what is a case study house

More From Forbes

The case study houses forever changed american architecture.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Scenes from the new showroom of Herman Miller which shows classic designs by Charles and Ray Eames, ... [+] in Culver City, Ca., Oct. 1, 2009. (Photo by Jay L. Clendenin/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The Case Study House Program’s vision belonged to Los Angeles-based Arts & Architecture magazine Editor John Entenza.

Entenza sponsored and publicized some design competitions in the magazine and emphasized modern, affordable, easily built houses.

He announced the Case Study House Program's launch in the January 1945 issue of Arts & Architecture magazine . He envisioned the program to solve the problem of housing shortages and anticipated the coming building boom that would follow War World II and the Depression.

The front side of the Eames House Case Study #8 designed by architects Charles and Ray Eames in ... [+] Pacific Palisades. June 30, 2005. (Photo by Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

A 1937 Harwell Harris house has a Streamline Moderne exterior with a white curved porte cochere in ... [+] front (wide enough for the original owner, powerful architecture magazine editor John Entenza s 1925 Ford) and a round bedroom wall in back overlooking Santa Monica Canyon. Peter Rabitz, a co–worker visiting from Germany, enjoys the view into the canyon on a recent visit. (Photo by Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

A 1937 Harwell Harris house has the porte cochere at left and entrance to house at right. (Photo by ... [+] Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The goal of the program was for each architect to create a home "capable of duplication and in no sense being an individual performance," Entenza said in his announcement.

"It is important that the best materials available be used in the best possible way in order to arrive at a good solution of each problem, which in the overall program will be general enough to be of practical assistance to the average American in search of a home in which he can afford to live in," he noted.

Architect Pierre Koenig designed two of the iconic Modernist houses in Los Angeles in the 1950s ... [+] known as Case Study House 21 and 22. Drawing of one of Koenig's designs. (Photo by Anacleto Rapping/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The Case Study House Program served as a model for post-war living, providing the public and the building industry an opportunity to access affordable, mid-century modernism and simple designs.

Floor-to-ceiling glass, steel frames, horizontal lines, modular components, open-floor plans and multi-purpose rooms were all elements of the Case Study’s take on modernism. The furnished projects provided places for owners to enjoy a family-friendly home with public and private spaces to relax, watch TV, listen to music and entertain, merging indoor and outdoor worlds with walls of steel and glass to allow ample light.

Initially, Entenza invited Richard Neutra, Charles Eames, Eero Saarinen and five other architects to submit prototypes and planned that all eight houses would be open to the public until they were occupied. The project was ambitious. The Eames and Entenza houses were designed in 1945 but not completed until 1949. Still, the Case Study program was so successful that it ran until 1966 and saw 350,000 visitors tour the open homes before clients took up residence.

Architect Pierre Koenig designed two of the iconic Modernist houses in Los Angeles in the 1950s ... [+] known as Case Study House 21 and 22. Photos of Pierre and Gloria Koenig main living room inside their West Los Angeles home which Pierre designed. (Photo by Anacleto Rapping/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Twenty homes remain today, but 36 experimental prototypes, many unbuilt, documenting new ideas and residential designs, appeared in the magazine.

The majority of the homes were built in Southern California; some are located in San Diego and Northern California; a group of Case Study apartments was built in Phoenix.

Many architects such as Ray and Charles Eames, Saarinen, Craig Ellwood and Pierre Koenig became icons of modernism and earned international followings. The Case Study Houses launched the reputations of local architects such as Thornton Bell, Whitney R. Smith and Rodney Walker.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Share this story

The Case Study houses that made Los Angeles a modernist mecca

Mapping the homes that helped to define an era

Los Angeles is full of fantastic residential architecture styles, from Spanish Colonial Revival to Streamline Moderne. But the modernist Case Study Houses , sponsored by Arts & Architecture and designed between the 1940s and 1960s, are both native to Southern California and particularly emblematic of the region.

The Case Study series showcased homes commissioned by the magazine and designed by some of the most influential designers and architects of the era, including Charles and Ray Eames, Richard Neutra, and Pierre Koenig. The residences were intended to be relatively affordable, replicable houses for post-World War II family living, with an emphasis on “new materials and new techniques in house construction,” as the magazine’s program intro put it.

Technological innovation and practical, economical design features were emphasized—though the homes’ scintillating locations, on roomy lots in neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades and the Hollywood Hills , gave them a luxurious allure.

With the help of photographer Julius Shulman , who shot most of the homes, the most impressive of the homes came to represent not only new styles of home design, but the postwar lifestyle of the booming Southern California region.

A total of 36 houses and apartment buildings were commissioned; a couple dozen were built, and about 20 still stand in the greater Los Angeles area (there’s also one in Northern California, a set near San Diego, and a small apartment complex in Phoenix). Some have been remodeled, but others have been well preserved. Eleven were added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2013.

Here’s a guide to all the houses left to see—but keep in mind that, true to LA form, most are still private residences. The Eames and Stahl houses, two of the most famous Case Study Houses, are regularly open to visitors.

As for the unconventional house numbering, post-1962 A&A publisher David Travers writes that the explanation is “inexplicable, locked in the past.”

Case Study House No. 1

J.R. Davidson (with Greta Davidson) designed this house in 1948 (it was actually his second go at Case Study House No. 1). It was intended for “a hypothetical family" with two working parents and was designed to require "minimum maintenance.”

• Open in Google Maps

Case Study House No. 2

Case Study House No. 2 was designed in 1947 by Sumner Spaulding and John Rex. Arts & Architecture wrote that the home’s layout “achieves a sense of spaciousness and flexibility,” with an open living area and glass doors that lead out to adjoining terraces.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Samuel Dematraz (@samueldematraz) on Oct 28, 2018 at 1:07am PDT

Case Study House No. 7

Case Study House No. 7 was designed in 1948 by Thornton M. Abell. It has a “three-zone living area,” with space for study, activity, and relaxation/conversation; the areas can be separated by sliding panels or combined.

Eames House (Case Study House No. 8)

Legendary designer couple Charles and Ray Eames designed the Eames House in 1949 and even Arts & Architecture seemed kind of blown away by it. The home is built into a hillside behind a row of Eucalyptus trees on a bluff above Pacific Palisades. It's recognizable by its bright blue, red, and yellow panels. The Eameses lived in the house until their deaths. It’s now open to visitors five days per week, though reservations are required.

Entenza House (Case Study House No. 9)

The Entenza House was built in 1949 and designed by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen for Arts & Architecture editor John Entenza. According to the magazine, “In general, the purpose was to enclose as much space as possible within a reasonably simple construction.”

Case Study House No. 10

Case Study House No. 10 was designed in 1947 by Kemper Nomland. The house is built on several levels to mold into its sloping site. Recently restored, the home sold to Kristen Wiig in 2017.

Case Study House No. 15

Designed by J.R. Davidson in 1947, Case Study House No. 15 has south walls made of huge glass panels. Its flagstone patio and indoor floor are at the same level for that seamless indoor-outdoor feel. According to the magazine, the floorplan “is basically that of another Davidson house, Case Study House No. 11,” which has been demolished.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Samuel Dematraz (@samueldematraz) on Nov 15, 2018 at 6:13am PST

Case Study House for 1953

Craig Ellwood’s Case Study House for 1953 is usually numbered as 16 in the Case Study series . It has a modular steel structure and “the basic plan is a four-foot modular rectangle.” But the interior walls stick out past the exterior walls to bring the indoors out and the outdoors in. The Bel Air house hit the market in November with a $3 million price tag.

Case Study House No. 17 (A)

Case Study House No. 17 (A) was designed by Rodney Walker in 1947. A tight budget kept the house at just 1,560 square feet, “but more space was gained through the use of many glass areas.” The house also has a large front terrace with a fireplace that connects the indoor living room fireplace. The house has been remodeled .

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Case Study House #17, 1947 (@casestudy17) on Jun 11, 2016 at 2:20pm PDT

Case Study House No. 17 (B)

Case Study House No. 17 (B) was designed in 1956 by Craig Ellwood, but “governed by a specific program set forth by the client.” Ellwood took into account the clients' collection of contemporary paintings and made the living room “purposely undersized” to work best for small gatherings. The house was extensively remodeled in the sixties by Hollywood Regency architect John Elgin Woolf and his partner, interior designer Robert Koch Woolf.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by BAUKUNST™ El Arte de Construir (@i_volante) on Aug 13, 2017 at 4:42pm PDT

West House (Case Study House No. 18 [A])

Case Study House No. 18 (A) was designed by Rodney Walker in 1948. The house is oriented toward the ocean, but set back from the cliff edge it sits on to avoid noise issues. As A&A says, "High above the ocean, the privacy of the open south and east exposures of Case Study House No. 18 can be threatened only by an occasional sea-gull." The house features a "bricked garden room" separated from the living room by a two-sided fireplace.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by CaseStudyHouse18A (@casestudyhouse18a) on Oct 6, 2018 at 8:44pm PDT

Fields House (Case Study House No. 18 [B])

Case Study House No. 18 (B) was designed by Craig Ellwood in 1958. Ellwood didn’t attempt to hide that the house was prefabricated (the magazine explains that he believed “that the increasing cost of labor and the decline of the craftsman will within not too many years force a complete mechanization of residential construction methods”). The components of the house, however, are “strongly defined with color: ceiling and panels are off-white and the steel framework is blue.” According to A&A' s website, the house has been remodeled.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by MCM Daily (@dc_hillier) on Oct 29, 2018 at 8:32pm PDT

Case Study House No. 20 [A])

This two-bedroom house was meant “to serve young parents who find they can afford just that much,” according to architect Richard Neutra’s description. He also wrote that he used several different kinds of natural wood in the house.

Bass House (Case Study House No. 20 [B])

The Bass House was designed in 1958 by Buff, Straub, and Hensman for famed graphic designer Saul Bass. It's “unique in that it was based upon the experimental use of several prefabricated Douglas fir plywood products as part of the structural concept,” including hollow-core plywood vaults that covered the central part of the house.

Case Study House No. 21

Pierre Koenig designed Case Study House No. 21 in 1958. It was originally completely surrounded by water, with a walkway and driveway spanning the moat at the front door and carport, respectively. The house was severely messed with over the years, but restored in the ’90s with help from Koenig.

Stahl House (Case Study House No. 22)

Pierre Koenig's Stahl House , designed in 1960, is probably the most famous house in Los Angeles, thanks to an iconic photo by Julius Shulman . The house isn't much to look at from the street, but its backside is mostly glass surrounding a cliff's-edge pool. Tours are available Mondays, Wednesdays, and Friday—but book well ahead of time, as they sell out quickly.

Case Study House for 1950

The unnumbered Case Study House for 1950 was designed by Raphael Soriano. It's rectangular, with living room and bedrooms facing out to the view. However, in the kitchen and eating areas, the house “turns upon itself and living develops around a large kitchen-dining plan opening upon a terrace which leads directly into the living room interrupted only by the mass of two fireplaces.” According to A&A 's website, the house has been remodeled.

Frank House (Case Study House No. 25)

The two-story Frank House was designed by Killingsworth, Brady, and Smith and Associates in 1962 and it sits on a canal in Long Beach. A reflecting pool with stepping stones leads to its huge front door and inside to an 18-foot high courtyard. The house sold in 2015 with some unfortunate remodeling .

Case Study House No. 28

Case Study House No. 28 was designed in 1966 by Conrad Buff and Donald Hensman. According to the magazine, “the architects were asked to design a house that incorporated face brick as the primary structural material to demonstrate its particular advantages.” They came up with a plan for two symmetrical wings joined by glass galleries.

Site search

• Los Angeles
• San Francisco
• Archive.curbed.com
• For Sale
 in LA
• For Rent in LA
• Curbed Comparisons
• Neighborhoods
• Real Estate Market Reports
• Rental Market Reports
• Homelessness
• Development
 News
• Transportation
• Architecture


By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services.

THE CASE STUDY HOUSES

• Share on Facebook
• Show more sharing options
• Share on WhatsApp
• Print This Page
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share to Flipboard
• Submit to Reddit
• Post to Tumblr

SURPRISINGLY THE AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL magazine most often found in the foreign architect’s office or School of Architecture is the California publication Arts & Architecture . In its pages the foreign archi­tect and student is exposed to an array of buildings of a remarkably high degree of quality. (He is also exposed to the writings of two of America’s most gifted critics, Peter Yates, in music, and Dore Ashton, in painting and sculpture). The wide acceptance and influence of Arts & Architecture  abroad has cer­tainly been due to its view of architecture as an art, rather than as a vast business enterprise, the ap­proach which underlies a majority of America’s archi­tectural publications. Related POP ART, USA MUSE AND EGO

One of the magazine’s most influential and far reaching programs has been its sponsorship of a series of Case Study Houses , where new concepts of form, material and structure could be tested out in residential architecture. The program was insti­tuted in 1945 and the first of these experimental houses was built the following year. Since this date, over 25 houses have been constructed and several are at present in the design stage or are in process of being built. Photographs and plans of these case study houses have recently been brought together by Esther McCoy in a single volume entitled Modern California Houses, Case Study Houses 1945–1962 , (published by Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, 1962, $15.00). Esther McCoy has long been associated with Arts & Architecture . As a critic and historian she has con­tributed immensely to our understanding of 20th century architecture in California. Her writing on the work of Irving Gill, Bernard Maybeck the brothers Charles and Henry Greene and R. M. Schindler has re­vealed to us an almost entirely unknown chapter in the history of modern architecture. As we should ex­pect, this book, its text, the quality of its plates and its design layout are as distinguished as the buildings which it discusses and illustrates.

To fully appraise the Case Study program one should first see it within the context of similar endeavors which have been tried from time to time in this country and abroad. Throughout the 20th century, nu­merous “Idea houses” or “Houses of the future” have appeared in exhibitions and others have been spon­sored by home and women’s magazines. In 1927–28 the internationally famous Weissonhof housing proj­ects featured designs by Le Corbusier, Gropius, Mart Stam, J. J. P. Oud and others. A similar project to encourage the acceptance of modern architecture was instituted before the Second World War by the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis in their first “Idea house,” and continued in a second “Idea house” con­structed in 1947 behind the Center. In 1948 The Museum of Modern Art commissioned Marcel Breuer to build an exhibition house in the Museum court­yard; a second house was commissioned in 1950 to the California architect Gregory Ain. In the 1950’s the Guggenheim Museum, as part of its exhibition of Frank Lloyd Wright, built one of his “Usonian” houses.

Few of these programs have been able to sustain themselves for any appreciable length of time and it is difficult to say whether they have actually pro­duced their desired result. Even the influential ex­hibition and publication program of the Museum of Modern Art in architecture and design, first under Phillip Johnson in the early 1930’s, and later in the 40’s and early 50’s under Edgar Kaufman has pretty well fallen into a respectable intellectual doldrum in the hands of Arthur Drexler.

That this path is a precarious one is well illustrated by several of the most recent Case Study Houses, especially the Towri House on the Rivo Alto Canal, near Long Beach, and the Triad Development of houses at La Jolla, all by the firm of Killingsworth, Brady and Smith. In each of these houses there is a decided tinge of what has so aptly been labeled “Hollywood Regency.” Not that their forms are in any way eclectic––there is no evidence whatsoever of “French Provincial” or “English Regency” which is the normal mode of the Beverly Hills version of “Holly­wood Regency.” Yet their own involvement with formalism, with forced symmetry and their self-con­scious concern for uncluttered forms and surfaces has created a preciousness which compromises their total architectural statement. Man’s physical frame may well be symmetrical, but this does not mean that he necessarily lives or operates in this way. There is something dramatic about entering a house over a bridge, or via a series of stepping stones over a pool of water, but in the end is this architecture or simply a stage setting? In their house “A” at La Jolla, Kil­lingsworth, Brady and Smith provide this stagey, im­pressive entrance for guests and visitors and then they furnish an entrance for the family directly off the garage area which frankly conveys the informality of the contemporary California scene.

The view of architecture as an intellectual exercise in the realm of pristine sharp-edged forms and pre­cise proportions has long been a dominant theme in the Case Study program (as it has continually cropped up throughout the history of architecture), but in the earlier Case Study Houses by Craig Ellwood and Pierre Koenig the esthetic articulation of planes and volumes defined by precise rectangular shapes had been dominated by the structural form of the building. In Killingsworth, Brady and Smith there is a tendency to play down the structure as the salient motif and in its place to substitute an involvement with form.

The most recent of the Case Study Houses reveals as well a marked shift in the use of materials and the way in which they are exposed. The employment of steel as a relatively new building material in do­mestic architecture was initiated in the Case Study House program by Charles Eames for his own house and studio, built in 1949. The Eames house was the most successful of all the Case Study Houses in that it illustrated how the mass-produced product might be used in domestic architecture. The Eames house used materials, primarily steel and glass, in such a way that their quality of regularity and order never dominated the total form. In the later Case Study Houses of Ellwood and Koenig the steel frame did become the controlling element in the design, forci­bly establishing the surface, the proportion and the volume of the building. In several of the most recent examples of the Case Study Houses this directness of approach to materials and structure has been par­tially abandoned. The materials and structure no longer are an organic part of the design. As Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius and even Frank Lloyd Wright have pointed out, good design, especially in our century and here in America, is as much a result of negative self-restraint as it is positive affirmation. Certainly the success of the Eames house was the result of his adherence to the principle of self-re­straint.

Originally the Case Study House program had an­other dominating characteristic and that was its interest in the direct solution of the problems of the mass-produced project house. The first Case Study House by J. R. Davidson was an admirable and highly influential minimal house (of 1100 sq. ft.) and was reproduced as a mass-produced house. The same was true of Summer Spaulding’s and John Rex’s 1947 Case Study House, where a strict modular system was ad­hered to.

By the 1950’s Arts & Architecture had pretty well abandoned any direct concern for mass housing. The houses of the last 12 to 13 years seemed to be based upon the premise of influencing design through osmosis––by creating visual and structural “master­pieces” which will serve as a source of inspiration in the area of project and mass-produced housing. That the Case Study House Project has created significant monuments of the “modern movement” is undeniable and it is hoped that it will continue to do so, but whether this approach, as opposed to its direct in­volvement, can or will affect mass housing (which constitutes well over 90% of all houses built in the U.S.) is open to serious doubt.

–– David Gebhard

Most Popular

You may also like.

• INSPIRATION

The Eames House: A Deep Dive into Case Study House 8

Nestled in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles stands the Eames House, also known as Case Study House No. 8. It is more than just a work of mid-century modern architecture; it’s an enduring testament to the design sensibilities and philosophies of Charles and Ray Eames, the husband-and-wife team who not only designed it but also called it home. Built in 1949, this iconic structure encapsulates the couple’s holistic approach to design and life.

Eames House Technical Information

• Architects: Ray and Charles Eames
• Location: 203 North Chautauqua Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles , USA
• Topics: Mid-Century Modern
• Area: 1,500 ft 2 |  140  m 2
• Project Year: 1945 – 1949
• Photographs: © Eames Office, See Captions

The role of the designer is that of a very good, thoughtful host anticipating the needs of his guests.  – Charles and Ray Eames 1-2

Eames House Photographs

The Eames House: A Living Laboratory for Design Exploration 

From its initial construction to its life today as a museum, the Eames House offers a rich tapestry of history, ingenuity, and practical elegance. Commissioned by Arts & Architecture magazine for their Case Study House program, this residence has endured as a beacon of what Charles and Ray stood for—efficiency, innovation, and the honest use of materials. As Charles once said, “Just as a good host tries to anticipate the needs of his guest, so a good architect or a designer or a city planner tries to anticipate the needs of those who will live in or use the thing being designed.”

The Eameses purchased 1.4 acres from Arts & Architecture owner John Entenza in 1945, but the journey to the final construction was rife with modifications and resource constraints. Initial designs by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen , which envisioned a glass and steel box cantilevering dramatically over the property, were shelved. In part, due to material shortages in the post-war era, Charles and Ray turned inward, observing and soaking in the nuances of the site. The eventual design had the house sitting quietly in the land, harmonizing with the natural surroundings rather than imposing on it.

Two distinct boxes make up the residence—one serves as the living quarters and the other as a studio. The house and studio are separated by a concrete retaining wall that integrates seamlessly with the existing landscape. An 8-foot tall by 200-foot long concrete wall helps to anchor the site while also setting a dramatic backdrop for the architecture.

Both structures are predominantly characterized by their steel frame construction, filled with a variety of colored panels. The colored panels aren’t merely decorative; they are functional elements carefully calibrated to provide shifting patterns of light and shade throughout the day. The impact of light, so finely tuned in the design, showcases influences from Japanese architecture.

The Eames House doesn’t just make a statement from the outside; the interiors are equally compelling. The house is a melting pot of the Eameses’ diverse interests and design sensibilities—featuring Isamu Noguchi lamps , Thonet chairs, Native American baskets, and more. The living spaces are meticulously designed to serve multiple functions—a living room that transforms into a workspace, alcoves that turn into intimate conversation spots, and hallways lined with functional storage closets.

Living as Work, Work as Living

One of the most unique aspects of the Eames House is how it serves as a living laboratory for Charles and Ray’s iterative design process. As is evident from their film “Powers of Ten” or the constant evolution of their iconic furniture, the couple believed in refining, adjusting, and perfecting. The house was no different—it was a perpetual project, an embodiment of their philosophy of “life in work and work in life.”

For Charles and Ray, details weren’t just details—they were the product. The panels, steel columns, and even the gold-leaf panel marking the entry door were not afterthoughts but an integral part of the architectural dialogue. The Eames House reflects this in its intricate interplay of textures, colors, and spaces that come together to create a harmonious whole.

The Eames House is notable for its De Stijl influences, seen in the sliding walls and windows that allow for versatility and openness. It stands as a successful adaptation of European modernist principles within an American context.

The Eames House is not just an architectural statement but a comprehensive worldview translated into physical form. From its thoughtful integration with the landscape to its detailed articulations, it represents the legacy of two of the 20 th century’s most influential designers. Charles and Ray

Eames House Plans

Eames House Image Gallery

About Ray and Charles Eames

Charles and Ray Eames were a husband-and-wife design team who became icons of mid-20th-century modern design. Working primarily in the United States, they gained prominence for their contributions across multiple disciplines, including architecture, furniture design, industrial design, film, and exhibitions. Perhaps best known for their innovative furniture pieces, like the Eames Lounge Chair and Molded Plastic Chairs, they also left a lasting impact on architecture, most notably with the Eames House, also known as Case Study House No. 8. Their work is characterized by a playful yet disciplined approach, with a focus on functional design, innovative use of materials, and the importance of user experience.

Notes & Additional Credits

• While the quote is not specifically about the Eames House, it reflects the philosophy the Eameses applied to their design work, including their home. The Eames House is a manifestation of their belief in the “guest-host relationship,” where every design decision is made with the user’s experience in mind.
• Charles & Ray Eames: 1907-1978, 1912-1988: Pioneers of Mid-century Modernism  by Gloria Koenig

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

• * ArchEyes Topics Index
• Influential Architects Index
• 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

• Eames Foundation

find us on:

• Eames House
• Charles and Ray

Eames House and the CSH program

• Case Study House Bluff
• Photo Gallery
• How to Visit
• Covid-19 Safety Protocols
• Guided Exterior Tour
• Group Guided Exterior Tour
• Interior Tour
• Members Appreciation Day
• Small Wedding
• Specialty Events
• Visitors Submissions
• Memberships
• Corporate Sponsorship
• 250 Year Project
• Collections
• On-going Studies
• Conservation Management Plan
• Team Thanks

The Eames House (also known as Case Study House No. 8) is a landmark of mid-20th century modern architecture located in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles. It was designed and constructed in 1949 by husband-and-wife Charles and Ray Eames to serve as their home and studio.

It was one of roughly two dozen homes built as part of The Case Study House Program. Begun in the mid-1940s and continuing through the early 1960s, the program was spearheaded by John Entenza, the publisher of  Arts & Architecture magazine. It was developed to address a looming issue: a housing crisis. Millions of soldiers would be returning from the battlefields of World War II, and were wanting to start families. John Entenza recognized that houses needed to be built quickly, inexpensively, yet without sacrificing good design. In a challenge to the architectural community, the magazine announced that it would be the client for a series of homes designed to express man’s life in the modern world. These homes were to be built and furnished using materials and techniques derived from the experiences of the Second World War. Each home was designed with a real or hypothetical client in mind, taking into consideration their particular housing needs.

Click here to see their design brief more clearly from the December 1945 issue of Arts & Architecture .

First Design: Bridge House (unbuilt)

The first plan of the Eameses’ home, known as the Bridge House, was designed in 1945 by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen. The design used pre-fabricated materials ordered from catalogues, a continuation of the idea of mass-production. The parts were ordered and the Bridge House design was published in the December 1945 issue of the magazine, but due to a war-driven shortage, the steel did not arrive until late 1948.

While they were waiting for delivery, Charles and Ray picnicked in the meadow with family and friends, flew kites and did archery.  By then, Charles and Ray had “fallen in love with the meadow,” in Ray’s words, and they realized that they wanted to avoid what many architects had done: destroy what they loved most about a site by building across it.

Second Design: Eames House

Charles and Ray then set themselves a new problem: How to build a house that would 1) not destroy the meadow and trees, and 2) “maximize volume from minimal materials”.  Using the same off-the-shelf parts, but notably ordering one extra steel beam, Charles and Ray re-configured the House. The new design integrated the House into the landscape, rather than imposing the House on it. These plans were published in the May 1949 issue of Arts & Architecture .  It is this design that was built and is seen today.

Charles and Ray moved into the House on Christmas Eve, 1949, and lived there for the rest of their lives.  The interior, its objects and its collections remain very much the way they were in Charles and Ray’s lifetimes.  The house they created offered them a space where work, play, life, and nature co-existed.

While many icons of the modern movement are depicted as stark, barren spaces devoid of human use, photographs and motion pictures taken at the Eames house reveal a richly decorated, almost cluttered space full of folk art, thousands of books, shells, rocks, prisms, etc. The Eameses’ gracious live-work lifestyle continues to be an influential model.

The House has now become something of an iconographic structure visited by people from around the world.  The charm and appeal of the House is perhaps best explained in the words of the Case Study House Program founder, John Entenza, who felt that the Eames House “represented an attempt to state an idea rather than a fixed architectural pattern.”

Help us share the Eameses’ joy and rigor with future visitors, so they may have a direct experience of Charles and Ray’s approach to life and work.

The Case Study Houses Program: Mid-Century Modern Architecture

The Case Study Houses Program, promoted by the magazine Arts and Architecture in 1945, represented the most important American contribution to the Mid-Century Modern architecture .

Last month I wrote about the CSH #20 , today I want to give you the big picture about the Case Study Houses Program, its origins and inspirations.

The main inspiration of the thirty six houses designed for the program, was  the desire of a generation of architects to realize affordable and modern houses to satisfy the post war building boom.

Even though many of the designs were never built, the program proved -thanks to its success- that it was possible to realize affordable houses for residential uses.

The Case Study Houses Program’s Contribution to the Mid Century.

The Case Study Houses Program has, in fact, produced some of the most relevant examples of Mid-Century Modern architecture and its incredible success is proven by the influence that it still has today on the architectural culture worldwide.

The houses are an inspiration and a model for contemporary architects that look for experimental solutions to satisfy the need of reductive dwelling spaces.

John Entenza was the mind and the force behind the Arts and Architecture magazine and the Case Study Houses Program. Thanks to it, he wanted to offer a solution -both to the building industry and to the public- to the post World War lack of residences; proposing designs for affordable and modern houses.

The magazine was the vehicle through which Entenza promoted the designs and connected actual clients with the architects.

Already before the end of the war, Entenza hosted competitions for small house designs in the magazine anticipating and exploring the interest of the architects in the matter of building affordable residential houses.

Considering his interest in the architecture related fields of design, visual arts and music, Arts and Architecture was the natural place to gather the social and artistic concerns behind a project as the Case Study Houses Program.

Some of the architects joining the program were already internationally well-known as Richard Neutra , Charles and Ray Eames or Craig Ellwood , others -as Whitney R. Smith, Thornton Abell, and Rodney Walker- were mainly locally known and all of them represented a personal Entenza preference instead of a comprehensive overview of the American Mid-Century architects and their approach to the low-cost houses building.

As I said before, some of the designs were never built -as the Richard Neutra ’Omega’and ‘Alpha’ houses or the Whitney Smith’s ‘Loggia’ House- due to an actual lack of clients and sites. However, the ones built were in some cases greatly diverting from the original architects design due to the shortage of some materials or specific clients’ requests.

Two of the most famous case study houses, are the one that Entenza commissioned to Charles Eames and Eeero Saarinen for himself -the #9- and the one that Charles and Ray Eames designed and built for themselves; the #8. The Eameses house was one of the ones delayed due the post war scarcity of materials. The house was in fact first designed in 1945 but completed it in the 1949.

Despite its unquestionable success, the Case Study Houses Program  has not to be considered as an isolated attempt but as part of a wider architectural effort to find modern dwelling solutions.

(pics via [amazon_link id=”3836510219″ target=”_blank” container=”” container_class=”” ]Case Study Houses – The Complete CSH Program[/amazon_link])

The Case Study Houses Program: Richard Neutra’s Bailey House

The case study houses program: craig ellwood’s case study house 18.

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.

• 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

Search the Site

Popular pages.

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

Case Study House #10

Case Study House #10 exemplified the Case Study House program goals through the use of new building materials and techniques, affordability for the average American, simplicity of construction, economy of materials, and integration of indoor and outdoor living.

Place Details

• Kemper Nomland,
• Kemper Nomland, Jr.

Designation

• Private Residence - Do Not Disturb

Property Type

• Single-Family Residential

Case Study House #10 was not originally commissioned as part of  Arts & Architecture  magazine’s Case Study House program, but was added upon completion in 1947 to maintain continuity in the program given the number of unbuilt houses up to that point. The house exemplified a number of the program’s goals, including the use of new building materials and techniques, affordability for the average American, simplicity of construction, economy of materials, and integration of indoor and outdoor living.

Designed by the father and son team of architects, Kemper Nomland and Kemper Nomland, Jr., the house was built on a sloping corner lot in Pasadena.  The downward slope of the lot served as inspiration for the house’s three-level plan.

The house is primarily of wood post and beam construction, set upon a single concrete slab, and features extensive use of large walls of glass.

The house’s shed roof parallels the slope of the lot. At the front of the house, steps and a walk lead down from the street to the main entrance, where a floor-to-ceiling pebbled glass wall in the studio overlooks the walkway.  The rear elevation of the house is formed mainly of sliding glass doors, with the roof overhang providing shade to a back patio outside of the dining room.

The top floor, at street level, contains a studio and garage. The master bedroom and a guest room and bath are on the middle floor, which also contains a gallery/hallway that overlooks the living room below through a large pane of corrugated translucent glass. The living room, dining room, kitchen, and a 1968 addition (by Kemper Nomland, Jr.) are on the lower level.

View the National Register of Historic Places Nomination

The Conservancy does not own or operate the Case Study House #10. For any requests, please contact the Case Study House #10 directly.

Issues including Case Study House #10

Case Study Houses

Related content.

St. Martha’s Episcopal Church

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

Star Theatre (Demolished)

• 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

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Case Study Houses

Case Study Houses: The Latest Architecture and News

Foster + partners reimagines william pereora's television city in california, united states.

Foster + Partners, l ed by Normal Foster, has just been selected to reimagine the Television City studio complex in Los Angeles, following a global competition. The project involves the restoration of William Pereira’s iconic 1952 buildings and the transformation of the 25-acre site into a low-rise multi-modal campus and draws inspiration from the Los Angeles’ renowned Case Study Houses. The campus will feature new sound stages, production offices, creative workspace, and retail surrounding its perimeter.

• Read more »

Defining Afro-Contemporary Homes: The Role of Case Study Houses

The home is a fundamental expression of architectural movements within the fabric of a city. As one of the smallest typologies, it is the simplest canvas to exhibit the design ethos of any particular era. African cities have continuously negotiated the meaning of their residential dwellings, from traditional architecture to colonial architecture, and the influx of post-colonial modern architecture. Vernacular architecture explored homes with spatial patterns rooted in cultural dexterity, envelopes built with indigenous materials and forms, endowed with traditional motifs. These were in stark contrast to colonial homes that featured a range of imported architectural styles across the continent, neglecting their climatic and cultural contexts while amplifying social class.

How Did Materials Shape the Case Study Houses?

The Case Study Houses (1945-1966), sponsored by the Arts & Architecture Magazine and immortalized by Julius Shulman ’s iconic black-and-white photographs, may be some of the most famous examples of modern American architecture in history. Designed to address the postwar housing crisis with quick construction and inexpensive materials, while simultaneously embracing the tenets of modernist design and advanced contemporary technology, the Case Study Houses were molded by their central focus on materials and structural design. While each of the homes were designed by different architects for a range of clients, these shared aims unified the many case study homes around several core aesthetic and structural strategies: open plans, simple volumes, panoramic windows, steel frames, and more. Although some of the Case Study Houses’ materials and strategies would become outdated in the following decades, these unique products and features would come to define a historic era of architectural design in the United States.

Modern, Low-Budget and Easy to Build Living Spaces: the Case Study House Program

Between 1945 and 1966, the Case Study Houses program , following the Weißenhof-siedlung exposition, commissioned a study of economic, easy-to-build houses. The study included the creation of 36 prototypes that were to be built leading up to post-war residential development. The initiative by John Entenza, editor of Arts & Architecture magazine, brought a team to Los Angeles that featured some of the biggest names in architecture at the time, including Richard Neutra , Charles & Ray Eames, Pierre Koenig, and Eero Saarinen , among others.

The program's experiment not only defined the modern home and set it apart from its predecessors, but it also pioneered new construction materials and methods in residential development that continue to influence international architecture to this day. Take a detailed look at some of the program's most emblematic work together with recommendations for facing contemporary challenges. 

When Minimalism Gets Extravagant: A Virtual Look at the Case Study House 17(2)

Arts & Architecture ’s Case Study House program was supposed to be about creating replicable, affordable designs for post-war living—stylish but modest homes for young families on a budget. And then came house #17(2).

To be fair, this house was designed for real clients, with specific and ambitious requirements. The Hoffmans had four children, a household staff, and an art collection. So this was never going to be just another suburban three-bedroom.

A Virtual Look Into J R Davidson's Case Study House #11

The editorial notes on Arts & Architecture ’s 11th Case Study House set out the “basic principles of modern architecture”: an emphasis on “order, fitness and simplicity.” Livability and practicality are key, and “sham” is frowned on. As with other houses in the series, this design by JR Davidson adheres to these goals with clean, horizontal lines, an open floor plan, and integration of the outdoor space.

It’s a modest, compact home, less high-concept than some of the other houses in the programme—no indoor plantings or reflecting pools; no complicated backstory for the imagined clients (think of the next two, #12 and especially #13 )—but arguably more successful in providing a model for the average American home. Its value doesn’t depend on dramatic landscaping or views, but on thoughtful design and attention to solving everyday problems. Walking through Archilogic ’s 3D model reveals the elegance of Davidson’s approach.

A Virtual Look Inside Case Study House #10 by Kemper Nomland & Kemper Nomland Jr

The tenth Case Study House wasn’t actually intended for the Arts & Architecture programme. It was added on its completion in 1947, to fill out the roster, as many houses remained unbuilt. Clearly, the Nomland design earned its place on the list, having many features in common with other Case Study homes and, most importantly, meeting the stated aims of economy, simplicity, new materials and techniques, and indoor/outdoor integration. The different departure point, however, can be seen in the layout. Whereas Case Study homes were designed primarily for families, this plan is for “a family of adults”—which is to say, a childless couple.

The World's First Freeform 3D-Printed House Enters Development Phase

WATG Urban's first prize design for The Freeform Home Design Challenge in 2016 is now moving one step closer to becoming a reality. Since winning the competition, WATG 's Chicago office has been developing the winning design, dubbed Curve Appeal, alongside Branch Technology . Curve Appeal is now undergoing the "wall section testing, research and development phase" with an anticipated goal of breaking ground later this year. This revolutionary project could change the way we construct complex, freeform structures.

A Virtual Look Inside Case Study House #7 by Thornton M Abell

The seventh house in the Arts & Architecture Case Study program was built with real clients in mind: a family of three with creative hobbies. The result, designed by Thornton M Abell , is a flexible home with a distinctive functional character.

The house divides neatly into three separate areas: to the left of the entrance, working spaces make up nearly half of the full floorplan, with living and sleeping areas off to the right and extending forward into the garden. Sliding panels between the roomy central reception/dining area and the cozy living room create the option of privacy or extra space, as required, with the terrace and splash pool beyond offering further possibilities for summer entertaining. A small planting area beside the sliding door blurs the line between indoors and out.

A Virtual Look Inside Case Study House #4, Ralph Rapson’s "Greenbelt House"

The fourth house in Arts & Architecture ’s Case Study program departed from the trend with a noticeably more introverted design. Intended for a modestly sized urban lot, rather than the dramatic and expansive canyon or forest locations of so many other Case Study homes, it couldn’t borrow drama from the landscape, nor would the residents welcome curious glances from their close neighbors—so the house looks entirely inward.

Rapson called his design the “Greenbelt House” for the glass-covered atrium that divides the living and sleeping areas. In his original drawings and model, as in Archilogic ’s 3D model shown here, this strip is shown filled with plant beds in a striking geometric pattern. However, Rapson imagined that it could be put to many uses, according to the residents’ tastes: a croquet court or even a swimming pool could find their place here. This “brings the outdoors indoors” rather more literally than, for instance, Richard Neutra ’s expansive, open-door designs.

A Virtual Look Inside the Case Study House #23A by Killingsworth, Brady & Smith

Only three of the Arts & Architecture Case Study Houses were built outside Los Angeles , and those three formed a united concept. The Triad Houses in La Jolla, a seaside suburb of San Diego , share a single driveway, motor court, and design vocabulary, while being created to meet different needs.

In keeping with the Case Study mission, all three houses used open-plan design, affordable modern materials (such as aluminium and concrete with wood frames), and plenty of glass to create a fresh and open mood. The emphasis was on strong geometric forms, careful detailing, horizontal lines (with perfectly flat roofs) and – this being the Californian coastline – dramatic views and outdoor living space, creating the illusion of more interior space than was actually present.

AD Classics: The Entenza House (Case Study #9) / Charles & Ray Eames, Eero Saarinen & Associates

Nestled in the verdant seaside hills of the Pacific Palisades in southern California, the Entenza House is the ninth of the famous Case Study Houses built between 1945 and 1962. With a vast, open-plan living room that connects to the backyard through floor-to-ceiling glass sliding doors, the house brings its natural surroundings into a metal Modernist box, allowing the two to coexist as one harmonious space.

Like its peers in the Case Study Program, the house was designed not only to serve as a comfortable and functional residence, but to showcase how modular steel construction could be used to create low-cost housing for a society still recovering from the the Second World War. The man responsible for initiating the program was John Entenza , Editor of the magazine Arts and Architecture. The result was a series of minimalist homes that employed steel frames and open plans to reflect the more casual and independent way of life that had arisen in the automotive age.[1]

A Virtual Look Inside the Case Study House #3 by William W Wurster & Theodore Bernardi

The third Arts & Architecture Case Study House has a noticeably different sensibility to that of many of the other designs in the series. While equally engaged with the goal of maximizing enjoyment of the natural surroundings, in this design the architects show more concern for privacy and protection.

The approach from the street is somewhat forbidding; aluminum siding presents an impenetrable front. Besides the front and garage doors, the small, high kitchen windows are the only visible openings, though it is possible to peer over the fence of grape stakes into the children’s private garden.

A Virtual Look Inside the Case Study House #2 by Sumner Spaulding and John Rex

The second house in Arts & Architecture magazine’s Case Study Houses program shows the hallmarks of the series: an emphasis on light-soaked living areas, indoor-outdoor living, strong horizontal lines dominated by a flat roof, and so on. It is distinguished, though, by particularly creative details linking the indoor and outdoor areas, and by a strong awareness of function.

A Virtual Look Into Richard Neutra's Case Study House #20, the Bailey House

The Bailey house—one of Richard Neutra ’s four Case Study designs for Arts & Architecture —forms one of five Bluff houses, standing high above the ocean. The brief was to create a low-budget home for a young family, with just two bedrooms, but offering the possibility of expansion as time went by (which did in fact transpire; additional Neutra-designed wings were later built).

Neutra employed the same indoor-outdoor philosophy that can be seen at work in his unbuilt Alpha and Omega houses, using large sliding glass doors to create light and a visual sense of space, as well as ensuring that the house physically opened up to, as he put it, “borrow space from the outdoors.” With this sunny Californian ocean-view setting, it made perfect sense to use the back garden and terrace as living and dining room.

A Virtual Look Inside the Case study house #12 by Whitney R Smith

In designing his (unbuilt) house for the Arts & Architecture Case Study program , Whitney Smith, like Richard Neutra , prioritized the connection to outdoor space. His motivation, however, was more specific than a desire to extend the living area of a small house. Rather, he wanted to create a highly personal space, geared to the passion of his hypothetical client. Seeing conventional plans as a straitjacket for residents who craved appropriate working space within their home (be it a sewing studio or a photography darkroom), he aspired to fit this house to the needs of a keen horticulturist.

A Virtual Look Into Richard Neutra's Unbuilt Case Study House #13, The Alpha House

Of the four homes designed by Richard Neutra for the Case Study Houses program, post-war thought experiments commissioned by Arts & Architecture , only one was ever realized. In the imaginary village of the program's many unbuilt homes, next to #6, the Omega house , stands #13, named Alpha. Archilogic ’s 3D model gives us a unique chance to experience this innovative concept home.

Each of Neutra’s projects was designed for a family of five, and each reveals his psychoanalytic approach to architecture, in which the house itself is an intimate part of family relationships, as important as the personalities involved. (Neutra was personally acquainted with Freud, and a committed follower of birth trauma theorist Otto Rank.) Underlining this Freudian view, his imaginary clients are not just neighbours—they are related; Mrs Alpha being sister to Mrs Omega.

A Virtual Look Into Mies van der Rohe's Core House

Architecture depends on its time. It is the crystallization of its inner structure, the slow unfolding of its form. – Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

In 1951, Mies van der Rohe designed the Core House, a participative design structure which could be completed by its inhabitants.

This flexible model challenged certain architectural concepts, explored new industrial technologies, and proposed a modular system to improve the quality and affordability of housing.

• Air Warfare
• Land Warfare
• Naval Warfare
• Networks / Cyber
• Multi-Domain
• Indo-Pacific
• All Domain: Connecting the Joint Force
• Defense Budget Coverage
• Advanced Weapons Technology
• Air Dominance
• Newsletters
• Newsletter Signup
• Resource Library

China’s newest military base abroad is up and running, and there are more on the horizon

Make the FY26 budget the budget of ‘pivots’

At NATO Summit, Aussie assistant defense minister dives into the future of AUKUS

US teams with Canada, Finland on polar icebreakers to chill Russian, Chinese power up north

Canada commits to buying 12 new conventionally-powered, under-the-ice submarines

Ukraine’s seaborne success an ‘arbiter’ of future naval warfare: NATO SACEUR

US intel agency publishes imagery it says links Iranian weapons to Houthi attacks

Ukraine’s startups want to export to the West, but Kyiv is standing in the way

Norway’s Chief of Defence: Allies are more than friends, in every direction

Ticking clock: Northern NATO defense chiefs see ever-closing ‘window’ to prepare for Russia

Erik Raven, Navy No. 2 civilian, to step down

Finnish defense chief: Finland is dedicated to NATO’s Northern, Baltic needs

BAE Systems receives UK Sting Ray torpedo MLU assessment contract

P-8 LRASM testing expected to wrap this summer, Boeing official says

NAVSEA is in its ‘survey era,’ writes top civilian in email loaded with Taylor Swift lyrics

Defense industry news, analysis and commentary.

• Special Features

Breaking Defense In your inbox

Want the latest defense industry news? Sign up for the Breaking Defense newsletter.

• Congress , Naval Warfare

Analysts warn House’s 100% ship design policy goes a step too far

The policy, spearheaded by the house, will require agreement from the senate before it stands a chance at becoming law..

The Freedom-class littoral combat ship USS Sioux City (LCS 11) transits the Atlantic Ocean, May 3. (US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Trey Fowler)

WASHINGTON — When the House Armed Services Committee released its markup of the annual defense policy bill, it included a surprising provision: one dictating the Navy should complete a ship’s design “100 percent” before starting lead ship construction.

On its face, the rule seemingly has the potential to delay the already infamously long shipbuilding process, or lead to ships launching into the water with obsolescent technology. But one key advocate for such language says the term “100 percent” would actually reinforce a several-year-old legislative requirement.

This week will mark an important milestone for the language, as the Senate Armed Services Committee is poised to release its own version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Should the SASC back the plan, it may well cruise into law; should they buck their House colleagues’ ideas, it will be a potential sticking point in conference negotiations later this summer.

However, Marine engineers, former Navy officials and defense analysts that spoke to Breaking Defense all expressed skepticism about the value of trying to govern the Pentagon’s shipbuilding process with such a blanket policy.

“What does 100 percent mean?” said Lorin Selby, a retired Navy rear admiral who served as the head of the service’s research and development enterprise as well as its chief engineer. “How are they going to define that? How are they going to measure that? And I think that in and of itself would be very problematic.”

Selby’s comments were echoed by multiple other sources, many of whom questioned whether the mandate would block the service from ensuring that new warships — which are usually conceived of years before steel touches water — incorporate state-of-the-art technologies.

“If you’re building something technologically complex, and you expect it to last in some form for 30, 40, 50 years, it’s not necessarily realistic to think that … you won’t make changes in design as the ship is built,” said Bradley Martin, a senior policy researcher at RAND.

Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., speaks with gold crew Sailors during a familiarization tour aboard USS Kentucky (SSBN-737), Feb. 19. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Andrea Perez/Released)

Defining The Issue

For Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., a congressional Navy hawk and key lawmaker that spearheaded the provision, there is little ambiguity about what 100 percent means. Speaking to reporters in May, Courtney said the requirement is not meant to lock down every “nut and screw,” adding that changes for upgrades and modifications should be permissible for follow-on ships.

Courtney’s legislative push is based on a law passed in 2020 which mandated the Navy have a “complete” design prior to lead ship construction. The impetus for the new “100 percent” language is that ambiguity in the original provision led to the Pentagon interpreting the mandate in ways that Congress did not intend, a congressional aide told Breaking Defense.

The aide also said the law applies only to the “basic and functional design” of the lead ship, which is defined as setting the major hull structure, establishing the hydrodynamics and routing “major portions of all distributive systems of the vessel.”

Presented with the underlying statutes, most analysts remained skeptical.

Those parameters don’t “really change my view, except perhaps to highlight that ‘100 percent’ is a pretty subjective term,” Martin said.

“To have the design fully complete to every last detail is unrealistic,” Matthew Collete and Jonathan Page told Breaking Defense in an email. Collette and Page are both professors at the University of Michigan, one of just a handful of universities the Navy relies upon to produce qualified engineers capable of designing future warships. “Construction risk also changes significantly with different platforms — the correct standard for [a submarine, a destroyer or a rescue and salvage ship] may all differ.”

Collette added the definition was a “reasonable starting point,” but said that a project as complicated as a warship requires dynamic responses to what is working and what is problematic.

“The problem with any one size fits all approach on something as complicated as a ship is to make sure that we’re getting the response we want out and if we’re not in five or 10 years, figuring out how you make a special case or make an adjustment,” he said. “That would be my biggest concern going forward is to make sure that if we don’t get this 100 percent right, we can make some adjustments.”

In response to questions for this story about the ramifications of the policy, a service spokesman only said, “The Navy cannot comment on pending legislation.”

Getting the language into law will require agreement from the SASC. At least in early comments, two key committee members signaled they supported tightening regulations around Navy shipbuilding, but were hesitant to go as far as the House did.

Chairman Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said his committee wanted to craft language that will incentivize the Navy to have a “more fully designed” ship before beginning construction.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., chair of the seapower subcommittee, which oversees Navy shipbuilding, said he hadn’t seen the House’s language, but added “I think generally, that’s a good practice” when told of the policy.

“Are there circumstances where some emergency need may make it propitious to start to gather the materials and do some of the basic work that you know that you’ll need before the full design has finished?” he added. “As a general matter, I think that concept is fine, but I want to look at the details.”

Graphic rendering of the future USS Lafayette (FFG-65), named in honor of Marquis de Lafayette and his service during the American Revolutionary War. (Navy)

Constellation Class: An Aptly Timed Case Study

As lawmakers drafted their legislation, independent auditors at the Government Accountability Office in late May published their own report about the Constellation-class frigate, a relatively new shipbuilding program that has come under intense scrutiny over the Navy’s design choices.

GAO’s report excoriated the service for excessively fiddling with the ship’s design, despite the Navy frequently talking up its use of a parent design to reduce the risk of schedule delays. The new frigate and its parent design, the Italian FREMM, are nothing more than “distant cousins” in GAO’s estimation. Now, just four years out of the gate, the frigate program is staring down a potential three-year delay, according to Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro.

RELATED : GAO blames new frigate’s delay on Navy tampering with design, ‘botched metrics’

“To reduce technical risk, the Navy and its shipbuilder modified an existing design to incorporate Navy specifications and weapon systems,” GAO auditors wrote. “However, the Navy’s decision to begin construction before the design was complete is inconsistent with leading ship design practices and jeopardized this approach.”

To be clear, government auditors did not call for the Navy to adhere to the blanket policy that Congress is considering, although they did recommend the service complete the design of a given “grand module” prior to construction of that part of the ship. “Grand module” is the phrase the frigate program office uses to refer to the basic unit of construction for a ship. The Navy official who responded to GAO’s report agreed with that recommendation.

But GAO’s criticisms speak directly to the frustrations of lawmakers such as Courtney who are exasperated to see the same design issues that plagued the Littoral Combat Ship for years now surface early in the life cycle of its highly anticipated successor.

“I think it’s exactly the reason that Congress is thinking about imposing a 100 percent design requirement before starting construction on the ship,” Martin said of the problems GAO outlined with the Constellation class.

Proponents of the frigate argue that the US Navy’s shipbuilding requirements are unlike any fleet in the world, and as such, no parent design was ever destined to stay the same once it reached Navy Yard in southeast Washington. But while the service’s requirements may be unique, the role of a frigate inside any fleet is largely identical, Martin argued. The US Navy’s desire to over engineer their ships is the crux of what must change, he said.

A frigate “doesn’t do everything. It doesn’t look like a slightly descoped DDG-51,” Martin said. “Navy requirements generation, Navy platform centricity, Navy’s desire to always go toward the Death Star model is — unless that’s changed, shipbuilding will never get well.”

Something Must Give

Although most sources that spoke to Breaking Defense for this story were skeptical of the House’s policy, they also voiced their sympathy for the frustrations lawmakers have with the Navy’s shipbuilding record.

One former Naval Sea Systems Command official, who spoke to Breaking Defense on the condition of anonymity to be candid, bluntly said the House policy is “a bad idea,” asserting it will only serve to delay the start of construction “unnecessarily.”

“It’s not unusual for the hull design to be complete while the combat system/topside design is evolving,” this source said. “It’s low to no risk to get started with hull construction and in today’s world where the turn circle on changes in technology is so short it allows you to get the most up to date C5ISR systems possible.”

But that does not mean the Navy should get a pass for the delays that have ensued on Constellation and other programs.

“Having said that, the Navy should definitely be held accountable for making major design changes once the contract has been awarded,” they added.

Valerie Insinna contributed to this report.

Latest from Breaking Defense

Let it go (long): France joins Germany, Italy and Poland in new ELSA long-range missile project

Saltzman names former UK space chief ‘Assistant CSO’ to promote allied partnership

Sign up and get Breaking Defense news in your inbox.

• Advertising & Marketing Solutions
• Breaking Defense
• Breaking Energy
• Breaking Gov
• Above the Law
• Dealbreaker
• MedCity News

Copyright © 2024 Breaking Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Registration or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy .

Privacy Center | Do not sell my information

Friend's Email Address

Your Email Address

Book a demo

Submit an inquiry.

CPS GfK Harvest House: Continually improving the offer with consumer and market insights

Global HQ: Maasdijk , The Netherlands

Founded: Harvest House, 2013

Facts & figures

Greenhouse horticulture: 1.136 hectars

Largest growers' association in the Netherlands for salads

Through our relationship with CPS GfK we access the latest market and consumer intelligence to continually improve our offer and the value we give to our customers. We identify opportunities to refine our assortment, promotion, price and distribution – in fact, all aspects of our business.

Harvest House is an international association of salad growers based in the Netherlands. The members grow high-quality tomatoes, sweet peppers, and cucumbers using innovative and sustainable methods. The association’s mission is to grow healthy, nutritious salads of the highest quality in an innovative and sustainable way, together with their chain partners. They ensure that they take the most efficient routes from the greenhouses – reaching the consumers with the best prices and most appealing products. Produce is delivered to retailers in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, the UK and worldwide. The majority of Harvest House’s customers are in North West Europe.

This essential information helps us deepen our existing relationships with retailers and to build new ones. Crucially, it helps us stay close to the shoppers who buy our tomatoes, sweet peppers and cucumbers.

Business-critical market and consumer intelligence

The research revealed that every online platform triggers a different shopper trip, and it identified which platforms offer the most potential for Unilever brands to appeal to new customers. A key insight was that online platforms are not all the same, and put simply, there is no one solution to online shopping for Unilever. Buyers are more mature in their habits today, and their behavior is constantly evolving. In fact, as Tamara Vieveen says: “There are many layers to e-commerce and that needs to be reflected in our strategy.”

The findings in this piece of research are used by the Unilever market research team, the category management team, marketing and account teams to understand current channel dynamics. They are important insights to be used for portfolio planning, product positioning, and ultimately, of category channel strategies. The findings are used as input for conversations with retailers and at a top-level, they have fed into strategic thinking across the market research team.

An effective partnership

Harvest House and CPS GfK have a strong working relationship built over a number of years. As well as regular data delivery and insights from the consultants, the team at CPS GfK is on hand to provide ad hoc analysis and support. With a good understanding of the association’s business, the team is both proactive and reactive, whatever the need.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How AI Can Change the Way Your Company Gets Work Done

• Marc Zao-Sanders

Using AI to help you carry out tasks better and faster can fuel new growth in your organization.

AI offers many ways to enhance a company’s overall internal capabilities and skills. AI can be used to infer skills from employee profiles and their activity. AI can be used to classify learning content and make it more applicable and accessible for the whole workforce, as well as making learning more personalized to each individual. AI can be used to summarize, recommend, and augment learning content. GenAI, in particular, can be used by the world’s billion knowledge workers to boost performance, right in the flow of work. Research shows that GenAI can get knowledge work done 25% faster and 40% better. This article covers several ways that corporations, teams, and individuals can drive internal growth by enhancing organizational capabilities. Early signs are that double-digit growth via GenAI is eminently possible.

Most growth models and strategies — such as the Ansoff Matrix and McKinsey’s 7S Framework — are focused on external expansion: Grow by launching new products, by entering new markets, and by doing both at once. Yet growth can also come from within, by developing internal  capability.

• Marc Zao-Sanders is CEO and co-founder of filtered.com , which develops algorithmic technology to make sense of corporate skills and learning content. He’s the author of Timeboxing – The Power of Doing One Thing at a Time . Find Marc on LinkedIn or at www.marczaosanders.com .

Partner Center

• How It Works
• Learn About Solar
• Solar Rebates
• Solar Reviews
• Learn About Storage
• Solar Panels
• Solar Calculator
• Community Solar
• Energy Efficiency
• Electric Vehicles
• Smart Energy Products
• Heating and Cooling
• Other Clean Options
• Renewable Energy
• Research Solar
• Energy Upgrades

Sumadhura Panorama Plots - New Launch at North Bangalore

Solar Shopping Made Easy

Multiple quotes, qualified installers, buy or lease with no-money-down .

Learn More About

• Solar PV systems
• Solar leases
• Financing options

On Our Solar News Feed

• The solar tax credit explained
• Types of solar panels: monocrystalline, polycrystalline, thin-film
• How much energy do solar panels produce?

Sumadhura Group, renowned for its commitment to quality and innovation, is proud to present Sumadhura Panorama Plots, an exceptional plotted development project situated in the thriving locality of North Bangalore.

Financial Details

Professionals & suppliers, what you need to know, description:.

Sumadhura Panorama Plots is strategically located on NH44 in North Bangalore, one of the city's fastest-growing and most sought-after residential areas. The project's proximity to major landmarks, including the Kempegowda International Airport, ensures excellent connectivity and ease of access.

Efficiency or Sustainability Improvements:

The presence of reputed educational institutions, healthcare facilities, shopping centers, and entertainment hubs makes it an ideal location for families and professionals alike.

My Motivation:

North Bangalore is known for its rapid infrastructure development, making it a hotspot for real estate investment. The upcoming Peripheral Ring Road and the expansion of Bellary Road are set to enhance connectivity further, driving appreciation potential in this region.

Sumadhura Panorama Plots is designed to provide a holistic living experience, with a focus on comfort, convenience, and community.

Additional Notes:

Sumadhura Group is a leading real estate developer with a strong presence in Bangalore and Hyderabad. Known for its commitment to quality, innovation, and customer satisfaction, Sumadhura Group has delivered numerous successful residential and commercial projects.

Open House Info:

Get the best deals and offers

View Other Case Studies

The EnergySage Marketplace

By sharing your first-hand experience about your clean energy system, you have helped others in their decision. You can add as many case studies and edit them any time you want.

Would you like to add photos?

There's nothing like seeing images of a real installed system. There is no limit to the amount of photos you can add!

Enter your zip code to see solar quotes near you

• Editorial Guidelines

Solar Resources

Work With Us

• Solar Companies
• Corporate Partnerships
• Community Programs
• Market Research
• Refer a Friend
• Email EnergySage
• EnergySage on Facebook
• EnergySage on Twitter

ENERGYSAGE is a registered trademark and the EnergySage logo is a trademark of EnergySage, Inc. Other trademarks are the property of either EnergySage, Inc. or our licensors and are used with permission.

© Copyright 2009-2024 EnergySage, Inc. All rights reserved.

Terms of Use

Updated 10/2016

Privacy Policy

Updated 09/2022

Advertisement

News Analysis

An Assassination Attempt That Seems Likely to Tear America Further Apart

The attack on former President Donald J. Trump comes at a time when the United States is already polarized along ideological and cultural lines and is split, it often seems, into two realities.

• Share full article

By Peter Baker

Peter Baker has covered the past five presidents.

• July 14, 2024

When President Ronald Reagan was shot by an attention-seeking drifter in 1981, the country united behind its injured leader. The teary-eyed Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas P. O’Neill Jr., went to the hospital room of the Republican president, held his hands, kissed his head and got on his knees to pray for him.

But the assassination attempt against former President Donald J. Trump seems more likely to tear America further apart than to bring it together. Within minutes of the shooting, the air was filled with anger, bitterness, suspicion and recrimination. Fingers were pointed, conspiracy theories advanced and a country already bristling with animosity fractured even more.

The fact that the shooting in Butler, Pa., on Saturday night was two days before Republicans were set to gather in Milwaukee for their nominating convention invariably put the event in a partisan context. While Democrats bemoaned political violence, which they have long faulted Mr. Trump for encouraging, Republicans instantly blamed President Biden and his allies for the attack, which they argued stemmed from incendiary language labeling the former president a proto-fascist who would destroy democracy.

Mr. Trump’s eldest son, his campaign strategist and a running mate finalist all attacked the political left within hours of the shooting even before the gunman was identified or his motive determined. “Well of course they tried to keep him off the ballot, they tried to put him in jail and now you see this,” wrote Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to the former president.

But the Trump campaign seemed to think better of it, and the post was deleted. A memo sent out on Sunday by Mr. LaCivita and Susie Wiles, another senior adviser, instructed Trump team members not to comment on the shooting.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .