AR307-House & Housing: Essay

Vasileios Iliopoulos
Rudin House, by Herzog & de Meuron (1997)
Chamberlain Cottage, by Breuer and Gropius (1940)

Architectural qualities beyond time and place:

Rudin House and Chamberlain Cottage

House Rudin (also known as Haus Rudin or Project 128) is situated in Leymen,
France, close to the border with Switzerland. Its construction was completed in 1997,
and it was designed by Swiss architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron in
1996. The house was commissioned by the art gallery owner Hanspeter Rudin.

Herzog & de Meuron is one of the most well known architectural firms,
internationally. It was established in 1978, three years after Jacques Herzog and
Pierre de Meuron finished their studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
(ETH). In 2001 the firm received the Pritzker Architecture Prize (which is often
referred to as the Nobel Prize for architecture) for their conversion of the Bankside
Power Station to the Tate Modern Gallery, in London.

Their work can be characterized by their choice of materiality, the clarity of their
forms and the purity of their designs. They state that they have been influenced by
minimalism and modernism, and the art of Andy Warhol
(http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/practice/writings/conversations/kipnis.html).
Andy Warhol also used various materials in his art and he, much like Herzog and de
Meuron, was challenging tradition and what was widely accepted/done. These
elements can be clearly seen in Rudin House.

For a brief first idea of the houses exterior, the house could seem like it is a
simplistic, almost childish, archetype for a house, in rural central Europe, as said by
the architects themselves. It has four exterior walls and a gable roof.

1
 Picture 1-Rudin House1

House Rudin was conceived at a time when the world was marching towards a new
millennium. Architects were in search for something new, which many tried to
achieve through post-modern designs, inspired by older architectural movements,
such as Art Nouveau (amongst other things, postmodernism in architecture attempts
to bring back decorative ornaments even colliding ones- in contrast to the strict
character of the International Style). This often meant a large-scale, -overly-
decorated building, which could by many be perceived as kitsch.

Instead of doing the easy thing and result to recycling older ideas that could
possibly lead to a doubtful result, Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron re-invented
the archetype for a house; using the basic idea around a typical house, they
designed their own interpretation of what could potentially be a kids drawing, i.e. the
epitome of simplicity and minimalism, which speaks for the architects consistency to
their original principle regarding this building. That is a simple, four-walled house,
with a gable roof. Also, the size of the house was determined only by the necessary
spaces (the internal spaces of the house cover about 160m2). Actually, the architects
might have even tried to make the House appear to be smaller, as it is very hard to
tell that there is a third level to it, when looking at it from the outside. This makes it
easy to tell that grandeur was not the idea behind this design, something not so
usual for a house of that budget. Please note that as this essay was being written,
the house was estimated to worth approximately 1,175,0002.

This house, though, also has some elements that bridge a childs drawing and a
contemporary residence; all its walls are made of solid concrete. It is elevated from

1
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md0h8z7h9M1r56udmo1_r1_500.jpg
2
http://www.themodernhouse.net/rudin-house/description/

2
the ground. It rests on a platform, supported by 4 columns, making it seem almost
like its floating in the air, something that is in complete contrast with this structures
enormous weight (both actual and expected), as it is entirely made of concrete. In
a way, one could reach the conclusion that a childs drawing can be modern in its
simplicity, which, in artistic terms could become almost synonymous to minimalism.

The unfinished concrete all over the exterior walls allows us to experience the true
materiality and nature of the structure. This materiality is heavily enhanced by the
marks left clearly on the house by natural elements, such as water or time. In a way,
this balances the dreamy, if you like, character of the house. As Jacques Herzog
said, we love it when the rain leaves traces on a faade like tears on a face. The
surface then becomes a natural surface, like a rock. We try to accelerate these
changes or to accentuate them. The unique feature of Rudin House is that the water
does not run down evenly3.

Picture 2-Visible watermarks on Rudin House4

The sense of relaxation that this house gives is another important aspect of it. This
can be seen in the cantilevered balconies, one of which does not serve as a seating
area, as it is covered by a thin layer of water. It serves as a stage that brings a
peaceful feeling to and in the house, through the relaxation provided by the sight of
water and the harmonious way it illuminates the first level of the house. Furthermore,
these platforms grant the feeling -and the sight, as well- of a continuity of nature
outside the house (as seen from inside) but also seemingly prohibits this continuity
through dictating a distance from the earth (as seen from the outside).

3
http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/practice/writings/conversations/kraft-kuehn.html
4
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wpQYTWvUBjs/S2YDiwlOFtI/AAAAAAAAArg/m2nBnD-
nN0A/s400/2348574266_c30782275d_b.jpg

3
The feeling of relaxation is also enhanced by the houses spacial clarity, which could
partially be the result of the single type of grid used. The stairwell, connecting all
levels of the house, is in the center of this grid, which is repeated almost unchanged,
vertically through the building.

Picture 3-Technical Drawings of Rudin House5

The stairwell, which is parallel to the East-West axis and to the long side of the
building, divides the plan in two stripes. This division is crucial concerning the kind of
light that each space is to receive; served spaces, e.g. the living room, are to
receive the white and constant North light.

Omit this, the House is entered from a staircase under the building. This staircase
has no walls around it up to the height of the first level floor, making the ascent to the
house more dramatic, as it could seem like a transition between nature and a private
shelter. In a very metaphorical and sentimental way this staircase, combined with the
fact that the House is floating in air, could remind the visitor of an aircrafts ladder.

5
http://www.archweb.it/dwg/arch_arredi_famosi/Herzog_de_Meuron/Rudin_house/Rudin_house_dwg.
jpg

4
In this essay, I will try to compare Rudin House to Chamberlain Cottage.

Picture 4-Staircase of Rudin House6

Chamberlain Cottage is set in a rural location in Wayland, Massachusetts. It was

designed by Marcel Breuer and Walter Gropius, and its construction was completed
in 1940. It was commissioned by Henry Chamberlain, a professor at Harvard, and his
wife Margareth.

Marcel Breuer was a Hungarian modernist architect and furniture designer, and he is
considered one of the most important modernists. During the 1920s, he studied and
taught at the Bauhaus. In the 1930s, Breuer left Germany (where he resided then)
and moved to England, because of the rise of Nazism. Eventually, he moved to the
United States. There, he taught in the Harvard School of Architecture. At that time,
and at the time he designed Chamberlain Cottage, Breuer was working with Walter
Gropius, the German founder of Bauhaus. In 1968, Breuer was awarded the
American Institute of Architects Gold Medal, which was also awarded to Gropius nine
years earlier, in 1959.

Breuer s work is characterized by cantilevers, extensive use of concrete, uniform

shapes and the experimentation with various materials (e.g. steel, wood). Also, the
use of fully glazed walls, as well as the strict arrangement of the floor plan on a grid.
Last, the architect was very sensitive with regard to the use of local materials,
especially stone.

6
http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group5/building41282/media/mfbd_z6128337x.jpg

5
Henry and Margareth Chamberlain where impressed by Breuers own house at the
time, which is close to Chamberlain Cottage. This influenced the Cottages design,
as the porch was asked for by the Chamberlain family, after they saw it in Breuers
house.

This glazed porch, which is elevated off the ground, serves as a way in the house,
and since its walls are almost entirely made of glass (i.e. they do not read as solid
walls), it could as well serve as a transition zone, between the wildness of the
forest and the safety provided by this shelter.

Designer-wise, they were both designed by people both thinking and acting in a way
different than what was usual at their time. Externally, Rudin House and Chamberlain
cottage have lots in common, even though they have a period of almost 60 years
between them. In both houses the main volume is elevated, the materials used are
very natural, and have been processed as little as possible. Their floor plan is clear
and divided into stripes, with their served areas are revolving around a connecting
vertical element.

For a brief basic setting in context, it is worth knowing that Rudin House was
designed in a time when post-modernism, with it s big forms, overly decorative
sense of aesthetics and the idea of plenty, while Chamberlain Cottage was designed
in a time of grandeur. In each context, each building stood out for its simplicity.

Comparing the two in terms of materials, both buildings were true to them; their
materials are almost raw and left to deal with the roughness of nature by
themselves. Both buildings share a very natural materiality: concrete on the one
hand, fieldstone and timber on the other.

Another basic and quite obvious- element the two buildings share is that in both, the
main part of the building (the one with the most used spaces) sits on top of a storage
area, while a good part of the main volume hangs in the air. This gesture by the
architects is, first of all, hierarchic, as the most important areas sit on the less
important ones. Also, this gives some distance between the living area and the
ground, i.e. one of nature s basic elements. This does not mean that the houses are
distanced from nature. Their materiality, context and character keeps them close,

6
while still giving them a sense of shelter, a sense of home, in a primitive and even
maybe instinctive, way.

Picture 5-Chamberlain Cottage7

Furthermore, the overhang serves a different purpose, and gives a different

experience, in each house; the hanging volume of Rudin House gives a contrast
between its great weight and the fact that it rests on air. The hanging volume of
Chamberlain Cottage follows a more traditional logic, of lighter materials (timber and
glass) resting on a base made of heavier ones (fieldstone).

Picture 6-Chamberlain Cottage8

7
http://xtf.syr.edu:8080/adore-djatoka/resolver?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_id=http://127.0.0.1/jpeg2000/OS-15/00011-001.jp2&svc_id=info:lanl-
repo/svc/getRegion&svc_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:jpeg2000&svc.format=image/jpeg&svc.level=
3&svc.rotate=0&svc.scale=380,0
8
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_brquJTtr_sY/S2oTYxXchsI/AAAAAAAAAU8/el7ITUBefFY/s400/cid_20
051219_kmm_img_8902.jpg

7
Looking into the planning of the two buildings, we can see a few more similarities. As
mentioned before, House Rudin was designed in such a way that the stairwell
connecting all levels cuts each floor in two, serving different purposes. For example,
on the first level, the stairwell separates the living room/dining room from the kitchen
and other serving areas. Also, on the second level, this separates the part of the
house that will have a high ceiling from the half on which the third level is created.

Picture 7-Chamberlain Cottage Technical drawings9

In Chamberlain Cottage, the reasoning is the same, but the execution is a bit
different. The central vertical element of the house is the big fireplace. At first, this
has a more instinctive role, as the people occupying this house literally gather
around the fire. Also, the fireplace divides the living area. The serving areas are
North of it (as well as the hanging porch, housing the entrance) and the bedroom
East of it (in the South-East corner of the building, where it would receive warm light).

9
http://www.archweb.it/dwg/arch_arredi_famosi/Marcel_Breuer/Chamberlain_cottage/Chamberlain_co
ttage_breuer.jpg

8
The North and South areas have a ratio of approximately 1:2. The fireplace
separates the dining area (East) from the living area (West), as well as acting a
sculptural form.

Another major aspect for comparison is the sense given by each building to its
occupants. While elegant and beautiful, Rudin House could seem cold and distant, in
a way. Also, maybe unfriendly because of the roughness that it gives out. Maybe its
design is impersonal, potentially making it unpleasant to live in. Possibly, the fact that
it is hanging could feel unnatural. In the case of Chamberlain Cottage, the use of
wood gives the inhabitant a feeling of warmth, which is enhanced by the fire around
which the plan revolves. The generally bigger windows and openings in House Rudin
could affect the feeling of privacy (even though, because of its location they actually
practically wouldnt) while the smaller ones in Chamberlain Cottage could potentially
make it feel more private. As an extension to this feature, we could say that House
Rudin is characterized by extroversion, while Chamberlain Cottage seems to be
more introverted.

The two buildings were compared in terms of their designer and the context (location
and time) in which they were designed in, in terms of their exterior appearance and
their planning, and last, in terms of their materials and the sense that these give.
These comparisons have revealed a lot of features of these houses, and the
reasoning behind them. Thus showing that ethos, revealed through various
architectural qualities, is beyond time and place.

9
Bibliography:

Books:
Bradbury, Dominic. The Iconic House: Architectural Masterworks Since 1900.
Thames & Hudson.2009
Davies, Colin. Key Houses of the Twentieth Century: Plans, Sections and Elevations
(Key Architecture Series). W. W. Norton & Company. 2006
Driller, Joachim. Breuer Houses. Phaidon Press Ltd. 2000
Masello, David. Architecture Without Rules: The Houses of Marcel Breuer and
Herbert Beckhard. W. W. Norton & Company. 1996

Journals:
Hubeli, Ernst. Haus Rudin. Werk, Bauen + Wohnen, Issue 3, March 1999. 1999

Websites:
Herzog & de Meuron
http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/126-150/128-house-
in-leymen.html
http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/practice/writings/conversations/kraft-
kuehn.html
http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/126-150/128-house-
in-leymen/IMAGE.html
Modern House
http://www.themodernhouse.net/rudin-house/description/
Andy Warhol
http://www.warhol.org/
Marcel Breuer
http://www.marcelbreuer.org/Biography.html
National Building Museum
http://www.nbm.org/exhibitions-collections/exhibitions/marcel-breuer.html

Pictures:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md0h8z7h9M1r56udmo1_r1_500.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wpQYTWvUBjs/S2YDiwlOFtI/AAAAAAAAArg/m2nBnD-
nN0A/s400/2348574266_c30782275d_b.jpg
http://www.archweb.it/dwg/arch_arredi_famosi/Herzog_de_Meuron/Rudin_house/Ru
din_house_dwg.jpg

10
http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group5/building41282/media/mfbd_z6128337x.jpg
http://xtf.syr.edu:8080/adore-djatoka/resolver?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_id=http://127.0.0.1/jpeg2000/OS-15/00011-001.jp2&svc_id=info:lanl-
repo/svc/getRegion&svc_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:jpeg2000&svc.format=image/jp
eg&svc.level=3&svc.rotate=0&svc.scale=380,0
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_brquJTtr_sY/S2oTYxXchsI/AAAAAAAAAU8/el7ITUBefFY/s
400/cid_20051219_kmm_img_8902.jpg
http://www.archweb.it/dwg/arch_arredi_famosi/Marcel_Breuer/Chamberlain_cottage/
Chamberlain_cottage_breuer.jpg

11