Session
6
Reconstructing
Modernism: Research and Documentation of Los Angeles Architectural
Masterworks
April
2, 2001
Art
Libraries Society of North America 29th Annual Conference, Los
Angeles, CA
Moderators:
Paul Glassman, Director of
the Library, New York School of Interior Design
Deborah Husted Koshinsky,
Director, Architecture & Environmental Design Library, Arizona State
University
Recorder:
Sponsors:
Supporter:
Speakers:
Michael Darling, Museum of
Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, Ass’t. Curator, The Architecture of R.M. Schindler “Documenting and Presenting the
Work of R.M. Schindler”
James M. Steele, Associate
Professor, School of Architecture, University of Southern
California “The Legacy of
Frank Lloyd Wright"
Jeffrey Chusid, AIA,
Director, Preservation Program, UT, Austin "Reading the Documents of
Southern California Modernism"
Lionel March, Professor,
Dept. of Design/Media Arts, University of California, Los Angeles "Archival
Evidence and Recent Restorations: The Case of R.M. Schindler"
Related Events:
"The Architecture of R.
M. Schindler," an exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art. California
Plaza in downtown Los Angeles, February 25-June 3, 2001.
Tours 11 and 17: Ennis-Brown
and Schindler-Chase Houses
Tour 13: Palm Springs Art
and Architecture
Introduction:
Paul Glassman introduced the
session by discussing the importance of the archive of the structural engineer
and architect Jaroslav J. Polivka and his structural design solutions for the
Guggenheim Museum (the archive is housed at SUNY Buffalo Libraries).
He also discussed changes made to Frank Lloyd Wright’s home in Oak
Park, Illinois during restoration. The
session would focus on which aspects of research and documentation help in
making preservation or restoration decisions.
In the 1970s and 1980s
scholars questioned the future of “modernism” and many modernist structures
were torn down. The temporal nature
of some construction materials has caused problems for remaining structures.
How can we as information specialists, scholars and writers provide
assistance?
Michael Darling
Curator, Museum of
Contemporary Art, Los Angeles
Mr. Darling most recently
organized the exhibition “The Architecture of R. M. Schindler” at MOCA and
contributed to its exhibit catalog.
Mr. Darling’s talk was
aimed at raising consciousness of challenges Schindler buildings face.
Many Schindler buildings have been torn down recently.
Darling emphasized the architectural importance of these structures,
especially in Los Angeles. A major
lender to the Schindler exhibition at MOCA is the Architecture and Design
Collection of the University Art Museum at the University of California at Santa
Barbara (a valuable and deep archive focusing on Southern California-based
architects including Schindler, Irving
Gill, Kem Weber, and other modernists). The
Schindler archive is very thorough, with correspondence, notes, lumber lists,
working drawings, photographs, furniture, etc.
The archive was founded in 1963 by Dr. David Gebhard (1927-1996),
architectural historian and professor in the History of Art and Architecture
Department. It is currently under
reorganization, and many new materials have become accessible.
A complete list of designers represented in the Archive is available at http://www.uam.ucsb.edu/Pages/adc_list.html.
There is considerable
documentation for Schindler’s works. A
problem in attempting conservation of his works is that he used improvisatory
plans and sketches and is known for having been on the site with nails and a
hammer, making design changes on the spot.
It is very difficult to reinterpret what he actually did, especially
compared to someone like Richard Neutra, who made very detailed drawings.
For the exhibit, Mr. Darling
and staff at MOCA wanted to make a coherent story, but found that Schindler’s
drawings and photos are sometimes hard to explain. Sometimes there weren’t good drawings available in the
archive. From a conservation
standpoint, many of the drawings are on vellum. The exhibitor’s goal was to trace Schindler’s work from
his early years in Vienna until his final days in California. (Schindler died in
1953.) Fortunately there was a
large budget for conservation. The
exhibition will eventually go on tour.
Schindler didn’t design
many public buildings. The
exhibition designers tried to break down the galleries at MOCA to reflect his
style. They used dropped ceilings,
cheap laminate, corrugated cardboard, etc.
The exhibit hints at Schindlerian concepts like roofs changing into
walls, materials coming and going and wrapping around corners.
One challenge for the
exhibit designers was the different scales of paper for the designs.
To create visual coherence they adopted a system of standardized frame
sizes with a panel on top for text. They
put preparatory sketches on a drawing-table-like surface. This brought some
order to the material. Models were placed adjacent to the drawings.
Architecture students in the area created many of the models.
The students visited archives and actual houses to create the models.
Schindler made presentation
drawings for the A.E. Rose Beach Colony in 1937. It was never built, but the archive has lots of information
about it. It had individual
cabanas, and the exhibit features a full-scale recreation of a cabana. This has been one of the most successful parts of the
exhibit. It is built of very simple
materials, mostly wood and canvas. This
demonstrates how a properly maintained archive can yield new insights into an
architect’s work.
After the exhibition closes
at MOCA, it will go to National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. then on to a
museum in Vienna.
James Steele
Associate Professor, School
of Architecture, University of Southern California
Professor Steele has
published widely, with an emphasis on Schindler. In 1999 his monograph R.M.
Schindler was published by Taschen. His
topic for this session was “The Legacy of F.L. Wright in Los Angeles.”
Steele’s work on the
Hollyhock (Aline Barnsdall) House showed him the difficulty of getting
information on Frank Lloyd Wright Los Angeles.
There is a Special Collections Archive at the Getty Research Institute
that has 23,000 photos and correspondence (10,3000 on microfiche).
However, these were eventually controlled by the Frank Lloyd Wright
Foundation at Taliesin West and made somewhat less accessible; a charge was
added for each photo to be published.
Hollyhock House was a
reinvention of Wright’s persona after the failure of his firm in
In addition to research at
the Getty, Professor Steele also worked with curator of the Hollyhock House.
The Getty had some documentation. There
is a floor plan and an elevation, but they are not easily read. The Getty also had some drawings; these were important
because the structure looks like a concrete house but in fact is wood frame with
stucco.
Wright’s Samuel Freeman
House has been another case study. Documentation
of its design is lacking. The
Northridge earthquake caused extensive damage to the structural system of the
house, already vulnerable because of its unique construction system. Acid rain
and smog have caused deterioration of the porous concrete block. Deferred
maintenance and some expedient alterations have also exacted a price.
The University of Southern
California now owns the Freeman House and is restoring it.
The process has been very frustrating because the documentation is not
thorough. USC. faculty and students
did some computer drawings of plans and elevations to assist in the restoration.
The house should be structurally stable by May 2001.
It was actually sliding down toward Highland Avenue, and the walls were
bulging to the point of failure. Engineers
also had to do a set of drawings for the work.
The restoration cost 1.5 million dollars and focused on bolting the walls
on the uphill side. Also, the
engineers installed 10 caissons to be lowered by a crane for stabilization on
the uphill side. 12 caissons were
placed on the downhill side. They
removed about 700 damaged blocks (and cataloged them).
1600 new blocks are being made--so it’s almost a rebuilding of the
house. To make things more
difficult, the site is virtually inaccessible by construction machines.
Wright’s Ennis-Brown House
on Glendower Avenue in Los Angeles faces similar structural problems.
It sustained damage in the Northridge earthquake, and needs immediate
attention. The structure also had
inherent design flaws because of steel reinforcements used inside concrete
blocks. These two materials expand
and contract at different rates in different temperatures; this has caused an
enormous problem for conservation. Approximately
$2.5 million for the conservation effort will be funded by FEMA, leaving
approximately $1 million to be raised by contributions to the Trust for
Preservation of Cultural Heritage. Restoration
will be difficult, as there are not full working drawings, and what exists is
sketchy and hard to read.
Wright’s Storer House has
been restored by Joel Silver. The
process was not 100% by the book. Since
Silver was “creative” in restoration, the structure is not as authentic as
it could be. There are some Wright
drawings for the house, but they are sketchy by contemporary standards in terms
of detailing, dimensioning, and other information necessary for authentic
restoration.
The Alice Millard House (La
Miniatura) in Pasadena went up for sale last year for 1.3 million dollars, but
it would have cost at least that much to restore it. Glass was incorporated internally into the concrete blocks by
hand. This method of construction
caused the imploding/exploding difficulties found in Wright’s other
concrete-block houses in Los Angeles.
Unfortunately, Wright’s
concrete-block designs in Los Angeles, while aesthetically interesting, turned
out not to be structurally sound in the long term.
Jeffrey Chusid
Professor Chusid is an
architect specializing in historic preservation and Director of the Historic
Preservation Program in the School of Architecture at the University of
Texas at Austin. He has worked on conservation of both the Ennis and the
Freeman Houses, and he was the first United States coordinator for DOCOMOMO, the
International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings,
Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement.
DOCOMOMO compiles registers and lists of modernist properties and
nominates them to UNESCO. Members
often wrestle with the issues discussed today.
Chusid’s talk focused on "Reading the Documents of Southern
California Modernism.”
Modernism in Los Angeles is
a tradition that goes back at least 100 years.
The historic site is the richest of all possible documents, with multiple
narratives. The artifacts of some
buildings of the modern era and the issues raised by their preservation are very
different from working with “pre-modern” structures.
What makes a building
“modern”? Form is one element.
Irving Gill worked with Wright in Chicago and then came to California.
He used cubistic, abstract forms; a lack of ornament derived from the
construction process (e.g., flat roofs). Elements
of the International Style were
often included. John Lautner (Elrod
house, Palm Springs) used abstract forms and dramatic technology; Lautner also
worked with Wright. There are many
Wright connections with other modernist architects in Los Angeles.
What else makes a structure
modern? Structural technologies,
such as shell roofs, lift slab systems (e.g., Lloyd Wright’s block houses at
Palm Springs), skin and structure, and more complex ways of assembling buildings
(stone skin over frame with joints, connections, and other forms of
technological development) are examples.
The Industrial Revolution
contributed to the rise of modern architecture. Cast-iron roof structures allow long spans and transparency
(e.g., the Crystal Cathedral). High-rise
buildings were constructed using pre-cast concrete or glass curtain walls and
metal and glass spandrels. Now,
however, the issue is raised of what to do with technological landmarks that are
not economically viable. An example
is the Fiat factory in Milan with its notable car ramps.
Modern architecture
typically has less traditional urban form:
for example, we see all four sides of a building, rather than earlier
structures with emphasis on the front. Modern
architecture also features the introduction of systems such as elevators,
movement of hot and cold water, and HVAC.
A structure such as the Salk
Institute (a laboratory) is a machine, as are houses (e.g., kitchens with
stoves, refrigerators, etc.). What
should be done when an appliance in a significant modernist home is no longer
functional? What if you can’t
find light bulbs to fit fixtures? What
should be done with structures like big grain elevators on rivers that are no
longer used? Some modernist
structures are still functional (e.g., Hoover Dam).
The Research Tower at Wright’s Johnson Wax Building is no longer
functional. It has only one
staircase and does not meet fire codes. Train
stations are also disappearing. Transportation
venues (stairs, roads, etc.) raise technological issues.
Modernist design also raises
lifestyle issues. The Morgan House
(Irving Gill, 1907) was designed with the health of the inhabitants in mind.
There are no window sills to gather dust.
All the walls have curved corners. The
structure is very clean and stripped down.
The living area is design to be both inside and outside:
nature became a benign force and accommodated the inhabitant’s life
style in the garden.
In the social context of the
growing population of Los Angeles in the 1920s, Frank Lloyd Wright was trying to
make a mark. The eclectic 1920s
architectural styles gave him lots of choices.
Wright designed the Freeman House in 1924; then he went back to Chicago
and left his son to figure out his design and make it work.
The hillside house overlooks the city.
It was meant to be a do-it-yourself kit house!
It is one of the smallest houses Wright designed, without maid’s
quarters or other service spaces, yet it has the rigorous geometries Wright was
so interested in. The plan is divided into four 28-foot squares.
The concrete block system
and glazed openings are important in the Freeman House. The visitor goes inside through a narrow dark passage with
light at the end, arrives at the hearth, the center of the home, and then moves
to a wall that overlooks the city. It
has been said that the structure has the “appearance of honesty” rather than
the “honesty of appearance.” The
corner windows form a glass curtain wall, draped two stories tall, with very
thin mullions. A thin block of oak
had to be situated at the corner to receive the joints.
Schindler, Neutra, and Lautner also worked on this house.
The windows had big gaps. Metal
was wrapped over the roof to prevent leaks that plagued the house from early on.
The light through the clerestories inside is stunning.
One can tell the time of day and time of year a photo was taken from the
quality of the light.
The Freeman House has lots
of Schindler furnishings (lamp, tea cart, and a coffee table that Wright
designed as a dining table but that Schindler cut down). Schindler created “apartments” within the house,
basically to help his clients pay the rent.
Schindler liked to do things cheaply and help his clients pay.
He put an apartment downstairs and built a small kitchenette into a
cabinet down there. This raises the
question of whether you keep the structural changes or take them away during
restoration.
Unfortunately, the Freeman
House has been deteriorating from the day it was built.
There are many telegrams back and forth describing problems and cost
overruns. Lots of problems had to
do with the blocks. They were hand-created, 75-100 per day, and 11,000 were
needed to complete the whole house. There
were 54 varieties of blocks, and a big hole in side of the structure dates from
1925.
Preservation of the Freeman
House raises some major issues facing conservators. Are the architect’s
intentions more important than technology or actual historic fabric?
In modern architecture, often materials are off-the-shelf or
experimental, and to replace them with a custom piece would be very expensive.
Replacing materials with manufactured material is cheaper, but it would
not be the original material. The
Europeans tend to think that the architect’s intentions are paramount; their
American counterparts think that the historic fabric is more important, probably
because we’re a younger nation.
Lionel March was scheduled
to speak but was not able to attend.
Questions:
1) How we can collect and preserve drawings for things that are
being built today ? Computer aided
design adds more problems to the issue. Also,
what makes something significant or historic?
Libraries and archives can try to stay in touch with firms about
collecting significant drawings. Measured,
as-built drawings assist researchers to follow through the course of a building
and understand its design and structure.
2) There was a request for more information about work on the
archive at UCSB. Materials in the
archive have been more rigorously organized than in the past, with new folders,
better boxes, and better finding aids.
3) Do State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) support
conservation of modern buildings (with funding)? Most do not do this yet.
There is so much sense of urgency to preserve older things and people
think there are so many modernist structures around that they don’t need to
attempt preservation. An example is
Albert Frey’s gas station at the bottom of the Palm Springs Tramway.
It has been saved, but only after a rancorous campaign.
The question of historical materials raises real issues.
For example, if there is a plastic skylight that’s cracked, Europeans
would probably throw it away and replace it; the U.S. Park service would save it
to show the material and how it performed over time.
Often there is a lot of political pressure, where the mayor or another
official is telling the historical commission what to do.
4) There are a great variety of sources. Which can we rely on? To
what degree can we rely on memory for things like color for achieving historical
accuracy? It’s very necessary to
have more than one source, and to go to original sources when possible.
You have to dig a lot and get as many points of information as you can.
Documented sources are better than relying on memory if you can get them.
Often if you talk to different people about the same project you get
different versions. Mies van der Rohe said “Less is more,” and this can
apply to preservation as well. Elements
of preservation are rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.
The less we change things, the less we mess them up.