Three Early Designs by Mies van der Rohe DietrichNeumann I KempnerHouse, I921-22; Feldmann Executedbuildings almost alwaysrepresent a compromisebetween the architect's 77 House, I92I-22; EichstaedtHouse, vision and the constraintsimposed by externalforces, such as a client'sexpecta- cf. ArthurDrexler, ed., An I921-22; tions, local zoning ordinances,building laws, and the availabilityand cost of IllustratedCatalogue ofthe Mies van der materials.An uncommissionedproject, however, provides an opportunityfor the RoheDrawings in theMuseum of Modern architectto concentrateon a limited of issues and to in a Art, Part I (New York, I986), 54-6I; range design express 70-78. purerform his ideas, intentions, and abilities. The contrastbetween such and executedstructures is 2 Mostrecently by Wolf Tegethoff, projects especiallyapparent "FromObscurity to Maturity:Mies in Mies van der Rohe'swork of the earlyI920S, when he built three rathercon- vander Rohe's Breakthrough to ventional villas in Berlin'and created,during the same period, a set of five vision- Modernism,"in FranzSchulze, ed., ary designs:the entry for the Friedrichstrasseskyscraper competition, the Miesvan der Rohe, Critical Essays curvilinearskyscraper, the concreteoffice building, and the two country houses in (New York I989), 28 if. concreteand brick. Though idealized,the latter five designswere groundedin a set of that have made their difficult and mislead- 3 Miesvan der Rohe, "Bauen," in G2 complex preconditions analysis The loss of a considerableamount of recordedinformation (September I923): i. ing. regrettable (plans, models, and photographs),the brevityof Mies'saccompanying texts, and finally,a 4 The factthat Mies was referring to generallack of thorough analysisof the projectsthemselves, have resultedin a these is in thefirst half projects apparent mystificationof the architect'sintentions. The projectshave been treatedessen- of theletter: "Dear Herr Gropius, I tially as formal exercises,2despite Mies'sclear statement of the year 1923,which receivedyour letter and would like to seems to summarizehis intentions: "Weknow no form saythat I cannotremove the plaster problems,only building modelof theconcrete residence problems.The form is not the goal, but the result of our work. There is no form [Eisenbahnkragtrdgerkonstruktion],so I as such. The reallyformal is related,connected to the task, the most elementary canonly place at yourdisposal a photo- expressionof its solution. Form as a goal is formalism;and this we reject... "3 graphof it anda charcoaldrawing. The onlymodels I couldmake available to On June I4, I923,Mies wrote in a letterto WalterGropius about his participationin youare the glass model of mytower and the InternationaleBauausstellung at the Bauhausin the summerof I923: "Iwould be thewooden one of the officebuild- large delightedto be representedby the threeprojects [Mies refers to the secondskyscrap- ing [concreteoffice building], and er design,the office building,and the concretecountry house 4], so that I could show indeedI hadthought of combining how the samestructural worksout in three different thesetwo models, placing them next to principle completely assign- eachother so as to suggesta square.I ments. Since I rejectany and all formalism,and endeavorto developthe solution to triedit out,and the effect is wonderful; an assignmentout of its particularrequirements, there will neverbe a formalrela- I believethat you too wouldunderstand tionshipuniting the separateprojects." 5 thenwhy the business building has only thehorizontal articulation. I am sending The followingessay represents an attemptto developa betterunderstanding of these youtwo photos of thesetwo buildings, threeprojects (which Mies obviouslyconsidered as a thematicentity) by exploringthe andask that returnthem to me you degreeto which, in each case,a combinationof formalconsiderations and inherentcon- sometime.I wouldbe delightedto be straintsshaped the eventualresult. (^. N rt u <L? (U Q< S. 76 I Old and New New York,Alfed Stieglitz,I9Io. t\ N rt Cld u The Curvilinear Skyscraper QL Cl. (A L. representedby the threeprojects, so that Mies's glass skyscraperof the year I922 (3) was a development of his entry for the CL I could show how the samestructural FriedrichstrasseSkyscraper competition in Berlin (2), which he had designed in the principleworks out in threecompletely autumn of I921. The two designs had several features in common: the buildings were differentassignments." Quoted from completely sheathed in a surface and lacked conventional build- Wolf Tegethoff,Mies van derRohe, The homogeneous glass such as a base or cornice or an central axis. Their first Villasand CountryHouses (New York, ing features, emphasized pub- Museumof ModernArt, I985),32. lication in I922 was accompanied by the following statement by Mies: in the course of their construction do show their struc- 5 Quoted from Tegethoff,The Villas Only skyscrapers bold, and CountryHouses, I6, footnote 3. tural character, and then the impression made by their soaring skeletal frames is overwhelming. On the other hand, when the facades are later covered with 6 Cf. "Friihlicht" from (1922),quoted masonry this impression is destroyed and the constructive character denied, FranzSchulze, Mies van derRohe, A along with the very principle fundamental to artistic conceptualization. These CriticalBiography, (Chicago, I986): Ioo factors become overpowered by a senseless and trivial chaos of forms. The best that can be said for such is that have should 7 Cf., for instance,texts by two influ- buildings they great size; yet they ential Germanart historians:Karl be more than a manifestation of our technical ability. Above all we must try Scheffler,"Ein Weg zum Stil,"Berliner not to solve new problems with traditional forms; it is far better to derive Architekturwelt and (I903):29I-95; new forms from the essence, the very nature of the new problem. The struc- HeinrichPudor, "Geriist-Architektur," tural principle of these buildings becomes clear when one uses glass for the Bauwelt I, 36 (I9IO): I5. non-load-bearing walls. The use of glass forces us to new ways. 6 78 In no way as original and innovative as Mies's skyscraper designs, the text repeats rather commonplace arguments among architects and critics of the time. His enthusiasm for the esthetic beauty of the visible steel skeleton and the scaffolding are ideas that can be traced to the turn of the century and further.7 The photomontages of his projects 2 FriedrichstrasseCompetition entry, LudwigMies van derRohe, Berlin, I92I, photomontage. 3 Curvilinearglass skyscraper, Mies van der Rohe, 1922, model. ThreeEarly Designs by Mies van der Rohe 8 Published in Camera Work36 seem influenced by contemporary photographs of American skyscrapersunder con- 8 (October I9II): I3. struction, such as Alfred Stieglitz' "Old and New New York"of 9Io0 (I). Mies's sugges- tion to use glass for the non-load-bearing walls had already been executed at 9 Cf. Dietrich Neumann, "Skyscraper innumerable steel-frame structures for department stores, industrial buildings, and Visions in Germany," Arcade: The greenhouses in almost every major German city. And his of the historicist NorthwestJournalfor Architectureand critique of American the most common Design Io (I990): 6-7, I2-14; Rainer facades skyscrapersparroted judgments by contempo- Stommer, "Die Germanisierung des rary German critics of the skyscraper. Wolkenkratzers," KritischeBerichte Io both (1982): 36-53; and for more detailed Although designs were representative of a contemporary enthusiasm for the information about the German skyscraperin Germany,9they simultaneously denied the monumentality and nationalis- skyscraper movement see Dietrich tic connotations that were evident in most projects of the period. The so-called Neumann, Deutsche Hochhiiuserder skyscrapercraze between I920 and I925 had triggered literally thousands of projects for ZwanzigerJahre (Berlin, I989). almost every German city, designs that were widely published and enthusiastically dis- cussed in the architectural periodicals of the day. The majority of these projects were developed by conservative architects who intended them as monuments to the German will to reemerge from the defeat of the war. However, because there was nei- 4 SkyscraperprojectforLeipzig, ther an actual need for office space nor the money to build any high-rise structures, Tschammer,Caroli, Haimovici, I920. most remained on paper. Although most architects criticized the American historicist skyscrapersand argued for a German version, their formal was 5 SkyscraperforBerlin, Otto Kohtz, I920. genuine language clearly historicist and monumental, emphasizing central axiality and restrained neo-Gothic or 79 6 SkyscraperforBreslau, Max Berg, 1921. neoclassical features (4, 5, 6, 7). 7 SkyscraperforMunich, Otto Orlando Kurz, I92I. 6 7 Dietrich Neumann u (Note: Thetwo are hereat thesame scale.) (U plans printed Cw -- -- j - (U 0. ... 8o 8 Friedrichstrassecompetition entry, Mies 9 Curvilinearglass skyscraper, van derRohe, floor plan. Miesvan derRohe, floorplan io Friedrichstrassecompetition entry, Ii Curvilinearglassskyscraper, Mies van derRohe, elevation. Mies van derRohe, elevation ThreeEarly Designs by Mies van der Rohe io Cf.Adolf Behne, "Der Wettbewerb This "misunderstoodmonumentality" was rejectedby the architectsof the modern derTurmhaus-Gesellschaft," Wasmuths movement.Adolf Behne,the prominentcritic, articulated this opinion:"It is reallynot Baukunst Monatsheftefiir 7 (I922-23): 59. a buildingthat representsanything