shulman case study house

Filed under:

Creating the iconic Stahl House

Two dreamers, an architect, a photographer, and the making of America’s most famous house

In 1953 a mutual friend introduced Clarence Stahl, better known as Buck, to Carlotta Gates. They met at the popular Mike Lyman’s Flight Deck restaurant, off Century Boulevard, which overlooked the runways at Los Angeles International Airport. Buck was 41 and Carlotta 24. The couple married a year later and remained together for more than 50 years, until Buck’s death in 2005.

Working with Pierre Koenig, an independent young architect whose primary materials were glass, steel, and concrete, the couple created perhaps the most widely recognized house in Los Angeles, and one of the most iconic homes ever built. No one famous ever lived in it, nor was it the site of a Hollywood scandal or constructed for a wealthy owner. It was just the Stahls’ dream home. And it almost did not come true.

As a newlywed, Carlotta moved into the house Buck was renting—the lower half of a two-story wood-frame house on Hillside Avenue in the Hollywood Hills, just west of Crescent Heights Boulevard and north of Sunset Boulevard. From the house, Buck and Carlotta looked across a ridge toward a promontory that drew their attention every morning and evening. As Carlotta explained during an interview with USC history professor Philip Ethington, this is how the dream of building their own home started: simply and incidentally. Although they felt emotionally and psychically drawn to the promontory, they did not have the financial means to buy the lot, even if it were available.

For months they looked intently across the ridge. Then, in May 1954, the couple decided “Let’s go over and see our lot. We’d already claimed it even though we’d never been here,” Carlotta told Ethington, adding, “And when we came up that day George Beha [the owner of the lot] was in from La Jolla. He and Buck talked, then, I would say an hour, hour and [a] half later, they shook hands. We bought the lot and he agreed to carry the mortgage.” They settled on a price of $13,500. At the end of their meeting, Buck gave Beha $100 as payment to make the agreement binding.

There were no houses along the hillside near the site that would become the Stahl House on Woods Drive, although the land was getting graded in anticipation of development. Richard D. Larkin, a real estate developer, acquired the lots on the ridge in a tax sale from the city of Los Angeles around 1958 and arranged to subdivide and grade them. The city hauled away the dirt without charge to use the decomposed granite for runway construction at LAX. In the process, the city made the road for Woods Drive.

The Stahls’ chance meeting with Beha abruptly made their vision more of a reality, but building was still a long way away. After nearly four years of mortgage payments to Beha, Buck prepared the lot for construction. He did this without having building specs, but knowing it would be necessary to shape the difficult hillside lot. In the first of many do-it-yourself accomplishments, he built up the edges to make the lot flat and level. To create a larger buildable area he laid the edge of the foundation with broken concrete, which was readily available at no cost from construction sites and provided Buck with flexibility for his layout. He could also lift and move the pieces without heavy equipment. He constructed a concrete wall and terracing with broken pieces of concrete. But he was told by architects and others that his effort would not improve the buildability of the property.

The developer, Larkin, showed Buck how to lay out and stack the concrete, Buck recalled to Ethington. It was not a completely new concept, as photographer Julius Shulman, whose photograph of the Stahl House would later become internationally recognized, used broken concrete in the landscaping on his property. But Buck’s use was far more labor-intensive and consuming. On evenings and weekends he managed to pick up discarded concrete from construction sites around Los Angeles, asking the foremen if he could haul the debris away. He did this dozens of times before collecting enough for the concrete wall.

Buck used decomposed granite from the lot and surrounding area, instead of fresh cement, to fill in the gaps between the concrete pieces. The result was a solid form that remains intact and stable today, almost 60 years later. What had been the underlying layer for a man-made structure became the underlying layer for a new man-made structure—Buck’s layers of broken concrete added another facet to the topography of the house and the city, and this hands-on development of the lot connected the Stahls to the land and house.

As they completed their final monthly payments, Buck finished a scale model of their dream home, and the couple began to look for an architect. The central architectural feature of the model was a butterfly roof combined with flat-roofed areas. From the beginning, Buck and Carlotta envisioned a glass house without walls blocking the panoramic view.

Their frequent visits to the lot intensified their desire to build a home of their own design. Like an architect, Buck studied the composition of the land, the shape of the lot, the direction of light, and the best way to ensure the views. Perhaps most importantly, he considered the architectural style that would ideally highlight these qualities.

Carlotta told Ethington they decided to meet with three architects whose work they had seen in different publications: Craig Ellwood, Pierre Koenig, and one more whom she did not remember. She said Ellwood and the unidentified architect “came to the lot [and] said we were crazy. ‘You’ll never be able to build up here.’”

When Koenig visited the site with the Stahls, he and Buck “just clicked right away,” according to Carlotta. In the 1989 documentary The Case Study House Program, 1945-1966: An Anecdotal History & Commentary , Koenig recalled how Buck “wanted a 270-degree panorama view unobstructed by any exterior wall or sheer wall or anything at all, and I could do it.” The Stahls appreciated Koenig’s enthusiasm and willingness to work with them. They had a written agreement in November of 1957.

The massive spans of glass and the cantilevering of the structure, essential aspects of the design to Koenig, precluded traditional wood-frame house construction. To ensure the open floorplan, uninterrupted views, and the structure required to create those features, steel became inevitable. Steel would also offer greater stability than wood during an earthquake. The use of exposed glass, steel, and concrete was a functional and economic decision that defined the aesthetics of the house. In combination, these industrial materials were not then common choices in home construction, though they were materials Koenig used frequently. Exposing the material structure of the house illuminated its transparency as an indoor-outdoor living space.

Koenig kept the spirit of Buck’s model, but removed a key aspect: the butterfly roof. Koenig flattened the roof and removed the curves from Buck’s design, so the house consisted of two rectangular boxes that formed an L.

When he sited the house and drew his preliminary plans, Koenig aligned the house so that the roof and structural cantilever mirrored the grid-like arrangement of the streets below the lot. Once completed, the house visually extended into the Los Angeles cityscape. The symmetry enhanced the connection between the house and the land. In The Case Study House Program 1945-1966 documentary, Koenig says, “When you look out along the beams it carries your eye out right along the city streets, and the [horizontal] decking disappears into the vanishing point and takes your eye out and the house becomes one with the city below.”

With the design completed, the Stahls’ dream was closer to coming to life, but there were further obstacles. The unconventional design of the house and its hillside construction made it difficult to secure a traditional home loan; banks repeatedly turned down Buck because it was considered too risky. As Buck explained to Ethington, “Pierre [kept] looking [for financing] and he had his rounds of contacts.” Koenig was finally able to arrange financing for the Stahls through Broadway Federal Savings and Loan Association, an African-American-owned bank in Los Angeles.

Broadway Federal had one unusual condition for the construction loan: The Stahls were required to secure a second loan for the construction of a pool and would need another bank to finance it. They had had a yard in mind, but a pool would increase the overall cost of the home—for the bank, it added value to the property and made the loan less risky.

After more searching, Buck found a lender for the pool construction so both projects could proceed. Broadway Federal loaned the Stahls $34,000. The second lender financed the pool at a cost of approximately $3,800.

Broadway Federal’s loan is ironic and extraordinary. Although it was not a reflection of the Stahls’ own values, the area that included their lot had legally filed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions from 1948 that indicated “the property shall not, nor shall any part thereof be occupied at any time by any person not of the Caucasian race, except that servants of other than the Caucasian race may be employed and kept thereon.” It was a discriminatory restriction against African Americans, and yet an African-American-owned bank made it possible for a Caucasian couple to build their home there.

When Pierre Koenig began work on the Stahl House, he was 32 years old and had built seven of the more than 40 projects he would design in his career. The Stahl House is the best known and is considered his masterwork, although Koenig considered the Gantert House (1981) in the Hollywood Hills the most challenging house he built. The long-term influence of the Stahl House is apparent in Gantert House and many of Koenig’s other projects.

Koenig built his first house in 1950—for himself—during his third year of architecture school at USC. It was a steel, glass, and cement structure. Although the architecture program had dropped its focus on Beaux Arts studies and modernism was coming to the fore, residential use of steel was not part of Koenig’s curriculum. But when he looked at the post-and-beam architecture then considered the standard of modern architecture, he felt the wood structures looked thin and fragile, and should be made of steel instead.

Koenig later told interviewer Michael LaFetra about a conversation with his instructor: “He said ‘No, you cannot use steel as an industrial material for domestic architecture. You cannot mix them up. The housewife won’t like [steel houses].’ The more he said I couldn’t do it, the more I wanted to do it. That’s my nature. He failed me. I got absolutely no help from him.”

But wartime production methods, particularly arc welding, were a source of inspiration for Koenig’s use of steel. Electric arc welding did not require bolts or rivets and instead created a rigid connection between beams and columns. Cross-bracing was not required, which opened greater possibilities: Aesthetically, it offered a streamlined look and allowed him to design a large open framework for unobstructed glass walls. The thin lines of the steel looked incidental compared to their strength.

His first house was originally designed as a wood building, but redesigned for steel construction. He commented years later that that was not the way to do it—he learned how to design for steel by taking an entirely new approach. There was little precedent to support his efforts: Such discoveries were an education for him, and he worked to resolve issues on his own. In Esther McCoy’s book Modern California Houses: Case Study Houses, 1945-1962 , Koenig declares, “Steel is not something you can put up and take down. It is a way of life.”

From then on, Koenig continued to develop his architectural vision—both pragmatic and philosophical. Prefabricated housing was a promising development following the war, but consumers found the homes’ cookie-cutter, invariable design unappealing. Koenig’s goal was to use industrialized components in different ways to create unique, innovative buildings using the same standard parts: endless variations with the core materials of glass, steel, and cement. Koenig’s intention, as captured in James Steel’s biography Pierre Koenig , “was to be part of a mechanism that could produce billions of homes, like sausages or cars in a factory.”

“The basic problem is whether the product is well designed in the first place,” Koenig further explained in a 1957 Los Angeles Times article by architectural historian Esther McCoy. “There are too many advantages to mass production to ignore it. We must accept mass production but we must insist on well-designed products.”

Reducing the number of parts and avoiding small parts were ways to reduce costs and streamline construction. In the case of the Stahl House, the efficiencies generated by the minimal-parts approach led to an inventory of fewer than 60 building components. In 1960, in an interview for the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner , Koenig said:

“All I have done is to take what we know about industrial methods and bring it to people who would accept it. You can make anything beautiful given an unlimited amount of money. But to do it within the limits of economy is different. That’s why I never have steel fabricated especially to my design. I use only stock parts. That is the challenge—to take these common everyday parts and work them into an aesthetically pleasing concept.”

Although Koenig completed a plot plan for the Stahl House in January 1958, he did not submit blueprints to the city of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety until that July. Due to the extensive use of steel and glass in a residential plan, combined with the hillside lot and dimensions and form that the department found irregular, the city did not consider the house up to code and would not approve construction. Instead they noted, “Board Action required to build on this site because of the extremely high steep slopes on the east and south sides.”

In a move typical of Koenig’s intellect and his ability to understand all details of construction, he prepared the technical drawings so he was able to discuss details with the planners. He spent several months explaining his design and material specifications to the city. Since they had not seen many plans for the extensive use of steel in home construction, the building officials asked him, “Why steel?”

In his interview with LaFetra, Koenig explained that he thought steel would last longer than wood and knew “building departments were not used to the ideas of modern architecture.” They would frown on “doing away with hip roof, shingles, you had to have a picket fence, window shutters.”

“The Building Department thought I was crazy,” Koenig said. “I can remember one of the engineers saying, ‘Why are you going to all this trouble? All you have to do is open up the code book and put down what’s in the code book. You could have a permit tomorrow.’ I asked myself, Why am I doing this?! I was motivated by some subconscious thing.” Koenig reduced the living room cantilever by 10 feet and removed the walkway around the house in order to move the plans forward.

He finally received approval in January 1959. Carlotta remembers, “One of the officials … said [there’ll] never be another house built like this ’cause they didn’t like the big windows. That was one of the things that bothered them more than anything, and the fact that we’re cantilevered.”

The city’s lengthy approval process contrasted with Koenig’s quick construction of the house. Due to its minimalist structural design and reduced number of building components compared to traditional wood construction, framing of the house was simplified. A crew of five men completed the job in one day.

The challenges of building were known, and they primarily related to the lot. “There’s very little land situated on this eagle nest high above Sunset Boulevard,” Koenig explained in the documentary film about the Case Study House Program. “So the swimming pool and the garage went on the best part, mainly because who wants to spend a lot of money supporting swimming pools and garages? And it’s very hard to support a pool on the edge of a cliff. The house it could handle. So the house is on the precarious edge.”

With the exception of the steel-frame fireplace (chimney and flue were prefabricated and brought to the site), Koenig used only two types of standard structural steel components: 12-inch beams and 4-inch H columns. The result is a profound demonstration of Koenig’s technical and aesthetic expertise with rigid-frame construction. The elimination of load-bearing walls on this scale represented the most advanced use of technology and materials for residential architecture ever.

Koenig’s success with steel-frame construction is partially due to William Porush, the structural engineer for the Stahl House. Porush engineered more than half of Koenig’s projects, beginning with Koenig’s first house in 1950.

A native of Russia, Porush emigrated to the U.S. in 1922 and graduated with a degree in civil engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1926. After working for a number of firms in Los Angeles and later with the LA Department of Building and Safety during World War II, Porush opened his own office in 1946 and eventually designed his own post-and-beam house in Pasadena in 1956.

The scale of his projects ranged from commercial buildings using concrete tilt-up construction in downtown Los Angeles to professional offices in Glendale, light industrial engineering, and a number of schools in Southern California—including traditional wood and brick, glass, and steel schools in Riverside.

Love midcentury homes?

Compare notes with other obsessives in our private Facebook group. 

When Porush retired at 89 years old, his son Ted ran the practice for several years before retiring himself. Speaking of both his and his father’s experience working with Koenig in 2012, Ted said, “Koenig was quite devoted and always had something in mind all the time without being unreasonable or obstinate, really an artist perhaps,” and added that he and his father “welcomed Koenig’s engineering challenges—whether related to innovations, materials, or budget constraints.”

General contractor Robert J. Brady was the other key member of Koenig’s Stahl House crew. Brady gained industry experience running a construction business in Ojai, California, where he was a school teacher. This was the only time Brady and Koenig worked together, as Koenig was dissatisfied, he later wrote, with Brady’s management of the Stahl House, as indicated in a letter to Brady himself in the Pierre Koenig papers at the Getty Research Institute.

In 1957, Koenig approached Bethlehem Steel about the development of a program for architects using light-steel framing in home construction. At the time, Bethlehem Steel did not see a market or need to formalize a program. Residential use of steel, while known, was still very uncommon.

“The steel house is out of the pioneering stage, but radically new technologies are long past due,” Koenig explained in an interview with Esther McCoy. “Any large-scale experiment of this nature must be conducted by industry, for the architect cannot afford it. Once it is undertaken, the steel house will cost less than the wood house.”

By 1959, Bethlehem Steel saw how quickly the market was changing and started a Pacific Coast Steel Division in Los Angeles to work specifically with architects. The division then shared their preliminary specifications with Koenig for architecturally exposed steel and solicited his comments and opinions.

To introduce Bethlehem’s new marketing effort, they published a booklet in 1960, “The Steel-Framed House: A Bethlehem Steel Report Showing How Architects and Designers Are Making Imaginative Use of Light-Steel Framing In Houses.” Koenig’s Bailey House (CSH No. 21) and the Stahl House both appeared in the booklet. Bethlehem promoted Koenig’s architecture with Shulman photographs and accompanying text: “What could be more sensible than to make this magnificent view of Los Angeles a part of the house—to ‘paper the walls’ with it?” and “Problem Sites? Not with steel framing!” The brochure showed multiple views of the Stahl House.

For architects, having work published during this time led to recognition and often translated to future projects. Arts & Architecture magazine and its publisher John Entenza played an essential role in promoting Koenig’s architecture. Entenza conceived of the Case Study House Program in the months prior to the end of World War II, in anticipation of the demand for affordable, thoughtfully designed middle-class housing, and introduced it in the magazine’s January 1945 issue. The purpose of the program was to promote new ways of living based on advances in design, construction, building methods, and materials.

After the war, an impetus to produce new forms emerged. In architecture, that meant a move away from traditionally built homes and toward modern design. The postwar availability of industrial and previously restricted materials, especially glass, steel, and cement, offered architects freedom to pursue new ideas. In addition to materials, the modern approach in home design resulted in less formal floor plans that could offer continuity, ease of flow, multipurpose spaces, fewer interior walls, sliding glass walls and doors, entryways, and carports. Homes were generally built with a flat roof, which helped define a horizontal feel. Interior finishes were simple and unadorned, and there was no disguising of materials.

The absence of traditional details became part of the new aesthetic. Both exterior and interior structures were simplified. This all contributed to perhaps the most significant appeal of postwar architecture in Southern California: indoor-outdoor living. By physically, visually, and psychologically integrating the indoors and outdoors, it offered a new, casual way of life that more actively connected people to their environment. Combined with year-round mild weather, these new houses afforded a growing sense of independence and freedom of expression.

Arts & Architecture presented works-in-progress and completed homes throughout its pages, devoting more space in the magazine to the modern movement than other publications. Trends with finishes, built-ins, and low-cost materials spread across homes in Southern California after publication in Arts & Architecture . The magazine’s modern aesthetic extended across the country, where architects developed new solutions based on what they had seen in its pages. And since it reached dozens of countries, the international influence of California modernism through Entenza’s editorial eye was profound.

The Case Study House Program provided a point of focus. As noted by Elizabeth Smith, art historian and museum curator, all 36 of the Case Study houses were featured in the magazine, although only 24 were built. With the exception of one apartment building, they were all single-family residences completed between 1945 and 1966.

“John Entenza’s idea was that people would not really understand modern architecture unless they saw it, and they weren’t going to see it unless it was built,” Koenig said in James Steel’s monograph. “[Entenza’s] talent was to promulgate ideas that many architects had at that time.”

In conjunction with the magazine, Entenza sponsored open houses at recently completed Case Study houses, giving visitors the opportunity to experience the modern aesthetic. Contemporary design pieces such as furniture, lamps, floor coverings, and decorative objects created a context for everyday living. The open houses took on a realistic dimension that generated a range of responses: “Oh, steel, glass and cement are cold.” “This is not homey.” “Could I live here?” “How would I live here?”

The program gave architects exposure and in many cases brought them credibility and a new clientele—although it was not a wealth-generating endeavor for the architects. For manufacturers and suppliers, it was a convenient way to receive publicity since people could see their products or services in use.

The Case Study House Program did not achieve Entenza’s goal: the development of affordable housing based on the design of houses in the program. None of the houses spurred duplicates or widespread construction of like-designed homes. The motivation from the building industry to apply the program’s new approaches was short-lived and not widely adopted.

Speaking many years later, Koenig stated in Steel’s monograph that “in the end the program failed because it addressed clients and architects, rather than contractors, who do 95 percent of all housing.” Instead, the known, accepted, and traditional design, methods of construction, and materials continued to prevail. Buyers still largely preferred conventional homes—a fact reinforced by the standard type of construction taught in many architecture schools during the postwar years.

However, today the program must be considered highly successful for its impact on residential architecture, and for initiating the California Modern Movement. The program influenced architects, designers, manufacturers, homeowners, and future home buyers. As McCoy reported, “The popularity of the Case Studies exceeded all expectations. The first six houses to be opened [built between 1946 and 1949] received 368,554 visitors.” The houses in the program, and their respective architects, now characterize their architectural era, representing the height of midcentury modern residential design.

The Stahl House became Case Study House No. 22 in the most informal way. With the success of Koenig’s Bailey House (CSH No. 21), Entenza told Koenig if he had another house for the program, to let him know. Koenig told him about his next project, the Stahl House.

In April 1959, months before construction started, Entenza and the Stahls signed an exclusive agreement indicating the house would become known as Case Study House No. 22 and appear in Arts & Architecture magazine. This also meant the house would be made available for public viewings over eight consecutive weekends and Entenza had the rights to publish photographs and materials in connection with the house. Additionally, he had approval of the furnishings. (He included an option for the Stahls to buy any or all of the furnishings at a discount.)

By agreeing to make their house CSH No. 22, the Stahls were making their dream home more affordable. Equipment and material suppliers sold at cost in exchange for advertising space in the magazine. The arrangement gave Koenig the opportunity to negotiate further with vendors, since he was likely to use them in the future. Buck estimated in his interview with Ethington that it “ended up saving us conservatively $10,000 or $15,000” on the construction.

The house was featured in Arts & Architecture four times between May 1959 and May 1960, in articles documenting its progress and completion.

Arts & Architecture only ended up opening the house for public viewings on four weekends, from May 7 to May 29, 1960. The showings were well attended, and the shorter schedule meant the Stahls could move into the house sooner.

The Stahl House is a 2,200-square-foot home with two bedrooms and two bathrooms, built on an approximately 12,000-square-foot lot.

Construction began in May 1959 and was completed a year later, in May 1960. The pre-construction built estimate was $25,000, with Koenig to receive his usual 10 percent architect’s fee. His agreement with the Stahls additionally provided him 10 percent of any savings he secured on construction materials. The budget for the house was revised to $34,000, but Koenig’s fee of $2,500 did not change.

The final cost was over $15 per square foot—notably more than the average cost per square foot of $10 to $12 in Southern California at the time.

During its lifetime, the Stahl House has had very few modifications. For a short time, AstroTurf surrounded the pool area to serve as a lawn and make the area less slippery for the Stahls’ three children. There have been minor kitchen remodels with necessary updates to appliances. The kitchen cabinets, which were originally dark mahogany, were replaced with matched-grain white-oak cabinets due to fading caused by heavy exposure to sunlight. A catwalk along the outside of the living room, on the west side, was added to make it easier to wash the windows. Stones were applied to the fireplace, which was originally white-painted gypsum board with a stone base. A stone planter was also added to match the base. The pool was converted to solar heat.

These changes maintain the spirit of the house. Perhaps without effort, Koenig activated what architect William Krisel termed “defensive architecture”: building to preempt alterations and keep a structure as originally designed. Koenig's original steel design, comprehending potential earthquake risk, remains superior to traditional building materials.

The Stahl House has served as the setting for dozens of films, television shows, music videos, and commercials. Its appearances in print advertisements number in the hundreds. By Koenig’s count, the house can be seen in more than 1,200 books.

At times, the house has played a leading role. Its first commercial use was in 1962, when the Stahls made the house available for the Italian film Smog not long after they moved in.

Movies featuring the Stahl House

The First Power (1990)

The Marrying Man (1991)

Corina Corina (1994)

Playing By Heart (1998)

Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1998)

Galaxy Quest (1999)

The Thirteenth Floor (1999)

Nurse Betty (2000)

Where the Truth Lies (2005)

In Los Angeles magazine, years later, Carlotta recalled the production: “One of the days they were shooting, the view was too clear, so they got spray and smogged the windows.” The Stahls grew to accept such requests, and the result has been decades of commercial use.

Koenig explained its attraction in the New York Times : “The relationship of the house to the city below is very photogenic … the house is open and has simple lines, so it foregrounds the action. And it’s malleable. With a little color change or different furniture, you can modify its emotional content, which you can’t do in houses with a fixed mood and image.”

This versatility offers a wide range of settings, from kitsch to urbane, comedy to drama. The house has also been rendered in 3D software for various architectural studies and appears in the game The Sims 3 , perhaps the most revealing proof of its demographic reach.

In nearly all appearances, the Stahl House conveys a sense of livability that is aspirational while remaining accessible. It reflects Koenig’s skillful architectural purpose. The architect is invisible by design. Understandably, Koenig was very pleased to see the frequent and varied use of the Stahl House. However, as he said in the New York Times , “My gripe is the movies use [houses] as props but never list the architect in the credits.” He added, “Architects, of course, get no residuals from it. The Stahls paid off the original $35,000 mortgage for the house and pool in a couple of years through location rentals, and now the house is their entire income.”

Once Buck retired in 1978, renting the house for commercial use became an especially helpful way to supplement their income. Today the family offers tours and rents the house for events and media activities. They also honor Carlotta’s restriction, noted in a 2001 interview with Los Angeles magazine: “I will not allow nudity. My Case Study House is not going to be associated with that.”

“Julius Shulman called. ... He’ll be there tonight. Call him at 6 p.m. and make arrangements for tonite. By then he’d appreciate it if you would know if Stahl could put off moving in until pictures are shot.”

This ordinary call logged in Koenig’s office journal eventually led to the creation of one of the most iconic photographs of the postwar modern era.

However, delays with completing interior details almost prevented Shulman from photographing the house and meeting his publication deadline, even after he negotiated with his editor to change it several times. The potential of missing an opportunity to promote the house frustrated Koenig. “As you know we were supposed to shoot Monday [April 18, 1960],” he wrote to his general contractor, Robert Brady:

“The deadline has been changed once but it is impossible to change it again. The die is set. Mr. Van Keppel is waiting to move furniture in. Shulman comes by the job every day to see when he can shoot. Mr. Entenza is shouting for photos so he can print the next issue. The president of Bethlehem is supposed to visit the finished house this Friday [April 22]. There is to be a press conference this week-end. Not to mention Mr. Stahl. This will give you some idea of the pressure being put on.”

After Brady completed the finishing work, and months after it was originally scheduled, Shulman photographed the house over the course of a week. There was still construction material in the carport, and the master bathroom was not complete.

The color image of the two women sitting in the house with the city lights at night first appeared on the cover of the July 17, 1960, Los Angeles Examiner Pictorial Living section, a pull-out section in the Sunday edition of the newspaper. The article about the house, “Milestone on a Hilltop,” also included additional Shulman photographs.

By the time Shulman photographed the Stahl House he was an internationally recognized photographer. He was indirectly becoming a documentarian, historian, participant, witness, and promulgator of modern architecture and design in Los Angeles.

The Stahl House photograph, taken Monday, May 9, 1960, has the feel of a Saturday night, projecting enjoyment and life in a modern home. Shulman reinforces the open but private space by minimizing the separation of indoor and outdoor. The photograph achieves a visual balance through lighting that is both conventional and dramatic. As with much of Shulman’s signature work, horizontal and vertical lines and corners appear in the frame to create depth and direct the viewer’s eye, creating a dimensional perspective instead of a flat, straightforward position. The effect is a narrative that emphasizes Koenig’s architecture.

“What’s so amazing is that the house is completely ethereal,” architect Leo Marmol said in an interview with LaFetra in 2007. “It’s almost as though it’s not there. We talk about it as though it’s a photograph of an architectural expression but really, there’s very little architecture and space. It’s a view. It’s two people. It’s a relationship.”

Shulman recalled how the image came about in an interview with Taina Rikala De Noriega for the Archives of American Art:

So we worked, and it got dark and the lights came on and I think somebody had brought sandwiches. We ate in the kitchen, coffee, and we had a nice pleasant time. My assistant and I were setting up lights and taking pictures all along. I was outside looking at the view. And suddenly I perceived a composition. Here are the elements. I set up the furniture and I called the girls. I said, “Girls. Come over sit down on those chairs, the sofa in the background there.” And I planted them there, and I said, “You sit down and talk. I'm going outside and look at the view.” And I called my assistant and I said, “Hey, let's set some lights.” Because we used flash in those days. We didn't use floodlights. We set up lights, and I set up my camera and created this composition in which I assembled a statement. It was not an architectural quote-unquote “photograph.” It was a picture of a mood.

The two girls in the photograph were Ann Lightbody, a 21-year-old UCLA student, and her friend, Cynthia Murfee (now Tindle), a senior at Pasadena High School. At Shulman’s suggestion, Koenig told his assistant Jim Jennings, a USC architecture student, and his friend, fellow architecture student Don Murphy, to bring their girlfriends to the house. Shulman liked to include people in his photographs and intuitively felt the girls’ presence would offer more options. As for their white dresses, Tindle explains, “… in 1960, you didn't go out without wearing a dress. You would never have gone out wearing jeans or pants.”

In a rare explanation of the mechanics of his photography published in Los Angeles Magazine , Shulman described how he created the photograph: a double-exposure with two images captured on one negative with his Sinar 4x5 camera. He took the first image, a 7.5-minute exposure of the cityscape, while the girls sat still inside the house with the lights off. To ensure deep focus, he used a smaller lens opening (F/32) for the long exposure. After the exposure, Leland Lee, Shulman’s assistant, replaced the light bulbs in the globe-shaped ceiling lights with flash bulbs. Shulman then captured the second exposure, triggering the flash bulbs as the girls posed. The composite image belies Shulman’s technical and aesthetic achievement.

The same technique was applied when he photographed the man wearing the light-blue sport coat looking out over the city with his back to the camera. This photograph creates its own mystique around the man’s identity: perhaps a bachelor in repose, or homeowner Buck Stahl. But in fact, he was neither. The photograph was a pragmatic solution.

“We had been working all day photographing the house,” Shulman explained. “The representative from Bethlehem Steel was at the house. Bethlehem Steel provided the steel, and he was there to select certain areas they wanted to show for advertising. Pierre [Koenig] suggested we photograph the representative in the house, but the man from Bethlehem Steel could not be photographed as an employee of the company, so he stood in the doorway with his back to the camera.”

Shulman routinely staged interiors using furniture from his own home, particularly when a house was just completed or vacant. He believed realistic settings created warmth and helped viewers imagine scale. Placement of furniture could convey a clearer sense of life in a particular house and highlight the architecture. Although the Stahl House was vacant, Shulman did not bring in his own furniture. Instead, designer Hendrik Van Keppel of the firm Van Keppel-Green furnished the interiors in keeping with Koenig’s feeling that “everything in the house should be designed consistently with the same design throughout.”

Keppel-Green’s popular outdoor furniture, made with anodized metal frames and wrapped with nylon marine cord, are seen around the pool of the Stahl House. Although VKG sold “architectural pottery” in their design gallery, many of the large white planters both inside and outside the house were Koenig’s, which he brought over from his own house along with several outdoor pieces. For the interior, Van Keppel selected a different line of metal VKG pieces to parallel the thin lines of Koenig’s architecture. The furniture and other household goods made of steel and aluminum reflected the materials used in the construction.

Other pieces included a couch; a coffee table; side tables by Greta Grossman, made by Brown Saltman; and a chair, ottoman, and chaise by Stanley Young, made by Glenn of California. For the kitchen, Van Keppel arranged a set of Scandinavian pieces: Herbert Krenchel’s Krenit bowls made by Normann Copenhagen, Kobenstyle cookware by Jens Quistgaard for Dansk, and Descoware pans from Belgium.

Van Keppel placed the high-fidelity audio player in the dining area. The unit was from the A.E. Rediger Furniture Company, which also provided the kitchen appliances. The Prescolite lighting company, whose products ranged from commercial and industrial products down to desk lamps, provided the three large white-glass hanging globe lights: two inside, one outside (more than 55 years later, only the outside globe has been replaced).

The Stahls had the option to buy the furnishings, but as their daughter later said in a Los Angeles Times story about the house, “My mother always said she wished they would have left it, but my parents didn't have the money at the time.”

The popularity of Shulman’s photograph with the two girls speaks to the era’s postwar optimism and could be said to represent aspirational middle class ideals. Shulman received a variety of accolades for the photograph beginning in 1960, when he won first prize in the color category for architectural photography from the Architects Institute of America—the first time the AIA gave an award for a color photograph. As part of a traveling program arranged through the Smithsonian Institution, hundreds of people saw the photograph at nearly a dozen museums and university art galleries across the country from 1962 to 1964.

Then, as now, the photograph with the two girls is more often associated with its photographer than with the architect. “People request the photograph, or an editor or publisher writing to me or calling me says, ‘I want the picture of the two girls,’” Shulman explains. “They don’t say the Pierre Koenig house. All they ask is the picture of the two girls. That’s what creates an impact. This picture is now the most widely published architectural picture in the world since it was taken in 1960.”

That was not always the case. After the photograph first appeared as the cover for the Los Angeles Examiner Pictorial Living section, it virtually disappeared. Koenig told LaFetra: “That was the last of it until Reyner Banham was going through Julius’s file and he saw the picture of the two girls and he said ‘Oh, I like this. Can I use this?’ and Julius said, ‘Sure.’ [Banham] used it in one of his articles and it took off, it just caught on like crazy.” The photograph resurfaced in Banham’s essential 1971 book, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies .

Smog , the first Italian film produced in the United States, as noted by the New York Times , was shot entirely in Los Angeles.

The story’s central character is a formal, class-conscious, wealthy Italian lawyer played by Enrico Maria Salerno. En route to Mexico for a divorce case, he arrives at LAX for an extended layover. A representative from the airline encourages him to leave the airport and return later for his flight. He begins a 24-hour odyssey that involves meeting several Italians making new lives for themselves, having left Italy and its postwar political and economic struggles.

One of the expatriates Salerno meets in Hollywood is a woman, played by Annie Girardot, who is conflicted by her independence. The Stahl House features prominently as Girardot’s home. To varying degrees, the characters, especially Salerno and Girardot, struggle with the contradictions of modern life and tradition, resulting in feelings of alienation, hope, and despair. Emotionally, Smog is an Italian story transplanted to Los Angeles, where the characters’ psychological landscape parallels the topography of the city, incorporating the city’s air pollution as a character.

Curiously, the film credits an entirely different residence—the Geodesic Dome House designed by Bernard Judge—and that property’s owner, industrial designer Hendrik de Kanter. Neither the Stahls, their home, nor Koenig are acknowledged. Along with Judge’s appearance in a party scene, the error perpetuates the misidentification of the Stahl House in the film.

CSH No. 22 remains virtually unchanged since Smog was released. Its countless media appearances since then continue to convey the ideals and lifestyle represented by the house. Its influence is cross-generational and international: Instead of perpetuating an architectural cliche of residential living, the house is symbolic and inspirational; its identity and feeling are unmistakable. Rarely has a combination of client and architect, minimal use of materials, and uncomplicated design created such lasting dramatic impact.

Editor: Adrian Glick Kudler

How to Avert the Next Housing Crisis

The neighbors issue, can a neighborhood become a network, share this story.

Search the Site

Popular pages.

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

Stahl House (Case Study House #22)

Immortalized by photographer Julius Shulman, the Stahl House epitomized the ideal of modern living in postwar Los Angeles.

Place Details

• Pierre Koenig

Designation

• Locally Designated

Property Type

• Single-Family Residential
• Los Angeles

Based on a recent approval by the City of Los Angeles for a new residence at the base of the hillside and below the historic Stahl House, this action now places this Modernist icon at risk. The hillside is especially fragile as it is prone to slides and susceptible to destabilization. This condition will be exacerbated as this proposed new residence is planned to cut into the hillside and erect large retaining walls.

The proposed project received approval despite opposition and documentation submitted that substantiates the problem and potential harm to the Stahl House. An appeal has been filed and the City is reviewing this now. No date has been set yet for when this might come back to the City Planning Commission.

To demonstrate your support for the Stahl House and to ensure the appeal is granted (sending the proposed project back for review), please sign on to the  Save the Stahl House campaign .

Who hasn’t seen the iconic image of architect Pierre Koenig’s Stahl House (Case Study House #22), dramatically soaring over the Los Angeles basin? Built in 1960 as part of the Case Study House program, it is one of the best-known houses of mid-century Los Angeles.

The program was created in 1945 by John Entenza, editor of the groundbreaking magazine  Arts & Architecture . Its mission was to shape and form postwar living through replicable building techniques that used modern industrial materials. With its glass-and-steel construction, the Stahl House remains one of the most famous examples of the program’s principles and aesthetics.

Original owners Buck and Carlotta Stahl found a perfect partner in Koenig, who was the only architect to see the precarious site as an advantage rather than an impediment. The soaring effect was achieved using dramatic roof overhangs and the largest pieces of commercially available glass at the time.

The enduring fame of the Stahl House can be partly attributed to renowned architectural photographer Julius Shulman, who captured nearly a century of growth and development in Southern California but was best-known for conveying the Modern architecture and optimistic lifestyle of postwar Los Angeles. Shulman’s most iconic photo perfectly conveys the drama of the Stahl House at twilight: two women casually recline in the glowing living room as it hovers over the sparkling metropolis below.

View the National Register of Historic Places Nomination

The Conservancy does not own or operate the Stahl House. For any requests, please contact the Stahl House directly at (208) 429-1058.

Issues including Stahl House (Case Study House #22)

Case Study Houses

Related content.

Department of Water and Power Building

Eagle Rock Recreation Center

• Exhibitions and fairs
• The Art Market
• Artworks under the lens
• Famous faces
• Movements and techniques
• Partnerships
• … Collectors
• Collections
• Buy art online

Singulart Magazine > Spotlight on... > Artists > Exploring Case Study House #22 by Julius Shulman

Exploring Case Study House #22 by Julius Shulman

This article pays tribute to Julius Shulman , the godfather of architectural photography, who passed away at 98. Shulman didn’t just document buildings; he captured modernism’s essence with precision. Case Study House #22 stands out among his designs, an architectural vision in the Hollywood Hills. Perched on cliffs, this house became Shulman’s iconic subject. Join us as we uncover the story behind this famous picture and explore Shulman’s captivating journey.

Who was Julius Shulman?

Julius Shulman, the man behind the camera was not only a photographer but an architect’s narrator. Shulman, born in 1910, did not merely photograph buildings, he documented the spirit of modernism.

FUN FACT: Julius Shulman often used unconventional methods to capture his iconic shots. In one instance, he reportedly climbed onto a neighbor’s roof to photograph a house, showcasing his determination and creativity in getting the perfect angle.

Shulman’s story started in the architectural capital of the world, Los Angeles. His lens swayed in the creations of architectural legends such as Richard Neutra, Pierre Koenig, and Charles Eames. The recognizable pictures turned into the vision of the mid-century American spirit and became the symbol of post-war optimism.

What is Happening in Case Study House #22?

Welcome to Case Study House No. 22, which could be considered Shulman’s masterpiece. This architectural masterpiece is indeed a perfect example of the fusion of aesthetics and utility as it stands gracefully on the cliff of Hollywood Hills. Designed and built in 1960, this house was one of the examples of the Case Study Houses program by John Entenza’s Arts & Architecture magazine which was an attempt at popularizing affordable and efficient living spaces.

What’s So Special About Case Study House #22?

The Case Study House number 22 is a significant example of post-war modernist architecture: the house is characterized by a narrow elongated silhouette and a focus on minimalism. Nested on the Hollywood Hills’ cliff, it has become an emblem of California dreaming and style, with its silhouette etched against the endless Los Angeles cityscape. This work of art has been captured in the timeless photograph by Julius Shulman that has put it among the most famous buildings in architectural history.

Looking at the architecture of Case Study House #22 one can say that it is an example of how art and architecture are intertwined with cultural values. Thanks to its unique design and location, it has become an example of a contemporary lifestyle, and its depiction in films and television series has turned it into a cultural reference. This architectural marvel stands as a timeless reminder of the mid-century modern movement and an explanation of why visionary design remains a powerful force to this very day.

Interesting Facts About Case Study House #22

The Perfect Frame: Shulman’s photograph of Case Study House #22 is not merely a snapshot but a carefully composed masterpiece. The interplay of light and shadow, the juxtaposition of sleek lines against the sprawling cityscape, all within the confines of a single frame, is a testament to Shulman’s mastery.

A Star-Studded Icon: Case Study House #22 didn’t just capture the essence of modern architecture; it became an icon itself. Its appearance in countless films, television shows, and advertisements cemented its status as a cultural touchstone.

Behind the Scenes: The photograph’s perfection belies the chaos behind the scenes. Shulman’s assistant, who was responsible for switching on the lights inside the house, got stuck in traffic. With moments to spare, Shulman improvised, capturing the image with the house’s natural glow, elevating it to legendary status.

Timeless Appeal: Despite being over six decades old, Shulman’s photograph continues to captivate audiences worldwide. Its timeless appeal lies in its ability to transcend the boundaries of time and space, offering viewers a glimpse into a world where architecture and art merge seamlessly.

Artwork Spotlight: Architectural Study – Interior

Shulman’s Architectural Study – Interior is available on Singulart. This artwork is a stunning piece that brings the viewer into the world of the modernist style, captured through the details and play of light and shadow and the spirit of the mid-century styles in one image.

Are you looking for a piece of artwork from Julius Shulman ?

Singulart has limited edition prints of Julius Shulman. If you are looking for a piece of Shulman‘s artwork for sale, simply click on the artwork or the button below to discover more!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is julius shulman known for.

Most people agree that Julius Shulman is the most significant architectural photographer in history. In the course of a 70-year career, Shulman not only captured the architectural designs of many of the greatest 20th-century architects, but he also turned commercial architectural photography into a beautiful art.

What techniques did Julius Shulman use?

He rendered features that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to see by using infrared film to highlight the sky against the building’s edge. To express a more dynamic space, he would place tree branches to the outside of the frame in his shots. He also used a distinct sense of art direction. 

In the world of architectural photography, Julius Shulman is a giant, his camera capturing not only structures but the essence of an epoch. And in Case Study House #22, his legacy is at its finest, a perfect example of how art transcends the barriers of time and space.

You May Also Like

The artist Day Bowman's interview with Singulart

5 minutes with Artist Alessandro Siviglia in Times of Covid-19

Remedios Varo’s Exploration of the Sources of the Orinoco River

Site search

• Los Angeles
• San Francisco
• Archive.curbed.com
• For Sale
 in LA
• For Rent in LA
• Curbed Comparisons
• Neighborhoods
• Real Estate Market Reports
• Rental Market Reports
• Homelessness
• Development
 News
• Transportation
• Architecture


Filed under:

• Hollywood Hills
• Midcentury Modern

Time Magazine names Stahl House photo one of the most influential in history

The Julius Shulman shot of an LA house helped reshape ideas of architecture and the American Dream

Time Magazine has trained its editorial eye on the millions of images produced in the nearly 200-year-old history of the photographic medium and come up with 100 that it deems the most influential in the history of the world. Appearing on that prestigious list is Julius Shulman’s iconic image of one of the most famous homes in Los Angeles: the Stahl House.

Also known as Case Study House No. 22, the home was designed by Pierre Koenig as part of the Case Study program sponsored by Arts & Architecture that showcased the works of some of California’s greatest modern architects. Perched in the Hollywood Hills, the glass-walled home seems to float above the lights of the city in Shulman’s brilliant photos—smartly taken both at night and during the day, when views from the pool deck are equally impressive.

The two women Shulman enlisted to pose within the glass-walled home look a little out of place among the burnt bodies and war-torn cities depicted in many of the other photos on the list, but it’s certainly true that Shulman’s photo significantly impacted contemporary attitudes toward modern architecture, Los Angeles, and even the American Dream.

At a time when a two-story home fronted by a green lawn and a white picket fence still embodied success for many Americans, Shulman’s shot presented a starkly different alternative: a dramatic, glassy box that seems to defy gravity—and yet still looks like home.

As Time argues, the picture “perfected the art of aspirational staging, turning a house into the embodiment of the Good Life, of stardusted Hollywood, of California as the Promised Land.”

• The Most Influential Images of All Time [Time Magazine]
• Mapped: The Case Study Houses That Made Los Angeles a Modernist Mecca [Curbed LA]
• LA's Most Famous House Finally Makes the National Register [Curbed LA]
• LA's Most Iconic House is at the Center of an Ugly Legal Battle [Curbed LA]

Next Up In Midcentury Modern

• Glendale Mid-Century Near 244-Acre Open-Space Preserve Asks $1.3M
• 1970s desert home with breeze blocks, pink trim asks $899K
• Perfectly preserved midcentury modern asking $2.2M in Pasadena
• Classic California modern in La Habra Heights seeks $1.1M
• Swinging ’60s modern in Palm Springs asking $1.1M
• 1950s post and beam below the Hollywood Sign asks $1.6M

Share this story

Photos: Case Study House No. 22: The story behind L.A.’s original dream home

The view looking toward the kitchen shows its floating cooking and bar islands. Expanses of glass windows enclose the house on three sides and give the L-shape pavilion a 270-degree mountain-to-ocean panorama. A prefabricated fireplace acts as a focal point for the living room. Read the full story on growing up in Case Study House No. 22. Back to L.A. at Home   (Julius Shulman Photography Archives / J. Paul Getty Trust)

• Copy Link URL Copied!

PODCAST: Inside LA’s Most Iconic Modernist Home, Case Study House #22

The story of an awe-inspiring building and the family that grew up there.

November 24, 2021 | 39:00

Subscribe to Art + Ideas:

“Buck wanted to stand in every room from his house, turn his head, and see every view. Even the bathroom. And so that was kind of what inspired the design of the house.”

Among the most famous photographs of modern architecture is Julius Shulman’s picture of Case Study House #22, also known as the Stahl House after the family that commissioned it. Two girls in white dresses sit inside a glass cube that seems to float atop a cliff over the illuminated grid of Los Angeles at night. Built by a family with a “beer budget and champagne tastes,” the two-bedroom home designed by architect Pierre Koenig changed residential design in LA. While Shulman’s image and others of the building have appeared in countless publications, advertisements, films, and TV shows, the story of how the house came to be and what it was like to live there is less well known.

Reflections: David Saunders on Ajax and Achilles

Less than a minute

Scent, Spice, Salve at the Getty Villa

PODCAST: Peter Frankopan on the Silk Roads

A Hidden History of Los Angeles's Famed Stahl House

Review: 'the stahl house: case study house #22: the making of a modernist icon,' by bruce stahl and shari stahl gronwald with kim cross.

The Stahl House: Case Study House #22: The Making of a Modernist Icon , by Bruce Stahl and Shari Stahl Gronwald with Kim Cross. Chronicle Books, 208 pages, $24.95 .

Julius Shulman’s iconic nighttime photo of Case Study House #22—with its cantilevered glass-walled living room hovering above the city lights of sprawling Los Angeles—is arguably the most famous image of residential architecture . Yet the story behind this remarkable building—how it came into being and the experience of living there—is far less known. And that’s what this book reveals. A deep and detailed account with abundant images, it’s a biography of a house and its owners—and the book’s first half, in particular, is a great read.

Shari Stahl Gronwald and Bruce Stahl, along with their late brother, grew up in Case Study House #22 and still own it. As they write in the foreword, touring visitors often ask about the family behind it. “We knew there was an untold story,” Bruce recently said, “and we set out to tell it.” In the dozen chapters that follow, Kim Cross, an Idaho-based author and journalist, weaves a narrative that portrays the family in intimate detail while placing the house within the cultural, historic, and technological-architectural contexts that made it possible. The project came at a pivotal moment and through the convergence of five key players: Buck and Carlotta Stahl, determined clients with a vision and an extraordinary piece of land; Pierre Koenig, a young architect with a background in experimental prefabricated-steel construction and a willingness to tackle a site widely deemed unbuildable; John Entenza, the inspirational editor/owner of Arts & Architecture magazine, who’d launched the Case Study Houses program in 1945; and Shulman, the photographer who portrayed the house, sparking public imagination. Completed in 1960, the project emerged from the post–World War II era, when materials and innovations previously channeled into the war effort became fodder for cutting-edge design. The Case Study program—addressing a burgeoning middle class and rising housing shortage—aspired to create affordable, easily buildable prototypes for modestly scaled yet inventive Modernist houses. (It’s ironic that many of the 20 surviving Case Study Houses have become privileged commodities.)

The Stahl kids dove from the roof into the pool. Photo courtesy Chronicle Books

Buck and Carlotta Stahl were indeed a middle-class couple of limited means. A graphic designer turned aerospace purchasing agent and a homemaker, they had, as Koenig later said, “champagne tastes and a beer budget.” Despite their artistic sensibilities, they couldn’t afford, even with discounts, the Mid-century Modern furnishings from Arts & Architecture’s shoot; and, after happily occupying the house for nearly a decade, the family had to move in with relatives to weather a severe economic downturn. But, six years later, they returned, with “the Stahl kids” resuming “ordinary childhoods in an extraordinary house.” No Case Study project was more quintessentially Modernist than the two-bedroom #22, perched on a Hollywood Hills promontory, with steep drop-offs and a 270-degree panorama.

Cross’s research for the book was clearly profound and extensive—delving into family snapshots and archives, consulting with lead architects and engineers, and logging 125-plus interview hours. Then she deftly wove together the myriad threads, including unexpected, relevant background details for each key player. The book is full of striking revelations.

For example, the only bank willing to finance this unconventionally cantilevered glass-and-steel house, on such an implausible site, was the African-American-owned Broadway Federal, where Paul R. Williams, the Black architect with Modernist leanings, served on the board. For unknown reasons, the bank required a swimming pool (not previously in the design), which became compositionally important, with the entry sequence crossing the pool patio, perceptually amplifying the house’s rectilinear transparency.

Another surprise: one of “the girls”—the two women in summer dresses, casually chatting in the living room in Shulman’s famous photo—was the fiancée of well-known San Francisco architect Jim Jennings, then an architectural apprentice, assisting with the shoot.

Cross also tells how the Stahl offspring have regularly jumped off the roof into the pool. And she reveals that the house’s original GE kitchen appliances (long gone) were pink!

Among the book’s many engaging images are stunning professional photos, family snapshots, artwork featuring the house (by David Hockney and others), and original letters, contracts, and receipts, for what now seem quaint sums.

The volume’s second half, however, is not as compelling as the first. Sections describing movie, TV, and ad shoots at the house could have been reduced, perhaps more effectively, to an amazing list accompanying the visuals (among them, a Simpsons poolside scene). Captions for all images would have been welcome. And the prose—which is generally clear and engaging—occasionally gets effusive or metaphor-heavy. But these are minor quibbles.

The house, now operated as a family business, hosts over 6,000 paid visits a year. With interior staging courtesy of Design Within Reach, the original design remains largely intact—and some modified elements, such as kitchen counters, will eventually be restored.

Through the lens of one important building, the book offers a compelling model for examining history and social change. And Bruce Stahl is right: it’s a story well worth telling.

Share This Story

Post a comment to this article

Report abusive comment.

Restricted Content

You must have JavaScript enabled to enjoy a limited number of articles over the next 30 days.

Related Articles

Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County Announces La Brea Tar Pits Renovation

Co architects livens up los angeles' natural history museum after $135-million renovation and expansion, related products.

Architecture in Wood: A World History

The latest news and information, #1 source for architectural design, news and products.

Copyright ©2024. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing

Nine Things You Should Know About The Stahl House – Case Study House 22

Julius Shulman/Getty Research Institute, © J. Paul Getty Trust

1. THE STAHL HOUSE: AN ARCHITECTURAL ICON

The Stahl house is an icon of midcentury modern architecture. Julius Schulman’s photographs of the house are often the headlining images for any article or publication on the topic.

“If you don’t know the Stahl house, then you don’t know mid-century modern architecture.”

What makes this house so unique and iconic? The significance of this home is the product of the site, materials, design, location, photographs, and zeitgeist of the period it was built. These unique characteristics of the project amalgamate in an idealistic architectural cocktail that continues to enchant people to this day.

With well-known architecture, the building’s notoriety is often due to the architect’s brand or the status of the owner rather than to the atmosphere and quality of space created by the architecture. When you inhabit one of these buildings, the experience is often underwhelming. This is not the case with the Stahl House.

“Nobody famous ever lived here” - Stahl Family.

2. HISTORY OF THE STAHL HOUSE

Buck and Carlotta Stahl purchased a vacant lot in 1954 from George Beha for $13,500 on a handshake deal. They had driven up the hill to explore the lot when Beha serendipitously drove onto the property. After negotiating with Beha for nearly two hours, the deal was completed, and the Stahls owned the lot. It is often said that Beha was ecstatic that he was able to “get rid of” the piece of land.

The lot is located in West Hollywood. It is steeply sloping with panoramic views overlooking greater Los Angeles. At that time, this area appealed to younger buyers because the land was inexpensive, not highly desired, and there were fewer building restrictions on the lot. Buck would spend nearly two years on the nights and weekends grading the building pad, building retaining walls from collected rubble, and observing the sun patterns over the land. The Stahl’s envisioned a home with large expanses of glass so they could capture the views of the city; they just needed the architect to bring their vision to life.

In 1957, Buck and Carlotta commissioned Pierre Koenig to design their 2,300-square-foot home. Initially, it was said that the Stahl’s wanted something much more figural than what is on-site today. They came to Koenig with the idea of a butterfly roof and several curves in the design. Koenig simplified their ideas into the “L” shaped plan with the flat roof you see today. The Stahls trusted Koenig and approved his design.

3. CONSTRUCTION OF THE STAHL HOUSE

Construction of the home started in May of 1959 and was completed one year later, in May of 1960. The home’s foundation is made of large concrete piles and grade beams. The shell of the house is built primarily out of steel and glass. Large floor-to-ceiling, 20-foot wide panes of glass make up most of the walls facing the view. The panes of glass were some of the largest available for that time. Industrial-sized steel decking created the roof assembly similar to what you may have seen in warehouse or commercial construction. The massive sheets of steel decking allowed Koenig to extend the roof overhangs out over the pool hardscape to create shaded areas that cover the indoor/outdoor transition areas. Radiant heating pipes heat the home’s floors, and the pool is warmed by solar panels on the roof.

Koenig was convinced he could use industrial stock materials and assemble them to create something beautiful. He would attempt to design the structure using typical connection details and parts without custom detailing and welding not only to help reduce cost but also to reduce the complexity and time of construction in the field. It is recorded that the structure of the Stahl house was erected in one day with a crew of five workers. This is a testament to the thoughtful design and approach to the structural frame of the building.

Koenig spent months in the building department convincing engineers and planners to approve his design. Because steel was an unconventional building material for homes at the time, and the steep slope on the hillside, there was a lot of pushback. Koenig would not step down; he was adamant about building the house as he envisioned and spent months reviewing the details and drawings with the building officials.

4. ATMOSPHERE, AMBIANCE & DRAMA & THE STAHL HOUSE

The ambiance and dramatic atmosphere in the house are captivating. This is most powerful at dusk when the sun is setting, and the city’s lights begin to appear in the distance. When the pool lights are turned on, the glowing water illuminates the exterior of the building with a light blue hue. The glowing glass box cantilevers out 10 feet over the hill giving the appearance of a suspended glowing jewel box. The lights of the city shimmer in the distant horizon, and their reflections dance on the glass walls of the home. The cumulative effect of these elements makes the house difficult to forget.

When inside the home, you feel like you are floating in the air, seemingly eliminating any connection with the hillside and ground. The feeling you get is closer to being in an airplane in mid-flight than a traditional home.

Whether the fabrication of these components was intentionally orchestrated by Koenig, or simply a serendipitous effect of the fantastic site conditions, the overall effect is extraordinary. I’ve yet to visit another piece of architecture that had the same impact on me.

5. The Case Study House Program

In 1959 the Stahl House was inducted into the Case Study House program by The Arts and Architecture Magazine, headed by John Entenza. The house was given the number 22 in the Case Study Program. The Case Study House Program was intended to create well-designed homes for the typical post-World War family. Most of the homes in the case study house program were “Immortalized by Julius Schulman’s lens.” (Visual Acoustics.) Schulman’s images of the Stahl house are some of the most iconic and evocative images of mid-century modern architecture. The Case Study House Program increased the exposure and notoriety of the house.

6. MID-CENTURY: A TIME PERIOD

The house was built during a period of promise, hope, and innovation. The Stahl house was the perfect representation of the zeitgeist and energy in Los Angeles at the time. The war was over, and a new age of technological advancement, production, and optimism entered the vein of the culture. Housing demand was booming, and younger families were willing to experiment with their homes. Architects and builders saw the industrial advancements from the war effort and the move to mass production. Many attempted to implement these new ideas and technological advances into their projects. Mass production was something Koenig was particularly interested in.

When the images captured by Julius Schulman were published of the home, they seemed to exacerbate the cultural frenzy. They quickly made their way to the headlines and cover pages, forever cementing the home in the history books. Images of the Stahl House are now inseparable from the Mid Century Modern Movement. Over the years, countless photoshoots, films, and commercials have been taken of the home.

7. Learning from the Stahl House

Pierre Koenig Floor Plan Drawing of The Stahl House

The biggest takeaway from the Stahl house is simplicity can be powerful. When designing homes, the natural tendency is often to add architectural elements or moves in an attempt to do something “different” or make a statement. The Stahl house shows us how dynamic a restrained and simplified work of architecture can be. At Rost Architects , we’ve developed our aesthetic language to favor a more paired-back and minimalist design approach. This will usually lead to a more powerful piece of architecture.

8. Criticism of the Stahl House

The Stahl house is not perfect. Like every piece of architecture, there are questionable decisions and underwhelming details. In the plan of the Stahl house, you must walk through the Primary Bedroom to enter the second bedroom. There could have been a more thoughtful solution to the plan that would alleviate the need to circulate through the bedroom. When inside the home, this uncomfortable transition is noticeable. The intention may have been to only allow access to the secondary bedroom from the outside sliding glass door. This may have been a topic of discussion between Koenig and the Stahl’s, which was approved; however, I feel that there could have been a better solution.

9. The Stahl House Today

Over the years, there have been multiple offers to purchase the home. The Stahl family denied a purchase offer of $15M. The family continues to offer private docent lead tours of the home. If you are interested in touring the house, please book well in advance, as the slots seem to fill quickly. I suggest the twilight late afternoon tour to see the sunset. To book your tour visit the Stahl House website. The house is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Please let us know if you notice any errors or inaccuracies in the information. We strive to provide you with the most historically accurate material possible.

Hines, Thomas S.  Architecture of the Sun: Los Angeles Modernism, 1900-1970 . Rizzoli, 2010.

Bricker, Eric, director. Visual Acoustics .

Pierre Koenig Perspective Drawing

In the early 1960s, like many cities worldwide, Copenhagen began carving out spaces for the automobile by building streets, highways, and parking inside the city. A group of architects and urban designers predicted the detrimental impacts this could have on the form and life of their town. When the city began to fall into economic decline, the local government showed receptivity to the Architects' ideas and began taking action to revitalize the city.

There are many reasons why a city becomes a point of destination. People are attracted to certain cities and travel from all over the world to see them. However, many people have trouble articulating why they enjoy them. They know something about it makes them feel comfortable, but they can't put their finger on it.

In the fifth century, Rome was in steady decline. The empire fell apart due to prolonged outside attacks and the hedonistic, corrupt culture that developed among its leaders and citizens. Life became hollow, brutal, and meaningless. A new religion called Christianity emerged, along with a reimagined way of life. Small ascetic Christian groups began to withdraw from society throughout the Roman Empire. Many of these early groups can be traced to the deserts of northern Egypt.

Rome's history is often presented as a glittering metropolis full of architectural excellence, sophisticated engineering, extensive paved roads, and glorious monuments. Our contemporary entertainment industry romanticizes the tales of Roman emperors, warriors, gladiators, and politicians. When we visit the ruins, we imagine the daily life of ancient Rome as a pageant of prosperity and industriousness that supported the growth of an ancient utopia. These aspects and portrayals of Rome have a degree of truth behind them. However, a darker side of Rome managed to evade the limelight.  

Many factors shaped ancient Greek cities. The natural landscape, climate, religious beliefs, philosophy, literature, politics, law, sport, art, theater, and psychology amalgamated to create genuinely unique cities and a thriving culture. Many aspects of Greek civilizations still form the basis of modern Western culture and society; however, we have also made significant diversions, which I believe deserve close assessment. Can certain aspects and values of ancient Greek cities and culture be re-integrated into our contemporary societies to help improve our current condition?

How did cities develop? Many of us take our environments for granted without questioning how and why they evolved into the forms we see today. In his book The City in History , Lewis Mumford provides a fascinating account of the history of cities. His interpretation dissects the complex forces that led to their creation. He discusses what forms these forces manifest themselves in throughout human development.

Gothic cathedrals are testaments to medieval Europe's ingenuity, spiritual fervor, and artistic brilliance. With their intricate detailing and imposing facades, these towering structures invite admiration and contemplation, drawing millions each year who seek to connect with a bygone era.

The Notre Dame Cathedral is a testament to architectural innovation, spiritual influence, and human ingenuity. Its construction, spanning several centuries, showcases the evolution of Gothic architecture and mirrors Paris's flourishing economy and cultural development. By exploring the cathedral's architecture, construction, and history, I hope to provide insight into how it transcended its role as a Cathedral and developed into a cultural icon.

At the heart of Vatican City, St. Peter's Basilica stands as a monumental testament to Renaissance architecture's ingenuity and the Christian faith's enduring spirit. This iconic structure has captivated visitors and worshippers for centuries with its imposing façade, towering dome, and sacred interior. Its architectural history is a tapestry woven from the visions of legendary architects such as Bramante, Michelangelo, and Bernini. Each contributed their genius to the Basilica's construction, leaving a lasting legacy.

The construction of St. Paul’s Cathedral helped breathe new life into the city. It created jobs and a new identity for London and served as a monument that brought people together. It marked the beginning of London’s development into a global capital.

If studied closely, architecture can provide glimpses into human history. It can give insight into our ancestors' customs, rituals, technologies, religions, and daily life. Architecture can provide a deeper understanding of the evolution and development of the human species. It allows us to have a holistic perspective on our place in the context of humanity. From prehistoric structures to contemporary architecture, we can see what was important to humans at the time and what were they trying to say through their buildings.

Nestled in the foothills of Palm Desert, California, the Annenberg Estate is a stunning example of mid-century modern architecture. The estate sits about 25 minutes southeast of downtown Palm Springs. Built in 1960 by renowned architect A. Quincy Jones for media mogul Walter Annenberg, the original estate is comprised of 25,000 square foot house on 200 acres.

The Sagrada Familia in Barcelona Spain, by architect Antoni Gaudi is a seminal work of architecture. It is renowned world wide for its innovative design and engineering. Listen to the story of how the cathedral came to fruition and why it is one of the most important works of architecture in history. We hope you enjoy.

Frank Lloyd Wright’s Home and Studio were the breeding grounds for a new modern American Architecture. Many ideas that shaped the profession came from this tiny home and studio on the outskirts of Chicago. We hope you enjoy the article.

The Fredrick Robie House, located in the Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park, is one of the most iconic examples of modernist architecture. Designed by renowned architect Frank Lloyd Wright in 1909, the house has been called "the most important building of the twentieth century" and "the greatest work of architecture America has produced."

Santa Maria del Fiore, also known as the Duomo of Florence, is an iconic architectural landmark in the Tuscan capital. It is a stunning masterpiece of architecture and stands as one of the most recognizable buildings in Europe. The great dome that covers the structure was designed by Filippo Brunelleschi and completed in 1436 – making it one of the oldest domes still standing today.

No other building has been referred to or echoed in architecture more than the Pantheon. Architects worldwide have extracted principles from this building throughout the course of history. It is one of the most used precedents in architecture. Check out our article to learn more about the Pantheon in Rome.

The Farnsworth House (1945 - 1951) is an iconic work of modern American architecture. It was designed by renowned modern architect Mies van der Rohe in 1937 and was the first home he designed in America. The house sits in Plano, Illinois, about 1.5 hours southwest of Chicago. 

I.M. Pei’s Grand Louvre is a masterpiece of modern architecture. I was fortunate to travel to the Louvre in 2012 and spent multiple days at the museum. Learn more about the story behind the design and construction of the Louvre Museum.

The case study house program was an experimental program set up by John Entenza through Arts and Architecture Magazine, that facilitated the design, construction and publishing of modern single-family homes. The goal was to highlight modern homes constructed with industrial materials and techniques that could help solve the housing needs after WWII.

Paul R. Williams was an extraordinary man and a prolific Architect practicing during Hollywood’s Golden age. He worked on a wide variety of projects including churches, airports, public housing, courthouses, and offices; however, he is best known for his luxury custom homes. He produced over 3,000 projects spanning nearly 6 decades.

On the California coast, halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, high up on the hill, sits a true masterpiece of California architecture, the Hearst Castle. The Hearst Castle was brought into fruition through Julia Morgan, an unassuming, shy and passionate architect and William Randolph Hearst, a wealthy media tycoon who shared Morgan’s passion and interest in art and architecture. Through the collaboration of these two individuals, the Hearst Castle emerged out of the hill and would become a landmark for California history and culture of the 20th century.

The German Pavilion, also known as the Barcelona Pavilion, was originally presented at the Barcelona International Exposition on May 26, 1929 by King Alfonso the 13th and Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain. The pavilion was intended to represent Germany's new identity as a peaceful and prosperous nation signifying a fresh start following World War I. Check out our article to learn more about the Barcelona Pavilion

Why is Rudolph Schindler an important figure in the history of California modern architecture? What were the forces that influenced the development of his architectural aesthetic? Why is his legacy and impact important to the profession today? We will attempt to answer these questions and more in this article on modern architect Rudolph Schindler.

William Krisel is one of Palm Springs most notable mid century architects. He is best known for his tract developments in Palm Springs. Throughout his career, Krisel produced fantastic modern architecture while maintaining a “down to earth” approach. He never forgot that architecture was ultimately for people and must respect economy, constructability and the market.

Around the mid 1900’s, many notable architects such as Richard Neutra , Albert Frey , Bill Cody , E. Stewart Williams, William Krisel and Donald Wexler established their careers in Palm Springs. These architects and their buildings have undoubtably contributed to making Palm Springs a major destination point. Their impact on the city continues to attract people from all over the world to this day.

I recently had the privilege of touring the Frey House II in Palm Springs California. The experience was educational, inspiring, and transformative. It challenged my definition of a home. Learn more about the Frey House II.

William F. Cody stands out as one of the most impressive California mid century modern architects due to his vast portfolio of built work in the Palm Springs area. Through hundreds of built projects, Cody was able to experiment, refine, and master desert modern architecture by creating buildings that were fit for the local environment and suited the lifestyle of post war America. Check out the article to learn more about mid century modern architect, William F. Cody.

Richard Neutra was a notable mid century modern architect know for designing homes such as the Kauffman Desert House , Llovel Health House, VDL house, and many others. His work is widely published and the photographs often define mid century modern architecture. Read the article to learn more about one of the most influential mid century modern architects.

What makes this house so special and iconic? The significance of this home is the product of the site, the materials, the design, the location, the photographs and the zeitgeist of the time period that it was built. Click to read more about the Stahl House.

• Current Exhibitions
• Past Exhibitions
• Upcoming Exhibitions
• Gallery Map
• Research Appointments
• Volunteering
• Support Affiliate
• Hours & Directions
• Public Art Collection
• Public Art Map
• Photography
• Student Art
• Education Program
• Kids' Spot
• Press Releases
• Visitor Survey
• Image Permissions
• Chinese, Simplified
• Chinese, Traditional

Julius Shulman: Case Study

The Case Study House program was established by Arts & Architecture magazine in 1945 in an effort to produce model homes for efficient and affordable living during the housing boom generated after the end of World War II. Using Southern California as a location for the prototypes and commissioning top architects of the day, the program made important contributions to mid-twentieth-century American architecture. The majority of the program’s thirty-six commissioned designs were constructed, and featured the work of notable architects such as Charles and Ray Eames, Richard Neutra, Pierre Koenig, and Raphael Soriano.

The artist responsible for documenting these homes was Julius Shulman (1910–2009). A longtime resident of Southern California, Shulman began a career in architectural photography in 1936 when asked by an acquaintance working for Richard Neutra to photograph the architect’s recently completed Kun Residence. His visual interpretation of space struck a chord with Neutra, who hired him to document each of his projects. Shulman’s career quickly escalated, and by the mid-1950s he had become widely recognized as one of the nation’s foremost photographers of architecture. Much of his early success can be attributed to his dynamic images of the Case Study Houses. During the program’s active years, Shulman worked on assignment for the magazine and in collaboration with contributing architects to photograph the majority of the prototype homes. Vivid and persuasive, his photographs capture the essence of each home, rendering the steel and glass structures as inviting and attractive places for modern living.

Born in Connecticut, Shulman moved to California in the 1920s, later studying at University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California, Berkeley. Shulman worked full-time as a commercial architectural photographer from 1936 until the late 1980s, then intermittently until the early 2000s. His work has appeared in countless publications and exhibitions, and has come to be valued both as an archive of historical importance, and for its place in the art world. Shulman held three honorary doctorates from various United States universities, and in 1998, he received a lifetime achievement award from the International Center for Photography in New York. In 2005, Shulman’s work was featured at the Getty Research Institute in a retrospective exhibition corresponding with the institute’s acquisition of his archive, which contains over 260,000 negatives, transparencies, and prints.

©2017 by San Francisco Airport Commission. All rights reserved.

Stahl House (Case Study House #22)

Pierre Koenig | Website | 1960 | Visitor Information

1635 Woods Drive , West Hollywood 90069, United States of America

The Stahl House by Pierre Koenig (also known as Case Study House #22) was part of the Case Study House Program, which produced some of the most iconic architectural projects of the 20th Century. The modern residence overlooks Los Angeles from the Hollywood Hills. It was completed in 1959 for Buck Stahl and his family. Stahl envisioned a modernist glass and steel constructed house that offered panoramic views of Los Angeles when he originally purchased the land for the house in 1954 for $13,500. When excavation began, he originally took on the duties of both architect and contractor. It was not until 1957 that Stahl hired Pierre Koenig to take over the design of the family’s residence. The two-bedroom, 2,200 square foot residence is a true testament to modernist architecture and the Case Study House Program. The program was set in place by John Entenza and sponsored by the Arts & Architecture magazine. The aim of the program was to introduce modernist principles into residential architecture, not only to advance the aesthetic but to introduce new ways of life, both stylistically and as a representation of modern lifestyle. Koenig was able to hone in on the vision of Buck Stahl and transform that vision into a modernist icon. The glass and steel construction is the most identifiable trait of the house’s architectural modernism, however, way in which Koenig organized the spatial layout of the house, taking both public and private aspects into great consideration, is also notable. As much as architectural modernism is associated with the materials and methods of construction, the juxtaposition of program and organization are important design principles that evoke utilitarian characteristics. The house is “L”-shaped, completely separating the public and private sections except for a single hallway connecting them. The adjacent swimming pool, which must be crossed to enter the house, is not only a spatial division of public and private but it serves as the interstitial space in which visitors can best experience the panoramic views. The living space of the house is behind the pool and is the only part of the house that has a solid wall, which backs up to the carport and the street. The entire house is one large viewing box, capturing amazing perspectives of the house, the landscape, and Los Angeles. Oddly enough, the Stahl house was fairly unknown and unrecognized for its advancement of modern American residential architecture until 1960 when photographer Julius Shulman captured the pure architectural essence of the house in a shot of two women sitting in the living room overlooking the bright lights of the city of Los Angeles. That photo put the Stahl House on the architectural radar as an architectural gem hidden in the Hollywood Hills. The Stahl House is still one of the most visited and admired buildings today. It has undergone many interior transformations. Today, you will not find the same iconic 1960s furniture inside, but the architecture, the view, and the experience still remain.

Tags: Classic , Los Angeles

Information provided in part by: ArchDaily

Projects in West Hollywood

Bradbury building, caltrans district 7 headquarters, eames house, emerson college, getty center, griffith observatory, la county museum of art, petersen automotive museum, samitaur tower, sheats-goldstein residence, the broad museum, walt disney concert hall, wilshire grand.

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

How Did Materials Shape the Case Study Houses?

• Written by Lilly Cao
• Published on May 20, 2021

The Case Study Houses (1945-1966), sponsored by the Arts & Architecture Magazine and immortalized by Julius Shulman ’s iconic black-and-white photographs, may be some of the most famous examples of modern American architecture in history. Designed to address the postwar housing crisis with quick construction and inexpensive materials, while simultaneously embracing the tenets of modernist design and advanced contemporary technology, the Case Study Houses were molded by their central focus on materials and structural design. While each of the homes were designed by different architects for a range of clients, these shared aims unified the many case study homes around several core aesthetic and structural strategies: open plans, simple volumes, panoramic windows, steel frames, and more. Although some of the Case Study Houses’ materials and strategies would become outdated in the following decades, these unique products and features would come to define a historic era of architectural design in the United States.

Among the most important unifying aesthetic strategies of the Case Study projects was a modernist focus on exposed structure and functional design. The Eames House (Case Study House 8), designed by prominent industrial design couple Charles and Ray Eames, was intended to express man’s life in the modern world using “straightforward, unselfconscious” design. Thus, the designers made no attempt to conceal or disguise the structural functions of the steel: it acted as interlocking decking and open-webbed joists on the roof, sashing for windows and doorways, exterior wall siding, and H-beams securing the home’s rectangular frame. The most that these components were altered was with an unobtrusive coating of paint: the façade’s steel beams were originally painted a “warm grey” that over time became glossy black, while the Ferrobord steel roof decking system was painted white on its underside with open-web joists left exposed and alternately painted white, black, and yellow. These paint treatments, rather than obscuring the structural performance of these steel pieces, only served to highlight and integrate them within the building’s larger design scheme of colorful paints and panels.

Two of the other most famous Case Study Houses , the Bailey House (Case Study House 21) and the Stahl House (Case Study House 22), were designed by Pierre Koenig and similarly embraced what were then advanced steel construction strategies. Koenig had had previous hands-on experience with steel construction: while still enrolled as an architecture student at the University of Southern California, he designed and built his first steel-framed house for himself and his family. For the Bailey House, he used four prefabricated steel bents to compose the home’s steel framing system and another three half-span bents for the covered carport. Designed according to an L-shaped plan with a solid rectangular core that housed utilities, the volume was a simple rectangular box with visual emphasis placed on the steel structural skeleton. In the core, the sandwiched steel decking walls concealed insulation wiring and pipes, while the perimeter language of the home alternated between sliding glass doors and opaque steel walls. Koenig’s Stahl House , which was built several years later, similarly embraced a simple L-shaped rectangular volume with alternating steel beams and panoramic glass windows.

Aesthetically functioning hand-in-hand with the stripped steel frame, glass windows are therefore another essential component of many of the Case Study Houses . Three sides of the Stahl House were made with plate glass, the largest available size at the time, allowing for panoramic views from the site’s elevated Los Angeles hillside. Similarly, the Eames House variously utilized clear polished plate glass, factrolite textured glass, wire-embedded safety glass, and translucent corrugated glass, which helped cast planes, shadows, and beams of light through the steel frame and colored façade panels. Using the factrolite glass for privacy and the wire-embedded glass for utilitarian uses and safety, the Eames couple made glass an essential part of the house’s aesthetic and functional design.

This material illuminated another one of the Case Study House’s most essential aesthetic strategies: facilitating a connection with nature by merging and reflecting interior and exterior. Each of the homes utilized an open plan and glass façade explicitly open to their natural surroundings, with some—including the Eames House, Bailey House, Stahl House, and Case Study House 28—incorporating an artificial courtyard, pool, or pond as well. In the Eames House, which included a rectangular residential building and separate studio building connected linearly by an intermediate courtyard, the doors, curtains, and windows could be opened to unify the site into a single long open-air span. In the Bailey House, which incorporated a small shallow pond along the perimeter, the pond mirrored the reflectiveness of the panoramic windows and made the structure appear as if it was floating. Moreover, while the interior core of the house—including bathrooms and utility areas—was largely concealed by opaque steel walls, the roof was pierced to allow access to exterior elements in even these private spaces. Finally, melting the barriers between interior and exterior through the extensive use of glass, Case Study House 28 incorporated a total of 4500 square feet of glass windows shaded by large overhangs.

This connection to nature was facilitated by other material strategies as well. In Koenig’s Bailey House, the pond water was actually circulated up through the gutters and roof scuppers, rendering it an early experiment with environmental control systems. In the Eames House, a long tallowwood wall (tallowwood being the hard, durable wood of eucalyptus trees) was installed parallel to the line of eucalyptus trees gracing the front of the façade. These experiments in incorporation and reflection tempered the efficiency and functionalism of high modernist design with a correlative attention to nature.

Another important part of the Case Study House experiment was their use of new postwar materials and technologies. The Eames House, for example, used the Celotex Corporation’s Cemesto , a pioneering, pre-engineered construction panel that was touted at the time for its low maintenance and ease of installation. With a structural strength that entirely eliminated the need for intermediate structural support, the Cemesto panel could function simultaneously as an interior and exterior wall surface with no extra insulation, protective coating, or interior wall surfacing. The Eames House also utilized Wall-tex, a form of waterproof protection and wear resistance for interior walls invented in 1931, and plyon, a type of laminated lightweight material for cabinetry facing that was originally used in aircraft during World War II. These products demonstrated the design mission of the Case Study Houses as efficient residences for modern Americans.

Yet despite these many unifying characteristics, each of the Case Study Houses featured important material idiosyncrasies as well. The design motivation for Case Study House 28, for example, was to use the traditional material of facebrick in a structural, modern way. Thus, almost the entirety of the house was constructed with facebrick and glass, meaning it also required almost no maintenance or finishes. The use of brick was highly unusual among the Case Study Houses, most of which, as stated above, predominately used steel, glass, and occasionally wood or concrete. Likewise, the Eames House is perhaps most famous for its colorful paneling, mixing Grey Cemesto panels, off-white, black, blue, and orange/red plaster panels, and gold leaf or photographic panels in special locations around the site. Finally, the Entenza House , which Charles and Ray Eames and Eero Saarinen codesigned, similarly utilized a simplistic and flexible steel frame structure yet chose to conceal this structure with interior wood paneled cladding.

Over time, the flaws in the original material choices were also slowly revealed: many of the case study houses used only single panel glass, which would prove to make passive temperature control difficult and thus poor from a sustainability perspective. Most tellingly, the Stahl House—which may be the most famous of the Case Study Houses--, while remembered fondly by its inhabitants, would also have to suffer important changes to make it more livable: replacing the windows with shatterproof glass, adding a walkway around the cantilevered living room for window washers, and covering the floors with carpet to make them safer for children.

Altogether, the materials of the Case Study Houses played an essential role in their aesthetics, structures, and function. Despite the incredible innovations and advancements that would change architecture dramatically in the years following, these materials would nevertheless define one of the most iconic eras of American modernist architecture. Embracing stripped-back structural aesthetics, a connection to nature, advanced technology and materials, and experimental design, these houses—and their materials—represented the vanguard of modern construction and design.

Image gallery

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

加州‘案例研究住宅’中的材料性

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.

Julius Shulman’s Mid-Century Modern Architecture

Shaping the Image of Southern Californian Lifestyle

Regarded as one of the most important architectural photographers of the 20th century, Julius Shulman’s images shaped the image of southern Californian lifestyle during the 1950s and 60s. His architectural studies gave the iconic status to the designs to the likes of Richard Neutra, Charles and Ray Eames, Rudolf Shindler and Frank Lloyd Wright, some of the world’s greatest architects. Shulman’s fascination with the ethereal Californian landscape comes as no surprise as he himself spent much of his early life in the outdoors.

Working with Richard Neutra

Born in 1910, he grew up in a small farm in Connecticut. After his family moved to LA, Julius was introduced to Boy Scouts, where he often hiked Mount Wilson, which allowed him to study the light and shadow of the outdoors during different times of the day. In 1936, after attending college between UCLA and Berkeley, he was presented with the opportunity to photograph the newly designed Kun House by Richard Neutra. Julius sent the 6 shots he took to the draftsman, who showed them to Neutra. Highly impressed, Richard Neutra asked Shulman to photograph his other houses and also introduced him to other several up-and-coming Californian architects. His career took off from then on.

The Case Study Houses

Julius Shulman’s early success can be attributed to his dynamic, inviting photographs of the Case Study Houses.  The Case Study House Program  (1945-1966) was established by the  Art & Architecture magazine in 1945.

“ in an effort to produce model homes for efficient and affordable living during the housing boom generated after the end of World War II.”

Julius Shulman, already well acquainted with the architects chosen to design the program’s thirty six homes, was selected to photograph and document the houses. These images were not solely visual records of an architectural project. Shulman’s photographic style elevated the structures to a status of global recognition and secured their places in the arena of architectural art history.

Presenting the Optimism of Mid-Century Modernism

Shulman’s interpretation of the structures allowed the homes to appear inviting and present the optimism of mid-century modernism. In an episode of  Voice of the Photographer  by the  Annenberg Space for Photography , Shulman further elaborates on creating such inviting spaces saying;

“Whatever I do with my photography, my exercise is to be sure that my composition spells out how you can enjoy this kind of architecture.”

His compositions were often carefully staged as tableaus to convey the idyllic Californian lifestyle; sunny, suburban open spaces with natural light, featuring ample glass, pools, and patios, oozing a feeling of an airy, ethereal way of living.

The Idyllic Californian Lifestyle

A few of the homes that perfectly reflect Shulman’s photographic aesthetic include; The Bailey House (Case Study House No.21), The Frank Residence (Case Study House No.25, and House B (Case Study No.23). His black and white images promoted the cost effective use of structure and materials such as steel, wood, and glass while adding a sense of glamour with a timeless air.

Shulman’s choice of black and white imagery allowed him to reduce the subject to its geometrical essentials. The viewer is able to appreciate and observe the reflections created by the element of natural light, as can be seen in the case of the Frank Residence. His use of light illuminates certain surfaces and structures, and even emphasize the lack of light in some corners, creating a beautiful play and balance of light and shadow.

Becoming One with Nature

Shulman’s routine prior to the actual shooting of the houses was also his way of nodding to being one with nature – one of the main experiences the designs offer. Before the shoot, Shulman would visit the houses without a camera to study the changes of light on the structure throughout the day and spend time in and around the house to best mirror the feeling of what it would be like to live in that location in his photographs. Of this ritual, he said: 

“I just simply looked around.”

An act so simple and minimalistic in thought, yet so powerful and refined just like his photographs. On Shulman’s architectural photography, Mary Melton of Los Angeles Magazine said ;

“His images weren’t ironic; they weren’t cynical. Instead they portrayed an ideal, a lifestyle worth recapturing.”

His images transferred the three dimensional perspectives of notable architects into the two dimensional photographs. His portrayal of an idealized vision of mid-century living went far beyond Los Angeles and  elevated architectural art history around the world.

Lifetime Acclaim

Julius Shulman retired from active architectural work in 1989. In this same year, his photographs of the Case Study Houses were shown at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art , in a show titled ; ‘Blue Prints for Modern Living.’ Shulman’s work continues to be a point of reference for numerous architects, institutions and artists. He was the only photographer to have been granted lifetime membership in the American Institute of Architects, and was given the Lifetime Achievement Award by the International Center of Photography in 1998.

John Dugdale: The Mind's Eye

A year in passing: those who we will miss, join our newsletter.

We will process the personal data you have supplied in accordance with our privacy policy. You can unsubscribe or change your preferences at any time by clicking the link in any emails.

• About Julius

Julius Shulman – Case Study House #25 – Long Beach (Los Angeles) Ca. Killingsworth, Brady & Smith. 1962

$ 695.00

Description

Photographer: Julius Shulman

Subject: Case Study House # 25 – Also Known as Edward House

Location: Naples, (Long Beach) California

Architects: Killingsworth, Brady & Smith

Job: 3430 – 9

Assignment: Arts and Architecture

Located at 82 Rivo Alto Canal. Naples, Long Beach, California.

This Julius Shulman Print arrives with a “Certificate of Authenticity” authorized by the “Julius Shulman Trust & Photographic Archives”

Shulman’s studio stamp and signature on verso.

Signed by Julius Shulman at his Hollywood Hills studio.

Gelatin silver print: Unframed: Print size: 16″ x 20″ (40.64 x 50.80 cm) Image: size: 12″ x 15″  (30.48 x 38.10 cm.)

Image is in Excellent Condition. Condition Report: Any condition statement is given as an opinion and the condition statement does not imply that this photograph is in perfect condition or completely free from wear and tear, imperfection or the effects of aging.

This Julius Shulman print came from Shulman’s Hollywood Hills studio.

Related products

Julius Shulman – Limited Edition Oversized Print. “Freeman House.” Los Angeles, Ca. Frank Lloyd Wright. 1999

Julius Shulman – Rare Oversized Print. “Case Study House #22 Two Girls.” Los Angeles, Ca. Pierre Koenig 1960

Julius Shulman – “Skinner House.” Beverly Hills (Los Angeles) Ca. Robert Skinner. 1959

Julius Shulman’s “Hands to Move The Soul” Los Angeles, Ca. By Rena Small, 1998

Idaho Falls news, Rexburg news, Pocatello news, East Idaho news, Idaho news, education news, crime news, good news, business news, entertainment news, Feel Good Friday and more.

The house on King Road: A look at the Moscow home where four U of I students were killed

Sally Krutzig and Kevin Fixler, Idaho Statesman

( Idaho Statesman ) — At 1122 King Road in Moscow sits a gray six-bedroom, three-bathroom house that continues to be the source of significant national attention.

Known as a student rental, the home’s most recent tenants were a group of six University of Idaho undergraduates who signed a 12-month lease that began on June 5, according to the property management firm that oversees the home.

Three of the student renters would not live to see the end of their lease.

The tenants were Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, Bethany Funke and Dylan Mortensen, as well as an unnamed sixth person on the lease.

RELATED | Who were the four students killed at the University of Idaho? A look into their lives

In the early morning hours of Sunday, Nov. 13, Mogen, Goncalves, Kernodle and Kernodle’s boyfriend, Ethan Chapin, were stabbed to death in the house. Police found two bodies on the second floor and two bodies on the third floor, but have not released which victims were discovered where.

Mortensen and Funke were on the first floor of the home and went unharmed. Police have said they were not involved in the killings.

Nearly six weeks have passed, and law enforcement still has not named a suspect in the quadruple homicide.

The Idaho Statesman used photos from rental listings and documents submitted by former owners to the city of Moscow to explore the layout of the King Road house. Depictions of the floors are approximations created by the Statesman based on that information.

Just north of the home is the university’s new Greek Row , where many fraternity and sorority activities take place. That proximity meant the area was particularly popular among those involved in U of I Greek life.

About 1,600 students are members of the school’s fraternities and sororities. That total represents 23% of the roughly 7,000 undergraduate students enrolled in fall 2022 at the Moscow campus, according to university spokespeople.

Goncalves was a member of the Alpha Phi sorority, while Mogen and Kernodle were members of Pi Beta Phi. Funke is a member of Pi Phi as well, and identified Mogen as her “big sister” in a letter she wrote that was read at a Dec. 2 memorial . Mortensen also appears in multiple photos reviewed by the Statesman, including with Funke, on the sorority’s Facebook page, wearing clothing with Pi Phi insignia.

Many renters in the area around King Road were overflow from the nearby fraternities and sororities, said Merida McClanahan, supervisor at Team Idaho Real Estate & Property Management.

“ we have a lot of university students as our tenants and we’ve got quite a few of the properties down there on King Road,” McClanahan told the Statesman in a phone interview. “It’s a tight-knit community. They’re on the back side of campus right across the street from Greek Row, and those kids cycle in and out.”

The listed owner of the King Road property didn’t return email and phone messages from the Statesman.

David Janssen, 32, a former U of I graduate student who said he’s a five-year tenant of an apartment complex adjacent to the rental home, confirmed that fraternity and sorority members appear to dominate the tightly packed neighborhood.

The surrounding Greek life environment contributed to what those familiar with the neighborhood, including Janssen, described in interviews with the Statesman as a loud party culture in the conjoined dead-end streets of King and Queen roads.

“This has always been a party place since I’ve lived here — always,” said Sean Hundley, 34, a nearly lifelong Moscow resident, and maintenance person for the adjacent apartment complex.

The tenants of the King Road house had received three noise complaints for loud music since August, according to a Statesman review of Moscow police reports. Two came on the same night in early September from separate neighbors in two single-family homes, each about a quarter-mile away, on the street located above the valley where the King Road house sits.

Goncalves received a warning from police for the first noise complaint in August. Mogen and Kernodle each received law enforcement warnings from the two complaints in September, according to the police reports.

In recently released Moscow police body-cam footage posted on YouTube , officers were shown trying to track down a resident of the home after the first of the September noise complaints.

“I guarantee you they’re associated with a sorority,” Moscow Police Sgt. Dustin Blaker said in the footage, to a male student who didn’t live at the home. “As many of them are living here, it’s an off-campus sorority house.”

The King Road home’s six bedrooms had at one time been rented as separate apartments, according to McClanahan, with the property management firm.

“Primarily for the last 12 years, it has been rented as one unit as a single-family home,” McClanahan said.

The house originally had two floors, but an owner requested to add the lowest floor in 2000, according to Moscow city permits. Built into a hillside, the house has one exterior door on each floor.

The home is 3,120 square feet, according to Zillow . The Latah County Assessor’s Office assessed its value at $343,848 in August.

The first floor

All of the tenants except the sixth unnamed person on the lease, who police said had moved out before the start of the school year, were home at the time of the Nov. 13 attack. The five housemates, along with Chapin, were all back at the King Road house by 1:56 a.m., police said. Call records made by Mogen and Goncalves indicated the attack happened sometime after they placed a phone call at 2:52 a.m., according to The New York Times.

The roommates on the first floor, Mortensen and Funke, likely were asleep until later that morning, according to police.

Attempts by the Statesman to reach Funke and Mortensen have been unsuccessful.

At 11:58 a.m., a 911 call was made from inside the house on one of the surviving roommates’ cellphones, according to police. The roommates summoned friends to the house because they believed one of the victims on the second floor had passed out and was not waking up. Multiple people spoke with the 911 dispatcher before officers arrived, police said.

Authorities have declined to release the 911 recording, citing an ongoing investigation.

On social media, many have expressed disbelief that Mortensen and Funke would not have woken up during the killings. However, former first-floor tenant Ryan Augusta told Fox News that he typically “heard nothing” from the second and third floors when he lived there in 2019. Reached by the Statesman, Augusta said he stood by his prior statement.

City records and photos from online rental listings indicate the first floor has two bedrooms that open into a shared hallway. The hallway also leads to a bathroom and a stairway that goes to the second floor.

A door between the bedrooms opens to the property’s driveway.

The second floor

The second floor of the home includes a living room, two bedrooms, a bathroom and a kitchen. This floor can be accessed from the outside through a sliding glass door between the porch and the kitchen.

This floor has two separate staircases, one that leads to the first floor and one to the third floor.

Kernodle lived on the second floor, her mother, Cara Northington, said in an interview this month with NewsNation . Chapin’s mother, Stacy Chapin, previously confirmed to the Statesman that her son spent the night at his girlfriend’s house.

The third floor

The third floor of the home includes a bathroom and two bedrooms — one of which has a balcony with a sliding glass door. This floor can be accessed only by the staircase from the second floor.

Goncalves’ father, Steve Goncalves, said his daughter and Mogen lived on the third floor, according to Fox News. He said he believes that the two women, close friends since childhood, both slept in Mogen’s room the night of the killings.

Two items — a pair of pink boots frequently worn by Mogen in social media photos and a decorative letter M— could be seen in the window of bedroom E following the homicides. Goncalves posted social media videos from bedroom F.

Goncalves had a dog named Murphy who was home at the time of the attack, police said. Officers found the dog in a room where the crimes were not committed, but do not know where he was at the time of the killings, according to a news release. Police found no evidence on the dog, they said.

SUBMIT A CORRECTION

• Updated Terms of Use
• New Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices
• Closed Caption Policy
• Accessibility Statement

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2024 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset . Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions . Legal Statement . Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper .

Idaho student murders house demolished year after quadruple stabbing

University of idaho president scott green described home as 'grim reminder of the heinous act that took place there'.

Idaho student murders house demolished

Workers demolish the home at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho on Dec. 28, 2023, where four University of Idaho students were killed on Nov. 13, 2022. (Credit: Derek Shook for Fox News Digital)

The University of Idaho on Thursday executed plans to demolish a house near the school's Moscow campus where four students were murdered in November 2022.

Demolition work began in the pre-dawn darkness Thursday as crews used an excavator to rip apart the front of the house at 1122 King Road shortly before 7 a.m. Debris was dumped into trucks and hauled away from the property as construction workers, police officers and university officials watched the scene unfold.

Within two hours, the home had been leveled. By the end of the afternoon, the lot was reduced to a patch of dirt with a fence around it. A memorial with photos, flowers, candles and teddy bears still sits on a rock wall at the front of the property.

The home, just steps from the university campus, became an extensive crime scene last year, when quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger allegedly stabbed roommates Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen, 21; and Xana Kernodle, 20; as well as Kernodle's 20-year-old boyfriend, Ethan Chapin, in their respective bedrooms.

BRINGING BRYAN KOHBERGER TO IDAHO STUDENTS' HOME COULD BE ‘LOGISTICS NIGHTMARE’ WITH NO PAYOFF: LAWYER

Workers demolish the home at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho on Dec. 28, 2023. Four University of Idaho students were fatally stabbed in the house on Nov. 13, 2022. (Derek Shook for Fox News Digital)

"It is the grim reminder of the heinous act that took place there," University President Scott Green said in a statement. "While we appreciate the emotional connection some family members of the victims may have to this house, it is time for its removal and to allow the collective healing of our community to continue."

The university announced on Dec. 21 that it would be going through with demolition plans during winter break after the house was given to the university last spring. The demolition process could take several days, the school said.

The Goncalves and Kernodle families issued a statement Wednesday evening criticizing plans to move forward with the demolition, saying the physical structure could be significant for Kohberger's pending trial and the jury's understanding of the crime scene and how the events of Nov. 13, 2022, unfolded. 

"The Goncalves Family has reached out to the Latah County Prosecutors Office and the University of Idaho to stop this madness," the statement reads.

BRYAN KOHBERGER TRIAL: MOTHER OF IDAHO MURDER VICTIM FIGHTS TO KEEP KING ROAD HOUSE INTACT

They presented questions such as what the two surviving roommates could hear from their respective bedrooms, what pathway Xana Kernodle took when she received a DoorDash order that morning before she was killed, and what the suspect could have seen from outside the King Road house from his car.

"We feel that the University of Idaho and the Court has put us in a horrible position to have to voice our opinions," the families said. "We all along have just wanted the King Rd. Home [sic] to not be demolished until after the trial and for us to have a trial date so that we can look forward to justice being served. Is that really too much to ask? The families would like to thank everyone across the country for your support on this issue and appreciate all of your hopes and prayers!"

A memorial with photos, flowers, candles and teddy bears still sits on a rock wall at the front of the property. (Derek Shook for Fox News Digital)

A memorial for the victims at 1122 King Road. (Derek Shook for Fox News Digital)

The house at 1122 King Road was boarded up in Moscow, Idahoc, on Dec. 27, 2023. (Derek Shook for Fox News Digital)

Demolition of the house was opposed by victims' families. (Derek Shook for Fox News Digital)

BRYAN KOHBERGER TRIAL: IDAHO PROSECUTORS REQUEST PREFERRED DATES, SCHEDULE

The university said in a statement earlier this month that after Kohberger's trial was delayed in the fall, "both prosecution and defense asked for access to the house and have both gone into the house in the last two months."

Latah County Prosecuting Attorney Bill Thompson said in a statement Wednesday that investigators had "no further use of the 1122 King Road premises."

"Based on our review of Idaho case law, the current condition of the premises is so substantially different than at the time of the homicides that a 'jury view' would not be authorized. We appreciate the UI's help in facilitating the investigators gathering the necessary measurements, etc., to enable creation of illustrative exhibits that should be admissible and helpful to the jury," Thompson said.

A split photo showing the crime scene and the victims, including University of Idaho students Ethan Chapin, 20; Xana Kernodle, 20; Madison Mogen, 21; and Kaylee Goncalves, 21. (Angela Palermo/Idaho Statesman/Tribune News Service via Getty Images/Instagram/ @kayleegoncalves)

Former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole told Fox News Digital that if Kohberger did commit the crime he is accused of, "depending on the legal discussions he has had with legal counsel, there may be a sense of relief that a jury will never be able to access the home and view for themselves how a quadruple murder could have occurred within that structure."

"He now knows that a jury will never be able to see for themselves how thick or not thick the walls were, how one could access and leave the house without being intercepted, if the offender had been in the home before and knew where rooms were located, how easy – or not – it is to hear between the walls, etc," she continued. "Knowing a jury will never see the inside of the house could give BK a sense of relief and even a sense of satisfaction."

At the same time, however, "it could be possible, depending on his personality," that Kohberger "was looking forward to walking with the jury through the Moscow house one final time, when he could relive his crimes," O'Toole said.

Investigators set up outside the home where four University of Idaho students were slain in November last year in Moscow, Idaho, Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2023. The FBI plans on getting documentation to construct visual and audio exhibits and a physical model of the home where Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves were killed. (Derek Shook for Fox News Digital)

Forensic psychologist Dr. Kris Mohandie told Fox News Digital that he thinks the demolition is "good for the victims, and it prevents it from being a morbid attraction or place other like-minded individuals go to connect with their anti-hero."

"It is somewhat consistent with what has happened in other places, like Columbine, where the library was made into a memorial," Mohandie added. "As far as some offenders, it takes away a place they might be able to go to relive and fantasize, if that is their thing."

Madison Mogen, top left, smiles on the shoulders of her best friend, Kaylee Goncalves, as they pose with Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, and two other housemates in Goncalves' final Instagram post, shared the day before the four students were stabbed to death. (@kayleegoncalves/Instagram)

Prosecutors allege that Kohberger, who was a criminology Ph.D. student in Washington, drove from his Pullman, Washington, apartment to Moscow, Idaho, in the early morning hours of Nov. 13, 2022, and stabbed the four victims in their bedrooms. Mogen and Goncalves, who were best friends, were found deceased in the same bed.

GO HERE FOR MORE TRUE CRIME FROM FOX NEWS DIGITAL

He apparently spared two surviving roommates, who were in different bedrooms at the time.

Investigators tied Kohberger to DNA found on a knife sheath left at the crime scene next to Mogen's body. Kohberger allegedly fled Pullman after the crime and traveled cross-country with his father back to his home state of Pennsylvania while police were still piecing evidence together. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Pennsylvania State Police and the FBI staked out his family home in the Poconos before they found a familial DNA sample in their trash bin that matched the DNA on the sheath.

Prosecutors also said cellphone and vehicle data tied Kohberger to the crime scene when the murders allegedly took place. 

Fox News' Michael Ruiz and Adam Sabes contributed to this report.

Audrey Conklin is a digital reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business. Email tips to [email protected] or on Twitter at @audpants.

The hottest stories ripped from the headlines, from crime to courts, legal and scandal.

By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use , and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.

You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!

The Charnel-House

From bauhaus to beinhaus.

Moscow metro

Buried treasure: The splendor of the Moscow Metro system

Owen hatherley the calvert journal january 29, 2013.

. Reposted from  The Calvert Journal , a daily briefing on the culture and creativity of modern Russia.

. Post-Communist underground stations in Moscow, like the recently completed Pyatnitskoye shosse, are still, very visibly, Moscow Metro stations. Regardless of the need or otherwise for nuclear shelters, they’re still buried deep in the ground; ubiquitous still is the expensive, laborious, but highly legible and architecturally breathtaking practice of providing high-ceilinged vaults with the trains leaving from either side. There have been attempts at “normal” metro lines, like the sober stations built under Khrushchev, or the “Light Metro” finished in 2003, but they didn’t catch on. Largely, the model developed in the mid-1930s continues, and not just in Moscow — extensions in Kiev or St Petersburg, or altogether new systems in Kazan or Almaty, carry on this peculiar tradition. Metro stations are still being treated as palaces of the people, over two decades after the “people’s” states collapsed. This could be a question of maintaining quality control, but then quality is not conspicuous in the Russian built environment. So why does this endure?

. The original, 1930s Moscow Metro was the place where even the most skeptical fellow travellers threw away their doubts and surrendered. Bertolt Brecht wrote an awe-filled poem on the subject, “The Moscow Workers Take Possession of the Great Metro on April 27, 1935,” dropping his habitual irony and dialectic to describe the Metro workers perusing the system they’d built on the day of its opening. At the end, the poet gasps, his guard down, “This is the grand picture that once upon a time/ rocked the writers who foresaw it” — that is, that here, at least, a dream of “Communism” had been palpably built. It was not an uncommon reaction, then or now, nostalgia notwithstanding. The first stations, those Brecht was talking about, were not particularly over-ornamented, especially by the standards of what came later, but their extreme opulence and spaciousness was still overwhelming. Stations like Sokolniki or Kropotkinskaya didn’t bludgeon with classical reminisces and mosaics. Yet three things about the underground designs created by architects Alexei Dushkin, Ivan Fomin, Dmitry Chechulin et al were unprecedented in any previous public transport network, whether Charles Holden’s London, Alfred Grenander’s Berlin or Hector Guimard’s Paris. First, the huge size of the halls, their high ceilings and widely-spaced columns; second, the quality of the materials, with various coloured marbles shipped in from all over the USSR; and third, the lighting, emerging from individually-designed, surreal chandeliers, often murkily atmospheric, designed to create mood rather than light.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDC9Fd7UT9w] Continue reading →

With lightning telegrams: