Full text of "R.M. Schindler; an exhibition of the architecture of R.M. Schindler, 1887-1953"

See other formats

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF ART

5 071

5 01052790 3

582

L7A?

«fr

i .. «

M. 5CHINDLER -

LTU

O^EIHIDTIET

Cover: Sketches for the Lovell Beach house,
Newport Beach, 1925

l 7 4?

| 1 L 7

No. 5

lMi****&\A***%

An Exhibition of

The Architecture of R. M. Schindler

(1887 - 1953)

Organized by

David Gebhard

For Presentation at

The Art Gallery University of California Santa Barbara

March 30 to April 30, 1967

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Fall, 1967

Catalogue designed by David Gebhard
Printed by Haagen Printing & Offset

Acknowledgement

The exhibition could only have been arranged with the close cooperation of Mr. and
Mrs. Mark Schindler, who generously made the Schindler archives available for research
and for the exhibitions. Mrs. Pauline Schindler has also kindly given of her time in
answering many questions relating to the work and the clients of the architect. Several
of Schindler's original clients, especially Miss Beata Inaya and Mr. and Mrs. Samuel
Skolnik, have not only lent furniture for the exhibition, but have provided additional
insight into the architect and his method of designing.

The original inspiration for the exhibition has, of course, come from Mrs. Esther McCoy,
who over the past fifteen years has single-handedly brought the work of Schindler to
the attention of the world. Without her understanding and penetrating appraisal of his
work this exhibition could never have taken place. Several others who have contributed
to the exhibition should be mentioned, especially Professor Robert Winter of Occidental
College and John August Reed, Los Angeles architect. Many of the older as well as the
more recent photographs used in the catalogue and in the exhibition have been generously
loaned from the photographic archives of Julius Shulman. Marvin Rand has specially
photographed several of the buildings which are presented in the exhibition. Mrs. Phyllis
Stuurman and Mrs. Patricia Gebhard have helped to edit the catalogue which accompanies
this exhibition. The special installation of the exhibition at the Art Gallery, UCSB, has been
designed by Stanley Reifel. Mr. Reifel has also constructed several pieces of furniture from
the original Schindler working drawings and under his direction Thomas Fuller has built
models of the Lovell beach house and the projected house for Eric Locke. — D.G.

Introduction
Esther McCoy

At the age of 33 he said goodbye to the last of his heroes. He was not so much a hero
worshiper as a man whose path crossed those of three important figures in the making
of modern architecture: Otto Wagner, his professor at the Vienna Academy of Art; Adolf
Loos, who preached of an architecture without ornament; and Frank Lloyd Wright, a road
all would have to cross, whatever their destination.

Heroes can never be in accord; and one is forever unseating another, which in the
end can lead the young man who lives in the presence of heroes toward objectivity. But
in the meantime the contact with them has opened his sensibilities. "A poet," wrote
George Santayana, "who merely swam out into the sea of sensibility . . . would bring
materials only to the workshop of art; he would not be an artist."1 Schindler was an artist.

He loved Otto Wagner longest because he was oldest and he interfered with him least.
When Schindler named the three founders of modern architecture they were Wagner,
Mackintosh and Sullivan. (Sullivan was not a hero because by the time they met Sullivan
was in a pitiable state; the young are embarrassed by failure, in whatever cause.)
Schindler was in his fifties when I first heard him speak of Loos, and then and subse-
quently when referring to Loos he located him in Vienna, and in the cafe remodeled by
Loos where he held court for young architects and architecture students; he not only
placed him geographically but in time: between 1911 and 1914. His memories of Loos
were tied nostalgically to Vienna, his youth, the excitement and charm of the companion-
ship with other budding architects, as well as with Loos. No Viennese who was even on
the fringe of Loos' coterie has ever forgotten him: dynamic, witty, arrogant, something
of a dandy in his English suit, holding his listeners with endless fascinating stories of his
travels in America. (There is a section in Richard Neutra's autobiography about Loos,
told with a beautiful tenderness and irony.)

Loos brought back from America a new kind of message — it had to do with the
exquisite simplicity of our machine tools, the objects in daily use whose function was
expressed in the form. It is true that Horatio Greenough had, sixty years earlier, delivered
the same message (he was living in Florence and sent it back to his native country)
when he observed that the style of the mechanics "is sometimes miscalled an economical,
a cheap style," but to Greenough it was "the dearest of all styles ... Its simplicity is
not the simplicity of emptiness or of poverty; its simplicity is that of justness . . ."2

But it was the spirit of revolt Loos symbolized that evoked the most nostalgia . . .
Schindler had grown up in Vienna's most verdant season of architectural protest — the
education and literature of architecture as well as executed buildings. The functionalist
theories espoused by Wagner in his MODERN ARCHITECTURE were carried into the
Academy where Schindler studied; Wagner's Post Office Savings Bank was finished when
Schindler was 19. Loos opened his Free School of Architecture and published his book
ORNAMENT AND CRIME when Schindler was leaving his teens and achieving his majority.

Schindler joined Loos in his condemnation of Art Nouveau (the Viennese Secessionists)
and took part in the demonstration against the authorities who were ready to bow to the
public protest against Loos' plan for a modern building on the historic Michaelerplatz.:!
Schindler was 22 when the Steiner house, a signpost in modern architecture, was built.

In June 1914, just before the outbreak of the First World War, Schindler was chosen
from among various applicants to fill a job as draftsman in the Chicago office of
Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichel. By this time he had degrees from both the Technical
College and from the Academy and had worked for over two years in the office of the
architects Mayr and Mayer. (He entered Technical College in 1906 and was graduated
in 1911; he enrolled in the Academy in 1910 while still studying at the Technical College,
and was graduated in 1913 at the age of 25. He went into the office of Mayr and Mayer
in 1911, a few months after finishing at Technical College, and continued working there
during the three years he attended the Academy.)

He had planned to return to Vienna after fulfilling his three-year contract with
Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichel, which had advanced his fare from Vienna to Chicago,
but before returning he hoped to spend a few months in the studio of Frank Lloyd Wright.
His intention — or wish — was to join the office of Adolf Loos in Vienna. However, when
war was declared in 1917 he became an enemy alien and his movements were restricted.
Forced to remain in Chicago, and by 1917 thoroughly sick of the Ottenheimer office, he
besieged Wright with requests for work, and early in 1918 Wright made a place for him.
"I felt at home for the first time in America," he said. But he looked upon the job with
Wright as something that would be concluded when the war ended. What he had not
foreseen was the chaos in Vienna during the first years of peace.

The news was disheartening. Wagner had died in 1918; Loos was idle; his friends had
scattered. Rudolf Wondraek, a Vienna colleague, was in Berlin with Peter Behrens, Richard
Neutra was in Switzerland — subsequently he also went to Germany, which was renewing
its vitality faster than Austria.

Wondraek wrote on September 22, 1919: "All of the future is uncertain." Loos was in
Vienna, "still in his best years but building nothing." (Loos was 49.) "Are you with
Wright? I hope that you didn't meet with such a disappointment as I did with Peter
Behrens. I saw much that was new without finding the work the least satisfying. Let us
hear from you, if possible some detail drawings to let us see how Wright constructs
. . . for instance, the broad horizontal tie beam. We can't make out how it is done.
Could one get work there?"4

There had been little choice. Wright had made him at home in America, but financially
the office was in miserable shape much of the time, and the long periods when Schindler
was not paid his $30 a week salary did not increase his confidence in the future. He was
31 when the war ended, and by then he had worked in architectural offices for seven
years; at 26 he had designed and supervised construction on a five-story actors' club in
Vienna for Mayr and Mayer; the Ottenheimer office had given him full responsibility for
the 1917 Buena Shore Club. But his chances for opening an office of his own or joining
Loos were slim.

Wright could hardly be called Schindler's second choice — if there had been a
first. Wright's authority over Schindler had begun when he first saw the Wasmuth portfolio

in the library of the Academy in 1911. "Here was 'space architecture,' " he wrote later
of this experience. "Here was the first architect."5 At the age of 24 Schindler could
admire Loos and see a "timeless importance"6 in this early work of Wright's. His commit-
ment to Wright outweighted that to Loos when he built his King Road house in 1921, and
later, in his rejection of functionalism. "Most of the buildings which Le Corbusier and his
followers offer us as 'machines to live in,' equipped with various 'machines to sit and sleep
on,' have not even reached the state of development of our present machines."7

Having been a disciple of Loos, and aware of the work of Tony Gamier, whose influence
on Loos was considerable, he saw functionalism as a road he had walked before. He
was not at all impressed by Irving Gill's Dodge house on Kings Road or his buildings in
La Jolla; although Gill brought his forms into a single cubic mass, and had suppressed
all projections as early as 1908, Schindler liked to think of this as a European expression
rather than an essay preceding and paralleling Loos' simple cube forms.

His quarrel with the functionalists and the International style was not short lived.
Long after their popularity had begun to decline he attacked them as styles foisted on
America by Europeans, and alien to America. But much as he owed to the romantic,
pagan, rich, agrarian Wright there was from the first a strong European flavor in the
Schindler buildings. They were urban; each might have stood without the support of
nature, although his hillside buildings were as much site as building. (His designs for
them were often made directly on the paper of the engineer's contour map.) It was not
to the Europe of Loos or Gamier or the generation of Le Corbusier and Gropius that he
was indebted, but rather to the de Stijl group of Holland, which had formed in 1917,
was slow in moving from the project to executed buildings and lost most of its subtlety
in the process. The early buildings of J. J. P. Oud, with their emphasis on mass, didn't
touch the quick as did the sketch for a villa by Theo van Doesburg and Cor van Eesteren.
Although Schindler could have known very little about the de Stjl projects before he began
moving in the same direction, his affinity for the play or receding and advancing planes,
the broken line, the syncopated rhythm and dissonant harmonies was clear.

His search for depth was untiring. He reached INTO a building and pulled the plan
forward; he pressed the walls back into the plan. He ended broad planes with a thin
upturned line; he dissolved corners and left an impression that walls were freestanding.
Truth and fancy were one. The supposable was the only final truth.

Space forms were almost his sole interest. His training in engineering served this end.
It was never in itself the source of drama. The way a house was built — fine craftsman-
ship— concerned him very little.

His buildings, literally, were fragile. (The cement mix for his great houses of the twenties
was poor.) They were not built to withstand well years of winter rains and dry summers;
the rains, as Wright wrote of the Millard house in his autobiography, came to "surprise
the roofs." The fleeting, the impermanent, had a certain appeal for him. This was a kind
of protest against The Establishment, the finely built eclectic house, the nest culture, the
building department, the closed concrete box. But because his houses were loved they
were well cared for, and for this reason many will outlast ones more carefully constructed.
He wrapped a part of the exterior walls of one house in broad bands of roofing paper
— the cost was under a dollar a square foot — and the walls have some of the lightness

of a Japanese lantern; the spirit in which the house was conceived is more like stainless
steel. In his own house he posed the monumental (concrete slab walls) against the
ephemeral (sliding canvas doors).

During the depression years when he learned to build at very low cost he took pride
in the space forms he could create out of common materials. When plywood was intro-
duced he preferred the common fir to the hard woods. He papered the plywood over
space forms and painted it so that it defined or modified a space. Plywood, like his
stucco and plaster, was a skin which neither affected nor controlled the forms. The
materials themselves were silent, the forms his voice.

The cost of a building and its fragility or sturdiness may seem to have little to do
with the finding and losing of heroes. But Schindler's four years with Wright, the last
of the heroes, determined a great deal Schindler's attitude toward the apportioning of a
budget for a building. The important things Schindler learned from Wright in the field
of design came from the Wasmuth portfolio which he found in the Academy library in
Vienna. He has mentioned in his writings and in conversations that he preferred the
early work of Wright, that the Imperial Hotel, which was on the boards when he was
in the Wright studio in Oak Park and in Taliesin, was too sculptural for his taste; nor
was he sympathetic to Wright's concrete block houses for California.

But the way Wright looked upon the cost of materials in the hierarchy of the budget,
the way he kept control of a design from the earliest phase to the last details during
construction, was something as important as the initial impact of Wright upon him.
Wright was fiercely possessive of his buildings during design, construction and the
selection of all things to go into them. Schindler wrote once in 1921 of "the very many
little adjustments at the end of a job that take time — and nerves." He was speaking
of winding up his affairs with Wright and the Barnsdall house; in his own work he soon
enough accepted this typical circumstance as the essence of an architectural office. But
in 1921 Wright did not consider the Barnsdall house as the end of the job. Four years
later he was still at it; he wrote Miss Aline Barnsdall in a letter dated March 4, 1925
complaining about "so much serious effort aborted by your interference" and accused
her of "depriving me of all responsibility for my own work . . ."8

That this was not an extreme instance of Wright's possessiveness of his buildings is
borne out by a telegram he had sent a few weeks earlier to Charles Ennis, owner of the
1924 concrete block house in Los Angeles. Wright begged him to "be guided by intelli-
gence and grace rather than by unenlightened expedients, destroying the virtue of all we
have suffered for." The example of the continued responsibility Wright felt for his
buildings undoubtedly made a great impression on Schindler.

Schindler established his office during the eight years before the depression began.
Beside the problem common to all young architects in finding clients, it was necessary
in the twenties to teach the client something about the new architecture. Schindler
compared his role in this regard to that of Mrs. Galka Scheyer who came to Los Angeles
in 1921 to exhibit and stimulate interest in works by Klee, Kandinsky, Feininger and
Jawlensky. Both he and Mrs. Scheyer, Schindler wrote, were "dispelling popular prejudice. "!)

Schindler worked with increasingly small budgets as the depression deepened, and he
spread the budget to include necessities as well as luxuries of design. The new architecture

WAS a luxury; craftsmen had to be reeducated, therefore work went slowly and estimates
of general contractors were as a result often prohibitive. Schindler himself acted as
general contractor on his buildings not only to bring the cost down but to have a greater
control over design during the construction stage. (He took another advantage of this
practice: he made numerous changes in the design during construction.)

The example of Wright's office cannot be underestimated as an influence. Its very
shortcomings, from the point of view of a young architect who was eager to develop on
his own, was its strength in the end. Wright did not require total devotion from the men
who worked with him: it was a gift they were unable not to give. And Wright's gift in
return was the example of how design was protected at any cost; it came first, and one
never took his eye off it, or shared it. Wright's phrase, "destroying the virtue of all we
suffered for," sounds old fashioned in a time when the single house is rapidly disap-
pearing, the emphasis is on environment rather than the isolated building, and the city
itself is in jeopardy. When one learns that what Charles Ennis wanted to do was waterproof
the leaking windows, Wright's outcry seems out of a remote age, one more leisurely and
romantic. Only in scientific research, it seems, would this generation consider appropriate
such a fastidious preoccupation with detail. (Wright advised Ennis, incidentally, that he
knew the exact measures to take to waterproof the windows without destroying the
interweaving of the concrete blocks at the window heads.)

What Schindler learned from Wright was that there were no small details and no small
jobs. And time was too short to postpone the use of one's highest talents until there
was money in the bank. When an architect once defended his design of a poor building
by saying he had to live, Wright's answer was "Why?"

The Wright office was often imperiled by unpaid bills, and in 1919 the overdrafts at
the bank came with a stunning regularity; Wright was ostracized by society and held in
low esteem by his profession in 1919, but when he walked leisurely into the drafting
room at Taliesin at ten o'clock of a morning, dressed in his soft brown corduroy suit
and silk shirt, "he filled the studio with a sort of richness and glow," Mrs. Schindler
remembers. "The boys," as he called his staff, surrounded him and discussions began.
(According to Mrs. Schindler the discussions were about the foundations of the Imperial
Hotel; Wright wanted the building to rest on piles — "He was passionate about this.")

Schindler's serenity in the face of adversity was surely in part a heritage from Wright.

Notes

1. George Santayana, THREE PHILOSOPHICAL 5. R. M. Schindler, "Space Architecture," DUNE
POETS. Cambridge, 1910. FORUM, February, 1934, pp. 44-46.

2. Horatio Greenough, FORM AND FUNCTION (edited 6. IBID,
by Harold A. Small) Berkeley, 1957, p. 128. 7. ibid.

3. Esther McCoy (edited by) "Letters from Louis H. g. From copies of letters loaned to the writer.
Sullivan to R. M Schindler," JOURNAL, Society g Letter f Schindler adressed to the School of

°f AwQt,eoVJral Hlstor,ans- VoL 20' Dec- 1961' Architecture (sic), University of Southern Call-

pp. i/y-184. fornia, 0ct_ 10_ ig49^

4. From the files of R. M. Schindler.

R. M. Schindler and The Modern Movement

1910-1953

David Gebhard

Only in the last ten years or so have Americans slowly become aware of the variety
and richness of the work of their own architects of the last half century. We are at long
last beginning to realize that the early modern movement in American architecture was
indeed a movement or better yet a seris of movments, and that it is a gross historical
inaccuracy to characterize this period by glorifying the works of a lone hero, Frank Lloyd
Wright. The Prairie School was in fact a school with highly significant and original con-
tributions being made by William Gray Purcell, George Grant Elmslie, Walter Burly Griffin,
George Maher and others. On America's West Coast, at the same time, there was a
Maybeckian School (centered in the Bay area around the work of Bernard Maybeck); a
Bungalow movement (around the work of Charles and Henry Greene in southern California);
and an American version of architectural rationalism (centered around Irving Gill, also
in southern California).

If we are only now becoming aware of the first emergence of modern architecture in
America, we are even more in the dark concerning the later developments of the 1920s
and 1930s. For many years we have known of the pre- and post-World War I expressionist
movement in European architecture as seen in the work of Eric Mendelsohn, Bruno Taut,
Fritz Hoger and others. What is little known is that, at approximately the same moment,
a similar expressionist movement was taking place in southern California. Frank Lloyd
Wright's California and Arizona works of the 1920s, as well as the buildings of Lloyd
Wright and several of the designs of R. M. Schindler, constitute a highly individual
American version of architectural expressionism.

A similar parallelism occurred in the development of the International style during the
1920s and early 1930s. While Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius were
in the process of establishing the International style as a style in Europe, R. M. Schindler
and Richard J. Neutra were doing the same thing in southern California. Although the
early work of Schindler and Neutra laid the foundation for California's brilliant architectural
renaissance of the late 1930s, its reputation, in contrast to its European equivalent, was
almost entirely local and regional. While it is true that Neutra's famous Lovell house in
Hollywood of 1929 was internationally known and respected, Neutra himself was looked
upon as an interesting but at best a marginal figure. Such a view is perfectly justified
if one goes along with the normal linear view of art and architectural history. But such
an approach is at best artificial and limited when applied to the complexities of the
twentieth century. Architecture certainly cannot be placed in such a limited pattern without
doing a major injustice to facts.

Whether they are adherents of historical linearism or more catholic in their pluralism,
twentieth century architectural historians have regrettably ignored one of its major

exponents: the Viennese born, southern California architect, R. M. Schindler. The historical
oblivion of this architect was due to a number of factors besides his remoteness from
Europe and the eastern United States. Schindler was regrettably a poor propagandist
of his own work. Unlike Neutra, he seldom wrote, either directly about his own work or
as an architectural theoretician. Nor with rare exception did he ever become an
architectural educator. When one looks back to Wright, Gropius, Mies van der Rohe or
Le Corbusier, it is apparent that the work of these men became well known and
subsequently influential not only because of the impressive quality of their designs, but
equally owing to their activities as propagandists. That Schindler really wished to be such
a propagandist is certain, but that his personality was such that he could never
accomplish this aim is equally apparent.

Finally, it is also clear that Schindler's work was ignored and disregarded (by even
those historians who knew it) because it did not readily fit into one or another of the
preconceived stylistic patterns of the time. Even his buildings which were close to the
European International style contain disturbing and contrary elements which seem to
violate one or another principle of the style. An overall look at his architecture presents
such a variety of ideas and forms that it is difficult to see him as a coherent architectural
personality.

The renewed interest in Schindler in the past few years is certainly due to the breakdown
of the European International style as the dominant style. The new involvement in
constructionism, the rehabilitation of the reputation of Alvar Aalto, the resurgence of
interest in Bernard Maybeck, and the new concern with twentieth century builder's
vernacular are aspects of the same outlook which now demands a new appraisal
of Schindler.

The essential facts of R. M. Schindler's life have been recorded by Esther McCoy.1
He was born in Vienna on September 5, 1887. Both of his parents were craftsmen, his
father in metal and wood, his mother in textiles. Although his major interest was always
in architecture, he devoted a good share of his time to figure drawing in pencil and ink.
Thus he graduated not only from the Imperial Technical Institute in Engineering (1912),
but also from the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts (1913) where he worked in architecture,
sculpture and painting. During the period September 1911 through February 1914, he
worked as a draftsman in the Viennese office of Hans Mayr and Theodor M. Mayer during
which time he designed one of their major buildings. In 1914 he accepted employment
in the Chicago firm of Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichel. He remained with this firm from
1914 through 1918, although at the same time he did a number of projects of his own.
He also participated actively in the Chicago art world where he did drawings and sculpture
at the Chicago Art Institute and taught drawing at the Church School of Arts. In 1915 he
made an extensive trip to the West, to New Mexico and California. The visual experiences
of this trip, especially his reaction to the Pueblo architecture of the Rio Grande, were to
produce a decided effect on several of his designs of the early 1920s.7 During his last
year with Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichel he was placed in charge of a large project — the
Buena Shore Club (Chicago, 191718).

Although he had done some work for Wright in 1917, he was not engaged full-time
until 1918. During 1917-18 he spent part of his time at Taliesin and part at Wright's

Oak Park office. With Wright spending much of his time in Tokyo supervising the con-
struction of the Imperial Hotel, Schindler was often left on his own. Several projects and
buildings which came from the Wright office at this time were either partially or entirely
by him. In 1919 Schindler married Sophie Pauline Gibling. Late in the following year they
came to Los Angeles where he was placed in charge of supervising the construction of
Wright's Hollyhock house for Aline Barnsdall (1917-20). Schindler also prepared drawings
for the entire complex for Miss Barnsdall on Olive Hill (which included terrace stores,
apartments for actors, a number of private residences and later a theater). Schindler
continued to manage Wright's business affairs in America as well and to provide many
detailed drawings for the Imperial Hotel.'' In 1921 he built his own house and studio on
Kings Road in Los Angeles and established his independent practice. During 1925-26
Schindler designed what probably is his greatest work, the beach house for P. M. Lovell
at Newport Beach. In 1925 Richard J. Neutra came to Los Angeles and opened his own
office in Schindler's Studio. During the period 1926 through 1930 they collaborated on
a number of projects under the name of the Architectural Group for Industry and
Commerce. Working with them on several projects was the urban planner, Carol Aronovici.

The period of the 1930s marks a high point in Schindler's career. One classic design
after another came from his drafting board: the Oliver house (1933), the Buck house
(1934), the Walker house (1935), the Rodakiewicz house (1937). His work of the late
1930s became more mixed, in many ways more adventuresome, but at the same time
less assured. The designs of the post World War II years, until his death August 22, 1953,
often contain brilliant passages, but these ideas tended to be fragmentary, seldom
whole. The confusion expressed in his last works not only mirrors his own personal
direction, but it is equally an accurate reflection of the post-war architectural scene
in southern California.

Vienna in the early 1900s must have been a visually and intellectually exciting world.
In painting Gustav Klimt, Oscar Kokoschka, and Egon Schiele were providing a fascinating
bridge between the end of the century Art Nouveau and the new spirit of expressionism
which was beginning to dominate central Europe. Although Vienna's dominant visual
character was still neo-Baroque and neo-Renaissance, a scattering of buildings reflected
the curvilinear prejudice of the Art Nouveau or the more simplified rectilinearism of
the Secessionist architects. By 1900 Vienna had easily replaced Chicago as the center
of architectural ferment. Where else could one have found such a gathering of architectural
talent: the older Otto Wagner, and the young designers Josef Olbrich, Josef Hoffmann
and Adolf Loos. It was in Vienna then at the turn of the century that the visual as well
as the aesthetic principles of modern architecture were firmly established. The pre-
eminence of Vienna and its architects lay not only in the buildings themselves and in
the development of an architectural philosophy, but in the way in which they were aware
of and able to integrate new and original ideas from other parts of the world. Charles
Rennie Mackintosh and his Scottish colleagues received a far more sympathetic reception
in Vienna than they experienced at home or in England. Mainly through Loos' experience
in the United States, the .technical innovations of American steel construction and
the aesthetic innovations of Louis H. Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright were not only
well known but widely admired.

As a perceptive student the young R. M. Schindler took full advantage of this lively
and stimulating world. Through his formal studies at the Technical Institute and at the
Academy of Art, he was exposed to Otto Wagner and others. Outside of these schools he
came to know Loos and the painters Klimt and Schiele. To round out his experience, he
obtained employment with the moderately radical Viennese architectural firm of Hans Mayr
and Theodor Mayer. Thus by the time he graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts in June,
1913, he had received a thorough academic training in architecture as well as having had
the opportunity to design and supervise the construction of a large building. In addition, as
his figure studies testify, he had fully mastered the world of pen and pencil drawing.

Schindler's early projects as well as his one completed building reveal that he had
rapidly absorbed and understood the architectural significance of the current work of
Wagner and Loos. As one would expect, these early projects were essentially Viennese,
yet it is remarkable how they contain the germ of ideas which were to dominate his work
in California in the 1920s and 1930s. Schindler's 1912 project for the Hotel Rong bears
a close resemblance to Otto Wagner's apartment house on Dobergasse (1909-1910).4.
Like Wagner's building, his hotel project consists of a single volumetric box terminated
by a projecting roof terrace. In both buildings the thin skin-like quality of the wall was
emphasized by the rectangular panel-like effect of their surfaces. This light modular
quality was enhanced in the Schindler project by a more extensive use of glass on the
ground and mezzanine floors and by the purposeful differentiation of the two facades
as two independent surfaces. Schindler's later fondness for interlocking rectangular
volumes and surfaces is anticipated in the projecting of the first floor balcony beyond
the line of the upper four balconies and in the screen of panels which are extended
into the large glass area.

Another project of 1912, that for a hunting lodge, entails both Wagner and Hoffmann
qualities. The simplicity and severity of the two low wings and the classic quality of the
main portion echo the restraint encountered in Hoffmann's work of the early 1900s.5
The major difference between Schindler's project and the work of Wagner or Hoffmann
is the constructionist flavor of the main two-story pavilion with its exposed columns,
horizontal members and open roof structure.

Schindler's thesis project of 1912-13 for a crematorium-chapel displays what amounts
to an encyclopedia of modern architectural forms. The basic plan of the complex, with
its central tree-lined axis and its circular street pattern with radiating roads, goes directly
back to the eighteenth century rationalist projects of C. N. Ledoux and L. E. Boullee.
On the other hand, the street system with overpasses and on-and-off ramp certainly looks
to the future. As to the buildings themselves the central unit is a constructionist dream.
The great roof, with its structural frame fully exposed, is supported by two rows of
sixteen vertical supports which at the ends of the building are read as elements separate
from the building itself. The tremendous open space separating the roof from the building
below makes the roof the dominant aesthetic form of the structure. The use of a
structural frame to express aesthetic form is also evident in the lower part of the building
as well. How these horizontal and vertical concrete members are put together can easily
be read. This expression of structure carries the cage-like aesthetic quality of Louis
Sullivan's Carson Pirie Scott Store of Chicago (1899-1904) a step further. The repeated

horizontalism of the window units of Schindler's project not only anticipates the Inter-
national style of the 1930s but equally the Brutalist elements of the architecture of the
1950s. The four circular buildings with their projecting wings, which act as terminal
points for the secondary streets, come even closer to the International style of the 20s and
30s in their use of glass walls and of horizontal bands of windows carried around corners.

Besides the design features already mentioned, there are numerous other innovations
in this project which might be pointed out: the flowing stepped roofs which lead down
to the main circular street and the small single story building with its band of windows
placed directly under a non-projecting roof are reminiscent of the handling of such
elements in the work of the 1930s of Schindler's Vienna colleague, Richard J. Neutra.
There is even a hint of Frank Lloyd Wright in the off-center band of square windows
found on the two buildings to which the stepped roofs lead.6 All of the elements mentioned
are encountered in Schindler's later work: the constructionism of the main building saw
its expression in the Lovell beach house; the multi-storied glass wall and horizontal band
windows were dominant features of his designs of the 1920s and 1930s.

Because of the legal restrictions imposed and the nature of the site itself, Schindler's
one realized building in Vienna, the Clubhouse for Actors (1912), done while he was
a draftsman for Mayr and Mayer, provides only a passing indication of his design
predilections or his ability at this stage of his career. The upper floors of the building
represent a rather restrained neo-classicism, almost rococo in its two-dimensional qualities.
The exterior design of the ground or street floor is more original — closer in its spatial
organization to the work of Hoffmann than to that of Wagner. Hoffmann frequently used
similar glass bay windows but the older architect never created an integrated fenestration
of repeated bays with intervening vertical supports." The projection of this pattern upward
would have visually produced a pure skyscraper design.

Although Schindler often spoke of Loos and his influence on him, it is interesting to
note that none of his Viennese works reflect the outward neo-rationalist forms which the
later internationalists so greatly admired. Schindler's debt to Loos was more to his
architectural theories, especially the older man's concept that the essence of architecture
is to be found in the volumetric manipulation of interior space. Loos himself did not fully
carry out these spatial ideas until the 1920s in such works as the Rufer house (Vienna,
1922) and the Moller house (Vienna, 1928). 8 By this late date Schindler had completely
developed his own highly personal way of manipulating interior space.

If one compares Schindler's pre-1914 designs with other European architects of the
time, the only one who had developed the new architecture to a more advanced degree
was Walter Gropius in his Fagus Factory at Alfeld-an-der-Leine in 1914. Neither Mies
van der Rohe nor Le Corbusier at that period had done any work which approached that
of the young Viennese. It is fascinating to speculate what would have happened if
Schindler had remained in Europe. It is entirely possible that he would have emerged
as a key figure in the development of the European International style of the 1920s.
Instead his going to America, his experience with Wright and his final move to California
removed him from the main stream of European architecture.

An equally intriguing question is what would have been Schindler's position in the
European art scene if he had stayed in Europe and had concentrated all or at least an

appreciable share of his attention on painting. Admittedly his work is more restrained
and controlled than that of Schiele and it does not have the flat decorative lyricism of
Klimt, but its cold rather tightly planned emotionalism represents a midway point between
the high pitched exoticism of Schiele and the calmness of Klimt. The lines in Schindler's
drawing are pre-conceived and arranged, indicating the planned approach which one
associates with an architect. They contrast dramatically with the painterly, agitated line
which establish the form and content of a Schiele drawing. The control expressed
in a Schindler drawing relates his work more to Parisian rationalism than to Central
European expressionism.

Late in 1914 Schindler went to Chicago to work as a draftsman in the firm of
Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert. This firm, like most American architectural offices,
approached architecture fundamentally as a business. The chief partner, Ottenheimer, had
worked in the Adler and Sullivan office for a brief period and had, as well, attended the
Beaux Arts Academy in Paris, but neither experience had made a designer of him nor
had apparently deepened his commitment to architecture. At least to a degree Ottenheimer
and his partners must have felt this lack, for they consciously sought out design talent
both in the United States and abroad.

Schindler's first project upon coming to America was a Competition for a Neighborhood
Center sponsored by the Chicago Architectural Club (1914). His design for the Neighbor-
hood Center echoes his 191213 thesis project — the layout of the buildings, streets and
walks was symmetrical and balanced, the buildings themselves Secessionist. In addition
to his day-to-day drafting activities, Schindler designed a number of projects for Otten-
heimer, Stern and Reichert. The most interesting of these were an eleven-story hotel
(1915) and a bar (1915). The spirit of his hotel design, with its flat unbroken brick walls
of the street facade punctured by angled bay windows, is more a reflection of his contact
with Loos than with anyone else. His design for the bar also owes its form to Loos rather
than to Wagner or Hoffmann. It is really a Viennese room transplanted to American soil.

Schindler continued his interest in figurative drawing and sculpture when he came to
Chicago. Since his figurative drawings are undated, it is impossible to determine whether
they were produced in Vienna or in Chicago. All of the drawings (whether pencil or ink)
reflect a Secessionist, late Art Nouveau atmosphere. He certainly painted and drew
from the model during his student days, but it is unlikely that he would have brought
those pencil drawings along with him to America. Therefore, the assumption is that all
or at least a greater part of the existing figure drawings were produced in Chicago. Even
his landscape drawings of New Mexico reveal the same broken line as his figure drawings.

During the summer of 1915 Schindler took a long trip through the American Southwest
and to California. While he was intrigued by what he found in California, the real impact
of this trip came from his visit to New Mexico. The adobe architecture of the upper Rio
Grande Valley impressed him tremendously. He saw in these strong primitive forms the
type of simplicity which he was striving to achieve in his own architecture. He felt for
the first time how structures such as these were organically related to the landscape.
Neither in Europe nor in Chicago had he been able to appreciate the possibility of how
a man-made object might be integrated with nature.

His sympathetic response to this architecture and its environment was effectively

expressed in the numerous photographs which he took in Santa Fe and Taos and above
all in the many pencil drawings which he made of the buildings. Upon returning to
Chicago, his excitement for this architecture was immediately carried into his design
for a projected summer house in adobe for a Chicago acquaintance, Dr. T. P. Martin
(1915). 9 This house is in many ways a remarkable building, bringing together ideas
derived from Loos, from what he then knew of the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright,
and finally ideas recently acquired from his New Mexico travels. The thick unbroken
adobe walls and the exposed vegas and posts of the porches and roofs are of course
purely New Mexican. The plan, too, partially reflects the Southwest in its orientation
around a central patio-courtyard. But the balanced symmetry of the plan and the spatial
organization of the house are Vienna and Chicago combined. The inglenook arrangement
of the living room and the changes in floor level are Loosian, but the double entries, the
sequence of interlocked spaces of the dining, living and billiard room, and much of the
detailing point more to Wright.

Schindler's designs of 1916-1917 before he went to work with Wright, followed two
separate paths. His larger work for the firm of Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert — his
design for a new store front on Van Buren Street (Chicago, ca. 1916), his project for a
Central Administration Building (Chicago, 1916), and his Buena Shore Club (Chicago,
1917-18) — represented a continuation of his version of the Viennese Secessionism. His
smaller buildings, such as his project for a Women's Club (Chicago, 1916) and his project
for a Log house (1917) were almost entirely Wrightian in character.

The Log house (working drawings dated 1917 at Spring Green) indicates a thorough
understanding of the Wrightian mode. The highly effective interlocking volumes are a
simplified version of the handling of the problem in Wright's Gale house (Oak Park,
1909). Schindler's reliance on the four foot module, on the nature of the material, and
on structural design forced him to eliminate the crochety detailing which was so often
characteristic of Wright's work. In fact this project of Schindler is probably far too abstract
to be thought of as simply Wrightian; it is closer to such Dutch work as R. van't Hoff's
1915 house near Utrecht or J. J. P. Oud's Project for a Factory of 1919. 10

The Buena Shore Club, with its massing of rectangular volumetric blocks and its
heavy vertical detailing, also shares some features with Dutch buildings of the late teens
and early twenties. Some features of this building, particularly the rows of narrow
banded windows carried around the corner seem to be taken directly from his 1912-13
Crematorium-chapel project; while the vertical group of angled bay windows seems to be
a restatement of the ground floor of the Actors' Clubhouse in Vienna. The long, rather
low wing that encloses one side of the garden could be loosely thought of as Wrightian,
but other than this there is really little in the design which points to the Master of
Taliesin. Equally unrelated to the Prairie School or to the older Chicago School was his
project for a large one room apartment building (1919). The exterior fenestration of the
apartment building was composed of rectangular concrete panels and square precast
projecting windows. The flavor of the design is Viennese, but the accentuated independence
of each of the window units is highly original.

During his stay at Taliesin and in Oak Park, Schindler performed a variety of functions
for Wright ranging from administration of the office finances, supervision of the construc-

tion of buildings, preparation of the specifications for buildings, and in several instances
the independent design for Wright's domestic commissions.11 The most important of the
domestic commissions which he did for Wright prior to going to California were the J. P.
Shampay house (Chicago, 1919), the C. E. Staley house (Waukegan, 1919) and the
project for the concrete Monolithic Homes (1919). 12 All of these designs present a
cleaned-up version of Wright's Prairie mode. Not only are the basic forms and the details
less fussy, but they are far more domestic in scale and less arbitrary in their plans. The
provision for a garage, the central hall which serves both as an entrance and as a
bedroom hall, and the pleasant open kitchen of the single floor Staley house are features
seldom found in Wright's work prior to this time. As Henry-Russell Hitchcock has pointed
out, the design for the concrete Monolithic Home project is boldly abstract and can be
compared profitably to Le Corbusier's Citron project of 1920. 13

In the late 1920s Schindler went to Los Angeles to supervise the construction of
Wright's residence for Miss Aline Barnsdall on Olive Hill. Numerous changes were made
in the design of this house during its construction. Obviously many of these were
suggested by the client or were structural changes introduced by the contractor.14 As
built, the house was considerably simplified from Wright's scheme for the building. With
Schindler's Monolithic Home and his other work in mind, it would be reasonable to
suppose that the general simplified form of the house must in part have mirrored
his own predilections.

The house for Miss Barnsdall was to have been only a small segment of a large urban
scheme for Olive Hill. There were to have been three other large houses (two of which
were built), a theatre, apartments for actors, and on Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards
a group of terrace stores. The precise contribution of either Wright or Schindler to the
project for the terrace stores is not known. However, in the Schindler archives there are
preliminary sketches for both the actors' apartments and the stores which were drawn
by him; and the partially completed working drawings also bear his initials. A similar
confusion exists for the Director's house (1920) and Oleanders, the second house on
Olive Hill (1920), where the presentation sketches and the working drawings are again
both by Schindler. The exterior massing of the Director's house is as heavy as the
earlier Hollyhock house, though its only historic reference, i.e., to Pre-Columbian
architecture, is far less apparent. As built, the Director's house was not as monumental
as originally conceived, and its plan would appear to represent an amalgamation of
Wright and Schindler ideas.

The drawings for both the Oleanders house and the first scheme for the C. P. Lowes
house (Eagle Rock, 1922) contain a similar mixture of ideas.15 These designs incorporate
a simplified adaptation of Wright's Prairie houses together with the more monumental
Pre-Columbianism of the Hollyhock house, but even more they indicate Schindler's search
for an architectural idiom which would somehow combine the emotive, expressionistic
content of Wright's architecture with the intellectual puritanism of modern European
architecture. This attempt to combine what are basically conflicting ideas was to dominate
much of his architecture right up until his death in 1953. While this conflict of ideas did
help him to realize a certain richness of detailing and of form, and in a few instances
led to highly successful buildings, its effect was more often negative. Schindler was

certainly aware of the generally disastrous effect of Wright's influence on him, for while
he was still in Chicago, he had written to a friend, "Not one of Wright's men has yet
found a word to say for himself."16 But Schindler's personal association with Wright
coupled with his own romanticism made it difficult for him to casually disregard the
experience of working with such a dominant personality. His work of the 20s plainly
points out his inner battle. The whole of what can be called Schindler's expressionist
phase (which was equally shared by Wright himself and by his son Lloyd Wright)
represented his open attempt to utilize and to master the Wrightian vocabulary.

This expressionistic phase in his work and that of Wright and his son constitutes the
American equivalent of the German buildings of Bruno Taut, Eric Mendelsohn, Fritz
Hoger, and the Dutch work of Michel de Klerk and Piet Kramer.17 In form and detail the
California work of these three Americans was quite different from their European counter-
parts, but the spirit was similar. The American designs employed a basically simple series
of rectangles or angled rectangular forms which in themselves could hardly be thought of
as expressionistic. Rather the angular plasticity and intense movement within surfaces and
the contrast between surfaces place these buildings within the expressionst framework.

A good example of the coloristic effect of contrasts in surfaces was Schindler's first
scheme for the C. Warne house (Los Angeles, 1923). This house is a suspended
box whose sides batter into the base and whose surfaces come closer to being an
agitated relief sculpture than a piece of architecture. Its design is purposely meant to
startle through details which are either unfamiliar or are the opposite from what is
normally encountered. Somewhat more sedate in its expressionstic character was
Schindler's Lowes house #1 (Eagle Rock, 1923). In this house the calm geometry of the
undecorated, stucco-covered volumes somewhat contains the elaborate pattern of parallel
overlaid boards and the narrow vertical fenestration of the windows and doors. Inside
the Lowes house, a similar restless quality can be seen in such details as the fireplace
or the built-in sideboard of the dining room.

Marginally expressionistic were Schindler's projects for the Mrs. L. Davies house (Los
Angeles, ca. 1922-24) and the Mrs. D. Baker house (Hollywood, 1923). The Baker house
seems to delight in emphasizing the antithesis between the high pitched gabled roof
section and the horizontal flat-roofed volumes which project out as dormers, wings and
terrace. The small house for Mrs. L. Davies exemplifies the architect's earliest use of an
A frame, a form which he returned to once again in the mid-1930s. As in the Baker
Project, Schindler purposely creates a heightened contrast in the Davies house between
the steep roofed shape and the rectangular pattern of dormers, windows, doors and
flower boxes.

Unquestionably the most romantic, and therefore the closest the architect ever came
to the work of Bernard Maybeck, was the J. Packard house (South Pasadena, 1924).
While local deed restrictions forced him to use a high pitched roof, its use was not out
of character with the other designs which he was doing at this time. The interior with
its planned antithesis between horizontal and vertical space is similar to Maybeck's
organization of interior space. The Y shaped plan with its central kitchen and its series
of six independent, self-contained exterior spaces was highly inventive. Equally original

was the wall structure which consisted of a thin vertical and horizontal concrete frame
and a mesh upon which cement gunnite was sprayed.

The last expressionist project which shall be mentioned was his projected scheme for
the Physical Education Clubhouse for the Topanga Ranch (Topanga Canyon, Los Angeles
County, 1923). In many ways this building is the apex of his expressionist designs. For
he made the maximum use not only of intricately patterned, highly contrasting surfaces,
but he also used the wood stud structure itself to sharpen the contrast. Certain sections
of the walls were left completely open so that one can fully read the structural frame.

By 1926 Schindler had pretty well abandoned this expressionistic aspect of his work.
But he slowy returned to it in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and after the Second
World War he designed several buildings which, without any great stretch of the imagina-
tion, could be considered expressionstic. Such a switching back and forth between
extreme architectural idioms may seem capricious, but if one takes into account that
Frank Lloyd Wright and Lloyd Wright followed a similar progression of formal ideas, from
an expressionistic stage to an International style phase, followed by a return to a more
easy going romanticism during much the same period of time, Schindler's change in
language becomes more understandable. Schindler, however, in spite of being taken up
with expressionism during the 1920s and 1930s, never stopped his experimentation with
other forms which were often an antithesis of expressionism.

Indicative of how Schindler moved away from the Wrightian manner are two of his
major designs of the early 1920s: his competition drawings for the Free Public Library,
Bergen Branch (Jersey City, New Jersey, 1920), and his studio house built for himself
and Clyde Chase on Kings Road (Hollywood, 1921). The relationship of the rectangular
volumes of the Jersey City Library project looks back to his Viennese days and to a
more limited extent to his work in Chicago. The abstract interpenetration of rectangular
blocks, especially in the children's wing (to the right in the elevational drawing), anticipates
his approach of the 1930s. On the other hand, left over from his Wright days are the
fussy screen like window detailing and the projecting piers used to give depth and a
certain degree of mass to each of the facades.

As one would expect of an architect's own house, Schindler's double studio residence
on Kings Road is a highly imaginative scheme. The battered tilt slab concrete walls
convey a Southwestern adobe feeling; the interior scale and wood detailing are somewhat
Wrightian; but the essence of the plan and the scale of the building is neither American
nor European, it is Japanese. Unlike the traditional Western European building, Schindler's
house is never meant to be seen as a free-standing object in space. The Kings Road
house is really a series of loosely grouped pavilions which, through sliding canvas panels,
are closely linked with independent gardens. Thus, one can experience only fragments
of the Schindler house — a portion of the entrance or one or two walls on the garden.
Although Schindler made use of a change in ceiling height, accentuated by narrow
horizontal clearstory windows, the changes created a horizontality in the interior space.
Schindler returned to somewhat related concepts in a few of his later buildings and
projects, but the Kings Road house really stands alone in his architectural production,
especially in its Japanese qualities.

The interest in orienting a house around one or more enclosed gardens did occur in
several houses over the next few years; the most notable examples being the projected
bungalow for P. L. Mix (Los Angeles, 1922), the house for M. P. Campbell (Los Angeles,
1922), and his projected studio for J. Morgenthau (Palm Springs, 1926). His project for
a House in the Desert (first scheme for P. Popinoff, Coachella, ca. 1924?) created a single
indoor-outdoor environment which completely shut out the exterior world. The closest
approximation to his own house was the ranch house for C. Park (Fallbrook, 1925),
where he used battered concrete walls combined with exposed wood structure and where
he grouped the rooms around an enclosed patio.

Two major concerns throughout his life were the closely related problems of multiple
and low cost housing. In Europe during the 1920s and 1930s the design of public housing
occupied the attention of all the avant garde architects. In America, especially in the
1920s, no such opportunity was available. The closest Schindler ever came to designing
a large number of low cost housing units was his extensive project for an Industrial
Housing Scheme (Bandini, 1924). In his plan for this community he provided for both
conected and detached houses, all of which interestingly enough were equipped with
garages. The detached houses were arranged in a row with the garage and parking to
the rear and a common public garden to the front. The houses were to have been built
of concrete, and in the simplicity and severity of their design they are remarkably similar
to those which Irving Gill had planned for Torrance in 1916.

Between the years 1922 and 1925, Schindler worked closely with the contractor, 0. S.
Floren, in the design and construction of a number of duplexes and multiple housing
units. Some of these were built directly by Floren as speculative adventures, others were
remodelings of existing buildings, or were new buildings designed for individual clients.
On the whole, these buildings remain a side chapter in Schindler's work of the period.
While a few of these buildings were expressionistic in design, such as the remodeled
apartment building for Mrs. F. Braun (Los Angeles, 1924), a majority of his designs
for Floren combine a monolithic Pre-Columbian flavor with more than a hint of
decorator modernistic.

Fortunately the architect did not long experiment in this vein and his later housing
units for Floren and others represent some of his strongest designs of the mid 1920s.
His project for an eight unit apartment for Floren (Los Angeles, 1924) and his apartment
building for S. Breacher (Los Angeles, 1925) are early proto-lnternational style. They also
recall the 1919 Horatio West Apartments in Santa Monica by Irving Gill in their simple
forms and unbroken stuccoed walls. Perhaps the most satisfactory of this group of
multiple housing designs was his apartment for M. Brown (Los Angeles, 1926). Except for
the heavy window detailing this building with its interlocking rectangular volumes, its
horizontal rows of windows and doors which tie the surface together, and its large area
of stuccoed walls, entails the basic de Stijl aesthetic which Schindler was to use so
successfully during much of the 1930s.

Somewhat earlier in date, and from a planning point of view a better solution to urban
housing, was his project for a Bungalow Court for J. Korsen (Los Angeles, 1921) and his
well publicized Pueblo Ribera community (La Jolla, 1923). The six units of the Bungalow

Court were laid out in an L-shaped pattern with their rear walls placed close to the property
line and to the alley so that they could all look out on the common open space.

The Pueblo Ribera community is definitely one of the most original urban designs of
the period. It is a success in almost every regard — in its blend of coherence and
irregularity which it presents as a street-scape, in its provision for maximum privacy
for each unit, its use of roof terraces so that each dwelling enjoys a view of the sea,
and finally in its adventuresome use of concrete which was formed into walls through
the employment of moveable forms.

Equally significant as a solution to urban housing was his design for a group of apart-
ments for H. Sachs (originally called Manola Court), located on a steep hillside in the
Silver Lake area of Los Angeles (1926-40). A public stairway descending from the upper
to the lower street connects the units and provides access from one street to the other.
Each of the apartments has its own outdoor area and enjoys an open and uninterrupted
view of the city below. As was the case with the Pueblo Ribera buildings, the Sachs apart-
ments bring together a feeling of controlled planning mixed with intentional irregularity.

Side by side with his expressionist work were two other phases destined to become
increasingly important: a constructionist aspect and later a version of the International
style, which were both integrated into what can be considered his classic work, resulted
from equally strong influences. These two aspects grew primarily out of his Viennese
training, his reaction to the adobe architecture of the Southwest, his knowledge of the
California work of Irving Gill, his acquaintanceship with what was then going on in Europe
(especially in Holland), and finally the stimulation of several other California avant
garde designers, especially Richard J. Neutra who came to Los Angeles in 1925. 18

By far the most intriguing of Schindler's designs of the 1920s are those which entail
what could be loosely labeled as de Stijl. With the single exception of the fact that he
never relied on primary colors to establish or re-enforce forms, this phase of Schindler's
work is remarkably akin to the designs of the early 1920s of the Dutch de Stijl architects,
especially Theo van Doesburg and, to a certain extent, Gerrit Rietveld and Mart Stam.
Van Doesburg's careful sculptural arrangements of volumes, and of windows and
horizontal planes which penetrate and connect the separate volumes, is extremely close
to that of Schindler. And the constructionist aspect of Rietveld's designs is reflected in
several of Schindler's buildings, particularly the Lovell beach house of 1925-26. Since
these early designs of the 20s not only constitute several of Schindler's most provocative
buildings but also laid the foundation for his classic work of the 1930s, it is obviously
important to understand what caused him to develop in this specific direction. As already
mentioned, the answer can be found in Schindler's own background: his Viennese
experience and the simplifying process to which he subjected the Wright idiom. But this
can only partially account for the strong de Stijl aspect of Schindler's work. It seems
impossible for Schindler to have developed as he did without an awareness of what was
transpiring in Europe and especially in Holland. Regrettably there is no irrefutable evidence
for this either in his letters of the period or in his other papers. But his files aptly
demonstrate that at least by the late 20s he was closely following the European architec-
tural scene, for there are numerous magazine pages and newspaper clippings which
illustrated the work of Le Corbusier, Oud, Mies van der Rohe and others. Although there

are no clippings or illustrations of work of the early 20s in his files, it would seem
reasonable to assume that whenever possible he looked at European and American
architectural journals.

An examination of a few buildings of the first part of the 1920s shows how he sloughed
off the more open Wright design elements and worked for an increasingly pure and plastic
volumetric form — both in regard to the building as an object in space, i.e., as a
neoplastic piece of sculpture, and in his concern with a vertical Loosian interior space.
In his project for the W. G. Duncan house (Los Angeles, 1922) and his E. J. Gibling
house (Westwood, 1924) he still exhibits a few Wrightian details, but the essence of the
Duncan project is contained in its projection, recession and penetration of stuccoed
volumes; in the Gibling house a similar set of volumes is contrasted with a thinly
delineated, hovering roof and trellis which tie the glass, wood and stucco volumes together.

In the J. E. Howe house (Los Angeles, 1925), a simple yet bold series of rectangular
volumes and horizontal surfaces encloses a complex interior plan. The treatment of the
horizontal window mullions as a continuation of the horizontal batten joists of the wall
surface forces one to read the walls and windows as thin enclosing skins, completely
lacking in mass.

Schindler's Magnus Opus of the 20s, if not of his total architecture, was his Beach
house for P. M. Lovell (Newport Beach, 1925-26). The Lovell Beach house stands along
with Neutra's Lovell house of 1929, Gropius' Bauhaus (Dessau, 1925-26), Le Corbusier's
Villa Savoye (Poissy, 1929-30), and Mies van der Rohe's German Pavilion at the Barcelona
Exposition (1929) as one of the monuments of twentieth century architecture. In fact,
in contrast to these other buildings, it is the only one which comes at all close to ful-
filling the ideas of the International style as set forth in 1932 by Hitchcock and Johnson.20
However, it should be emphasized that the specific combination of constructional de Stijl
aesthetics and Loosian space makes the Lovell Beach house a completely individual work.
The aesthetic form of the building is completely dominated by five independent concrete
frames out of which and within which projects the enclosed space of his building. The
separation of the five concrete frames from the enclosing surface was accentuated on the
side directly opposite the street front by projecting the frames partially in front of the
glass and stucco wall; while on the street front the low roof which covered the sleeping
porches was broken into a series of separate rectangles so that one is aware of the con-
crete frames projecting above the roof. On the ocean and street sides the frame stands
as a solid visual foil to the thin stucco-covered surfaces of the balconies, ramps and
roof. On the side away from the ocean, the rectangular volumes of the house project
out in front of the frame in a completely independent fashion.21

The aesthetics of constructionism which were so important in the Lovell Beach house
were never completely explored again by Schindler. In part, as Esther McCoy has indicated,
the cheapness of American wood frame construction was such that there were few if any
clients who were willing to or could afford to use steel.22 But Schindler's shift went be-
yond the economics of the situation, for in several of his projects of the 30s he returned
to concrete, such as the first scheme for the projected house for E. Locke (Los Angeles,
1933). The change was fundamentally an aesthetic one; his interest was in the play of
thin rectangular volumes, expressed as sculptural elements rather than a part of the

structural scheme. He was no longer interested in establishing all or even a segment of
his form through structural expressionism.

This new interest, which is the essence of the de Stijl aesthetic, was well expressed in
three designs of the late 1920s: in the Summer house for C. H. Wolfe at Avalon on Cata-
lina Island (1928), in the projected house to have been built directly on the ocean at
Venice for H. Braxton (1928), and in the projected remodeling of an existing house for
H. D. Diffen (Avalon, Catalina Island, 1929).

The Wolfe house (which in plan is really three independent apartments) affirms its
stepped design on all four sides as it climbs up the steep hillside. Each of the three levels
has its own covered balcony, and in two of the apartments Schindler employed his usual
Loosian device of changing the floor and ceiling levels of the house so that in this case
the bedroom fully opened at a higher level into the main living area. As in the Pueblo
Ribera community the architect utilized the roof of the house as a covered terrace which
was approached by a ramp at the upper side of the building.

The projected remodeling of the hillside Diffen house retained a slight trace of its
original hipped roof, but the main impact of its form was the two-story living room and
the integrated play of penetrating rectangular volumes on each side of the exterior of the
living room. This play with volume, rather than simply with surface patterns of windows
and doors, is of course one of the major elements which separates Schindler's work from
the European Internationalists. A similar, more subdued articulation of volumes occurred
in the 1928 project for the Braxton house. This is not a single or even a group of boxes,
rather it is a series of sculptured volumes reduced almost to an arrangement of surfaces
because of the extensive glass area and open space on the ground level. As with most
Schindler buildings it is his planning of the interior space which is of the greatest interest
in this house. On the ground level a walkway path starts at the garage and penetrates
through the house out to the ocean terrace on the other side. The two-story living room
dominates the rectangular volume. It is regretful that the Braxton house remained on
paper, for had it been built there is little doubt that its publication, especially in Europe,
would have brought increased international attention to Schindler's work.

Neither the earlier architects of the Midwestern Prairie School nor the early modern
architects of California enjoyed any degree of support from government or business. And
yet in both cases their governmental and commercial projects were often highly provoca-
tive and original. This is certainly true in the case of Schindler's work of the 1920s (as
it also was with Neutra). For example, Schindler's project for a twelve-story skyscraper
of black glass and aluminum is as significant a design in the development of an aesthetic
solution to the skyscraper as Gropius' 1922 project for the Chicago Tribune Tower Com-
petition or Mies van der Rohe's project for a glass skyscraper of 1920-21. In all these
projects the structure can be read easily, but of the three Schindler's is the most
plastic and dramatic with its horizontal stepped facade which led into the glass enclosed
elevator shaft and the projecting balconies of the stair landings.23

Schindler's project for the Peoples Bank (Los Angeles, 1924) is in many ways similar
to the solutions which Sullivan, Wright, and Purcell and Elmslie had arrived at for the
same building type in the earlier decades of the century. In the Peoples Bank project the
brick walls close the building off from the street, the only penetration of this surface

being the low-scaled entrance. The upper section of the facade contains two groups of
deeply set horizontal windows placed in an area of semi-translucent black glass. The street
elevation certainly conveys an element of restraint coupled with lightness of detail and
of materials which would seem to be perfectly appropriate to the image of a small bank.

Almost immediately after Neutra came to Los Angeles in 1925, he and Schindler began
to collaborate on a number of projects. Their association continued to one degree or an-
other until 1930. The relationship between the two (and later with the urban planner,
Carol Aronovici) varied from project to project.-4 From 1926 on most of their joint efforts
carried the signature of the Architectural Group for Industry and Commerce. Considering
the general scarcity of realized commissions for both men during the late 1920s, the give
and take between them probably went far beyond the officially listed joint projects. Since,
for much of the time, they were working together in Schindler's studio home, the daily
contact between the two must have produced some effect on each in their independent
work. It would not be unreasonable to assert that Neutra's presence was one of the forces
which helped Schindler rid himself of crotchety Wrightian details which he carried over
into his early independent work of the 1920s. The cleaned-up quality of Schindler's build-
ings of the 30s, his reliance on hard, machine-like, non-tactile material, his rejection of
the "warm" material, especially of wood, during much of his de Stijl phase of the 30s
might never have occurred without Neutra.

One of the first of the projects listed under the Architectural Group for Commerce and
Industry was a small retail store, the Leah-Ruth Garment Shop in Long Beach (1926).
The design problem was to remodel an existing building and especially to provide an
eye-catching street front for the shop. The drawings, all of which are by Schindler, depict
an intricate diagonal and horizontal pattern of wood, canvas and stucco which, like an
open piece of relief sculpture, sits out in front of the actual facade of the building. The
design is fundamentally a play with the two-dimensional world of the drafting board and
it is similar to Schindler's occasional graphic designs.

Schindler and Neutra's project for the League of Nations Competition (1926) has been
eclipsed over the years by the publicity which has always surrounded Le Corbusier's
entry.26 In many ways these two schemes are quite similar. Both have a dual orientation
so that both land and water transportation (and, in the case of the Schindler and Neutra
project, air transportation by sea planes) could be utilized. Both projects visually em-
phasize the separateness of the Court Rooms, of the Assembly Chambers, and of the
office space for the Secretariat and for the Commissions. In both schemes the Secretariat
was treated as a single rectangular office block while the angled seating shape of the
Assembly Chambers was reflected in its external design. Like the Lovell house, the Schind-
ler-Neutra project was far more constructionist in its visual form than was the design by
Le Corbusier. The rectangular office building of the Secretariat was suspended from a
series of U-shaped concrete frames, rather than being the usual box-on-stilts which Le
Corbusier used. The expressive nature of the Schindler-Neutra design, especially in re-
lation to its structure and materials, is remarkably close in spirit to Le Corbusier's post
World War II buildings.

The question of design responsibility for the Schindler-Neutra project will probably never
be satisfactorily answered. At the time of its submission it was officially listed as by

Neutra and Schindler.-" On the other hand, the publicity about the project in Los Angeles
mentions Schindler's name first. A close look at the design, especially if one compares
it with Neutra's drawings for Rush City Reformed (1923-on), shows that the younger
architect contributed in a major way. Although Neutra frequently used the exposed U-
shaped frame, with the enclosed space hung within, the germ of this idea is obviously
derived from the Lovell Beach house. The regularization of this scheme into a large office
block may well be Neutra's. The concept of cantilevering the assembly chambers out over
the waters of the lake, the overhang of the roof of these stepped projections and the
imaginative way that light was introduced into the buildings are ideas which would prob-
ably be Schindler's. In the end though, it would seem most reasonable to look at the de-
sign as truly a collaboration project, the final results being something which neither de-
signer could have fully achieved if working independently.

Equally difficult to assign to one architect or the other are a number of projects for
apartment buildings which were produced by the Architectural Group for Industry and
Commerce in 1926 and 1927. In one way or another, in the end all of these projected
designs eventually lead to the concrete Garden Apartments in Los Angeles (1927) which
were designed solely by Neutra. The younger architect would also appear to have had a
major hand in their competition project for an Auditorium and Civic Center for Richmond
(1930), though the site plan and the basic determination of the height and the relationship
of the buildings must have been Carol Aronovici's. The design of the buildings for the
projected Highway Bungalow Hotels of 1931 still bears the signature of the Architectural
Group for Industry and Commerce, but it lists only Aronovici's and Schindler's names.

During the latter part of the 20s, Schindler designed four store buildings.27 The most
noteworthy of these was a remodeling of the ground floor of an existing building for
Aesop's Chest and Nosegay Store (Los Angeles, 1927). This design like that of the earlier
Leah-Ruth store was essentially the provisjon of a new shop front. A stepped horizontal
band joined together by a large rectangular show window led to the entrance. The design
is scaled for the pedestrian, and it effectively provides a glimpse of the wares, a brief
look into the shop and, finally, draws one to the entrance.

The three other stores were designed in 1928-29. These were a project for a Studio by
an Artist, the project for the Lavana Studio building (Los Angeles), and the Braxton Gallery
in Hollywood. In his Studio for an Artist he slanted the walls outward so that they would
assume an easel-like character, introduced light through skylights which illuminated the
walls, and at the same time kept the direct light from the viewer's eyes by a flat ceiling
hung directly below the roof. The Braxton Gallery occupied a narrow space in an existing
building. Within this space Schindler used a pattern of angled stepped walls, cases, and
desks which led the visitor on through the store to the main gallery at the rear. The
exterior was dominated by an ingenious moveable steel and canvas awning which could be
adjusted to shut out the sun's rays. The pattern of the steel supports, the dark colored
canvas, and the vertical polished letters placed at the end of the awning together con-
stituted an effective advertising sign.

Two additional aspects of Schindler design must be mentioned. These were his two-
dimensional typographical design and his furniture. Schindler's style of lettering was a
direct outgrowth of the Secessionist mode which he had experienced in Vienna, and in

truth his typography of the 1920s and 1930s is simply a series of variations on this earlier
theme. Throughout his life his lettering always remained as a pure product of the drafting
board. In a certain sense his lettering represents the most period piece facet of his
production. His most satisfactory typographical layouts are those which come the closest
to mirroring his work in architecture. His design for the Diploma for the Wolfe School of
Costume Designing (1929) is a simplified version of what one would encounter in one of
his buildings. The lines and grouping of type in this design are meant to establish and
define rectangles and squares; its readability is quite secondary.

His designs for furniture are an extension of his concepts for interior space. As with
Wright and the Prairie School, Schindler felt it necessary to design much of the furniture
for his houses. In the process of manipulating the interior space, he planned much of the
furniture as built-ins. In most instances, his furniture designs are simply scaled-down
versions of his de Stijl architecture. His first furniture of the 1920s is entirely Wrightian
in concept. The form which Schindler continually returned to for his freestanding chair
was the open end U (with the open end to the rear). He designed numerous versions of
this chair in wood and later on in bent stainless steel tubing. The prohibitive cost of fabri-
cating furniture of metal forced Schindler to rely on wood, especially on inexpensive ply-
wood. But whenever he had the opportunity he designed in metal. Hie metal sling chair
for the Braxton Gallery, his 1928 metal floor lamp and his chairs and tables for Sardi's
Restaurant deserve close comparison with the early metal furniture of Le Corbusier, Marcel
Breuer and others. As two of his drawings of 1933-34 indicate, Schindler, like other mod-
ern architects, often experimented with modular design for tables and chairs. His ideal
though was to build in as much of the furniture as possible. Since many of his commis-
sions were for the remodeling of existing residences, he ended up by designing many
examples of built-in furniture.

Schindler's gradual shift to a pure de Stijl aesthetic is well illustrated in two of his
low cost houses: his design for a small speculative house at the newly created Park
Moderne area of Woodland Hills (1929) and his projected Schindler Shelter (1933). The
Park Moderne house with its overlapping wood paneled garage door, its horizontal and
vertical windows and its overhanging wood soffited roof reflects Schindler's earlier com-
bination of de Stijl and Wrightian ideas. The Schindler Shelter entails his own plastic
version of the International style. The Shelter is fundamentally a single volumetric box,
but visually it does not read as such. By projecting certain volumes outward, such as
the living room fireplace bay; other sections inward, such as the side wall of the kitchen;
and by manipulating the projections of the roof, he produced a form which is complex
but yet completely controlled.

His first mature, completely integrated de Stijl design, and one of his finest, was the
R. Elliot house (Los Angeles, 1930). The Elliot house is a more elaborately articulated
rectangular box than the Schindler Shelter. The roof of the high living room is extended
and tied to the lower box by two L-shaped stuccoed trellises. The lower two bedrooms
project out from the box and are caught and held in place by meeting the thrust of the
side wall. The interior volumes and surfaces are as lively in their movements as the ex-
terior. The front space of the living room with its glass wall is higher than the more inti-
mate fireplace area. The two-story entrance volume effectively brings the lower and upper

levels of the house together. The projection of the back of the kitchen cupboards into the
entrance hall, together with the glass above, completely breaks down the feeling that the
kitchen space is separated from the rest of the house. Sculptured surfaces abound within
the Elliot house: the fireplace wall forms a unified composition with its square glass open-
ing on the floor to the left, its niche behind the vertical brick side of the fireplace, and
its small clock placed in a rectangular recess just below the ceiling. A corresponding
wealth of sculptural details is to be found in the kitchen and in the two bedrooms.

Further refinements in the architect's de Stijl mode occurred two years later in the
highly successful W. Oliver house (Los Angeles, 1933). Once again the form is a horizontal
rectangular box, out of which and into which secondary volumes and planes project. The
straightforwardness of the box, especially from the street, is deceptive; for the living
room, the open porch and part of the main bedroom are covered by gabled, not flat roofs.
The pitched roof enabled Schindler to vary his interior vertical space and yet on the public
side of the house he was able to present a low horizontal silhouette.

The living room of the Oliver house with its changing ceiling height, its built-in couch,
tables, book shelves, hidden niche for the piano and storage area for fireplace wood repre-
sents his most successful interior space. The complexity of detail and space is present,
but in this case it conveys a classic calm.

With the onset of the depression, Schindler, like other architects, was able to build
only a few commissions, though either alone or in collaboration with Carol Aronovici he
worked on a number of projects. In addition to the Elliot and Oliver houses, Schindler built
one other major domestic commission before 1935 which mirrored his pure de Stijl ap-
proach. This was the J. J. Buck house (Los Angeles, 1934). The location of the Buck
house on a flat city lot encouraged Schindler to create one of his most abstract com-
positions as an object in space. The arrangement of the rectangular volumes and of the
horizontal bands of windows in both the single-story wing and the two-story section are
terminated by the upward thrust of the two chimney volumes. The vertical space within
the house was varied so that light could enter at several levels. The ceiling of the entrance
hall was lowered in order that the exterior space might penetrate from the street front
into the patio. The lowering of this ceiling made it possible for a narrow clearstory window
to bring south and east light into the dining and breakfast rooms. The Buck house, which
is in fact a double house, was sited with the L-shaped main unit facing its own patio, and
the smaller second story unit had its own porch which overlooked its own enclosed patio.

Reflecting the same purity of form as the Buck house were two projects of this period,
the hillside house for Haines (Los Angeles, 1934-35) and the two schemes for E. Locke (Los
Angeles, 1933). In the Haines project Schindler placed a single car garage parallel to the
street and at right angles to the double car garage so that a private patio was created on
the street side of the house. Such a layout of the patio (a scheme which he was to fre-
quently use) meant that the living-dining area could enjoy an uninterrupted view of the
city to the rear and at the same time experience and face directly onto a usable outdoor
living area.

If the first scheme for the E. Locke house could have been realized, it would have been
one of Schindler's masterpieces. The Locke house was essentially a single room concrete
house whose interior space was oriented around a central open fireplace. The entrance,

kitchen and sleeping space were divided from the main living area by only the minimal de-
vice of glass walls. A similar close connective link was established with exterior space: the
main garden wall of the living room consisted of three floor-to-ceiling sliding glass doors
which led directly to the terrace; on the east side of the house the wall and the roof
formed an enclosing L. The area enclosed b^ this L formed an open-closed space which
was neither exterior nor interior.

In the early 30s Schindler produced two houses which basically lie outside of his de
Stijl tradition. These were the house for H. N. von Koerber (Hollywood Riviera, Torrance,
1931), and the mountain cabin for Mrs. G. Bennati (Lake Arrowhead, 1934). Both of these
houses reflect Schindler's response to local requirements which insisted upon the use of
pitched roofs. The Bennati cabin is a straightforward A-frame, similar to his 1922-24
Davies project. The von Koerber house represents a much more complex reaction to the
problems posed. Schindler reacted with humor and disdain to the Spanish Colonial Revival
theme which this house was supposed to reflect. The vertical projection of the center
section of the house is a complete denial of everything for which the Spanish Colonial
Revival stood. Not content with showing his distaste for the Revival in the basic form
of the house, he went even further, carrying the red clay roof tiles down onto wall surfaces
and turning patterned wall tiles on their sides or upside down. But the von Koerber house
is much more than a negative comment on the Revival, for Schindler used this opportunity
to experiment again with what really amounts to expressionist ideas. This is especially
true of the interior of the house: in its complexity of vertical and horizontal spaces, in the
surprising ways in which light was introduced, and in the planned dramatic vistas which
occur throughout the house.

The mid and late 30s abound in classic houses of his de Stijl phase. The project for
the Delahoyde house (Los Angeles, 1935) is as close as he ever came to the pure glass
box of the International style. His first scheme for the Shep house (Los Angeles, 1935)
portrays a severe design on the street elevation but a much more typical arrangement
of complex volumes on the hillside elevation. The second scheme for the Geggie house
(Pasadena, 1935-36) utilized two angled shed roofs which radically modify the de Stijl
aesthetic. Here one can experience a purposeful discordant note which was to enter into
many of his buildings. In the Geggie project he has made no attempt to resolve the visual
conflict between the volumes dominated by the single-pitch shed roofs and the volumes
contained by the rectangular roof surfaces. The visual form of this design is then a result
of the clash of two visual ideas.

In the following years he again introduced a purposeful conflict between two dramatic
forms in his projects for the Warshaw house (Los Angeles, 1936) and the Jacobs house
(Beverly Glen, 1936). In these two designs he covered his usual projecting-receding de
Stijl volume with a single pitched, curved roof which was covered with heavy roofing paper
and was banded by wood strips which repeated the four foot module scheme of the win-
dows. His approach to the DeKeyser double house (Hollywood, 1935) was similar, only
here he carried the roof down the upper part of the wall.

In late 1935 and 1936 he completed six houses. The two houses for Miss V. McAlmon
(Los Angeles, 1935) consisted of the extensive remodeling of an existing bungalow which
had been built close to the street and the erection of a new main residence on the crest

of the hill at the rear of the property. The second McAlmon house is one of Schindler's
most dramatic exercises in form. The positive outward thrust of volumes forcefully con-
trasted with the negative movement of exterior space into the basic volume of the house.

The form of the Fitzpatrick house (Hollywood Hills, 1936) lies somewhat closer to what
Neutra and Raphael S. Soriano were doing at that time than Schindler's more typical
work. In this house the horizontal linearism of the roofs, etc., dominates rather than the
manipulation of volumes. Even the interior pattern of volumes and surfaces tends to be
highly restrained.

The Walker house (Los Angeles, 1935) and the Van Patten house (Los Angeles, 1934-35)
again combine rectangular and angled volumes and planes. In the Van Patten house
Schindler rhythmically repeated the slanted wall angle in his ramp to the living room
terrace and in his support for one of the upper balconies. The effect of the slanted planes,
together with the perpendicular axis of the major volumes, makes the house vertical rather
than horizontal. The shed roof of the Walker house made it possible for the architect to
group the upper floor garage, entrance and servant's room under the same roof which
covered much of the living room. On the exterior the three-story hillside elevation of
the house completely turns its back on the pitched roof section, and yet within, the tran-
sition in the living-dining area from the angled to the flat ceiling is perfectly harmonious.

The imaginative yet precise control of his de Stijl mode continued unabated through
early 1942. It can be seen in such projects as the Miller house (Los Angeles, 1936) and
the impressive Beach house for Ryan (1937). Above all it was fully expressed in the studio
house for Hiler (Hollywood, 1941) and in the Rodakiewicz house (Los Angeles, 1937),
Schindler's largest residential commission. In this last mentioned house he was provided
an opportunity to fully realize his three-dimensional view of interior space derived from
Loos' concepts and to extend dramatically the space of the building into the surrounding
landscape. The stairway for the ground level entrance led directly into the two-story living
room, with the high glass-enclosed loggia to one side and a view of the semi-circular patio
through the floor to ceiling glass windows. A staircase in the loggia led up to the main
bedrooms and onto a balcony which gave entrance to the curved bridge defining one side
of the sunken patio. The precision of detail and the use of polished metal for window
mullions and railing convey a nautical, machine-like quality. Schindler's approach to the
garden of the Rodakiewicz house carried on his view which was close to that of Neutra,
Soriano and Ain that the surrounding landscape should be in striking contrast to the
building. In this house the semi-circular patio to the east of the house and the semi-
circular children's playground to the south are handled as limited extensions of the in-
terior space of the house. Beyond these two precisely bound areas was created a
twentieth century version of the romantic English garden: a meadow, a winding grass path
and plantings of trees and shrubs which almost created a dense jungle. Out of this ir-
regular and rather wild jungle rose the man-made exact geometry of the house. The most
complete application of his version of the traditional English picturesque landscape in
relation to the controlled works of man was reached in his later Harris house (Los An-
geles, 1942). Here he theatrically perched the house and its partially enclosed patio upon
an irregular rock outcropping.

On a much smaller scale Schindler applied his late de Stijl aesthetic, in an identical

fashion, to the Westby house (Los Angeles, 1938), the Wolff house (Studio City, 1938),
the Droste house (Hollywood, 1940), the Goodwin house (Studio City, 1940) and his ex-
tensive remodeling of the existing Pennington house (Thousand Oaks, 1942). South of
Los Angeles in Inglewood (ca. 1940) Schindler designed three builders' speculative houses
which brilliantly solved the functional problems of a smaller house and at the same time
were forceful aesthetic statements. Another pre-war extension of his de Stijl aesthetic
occurred in several modular plywood houses. In the projected Djey and Aldrich house
(Los Angeles, 1938) the vertically placed plywood panels established the structural and
aesthetic module of the house. In the Southall studio-house (Los Angeles, 1938) of the
same year, the vertical joints of the plywood sheets were played down so that the interior
and exterior surfaces read as a continuous plane.

The non-domestic commissions of Schindler occupy an important position in his total
work. His two most substantial commissions were Sardi's Restaurant #1 (Hollywood,
1932-34) and Lindy's Restaurant #1 (Hollywood, 1932-34). The use of polished metal
surfaces and structural members in both of these restaurants carried on the machine-
like quality of his earlier 1928 Braxton Gallery and the projected store front for J. J. New-
berry (Los Angeles, 1929). 28 A parallel use of metal was proposed for the projected Nobby
Knit store (ca. 1930), though this small store front is more three-dimensional in concept.

A machine-like quality is equally prevalent in his three commissions for gas stations:
a prototype model for the Standard Oil Company (1932), a similar model for the Union
Oil Company (1933), and a station for Mrs. Nerenbaum (Los Angeles, 1934). The designs
for the projected Union Oil Station represent a wild and complex piece of de Stijl sculp-
ture, while that for Mrs. Nerenbaum is a simple and direct statement of its structural
system of bays.

Fortunately the image of modernism was felt to be a desirable asset for retail stores,
especially those located in and around Hollywood, and Schindler continued to receive
commissions for smaller stores throughout the pre-World War II years. The designs for
these shops were as far removed from the normal narrow rectangular box as were Schind-
ler's houses from a single cube. The central store of his Modern Creators Shops (Holly-
wood, 1936) contains a characteristic Schindler space, two stories in height, with changes
in vertical height being accentuated by light entering through clearstory windows.

Side by side with Schindler's impressive array of pre-World War II de Stijl designs were
his increasingly romantic houses which indicate at least a partial return to a phase of ex-
pressionism. These houses share many qualities with the work which was then being done
by Harwell H. Harris, by Lloyd Wright and by several Bay area architects, especially Wil-
liam Wurster. But these late expressionist works of Schindler were quite distinct. They
never partook of the Japanese nor borrowed from Wright, nor did they ever have direct
reference to the outward form of the vernacular as did the buildings of Wurster. Schind-
ler's forms and his details were never simply picturesque and irregular, they were always
tightly controlled by a dominant geometry which is prefectly apparent. The planned ir-
regularity of these Schindler houses was a direct outcome of his desire to create dramatic
(but not theatrical) interior spaces and to explore a variety of ways of extending the in-
terior volumes outward. Since his de Stijl aesthetic had fully allowed him the maximum

leeway in expanding and contrasting horizontal space, it was the continuation of his play-
ing with the ceiling-roof area which characterized this romantic phase of his work.

In his project for the Timme house (Los Angeles, 1938) he covered one wing with a low
shed roof, the other with a gable roof composed of two different angles of slope. Both
roofs were kept away from the side walls, so that they visually read (both on the inside
and the outside) as two separate forms imposed on a series of rectangular volumes. A
similar distinct quality was maintained in the rafter-articulated shed roof of the projected
Rodriguez house (Glendale, 1940).

Six of Schindler's realized pre-war houses can be categorized loosely within this roman-
tic phase. These were the Kaun beach house (Richmond, 1936), the Lowes house #2
(Eagle Rock, 1937), the Wilson house (Los Angeles, 1938), the Zaczek Beach house (Playa
del Rey, 1936), the van Dekker house (Canoga Park, 1940) and the Druckman house (Los
Angeles, 1941). The Wilson house with its slightly pitched shed roof, slanted ramp,
slanted cantilever floor and roof soffits presents a complexity and conflict of form which
is totally different from the calm and repose of its interior. In the small Zaczek Beach
house Schindler has placed the principle rectangular volume of the house at a 45° angle
to the L-shaped base below. This placement has enabled him to create a transitional space
between the enclosed space of the house and the outside world.

The van Dekker house is the most accomplished of Schindler's pre-war romantic houses.
Here three different gable roofs penetrate above the flat-roofed volumes of the house.
Secondary flat roofs project out of and hover over the pitched roofs. The pitched roofs
provide numerous opportunities to introduce light and to obtain close-up views of the
forest hillside and distant views of the San Fernando Valley.

Late in the 30s Schindler was again offered the possibility of returning to a favorite
concern of his, multiple dwellings. In the apartment house for Mrs. P. Mackey (Los An-
geles, 1939) he was able to provide outdoor living areas for all of the apartments, either
in the form of patios or as roof gardens on a flat city lot. The hillside location of the
Bubeshko Apartments (Los Angeles, built in two stages, 1938 and 1941) was more in-
spired and here he stepped the three floors of apartments up the hillside. Stepping the
apartments made it possible for him to extend the interior spaces onto roof terraces and
patios. In his Falk Apartments (Los Angeles, 1939) he realized the same indoor-outdoor
extension of space, only the outward form of the building repeated the irregularity of the
angled streets and the steep hillside.

Though the architectural climate of southern California seemed unusually ripe for a
renewed renaissance in modern architecture, no such renaissance occurred. In fact the
quality of the work of all of the major figures — Schindler himself, Neutra, Ain, Harris and
Soriano — either leveled off, that is they continued to repeat what they had done in the
early 40s, or dramatically declined. On the whole it must be said that Schindler's last
eight years of work are a disappointment. In a few instances he maintained the vigor of
his earlier period and in one or two instances he experimented with new visual ideas which
form fascinating fragments, but basically his work never reached the distinction of his
pre-war designs.

After the war he worked on several apartment schemes which finally resulted in the
Laurelwood Apartments (Studio City, 1948). The siting of these apartments, with the

group of garages and their auto courts separating the apartments from the street, and the
provisions for outdoor living for each of the living units was highly satisfactory. The
massing of the apartments as objects in space is confused and dull. The interiors, though,
are as well thought out as any of Schindler's pre-war interiors.

Of his non-domestic work the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Los Angeles, 1944) repre-
sents his best work, although even here the effectiveness of the design is fragmentary
rather than a total experience. Although rather complicated in its exposed structure and
and in the ways in which he introduces light, the L-shaped interior auditorium does suc-
ceed in conveying a feeling of simple puritanical space. Perhaps the real success of the
church was its plan and setting: an open court facing onto a side street, an open-air
theater on the roof of the education building, and an almost blank wall facing the main
heavily trafficed street.

The general atmosphere of his post-war houses is one of indecision. Only three of the
houses can be said to express his earlier de Stijl mode. These are the Tucker house (Holly-
wood, 1950), the Ries house (Los Angeles, 1950-51) and the Erlik house (Hollywood Hills,
1950-51). A related classical spirit continued in the interior spaces involved in several
remodelings of houses, above all in that which he did in 1950 for the Gordon house
in the Hollywood Hills where he created a new series of spaces within the frame of the
existing building.

Three additional houses ranging in date from 1945 through 1950 represent the main
course of his post-war architecture. These were the Presburger house (Studio City, 1945),
the Daugherty house (Encino, 1946) and the Lechner house (Los Angeles, 1948). All of
these houses partake of some details (especially in wood) which point to the West Coast
vernacular and which has been developed in the pre- and post-war years by the Bay area
architects. Schindler's involvement with exposed wood structure, his emphasis on thinly
delineated separate wood members, in effect broke down the dominance of his de Stijl
aesthetic which had been expressed through volumes defined by surfaces.

Finally there were several post-war designs which rather directly continued his romantic
expressionistic work of the 40s. The Kallis house in the Hollywood Hills (1946) boasts
a highly ingenious plan which closely follows the curved contours of the road and site.
The Kallis house is successful as a design because one can grasp the building only as
a series of fragments, and on the whole these fragments pose their own unity. The Janson
house (Hollywood Hills, 1949) sits on its steep hillside site as a bewildering mixture of
wood structures and stuccoed planes, though its plan is highly inventive. The interior of
the Tischler house (Bel Air, 1949) is covered by a gabled corrugated semi-transparent
fiber glass roof. A de Stijl window bay, somewhat reminiscent of the gabled ends of the
1924 Packard house, dominates the street elevation of the house. In the Skolnik house
(Los Angeles, 1950-52), the last house which he supervised, a circular fireplace and
chimney penetrates through the glass wall, dramatically suggesting the singleness of
interior and exterior space.

Looking back on the 20s and 30s, it is perfectly understandable why Schindler's work
was overlooked; it was modern, yes, but it did not fit the stylistic patten of the fashionable
International style. The Lovell house in the 20s was too constructionistic, while his later

work was too involved with the manipulation of volumes rather than surfaces, something
which was never a concern with the Internationalists.

An appreciation of Schindler could only come about when the tightly knit canons of the
International style had been discarded and when architects once again began to concern
themselves with the volumetric aspect of architecture. Such a major shift has now taken
place (since the late 1950s) and with it has come a new appreciation of Schindler's con-
tribution. It is now apparent that Schindler provides the major link between the spatially
oriented architecture of Loos and what is presently occurring in contemporary architecture.
Then too, Schindler's open acceptance of the builders' stud and stucco mode of construc-
tion represents a far more meaningful understanding of what was truly vernacular in
American architecture than those buildings which self-consciously sought to reflect a
vernacular quality through outward forms. One other additional element provides a bond
between Schindler's work and that of the present. This was his purposeful use of conflict
to establish the visual form of his buildings.

Notes

1. Henry-Russell Hitchcock, IN THE NATURE OF
MATERIALS, New York, 1942, p. 124.

16. Esther McCoy, FIVE CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS, p.
151.

2. Esther McCoy, FIVE CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS,
New York, 1960, pp. 149-192.

3. Dennis Sharp, MODERN ARCHITECTURE AND EX-
PRESSIONISM, London, 1966, pp. 61-82; 131-144.

4. Heinz Geretsegger and Max Peintner, OTTO
WAGNER, 1841-1918, Salzburg, 1964, pp. 134-
135.

Leopold Kleiner, JOSEF HOFFMANN, Leipzig, 1927.

17. Dennis Sharp, MODERN ARCHITECTURE AND EX-
PRESSIONISM, pp. 69-84; 131-143.

18. David Gebhard, "The Spanish Colonial Revival in
Southern California (1895-1930)," to be published
in the JOURNAL, Society of Architectural His-
torians, May, 1967.

19. Certainly close in spirit to Schindler's construc-
tionism was the work in the early 1920s of the
Russian Eliezer Lissitsky (1890-1941); and several
of the projects of Mart Stam.

H. Allen Brooks, "Frank Lloyd Wright and the
Wasmuth Drawings," THE ART BULLETIN, vol.
XLVIII, No. 2, June, 1966, pp. 193-201.

20. Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson, THE
INTERNATIONAL STYLE SINCE 1922, New York,
1932.

7. This neo-classic aspect was expressed in several
houses which Hoffmann built in Vienna. A good
example which Schindler may have known would
be the house on Steinfoldgasse (#2), built during
1909-1910. Bay windows were of course an im-
portant feature in Loos' design of the building on
Michaelerplatz in Vienna (1910-11). See Ludwig
Munz and Gustav Kunstler, ADOLF LOOS, New
York, 1966, pp. 111-112.

8. Miinz and Kunstler, ADOLF LOOS: the Rufer
house (Vienna, 1922), and the Moller house
(Vienna, 1928), pp. 141-151.

9. David Gebhard, "R. M. Schindler in New Mexico,
1915," NEW MEXICO ARCHITECT, vol. 7, nos. 1
and 2, January-February, 1965, pp. 15-21.

10. See J. H. van den Broek, GUIDE TO DUTCH
ARCHITECTURE, Rotterdam, 1959, pi. 34; and
Giulia Veronesi, J. J. P. OUD, Milan, 1953, pp.
66-67.

11. Hitchcock, IN THE NATURE OF MATERIALS, p.
123. Several sheets of the working drawings and
the specifications for Wright's Millard house
Pasadena) are by Schindler. These are dated
February, March and April, 1923.

12. The preliminary and the final working drawings
for the Shampay and Staley houses are signed by
Schindler. The several studies for the Monolithic
Homes are also signed by Schindler.

13. Hitchcock, IN THE NATURE OF MATERIALS, p.
123.

14. Frank Lloyd Wright, AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY, New
York, 1943, pp. 124 and 128.

15. Hitchcock, IN THE NATURE OF MATERIALS, p. 72.

21. The original landscape plan for the Lovell beach
house is dated 1926 and is signed by Neutra.
Neutra also did the landscape plans for the Howe
house (1925), and the Lewin house (1925).

22. Esther McCoy,
pp. 168-171.

FIVE CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS,

23. Compare Loos' projecting glass stairway on the
rear of his building on Michaelerplatz (Vienna,
1910-11), with the glass elevator shaft on the
Schindler skyscraper project.

24. Two of Carol Aronovici's articles which indirectly
touch on his work with Schindler are: "Architec-
tural Harmony for the Small Civic Center,"
AMERICAN CITY, vol. 4, April, 1931, pp. 123-124;
and "Architecture and the Art of Living," SUR-
VEY, vol. 68, April, 1932, pp. 38-40.

25. John Rittner, "The League of Nations Competi-
tion, 1926," THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, vol.
136, July, 1964, pp. 17-23.

26. David Gebhard, "Letter," ARCHITECTURAL RE-
VIEW, vol. 137, February, 1965, p. 99.

27. These four stores are all credited to the Architec-
tural Group for Industry and Commerce, although
all of the drawings are by Schindler and are
signed by him.

28. Neutra's Universal Pictures building (Los Angeles,
1930) enjoys many points of similarity with
Schindler's commercial work of the early 1930s.

There is, as well, a marked similarity between
Schindler's commercial designs of 1928-1935 and
those of several Dutch architects: G. Rietveld's
Zaudy shop (Wesel, Germany, 1928) and another
shop (Cleef, Germany, 1929); J. W. E. Buys and
J. B. Lursen's De Volharding office building (The
Hague, 1928).

A Chronological List

of Major Buildings and Projects

of R. M. Schindler

NOTE: The date under which each of these buildings or projects is listed is that of the earliest drawing which
basically established the final form of the project. In those cases where the actual design process extended
over several years, the inclusive dates are given. If the architect prepared radically different designs for a
project, these are either listed, i.e. as alternate schemes, or if the schemes fall in different years, they are
separately listed. There were several buildings which were added to or remodeled over many years. These
buildings are listed under their earliest date, followed by the dates of remodelings or additions.

Schindler followed no consistent policy in dating his drawings. There are a number of drawings which contain
no date whatsoever; these have been dated on the basis of other evidence (i.e. letters, etc.) or in a few cases
on the basis of style. If the date is uncertain, the notation "ca." follows the listing of the project. Generally
Schindler placed the year of the project on the drawing, and in a few instances the day and month. A majority
of the projects done under the Architectural Group for industry and Commerce bear not only the day, month
and year, but a project number.

The most significant designs contained in this list bear a single asterisk. Those buildings which are still
standing and which have been little changed are indicated by two asterisks and their specific street address
is given.

1912

*Proj.: Hotel Rong, Vienna

*Proj.: Hunting Lodge, Vienna

*Clubhouse for Actors (Osterreichischen
BLihnenverein) (for Hans Mayr and
Theodor Mayer), Vienna

*Proj.: Crematorium and Chapel (Eintotenfeld
Fur Eine Smill Stadt), Vienna (1912-
1913)

1914

Proj.: Summer House, near Vienna

*Proj.: Neighborhood Center, Chicago (Com-
petition of Chicago Architectural Club)

'"Remodeling of House for J. B. Lee, May-
wood, Illinois

Hampden Club(?), Chicago (for Ottenheimer,
Stern and Reichert)

1917

Proj.: Melrose Public Park, Melrose, Illinois

*Proj.: Log House (location not given)

*Buena Shore Club, Chicago (for Otten-
heimer, Stern and Reichert) (1917-18)

1918

Proj.: Children's Corner, Chicago Art Insti-
tute, Chicago

1915

1919

*Proj.: Eleven Story Hotel, Chicago (for Otten-
heimer, Stern and Reichert)

Proj.: Bar, Chicago (for Ottenheimer, Stern
and Reichert) (ca. 1915)

*Proj.: House for T. P. Martin, Taos, New
Mexico

1916

Proj.: Store Front, Chicago (for Ottenheimer,
Stern and Reichert)

Proj.: Central Administration Building, Chicago
(for Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert)
(ca. 1916)

*Proj.: Women's Club, Chicago

::;Proj.: One Room Apartments, Chicago (for
Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert)

Memorial Community Center, Wenatchee,
Washington (for Frank Lloyd Wright)

* House for C. E. Staley, Waukegan, Illinois
(for Frank Lloyd Wright)

*J. P. Shampay House, Chicago (for Frank
Lloyd Wright)

-Proj.: Workmen's Colony (The Monolithic
Home) (for Frank Lloyd Wright)

1920

Proj.: Temporary House for J. B. Irving, Wil-
mette, Illinois (for Frank Lloyd Wright)

:Proj.: Actors' Abode, Apartment House for
Actors, for Miss A. Barnsdall, Olive Hill,
Los Angeles (for Frank Lloyd Wright)

-Director's House for Miss A. Barnsdall, Olive
Hill, cor. Hollywood Blvd. and Vermont
Ave., Los Angeles (for Frank Lloyd
Wright)

-Proj.: Terrace Stores for Miss A. Barnsdall,
Olive Hill, Los Angeles (for Frank Lloyd
Wright)

-Oleanders, House for Miss A. Barnsdall,
Olive Hill, Los Angeles (for Frank Lloyd
Wright)

Proj.: Free Public Library, Bergen Branch,
Jersey City, New Jersey (Competition)

1921

Proj.: Walt Whitman School, Los Angeles

Proj.: First Scheme for R. M. Schindler
House, Hollywood

**House for R. M. Schindler and Clyde Chase,
833 N. Kings Rd., Hollywood

*Proj.: Bungalow Court for J. Korsen, Los
Angeles

Proj.: Sketch for an Apartment Building for
Los Angeles

*Proj.: Skyscraper of Black Glass and Alu-
minum (The Play Mart), Los Angeles

1922

Beauty Salon for H. Rubenstein, Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for C. P. Lowes, Eagle Rock
(for Frank Lloyd Wright)

'-Apartment Buildings for I. Binder and H.
Gross, Los Angeles

''Duplexes and Small Apartments for O. S.
Floren, Hollywood (1922-25)

-Duplex for Mrs. A. M. Burrel, Hollywood

Proj.: Double Dwelling for F. Henderson, Los
Angeles

Remodeling of Apartment Building for B.
Caplan, et al., Los Angeles

* Duplex for Mrs. E. E. Lacey, Los Angeles
Proj.: House for W. E. Kent, Los Angeles

'-Proj.: Bungalow for P. L. Mix, Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for Mrs. L. Davies, Los Angeles
(ca. 1922-24)

'-Proj.: House for M. P. Campbell, Los Angeles

'-Proj.: House for W. G. Duncan, Los Angeles

* First Scheme for a House for C. P. Lowes,

Eagle Rock

Proj.: House for Mrs. R. Lindquist, Hollywood

-Photographic Studio for Miss V. Baker, Los
Angeles (1922 & 1924)

Proj.: Apartment Building for E. Temple,
Hollywood

*A Cabin for P. Popenoe, Coachella (1922 &
1924)

1923

'-Apartment Building for S. Friedman and A.
Kopley, Los Angeles

-Duplex for Mrs. A. L. Paine, Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for P. M. Lovell, Hollywood

-'House for C. P. Lowes, Eagle Rock (four
different schemes)

Proj.: Alterations to Hotel Wind and Sea, for
T. E. Snell, La Jolla

'-Proj.: House for C. Warne, Los Angeles

'-Proj.: House for Mrs. D. Baker, Hollywood

Proj.: New Art Room for the Hollywood
Public Library, Hollywood (with Douglas
Donaldson)

'-Proj.: Physical Education Club Lodge for
Topanga Ranch, Topanga Canyon, Los
Angeles County

'-Proj.: Store and Hotel Building for J. E.
Neville, Hollywood

Remodeling and Additions to H. Rubenstein
House, Greenwich, Connecticut

Beach Studio (and Store) for E. Leswin and
H. Leepa, Castel La Mar

* '-Pueblo Ribera Community for W. L. Lloyd,
230 Gravilla St., La Jolla

'-Proj.: House for Mrs. W. Baker, Hollywood

'-Apartment Building for Mrs. C. Kruetzer, Los
Angeles

1924

*Proj.: Sketch for a House in the Desert (for
P. Popinoff, Coachella) (ca. 1924?)

'-Vacation House for P. M. Lovell, Wrightwood

*Proj.: Industrial Housing Scheme (Workmen's
Colony), for Gould, Bandini

Remodeling of Apartment Building for Mrs.
F. Braun, Los Angeles

'-'-House for J. C. Packard, 931 N. Gains-
borough Dr., South Pasadena

'-Proj.: The Peoples Bank, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for A. Plotkin, Los Angeles

'-Garden Wall and Landscaping for Miss A.
Barnsdall, Olive Hill, Los Angeles

*House for H. Lewin, Los Angeles (1924-33)
(Architectural Group for Industry and
Commerce)

Proj.: Nurembega Heights Hotel (location
not given)

Proj.: Harriman Colony (location not given)
(1924-25)

*House for E. J. Gibling, Los Angeles

1925

Proj.: Hotel and Bungalow Community for P.
Popinoff, Coachella (ca. 1925)

— House for J. E. Howe, 2422 Silver Ridge
Avenue, Los Angeles

Proj.: First scheme for Resort Hotel (Hotel
Elsinore), Elsinore (with A. R. Brandner)

**Wading Pool and Pergola for Miss A. Barns-
dall, Olive Hill, Hollywood Blvd. and
Edgemont St., Los Angeles

Proj.: Photographic Studio for Ambassador
Hotel, Los Angeles

*A Bedroom for P. M. Lovell, Los Angeles

*Ranch House for P. M. Lovell, Fallbrook

Furniture for the Children's Workshop, for
P. M. Lovell, Los Angeles

Tea Room for Mrs. O'Sullivan and Miss B.
Kent, Los Angeles

Proj.: Brudin House, El Monte

-Apartment for S. Breacher, Los Angeles

**Beach House for P. M. Lovell, 1242 Ocean
Ave., Newport Beach (1925-26)

**Ranch House for C. Park, Fallbrook

1926

Remodeling of House for F. M. Weiner, Los
Angeles

*Proj.: House for Briggs, Newport Beach

Proj.: Sketch for an Exhibition Room, Berke-
ley (ca. 1926)

Proj.: Studio for J. Morgenthau, Palm Springs

Proj.: House for Martec, Los Angeles (1926-
28)

Proj.: House for C. B. Price, Los Angeles
(ca. 1926-28)

*Leah-Ruth Shop, Long Beach (Architectural
Group for Industry and Commerce)

Haines Health Food Store, Los Angeles

*Proj.: Beach House for D. Lovell, Newport
Beach

** Apartment House (Manola Court) for H.
Sachs, 1811-1813 Edgecliff Dr., Los An-
geles (1926-40)

*House for Mrs. K. Sorg, San Gabriel

*Proj.: League of Nations Building (Interna-
tional Competition) (with R. J. Neutra)

*Proj.: Apartments for M. Brown, Hollywood

Proj.: Hain House, Los Angeles (Architec-
tural Group for Industry and Commerce)

Proj.: Apartment Building for Hennessey
Brothers, Los Angeles (ca. 1926)

Proj.: Apartment House for Levy, Los Angeles

1927

Proj.: Second scheme for Resort Hotel (Hotel
Elsinore), Elsinore (Architectural Group
for Industry and Commerce with R.
Brandner)

Proj.: Five Story Apartment Building for J.
H. Miller, Los Angeles (Architectural
Group for Industry and Commerce)

Proj.: Four Story Class "C" Apartment Build-
ing, Pasadena (Architectural Group for
Industry and Commerce)

Aesop's Chest and Nosegay Store, Los
Angeles

Temporary Outdoor Poster Exhibition Pavi-
lion for Miss A. Barnsdall, Olive Hill, Los
Angeles

Proj.: Garden Apartments, Los Angeles (Archi-
tectural Group for Industry and Com-
merce)

Proj.: Alternate scheme for Five Story Apart-
ment House for J. H. Miller, Los Angeles
(Architectural Group for Industry and
Commerce)

Proj.: Falcon Flyers Country Club, near
Wasco, Kern Co. (ca. 1927-28) (Architec-
tural Group for Industry and Commerce)

Oil Mill for J. Napolitano, Los Angeles (Archi-
tectural Group for Industry and Com-
merce)

Remodeling of House for J. E. Richardson,
Los Angeles (Architectural Group for In-
dustry and Commerce)

Proj.: House for T. Zaczek, Los Angeles
(Architectural Group for Industry and
Commerce)

Proj.: Translucent House for Miss A. Barns-
dall, Palos Verdes

1928

*Proj.: Twin Harbor Community, Catalina
Island (Architectural Group for Industry
and Commerce)

Proj.: House for Slemons, Los Angeles
Proj.: Art Gallery, Lake Merritt, Oakland

(Architectural Group for Industry and

Commerce)

*Proj.: House for H. Braxton, Venice (This
identical project at the same address
reappears in 1930 under the name of
Mrs. V. B. Shore)

Remodeling of Oleanders, House for Miss A.
Barnsdall, Olive Hill, Los Angeles

Proj.: The Golden Pyramid (also bears title
of The Pyramid of Gold), Los Angeles

**Summer House for C. H. Wolfe, Avalon,
Catalina Island

Setting for SOUL OF RAPHAEL for Opera and
Drama Guild at Trinity Auditorium, Los
Angeles

* Braxton Art Gallery, Hollywood

**House for D. Grokowsky, 816 Bonita Dr.,
South Pasadena

1929

*Proj.: Remodeling of House for H. D. Diffen,
Avalon, Catalina Island

Proj.: Addition of Studio, Workroom, and
Garage for Vorkapic, Beverly Hills

Proj.: Coffee Shop for Hotel, Tucson (for
Tucson Holding Company)

*Wolfe School of Costume Designing, Los
Angeles

Satyre Bookshop, Los Angeles

*Proj.: Studio for an Artist (location not given)

*Proj.: Lavana Studio Building for Sieburt,
Los Angeles

Auto Show Room, Lincoln Garage Building,
Beverly Hills (with H. Sachs)

*Cabin for W. Lingenbrink, Calabasas

*Proj.: Store Front for J. J. Newberry, Los
Angeles (with H. Sachs)

Proj.: Paradise Resort, Ontario

*Cabin #1 at Park Moderne, Woodland Hills

*Proj.: Effie Dean Cafe, Los Angeles (Architec-
tural Group for Industry and Commerce)

Proj.: Apartment Building for Frankel, Los
Angeles

Remodeling of House for Vorkapic, Beverly
Hills

Scheme for an Easter Puppet Show, Los
Angeles (ca. 1929)

1930

Proj.: Market for J. M. Cohan, Los Angeles
(Architectural Group for Industry and
Commerce)

Proj.: Exposition Buildings and Park, Los
Angeles

Remodeling of House and Furniture for Mrs.
G. Bennati, Los Angeles

Proj.: Store Building for E. George and S.
Freeman, Los Angeles, (1930-31)

**House for R. F. Elliot, 4237 Newdale Dr.,
Los Angeles

Proj.: Hotel and Subdivision for G. L. Wing,
Banning (Architectural Group for Indus-
try and Commerce)

*Proj.: Nobby Knit Store, Los Angeles (ca.
1930)

Proj.: Desert House for Kopenlanoff, Palm
Springs

Proj.: A Subdivision Scheme for Kopenlanoff,
Palm Springs (Architectural Group for
Industry and Commerce)

*Proj.: Auditorium and Civic Center, Rich-
mond (Competition) (Architectural Group
for Industry and Commerce)

1931

Apartment House for Mrs. Cherry, Los
Angeles

Proj.: Apartment for Hollywood Riviera Build-
ing Association, Hollywood

Remodeling of House for R. Marx, Los
Angeles

Two-Car Garage for the Residence of G.
Stojano, Los Angeles

*Proj.: Highway Bungalow Hotels (no location
given) (Architectural Group for Industry
and Commerce)

*Proj.: First Scheme for House for W. E.
Oliver, Los Angeles

**House for H. N. Von Koerber, Hollywood
Riviera, Torrance

1932

Speculative House #2, Park Moderne, Wood-
land Hills

Proj.: House for F. Harnna, Los Angeles (ca.
1932)

Proj.: House for Miss H. Lierd and Miss E.
Todd, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for J. Veissi, Hollywood (ca.
1932-36)

Bread Pit Stores, Los Angeles (1932-33)

Proj.: Retail Store and Olive Oil Bath, Lind-
say (1932 and 1935)

*Proj.: Prototype Gasoline Station for Stan-
dard Oil Company

Proj.: Donnell's Desert Hotel, Twenty-Nine
Palms

*Proj.: Auto Store for Brown, Smith and
Moore, Los Angeles

*Proj.: Show Windows for May Company, Los
Angeles (with A. R. Brandner and B. P.
Paradise)

*Sardi's Restaurant #1, Hollywood (1932-34)

*Lindy's Restaurant #1, Hollywood (1932-34)

1933

*Proj.: Schindler Shelter (scheme for concrete
single family house)

Proj.: Dance Hall for 0. K. Farr, Denver

**House for W. E. Oliver, 2236 Micheltorena
St., Los Angeles

*Proj.: Prototype Gasoline Stations for Union
Oil Company, Los Angeles

*Proj.: Two Schemes for House for E. Locke,
Los Angeles

Living room Furniture for Perstein, Berkeley

The Oven, a Retail Bakery for Frederick, Los
Angeles

Proj.: Dance-Restaurant for S. Grauman, Los
Angeles

1934

**Mountain Cabin for Mrs. A. Bennati, Lake
Arrowhead (1934-37)

** House for J. J. Buck, 8th and Genesee Sts.,
Los Angeles

Proj.: Remodeling of House for Dondo,
Berkeley

House for Haines, Dana Point (1934-35)

*Remodeling and Furniture for House of H.
R. King, Westwood

Remodeling of House for Mrs. M. Kipp, Los
Angeles (1934 and 1937)

Remodeling and Furniture for House for E.
Pavaroff, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for Ransom, Palm Springs

Remodeling of House for Mrs. G. Rheingold,
Los Angeles

*Proj.: House at Leimert Park, Los Angeles

*Proj.: Gasoline Station for Mrs. Nerenbaum
(no location given)

** House for Miss E. Van Patten, 2320 Moreno
Dr., Los Angeles (1934-35)

1935

Remodeling of House for L. Stander, Holly-
wood

Proj.: Apartments for L. Stander, Los Angeles

Proj.: Mountain Cabins and Hospital for P.
S. O'Reilly

Proj.: House for P. Heraty, Los Angeles

**House for R. G. Walker, 2100 Kenilworth
Ave., Los Angeles (1935-36)

Proj.: First Baptist Church of Hollywood,
Hollywood

** Double House for J. DeKeyser, 1911 High-
land Ave., Hollywood

*Proj.: Two Schemes for a House for M. Shep,
Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for W. J. Delahoyde, Los Angeles

Remodeling of House for L. Stander, Los
Angeles

*Proj.: Two Schemes for M. Geggie House,
Pasadena, (1935-36)

**Two Houses for Miss V. McAlmon, 2721
Waverly Dr., Los Angeles

1936

** Beach House for Miss 0. Zaczek, Playa Del
Rey (1936-38)

** House for C. C. Fitzpatrick, 8078 Woodrow
Wilson Dr., Hollywood Hills

Sunset Medical Building for A. Garland,
Hollywood

Proj.: Two Schemes for a House for Jacobs,
Beverly Glen

* Beach House for A. Kaun, Richmond

Proj.: House for E. Mack, Hollywood

Proj.: House for Scheuettner, Los Angeles

!;'Modern Creators Store Building, cor. Hollo-
way Dr. and Palm Ave., Hollywood
(1936-1938)

Remodeling of House for S. Seligson, Los
Angeles

Remodeling and Furniture for Seff House,
Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for Mrs. F. Miller (for Mrs. R.
Shep), Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for Warshaw(sp?), Los Angeles

Craft Workshop for M. Kipp, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for E. Pavaroff, Beverly Hills

House for E. Mack, Los Angeles

Furniture for Chayes, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for Mrs. B. Berkoff, Los Angeles
(1936-37)

1937

Store Buildings for W. Lingenbrink, Holly-
wood, (additions, 1946)

* House #2 for C. P. Lowes, Eagle Rock

** House for H. Rodakiewicz, 9121 Alto Cedro
Dr., Los Angeles

*Proj.: Beach Colony for Rose (no location
given) (same as Cabania City Project,
Santa Monica)

Remodeling of House and Furniture for H.
Warren, Hollywood Hills

*Proj.: Beach House for R. R. Ryan (no loca-
tion given)

Proj.: House for N. Renisoff, Los Angeles

1938

** Remodeling of House for P. Yates, 1735
Micheltorena St., Los Angeles

** Apartment House for L. Bubeshko, 2036
Griffith Park Blvd., Los Angeles (later
addition: 1941)

Proj.: Apartment Building for I. Rosenthal,
Los Angeles

Proj.: Studio-house for Mrs. A. Sharpless,
Los Angeles

*Studio-house for Mrs. M. Southall, 1855 Park
Ave., Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for A. Timme, Los Angeles

**House for S. N. Westby, 1805 Maltman Ave.,
Los Angeles

**House for G. C. Wilson, 2090 Redcliff St.,
Los Angeles

*House for H. Wolff, Jr., 4008 Sunnyslope
Ave., Studio City

Speculative House #3, Park Moderne, Wood-
land Hills

Proj.: House for K. Francis, Hollywood Hills

Proj.: House for F. Hanna, Los Angeles

Proj.: Photographic Shop for Morgan, Holly-
wood

Proj.: House for Mrs. R. Shep, Los Angeles
(see other schemes, 1935 and 1936)

Proj.: House (including apartments) for
Burke, Newport Beach

*Proj.: House for E. Djey and M. Aldrich, Los
Angeles

Proj.: Interior of Lockheed (27), 24 Pas-
senger Airplane (two alternate schemes)
(with H. Sachs)

1939

**Apartment House for S. T. Falk, 3631 Carna-
tion Ave., Los Angeles

House for Goodman, Altadena

Stores for W. Lingenbrink, Studio City (later
stores designed and built in 1940, 1941,
and 1942)

Proj.: House for A. Bissiri, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for T. Balkany, North Hollywood

Proj.: The Hub Office Building, Los Angeles

*Apartment House for Mrs. P. Mackey, Los
Angeles

Remodeling of House for Miss A. M. Wong,
Santa Monica

1940

**House for G. Droste, 2035 Kenilworth Ave.,
Los Angeles

**House for S. Goodwin, 3807 Reklaw Dr.,
Studio City

Remodeling and Furniture for G. H. Hodel
House, San Marino

*Proj.: House for J. Rodriguez, Glendale

Proj.: Lapotka Apartments, Los Angeles

**Three Speculative Houses, 423, 429, 433
Ellis Ave., Inglewood (ca. 1940)

** House for A. Van Dekker, 5230 Penfield Ave.
(to the rear of property), Canoga Park

Proj.: House for A. M. Sax, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for J. Strader, North Hollywood

Proj.: House for N. M. Taylor, South Pasa-
dena

1941

j;Proj.: House for B. Carre, Los Angeles

*Proj.: House for Hartigan, Hollywood Park

Studio-Residence for H. Hiler, Hollywood

Proj.: W. Byers House, Van Nuys

Proj.: E. J. Gibling House, Los Angeles

**House for J. Druckman, 2764 Outpost Dr.,
Los Angeles

Proj.: Karz Apartments, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for M. Periere, Los Angeles

1942

Auto Trailer

Remodeling of House for Albers, Los Angeles

* House for R. L. Harris, Los Angeles

Proj.: Officers' Club, Palm Springs

^Remodeling of House for J. Pennington,
Thousand Oaks

*Proj.: Apartment House for Mrs. T. Falk, Los
Angeles (3 alternate schemes)

1943

Remodeling of House for Langley, Brentwood

Proj.: Remodeling of House of C. Marker, Los
Angeles

Proj.: House for A. Fisher, Los Angeles

Remodeling of House for K. Howenstein,
South Pasadena

1944

** Bethlehem Baptist Church, 4900 S. Compton
Ave., Los Angeles

Proj.: Remodeling of Hollywood Women's
Club, Los Angeles

Remodeling of House for Litt, Glendale

Remodeling of House for Mrs. H. Nickerson,
Los Angeles

Remodeling of Duplex for C. Rosoff, Los
Angeles

Proj.: Remodeling of Apartment for K. K.
Thomasset, Los Angeles

Remodeling of House for W. A. Starkey, Los
Angeles

Addition of Studio to House for R. Sabsay,
Los Angeles

1945

Proj.: House for D. M. H. Braden, North
Hollywood

Proj.: House for M. Compinsky, Burbank

**House for J. G. Gold, 3758 Reklaw Dr., Los
Angeles

Medical Arts Building, Studio City

** House for F. Presburger, 4255 Agnes Ave.,
Studio City

**House for R. Roth, 3624 Buena Park Dr.,
North Hollywood

Proj.: House for H. Schick, Morth Hollywood

Proj.: Hotel for L. Anson (no location given)

1946

**House for F. Daugherty, 4635 Louise Ave.,
Encino

Proj.: Kermin Medical Building, Los Angeles

* Desert House for M. Toole, Palm Village

**House for M. Kallis, 3580 Multiview Dr.,
Hollywood Hills

Remodeling of House for C. E. Harvey, Los
Angeles

Proj.: House for Mrs. F. Howatt, Laguna
Beach

Lord Leigh Showroom and Office (remodel-
ing of interior of existing building), Los
Angeles

*Proj.: Redesale Avenue Apartments, Los
Angeles

Proj.: House for R. M. Spangler, Los Angeles

Pottery Works for Miss P. West, Los Angeles

Medical Office for E. Tietz (remodeling of
interior of existing building), Los Angeles
(1946-49)

**House for J. L. Armon, 470 W. Avenue 43,
Los Angeles (1946-49)

Proj.: Apartments for L. Gallagher, Los
Angeles

1947

Proj.: Rest Home for H. Schick and Asso-
ciates, Los Angeles

Proj.: Duplex for F. Virginia, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for T. Trumbo, Los Angeles

Proj.: House for A. Borisof, Los Angeles

1948

** House for R. Lechner, 11606 Amanda Dr.,
Studio City

Proj.: Motel for H. Schick and Asociates, Los
Angeles

Proj.: House for E- J. Gibling, Los Angeles
(see Gibling, 1941)

Proj.: Apartment House for P. P. Ott, Beverly
Hills

1949

Proj.: Washington Place Motel for H. Schick,
Los Angeles

Laurelwood Apartments, 11833 Laurelwood
Dr., Studio City

**House for A. Tischler, 175 Greenfield Ave.,
Bel Air (1949-50)

**House for Miss E. Janson, 8704 Skyline Dr.,
Hollywood Hills

Proj.: Beverly Hills Penthouse, Beverly Hills

Proj.: House for L. Blembel, Hollywood

Remodeling of House for B. Myers, Holly-
wood

Proj.: House for Miss B. Inaya, Beverly Hills
(ca. 1949-50)

1950

** House for W. E. Tucker, 8010 Fareholm Dr.,
Hollywood

**House for M. Ries, 1404 Miller Dr., Los
Angeles (1950-51)

:::*RemoJeling of House for D. Gordon, 6853
Pacific View Dr , Hollywood

Building for Kaynor Manufacturing Company,
Los Angeles

"House for Mrs. O. Zacsek, Playa Del Rey

**House for R. Erlik, 1757 Curson Ave., Holly-
wood (1950-51)

* "House for S. Skolnik, 2567 Glendower Ave.,
Los Angeles (1950-52)

1952

Proj.: House for O. Elmer, Hollywood

Proj.: Duplex for Mrs. E. McCoy, Santa
Monica

House for Schlesinger, 1901 Myra Ave., Los
Angeles

Proj.: House for M. Mangaldas, Los Angeles

Proj.: Remodeling of House for Courc'O, Los
Angeles

1953

Remodeling of House for S. Marks, Los
Angeles

Bibliography

A note on the publication of Schindler's buildings:

Though Schindler's buildings were never as well known as those of Neutra and others, they were published
in the major American and European journals. The architect's first published design was his project for the 1915
Martin house at Taos which appeared in the April, 1917 issue of THE WESTERN ARCHITECT (vol. 25). All of
Schindler's major work of the 20s was published, but surprisingly the major interest was in the Pueblo
Ribert community and the Howe house rather than in the more significant Lovell Beach house. The realized
buildings and even some of his projects were presented in the pages of the ARCHITECTURAL RECORD,
ARCHITECTURAL FORUM, PENCIL POINTS, and the more regional journals, THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER
and CALIFORNIA ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE. In many cases there was a time lapse of as much as four years
between the completion of the building and its subsequent publication. The publication of Schindler's building
would seem to have exercised little or no influence on either the American or European scene. Even in Los
Angeles where the buildings themselves existed the effect of Schindler's work was felt by only a few of the
younger designers — Gregory Ain, Harwell H. Harris and E. Richard Lind.

The following books and articles contain discussions of Schindler's architecture:

Wayne Andrews, ARCHITECTURE, AMBITION AND
AMERICANS. New York, 1955, pp. 274-275.

J. B. Bakema, "Schindler spel met de Ruimte."
FORUM (Amsterdam), vol. 16, no. 8, 1961, pp.
253-263.

Sheldon Cheney, NEW WORLD ARCHITECTURE. New
York, 1930, p 288.

David Gebhard, "R. M. Schindler in New Mexico,
1915." THE NEW MEXICO ARCHITECT, vol. 7,
January-February, 1965, pp. 15-21.

David Gebhard and Robert Winter, A GUIDE TO ARCHI-
TECTURE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Los Angeles,
1965, pp. 10-16.

Ludwig Hilberseimer, INTERNATIONAL NEUE BAU-
KUNST. Stuttgart, 1928, p. 9.

Hans Hollein, "Rudolph M. Schindler." DER AUFBAU
(Vienna), no. 3, 1961.

"Rudolph M. Schindler." BAU (Vienna), no. 4, 1966,
pp. 67-82.

Elaine Janson, "Biographical Notes on R. M. Schindler
Architect." (unpublished, ca. 1938)

Esther McCoy, "West Coast Architecture: A Romantic
Movement Ends." PACIFIC SPECTATOR, vol. 7, no.
1, winter, 1953, pp. 20-30.

"Four Schindler Houses of the 1920's." ARTS AND
ARCHITECTURE, vol. 70, September, 1953, pp.
12-14.

"R. M. Schindler." ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE,
vol. 71, May, 1954, pp. 12-15.

"A Work by R. M. Schindler: Visual Expansion of a
Small House." LOS ANGELES TIMES HOME MAGA-
ZINE, May 2, 1954, pp. 14-15.

"Roots of California Contemporary Architecture."
ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE, vol. 73, October, 1956,
pp. 14-17.

"Letters from Louis H. Sullivan to R. M. Schindler."
JOURNAL, Society of Architectural Historians, vol.
20, December, 1961, pp. 179-184.

"R. M. Schindler 1887-1953." FIVE CALIFORNIA
ARCHITECTS, New York, 1960, pp. 149-193.

"The Growth of Cubism in the Work of R. M.
Schindler." (unpublished) Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting, Society of Architectural Historians,
Los Angeles, January, 1965.

Carey McWilliams, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUN-
TRY. New York, 1946, pp. 354-362.

Richard J. Neutra, WIE BAUT AMERIKA? Stuttgart,
1927, pp. 53-57.
AMERIKA II. Vienna, 1930, pp. 128-132, 139.

Kay Small, "Hollywood Architects in International
Contest." HOLLYWOOD MAGAZINE, December 1928,
p. 9.

Bruno Taut, MODERN ARCHITECTURE. London, 1929,
p. 98.

Bruno Zevi, "R. M. Schindler: Austria e California in
una composizione diversa da Richard Neutra."
L'ARCHITETTURA, vol. 6, October, 1960, pp 422-
423.

Writings of R, M. Schindler

'Modern Architecture: A Program."
(unpublished manuscript) Vienna, 1912.

'Notes on Architecture."
(unpublished manuscript) Chicago, 19141919.

'About Architecture."
(unpublished lecture) Hollywood, 1921.

'Who Will Save Hollywood?"
HOLLY LEAVES, November 3, 1922, p. 32.

'Points of View — Contra."
SOUTHWEST REVIEW, vol. 17, Spring 1932, p.
353-35.

'Space Architecture."
DUNE FORUM, February 1934, pp. 44-46.

'Space Architecture."
(unpublished manuscript) September, 1934.

'Prefabrication vocabulary: the panel-post construc-
tion."

CALIFORNIA ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE, vol. 60,
June, 1943, pp. 32-33.

'Notes . . . Modern Architecture."
(unpublished manuscript) Los Angeles, 1944.

'Architect — postwar — post everybody."
PENCIL POINTS, vol. 25, October, 1944, pp. 16-18;
November, 1944, pp. 12-14.

"Discussion," PENCIL POINTS, vol. 25, November,
1944, p. 16; December, 1944, p. 8.

'Reference Frames in Space."
THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER, vol. 165, April,
1946, pp. 10, 40, 44-45.

'Postwar Automobiles."
THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER, vol. 168, Febru-
ary, 1947, pp. 12-14.

'Space Architecture."
CALIFORNIA ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE, vol. 47,
January 1935, pp. 18-19.

'Furniture and the Modern House: A Theory of Interior
Design."

THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER, vol. 123, Decem-
ber, 1935, pp. 22-25.

THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER, vol. 124, March,
1936, pp. 24-28.

'Schindler Frame."
ARCHITECTURAL RECORD, vol .101, May, 1947,
pp. 143-146.

'Houses U.S.A."
Letter to the Editor, ARCHITECTURAL FORUM, vol.
87, August, 1947, p. 22.

'Visual Technique."
(unpublished manuscript) Los Angeles, 1952.

A Manifesto - 1912
R. M. Schindler

The cave was the original dwelling.

A hollow adobe pile was the first permanent

house.

To build meant to gather and mass material,

allowing it to form empty cells for human

shelter.

This conception provides the basis for under-
standing all style of architecture up to the
twentieth century.

The aim of all architectural effort was the
conquest of structural bulk my man's will for
expressive form.

All architectural ideas were conditioned by
the use of a plastic structural mass material.
The technique of architect and sculptor were
similar.

The vault was not the result of a room con-
ception, but of a structural system of piling
masonry to support the mass enclosure. The
decoration of the walls was intended to give
the structural mass a plastic face.

These old problems have been solved and the
styles are dead.

Our efficient way of using materials eliminated

the plastic structural mass.

The contemporary architect conceives the

"room" and forms it with ceiling and wall

slabs.

The architectural design concerns itself with
"space" as its raw material and with the
articulated room as its product.

Because of the lack of a plastic mass the
shape of the inner room defines the exterior
of the building. Therefore the early primitive
product of this new development is the "box-shaped'
house.

The architect has finally discovered the medium
of his art: S P AC E .

A new architectural problem has been born.
Its infancy is being shielded as always by
emphasizing functional advantages.

The first house was a shelter.

Its primary attribute was stability.

Therefore its structural features were

paramount.

All architectural styles up to the twentieth

century were functional.

Architectural forms symbolized the struc-
tural functions of the building material.
The final step in this development was the
architectural solution of the steel skele-
ton: Its framework is no longer a symbol,
it has become form itself.

The twentieth century is the first to
abandon construction as a source for archi-
tectural form through the introduction of
reinforced concrete.

The structural problem has been reduced to
an equation. The approved stress diagram
eliminates the need to emphasize the sta-
bility of the construction.

Modern man pays no attention to structural
members.

There are no more columns with base, shaft
and cap, no more wall masses with founda-
tion course and cornice.
He sees the daring of the cantilever, the
freedom of the wide span, the space-forming
surfaces of thin wall screens.

Structural styles are obsolete.
Functionalism is a hollow slogan used to
lead the conservative stylist to exploit
contemporary techniques.

Monumentality is the mark of power.
The first master was the tyrant.
He symbolized his power over the human mass
by his control over matter.
The power symbol of primitive culture was
confined to the defeat of two simple re-
sistances of matter: gravity and cohesion.

Monumentality became apparent in proportion
to the human mass displacement effort.
Man cowers before an earthly might.

Today a different power is asking for its monument.

The mind destroyed the power of the tyrant.

The machine has become the ripe symbol for

man's control over nature's forces.

Our mathematical victory over structural

stresses eliminates them as a source of

art forms.

The new monumentality of space will symbolize

the limitless powers of the human mind.
Man trembles facing the universe.

The feeling of security of our ancestors
came in the seclusion and confinement of
his cave.

The same feeling of security was the aim of
the medieval city plan which crowded the largest
possible number of defenders inside the smallest
ring of walls and bastions.

The peasant's hut comforts him by an atmosphere
in violent contrast to his enemy: the out of doors.

Rooms that are designed to recall such feelings
of security out of our past are acclaimed as
"comfortable and cozy "

The man of the future does not try to
escape the elements.
He will rule them.

His home is no more a timid retreat:
The earth. has become his home.

The concepts "comfortable" and "homey"
change their meaning.
Atavistic security feelings fail to
recommend conventional designs.

The comfort of the dwelling lies in its
complete control of:
space, climate, light, mood,
within its confines.

The modern dwelling will not freeze
temporary whims of owner or designer
into permanent tiresome features.

It will be a quiet, flexible background
for a harmonious life.

Proj.: Hotel Rong, Vienna, 1912

Proj.: Hunting Lodge, Vienna, 1912

Proj.: Crematorium and Chapel, Vienna, 1912-13

Proj.: Crematorium and Chapel, Vienna, 1912

det.: central build

mz.T .

•— "I

is^csss

■

■ — ■

■ m

'-■•■■•"■■«"K

M i i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ > i i i i:b ■_■ ■

fttiiptiiiiil

Crematorium and Chapel, Vienna, 191213
ition

Proj.: Clubhouse for Actors, Vienna, 1912
(For Mayr and Mayer)

< "

?i ,

fC !■

HI !§«&

- i ; j i l /,,)

! f ... n

p Fart fl£r- "^kj

Ifi - ■ , * ^f^n

i I

1 1
/

I
• I

1 11

'it 'i i hi [T

li i'M' ' "
l!' Ji -J. iUi

tttrh' I1

i. ,1

I 'I | M I

I , I'

U il'

I I

If I i !

I i I ! i

I I I

Mi I

I'M

' ■ - - 1 ! • \

i,7. ./ ' //

'7 mHl'.'h'w'li

1 [', ,1 fl

I I

Untitled pencil drawing
(Chicago, 1914-18)

k £

.•

Untitled pencil drawing
(Chicago, 1914-18)

r*h

Poster for German Festival
(Chicago, 1915)

# Minium 1% %/luA & a s pnmni ,
? pin = £ i? % 0% iv = ="mi #% =

I =§„ i % Jniiii,% # %I 1 # %1

=111111111 = ">ns*m\* ^§ %4 .. t& m »e €

llllllllinil §11111111111=11 llllli ^Wipm

=3111111 sunn ,^y =

%//inn\#l 1

=ii

KRJIE&EB-rlEim

GE&nA/N'fE/TIVAUmE/TRAHALL
DE.Q2I/TI9I5'/EATX'. $2W55,o'5o*

Untitled pencil drawing
(New Mexico, 1915)

s ~ e

? r>

IN '

Proj.: Neighborhood Center, Chicago, 1914

Proj.: Eleven Story Hotel, Chicago, 1915
(for Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert)

(oVAITFLYHoAt

'ADObE(<WTk!

D^T'P'AA&TIAI

"'/NLW'ALXrCP
WDLE£AR.Cfir

Proj.: House for T. P. Martin
Taos, New Mexico, 1915

Proj.: Women's Club, Chicago, 1916

Proj.: Log house (no location given), 1917

r*Q*T P'krVfcTjOfJ

Buena Shore Club, Chicago, 1917-18
(for Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert)

Buena Shore Club, Chicago, 1917-18

(for Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert)

(photo: Schindler)

J. P. Shampay house, Chicago, 1919
(for Frank Lloyd Wright)

Proj.: One Room Apartments, Chicago, 1919
(for Ottenheimer, Stern and Reichert)

Proj.: Workmen's Colony .
(The Monolithic Home), j

1919
(for Frank Lloyd Wright)

Director's house for Miss A. Barnsdall, Olive Hill,
Los Angeles, 1920 (for Frank Lloyd Wright)

■ '•1 i^T-^-r- n T-, I/II/MJ1 t\\l\l IV It 1 nTi\Tr~'*r'TT

"T^ Iw^lkf ■ 5frn -7;1Y ' 7*^' "rfefOT TWA Vi Id* " *-vS*;

4>7-'

Director's house for Miss A. Barnsdall, Olive Hill,
Los Angeles, 1920 (for Frank Lloyd Wright)
preliminary drawings

J-

u is r
- -

4-j

—

«. » -^

c t ^ -4 *» pL(

Proj.: Free Public Library, Bergen Branch
Jersey City, New Jersey, 1920 (Competition)

Proj.: House for C. P. Lowes,
Eagle Rock, 1922 (for Frank Lloyd Wright)

C/ /s/TO/S AV£-

House for R. M. Schindler and Clyde Chase, Hollywood, 1921

ftft

2oa-o

:^KlZ£Zf22ziz^Z£:

House for R. M. Schnidler

and Clyde Chase,

Hollywood, 1921

(plan — above;

living room — below)

Proj.: Bungalow Court for J. Korsen,
Los Angeles, 1921

^m=s

Proj.: Skyscraper of Black Glass and Aluminum
(The Playmart), Los Angeles, 1921

LJl

ry ;? *€! 'i?1 ' ^r^" . i

Proj.: House for Mrs. L. Davies,
Los Angeles, ca. 1922-24

— '-A&AWt. j^ t. 1- o''

Proj.: House for W. G. Duncan,
Los Angeles, 1922

T 1

+kiii

4*Z

'-U>

i2<-i

-t»l-A

i ia-±_-.

■* —

TnT

r-t-

t^n^;,

I-

>■ I

!■>■>.

IL"^-

^.-rnpr^-r--

iJLs a.

'Sr; fa,

Mr*- i

Prcj.: House for C. Warne, Los Angeles, 1923

W-M \\ -££31

: i Cw_;W **«

vig; {.I if

\-'V..

Proj.: House for Mrs. D. Baker,
Hollywood, 1923

C. P. Lowes house,

Eagle Rock, 1923

dining room — above;

street front — below

r%<

JHHHH m

-<Wa»ttW3

-j=-<rj'"-

_ -VUTtLUATloA

Proj.: Physical Education Club Lodge for Topanga Ranch
Topanga Canyon, Los Angeles Co., 1923

Pueblo Ribera community,
La Jolla, 1923 (site plan)

n II F fS ~) . r
EnM. 6<SH l/SDLE. B, ■ A2dH I [

Pueblo Ribera community, La Jolla, 1923
patio — above; street elevation — below
(photo: W. P. Woodcock)

ELEVATION- PLAYA SUP\ AVE..

r ;

House for J. C. Packard, South Pasadena, 1924

ext. — above left; living room — above right; plan — below

(photos: V. Baker)

[i .0.; ^

Proj.: The Peoples Bank,

Los Angeles, 1924 -^

Apartment for S. Breacher, Los Angeles, 1925

(photo: V. Baker)

House for E. J. Gibling,
Los Angeles, 1924

» " ]

•

3SH

HiK s*'

H^Bl ^^Hf!T

j^BlWE

_i _ *r

^p-^sssa

H-n..i W~<*

Bir 1

■ i^B

. >>

F^-i*i iii

■

4 -

* MF^m

, J

i_— — -J8t=M

»i

■

*M*x

House for J. E. Howe, Los Angeles.P
street front — above; plans — a

* n— i ti U- If U !>■ U

CrtO/VD TLOQO. ? L » *

bCM^C WALK

-&EACH ■ PACITIC OCE.A/N

CB.°// ytCTION
/"KOWIAIC TYPidAL

rj—

"Boot TtKftACL

J"''

I — d I Ll_ x_j lj_L_l__l_

Beach house for P. M. Lovell, Newport Beach, 1925-26
plan — above; street front — below

fit Wl ^

Beach house for P. M. Lovell, Newport Beach, 1925-26

under construction — above; living room — below

(upper photos: Schindler)

Apartment house

(Manola Court)

for H. Sachs

Los Angeles, 1926-40

(photo: J. Shulman)

Proj.: League of Nations Building (International
Competition), 1926 (with R. J. Neutra)

site plan

Leah-Ruth Shop, Long Beach, 1926
street front

A
#

Proj.: League of Nations Building (International

Competition), 1926 (with R. J. Neutra)

perspective draw. — above; elevational draw. — below

i —

. .. .. |,.i I a 1 iL I - 1 144 m4-$ 1 HP14 i M

Proj.: Translucent house for Miss A. Barnsdall
Palos Verdes, 1927

House for D. Grokowsky,
South Pasadena, 1928

cnoQL
or

OQTUnE
PEQIGMIMG

LOS AMCELES CAUFOBI1IA

DE IT KMOUK1 THAT

Design for Diploma of

Wolfe School of Costume

Designing, 1929

MAVIMG COMPLETED
THEFUlkCOUILGE OF
9TUPY PkEGCklbEP
FOk P^OFEGGIOKIAL
COGTUME PEGIGK1IK1G
AK1P DEIKIG FOUK1P IM
At kEGPECTG UO^THY
IG G^AKITEP THIG

PIPLOMA

OF GkAPUATIQKl D7
THE &OA£P OF ■■■
DTHUGTEEG
>!VEKI AT U0GAKK3ELEG
GALIFOkKIIA OKI THE

^PAY OF:
PUklKIG THE YEAR. OF

■■■■■■

PR.IKICIPAL AMD CH IRMAH

1 H

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL

mmKmmmaBmB^mmmmmmmmmi^mL+nidktLVk'j

Proj.: House for H. Braxton, Venice, 1928-30

(later appears under name of Mrs. V. B. Shore)

perspective — above; plans — below

MIN

turn N

r'.y^.J tilt' Pi

**ep

•fcooj hfuClut

ICoof

PLAN

fl_OOE

Summer house for C. H. Wolfe, Avalon, Catalina Island, 1928
ext. — above; view from living room to bedroom — below
(Lower photo: Crescent Photo Shop)

Braxton Art Gallery, Hollywood,, 1928
(photo: V. Baker)

Proj.: Remodeling of house for H. D. Diffen,
Avalon, Catalina Island, 1929

Proj.: Studio for an Artist
(location not given), 1929

Cabin #1 at Park Moderne, Woodland Hills, 1929

■HMMMnHnH

Proj.: Lavana Studio Building for Seiburt,
Los Angeles, 1929

Proj.: Nobby Knit Store, Los Angeles, ca. 1930

ound noon

House for R. F. Elliot, Los Angeles, 1930
plans and cross section

House for R. F. Elliot,
Los Angeles, 1930
ext. — above left;
view of staircase —
above right;
living room — lower
(photos: J. T. Beals)

Proj.: First scheme for W. E. Oliver house, Los Angeles, 1931

perspective drawing

Proj.: First scheme Utune
for W. E. Oliver house, „
Los Angeles, 1931 -^
floor plans

Main ft. ~%r4- — f2 — £

TATH

t£C2'v\

Ceoi •■• 'Looa.

House for H. N. von Koerber,
Hollywood Riviera, Torrance, 1931

Proj.: Highway Bungalows Hotel
(no location given), 1931

Proj.: Auto Store for Brown, Smith and Moore,
Los Angeles, 1932

Lindy's Restaurant #1,
Hollywood, 1932

Sardi's Restaurant #1, Hollywood, 1932-34

street front — right; det. street front — below

(photos: W. P. Woodcock)

^#MJ V i

r^-

cTaeage

J>UA"?OttCtt

OVEB

/\ POQCH /

>ED k f*\

CLOA. ICL06. Kit,

I All

KiTcm/n

Bcj5 P. ooa\ aa| Livia.. Eoo/

f'PL.

" I ict _/

f « T

ABCniTECT- L.A.
&D5- Kl/NG^ ROAD

Ho^oV. GEIAlf.
COAU1UTL Tol:

AlVTAl^AMT W.
3/(fc"<;LA55

•1 COt)T\

\b.$ ifiOO-

Proj.: Prototype gasoline stations
for Union Oil Company
Los Angeles, 1933

Proj.: Schindler Shelter (scheme for
concrete single-family house), 1933

House for W. E. Oliver, Los Angeles, 1933'

street front — above; floor plan — below

(upper photo: A. F. Fogg)

W^tMMS^M^l

■w*-'

House for W. E. Oliver, Los Angeles, 1933
garden front — above; living room — below
(photos: A. F. Fogg)

3F7 ■

Proj.: First scheme for house of E. Locke, Los Angeles, 1933

Proj.: House at Leimert Park, Los Angeles, 1934
r~ — es^

"TIM rnr i " i II I1

ff^^N'l^W^

^Bi2AJ-j~ VIEAV

i ! 1 ' 1 I

■4-4-

1 1

II 111 1 II i

mi |t'||i|||M||

"ft" '

,.4=1

=- 1 ! 1 \ A

... ,,. . .1., .(^u^-v- .; ..., ,„
i ( |

—

. J | -— j

35?££T J^^nt

— . — .

Proj.: Gasoline station for Mrs.
Nerenbaum (no location given), 1934

12. ,7 V.HINDlt
AC C H

HDEo iff

:9-m-"*

Mountain Cabin for

Mrs. A. Bennati,

Lake Arrowhead, 1934-37

T^IDENCt Of:

nil &- r\w. j. j. &ucr\

L06 AAiGELEi), CALIF.
R.A. iCHIAJDLL£, ARCHITECT
I q 5 4

House for J. J. Buck,

Los Angeles, 1934

8th Ave. street front — above;

plans — below

(photo: W. P. Woodcock)

House for Miss E. Van Patten,

Los Angeles, 1934-35

(photo: W. P. Woodcock)

House for

Miss E. Van Patten,

Los Angeles, 1934-35

living room

(photo: W. P. Woodcock)

Double house for J. DeKeyser,

Hollywood, 1935

(photo: W. P. Woodcock)

,/\\A [LOOB.

CCOUaId fLOOTJ

QALPH G. W A L l\ E. Q

L05 aMcele^., CALirOC^h

House for R. G. Walker,

Los Angeles, 1935-36

garden front — above;

floor plans — center;

living-dining room — below

(photos: J. Shulman)

Proj.: Second scheme for house for M. Shep, Los Angeles, 1935
perspective of garden front — above; floor plans — below

TOP TL00T2 PLAN

Proj.: First scheme for M. Geggie house, Pasadena, 1935-36

Proj.: House for W. J. Delahoyde, Los Angeles, 1935

House for Miss V. McAlmon,
Los Angeles, 1935
street front — above;
living room — center;
garden front — below
(photos: J. Shulman)

"»-. Jn#tiwJiii»^W

_ife

Proj.: House for Warshaw (sp?),
Los Angeles, 1936

Proj.: Second scheme

for house for Jacobs,

Beverly Glen, 1936

Beach house for Miss 0. Zaczek,
Playa del Rey, 1936-38

— -r '

X.&

Exrj

FiB5T Floob Plan

b s

dimm=i£

II COOf TtfiBA

lnaiw>Jm«,-gZg

v5e.cond Floor Plan

* I*

100

House for C. C. Fitzpatrick,
Hollywood Hills, 1936
hillside front — above;
floor plans — center;
living room — below
(photos: J. Shulman)

if 1 1 i?':-!i } V/i) ,

|l "Ml

flMilpWJH fill

Proj.: Beach house for R. R. Ryan (no location given), 1937

Modern Creators Store Building, Hollywood, 1936-38

101

<v*

House for H. Rodakiewicz, Los Angeles, 1937

garden front — upper; living room — lower

(photos: W. P. Woodcock)

102

House for

H. Rodakiewicz,

Los Angeles, 1937

plans

103

yn^iv\n

Apartment building for L. Bubeshko, Los Angeles, 1938-41
street front — above; living room of apartment — below

(photos: J. Shulman)

104

Proj.: House for A. Timme, Los Angeles, 1938

House for G. C. Wilson,
Los Angeles, 1938

105

Apartment house for S. T. Falk, Los Angeles, 1939

view from street — above;

entrance hall and living room of upper

apartment — lower left;

entrance to upper apartment — lower right

(photos: upper and lower left — J. Shulman;

lower right — D. Gebhard)

Proj.: House for J. Rodriguez, Glendale, 1941

Speculative house,
Inglewood, ca. 1940
{photo: J. Shulman)

House for A. Van Dekker, Canoga Park, 1940
view of house from hiM — upper; living room — below

(photos: J. A. Anson)

108

Bethlehem Baptist Church,

Los Angeles, 1944

(photo: J. Shulman)

NOQTU ErLC-VATION I

House for F. Presburger, Studio City, 1945
side elevation

I I

I l I I I

House for F. Presburger, Studio City, 1945

living room
(photo: J. Shulman)

House for M. Kallis, Hollywood Hills, 1946
(photo: R. C. Cleveland)

House for R. Lechner, Studio City, 1948
(photo: R. C. Cleveland)

House for A. Tischler, Bel Air, 1949-50
(photo: D. Gebhard)

Remodeling of house for
D. Gordon,

Hollywood Hills, 1950
dining space
(photo: L. Nossaman)

111

W. E. Tucker house, Hollywood, 1950

House for S. Skolnik,
Los Angeles, 1950-52
living room
(photo: L. Nossaman)

Sketch for modular furniture,
ca. 1933-34

Chair for H. Sachs, 1932-33

Sketch for modular furniture
fcr H. R. King, Westwood, 1934

$ 2 12JQ

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "R.M. Schindler; an exhibition of the architecture of R.M. Schindler, 1887-1953"

See other formats