south wall of her boudoir is a glass pane that looks out onto the double height corridor that runs from the patient’s waiting room to the Docteur’s examination room. From this angle, she has a clouded view of the consultation room through its translucent glass brick wall.

These intricate features allude to Mme Dalsace’s watchful eye over her husband, allowing her the survey him and track his moves in certain areas of the house.

Figure 34: the fireplace in the boudoir, andin the top left corner, Madame Dalsace’s passe-porte

Figure 35: rough plan of the door that slides into the Docteur’s bureau when his wife enters or exits her boudoir

Figure 36: the fireplace in the boudoir, andin the top left corner, Madame Dalsace’s passe-porte

The Docteur’s bureau serves as a recreational space for when he wants to retire from his work (Figure 33). There is a tiny telephone booth in the room that is sound proofed enabling him to have private conversations on the phone (Figure 36).

He was required to show a high level confidentiality with his clients, and therefore needed a secluded area of the house where he would not be overheard. He also used the space to entertain guests as the whole wall neighbouring the main salon can slide back to make it an additional part of the hosting area.

The opening created by the moving wall lets views of the garden be seen from the living room, revealing Chareau’s contrasting facades of translucent glass brick and transparent panes.

Having a boudoir and a bureau in one’s house was a bourgeois 26

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

tradition in the early 1900s. Docteur Dalsace was attributed a larger amount of personal space in relation to his wife, as his medical practice took up the whole bottom floor. This suggests that the Dalsaces, who subscribed to many progressive social agendas, did allow some conservative gender dividing tradition to penetrate the walls of the Maison de Verre.

The last floor of the Maison de Verre sits quietly and humbly at the top of the house. It consists of the master bedroom and bathroom, the two children’s rooms, a second bathroom and the servants living quarters.

This floor acts as a mezzanine looking onto the main salon. Instead of a banister, Chareau installed soft wooden bookshelves to obscure the view from downstairs (Figure 37). To continue the theme of minimising solid walls, he used double-sided cupboards as the partition between the exposed walkway and the bedrooms (Figure 39). As a result, the servants could put-in and take-out the laundry from the bedrooms without entering and therefore disturbing the Dalsaces. In terms of the bathrooms, there are six toilets, six bidets, twelve wash basins, three baths and one shower in the whole house, the majority of which are located on the top floor (Figure 38). Hygiene was of the utmost importance in a home that was home to a gynaecologist and housed his medical practice. Morevoer, during the construction of the Maison de Verre there was an outbreak of Tuberculosis in Paris, so cleaning was an imperative activity for the Dalsace. There was a modernist emphasis on the health benefits of light, air and good sanitation, something that Chareau demonstrated through his use of natural ventilation and levels of transparency.

Figure 37: the wooden bookshelves sheilding the top floor

Figure 38: a screen concealing the sanitory cubicle in a bedroom

Notes

22 Marc Vellay, Kenneth Frampton and Bridget Stevens Romer, Pierre Chareau: Architecte Meublier, 1883-1950 (Paris: Rivages, 1986), p.46 23 Congrès internationaux d’architecture modern was the promoter of Modern architecture in the “Cubist style” - ‘CIAM (Congres Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne)’ (CIAM (Congres Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne)) <http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ history-the-arts/history/heritage/ciam-congres-internationaux-darchitecture-moderne> [accessed 2 November 2014].

24 Vellay, Frampton, and Romer, p. 13 25 René Herbst and Francis Jourdain, Un Inventeur...l’Architecte Pierre Chareau, Édition du Salon des Arts Ménagers (Paris: Union des Artistes Modernes, 1954), p. 7 26 Ibid., p.15 27 Dominique Vellay and Francois Halard, La Maison de Verre: Pierre Chareau’s Modernist Masterwork (United Kingdom: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2007), p.30 28 Frampton, p.80 29 Michelle Young, ‘The Maison de Verre (House of Glass) in Paris’ (The Maison de Verre (House of Glass) in Paris, 2010) <http:// untappedcities.com/2010/07/28/the-maison-de-verre-house-of-glass/> [accessed 20 September 2014].

30 Sir Richard Rogers, How Sir Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano were influenced by the Maison de Verre in their design and construction of the Centre Pompidou in Paris, Personal Interview, 2011.

31 Dr Dalsace quoted by Frampton, p.79 32 Frampton, p.65 33 Flora Samuel, Le Corbusier in Detail (United Kingdom: Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2007) 34 Frampton, p.79 35 Cinqualbre, p. 42 36 Jourdain and Herbst, p.12 37 Young, The Maison de Verre (House of Glass) in Paris

27

Figure 39: the double-sided cupboards in the bedrooms

28

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

THE COMMUNAL EXPERIENCE The Schindler House

Whilst remaining in the same decade, we will now travel across the Atlantic to the west coast of America. Southern California was undergoing an economic and population boom throughout the twenties, resulting in a stream of new houses. One of the most original of these houses was the Schindler-Chace House, Rudolph Schindler’s private home in Los Angeles. Private is perhaps not the right word for a house that had an ever-changing population of personalities inhabiting the communal dwelling. Despite this, privacy was still thought through carefully for individual living in this dynamic household. When Schindler and his wife Pauline decided to build their own home with their friends Clyde and Marian Chace, they were keen to create a new approach to the American house whilst in keeping with a prehistoric idea of a dwelling: “The cave was the original dwelling. Hollow pile of earth was the first house. This conception explains all architectural creation from the beginning of time up to the twentieth century.”38 This idea of defying the conventional classification of the box-shaped house illustrates the forward-thinking nature of the Schindler couple and what they wanted to achieve architecturally and socially through their home. The Schindler

29

Figure 40: one of Schindler’s ‘studios’

30

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

house communicates the liberal culture in which it was established, more than it reveals the unique characteristics of the Schindler and Chace couples, as their common concern for progressive political and social change was a key driving force. By focusing on the thematic content of the house, including the cooperative dwelling experience, the influence of the outdoors, the spatial arrangement and structure, and his use of materials, Schindler successfully conveys the idea of an alternative, progressive society.

Figure 41: the seemless thresholds between the interior and exterior

Figure 42: diagram of the pinwheel that mimics Schindlers floor plan, and below is a rough plan of the four studios

It is safe to say that the Schindler house remains experimental in terms of communal living. Schindler brought to America a European outlook, emphasizing social housing, like Le Corbusier was demonstrating in France. The lot on North Kings Road in West Hollywood was fairly large, allowing Schindler to keep the house a low building. All the social spaces are located on one level, with the exception of the small sleeping porches located on the first floor (Figure 43).

Since the dwelling is confined to one storey, the horizontal space can flow freely and may be used as one large universal space if desired, something that the Schindler’s did when hosting social functions. To give a more community feel to the immediate environment, the house is set back on the site so that it is only surrounded by private gardens. As you enter the house and walk out into the garden, there is a feeling of detachment from what is seen from the public road into what is experienced within the boundaries of the site (Figure 41).

The distinct form of the Schindler house is essentially three ‘L’ shaped arms that pinwheel around a double fireplace, marking the approximate centre of the structure. The unique scheme largely comprises of four rooms, or what Schindler called ‘studios’,39 one for each member of the household in which to ‘express his or her individuality’ (Figure 42).40 Schindler wanted each room to serve as a studio, making it an intimate space with no defining or overriding purpose – ‘a real California scheme’.41 All the rooms are similar sizes and used as a ‘work-and-playroom’.42 Each could serve all necessary activities such as reading, writing and eating, to the extent where function was determined by the furniture and the user.

The necessary utilities such as electricity, gas and water, next to a fireplace, were provided.43 There are even two tie beams in each studio that span the width of the room, resulting in a visual separation for these activities. Actual partitions could be moved into place to make physical divisions in the space.44 When one visits the Schindler house today, it is not being lived in and there is a limited amount of furniture displayed.

31

Figure 43: the Schindler wing entrance and their ‘sleeping basket’ that sits above

32

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

Although this may put the experiential qualities at a disadvantage when trying to comprehend how the Schindler and Chace families arranged the house, it leaves open to interpretation how inhabitants could fashion their own space.

At the approximate centre of the site, there is a communal kitchen that was referred to as the ‘utility room’, used to serve all functions of cooking, laundry, sewing and storage, hence its central location in the house (Figure 44). The cooking and preparation of food was done at the table and was treated as a collective exercise so that no one household member was burdened with that domestic task. Unlike the Maison de Verre, there is no suggestion that servants lived with the Schindlers as the guest suite was for visitors, not servants. Therefore, everything was done by the residents themselves, something that was unusual for a middle class home at the time; needless to say this was no ordinary dwelling. It raises the question of the particular micro-politics of the family and how there seemed to be no divide between the traditional gender roles. The Schindler’s were attempting to establish an omnipresent equality between the sexes. This liberal form of living reinforces the statement that the house promoted the principles of a ‘cooperative dwelling’,45 33

Figure 44: the ‘utility room’

Figure 45: exterior views of the Chace studios, displaying the harmony between the concrete slabs and the gardens

eliminating any embodiment of conventional, domestic systems.

One of the pivotal inspirations for Schindler was a trip to Yosemite with his wife. They spent an idyllic few weeks camping in the Yosemite Valley and left wanting to recreate the same exposure and connection with nature that they had experienced in the wild.46 This is where the concept of communal living stemmed from. The idea of the studios was influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin studio. This precedent housed three distinct parts: the residence, the architectural studio and the farm wing.47 However Schindler’s scheme proved to be less conventional by making all spaces ‘universal’. Wright had taught him the importance of harmony between nature and architecture.

With his ‘campfire affair’48 experience, Schindler took this one step further. With vegetation and concrete walls built up around the whole site, privacy was accomplished for the inhabitants (Figure 45). No one could see in unless they went into the house, creating seclusion similar to that of a forest. Schindler describes: “Our rooms will descend close to the ground and the garden will become an integral part of the house. The distinction between indoors and outdoors will disappear. Our house will lose its frontand-back-door aspect. It will cease being a group of dens, some larger one for social effect, and a few smaller ones (bedrooms) in 34

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

which to herd the family. Each individual will want a private room to gain a background for his life. He will sleep in the open. A work-and-playroom, together with the garden, will satisfy the group needs”.49 The two family patios both had a fireplace, suggesting again this campfire like experience. There was a great importance put on the role of the hearth in its ability to create an appealing space of gathering and a focal point for the room (Figure 48).

It was a place of cooking, comfort and conversation.

Schindler had a European view of outdoor life. Unlike bigger, wilder American landscapes, he adopted a smaller, tightly controlled urban environment (Figure 46). He was influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement of the late nineteenth century, with the romantic desire to live in the open, favour objects that were simple in form and exposing oneself to the rigours of nature.50 Schindler’s scheme satisfied the necessary requirements for a camper’s shelter, which he believed to be the only means necessary to go about everyday life; ‘protected back, an open front, a fireplace and a roof’.51 He was reluctant to use mechanical heating, as it didn’t embrace the realities of the outdoors, a retrogressive ideal in America where central heating was becoming the standard form of heating. The Southern Californian climate provided the (almost) ideal setting for this type of residence, although there was the odd cold night (Los Angeles isn’t as dry as the New Mexican desert where Taliesin is located). Despite this, the landscape and climate still allowed Schindler to create his outdoor living spaces with walls of vegetation just as easily as he could form his internal spaces with concrete, canvas and wood. The sleeping porches on the roof are covered but exposed to the open air, in keeping with his laissez faire approach to living (Figure 47). Every square-metre of the site was used for a form of spatial enclosure, whether it be external or internal.

Despite Schindler wanting to inaugurate a communal way of life, one cannot deny the fact that there were initially two couples living under the same roof. Although the arrangement of the floor plan with the four utilitarian studios makes it hard to distinguish any form of matrimonial connection or spatial sharing, there are whispers of that institutional convention that the Schindler’s resented. They wanted to draw away from the typical proceedings of the family home, even though Pauline and Marian became pregnant during construction. When you examine the ‘L’ shaped configurations of the house, one may 35

Figure 46: diagram of the landscaping of the gardens

Figure 47: detail of the ‘sleeping porches’

Figure 48: fireplace with copper hood in Pauline’s studio

36

Figure 49: Schindlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ground floor plan, 1922

Chace wing entrance

Schindler wing entrance

Figure 50: floor plan of the Schindler House highlighting the three wings of the dwelling

37

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

notice the three wings that are established; the Schindler wing, the Chace wing and the guest suite (Figure 50).

These can be seen on the annotation’s of Schindler’s floor plan with the initials of each original resident clearly appointed a studio each: RMS (R.M.Schindler), SPG (Sophie Pauline Gibling), CBC (Cylde Burgess Chace), and MDC (Marian Da Camara) (Figure 49).52 Rudolph and Pauline’s are adjacent to each other, as are Marian’s and Chace’s (Figures 51-54). Each couple shares a bathroom containing a combined tub and shower and a common hallway. What is not so evident however is the fact that they have an entrance each, including the guest suite (Figure 50). The obvious entrance is on the north side of the building where the main driveway comes in.

This is the Chace wing entrance and there is the guest entrance further down the driveway next to the garage.

The Schindler entrance is more discretely placed on the south side of the property, down a narrow path leading from the Kings Road. The couples also have their own patio that each ‘L’ encloses whilst exposing both studios to the outdoor living areas through sliding wooden framed doors.

It cannot be said whether the two couples spent most their time in each others company or mainly with their significant other, but it is known that tensions were high during and after construction between Rudolph and Pauline.53 Whilst the Schindlers were an integral part of the liberal niche of Los Angeles society, there was an underlying conflict between the two activists and their way of living was it seems, destroying their marriage.

Living continously in the company of another couple or individuals, maybe left little private time for the Schindler couple. Perhaps this approach to a new beginning in American housing does not have the ideal setting for a happily-ever-after romance. Clyde and Marian Chace left in 1924 to Florida and the Schindlers divorced in 1927.

Pauline left the house and Schindler remained at Kings Road. Unexpectedly, Pauline returned seven years later to the Schindler house staying this time in the Chace wing.

It is not disclosed why she came back; it can only be explained as part of an unorthodox arrangement between Schindler and his ex-wife. Schindler was the only person to live in the house from its construction until his death, and he never re-married. In the 1920s and early 1930s, the house became a hub for social gatherings and functions to discuss current affairs, politics, liberal arts and the progressive movements of that time. Writers, dancers,

Figure 51: R.M. Schindler’s studio

Figure 52: Pauline’s studio

Figure 53: Cylde Chace’s studio

Figure 54: Marian Chace’s studio

38

Chapter Two: THE BIGGER PICTURE

artists, journalists and other noteworthy professionals would rent out a studio for extended periods of time, creating a constantly changing atmosphere in the household. This aspect of the house is what supports the idea of a ‘community court’.54 Schindler was one of the fore-runners of the creative class in Los Angeles meaning that living with him was felt to be a privilege among believers in his ideologies.

The distinctive structure of the dwelling has been attributed to the ‘European inclination for abstraction and the American accommodation to practicality’.55 Schindler adopted innovative methods of construction for this project. The whole structure sits on a concrete slab that acts as the floor and the foundation, making it cheaper as little excavation was needed.56 All the materials were industrially manufactured and were installed in their unfinished state and in pure colour tones, embracing the organic nature of the medium. Tilted-up rectangular panels of concrete were constructed on site through wooden casings followed by poured concrete.57 This created a vertical uniformity on the external and internal walls (Figure 55). A redwood cage was erected around these panels, to be fitted with glass or Insulite panels (Figure 56).58 Each of the studios is screened-off on three sides from the garden with canvas panels that can be completely removed. The fourth side is a glass frame door that leads out onto the patio. All these wall panels are removable so that, in the summer months, the inhabitants could really embrace the warm weather and feed it through the house (Figure 55). This illustrates the unbroken interaction between the interior and exterior. ‘The house was a marriage between the solid permanent cave and the open light-weight tent’.59 This refers back to the primitive form and camping qualities of the building that Schindler wanted to achieve. His spatial and geometrical exploration expanded all the way to the edge of the plot, demonstrating that the landscape and the structure were treated equally.

Figure 56: view from the court onto Pauline’s studio, highlighting the redwood cage

Figure 55: the concrete slab walls with the slit details

39

Notes 38 Lionel March and Judith Sheine, R.M.Schindler: Composition and Construction (United Kingdom: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated, 1995), p.10 39 Smith, pp.7-44 40 Sweeney, The Schindler House 41 Smith, p.21 42 Gebhard, p.47 43 March and Sheine 44 Ibid., p.119 45 Gebhard p.48 46 James Hill, ‘Modernizing 1921: Schindler Camps Out’, James Hill Architect (Blaskan, 2012) <http://jameshillarchitect.com/ talkingbuildings/modernizing-1921-schindler-camps-out/> [accessed 11 October 2014].

48 March and Sheine, p.119 49 Gebhard p.47 50 Ibid., p. 48-49 51 Ibid., p.48 52 Smith, p.30 53 Ibid., p.26 54 March and Sheine, p119 55 Ibid.m p.119 56 Smith, p.32 57 Ibid., p.32 58 Ibid., p.32 59 Gebhard p.51

47 Smith, p.30

40

CONCLUSION

The Maison de Verre and the Schindler House were designed and built within a decade of each other, and both fall into the category of modernist architecture. Nevertheless, they represent different cultural and social ideals. It is the unique tell-tale details found in both these architectural masterpieces that reveal the subtleties in design that bring a fourth dimension to the building: human integration. The walls of a building are merely the physical framework of a space in which our actions and relationships take place, but it is the association between the architecture and the inhabitant(s) that determines the spatial order and expression.60 “In a strange way, architecture is really an unfinished thing, because even though the building is finished, it takes on a new life. It becomes part of a new dynamic: how people will occupy it, use it, think about it.”61

– Daniel Libeskind

Pierre Chareau’s Maison de Verre offers rich and particular insights into the role that the inhabiting body plays in the house.62 Although vast, the space still creates an intimacy with the user and contains numerous sub routes, further enriching the storyline. The dwelling ‘embodies an exploration in the 41

Figure 57: view through the perforated metal screen of the balustrade, from the top floor of the Maison de Verre

42

CONCLUSION

art of living that is discovered from within’.63 In contrast, the Schindler House, although evocative of the architect who designed and lived in it, is more of an expression of the radical and communal way of life that Schindler introduced to American residential architecture. His methods of ‘space architecture’64 were pushed to their limits by blurring the lines between the exterior and interior. His cooperative dwelling, through his harmonious use of universal spaces, reflected the progressive culture and theories of the intellectuals of the 1920s in Los Angeles.

Despite the fact that the Maison de Verre is like no other house in its context and was particular to its owners, Chareau embraced the bourgeois traditions by which the Dalsace family lived, whilst producing a revolutionary eccentricity to the home that displaying an appreciation of radical modern design. Meanwhile, Schindler rejected the singlefamily dwelling and the conventional conjugal features of an ordinary home and created his own method of living through a liberal, radically open plan arrangement. Schindler was attempting to trigger a new cultural beginning in residential architecture, whilst Chareau focused on fitting the house to the social behaviours of the Dalsaces.

The area in which modernism brought these two masterpieces together is their structure, use of materials, and spatial openness. While providing individual, tailored spaces, Chareau embraced Le Corbusier’s views about freeing space from confinement. Schindler took this to another extreme and adopted a universal approach to ‘open-plan’.

Modernism was about embracing new industries and materials.

This dissertation has argued that a building is able to articulate to a certain degree its purpose, the culture of its inception, and the social existence of the original or current user(s). Without this ability to read the architectonic world, one would not be able to fully justify the history of architecture. Indeed, documents and other resources that have been passed on through time, make a considerable contribution to the information that we have today on historical buildings, however a lot is left open to out interpretation of the structure itself. Robin Evans declares, ‘all things with conceptual dimensions are like language […], a great deal in architecture may be language-like without being a language’.65 If architecture is an abstract form of language, then both Chareau and Schindler had a very rich and wide vocabulary. Their names are not as frequently cited as those of Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright or Mies van de Rohe, and they had little acknowledgment of their contributions to modern architecture during their lifetimes, yet they remain outlasting precedents of early twentieth century architecture. The Maison de Verre and the Schindler House successfully express the untold stories of these distinguished socio-cultural families, thus revealing the power behind this sensitive approach to reading architecture.

43

Figure 58: Pauline’s studio, looking out onto the shared outdoor living space

Notes 60 Simon Unwin, An Architecture Notebook (United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2000), p.25 61 Daniel Libeskind quoted by Laura Dushkes, The Architect Says: A Compendium of Quotes, Witticisms, Bons Mots, Insights, and Wisdom on the Art of Building Design (United States: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012).

62 Mary Johnson and Dyani Douze, ‘You Cannot Haunt Your House at Will’, Vimeo (Association de la Maison de Verre, 2014) <http://vimeo.com/85621250> [accessed 20 November 2014].

63 Ibid 64 Sweeney, The Schindler House 65 Robin Evans, Translations from Drawings to Building and Other Essays(United Kingdom : Janet Evans and Architectural Association, 1997), p.154

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PERIODICALS NON-PERIODICALS

Frampton, Kenneth, ‘Maison de Verre’, Perspecta, 12 (1969), 77–109+111–28 <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1566961>

Ballantyne, Andrew, Architecture: A Very Short Introduction (United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2002) Cinqualbre, Olivier, Pierre Chareau La Maison de Verre, 1928 - 1933 ; Un Objet Singulier ([Paris]: J.-M. Place, 2001) ———, Pierre Chareau: Architecte, Un Art Intérieur: Ouvrage Publié À L’occasion de L’exposition ‘Pierre Chareau, 1883-1950’ Présentée Du 3 Novembre 1993 Au 17 Janvier 1994 Dans La Galerie Du Cci, Centre National D’art et de Culture Georges Pompidou (France: Centre Georges Pompidou Service Commercial, 1993) Dushkes, Laura, The Architect Says: A Compendium of Quotes, Witticisms, Bons Mots, Insights, and Wisdom on the Art of Building Design (United States: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012) Evans, Robin, Translations from Drawings to Building and Other Essays (United Kingdom : Janet Evans and Architectural Association, 1997) Ford, Edward, The Architectural Detail (United States: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011) Gebhard , David, Schindler (United Kingdom: Thames and Hudson LTD, 1971)

45

Haver man, Karl J, Staircases: Design and Construction (Switzerland: Birkhäuser, 2003) Herbst, René, and Francis Jourdain, Un Inventeur...l’Architecte Pierre Chareau, Édition du Salon des Arts Ménagers (Paris: Union des Artistes Modernes, 1954) March, Lionel, and Judith Sheine, R.M.Schindler: Composition and Construction (United Kingdom: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated, 1995) Samuel, Flora, Le Corbusier in Detail (United Kingdom: Elsevier/ Architectural Press, 2007) Sharr, Adam, Reading Architecture and Culture: Researching Buildings, Spaces and Documents (United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2012) Slessors, Catherine, Contemporary Doorways: Architectural Entrances, Transitions and Thresholds, ed. by Mark Fletcher (United Kingdom : Mitchell Beazley, 2002) Smith, Elizabeth A.T., Robert Sweeney, and Richard Guy Wilson, The Architecture of R.M. Schindler (United States: Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 2001) Smith, Kathryn, and Grant Mudford, Schindler House (United States: Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., 2010) Tissues Blanca, Oscar , Martine Dior, Adelaïde De Savray, Jérôme Coignard , and Jean Dethier, The Staircase: The Architecture of Ascent, 2nd Edition (United Kingdom : Thames & Hudson, 2013) Unwin, Simon, Analysing Architecture (United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2009) ———, An Architecture Notebook (United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2000) Vellay, Dominique, and Francois Halard, La Maison de Verre: Pierre Chareau’s Modernist Masterwork (United Kingdom: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2007) Vellay, Marc, Kenneth Frampton, and Bridget Stevens Romer, Pierre Chareau: Architecte Meublier, 1883-1950 (Paris: Rivages, 1986)

WEBSITES, E-SOURCES

Bayley, Stephen, ‘How to Liberate the Soul of Your Home’, The Guardian (The Guardian, 13 January 2008) <http://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2008/jan/13/architecture.housing> [accessed 11 September 2014] ———, ‘Paris Special: Boulevards of Unbroken Dreams’, The Guardian (The Guardian, 28 October 2007) <http://www.theguardian. com/artanddesign/2007/oct/28/architecture.paris> [accessed 11 September 2014] ‘CIAM (Congres Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne)’ (CIAM (Congres Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne)) <http://www. open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/ciam46

BIBLIOGRAPHY congres-internationaux-darchitecture-moderne> November 2014]

[accessed

2

Hill, James, ‘Modernizing 1921: Schindler Camps Out’, James Hill Architect (Blaskan, 2012) <http://jameshillarchitect.com/ talkingbuildings/modernizing-1921-schindler-camps-out/> [accessed 11 October 2014] Nuyanzina, Valerie, Carla Gruber, and Stephanie Wong, by Kevin Park, La Maison de Verre (Blogger, 2012) <http://lamaisondeverre. blogspot.co.uk> [accessed 6 August 2014] Ouroussoff, Nicolai, ‘The Best House in Paris’, Arts / Art & Design (The New York Times, 26 August 2007) <http://www.nytimes. com/2007/08/26/arts/design/26ouro.html?pagewanted=all&_ r=0> [accessed 6 August 2014] ‘Rudolph Michael Schindler’, North Carolina Modernist Houses (Triangle Modernist Archive Inc.) <http://www.ncmodernist.org/ schindler.htm> [accessed 11 October 2014] Sweeney, Robert, ‘The Schindler House’, MAK Center for Art and Architecture, Los Angeles (MAK Center 1994 - 2015) <http:// makcenter.org/sites/schindler-house/> [accessed 8 October 2014] Young, Michelle, ‘The Maison de Verre (House of Glass) in Paris’ (The Maison de Verre (House of Glass) in Paris, 2010) <http:// untappedcities.com/2010/07/28/the-maison-de-verre-house-ofglass/> [accessed 20 September 2014]

OTHER SOURCES

Johnson, Mary, and Dyani Douze, ‘You Cannot Haunt Your House at Will’, Vimeo (Association de la Maison de Verre, 2014) <http:// vimeo.com/85621250> [accessed 20 November 2014] Rogers, Sir Richard, How Sir Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano were influenced by the Maison de Verre in their design and construction of the Centre Pompidou in Paris, 2011 Thomas, Jean Paul , and André Harris, ‘A Propos de L’éducation Sexuelle’, 1968 <http://m.ina.fr/video/CPF86642916>

47

48

APPENDIX

GROUND FLOOR PLAN The Maison de Verre

*These images have already been featured in this dissertation. They are presented in the appendix to provide additional information in relation to the details and layouts of the two houses, for the reader to analyse himself.

49

FIRST FLOOR PLAN The Maison de Verre

50

APPENDIX

SECOND FLOOR PLAN The Maison de Verre

51

GROUND FLOOR PLAN The Schindler-Chace House

52

53

54

55