farnsworth house case study

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

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

• Written by Adam Jasper & David Tran, Archilogic
• Published on July 24, 2015

Farnsworth House , the temple of domestic modernism designed by Mies van der Rohe as a weekend retreat for a Chicago doctor, is one of the most paradoxical houses of the 20th century. A perfectionist mirage, it floats like a pavilion in a park, but its history has been beset by plagues, floods and feuds. As the second installment of a series of three modernist classics presented by Archilogic , we’ve modeled the Farnsworth house so that you can see if—in spite of its austere reputation—it can be lived in after all. In this model you can explore the spatial arrangement of the house, and refurnish it with Eames chairs, deck it out with your IKEA favorites, or booby-trap it with children’s toys.

The standard account of the Farnsworth House is well known. Edith Farnsworth, a prominent nephrologist, commissioned the house from Mies for a property on a (then) relatively isolated floodplain on the Fox river. As the early letters between client and architect attest, the house was to be a relaxed refuge for the cultivation of the self—for translating poetry, playing music, that kind of thing.

The architectural ambitions for the house, however, were pitched high from the beginning. Even before construction the plans were exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in 1947 (by Philip Johnson , who later did his own knock-off). All the elements of a story are there: a rumored romance between architect and client, a public falling out, and a controversial court case (see Sex and Real Estate, Reconsidered: What Was the True Story Behind Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House? ).

Although the materials do not conceal their industrial origins, the precision of the composition, and the level of finish is designed to convey a sense of carefully controlled luxury. Everything is done to make the building appear weightless. The white metal stanchions do not reach the line of the roof, hinting at the aesthetic order of a Greek temple, whose columns sit below the entablature.

Take only one visual subtlety that Mies employed: the roof itself is exactly as thick as the floor plate, fifteen inches. Yet the floor, filled with aggregate and dressed in travertine, is much heavier than the roof. There’s no structural reason to make them the same depth, but it helps reinforce the illusion that the building floats in the landscape, that it is tethered to the ground by its white columns, rather than held up by them. The promise of the house to float is perhaps best fulfilled by its appearance during the floods that periodically cause the Fox river to burst its banks. When the initial plans were made, the stilts held the house safely above the highest recorded flood levels, but as Chicago has expanded and the climate has changed, it is a regular victim of inundation (and it’s been expensively restored several times after being filled with mud).

Like Philip Johnson’s Glass Hhouse , which it directly inspired, the Farnsworth house is exceptionally photogenic. It lives in perfect symbiosis with photography, the interior revealing itself to the voyeuristic x-ray eye of the camera. However the most interesting photographs of the Farnsworth house might not be those that show it in its purist glory. Rather, they are those from the later occupancy of Dr. Edith Farnsworth herself, struggling to assert her identity over that of the buildings. Those photographs that show the insect screens and TV aerials, the flood damage and rust, like the classic photos of the Villa Savoye as a ruin, perhaps carry more appeal than the building in its current uninhabited perfection.

The day-to-day disadvantages of such houses are obvious, but rarely commented on. At night, the inhabitant of such a house is visible to everything that lives in the forest, but they see nothing.  As  House Beautiful  reported, Dr. Farnsworth described feeling “like a prowling animal, always on the alert.” The plagues of mosquitos that attacked the house from the meadow probably didn’t help her sleep much, either.

Archilogic ’s model helps reveal the spatiality of the Farnsworth house in a way that photography cannot. The central core of the house, the opaque wooden obelisk that screens the kitchen and contains the bathrooms, shows itself in the Archilogic model to be a kind of grand daddy to the now ubiquitous kitchen island, the static centre around which everything circulates. Mies often favored a kind of pinwheel floorplan, in which the plan might look flexible, but came with strong serving suggestions, not only about what furniture to use, and what to wear, but also what direction to walk in. As a walk around the Archilogic model clearly shows, although all the zones of the house are interconnected, crucial lines of sight are blocked by the wooden core. As transparent as the house may be, the bedroom is not visible from the front door, nor can the living room be seen from the kitchen.

Archilogic ’s model allows you mess with Mies’ purity. You can refurnish the house like you’re an Eames in your dreams, or Dr Farnsworth herself. Click on the square brackets at the bottom right to go full screen. Build walls of cupboards to separate the bedroom from the living room, or improvise a sophisticated campsite on the terrace. Archilogic ’s engine allows you to interact with the model, rather than just gawk at it, so go ahead and make your own domestic heaven or hell.

Start the tour above, or via this link . The animation will guide you through different aspects of the building and will finally leave you to furnish your Farnsworth House.

• The camera icon will repeat the animation. 
• The floorplan, dollhouse and person icon change the viewing mode. 
• The black menu bar on the right provides most importantly the account, interior and sharing menu.

Don't miss Archilogic's Virtual Look Into The Eames Case Study House #8 .

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

对密斯·凡·德·罗设计的范斯沃斯住宅进行虚拟装饰

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.

Inspiration and Tools for Architects

Thanks for signing up!

Architectural Details: Mies van der Rohe’s Iconic Farnsworth House

Mies’ mantra “god is in the details” is perfectly captured within his most stunning residence..

The latest edition of “ Architizer: The World’s Best Architecture ” — a stunning, hardbound book celebrating the most inspiring contemporary architecture from around the globe — is now available. Order your copy today .  

The latest installment of our Architectural Details series turns its attention to an architect who understood the importance of considering every last element of a building with the greatest reference. German-American Modernist Mies van der Rohe is widely credited with coining the classic motto “God is in the details,” a mantra perfectly captured within every slender component of his most iconic residence: Farnsworth House.

As architect and author Georg Windeck accurately sums up in his new book Construction Matters , Doctor Edith Farnworth’s one-room weekend retreat represents an uncompromising exploration of the “artistic potential of structural steel sections.” The innate strength of this material allowed Mies to achieve his ideal architectural language, a crystallization of rigorous ideas pertaining to light, space and structural expression.

Farnsworth House construction photo, winter 1949-50; courtesy Myron Goldsmith fonds Collection Centre Canadien d’Architecture / Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montréal

Situated on a picturesque, waterfront site alongside the Fox River in rural Illinois, Mies aimed to create a structure that would serve to frame views of the countryside with minimal obstruction. Windeck describes this form of architecture as a “bodiless framework,” distilling the building to its most simple elements and eschewing all that could be deemed superfluous to the building’s primary functions.

Mies employed a rigid rationale for the building’s plan, defined by the wider context. “The surrounding landscape provokes the rectangular proportions and structural grid of the Farnsworth House,” explains Windeck. “Three rows of columns run parallel with the river. They are connected with girders, which support smaller cross beams.” Vertical elements echo the rhythm of surrounding trees, while horizontal members align with the surface of the river.

Structural frame; drawing by Construction Matters

This “one-way flexural system” is ideal for use with rolled steel sections, and the entire skeleton of the building is essentially defined by a kit of parts, as Windeck describes: “The house becomes a catalogue of ‘I’s, ‘C’s, ‘L’s and rectangles that are used for different parts of the system. Their shape exhibits their structural function and their size reflects the magnitude of the load they have to resist.”

Because the residence is contained within a flat-roofed, single-story structure, vertical loads are relatively insignificant — instead, the profile of each steel I-beam is necessitated by the horizontal forces applied by wind. As Windeck explains, “Flanges and webs act as small walls that have been evacuated from the interior of the building and compressed to the scale of a construction detail.”

I-beam detail; drawing and photograph by Construction Matters

While many architects attempt to conceal such details behind façades or within wall buildups, Mies celebrated the tectonic nature of the steel, granting viewers an instant understanding of how the structure stands up and what materials it is composed of. Between these columns, the floor and ceiling slabs are edges with C-section girders that wrap around the corners to provide a seamless finish.

With the vertical I-beams running past them to the ground, these slabs appear to float, akin to rafts drifting upon the adjacent river. The building is characterized by an apparent weightlessness that belies the solidity of its primary construction material. Such an effect could only be achieved by carefully considering how the different structural elements would connect at each junction, as Windeck explains: “Mies uses conventional bolted connections for the invisible parts of the framework. All visible connections are plug-welded.”

Farnsworth House; via Wikipedia

The resulting aesthetic is pristine, and each detail lends itself to the architect’s original mission — to create a sublime manifestation of modernist ideals. Despite its forward-thinking nature, Farnsworth House also nods to ancient artistic practices: Mies’ columns dissect views of the surrounding landscape, transforming them into flattened images that evoke the painted panels of Japanese screen walls . The building effectively merges art and architecture, and will continue to stand as one of Mies’ seminal masterpiece.

Enjoy this article? For more amazing designs in steel, check out Construction Matters — available here — and enjoy the first three features in our series on Architectural Details:

Toyo Ito’s Flowing Concrete Canopy

Elissa and Alvar Aalto’s Patchwork Wall of Bricks

Herzog & de Meuron’s Pristine Timber Box

Related Content

Vernacular Architecture: The Indigenous Materials and Construction Techniques of Ghana

Explore the vernacular architectural heritage of Ghana through its tropically inclined indigenous ma terials and construction techniques.

This Minimal Concrete Studio Harnesses Light to Become a Living Canvas

Designed by ASWA (ArchitecturalStudio of Work – Aholic), the two-story gallery and private studio wa s created for a local Thai artist.

Subscribe to the Architizer Weekly Newsletter

• Random Project
• Collaborate

Farnsworth House

Introduction.

Description

The absence of walls

Services core, resolution of the interior spaces, relationship with the body of water, static structure.

Fotos WikiArquitectura (Marzo 2023)

Otras fotos

Did you find this article useful?

Really sorry to hear that...

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

Farnsworth House and its Flood-Resistant Design: Resilience in Simplicity

Farnsworth House –  Examples of Flood resistant architecture around the world

Nestled along the serene banks of the Fox River in Plano, Illinois, the Farnsworth House stands as an architectural marvel that seamlessly integrates simplicity with flood-resistant design principles. This article delves into the unique features of the Farnsworth House, exploring how its innovative design has positioned it as a symbol of resilience in the face of flooding.

Historical Context and Architectural Vision

Architectural prowess of mies van der rohe.

Commissioned in 1945 and completed in 1951, the Farnsworth House was designed by the eminent architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Known for his modernist approach, Mies envisioned a residence that would harmonize with its natural surroundings while embodying minimalist elegance. The resulting design, with its elevated structure and expansive glass walls, reflects Mies’ vision of transparency and simplicity in architecture.

Design Features and Flood-Resistant Strategies

Elevated elegance: raising the foundations.

The Farnsworth House embraces an elevated design, lifting its living spaces above the ground on steel columns. This deliberate elevation not only creates a sense of floating transparency but also serves as a strategic response to potential flooding. By situating the living areas above ground level, Mies van der Rohe mitigated the risk of inundation, showcasing a prescient understanding of flood-resistant principles.

Open Spaces and Natural Ventilation

The expansive glass walls that define the Farnsworth House not only provide breathtaking views of the surrounding landscape but also play a role in flood resilience. In the event of rising waters, the openness of the design allows floodwaters to flow freely beneath the house, minimizing structural impact. The strategic use of open spaces aligns with the vision of an architecture that coexists harmoniously with nature.

Global Impact and Enduring Influence

Architectural legacy in flood-prone areas.

While the Farnsworth House is situated along the Fox River, its design principles have resonated globally, especially in flood-prone regions. Architects and urban planners in areas susceptible to river flooding, such as parts of Europe and Asia, have drawn inspiration from Mies’ innovative approach to flood-resistant design. The Farnsworth House serves as a touchstone for those seeking to integrate elegance with resilience in flood-prone landscapes.

Statistical Analysis of Flood Resilience

Historical flood events and structural integrity.

Throughout its history, the Farnsworth House has weathered several flood events along the Fox River. Statistical analysis of these events reveals the remarkable structural integrity of the house. Its elevated foundations and open design have consistently demonstrated the ability to withstand floodwaters without compromising the architectural integrity envisioned by Mies van der Rohe.

Adaptability in Changing Water Levels

Detailed metrics on the adaptability of the Farnsworth House to changing water levels further underscore its flood resilience. The flexibility of the design, coupled with strategic elevation, positions the house as a model for adaptive architecture capable of responding dynamically to fluctuating environmental conditions.

Sustainability Metrics and Environmental Harmony

Minimal environmental impact.

The Farnsworth House, with its minimalist design and elevated structure, boasts a minimal environmental impact. This aspect aligns with contemporary sustainability goals, showcasing how flood-resistant architecture can coexist with the environment without leaving a lasting ecological footprint.

Integration with Natural Surroundings

Metrics pertaining to the integration of the Farnsworth House with its natural surroundings highlight its role in fostering environmental harmony. The use of glass walls not only provides panoramic views but also blurs the boundary between the interior and exterior, creating a living space that complements and respects the natural landscape.

Challenges and Ongoing Preservation Efforts

Preservation challenges in flood-prone areas.

While the Farnsworth House has successfully navigated numerous flood events, preservation challenges persist. Flood-prone areas require ongoing efforts to protect architectural heritage from the impacts of climate change. The Farnsworth House serves as a case study for the preservation of flood-resistant structures in the face of evolving environmental challenges.

Innovations in Flood-Resistant Preservation

Ongoing research in flood-resistant architecture includes innovations in preservation techniques. The Farnsworth House, as a cultural landmark, continues to inspire initiatives aimed at enhancing flood-resistant preservation strategies. These efforts showcase the intersection of architectural conservation and resilience in the context of changing climatic conditions.

Rethinking The Future (RTF) is a Global Platform for Architecture and Design. RTF through more than 100 countries around the world provides an interactive platform of highest standard acknowledging the projects among creative and influential industry professionals.

The Float House in Flood-Resistant Architecture: Sailing Through Challenges

NRC Pavilion: A Pinnacle of Flood-Resistant Architecture

Related posts.

Wingsweep: A Masterpiece by Kendrick Bangs Kellogg

Fernandez Architecture: Crafting Elegance and Minimalism in Architectural Excellence

Christ Hospital Joint and Spine Center, USA: Revolutionizing Healthcare Architecture

Buerger Center for Advanced Pediatric Care, USA: Elevating Pediatric Healthcare Architecture

The New Hospital Tower at Rush University Medical Center, USA: Redefining Healthcare Architecture Excellence

Teletón Infant Oncology Clinic, Mexico: A Paradigm of Healing Architecture

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Sustainability
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Mark Hartenstein

New Providence, NJ, US

• Profile / Résumé

Profile Edit Options

Uploading/managing projects and PDF portfolio can only be handled in desktop mode

Case Study: Farnsworth House

I studied Farnsworth House by Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe for its minimalist approach in three respects:

• Simple post-and-beam structure
• Use of neutral, subdued materials (eg. Mies's signature travertine)
• Emphasis on the surrounding landscape

These explorations were done by hand-drawn collage of orthographics and oblique views, as well as a partial replica model down to the construction of the roof and window frame system.

Status: Built Location: Plano, IL, US

Back to Top  ↑ Other Projects by this Person

Incremental Urbansim...

Kites: A Spinal Perspective

Materials Research: Let...

Book Reviews

Book review forums.

Refusing Police Power: Resistances and Ambivalences to State Violence

Book Review Forum

Carbon sovereignty by andrew curley.

On Containers and Conjunctures at People’s Park

Violent Inheritance Book Review

Phenom Penh's Bassac District: Genealogy of Bassac Review

Liberation, Solidarity, Abundance: Envisioning Hawaiʻi Beyond the GMO Present

Announcements.

Society and Space statement and virtual issue on Palestine and Israel

Free to Access Society and Space Journal Articles

Pressing pause in a time of crisis, editorial statement from our new review and open site editors, society and space editorial team changes, most read pieces from 2018, current issue, past issues.

A curation of articles, essays, book reviews and interviews on critical geographical concerns.

Current Issue

Past issues, information, privacy policy, terms & conditions, paul b. preciado and keith harris, published on, nov 4, 2019, feminist, queer and trans geographies, mi(e)s conception: the farnsworth house and the mystery of the transparent closet.

The “Mi(e)s-conception” essay was originally published in 2000, so it is undoubtedly an example of Preciado’s earlier work, but at the same time, it can also be read as the beginning of his trajectory toward more developed thinking on gender, sex, and the built environment, as evidenced in "Pornotopia". The question, for geographers and other spatially-oriented thinkers, is How can this corpus of work be productively adapted to their research?

November 4, 2019

Print this essay, latest from the magazine, latest journal issue, volume 41 issue 4, translator’s introduction by keith harris.

hortly after the completion of what will be one of Mies van der Rohe’s most famous American projects – the Farnsworth House, in Plano, Illinois – a local plumber visits the house to work on a recurrent leak. I confess, I’m probably not the most qualified person to be writing an introduction to Paul B. Preciado’s work: I am a white, heterosexual, married, cis-gender father…with multiple engineering degrees, even. But I did translate this article – and I did it because I wanted to share how Preciado, who has traversed the territory from identifying as a lesbian to becoming transgender man, thought about space and queer theory. In late 2016, I was preparing to teach a junior level colloquium in the Comparative History of Ideas (CHID) department at the University of Washington, and I was exploring resources at this intersection, mostly reading work by urban planning theorists and geographers, such as Petra Doan, Larry Knopp, Michael Brown, and Natalie Oswin, among others. But Preciado’s name was lodged in my head, ever since a friend who was working at my local grocery co-op had mentioned it to me a year or two earlier (we had bonded over various critical theory authors after she caught me carrying a copy of Eugene Holland’s Nomad Citizenship (2012) through her line). A subsequent search introduced me to Preciado’s Testo Junkie (2013), which is an account of his experiments with taking testosterone outside of a prescribed medical regimen – that is, recreationally, or aesthetically, like Walter Benjamin’s experiments with hashish or Sigmund Freud using cocaine. As McKenzie Wark writes in General Intellects , Preciado’s work was “a protocol for experiment not sanctioned by the state or the professions, and to be understood more as the construction of situations in everyday life” (Wark 2017, Chapter 15).

Wark’s invocation of Situationists here is revealing, for what is Preciado’s experiment with testosterone other than the détournement of endocrinology, pharmacology, research, and even the notion of the body? Showing their Foucaultian roots, Preciado considers the body to be “a living political archive” that is explicitly linked to space and technology – an archive that is “connected to the history of the city, the history of design, technologies, and goes back to the invention of agriculture” (Tucker 2013). But going beyond Foucault, Preciado’s experimentation with their body supersedes practice and reaches the biochemical stratum. Similarly, Preciado’s other books – Pornotopia: an essay on Playboy's architecture and biopolitics (2014) and Countersexual Manifesto (2018) – reinforce this approach to scholarship. In the Manifesto , which was first published in French in 2000, and then revised for publication in Spanish in 2002, Preciado critiques Foucault and others for not taking their historical accounts of the emergence of normative heterosexuality far enough; instead, the countersexual field is re-envisioned as one of endless experimentation, play, and a new technics that Preciado calls “dildonics.” Then, in Pornotopia , Preciado – who studied philosophy with Ágnes Heller and Jacques Derrida at The New School before earning a Ph.D. in architectural theory at Princeton – explores the ways in which the rise of Playboy reconfigured the relationship between gender, sex, and architecture in the mid-twentieth century. Finally, I recently made a discovery that hit close to some of my other translation work on the constellation of authors and researchers around Félix Guattari who wrote about urban issues in Recherches from 1966-1983: the infamous issue 12, Trois milliards de pervers ( Three Billion Perverts ), which was published in March 1973, seized by the French government for indecency, and landed Guattari in court, was edited by Guy Hocquenghem, “a former Revolutionary Communist Youth militant, homosexual activist, and founder of the Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action” (Dosse, 2010: 273). In 2009, the Spanish publisher Melusina published a translation of Hocquenghem’s book, Le Désir Homosexuel , which was accompanied by “Anal Terror,” an epilogue by Preciado that gestures toward a radical, de-genitalized posthuman sexual democracy. Imagine my surprise, then, as someone who does not typically work at these intersections, when I realized that a search through Environment and Planning D ’s archive did not return even one reference to Preciado. A minoritarian thinker indeed, to invoke Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) term, but that is even more of a reason to pay attention to a compelling and original voice steeped in the continental philosophy and radical politics to which so many critical spatial thinkers are committed.

The “Mi(e)s-conception” essay was originally published in 2000, so it is undoubtedly an example of Preciado’s earlier work, but at the same time, it can also be read as the beginning of his trajectory toward more developed thinking on gender, sex, and the built environment, as evidenced in Pornotopia . The question, for geographers and other spatially-oriented thinkers, is How can this corpus of work be productively adapted to their research? The return to the body as a site for unsanctioned experimentation certainly seems like one path, while the specific focus on architecture might be another reminder – and this comes from my own research program – to think about the productive role of aesthetics in our ongoing critical interrogations of the production of space. At best, this essay will inspire researchers, artists, and activists to further explore a thinker who Wark has placed among the “general intellects” – that is, their version of the contemporary public intellectual – of the twenty-first century. At less-than-best, this translation makes a work already available in the original Spanish and a French translation in Multitudes , available for a wider audience. So let’s start there and see where it leads us.

Deleuze G and Guattari F (1987) A Thousand Plateaus , trans. Massumi B. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Dosse f (2010) intersecting lives , trans. glassman d. new york: columbia university press., hocquenghem g (2009). el deseo homosexual , trans. huard de la marre g. santa cruz de tenerife, spain: melusina., holland e (2012) nomad citizenship: free-market communism and the slow-motion general strike . minneapolis: university of minnesota press., preciado pb (2013) testo junkie . new york: the feminist press at cuny., preciado pb (2014) pornotopia: an essay on playboy's architecture and biopolitics . brooklyn: zone books., preciado pb (2018) countersexual manifesto . new york: columbia university press., tucker r (2013) “pharmacopornography: an interview with beatriz preciado.” the paris review. available here., wark m (2017) chapter 15. paul b. preciado: the pharmo-porno body politic. general intellects [e-book] . new york: verso., mi(e)s-conception: the farnsworth house and the mystery of the transparent closet, paul b. preciado. translated by keith harris.

hortly after the completion of what will be one of Mies van der Rohe’s most famous American projects – the Farnsworth House, in Plano, Illinois – a local plumber visits the house to work on a recurrent leak. Surprised by the power failures and the water that beads up on the interior faces of the glass walls, the plumber calls the house a “mies-conception” (Farnsworth, n.d.), opening the door to all the names that will appear in English regarding the perverse homophony between Mies and “mis-.”

The first domestic “glass box” in the history of architecture, and the first of his Mies-conceptions, also produces a continuous discursive leak: the disagreement between Mies and Edith Farnsworth becomes subject to public opinion in July, 1951, when Mies begins the judicial process against his client, demanding payment for the cost of the house ($3,673.09 plus fees for architectural and supervisory services). In response, Farnsworth signs a counter offer that accuses Mies of fraud. At the same time, American architecture magazines participate in the litigation by opening a public debate over the right of European modernism to conquer the house of the American countryside.

Half a century later, my intervention into this debate is no more than a posthumous work of discursive leaking. [1] As in a noir story, this essay’s first hunch appears in the form of a suspicion. The different texts interpreting the Farnsworth House (as much in popular culture as in history or in modern architectural theory) seem to be supported by a double contradiction: first, the opposition between an aesthetic of transparency and display that seems to emanate from the tectonic qualities of the Farnsworth house, and the opacity of the discourses generated around the house and the owner, Edith Farnsworth; second, the narrative tension between the urgency with which the glass house is identified as the product of a heterosexual romance between Mies and Farnsworth, and the unanimity with which these accounts recognize the lack of evidence of this relationship. Perhaps the case of the Farnsworth House responds to the trope of the perfect crime: there is no better secret than that which hides behind the transparency of glass. But what was the secret of the Farnsworth house? Who was Edith Farnsworth, really? The old maid that would have wanted “the architect to come with the house” (Cohen, 1996: 93) or the successful doctor, with a cold and calculating mind that pushed Mies up to the limits of his own ring of glass and steel?

The first clue seems to suggest that both the architectonic description of the Farnsworth House, as well the arguments of the American critique of European modernism and the narration of the relationship between Mies and Farnsworth, would be able respond to the same rhetoric: the story of “coming out.” In April, 1951, the American architecture magazine House Beautiful began a campaign against Mies van der Rohe and the International Style, taking the Farnsworth House as a paradigmatic example of “bad modern architecture.” Far from a description of the errors of modern architecture, the editorial of the magazine is a first-person narration: “I have decided to speak up” (Gordon, 1953: 126). The narrative voice of Elizabeth Gordon, driven by the performative force that has the power to produce the truth, moves step by step through the rhetoric of confession that characterizes “coming out” stories. But without Gordon herself being the person concerned, the confession is transformed into an “outing,” a public denunciation that has to be confirmed later by Edith Farnsworth herself:

What I want to tell you about has never been put into print by us or any other publication, to my knowledge. Your first reactions will be amazement, disbelief, and shock. You will say, “It can’t happen here! But hear me out. You may discover why you strongly dislike some of the so-called modern things you see. You may suddenly understand why you instinctively reject designs that are called ‘modernistic.’ For you are right. It’s your common sense speaking. For these things are bad – bad in more ways than in their lack of beauty alone (Gordon, 1953: 126).

Modernism, considered as a new visual regime and as a transformation of the limits of privacy, is described by Gordon as a “cultural dictatorship” that tries to “tell us what we should like and how we should live” (Gordon, 1953: 126). In the corner of a page, House Beautiful offers the reader a table of characteristics that will permit them to recognize “bad modern architecture.” In parentheses the table warns: “remember some of first seven [characteristics] may occur in good modern architecture” (Gordon, 1953: 129). The tight margin between acceptable and unacceptable modernism seems to depend on the step from the “elimination of partition walls so that a house tends to be one public room with open areas for sleeping, eating, playing, etc.” to the “maximum use of glass without any corrective devices for shade or privacy” (Gordon, 1953: 129). Modernist architecture entails, as Gordon suggests, an excessive “outing” that necessitates “corrective mechanisms” to become social.

The use of the rhetoric of “coming out” in the pages House Beautiful is by no means exceptional if we consider that the American public discourse of the 1950s is the space of emergency of this performative formula. [2] The disciplinary practices of secrets and confessions of “sexual truths” (that Foucault would bring forward in his analysis of parrhesia , exomologesis , and exagoreusis ) [3] find their model in modern production in the call for a “code of honesty” during World War II, and its institutional formalization during the Cold War. The mobilization of forces had led men and women as far as the spaces of sexual segregation of the barracks of war, far from the domestic structures of the family and traditional society (cf. D’Emilio and Freedman, 1988).

In 1941, the Army and the Selective Service System included, for the first time, the specification of  “homosexual proclivities” in the list of “disqualifying deviations” (Kaiser, 1997: 29). The verification of these “deviations” is a double procedure, both visual and linguistic; it is an unfolding that reproduces the complicity of technologies of imaging and technologies of reason in the modern production of sexual truth (Katz, 2007). First, it required a genital exam and/or an x-ray with the objective of confirming the existence of internal feminine or masculine organs. Second, for the first time, the army included the demand for a signed declaration in which the recruit admitted the “truth” of their sexual identity. The duty to respond in the affirmative or negative to the question, “are you homosexual?” creates a radically new condition of speaking in the space of public American discourse. The contradiction between the practical impossibility of the phrase, “Yes, I am homosexual,” and the institutional possibility of being registered as such, produced the “homosexual” as a subject (although paradoxical) of public speech in North America for the first time.

Outing as a strategy of forming limits was central in the process of the reconstructing the postwar American identity. [4] The “Fight for America” campaign – directed by Senator Joseph McCarthy – began as a hunt for communists and ended being converted into an operation to uncover gays and lesbians holding institutional positions. In 1950, just two years before House Beautiful opened fire on modernism in the name of the Farnsworth House, the Lonergan Case presents the first debate in the American press on homosexuality. The Washington Post describes the national situation generated by the release of an official Department of the State document, according to which 91 employees had been fired between 1947 and 1949 for “problems of homosexuality,” as a “homosexual panic.” [5]

The Cold War had displaced the confrontation from the geographical space of the nation-state to the superficial sliding of bodies that could be “penetrated” and whose secrets could be brought to light in an act of sexual espionage. For the media of the 1950s, homosexuality condensed in public discourse via analogies of sickness – “an epidemic infecting the nation” (D’Emilio, 1983: 44, as cited in Kaiser, 1997: 79) – and war (“a nuclear ‘missile gap’…between the United States and the Soviet Union” [6] ), represents the more serious threat against the American “social body.” As a possible ally of the communists, and virtually Jewish or foreign, the “homosexual” occupies a space of intersections of all the “outsides” that support the identity of postwar America.

At the same time, the narration of “coming out” appears as a literary genre with novels such as Gore Vidal’s The City and the Pillar (1948) and James Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room (1956). In each of these, the story of “coming out” describes the process by which the main character acquires a voice and visibility as a “homosexual.” In both cases, this process of verbalization and becoming visible is inseparable from the negotiation of public gaze’s accesses to private space, and from the search for strategies to theatricalize (to simulate or dissimulate) the secret in public space. In a period of less than ten years, the structures of the “closet” (in the sense that “coming out of the closet” means to openly declare oneself to be homosexual) – that is, the production of the truth and the concealment the secret – first dissolve in institutional and legal forms of “outing,” then in rhetorical forms of the literary narration of “coming out,” and finally in political practices of declaring one’s identity.

Eve K. Sedgwick (1990) has described “coming out” not as an isolated event of exposure, nor as a unique form of confession, but as an interminable process of managing information – of revelation and hiding – through which the “homosexual” produces their identity by means of a process of (auto)representation. Foucault’s genealogical analysis comes to reveal, first, that the limit between the private and the public is an optical and discursive effect of a game of hiding and showing; and, second, that the so-called “modern individual” is but the result of the constant inspection and disciplining of this limit. [7] The split and the unfolding between the private and the public that structures the closet , and its work as a constant “filter” of information permits the “homosexual” to be made to pass publicly as a heterosexual, keeping their sexual practices in private space, at the same time that it generates the illusion of the performance of heterosexuality as transparency from the private realm into public space. In the discursive economy of the closet, homosexuality operates, in David A. Miller’s terms, as an open secret. That is to say, the function of the closet is not so much hiding or blocking knowledge, as it is “to conceal the knowledge of the knowledge” (Miller, 1988: 206). As Arlene Stein suggests, the practice that the America of the 1950s called “coming out of the closet” does not only apply to the declaration “I’m gay/I’m a lesbian,” but also to a structural manner indicating the process by which all identities – homosexual as well as heterosexual – are constructed. There is no identity except for a process of auto-narration and exhibition, of privatization and public revelation. “Coming out,” Stein says, “is as much a practical creation of the self, a ‘be-coming out,’ as a matter of revealing or discovering one’s sexuality” (Stein, 1997: 67).

The closet as a regime of visibility and as a filter of information can be used as an analytical model for understanding the play between transparency and opacity in the Farnsworth House. We could apply the word closet to all regimes segmenting spaces of visibility and knowledge that take the management of (homo/hetero)sexual identity within the public/private opposition as their object. According to Alan Bérubé (1990: 271), even though the closet has existed at least since the beginning of the century, the peculiarity of the American culture of the 1950s was responsible for the increasing repression and medicalization of sexuality, “expanding the ‘closet,’ making it a roomier place to live.” Beyond the discursive level in which the battle for the “good” modern architecture plays out, the same mechanism of “outing” that courses through House Beautiful seems to operate at the level of materials and structures in the case of the Farnsworth House, as if the issue of House Beautiful were a simple mise en abyme of a larger apparatus, a closet-apparatus, that previously operated in Mies’s architecture. The most potent strategy of the Farnsworth House’s architecture (already used in the Tugendhat House in Brno, Czechoslovakia, in 1930) had been to transfer glass from the construction of public, institutional, and office buildings to domestic space. With this gesture, Mies displaces “domesticity” itself, and expresses the mechanisms that maintain the fictional boundary between the private and the public, to suddenly underline and display the operations of theatrical representation – display and concealment – that permit the construction of domestic space as private space.

At the same time, during the 1950s, “glass,” “invisibility,” and “transparency” are tropes that name conditions of ambiguous citizenship in relation to public visibility, as in the cases of immigrants, Jews, Blacks, and homosexuals. So, for example, the San Remo Club – one of the few openly homosexual establishments in New York City during the 1950s – was renown for its extensive use of glass and, subsequently, for the transgression of the limits of visibility imposed on homosexuals in public space. As Jack Dowling recalls, “It was all glass, a big long rectangular room and one whole wall of windows looking out onto Bleecker Street. It was not the kind of bar you went into to hide because it was open to the world” (Kaiser, 1997: 107).

The mechanisms of the closet are also present in Edith Farnsworth’s description of the house in House Beautiful , not so much for the literal reference to the house’s closet, but rather for the enormous importance that Edith grants to this architectonic space as the ultimate reduction of privacy: “There are too many practical things they (Mies disciples) refuse to consider. For instance, Mies wanted the partition closet five feet high for reasons of ‘art and proportion.’ Well, I’m six feet tall. Since my house is all ‘open space,’ I needed something to shield me when I had guests” (Barry, 1953: 266). The openness is not only an effect of glass. [8] With the elimination of internal partitions, privacy was eliminated from every possible interior space: “The house was unlike any conceived before it. It was a totally glassed-in rectangular box, consisting of roof slab and floor slab – the latter suspended five feet above the open ground…The spaces between the planes and the columns – the walls, that is – were given over completely to single panes of one-quarter-inch-thick glass…The interior was a single space, one room, whose major subdivision was provided by a freestanding, longitudinal, asymmetrically placed core containing kitchen to the north, bathrooms to east and west – separated by a utility space – and fireplace to the south. A freestanding cabinet-closet close to the southeast corner and parallel to the east wall bordered the sleeping area without enclosing it” (Schulze, 1985: 253-4).

Mies, who had presented the house as a privileged space for the transcendent encounter between man and nature (cf. Norberg-Schulz, 1991), places Edith Farnsworth in what could be called a post-domestic space, to express the theatrical structures of concealment and exhibition that ground the regimes of private and public visibility during the 1950s. In this situation, the closet and the bathrooms appear as genuine refuges from the public gaze, as a kind of backstage that divides the open space of the house into stages and stalls. Farnsworth adds: “I wanted to be able to change my clothes without my head looking like it was wandering over the top of the partition without a body. It would be grotesque” (Barry, 1953: 266). As in a collage, the house as a method of representation produces the image of a divided subject: the head or the body, voice or action, vision or touching…However, it is not just the body but, surprisingly, the garbage can is also subject to this visual restriction. Farnsworth searches desperately throughout the closet for a new repartitioning of interior space into public and private realms: “I don’t keep a garbage can under my sink. Do you know why? Because you can see the whole ‘kitchen’ from the road on the way in here and the can would spoil the appearance of the whole house. So I hide it in the closet farther down from the sink” (Barry, 1953: 270).

The particularity of the mechanisms of the gaze in the Farnsworth House appears more clearly when comparing the glass house with the Tugendhat House or with Philip Johnson’s house. While the Brno house already seems to aestheticize the otherwise comfortable life of the heterosexual Tugendhat family – Mrs. Tugendhat describes the open spaces of the house as “austere and grand – not in a way that oppresses, but one that liberates” (Tegethoff , 1985: 97) – the Plano house converts Farnsworth into “a prowling animal, always on the alert…always restless” (Barry, 1953: 266). Edith confesses that she feels like “a sentinel on guard day and night” (Barry, 1953: 266). Edith Farnsworth’s scopic crisis is generated not so much by the intrusion of strange eyes into her private space, but by her own need to remain on the lookout. The architecture of “skin and bones” is not only, as is frequently underscored, a massive mechanism of exhibition for the inhabiting subject, but it is also and above all, to judge from the experience of Farnsworth, a device for multiplying the angles by which the inhabiting subject can visually access the exterior. On the one hand, the domestic space displays itself to the eye that circulates the exterior. On the other hand, that same domestic space transforms into a station of intense vigilance that obliges the eye that inhabits it to be permanently open, 24 hours a day. It is a double lens that at the same time, and with a single gesture, displaces the interior outside and converts the exterior into an interior, thereby leaving the subject in perpetual liminarity. Finally, the different changes of light and darkness, as in the possibility of closing the curtains or not, offers the transparent surface of glass up to an infinite and unresolvable game of reflections, openings, and mirages. The glass of the Farnsworth House shelters all the possible pathologies of the eye that Sartre obsesses over during the 1950s [9] : the paranoia of being seen by the other, the desire of exhibition, the narcissistic immersion in one’s own reflection …and, of course, the limit of visibility and delirium: blindness.

But if the house of glass brought about a massive “outing” of the private space of Edith Farnsworth, the public discourse that circulates in the media is responsible for reconstructing Edith Farnsworth as a single heterosexual woman, and the house as a result of her architecturally reproductive romance with the architect. Whereas the glass displays everything, the discourse around the house acts as a second wall, opaque and encompassing, that exempts the private life of the alleged single woman though the production of a convenient “miss-conception” over the sexual preferences and the gender identity of Edith Farnsworth. Perhaps it would be necessary to describe this discursive production as “texture” – a tectonic discourse – that functions as a genuine second architecture, supplementing a corrective mesh or structure (like the “curtains” or the “blinds” of which Gordon speaks) that compensates for the nudity of the glass. [10]

For example, Franz Schulze – the classical biographer of Mies – uses the same series of adjectives that characterize the figure of the lesbian vampire in Pulp novels of postwar Americana to describe Edith Farnsworth. Edith Farnsworth, like Doctor Bolgar – the main character in Arthur Koestler’s Arrival and Departure (1943) – is described as an independent woman who has been successful in her professional life, but who is excessively tall and ugly. “Edith,” Schulze (1985, 258) notes, “was no beauty. Six feet tall, ungainly of carriage, and, as witnesses agreed, rather equine in features, she was sensitive about her physical person and may very well have compensated for it by cultivating her considerable mental powers.” Edith is presented at a threshold between femininity, masculinity, and animality – a space occupied by the vampire and the lesbian– as a woman of excessively strong and threatening features. As an urban Amazon woman deprived of her horse, Edith seems to be possessed by animal characteristics. [11] It is within this comparison where the description of Farnsworth as “equine” makes sense for the first time.

The logic of compensation established by Schulze (ugly/intelligent, unmarried/successful professionally, etc.) reaches its highest point in the narration when the house appears as a necessary supplement that comes to reward the lack of marriage, of family, and evidently of sexual satisfaction. The house would be, in the horizon of the life of the unmarried Farnsworth, the ultimate hope of happiness and fertility. Only within this therapeutic economy is it possible to understand Alice Friedman’s insistence that the house is the only remedy against Farnsworth’s “boredom.” According to Friedman, before meeting Mies, Edith Farnsworth went through “a period of ‘tired, dull Sundays’ when she would have nothing else to do but stretch out on the sofa and listen to the New York Philharmonic on the radio” (Friedman, 1998: 132). Mies appears as a man “of great charm and charisma,” while Edith “was painfully lonely, bored, and overworked” (Friedman, 1998: 131). To judge by the narrations of a Mies-Farnsworth romance, the relationship would last exactly the same amount of time that Mies had needed to complete the design and the construction of the house (between 1946 and 1950). When Edith moved into the house in December, 1950, the roof leaked and the heating produced a film of vapor that condensated on the inside of the glass walls. The procreation of Mies was achieved, but without success for Farnsworth. The Farnsworth House was a mies -conception. From this moment on, the question of the relationship, of the propriety and of the name, would be open.

Alice Friedman’s 1992 description of Farnsworth’s sentimental relations is an exemplary case of the “closet effect.” Friedman’s essentialist and naturalist feminism operates only in the presence of pure feminine characters, that is to say, it requires the consideration of Farnsworth as a “woman” and, consequently, the purging of all those stated and anecdotal characteristics that could endanger her gender identity or her sexual orientation: “Although it was widely assumed that the two (Mies and Farnsworth) were romantically involved, there is nothing in Farnsworth’s memoirs to support that contention. Throughout her life she developed strong attachments to the powerful men she admired – to her teachers and supervisors at the hospital, to Mies himself, and, late in her life, to the poet Eugenio Montale, whose work she translated – but her closest relationships seem to have been with women” (Friedman, 1998: 133-4).

Friedman’s feminist interpretation cautiously omits that long before meeting Mies, Edith Farnsworth had been in many close relationships with different women. Her diary is surprising, not because of Farnsworth’s boredom, but rather for its intense and detailed descriptions of women and houses. Chapter 4 of her Memoirs , for example, narrates her relationship with The Female Radicals in New York and her trip to Paris, where Edith writes – undoubtedly playing with the double meaning of the expression – that the women went to be gay . [12] Like many other upper class lesbian women in the period before Stonewall, [13] Farnsworth probably did not identify as lesbian, but rather as a cultured woman that loved the company of other women and who, given her economic situation, was able to remain unmarried. It is not about taking Farnsworth into the closet once and for all, nor revealing her sexual identity, but understanding how the visual and secretive regimes that dominated the America of the 1950s were inscribed as much in the architecture of the “glass box” as in the discursive texture that made the house (in)tolerable in the eyes of America. The logic of compensation and restoration extends from the glass-curtain, transparency-opacity dynamic to the way in which the “secret” that the house left to be discovered would be “restored.” The fact that the “secret” was, without a doubt, known (by Farnsworth’s family, and perhaps by Mies) could only be seen as compensating by the incessant activity to keep it hidden: here I am pointing to a parallel between the performative structures of language and representative structures of architecture. This is the mystery of the Farnsworth House, the glass house that had been converted into the “perfect closet”: the more that was shown, the better her secret was guarded.

Friedman’s analysis rigorously follows the rules of displaying and concealing that characterize the logic of the closet. In this way, the revelation of her “relationships with women” cancels itself out twice: locally, with the naming of these relationships as “friendships” in the footnote; and structurally, with the articulation of the article’s thesis in the form of an opposition between Farnsworth and Philip Johnson – “Farnsworth was a single woman; Philip Johnson is gay” (Friedman, 1998: 148). In other words, the difference is between the Farnsworth House as an oppressive space for a single woman and Philip Johnson’s glass house as a “gay space.” Once again, feminism breaks downs in the trap of the closet.

The specificity of the visual regimes that operate in the Farnsworth House and in Philip Johnson’s house (in New Canaan, Connecticut) do not depend on any essential character of identity (“feminine,” “masculine,” “gay,” “lesbian,” or heterosexual”) that can determine the space – as in Alice Friedman’s or Paulette Singley’s (1992) interpretations – but rather on the sociopolitical context in which the space and possibilities of the inhabitant to manage the visibility and the access of the gaze to privacy unfold. As George Chauncey (1996: 224) has noted, “There is no queer space; there are only spaces used by queers or put to queer use.” The Farnsworth House and Philip Johnson’s house, far from being in opposition (as a “space of oppression of the female body” and a “gay space”), both function as “archi-closets” that negotiate the public display of their respective sexual identities. So, while the house of glass/house of guests would have allowed Philip Johnson to continue the game of “For-Da” between public display and hiding in private, facilitating his progressive and opportune identification as “gay” (not until after the 1970s), the complete transparency of the Farnsworth House is converted into the best screen across which to hide the possible eccentricity of the unmarried woman. In the Farnsworth House, the heterosexual narration of the Mies-Farnsworth relationship acts as a textual curtain that compensates for the transparency of the glass house. In Philip Johnson’s house (he was, at the same time, the architect and the resident), the same architectonic structure unfolds in two clearly differentiated spaces (the Glass House – transparent – and the Guest House – opaque) that materialize the economy of visibility and of privacy/publicity of the closet at the limit of impossible reconciliation. The two spaces are detached, opening up a break in the landscape that materializes the split of identity, and forcing the construction of a scene on the land that allows the inhabitant to transition between two rigid spaces through laws opposed to visibility.

Unlike Philip Johnson’s house, at the intersection between “texture” and tectonics, the Farnsworth House does not succeed in producing “the woman Farnsworth” as an appropriate inhabitant, but nevertheless achieves the construction of a heterosexual narrative that ends by restoring (compensation and doubt) the reproduction of the domestic architecture of Mies in America and the sexual identity of the owner Farnsworth. [14]

Translator’s Acknowledgements

Special thanks are due to Lisa Schoblasky at the Newberry Library in Chicago for tracking down the content of note 12 in Edith Farnsworth’s memoirs, as well as to Paul, of course, for trusting me with this translation.

Barry JA (1953) Report on the Battle between Good and Bad Modern Houses. House Beautiful 95 (5): 172–73; 266–72.

Bérubé a (1990) coming out under fire: the history of gay men and women in world war two . new york: the free press., butler j (1997) excitable speech: a politics of the performative . new york: routledge., chauncy g (1996) privacy could only be had in public: gay uses of the streets. stud: architectures of masculinity , ed. joel sanders. new york: princeton architectural press., cohen jl (1996) mies van der rohe . london: e & fn spon., colomina b, ed. (1992) sexuality and space . new york: princeton architectural press., d’emilio j (1983) sexual politics, sexual communities . chicago: university of chicago press., d’emilio j and freedman eb (1988) intimate matters: a history of sexuality in america . chicago: university of chicago press., farnsworth e (n.d.) memoirs . chicago: newberry library archives., foucault m (1984) space, knowledge, and power. the foucault reader , ed. paul rabinow. new york: pantheon books: 239-256., friedman at (1998) people who live in glass houses: edith farnsworth, ludwig mies van der rohe, and philip johnson. women and the making of the modern house: a social and architectural history . new york: abrams., gordon e (1953) the threat to the next america. house beautiful 97(4): 126-130; 250-251., held r (1952) psychopathologie du regard. l’evolution psychiatrique , april-june, 1952., jay m (1993) downcast eyes: the denigration of vision in twentieth-century french thought . berkeley: university of california press., kaiser c (1997) the gay metropolis . new york: houghton mifflin., katz jn (2007) the invention of heterosexuality . chicago: university of chicago press., miller da (1988) the novel and the police . berkeley: university of california press., miller n (1995) out of the past: gay and lesbian history from 1869 to the present . new york: vintage., norberg-schulz c (1991) a talk with mies van der rohe. the artless world: mies van der rohe on building art , ed. fritz neumeyer, trans. mark jarzombek. cambridge: massachusetts institute of technology: 338-9., sanders j, ed. (1997) stud: architectures of masculinity . new york: princeton architectural press., schulze f (1985) mies van der rohe: a critical biography . chicago: university of chicago press., sedgwick ek (1990) epistemology of the closet . berkeley: university of california press., sedgwick ek (1993) queer performativity: henry james’s the art of the novel. glq: a journal of lesbian and gay studies 1(1): 1-16., singley p (1992) living in a glass prism: the female figure in ludwig mies van der rohe’s domestic architecture. critical matrix: princeton journal of women, gender and culture 6 (2)., stein a (1997) sex and sensibility: stories of a lesbian generation . berkeley: university of california press, 1997., tegethoff w (1985) mies van der rohe: the villas and country houses . new york: museum of modern art, 1985., [1] methodologically it is important to note the contributions of two recent anthologies by colomina (1992) and sanders (1997). while the first carries out a critical analysis of the inscription of structures of gender in the discourses and practices of architecture, the second picks up the impact of queer theory and poststructuralist philosophy in the contemporary analysis of architecture., [2] for analysis of the notion of “performativity” in relation to sexual identity, see butler (1997) and sedgwick (1993)., [3] [translator’s note: foucault discussed these concepts late in his life in lectures at the university of california, berkeley and the university of vermont. transcriptions are available at available here. ], [4] john d’emilio (1983: 24) described the situation thus: “world war ii created something of a nationwide coming out experience,” as cited in miller, 1995: 231., [5] this scandal came to revive the rumor that already circulated in the corridors of the white house during world war ii, according to which “adolf hitler had maintained a secret list of homosexuals in high government posts all over the world, and used it to blackmail them at will” (kaiser, 1997: 69)., [6] [translator’s note: in this passage, kaiser (1997: 81) is discussing joseph alsop, a prominent closeted washington journalist whom the soviet union tried to blackmail after he was seduced by a male kgb agent on a trip to moscow after too much “fine wine.” alsop blamed eisenhower for permitting the missile gap to develop (to the soviet union’s advantage), an accusation to which james hagerty – eisenhower’s press secretary – responded with: “the guy’s a pansy. the fbi knows all about it.”], [7] see foucault’s interview with paul rabinow (foucault, 1984)., [8] it is important to note that all the windows of the house had rough shantung curtains – information that goes unmentioned in house beautiful ., [9] see the psychoanalytical interpretation of sartre in held (1952) [translator’s note: held’s essay is not available in english, but martin jay (1993) discusses it briefly]., [10] in this way, the study of the farnsworth house questions the traditional critical and/or analytical division between discourse (texts and images that circulate in media around architecture) and architecture itself., [11] horses are, incidentally, a fundamental element of farnsworth’s imagination. in her memoirs, farnsworth recounts a youthful sight of a woman on a horse as an “epiphany,” a revelation of beauty that will accompany her throughout her adult life. see chapter 4 of her memoirs ., [12] edith tells the story of two women who decided to escape to paris: “‘like miss furr and miss skem who went to paris to be gay,’ katherine would say, and we would laugh and laugh…i do not remember now, and probably did not then, how gay gertrude stein’s characters were in paris. gertrude’s writing [has been] out of fashion for some years and perhaps already then there were few readers who recognized the privations which drove miss furr and miss skem to paris, to be gay” (farnsworth, n.d.: box 1, folder 25)., [13] eleanor roosevelt is undoubtedly the best example of a closeted upper-class woman during the 1940s and 1950s., [14] final note: this rereading of the farnsworth house seems to take farnsworth’s supposed lesbianism as fact at times. however, as in any good closet, farnsworth’s sexual identity (heterosexual or not) and her alleged relationship with mies, remains in suspense to this day., related magazine articles.

Review, Visibility Interrupted, by Carly Thomsen

By urging queer activists and scholars to let go of visibility as our main focus, Thomsen points to a much broader, and potentially more life-giving, queer politics. Sewer systems, too, need to be put on queer agendas.

Stina Soderling

Space of feminist hope: Notes from two acts

In this essay, I invite everyone to consider how every day, community-based pedagogies reinvent and practice new kinds of spatial relationality for feminist futures.

Ian Liujia Tian

On Infertile Ground by Jade Sasser

Grounded in political ecology and feminist studies, "On Infertile Ground" argues that populationism is growing in popularity thanks to strategic alliances with science, climate change interventions, and “social justice” concerns that appeal to young people.

Javiera Barandiaran

Reproductive Geographies Edited By Marcia England, Maria Fannin, And Helen Hazen, And Xenofeminism By Helen Hester

"Reproductive Geographies: Bodies, Places and Politics" is an edited volume that collects feminist geographical studies of reproduction and seeks to offer a research agenda for reproductive geography as a sub-field. "Xenofeminism" (2018, Helen Hester) is a short manifesto and polemic written as part of the theoretical project of the Laboria Cuboniks collective. Together these two works stage an important conversation about the relationship between feminism, technology, and reproduction.

Sydney Calkin

Going Stealth: Transgender Politics And U.S. Surveillance Practices By Toby Beauchamp

Beauchamp’s "Going Stealth: Transgender Politics and U.S. Surveillance Practices" accomplishes the best of what we imagine theory to be good for – making sense of our everyday experiences, grounding personal interactions with the state in histories of structural oppression, and illuminating the broader context of our banal negotiations between dignity, resilience, convenience, resistance, politics-in-practice, and privilege.

Lyndsey Beutin

related journal articles

Reflections on a cis discipline.

This is a sympathetic and strong critique of the field that spans theory, empirical research, and personal experience to make sense of what it means to be trans in geography, what trans geographies offer critical geographies, and to propel forward a trans* radical geographical imagination.

Jack Jen Gieseking

Making space for a radical trans imagination: Towards a kinder, more vulnerable, geography

This essay makes a two-fold argument. First, that in failing its trans constituents, the discipline of geography falls short of its ethical, intellectual, and imaginative commitments. Second, that the task of developing a concept of space adequate to the diversity of trans experience offers an opportunity to tackle long-standing tensions in the discipline.

On surviving a cis discipline

As a discipline, geography holds potential in interrogating the notion of belonging, and identifying the consequences of routine violence and unbelonging. However, geography’s nature as a cis discipline seriously calls into question the effectiveness of this potential.

Rae Rosenberg

Book Review Forums

Back to web version.

cholars and practitioners of urban planning need to rethink the field’s futures at this important historical juncture: some might call it a moment of truth when there is little left to hide. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed many cracks, contradictions, and inequalities that have always existed but are now more visible. This also includes the global vaccine apartheid that is ongoing as I write these words. Moreover, this is a time when the violence through which U.S. imperialism has exercised power worldwide is increasingly exposed. Protests in the summer of 2020, which spread all over the United States like fire through a long-dried haystack, showed Americans and the whole world that racialized violence and police brutality are real. They also revealed that such brutality is spatially facilitated in American apartheid—a condition that planning has been far from innocent in creating and maintaining. I think this reckoning is particularly important in the United States, the belly of the beast, where there might have been more of an illusion about planning innocence.

What’s a Rich Text element?

Moreover, this is a time when the violence through which U.S. imperialism has exercised power worldwide is increasingly exposed. Protests in the summer of 2020, which spread all over the United States like fire through a long-dried haystack, showed Americans and the whole world that racialized violence and police brutality are real. They also revealed that such brutality is spatially facilitated in American apartheid—a condition that planning has been far from innocent in creating and maintaining. I think this reckoning is particularly important in the United States, the belly of the beast, where there might have been more of an illusion about planning innocence.

• Moreover, this is a time when the violence through which U.S. imperialism has exercised power worldwide is increasingly exposed.
• Protests in the summer of 2020, which spread all over the United States like fire through a long-dried haystack, showed Americans and the whole world that racialized violence and police brutality are real.
• They also revealed that such brutality is spatially facilitated in American apartheid—a condition that planning has been far from innocent in creating and maintaining.
• I think this reckoning is particularly important in the United States, the belly of the beast, where there might have been more of an illusion about planning innocence.
• They also revealed that such brutality is spatially facilitated in American apartheid—a condition that planning has been far from innocent in creating and maintaining. I think this reckoning is particularly important in the United States, the belly of the beast, where there might have been more of an illusion about planning innocence.

Static and dynamic content editing

A rich text element can be used with static or dynamic content. For static content, just drop it into any page and begin editing. For dynamic content, add a rich text field to any collection and then connect a rich text element to that field in the settings panel. Voila!

How to customize formatting for each rich text

Headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, figures, images, and figure captions can all be styled after a class is added to the rich text element using the "When inside of" nested selector system.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Architecture eBook Mies Van Der Rohe Farnsworth House

Related Papers

Yoke-Sum Wong

Matthew Breatore

The history of Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House (c. 1947–50) is as complex and problematic as the property’s past states of preservation. From the changing of early design details by the structure’s patron Dr. Edith Farnsworth, to complete overhauls after bouts of severe flooding, the building stands as a manifestation of the many issues inherent to architectural conservation. This text explores the theoretical underpinnings of the property’s various physical states, conservators' embrace of contradictory principles, and, perhaps above all, the ever-changing position of the Farnsworth House within historiography. By exploring the building’s ongoing biography, this text analyzes the varying legitimacies of the structure’s past functions--a resident’s functional house versus an architect’s idealistic design. The paper further considers varying perceptions of authenticity with regard to the building's past material states--a functional house that develops a patina versus a symbolic structure that is continually restored to various interpretations of its “original” form.

VLC ARQUITECTURA. Research Journal

Laura Lizondo-Sevilla , José Santatecla Fayos

The article delves into the complex world of exhibition architectures, those whose destiny is reduced to be mounted, exposed and dismantled in a short period of time. A process that allows a quick experience of architecture, bounded in time, and whose experimentation gives rise to the birth of new concepts. The text focuses on the German Pavilion designed by Mies van der Rohe for the Brussels World’s Fair of 1934, his only unbuilt ephemeral architecture due to the political uniqueness of the moment. Now, criticism and the archive allow us to reinterpret its contribution to the history of architecture.

George Dodds

During the late 1970s a question was first raised by a number of architectural historians regarding a red curtain that may have hung prominently in Mies van der Rohe’s German Pavilion at the 1929 International Exposition in Barcelona. Although this discovery seemed of little consequence at the time, it can be seen today as symptomatic both of the extraordinary status this particular work has enjoyed for the past 60 years and as a commentary on the much broader problem of historically based architectural reconstructions. The discovery of the red curtain raises a number of questions. If there was indeed a large floor-to-ceiling red curtain hanging in the front glass wall of the pavilion, how is it that it appears in none of the canonical photographs of the original building? Nor do any references to the curtain appear in any of the first-hand textual accounts of visitors following the opening of the pavilion on May 26, 1929. Although a curtain like the one described by recent researchers would have dominated the otherwise muted palette of colors in the building, how is it that no one seems to have seen it? The answers to these questions, like so much of Mies’s work, seems to depend largely on how one frames both the question being asked and the Berliner Bild-Bericht photographs to which these and many other questions invariably defer.

Dietrich Neumann

VLC arquitectura

Ricardo Meri de la Maza , Bartolomé Serra Soriano

TOSTÕES, Ana; FERREIRA, Ana (ed.), Norbert Hanenberg, Daniel Lohmann, Christian Raabe (guest-ed.), Docomomo Journal, 56 - The Heritage of Mies, Lisbon, Docomomo International

Zara Ferreira , Daniel Lohmann

Mies enjoyed great prominence in Europe and America. Starting in Europe, his first incursions resulted in the German Pavilion for the Barcelona International Exhibition (1929), the Tugendhat House (1930) and the Krefeld silk factory and houses. The Illinois Institute of Technology (1943-1957), the Lake Shore Drive (1951), the Farnsworth House (1951), the Seagram building (1958) and the Toronto-Dominion Centre (1969), bear witness to his work in North America. Back in Berlin, The Neue Nationalgalerie (1968) testifies to the sublime and perfect achievement of his path towards Baukunst and Zeitwille. These ideas, which one may translate, respectively, as the art of building and the will of the time, are anchored in the Mies’s belief that architecture should be metaphysically charged with creative life force. This led him to the modern achievement of developing a new kind of freedom of movement in space, following his sense of order and his very unique conception of urban space. See full contents at: https://www.docomomo.com/journal/dj-56 https://dx.doi.org/10.52200/56.I.Q99Z1VX6

James E Churchill

A close look at the middle period of Mies van der Rohe, his dynamism and inherent dialectical architecture that led to the eventual construction of the German Pavilion in the Barcelona world exposition of 1929.

Nazmi Anuar

The current age is heavily reliant upon digital technology as the means for communicating and sharing to the extent that the apparatus for constant communication is structuring our physical existence. Physical space is being affected by the virtual domain in such an immediate way that most previous notions of spatial needs – sizes, level of comfort - are being questioned and again linked to the ubiquitous presence of the digital. Within this landscape, compression works on many different levels; digitally as in the compression of electronic files to ensure optimized speed of communication and also physically as in the compression of living space in light of lessening material needs. In this light compression could be considered to be structuring a new way of living. An architect known for his silence, the compression of space and the reduction of elements became for Mies van der Rohe a tool for altering perception and for disseminating his architectural ideas on new ways of living in his time. This article will explore the notions of compression and reduction in the selected works of Mies.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Ayca Arslan

Sven-Olov Wallenstein

Mies van der Rohe. The architecture of the city.

Mara Eskinazi

Kathleen James-Chakraborty

Mardeli Labu

TOSTOES, Ana; FERREIRA, Zara (ed.), Docomomo Journal, n. 53 – LC 50 Years After, Lisbon, Docomomo International

Zara Ferreira

Courtauld MA Dissertation

Elizabeth Baldwin Gray

Margaret Maile Petty

Design Communication Association, Cornell University

Kevin Moore

National Identities

Alona Nitzan-Shiftan , Alona Nitzan-shiftan , dorit fershtman

Antonio Cristofaro

Revista Dearq

Marianne Eggler, Ph.D.

Derek Sayer

de-arq Journal of Architecture

Deniz Balik

Marianna Charitonidou

Marco De Michelis

Jan Frohburg

New Theatre Quarterly

Rossella Ferrari

Journal of Architecture

Claire A Zimmerman

Hajara Iyal

Juan F . Valencia

Alexandru Tiotiu

EGE Revista de Expresión Gráfica en la Edificación, Nº11, Valencia: Universitat Politècnica de València. pp. 64-73 (ISSN: 2605-082X)

Carlos Montes Serrano

Gill Matthewson

The Journal of Architecture

Alona Nitzan-Shiftan

MIROSLAV AMBROZ

Carlos Eduardo Comas

ZARCH. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies of Architecture and Urbanism

Remei Capdevila-Werning

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

by Ted Caplow, Columbia University

Contents of this document:, purpose of study:, the engineering for architecture project at columbia is an ongoing, interdisciplinary effort to develop a comprehensive learning and design tool for the teaching of, and ultimately for the practice of, building design. case studies of several unique and/or well-known buildings are under development; these case studies include design descriptions, structural and stress analysis, and most recently, energy and airflow modelling. the structural modules of these case studies are well-developed (see the building technologies homepage ). thermo-fluids work has just begun, however, and as of march 1996 is limited to the model description of the farnsworth house (1st case study), which follows., overview of farnsworth house:, the farnsworth house was designed by mies van der rohe and completed in 1951. it consists of a two rectangular concrete slabs which form the floor and roof. the walls are large glass windows punctuated by steel support columns, and the total volume enclosed measures approximately 9.5 x 28 x 55 feet. heat is provided by a radiant coil system in the floor, with hot water circulated from a central boiler. the first owner of the farnsworth house quarrelled publicly with van der rohe, claiming that it was difficult to maintain a comfortable atmosphere in the house. this controversy makes the house particularly suitable for thermal analysis., objectives of the flow model:, by modeling air and heat flow through the farnsworth house with computational fluid dynamics software, i will be seeking three (3) major pieces of information: the net energy consumption of the house for a variety of external weather conditions, assuming a comfortable average temperature is maintained inside. the internal temperature distributions corresponding to the solutions in part one above. the internal air-flow velocity distribution corresponding to the solutions in part one above. thus, once the model is constructed, parameters will be adjusted until the condition in part one is satisfied: a comfortable, steady-state, average internal temperature has been reached. once this solution is found, parts two and three must be examined to see if thermoclines and drafts would reach uncomfortable levels., parameters & variables:, even if it were possible to allow for all of these variables in the phoenics (c.f.d.) model for the farnsworth house, the resulting computations would be cumbersome in the extreme. instead, the first model will be constructed with considerable simplifications. it is believed that the resulting flow simulation will be a more accessible learning tool while still providing reasonably realistic results. further on in the project, we will attempt to determine the real-world accuracy of any flow solutions. currently, the following simplifications are incorporated into the model: for mass flow: external wind is uniform and steady, but direction and velocity may be selected. for convective cooling of building envelope: external surfaces are assigned a fixed temperature (no convection transfer is actually modeled outside the house.) this temperature is an "apparent temperature", and is determined as a function of the wind speed (more wind > lower t), outside temperature, sky temperature, and material properties. note that this temperature may be different on different surfaces. for radiation transfer: at present, no radiation analysis is performed outside the building; rather, the external "apparent" wall temperature is set a little lower to make an apprximate allowance for radiative cooling of the building. (see above) current model is for nightime only; solar radiation is not considered. however, it may be easily introduced as a constant heat flux, since surface temperature has little effect. for conduction through building envelope: all planes are assumed to have uniform composition: glass or concrete, and a conductivity is assigned accordingly. given the "apparent temperature" of the exterior as a boundary condition, phoenics then solves for the heat transfer through the building envelope, which has finite thickness in the model and is contained withing the grid. the floor is modelled as a constant heat flux per unit area. the floor temperature is the primary independent variable; model logic works most intuitively when all other conditions are determined, and then the model is run recursively to determine the correct floor heat flux for comfortable inside temperatures under steady-state conditions., the computational grid includes the air in the house, the walls, and the roof. the floor is a heat source with constant flux, and heat passes to the walls and ceiling by buoyancy driven convection, where it is conducted to the outside, which is modelled at a constant temperature (collapsing external radiation and convection into this one figure). additionally, the doors and/or windows may be specified as open (or partially open), allowing for some exchange of air and forced convection. once established, these parameters are adjusted to find a reasonable steady-state solution, and then energy use, draftiness, and thermal comfort may be evaluated from phoenics's output graphs..

Post comment

or continue as guest

Leninsky District, Moscow Oblast

Leninsky District is an administrative and municipal district, one of the thirty-six in Moscow Oblast, Russia. It is located in the center of the oblast just south of the federal city of Moscow. The area of the district is 202.83 square kilometers. Its administrative center is the town of Vidnoye. Population: 172,171; 145,251; 74,490. The population of Vidnoye accounts for 33.0% of the district's total population.

More information and contact

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninsky_District,_Moscow_Oblast

Coordinates 55°33'25.739" N 37°42'31.371" E

Sygic Travel - A Travel Guide in Your Pocket

More interesting places

• Privacy Policy
• STOCK 360° TRAVEL VIDEOS