case study house #22

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

A Virtual Look Into Pierre Koenig's Case Study House #22, The Stahl House

• Written by Madlaina Kalunder and David Tran, Archilogic
• Published on November 30, 2015

Without a doubt, it’s among the most famous houses in Los Angeles . The house is easy to describe: a steel framed L-plan, divided into bedrooms and the communal living spaces, all wrapped around a turquoise pool seemingly impossibly poised above the city. But words don’t do it justice. Julius Shulman ’s 1960 photograph of Pierre Koenig ’s Case Study House 22, perhaps better known as Stahl House, changed the fantasies of a generation.

Shulman’s photograph of, or rather through, Stahl House made plate glass and steel girders, materials normally too industrial to be accepted by home owners, seem glamorous. It was magazine genius: a vouyeristic image of two women in a glass lined room, suspended above the lights of Los Angeles , seen from outside the glass, the ambiguous perspective of either a guest leaving late, or an intruder arriving unannounced—whatever you wanted it to be. Shulman’s notorious photo is more subtle than it first appears. The architecture is not so much shown as hinted at by the geometric underside of the roof, and the city is brought closer by the careful double exposure and the reflected image of the ceiling lamp that appears like a double moon inside and outside the house. Shulman’s genius was that he understood architectural photography first and foremost in terms of film, and not least Hollywood, the dream factory down the road. Where other photographers took static descriptive images of entire houses, Shulman made film stills, frozen moments from places you wished you lived in. When printed in John Entenza’s influential Californian magazine Arts and Architecture , Shulman’s photographs worked like an intoxicant on a generation of post-war architects.

The official agenda of Entenza’s Case Study House program was to reimagine the typical family dwelling using postwar materials and technology. They were meant to be affordable, and replicable, houses for a confident democratic society. But the irony is that almost all of the case study houses were one-offs, modernist gems that were never replicated. Instead of using the best of postwar technology, the building industry used the booming market to cover America in suburban tract housing built by a deunionised and deskilled workforce. Wooden frames proved cheaper than steel, and required less skill to manage. The Stahl House represents an alternative history, a custom built precision architecture that everyone wanted but few ended up getting.

The Stahl house itself was a classic American story, a house built as much by sheer force of will as from the application of contemporary technology. The site was believed to be too steep to build upon, so the owner, C H “Buck“ Stahl, a retired professional football player, heaped up the terraces supporting the structure more or less by hand, and made models of a curving, glass walled home over a year before finding an architect with the courage to take the commission. Pierre Koenig rationalized Stahl’s original plans, but recently rediscovered photographs of the early models suggest that this is one of those cases where the client deserves credit as a co-designer.

Paradoxically, for the most glamorous house in America, it’s all about family. From the street, there’s almost nothing visible. The house presents a blank wall. The schism between privacy and view could not be more extreme. The 3D model from Archilogic shows the strong shift in atmosphere between the photogenic public spaces and the rarely photographed bedrooms, which are clearly designed to offer a feeling of enclosure, and security, in spite of the steep drop only a short distance away.

Although on July 24, 2013, a half a century after completion, the Stahl House was listed in the National Register of Historic Places, finally affording it the recognition it deserved, there’s still a strange split between the postwar houses of figures like Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson , and the case study houses of the Eameses , or Pierre Koenig . Whereas Mies and Johnson were drawing on an architecture that went back as far as ancient Greece, and they knew it, the Eameses breezily rejected the weight of tradition. Koenig is a more ambiguous figure. He built, and he taught, for most of his life. He was fascinated by the properties of steel, and he did idealistically motivated work—notably with the Chemehuevi indians when he taught at USC—but nothing ever brought him the fame and recognition of the magazine friendly pieces from early in his career.

So how much does it cost to live in a modernist masterpiece?

Well, Buck Stahl paid the outrageous sum (for the 1950s) of $13,500 for the land, and another $37,651 for the house and pool. At the time of writing, Zillow estimates the value of the house as $2,531,800 (or between 2.23 million and 3.11 million), Trulia’s algorithms estimate its value slightly lower than average for a Hollywood property, at $2,237,000, and Realtor guesses $2,042,328. The real value of the house is almost certainly higher, much higher. A story in the Los Angeles Times (June 27, 2009) reported that Stahl’s widow, Carlotta, and their three children turned down offers as high as $15 million for the house since Buck passed away, but whatever the offer was, the family didn’t sell, so the house is effectively priceless. That’s quite a premium for great architecture.

Don't miss Archilogic's previous models shared on ArchDaily, including Pierre Koenig's other Case Study House #21 , The Eames Case Study House #8 and Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House and Barcelona Pavilion .

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

Pierre Koenig虚拟现实住宅研究22号，Stahl住宅

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

• Random Project
• Collaborate

Stahl House / Case Study House nº22

Introduction.

Did you find this article useful?

Really sorry to hear that...

Help us improve. How can we make this article better?

Search the Site

Popular pages.

• Historic Places of Los Angeles
• Important Issues
• Events Calendar

Stahl House (Case Study House #22)

Immortalized by photographer Julius Shulman, the Stahl House epitomized the ideal of modern living in postwar Los Angeles.

Place Details

• Pierre Koenig

Designation

• Locally Designated

Property Type

• Single-Family Residential
• Los Angeles

Based on a recent approval by the City of Los Angeles for a new residence at the base of the hillside and below the historic Stahl House, this action now places this Modernist icon at risk. The hillside is especially fragile as it is prone to slides and susceptible to destabilization. This condition will be exacerbated as this proposed new residence is planned to cut into the hillside and erect large retaining walls.

The proposed project received approval despite opposition and documentation submitted that substantiates the problem and potential harm to the Stahl House. An appeal has been filed and the City is reviewing this now. No date has been set yet for when this might come back to the City Planning Commission.

To demonstrate your support for the Stahl House and to ensure the appeal is granted (sending the proposed project back for review), please sign on to the  Save the Stahl House campaign .

Who hasn’t seen the iconic image of architect Pierre Koenig’s Stahl House (Case Study House #22), dramatically soaring over the Los Angeles basin? Built in 1960 as part of the Case Study House program, it is one of the best-known houses of mid-century Los Angeles.

The program was created in 1945 by John Entenza, editor of the groundbreaking magazine  Arts & Architecture . Its mission was to shape and form postwar living through replicable building techniques that used modern industrial materials. With its glass-and-steel construction, the Stahl House remains one of the most famous examples of the program’s principles and aesthetics.

Original owners Buck and Carlotta Stahl found a perfect partner in Koenig, who was the only architect to see the precarious site as an advantage rather than an impediment. The soaring effect was achieved using dramatic roof overhangs and the largest pieces of commercially available glass at the time.

The enduring fame of the Stahl House can be partly attributed to renowned architectural photographer Julius Shulman, who captured nearly a century of growth and development in Southern California but was best-known for conveying the Modern architecture and optimistic lifestyle of postwar Los Angeles. Shulman’s most iconic photo perfectly conveys the drama of the Stahl House at twilight: two women casually recline in the glowing living room as it hovers over the sparkling metropolis below.

View the National Register of Historic Places Nomination

The Conservancy does not own or operate the Stahl House. For any requests, please contact the Stahl House directly at (208) 429-1058.

Issues including Stahl House (Case Study House #22)

Case Study Houses

Related content.

St. Martha’s Episcopal Church

St. John’s in the Valley Methodist Church (Demolished)

Star Theatre (Demolished)

Filed under:

Creating the iconic Stahl House

Two dreamers, an architect, a photographer, and the making of America’s most famous house

In 1953 a mutual friend introduced Clarence Stahl, better known as Buck, to Carlotta Gates. They met at the popular Mike Lyman’s Flight Deck restaurant, off Century Boulevard, which overlooked the runways at Los Angeles International Airport. Buck was 41 and Carlotta 24. The couple married a year later and remained together for more than 50 years, until Buck’s death in 2005.

Working with Pierre Koenig, an independent young architect whose primary materials were glass, steel, and concrete, the couple created perhaps the most widely recognized house in Los Angeles, and one of the most iconic homes ever built. No one famous ever lived in it, nor was it the site of a Hollywood scandal or constructed for a wealthy owner. It was just the Stahls’ dream home. And it almost did not come true.

As a newlywed, Carlotta moved into the house Buck was renting—the lower half of a two-story wood-frame house on Hillside Avenue in the Hollywood Hills, just west of Crescent Heights Boulevard and north of Sunset Boulevard. From the house, Buck and Carlotta looked across a ridge toward a promontory that drew their attention every morning and evening. As Carlotta explained during an interview with USC history professor Philip Ethington, this is how the dream of building their own home started: simply and incidentally. Although they felt emotionally and psychically drawn to the promontory, they did not have the financial means to buy the lot, even if it were available.

For months they looked intently across the ridge. Then, in May 1954, the couple decided “Let’s go over and see our lot. We’d already claimed it even though we’d never been here,” Carlotta told Ethington, adding, “And when we came up that day George Beha [the owner of the lot] was in from La Jolla. He and Buck talked, then, I would say an hour, hour and [a] half later, they shook hands. We bought the lot and he agreed to carry the mortgage.” They settled on a price of $13,500. At the end of their meeting, Buck gave Beha $100 as payment to make the agreement binding.

There were no houses along the hillside near the site that would become the Stahl House on Woods Drive, although the land was getting graded in anticipation of development. Richard D. Larkin, a real estate developer, acquired the lots on the ridge in a tax sale from the city of Los Angeles around 1958 and arranged to subdivide and grade them. The city hauled away the dirt without charge to use the decomposed granite for runway construction at LAX. In the process, the city made the road for Woods Drive.

The Stahls’ chance meeting with Beha abruptly made their vision more of a reality, but building was still a long way away. After nearly four years of mortgage payments to Beha, Buck prepared the lot for construction. He did this without having building specs, but knowing it would be necessary to shape the difficult hillside lot. In the first of many do-it-yourself accomplishments, he built up the edges to make the lot flat and level. To create a larger buildable area he laid the edge of the foundation with broken concrete, which was readily available at no cost from construction sites and provided Buck with flexibility for his layout. He could also lift and move the pieces without heavy equipment. He constructed a concrete wall and terracing with broken pieces of concrete. But he was told by architects and others that his effort would not improve the buildability of the property.

The developer, Larkin, showed Buck how to lay out and stack the concrete, Buck recalled to Ethington. It was not a completely new concept, as photographer Julius Shulman, whose photograph of the Stahl House would later become internationally recognized, used broken concrete in the landscaping on his property. But Buck’s use was far more labor-intensive and consuming. On evenings and weekends he managed to pick up discarded concrete from construction sites around Los Angeles, asking the foremen if he could haul the debris away. He did this dozens of times before collecting enough for the concrete wall.

Buck used decomposed granite from the lot and surrounding area, instead of fresh cement, to fill in the gaps between the concrete pieces. The result was a solid form that remains intact and stable today, almost 60 years later. What had been the underlying layer for a man-made structure became the underlying layer for a new man-made structure—Buck’s layers of broken concrete added another facet to the topography of the house and the city, and this hands-on development of the lot connected the Stahls to the land and house.

As they completed their final monthly payments, Buck finished a scale model of their dream home, and the couple began to look for an architect. The central architectural feature of the model was a butterfly roof combined with flat-roofed areas. From the beginning, Buck and Carlotta envisioned a glass house without walls blocking the panoramic view.

Their frequent visits to the lot intensified their desire to build a home of their own design. Like an architect, Buck studied the composition of the land, the shape of the lot, the direction of light, and the best way to ensure the views. Perhaps most importantly, he considered the architectural style that would ideally highlight these qualities.

Carlotta told Ethington they decided to meet with three architects whose work they had seen in different publications: Craig Ellwood, Pierre Koenig, and one more whom she did not remember. She said Ellwood and the unidentified architect “came to the lot [and] said we were crazy. ‘You’ll never be able to build up here.’”

When Koenig visited the site with the Stahls, he and Buck “just clicked right away,” according to Carlotta. In the 1989 documentary The Case Study House Program, 1945-1966: An Anecdotal History & Commentary , Koenig recalled how Buck “wanted a 270-degree panorama view unobstructed by any exterior wall or sheer wall or anything at all, and I could do it.” The Stahls appreciated Koenig’s enthusiasm and willingness to work with them. They had a written agreement in November of 1957.

The massive spans of glass and the cantilevering of the structure, essential aspects of the design to Koenig, precluded traditional wood-frame house construction. To ensure the open floorplan, uninterrupted views, and the structure required to create those features, steel became inevitable. Steel would also offer greater stability than wood during an earthquake. The use of exposed glass, steel, and concrete was a functional and economic decision that defined the aesthetics of the house. In combination, these industrial materials were not then common choices in home construction, though they were materials Koenig used frequently. Exposing the material structure of the house illuminated its transparency as an indoor-outdoor living space.

Koenig kept the spirit of Buck’s model, but removed a key aspect: the butterfly roof. Koenig flattened the roof and removed the curves from Buck’s design, so the house consisted of two rectangular boxes that formed an L.

When he sited the house and drew his preliminary plans, Koenig aligned the house so that the roof and structural cantilever mirrored the grid-like arrangement of the streets below the lot. Once completed, the house visually extended into the Los Angeles cityscape. The symmetry enhanced the connection between the house and the land. In The Case Study House Program 1945-1966 documentary, Koenig says, “When you look out along the beams it carries your eye out right along the city streets, and the [horizontal] decking disappears into the vanishing point and takes your eye out and the house becomes one with the city below.”

With the design completed, the Stahls’ dream was closer to coming to life, but there were further obstacles. The unconventional design of the house and its hillside construction made it difficult to secure a traditional home loan; banks repeatedly turned down Buck because it was considered too risky. As Buck explained to Ethington, “Pierre [kept] looking [for financing] and he had his rounds of contacts.” Koenig was finally able to arrange financing for the Stahls through Broadway Federal Savings and Loan Association, an African-American-owned bank in Los Angeles.

Broadway Federal had one unusual condition for the construction loan: The Stahls were required to secure a second loan for the construction of a pool and would need another bank to finance it. They had had a yard in mind, but a pool would increase the overall cost of the home—for the bank, it added value to the property and made the loan less risky.

After more searching, Buck found a lender for the pool construction so both projects could proceed. Broadway Federal loaned the Stahls $34,000. The second lender financed the pool at a cost of approximately $3,800.

Broadway Federal’s loan is ironic and extraordinary. Although it was not a reflection of the Stahls’ own values, the area that included their lot had legally filed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions from 1948 that indicated “the property shall not, nor shall any part thereof be occupied at any time by any person not of the Caucasian race, except that servants of other than the Caucasian race may be employed and kept thereon.” It was a discriminatory restriction against African Americans, and yet an African-American-owned bank made it possible for a Caucasian couple to build their home there.

When Pierre Koenig began work on the Stahl House, he was 32 years old and had built seven of the more than 40 projects he would design in his career. The Stahl House is the best known and is considered his masterwork, although Koenig considered the Gantert House (1981) in the Hollywood Hills the most challenging house he built. The long-term influence of the Stahl House is apparent in Gantert House and many of Koenig’s other projects.

Koenig built his first house in 1950—for himself—during his third year of architecture school at USC. It was a steel, glass, and cement structure. Although the architecture program had dropped its focus on Beaux Arts studies and modernism was coming to the fore, residential use of steel was not part of Koenig’s curriculum. But when he looked at the post-and-beam architecture then considered the standard of modern architecture, he felt the wood structures looked thin and fragile, and should be made of steel instead.

Koenig later told interviewer Michael LaFetra about a conversation with his instructor: “He said ‘No, you cannot use steel as an industrial material for domestic architecture. You cannot mix them up. The housewife won’t like [steel houses].’ The more he said I couldn’t do it, the more I wanted to do it. That’s my nature. He failed me. I got absolutely no help from him.”

But wartime production methods, particularly arc welding, were a source of inspiration for Koenig’s use of steel. Electric arc welding did not require bolts or rivets and instead created a rigid connection between beams and columns. Cross-bracing was not required, which opened greater possibilities: Aesthetically, it offered a streamlined look and allowed him to design a large open framework for unobstructed glass walls. The thin lines of the steel looked incidental compared to their strength.

His first house was originally designed as a wood building, but redesigned for steel construction. He commented years later that that was not the way to do it—he learned how to design for steel by taking an entirely new approach. There was little precedent to support his efforts: Such discoveries were an education for him, and he worked to resolve issues on his own. In Esther McCoy’s book Modern California Houses: Case Study Houses, 1945-1962 , Koenig declares, “Steel is not something you can put up and take down. It is a way of life.”

From then on, Koenig continued to develop his architectural vision—both pragmatic and philosophical. Prefabricated housing was a promising development following the war, but consumers found the homes’ cookie-cutter, invariable design unappealing. Koenig’s goal was to use industrialized components in different ways to create unique, innovative buildings using the same standard parts: endless variations with the core materials of glass, steel, and cement. Koenig’s intention, as captured in James Steel’s biography Pierre Koenig , “was to be part of a mechanism that could produce billions of homes, like sausages or cars in a factory.”

“The basic problem is whether the product is well designed in the first place,” Koenig further explained in a 1957 Los Angeles Times article by architectural historian Esther McCoy. “There are too many advantages to mass production to ignore it. We must accept mass production but we must insist on well-designed products.”

Reducing the number of parts and avoiding small parts were ways to reduce costs and streamline construction. In the case of the Stahl House, the efficiencies generated by the minimal-parts approach led to an inventory of fewer than 60 building components. In 1960, in an interview for the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner , Koenig said:

“All I have done is to take what we know about industrial methods and bring it to people who would accept it. You can make anything beautiful given an unlimited amount of money. But to do it within the limits of economy is different. That’s why I never have steel fabricated especially to my design. I use only stock parts. That is the challenge—to take these common everyday parts and work them into an aesthetically pleasing concept.”

Although Koenig completed a plot plan for the Stahl House in January 1958, he did not submit blueprints to the city of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety until that July. Due to the extensive use of steel and glass in a residential plan, combined with the hillside lot and dimensions and form that the department found irregular, the city did not consider the house up to code and would not approve construction. Instead they noted, “Board Action required to build on this site because of the extremely high steep slopes on the east and south sides.”

In a move typical of Koenig’s intellect and his ability to understand all details of construction, he prepared the technical drawings so he was able to discuss details with the planners. He spent several months explaining his design and material specifications to the city. Since they had not seen many plans for the extensive use of steel in home construction, the building officials asked him, “Why steel?”

In his interview with LaFetra, Koenig explained that he thought steel would last longer than wood and knew “building departments were not used to the ideas of modern architecture.” They would frown on “doing away with hip roof, shingles, you had to have a picket fence, window shutters.”

“The Building Department thought I was crazy,” Koenig said. “I can remember one of the engineers saying, ‘Why are you going to all this trouble? All you have to do is open up the code book and put down what’s in the code book. You could have a permit tomorrow.’ I asked myself, Why am I doing this?! I was motivated by some subconscious thing.” Koenig reduced the living room cantilever by 10 feet and removed the walkway around the house in order to move the plans forward.

He finally received approval in January 1959. Carlotta remembers, “One of the officials … said [there’ll] never be another house built like this ’cause they didn’t like the big windows. That was one of the things that bothered them more than anything, and the fact that we’re cantilevered.”

The city’s lengthy approval process contrasted with Koenig’s quick construction of the house. Due to its minimalist structural design and reduced number of building components compared to traditional wood construction, framing of the house was simplified. A crew of five men completed the job in one day.

The challenges of building were known, and they primarily related to the lot. “There’s very little land situated on this eagle nest high above Sunset Boulevard,” Koenig explained in the documentary film about the Case Study House Program. “So the swimming pool and the garage went on the best part, mainly because who wants to spend a lot of money supporting swimming pools and garages? And it’s very hard to support a pool on the edge of a cliff. The house it could handle. So the house is on the precarious edge.”

With the exception of the steel-frame fireplace (chimney and flue were prefabricated and brought to the site), Koenig used only two types of standard structural steel components: 12-inch beams and 4-inch H columns. The result is a profound demonstration of Koenig’s technical and aesthetic expertise with rigid-frame construction. The elimination of load-bearing walls on this scale represented the most advanced use of technology and materials for residential architecture ever.

Koenig’s success with steel-frame construction is partially due to William Porush, the structural engineer for the Stahl House. Porush engineered more than half of Koenig’s projects, beginning with Koenig’s first house in 1950.

A native of Russia, Porush emigrated to the U.S. in 1922 and graduated with a degree in civil engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1926. After working for a number of firms in Los Angeles and later with the LA Department of Building and Safety during World War II, Porush opened his own office in 1946 and eventually designed his own post-and-beam house in Pasadena in 1956.

The scale of his projects ranged from commercial buildings using concrete tilt-up construction in downtown Los Angeles to professional offices in Glendale, light industrial engineering, and a number of schools in Southern California—including traditional wood and brick, glass, and steel schools in Riverside.

Love midcentury homes?

Compare notes with other obsessives in our private Facebook group. 

When Porush retired at 89 years old, his son Ted ran the practice for several years before retiring himself. Speaking of both his and his father’s experience working with Koenig in 2012, Ted said, “Koenig was quite devoted and always had something in mind all the time without being unreasonable or obstinate, really an artist perhaps,” and added that he and his father “welcomed Koenig’s engineering challenges—whether related to innovations, materials, or budget constraints.”

General contractor Robert J. Brady was the other key member of Koenig’s Stahl House crew. Brady gained industry experience running a construction business in Ojai, California, where he was a school teacher. This was the only time Brady and Koenig worked together, as Koenig was dissatisfied, he later wrote, with Brady’s management of the Stahl House, as indicated in a letter to Brady himself in the Pierre Koenig papers at the Getty Research Institute.

In 1957, Koenig approached Bethlehem Steel about the development of a program for architects using light-steel framing in home construction. At the time, Bethlehem Steel did not see a market or need to formalize a program. Residential use of steel, while known, was still very uncommon.

“The steel house is out of the pioneering stage, but radically new technologies are long past due,” Koenig explained in an interview with Esther McCoy. “Any large-scale experiment of this nature must be conducted by industry, for the architect cannot afford it. Once it is undertaken, the steel house will cost less than the wood house.”

By 1959, Bethlehem Steel saw how quickly the market was changing and started a Pacific Coast Steel Division in Los Angeles to work specifically with architects. The division then shared their preliminary specifications with Koenig for architecturally exposed steel and solicited his comments and opinions.

To introduce Bethlehem’s new marketing effort, they published a booklet in 1960, “The Steel-Framed House: A Bethlehem Steel Report Showing How Architects and Designers Are Making Imaginative Use of Light-Steel Framing In Houses.” Koenig’s Bailey House (CSH No. 21) and the Stahl House both appeared in the booklet. Bethlehem promoted Koenig’s architecture with Shulman photographs and accompanying text: “What could be more sensible than to make this magnificent view of Los Angeles a part of the house—to ‘paper the walls’ with it?” and “Problem Sites? Not with steel framing!” The brochure showed multiple views of the Stahl House.

For architects, having work published during this time led to recognition and often translated to future projects. Arts & Architecture magazine and its publisher John Entenza played an essential role in promoting Koenig’s architecture. Entenza conceived of the Case Study House Program in the months prior to the end of World War II, in anticipation of the demand for affordable, thoughtfully designed middle-class housing, and introduced it in the magazine’s January 1945 issue. The purpose of the program was to promote new ways of living based on advances in design, construction, building methods, and materials.

After the war, an impetus to produce new forms emerged. In architecture, that meant a move away from traditionally built homes and toward modern design. The postwar availability of industrial and previously restricted materials, especially glass, steel, and cement, offered architects freedom to pursue new ideas. In addition to materials, the modern approach in home design resulted in less formal floor plans that could offer continuity, ease of flow, multipurpose spaces, fewer interior walls, sliding glass walls and doors, entryways, and carports. Homes were generally built with a flat roof, which helped define a horizontal feel. Interior finishes were simple and unadorned, and there was no disguising of materials.

The absence of traditional details became part of the new aesthetic. Both exterior and interior structures were simplified. This all contributed to perhaps the most significant appeal of postwar architecture in Southern California: indoor-outdoor living. By physically, visually, and psychologically integrating the indoors and outdoors, it offered a new, casual way of life that more actively connected people to their environment. Combined with year-round mild weather, these new houses afforded a growing sense of independence and freedom of expression.

Arts & Architecture presented works-in-progress and completed homes throughout its pages, devoting more space in the magazine to the modern movement than other publications. Trends with finishes, built-ins, and low-cost materials spread across homes in Southern California after publication in Arts & Architecture . The magazine’s modern aesthetic extended across the country, where architects developed new solutions based on what they had seen in its pages. And since it reached dozens of countries, the international influence of California modernism through Entenza’s editorial eye was profound.

The Case Study House Program provided a point of focus. As noted by Elizabeth Smith, art historian and museum curator, all 36 of the Case Study houses were featured in the magazine, although only 24 were built. With the exception of one apartment building, they were all single-family residences completed between 1945 and 1966.

“John Entenza’s idea was that people would not really understand modern architecture unless they saw it, and they weren’t going to see it unless it was built,” Koenig said in James Steel’s monograph. “[Entenza’s] talent was to promulgate ideas that many architects had at that time.”

In conjunction with the magazine, Entenza sponsored open houses at recently completed Case Study houses, giving visitors the opportunity to experience the modern aesthetic. Contemporary design pieces such as furniture, lamps, floor coverings, and decorative objects created a context for everyday living. The open houses took on a realistic dimension that generated a range of responses: “Oh, steel, glass and cement are cold.” “This is not homey.” “Could I live here?” “How would I live here?”

The program gave architects exposure and in many cases brought them credibility and a new clientele—although it was not a wealth-generating endeavor for the architects. For manufacturers and suppliers, it was a convenient way to receive publicity since people could see their products or services in use.

The Case Study House Program did not achieve Entenza’s goal: the development of affordable housing based on the design of houses in the program. None of the houses spurred duplicates or widespread construction of like-designed homes. The motivation from the building industry to apply the program’s new approaches was short-lived and not widely adopted.

Speaking many years later, Koenig stated in Steel’s monograph that “in the end the program failed because it addressed clients and architects, rather than contractors, who do 95 percent of all housing.” Instead, the known, accepted, and traditional design, methods of construction, and materials continued to prevail. Buyers still largely preferred conventional homes—a fact reinforced by the standard type of construction taught in many architecture schools during the postwar years.

However, today the program must be considered highly successful for its impact on residential architecture, and for initiating the California Modern Movement. The program influenced architects, designers, manufacturers, homeowners, and future home buyers. As McCoy reported, “The popularity of the Case Studies exceeded all expectations. The first six houses to be opened [built between 1946 and 1949] received 368,554 visitors.” The houses in the program, and their respective architects, now characterize their architectural era, representing the height of midcentury modern residential design.

The Stahl House became Case Study House No. 22 in the most informal way. With the success of Koenig’s Bailey House (CSH No. 21), Entenza told Koenig if he had another house for the program, to let him know. Koenig told him about his next project, the Stahl House.

In April 1959, months before construction started, Entenza and the Stahls signed an exclusive agreement indicating the house would become known as Case Study House No. 22 and appear in Arts & Architecture magazine. This also meant the house would be made available for public viewings over eight consecutive weekends and Entenza had the rights to publish photographs and materials in connection with the house. Additionally, he had approval of the furnishings. (He included an option for the Stahls to buy any or all of the furnishings at a discount.)

By agreeing to make their house CSH No. 22, the Stahls were making their dream home more affordable. Equipment and material suppliers sold at cost in exchange for advertising space in the magazine. The arrangement gave Koenig the opportunity to negotiate further with vendors, since he was likely to use them in the future. Buck estimated in his interview with Ethington that it “ended up saving us conservatively $10,000 or $15,000” on the construction.

The house was featured in Arts & Architecture four times between May 1959 and May 1960, in articles documenting its progress and completion.

Arts & Architecture only ended up opening the house for public viewings on four weekends, from May 7 to May 29, 1960. The showings were well attended, and the shorter schedule meant the Stahls could move into the house sooner.

The Stahl House is a 2,200-square-foot home with two bedrooms and two bathrooms, built on an approximately 12,000-square-foot lot.

Construction began in May 1959 and was completed a year later, in May 1960. The pre-construction built estimate was $25,000, with Koenig to receive his usual 10 percent architect’s fee. His agreement with the Stahls additionally provided him 10 percent of any savings he secured on construction materials. The budget for the house was revised to $34,000, but Koenig’s fee of $2,500 did not change.

The final cost was over $15 per square foot—notably more than the average cost per square foot of $10 to $12 in Southern California at the time.

During its lifetime, the Stahl House has had very few modifications. For a short time, AstroTurf surrounded the pool area to serve as a lawn and make the area less slippery for the Stahls’ three children. There have been minor kitchen remodels with necessary updates to appliances. The kitchen cabinets, which were originally dark mahogany, were replaced with matched-grain white-oak cabinets due to fading caused by heavy exposure to sunlight. A catwalk along the outside of the living room, on the west side, was added to make it easier to wash the windows. Stones were applied to the fireplace, which was originally white-painted gypsum board with a stone base. A stone planter was also added to match the base. The pool was converted to solar heat.

These changes maintain the spirit of the house. Perhaps without effort, Koenig activated what architect William Krisel termed “defensive architecture”: building to preempt alterations and keep a structure as originally designed. Koenig's original steel design, comprehending potential earthquake risk, remains superior to traditional building materials.

The Stahl House has served as the setting for dozens of films, television shows, music videos, and commercials. Its appearances in print advertisements number in the hundreds. By Koenig’s count, the house can be seen in more than 1,200 books.

At times, the house has played a leading role. Its first commercial use was in 1962, when the Stahls made the house available for the Italian film Smog not long after they moved in.

Movies featuring the Stahl House

The First Power (1990)

The Marrying Man (1991)

Corina Corina (1994)

Playing By Heart (1998)

Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1998)

Galaxy Quest (1999)

The Thirteenth Floor (1999)

Nurse Betty (2000)

Where the Truth Lies (2005)

In Los Angeles magazine, years later, Carlotta recalled the production: “One of the days they were shooting, the view was too clear, so they got spray and smogged the windows.” The Stahls grew to accept such requests, and the result has been decades of commercial use.

Koenig explained its attraction in the New York Times : “The relationship of the house to the city below is very photogenic … the house is open and has simple lines, so it foregrounds the action. And it’s malleable. With a little color change or different furniture, you can modify its emotional content, which you can’t do in houses with a fixed mood and image.”

This versatility offers a wide range of settings, from kitsch to urbane, comedy to drama. The house has also been rendered in 3D software for various architectural studies and appears in the game The Sims 3 , perhaps the most revealing proof of its demographic reach.

In nearly all appearances, the Stahl House conveys a sense of livability that is aspirational while remaining accessible. It reflects Koenig’s skillful architectural purpose. The architect is invisible by design. Understandably, Koenig was very pleased to see the frequent and varied use of the Stahl House. However, as he said in the New York Times , “My gripe is the movies use [houses] as props but never list the architect in the credits.” He added, “Architects, of course, get no residuals from it. The Stahls paid off the original $35,000 mortgage for the house and pool in a couple of years through location rentals, and now the house is their entire income.”

Once Buck retired in 1978, renting the house for commercial use became an especially helpful way to supplement their income. Today the family offers tours and rents the house for events and media activities. They also honor Carlotta’s restriction, noted in a 2001 interview with Los Angeles magazine: “I will not allow nudity. My Case Study House is not going to be associated with that.”

“Julius Shulman called. ... He’ll be there tonight. Call him at 6 p.m. and make arrangements for tonite. By then he’d appreciate it if you would know if Stahl could put off moving in until pictures are shot.”

This ordinary call logged in Koenig’s office journal eventually led to the creation of one of the most iconic photographs of the postwar modern era.

However, delays with completing interior details almost prevented Shulman from photographing the house and meeting his publication deadline, even after he negotiated with his editor to change it several times. The potential of missing an opportunity to promote the house frustrated Koenig. “As you know we were supposed to shoot Monday [April 18, 1960],” he wrote to his general contractor, Robert Brady:

“The deadline has been changed once but it is impossible to change it again. The die is set. Mr. Van Keppel is waiting to move furniture in. Shulman comes by the job every day to see when he can shoot. Mr. Entenza is shouting for photos so he can print the next issue. The president of Bethlehem is supposed to visit the finished house this Friday [April 22]. There is to be a press conference this week-end. Not to mention Mr. Stahl. This will give you some idea of the pressure being put on.”

After Brady completed the finishing work, and months after it was originally scheduled, Shulman photographed the house over the course of a week. There was still construction material in the carport, and the master bathroom was not complete.

The color image of the two women sitting in the house with the city lights at night first appeared on the cover of the July 17, 1960, Los Angeles Examiner Pictorial Living section, a pull-out section in the Sunday edition of the newspaper. The article about the house, “Milestone on a Hilltop,” also included additional Shulman photographs.

By the time Shulman photographed the Stahl House he was an internationally recognized photographer. He was indirectly becoming a documentarian, historian, participant, witness, and promulgator of modern architecture and design in Los Angeles.

The Stahl House photograph, taken Monday, May 9, 1960, has the feel of a Saturday night, projecting enjoyment and life in a modern home. Shulman reinforces the open but private space by minimizing the separation of indoor and outdoor. The photograph achieves a visual balance through lighting that is both conventional and dramatic. As with much of Shulman’s signature work, horizontal and vertical lines and corners appear in the frame to create depth and direct the viewer’s eye, creating a dimensional perspective instead of a flat, straightforward position. The effect is a narrative that emphasizes Koenig’s architecture.

“What’s so amazing is that the house is completely ethereal,” architect Leo Marmol said in an interview with LaFetra in 2007. “It’s almost as though it’s not there. We talk about it as though it’s a photograph of an architectural expression but really, there’s very little architecture and space. It’s a view. It’s two people. It’s a relationship.”

Shulman recalled how the image came about in an interview with Taina Rikala De Noriega for the Archives of American Art:

So we worked, and it got dark and the lights came on and I think somebody had brought sandwiches. We ate in the kitchen, coffee, and we had a nice pleasant time. My assistant and I were setting up lights and taking pictures all along. I was outside looking at the view. And suddenly I perceived a composition. Here are the elements. I set up the furniture and I called the girls. I said, “Girls. Come over sit down on those chairs, the sofa in the background there.” And I planted them there, and I said, “You sit down and talk. I'm going outside and look at the view.” And I called my assistant and I said, “Hey, let's set some lights.” Because we used flash in those days. We didn't use floodlights. We set up lights, and I set up my camera and created this composition in which I assembled a statement. It was not an architectural quote-unquote “photograph.” It was a picture of a mood.

The two girls in the photograph were Ann Lightbody, a 21-year-old UCLA student, and her friend, Cynthia Murfee (now Tindle), a senior at Pasadena High School. At Shulman’s suggestion, Koenig told his assistant Jim Jennings, a USC architecture student, and his friend, fellow architecture student Don Murphy, to bring their girlfriends to the house. Shulman liked to include people in his photographs and intuitively felt the girls’ presence would offer more options. As for their white dresses, Tindle explains, “… in 1960, you didn't go out without wearing a dress. You would never have gone out wearing jeans or pants.”

In a rare explanation of the mechanics of his photography published in Los Angeles Magazine , Shulman described how he created the photograph: a double-exposure with two images captured on one negative with his Sinar 4x5 camera. He took the first image, a 7.5-minute exposure of the cityscape, while the girls sat still inside the house with the lights off. To ensure deep focus, he used a smaller lens opening (F/32) for the long exposure. After the exposure, Leland Lee, Shulman’s assistant, replaced the light bulbs in the globe-shaped ceiling lights with flash bulbs. Shulman then captured the second exposure, triggering the flash bulbs as the girls posed. The composite image belies Shulman’s technical and aesthetic achievement.

The same technique was applied when he photographed the man wearing the light-blue sport coat looking out over the city with his back to the camera. This photograph creates its own mystique around the man’s identity: perhaps a bachelor in repose, or homeowner Buck Stahl. But in fact, he was neither. The photograph was a pragmatic solution.

“We had been working all day photographing the house,” Shulman explained. “The representative from Bethlehem Steel was at the house. Bethlehem Steel provided the steel, and he was there to select certain areas they wanted to show for advertising. Pierre [Koenig] suggested we photograph the representative in the house, but the man from Bethlehem Steel could not be photographed as an employee of the company, so he stood in the doorway with his back to the camera.”

Shulman routinely staged interiors using furniture from his own home, particularly when a house was just completed or vacant. He believed realistic settings created warmth and helped viewers imagine scale. Placement of furniture could convey a clearer sense of life in a particular house and highlight the architecture. Although the Stahl House was vacant, Shulman did not bring in his own furniture. Instead, designer Hendrik Van Keppel of the firm Van Keppel-Green furnished the interiors in keeping with Koenig’s feeling that “everything in the house should be designed consistently with the same design throughout.”

Keppel-Green’s popular outdoor furniture, made with anodized metal frames and wrapped with nylon marine cord, are seen around the pool of the Stahl House. Although VKG sold “architectural pottery” in their design gallery, many of the large white planters both inside and outside the house were Koenig’s, which he brought over from his own house along with several outdoor pieces. For the interior, Van Keppel selected a different line of metal VKG pieces to parallel the thin lines of Koenig’s architecture. The furniture and other household goods made of steel and aluminum reflected the materials used in the construction.

Other pieces included a couch; a coffee table; side tables by Greta Grossman, made by Brown Saltman; and a chair, ottoman, and chaise by Stanley Young, made by Glenn of California. For the kitchen, Van Keppel arranged a set of Scandinavian pieces: Herbert Krenchel’s Krenit bowls made by Normann Copenhagen, Kobenstyle cookware by Jens Quistgaard for Dansk, and Descoware pans from Belgium.

Van Keppel placed the high-fidelity audio player in the dining area. The unit was from the A.E. Rediger Furniture Company, which also provided the kitchen appliances. The Prescolite lighting company, whose products ranged from commercial and industrial products down to desk lamps, provided the three large white-glass hanging globe lights: two inside, one outside (more than 55 years later, only the outside globe has been replaced).

The Stahls had the option to buy the furnishings, but as their daughter later said in a Los Angeles Times story about the house, “My mother always said she wished they would have left it, but my parents didn't have the money at the time.”

The popularity of Shulman’s photograph with the two girls speaks to the era’s postwar optimism and could be said to represent aspirational middle class ideals. Shulman received a variety of accolades for the photograph beginning in 1960, when he won first prize in the color category for architectural photography from the Architects Institute of America—the first time the AIA gave an award for a color photograph. As part of a traveling program arranged through the Smithsonian Institution, hundreds of people saw the photograph at nearly a dozen museums and university art galleries across the country from 1962 to 1964.

Then, as now, the photograph with the two girls is more often associated with its photographer than with the architect. “People request the photograph, or an editor or publisher writing to me or calling me says, ‘I want the picture of the two girls,’” Shulman explains. “They don’t say the Pierre Koenig house. All they ask is the picture of the two girls. That’s what creates an impact. This picture is now the most widely published architectural picture in the world since it was taken in 1960.”

That was not always the case. After the photograph first appeared as the cover for the Los Angeles Examiner Pictorial Living section, it virtually disappeared. Koenig told LaFetra: “That was the last of it until Reyner Banham was going through Julius’s file and he saw the picture of the two girls and he said ‘Oh, I like this. Can I use this?’ and Julius said, ‘Sure.’ [Banham] used it in one of his articles and it took off, it just caught on like crazy.” The photograph resurfaced in Banham’s essential 1971 book, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies .

Smog , the first Italian film produced in the United States, as noted by the New York Times , was shot entirely in Los Angeles.

The story’s central character is a formal, class-conscious, wealthy Italian lawyer played by Enrico Maria Salerno. En route to Mexico for a divorce case, he arrives at LAX for an extended layover. A representative from the airline encourages him to leave the airport and return later for his flight. He begins a 24-hour odyssey that involves meeting several Italians making new lives for themselves, having left Italy and its postwar political and economic struggles.

One of the expatriates Salerno meets in Hollywood is a woman, played by Annie Girardot, who is conflicted by her independence. The Stahl House features prominently as Girardot’s home. To varying degrees, the characters, especially Salerno and Girardot, struggle with the contradictions of modern life and tradition, resulting in feelings of alienation, hope, and despair. Emotionally, Smog is an Italian story transplanted to Los Angeles, where the characters’ psychological landscape parallels the topography of the city, incorporating the city’s air pollution as a character.

Curiously, the film credits an entirely different residence—the Geodesic Dome House designed by Bernard Judge—and that property’s owner, industrial designer Hendrik de Kanter. Neither the Stahls, their home, nor Koenig are acknowledged. Along with Judge’s appearance in a party scene, the error perpetuates the misidentification of the Stahl House in the film.

CSH No. 22 remains virtually unchanged since Smog was released. Its countless media appearances since then continue to convey the ideals and lifestyle represented by the house. Its influence is cross-generational and international: Instead of perpetuating an architectural cliche of residential living, the house is symbolic and inspirational; its identity and feeling are unmistakable. Rarely has a combination of client and architect, minimal use of materials, and uncomplicated design created such lasting dramatic impact.

Editor: Adrian Glick Kudler

How to Avert the Next Housing Crisis

The neighbors issue, can a neighborhood become a network, share this story.

Stahl House (Case Study House #22)

Pierre Koenig | Website | 1960 | Visitor Information

1635 Woods Drive , West Hollywood 90069, United States of America

The Stahl House by Pierre Koenig (also known as Case Study House #22) was part of the Case Study House Program, which produced some of the most iconic architectural projects of the 20th Century. The modern residence overlooks Los Angeles from the Hollywood Hills. It was completed in 1959 for Buck Stahl and his family. Stahl envisioned a modernist glass and steel constructed house that offered panoramic views of Los Angeles when he originally purchased the land for the house in 1954 for $13,500. When excavation began, he originally took on the duties of both architect and contractor. It was not until 1957 that Stahl hired Pierre Koenig to take over the design of the family’s residence. The two-bedroom, 2,200 square foot residence is a true testament to modernist architecture and the Case Study House Program. The program was set in place by John Entenza and sponsored by the Arts & Architecture magazine. The aim of the program was to introduce modernist principles into residential architecture, not only to advance the aesthetic but to introduce new ways of life, both stylistically and as a representation of modern lifestyle. Koenig was able to hone in on the vision of Buck Stahl and transform that vision into a modernist icon. The glass and steel construction is the most identifiable trait of the house’s architectural modernism, however, way in which Koenig organized the spatial layout of the house, taking both public and private aspects into great consideration, is also notable. As much as architectural modernism is associated with the materials and methods of construction, the juxtaposition of program and organization are important design principles that evoke utilitarian characteristics. The house is “L”-shaped, completely separating the public and private sections except for a single hallway connecting them. The adjacent swimming pool, which must be crossed to enter the house, is not only a spatial division of public and private but it serves as the interstitial space in which visitors can best experience the panoramic views. The living space of the house is behind the pool and is the only part of the house that has a solid wall, which backs up to the carport and the street. The entire house is one large viewing box, capturing amazing perspectives of the house, the landscape, and Los Angeles. Oddly enough, the Stahl house was fairly unknown and unrecognized for its advancement of modern American residential architecture until 1960 when photographer Julius Shulman captured the pure architectural essence of the house in a shot of two women sitting in the living room overlooking the bright lights of the city of Los Angeles. That photo put the Stahl House on the architectural radar as an architectural gem hidden in the Hollywood Hills. The Stahl House is still one of the most visited and admired buildings today. It has undergone many interior transformations. Today, you will not find the same iconic 1960s furniture inside, but the architecture, the view, and the experience still remain.

Tags: Classic , Los Angeles

Information provided in part by: ArchDaily

Projects in West Hollywood

Bradbury building, caltrans district 7 headquarters, eames house, emerson college, getty center, griffith observatory, la county museum of art, petersen automotive museum, samitaur tower, sheats-goldstein residence, the broad museum, walt disney concert hall, wilshire grand.

• RANDOM INSPIRATION
• HISTORICAL TIMELINE
• INFLUENTIAL ARCHITECTS
• BOOKS & RESOURCES

The Stahl House by Pierre Koenig | Case Study House #22

Perched on the Hollywood Hills with a commanding view of Los Angeles, the Stahl House, also known as Case Study House #22, is a paragon of mid-century modern architecture. Designed by Pierre Koenig and completed in 1960, this residence is an architectural masterpiece and a symbol of a particular era in Los Angeles, characterized by a burgeoning optimism and a new approach to residential design.

The Stahl House Technical Information

• Architects 1 : Pierre Koenig
• Location: 1636 Woods Drive, Los Angeles , California , United States
• Topics: Mid-Century Modern Houses
• Area: 210 m 2 | 2,300 ft 2
• Project Year: 1959-1960
• Photographs: Various, See Caption Details

If you don’t know the Stahl House, then you don’t know mid-century modern architecture. – Julius Shulman 3

The Stahl House Photographs

A Vision of Glass and Steel

The journey of the Stahl House began in 1954 when Buck Stahl purchased a lot that was considered unbuildable. His vision was clear—a home that embraced its surroundings with vast expanses of glass to capture the sprawling cityscape. In 1957, Koenig, known for his proficiency with industrial materials, was commissioned to realize this vision. The result was a structure of steel and glass that was both minimalistic and expressive.

Design and Layout

Koenig’s design was a masterclass in the use of industrial materials in residential architecture. The house is distinguished by its “L” shaped plan, separating public and private spaces through a simple yet effective layout. Large, 20-foot-wide panes of glass form the majority of the walls facing the view, offering unobstructed panoramas of Los Angeles.

The design also cleverly incorporates the landscape into the living experience. The swimming pool, positioned between the wings of the house, not only serves as a physical buffer separating the living spaces but also as a visual corridor to the city beyond.

I design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future which is essentially unknown. – Pierre Koenig 2

Iconic Status and Architectural Significance

Julius Shulman’s photography cemented the Stahl House’s iconic status. In a series of images that have become synonymous with mid-century modern architecture, Shulman captured the essence of the house. These photographs highlight the house’s integration with its surroundings and open, transparent design.

The Stahl House was included in the Case Study House program, which aimed to reimagine residential architecture post-World War II. Case Study House #22 became an influential model showcasing the possibilities of modernist aesthetics in suburban settings.

Cultural Impact and Legacy

Over the years, the Stahl House has transcended its role as a private residence to become a cultural landmark. It has been featured in numerous films, commercials, and fashion shoots, each time underscoring its timeless appeal and architectural significance.

Despite its fame, the house remains a family-owned property, preserved as the Stahls left it. The family offers tours, allowing architecture enthusiasts to experience the space and its spectacular views firsthand.

The Stahl House Plans

The Stahl House Image Gallery

About Pierre Koenig

Pierre Koenig was a pioneering American architect, born on October 17, 1925, in San Francisco. Renowned for his influential contributions to mid-century modern architecture, Koenig is best known for his work in the Case Study House program, particularly the iconic Case Study House #22, or Stahl House. His designs emphasized industrial materials like steel and glass, integrating buildings seamlessly into their environments while promoting sustainability through the use of prefabricated materials. A long-time professor at the University of Southern California, Koenig’s legacy continues to influence architectural practices and education. He passed away on April 4, 2004, leaving behind a significant impact on the landscape of Southern California architecture.

Notes & Additional Credits

• Client: Buck Stahl
• Case Study Houses by Elizabeth A. T. Smith
• Modernism Rediscovered by Julius Shulman
• Pierre Koenig: Living with Steel by Neil Jackson

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Topics Overview
• Influential Architects
• 2020’s
• 2010’s
• 2000’s
• 1990’s
• 1980’s
• 1970’s
• 1960’s
• 1950’s
• 1940’s
• 1930’s
• 1920’s
• American Architecture
• Austrian Architecture
• British Architecture
• Chinese Architecture
• Danish Architecture
• German Architecture
• Japanese Architecture
• Mexican Architecture
• Portuguese Architecture
• Spanish Architecture
• Swiss Architecture
• Auditoriums
• Cultural Centers
• Installations
• Headquarters
• Universities
• Restaurants
• Cementeries
• Monasteries
• City Planning
• Landscape Architecture
• Top Book Recommendations
• Top Drawing Tools Recommendations
• Gifts for Architects

Email address:

Timeless Architecture

• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

A Hidden History of Los Angeles's Famed Stahl House

Review: 'the stahl house: case study house #22: the making of a modernist icon,' by bruce stahl and shari stahl gronwald with kim cross.

The Stahl House: Case Study House #22: The Making of a Modernist Icon , by Bruce Stahl and Shari Stahl Gronwald with Kim Cross. Chronicle Books, 208 pages, $24.95 .

Julius Shulman’s iconic nighttime photo of Case Study House #22—with its cantilevered glass-walled living room hovering above the city lights of sprawling Los Angeles—is arguably the most famous image of residential architecture . Yet the story behind this remarkable building—how it came into being and the experience of living there—is far less known. And that’s what this book reveals. A deep and detailed account with abundant images, it’s a biography of a house and its owners—and the book’s first half, in particular, is a great read.

Shari Stahl Gronwald and Bruce Stahl, along with their late brother, grew up in Case Study House #22 and still own it. As they write in the foreword, touring visitors often ask about the family behind it. “We knew there was an untold story,” Bruce recently said, “and we set out to tell it.” In the dozen chapters that follow, Kim Cross, an Idaho-based author and journalist, weaves a narrative that portrays the family in intimate detail while placing the house within the cultural, historic, and technological-architectural contexts that made it possible. The project came at a pivotal moment and through the convergence of five key players: Buck and Carlotta Stahl, determined clients with a vision and an extraordinary piece of land; Pierre Koenig, a young architect with a background in experimental prefabricated-steel construction and a willingness to tackle a site widely deemed unbuildable; John Entenza, the inspirational editor/owner of Arts & Architecture magazine, who’d launched the Case Study Houses program in 1945; and Shulman, the photographer who portrayed the house, sparking public imagination. Completed in 1960, the project emerged from the post–World War II era, when materials and innovations previously channeled into the war effort became fodder for cutting-edge design. The Case Study program—addressing a burgeoning middle class and rising housing shortage—aspired to create affordable, easily buildable prototypes for modestly scaled yet inventive Modernist houses. (It’s ironic that many of the 20 surviving Case Study Houses have become privileged commodities.)

The Stahl kids dove from the roof into the pool. Photo courtesy Chronicle Books

Buck and Carlotta Stahl were indeed a middle-class couple of limited means. A graphic designer turned aerospace purchasing agent and a homemaker, they had, as Koenig later said, “champagne tastes and a beer budget.” Despite their artistic sensibilities, they couldn’t afford, even with discounts, the Mid-century Modern furnishings from Arts & Architecture’s shoot; and, after happily occupying the house for nearly a decade, the family had to move in with relatives to weather a severe economic downturn. But, six years later, they returned, with “the Stahl kids” resuming “ordinary childhoods in an extraordinary house.” No Case Study project was more quintessentially Modernist than the two-bedroom #22, perched on a Hollywood Hills promontory, with steep drop-offs and a 270-degree panorama.

Cross’s research for the book was clearly profound and extensive—delving into family snapshots and archives, consulting with lead architects and engineers, and logging 125-plus interview hours. Then she deftly wove together the myriad threads, including unexpected, relevant background details for each key player. The book is full of striking revelations.

For example, the only bank willing to finance this unconventionally cantilevered glass-and-steel house, on such an implausible site, was the African-American-owned Broadway Federal, where Paul R. Williams, the Black architect with Modernist leanings, served on the board. For unknown reasons, the bank required a swimming pool (not previously in the design), which became compositionally important, with the entry sequence crossing the pool patio, perceptually amplifying the house’s rectilinear transparency.

Another surprise: one of “the girls”—the two women in summer dresses, casually chatting in the living room in Shulman’s famous photo—was the fiancée of well-known San Francisco architect Jim Jennings, then an architectural apprentice, assisting with the shoot.

Cross also tells how the Stahl offspring have regularly jumped off the roof into the pool. And she reveals that the house’s original GE kitchen appliances (long gone) were pink!

Among the book’s many engaging images are stunning professional photos, family snapshots, artwork featuring the house (by David Hockney and others), and original letters, contracts, and receipts, for what now seem quaint sums.

The volume’s second half, however, is not as compelling as the first. Sections describing movie, TV, and ad shoots at the house could have been reduced, perhaps more effectively, to an amazing list accompanying the visuals (among them, a Simpsons poolside scene). Captions for all images would have been welcome. And the prose—which is generally clear and engaging—occasionally gets effusive or metaphor-heavy. But these are minor quibbles.

The house, now operated as a family business, hosts over 6,000 paid visits a year. With interior staging courtesy of Design Within Reach, the original design remains largely intact—and some modified elements, such as kitchen counters, will eventually be restored.

Through the lens of one important building, the book offers a compelling model for examining history and social change. And Bruce Stahl is right: it’s a story well worth telling.

Share This Story

Post a comment to this article

Report abusive comment.

Restricted Content

You must have JavaScript enabled to enjoy a limited number of articles over the next 30 days.

Related Articles

Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County Announces La Brea Tar Pits Renovation

Co architects livens up los angeles' natural history museum after $135-million renovation and expansion, related products.

Architecture in Wood: A World History

The latest news and information, #1 source for architectural design, news and products.

Copyright ©2024. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing

Photos: Case Study House No. 22: The story behind L.A.’s original dream home

The view looking toward the kitchen shows its floating cooking and bar islands. Expanses of glass windows enclose the house on three sides and give the L-shape pavilion a 270-degree mountain-to-ocean panorama. A prefabricated fireplace acts as a focal point for the living room. Read the full story on growing up in Case Study House No. 22. Back to L.A. at Home   (Julius Shulman Photography Archives / J. Paul Getty Trust)

• Copy Link URL Copied!

Julius Shulman’s Case Study House #22

The Greatest American Architectural Photographer of the 20th Century

Julius Shulman is often considered the greatest American architectural photographer of the 20th century. His photography shaped the image of South Californian lifestyle of midcentury America. For 70 years, he created on of the most comprehensive visual archives of modern architecture, especially focusing on the development of the Los Angeles region. The designs of some of the world’s most noted architectures including Richard Neutra, Ray Eames and Frank Lloyd Wright came to life though his photographs. To this day, it is through Shulman’s photography that we witness the beauty of modern architecture and the allure of Californian living.

Neutra and Beyond

Born in 1910 in Brooklyn, Julius Shulman grew up in a small farm in Connecticut before his family moved to Los Angeles at the age of ten. While in Los Angeles, Shulman was introduced to Boy Scouts and often went hiking in Mount Wilson. This allowed him to organically study light and shadow, and be immersed in the outdoors. While in college between UCLA and Berkeley, he was offered to photograph the newly designed Kun House by Richard Neutra. Upon photographing, Shulman sent the six images to the draftsman who then showed them to Neutra. Impressed, Richard Neutra asked Shulman to photograph his other houses and went on to introduce him to other architectures.

The Case Study Houses

Julius Shulman’s photographs revealed the true essence of the architect’s vision. He did not merely document the structures, but interpreted them in his unique way which presented the casual residential elegance of the West Coast. The buildings became studies of light and shadow set against breathtaking vistas. One of the most significant series in Shulman’s portfolio is without a doubt his documentation of the Case Study Houses. The Case Study House Program was established under the patronage of the Arts & Architectue magazine in 1945 in an effort to produce model houses for efficient and affordable living during the housing boom generated after the Second World War. Southern California was used as the location for the prototypes and the program commissioned top architects of the day to design the houses. Julius Shulman was chosen to document the designs and throughout the course of the program he photographed the majority of the 36 houses. Shulman’s photography gave new meaning to the structures, elevating them to a status of international recognition in the realm of architecture and design. His way of composition rendered the structures as inviting places for modern living, reflecting a sense of optimism of modern living.

Case Study House #22

Case Study House #22, also known as the Stahl House was one of the designs Julius Shulman photographed which later become one of the most iconic of his images. Designed by architect Pierre Koenig in 1959, the Stahl House was the residential home of American football player C.H Buck Stahl located in the Hollywood Hills. The property was initially regarded as undevelopable due to its hillside location, but became an icon of modern Californian architecture. Regarded as one of the most interesting masterpieces of contemporary architecture, Pierre Koenig preferred merging unconventional materials for its time such as steel with a simple, ethereal, indoor-outdoor feel. Julius’s dramatic image, taking in a warm evening in the May of 1960, shows two young ladies dressed in white party dresses lounging and chatting. The lights of the city shimmer in the distant horizon matching the grid of the city, while the ladies sit above the distant bustle and chaos. Pierre Koenig further explains in the documentary titled Case Study Houses 1945-1966 saying;

“When you look out along the beam it carries your eye right along the city streets, and the (horizontal) decking disappears into the vanishing point and takes your eye out and the house becomes one with the city below.”

The Los Angeles Good Life

The image presents a fantasy and is a true embodiment of the Los Angeles good life. By situating two models in the scene, Shulman creates warmth, helping the viewer to imagine scale as well as how life would be like living in this very house. In an interview with Taina Rikala De Noriega for the Archives of American Art Shulman recalls the making of the photograph;

“ So we worked, and it got dark and the lights came on and I think somebody had brought sandwiches. We ate in the kitchen, coffee, and we had a nice pleasant time. My assistant and I were setting up lights and taking pictures all along. I was outside looking at the view. And suddenly I perceived a composition. Here are the elements. I set up the furniture and I called the girls. I said, ‘Girls. Come over sit down on those chairs, the sofa in the background there.’ And I planted them there, and I said, ‘You sit down and talk. I’m going outside and look at the view.’ And I called my assistant and I said, ‘Hey, let’s set some lights.’ Because we used flash in those days. We didn’t use floodlights. We set up lights, and I set up my camera and created this composition in which I assembled a statement. It was not an architectural quote-unquote “photograph.” It was a picture of a mood.”

Purity in Line and Design to Perfection

Shulman’s preference to shoot in black and white reduces the subject to its geometrical essence allowing the viewer to observe the reflections, shadows and forms. A Shulman signature, horizontal and vertical lines appear throughout the image to create depth and dimensional perspective. A mastery in composition, the photograph catches purity in line and design to perfection.

A Lifetime of Achievements

Julius Shulman retired from active architectural work in 1989, leaving behind an incredibly rich archive chronicling the development of modern living in Southern California. A large part of his archive resides at the Getty Museum in California. For the next twenty years he participated in major museum and gallery exhibitions around the world, and created numerous books by publishers such as Taschen and Nazraeli Press. Among his honors, Shulman is the only photographer to have been granted honorary lifetime membership in the American Institute of Architects. In 1998 he was given a lifetime achievement award by ICP. Julius passed away in 2009 in his home in Los Angeles.

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the authors

The Stahl House: Case Study House ú22: The Making of a Modernist Icon (Case Study House, 22) Hardcover – November 2, 2021

• Interior decorators and designers
• Architecture fans, readers of Architectural Digest and design magazines
• Midcentury modern design enthusiasts; fans of modern Japanese, California, and Palm-Springs-style architecture
• Readers of architecture books such as Atlas of Mid-Century Modern Houses , Case Study Houses , and photography books by Annie Liebowitz
• Anyone interested in the history and culture of Los Angeles and the Hollywood Hills
• Anyone looking for a distinctive, design-conscious gift for any occasion
• Print length 208 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Chronicle Chroma
• Publication date November 2, 2021
• Dimensions 7.55 x 1 x 9.35 inches
• ISBN-10 1797209434
• ISBN-13 978-1797209432
• See all details

From the Publisher

See what it was like to grow up in one of America's most iconic homes

Editorial Reviews

“Bruce Stahl and Shari Stahl Gronwald offer an intimate biography of ‘one of the great architectural wonders of Los Angeles’: the Stahl House, designed by Pierre Koenig and completed in 1960, and the house they grew up in…. Those with an interest in the human side of design and architecture will be captivated.” ― Publishers Weekly

“Sumptuous… a startlingly intimate document, chockablock with family snapshots, that goes beyond steel decking, glass walls, concrete caissons, and the geometry of H columns and I beams. It’s a love song to a global icon that was, for the residents themselves, no museum.” ― Vanity Fair

About the Author

Product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Chronicle Chroma (November 2, 2021)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 208 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1797209434
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1797209432
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.31 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 7.55 x 1 x 9.35 inches
• #71 in House & Hotel Photography
• #608 in Residential Architecture
• #723 in Architectural History

Videos for this product

Click to play video

The Stahl House: Case Study House #22

Merchant Video

About the authors

Kim Cross is a New York Times best-selling author and journalist known for meticulously reported narrative nonfiction. Her work has been recognized in “Best of” lists by the the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review, The Sunday Longread, Longform, Apple News Audio, and Best American Sports Writing. She teaches Feature Writing for Harvard Extension School. Reach her at kimhcross.com

Shari Stahl Gronwald

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Customers say

Customers find the book nice, with beautiful architecture and a great story. They also love the photos inside the book and find the story interesting and well-written.

AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

Customers find the book nice, wonderful, and the best modern house in LA. They also mention that it was in many movies and TV shows.

"I found this book a great read . I first checked out from the library, but I bought it because it was a book I want to have around...." Read more

"...And this book tells a lot more about the Owners. A good read ." Read more

" well done book describing how this amazing house came to be. lots of photos and history. recommend!" Read more

" Best modern house in LA . It was is so many movies and TV shows. Why can’t anyone build great looking homes like this today? The photos are great also." Read more

Customers find the photos inside the book interesting.

"...the writing kept your attention and was interesting, and loved the photos inside the book . She wants to come visit it when she comes out...." Read more

"...I finished it up at 3:00am! There are many gorgeous photographs , including family photos I had never seen before...." Read more

"well done book describing how this amazing house came to be. lots of photos and history . recommend!" Read more

"Buy the book for its gorgeous photos and fascinating construction story...." Read more

Customers find the story interesting, fascinating, and informative. They also appreciate the gorgeous photos and plethora of imagery and stories.

"...She thought the writing kept your attention and was interesting , and loved the photos inside the book. She wants to come visit it when she comes out...." Read more

"...Here we have a plethora of imagery and stories I have never encountered before and will likely return to again and again over the years...." Read more

"...the children who grew up in the house and is really well written and engaging . It is not just a story of this wonderful house but of a great family." Read more

"Buy the book for its gorgeous photos and fascinating construction story ...." Read more

Customers find the writing style engaging and well-written.

"...She thought the writing kept your attention and was interesting, and loved the photos inside the book. She wants to come visit it when she comes out...." Read more

"...It was written by the children who grew up in the house and is really well written and engaging...." Read more

" Wonderful writing a lovely book ." Read more

Reviews with images

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Iconic Photos

Famous, Infamous, and Iconic Images

Case Study House No. 22, 1960

Between 1945 and 1966, Californian magazine Arts & Architecture asked major architects of the day to design model homes. The magazine was responding to the postwar building boom with prototype modern homes that could be both easily replicated and readily affordable to the average American. Among many criteria given to the architects was to use “as far as is practicable, many war-born techniques and materials best suited to the expression of man’s life in the modern world.”

Thirty-six model homes were commissioned from major architects of the day, including Richard Neutra, Raphael Soriano, Craig Ellwood, Charles and Ray Eames, Pierre Koenig, Eero Saarinen, A. Quincy Jones, and Ralph Rapson. Not all of them were built but some thirty of them were, mostly around the Greater Los Angeles area.

The magazine also engaged an architectural photographer named Julius Shulman to dutifully record this experiment in residential architecture. Fittingly for Shulman, one of the first architectural photographers to include the inhabitants of homes in the pictures, his most famous image was the 1960 view of Pierre Koenig’s Case Study House No. 22 (also the Stahl House), which showed two well-dressed women conversing casually inside.

In the photo, the cantilevered living room appears to float diaphanously above Los Angeles. “The vertiginous point of view contrasts sharply with the relaxed atmosphere of the house’s interior, testifying to the ability of the Modernist architect to transcend the limits of the natural world,” praised the New York Times . Yet this view was created as meticulously as the house itself. Wide-angle photography belied the actual smallness of the house; furniture and furnishings were staged, and as were the women. Although they were not models (but rather girlfriends of architectural students), they were asked to sit still in the dark as Shulman exposed the film seven minutes to capture lights from LA streets. Then, lights inside were quickly switched on to capture two posing women.

Case Study House No.22 as it appeared in Arts and Architecture . Shulman’s photo with inhabitants did not appear here.

See other Case Study Houses here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses

Result was the photo Sir Norman Foster termed his favorite “architectural moment”. Indeed, the photo captured excitement and promises the house held, and propelled Case Study No. 22 into the forefront of national consciousness. Some called it the most iconic building in LA. It appeared as backdrop in many movies, TV series and advertisements. Tim Allen was abducted by aliens here in Galaxy Quest ; Greg Kinnear would make it his bachelor pad in Nurse Betty , and Columbo opened its pilot episode here. Italian models in slicked-back hair would frolic poolside in Valentino ads. It was even replicated in the 2004 video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. According to Koenig, Case Study No. 22. was featured in more than 1,200 books — more often than Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

• Exhibitions and fairs
• The Art Market
• Artworks under the lens
• Famous faces
• Movements and techniques
• Partnerships
• … Collectors
• Collections
• Buy art online

Singulart Magazine > Art History > Artworks under the lens > Exploring Case Study House #22 by Julius Shulman

Exploring Case Study House #22 by Julius Shulman

This article pays tribute to Julius Shulman , the godfather of architectural photography, who passed away at 98. Shulman didn’t just document buildings; he captured modernism’s essence with precision. Case Study House #22 stands out among his designs, an architectural vision in the Hollywood Hills. Perched on cliffs, this house became Shulman’s iconic subject. Join us as we uncover the story behind this famous picture and explore Shulman’s captivating journey.

Who was Julius Shulman?

Julius Shulman, the man behind the camera was not only a photographer but an architect’s narrator. Shulman, born in 1910, did not merely photograph buildings, he documented the spirit of modernism.

FUN FACT: Julius Shulman often used unconventional methods to capture his iconic shots. In one instance, he reportedly climbed onto a neighbor’s roof to photograph a house, showcasing his determination and creativity in getting the perfect angle.

Shulman’s story started in the architectural capital of the world, Los Angeles. His lens swayed in the creations of architectural legends such as Richard Neutra, Pierre Koenig, and Charles Eames. The recognizable pictures turned into the vision of the mid-century American spirit and became the symbol of post-war optimism.

What is Happening in Case Study House #22?

Welcome to Case Study House No. 22, which could be considered Shulman’s masterpiece. This architectural masterpiece is indeed a perfect example of the fusion of aesthetics and utility as it stands gracefully on the cliff of Hollywood Hills. Designed and built in 1960, this house was one of the examples of the Case Study Houses program by John Entenza’s Arts & Architecture magazine which was an attempt at popularizing affordable and efficient living spaces.

What’s So Special About Case Study House #22?

The Case Study House number 22 is a significant example of post-war modernist architecture: the house is characterized by a narrow elongated silhouette and a focus on minimalism. Nested on the Hollywood Hills’ cliff, it has become an emblem of California dreaming and style, with its silhouette etched against the endless Los Angeles cityscape. This work of art has been captured in the timeless photograph by Julius Shulman that has put it among the most famous buildings in architectural history.

Looking at the architecture of Case Study House #22 one can say that it is an example of how art and architecture are intertwined with cultural values. Thanks to its unique design and location, it has become an example of a contemporary lifestyle, and its depiction in films and television series has turned it into a cultural reference. This architectural marvel stands as a timeless reminder of the mid-century modern movement and an explanation of why visionary design remains a powerful force to this very day.

Interesting Facts About Case Study House #22

The Perfect Frame: Shulman’s photograph of Case Study House #22 is not merely a snapshot but a carefully composed masterpiece. The interplay of light and shadow, the juxtaposition of sleek lines against the sprawling cityscape, all within the confines of a single frame, is a testament to Shulman’s mastery.

A Star-Studded Icon: Case Study House #22 didn’t just capture the essence of modern architecture; it became an icon itself. Its appearance in countless films, television shows, and advertisements cemented its status as a cultural touchstone.

Behind the Scenes: The photograph’s perfection belies the chaos behind the scenes. Shulman’s assistant, who was responsible for switching on the lights inside the house, got stuck in traffic. With moments to spare, Shulman improvised, capturing the image with the house’s natural glow, elevating it to legendary status.

Timeless Appeal: Despite being over six decades old, Shulman’s photograph continues to captivate audiences worldwide. Its timeless appeal lies in its ability to transcend the boundaries of time and space, offering viewers a glimpse into a world where architecture and art merge seamlessly.

Artwork Spotlight: Architectural Study – Interior

Shulman’s Architectural Study – Interior is available on Singulart. This artwork is a stunning piece that brings the viewer into the world of the modernist style, captured through the details and play of light and shadow and the spirit of the mid-century styles in one image.

Are you looking for a piece of artwork from Julius Shulman ?

Singulart has limited edition prints of Julius Shulman. If you are looking for a piece of Shulman‘s artwork for sale, simply click on the artwork or the button below to discover more!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is julius shulman known for.

Most people agree that Julius Shulman is the most significant architectural photographer in history. In the course of a 70-year career, Shulman not only captured the architectural designs of many of the greatest 20th-century architects, but he also turned commercial architectural photography into a beautiful art.

What techniques did Julius Shulman use?

He rendered features that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to see by using infrared film to highlight the sky against the building’s edge. To express a more dynamic space, he would place tree branches to the outside of the frame in his shots. He also used a distinct sense of art direction. 

In the world of architectural photography, Julius Shulman is a giant, his camera capturing not only structures but the essence of an epoch. And in Case Study House #22, his legacy is at its finest, a perfect example of how art transcends the barriers of time and space.

You May Also Like

Interview with Stef Fridael

Frank Stella’s Iconic Creation: Harran II

Unveiling The Stray: A Masterpiece by Margaret Keane

• à propos

Pierre Koenig

Stahl house.

The Case Study House Program produced some of the most iconic architectural projects of the 20th Century, but none more iconic than or as famous as the Stahl House, also known as Case Study House #22 by Pierre Koenig. The modern residence overlooks Los Angeles from the Hollywood Hills. It was completed in 1959 for Buck Stahl and his family.

Buck Stahl had envisioned a modernist glass and steel constructed house that offered panoramic views of Los Angles when he originally purchased the land for the house in 1954 for $13,500. Stahl had originally begun to excavate and take on the duties of architect and contractor; it was not until 1957 when Stahl hired Pierre Koenig to take over the design of the family’s residence.

The two-bedroom, 2’200 square foot residence is a true testament to modernist architecture and the Case Study House Program. The program was set in place by John Entenza and sponsored by the Arts & Architecture magazine. The aim of the program was to introduce modernist principles into residential architecture, not only to advance the aesthetic, but to introduce new ways of life both in a stylistic sense and one that represented the lifestyles of the modern age.

Pierre Koenig was able to hone in on the vision of Buck Stahl and transform that vision into a modernist icon. The glass and steel construction is understandably the most identifiable trait of architectural modernism, but it is the way in which Koenig organized the spatial layout of the house taking the public and private aspects of the house into great consideration. As much as architectural modernism is associated with the materials and methods of construction, the juxtaposition of program and organization are important design principles that evoke utilitarian characteristics.

The house is “L” shaped in that the private and public sectors are completely separated save for a single hallway that connects the two wings. Compositionally adjacent is the swimming pool that one must cross in order to get into the house; it is not only a spatial division of public and private but its serves as the interstitial space that one must pass through in order to experience the panoramic views.

The living space of the house is set back behind the pool and is the only part of the house that has a solid wall, which backs up to the carport and the street. The entire house is understood to be one large viewing box that captures amazing perspectives of the house, the landscape, and Los Angeles. Oddly enough, the Stahl house was fairly unknown and unrecognized for its advancement of modern American residential architecture, until 1960 when Julius Shulman captured the pure architectural essence of the house. It was the night shot of two women sitting in the living room overlooking the bright lights of the city of Los Angeles.

Client: Buck Stahl Drawings: Adam Caruso Chair ETH Zürich Photography: Julius Shulman

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

Trump Picks His Running Mate, and Political Heir

Former president donald j. trump chose the 39-year-old senator j.d. vance of ohio as his vice-presidential nominee..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today, on the first day of the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump makes his choice of a running mate. We watched it unfold in real time from Milwaukee.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

It’s Tuesday, July 16.

Are you OK?

I’m getting phone interference.

Oh no, maybe that’s from your phone. There’s like 16 phones in this car.

I’ll start it.

OK. It is 9:35 AM on Monday morning, and we are driving into downtown Milwaukee to the headquarters of the Republican National Convention. And it’s day 1, the opening hours of what will be the Republican Party’s crowning of their nominee, former President Donald Trump. And the singular event that hangs over this entire convention is the one that none of us expected, which is the attempted assassination of the presumptive Republican nominee.

And the news is just flying at us this morning. We just got word that he’s going to be announcing his running mate today, his choice of a VP. So this is a pretty extraordinary day already before 10:00 AM, and we’re going to try to make sense of it all.

We just went through the first round of secret service asking to see our badges. We are now stopped at a giant metal pop-up wall. And in front of us, cars are being slowly and very thoroughly inspected by bomb-sniffing dogs and security teams.

Hi. You guys are good. You just have to get screened through the checkpoint.

Perfect. OK, thank you. Thanks.

Secret Service? Should I open the trunk?

— turn the engine off and pop the hood for me, please?

Oh, the front hood? How do I do that? We’re in a rental car. Here we go.

She’s got it. Look at her.

And also, don’t run into my barricade. People keep doing that even though it says stop on it, you know? Keep your eyes open, all righty? Let’s be safe, everybody.

Great. Thank you so much.

So we’re headed into deeper security.

— take off your sunglasses. Can you back up for me real quick?

Good. Good to go. Carlos?

Good to go. And —

Good to go. Thank you.

There wasn’t a single package inside that bag that they didn’t search. Hi.

Check in over here. Thank you guys for coming.

Hi, I can take whoever’s next.

Once we made it through all that security, we walked into the first official event of the day, a briefing for reporters from the Trump campaign about what this first day of the convention would look like.

So we’re inside a very big ballroom that has a podium and two flags set up next to it. Wisconsin, United States, there’s about 200 journalists in here, filling a quarter of the room and a lot of red-shirted RNC staffers and volunteers who are kind of corralling us. And we’re going to wait and see what they have to say.

But just as this briefing was about to begin, we were told that it was for planning purposes only and that we couldn’t use any of the audio from it.

I just want to summarize what we heard in this news conference. Essentially, what senior advisors to the Trump campaign just told us is that this day is going to be very action-packed. It is going to begin in the early afternoon with the official technical nomination by delegates of Trump as the Republican nominee. And then in the early afternoon, around 3 o’clock or so, the nomination of a vice presidential candidate will occur.

What that means is that sometime between now, 10:30 AM or so, and 3:00 PM, we will know the identity of who Trump’s running mate will be. And finally, we are going to lay eyes on Donald Trump himself at around 9:00 PM in the evening. And the crowd is going to go wild because it’s the first time many of them, many of us will have seen him since the assassination attempt. So it’s a really packed schedule filled with a giant piece of news in the middle, which is who Trump picked as his running mate.

Mike Bender.

To get inside Trump’s decision making, we turn to our colleague Mike Bender, a politics reporter at “The Times,” who’s been on the VP beat for the past few months.

OK, we just want to bug you for a minute about what is the status of the VP choice. Last time we talked to you, you told us that there were three top contenders — Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Ohio Senator JD Vance. So where do things sit here at 11:00 at noon on Monday?

Just hours before he’s actually supposed to make the announcement and nominate the running mate? I mean, I literally ran into a couple of sources who are with other VP contenders who are telling me that they haven’t received word one way or the other yet. I don’t think he’s told the person yet. I mean, we’re three hours from a nomination. I seriously do not think that Trump has actually made the formal offer yet.

We have to go — I think we have to just, like, explain that to people. We’re three hours from the necessary public disclosure of this information, and it’s not clear the decision’s been made.

Yeah, no, it’s amazing. I mean, Trump is known to vacillate over big decisions. He did almost the same thing back in 2016 when he picked Mike Pence. He decided to pick Mike Pence and then spent the night before their first news conference together, complaining to aides that he had made the wrong choice, wondering if he could pick someone differently. My reporting over the last week has been that he’s been going through similar iterations on this decision.

So we’re going to lightly stalk you until we get the news. And hopefully, when we get the news, you can break it to us. Or it will be broken over our heads, and then we’ll talk about it. And we’ll make sense of it.

Yeah, definitely. I am also hoping to be the first to know. And if I’m the first to know, you guys will be the second to know.

OK thank you, Michael.

Yeah. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Just as we finished talking to Mike, he made a phone call.

Hey. You don’t think — why don’t you think it’s Marco? He called? Like, just now? OK, I just saw some folks outside for another contender who haven’t heard anything yet. So I mean, and that was 30 minutes ago. So I’m wondering if it’s happening now. No, I didn’t see that. OK. OK. OK. Thanks, bye.

So can you just tell us about that phone call you had?

Yeah, yeah, definitely. This was someone who is very close with one of the VP contenders, one of the final three. This contender just received a call from Trump’s team saying he’s not the pick.

Soon enough, Mike confirmed that Marco Rubio had been crossed off the VP list, and that Rubio wasn’t the only VP contender to receive that call.

So it’s 1:30 PM, and this is a little orthodox, but I’m peeking over the shoulder of my colleague Mike Bender. And I can see that he’s writing the following. Both Doug Burgum and Marco Rubio have been told that they are not Trump’s VP choice. So in real time, assuming that this is right, we’re left thinking that the choice is either JD Vance or some wildcard person who we haven’t even thought of.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to begin a very important part of our program. I would like to ask that the aisles be cleared and the delegates please take their seats. Thank you.

In the meantime, the official business of this convention began. The nomination of Trump as the Republican nominee.

Michael, tell me what’s happening.

OK. So at this point, 2:00 PM, the roll call of delegates is underway on the floor of the Convention Hall.

West Virginia, 32 delegates.

So what’s happening right now is that the delegates from each state are publicly pledging their support to Donald Trump. And the delegates from each state represent the outcome of the primary vote that happened many, many months ago. So like right now, West Virginia’s designated speaker with a red hard hat on, is saying, from the great state of West Virginia —

And to cast those 32 votes for our former and future president, Donald J. Trump!

— we are pledging our 32 delegates to Donald Trump, and on and on and on it will go. And so this is a formality, adding up all the delegates from all the states. But it’s actually a technically required component of Donald Trump becoming and accepting his party’s nomination. And Trump will become the official nominee when 1,215 delegates in this room have pledged their support to him, which will probably be in about 30 minutes.

I stand before you today on behalf of the great state of New Hampshire.

And after Trump is nominated, this entire exercise happens all over again for his running mate whose identity we still don’t know. So that’s where a lot of the suspense of this moment is, not in the obvious fact that Donald Trump is about to be nominated, but that everyone in this room is about to nominate a running mate that they don’t know the identity of, that we don’t know the identity of. And we have to know the identity of it before it happens.

And all of a sudden, after not knowing how or when we would learn Trump’s choice, we finally do. And it’s delivered in classic Trump fashion.

So I’ve just seen on Truth Social that Trump has announced his VP pick, and it is JD Vance of Ohio.

OK. “Daily” editor Rachel Quester breaking the news that it’s Vance, which we kind of thought it would be, but now we know.

After the break, Vance’s nomination and why Trump picked him.

We’ll be right back.

OK, so we’re walking to the Convention Hall. It’s a bit of a trek. It’s very hot outside and blazingly bright. And we are now entering the media doorway.

Hi. How are you? Thank you.

Where are you all trying to get?

To the floor.

To the floor? To the floor?

OK. Just right out there and then somebody on the direction.

Around 3:30 or so, we walked out onto the convention floor just as Vance was being nominated as Trump’s running mate.

USA! USA! USA!

All right, time for a little convention business here. The question is on the motion that Senator JD Vance be nominated by acclamation —

This room is about to complete the nomination of Vance as VP.

All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the “ayes” have it, and the motion is adopted. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

And just to give you a little bit of a sense of the feel of the room, JD Vance is smiling really widely. He’s leaning back. He’s laughing. Crowd is chanting JD, JD. And he seems a little in awe of the moment.

I am proud to announce that Senator JD Vance has the overwhelming support of this convention to be the next vice president of the United states.

And that’s that. JD Vance, the vice presidential nominee. We got to get out of here.

The chair is pleased —

When that was over, we headed back to where Mike Bender was working to talk to him about Trump’s choice.

So welcome to “The Daily” studio here in Milwaukee.

Can you close this door?

You can shut that, yeah. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Mike, you’re ready?

So if you believe that Donald Trump made this decision, as we think he did kind of the last minute, even if he’d been thinking about it for a long time, what’s your understanding of why he chose JD Vance?

I think Trump is making this pick on who he thinks gives him the best chance to win in November. He announced this decision in a Truth Social post and mentioned a couple of key states in that statement, essentially saying that he thinks Vance can help him win in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, Wisconsin. These are essential states for victory in November, both for Trump and President Biden. Trump won them in 2016 but lost to Biden in those same states in 2020.

Hm! He’s very openly saying, I have made a strategic choice. What’s interesting about that, Mike, is that in our conversation a couple of weeks ago when we talked about who Trump was looking at closely, you had said that he wasn’t thinking about these traditional questions of, Does my VP win me X state, Y state? You know, he was engaging in questions of personal rapport. And he got along really well with Doug Burgum.

So clearly, the strategic question became front of mind for Trump. And I just want to understand, Was there something in the race that changed that made him suddenly think about this or what?

Well, well, well, look at “The Daily” fact-checking its reporters here on air. Well, you’re not wrong either, Michael. There has been a shift in the last few weeks with Trump. He’s gone from talking about finding a running mate who could help him govern, to finding a running mate who can help him govern and someone who can help him win.

And when he ran the analysis here, when he looked at the different set of candidates he has, his ultimate decision was that JD Vance is the one who can do that. Vance will take him deeper into the states where he needs to win in the Midwest and appeal directly to the working-class, blue-collar voters he needs to capture these battlegrounds.

Explain exactly why he thinks JD Vance helps him win those three or so key states? What is it about Vance’s story that maps on to that strategy?

The answer is both biographical and rooted in policy. Vance is a child of Appalachia. He grew up in a poor, working-class neighborhood in Ohio. He served in the military. And when he decided to run for his first elected office in 2022, he was very far right on a lot of issues. He is one of the most staunch anti-abortion voices in the Senate right now. He’s an economic populist, the sort of anti-trade isolationist.

He was one of the first voices urging the Senate to vote against aid for Ukraine at a time where his party leaders were supporting that. So for Trump, when it comes to selling the idea of Trumpism and MAGA-ism, JD Vance is a very effective communicator for him, particularly in a crucial area of the country, that if Trump wins some of these Midwestern states could mean the end of Biden as president.

Got it. So we should see this decision as Trump picking someone who is ideologically extremely aligned with him, perhaps even a little further to the right than Trump, an issue like abortion, and from and of the place in the country that Trump needs to win, the Midwest, Appalachia. And that combination means, for Trump, Vance.

Yeah, exactly. I think it’s also helpful to put this in the context of the other contenders.

Vance is not bringing a new piece of the puzzle to Trumpism. Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida, would have been a Spanish-speaking advocate who may appeal more to Latinos. Governor Doug Burgum, from North Dakota, could have helped settle down that pro-business Republicans who are nervous about Trump’s unpredictability. Trump is sort of signaling here that he’s not interested in adding to the party. He doesn’t want to make the tent bigger. He’s doubling down on this sort of white working-class, pro-MAGA piece of the party that he sees not just as a way to win in November, but very clearly the path for the party in the future.

Of all the candidates Trump was thinking about for VP — and we’ve talked about this with you — they went on a journey, right, from Trump skeptic to Trump supporter. But JD Vance’s journey stood out because he was so unstinting in his criticism of Trump. When Trump first entered the political scene back in 2016, I remember interviewing Vance and talking to him about this stuff. I mean, he compared Trump to Hitler. He called Trump the opioid of the masses. He suggested Trump was a con man. That’s a lot to overcome, but he did.

But he did. I mean, this is the most stunning 180 degree political flip-flop of our time. To go from saying the sort of things that you just brought up to now being chosen as his most trusted advisor, a running mate, a number 2, who will serve as president if something should happen to him, is extraordinary. I mean, you may have to go back to post-revolutionary times when we used to pick vice presidents by who came in second place to find a vice president who has said such searing criticisms of a president.

Fascinating. And ultimately, what’s your understanding of why Trump could get past that, somebody who is not very good at accepting criticism?

No, that’s true. But as much as Trump hates criticism for his own actions and deeds, he loves the redemption narrative. And he loves being asked for forgiveness. And JD Vance has spent several years seeking Trump’s approval by going on television, making nice with all of the right-wing websites and media in order to show how much he has changed his mind on Trump, and maybe most effectively, blame the media.

That point has been proven by Vance himself, who has explained his new thinking, his evolution on Trump by saying he was lied to by a media narrative about Trump. And now that he’s gotten to know Trump and now that he’s seen him, Trump in action as president, he has changed his mind.

Right. And it sounds like he never really needed to change his mind about some of the fundamental ideas of Trumpism. He had to change his mind about Trump. He seems always to have been fundamentally aligned with the ideas that Trump embraces — economic populism, some pretty far-right social positions. He needed to change his mind on the man, not the message.

Yeah, it was very personal, I think, for both Trump and Vance in this instance. Again, Vance is someone who grew up in rural Ohio, whose family is from Appalachia, saw some of the things that Trump has railed against when it comes to manufacturing jobs that are being shipped overseas, you know, these sort of pillars and institutions of society that have failed to uphold their end of the bargain when it comes to working-class, blue-collar, small-town Americans like Vance is.

If you are the Democrats right now, Mike, and you’re absorbing this news, where do you see the greatest vulnerabilities are going to lie for Trump now picking Vance?

Democrats are definitely going to use Vance’s old words against him, this sort of library of video clips and audio interviews of Vance going after Trump. But Democrats will also seize on Vance as an extremist, whether that’s his ardent abortion view and support for a national ban and his willingness to do what his predecessor, Mike Pence, wouldn’t. Vance has been on record already saying that he would have blocked the certification of the 2020 result, and that would have helped overturn that election.

Right. So you’re saying one simple way that the Biden ticket can go after Vance is by saying that you will enable Trump to break the law, overturn the election. We should expect that.

Yeah, I think so. I mean, looking back on what happened after 2020, the system worked because there was a lot of people around Trump who maybe they weren’t guardrails, but maybe more speed bumps. And there’s no indication that Vance has any willingness to play that role in the next Trump administration.

In that vein, it was pretty widely noted that in the hours after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, we saw JD Vance come out with a statement. It was the most strongly worded of anyone seeking to be his VP. And it had some factual problems. Here’s what he said. He said, “Today, the attempted assassination is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” We should say. There’s no evidence that that’s true. We don’t know the motivations of the shooter. We don’t know that he consumed any of that rhetoric or that Vance is even characterizing it correctly. So what should we make of the fact that Trump chose that running mate who made that statement in this moment?

I think Vance in a lot of ways kind of embodies the id of Trump and that instinct to fight. And even though these sort of manufactured statements from the campaign are calling for unity and calling for peace, what Trump really wants —

Since the attempted assassination, right.

That’s right. What Trump really wants is someone who is going to keep fighting. You know, factual or not, I think this shows the passion and the energy Trump was looking in at running mate, valuing that interest in fighting more than —

Interest in unity and peace.

Yeah, or facts on the ground.

Right. I want to end, Mike, with something you hinted at earlier, which is when you said that Trump is looking to Vance to set a path for the future of the Republican Party. What is that path with Vance as number 2?

Vance is only 39 years old. He’s barely old enough to be president.

Right, 35 is the requirement.

Exactly. So he’s obviously going to be viewed very much as the heir apparent for Trumpism. Trump knows this. And the signal it’s sending to everyone, not just in the party but the rest of the country, is that any remnants of a debate about whether this party snaps back to its sort of pro-business establishment culture —

Pre-Trump era.

— the pre-Trump era is exactly that. It’s a pre-Trump era. It’s over for Republicans. And when it’s not Trump, it’s going to be JD Vance or someone exactly like him.

Right. In other words, Trumpism is here to stay. It is the Republican Party now that I’ve chosen JD Vance.

There’s no going back anymore, Michael.

Thank you, Mike. This is really helpful. I really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Are you guys from — are you guys from Michigan?

We make “The Daily” podcast.

Back at the Convention Hall.

We wanted to ask folks from all the big swing states about the selection of JD Vance about an hour ago and what you make of that decision, and if you think it’s going to help Trump win this state.

Absolutely. Look, I think the key thing in the platform is that it is dedicated to the forgotten men and women, and that is the blue-collar workers in the flyover states. JD Vance gets that.

It was clear that Republican delegates saw JD Vance as helping Trump win those key Midwestern states that will be essential to Trump winning in November.

So if Donald Trump wins Pennsylvania, which we’re going to make damn sure he does, we’re going to work our asses off.

You think that Vance helps them do that?

And just to make sure — I want to understand why.

Because JD Vance is like the common man. He’s like the common guy.

And that like Trump, they do see Vance as the future of Trumpism.

And the other nice thing is he’s young. He’s 39 years old

Why’s that matter?

It’s good to have somebody young with somebody that’s old in case, God forbid, something ever happens to Trump.

In other words, you already see him as the successor, the inheritor of Trump’s message and the party in MAGA?

Well, yeah, he’s going to have to carry the mantle. That’s probably what’s going to end up happening. Trump is only there for four years. You need somebody afterwards for the next eight. You need somebody for the next eight after that.

OK, can I — [MUSIC PLAYING]

And you’re from Wisconsin. You’re a delegate from Wisconsin. This is important. Trump mentioned Wisconsin in announcing Vance. Why was Vance your number one choice?

I think he brings youth to the field, to the vice president. And I looked at the upcoming years in ‘28, what’ll happen. And I think he was the man that can do it in ‘28 for the Republican Party.

You’re already looking forward to the next race?

Yes, very much so.

Here’s what else you need to know today. In a stunning decision, the judge overseeing Trump’s classified documents case threw out all the charges against him. In the process, she rejected what was widely seen as the strongest federal charges against the former president. Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, ruled that the special counsel who filed the charges had been given his job in violation of the Constitution.

That finding flew in the face of previous court decisions reaching back decades. In response, the Department of Justice said that it plans to appeal Cannon’s ruling.

Today’s episode was produced by Carlos Prieto, Clare Toeniskoetter, Jessica Cheung, Mooj Zadie, Eric Krupke, and Rikki Novetsky. It was edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Rachel Quester, with help from Paige Cowan.

Contains original music by Dan Powell, Elisheba Ittoop and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Michael C. Bender

Produced by Carlos Prieto ,  Clare Toeniskoetter ,  Jessica Cheung ,  Mooj Zadie ,  Eric Krupke and Rikki Novetsky

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Rachel Quester

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Dan Powell ,  Elisheba Ittoop ,  Marion Lozano and Corey Schreppel

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

On the first day of the Republican National Convention, Donald J. Trump chose his running mate: Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio.

We watched the process unfold in real time in Milwaukee.

Michael C. Bender, who covers Mr. Trump and his movement for The Times, takes us through the day.

On today’s episode

Michael C. Bender , a political correspondent covering Donald J. Trump and his Make America Great Again movement for The New York Times.

Background reading

What to know about J.D. Vance , Mr. Trump’s running mate.

Mr. Trump’s decision to pick Mr. Vance signals concern for the future of his MAGA movement.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Michael C. Bender is a Times political correspondent covering Donald J. Trump, the Make America Great Again movement and other federal and state elections. More about Michael C. Bender

Advertisement