Farnsworth House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The exterior of the Farnsworth House during the autumn.

A winter view of the house in 1971.

The stairs.

The Farnsworth House, designed and constructed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe between 1945-51, is a one-room weekend retreat in a once-rural setting, located 55 miles southwest of Chicago . The steel and glass house was commissioned by Dr. Edith Farnsworth, a prominent Chicago-based kidney specialist, as a place where she could enjoy nature and engage in her hobby, translating poetry. Mies created for her a 1400 SF house that is widely recognized as a masterpiece of modernist architecture.

The essential characteristics of the house are immediately apparent. The extensive use of clear floor-to-ceiling glass opens the interior to its natural surroundings to an unprecedented degree. The simple rectilinear form is barely defined by exposed steel structural members painted pure white. The house is elevated and seems to float weightlessly above the ground it occupies. The interior appears to be a single open space, free of interior supports, ebbing and flowing around two wood-clad boxes; one a wardrobe closet and the other a fireplace core enclosing toilets and mechanical equipment.

Many consider the Farnsworth House a work of art because the architect raises, and offers answers to, basic questions about the relationship between the individual, society, and the universe. Mies viewed the times in which an ordinary individual exists as largely beyond his control. But he believed the individual can exist in harmony within a flawed social order while still fulfilling himself. He perceived his own times as the era of industrial production. His career was a long and patient search for an architecture that would be both a true product of that era, and a statement about the place of the individual in that era. Mies wanted to use architecture as a tool to reconcile the individual spirit with the culture in which he exists. His solution is to accept the need for an orderly social framework as necessary for peaceful existence, while making space for the freedom needed by the individual human spirit to flourish. His mature design work is a physical expression of the results of that search. He provides the occupants of his buildings flexible and unobtructed space in which to fulfill themselves as individuals, despite their inherent condition as a part of the modern industrial social order. The materials of his buildings, no-nonsense modern industrial manufactured products like steel and plate glass, represent the character of the era.

At the Farnsworth, the natural site offers an opportunity to bring man's relationship to nature into the picture. Here he highlights the individual's connection to nature as a respite from the contadictions between social order and individual freedom. Glass walls and open interior space are the features that provide maximum freedom, while the exposed structural frame provides an ordered framework that is reduced to a minimum. The individual spirit is given unrestricted space to be free, but must exist within the order of a minimalist industrial steel framework. Mies' bias in the balance of order and freedom is clearly visible.

The house is located on a 60 acre estate site adjoining the Fox River near the city of Plano, Illinois, (itself a place where seeds of the modern industrial revolution in agriculture were sown and cultivated, and where nature was invoked to resolve the social ills of the individual in the industrial society). Mies conceived the building as an architectural shelter simultaneously independent of and intertwined with nature. Mies did not build on the upland or sloped portions of the site, choosing instead to engage nature in a sophisticated game of chicken by building on the floodplain near the rivers edge. The enclosed space and a screened porch are elevated five feet on a raised floor platform, just slightly above the 100 year flood level, with a large intermediate terrace level. The levels of the platforms restate the multiple levels of the site, in a kind of poetic architectural rhyme. The house is anchored to the site in the cooling shadow of a large and majestic Maple tree. As Mies often did, the entrance is located on the sunny side facing the river, forcing visitors to turn corners and view the house from various angles when approaching the house. The simple elongated cubic form of the house is arranged parallel to the flow of the river, and the terrace platform is slipped downstream in relation to the elevated living platform. The careful site design and integration of the exterior environment represents a subtle yet concerted effort to achieve an architecture wedded to its context.

Inside, the house is essentially one large room with a freestanding wardrobe and a central fireplace core that provide subtle differentiation between open spaces. Very private areas such as toilets, and mechanical rooms are enclosed within the core. The free flow of space around the interior elements is a key feature of Mies efforts to express his ideas.

The total cost of the house was $72,000 in 1951. Cost overruns due to escalating post-war steel and material prices and a soured personal relationship between Dr. Edith Farnsworth and Mies (rumored to be romantic in nature) led to a lawsuit for non-payment of construction costs and a countersuit for malpractice. Mies could prove that Farnsworth had approved the plans, and he won in court. Edith's accusations were unsubstantiated and the court dismissed her suit. The house has flooded above the FEMA 100 year flood elevation twice, in 1956 and 1996, causing significant damage to utilities, wood veneers, glass and to furnishings

Part of Farnsworth's protest against Mies included a national appeal to architecture critics and a denouncement of Mies in House and Garden magazine and other opponents of modernism. Frank Lloyd Wright used the occasion to denounce the house, the architect, and the International (modernist) Style in general. In his opinion, modernists were closet communists with mechanistic views of human needs and worshipers of conformist minimalism in all things. The same controversy between traditional and modernist style continues to this day.

In 1968, the local highway department condemned a 2 acre portion of the property adjoining the house for a raised highway. Farnsworth sued to stop the project but lost the court case. In 1972 Farnsworth sold the house to British property magnate, art collector, and architectural aficionado Lord Peter Palumbo. He added air conditioning, extensive landscaping and his art collections to the grounds, commissioning modern art including sculptures by Anthony Caro and Richard Serra for the grounds. After owning the property for 31 years, Palumbo removed the art and sold the property at auction to the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2003 for a reported $7.5 million, and building tours are now conducted by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois. The house is listed in the National Register and is now designated a National Historic Landmark by the United States Department of the Interior.

[edit] Cultural Attitudes

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since September 2006.

This modernist masterpiece is also an extreme example of the movement, and as such has drawn both criticisms from opponents and praise by proponents of the style.

The house is the subject of ongoing controversy. Opponents of modernist architecture cite numerous practical and emotional objections to this house in particular, while proponents offer defenses:

The large amount of glass results in high heating and cooling costs compared to well insulated traditional homes built today.
1. The energy costs in 1951 were extremely low, and conservation was not a recognized issue when the house was built.
2. The house uses sunlight to help keep the house warm, with the stone floor absorbing heat; on the other hand, the house was also an early instance of radiant heating in the United States.
3. The house was situated to capture shade from several large deciduous trees in summer.
The large areas of glass provide little privacy. Edith said in court she felt like a "caged animal always on the prowl."
1. A continuous track allows the drapery to completely open or enclose the space as needs dictate.
2. Trespassing architecture students often did violate the owner's privacy. Palumbo added a perimeter site fence to keep them out.
3. The house is in a natural setting and is not visible from surrounding properties.
Steel is not a practical material since it is prone to rust.
1. Steel requires annual touch-ups and repainting every 15 to 20 years.
2. All houses require maintenance, but most special architectural houses require a greater commitment.
3. There is no claim made that this is a low maintenance house.
The house feels cold and antiseptic, it doesn't allow clutter, with no place to put personal knick knacks.
It doesn't look comfortable and familiar like a normal weekend cottage.
There is no good place for a TV.
Mies didn't provide enough ventilation.
The costs went far over budget.
The house is in a flood plain, and has been damaged twice when water exceeded the 100 year flood height.
The wood veneers used inside are endangered species.
Mies didn't provide a place for garbage.
The architect didn't provide screens.