Three Early Designs by Mies van der Rohe

Yale University, School of Architecture Three Early Designs by Mies van der Rohe Author(s): Dietrich Neumann Source: Perspecta, Vol. 27 (1992), pp. 76-97 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567177 Accessed: 17-05-2015 20:37 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The MIT Press and Yale University, School of Architecture are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspecta. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ThreeEarlyDesignsbyMiesvanderRohe Dietrich Neumann a compromise betweenthearchitect's almostalwaysrepresent Executedbuildings suchas a client'sexpectavisionand theconstraints forces, imposedbyexternal and the and costof local laws, ordinances, tions, availability building zoning forthe An uncommissioned materials. project,however, providesan opportunity in a on a limitedrangeofdesignissuesand to express architect to concentrate and abilities. purerformhisideas,intentions, House,1921-22;Feldmann I Kempner House, House,1921-22;Eichstaedt Arthur ed.,An Drexler, 1921-22;cf. vander Mies the Illustrated Catalogue of Museum in the RoheDrawings ofModern Art,PartI (NewYork,1986),54-61; 70-78. 2 Mostrecently byWolfTegethoff, Mies toMaturity: "FromObscurity to vanderRohe'sBreakthrough in FranzSchulze,ed., Modernism," MiesvanderRohe,Critical Essays (NewYork1989),28ff. 3 MiesvanderRohe,"Bauen,"in G 2 1923):L. (September to 4 The factthatMieswasreferring half in thefirst is apparent theseprojects I oftheletter:"DearHerrGropius, andwouldliketo received yourletter theplaster saythatI cannotremove residence modeloftheconcrete so I [Eisenbahnkragtragerkonstruktion], canonlyplaceatyourdisposala photoThe graphofitanda charcoaldrawing. onlymodelsI couldmakeavailableto youaretheglassmodelofmytowerand buildthewoodenoneofthelargeoffice and office [concrete building], ing ofcombining indeedI hadthought thesetwomodels,placingthemnextto a square.I eachotherso as tosuggest iswonderful; trieditout,andtheeffect I believethatyoutoowouldunderstand hasonly thenwhythebusiness building I amsending articulation. thehorizontal youtwophotosofthesetwobuildings, themtome andaskthatyoureturn to be I wouldbe delighted sometime. is especially betweensuchprojectsand executedstructures The contrast apparent conin MiesvanderRohe'sworkoftheearly1920S,whenhe builtthreerather ventional villasin Berlin'and created, duringthesameperiod,a setoffivevisionthe the for the Friedrichstrasse skyscraper competition, arydesigns: entry theconcrete housesin curvilinear skyscraper, officebuilding,and thetwocountry concrete and brick.Thoughidealized,thelatterfivedesignsweregroundedin a thathavemadetheiranalysisdifficult and misleadcomplexsetofpreconditions amountofrecorded information lossofa considerable (plans, ing.The regrettable thebrevity ofMies'saccompanying a texts,and finally, models,and photographs), haveresulted in a analysisoftheprojectsthemselves, generallackofthorough The have been essenthe architect's intentions. treated of projects mystification oftheyear1923,which tiallyas formalexercises,2despiteMies'sclearstatement "We knowno formproblems, seemsto summarize hisintentions: onlybuilding the but the result of our work. There is no form The form is not goal, problems. as such.The reallyformalis related, connectedto thetask,themostelementary a of its Form as and thiswe reject.....3 solution. goalis formalism; expression toWalterGropiusabouthisparticipation in On June14,1923,Mieswrotein a letter at the in the summer theInternationale would be Bauhaus Bauausstellung of1923:"I to thesecondskyscrapto be represented [Miesrefers bythethreeprojects delighted the concrete house erdesign,theoffice and 4], so thatI couldshow country building, worksoutin threecompletely howthesamestructural different assignprinciple andendeavor to developthesolutionto ments.SinceI rejectanyandall formalism, therewillneverbe a formal relaan assignment outofitsparticular requirements, ' the projects." tionship uniting separate to developa better ofthese an attempt The following understanding essayrepresents as a thematic the Mies considered threeprojects (which byexploring entity) obviously offormal considerations andinherent condegreetowhich,in eachcase,a combination the eventual result. straints shaped This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 77 (n I'-. 76 i Old and New New York,AlWedStieglitz, igio. This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions C-. (A The Curvilinear Skyscraper L4 representedby the threeprojects,so that I could show how the same structural principleworksout in threecompletely different assignments."Quoted from WolfTegethoff, Mies van derRohe,The Villasand CountryHouses(New York, Museum of Modern Art,1985), 32.. 5 Quoted fromTegethoff,The Villas and CountryHouses,16, footnote3. 6 Cf. "Frihlicht"(1922), quoted from FranzSchulze,Mies van derRohe,A CriticalBiography, (Chicago, 1986): IOO 7 Cf., forinstance,textsby two influentialGermanarthistorians:Karl Scheffler, "Ein Weg zum Stil,"Berliner Architekturwelt 5 (1903): 291-95; and HeinrichPudor,"Geriist-Architektur," Bauwelti, 36 (1910): 15. Mies'sglassskyscraper of theyear1922(3) was a developmentof his entryforthe Friedrichstrasse Skyscraper competitionin Berlin(2), whichhe had designedin the autumnof 1921.The two designshad severalfeaturesin common: thebuildingswere completelysheathedin a homogeneousglasssurfaceand lackedconventionalbuild- such as a base or corniceor an emphasizedcentralaxis.Their firstpubing features, licationin 1922was accompaniedby thefollowingstatementby Mies: show theirbold, strucOnly in thecourseof theirconstructiondo skyscrapers turalcharacter, and thenthe impressionmade by theirsoaringskeletalframes is overwhelming. On theotherhand,when thefaqadesare latercoveredwith characterdenied, masonrythisimpressionis destroyedand theconstructive artistic to with the fundamental conceptualization.These along veryprinciple factorsbecome overpoweredby a senselessand trivialchaos of forms.The best thatcan be said forsuch buildingsis thattheyhave greatsize; yettheyshould be morethana manifestation of our technicalability.Above all we musttry not to solvenew problemswithtraditionalforms;it is farbetterto derive new formsfromtheessence,theverynatureof thenew problem.The struc- turalprincipleof thesebuildingsbecomesclearwhenone uses glassforthe ' walls.The use of glassforcesus to new ways. non-load-bearing In no wayas originaland innovativeas Mies's skyscraper designs,thetextrepeatsrather 78 commonplaceargumentsamong architectsand criticsof thetime.His enthusiasm fortheestheticbeautyof thevisiblesteelskeletonand thescaffolding are ideas thatcan be tracedto the turnof thecenturyand further.!The photomontagesof his projects 2 Friedrichstrasse Competition entry, LudwigMies van derRohe,Berlin, 1921,photomontage. 3 Curvilinearglassskyscraper, Mies van derRohe,I922, model. ThreeEarlyDesignsbyMies vanderRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 Publishedin Camera Work36 (October 1911):13. seem influencedby contemporary underconphotographsofAmericanskyscrapers such as AlfredStieglitz'"Old and New New York"of struction, (I). Mies'ssugges1910o8 9 Cf. DietrichNeumann, "Skyscraper Visions in Germany,"Arcade: The Northwest and JournalforArchitecture Rainer Design o0(199o): 6-7, 12-14; des Stommer,"Die Germanisierung Kritische Berichte io Wolkenkratzers," and for more detailed (1982): 36-53; informationabout the German movementsee Dietrich skyscraper Neumann, DeutscheHochhauserder ZwanzigerJahre(Berlin,1989). 4 Skyscraper projectforLeipzig, Caroli,Haimovici,ip2o. Tschammer, forBerlin,OttoKohtz, 920o. 5 Skyscraper 6 Skyscraper forBreslau,Max Berg,ip2I. tion to use glassforthenon-load-bearing wallshad alreadybeen executedat innumerablesteel-frame fordepartmentstores,industrialbuildings,and structures in almost German greenhouses everymajor city.And his critiqueof thehistoricist faqadesofAmericanskyscrapers parrotedthemostcommonjudgmentsby contempoGerman critics of the rary skyscraper. of a contemporary enthusiasmforthe Althoughboth designswererepresentative in denied the and nationalisskyscraper Germany,'theysimultaneously monumentality ticconnotationsthatwereevidentin mostprojectsof theperiod.The so-called crazebetween192o and 1925had triggered skyscraper literallythousandsof projectsfor almosteveryGermancity,designsthatwerewidelypublishedand enthusiastically discussedin thearchitectural of the of The these periodicals day. majority projects weredevelopedbyconservative architects who intendedthemas monumentsto the Germanwill to reemergefromthedefeatof thewar. However,because therewas neitheran actualneed forofficespace nor themoneyto build anyhigh-risestructures, mostremainedon paper.AlthoughmostarchitectscriticizedtheAmericanhistoricist and arguedfora genuineGermanversion,theirformallanguagewas clearly skyscrapers historicist and monumental,emphasizingcentralaxialityand restrained neo-Gothicor neoclassicalfeatures(4, 5, 6, 7). 7 Skyscraper forMunich,Otto Orlando Kurz,ip2I. : ~R=JF 7 6 Dietrich Neumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 79 u (Note.-The twoplans areprintedhereat thesamescale.) . ... ?.? ." ., ........ . 5i .. .. jj .4. 8o 8 Friedrichstrasse Mies competition entry, der . van Rohe,floorplan io Friedrichstrasse competition entry, Mies van derRohe,elevation. skyscraper, 9 Curvilinearglass MiesvanderRohe, floorplan .z Curvilinearglass skyscraper, MiesvanderRohe,elevation ThreeEarlyDesignsbyMies van derRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ..i io Cf. AdolfBehne, "Der Wettbewerb Wasmuths der Turmhaus-Gesellschaft," Baukunst7 (1922-23): Monatshefleftir 59. ii Cf. JuliusPosener,"Vorlesungenzur Geschichteder neuenArchitektur II," Arch+53 (September 75. i98o): 12 JohnZukowsky,Mies ReconCf. sidered,exhibitioncatalogue(Chicago, 1986), 37. 13 Cf. Schulze,A CriticalBiography, 1o3. 14 For informationabout the Friedrichstrasse competition,cf.Florian Der Schreinachdem TurmZimmermann, haus (Berlin,1988),and D. Neumann, DeutscheHochhduser, 61-112. See WalterKoeppen, I5 Bauordnungfiir die StadtBerlinvom3. NovemberI925, 2nd rev.ed. (Berlin,1927), 29, 35. 16 Froma lecturemanuscriptof theyear 1924; cf.FritzNeumeyer,Mies van der Wort(Berlin,1986), Robe,Das kunstlose 308. 17 Cf. H. Seeger, derprivaten Biirohduser Wirtschaft (Leipzig,1933),14. 18 This attemptto relateMies van der Rohe'sdesignmoreto the realitiesof the competition'sconditionsand the building regulationsdoes not denyotherpossible intentionsbehindthe project.The trianof gularsitewithitssharpedges offered, course,a welcomeopportunityforexpressive formsand fora generaldemonstration of thepurityand clarityof a futurearchi- tecturein comparisonwiththe "senseless and trivialchaos of forms"of thehistoricism around it. But theseideas werenot necessarilytheonlyforcebehindthe design.If it had been Mies's main intention to producean expressionist crystalline image,he could have done thatmuch moresuccessfully withan accentuated star-shapedplan and some sortof set-back design,insteadof the unmodified,heavily proportionedmass thatthe buildingrepresentedfrommostvantagepoints.Cf. Drexler,CatalogueofDrawings,PartI, 50. ofthemodern wasrejected This"misunderstood bythearchitects monumentality" articulated thisopinion:"Itis really movement. AdolfBehne,theprominent not critic, a building thatrepresents it a in To make into with anything special particular. symbol hastobe rejected. It is a building foroffices andbusinessseriousness, rigoranddignity an accumulation of a movie theater andan arcade,elevaes, shops,cafes,restaurants, rooms-therefore andstorage thereis no reasonforanypathos.""o The tors,staircases absenceofelements ofconventional inMies'stwoskyscraper monumentality complete reflected this attitude. But his went even further: theentire projects bycovering designs withglassandbytaking structure bothreflection andtransparency intoaccount,Mies aimedtoovercome andnegatethebuilding as such. In orderto understand thecurvilinear wemustanalyzethefeatures thatthis skyscraper, from inherited its as Mies'sfamous design predecessorwellas theirobviousdifferences. contribution to theFriedrichstrasse has been considered competition generally "expressionistic,"" a demonstration ofthe"materialized ora dematerialdemateriality a izedmateriality"12 and "as manifesto than as a [rather] practical pieceof ofglass, Thereis,however, evidence thatMies'sdesignwasgenerated architecture.""3 bymore thanformal concerns. The competition fortheFriedrichstrasse office wasannounced at a timewhen building workforarchitects wasscarcedueto thegeneral economichardship in postwar One should therefore consider the that while Mies didwantto Germany." possibility statement (forwhichtheremighthavebeenbetter publishan architectural opportunito win one of the of to ties),hewasalsoseriously trying prizes up 33,oooReichsmark, andtherefore to comply withtheconditions ofthecompetition. attempted Requiredof allentries wasa calculated listoftheusablefloorspaceoftheproposedbuilding. Itwas obviousthatitwasin thisaspectoftheprogram thattheBerlinbusinessmen ofthe Turmhaus AG whosaton thejurywouldbe mostinterested. In general, thecompetitorsfoundtwomajorwaystoplacetheirbuilding on thetriangular sitein front of theFriedrichstrasse railroad station: either in a monumental orroundform triangular withan internal or as a star with three arms toward the courtyard, shape stretching threecorners ofthesite. to surpass otherparticipant in theamountofoffice Clearlyattempting every spacethat heoffered, Mieschosethelatter butthethreearmsofhisstarwereso large solution, thattheynearly filledthesite(8). He introduced onlythreesmallexternal lightwells, for the staircases and the as rooms, required providing daylight emergency sanitary by thePrussian building Mieshimself wrote about this in process A924: "The buildcode.I havetriedtomakefulluseofit.The depthofthesitecompelingsitewastriangular; ledmetosplitthefronts, so thattheinnercorereceived light."''6 As a result, therooms wereup to 15meters deep,twotimesthedepthof7.5meters, whichwasnormally consideredthemaximum possibledistance froma windowforoffice workin daylight."7 Miestriedto compensate forthisbyintroducing rather tallfloor-to-ceiling dimensions andbyopeningup theentire (4 meters) itwithglass.He then facadeandsheathing stackedtwenty ofthesefloors on topofoneanother, thereby reaching themaximum of80 meters, a limitthathadbeensetforthissitebythebuilding height department as a response to thepoorload-bearing capacity ofthesite'ssoil.The resultwasa floorarea ofroughly 70,000squaremeters, almosttwicetheamountoffered byanyofthewinningentries (W.G.Koch,thirdprize,37,000squaremeters).8 DietrichNeumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 81 CIO CIO ofMiesvanderRobe'scurviI2 Analysis linearglassskyscraper, MartStam,publishedinABC Beitrige zumBauen,1.925. 82 19 All of thesurvivingdrawingsin the Museum of Modern Artin New Yorkwere The idea of sheathingtheentirefaqadein glass,inheritedby thecurvilinear skyscraper, drawn to scale, the elevation in the I:IOO, Friedrichstrasse competition.Mies, however,obviouslyrealizedthatevena 4 meterhigh windowcould not sufficiently drastically lighta room15metersdeep, and therefore floorplans in The plans are pub1:200. lishedhereto the the same scale, to allow fora comparisonof the buildings'relative sizes. Quoted fromKennethFrampton, "Modernismand Traditionin theWorkof Mies van der Rohe, 1920-1968,"in Mies 2o Reconsidered, 37. 21 See, forexample,Schulze,A Critical 107. But Mies laterrejectedthis Biography, assumption. 22 Schulze,A CriticalBiography, 1o3. 101. 23 Schulze,A CriticalBiography, 24 Cf. FritzNeumeyer'shintat the "dental friezelike upperedge of the building"in in Das the model of the glassskyscraper footnote 29. (I believe KunstloseWort,199, thatthisis in factthe connectionof the slenderglassplateswiththe upperslab, entirelyrelatedto problemsof modelmaking,and withoutany symbolicmeaning. Notably,no such "dentalfrieze" appearsin Mies's drawing.) had thusoriginallybeen createdas a responseto thespecialconditionsof the reducedthesize of thefloorspace and thedepthof theroomsin his new design(9). he was able to reducethenumberof elevatorsfromeighteento nine and Accordingly, thenumberof emergencystaircasesfromthreeto two.The heightof therooms remained4 meters.19 In bothdesignsthestaircaseshave twenty-six steps,witheach riser the limitations set in a comfortable Without centimeters 15 by competition height. he was able to increasethebuildingto thirty stories,which,coupled with requirements, thereducedfloorplan, resultedin a much moresoaringappearance. to categorize.It seemsto move The curvingoutlineof thisdesignis, at first,difficult withinthebordersof a trapezoidalplot of land. At one pointit followsthe arbitrarily straightedge of theborderline,but soon fallsback into itssmoothlyswingingrhythm. Mies wroteabout thisdesignand thedevelopmentfromitspredecessorin 1922: I placed theglasswalls at slightanglesto each otherto avoid themonotony of over-large glasssurfaces.I discoveredbyworkingwithactualglassmodels and not theeffectof light thattheimportantthingis theplayof reflections and shadow as in ordinarybuildings...At firstglancethecurvedoutlineof theplan seemsarbitrary. These curves,however,weredeterminedby threefacthemassingof thebuildingviewtors:sufficient illuminationof theinterior, ed fromthestreet,and lastlytheplayof reflections 20 Criticshave neverbeen satisfiedwithMies'sstraightforward explanation.They have Hans Arp,21and Hugo Haering, suggestedpossibleinfluencesfromHermannFinsterlin, who at thattimesharedan officewithMies and had designedhis Friedrichstrasse withroundedcorners.22The designhas been comparedto "a pool of spilled skyscraper milk'23and has even been relatedto classicalarchitecture.24Wasit perhaps,as thedraw- of theconceptof thecurtainwall? ingsseem to suggest,a literalillustration Three EarlyDesigns byMiesvanderRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 25 Cf.GeorgeC. Nimmons, "Skyscrapers inAmerica," American ofthe Journal Institute (1923),370-72. ofArchitects 26 Cf. WilliamStanley Parker, Anywhere," "Skyscrapers ibid.,372. 27 Thisopinionseemsto be confirmed statements ofWerner bycontemporary andCarlGotfried; Graeff seeW. in Schulze,ed. Critical Tegethoff, Essays, ofunidentified 42-43.A photomontage ofthe collection originin thedrawings Technische Berlin shows the Universitit modelat thesiteoftheFriedrichstrasse Thissite,however, seemedto competition. be unsuited fora building ofthirty stories, sincethebuildings allowed department there.Miesknew onlyabouttwenty storys thisfactfromtheconditions ofthe Friedrichstrasse Miespubcompetition. lishedthedesignforthecurvilinear in a version with once,however, skyscraper Drexler, twenty-one storys. Catalogue of Part1,62. Drawings, 28 Fora morerecent hint,seeK. H. H iter,Architektur inBerlin I1oo-1933, 300. (Dresden,I988), withthedesignin 1923,theyreactedwith When Americancriticswereconfronted utteramazement:"The plan... is so fantasticand impracticaland so impossibleto divide intoanykindof usableor desirableofficesor apartmentsthatit is not likelythatit thedesign would everbe executed,"25wroteone critic,whileanotherone characterized as: "a pictureof a nude buildingfallingdown stairs,"26referring to Marcel Duchamp's famouspainting. Both Mies's textand theratherindividualformsof theadjacentbuildingsin themodel photograph(3) supporttheargumentthatMies musthave had a specificsitein mind to the "sufficient illuminationof when he designedthebuilding.The reference theinterior, themassingof thebuildingviewedfromthestreet,and lastlytheplayof makessenseonlyiftherewas a clearlydefinedsitewitha calculabledirecreflections" tionof sunlight.27 Neitherthepublishedfloorplan nor Mies's textgivesa hintas to theintendedmethod and thebuilding Thus farthisquestionhas been discussedonlyrarely,28 of construction. has been generallyconsideredto be of steel-frame construction.29 Fromtheletterto WalterGropiusregardingthethreeprojects(see note 4), however,one can assumethat reinforced concretestructure was intended,sincesuch a consome sortof cantilevered structionis clearlyvisiblein thedrawingsof theconcreteofficebuildingand was also mentionedin Mies's textabout theconcretecountryhouse. explicitly Mies'sfriendsand colleaguesseem to have knownmoreabout theintendedstructure. Mart Stam,who knewMies well,analyzedthedesignin 1925in his magazineABC, in an issuedevotedentirelyto concreteas a buildingmaterial.There,he clearlydescribed thecentralconstructionprinciple:'A circularplate,supportedin itscenter,offersa maximumof floorarea combinedwitha minimumof surface.Both-the stanchionas WalterC. Behrendt, 29 See,forexample, in "SkyscrapersGermany," ofthe Journal American Institute (1923), 368; ofArchitects, "From mostrecently byW. Tegethoff, to footnote 43, 25. Obscurity Maturity," thevertical,thefloorslab as thehorizontal,producean elementthatthroughaddition he showedtheglassskyscraper createsa system."30 In an explanatoryillustration mushroomslab (12). BrunoTaut, in whose magazinethe togetherwitha diagrammatic zumBauen 30 Cf.ABC-Beitriige 3/4. (1925),4. fact,thecurvilinear skyscraper. in BrunoTaut,Die neueBaukunst 31 Cf. EuropaundAmerika (1927; 2nded. 1979),111. Stuttgart, RobertMaillart 32 The Swissengineer claimedresponsibility forthedevelopmentofthissystem as lateas 1926,citing Until of1908and1910. hisexperiments were experiments thenonlytheAmerican known.R. Maillart, "ZurEntwicklung Deckein derSchweiz derunterzugslosen Schweizerische undinAmerika," 87.(1926): 263-65, 19-21. Bauzeitung, 33 Cf. H. Marcus,"Die Tragf~ihigkeit traigerloser unddieWirtschaftlichkeit Pilzdecken," Deutsche Bauzeitung 53. (1919):149-52,155-59. in SchulzeCritical 34 Cf.Tegethoff, 43. Essays, designhad firstbeen published,in 1927declaredMies "thefirstone to use themushto is, in roomconstruction architecturally.''3'The onlybuildinghe could have referred and engineers'magazinesin Germany In theyearsprecedingMies'sdesign,architects' concrete of this new methodof reinforced the had enthusiastically praised potential the "mushroomcolumn.'"32This techniqueemployeda concretecolumn construction, rodsto thefloorslab it carriedin such a way thatthe connectedthroughreinforcement the were absorbed forces shearing by capitallikehead of thecolumnratherthanby a downstandbeam. The advantageof thisnew methodwas, accordingto thewidelyread DeutscheBauzeitung,"thattheabolitionof thenormallynecessarygroinedslab makesa betterdisseminationof air and lightpossible."33Though thecalculation,placement, and connectionofthereinforcing rodswas morecomplicated,theformwork became much simplerand could be assembledwitha smallnumberof prefabricated parts.All of thismusthave fascinatedMies. The mostefficient formof a floorslab to be carriedby a centralstanchionis a circle. theamormodel show thatthestanchionscarrying The photographsof theskyscraper phous floorslabswerein factplaced mainlyin thecenterof circles,thearcsofwhich constitutedtheundulatingborderline.The necessarycapitalsof thecolumns,however, have been leftout. The idea of a clusterof mushroomslabsof different sizesmightwell forMies'sworkwiththe "playof reflections" thestructural underpinnings represent duringthedesignprocess.It would thusgiveat leastsome supportto Mies'sclaimof the "structural conceptas theessentialfoundationof theartist'sdesign,"an explanation of thearchitect's workthatcriticshave alwaysrejected,especiallyregardingthisproject.34 Dietrich Neumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 83 u Beton 35 Cf.J.VischerL. Hilberseimer, als Gestalter, 1928), (Stuttgart, 49-50. 36 Cf.O. Freud,"Die trdigerlose eineneuartige Eisenbetondecke Pilzdecke, Industriebau Industriebauten," 17 for (1926): 166- 270. and Banham,Theory 37 Cf.Reyner Designin theFirstMachineAge,(London, 1978),295. 38 Schulze,MiesvanderRobe,Biography, 1oI. as "the Withina fewyears,themushroomslab was acceptedby themodernarchitects concreteconstruction...Theroomsthatare covered mostproperarea of thereinforced withmushroomslabs are,ifgood proportionsare applied,of such greatbeautythat eventuallyall embellishingadditionscan be shunned,""wroteLudwigHilberseimerin and Germanyto demonstratethe 1928 comparingexamplesfromAmerica,Switzerland, heavinessof theGermansolutionsthathad resultedfromthecountry'sstrictbuilding constructions laws. (In September1925 mushroom-column had, withnewlydeveloped calculationmethods,forthefirsttimebeen includedin theGermanbuildingcode."6) Hilberseimer's enthusiasmwas largelycaused by thebuildingof theVan Nelle Tobacco Factoryin Rotterdam(1926-30), in which,forthefirsttime,theproductof this construction methodhad been made visiblefromtheoutsidethrougha glassscreen. Mart Stam,who thenworkedwithBrinkmanand van derVlugt,contributedextensively to itsdesign." A second sketchby Mies forthefloorplan of thecurvilinear showsan atskyscraper solution(03),one thatwould have been possiblein both temptat anotherstructural of thetimewould only steeland reinforced concrete,althoughtheeconomicconstraints have allowedthelatter.The structural columns,interconnected gridconsistsof fifty-two bydownstandbeams.The outermostline of columnsstandswell insidetheoutersurfloorslab. faceof glassthroughtheapparentuse of a cantilevered 84 ......... 7 7...........-! ............. .. ............ ... -. -- -7 i ~ ~ Ai iiiil ~ M iji! ..... . .. iijFu U..W 3 uViiergassyraeMsvn erREohe, 9,pansuy internaldivisionwhichstemsfromthelayoutof the This plan also showsan interesting earliercompetitionentry:a circularfoyerservesfourgroupsof elevators,two emergency staircases,and theentrancesinto theofficeareas.Such a schememakesfarbettersense thanthepublishedfloorplan, in whichseveralfeatureswereunconvincing:the rather formof thelobby,theaccessibility of thelavatoriesand elevatorsfromthe arbitrary officespaces,and thecircularemergencystairs,whichwereprohibitedby thebuilding in thesketchedfloorplan suggestthatit was developedafter codes. The improvements thefirstplan had alreadybeen published.The fifty-two columns,however,clearly of thebuilding.In anycase, it is not would have spoiledtheenvisionedtransparency just an unsuccessful gridwithan amorphousfloorplan,38 attemptto matcha structural as FranzSchulzehas suggestedin his biographyof Mies. Mies'searlyinterestin thearchitectural potentialof themushroomcolumn is akin to thatof Le Corbusier,who, in thesame year,1922,developedhis designforan artist's studiohouse,a buildingwithan overallcubic appearancein whichtheceilingwas carcan be considereda reinriedby one centralstanchion.If thecurvilinearskyscraper withmushroomcolumns,it thenbecomespartand, forcedconcretecantileverstructure in fact,thestartingpointof a strandof traditionthatleads to FrankLloydWright's based on thissystem.Commencingin 1929withthe designsforseveraltallstructures towerforSt. Marksin theBoweryand culminatingin I943 withthetowerforJohnson Wax, Wrightprovidedmoresuccessfuland convincingsolutionsforthetechnicalproblemsencounteredin Mies's earlierattempts. Three EarlyDesigns byMiesvanderRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Concrete Office Building Mies producedhis projectforan officebuildingfortheGrosseBerliner his largeperspective (GreatBerlinArtExhibition)in May Kunstausstellung 1923.Only have survived. one and model photograph(IW) drawing(16) concrete viewofa reinforced ,4 Schematic structure, FrancoisHennebique,C.IPo2. to thecontemAgain,thebuildingcannotbe fullyunderstoodwithoutdirectreference an enthusiasm for was which dominated in debate architectural by Germany, porary verticalist to innumerableconservative As a clearcounterproposal skyscrapskyscrapers. of thefagadethrough er designs,'9 Mies's designemphasizednot onlythehorizontality itssuccessionof continuousribbonwindowsand concreteparapets,but also suggested thepotentialforan endlesshorizontalcontinuationof thebuilding.4 39 Le Corbusierwas probablythinking not onlyof Messel'sWertheimdepartmentstorebut also of the typicalcontemdesignswhen poraryGermanskyscraper he wrotein L'EspiritNouveaup in 192I: "One simplefactcondemnsthe lot; in a buildingone livesfloorby floorhorizonThe Germanpalaces tally,not vertically. are just liftcages.... The Louvreand Bon Marche shops are in horizontalsand they are rightand the Germanarchitectsare wrong.Quoted fromBanham, Theory and Designin theFirstMachineAge,255. In the drawingthe leftend of the 40 buildingis screenedoffby an adjacent buildingin the foreground.In the photo- It appearsthatMies wantedto gain as much floorarea as possiblewithoutcreatinga had just been definedin the Prussianbuildingcode as buildings Skyscrapers skyscraper. would have meantthatspehavingmorethansixstories.41Classificationas a skyscraper of publicwelfareand cial permissionwould have to be obtainedfromtheministry manyotherofficialcommissions,a procedurethatwould have been tediousand time- consuming.42Additionalconditionsconcerningfireescapes,forexample,had to be ful- filled.So therewas a good reasonto challengethelimitsof how much officespace could Mies's proposedbuildinghas, in fact, be gainedwithouterectinga high-risestructure. eightstories,but one is sunkeninto thegroundand the top flooris so low thatit resemto lightthe bles an attic,since itssmallribbonwindowwould not have been sufficient room. In theinteriora groinedslab withhaunchedbeams is visible,a systemthatbears a strikingresemblanceto FrangoisHennebique'swell-knownconstructiondrawingfor concreteof circa reinforced 19o2 (14). graphshowingthe model in the1923 Bauhaus exhibition,whereit was placed as a counterpartto thecurvilinearglass (see note 4), the buildingis skyscraper shownas extremely long,and the leftend is again cut offand invisible. 41 Cf. "VielgeschossigeHduser,"in derBauverwaltung Zentralblatt 4. (1921):48. 42 The stillunusual high-risebuilding requireda much greaternumberof consultationswithand applicationsto differ- ent branchesof the municipal government,since no sectionsregarding high-risebuildingshad been introduced into thebuildingcode and each case had to be treatedindividually.(Neumann, DeutscheHochhduser...,199.) 15 InstallationviewoftheInternationale Bauhaus Weimar, Architekturausstellung, ModelsofMies'sconcrete officebuildI923. ingand theglassskyscraper, left;Walter Tribune competition Chicago Gropius's entry, right. DietrichNeumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 85 r-I IN cl 16 Concreteoffice building,Mies van derRohe,IR22-23,perspective drawing. The 1923publicationof thisprojectin G, themagazinethatwas editedby Hans and Theo van Doesburg,was accompaniedby Mies van der Rohe's Richter,El Lissitzky, famoustext: We flatlyrejectall aestheticspeculation,all doctrine,and anykindof formal- ism.Architecture is thewill of thetimein itsspatialmanifestation-animated, changing,new. Not thepast nor thefuture,onlythepresentcan be shaped. Only ifthishas been accepted,will therebe creativebuilding. 86 Createtheformout of the natureof theproblem,withthemeansof our time: This is our task. The officebuildingis a house of work,of organization,of clarity, of econo- my.Bright,wide workrooms,easyto oversee,undividedexceptas theorganism of theundertaking is divided.The maximumeffectwiththeminimum expenditureof means. The materialsare concreteironglass. concreteare by theirverynatureskeletalstructures; Buildingsof reinforced to be treatedneitheras "gingerbread" noras armoredturrets; load[ Teigwaren] walls;skin-and-boneconbearinggirderconstructionallowsnonsupporting structionis theconsequence. The mostpracticaldivisionof theworkingspacesprovidedthedepthof the frameof 8m widthwitha canroom,whichis 16 meters.A two-stanchion tileveron both sidesof 4m is theresultof calculatingthemosteconomical structural system.The distancebetweenthedownstandbeamsis 5m. This systemcarriesthefloorslab,whichat theend is bentupwardsand becomesthe outerskinand thewall behindtheshelves,whichwereremovedfromthe interiorof theroomand placed at theouterwallsforthesakeof openness. "FromObscurityto 43 Tegethoff, Maturity,"48. Above the 2 meter-high shelvesthereis an uninterrupted ribbonwindowup to theceiling.3 In thisdryexplanation,as in his shorttextaccompanyinghis designfortheglass Mies does not explicitlymentionthesubtletieswithinthebuilding.But the skyscraper, largeperspectivein combinationwiththenumbersgivenby Mies containall the clues one needsto understandthebuildingin itsentity.Thus far,however,theseclues have been widelyoverlooked. The ends of thecantilevered downstandbeams are clearlyvisiblein the The fa;ade. distancebetweenthemis 5 meters.The second to thelastbay is muchwiderthanthe others,thefinalfieldat thecorneris shorter.This importantfactis rarelynoticed. 44 Cf. KennethFrampton,ed. The UnknownMies van derRohe,(Chicago: ArtInstituteof Chicago, 1986), 37. KennethFramptonhas called it "asubtleclassicalcoda withinan otherwiseuninflected gridof supports."4 Three EarlyDesigns byMiesvanderRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions It is theprecisely thereasonforthisis quitedifferent. In reality planned(andindeed corner. at thebuilding's encountered theonlypossible)solutionfortheproblem it continue to order in Mieshadto turnthegridded alongthe by90 degrees system thetwointernal between the8 meterdistance As a result, sideofthebuilding. shorter at theend in thefagadeand,so thewidthofthelastbaysdiffers columnsis expressed 45 Thanks to Dr. Ing. Bernhard Munich. Behringer, 46 Ludwig Glaeserhad alreadydeveloped a verysimilarfloorplan in 1969, whichI discoveredonlyafterdeveloping myown conclusions,and it thusservedto confirmmyresults.He deservescreditfor being the firstto deduce a floorplan from thevisiblestructureand thusdiscovering the necessaryexistenceof a courtyard in the design.Cf. Ludwig Glaeser,Mies van derRohe.Drawingsin theCollectionofthe MuseumofModernArt(New York,1969). 47 FritzNeumeyercalls the steadily growinglengthof the cantilevera "slight curvature"and a "subversiveclassicalgesture,"Das KunstloseWort, 198,199. 48 Banham, Theoryand Designin the FirstMachineAge,291. Forum,(January 49 TheArchitectural 1938): 54. (I would like to thankPeter Barkan,to whom I owe creditforsuggest- ing thisquote.) The seductiveparallelsto theworkof FrankLloydWrightgo fur- ther.The 2-meter-high shelves,the open officespaces in the interior, and the courtto yardall seem to make reference Wright'swell-knownLarkinBuilding. Wright,on the otherhand, producedin severalinstancesbuildingsthatseemedto commentupon Mies's attemptsto solve certainstructural problems.The office buildingin glassand copperof I924, for instance,deals withthe problemsof a glasscurtainwall. 50 6 panes in the 5m bay = 83.3cm; IO (5,8,and4 meters)." thedifferent distances readablenotonlythrough Thisturnofthegridbecomesclearly the beams: of the haunched the form andbeams,butalsothrough between support wherethemainbeamsofthetwodirections in thecorner, meet,are fourstanchions visiblein Mies'sprecise as is readily cruciform, drawing. clearly ofthatsidewe thelength thebaysat theshorter fagadeofthebuilding, Bycounting + 2 x 4 meters). Sincewe know + 2 x 8 meters to be 49 meters cancalculate (5x 5 meters the columns between distance 16 meters the rooms is thatthedepthof (the plusthe on bothsides:8 + 2 x 4), we canalsodeducethatMieshadplannedan intecantilevers theentire floorplanfor wide.We canthusreconstruct thatwas17meters riorcourtyard thevisiblepartofthebuilding(23)."6 in thelength witheachstory of increase in thisdesignis theconsistent Another subtlety from in thedrawing, butrecognizable floorslabs.It is almostinvisible thecantilevered closestto thecorner. The fewcritics whohave thegrowing widthofthewindowpanes classicism"7 orcalleditan "expresittosome"secret attributed noticedithaveeither sionistgesture."''8 forthisfeature ofMies's Therearetwolessformal andmorerational explanations each If in a decreases with stanchions The load for the vertical story. building design. remains reuseof thesecolumns'diameter (whichallowsforan economical unchanged which makes it to take on addiare theformwork), oversized, possible they increasingly the stories. Thiscouldbe easilyachieved tionalloadin thehigher bysimply enlarging a exterior of the cantilevered floorat bothsides,thereby providingperfect expression of rooms in the The greater the conditions within. couldbe statical depth upperstories thattheywouldreceive dueto thelackofshadow withtheadditional justified sunlight fromadjacentbuildings. forthegrowing ofthecantilevers An easierandequallyprobable rationale was length Frank for the same feature in his for the Marks tower St. LloydWright givenby project in areafromfloorto flooras thestructure in 1938:"Thebuilding increases substantially in the rises orderthat glassfrontage ofeachstory maydripclearoftheonebelow,the building thuscleaning itself, and,alsobecauseareasbecomemorevaluablethehigher goes."'4 structure limits)the (within sizeof weareableto deducetheaverage andthedrawing Usingboththegivennumbers thewindowpanes, whichis 83.3centimeters and8o centimeters respectively,5? as wellas theaverage additional length ofthecantilever, whichis approximately zo centimeters in eachstory. Thisofcoursecallsintoquestiontheaccuracy ofsomeofthenumbers that Miesgaveinhisaccompanying text;theycanonlybe correct foronestory. The drawing thedepth suggests thatthethirdstory comesclosestto Mies'sdescription. Accordingly, ofthebuilding variesfromI5.2meters on groundlevelto I8 meters at theroofslab.The sizeofthefloorslabthateachcolumnhasto carry, whichis 40 squaremeters according to Mies'sdescription, varies, in fact,from38squaremeters to44 squaremeters. The designofthetopstory ofthebuilding is rather enigmatic. The ribbonwindow abovethe2 meters highwindowsill is onlyaboutone-third as highas theribbonwindowsbelowit.Normally, onewouldplanfornatural lightfroman average office buildnarrow the of case of In the window to reach or meters into the a room. depth 7 7.5 ing panes in the 8 m bay --80 cm. DietrichNeumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 87 u- vq 17 Concreteoffice building,Mies van der Robe,1922-23,model(reconstructed), interior topfloor. 18 Model, interior, 88 zp Model, exteriorcorner 2o Model, courtyard. ThreeEarlyDesignsbyMies van derRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 21 Concrete building, drawings office entranceelevation. (reconstructed), 22 Side elevation. 23 Entrance floorplan. 24 Section. I-07-N IT 11111 11N111 1111 Ilml 1I- I !I 1-1-i-I I I I N1 I 111- I 'II r I-I rIll Diet :Neumann --c D ietihNemn This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I tiI I ! II II FiI I II - 461 uq Vl windowsof the uppermoststory,Mies, who was obviouslyconcernedabout lightingthe entiredepthof therooms,could onlyhave expectedto naturallyilluminatetheoffices to a maximumdepthof 2.5 meters.Apartfromtheobviousestheticfunctionof this to thefagade,thereare two different rathernarrowwindowslitas an uppertermination for possibleexplanationsfortheparticularformof thetop story.Both,unfortunately lack of evidence,mustremainspeculation.EitherMies had plannedthetop storyas an atticforstorageuse only,or he wantedto indicatethatthetop storycould be lightedby othermeansand therefore did not need a ribbonwindowas highas theotherstories. The first For theintendedilluminationof thisfloor,thereare two possiblealternatives. is thattheroomsat thetop floorwereshallowerthanthosein thefloorsbelow and pro- This has been suggestedby Wolf 51 duringconversationswiththis Tegethoff authorin 1989. 52 Cf. Louis H. Sullivan,Kindergarten Chatsand OtherWritings (New York, Dover Publications,1979), 205. 90o This typeof constructionwas called 53 or ferrovitreous concrete, Glaseisenbeton and was among manyothersdistributed LuxferPrismen by the German-American Syndicat.To use it in an officebuilding would have seemed an obvious idea. similarto thesolutionat the vided a roofgardenor terraceon theside of thecourtyard, WeissenhofSettlement (1927)." This, however,seemsto ApartmentBlock in Stuttgart where it was common to use open be a solutionmoresuitedto an apartmentbuilding, roofspaces.The morelikelypossibilityis thattheroomswereilluminatedfromabove, followinga suggestionthatLouis Sullivanhad made in his well-known1896article Reconsidered.""This could have been achieved "The Tall OfficeBuildingArtistically concretegrid,a systemthathad come into easilywithglassblocksset intoa reinforced use at theturnof thecenturyand had been frequently applied since." informaThe resultof thisanalysisis a seriesof dimensionsthatcan providesufficient tion to generatenot onlyelevationdrawingsand a section,but a model thatoffersfor thefirsttimeviewsinto theinteriorspacesMies musthave envisionedforhis concrete officebuilding (17, 18, 20). building, model/ office 25 Concrete (reconstructed). photomontage Three EarlyDesigns byMiesvanderRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Concrete Country House Mies exhibitedthisprojectfora countryhouse forthefirsttimeat theGreatBerlinArt TheVillasand Country 54 Cf.Tegethoff, Houses, 2o. Biography, iio. 55 Schulze,A Critical "FromObscurity to 56 Tegethoff, Maturity," 55. MiesvanderRohe 57 PhilipJohnson, (NewYork,1947),30. 116. 58 Schulze,A Critical Biography, TheVillasand Country 59 Tegethoff, Houses, 15-31. Exhibitionin May 1923,and had probablydesignedit shortlybefore." Two model photographs(27, 28) and two similarcharcoalperspective drawings(26) are buildtheonlysurvivingsourcesofvisualinformation. They show a one- to two-story on threesides,a raised ingwithwingsextendingin fourdirectionsand surrounding, The moststrikingfeaturesof thehouse are thelong ribbonwindowsthatare courtyard. cut into itsfagades,not onlybeneaththecantilevered, projectingroofabove theentranceand livingareas,but also in thebasement,wherethethinhorizontalwindowslits support. wrapthecornerand therebysubverttheconventionalnecessityforstructural Historianshave attributedthe influencesforMies'sdesignto a numberof different abstract"Proun"compositions,55to Wright'sWillitshouse,"' sources:to El Lissitzky's as an echo of the theprojecthas evenbeen interpreted and to theformof a swastika;57 has atspatialprinciplesdescribedin Spengler'sDeclineoftheWest.8WolfTegethoff connectedinteriorspaces.59There of intricately temptedto readit as a demonstration exists,however,in theSeptember1923issueof G magazine,in an articleentitled "Bauen" ("Building"),a ratherdetaileddescriptionin whichMies outlinedhis priorities concreteas I in thedesignof thehouse: "The chiefadvantagein theuse of reinforced to save a greatamountof material.In orderto realizethisin a see it is theopportunity it is to necessary concentratethebearingand supportingforceson onlya few dwelling "Afterdiscussingtheway in whichto avoid thedisadvantagesof pointsin thestructure. concreteconstruction, reinforced namelypoor insulationand sound conduct,Mies wenton: "The main livingarea is supportedby a four-posttrusssystem.This structural concrete,comprisingbothwallsand systemis enclosedin a thinskinof reinforced roof.The roofslopesdownwardslightlyfromtheexteriorwalls towardthecenter.The troughformedby theinclinationof thetwo halvesof theroofprovidesthesimplest workis therebyeliminated.I have cut openings possibledrainageforit.All sheet-metal in thewallswhereverI requiredthemforoutsidevistasand illuminationof space."This descriptionprovidesimportantclues to thebuilding'sstructure. In well-reproduced photographsof themodel theinwardpitchesof theroofare clearly visible.Over theentranceand the main livingarea is an inwardlyslopingroofwithtwo wheretheroofplanesriseagain to a paralleltroughson bothsidesof thecenterline, ridge.The roofsof thetwo bedroomwingseach have onlyone centraltrough.The roof 26 Concrete house(project), country Mies van derRohe,1923,perspective. DietrichNeumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 91 CLI CLI house, 27, 28 Concretecountry modelphotographs. 92 overthewingconnectingtheentrancearea to themain livingarea has two troughsclose to theouterwallsand a ridgein thecenter.If one considersthenecessityto configure theroofso thatno area remainedwithoutdrainage,it becomesclearthatthearrangementof thepitchesis one of thefewpossiblesolutions,and musthave influenced thedesignitself(29). The moststrikingpoint is thecontinuationof theinwardlycanted roofabove theentranceinto theoutwardlycantedrighthalf lefthalfof thecantilevered of the roofabove theroomconnectingtheentrancehall and main livingarea.Assuming themostlikelysolution,thattheverticaldrainagefromthesetroughswas to be connectedto theload-bearingposts,one can thendeterminetheirpositionwitha high degreeof probability(30). The pastelperspectivedrawingsand theexistingcontemporary photographsgiveaddiin the entranceand main livcolumns the of the tionalinformation regarding positions ing roomarea. One can also clearlyrecognizethedownstandbeams thatsupportthe columnscarryingit. As a resultit appearsthatMies roofstructure and therectangular in thisone buildingthreedifferent demonstrated possibilitiesfora load-bearingrein- connectedto thesolutionof thedrainageof the forcedconcretestructure, all intimately of theentrancearea and themain livingroom,one flatroof.In thesimilarstructure and carryingtransverse beams that findstwo pairsof columns,arrangedlongitudinally, giveadditionalsupportto theroofslabs.The roofof each bedroomwing,withone cen- area betweenthe tralfurrow, is supportedby a singlepairof columns. The transitional close to entranceand thelivingroomhas a flatpitchedroof,withitsdrainagefurrows theouterwalls,whichsuggeststhatthereare no centralcolumnsin thisroomand that thetwo outerwallsare load-bearing.This explainsthefactthatthereare almostno winsimilarcharacter dows in thevisiblewesternwall of thisroomand supposesa necessarily nor in in theeasternwall,whichappearsneither photographs drawings.A ribbonwin- dow would not have been possiblethere. Three EarlyDesigns byMiesvanderRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 29 Concretecountry house,drawings (reconstructed), drawing. axonometric 3o 3Y Structural plan. Entranceelevation. S93 2\ 2t! Dietric Neuman This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions C. (A CL. house,model, 32 Concretecountry entrancedetail. Die 60 E. von Mecenseffy, kinstlerische of derEisenbetonbauten, Gestaltung vol.Io Handbuchfir Eisenbetonbau, (1911;2d ed., Berlin,1922). 61 By introducingtheseroofsas possible models forMies's design,we can also offer a possibleexplanationforthe crypticterm 94 ("rail"Eisenbahnkragtr'gerkonstruktion" which road cantileverconstruction"), Mies apparentlyused forthe structural discussesat length system,thatTegethoff in his book. He attributesit eitherto a mistakein the readingof theword meaning Eisenbetonkragtragerkonstruktion "reinforced concretecantileverconstruction,"whichis, of course,possible,or to of it as a beam in the the interpretation formof a railroadtrack,or what modern usage would call an I-beam. ( The Villas and CountryHouses,33,note 48). The degreeto whichMies attemptedto designas closelyas possibleto thestructural demandsof thebuildingis clearlyvisiblein thecanopyovertheentrance.The pho- tographsof themodel show thatthevisibleends of thesupportingdownstandbeams are not placed symmetrically. (It is highlyunlikelythatthisis due to bad modelmaking, since thepiece is otherwisebuiltwithobviouscare.) It seemspossiblethat,to avoid visibledownstandbeams,Mies might complicatedencountersbetweenthedifferent have developeda systemof connectingbeams thateventuallyresultedin theadoptionof thedistance"b" betweenthemain columnsand a distance"a" betweenthecenterlineof theprojectingentrancecanopyand thedownstandbeams to eitherside of it. The asymnature metricalroofsectionabove theentrancewould thusdisplaytheinterconnected of thewhole structure (31). derEisenbetonbook Die kiinstlerische In theyear1922E. von Mecenseffy's Gestaltung in was reissued Concrete bauten(Artistic Germany.60Mies Buildings) DesignofReinforced in thispublication,as it becameavailableat themomentat musthave been interested concrete.In thebook, the withthepotentialof reinforced whichhe was experimenting authoremphasizedthebeautyof thesturdierdimensionsof concrete,comparingthem to thelighterproportionsof theironworkthatwas prevalentduringthe favorably roofsabove therailof cantilevered period.Includedin thebook weretwo illustrations which of and at Sonneberg road platforms employeda Langendreer 191o(33,34, 35), systemof centralcolumnsand longitudinaldownstandbeams that,in theirsection,are thatappearsin themodel of Mies'sconcretecountry similarto thestructure strikingly columnsfortheroofsabove theentranceand the house.61 Mies used two off-center whichin his buildinghad livingroom,probablyto reducethelengthof thecantilever, to carrytheadditionalweightof theconcreteapronabove thehorizontalopeningand ribbonwindow.Mies also appearsto have solved theproblemof drainagein those roofsin a mannersimilarto thatof theplatformroofwithtwo parallelridgesalong a centralaxis. byMiesvanderRohe Three EarlyDesigns This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 33,34 Railroadpla?formroofi,Sonneberg, c. Ipio. Germany, 35 Railroadpla?formroof,Langendreer, c. Ipio. Germany, 95 Dietrich Neumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions f\ PoetryBeyond Structure 62 Mies's attemptsto designas closelyas possibleaccordingto the structuralconditionswerebased on a somewhatlimited concretestrucknowledgeof reinforced tures,due to a lack of personalexperience. Neitherthe 4m cantileverin the office building,whichhe describedas the most economicalsolution,nor theclusterof sized mushroomcolumns, differently the basic whichapparentlyrepresented would idea forhis curvilinearskyscraper, have receivedapprovalfroma civilengi- neer.The acceptablelengthof a cantilever would normallynot extendbeyondonethirdof the lengthof the beam behindit, or 2.30m,insteadof 4m, and the assem- Mies van der Rohe'sproclamationsabout structural expressionoftencame closerto describingsome contemporary projectsby his colleaguesthanhis own designs,which had movedbeyondeasydescription:WalterGropius'sfamousdesignforthe Chicago Tribunecompetitionof theyear1922 (37), whichsimplyand clearlydisplayedthehorizontaland verticalload-bearingcomponentsof thefaqade,appearedcloserto what thantheglass-sheathed looked like "in thecourseof theirconstruction" skyscrapers structures thatMies created.Hans Poelzig'sremarkabledesignof I92I fora Dresden officebuilding,whichsharedseveralfeatureswithMies'sdesignfortheconcreteoffice building(eightstories,one sunkeninto theground,thetop storylowerthantheoth- a kindof ers),emphasizedthestructural componentsbehinditsfaqadeby expressing muscularswelling,an almostliteralillustration of Mies's "skinand bone construction" so dis(36). Those wereimagesthatMies's own projects,withtheircolumnarstructure tinctlydissociatedfromtheirexteriorskin,failedto convey. blage of mushroomslabs withdifferent diametersthatMies seemsto suggestfor the curvilinearskyscraper would have led to enormouslycomplicatedstructuralcalculationsand connectionsforthe rein- 96 forcingrods. In the countryhouse the connectionbetweenthecantileveredceiling slabsand thewalls thatweresupported frombeneathwould have posed severe problems. Hans Dresden, 36 OffceBuildingfor Poelzig,I2I. To understandthegenesisof Mies's threeprojectsand theirstrangeincongruity with theiraccompanyingtexts,one mustdistinguishbetweentwo different stepsin theprocess of theirdesign.Whereasthedetailsof thedesignwereobviouslythemostrational possibleresponses(givenMies's knowledge)62to theconditionsthathe had established forthesite,theprogram,thematerial,and theconstructionmethod,theinitialdecision to use theconcretecantileverlackedthejustification of rationality. The use of rein- forcedconcreteas a buildingmaterial(not typicalof Mies'slaterwork)was undoubtedly well suitedto thecontemporary postwareconomiccrisiswhensteeland ironwerein shortsupply.The decisionto experiment withthecantilever, however,was made becauseof itspotentialfornew formalsolutions.And, in Mies'shands,thoseexperimentsand theirresultingsolutionstranscendedtheestablishedrationaland functional dicta of contemporary architectural discourse.By placingtheload-bearingstanchions tower 37 ChicagoTribune competition Walter Gropius, entry, 1922. wellwithinthesurfaceof thebuilding,Mies made thestructural componentspractically invisiblefromtheoutside:in theconcretecountryhouse,wherethestructure of the wall was subvertedby thelong horizontalribbonwindows;in thecurvilinear skyscraper, whereemphasislay in transparency and reflection; even in theconcreteofficebuilding was prominently where,althoughthestructure displayedin thedrawing,it is onlyvisible due to an almostunrealgleamingfromwithinthebuilding. Three EarlyDesigns byMiesvanderRohe This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions weremoreprecisein theirdescriptionsand obserAgain,some of Mies'scontemporaries concrete,J.J.P. In an articleon thepotentialof reinforced vationsthanMies himself. in Oud seemedto describeMies'sofficebuildingwhenhe wrote 1923: however,makesa homogeneouscombinationof load-bearing Ferroconcrete, and carriedpartspossible,horizontaldevelopmentsof enormoussizesand systemonly purecontainmentforspace and mass.The old post-and-lintel allowedus to build frombottomto top withan inwardslant;we can now go beyondthatand build fromthe bottomto thetop slantingoutward.With thelatter,a possibilityfora new architectonical plasticityhas been created, whichcan initiatethrougha collaborationwiththeestheticpotentialof iron Oud, "Oberdie 63 Cf.J.J.P. zukinftige undihrearchitektonischen Baukunst in Frihlicht 1,(1921-22); M6glichkeiten," Ulrich from Conrads,ed.,Bruno quoted eine Taut fiir i92o-i922,Friihlicht, Folge desneuenBaugedankens die Verwirklichung (Berlin, 1963), 206. 64 Cf.LudwigHilberseimer, undForm,"G Materialien "Konstruktion zurelementaren 3 (1924): 24-25. Gestaltung almost of an opticallyimmaterial, and mirroredglasstheriseof an architecture hoveringcharacter.63 Mies's friendLudwigHilberseimerdescribedtheofficebuildingin 1924as follows: combinedwiththelack of columnsin the "Throughthedominatinghorizontality characterof thebuildingis entirelychanged,so thatthroughthe faqadethestructural of hoveringlightness lack of supportsa new architecture arises."''6 And that,in fact,was one of thepivotalmodernmovesawayfromnineteenth-century forthecreationof rationalism:to use thedisplayof loadbearingstructure structural opticalillusions,and poetry. magicaleffects, sketch 38 Miesat workinhisoffice, byhis c. assistant, SergiusM. Ruegenberg, ip23. DietrichNeumann This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 17 May 2015 20:37:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 97