Chapter 1 al Style: •

The lnternat1o_n . 1925-6 5

theme and var1at1ons

f sta ti c so lid ity, hithe rto conditions, be they climatic ' cult uraJ
0
The effect of mass, o II b t omic, could not support the ap r r.econ.
the pri me quality of arch ite ctu re, ha s a u
advanced light-weight technologp icat,on of
disappea,·ed; in its place th ere is an effect of 192ot ~e- Cor.
busier's ideal villas of the late
- mo,·e accura tely, of plan e su rfa cesI . . ant1cipa
vo Iume. 01 · such formalism inasmuch as they ma teo
-,ng a volume · Th e pri me arch 1tectura . squerad
boun d as white, homogeneous, machine-mad f eo
sym bol is no long er th e den se bri ck, ~ut _the . e orm)
whereas t h ey were in fact built of ·
open box. Ind eed. the great maj ori ty of buildings renderea
concrete block-work held in place b
are in reali ty, as w ell as in effect. mere planes Y a re.
inforced-concrete frame.
su rround ing a volume. With skeleton con-
struction enveloped only by a protective screen , Dr Philip Lovell's Health House, built in L
the arc hitect can hardly avoid achiev ing this Angeles in 1927 to the designs of the Austrios
effect of su rface, of volume, unless in defe rence emigre architect Richard Neutra, may be r:~
to trad iti onal design in terms of mass he goes garded as the _apotheosis of the International
out of his w ay to obtain the co ntrary effect Style, its architectural expression deriving
directly from a skeleton steel frame, clad in a
Henry- Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson light -weight synthetic skin. Set on a bluff over-
The International St yle, 1932 (exhibition looking a romantic, half-wild parkscape, its
catalogu e, Museum of Modern Art, asymmetrical composition of dramatically sus-
New York) pended floors was reminiscent of Wright's
In many respects, the International Style was West Coast block-house style of the 1920s, and
little more than a convenient phrase denoting this formal similarity already suggests the
a cubistic mode of architecture which had catholic sources from which the supposed
spread throughout the developed world by the
time of the Second World War. Its apparent 246 Neutra, Lovell Health House; Griffith Park.
homogeneity was deceptive, since its stripped Los Angeles, 1 927 .
planar form was subtly inflected so as to res-
pond to different climatic and cultural con-
ditions. Unlike the Neo-Classical manner of the
Western_ world in the late 18th century, the
lnternat1onal Style never became truly univer-
sal. Nonetheless, it implied a universality of
ap~roach w~ich . generally favoured light-
weight technique, synthetic modern materials
;~ .sta~dard modular parts so as to facilitate
a ncat1on and erection It te d d .
rule toward th . . n e as a general
s e hypothetical flexibility of the
f ree plan and to th . d .
f ' is en it preferred skeleton
rame construction to
position b masonry. This predis-
ecame formalistic where specified
248
 ·ty of the Interna tional Style in1t1ally ~or Lovell just one year before) , Lovell could
hOrTlog ene1
ave been re?arded _as embodying the athletic
derived . t inciden tally, the open-p lan form of and progre ssive attributes of the I nte rn at·I on al
5 · - .
AfrT1° e was an approp riate reflect ion of St YIe in his own persona:
hoUS .
the I' expansive person ality and served to
5 Dr Lovell was a charac teristic southe rn Cali -
Lovel t his callisth enic lifestyl e. As David
represen . . d , fornia produc t. It is doubtf ul whethe r his
suggests in h 1s stu y of N eutra s
Geb hard d have been repeated anywh ere else .
career coul _
riot and early partne r Rudol ph Schind -
cornPa t . N Throu gh· his Los Angele s Times colum n. ·c are

Af
( ho had realized a house at ewpor t Beach f

•' ;: ,
~
o the Body' , and throug h 'Dr Lovell 's Physical
Cultur e Center ·. he had an influen ce which
extend ed far beyon d the physic al care of the
body. He was . and he wished to be consid ered
progre ssive! wheth er in physic al culture . per-
f
f
missiv e educa tion, or archite cture .

The ideology of Lovell and its direct expres-

sion in the Health House exercised a decisive
influence over the rest of Neutra's career. From
now on his work was at its best where the
/
building programme could be interpreted as
making a direct contribution to the , psycho-
physiological wellbeing of its occupants. The
central theme of both Neutra's work and his
writings was the beneficial impact of a well-
designed environment upon the general health
of the human nervous system. And while his
so-called 'bio-realism' rested largely on un-
proven arguments linking architectural form to
overall health, it is difficult to discredit the
extraordinary sensitivity and supra-functional
attitude that coloured his whole approach.
Nothing could be furthef removed - from the
247 Schind ler, Lovell Beach House, Newpo rt
exclusively formal motivati.pns attributed to the
Beach, Calit ., 1925-2 6.
International Style by Hitchcock and Johnson
248 Rudolf Schind ler (right) with Richard and
than the overall biological concerns addressed
Dione Neutra and their son, at Schind ler's Kings Rd
house (1921- 22) , Los Angeles, 1928.
by Neutra in his book Survival Through
Design (1954) , where he wrote:
It has becom e impera tive that in design ing ou r
physic al enviro nment we should consci ously
raise the fundam ental que_ s tion of surviva l in
the broade st sense of the term . Any design that
impair s or impose s excessive stra in on the
natura l human equ ipmen t should be elimina ted
or modifi ed in accord ance with the require ments
of our nervou s. and mo re g radual ly, our total
physio logica l functio n ing .

Thus. the primary concern for Schindler and

Neutra alike - both of whom had served their
American apprenticeships with Wright - was

249
not abs trac t for m as suc h , but
rath er the mo dul - for mu late d pro gra mm e and
atio n of sun and ligh t and the a con e
sen siti ve art icu l- env iron me nta l imp act of det
atio n of the scr een s of pla aili ng s ern for the
nts bet we en the bee n mo re hig hly val ued eern
bui ldin g and its gen era l con by Ro th to have
tex t . Thi s am bie nt ach iev em ent of spe cta cul ar
hed oni sm wa s nev er mo re sol utio ns t:an . the
sub tly exp res sed spa tial or tec hni cal ter ms .
tha n in the Sac hs Ap art me Ro th thu s either
nts , Los An gel es, mu ch spa ce to tra diti ona l tec
bui lt to Sch ind ler' s des ign . hni que s gave as
in 192 9, or in loa d-b ear ing ma son ry, as to , such
Ne utr a's sec ond ma ste rwo . aav anc ed as
rk, his Ka ufm ann .
o f .f ram e con str uct ion m tim. svst
De ser t Ho use , bui lt at Pal m ber and ste ern ,,,s
Sp ring s, Ca lifo rnia , wh ile the latt er inc lud ed Ne 1
in 19 46 -47 . utr a's co ~ · Ano
str aig htf orw ard bu t bea utif
For Alf red Ro th, pra ctis ing in ully detailed P1etely
Zur ich thr oug h- air sch ool in Los An gel es of
out the 193 Os , the ess ent ial 193 4 the fOPen-
tou chs ton e of the ran ged fro m Ve rno n de , orrner
Inte rna tion al Sty le wa s a sen . Ma rs's two t
siti ve and stri ctly ado be terr ace hou sin g bui . -s Orey
doc trin aire app roa ch to the lt in Ne w Me .
cre atio n of bui lt in 1 939 to the 19 32 Ne ubu
form . In his rem ark abl e ant hol hl Sie dlu ng bu~~~o
ogy of 194 0, The Zur ich to the des ign s of 1
Ne w Arc hit ect ure , he atte mp ted Ro th's cornpatrio t:
to sho w tha t Ma x · Ha efe li, Car l Hu bac her
the Ne ue Sa chl ich kei t wa s , Ru dol f Steiger
at its bes t wh ere We rne r Mo ser , Pau l Art aria
nei the r adv anc ed tec hni que and Han s Schmidt·.
nor the fre e-p lan Wh ile me etin g the non -rh eto
wa s allo we d to bec om e an rica l (anti-monu-
end in itse lf . A we ll- me nta l), soc ial and tec hni
cal criteria of the
AB C gro up , by wh ose me mb
ers it wa s largely
des ign ed, the Ne ubu hl Est
ate wa s able to
hum ani ze the rig oro us Zei
len bau approach of
the Ne ue Sa chl ich kei t, not
onl y thro ugh the
ste ppe d infl ect ion of the row
hou se uni t over a
slo pin g site , bu t als o thr oug
h the del ica cy of its
lan dsc api ng.
In fea tur ing oth er equ ally
restrained but
ele gan t wo rks , suc h as the
Bad-Allenmoos
sw imm ing fac ility in Zu rich
by We rne r Moser of
19 35 or Ro th's ow n Do
lde rta l apartments,
bui lt for Sig frie d Gie dio n in
Zur ich in 1936 to
des ign s ma de wit h Ma rce
l Bre uer and his
cou sin Em il Ro th, The .Ne w
Architecture pro-
cla ime d the ma tur ity of
the Sw iss Modern
Mo vem ent . Bu t des pite its
dec ide d bias in
fav our of the wo rk of CIA
M members, Roth's
249 ant hol ogy wa s jus t as cos
Neu tra, Kau fma nn Des ert Hou
se, Pal m Spr ing s,
mo pol itan as The
Cal if., 194 6-4 7 . Int ern ati ona l Sty le, fea tur ing
wo rks from
250 Cz ech osl ova kia , En gla nd, Fin
Hae feli , Hub ach er, Ste iger ,
Mo ser , Arta ria and lan d, France, Hol-
Sch mid t, Neu buh l Sie dlu ng, lan d, Ital y and Sw ede n and
Zur ich, 193 2. Site pla n the reb y acknowl -
(slo pin g dow n from bot tom edg ing the est abl ish me nt
to top ) and ste ppe d of the Ne w Arc~i-
ele vat ion s . tec tur e (Ro th's ow n ter m) in
all these countries
 te 1930s. France was repr esen ted by
1
hoo l
bY t:oraks: by the Per_retesq~e ope n-ai r s_c
esnes outs ide Pans to the desi gn of
rw0 5
·it at ur
bU' ·n and Lods, and by Le Corb usie r's
audo u1
Be talist rubb le-w alle d. and timb er-
oto- 8 ru and
pr d house built at Mat hes in 1 935 . Holl
ouw
roofe resented by the wor k of the Opb
was rep
a Dutch wing of CIA M) , mos t nota bly
group ( . k
the practices of Brin man and Van der
byl t and Van Tijen and Maa skan t. Brita in was
V ug , . I
the
counted for in the sing u ar mas terw ork of
ts
a~ ineer Owen Willi ams , the fam ous Boo
g maceutical P',ant, b uI·1t at Beest on in 1932.
ePhar .
ol-
Williams was an outs ider in the who le anth
a
ogy since he was neith er an arch itec t nor
ed-
member of CIA M. Non ethe less , his rein forc
ianc e
concrete, and glass fact ory rival led the brill
Nell e
of Brinkman and Van der Vlug t' s Van l Plant , Beeston,
packing plant, built outs ide Rott erda m in
192 9. 251 Willi ams , Boots Pharmaceutica
Nott s., 1932 .
m
Williams 's auda ciou s use of gian t mus hroo .
x 11 252 Kysela, Bata Shoe Store, Prague, 1929
columns, supp ortin g bays up to 9.75
four -
metres (31 x 36 feet ) in plan , gave to this
of
storey industrial shed a scul ptur al form
p-
remarkable prec ision and ene rgy . (The scul
set -
tural effect deriv ed from the 45° clipp ed
is an
backs in the floo r levels of the side elev atio n
ble in
accident: the buil ding was to be exte nda
that direction.)
The one cou ntry whic h has alwa ys been HAS ZAf<UNIK - Nil ·P,b
any acc oun t of the
inadequately repr esen ted in
an
International Styl e is Cze chos lova kia, and
Fun c-
adequate histo ry of the Cze chos lova kian
ten .
tionalist mo_vem ent has yet to be writ
ranc e
Roth 's anth olog y did inclu de the insu
igns
offices built in Pragu.e in 1934 to the des /,I .

and The Inte r- OKO .. AL.EJSi PiHSK.A P0 L0 80lK A I< ( 99 .

of J. Havlicek and K. Hon zik, l Nf.JO

national Style feat ured Otto Eisler's 'dou ble-

~ouse' of 1926 and Boh usla v Fuc hs's 'form
1st' exhibition pavi lion of 1929, both buil
B_rno. Above all they sho wed Lud
~ight- st orey Bata shoe stor e in Prag ue, buil
vik Kyse la
al-
t in
's
t in
-- - - oo, oRNE oseTA.EN I NO HOV

929
and faced enti rely in plat e glas s. Hitc h-
de
cock and John son faile d ' how eve r ' to inclu .
such · · .
brilliant figu res as Jaro mir KreJcar,
I
at hough . ular
Vvork . adm itted ly his mos t spe ctac
the 193 7
p . ' his Cze chos lova kian pav ilion for
Per-
h:ns World Exh ibitio n, had yet to com e. •
Ps rnost ·
the serious of all, they faile d to men tionI
catalytic ro Ie play ed by the cntI . . Kare
Tei c
ge, Whose D evenst1I. grou p was the d rivin . .
g
 2 block, built in 1938, alread ~
mannerist reaction . One is l:ftshows a de .
1
the extent to which Lubetk· to SPecui cdeq
. . in, as a ate
anarcho-soc1al1st persuasion h n archit ()n
sitive to Soviet Social Realis' ad bec 0 11):cto,
• rn, for c sen
essays on SovIet architectu ertaini -
re Vv . Vn·1
1950s reveal a sympathy in th· ~itten in s
shift in expression between ~~ dire~tion. ;ne
I9
H ig hpoi nt 2 was noted at th ~Po1nt 1 he
. d' . e time and
en su1fng h 1s~duss1on established th~ and the
ru 1es or t e I eological struggl 9roon
. . es of th d
Their central issue, that of the . e 19508
. Pnrnac .
formal concept in architecture a d Y of the
th
significance of built form was~ e ultimate
, ouched 0
Anthony Cox in 1938 when hew n by
rote of H·1
point 2: · 9h-
253 Lubetkin and Tecton, Highpoint 1, Highgate,
H ighpoint 1 stands on tiptoe and
London, 1935. . H. h . . spreads .
wings; 1g point 2 sits back on its h its
. aunche
force behind the Czechoslovakian left-wing like Buddha . That this effect is d l'b s
e I erate
Functionalist movement. Tecton themselves would probably b , ·
As in the United States, where the Inter- · d • e tne
f 1rst to a m1t
. one has the feeling that a ,arm
1
national Style was first practised by Viennese h as been imposed on. the rooms (wh·IC h ·IS an
.
and Swiss emigres, in England it had its origin altogether_different thing from giving the rooms
in the work of outsiders. First and foremost was fo rm) . It 1s as if, during the three years tha
Peter Behrens's house for W.J . Bassett- Lowke,
separate the buildings, rigid conclusions ha~
New Ways, built at Northampton in 1926. Then
?een re~ched as to what is formally necessary
came Amyas Connell's house, High and Over,
in architecture. The important point isn't
built at Amersham in 1930 for the archaeologist
whether or not one personally likes these
Bernard Ash mole, Connell coming from New
formal conclusions . but whether one thinks that
Zealand in the late 1920s and soon after found-
any such rigid conclusions are expedient. ...
ing the London firm of Connell, Ward and
The intellectual approach which has produced
Lucas. By far the most influential emigre to
what we know as modern architectu re is
ente~ England at this moment was the Russian
architect Berthold Lubetkin, whose impact on fundamentally a functionalist approach. I take
the development of modern architecture in it that most of us do not need to argue about
England has never been adequately appreci- that Functionalism is a rotten name for the
ated. Lubetkin wh f antithesis of formal ism. because it carries wi th
b ·11· '. o came rom a modest but
ri iant career in Pa · b it dehumanized ideas which nobody wishes to
f h ns, rought to T ecton the 1

irm t at he founded in 193 . , defend - but interpreted in a wide sense.

logical organization h. 2, a capacity for think the word conveys the method of work
English architectur ~- ich has rarely graced underlying this movement. ... My contention is
Highgate Lo d e. i_s 1935 block of flats in
, n on High . that the recent work of Tecton shows a
~asterpiece even b point 1, remains a
deviation from this approach. It is more an
th 3
its internal lay Y th~ standards of today . . deviation
1·

ward site be· out and disposition on an awk, d ev1at1on of appearance; it imp 1es a ·thin
f mg a model f b - of aim. It is more than an adjustment vvi .
unctional order D . o oth formal and .. . 58 t certain
:ubsequent wor.k f~;~1~e the success of their Ieg1t1mate limits .· it is prepared to d rnar kS
nade Zoos L b . e London and Wh ' formal values above the use values. an f ce.
Ch · ' u etkin d 1p- t1ve or
1tty, Drake, Dugdal an h~s Tecton team - t he re-emergence of the idea as a mo
never attained th· I e, Harding and Lasd create a
is evel ag . un - Preoccupied with the need to rec-
am Thei H'
252 · r ighpoint generally accessible modern architecture,