The original plan of Case Study House #1 underwent significant changes when finally built 3 years after initial publication. Wartime restrictions greatly effected material supply and contributed to the reduction of approximately 110 square meters of living space and the elimination of both a second story and long horizontal windows facing the road. The interior retained some of the original intent with a large living area embellished by a fireplace and opening onto the garden in addition to interior detailing of multiple built-in storage units.

...more

Wood-framed with extensive areas of glass, this home was the second in the program to be built. Architect Sumner Spaulding and his partner John Rex redesigned Case Study House #2 in 1946, a year before the home was constructed. The goal of easing the family’s household duties and chores greatly affected the layout and overall scheme. A large garage, accented on the exterior by an undulating brick wall, housed a deep-freeze cupboard which allowed for the easy transport of groceries. The open plan of the kitchen facilitated entertaining and gave the family fluid access between key living areas. ...more

The scheme for Case Study House #3 was executed while Wurster was Dean of the School of Architecture at MIT with Bernardi as the primary designer. Other than a change in site location, from sitting adjacent to Case Study House #1, this home mostly kept true to its original concept and design. The central space of the H-shaped plan opens onto a ‘living garden’, which houses an actual enclosed garden within a large living area. A workshop adjacent to the kitchen doubles as a laundry area, emphasizing the architects’ more pragmatic and economical approach to the project.

...more

Considered one of the more innovative designs of the program, Case Study House #4 was referred to as the “Greenbelt house” by architect Ralph Rapson. Though the house was never built, detailed plans reveal an unconventional approach featuring an interior garden or “greenbelt” running directly between the communal areas of the home and the more private bedroom areas. These three bands come together to form a rectangular area under a sloping butterfly roof. ...more

Whitney R. Smith’s Case Study House #5 radically broke from the conventional house plan of the program and although unbuilt, became widely known as the most extreme of the group. The central space of the home, which includes the loggia, sitting room and kitchen, features sliding glass partitions that allow for a fluid transition between a more separate or open realization of space. The architect eliminated hallways and a breakfast nook in order to bring one’s attention to the outside; an emphasis echoed in the home’s layout of four main rooms within a garden. ...more

Richard Neutra conceived of Case Study House #6 as part of a duo of homes sitting on adjacent lots and sharing similar features. These two designs were the first of several the architect would contribute to the Case Study program and both unbuilt homes in the set featured signature Neutra details such as wood and glass construction with an overhanging roof. The X plan of CSH #6 allowed for the four outdoor courtyards to complement the homes interior layout and the distinct function of each highlights the architect’s meticulous attention and emphasis on the importance of the outdoor. ...more

The clients of Case Study House #7, a roofing company emloyee and his family, had a significant influence on architect Thornton Abell’s design of the home. They expressed their wish for a central activity area, which Abell responded to by directly placing the space between the living room and kitchen. This layout allowed for the option of keeping the spaces open and communal or more separated and private. Zoning for different functions throughout the home was carried into the outdoor areas as well with the orientation of its terraces and patios. ...more

The twin projects of Case Study House #8 and #9 ushered in a new phase of construction and design in the program with the end of the war and the new availability and abundance of building materials. The original joint design of CS #8 by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen underwent significant changes during the final phase of the project at which time Eames, along with his wife and design partner Ray Eames, made substantial modifications to the overall layout and scheme.

...more

Built for the editor and publisher of Arts & Architecture magazine John Entenza, Case Study House #9 was the twin to its predecessor CS #8. The two homes, both designed by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen, sat on adjacent lots and although they shared similar construction materials and methods, their overall scheme and sensibility was quite different. The interior structure of CS #9 was concealed within plastered and wood-paneled surfaces and much emphasis was placed on extensive areas for entertaining as dictated by the client, with very little space devoted to private rooms. ...more

Case Study House #10 was included in the program after it was already designed and built by the father and son team of Kemper Nomland and Kemper Nomland, Jr. The home showcased many of the goals of the program set forth by Arts and Architecture magazine, such as the use of low-cost materials, a modern aesthetic and a simple overall approach to construction. The architects mirrored the descending line of the home’s site into the sloping roofline and as such were able to provide the home with a strong relationship to its environment. ...more