Studying "great architecture" and then finding out that theyre all actually horribly designed and not actually livable and are contrary to the function part of architecture is hilarious
That's true. But in this case a lot of the issues could simply have been fixed if the architect was't such a git and didn't stick it next to the river. And of course if HVAC could have been incorporated.
But it is what happens all of the time. There are reasons why architecture has developed in a certrain way over millenia. When architects decide to do something completely different because they want to express themselves in art, that is fine. But they always lose something on the way, most of the time it is practicality and livability.
I visited the house in 2010. It was impossible to be close because it was heated by the sun like a giant oven. Inside, the air conditioning was at full steam all day... I imagine that in winter it would be the same, but in reverse... I estimate that if they turned it off, everything inside would catch on fire... Ha ha ha. Furthermore, it was impossible to be inside without sunglasses because the reflection of the sun on the glass blinded you... I suppose that as a concept it contributed a lot, but as a house it was unlivable.
The 20th century saw an interesting divorce of architectural design and quality engineering/craftsmanship. Earlier architects, even pioneering ones like Louis Sullivan (my favorite), knew to respect and partner with equally excellent engineers. In Sullivan's case that was Dankmar Adler.
Yes. And it also saw a divorce of the design, which became a purely ego-based, mental/visual-based design from any connection with actual lived experience and space that was meant to serve its inhabitants. It's truly striking.
Everything exist for a reason, although it was a disaster, it was at the same time irresistibly beautiful. The architectural representation illustrates history and future. A wonderful masterpiece.
Had that house been in Ontario, Canada, an in the City of Toronto or nearby suburbs, the land would have been expropriated during 1955, subsequent to Hurricane Hazel in 1954. All flood plains were deemed unsuitable for residential buildings and very few industrial buildings. Flood plains were, and still are, designated parkland. Sensible. As a piece of architecture, this house is a study in how not to design and build a dwelling. Can't really call it a house, and certainly not a home. The only way to save it as something useable is to replace all the glass with double panes of insulated glass. For security, a third layer, external to the others, of hurricane glass would not go amiss.
When a contractor tells you he would not build a house in the area you want to use, you really need to listen. I have visited the Farnsworth House and the contractor was totally right.
Wonderfully informative video. I grew up in the Chicago area and always had an interest in architecture, so I knew a little about this house. I never really heard before about all the design, construction, and financial problems of building and maintaining the house, though. Still a beautiful home, but not one I think I'd want to own or live in. 😅
For the Love of God, please redo this video and take the initiative to research the proper pronunciation of “Plano, IL” where the Farnsworth House is located. It’s pronounced: “Play-no” like the famous tackle box company.
How can it be considered good architecure when it fails on most of the fundamentals.......all architecture students loved this house in my day because cause of its F@#k You factor......still not good principles for a successful dwelling.......
I do feel people are being overly critical of the architect, the physical building itself and the relationship with the client. This is not, nor ever was the client under the impression she would be getting a mediocre building in the suburbs. She knew what she was getting into, but likely had delusions or complete ignorance of the ramifications of the process, budget and end results. Sure, it wasn’t all roses, but what she got was one of the most important residential buildings ever created anywhere. In my own career, (not architecture) I am constantly urging my clients to push amd stretch beyond their comfort level in order to get the very best they can afford or even dream of. Rarely do they regret it, it might hurt for a little while, but they always thank me afterwards. That’s exactly what Mies did, and while it was painful for Miss Farnsworth, he persevered and was successful and we all benefit from it.
Interesting take on the subject, and you're clearly on to some real world thinking. I'm surely not in the position to judge the motives and desicions that rich people and their preferred architects make. But maybe a few thoughts that come to my mind may spark some expanding perspectives: This house is the epidemy of an architects dream. It's clearly a piece of art - but why go through the hassle of dealing with a client if its just for the architects goals? A very progressive architect in my surrounding (Walter Grohe in Austria) also went for the extremes in many cases - but in conjunction with an also extreme forward thinking air condition designer - my father - to create special places with good and efficient living quality. For his clients he regularly went waay over their expectations in design and cost terms - if well executed a noble long term goal as you pointed out - but still with their use case in mind, so they could grow into it. I'd say this Farnsworth House is an interesting edge case of doing the maximum possible for the designers vision, but at the expense of trust and usability of the client as it seems. Even in the long time perspective.
@@genius1a it’s true that numerous architects build their own house as a showcase or sample of their work for their reputations, which now have become iconic. Frank Gehry for example. However, that’s not feasible for everyone and in the end, the built world is full of tales of unhappy clients and budget overruns. No one should be surprised there. I just feel the comments here, and the editorial undertone of the documentary, have vilified Mies unfairly.
@@LVQ-so5th difficult to sum it up without a long winded comparison and reference to other examples of domestic architecture. Essentially, it’s rightfully lauded as being the ultimate minimalist house, exhibiting supreme elegance all while being composed of steel, glass and concrete, modalities and materials best suited for corporate architecture. It was groundbreaking in its use of glass for all the exterior walls creating a openness to the outside that is reinforced in the interior with its open plan. Mies built surprisingly few residential buildings, and Farnsworth is the logical conclusion and exclamation point for his residential work. Physical properties aside, it’s just a very lyrical building in a classical sense, and it’s elevation and white finish makes it kinda ethereal. It’s ordered, defined, refined. There’s just so much to love about it. So many buildings are just variations on a theme, but in Farnsworth, it’s stands alone without comparison.
Great post. Love VDR's work, but his ego... putting the house in a known flood plane and hoping for the best - is inexcusable. That road expansion was also predictable, so moving it to higher ground away from the road would have stopped much of this unnecessary drama. The lack of proper HVAC is mind-numbing. He did not care about the clients true comfort , longevity, or finances... Only his desires. If it had been anyone else, these design decisions would definitely have been challenged rigorously before construction.
"Artistic" architects dont care about their clients. This is still true today. After one experience with these types of architects, and can assure you - NEVER AGAIN.
A specialist Dr so busy she wanted a retreat to unwind from the stress…….the architect did not care…about the brief…about his client….about her wellbeing…her budget. So rare to have a female specialist doctor….especially at that time….this would have greatly impacted her life😢
Yup, he is happy to piss away unlimited amounts of a clients money just to massage his own inflated "professional" ego. The arrogance of this architect guy is breathtaking.
It's beautiful, but you couldn't rest there. It has no cosiness. And the privacy issues are bad too. It's only good for parties in lovely weather. An expensive tent.
As a regular Joe that can't afford architecture as art, I find Mr. Mies, as presented here, appalling. Grading to within a tenth of an inch, plug welding the structure, travertine floors, etc. all look really cool but are ridiculously expensive to pull off. When presented with the budget, he obviously ignored that little aspect of the project and insisted on construction that would obviously create costs that outsized the budget by leaps and bounds. Also, the basic needs of the design - to make a comfortable living space - were apparently ignored to create his vision. As an art object, this may get a pass but as a home, I'd say it's a fail. And Mr. Mies gets a fail as an architect/builder here as well. I believe he had a responsibility to his client and he absolutely ignored it.
Wonderful documentary. I am an architect, and was an apprentice at Taliesin, and so am very familiar with Frank Lloyd Wrights many struggles with clients, budgets, and the weather - but this case study really puts it all in perspective. to paraphrase one quip by a client when their roof leaked during an important dinner party "well, that's what you get for leaving a work of art out in the rain.." Architecture is like no other art. It costs large amounts of other peoples money. You have to deal with gravity, earthquakes, snow, ice, contractors, building codes, local officials, neighbors, critics, and the judgment of history. You don't get to hide the work you don't like, or that goes badly. Not for the faint of heart- especially if you try to do something special. When you do, however, it is incredible how people respond, and how much time and effort they will spend to preserve even a "beautiful disaster.." Thanks again.
I had architect friends and they used to rave about Frank Lloyd Wright's work, but I used to look at them and tell them no way would I ever want to live in a house designed and furnished by the architect. When I saw his stove in the kitchen, that told me that he had never cooked a dinner. If I had that house, the first thing I'd do is toss out the gas stove with it's little crowns to hold the pots and replace it with a restaurnat type sove where I can push a pot or pan anywhere on the cooking surface without the danger of it falling off the edge of his "crowns" and spilling hot soup all over me such as in the FLW version. Oh, and the house leaks too? Didn't he learn to design a proper roof?
Who is the successor to FLW? I'm not seeing any FLW like houses anywhere. I often thought there would be a BIG market for FLW 'light" houses for empty nesters ...one floor and smaller, modern and functional.
Mies was very experimental in his architecture, and many times, the technology didn't align with his artistic vision. This house actually comes the closest to his personal goal of building a structure with no interior beams, entirely supported by its exterior. I visited the Farnsworth house years ago with a tour group sponsored by The Art Institute of Chicago. During the tour, I remember the story of how Edith Farnsworth didn't really understand the reality of living in a glass house until her first night sleeping on the property. Then she installed curtains for privacy which only angered the architect, destroying his minimalist vision of the building. The second owner, Peter Palumbo, added a large garage/barn on the grounds to house his collection of vintage cars, which he would drive down Michigan Ave in Chicago whenever he came to visit.
Curtains were a good idea. Looks like Meis didn't understand that a woman alone at a remote country retreat house might not appreciate that exposed feeling of an all glass house. A pack of 4 or 5 trained guard dogs patrolling outdoors may have helped, too. And, the architect's arrogant dismissal of flood plain possibilities was really irresponsible. Architecture is not just art for art's sake.
Still Today, whatever construction that you design with glass walls or glass ceilings etc, is as problematic as decades ago. so mostly we only see that on big buildings like skyscrapers; due to the cost to have a good environment inside is divided by many or by a corporation not by a family. Plus that is the less eco type of building due to relies on AC units and fancy everything to keep it going.
MAMMA MIA ! At least Edith Farnsworth got her place in history. All I can afford is a trailer made of glass that is raised on poles, and I can pretend.
I've been around several houses of this style and period, knew owners (and a few architects.) Here's a few things I've learned (most are probably obvious). First, the design. What looks great on paper might be difficult to achieve in reality. One Mies/Johnson inspired house I noticed as I approached it had bold line (header) over the opening portico and then a line of an adjacent cantilever. It's clear these should have lined up. This wasn't possible without greater cost and anticipating the issue before construction. It hadn't been. (The required height of the beam, holding up the ceiling and supporting the second floor, makes this impossible, unless one of the two lines was filled out and 'cheated.' This would've been desirable but in the middle of construction too expensive and delaying.) So 'Great Architect' also includes the qualification: they can get the thing built retaining the over all vision. Building is all compromises, great architecture is supposed to be uncompromising. It's just not so. Great architecture requires intelligent often very clever compromises. (Young architects, reading Foundation and throwing a hissy doesn't cut it.) Second, because of the materials and systems available from the 1910s through the 1960s all of these places have leaky roofs, almost no insulation, leaky windows (even the non opening ones), completely ineffective HVAC. (When you visit Falling Water and then you walk up to the annex you realize, Wright's Falling Water is great architecture, but this annex is for humans to live in.) For a bit over the past 30 years insulated glass, much much better roofing material, insulation, LED lights, HVAC, etc have now made this type of architecture practical. There are some amazing and livable houses. There are houses like this in the high desert in direct sunlight and the wind. (>38C in summer
Not "most architects" but it's true of narcissistic architects. Just as it's true of narcissistic politicians and CEO's. These kind of people often achieve great things (and often obtain great admiration of others), but it's at the expense of practicality and the lives of everyday people. Run away from narcissists. Run far, far away. They are toxic.
The house was nothing but problems and continues to be nothing but problems. But you end the video by saying "Hopefully it can endure so it can inspire generations to come." Why? Because it so beautifully encapsulates everything wrong with buildings today? It paid no attention to the concerns of the site, it sprang from a horrible relationship with between a client and an egotistical architect, it went way over budget, its an uncomfortable space in winter and summer, its incredibly energy inefficient, it costs millions to maintain... As art its beautiful. As architecture its horrible.
I see your point, it definitely has flaws, I think they can be attributed to the fact that a bulding like this was new to his time, in the end Edith could have choosen to make a regular functioning house, but we wouldn't be talking about her former house today
@Just think but he asked residents about flood levels and built the house on stilts measured to the information gained in his research, and put the house in the trees for summer shade and installed a fireplace for winter heat, and put windows all around to provide 360 views of the beautiful environment of the site. That’s a lot of attention paid to the site. It’s not like they knew about global warming and climate change, and there weren’t other glass houses so the thermal qualities of 360 quarter inch single pane glass were probably yet unexplored. But that’s not not paying attention to the site. That’s our hindsight.
While the Plano House is ultimately very special, Mies severely abused the trust of his client. That abuse of trust, drives people away from the use of architects.
Mies is the greatest architect of the past 100 years. Period. This house is stunning. His glass tower the Seagram Building in midtown Manhattan is the as beautiful as the Parthenon
When I think of all the fabulous mansions and unique houses that only lasted a few decades before they were razed, I'm confused by all the resources used to salvage this quirky small home.
Thank you for the history of this magnificent but fatally flawed project. Van der Rohe reminds me of 'The Fountainhead', and its intransigent architect who could allow no compromise to his 'elevated' vision. In the final analysis, van der Rohe was really working for himself, and to hell with the client. Placing the house in the flood plain was bad enough, but to altogether disregard the weather is evidence of his narcissism. Selecting the most luxurious - but inappropriate - materials further compromised the outcome. I note the photographs show a badly cracked and uneven entry pad, as well as water staining in odd places. Ms. Farnsworth got a beautiful Work of Art. It's a shame it was never a real home.
Pretty sad when world famous architect makes a house that's all problems ,problems and you have prefabricated kit houses from Sears department stores still standing with way fewer problems .
Mies van der Rohe was a disgrace to his profession. If an architect builds the most beautiful building in the world (however you define beautiful) but it doesn't function, then it is a FAILURE. Such people should not be allowed to practice as architects, the same as a surgeon who is repeatedly botching his operations has his license revoked. If you only care about how something looks, become a sculptor.
A careful examination of the site would have told them just how high the flood waters would rise. It might not have been so pretty if the stilts were high enough to keep the house above the flood water.
What a giant headache. Just wanting a weekend house and getting an expensive pain in the wazoo for the original owner, but also for generations to come. I hope it inspires generations to come on how NOT to build a house.
@@henriqueoliveira7454 Influencing lots of people doesn't correlate to quality, or that the idea that influences people is good, beautiful, worthy of praise and respect for generations, etc. We now live in a world full of influencers who can reach from thousands to tens of millions of people if not more, but doesn't mean much in absolute terms. Are they all geniuses? These modernist architects seem to have held their vision in higher regard than anything else, like long term livability, usability, the limits of contemporary technology, the effect of water, the client's wants and needs, etc. I mean anybody can be a genius architect if they are held in high regard just for ignoring all the rules. I'm sad, angry, frustrated that the entirety of architecture, all the other styles and regional traditions are taught as a single object in most schools as the History of Architecture, but the rest is just functionalism shrouded in modernist ideology. And what actually gets built most of the time doesn't satisfy anyone, is just the most functional building to make the most profit. Modernist architecture is like a religion that makes its students believe that it's the only good way of making buildings while scoffing at the rest of humanity which appreciates more the traditional way of making buildings, more uniform in size, but with more details and colorful. This can be plainly seen by the amount of people visiting, older towns and cities like, Paris, Venice, Prague and many more compared to steel and glass gardens.. Even in New York the most attractive sky scrapers are the ones built up until the 50-60s with brick or stone facades and many details. I work as draftsman at a small architecture firm and the most popular type of building we design is based on the local traditional peasant houses or swiss/austrian chalets. The rest are modernist, but modest and we count ourselves lucky when a client largely follows our drawings in terms of facades and fittings. Modernist "genius" architects have been a BAD influence on architecture for far too long.
Another great video, I wish you’d get the views your work deserves. So much detail and well presented with your editing - use of photos and animations are great. Thanks for this :-)
Mies, the godfather of the horrible "Glass Box" movement! I was able to visit the Illinois Institute of Technology. They took me outside to look at a corner of the building, pointing at it like it was the most innovative thing they had ever seen. The corner of the building!
Wow... who could've thought of a box with no sides. Truly revolutionary. I'm so glad architects really build on the work of the old masters, instead of making cultureless piles of geometry that are uncomfortable to be around and in
beautiful disaster is a good term for the house. the architect wanted to make a masterpiece no matter what the clients budget was, he lied to her constantly. then in the end the house was only livable in the spring an d fall. mies proved to be an asshole who didnt give a shit for his client.
I think the entire project from beginning to end was either an unattended prank (without Mies stopping to think about it) or at the least very tongue in cheek.
Lots of wasted unutilized space such as the roof. Learn from nature, when GOD designs something, it always has form and function, ie, it's pleasant to look at but also has purpose that serves a function.
If Scotty Kilmer is a building contractor and not an auto mechanic, he would still declare this Farnsworth House is "a bottomless MONEY PIT! Ha ha ha!" (insert laughing donkey head here).
Great video. I loved the line "a staple of modernist architecture, but as a space to be lived in, it leaves something to be desired" :))) That sums up a lot of the prestigious modernist buildings. Starchitecture which is a disaster in terms of comfort, cost, maintenance, livability and survivability. And the poor man's modernism is a utilitarian hellhole.
Take a 1945 home purchased for $10,000. What is it worth today? In many areas it is worth $1,000,000. Not sure how $8-10,000 translates to the $130,000 you indicated. You could barely build a cheap house for that.
He could've done a better job and listened to his client, rather than acting like a dick, exploring uncharted territory and experimenting with his client's hard-earned money, I'm sorry. He violated every basic rule of architecture, and sacrificed function for aesthetics, but insisting on building a glass house in a flood zone with total disregard to risk management and the elements of nature is NOT something a good architect would do. Why millions of dollars are still being flushed over this fancy shipping container is beyond me, while I keep looking at it, gazing at the structure, interior and all, trying to understand where all that money went: For 8 CFS beams (columns wtvr) on two slabs and single-pane glass? No HVAC system and no walls. So where did the money go? Must be the Barcelona bed. that sh#t is expensive 😆 Also, 6 YEARS of construction time? Bruh, the Empire State building, rising 102 stories above Manhattan to claim the title of world's tallest building for nearly 40 years, was constructed in just one year and 40 days.
6:30 : it can't have helped Mies in his quest to learn the flooding history of the site, that the Illinois State Water Authority apparently kept their records in Russian. It's like Ayn Rand must have thought, "who are the biggest, most self-regarding, socially useless non-contributing group of people with a permanent sense of their own importance who make life miserable for the greatest number of people, so I can make one the hero of a shitty book". And then all the people in that profession thought, "since I'm a sociopath anyway, what can I read that's basically about my absolute worst impulses, that would aggravate my complete lack of integrity""? It's worth noting that Van Der Rohe lived in a big masonry and small windowed apartment in an old building until his death.
ever hire an architect if you don't know what YOU want as you will be talked into a design that the architect has been dreaming about . i've had four houses built in my life , all of which were my designs . an architect was hired only because it was required. They all dislike me to this day as i rejected almost all of their suggestions . 😆🤣
The Barcelona pavilion is beautiful, this house, and a lot of modern villas being built today look like the dollar store versions of that, and those skyscrapers they later designed were pretty soleless.
Mies is an extraordinary architect. I've been inside the Barcelona Pavilion. Stunning. If the pools were salt water to swim in, it would be astonishing. Farnsworth House is amazing. I'd probably have it in the black metal Mies used in other projects.
What happens is the architect ends up building their vision at the client's expense. Plus they walk away with an exorbitant fee. If the design fails, oh well - it's art!
This is by far the most comprehensive video exploration of the Farnsworth House I've ever seen. Your research is deep and thorough. The only bit I'd add to the whole Edith and Mies war is that I read somewhere that Mies already had this design of a glass house sketched. And by sketched, I mean he had a fully realized vision of this glass house before he met Edith, and he managed to find a buyer for his idea. He definitely didn't care about costs or mundane client management considerations, but he was fully willing to go down to the job site and hand-pick travertine. He was an odd fellow. Some suspected that Edith, a very smart and interesting person herself, had been enamored of Mies since the dinner party, and that his abrupt ending of the relationship with a large bill for this services broke her heart. Who knows? But i guess it's clear Mies wasn't good at client management. Ah well, I did visit some 6 years ago and the house was OK but you're right that the new ownership foundation has spent a lot of time trying to execute this flood prevention design. As pretty as the house is, it's rather underwhelming in person, partly because Edith lost the battle against Illinois and the lot is nothing like it was in 1950. Traffic now roars by it. I think the house should either be put in a museum, or moved somewhere. People who argue it's inextricably linked to the pastoral environment of the Fox River site neglect to mention the site is simply nothing like it was. It is remarkable, but not very livable or practical. I was impressed by the air curtain forced air design against the glass. The radiant floors were also inspired. But the constant maintenance of the tile and the glass lantern bug attraction of a glass house in nature, in the summer, was also a poor decision that resulted in numerous compromises.
Amazing story... they started out bickering over thousands of dollars in costs, and now preservation has the home in the millions... mind blowing. Soooo much money sunk into such a simple design concept. Yet, Edith's name lives on through her house. Fascinating story, thanks Barchetta.
Mies was not "forced to emigrate" from Nazified Germany. He could have easily moved to Switzerland. He spent well over a year unsuccessfully playing footsie with Goebbels, hoping to unseat the classicist architect to the dictator, Albert Speer (author of the self-serving bestseller "Inside the Third Reich"). When that failed, Mies accepted this SECOND professional invitation to the United States. Considering so many of his peers had to leave Germany, were lost in vulnerable immigration limbo, even murdered in the camps, this is no small distinction. The offer to transform Chicago's Armour Institute into a new ITT campus was too good to refuse. The rest is architectural history. I am a great admirer of his works, living in one. This historical whitewashing concerns ethos during fascism.
Great Architecture = Unlivable Dump......People are always convinced they want an open floor plan until they spend time in a house that has intriguing and different zones in it.
I must see the house someday. I was just in New York last week. I walked up Park Avenue and enjoyed seeing the Seagram Building once again. When I lived in New York, I worked around the corner and spent many hours sitting on the Seagram plaza.
This is everything we should not do in architecture. It's frustrating that architecture school praises these starchitects but fail to talk about the failures of their houses. As the saying goes "all great architecture leaks", more like irresponsible
This is very interesting but I always thought the house looked like a single wide mobile home made out of glass and steel. It looks quite uncomfortable and all but unlivable. As for the flooding....my son and daughter rented a tiny house near a lake that would sometimes flood if there was a heavy rain. The owner of the house had it raised up on a taller foundation and installed stairs. It worked well to keep the house safe and dry. Both of my children live in very nice houses now, but they still look back on that tiny house with great fondness.
while i aknowledge how important the house is as an architectural skulpture, i cant help finding it a bit overrated. its just a simple box, the frame reminds me of a frame of and industrial building that has been stripped down, ok ok.. its still has its beauty, but still.. another thing is the story.. what a fckn dick the architect was.. asked to design a 10k house and ends up designing a 6-7times more expensive unusuable sculpture to tickle his own ego. and then the fact that after that he sent her a additional 28k bill for his work, excluding the house it self
If they have to temporarily relocate the house to install the hydraulic lift wouldn't it better to relocate it permanently somewhere on the property safe from flooding, stupid to have to raise it in the event of serious flooding, that isn't in keeping with the design of the house and Ms Farnsworth did want it further away from the river.
Am I the only one who doesn't think the house is that special for that troubles they went through? If the architect is so focused on the form, just build this as a pavilion for outdoor use only and build a real house in addition.
It seems to me that this house is a grand piece of sculpture, and that that is true for many grand buildings. Was Mies a sculptor as much as an architect?
