402 THE VALUE OF DESIGN

Prefabrication and the Postwar House: The California

Manifesto

MATTHEW W. FISHER
Iowa State University

In July 1944, a year prior to the cessation of World of human beings, is everything we mean when we
War II, the California-based journal Arts and Archi- say the word “HOUSE.” It is here that we come
closest to the heart of man’s existence; it is here
tecture published what was in essence a manifesto that he hopes for the satisfaction of his most human
on the ‘post-war house’ and the opportunities and needs; it is here that he strikes the firmest roots into
necessity for prefabrication. This was largely the the ground; it is here that he achieves his strongest
work of John Entenza, publisher and editor of Arts sense of reality not only in terms of things but also
in terms of fellow human beings. It is first then to
and Architecture since the late-Thirties, and his “the house of man” that we must bring the abundant
editorial assistants, Charles and Ray Eames, with gifts of this age of science in the service of mankind,
significant contributions from Eero Saarinen, and realizing that in the word “HOUSE” we encompass
Buckminster Fuller, among others. Entenza and his the full range of those activities and aspirations that
make one man know all men as himself.”1
editors were fully aware at the time of the pent-up
demand for new housing that awaited the end of
the war. Furthermore, they had come to realize that
the post-war house, when it was finally built, would
be produced in a fundamentally different way than
the pre-war house given the social, economic, and
technological changes that had emerged with the
war effort. With the Arts and Architecture manifes-
to, and the subsequent initiatives of the magazine,
including the Case Study House Program, Entenza
and the Eames were trying to link the new techni-
cal possibilities, in particular that of factory-based
prefabrication of new materials and assemblies, to
the idea of the “modern house” in an effort to de-
fine the direction of post-war housing.

I. PREFABRICATION AND THE IDEA OF THE

POSTWAR HOUSE

In his “Notes in Passing” preface to the July 1944

issue of Arts and Architecture, John Entenza in-
troduced this manifesto on prefabrication and the
postwar house, linking the idea of ‘house’ to the
most basic of human needs:

“First, we must concern ourselves with the material

facts of living. Among those facts, perhaps the most
important, because it is the principal and most Figure 1. “Mountains of Material”, from Art & Architecture
intimately connected with environmental conditioning July 1944, p. 26.
 PREFABRICATION AND THE POSTWAR HOUSE 403

The single-family house had become a focal point approach to the design and construction of the
by war’s end for the hopes and aspirations of Amer- house based on prefabrication. It wasn’t intended
icans,2 having survived the Great Depression and to merely address short-term demand. It was go-
then the mobilization of the country for World War ing to be the way of the future:
II. A house of one’s own would be the reward await-
ing returning veterans and those who manned the “The big concept of industrialized housing is not to
be considered in any way as a stop-gap or tide-over.
production lines back home. The same resourceful-
It is a way of life, in which all of the genius and
ness and ingenuity that had served the country so accomplishment of the past can come together for
well at war would be applied to the postwar house, the purpose of expounding and enriching the life of
transforming it into a modern, convenient, and af- each individual and each family.”5
fordable machine for living.
Prefabrication, in other words, would become the
Entenza and Eames reached the conclusion by ear- basis for a new architecture.
ly 1944 that the idea of the modern postwar house
would best be served by taking advantage of the II. CALIFORNIA MODERN
new science and technologies emerging from the
industries in the war effort. It was to John Entenza’s credit that he recognized
the potential of these new technologies of produc-
“We are concerned with the house as a basic tion, in particular prefabrication, and its potential
instrument for living within our own time; the house benefit to architecture in general, and housing in
as a solution of human need for shelter that is
particular. It must be remembered, however, that
structurally contemporary; the house that above all
takes advantage of the best engineering techniques there was already a tradition of experimentation
of our highly industrialized civilization. … The point with materials and construction among California
we make, at the moment, however, is that NOW is the architects, particularly in the Los Angeles region.
time in the world when all necessary circumstances
This was evident in the early work of Rudolph
and conditions exist in such relationship to one
another that we can attack, on an inclusive, over-all Schindler and Richard Neutra, both emigres from
scale, the problem of mass housing with better than Europe who arrived in Los Angeles in the early
good chance for success.”3 1920s. Schindler’s House on Kings Road (1921-22)
was a groundbreaking work of modern architec-
The key strategy in their thinking was prefabrica- ture, whose innovations included the use of a tilt-
tion, the application of the same industrial tech- slab wall system (an on-site prefabricated concrete
nologies used to supply the war and save lives to panel system that Schindler had learned from lo-
the production of low-cost houses (Fig. 1). The war cal architect Irving Gill) and a new timber fram-
had created new production techniques, new ma- ing assembly to allow for large wall openings and
terials, and new industrial expertise that could be clerestories, integrating the house with its gardens.
marshaled in prefabrication to rationalize the con- Schindler would continue to develop the concept of
struction of the postwar house. modular building in later projects, and published
an article on prefabrication in Arts and Architecture
“Prefabrication in the truly industrialized sense is a
in 1943.6
very special approach to the problem of the ‘house’
– an approach made possible NOW, for the first time,
when industry, research and material exist in the The spatial and material experimentation of
right relationship to one another, making possible Schindler in the Schindler-Chase House set an
an intelligent application of these resources in the
early precedent for modern California architecture,
needs of housing.”4
one that would be followed by subsequent archi-
tects. Richard Neutra, in his first major work in
The prefabrication manifesto of John Entenza, the
Los Angeles, the Lovell Health House (1927-29),
Eames, Eero Saarinen, and Buckminster Fuller, is
introduced lightweight steel framing arranged in a
thus a call to arms on behalf of the postwar house.
modular frame, allowing for the use of standardized
The particular circumstances of the time – the de-
window/wall units. “The frame was composed of 4-
velopment of new materials and technologies, the
inch H-columns and open-web bar joists,” notes Es-
substantial need for housing, and the desire for a
ther McCoy. “Into the frame was inserted factory-
better, modern life in the wake of the war, created
assembled wall units. The module was based on
the opportunity and necessity to promote a new
the standard steel casements 3-feet 3-1/2” wide;
404 THE VALUE OF DESIGN

space between the columns were the width of two William Wurster (1940), Gregory Ain (1941), and
triple casements.”7 Charles Eames and Richard Neutra in 1942. Charles
Eames in particular, in collaboration with his wife
The Lovell House was one of the earliest houses to Ray Eames, was to have a significant impact on
incorporate steel in its construction, and through both the direction and look of the magazine.
its usage to define a new form of architectural ex-
pression, emphasizing the structural frame. Neu- With the onset of World War II, Arts and Architec-
tra was committed to the use of steel for structure ture became increasingly interested in the issue of
and other shop-fabricated components as means housing, and the potential impact of new materi-
of making high-quality yet affordable buildings, but als and the emerging technologies of prefabrica-
he was ahead of his time. Material options were tion. This was first evidenced in the announcement
greatly limited during the Depression, and Neu- in April 1943 of the “Designs for Postwar Living”
tra was forced to turn his attention to more read- competition, explicitly framed as an exploration of
ily available materials through much of the ‘30s. emerging technologies in the design of a modest
Nonetheless, he continued to explore the usage house. Entenza’s interest in promoting this com-
of new industrial materials in designs for popular petition may well have been inspired by the 1942
competitions and exhibitions, such as his 1936 competition sponsored by the New York based
Plywood Model Demonstration House, which was journal The Architectural Forum, “The New House
built as part of a building materials exhibition in 194X”, announced in September of that year. 9
Los Angeles. Incorporating plywood panels held in
place with metal clips, the building was easily dis- Seven months later Arts and Architecture an-
assembled at the end of the exhibition and moved nounced its own competition, “Design for Postwar
to a site in Westwood near UCLA.8 Living”, publishing the winners and other notable
projects in successive issues beginning in January
Following the examples of Schindler and Neutra, of 1944. Judges for the competition included Rich-
architects such as Gregory Ain and Raphael Soriano ard Neutra, Gregory Ain, and Charles Eames. The
continued the exploration of new building materials winning scheme was authored by Eero Saarinen
and assemblies in pursuit of a modern, low-cost and Oliver Lundquist; second place went to I.M.
and high-quality architecture. Both had worked or Pei and E.H. Duhart, fellow students at the Gradu-
studied with Schindler and Neutra before pursuing ate School of Design under the direction of Walter
their own practices. Ain became interested in the Gropius, while third place went to Raphael Soriano.
design of low-cost housing in response to the De- All three schemes incorporated prefabricated ele-
pression in California, exploring the use of prefab- ments, but Pei and Duhart’s and Soriano’s schemes
ricated panels in plywood and concrete to construct went farther in this direction. Pei and Duhart’s en-
modest, yet modern, dwellings. Soriano had also try incorporated a prefabricated service core inte-
absorbed Neutra’s interest in prefabrication and the grating mechanical, kitchen and bathroom, as well
use of the latest technologies, focusing in particular as an unspecified prefabricated exterior panel sys-
on the potential of steel framing and prefabricated tem hung on a frame. Soriano’s scheme was more
panels in his house designs of the early ‘40s. controversial, proposing a prefabricated and addi-
tive building module with a wrap-around plywood
III. ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE skin that integrated a corrugated plywood truss.
Although awarded third place, Ain was critical of
Under the new ownership and editing of John En- Soriano’s scheme, diverging from the jury who
tenza, the California journal Arts and Architecture “evidently thought it good propaganda for prefab-
became a champion of these efforts, publishing the rication.” 10 Ain had been a long-time proponent of
work of California’s best modern architects, as well prefabrication in his own work and writings, but
as others from around the world. This re-focusing was concerned about the direction it would take
of the magazine on modern art and architecture within the profession. ‘We need no reiterations of
can be credited to Entenza’s own vision, and his the inevitability of prefabrication,” he said, but “we
proactive incorporation of some of the best mod- do need plans worth prefabricating.”11
ern architects in Southern California on his edito-
rial board. These included Harwell Harris (1939), In July of 1944, only three months after publishing
 PREFABRICATION AND THE POSTWAR HOUSE 405

the last projects from the ‘Postwar Living’ compe- able, prototypical modern homes for the ‘average’
tition, Entenza and his editors published the pre- family. While limited in their overall impact on the
fabrication manifesto in Arts and Architecture. This broader housing industry in the period after the
was followed in September by the announcement war, the Case Study houses came to epitomize the
of the magazine’s “2nd Annual Competition for the idea of the ‘Modern’, postwar house in this country,
Design of a Small House,” sponsored by the United more so, I would argue, than the rarified houses of
States Plywood Association. Once again, the maga- Mies and Johnson back East.
zine was looking for buildable projects incorporat-
ing the latest materials and technologies, prefabri- The idea of the ‘Modern’, postwar house among
cation foremost among them. California architects was fundamentally rooted to
the concept and strategies of prefabrication, includ-
Throughout this period in the early ‘40s Entenza ing the use of new materials, new assemblies, and
published a range of projects and buildings in the factory-based mass-production. Many of the houses
pages of Arts and Architecture, acting as a strong that filled the pages of Arts and Architecture be-
advocate for a modern architecture that took ad- tween 1949 and 1960, including the Case Study
vantage of the new materials and technologies Houses, can be characterized by the incorporation
emerging from the war industries. But the design these new technologies, and the modular arrange-
competitions and the special issue on prefabrica- ment of space, structure, and cladding that they re-
tion were ultimately limited in their impact, given quired, in combination with the architectural char-
the weak state of the building industry during the acteristics of the pre-war modern California house
war. By late 1944, however, it was clear that the as conceived of by Schindler, Neutra, Ain, Soriano,
war would soon come to an end, and that wide- and others: open, flexible spatial arrangements,
scale house construction in the US would begin continuity between interior and exterior spaces,
again. The question was: who would define the adaption to sun and climate, and the clear, straight-
postwar house? If Entenza was going to have any forward expression of materials and structure.
significant influence on this question, it would be
necessary to move beyond publishing and into the The significance of this integration of new industrial
realm of action. materials, such as steel, glass, plywood, and plas-
tics, with strategies of prefabrication and mass-
It was thus in January 1945, only a few months production, and the familiar characteristics of
after publishing the call for the 2nd Arts and Archi- Southern California modern architecture, can best
tecture postwar house competition, and still seven be understood through comparison. Pierre Koenig’s
months prior to the end of the war, that Entenza Bailey House, Case Study House #21 (1957-8) in
and his editors announced the Case Study House the Hollywood Hills of Los Angeles, is widely con-
Program. sidered to be the most refined and uncompromis-
ing of the steel frame Case Study houses. Consid-
“Because most opinion, both profound and light- ered in relation to Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth
headed, in terms of post war housing is nothing but
House (1945-51), located in the flood plain of the
speculation in the form of talk and reams of paper,
it occurs to us that it might be a good idea to get Fox River, Plano, Illinois, reveals a fundamentally
down to cases and at least make a beginning in different vision of the modern house, whose impli-
the gathering of that mass of material that must cations reverberate still today.
eventually result in what we know as ‘house – post
war.’” 12
The Farnsworth House is ‘house’ as a work of art in
clear-span structure (Fig. 2). “Certainly the house
IV. THE CASE STUDY PROGRAM: RE-
is more nearly a temple than a dwelling,” writes
DEFINING THE MODERN HOUSE
Franz Schulz, in his Critical Biography, “and it re-
wards aesthetic contemplation before it fulfills do-
The Case Study House Program has been well doc-
mestic necessity.”13 Indeed the house makes few
umented by numerous authors since its inception
concessions to the demands of daily life, to the
in January 1945. Under the leadership of John En-
course of the sun, to the movement of air. It is
tenza, the program would come to define for many
primarily a vessel to look at, and look out from.
the ideal of modern living in Southern California,
Articulation of the structure is foremost: eight ro-
presenting a series highly sophisticated, yet afford-
406 THE VALUE OF DESIGN

readily available steel shapes and products in a

carefully conceived manner, a finished product
comparable to any other luxury home is achieve
minus the excessive cost usually associated with
quality and originality.”15

Koenig had been investigating the potential of low-

cost steel construction since his days as a student
at USC, when he built his first steel house for him-
self, working closely with the steel, window, and
other product manufacturers to rationalize the de-
sign and bring the costs down. He put this accu-
mulated knowledge to work on CSH #21, a modest
house of 1,320 square feet for a young professional
couple. The structural plan is a simple rectangle,
composed of four steel bents, 44-feet long and 9-
feet high, which were manufactured off site and
delivered complete for quick assembly. The bents
were full rectangles, spaced 10-feet apart to form
the main structure, with another three bents half
Figure 2. Farnsworth House, from Mies in America, p.347
as long added to create a carport and entry. The
columns are 4-inch H-sections, while the beams
bust wide-flange columns are arranged in a three are 8-inch I-sections. As Koenig notes, it is “a very
bay, twenty four-feet by thirty-feet grid, supporting pristine, clean design. Two details, one north-south,
and separating floor and roof plates exactly nine- one east-west. One material for the roof, same one
feet six-inches apart. The columns are welded to a for the walls. Minimal house, maximum space.”16
robust steel-channel, which acts as a fascia wrap-
ping the outer edge of both floor and roof, scaled The house is sited according to the cardinal
to eliminate all visible deflection in the plates. This directions, with east and west sides fully enclosed
is further assisted by the decision to cantilever the with panels of steel decking for reasons of privacy
floor and roof plates one-quarter bay beyond the and sun control, while the longer north and south
end-columns at both ends. faces are fully transparent with four sliding glass
doors, two to a side, and welded directly to the steel
The columns also serve to lift the whole structure frame. The south-facing doors are equipped with
more than five-feet above the flood plane of the external Koolshade screens to reduce excessive sun
Fox River, setting the building on an invisible po- penetration and heat gain, while the north-facing
dium of air. Enclosure is glass, floor to ceiling, set doors are clear. Services – two bathrooms and a
in barstock steel frames, with one double-door on mechanical closet – are encapsulated in a core
the western face. But even the glass walls are con- volume running north south, separating the public
ceived of in terms of structure. Mies wrote in 1933, spaces in the plan from the private bedrooms, and
seeming to anticipate this later work, that “the incorporating a small exterior court with a fountain.
glass skin, the glass walls alone permit the skeleton The water element is extended to the exterior, with
structure its unambiguous constructive appearance a 4-foot wide channel pond that runs around the
and secure its architectonic possibilities.”14 perimeter of the building, bridged by brick terraces
at door openings that are continuous with interior
Case Study House #21 (the Bailey House), on the floors. The water serves as a counter point to the
other hand, is ‘house’ as a work of industrial design crisp steel frame and cladding, and as part of an
(Fig. 3). “Case Study House #21 represents a form innovative environmental system which pumps
of culmination of development of the steel house,” water up to the roof level, where is falls back
reads the description in Arts and Architecture, through scuppers into the channel pool, aerating
the water and providing some cooling through
“as it represents the epitome of architectural
evaporation.
refinements in planning and execution, in a material
heretofore considered experimental. By utilizing
 PREFABRICATION AND THE POSTWAR HOUSE 407

House (CSH #8, 1949), by Charles and Ray Eames.

The Loblolly House, built on Taylor’s Island in the
Chesapeake Bay region, is a groundbreaking re-
alization of a new way of conceiving and building
architecture on the part of Kieran Timberlake As-
sociates. Drawing on the research that led to their
book Refabricating Architecture (New York: McGraw
Hill, 2004), Stephan Kieran and James Timberlake
have designed and built a modest second home for
Kieran’s family, relying almost exclusively on the
use of prefabricated elements, coordinated and as-
sembled in a process more closely resembling the
manufacture of automobiles and airplanes than
that of conventional houses. Using a shared para-
metric model with the suppliers and assemblers
on the project, the Loblolly house is structured in
terms of five divisions of elements: site elements,
including foundation piles and utilities; structure,
in this case an aluminum frame; floor cartridges,
including floor and roof panels that integrate struc-
tural, mechanical and electrical systems, with en-
Figure 3. Case Study House 21, from Pierre Koenig, p.
49. closure and finishes; blocks, system intensive core
spaces that include complete bathrooms with ser-
Case Study House #21 thus succeeds in integrat- vice connections, closets, and mechanical rooms;
ing a cleanly articulated structure, factory supplied wall cartridges, including insulated wall panels with
industrial materials, and off-the-shelf components, exterior and interior finishes, including windows;
with a thoughtful response to climate and context, and lastly, furnishings, fixtures, and equipment.18
an integration of building and landscape, and all With the exception of the site elements, all of the
in a prototypical design for the prototypical family. others were manufactured off-site and assembled
This is what so impressed Reyner Banham about on-site according to the parametric model and its
the Case Study Houses, particularly the steel hous- integrated supply chain in a four-week period.
es of Pierre Koenig: they were rigorously modern,
but in an un-monumental manner, in contrast to
the houses of Mies and Philip Johnson back East.17
Designed to meet the demands and opportunities
of the postwar era, Koenig’s Bailey House nonethe-
less belongs to the tradition of the modern Califor-
nia house that extends back to the early works of
Schindler and Neutra.

V. CASE STUDY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

From our current perspective, however, what should

be recognized about the Case Study Houses, in
particular from the period 1948 to 1960 – includ-
ing houses by Eames, Neutra, Soriano, Ellwood,
and Koenig – is the extent to which they can also
be considered to offer precedents for sustainable
house design today. This can perhaps be clarified
with a second comparison, this time between a very
recent and notable work, the Loblolly House (2006)
by Kieran Timberlake Associates, and that most well Figure 4. Loblolly House, Western Face, from Loblolly
known house of the Case Study Program, the Eames House, p. 35
408 THE VALUE OF DESIGN

The house itself is a two-storey rectangular struc- proach. So as to preserve a meadow in the center
ture stretching North-South, with maximum trans- of the site, the house was re-aligned to sit between
parency along the western face opening towards an embankment on the western edge and a row of
a view of the Bay (Fig. 4). Massing is divided into Eucalyptus trees, creating the now familiar inter-
two parts, separated by a small gap that distin- play of trees and the building’s skin.
guishes guest quarters from the rest of the house,
all of which is elevated a storey above ground by a “The 11.5 tons of steel frame was erected in a day
rough grid of canted log piles. A rough cedar-board and a half, its elements thin and spindly. Two paral-
rain/sun screen wraps three side of the building, lel rows of 4in (100mm) H-columns, forming 7ft 6in
creating a veil over the aluminum scaffold/frame (2.23m) bays, framed a space 20ft (6m) wide and
and wall cartridges. Set amongst the Loblolly Pines, 18ft (5.43m) high. 12in (300mm) Truscon open-
the house seeks to create a dialogue with the trees web steel joists, strengthened at each end by the
through the patterns of its siding and the founda- welded addition of a steel plate, supported the ex-
tion piles. posed Ferro-board steel roof decking.”19 Like the
Loblolly house, the building is a simple rectangular
volume divided into two parts, here studio and liv-
ing quarters, with a small courtyard between. En-
closure is achieved with a combination of off-the-
shelf steel sash window and door units, intermixed
with solid panels. The western wall, partially cov-
ered by the embankment, is largely solid for two
stories, protecting much of the interior from the
harsh western sun. A large overhang extends to
the south to provide shade to the double storey liv-
ing room in the summer.

The Eames House is work of architecture that

seeks to take full advantage of the technology and
materials of its day. Much like Kieran and Timber-
lake, Eames had studied the war industries in the
mid-40’s to uncover the best materials and tech-
niques for building houses. What he and Entenza
discovered was the potential of steel, glass, and
plywood, and the benefits of prefabrication and
industrial production. The Eames House embodies
this knowledge, and integrates it with a sensitiv-
Figure 5. Eames House Interior, from Modern California ity to landform, landscape, and the course of the
Houses, p. 58.
sun, in much the same way as the Loblolly House
endeavors to do so.
In its conception, production, and assembly, the
Loblolly House is unlike any other house today, and Like Pierre Koenigs CSH #21, realized ten years
yet it is rooted in the lessons of the Case Study later, the Eames House succeeded in establishing
Houses, in particular the Eames house, realized a new paradigm for the modern house, incorpo-
more than half a century ago. Design of the Eames rating both optimism in technology and the desire
house began in 1945, shortly after the inception to integrate landscape in the interior and exterior
of the Case Study Program, but proceeded slowly. experience of the inhabitant. This fusion of new
The design underwent substantial revision, how- materials, prefabrication technologies, light and
ever, after Charles Eames visited an exhibition of landscape, characteristic of the best of the Case
Mies van der Rohe’s work at the Museum of Modern Study Houses, would produce in California some of
Art in the autumn of 1947. Seeing a close similar- the most iconic houses of the 20th Century, more
ity between his design and a sketch by Mies for a than fulfilling the aspirations of the ‘prefabrication
house, convinced Eames to consider a different ap- manifesto’ of 1944.
 PREFABRICATION AND THE POSTWAR HOUSE 409

ENDNOTES 17. Reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of

Four Ecologies (New York: Penguin Books, 1971) p. 227.
1. John Entenza, “Notes in Passing”, Arts & Architecture,
July 1944, p.21. 18. Stephan Kieran and James Timberlake, Loblolly
House: Elements of a New Architecture (New York:
2. Thomas Hines, “The Search for the Postwar House”, Princeton Architectural Press, 2008) p. 54-5.
in Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of
the Case Study Houses, Ed. by Elizabeth A. T. Smith 19. Neil Jackson, The Modern Steel House (1996) p. 54.
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), p. 167.

3. Charles and Ray Eames, John Entenza, and Eero

Saarinen. “What is a House”, Arts & Architecture, July
1944, p.24.

4. Charles and Ray Eames, John Entenza, and

Eero Saarinen. “What Prefabrication is Not”, Arts &
Architecture, July 1944, p.29.

5. Charles and Ray Eames, John Entenza, and

Eero Saarinen. “Emergency Prefabrication”, Arts &
Architecture, July 1944, p.38.

6. Rudolph Schindler, “Prefabrication Vocabulary”, in

Arts and Architecture, June 1943, p. 32-3.

7. Esther McCoy. Modern California Houses (New York:

Reinhold Publishing Company, 1962), p. 70.

8. Thomas Hines. “Case Study Trouvé: Sources and

Precedents”, Blueprints for Modern Living: History and
Legacy of the Case Study Houses, Edited by Elizabeth A.
T. Smith (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), p.94-5.

9. “The New House 194x”, The Architectural Forum,

September 1942, p. 65.

10. Gregory Ain, Arts & Architecture, August 1943, p.

27, as quoted in Neil Jackson, The Modern Steel House
(London: E & FN Spon, 1996) p. 47.

11. Ibid, p. 47.

12. John Entenza, “The Case Study House Program”,

Arts and Architecture, January 1945, p. 37.

13. Franz Schultz, Mies van der Rohe: A Critical

Biography, Chicago: ?, 1984, p. 256.

14. MIes van der Rohe, “Was ware Beton, was Stahl
ohne Spiegelglas? (What Would Concrete, What Would
Steel Be without Plate Glass?),” unpublished typescript
of contribution to a prospectus for the Verein Deutscher
Spiegel-glas-Fabriken, 13 March 1933, Container 2,
MvdR Papers, Manuscript Division, LOC; as quoted
in Phyllis Lambert, ed., Mies in America (Montreal:
Canadian Center for Architecture, 2001), p. 334.

15. John Entenza, ed., Arts and Architecture, February

1959, p. 19.

16. Pierre Koenig, interviewed by Neil Jackson, 13

July, 1988; as quoted in Neil Jackson, The Modern Steel
House (1996) p. 98.