Sited adjacent to the Eames House, the Case Study House #9 designed for John Entenza shared certain similarities but for the most part presented a completely different set of concerns. Indeed, the two projects have been considered to be "technological twins but architectural opposites" by a writer in a contemporary journal shortly after their completion.
The Case Study House #9 took few years from the publication in 1945 to when it was actually built, but very little changed in its blueprint. This project was one of the first houses in the program to have a steel and glass structure with concealed within plastered and wood-paneled surfaces interiors.
Oriented on over an acre of meadow that looks to the sea, it incorporates the land as a part of the living scheme, depending upon this interrelationship for an extension of its space feeling and establishing an intimate association with its natural environment. There is a direct and unobstructed view across the meadow through old trees to the Pacific.
To achieve a spacious inside to include within a fairly minimal structure, was the main goal of Eames and Saarinen. To do that they placed four steel columns in the center allowing cross bracing and continuity with most of the joist load transmitted to the outer rim of the rectangle, all carrying members inside bearing a fairly light and equal load.
The big living of the Case Study House #9 as a built-in seating and conversational area that makes easier to organize social activities as dinners or entertaining with few or many.
As the house project went through the status of idea, to draft, to model to reality it always followed a clear purpose and concept that Entenza had in mind. But beacuse of its coherent process -once finished- it was not stunningly surprising to its owner as usually happens to whom sees his work finished and real for the first time.
The coherent process of the making of the house didn't mean there were no innumerable vicissitudes and a host of the customary occurring and recurring problems. The miracle of Case Study House #9 is that these setbacks didn't result in misery. The house ended up with a strong construction without handing in the essence of the house: the overflow of natural and human created environment.
Despite the similar structures, materials and methods of Case Study Houses #8 en #9, they were very different when compared. Case Study House #8, also known as the Eames house, was horizontal structured, while the Entenza house (#9) was vertically structured. Most eye catching is the corresponding demonstration of the adaption of modular steel to fulfill different needs of the owners in case of both houses.
The outer part of the roof is whole concrete, while the interior ceiling is covered of birch wood strips. The interior of the house is connected to the exterior lanscape of the meadow and the Pacific by a wall of floor-to-ceiling-glass doors. Despite the 36-foot-long living room, the open-plan of the house had still enough space for a free standing fireplace, a dinging room, two bathrooms, two bedrooms, a kitchen and a study.
Exception to the open-plan of the house was the study which was enclosed, cave-like with no windows and there fore no distractions from the outside world. It was exactly how Entenza wanted it because it would enable him to work secluded in the further open house. Despite the house turned out exactly how Entenza wanted, he only lived there only for five years. Ever since the house went through many changes to it's original to suit the needs of new residents.
The Case Study House #9 took few years from the publication in 1945 to when it was actually built, but very little changed in its blueprint. This project was one of the first houses in the program to have a steel and glass structure with concealed within plastered and wood-paneled surfaces interiors.
Oriented on over an acre of meadow that looks to the sea, it incorporates the land as a part of the living scheme, depending upon this interrelationship for an extension of its space feeling and establishing an intimate association with its natural environment. There is a direct and unobstructed view across the meadow through old trees to the Pacific.
To achieve a spacious inside to include within a fairly minimal structure, was the main goal of Eames and Saarinen. To do that they placed four steel columns in the center allowing cross bracing and continuity with most of the joist load transmitted to the outer rim of the rectangle, all carrying members inside bearing a fairly light and equal load.
The big living of the Case Study House #9 as a built-in seating and conversational area that makes easier to organize social activities as dinners or entertaining with few or many.
As the house project went through the status of idea, to draft, to model to reality it always followed a clear purpose and concept that Entenza had in mind. But beacuse of its coherent process -once finished- it was not stunningly surprising to its owner as usually happens to whom sees his work finished and real for the first time.
The coherent process of the making of the house didn't mean there were no innumerable vicissitudes and a host of the customary occurring and recurring problems. The miracle of Case Study House #9 is that these setbacks didn't result in misery. The house ended up with a strong construction without handing in the essence of the house: the overflow of natural and human created environment.
Despite the similar structures, materials and methods of Case Study Houses #8 en #9, they were very different when compared. Case Study House #8, also known as the Eames house, was horizontal structured, while the Entenza house (#9) was vertically structured. Most eye catching is the corresponding demonstration of the adaption of modular steel to fulfill different needs of the owners in case of both houses.
The outer part of the roof is whole concrete, while the interior ceiling is covered of birch wood strips. The interior of the house is connected to the exterior lanscape of the meadow and the Pacific by a wall of floor-to-ceiling-glass doors. Despite the 36-foot-long living room, the open-plan of the house had still enough space for a free standing fireplace, a dinging room, two bathrooms, two bedrooms, a kitchen and a study.
Exception to the open-plan of the house was the study which was enclosed, cave-like with no windows and there fore no distractions from the outside world. It was exactly how Entenza wanted it because it would enable him to work secluded in the further open house. Despite the house turned out exactly how Entenza wanted, he only lived there only for five years. Ever since the house went through many changes to it's original to suit the needs of new residents.
About the Author:
If you want to see and read more about mid-century modern homes and interiors , you should check the Mid-Century Modern Design Blog now!
No comments:
Post a Comment