Schlagwort-Archive: Architects Residence

Frank O. Gehry, Residence, 1978, 1002 22nd St, Santa Monica, Los Angeles

 

As a private residence the Gehry residence in Santa Monica is not open to the public. Hence it was not accessible to our group during our stay in Los Angeles.

It is situated in a nowadays wealthy residential area in Santa Monica and surrounded by mostly smaller single-family houses. The house is assimilated into the neighborhood while standing out simultaneously. One can sense why it must have been a source of turmoil at the time it was built. It stood out because the architect covered parts of the original house dating from the 1920s with pre-fabricated materials, such as corrugated metal and chain-link fences. Today, however, it appears rather integrated into its surrounding.

The architects’ desire was to construct a home that was expressive and conspicuous whilst still being a private and cozy hideaway for his family and himself. Therefore, the house seems private and open to the public at the same time.

Gehry Residence, Main entrance from the street, CC by Viola Menzendorff

He made sure passersby could not look inside the house by inserting windows higher than eyelevel. A high wooden fence, which is slotted by square cutouts, reveals insight to the garden, while protecting the house and its inhabitants from curious looks.

Gehry wanted to influence what the viewers see of his architecture and how they see it. He wanted the outside of the house to be eye-catching and achieved this by using mostly ‘basic’ materials, such as corrugated steel, glass, plywood and a chain-link fence for its casing. The striking façade construction is additionally supported by the placement of the site at the very peak of an intersection. We experienced this effect of a salient outside while driving down the street by car. Already from far away the house is clearly noticeable.

We parked the cars at the side of the road and walk across the street to the house to find out what we could see up close.

Gehry Residence, View of the corner to the intersection with plants from the front lawn, CC by Viola Menzendorff

The walls coated with corrugated steel and the high windows make the house look uninviting and more like a fort to offer its inhabitants shelter from the people on the street.

Gehry Residence, View from the side of the house with corrugated steel casing, CC by Viola Menzendorff

The chain-link seems to keep the people from the inside away from the outside as well. The main entrance is hiding behind high growing plants in the front lawn. But those plants have not always been there. They grew higher over time but could not have shielded the house from views when Gehry bought it.

Gehry Residence, View of the main entrance hidden behind plants, CC by Viola Menzendorff

Gehry definitely reached his goal to provide shelter for the inhabitants. However, the fort-like exterior not only keeps nosey onlookers away, but also makes the viewer curious of the inside of the house. Is it really as comfortable and cozy as the 1920s house peeking out underneath the covers suggests?

We could not get a glimpse of the interior without jumping or climbing the walls, perfectly illustrating the control over what Gehry wants the viewer to see that he has achieved with this construction. We did not find any reliable information about the current ownership and use of the house. It is said that the Gehry family moved out of the house and sold it to someone else but we do not know if that is only a rumor. We could – from our location on the sidewalk – not make out if the house was being lived in at the moment, and if so by whom. Only a package next to the front door, visible from the street suggested someone was inhabiting the place. Members of our group tried to decipher the label on the package and we speculated if it was addressed to Mrs. Gehry.

 

Viola Menzendorff

Frank O. Gehry, Residence, 1978, 1002 22nd St, Santa Monica, Los Angeles

Gehry Residence,
View from the street,
CC by IK’s World Trip, via Wikimedia Commons

Frank Gehry and his wife bought their private Santa Monica residence dating from the 1920s in 1977. It was a typical middleclass home in Los Angeles at the time it was build and did not differ much from the houses surrounding it. Gehry transformed the house into their home in a way that it was perceived as a strong statement at the time of its renovation.

According to Gehry, his wife Berta found and bought the house, already knowing that her husband would transform it into something new. But Gehry decided to keep the old house as it was and to add new elements to the exterior only, to clad it in a ‘Gehry-typical‘ manner, using characteristically ‘basic‘ materials like corrugated steel, glass, plywood and a chain-link fence. His strategy to destruct and break with the old forms of construction while still keeping it alive and visible by integrating it into his design is truly innovative.

Critics generally assume that he was deliberately trying to shock and provoke not only the critics, but the surrounding neighborhood with this ‘raw’ and ‘unfinished’ exterior – which he successfully managed. There were only few critics who appraised the building. Meanwhile most others, including the neighbors, were aggravated by the exterior Gehry aimed for, that just wouldn’t fit into the rather traditional surroundings, consisting of mostly one family houses with tidy front lawns inhabited by  middleclass residents and which appears to be a calm and idyllic neighborhood.

The seemingly chaotic look of the buildings outside hides a rather cozy house, offering shelter and a private space, not in a cold avant-garde like style, but in a comfortable living atmosphere. This mirrors Gehry’s strategy of appearing to be a regular middleclass man in a regular middleclass house, while being an eccentric architect with a nonstandard home who disrupts the peace of his neighborhood, all in one.

Nevertheless, one can see some parts of the house’s interior from the street. Through the windows, people on the street can get a glimpse of the garden as well as the kitchen. The same goes for the inside: Here one cannot primarily see the surroundings of the house and gardens on street level, but rather the sky through slits in the walls or the lights of cars going by, reflecting in the glass roof over the dining room table. But this, of course, attracts views of passersby.

The architect himself states that the viewers only see what he wants them to see in his architecture. While something might be visible from one angle or position, it cannot be seen from another. Gehry’s private house is an example of this design strategy. Depending on where one is standing in the house, different areas of the surroundings are visible. The connection between inside and outside is very fluent, creating the illusion of standing outside while actually being inside the house. Gehry composes a view for the people outside without revealing too much of the private interiors.

He used his private house as a deliberate provocation and an experiment on how critics and other recipients would perceive it. The house received plenty of attention and constitutes the breakthrough of his career as an architect, and hence achieves what Gehry wanted it to.

From 1991-92 a second renovation took place during which a lot of the earlier ‘unfinished’ parts got transformed into their ‘finished’ versions, without much public attention.

Beatriz Colomina explains that the house, like its owner, is in constant flux and development, in a way that the both of them build and form each other to what they are now. Furthermore, she highlights how Gehry uses architecture and views to change and create the perception of the recipients.

 

Sources:

  • Colomina, Beatriz: “The House That Built Gehry”, in: Frank O. Gehry, Mildred Friedman and Beatriz Colomina [i.a.]: Frank Gehry, Architect, New York 2001, p.300-320.
  • Movie: Pollack, Sydney: Sketches of Frank Gehry, 2005.

 

Viola Menzendorff

Richard Neutra, VDL Research House I / II, 1932/1966, 2300 Silver Lake Blvd, Los Angeles

Located in proximity of the popular Silver Lake, the house benefits from a tranquil and nature-bound location inside the city. [1]
The VDL house is named after Richard Neutra’s Dutch benefactor, Dr. Van der Leeuw. At the same time, the building is an embodiment of the architectural perception of his architect. The architectural concept combines living with working space in one building serving as the residence and office of Austrian-born architect.

Richard and Dion Neutra VDL Research House II, 2300 Silver Lake Blvd. Silver Lake

VDL House, via Wikimedia Commons

The VDL Research House (I) was the first architecture which Neutra conceived after his return from Europe in 1931 [2]. European influences are obvious: Neutra, who had worked for the Austrian Werkbund in Vienna the same year, was strongly inspired by the Dutch industrial architecture of Brinkman & Van der Flugt. The two architects of the Rotterdam Van Nelle Fabriek had been employed by the Van der Leeuw-family [3]. Their avant-gardist concept of space permits daylight to flood into the factory building. A continuous filmstrip-like window penetrates the facade and allows the sunlight to brightly illuminate the inner space of the building.

Rotterdam van nelle fabriek

Van Nelle Fabric, via Wikimedia Commons

This parallelism is often interpreted as an honouring gesture of Neutra to C.H. Van der Leeuw who advanced a considerable sum to the architect so that he could build his house. [4] According to certain sources, Van der Leeuw was horrified after visiting Neutra’s former residence in Echo Park. So he pulled out his check-book and wrote down a sum of $3000 as an inducement to build a new, more suitable home. [5] Neutra completed the remaining sum to cover the total costs of $8000. [6] The VDL Studio and Residences (I and II) comprise in fact of three phases of construction: The first original constructing phase of 1932, a second phase of 1939 – 1944 in which a smaller construction the garden or guest house, and the rooftop ’solarium‘ were added. [7] The third (re)construction phase became necessary because of a devastating fire in 1963 which broke out in absence of Richard Neutra. The house burnt down to its foundation. Luckily the construction and soil of the ground floor was made of concrete beams with suspended floor structures which prevented the fire from burning through right into the cellar where the essential archive of Neutra’s work was located. [8]

On a lot of 18 x 21 m, the VDL Research House occupies a space of 214m² spreading over three floors. The H-shaped building consists of two parallel main buildings, a private building and a guest house. As an attachment, a narrow connecting building is placed between them which include a rarely used room and two children bedrooms. The free space between the two main buildings was used as an enclosed patio garden. The ground floor of the private tract was mostly used as an office including rooms for the secretary and employers. The first floor was where the private rooms were located. [9] The bright, former known as ‘solarium’ completes the building with a third floor. Over time it was converted into an ordinary bright room. [10]

A special feature of the building is the use of new materials, for example aluminum, rock wool, solid insulation boards, [11] cork floors, e.g.. They were sponsored and produced according to Neutra’s demands. [12] He also imitated materials: Neutra tried, for example, to evoke the effects of steel construction which was too expensive to afford. He used painted wooden frames instead of steel window frames. The wooden frames were joined continuously like a filmstrip and were fitted with steel windows to achieve the desired visual effect of the modern European steel constructions. Other remarkable features of the house were sliding steel doors saving indoor space. The functional modern European aesthetics was quite uncommon by that time in the U.S. For Neutra, it included theoretical aspects as well. He investigated the aesthetic or sensual effect of the combination and apparition of materials in building. He also meditated or the benefits of architecture for the human-being by involving nature in the planning and realization of architectural landscapes. [13]

Barbara Lamprecht describes the sensual effects of the VDL House as follows: The characteristics and the combination of the used materials, rooms painted in dark and silver tones and the low sill height affect the sensual perception with lustrous moments which evoke a unique so-called ‚honeymoon experience‘. [14]

VDL studio staircase

VDL House, via Wikimedia Commons

Neutra used illusionist elements like mirrors or glass panels to enlarge the space and play with the theoretical contrast pair of inside and outside. [15] He focused on creating an innovative and experimental kind of a residence combined with an office. The architecture should be flexible to adapt to varying circumstances like the changing constellations of the inhabiting families. [16] The interior of the building with its built-in furniture was conceived to be offer a maximum of functionality and to be easily maintained – perhaps another tribute to the Werkbund colonies. A residence which offers his inhabitants such flexibility and function-oriented comfort seems obviously familiar to the 1920’s/1930’s Werkbund and Neues Wohnen movements. Acting in a time with economic and social grievances, politicians and architects began to build small but functional and affordable residences in colonies for the middle and lower class to stop their exclusion from the social and economic system. [17] Neutras articles were also often featured in the journals “Die Form” and “Das Neue Frankfurt”. They delivered information on those modernist movements including topics of architecture and design. Neutra surely applied the modernist aesthetics not only because of his low budget, but also as a proponent of the idea of functionality and flexibility in architecturally enclosed space. [18]

Author: Begüm Inal

[1]Lamprecht, Barbara, Richard Neutra. 1892-1970. Gestaltung für ein besseres Leben, Köln 2016, p. 29

[2]Hines, Thomas S., Architecture of the Sun. Los Angeles Modernism 1900-1970, New York 2010, p. 367

[3]Hines 2010, p. 367

[4]Lamprecht 2016, p. 29

[5]Hines 2010, p. 367

[6]Lamprecht 2016, p. 29

[7]http://www.neutrahistory.org/home/what-is-this-building (10.3.2017)

[8]Lamprecht 2016, p. 30f

[9] Lamprecht 2016, p. 29f

[10]http://www.neutra-vdl.org/site/about-04.asp?31120177853 (7.3.2017)

[11]Lamprecht 2016, p. 31

[12]Hines 2010, p. 368

[13]Lamprecht 2016, p. 30f

[14]Lamprecht 2016, p. 31

[15]Lamprecht 2016, p.31

[16]Hines 2010, p. 370

[17]Landmann, Ludwig. Zum Geleit, in: Das Neue Frankfurt 1 (1926), p. 1f

[18]Hines 2010, p. 370