case study no 22

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.

Bailey House (Case Study House #21)

St. Martha’s Episcopal Church

St. John’s in the Valley Methodist Church (Demolished)

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.

Iconic Photos

Famous, Infamous, and Iconic Images

Case Study House No. 22, 1960

Between 1945 and 1966, Californian magazine Arts & Architecture asked major architects of the day to design model homes. The magazine was responding to the postwar building boom with prototype modern homes that could be both easily replicated and readily affordable to the average American. Among many criteria given to the architects was to use “as far as is practicable, many war-born techniques and materials best suited to the expression of man’s life in the modern world.”

Thirty-six model homes were commissioned from major architects of the day, including Richard Neutra, Raphael Soriano, Craig Ellwood, Charles and Ray Eames, Pierre Koenig, Eero Saarinen, A. Quincy Jones, and Ralph Rapson. Not all of them were built but some thirty of them were, mostly around the Greater Los Angeles area.

The magazine also engaged an architectural photographer named Julius Shulman to dutifully record this experiment in residential architecture. Fittingly for Shulman, one of the first architectural photographers to include the inhabitants of homes in the pictures, his most famous image was the 1960 view of Pierre Koenig’s Case Study House No. 22 (also the Stahl House), which showed two well-dressed women conversing casually inside.

In the photo, the cantilevered living room appears to float diaphanously above Los Angeles. “The vertiginous point of view contrasts sharply with the relaxed atmosphere of the house’s interior, testifying to the ability of the Modernist architect to transcend the limits of the natural world,” praised the New York Times . Yet this view was created as meticulously as the house itself. Wide-angle photography belied the actual smallness of the house; furniture and furnishings were staged, and as were the women. Although they were not models (but rather girlfriends of architectural students), they were asked to sit still in the dark as Shulman exposed the film seven minutes to capture lights from LA streets. Then, lights inside were quickly switched on to capture two posing women.

Case Study House No.22 as it appeared in Arts and Architecture . Shulman’s photo with inhabitants did not appear here.

See other Case Study Houses here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses

Result was the photo Sir Norman Foster termed his favorite “architectural moment”. Indeed, the photo captured excitement and promises the house held, and propelled Case Study No. 22 into the forefront of national consciousness. Some called it the most iconic building in LA. It appeared as backdrop in many movies, TV series and advertisements. Tim Allen was abducted by aliens here in Galaxy Quest ; Greg Kinnear would make it his bachelor pad in Nurse Betty , and Columbo opened its pilot episode here. Italian models in slicked-back hair would frolic poolside in Valentino ads. It was even replicated in the 2004 video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. According to Koenig, Case Study No. 22. was featured in more than 1,200 books — more often than Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

• Random Project
• Collaborate

Stahl House / Case Study House nº22

Introduction.

Did you find this article useful?

Really sorry to hear that...

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

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

A Virtual Look Into Pierre Koenig's Case Study House #22, The Stahl House

• Written by Madlaina Kalunder and David Tran, Archilogic
• Published on November 30, 2015

Without a doubt, it’s among the most famous houses in Los Angeles . The house is easy to describe: a steel framed L-plan, divided into bedrooms and the communal living spaces, all wrapped around a turquoise pool seemingly impossibly poised above the city. But words don’t do it justice. Julius Shulman ’s 1960 photograph of Pierre Koenig ’s Case Study House 22, perhaps better known as Stahl House, changed the fantasies of a generation.

Shulman’s photograph of, or rather through, Stahl House made plate glass and steel girders, materials normally too industrial to be accepted by home owners, seem glamorous. It was magazine genius: a vouyeristic image of two women in a glass lined room, suspended above the lights of Los Angeles , seen from outside the glass, the ambiguous perspective of either a guest leaving late, or an intruder arriving unannounced—whatever you wanted it to be. Shulman’s notorious photo is more subtle than it first appears. The architecture is not so much shown as hinted at by the geometric underside of the roof, and the city is brought closer by the careful double exposure and the reflected image of the ceiling lamp that appears like a double moon inside and outside the house. Shulman’s genius was that he understood architectural photography first and foremost in terms of film, and not least Hollywood, the dream factory down the road. Where other photographers took static descriptive images of entire houses, Shulman made film stills, frozen moments from places you wished you lived in. When printed in John Entenza’s influential Californian magazine Arts and Architecture , Shulman’s photographs worked like an intoxicant on a generation of post-war architects.

The official agenda of Entenza’s Case Study House program was to reimagine the typical family dwelling using postwar materials and technology. They were meant to be affordable, and replicable, houses for a confident democratic society. But the irony is that almost all of the case study houses were one-offs, modernist gems that were never replicated. Instead of using the best of postwar technology, the building industry used the booming market to cover America in suburban tract housing built by a deunionised and deskilled workforce. Wooden frames proved cheaper than steel, and required less skill to manage. The Stahl House represents an alternative history, a custom built precision architecture that everyone wanted but few ended up getting.

The Stahl house itself was a classic American story, a house built as much by sheer force of will as from the application of contemporary technology. The site was believed to be too steep to build upon, so the owner, C H “Buck“ Stahl, a retired professional football player, heaped up the terraces supporting the structure more or less by hand, and made models of a curving, glass walled home over a year before finding an architect with the courage to take the commission. Pierre Koenig rationalized Stahl’s original plans, but recently rediscovered photographs of the early models suggest that this is one of those cases where the client deserves credit as a co-designer.

Paradoxically, for the most glamorous house in America, it’s all about family. From the street, there’s almost nothing visible. The house presents a blank wall. The schism between privacy and view could not be more extreme. The 3D model from Archilogic shows the strong shift in atmosphere between the photogenic public spaces and the rarely photographed bedrooms, which are clearly designed to offer a feeling of enclosure, and security, in spite of the steep drop only a short distance away.

Although on July 24, 2013, a half a century after completion, the Stahl House was listed in the National Register of Historic Places, finally affording it the recognition it deserved, there’s still a strange split between the postwar houses of figures like Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson , and the case study houses of the Eameses , or Pierre Koenig . Whereas Mies and Johnson were drawing on an architecture that went back as far as ancient Greece, and they knew it, the Eameses breezily rejected the weight of tradition. Koenig is a more ambiguous figure. He built, and he taught, for most of his life. He was fascinated by the properties of steel, and he did idealistically motivated work—notably with the Chemehuevi indians when he taught at USC—but nothing ever brought him the fame and recognition of the magazine friendly pieces from early in his career.

So how much does it cost to live in a modernist masterpiece?

Well, Buck Stahl paid the outrageous sum (for the 1950s) of $13,500 for the land, and another $37,651 for the house and pool. At the time of writing, Zillow estimates the value of the house as $2,531,800 (or between 2.23 million and 3.11 million), Trulia’s algorithms estimate its value slightly lower than average for a Hollywood property, at $2,237,000, and Realtor guesses $2,042,328. The real value of the house is almost certainly higher, much higher. A story in the Los Angeles Times (June 27, 2009) reported that Stahl’s widow, Carlotta, and their three children turned down offers as high as $15 million for the house since Buck passed away, but whatever the offer was, the family didn’t sell, so the house is effectively priceless. That’s quite a premium for great architecture.

Don't miss Archilogic's previous models shared on ArchDaily, including Pierre Koenig's other Case Study House #21 , The Eames Case Study House #8 and Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House and Barcelona Pavilion .

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

Pierre Koenig虚拟现实住宅研究22号，Stahl住宅

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 Case Study House #22

The Greatest American Architectural Photographer of the 20th Century

Julius Shulman is often considered the greatest American architectural photographer of the 20th century. His photography shaped the image of South Californian lifestyle of midcentury America. For 70 years, he created on of the most comprehensive visual archives of modern architecture, especially focusing on the development of the Los Angeles region. The designs of some of the world’s most noted architectures including Richard Neutra, Ray Eames and Frank Lloyd Wright came to life though his photographs. To this day, it is through Shulman’s photography that we witness the beauty of modern architecture and the allure of Californian living.

Neutra and Beyond

Born in 1910 in Brooklyn, Julius Shulman grew up in a small farm in Connecticut before his family moved to Los Angeles at the age of ten. While in Los Angeles, Shulman was introduced to Boy Scouts and often went hiking in Mount Wilson. This allowed him to organically study light and shadow, and be immersed in the outdoors. While in college between UCLA and Berkeley, he was offered to photograph the newly designed Kun House by Richard Neutra. Upon photographing, Shulman sent the six images to the draftsman who then showed them to Neutra. Impressed, Richard Neutra asked Shulman to photograph his other houses and went on to introduce him to other architectures.

The Case Study Houses

Julius Shulman’s photographs revealed the true essence of the architect’s vision. He did not merely document the structures, but interpreted them in his unique way which presented the casual residential elegance of the West Coast. The buildings became studies of light and shadow set against breathtaking vistas. One of the most significant series in Shulman’s portfolio is without a doubt his documentation of the Case Study Houses. The Case Study House Program was established under the patronage of the Arts & Architectue magazine in 1945 in an effort to produce model houses for efficient and affordable living during the housing boom generated after the Second World War. Southern California was used as the location for the prototypes and the program commissioned top architects of the day to design the houses. Julius Shulman was chosen to document the designs and throughout the course of the program he photographed the majority of the 36 houses. Shulman’s photography gave new meaning to the structures, elevating them to a status of international recognition in the realm of architecture and design. His way of composition rendered the structures as inviting places for modern living, reflecting a sense of optimism of modern living.

Case Study House #22

Case Study House #22, also known as the Stahl House was one of the designs Julius Shulman photographed which later become one of the most iconic of his images. Designed by architect Pierre Koenig in 1959, the Stahl House was the residential home of American football player C.H Buck Stahl located in the Hollywood Hills. The property was initially regarded as undevelopable due to its hillside location, but became an icon of modern Californian architecture. Regarded as one of the most interesting masterpieces of contemporary architecture, Pierre Koenig preferred merging unconventional materials for its time such as steel with a simple, ethereal, indoor-outdoor feel. Julius’s dramatic image, taking in a warm evening in the May of 1960, shows two young ladies dressed in white party dresses lounging and chatting. The lights of the city shimmer in the distant horizon matching the grid of the city, while the ladies sit above the distant bustle and chaos. Pierre Koenig further explains in the documentary titled Case Study Houses 1945-1966 saying;

“When you look out along the beam it carries your eye 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.”

The Los Angeles Good Life

The image presents a fantasy and is a true embodiment of the Los Angeles good life. By situating two models in the scene, Shulman creates warmth, helping the viewer to imagine scale as well as how life would be like living in this very house. In an interview with Taina Rikala De Noriega for the Archives of American Art Shulman recalls the making of the photograph;

“ 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.”

Purity in Line and Design to Perfection

Shulman’s preference to shoot in black and white reduces the subject to its geometrical essence allowing the viewer to observe the reflections, shadows and forms. A Shulman signature, horizontal and vertical lines appear throughout the image to create depth and dimensional perspective. A mastery in composition, the photograph catches purity in line and design to perfection.

A Lifetime of Achievements

Julius Shulman retired from active architectural work in 1989, leaving behind an incredibly rich archive chronicling the development of modern living in Southern California. A large part of his archive resides at the Getty Museum in California. For the next twenty years he participated in major museum and gallery exhibitions around the world, and created numerous books by publishers such as Taschen and Nazraeli Press. Among his honors, Shulman is the only photographer to have been granted honorary lifetime membership in the American Institute of Architects. In 1998 he was given a lifetime achievement award by ICP. Julius passed away in 2009 in his home in Los Angeles.

Milton Greene's Marilyn Monroe – Ballerina Sitting

Simple pleasures: seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses, 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.

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

Singulart Magazine > Art History > Artworks under the lens > 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

Interview with Stef Fridael

Frank Stella’s Iconic Creation: Harran II

Unveiling The Stray: A Masterpiece by Margaret Keane

• Arts & Photography
• Photography & Video

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the authors

The Stahl House: Case Study House ú22: The Making of a Modernist Icon (Case Study House, 22) Hardcover – November 2, 2021

• Interior decorators and designers
• Architecture fans, readers of Architectural Digest and design magazines
• Midcentury modern design enthusiasts; fans of modern Japanese, California, and Palm-Springs-style architecture
• Readers of architecture books such as Atlas of Mid-Century Modern Houses , Case Study Houses , and photography books by Annie Liebowitz
• Anyone interested in the history and culture of Los Angeles and the Hollywood Hills
• Anyone looking for a distinctive, design-conscious gift for any occasion
• Print length 208 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Chronicle Chroma
• Publication date November 2, 2021
• Dimensions 7.55 x 1 x 9.35 inches
• ISBN-10 1797209434
• ISBN-13 978-1797209432
• See all details

From the Publisher

See what it was like to grow up in one of America's most iconic homes

Editorial Reviews

“Bruce Stahl and Shari Stahl Gronwald offer an intimate biography of ‘one of the great architectural wonders of Los Angeles’: the Stahl House, designed by Pierre Koenig and completed in 1960, and the house they grew up in…. Those with an interest in the human side of design and architecture will be captivated.” ― Publishers Weekly

“Sumptuous… a startlingly intimate document, chockablock with family snapshots, that goes beyond steel decking, glass walls, concrete caissons, and the geometry of H columns and I beams. It’s a love song to a global icon that was, for the residents themselves, no museum.” ― Vanity Fair

About the Author

Product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Chronicle Chroma (November 2, 2021)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 208 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1797209434
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1797209432
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.31 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 7.55 x 1 x 9.35 inches
• #20 in House & Hotel Photography
• #147 in Architectural History
• #170 in Residential Architecture

Videos for this product

Click to play video

The Stahl House: Case Study House #22

Merchant Video

About the authors

Shari stahl gronwald.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Kim Cross is a New York Times best-selling author and journalist known for meticulously reported narrative nonfiction. Her work has been recognized in “Best of” lists by the the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review, The Sunday Longread, Longform, Apple News Audio, and Best American Sports Writing. She teaches Feature Writing for Harvard Extension School. Reach her at kimhcross.com

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 91% 7% 1% 0% 0% 91%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 91% 7% 1% 0% 0% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 91% 7% 1% 0% 0% 1%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 91% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 91% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Customers say

Customers find the book nice, with beautiful architecture and a great story. They also love the photos inside the book and find the story interesting and well-written.

AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

Customers find the book nice, wonderful, and the best modern house in LA. They also mention that it was in many movies and TV shows.

"I found this book a great read . I first checked out from the library, but I bought it because it was a book I want to have around...." Read more

"...And this book tells a lot more about the Owners. A good read ." Read more

" well done book describing how this amazing house came to be. lots of photos and history. recommend!" Read more

" Best modern house in LA . It was is so many movies and TV shows. Why can’t anyone build great looking homes like this today? The photos are great also." Read more

Customers find the photos inside the book interesting.

"...the writing kept your attention and was interesting, and loved the photos inside the book . She wants to come visit it when she comes out...." Read more

"...I finished it up at 3:00am! There are many gorgeous photographs , including family photos I had never seen before...." Read more

"well done book describing how this amazing house came to be. lots of photos and history . recommend!" Read more

"Buy the book for its gorgeous photos and fascinating construction story...." Read more

Customers find the story interesting, fascinating, and informative. They also appreciate the gorgeous photos and plethora of imagery and stories.

"...She thought the writing kept your attention and was interesting , and loved the photos inside the book. She wants to come visit it when she comes out...." Read more

"...Here we have a plethora of imagery and stories I have never encountered before and will likely return to again and again over the years...." Read more

"...the children who grew up in the house and is really well written and engaging . It is not just a story of this wonderful house but of a great family." Read more

"Buy the book for its gorgeous photos and fascinating construction story ...." Read more

Customers find the writing style engaging and well-written.

"...She thought the writing kept your attention and was interesting, and loved the photos inside the book. She wants to come visit it when she comes out...." Read more

"...It was written by the children who grew up in the house and is really well written and engaging...." Read more

" Wonderful writing a lovely book ." Read more

Reviews with images

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

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.

Case Study House No. 22, by the numbers

• Copy Link URL Copied!

$15,000,000

The most offered to the Stahl family to sell their iconic Case Study House No. 22. (The family declined.)

Cost of a vintage photograph of Julius Shulman’s “Case Study House #22” (1960) at Craig Krull Gallery. (Prints made in the 1990s under Shulman’s instructions: $17,000 to $20,000.)

Price to build the Hollywood Hills home in 1959, excluding pool ($3,651).

Cost of the narrow lot in 1954.

Day rate for a film company to rent Stahl house for a day in 2009. (Lower rates for parties.)

Number of square feet in the two-bedroom, three-bathroom house.

Degrees of unobstructed mountain-to-ocean view one sees from the living room.

Number of times Case Study House No. 22 has been built: first by architect Pierre Koenig, then again in 1989 when Craig Hodgetts and Ming Fung designed a full-scale model for the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art’s exhibition “Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses.”

Number of days it took for the glass house’s steel frame to be erected.

-- Barbara Thornburg Sources: Stahl Trust; “Iconic: Stories of L.A.’s Most Memorable Buildings” by Gloria Koenig; “Koenig” by Neil Jackson; “Pierre Koenig” by David Jenkins and James Steele; “Case Study Houses” by Elizabeth A.T. Smith; and Craig Krull Gallery

More to Read

Review: In the Olympics closing ceremony, Paris’ inspired story sputters with a Hollywood ending

Aug. 11, 2024

At D23, even Disney’s biggest fans feel the pinch of high park prices

How the Paris Olympics spun ratings gold for NBC and Peacock

Aug. 9, 2024

The biggest entertainment stories

Get our big stories about Hollywood, film, television, music, arts, culture and more right in your inbox as soon as they publish.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

In L.A.’s tough housing market, cramped family adds ADU rather than move

Aug. 12, 2024

Review: In ‘Dance First,’ a biopic of Samuel Beckett, Gabriel Byrne portrays the man, not the myth

Entertainment & Arts

L.A.’s new Intuit Dome just might be one of the best arena designs in America. But there’s one missing link

Aug. 8, 2024

L.A.-based director Yuval Sharon will stage Wagner’s ‘Ring’ cycle at the Metropolitan Opera

Aug. 6, 2024

• Price Database

HK Art Advisory + Projects

Los Angeles

Julius Shulman

• Case Study House No. 22, Los Angeles, Pierre Koenig, Architect, 1960 , 1960
• 20 x 16 in. (50.8 x 40.6 cm.)

Case Study House No. 22, Los Angeles, Pierre Koenig, Architect, 1960 ,

Newsletter signup.

Get the latest news on the events, trends, and people that shape the global art market with our daily newsletter.

Thank you for subscribing!

• Market Alerts
• Analytics Reports
• Gallery Network
• Auction House Partnerships
• Investor Relations
• instagram">
• English (US)

©2024 Artnet Worldwide Corporation. All rights reserved.

Share this story

The Case Study houses that made Los Angeles a modernist mecca

Mapping the homes that helped to define an era

Los Angeles is full of fantastic residential architecture styles, from Spanish Colonial Revival to Streamline Moderne. But the modernist Case Study Houses , sponsored by Arts & Architecture and designed between the 1940s and 1960s, are both native to Southern California and particularly emblematic of the region.

The Case Study series showcased homes commissioned by the magazine and designed by some of the most influential designers and architects of the era, including Charles and Ray Eames, Richard Neutra, and Pierre Koenig. The residences were intended to be relatively affordable, replicable houses for post-World War II family living, with an emphasis on “new materials and new techniques in house construction,” as the magazine’s program intro put it.

Technological innovation and practical, economical design features were emphasized—though the homes’ scintillating locations, on roomy lots in neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades and the Hollywood Hills , gave them a luxurious allure.

With the help of photographer Julius Shulman , who shot most of the homes, the most impressive of the homes came to represent not only new styles of home design, but the postwar lifestyle of the booming Southern California region.

A total of 36 houses and apartment buildings were commissioned; a couple dozen were built, and about 20 still stand in the greater Los Angeles area (there’s also one in Northern California, a set near San Diego, and a small apartment complex in Phoenix). Some have been remodeled, but others have been well preserved. Eleven were added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2013.

Here’s a guide to all the houses left to see—but keep in mind that, true to LA form, most are still private residences. The Eames and Stahl houses, two of the most famous Case Study Houses, are regularly open to visitors.

As for the unconventional house numbering, post-1962 A&A publisher David Travers writes that the explanation is “inexplicable, locked in the past.”

Case Study House No. 1

J.R. Davidson (with Greta Davidson) designed this house in 1948 (it was actually his second go at Case Study House No. 1). It was intended for “a hypothetical family" with two working parents and was designed to require "minimum maintenance.”

• Open in Google Maps

Case Study House No. 2

Case Study House No. 2 was designed in 1947 by Sumner Spaulding and John Rex. Arts & Architecture wrote that the home’s layout “achieves a sense of spaciousness and flexibility,” with an open living area and glass doors that lead out to adjoining terraces.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Samuel Dematraz (@samueldematraz) on Oct 28, 2018 at 1:07am PDT

Case Study House No. 7

Case Study House No. 7 was designed in 1948 by Thornton M. Abell. It has a “three-zone living area,” with space for study, activity, and relaxation/conversation; the areas can be separated by sliding panels or combined.

Eames House (Case Study House No. 8)

Legendary designer couple Charles and Ray Eames designed the Eames House in 1949 and even Arts & Architecture seemed kind of blown away by it. The home is built into a hillside behind a row of Eucalyptus trees on a bluff above Pacific Palisades. It's recognizable by its bright blue, red, and yellow panels. The Eameses lived in the house until their deaths. It’s now open to visitors five days per week, though reservations are required.

Entenza House (Case Study House No. 9)

The Entenza House was built in 1949 and designed by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen for Arts & Architecture editor John Entenza. According to the magazine, “In general, the purpose was to enclose as much space as possible within a reasonably simple construction.”

Case Study House No. 10

Case Study House No. 10 was designed in 1947 by Kemper Nomland. The house is built on several levels to mold into its sloping site. Recently restored, the home sold to Kristen Wiig in 2017.

Case Study House No. 15

Designed by J.R. Davidson in 1947, Case Study House No. 15 has south walls made of huge glass panels. Its flagstone patio and indoor floor are at the same level for that seamless indoor-outdoor feel. According to the magazine, the floorplan “is basically that of another Davidson house, Case Study House No. 11,” which has been demolished.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Samuel Dematraz (@samueldematraz) on Nov 15, 2018 at 6:13am PST

Case Study House for 1953

Craig Ellwood’s Case Study House for 1953 is usually numbered as 16 in the Case Study series . It has a modular steel structure and “the basic plan is a four-foot modular rectangle.” But the interior walls stick out past the exterior walls to bring the indoors out and the outdoors in. The Bel Air house hit the market in November with a $3 million price tag.

Case Study House No. 17 (A)

Case Study House No. 17 (A) was designed by Rodney Walker in 1947. A tight budget kept the house at just 1,560 square feet, “but more space was gained through the use of many glass areas.” The house also has a large front terrace with a fireplace that connects the indoor living room fireplace. The house has been remodeled .

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Case Study House #17, 1947 (@casestudy17) on Jun 11, 2016 at 2:20pm PDT

Case Study House No. 17 (B)

Case Study House No. 17 (B) was designed in 1956 by Craig Ellwood, but “governed by a specific program set forth by the client.” Ellwood took into account the clients' collection of contemporary paintings and made the living room “purposely undersized” to work best for small gatherings. The house was extensively remodeled in the sixties by Hollywood Regency architect John Elgin Woolf and his partner, interior designer Robert Koch Woolf.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by BAUKUNST™ El Arte de Construir (@i_volante) on Aug 13, 2017 at 4:42pm PDT

West House (Case Study House No. 18 [A])

Case Study House No. 18 (A) was designed by Rodney Walker in 1948. The house is oriented toward the ocean, but set back from the cliff edge it sits on to avoid noise issues. As A&A says, "High above the ocean, the privacy of the open south and east exposures of Case Study House No. 18 can be threatened only by an occasional sea-gull." The house features a "bricked garden room" separated from the living room by a two-sided fireplace.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by CaseStudyHouse18A (@casestudyhouse18a) on Oct 6, 2018 at 8:44pm PDT

Fields House (Case Study House No. 18 [B])

Case Study House No. 18 (B) was designed by Craig Ellwood in 1958. Ellwood didn’t attempt to hide that the house was prefabricated (the magazine explains that he believed “that the increasing cost of labor and the decline of the craftsman will within not too many years force a complete mechanization of residential construction methods”). The components of the house, however, are “strongly defined with color: ceiling and panels are off-white and the steel framework is blue.” According to A&A' s website, the house has been remodeled.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by MCM Daily (@dc_hillier) on Oct 29, 2018 at 8:32pm PDT

Case Study House No. 20 [A])

This two-bedroom house was meant “to serve young parents who find they can afford just that much,” according to architect Richard Neutra’s description. He also wrote that he used several different kinds of natural wood in the house.

Bass House (Case Study House No. 20 [B])

The Bass House was designed in 1958 by Buff, Straub, and Hensman for famed graphic designer Saul Bass. It's “unique in that it was based upon the experimental use of several prefabricated Douglas fir plywood products as part of the structural concept,” including hollow-core plywood vaults that covered the central part of the house.

Case Study House No. 21

Pierre Koenig designed Case Study House No. 21 in 1958. It was originally completely surrounded by water, with a walkway and driveway spanning the moat at the front door and carport, respectively. The house was severely messed with over the years, but restored in the ’90s with help from Koenig.

Stahl House (Case Study House No. 22)

Pierre Koenig's Stahl House , designed in 1960, is probably the most famous house in Los Angeles, thanks to an iconic photo by Julius Shulman . The house isn't much to look at from the street, but its backside is mostly glass surrounding a cliff's-edge pool. Tours are available Mondays, Wednesdays, and Friday—but book well ahead of time, as they sell out quickly.

Case Study House for 1950

The unnumbered Case Study House for 1950 was designed by Raphael Soriano. It's rectangular, with living room and bedrooms facing out to the view. However, in the kitchen and eating areas, the house “turns upon itself and living develops around a large kitchen-dining plan opening upon a terrace which leads directly into the living room interrupted only by the mass of two fireplaces.” According to A&A 's website, the house has been remodeled.

Frank House (Case Study House No. 25)

The two-story Frank House was designed by Killingsworth, Brady, and Smith and Associates in 1962 and it sits on a canal in Long Beach. A reflecting pool with stepping stones leads to its huge front door and inside to an 18-foot high courtyard. The house sold in 2015 with some unfortunate remodeling .

Case Study House No. 28

Case Study House No. 28 was designed in 1966 by Conrad Buff and Donald Hensman. According to the magazine, “the architects were asked to design a house that incorporated face brick as the primary structural material to demonstrate its particular advantages.” They came up with a plan for two symmetrical wings joined by glass galleries.

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


Don't miss tomorrow's biopharma industry news

Let BioPharma Dive's free newsletter keep you informed, straight from your inbox.

• Daily Dive M-F
• Commercialization Weekly Every Wednesday
• Gene Therapy Weekly Every Thursday
• Emerging Biotech Weekly Every Tuesday

Pfizer builds case for RSV shot with data from immunocompromised adults

The company plans to present results from the Phase 3 MONeT trial at a scientific conference, as well as to submit them to regulatory agencies.

Dive Brief:

• Pfizer on Monday said its RSV vaccine Abrysvo led to strong immune responses in immunocompromised adults given the shot in a late-stage study.
• The results came from a substudy of a Pfizer-run Phase 3 trial testing two doses of Abrysvo in adults at risk of severe lower respiratory tract disease associated with respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. Vaccination was well-tolerated, Pfizer said, and led to a “strong neutralizing response” against RSV subtypes A and B.
• The data add to evidence of the effectiveness of Abrysvo, which faces competition from GSK’s rival vaccine Arexvy and Moderna’s mResvia, which gained Food and Drug Administration approval in May .

Dive Insight:

Pfizer, GSK and Moderna all aim to widen labeling for their respective RSV shots.

Currently, Abrysvo is approved in the U.S. for adults 60 years and older as well as for maternal use . In June, GSK gained an expanded age indication for Arexvy to also include adults aged 50 to 59 who are at increased risk of RSV infection, possibly helping to expand its already dominant market position. Moderna’s mResvia is only for adults 60 years and older.

Pfizer recently asked regulators for an expanded approval of its shot in at-risk adults older than 18 based on results from a portion of the MONeT study that enrolled people with chronic conditions. According to data released in April , vaccination led to an immune response equivalent to that reported among older adults in the trial that supported Abrysvo’s initial clearance.

Monday’s data also comes from MONeT, but from a smaller part that involved 203 immunocompromised adults. Participants included people who previously received an organ transplant, were on hemodialysis due to end-stage kidney disease, had lung cancer or were on immune-modulating treatment for an autoimmune disorder.

About half of the adults enrolled were between the ages of 18 to 59, while the other half were 60 years or older.

Immunocompromised people, as well as infants and the elderly, are at a higher risk of contracting severe disease from RSV, which can make underlying conditions worse.

Pfizer says it plans to present the data from the MONeT trial at an upcoming scientific conference and publish results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The company will also submit the data to regulatory agencies.

Recommended Reading

• RSV vaccine makers remain optimistic about market despite CDC guidance By Michael Gibney • Aug. 6, 2024

BioPharma Dive news delivered to your inbox

Get the free daily newsletter read by industry experts

• Select Newsletter: Daily Dive M-F
• Select Newsletter: Commercialization Weekly Every Wednesday
• Select Newsletter: Gene Therapy Weekly Every Thursday
• Select Newsletter: Emerging Biotech Weekly Every Tuesday
• Select user consent: By signing up to receive our newsletter, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Editors' picks

Biotech IPOs are the industry’s lifeblood. Track how they’re performing.

OS Therapies priced the year's smallest stock offering last Thursday, while this week, Actuate Therapeutics will again try to make its Wall Street debut.

Big pharma’s looming threat: a patent cliff of ‘tectonic magnitude’

Many top-selling products will lose patent protection by the end of the decade, putting pressure on companies to replace lost revenue with new medicines.

Company Announcements

• Following FDA rejection, a journal retracts papers on MDMA-assisted therapy By Jacob Bell
• Pfizer builds case for RSV shot with data from immunocompromised adults By Delilah Alvarado
• Apellis plans FDA filing after drug success in kidney trial By Ned Pagliarulo
• Lilly obesity drug shows heart benefit in late-stage trial By Ben Fidler

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 08 August 2024

Comprehensive study on the efficiency of vertical bifacial photovoltaic systems: a UK case study

• Ghadeer Badran 1 &
• Mahmoud Dhimish 1  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  18380 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

236 Accesses

Metrics details

• Photovoltaics
• Renewable energy
• Solar energy

This paper presents the first comprehensive study of a groundbreaking Vertically Mounted Bifacial Photovoltaic (VBPV) system, marking a significant innovation in solar energy technology. The VBPV system, characterized by its vertical orientation and the use of high-efficiency Heterojunction cells, introduces a novel concept diverging from traditional solar panel installations. Our empirical research, conducted over a full year at the University of York, UK, offers an inaugural assessment of this pioneering technology. The study reveals that the VBPV system significantly outperforms both a vertically mounted monofacial PV (VMPV) system and a conventional tilted monofacial PV (TMPV) system in energy output. Key findings include a daily power output increase of 7.12% and 10.12% over the VMPV system and an impressive 26.91% and 22.88% enhancement over the TMPV system during early morning and late afternoon hours, respectively. Seasonal analysis shows average power gains of 11.42% in spring, 8.13% in summer, 10.94% in autumn, and 12.45% in winter compared to the VMPV system. Against the TMPV system, these gains are even more substantial, peaking at 24.52% in winter. These results underscore the VBPV system's exceptional efficiency in harnessing solar energy across varied environmental conditions, establishing it as a promising and sustainable solution in solar energy technology.

Similar content being viewed by others

Integration of two-dimensional materials-based perovskite solar panels into a stand-alone solar farm

Sustainability pathways for perovskite photovoltaics

Efficiency limits of concentrating spectral-splitting hybrid photovoltaic-thermal (PV-T) solar collectors and systems

Introduction.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology has become a cornerstone of the renewable energy revolution, offering a clean, sustainable solution to the world's growing energy demands 1 . At its core, solar PV harnesses the sun's energy, converting it directly into electricity through semiconducting materials. This technology has traditionally been dominated by monofacial PV modules 2 , which collect sunlight from a single surface facing the sun. However, as the need for more efficient and cost-effective energy solutions intensifies, the evolution of solar PV has given rise to the bifacial module 3 , 4 —a novel approach to solar energy capture that promises to redefine the efficiency standards of solar energy systems.

Bifacial PV modules, as shown in Fig.  1 , are designed to capture sunlight on both their front and rear surfaces, utilizing direct sunlight and the light that reaches the rear surface through ground reflection and diffuse albedo 5 , 6 . Despite relying on silicon cells with the same spectral response as monofacial PV modules, the dual-sided design of bifacial modules allows them to significantly enhance energy yield by absorbing reflected and diffused light from surrounding surfaces 7 . This design is particularly beneficial in environments with high ground reflectivity or engineered ground covers to increase reflectivity 8 .

Illustration of bifacial PV system operation. The arrows indicate the different pathways of sunlight: yellow arrows represent direct sunlight hitting the front surface and the ground, orange arrows indicate the sunlight reflected from the ground hitting the rear surface, and red arrows depict the diffuse sunlight captured by both the front and rear surfaces 11 .

The evolution of bifacial PV modules represents more than just an incremental improvement in solar technology; it signifies a paradigm shift in how solar energy is harvested. Unlike traditional monofacial systems 9 that are limited by their unidirectional light capture, bifacial systems exploit the full spectrum of solar irradiance. This is achieved through a combination of advanced cell technology and innovative panel designs, which optimize light absorption from multiple angles 10 . The result is a marked increase in energy production per unit area, a critical factor in maximizing the efficiency of solar installations.

Moreover, the integration of bifacial PV technology aligns seamlessly with the global push towards sustainable development. By enhancing the power output of solar installations without the need for additional land, bifacial PV systems contribute to a more efficient use of resources. This efficiency is not confined to optimal conditions; bifacial modules demonstrate resilience in a variety of environmental settings 11 , 12 , including regions with lower solar irradiance and urban landscapes 13 where space and light conditions are constrained.

The significance of bifacial PV modules extends beyond their operational advantages. Their deployment has profound implications for energy policy, economic planning, and environmental strategy. By offering a more versatile and powerful solution for solar energy generation, bifacial PV systems can accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources, reduce dependency on fossil fuels, and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

In the realm of bifacial PV technology, various configurations have been explored to maximize the efficiency and adaptability of solar energy systems. These include vertical, tilted, and other innovative arrangements, each with its unique operational characteristics and applications. Vertical bifacial PV systems: These systems involve panels mounted in a vertical orientation. The key advantage of vertical bifacial PV is its ability to capture sunlight effectively throughout the day, from both sides of the panel 14 . This configuration is particularly beneficial in higher latitudes where the sun is lower in the sky 15 . Vertical systems are also less prone to accumulating dirt and debris, reducing maintenance requirements. Current research indicates that vertical bifacial systems can achieve significant energy gains in urban environments, where space is limited, and in regions with considerable diffuse light 16 .

Tilted bifacial PV Systems: Tilted systems are more traditional, where panels are installed at an angle to maximize exposure to direct sunlight. Bifacial panels in this configuration can capture reflected light from the ground or any reflective surface below. The optimal tilt angle is a subject of ongoing research, with studies 17 , 18 , 19 suggesting that slight adjustments in the tilt can lead to substantial increases in energy capture, particularly in areas with high ground albedo. And finally, tracking bifacial PV systems: These are dynamic systems where panels can adjust their orientation to follow the sun’s path 20 . This tracking capability, combined with bifacial technology, maximizes solar energy capture throughout the day. Research 21 , 22 shows that tracking bifacial systems offer the highest yield, especially in regions with high direct sunlight, making them a promising solution for large-scale solar farms.

Each of these configurations brings unique advantages and challenges, shaping the current research and development in the field of bifacial PV technology. Studies are continually underway to optimize the design, installation, and operational parameters of these systems. This includes investigating factors like the optimal distance between rows of panels 23 to prevent shading, the effect of different surfaces 24 and materials on light reflection, and the integration of smart technologies for performance monitoring and optimization. Furthermore, the performance of bifacial PV systems is significantly influenced by shading and the reflective properties of surrounding surfaces. Shading can reduce the overall efficiency by blocking sunlight from reaching both the front and rear surfaces of the panels. Detailed models of shading and illumination, such as those reported by 25 and 26 , provide comprehensive insights into these effects. In 25 the authors demonstrated that partial shading could lead to substantial reductions in energy output, especially in high-density installations. Further work by 26 explored the impacts of various surface materials and albedo on bifacial PV performance, showing that engineered surfaces with higher reflectivity can enhance energy yield by increasing the diffuse light captured by the rear surface of the panels. These models underscore the importance of considering shading and surface properties in the design and deployment of bifacial PV systems to optimize their performance.

The evolution of bifacial PV modules represents more than just an incremental improvement in solar technology; it signifies a paradigm shift in how solar energy is harvested. Unlike traditional monofacial systems that are limited by their unidirectional light capture, bifacial systems exploit the full spectrum of solar irradiance. This is achieved through a combination of advanced cell technology and innovative panel designs, which optimize light absorption from multiple angles. While Heterojunction (HJT) cells are a prominent technology used in bifacial modules, other technologies such as n-type 27 , Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell (PERC) 28 , Passivated Emitter Rear Totally Diffused (PERT) 29 , Passivated Emitter Rear Locally Diffused (PERL) 30 , and Interdigitated Back Contact (IBC) 30 solar cells are also suitable for bifacial applications, demonstrating widely successful results. These technologies collectively contribute to the marked increase in energy production per unit area 31 , a critical factor in maximizing the efficiency of solar installations.

This study introduces the first-ever exploration and publication on the vertically mounted bifacial photovoltaic (VBPV) system, a groundbreaking advancement in solar energy technology. This prototype's uniqueness stems from its vertical orientation and the use of high-efficiency Heterojunction (HJT) cells, a significant departure from traditional solar panel setups. Our research is pioneering in its empirical approach, offering the initial real-world evaluation of the VBPV system's performance across various environmental conditions over an entire year. This includes a comparative analysis with conventional monofacial systems, providing new insights into the practical efficiencies and benefits of bifacial technology. Additionally, the study navigates the complexities of modelling such an innovative system, addressing the challenges in accurately predicting performance and highlighting the need for advanced simulation techniques.

Materials and methods

New vertical pv bifacial concept design.

This study presents a pioneering exploration and evaluation of the vertically mounted bifacial photovoltaic system, focusing on its unique design and operational characteristics. The VBPV system utilizes high-efficiency HJT cells and is mounted in a vertical orientation, which significantly differs from traditional solar panel setups 32 , 33 . The experimental setup involved the installation of the VBPV system on the rooftop of the Physics Tower at the University of York (Fig.  2 a). The system comprises 36 series-connected PV units with a maximum output power of 1.5 kW under standard test conditions (STC) of 1000 W/m 2 irradiance and 25 °C ambient temperature. The location of the system was selected to maximize exposure to sunlight while also taking advantage of the reflective properties of the surrounding environment. The ground surface material beneath and around the PV modules is white gravel, known for its high albedo. This choice of material enhances the diffuse reflection, thereby increasing the amount of light captured by the rear side of the bifacial panels and boosting the overall energy yield. This setup ensures that the system benefits from both direct and reflected sunlight, optimizing its performance across various environmental conditions.

The new VBPV system examined in this work. ( a ) The system is located on the rooftop of the Physics Tower at the University of York, UK. The ground surface material is white gravel, chosen to enhance the albedo effect and increase the diffuse reflection captured by the rear side of the bifacial panels, ( b ) CFD simulation of the VBPV system under examination in this work, indicating the system has negligible lift forces at extreme wind speeds of 27.2 m/s.

The distance between each row of modules is 50 cm. This spacing was determined based on extensive simulations by Over Easy Solar AS, Norway, to optimize the balance between minimizing shading and maximizing ground reflection. This decision, while not arbitrary, aligns with findings from other research indicating that the optimal distance is a function of module height and should be carefully considered for each specific installation 34 , 35 , 36 . In addition to the nominal power output, the system's performance characteristics include a temperature coefficient of −0.29%/°C and a conversion efficiency of 22.5%, which are critical for understanding the operational efficiency and resilience of the VBPV system under varying environmental conditions.

The performance of the VBPV system was continuously monitored over a full annual cycle, from February 2023 to December 2023, and compared against a vertically mounted monocrystalline silicon monofacial PV (VMPV) system and a traditional tilted monofacial PV (TMPV) system. Data was recorded using a 3-kW inverter integrated with the university's grid, allowing for real-time tracking and analysis of energy production. This comprehensive empirical approach provides valuable insights into the practical efficiencies and benefits of bifacial technology, highlighting the superior performance of the VBPV system under varied environmental conditions.

The VBPV system was subjected to a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation to assess its aerodynamic stability. The simulation was conducted using ANSYS Fluent, employing a k-ε turbulence model to accurately capture the airflow dynamics around the panels. The boundary conditions included an inlet wind speed of up to 27 m/s, representing extreme weather conditions that the system might encounter. The panels were modeled with a surface roughness corresponding to the actual material properties, and the spacing between panels was set at 50 cm, as per the physical setup.

The CFD simulation results, shown in Fig.  2 b, reveal that the VBPV system maintains minimal lift forces even at high wind speeds of up to 27 m/s. This indicates exceptional aerodynamic stability, which is crucial for ensuring the durability and safety of the installation in adverse weather conditions. In comparison, traditional tilted PV systems have been documented to experience higher lift forces under similar wind conditions due to their inclined surfaces which can act like airfoils.

Data comparison and analysis

The innovative VBPV system under study is strategically positioned on the rooftop of the Physics Tower at the University of York, UK. It has been meticulously oriented towards the south to optimize solar gain. This system is seamlessly integrated with a 3-kW inverter, which facilitates the direct feed of generated electricity into the university's grid. The performance data of the system is meticulously monitored and recorded through the inverter's online platform, ensuring real-time tracking and analysis of energy production.

The installation of the VBPV system was completed in December 2022, with its official commissioning taking place in January 2023. As such, the performance data presented and analyzed in this work encompasses a comprehensive annual cycle, ranging from February 2023 to the end of December 2023. This dataset provides a robust foundation for assessing the system’s efficiency and energy output across various seasonal conditions.

To establish a baseline for comparison and underscore the VBPV system's performance, we juxtaposed its data against that of a vertically mounted monocrystalline silicon monofacial PV (VMPV) system situated adjacent to it, with the same PV capacity of 1.5 kW. This parallel analysis illuminates the advantages of bifacial technology in a like-for-like vertical setup. Furthermore, to extend the comparative analysis, we scrutinized the VBPV system's output relative to that of a traditional tiled 1.5 kW polycrystalline silicon monofacial PV system (TMPV). The latter is installed at the customary 45-degree angle prevalent in UK solar installations, thus representing the conventional approach to solar energy generation in the region; all PV configurations examined in this work are presented in Fig.  3 .

Comparison of Three Examined Photovoltaic (PV) System Configurations.

The power gain between two PV systems, such as the VBPV compared to VMPV or TMPV, is calculated using (1).

where \(Power\; Output_{VBPV}\) is the electrical power output of the VBPV, and \( Power \;Output_{Reference\; System}\) is the electrical power output of the reference system, which can be either VMPV or TMPV.

Vertical bifacial PV vs vertical monofacial PV

In the evaluation of PV systems performance, a comparative analysis was conducted between the VBPV system and the VMPV system. The results, illustrated in Fig.  4 a, b, present a compelling narrative on the efficacy of bifacial technology in solar energy capture throughout the day. Figure  4 a delineates the power output patterns of both systems over a 24-h period. Notably, the VBPV system exhibited a pronounced increase in power generation during the early morning hours, from 5:30 to 9:00 AM, where a bifacial gain of 1.64 kWh was recorded. This trend was not an isolated incident; a similar surge was observed in the late afternoon window from 5:00 to 8:30 PM, with an additional gain of 1.39 kWh. Collectively, these increments contributed to a total daily power output of 24.57 kWh for the VBPV system, compared to 23.3 kWh for the VMPV system, marking a 1.27 kWh gain or a 7.87% improvement.

Comparative daily power output of VBPV versus VMPV Systems, highlighting bifacial gain in early morning and late afternoon hours, ( a ) Day 1, ( b ) Day 2. This data was taken on 26th April 2023, with a mean temperature of 14.3 °C.

Complementing this, Fig.  4 b reaffirms the superior performance of the VBPV system under what can be presumed to be varying operational conditions. The early morning hours once again showed an enhanced power output with a gain of 2.46 kWh, while the afternoon session contributed an additional 1.87 kWh. Collectively, these increments contributed to a total daily power output of 24.66 kWh for the VBPV system, compared to 22.85 kWh for the VMPV system, marking a 1.81 kWh gain or a 11.45% improvement.

The consistency with which the VBPV system outstripped the VMPV system in energy generation is a testament to the inherent advantages of bifacial technology. By effectively harnessing sunlight not only from direct overhead exposure but also from reflected light, the VBPV system demonstrates its capacity for increased energy capture, particularly during the low-angle sunlight periods at dawn and dusk. This ability to capitalize on diffuse and reflected irradiance adds a dimension of efficiency that is particularly advantageous in regions with significant ground albedo 21 , 24 or in installations with reflective surroundings.

Vertical bifacial PV vs tilted monofacial PV

Our comprehensive assessment extends to Fig.  5 a, b, which provide further evidence of the enhanced performance of the VBPV system compared to the TMPV system. These figures represent a pivotal set of data showcasing the daily power output and clearly delineate the differential advantages offered by the bifacial technology under varied lighting conditions.

Comparative daily power output of VBPV versus TMPV Systems, ( a ) Day 1, ( b ) Day 2. This data was taken on 7 th May 2023, with a mean temperature of 16.7 °C.

In Fig.  5 a, we observe that the VBPV system significantly surpasses the TMPV system during the early hours, with a recorded bifacial gain of 3.24 kWh between 5:30 and 9:00 AM. This trend of increased efficiency extends to the latter part of the day, with an additional gain of 2.59 kWh noted from 5:00 to 8:30 PM. The aggregate gain for the VBPV system in this instance is an impressive 4.92 kWh, which equates to an enhancement of 25.38% when compared to its monofacial counterpart.

Similarly, Fig.  5 b corroborates the superior performance of the bifacial system. The morning hours once again present a marked advantage with a bifacial gain of 2.71 kWh. The evening period contributes to this lead with a gain of 2.03 kWh. Together, these increases amount to a total gain of 3.91 kWh for the VBPV system, representing a 21.40% boost in power output over the TMPV system.

The substantial gains in power output during the less intense light conditions of morning and evening highlight the potential for VBPV systems to provide a more consistent energy supply throughout the day, mitigating the well-known midday peak in power generation associated with traditional solar systems. This distribution of energy generation could align more closely with typical consumption patterns, thereby enhancing the match between supply and demand. For instance, residential energy consumption typically peaks in the early morning and late afternoon to evening hours, coinciding with periods when people are at home and engaging in activities such as cooking, heating, and using electronic devices 37 . Similarly, commercial buildings experience peak energy demand in the late morning and early afternoon, driven by the operation of lighting, HVAC systems, and office equipment 38 , 39 . By aligning energy generation with these demand patterns, VBPV systems can improve grid stability and reduce the reliance on energy storage solutions or supplementary power sources.

Monthly power gain comparison

This section analyzes the performance enhancements of the VBPV system in comparison to both VMPV and TMPV systems, as depicted in Figs.  6 and 7 , respectively. Figure  6 offers a nuanced view of the monthly power gains achieved by the VBPV system over the VMPV system, categorized by season. The histograms detail the frequency of power gain percentages, with a red dashed line indicating the seasonal average. In spring, the VBPV system shows a robust average power gain of 11.42%, indicating its superior performance during a time when sun angles and daylight hours start to increase. Summer, typically characterized by high solar irradiance, presents an average gain of 8.13%, a figure that might reflect high baseline performance from the VMPV system, reducing the relative gain. Autumn and winter follow with average gains of 10.94% and 12.45%, respectively, illustrating the VBPV system's effective light capture even during seasons with lower solar angles and shorter daylight hours.

VBPV compared to VMPV. ( a ) Monthly power gain (Percentage, %) for VBPV over VMPV. ( b ) Seasonal variations in power gain (Percentage, %) for VBPV over VMPV. The histograms represent the frequency distribution of the power gain percentages, and the red dashed lines indicate the seasonal average power gains.

VBPV compared to TMPV. ( a ) Monthly power gain (Percentage, %) for VBPV over TMPV. ( b ) Seasonal variations in power gain (Percentage, %) for VBPV over TMPV. The histograms represent the frequency distribution of the power gain percentages, and the red dashed lines indicate the seasonal average power gains.

Turning to Fig.  7 , the VBPV system's performance is compared with the TMPV system. Here, the seasonal average power gains are significantly higher, underscoring the VBPV system's advanced capabilities. Spring shows a remarkable average gain of 19.32%, indicating the profound impact of bifacial technology during this season. Summer months present an average gain of 14.77%, autumn shows a substantial 20.27%, and winter peaks with a 24.52% average gain, reinforcing the idea that the VBPV system's design is particularly beneficial in capturing low-angle light and diffused reflections, a common scenario in the colder months.

The data from Figs.  6 and 7 underscore the VBPV system's consistent and significant outperformance relative to both the VMPV and TMPV systems across all seasons. The marked efficiency of the VBPV system is reflective of its dual-capture capability, which enables it to harness light from both its front and rear surfaces. This capability is evidenced in the results by the substantial power gains observed during periods of diffuse light conditions, such as early morning and late afternoon, as well as during seasons with lower sun angles, like autumn and winter. Specifically, the VBPV system's ability to capture reflected light from the ground and surrounding surfaces significantly contributes to its enhanced performance, as demonstrated by the higher average power gains in comparison to monofacial systems. This dual-capture feature ensures that the VBPV system maximizes energy harvest from both direct sunlight and diffuse, reflected light, leading to a more consistent and higher overall energy output.

In concluding to this section, Fig.  8 offers a comprehensive statistical overview of the PV systems over an annual cycle. The box plot visualization encapsulates the monthly power gain percentages, delivering a succinct and robust comparative analysis. The box plots reveal that the VBPV system consistently exhibits higher power gains when compared to the TMPV and VMPV systems throughout the year. These gains are quantified by the median of each box, indicating that regardless of the month, the VBPV system capitalizes on its design, which allows it to capture additional energy from reflected light not accessible to monofacial systems.

Annual comparative analysis of monthly power gain percentages for VBPV versus TMPV and VBPV versus VMPV systems. The box plots illustrate the distribution of monthly power gain percentages for each system throughout the year. The blue box plot shows the power gain of the VBPV system compared to the TMPV system, while the green box plot shows the power gain of the VBPV system compared to the VMPV system. Median values are indicated by the horizontal lines within each box.

A critical observation from Fig.  8 is that the VBPV system not only outperforms the TMPV but also shows a significant advantage over the VMPV system. This distinction is noteworthy as it suggests that the enhancements in bifacial technology translate to tangible gains in power output, even when compared to a more conventional monofacial system like the VMPV. When analyzing the VBPV's performance against the TMPV system, we see an even more pronounced difference in reflective gain. The box plots for the VBPV and TMPV comparison stretch higher on the percentage axis, indicating that the traditional system, without the advanced technology of the VMPV, falls short in harnessing the available solar energy. Moreover, the box plots for the VBPV and VMPV comparison demonstrate that the VMPV, while more efficient than the TMPV, cannot match the VBPV system's capacity for increased energy capture. This pattern is consistent across all months, underlining the VBPV's superior design and efficiency.

To ascertain the financial benefits of VBPV systems, we conducted an analysis based on the monthly power gain percentages derived from empirical data, taken from Fig.  8 . Using an assumed standard monthly energy output of 1500 kWh as a baseline for all the systems, we applied the power gain percentages to estimate the additional energy produced solely due to the bifacial gain. The cost of electricity was factored in at the 2023 standard variable price of 28.62p/kWh. This price point reflects the retail electricity rate for an average consumer in the UK, which is subject to regional variations and market fluctuations. The analysis revealed discernible monthly fluctuations in savings (as shown in Fig.  9 ), which correspond with the changes in power gain percentages over the course of the year. The savings reached their zenith during the summer months, in alignment with the augmented power gains from increased solar irradiance. Conversely, the savings diminished during the winter months, reflecting the diminished solar irradiance inherent to the season.

Comparative Estimation of Monthly Savings Achieved Through Power Gain: A side-by-side comparison of the economic advantages of using VBPV systems versus VMPV systems (in green) and TMPV systems (in blue), across each month of the year.

For the VBPV compared with the VMPV systems, the additional solar energy captured by the bifacial technology translated into considerable monthly and cumulative annual savings. With the power output for these systems set at 1500 kWh, the use of VBPV systems resulted in a total estimated annual saving of £932.58 over the VMPV systems (Fig.  9 ). These savings are reflective of the consistent additional power generation offered by VBPV systems across all months, with the highest gains observed during the peak solar irradiance months of summer. In comparison to the TMPV systems, the VBPV systems demonstrated even greater economic advantages. The enhanced power gain percentages of VBPV systems, particularly noted during the winter months, emphasize their efficiency in low-irradiance conditions. The annual savings when comparing VBPV to TMPV systems amounted to a notable £1,221.13. This significant difference in savings highlights the VBPV system's ability to harness solar energy more effectively throughout the year, including during periods of lower sunlight availability.

In addition to the power gain analysis, a cost estimation comparison between the VBPV, VMPV, and TMPV systems is provided. The analysis considers the initial installation costs, maintenance costs, and the economic benefits derived from the increased energy output of the VBPV system. The initial installation cost of the VBPV system is higher than that of the VMPV and TMPV systems due to the advanced bifacial technology and the need for specialized mounting structures. Based on current market prices, the estimated cost per kW for VBPV systems is approximately £1,200, compared to £1,000 for VMPV and £900 for TMPV systems. Maintenance costs for VBPV systems are slightly lower due to the reduced accumulation of dirt and debris on vertically mounted panels.

To provide a comprehensive economic comparison, the annual energy savings and return on investment (ROI) were calculated. The cost of electricity in the UK is approximately £0.2862 per kWh. The annual additional energy produced by the VBPV system, as demonstrated in Fig.  9 , results in significant cost savings compared to VMPV and TMPV systems.

Bificail PV system gain vs solar irradiance

This section presents a critical analysis of the modeling challenges and successes encountered in simulating the performance of bifacial PV systems. Plane of Array (POA) irradiance, which refers to the solar irradiance incident on the plane of the PV array, is a key parameter in this analysis. However, to provide a complete picture of the relations, both direct and diffuse irradiance contributions to the bifacial gain are compared.

Figure  10 illuminates the relationship between bifacial gain and incident light, showcasing a clear trend where increased diffuse irradiance correlates with higher bifacial gain. This direct association highlights the complex interplay between light conditions and the energy capture efficiency of bifacial panels 7 . The scatter of data points emphasizes the difficulty in predicting performance due to the variability of solar irradiance, especially the proportion of diffuse light 40 . Such insights indicate that current modeling approaches may need refinement to account for this variability. This complexity is further evidenced by the limited data available for bifacial systems, which constrains the ability of models to accurately capture the nuances of their performance. The scarcity of robust datasets is a significant hurdle, suggesting a pressing need for more comprehensive data collection to improve the predictability and reliability of bifacial PV system models.

Correlation between bifacial gain and diffuse irradiance, highlighting the importance of diffuse light in bifacial PV system performance. The scatter plots show data points and regression lines indicating the trend, highlighting the significant role of diffuse irradiance in bifacial PV system performance.

Transitioning to Fig.  11 a, we examine the initial modeling attempts using the SAM NREL model 41 , 42 , which did not adequately capture the performance of the VBPV system. The figure portrays a significant discrepancy between modeled DC power and measured DC power, evidenced by the mean model error of 37.16% and an RMSE of 0.38%. This gap between expected and actual performance underscores the limitations of the model when it does not incorporate critical factors such as the variability of sunlight, particularly the diffuse component.

Modelling VBPV system output power (mix between hourly and daily data samples), ( a ) Initial modelling results, ( b ) Refined modelling results with adjusted sunlight variability.

In the quest to enhance the fidelity of PV system performance models, the incorporation of sunlight variability, specifically the ratio of diffuse to direct sunlight, stands as a pivotal aspect. This is particularly crucial for bifacial PV systems due to their ability to capture light from both their front and rear sides. The ratio of diffuse to direct sunlight can dramatically influence the amount of light received by the rear side of bifacial panels, which is not directly exposed to the sun. For this reason, Fig.  11 b presents a refined modeling approach where the variability of the sun, especially the ratio of diffuse to direct sunlight, is accounted for. The adjusted model results in a markedly improved correlation between modeled and measured DC power, with a substantially reduced mean model error of 11.55% and an RMSE of 0.12%. This improved alignment validates our hypothesis that incorporating the dynamic nature of sunlight, and its interactions with bifacial panels, is essential to accurately simulate their performance.

The refined model can be described by a set of equations that account for the bifacial gain, which is a function of both the direct and diffuse components of solar irradiance. The ratio of diffuse to direct irradiance, also known as the clearness index, is a crucial parameter in evaluating the performance of bifacial PV systems. This ratio, widely reported in the literature, indicates the proportion of solar radiation that is diffuse as opposed to direct. A higher clearness index signifies more diffuse light, which is particularly advantageous for bifacial systems as they can capture light from both their front and rear surfaces. According to 43 , understanding the clearness index is essential for accurately modeling bifacial PV performance, as it affects the amount of light available for the rear side of the panels. Similarly 44 , emphasized that regions with higher diffuse irradiance ratios exhibit enhanced bifacial gains. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating the clearness index in performance models for bifacial PV systems.

Let \({G}_{bifacial}\) be the bifacial gain, \({I}_{direct}\) is the direct irradiance, \({I}_{diffuse}\) is the diffuse irradiance, therefore, the bificail gain can be calculated in (2).

where \(\propto \) is the bifaciality coefficient for ground-reflected irradiance, \({R}_{ground}\) is the ground albedo, \(\beta \) is the bifaciality coefficient for sky-diffuse irradiance, and \({R}_{sky}\) is a factor representing the effective sky view factor affecting diffuse irradiance capture. The total amount of power output, \({P}_{modelled}\) , can then be calculated by (3). Where \({P}_{STC}\) is the power output under standard test conditions, \({\eta }_{conversion}\) is the conversion efficiency of the PV cells, and \(FF\) is the fill factor.

To calibrate the model with respect to the ratio of diffuse to direct sunlight, we introduce weighting coefficients that adjust the impact of each component on the total irradiance. The calibration process involves optimizing these coefficients so that the model output matches measured data as closely as possible. This was achieved by adjusting, \({w}_{direct}\) and \({w}_{diffuse}\) , the weighting coefficients for direct and diffuse irradiance, respectively. And therefore, to find the total effective irradiance, \({I}_{effective}\) calculated using (4). The optimization process aims to find the values of \({w}_{direct}\) and \({w}_{diffuse}\) , that minimize the error between the modeled and measured power output. This was achieved using an Levenberg–Marquardt optimization algorithm 45 , which is suited for solving non-linear least squares problems 46 .

Figure  12 presents the outcomes of modelling bifacial gain versus irradiance over two distinct temporal scales: daily and hourly. In the top panel, showcasing daily data, we observe the daily bifacial gain plotted against the day of the year. The data points, marked in blue, display a degree of variability that seems to follow a seasonal trend, likely reflecting the sinusoidal nature of solar irradiance throughout the year. A polynomial model fit, depicted by the red dashed line, attempts to capture this underlying trend. The fit seems to trace the central tendency of the data but does not adhere closely to individual data points, reflecting in a mean model error of 3.71% and an RMSE of 0.07. These metrics suggest that while the model grasps the general pattern, there is room for improvement, particularly in capturing the daily variability.

Comparative analysis of bifacial gain vs. irradiance on daily and hourly basis. The top panel illustrates the variation and model fit of daily bifacial gain over a year, while the bottom panel depicts the hourly bifacial gain for a week. The polynomial model fits (red dashed line for daily data, orange dashed line for hourly data) highlight the challenge in capturing temporal dynamics in bifacial PV system performance.

The bottom panel of Fig.  12 displays the hourly data, where each green dot represents the hourly bifacial gain for a particular hour of the week. Here, the volatility is more pronounced, reflecting the more dynamic changes in irradiance that occur throughout the day. The hourly model fit, illustrated by the orange dashed line, shows considerable deviation from the actual data points, with a mean error of 9.61% and an RMSE of 0.19. This discrepancy indicates that the hourly variations in irradiance and corresponding bifacial gain are not adequately captured by the current model, suggesting a need for a more complex or different modeling approach for short-term predictions.

The environmental and economic implications of adopting VBPV systems on a large scale are multifaceted and far-reaching. Environmentally, the most significant impact would be the substantial reduction in carbon emissions. Solar power is a clean, renewable resource, and the increased efficiency of VBPV systems means that more electricity can be generated per unit area compared to traditional solar solutions. This increased efficiency is critical in densely populated or land-scarce regions where the optimization of limited space is essential. Furthermore, the dual-sided nature of bifacial panels captures reflected light, enhancing energy yield and reducing the need for additional land, which is crucial for preserving natural habitats and biodiversity. These findings are consistent with studies that highlight the environmental benefits of bifacial PV systems, such as reduced land use 47 and lower carbon footprint 48 .

From an economic standpoint, the adoption of VBPV systems could lead to substantial cost savings over time. Although the initial investment might be higher than traditional systems due to the advanced technology involved, the higher energy yield and efficiency of VBPV systems will likely result in lower long-term costs. According to recent studies, bifacial PV systems can provide a return on investment that is 20–30% higher compared to monofacial systems due to the additional energy captured from the rear side 47 , 48 . Additionally, the maintenance costs might be lower due to the vertical design, which is less prone to dirt accumulation and potential shading issues. This factor alone could make VBPV systems more economically viable, especially in regions where labour and maintenance costs are significant factors.

The findings of this study have profound implications for global renewable energy strategies. The enhanced efficiency of VBPV systems aligns well with the growing global emphasis on sustainable development and the urgent need to shift to renewable energy sources. Studies have demonstrated the viability of bifacial PV systems in various urban environments, highlighting their adaptability and high energy yield even in constrained spaces 47 . For instance, bifacial PV installations on building facades and rooftops have shown significant energy production benefits 49 , supporting the transition to more sustainable urban infrastructure. By demonstrating the potential of VBPV systems in diverse environmental settings, this technology could play a pivotal role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

In terms of policy and planning, these findings could influence government and industry leaders to reconsider their investment strategies. Encouraging the adoption of VBPV technology in urban planning and building design could be a significant step towards achieving energy efficiency targets. The literature since 2018 has explored various aspects of bifacial PV systems, emphasizing their efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and integration into smart grids such 50 , 51 . Future research should focus on testing VBPV systems in a variety of geographical locations and environmental conditions to validate and extend these findings. Additionally, it would be beneficial to explore the integration of VBPV systems with other renewable energy technologies such as wind or hydroelectric power to create more robust and resilient energy systems.

The specific geographical location and environmental conditions of York, UK, where this study was conducted, play a significant role in the performance of VBPV systems. York experiences a temperate maritime climate, characterized by relatively mild temperatures throughout the year, moderate rainfall, and variable cloud cover. The average annual temperature is around 10°C, with average daylight hours ranging from approximately 5–7 h in winter to 14–16 h in summer. The sun angle in York varies significantly with the seasons, reaching a maximum elevation of about 62 degrees during the summer solstice and a minimum of approximately 15 degrees during the winter solstice. These climatic conditions and solar geometry are critical factors influencing the performance of VBPV systems, as they determine the amount of direct and diffuse irradiance received by the panels.

In summary, the environmental and economic potential of VBPV systems is significant, with the possibility to make a considerable impact on global renewable energy strategies. However, acknowledging and addressing the limitations of current research is crucial in advancing this technology and maximizing its benefits.

Conclusions

This pioneering study on the VBPV system marks a significant leap forward in the realm of solar energy technology. Our comprehensive year-long research at the University of York, UK, serves as the first in-depth exploration of this innovative concept, diverging from conventional solar panel installations. The VBPV system, with its vertical orientation and utilization of advanced HJT cells, has demonstrated exceptional performance, surpassing traditional solar solutions in efficiency and energy output.

Key findings of this study reveal the superior capability of the VBPV system compared to its counterparts. Notably, the system outperformed VMPV system, showing a 7.12% and 10.12% increase in daily power output during early morning and late afternoon periods. When compared to a traditional TMPV system, the VBPV system exhibited even more remarkable gains, with a 26.91% and 22.88% enhancement in energy output in similar time frames. Seasonal analysis further highlights the system's efficiency, with average power gains of 11.42% in spring, 8.13% in summer, 10.94% in autumn, and 12.45% in winter over the VMPV system. Against the TMPV system, these gains peaked at an impressive 24.52% in the winter months.

These findings underscore the VBPV system's unparalleled ability to harness solar energy efficiently, irrespective of seasonal variances. Its design not only maximizes land use but also integrates seamlessly with modern architectural landscapes, adding an aesthetic value to its functional benefits. The system's bifacial technology, capable of capturing solar radiation from both sides, significantly boosts its energy yield, making it a potent solution for regions with variable sun exposure and reflective environments.

In conclusion, the VBPV system emerges as a promising solution for the future of sustainable energy. Its innovative design, superior efficiency, and adaptability to various environmental conditions position it as an ideal candidate for widespread adoption in both urban and rural settings. This study paves the way for future research and development in photovoltaic technology, encouraging a shift towards more efficient, environmentally friendly, and architecturally integrated solar energy solutions. As the first paper to delve into this new PV technology and concept design, it lays a strong foundation for the evolution of solar energy systems, steering the industry towards a more sustainable and energy-efficient future.

Data availability

Data will be made available on reasonable request to the corresponding author of the paper.

Abbreviations

Computational fluid dynamics

Direct current

Heterojunction

Interdigitated Back Contact

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell

Passivated Emitter Rear Locally Diffused

Passivated Emitter Rear Totally Diffused

Plane of Array

Photovoltaic

Root mean square error

Standard test conditions

Tilted monofacial photovoltaic

Vertical bifacial photovoltaic

Vertical monofacial photovoltaic

Durusoy, B., Ozden, T. & Akinoglu, B. G. Solar irradiation on the rear surface of bifacial solar modules: A modeling approach. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 13300 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kim, S. et al. Over 30% efficiency bifacial 4-terminal perovskite-heterojunction silicon tandem solar cells with spectral albedo. Sci. Rep. 11 (1), 15524 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen, M. et al. Improvement of the electricity performance of bifacial PV module applied on the building envelope. Energy Build. 238 , 110849 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Tina, G. M., Scavo, F. B., Aneli, S. & Gagliano, A. Assessment of the electrical and thermal performances of building integrated bifacial photovoltaic modules. J. Clean. Prod. 313 , 127906 (2021).

Marion, B. Measured and satellite-derived albedo data for estimating bifacial photovoltaic system performance. Solar Energy 215 , 321–327 (2021).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Alam, M., Gul, M. S. & Muneer, T. Performance analysis and comparison between bifacial and monofacial solar photovoltaic at various ground albedo conditions. Renew Energy Focus 44 , 295–316 (2023).

Pal, S. S., van Loenhout, F. H., Westerhof, J., & Saive, R. (2023). Understanding and benchmarking ground reflectors for bifacial photovoltaic yield enhancement. IEEE J. Photovolt .

Tsuchida, S., Tsuno, Y., Sato, D., Oozeki, T., & Yamada, N. (2023). Albedo-dependent bifacial gain losses in photovoltaic modules with rear-side support structures. IEEE J. Photovolt .

Hayibo, K. S., Petsiuk, A., Mayville, P., Brown, L. & Pearce, J. M. Monofacial vs bifacial solar photovoltaic systems in snowy environments. Renew. Energy 193 , 657–668 (2022).

Olczak, P., Olek, M., Matuszewska, D., Dyczko, A. & Mania, T. Monofacial and bifacial micro pv installation as element of energy transition: The case of poland. Energies 14 (2), 499 (2021).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Deline, C. A., Ayala Pelaez, S., Marion, W. F., Sekulic, W. R., Woodhouse, M. A., & Stein, J. (2019). Bifacial PV system performance: Separating fact from fiction (No. NREL/PR-5K00-74090). National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).

Li, Z. et al. A comprehensive life cycle assessment study of innovative bifacial photovoltaic applied on building. Energy 245 , 123212 (2022).

Valencia-Caballero, D. et al. Experimental energy performance assessment of a bifacial photovoltaic system and effect of cool roof coating. J. Build. Eng. 80 , 108009 (2023).

Riaz, M. H., Imran, H., Younas, R. & Butt, N. Z. The optimization of vertical bifacial photovoltaic farms for efficient agrivoltaic systems. Solar Energy 230 , 1004–1012 (2021).

G. Badran, G., & Dhimish, M. (2024). Short term performance and degradation trends in bifacial versus monofacial PV systems: A U.K. Case Study. IEEE J. Photovolt . https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2024.3414131 .

Riaz, M. H., Imran, H., Younas, R., Alam, M. A. & Butt, N. Z. Module technology for agrivoltaics: Vertical bifacial versus tilted monofacial farms. IEEE J. Photovolt. 11 (2), 469–477 (2021).

Riedel-Lyngskær, N. et al. Validation of bifacial photovoltaic simulation software against monitoring data from large-scale single-axis trackers and fixed tilt systems in Denmark. Appl. Sci. 10 (23), 8487 (2020).

Rodrigo, P. M., Mouhib, E., Fernandez, E. F., Almonacid, F. & Rosas-Caro, J. C. Comprehensive ground coverage analysis of large-scale fixed-tilt bifacial photovoltaic plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 192 , 114229 (2024).

Tahir, Z. & Butt, N. Z. Implications of spatial-temporal shading in agrivoltaics under fixed tilt & tracking bifacial photovoltaic panels. Renew. Energy 190 , 167–176 (2022).

Patel, M. T. et al. Global analysis of next-generation utility-scale PV: Tracking bifacial solar farms. Appl. Energy 290 , 116478 (2021).

Rodríguez-Gallegos, C. D., Gandhi, O., Panda, S. K. & Reindl, T. On the PV tracker performance: tracking the sun versus tracking the best orientation. IEEE J. Photovolt. 10 (5), 1474–1480 (2020).

Rodríguez-Gallegos, C. D. et al. Global techno-economic performance of bifacial and tracking photovoltaic systems. Joule 4 (7), 1514–1541 (2020).

Ernst, M. et al. Accurate modelling of the bifacial gain potential of rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 300 , 117947 (2024).

Jouttijärvi, S. et al. A comprehensive methodological workflow to maximize solar energy in low-voltage grids: A case study of vertical bifacial panels in Nordic conditions. Solar Energy 262 , 111819 (2023).

McIntosh, K. R., Abbott, M. D., Sudbury, B. A. & Meydbray, J. Mismatch loss in bifacial modules due to nonuniform illumination in 1-D tracking systems. IEEE J. Photovolt. 9 (6), 1504–1512 (2019).

Russell, A. C., Valdivia, C. E., Bohémier, C., Haysom, J. E. & Hinzer, K. DUET: A novel energy yield model with 3-D shading for bifacial photovoltaic systems. IEEE J. Photovolt. 12 (6), 1576–1585 (2022).

Rüdiger, M. et al. Bifacial n-type silicon solar cells for upconversion applications. Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells 128 , 57–68 (2014).

Sugiura, T., Matsumoto, S. & Nakano, N. Bifacial PERC solar cell designs: Bulk and rear properties and illumination condition. IEEE J. Photovolt. 10 (6), 1538–1544 (2020).

Rehman, A. U., Nadeem, M. & Usman, M. Passivated emitter and rear totally diffused: PERT solar cell-an overview. Silicon 15 (2), 639–649 (2023).

Preu, R., Lohmüller, E., Lohmüller, S., Saint-Cast, P., & Greulich, J. M. (2020). Passivated emitter and rear cell—Devices, technology, and modeling. Appl. Phys. Rev. 7 (4).

Ma, J. et al. Design, realization and loss analysis of efficient low-cost large-area bifacial interdigitated-back-contact solar cells with front floating emitter. Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells 235 , 111466 (2022).

Sen, C. et al. Accelerated damp-heat testing at the cell-level of bifacial silicon HJT, PERC and TOPCon solar cells using sodium chloride. Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells 262 , 112554 (2023).

Kopecek, R. & Libal, J. Bifacial photovoltaics 2021: Status, opportunities and challenges. Energies 14 (8), 2076 (2021).

Hasan, A. & Dincer, I. A new performance assessment methodology of bifacial photovoltaic solar panels for offshore applications. Energy Conv. Manag. 220 , 112972 (2020).

Zhao, C., Xiao, J., Yu, Y. & Jaubert, J. N. Accurate shading factor and mismatch loss analysis of bifacial HSAT systems through ray-tracing modeling. Solar Energy Adv. 1 , 100004 (2021).

Ahmed, E. M. et al. An accurate model for bifacial photovoltaic panels. Sustainability 15 (1), 509 (2022).

Afzalan, M. & Jazizadeh, F. Residential loads flexibility potential for demand response using energy consumption patterns and user segments. Appl. Energy 254 , 113693 (2019).

Happle, G., Fonseca, J. A. & Schlueter, A. Impacts of diversity in commercial building occupancy profiles on district energy demand and supply. Appl. Energy 277 , 115594 (2020).

Zhang, W. & Calautit, J. Occupancy behaviour and patterns: Impact on energy consumption of high-rise households in southeast China. Smart Energy 6 , 100072 (2022).

Lorenzo, E. On the historical origins of bifacial PV modelling. Solar Energy 218 , 587–595 (2021).

Pelaez, S. A., Deline, C., Marion, B., Sekulic, B., Parker, J., McDanold, B., & Stein, J. S. (2020). Field-array benchmark of commercial bifacial PV technologies with publicly available data. In  2020 47th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC)  (pp. 1757–1759). IEEE.

Ayala Pelaez, S., Deline, C. A., Marion, W. F., Sekulic, W. R., & Stein, J. S. (2020). Understanding Bifacial PV Modeling: Raytracing and View Factor Models (No. NREL/PR-5K00–75628). National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).

Yin, H. P. et al. Optical enhanced effects on the electrical performance and energy yield of bifacial PV modules. Solar Energy 217 , 245–252 (2021).

Sun, X., Khan, M. R., Deline, C. & Alam, M. A. Optimization and performance of bifacial solar modules: A global perspective. Appl. Energy 212 , 1601–1610 (2018).

Ridha, H. M. et al. On the problem formulation for parameter extraction of the photovoltaic model: Novel integration of hybrid evolutionary algorithm and Levenberg Marquardt based on adaptive damping parameter formula. Energy Convers. Manag. 256 , 115403 (2022).

Ghenai, C., Ahmad, F. F., Rejeb, O. & Bettayeb, M. Artificial neural networks for power output forecasting from bifacial solar PV system with enhanced building roof surface Albedo. J. Build. Eng. 56 , 104799 (2022).

Mouhib, E. et al. Enhancing land use: Integrating bifacial PV and olive trees in agrivoltaic systems. Appl. Energy 359 , 122660 (2024).

Mouhib, E., Micheli, L., Almonacid, F. M. & Fernández, E. F. Overview of the fundamentals and applications of bifacial photovoltaic technology: Agrivoltaics and aquavoltaics. Energies 15 (23), 8777 (2022).

McIntosh, K. R., Abbott, M. D. & Sudbury, B. A. The optimal tilt angle of monofacial and bifacial modules on single-axis trackers. IEEE J. Photovolt. 12 (1), 397–405 (2021).

Mastrucci, A., van Ruijven, B., Byers, E., Poblete-Cazenave, M. & Pachauri, S. Global scenarios of residential heating and cooling energy demand and CO2 emissions. Clim. Change 168 , 1–26 (2021).

Badran, G., & Dhimish, M. (2024). A comparative study of bifacial versus monofacial PV systems at the UK largest solar plant. Clean Energy, zkae043.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the EPSRC IAA under the project "Next-Generation Vertically Mounted Bifacial Solar Panels: Conceptualization, Field Testing, and Energy Performance Monitoring." We are grateful for the industrial collaboration and financial backing provided by Over Easy Solar AS and the Norwegian Research Council. Special thanks are extended to Richard Armitage, Electrical Technician, and Andy White, Chief Engineer at the University of York, for their invaluable assistance with the installation of the VBPV system. Additionally, we acknowledge the OverEasy team, particularly Jørgen Wallerud and Trygve Mongstad, for their pivotal role in facilitating the acquisition and funding of this system in the UK.

EPSRC, Next-Generation Vertically Mounted Bifacial Solar Panels: Conceptualization, Field Testing, and Energy Performance Monitoring, Next-Generation Vertically Mounted Bifacial Solar Panels: Conceptualization, Field Testing, and Energy Performance Monitoring.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Physics, Engineering and Technology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Ghadeer Badran & Mahmoud Dhimish

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors discussed the organization and the content of the manuscript. G.B. performed the experiments, prepared figures, and wrote the main manuscript text. M.G validated the experimental results and revised the manuscript. Both authors have approved the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ghadeer Badran .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Badran, G., Dhimish, M. Comprehensive study on the efficiency of vertical bifacial photovoltaic systems: a UK case study. Sci Rep 14 , 18380 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68018-1

Download citation

Received : 25 January 2024

Accepted : 18 July 2024

Published : 08 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68018-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.