case study house program

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

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

• Written by Fabian Dejtiar | Translated by Maggie Johnson
• Published on March 29, 2021

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. 

Modern Living Space: Adapting to new needs, activities, and lifestyles

"What is a house?" asked Eames. He soon answered his own question with a drawing that captured the new ways that people used and lived in the contemporary home: listening to music, watching movies, entertaining, and relaxing. These functions led to the introduction of open floor plans and multi-purpose rooms divided between public and private spaces, which quickly became the norm for modern house design. 

In this sense, living spaces also began to stand out for the creative details that began to link the inside of the residence with the outside, mainly by maximizing the use of open air spaces. Sliding doors, furniture, and other elements were another facet to the personalization of spaces in an attempt to satisfy the the tastes and wants of the future residents while keeping in mind their security and privacy.  

Another interesting factor was the attention given to storage spaces such as cabinets, shelves, and closets, especially in kitchens, bedrooms, and bathrooms. In this sense, as shown in the film “House: After Five Years of Living,” made by Eames in 1955, the resident's personal possessions and where they are exhibited play an important role in humanizing a living space.

• 6 Tips for Designing and Building a Tiny House
• Smart Configurations for Small Kitchens
• Storage Spaces for Small Houses: Solutions and Useful Examples

Low-Budget Housing: Understanding New Materials and Reducing Energy Costs 

As can be seen in numerous examples, the decision to use materials such as cement blocks, plywood, and industrial glass dramatically reduced the project's costs. In turn, by using the resistance of the metal, the designers were able to use smaller dimensions for the columns and beams, resulting in smaller frameworks to enclose the spaces. Maintenance costs were even lower. The materials could be left exposed in their raw form or covered with a light coat of paint and could easily be replaced in the event of breakage. 

The low-cost trend gained even more momentum with the development of various methods to reduce heating and lighting expenses. The use of large floor-to-ceiling windows maximized natural light and their sliding fixtures allowed for optimal air-flow. Furthermore, the wide incorporation of plants and green space also worked to keep the home cool and comfortable. 

• How to Make a Facade with Recycled Materials: 16 Notable Examples
• The Golden Age of 3D Printing: Innovations Changing the Industry
• Unfamiliar Living Spaces with Recycled Materials (Spanish Text)

Easy-to-build Living Spaces: Using the Most Efficient Construction Methods

An interesting aspect that could be seen in numerous houses was modular construction - giving homes a simple geometry that not only facilitated the standardization of the building process but also allowed homes to be pre-manufactured as a way to reduce building time. 

Pre-fabricated systems reduced the number of construction jobs that needed time to dry or set and offered a feasible and more importantly, replicable, solution with the intelligent mixing of materials, such as aluminum and wooden frameworks. If a method could not be replicated across different experiments, it still served as an example in the research and development of construction technology in housing. 

Another important element of pre-fabrication is the idea of "core services" that house the plumbing and heating installations that center around kitchens and bathrooms as a way to consolidate one of the living space's biggest expenses. 

• 5 Projects That Illustrate the Huge Potential of Prefab
• This Brazilian Startup Creates Smart, Pre-Fabricated Homes in Half the Time
• This Concept Uses a Pre-Fabricated Timber System to Enable Modern, Self-Built Homes
• This Off-Site Construction System Duplicates Floors in Barcelona Buildings in 3 Days

For more information and examples, we recommend visiting the following links where you can get a first-hand look at the living spaces and their layouts:

• Case Study House #1 / Julius Ralph Davidson
• Case Study House #2 / Sumner Spaulding & John Rex
• Case Study House #3 / William W Wurster & Theodore Bernardi
• Case Study House #4 / Ralph Rapson’s "Greenbelt House"
• Case Study House #6 / Richard Neutra: The Omega House
• Case Study House #7 / Thornton M Abell
• Case Study House #8 / Charles y Ray Eames: The Eames' House
• Case Study House #9 / Charles & Ray Eames, Eero Saarinen: The Entenza House
• Case Study House #10 / Kemper Nomland & Kemper Nomland Jr
• Case Study House #11 / J R Davidson
• Case Study House #12 / Whitney R Smith
• Case Study House #13 / Richard Neutra: The Alpha House
• Case Study House #20 / Richard Neutra: The Bailey House
• Case Study House #21 / Pierre Koenig
• Case Study House #22 / Pierre Koenig: The Stahl House
• Case Study House #23 / Killingsworth, Brady & Smith
• Case Study House #24 / A. Quincy Jones & Frederick Emmons
• Case Study House #26 / Beverley David Thorne

See more articles about topics of contemporary living spaces in the following links:

• Will Open-Source, Technological Solutions Ever Lead to the Dream of Universal Affordable Housing?
• 6 Thoughts On Materials and Construction: Decisions That Improve People's Quality Of Life
• OPEN Architecture and Xiaomi Unveil MARS Case Housing Prototype at China House Vision 2018

Editor's note: This article was originally published on March 25, 2019.

Image gallery

• Sustainability

世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!

想浏览archdaily中国吗, you've started following your first account, did you know.

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

Case Study House Program

The case study house program: origins, meanings, and protagonists, on the participation of northern california architects to the case study house program.

________________________________________

Case Study House #3

Information Description Plan Photos Architect’s Biography

Case Study House #19

Case study house #26.

Information Description Plans Photos Architect’s Biography

Case Study House #27

References & further reading, bay area architects’ designs for the, case study house program, 1949 – 1963.

By Pierluigi Serraino

The Case Study House program and the magazine Arts and Architecture are two inseparable twins in the historical narratives of California Modernism in its post-war phase. Common denominator of both was John Entenza (1905-1984), as editor from 1940 to 1962 of the magazine California Arts and Architecture, a title he changed in 1945 to Arts and Architecture, gave an international manner — both in terms of its compellingly lanky graphics and its cerebral content — to what had been mostly a regional periodical of limited distribution. Both the magazine and the Case Study House Program he masterminded hinged upon the recognition that the architecture of his time was rooted in technology, a symbolic source of its outer expression in the public realm.  

The long span, steel, joinery, plywood, modularity, open plan, car mobility, aluminum, and glazing systems, were the tools and the lexicon of the post-war architect and the citizen of a technological society. For Entenza, the environmental habitat of California had to arise from the civilian application of the radical innovations in mechanical systems, new materials, and building science advancements gained during the World War II, especially because of the military industry’s major presence in California.

The Case Study House program started as Entenza’s personal project, partially financed through his own resources, that lasted two decades. This initiative was the game-changer in the authoritative aura that California Modernism acquired worldwide. Entenza led the program from 1945 to 1962 till he moved to Chicago to head the Graham Foundation. David Travers continued it from 1962 until its end in 1966. They both handpicked the architects that were going to be included in the program, absent of a truly objective criteria or checklist. While Entenza wrote the program’s manifesto himself and published it, the houses and architects chosen for inclusion are an eclectic mix of design expressions.

While most of the built (and unbuilt) residential projects of the Case Study House program are located in Southern California, the design community behind this renown cultural initiative is far from regional. In fact, the roaster of architects Entenza and Travers selected during their respective tenure offers a revealing picture of both the composite nature of signatures called to fulfill the promises of the January 1st , 1945, manifesto and of what flavor of modernism was being disseminated for the post-war home.

Some household names are from California- William Wurster from Stockton, Ray Kaiser from Sacramento, Pierre Koenig from San Francisco- as well as some lesser-known, such as Ed Killingsworth. John Rex, Worley Wong, and Calvin Straub, among others. A sizeable group of CSH architects was from out of state and had a cultural connection with the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Michigan, the legendary design school founded by Eliel Saarinen. From that milieu, the list is truly impressive: Charles Eames, Eero Saarinen, Ralph Rapson, Don Knorr. Others were from other parts of the country and landed either for family reasons or for college to Southern California. Additionally, others

came from Europe, most notably Richard Neutra from Vienna, Julius Ralph Davidson from Berlin, and Raphael Soriano from Rhodes, Greece. In this eclectic mix, various gradations of common themes- relationship with WWII technology, and material, open planning, one-level single-family homes, and an overall permeable relationship between indoor and outdoor, found specific manifestations in the talent of these creatives. These prototypes for living were conceived as models to shape much of post-war living for present and future generations.

Four teams of Bay Area architects were involved in the CSH Program. Under the Entenza’s era, there was the now-demolished CSH #3 in Los Angeles designed and built in 1945 by William Wurster and Theodore Bernardi and the unbuilt CSH #19 by Don Knorr for a site in the San Francisco South Bay in 1957. During the Traver’s lead, Beverley David Thorne’s CSH #26 was realized in 1962 in San Rafael, whereas CSH #27 by Campbell & Wong, in association with Don Allen Fong, of 1963 for a site in Smoke Rise, New Jersey, remained on paper. These Bay Area contributions have been intermittently acknowledged in the publications surrounding this one-of-a-kind initiative.

Yet, they provide documentary evidence of the commitment of the local community of designers to offering updated architectural propositions consistent with the changing needs of the California, and American, post-war society.

Past Exhibitions

Architecture + the City Festival

Whitney Young Jr.

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.

During the years, a small number of designs were added to the program to keep the continuity of the Case Study during occurring breaks of the program.

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.

Within the most known precedents in Europe -for example- I have to mention the 1927 Welssenhofsiedlung in Stuttgart -by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe- to which architects as Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Mart Stem, and Mies Van der Rohe himself participated, designing and building examples of modern minimal houses that are still inhabited today.

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

While in the U.S. Frank Lloyd Writght’s 1901 project for a ‘Small house with a lots of room in it’ was published in the Ladies Home Journal; an early attempt to spread the culture of well-designed and affordable houses through a popular magazine.

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

The Case Study Houses Program: Craig Ellwood’s Case Study House 18

Search the Site

Popular pages.

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

Case Study Houses

The Case Study Houses served as a blueprint and inspiration for Mid-Century homes in Southern California.

In 2013, ten Case Study House program residences were added to the National Register of Historic Places.

Relevant Places

Bass House (Case Study House #20B)

Case Study House #1

Case Study House #10

Case Study House #16

Case Study House #28

Entenza House (Case Study House #9)

Stahl House (Case Study House #22)

Triad (Case Study House #23A)

Triad (Case Study House #23C)

West House (Case Study House #18)

Launched in 1945 by John Entenza’s  Arts + Architecture  magazine, the Case Study House program commissioned architects to study, plan, design, and ultimately construct houses in anticipation of renewed building in the postwar years.

While the Case Study House program did not achieve its initial goals for mass production and affordability, it was responsible for some of Los Angeles’ most iconic and internationally recognized modern residences, such as the  Eames House (Case Study House #8)  by Charles and Ray Eames and the Pierre Koenig-designed  Stahl House (Case Study House #22) , famously photographed by Julius Shulman.

After a decade-long effort, L.A. Conservancy’s Modern Committee succeeded in listing ten Case Study residences on the National Register of Historic Places.

About This Issue

With an emphasis on experimentation, and a goal of promoting good, modern, affordable design for single-family homes, the program helped to disseminate the midcentury modern aesthetic through its thirty-five published plans. Of these, twenty-five houses and one apartment building were built in California and Arizona.

The program offered an unparalleled opportunity for commissions and publicity for established architects including Richard Neutra, J. R. Davidson, Sumner Spaulding, and William Wurster. It helped raise the profile of then-lesser-known designers including Craig Ellwood, A. Quincy Jones, Edward Killingsworth, Ralph Rapson, Eero Saarinen, and Raphael Soriano.

Our Position

On November 21, 2013, the  Los Angeles Conservancy Modern Committee was awarded a Governor’s Historic Preservation Award to recognize its work in nominating eleven Case Study Houses to the National Register of Historic Places.

Through the efforts of the Los Angeles Conservancy Modern Committee, eleven Case Study House residences in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Ventura counties are now recognized as nationally historic. Ten are officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and an eleventh was deemed eligible for listing.

Few of the Case Study Houses currently have preservation protections, and some have been demolished or significantly altered. This proactive step recognizes the eleven nominated homes and raises greater awareness about the Case Study House program while providing a historic context for future designation of the remaining eligible properties.

On May 1, 2013, the State Historical Resources Commission voted to recommend listing of ten Case Study Houses in the National Register of Historic Places.  These ten residences with certifying recommendations were submitted to the National Park Service for final review and listing by the Keeper of the National Trust.  They were formally listed on July 24, 2013.

An eleventh nominated residence, Case Study House #23A, was not formally listed because of owner objection, but it received a determination of eligibility for listing in the National Register. All eleven residences will be considered historic resources and will enjoy the same protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Several Case Study Houses were not included in the nomination — if they’ve been altered or demolished, or for other reasons — but with this platform in place, it will be easier for other CSH homes to be nominated in the future.

Likewise, a few CSH houses, such as the  Eames House  (CSH #8), weren’t included because they’re already individually listed.

Case Study House residences included in nomination:

Los Angeles County

• Case Study House #1 , 10152 Toluca Lake Ave., Los Angeles
• Case Study House #9 , 205 Chautauqua Blvd., Los Angeles
• Case Study House #10 , 711 S. San Rafael Ave., Pasadena
• Case Study House #16 , 1811 Bel Air Rd., Los Angeles
• Case Study House #18 , 199 Chautauqua Blvd., Los Angeles
• Case Study House #20 , 2275 N. Santa Rosa Ave., Altadena
• Case Study House #21 , 9038 Wonderland Park Ave., Los Angeles
• Case Study House #22 , 1635 Woods Dr., Los Angeles

San Diego County 

• Case Study House #23A , 2342 Rue de Anne, La Jolla, San Diego (determined eligible)
• Case Study House #23C , 2339 Rue de Anne, La Jolla, San Diego

Ventura County

• Case Study House #28 , 91 Inverness Rd., Thousand Oaks