The technical development of industrial-component residential construction begins with Richard Neutra’s 1929 Lovell House in the Santa Barbara section of Los Angeles. The Eames House is a progression from this precedent in its intentional use of off-the-shelf building materials from commercial and industrial systems. Neutra employed industrial materials exclusively, including a steel frame of the same basic members later repeated in the Eames House. Moreover, it was Neutra who made earlier statements about the need for modern architecture to serve the needs of humankind. He also held a strong position on the relation of indoor to outdoor spaces as defining the human condition in nature. The Lovell House is often recognized as a milestone in the Los Angeles architecture scene and as a founding part of the region’s avant-garde design mystique.
If the Lovell House is the technical precedent of the Eames House, then a scheme of Mies van der Rohe is the more direct formal and stylistic one. The Eames House and Studio went through two complete design schemes. The first unbuilt version, the Bridge House, was allegedly based on a 1937 design for a glass house by Mies van der Rohe. Mies’s design was unrealized as well, and it is not clear how any of the team would have been knowledgeable about its details. Opinion holds that Charles Eames was somehow aware of it through professional channels.
As published in Arts & Architecture of December 1945 as Case Study #8, the specifics of the first scheme offered a number of features that might have made it quite satisfactory. The house was a simple rectangular volume, elongated from east to west with glass-covered truss walls making up the south and north facades. Sketches show the diagonal bracing through full-height glass. The west end wall sat on high ground at the edge of the property. The volume spanned the meadow below and was cantilevered across two slender supporting columns. A stair spiraled up from a covered parking area into the single-story living space. The studio space was separate and set among the eucalyptus against the west property line, making an L – shaped compound.
In the Mies precedent, or what became Eames’s scheme #1, there would have been a wide view of the ocean directly to the south. This also would have afforded efficient natural ventilation in the mild climate and made for easy passive solar heat gain in the long, cool seasons. Despite these advantages, there were some significant drawbacks. First, placing the house in the middle of the site was judged to be too strong a mark on the landscape. A more gentle honoring of the hilltop meadow demanded subtler massing. This problem was emphasized by the fact that view and open space were shared with the adjoining Entenza residence, Case Study House #9, and a central position for the Eames house monopolized the entire bluff. Nonetheless, the design was published and steel was ordered.
In November 1947, however, Charles Eames traveled to New York to see an exhibit of Mies van der Rohe’s work at the Museum of Modern Art. This exhibit, incidentally, included the first public display of Mies’s glass house inspiration for the truss wall Bridge House scheme. Something in the exhibit persuaded Eames to redesign the house, even though he would have to rework the kit of parts already on order. In doing so he was able to expand the enclosed area from the 2500 ft2 of the first scheme to a final 3,000 ft2 of house and studio.
The final scheme situated the house and studio some 350 ft away from the Pacific Coast Highway and 120 ft above it. Across the three acre site from the Eames House, to the east, is the one-story Entenza House, Case Study House #9. Another two adjoining acres were reserved for other Case Study Houses, including one by Richard Neutra.
Redesigning the house involved pulling it out of the center of the meadow and leaning it close into the west property line. This aligned the axis of the house with that of the studio. A 30 ft wide and 20 ft deep courtyard was captured between the two 17 ft high structures. The entire compound made a slender footprint of 20 ft by 124 ft.
Placing the building at the edge of site left an expanse of meadow open to view from the interior. Rather than bisecting the site, this placement left it whole. Views toward the ocean were still accessible from the fully glazed south elevation at a two-story living space and from the bedroom balcony above. This location also stationed the house in deep shade amidst the grove of eucalyptus trees. It did, however, transgress on the privacy of separation between the Eames House and the Entenza House.
The second site redesign problem was more pragmatic, but the steep grade from the meadow up to the trees at the edge of the site required an expensive 200 ft long concrete retaining wall. An additional $5,000 ($32,000 in 1995 dollars) was needed for the retaining wall, sacrificing any savings that were gained in redesign by the more efficient use of the steel frame. The cut behind the wall made a level area where the house could be situated just above the meadow. Soil removed from the cut did help resolve the privacy separation issue. It was used to make a berm between the two residences. Shrubs and trees were planted on top of the earth berm and liberally spread between the two houses to provide visual screening. To the west of the retaining wall the site is left wild for separation from the street. A path above the wall provides space for the everyday paraphernalia of ladders and garden tools.
The final design is constructed from a prefabricated kit of parts made to order for the project. A steel frame on 7.3 ft centers is bolted together to make the 20 ft wide shell, and steel angles are welded to it to receive steel window frames, also welded in place.
Vertical support is provided by 4 in. X 4 in. steel X 10 lb H-section columns, with the hollow areas concealed in the walls and the inside flanges factory drilled for bolting. Eighteen columns on 5 in. X 5 in. X 0.5 in. welded base plates form the long walls of the house, and 12 more line the long axis of the studio, all at 7.3 ft on center spacing. The southernmost column bay of the house is hollowed out to enclose a patio that is walled on the west and covered with an overhang. Columns are 17 ft high on the main east elevation, but to the west they rest on a continuous 8 ft high retaining wall. All columns are set into concrete and secured by 0.625 in. X 10 in. anchor bolts set in the foundation. Each of the four narrow end walls facing north or south are divided by two additional 4 in. X 4 in. columns, but these are basically window frames and do not carry floor or roof loads. Diagonal X-bracing is set between columns in a few of the opaque sections of the exterior wall, and one of these is expressed on the main east elevation.
Horizontal structure starts with a band of 12 in. steel channels with welded end tabs that are bolted to the columns at the second floor level. These channels support 14 in. prefabricated steel bar joists at 1.83 ft on center where there is a second floor, but no channels are used across the double-height spaces. Floor joists are fitted with 10.5 in. X
4.5 in. X 0.25 in. steel plate connections and secured to the channel with 0.5 in. bolts. The top and bottom of the 12 in. channel receives a welded 4 in. X 3 in. steel angle, which forms the second floor edge and makes a continuous frame for the envelope infill. The vertical face of these angles is welded flush to the outer flanges of the columns. The second floor is formed of 2×6 tongue-and-groove wood planks on a metal deck. For the roof, prefabricated 12 in. steel bar joists at 7.3 ft on center span east to west from each column and support a metal deck, 0.43 in. insulation board, and a built-up tar and gravel roof. Because the roof joists span directly from the columns, no edge beam is needed, but a 3 in. X 3 in. X 0.17 in. steel angle is welded to the top of the columns to receive the envelope infill. Roof joists were fabricated with 0.38 in. steel plate connectors and then fastened to the column flanges with 0.5 in. bolts, in the same manner in which the second floor joists are bolted to the horizontal 12 in. channel.
The exterior skin of the design is a composition of rectangles provided by steel window frames welded directly to the steel superstructure in a plane formed by the outer flange of the columns and the horizontal steel angles. Even the 12 in. edge beam is covered by a steel window frame.
By using variously subdivided window mullions, the design achieves a playful pattern of sizes and shapes across its facades. Within the frames are fitted both clear and opaque materials, and these are intentionally varied from panel to panel. Clear and wired glass is used, as well as translucent fiberglass panels. Opaque infill pieces are insulated wood panels, asbestos board, or stucco over wood. Painted color is used on the opaque panels to heighten the compositional effect. The elevations are derived from Ray Eames’s abstract cubism, Mondrian-like with large and small rectangles of bright color moving in front of the transparent and translucent frames.
The colors and transparencies also have a functional character. They modulate between the inside and outside conditions and vary according to the need for light, air, privacy, and view. Exterior color is used to designate the interior activity. There is also the suggestion that the panels can be replaced or rearranged to suit the occupant’s fancy and changing needs.
The passive performance of the skin seems to have been decided in favor of cooling season priorities. With the long axis shifted to a north-south orientation, the only south sun orientation left was the double-height wall at the end of the living space. Even so, this wall is protected by a 7.5 ft deep overhang and an equal-sized west shading fin above the retaining wall. There is little emphasis on view here, let alone beneficial solar heat gain. The surrounding shade of evergreen eucalyptus trees satisfies the cooling priority.
Mechanical heating and cooling requirements are minimal in this climate. The summer design weather conditions for sizing equipment are 78°F dry bulb and 64°F wet bulb, which is almost no requirement at all. There are about 835 degree-days cooling in the Los Angeles area where that data is taken, but only 446 annual cooling degree-days in Santa Monica, so even the mild 78/64 overstates what actually occurs at the site. Consequently, there are no cooling systems in the home or studio. Winters are also mild, but design conditions of 43°F and the 1819 annual degree-days heating on the Santa Monica beach front (considerably more than the 1419 recorded in Los Angles) dictate the need for some space heating. The studio and the residence each have a gas-fired furnace and duct system for winter comfort. These systems are readily contained within the kitchen and utility areas of the divided-height spaces and in the cavity of the second floor above the finished ceiling of the lower floor. Wood-burning fireplaces are also provided in both the residence and the studio, and these have a much greater impact on the design than do the furnaces.
Indoor-outdoor relationships are established by treating the house as seven cubes. These cubes alternate between open-height spaces and divided-height spaces. The central courtyard is an open-height space flanked on the north by a two-story studio cube divided into service spaces below and a storage mezzanine above. South of the courtyard is the divided-height cube of the house, kitchen and dining below with bedrooms above. Then there are the two outer open cubes, the double-height studio to the north end and the double-height living room on the south. Two additional outdoor rooms are captured by the retaining wall at either end of the compound, parking to the north and a patio to the south.
Interior plans are mostly open, with the ground floor of the residence being kitchen, dining, and living space and the studio consisting largely of a double-height room and an open mezzanine. Private spaces are provided by a loft bedroom, a small guest room, two baths and lots of closet space upstairs in the house and by a small bath/utility area downstairs in the studio.
Interior walls are framed into the structure by means of a 10.5 in. X 4.5 in. X 0.25 in. steel plate support bolted to the columns. Finishes are mostly gypsum board or plaster, but the roof joists and metal deck are left exposed to the interior.
Structure and envelope systems are physically meshed, and to a certain point, indistinguishable. The steel structural frame has welded elements that are more for connection to the enclosing skin than they are for support, and the steel window frames are just smaller-scale supports for the actual envelope panels. This scheme greatly simplifies construction, just as the prefabricated subsystems of columns, channels, joists, and metal deck facilitate on-site assembly.
The building foundation is also physically merged with the site. This provides a level of privacy and defends the perimeter boundary while opening vistas across the meadow. The house is unapproachable from the steep west side slope below the street.
The overall image of the Eames House and Studio is one of abstract composition with black painted structural frames supporting interchangeable envelope panels of various glass or painted surfaces. This expression is perhaps meant to be a playful arrangement, but one that harmonizes the exterior pieces and conveys something about what happens behind them. Their modular patterns suggest the possibility of personalized arrangement.
Structure also interacts with the site elements to create other visual benefits of integration. Three walled outdoor rooms are formed by the long retaining wall—at the central courtyard and at the north and south ends of the house and studio. As the wall turns back into the site on its north and south ends, it embraces a semicovered patio area outside the living room and parking for two cars at the end of the drive outside the studio. The wood paneling on the west wall of the double-height living room is extended into the patio area to visually reinforce the status of the patio as an outdoor room.
Three thousand feet is a generous space for two people, though there must have been lots of visitors and staff in the Eames Studio plus many friends to entertain in their home. Still, space utilization does not seem to have been a challenging mandate. Nor was there much to worry about in the way of climate forces that might have pushed the design response and the integration of systems and their performance. The environment is friendly and benign to the point of benevolence. This helps with luminous performance as well, because sun and shade are not sufficiently critical to prohibit large unobstructed areas of glass for view and daylight. Perhaps this is an example of envelope and site integration between the open view and the evergreen eucalyptus shade. Certainly, it helps that the house looks east rather than west.
The real need for performance integration is suggested by the idea of affordable mass production graced with good design. This called for inventive design by elegant simplicity rather than sumptuous complexity, and the Eames House meets that challenge fairly well in the selection and deployment of all its systems. The prefabricated structural system and welded envelope frames minimized expensive site labor. The decidedly low-performance envelope works well enough in the mild climate. Except for the expensive retaining wall, the site systems are mostly left to nature. Performance integrations are less spectacular in this early example of industrialized systems because there are fewer performance requirements to deal with, but the Eames House nonetheless establishes that economical mass production is suited to high-quality architectural results.
This is the perfect house for a perfect client, on a perfect site, in the perfect climate. Although the Eames House reflects many ideals of architectural design and is justifiably celebrated as the marriage of industrial design with architecture, perhaps it was just too perfect to be reproducible, and in an important sense this perfection fell short of the intent to provide the best possible vocabulary of design features to the general population.
In the end, direct and immediate applications of lessons from the Eames House and the other Case Study Houses were as inaccessible to the general postwar population and conventional construction as were the elitist mansions of Rolls Royce Avenue. What started as design propositions for the masses through mass production ended with the same magazine-cover gloss as most design – by-architects, for-other-architects, idealized showpieces. The hard issues of climate, affordable detailing, lot planning, and middle-class suburban living are mostly lost in the formal exuberance and technical inventiveness of architectural expression. It did not help that returning soldiers and their families probably felt little affinity for the California-styled good life. These were the days long before popular television programs were filmed on the beaches of Malibu.
As compared with the lessons of Wright’s Usonian houses, there are very few traces of the Case Study Houses to be found in typical residential construction today. The “Case Study House #8” tag certainly suggests a prototype design, but it seems that some combination of common practicality on the consumer industry side clashed with unrestrained idealism from the architects’ camp. Or perhaps the Case Study program was just too visionary for easy consumption, too advanced for its day.
Although the Eames House and the Case Study program had less than the desired impact on the home building industry, they certainly made significant impressions on the minds of architects. The list of participating designers, by itself, added critical legitimacy to the movement that Entenza and his cohorts inaugurated. When the last of the Case Study Houses (27 of the 34 designs were built) was being constructed in 1966, Entenza sold the magazine that had featured them. By then the program had influenced a Modernist movement and established an industrial systems motif that was taken up by a generation of architects.
Allison and Peter Smithson are England’s, and perhaps all of Europe’s, closest counterparts to Charles and Ray Eames. They were close friends with the Eameses and avid innovators of industrialized systems architecture in their own work. The Smithsons have made several mentions of their own intellectual debt to the landmark Eames House and the many endeavors of the prolific Eames office.
A number or impacts of the Eames House are clear:
• For perhaps the first time, domestic warmth and industrial construction systems were proven to be compatible. Allison and Peter Smithson described this house as the artful arrangement of everyday items so that they become “honorable objects.”
• Modernist architecture had proved that it could provide neutral backgrounds for individual lifestyles without the articles of everyday living invading and destroying purist design intent. The Eames House makes this statement through the idea of architect as “host” and the building as “shock absorber.”
• Rearrangement of personal spaces and belongings could be enhanced by interchangeable building components. Envelope panels could be unplugged and reused. Their color could be changed to signal the kind of activity that happened inside the skin.
• Establishing the merits of “functional decor” encouraged many Modernist architects to wander away from Spartan modernism into explorations of richly dimensioned space.