Farnsworth House

Built in 1950 by Mies van der Rohe, the Farnsworth house is an example of modernist architecture. The aspect of the house that I found to be the most interesting was the use of I-beams. The first thing that I noticed while looking at the house is that it appears to be floating above the plane on which it rests. This was made possible by the extending the external structure of the house another 5 feet below the the floor, creating stilts. I found the choice to expose the I-beam to be particularly beautiful. The way the floor and roof attach to the structure was done in a minimal, simplistic fashion. There are no visible weld or fasteners. Everything is ground smooth and painted white. By having minimal joints and surface variation, the beams are allowed to stay true to their original shape and function. There is no attempt made to “cheat” in regards to materials. Mies also made a choice to not cut or form the beams in any manner. Keeping the material clean and true to its original form allows the viewer to focus on the details that are created along the window frame and roof. 

Having the external beam structure gave Mies some options as far as window placement and size. He was not limited by the typical stud layout of wall but only by the grid that he created. The reduction of number of vertical members allowed Mies to use very large floor to ceiling glass windows to enclose the house. Being only 1/4” thick glass, it was very crucial that the structure was engineered correctly to reduce the load placed on the windows.

The large windows and external structure allowed the space to be an open plan. Along with the open feeling comes the feeling of vulnerability. Within the space there are only two enclosed rooms, the main bathroom and guest bathroom. Everything else is open. Whomever lived in the house had almost no privacy from spectators coming to look at the house. This allowed the house to become more about experiencing the site then the architecture. It seems as though the space was built to provide the perfect shelter for observing the changing of seasons.

There is a lack of enclosed private spaces in the house, but that is nothing compared to the lack of storage. There is almost no storage at all. Except for a few cupboards to put dishes in, there is nothing else. It is my thinking that Mies did not want to ruin the space and view that he painstakingly created by cluttering it up with useless closets and storage spaces. From an outsider perspective you could see directly through the house from almost any positioning. This had to have made the occupant felt uncomfortable. The openness created a stage like atmosphere where whoever was living in the house would have been on display.

Charnley House

Built in the early 1890’s, the Charnley house was designed by Louis Sullivan, with help from a young draftsman named Frank Lloyd Wright. The first thing that struck me about the Charnley house was the simplistic nature of it compared to other houses from that timer period. I was able to understand the layout of the floor plan with only a few laps around the interior of the space. Unlike the Queen Anne, this floor plan was straight forward and fairly symmetrical. There was a less noticeable division of the service and the served. The simplicity of the space made allowed me to focus more on the details of the building. The first detail that caught me totally off guard was the sky light in the center of the house. Much like a commercial building, the skylight opened up the center of the space allowing natural light to flood the main level. This architectural move also helped define the remaining floors by creating a void to work around. A similar building that comes to mind is Milwaukee’s City Hall, only their skylight is done on a much grander scale. On the exterior of the building there were several elements that drew my attention. The first would be the heavy stone base of the building. Typical of the classical revival style in America, the heavy stone bases paid homage to classic Roman and Greek structures. The visual weight served to ground the structure and give it a more dominating presence among the other structures within the neighborhood. Another element that made me do a double take was the style of brick the was used on this house. The bricks that were used were referred to as “Roman Style.” This meaning that were we longer than a standard brick, but still had a similar height. This allowed the facade of the building to have fewer vertical mortar lines, thus adding to the linear quality of the building. The columns that were used on the second story porch were a derived from traditional Italian columns. The have almost no ornamentation or capital details on them. It seemed as if Sullivan wanted them to flow in the rest of the building with relative ease. The roof was a bit of confusion for me. Before this house, I had not seen a low roof line like this one. It almost seemed to verge on the beginnings of prairie style. This made me question how much influence Wright had into the overall design.

Miller House

Built in 1887 as a wedding gift, the George P Miller house is an example of a house that combines two prevalent architectural styles of the time. These styles would be Queen Anne and Richardson Romanesque. The first thing that I noticed about this house the rustication on the front facade. Another aspect was the visual weight of the house. This was portrayed predominately in the arches and lintels. They were enlarged and made of stone. They almost seemed to dominate the lower half of the front of the house. The use of an arch over the entry way was very common in Romanesque houses. The ornamentation that was used not only in the iron work but carved into the stone only added to my thinking that this house was Romanesque. It gave a sense of revival without coming out and being so obnoxious about it. On the front facade, the main building material used was sandstone. On the other levels, along with the rear of the house, cream city brick was used. It was my thinking that this was done for the same effect that Greek revival used columns, to showcase the status but still keep a fairly reasonable budget. While the use of stone and masonry point in the direction of Romanesque, the plan and elevation of the house suggest otherwise. While it may have seemed very grounded because of the use of stone, the elevation of the house gave a very tall, vertical feeling. The turret on the front corner of the house only added to that feeling. The long cylindrical shape helped the house from being crushed under its own visual weight. In plan, the house was very deep, from front to back. Romanesque houses were fairly wide. The addition of the turret was very Queen Anne in the way it pulled mass out of the main rectangular shape that made up the major parts of the house. On the interior, its centrally located grand stair case only added to my thinking that this house had some Queen Anne influence while it was being designed. The reason that I cannot definitively call this piece entirely Queen Anne is because of the heavy use of stone to create walls of the house. Typically, Queen Anne houses used wood as a dominate building material.

Queen Anne-Kneeland Walker House

To get a closer look at the architectural style known as Queen Anne, we went to several different houses. My favorite one so far was the Kneeland Walker house in Wauwatosa. Built in 1890, the Kneeland house was the biggest house for miles around. What struck me most about the house was the use of different materials. There was brick, stone, wood, glass and copper. In comparison to the other house we have seen, this was a dramatic shift. According to Handlin, this shift in material usage was most likely brought on by the advancement of the transportation in America. Through the expansion of the shipping routes and railways, materials could now be brought in from other parts of the country at a cheaper price. As a home owner, you were no longer limited to the local materials. You could order stone from three states away and get it at fair price. The materials on the Kneeland house appeared to be divided based on the level of the house. Brick was the predominant material on the first level, but it does not make another appearance on any other level,

except for the chimney. The same could be said for the wooden siding. It is the material of choice for the upper levels but is not used on the lower level. The separation of materials, brick from wood, gives the house a very grounded feel. It makes it feel strong, sturdy, and almost temple like. The floor plan was centered around a grand stair case, which was typical for these types of houses. It appeared to be the prime location for addressing a large audience. An aspect that was not in the houses that we looked at prior to this was the idea of service. Besides the grand stair case, the floor plan was geared to hide the help from the family and there guests. There were several entrances and exits to the kitchen. Also, the third floor was well equipped to be the living quarter for the help. The house was built during the time of great financial prosperity for many Americans. People could now afford to have a staff. The key was keeping them out of sight from the guests.

Old World Wisconsin/Damon House

I thought it would be interesting to compare some of the houses that I saw at Old World Wisconsin with the Damon house in Wauwatosa. While at Old World Wisconsin, I was particularly drawn to the Koepsell farmhouse in the German area. I found the  timber and brick method of construction to be not only be aesthetically pleasing, but also very efficient in terms of materials and structure. 

The biggest difference that comes to mind when thinking about these two houses is the amount of refinement that the Damon house had over the Koepsell farmhouse. Both houses were constructed in the mid 1800’s in relatively the same geographical location, but they look like they came from two different time periods. The Koepsell house held on to it German routes while the Damon house showed a few traits of Greek Revival. The custom trim work and faux columns hinted at some Greek inspiration. It adopted more a New England Colonial style in terms of the roofline and fenestration. Im not saying that the Damon house is a superior building by any standard. I just found it interesting that a time when some houses payed attention architectural ornamentation and details, others were focused purely on function. I guess the same could be said about some structures today, but not to the extremes that these two houses were. According to David Handlin, who wrote American Architecture, the lack of ornamentation on the Koepesell house could be based on several factors. These factors would include financial status, location relative to other members of the community, lack of central government and lack of trained architects.

Kilbourntown House

Greek revival was a style was a style that became popular country wide in the mid to late 1800’s. (Walker 108) The Kilbourntown house,built in 1844 by Benjamin Church, is a great example of the Greek revival style. Walking up to house, one of the first and most obvious things that you notice is the four doric columns that line the front porch. The columns along with the extended pediment are some key ingredients that make this type of architecture Greek Revival. While looking at this house I was a little puzzled by the roof. While it looks mainly like a southern plantation style house, it also has element of a New England greek revival town house. Seeing as how the house was built from a parts kit from New York, it only makes sense that there would be some east coat influence within the architecture.

While in the house there were several things that caught my attention. The first thing I noticed when I went through the door was the ceiling height. In today’s world we have become accustomed to 8ft ceiling heights. It was a little weird to walk into a room and have the ceiling be 11ft. It seemed to give the house more a more open feel without increasing the square footage of the floor plan. Another detail that caught my attention was the trim work around the door frames. The jog that was created seemed to highlight the skill of the craftsmen that created it. In turn, it also reflected the wealth that Benjamin Church had. It also reminded me of art deco or arts and crafts but  little more refined and cleaner. 

On the out side of the house there were small windows in the frieze that were similar to scroll work that would be seen in same place on a New England Greek revival townhouse. Normally Im not a huge fan of any type of revival architecture, but I enjoyed this house. There was not an exuberant amount of ornamentation. I did not find the details of the frieze, cornice, and pediment too distracting. They may not have essential for the structure of the house but they highlighted the skill of the craftsmen and also allowed the owner, Benjamin Church, a chance to showcase his financial status.

Milwaukee Public Museum

I had always assumed the first forms of architecture in North America had come over with the settlers from Europe. I discovered however, that the natives that lived here were not only skilled in the ways that they constructed their shelters but they had been doing so since 300 A.D. Before this trip to the museum I was able to name only two type of shelters that were constructed by the natives. I didn't even really consider those shelters types of architecture. After the trip however I was able to break down the different types of shelters into 9 distinct types. These would be the earth lodge, pueblo, pole and thatch, tipi, longhouse, wigwam, hogan, plank house, and igloo. (Walker) Within those 9 types there was different variations on each shelter based on the location. 

 The shelter that I focused on the most was the Long House. This structure had the beginnings of gabled roofed houses that we see today. The structure was made of logs and bark that were bound together by some form of lashing. I found this aspect of the shelter to be particularly interesting. The idea of creating a structure and not using any form of fasteners amazed me. It made me realize that the real strength of the shelter came from the design and the not the materials that were used to construct it. The natives were smart enough to realize that the load of the roof would be supported if the weight was distributed evenly over more vertical supports. They also gave some consideration as to how they would arrange the shingles. The natives also constructed the structure to allow for expansion as the size of the family grew. (Walker 30) The idea of community may have been what caught me off guard the most. I discovered that within one of these long houses as many as 40 families would live together. Even though there was animal skin dividers set up, there was almost no privacy.