There are three types of reports to the site and the environment developed in the Case Study Houses. These three types of reports are usually completely dissociated. Each report is a ladder to a particular set distance between the site and the villa. They are: environmental entering the house, in direct and internal relationship with the house the immediate environment and in direct connection with the outer and Villa; Finally the distant environment, landscape. Ellwood perfectly illustrates these three types of relationship to the environment in terms of its Case Study House # 16, where it designates and distinguished: the « child short, » the « living terrace » and « view terrace ».

The « inside » environment the current and patio

The Case Study Houses are systematically locate lightweight way to the site. Always posed, suspend in or slightly above the ground, their locations never require heavy excavation. This type of implantation induces a minimal impact on the ground. This is perfectly illustrated by Case Study House # 21 of Koenig, of which we see the attached structure.
This method of implantation naturally allows a multitude of games with the site. Spontaneously may emerge in the house remained untouched natural soil and rub nature in the heart of the house. It is thus are widely used in the Case Study Houses patios and outdoor-indoor spaces. The villas of the Case Study House are placed in the site but unlike the Villa of the Modern Movement is to melt it.

The close environment: the importance of the garden

The villas of the Case Study Program are implanted mostly in residential suburban neighborhoods. Therefore, they generally occupy a limited land that they can not yet handle limits. The work of the Case Study House program designers, therefore, is to limit and qualify this place generally undifferentiated and deformed that fits between the bounds and those of the house. The garden is treated either as a buffer zone from creating distance between the public space and of the house is truly as an extension of the living space. The architects of the Case Study Houses manage to qualify these spaces by a multitude of original treatments. This is, for example, treatments extensions and exterior walls. This treatment can be done in a completely innovative way: for example in the use of translucent panels or by Ellwood Killingworth.

The distant environment, the landscape:

The Case Study Houses are often in the bénéficiants sites privileged views. These sites correspond to residential areas high in the hills surrounding the major California cities. The villa # 22 of Koenig is the archetype. When they have such possibilities, the architects of Case Study Program generally treat areas of the villas so create a framing the landscape. Ie the spaces are worked to erase overshadow see the immediate environment to create a direct relationship between the interior of the villa and the landscape. This treatment creates a total floating feeling of the villa on the landscape. They create a singular continuity between these remote areas and the interior of the villa. This is particularly noticeable in the achievements of Ellwood and Koenig.

<Previous page – Next page >

Continuity :

Continuity is a widely used theme in the Case Study Houses. It can be of two types: continuity of living spaces and continuity between interior and exterior spaces.

Continuity of the living spaces

• The partition between the public areas of life and individual spaces have been clearly defined, we note that in most cases public areas are treated and lived only as a single space. This uniqueness makes them user-friendly.
• This spatial continuity does not necessarily pass through complete transparency of space but rather by treating its fluidity.
• Paradoxically, in Cases Study Houses, the issue of the treatment of the living areas is to successfully occupy and qualify the while maintaining their full fluency.
• In most cases, the space is occupied by objects that are generally different services or facilities: fireplace, kitchen units, storage units etc … These objects have a completely floating position in space. Sometimes suspended, they do not touch the ceiling or the limits of space. Although it irremovable, he conferred the status of their furniture. Their positions to structure informal space delimiting: circulations, living, living room etc …

Example: CSH # 22 of Koenig # 18 of Ellwood

Continuity between indoor and outdoor spaces

• Systematically, the spaces of the villas are worked to rendering uncertain, or even erase completely disintegrate the boundary between inside and outside.
• This continuity is obtained by different treatments. This is achieved by processing the material of course, but also by different spatial treatments.
• Most times it is the creation of spaces to the statutes completely ambiguous and unexpected: Exterior or interior parts gardens, courtyards … These spaces usually have a spatial quality and use unusual.

Examples: HSC Soriano # 25 of Killingworth, # 21 Koenig etc …

Covered & uncoverd, closed & unclosed :

The systematic use of a frame structure allows absolute decoupling components of the different elements the villa. The roof, the fence and the structure can operate completely independently of each other. The architects of the program make use of this freedom radically new and original way. They differ on this point completely European architects of the same era that have become used to treat it differently..

A floating roof …

• The roof is usually the first element of the Case Study Houses.
• It exists by itself as an independent single element. If the frame system allows a system of modular panels, the roof remains monolith. It is most often the unifying element of the project.
• While the shape of the villas can be very cut, roofing in general keeps shape and simple geometry, it is always flat. This flat slab may however breakthrough in some places, thus occasionally causing light.
• Independence and importance are highlighted in different ways. This can be done through the use of contents. It may also underlined by great advances outside. These advanced mitigate the perception that one has of the facade. This is especially true as the roof of the Case Study Houses are usually very close to the ground, the ground floor villas beings. Finally, it makes great use openings transom further strengthening effect this separation and independence of the roof.

Examples: CSH # 16 of Ellwood # 22 of Koenig. / Counter example: # 20 Buff, Straub & Hensman

A structure that rhythm and releases

• However, the slight fence and released is used here so completely original. The use made by the closing opposes a European vision (Le Corbusier …). The latter deals with the released end of the structure by detaching while remaining a hard element. It comes freely separating the spaces between the structural points.

Closings as screens …

• If the roof is designed as a completely flat element and monolith, fence system, on the contrary is always completely free and lightweight.
• Fences are treated here as screens. Lightweight, they hang or cling to the structure. They come and hide in full or in part spaces.
• These fences are heterogeneous and separated.
• Heterogeneous, as the Case Study Houses are working on a whole range of variable screens. This panel has a multitude of qualities of materials and areas: opaque, translucent, textile, smooth, textured etc …
• Dissociated since the closing of the villas can be stripped in several layers, each bearing a closing quality: Climate fence does not necessarily coincide with the visual fence or light etc …
• The roof dissociation – fence is the source of all the spatial richness of Case Study Houses. The house always extends by a multitude of spaces with multiple and different spatial qualities. These spaces are qualified in their uses, partitions and structure the project in its composition.

<Previous page – Next page >

Separations:

From public to private …

• Systematically the Case Study Houses adopt vis-à-vis protection attitude of the street or public domain.
• Each time, they refuse any guidance on the street and turns her back systematically.
• The side of the house facing the street is generally completely blind. The villas refuse any effect of openness and appear on the street in that they have no façade.
• The villas are often separated from the public domain by a rear garden.
• The dividing line between public space and the interior of the house is always clearly drawn.
• This dividing line marking the boundary between the interior and exterior of the house never matches from end to end with the physical limit defining interior and exterior spaces of the house. Thus, some outdoor spaces can be found back towards the inside of the house (thus forming yards, patios etc …), others can be discharged to the outside though covered (such as porches for example). This issue will be thorough about the « spatial diversity ».

The individual and shared…

• This partition is also systematically established in HSCs.
• Usual, this partition is not in the case of the Case Study Houses, treated as a true separation day – night; but rather as a boundary between usability spaces, social, individual spaces and personal life.
• This score is expressed in different ways. Distribution and typology of the project are used to establish a clear distinction between these spaces. The boundary between these two types of space is usually treated radically different from that between the public and privately. This limit is not usually treated as a line of thin and opaque but sharing via internal or external buffer spaces.

Examples: CSH # 3 Wurster & Bernardi, # 4 Rapson # 20 of Neutra

Equipment and functional living spaces…

• This partition is similar but different from a partition type used – served.
• This organization between amenities and living areas are generally treated by the Case Study Houses differently from usual spatial partition. Because it does not refer to a line between two types of space but rather between what is about space and what the order of the function. So this is finally a partition distinguishing what is around the area of what is not.
• And services are covered here often completely minimum and condensed manner. They are either dense, opaque cores, or they take into space a completely floating status and furniture.

Examples: CSH # 22 of Koenig # 16 of Ellwood…

Protected ou exposed…

• This differenciation means the spaces according to their relations with the outside.
• It distinguishes the open spaces to the outside of protected areas and declined.
• This is a radically different designation of the physical boundary between interior and exterior spaces.
• This partition is not systematically addressed in all the Case Study Houses. Protected areas are available along the limit private – public.
• It thereby provides a typical organization in the Case Study Houses based on the sequence of spaces: Street / outdoor areas / Protected areas / spaces exposed / Environment.

Examples: CSH # 22 of Koenig, # 20 Buff Straub and Hensman, # 16 of Ellwood

Composition:

Grid :

• The Case Study Houses are mostly from a composition screened.
• The frame is not used as a systematic and binding tool. It refers to a process. Instead of using a form that is creating broken symmetry, axes, inversions, work is more in an additive logic around elements structuring the project.
• The frame is resilient, it spreads endlessly. It is egalitarian, does not favor any a priori point, no convergence.
• The frame is ad hoc and repetitive. System applied to the structure gives the frame. All Case Study Houses use a structural frame system.

Examples: All CSH / Counter-example: Eames & Saarine

• The frame supports the modules use.

Axes :

• In most cases, the composition of the villas are structured around one or two axes.
• All spaces are articulated on these axes by hanging onto it.
• These axes composition then generally carry the traffic. But this is completely implicitly because most often in the Case Studies, circulations are not characterized, the space being completely worked smoothly and continuity.
• It should be noted that in most cases the villas are on one floor. Thus all of these partitions are marked only in one plane and the houses of the composition is completely horiz

Example: CSH # 16 Ellwood Ellwood # 18, # 24 Jones & Emmons / Counter-example: Koenig

<Previous page – Next page >