The enduring legacy and influence of the Case Study House Program in the United States on
residential design is remarkable given that it was essentially a regional architecture
movement centered in Southern California.
In part as a response to the post-war World War II housing shortage and building boom,
Arts & Architecture magazine announced the Case Study House Program in January of 1945.
The editor at the time, John Entenza, handpicked a select group of architects to design and
construct homes that were affordable, modern and efficient.
Entenza wrote in the program's announcement that the houses were required to be quote,
"conceived within the spirit of our times, using as far as is practicable, many war-born
techniques and materials best suited to the expression of man's life in the modern world."
In other words, the houses were to be devised to disseminate modernist ideas and design
culture on a mass scale.
Despite the fact that so few were built, many of the case study homes and the ideas they
inspired persist today, including the Eames House shown here, designed by Charles and
Ray Eames in 1949.
The homes reflected post-war attitudes toward reinvention and social awareness.
They helped to define the style of mid-century modernism but they were much more than style.
The open floor plans that the homes imagined decades ago are still seen today.
They offered a new way of thinking about space and made modern design available and approachable
for all.
Their budgets were modest, which meant they had to employ off-the-shelf, standardized
materials, and they were small in scale.
Open plans blurred lines between inside and out and a simple, honest use of materials
were key to their economy.
Here are seven enduring lessons the case-study house program offered and a call-to-action
for architects to consider developing their own case-study homes.
Lesson 1: Case study homes as teaching tools for the value of architecture.
Few of the original case study homes were actually built, but the ones that were became
immensely popular.
The first six were toured by more than 368,000 people in 1946 and 1947.
People were eager to experience the designs.
Architects often rely on technical, abstract language and drawings that most have a hard
time interpreting to describe space.
These instruments don't accurately portray the physical reality of architecture in a
way that a case-study home would.
For example, a reverse living concept, such as the one employed in this home, may make
implicit sense to an architect when visiting a particular site, but for a client to experience
the building describes the concept in real terms.
The benefits of lifting the living plane above street level is made explicit here.
Lesson 2: Real solutions to real problems.
Just as the housing shortage provided the impetus for the case study house program in
1945, the lack of affordable real estate, density restrictions and underdeveloped housing
stocks are problems affecting our communities today.
Solving these difficult problems inherently takes more creative horsepower and consequently
more design fee.
A case study house can propose adaptable solutions to common needs and model designs sold to
many effectively amortizing the design costs over a larger client base.
Frequently, the only properties that are affordable for the average individual or family are the
ones with the most latent liabilities.
Sites that require special permitting, alternative construction procedures or those that are
bound by development restrictions are viewed as intractable problems to most.
Infill housing schemes and accessory dwelling unit concepts designed by architects, especially
in urban areas, are two areas where the case study home could effect positive change.
Lesson 3: The value of financial skin in the game.
Arts & Architecture magazine initially agreed to commission the homes for the case study
program, however due to a lack of funds the funding burden fell to each architect charging
them with the task of finding suitable clients -- of which John Entenza was one.
Borrowing from this model, it's entirely possible to solicit buy-in from interested clients
or a personal need for a home by an architect to fund a case study model home.
There's no substitute for the hard evidence and real-world current cost feedback that
construction provides.
A personal financial commitment to a project is a strong motivator too.
Understanding the real cost of systems and construction incentivizes invention rather
than a reliance on - potentially more expensive - common practice and conventional details.
Having some skin in the game shows future clients you believe in the product too.
Lesson 4: Regional Prototypes for Mass Production.
Even though this was an integral part of the A+A's design brief, the case study house program
never delivered on the goal of mass production.
Due in part to a shortage of building materials after the war and increasing opposition from
builders eager to meet consumer demand for housing but unwilling to adopt unconventional
residential building practices.
Glazed walls, limited insulation and seamless to the outdoor environment was another barrier
to wider adoption; it was a hard concept to rationalize in many less-temperate parts of
the US.
Yet the case study ideas persist to this day in moderate climates because they work well;
they're comfortable.
The regional case study is an interesting idea that could be applied to a localized
mass production or prefab facility.
Imagine architects intimately familiar with their regional climate bringing those hard-won
lessons to bear on the problem of modern housing needs.
Case study homes could achieve wide regional acceptance if their prototypes were as well-suited
to their climate as the Southern Californian modernists' designs were.
Lesson 5: Product versus process.
The case study houses were built to be toured and experienced by people.
Although the reality of the program was such that the houses were one-off constructions,
the intent was that they were to be examples, full-scale mock-ups - products.
The notion of architecture as product is rejected by many architects because it's antithetical
to the approach most of us rely on in our everyday practice: the design process.
Yet, increasingly, this process is only affordable to a select few.
It's part of the reason architects are commissioned to work on fewer than 1% of the new homes
constructed today in the US.
The process of design we rely on isn't readily reducible to a set of known outcomes and it's
not linear.
Information is gathered and synthesized by an individual's (or firm's) personal design
process.
It takes courage for a client to agree to an unfamiliar process and an implicit trust
that their architect will deliver on their promise.
Contrast this with the eminently familiar act of buying a product.
With a case study house, the consumer can view (even experience) the product, understand
the cost and quickly make a value judgment.
Either the perceived value is there or it isn't.
Products can build-in profitability for the professional and affordability for the client.
Eliminating the stressful sequence of bidding and price negotiation has benefits for both
parties.
For the client it ties decisions to real costs.
The architect can capitalize on their own efficiencies, investing in the design and
receive a royalty each time the design is sold.
Profit can be built-into the product and once it's created there's no inventory to store
or maintain.
If changes or customizations are required they can be performed at a fixed hourly rate,
again with integrated profit margins.
Quibbling over invoices can be a thing of the past with a product model.
And, there's no finger-pointing when bids come in high because the costs are known from
the outset.
Lesson 6: The perfect versus the good.
Custom, one-off bespoke commissions are prized by any architect.
Who would argue if asked to tailor every square inch of a home to a specific client's need?
Although case study homes forfeit some customization I would argue that it actually makes a home
more marketable.
The less owner-specific a home is the more people it can accommodate in the future.
Giving up a high level of customization helps keep the budget in line too.
We can't let our struggle for the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Design isn't a zero-sum game, with the efforts of architects and the benefits of design conferred
to only certain problems.
Thoughtful architecture can address the problems facing a wider spectrum of the population.
Case study homes can be explored for affordable but less than perfect sites.
Who better than to solve these problems than architects?
Lesson 7: An ethos of experimentation.
Most admirably, the Case Study House Program embraced an ethos of experimentation.
The designs reflected a willingness to step away from traditional notions of home and
try new things.
Some were successful - the open plan still exists today - while others weren't.
The things that didn't work, steel framing for example, told us something about the world
and our acceptance of new building technologies in the home.
To experiment with new living arrangements, novel materials, or more efficient ways of
constructing common details is rewarding.
When it goes right, the spoils can be incorporated into future production processes and the finished
product offers convincing proof.
When it goes wrong you know which direction to pivot.
Either way you've learned something in the process.
When we choose to educate, making our daily work an instructive case study for all to
learn from, we can all benefit.
In this way, architecture can deliver on the promise of relevant, affordable housing solutions
for all.