Eero Saarinen
Eero Saarinen Simon & Schuster New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Singapore
Copyright © 2019 by Eero Saarinen All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Simon & Schuster and colophon are registered trademarks of Simon & Schuster, Inc. Design: Yiran Xu Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Saarinen, Eero Eero Saarinen / (insert additional title if appropriate) p. cm. 1. Eero Saarinen—Sources. 2. Eero Saarinen—Notebooks, Sketches, etc. I. Title. N6537.L54 A2 2014 709’.2—dc21 00-028026 ISBN 0-684-83417-0
Copyright
Simon & Schuster Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020
Table of Contents
01.
An Architecture of Multiplicity
08.
Buildings and Furniture
17.
Bibliography
An Architecture of Multiplicity
In the postwar period, when Eero Saarinen began practicing on his own, the modern movement—transformed into an aesthetic and dubbed the “International Style”—was the dominant force in mainstream American architecture. The modernist vision of European masters such as Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, and Walter Gropius developed into a set of formal principles employed as rules of composition. An intellectual process of abstraction based on rationalization, industrialization, and social factors had become simply an architecture of steel and glass, blank surfaces, and all-pervading regularity. Every good architect was expected to hew to this formal line. Thus, as Saarinen started turning out buildings that stylistically and structurally veered off the grid, he quickly became a controversial figure.
J. M. Richards, another influential historian, heralded him as one of the prominent members of the next generation of modernist architects—a group that included Charles Eames, Louis Kahn, Bruce Goff, Hugh Stubbins, Minoru Yamasaki, Ralph Rapson, John Johansen, I. M. Pei, Paul Rudolph, and Gordon Bunshaft.4
4
to bad taste in Gilio Dorfles, “Eero Saarinen: Recent Work,” Zodiac 8: 85–89. 2. Aline Saarinen. general correspondence, AESP. 3. Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 591.
An Architecture
For other architectural observers, however, Saarinen’s architecture evoked admiration. While today we tend to see the postwar period as being dominated by mainstream modernism, many second-generation modernists, including Saarinen, were in fact interested in advancing architecture beyond the homogeneity born of high modernism’s tenets. They were attuned to the country’s rapidly changing conditions, to the fact that they were living in a time of technical progress 1. Vincent Scully, cited by 4. J. M. Richards, An when new needs and different interests Andrea 0. Dean, “Eero Introduction to Modern demanded original design. There were Saarinen in Perspective,” Architecture, 3rd ed. AJA Journal (November (Harmondsworth, also critics who applauded Saarinen’s 1981): 38–51. Scully’s critEngland: Penguin Books, willingness to experiment formally and icism in Scully, American 1962), 112. Architecture and Urbanism stylistically. Henry-Russell Hitchcock, (New York: Henry Holt the historian who helped launch the and Co., 1988), 198. Reference to shapes in Raymond International Style, identified Saarinen, Lifchez, “Eero Saarinen,” positively, as a modern mannerist.3 Zodiac 17 (1967): 120-21;
By Antonio Román
Many of Saarinen’s contemporaries reproached him for lacking a style of his own, for making “an architecture of many shapes but too few ideas.” He was accused of bad taste. The absence of a recurrent formal repertoire amounted to so much incoherence. Reviews could be extremely virulent. One of the most influential scholars, Vincent Scully, criticized buildings such as the Yale Hockey Rink and the Kennedy and Dulles airport terminals for exhibitionism, structural pretension, and self-defeating urbanistic arrogance, and derisively suggested that Saarinen was attempting to reinvent the wheel in each project.1 Even Frank Lloyd Wright, whose own body of work exhibited considerable diversity, couldn’t muster support for Saarinen’s eclectic trajectory. Writing to Saarinen’s second wife, Aline Saarinen, in 1958, Wright told her to “tell your young architect that I hope he will do something someday that I like.”2
An Architecture of Multiplicity
of Multiplicity
Peter Blake, an architectural critic of proven independence, viewed Saarinen as “one of the most creative architects of the generation that followed Mies and Corbu.”5 And just after Saarinen’s premature death in 1961, Philip Johnson, the architect and former historian who, with Hitchcock, promoted the International Style, told his widow Aline: “Eero’s place is secure. His work will live on its own greatness.”6 In 1962, Saarinen was publicly acclaimed by his peers and posthumously awarded the Gold Medal of the American Institute of Architects, its highest honor. In spite of, or perhaps because of this controversy, Saarinen’s office in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, became a magnet for aspiring young architects and a spawning ground for future architectural innovators, including Kevin Roche, Cesar Pelli, Robert Venturi, Anthony Lumsden, and Gunnar Birkerts.7 While the 1950s spirit dictated that a coherent vocabulary was a necessary condition for architectural distinction, some of Saarinen’s associates, such as Venturi, regarded him as something of a prophetic figure for the way his buildings evolved from an expanding, project-based vocabulary rather than from some modern functionalist ideal.8 If Saarinen was controversial, he was also enigmatic. His professional statements and writings are scarce. Lecture transcripts provide some insight into his architectural conscience, but the bulk of information about his personality derives from his personal writings and the testimony of his collaborators. Of the things that can be said of him with certainty, the first is that his commitment to work and to architecture were absolute: “One has to work as hard as one can,” he told a friend in 1952.9 And indeed he did. The office seemed to be continually on deadline, always en charrette, as critic Peter Carter commented.10 Saarinen’s commitment to architecture was a personal obsession. According to Kevin Roche, who worked with Saarinen for eleven years and was one of his main collaborators, Saarinen never stopped demonstrating his passion for architecture: “He was totally absorbed, his conversation was always architecture.”11
Controversial yet enigmatic, instinctive yet methodical, fluent in cutting-edge technology yet steeped in tradition, respectful of his modern heritage yet unencumbered by the force of its cultural dominance: these fascinating dichotomies, which reveal Saarinen’s character and, by extension, his practice, have their antecedents in the contrasting influences of his youth and education. Specifically, his Finnish heritage and his American upbringing, his exposure to Cranbrook’s communal ideology and his classical Beaux-Arts training at Yale, and his father’s heterodox modernist tendencies. These countervailing influences help explain why Saarinen emerged as an architect with an original approach and a diverse product.
5. Peter Blake, The Master Builders: Le Corbusier. Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, 3rd ed. (New York: Norton, 1996), 413. 6 . Philip Johnson, letter of condolence to Aline Saarinen, n.d. (receipt by A.S., 8 September 1961), series IV, box 7, folder 70, ESP. 7. Among others, Bruce Adams, Charles Bassett, Robert Burley, Paul Kennon, Wilhem von Moltke, and Warren Platner also worked with Eero Saarinen. 8. Robert Venturi, interview by Tsukasa Yamashita, in Toshia Nakamura, ed., “Eero Saarinen,” A+U (April 1984): 218–21.
9. Quoted in Aline Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on His Work (New Haven: Yale University, 1962), 14 (October 1952). 10. Peter Carter. “Eero Saarinen, 1910–1961,” Architectural Design (December 1961): 537. 11. Author’s conversation with Kevin Roche. New Haven, Connecticut, 1997. Roche speaks in a similar sense in Dean, “Saarinen in Perspective.”
5
An Architecture of Multiplicity
Eero Saarinen was born in 1910 in Kirkkonummi, Finland, to Eliel Saarinen, a prominent Finnish architect and urban planner, himself the son of a Lutheran pastor, and Loja Gesellius, a textile artist trained as a sculptor. Eero’s early life was spent in the creative atmosphere of Villa Hvitträsk, the family home his father designed on a wooded bluff overlooking a lake outside Helsinki, which became a center of Finnish artistic life. Eliel Saarinen was critical of the indiscriminate use of different styles so prevalent in nineteenth-century architecture. Instead, his practice drew on the Finnish crafts movement and on modernist currents, particularly those originating in Germany, as his Helsinki Central Station and decentralization plan for Helsinki (1905–14 and 1917–18, respectively) demonstrate. After winning worldwide acclaim with his second prize in the international competition for the Chicago Tribune Tower in 1922, Eliel emerged as a major force in the international architectural community. A year later, he uprooted his professional practice and his young family and emigrated to the United States, initially to Evanston, Illinois, and then to Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he soon developed the buildings and the architectural curriculum of the Cranbrook Academy of Art, an arts school located just outside of the burgeoning city of Detroit. Thus, Eero Saarinen arrived in the United States for the first time in 1923 at the age of twelve. With his father as director of the graduate department of architecture and city planning and his mother in charge of the weaving studio, the young Eero Saarinen was immersed in a community devoted to the arts. And, as he matured, there was little doubt that he would follow in his parents’ footsteps and choose an artistic path. At the age of eighteen, when the time came for him to decide on a field of study, Saarinen hesitated briefly over whether to pursue sculpture or architecture before deciding on the former, which he studied in Paris at the Academie de la Grande Chaumiere from 1929–30. This Montparnasse atelier was where, inspired by the teaching of Antoine Bourdelle, well-known sculptors like Alberto Giacometti and Alexander Calder also studied. But by the fall of 1931 Saarinen had already changed his mind and enrolled in architecture at Yale University’s School of Fine Arts. He completed the four-year curriculum in three years, graduating with honors in 1934. Unlike the experimental atmosphere at Cranbrook, Yale’s architecture program was traditional. The modernist-inspired Bauhaus-type alternative, more radical in breaking with history, came later, when
6
Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe emigrated to America, the former taking up a professorship at Harvard in 1937, the latter establishing himself as director of architecture at the Armour Institute in Chicago in 1938. Thus, like nearly all other architecture schools at the time, Yale followed the model of the École des Beaux Arts in Paris, emphasizing design practice above all. Students were regularly required to complete esquisses or fast designs, as well as projects, or elaborated designs. And in addition to standard subjects such as theory, history of architecture, archaeological research, calculus, structure, and construction, course requirements included drawing, watercolor, and modeling.12 12. Bulletin of Yale University. School of Fine Arts, New Haven, academic year 1931–32, Yjg 81 A2, 37–44, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University.
An Architecture of Multiplicity
At Yale, Saarinen regularly attended lectures by both faculty and visiting scholars; invited speakers included such prestigious historians as Josep Pijoan, Henry Focillon, and Erwin Panofsky.13 He published several of his academic projects in the Yale Bulletin and entered and won prizes in many of the Beaux-Arts competitions typically held at architecture schools.14 Upon completion of his formal studies, Saarinen won the Charles 0. Matcham fellowship for European travel. The prize allowed him to travel for two years through parts of the Mediterranean and northern Europe. His visits to Italy, Greece, Egypt, Palestine, Germany, Sweden, and Finland exposed him to the sources of classicism, and his sketches and watercolors reflect his impressions of much of the architecture encountered in these locations. During his stay in Finland he worked for a short period of time with modernist architect Jarl Eklund. In the summer of 1936 Saarinen returned to Cranbrook where his father had by now developed many designs for the buildings on the ever-expanding campus. In 1937, after a brief collaboration with New York designer Norman Bel Geddes, Saarinen went to work for his father. Although the apprenticeship was supposed to be largely collaborative, Eero commented that his father did not allow him to design even a staircase on his own until he was thirty-five years old. And it was not until the elder Saarinen’s death in 1950, in fact, that the younger would strike out on his own. Nevertheless, the Saarinens, together with J. Robert Swanson (husband of Eero’s older sister Pipsan), were named as the winners of the 1939 competition for the extension of the National Gallery in Washington, DC. They also shared credit for the Crow Island School, in Winnetka, Illinois (1939–40).15 Eero taught architecture for two years at Cranbrook Academy, and then he served at the presentation
division of the Office of Strategic Services, in Washington, DC. In 1941 the father-son team formed a partnership, with Swanson, as Saarinen Swanson Saarinen, which lasted seven years. Their designs for colleges and universities included the development plan and a women’s dormitory for Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio, in 1945. When Robert and Pipsan Swanson formed a partnership—she was an interior designer—in 1947, the firm’s name was reduced to simply Saarinen Saarinen. In Finland, Eliel Saarinen had been an active participant in the debate about the idea of a national architecture. He defended the so-called National Romantic movement, which paralleled the earlier architecture of H. H. Richardson in the United States. Villa Hvitträsk was clearly inspired by Finnish vernacular architecture. As one of the driving forces in the Cranbrook community, the elder Saarinen embodied an alternative to the more dogmatic modernism emanating from Central Europe. Such a powerful father figure could not help but have a profound impact on his son, and this was the case with the relationship between Eliel and Eero. Indeed, Eero was well aware of his father’s influence, at one point telling the New York Times, “Except for a rather brief excursion into sculpture it never occurred to me to do anything but to follow in my father’s footsteps and become an architect.... Until his death in 1950 when I started to create my own form, I worked within the form of my father.”16 13. See School of Fine Arts, box 13, folder 108; box 14, folders 126, 137, YRG. 14. There are no records of Eero Saarinen’s academic works at either the Yale School of Architecture or Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University. His name appears in the lists of the Bulletin from years 1931–32 through 1933–34, and two of his works were published there: a police station in the subject Class B Design (Bulletin 1932–33, 49) and a water color subject (Bulletin 1932-33,51)
15. Other works by Eero Saarinen in collaboration with his father Eliel are: Berkshire Music Center, Massachusetts, 1938; Kleinhans Music Hall, Buffalo, New York, 1938– 40; Wermuth House, Fort Wayne. Indiana, 1941–42; Summer Opera House. Lenox, Massachusetts, 1942, also with J. Robert Swanson; chapel in Stephens College, Columbia, Missouri, 1947; and the first project for General Motors Technical Center, Warren. Michigan, 1948–50. 16. Quoted in Saarinen, Eero Saarinen, 14 (26 April 1953).
7
An Architecture of Multiplicity
After Eliel’s death, Eero Saarinen finally started to work alone. Thanks in part to his father’s legacy, the younger Saarinen already had an established name and thriving practice. Although he had previously entered some competitions independently, such as that for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri, he began working on his first solo commissions in the early 1950s. He quickly made his mark on the profession. By 1956, when the office reached its peak of productivity, there were eighteen projects in various stages of development, including: the General Motors Technical Center, Detroit, Ml; Kresge Auditorium and Chapel at MIT, Cambridge, MA; the Milwaukee County War Memorial, Milwaukee, WI; the Noyes Dormitory at Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY; the Unites States Chancellery in London, England; the Ingalls Hockey Rink at Yale University, New Haven, CT; and the TWA Terminal at ldlewild (now JFK) Airport. Saarinen’s designs for these buildings demonstrate a striking range of formal approaches. As Philip Johnson later said, nobody would believe that many of Saarinen’s buildings could be by the same architect “because they represent such violently different attitudes.”17 Saarinen never hesitated to cite personal experience as a source of inspiration in his work. To design the nondenominational Chapel at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1953–56), for example, he deliberately drew on a spiritual experience he had while traveling through Greece. Circular in plan, the chapel has a large skylight and additional perimeter lighting. “I have always remembered one night on my travels as a student when I sat in a mountain village in Sparta. There was bright moonlight over head and there was a soft, hushed secondary light around the horizon. That sort of bilateral lighting seemed best to achieve this other-worldly sense. Thus, the central light would come from above the altar—dramatized by the shimmering golden screen by Harry Bertoia—and the secondary light would be reflected up from the surrounding moat through the arches.”18 “Style for the job,” a phrase used derisively among architects during the 1950s and 1960s, describes Saarinen’s design philosophy.19 In associating “style” and “job,” it limits the meaning of style by circumscribing it to a particular work. It also invokes the criterion of difference, in applying to each work a particular “style.” Unlike the incoherent fragmentation suggested by “adhocism,”20 another term that cropped up around the same time, “style for the job” conveyed the proud resolve of pragmatism. Each specific case is processed in a specific manner. What is appropriate for a hockey rink at Yale is not necessarily appropriate for the corporate headquarters of John Deere. The
8
17. Paul Heyer, Architects on Architecture: New Directions in America (New York: Walker, 1978), 286. 18. Statement written in Saarinen, Eero Saarinen, 36 (January 1959). 19. Reyner Banham was the first to formally link Saarinen with the phrase in his essay “The Fear of Eero’s Mana,” Arts Magazine (February 1962): 73. The phrase has also been associated with the term “functional eclecticism” proposed by Philip Johnson, “Informal Talk, Architectural Association, 1960,” in Johnson, Writings, 104–16.
20. Charles Jencks refers to the adhocist designer, stating that “What he proposes is a lively and fumigated eclecticism.” For Jencks, adhocism is the result of a fragmented totality. Jencks, ‘’Adhocism,” Architectural Review (July 1968): 27–30.
An Architecture of Multiplicity
soaring sight lines designed to evoke fantasies of flight would have been ill-suited to the welltempered needs of a broadcasting company’s offices. While this pragmatic approach made sense on a case-by-case basis, the cumulative effect was stylistic eclecticism, which, to most people, had a decidedly pejorative connotation, as it still does today. Yet Saarinen, like many of his contemporaries, viewed eclecticism as a necessary and noble response to the conditions of the period. This recalled traditional eclecticism, which was regarded as the culmination of academic achievement. In 1965, Peter Collins made this point as the guideline for his critique of architecture when he quoted Denis Diderot on the subject: An eclectic is a philosopher who tramples underfoot prejudice, tradition, seniority, universal consent, authority, and everything which subjugates mass opinion; who dares to think for himself, go back to the clearest general principles, examine them, discuss them, and accept nothing except on the evidence of his own experience and reason; and who, from all the philosophies which he has analyzed without respect to persons, and without partiality, makes a philosophy of his own, peculiar to himself.21 Saarinen’s pragmatism parallels this formulation of eclecticism. Indeed, the diversity of his work, far from being seen in stylistic terms, should be understood as the product of a powerful creative force— the architect himself. As Saarinen wrote: It is on the individual, his sensitivities and understanding, that our whole success or failure rests. He must recognize that this is a new kind of civilization in which the artist will be used in a new and different way. The neat categories of bygone days do not hold true any longer. His job requires a curious combination of intuition and “crust.” He must be sensitive and adaptable to trends and needs; he must be part of and understand our civilization. At the same time, he is not just a mirror; he is also a co-creator and must have the strength and urge to produce form, not compromise.22
Seen from this perspective, the diversity of Saarinen’s work acquires a new dimension as a multiplicity. In contrast to other architects at the time, so intent on developing one single aspect of design, Eero Saarinen “wanted to embrace the entire body” when designing, something that in turn might lead to inquiry and indecision—witness for instance painstakingly compiled charts of facts and figures he created for so many of the projects undertaken.23 With his constant experimenting and self-evaluation, Saarinen clearly fits the aforementioned definition of an eclectic. As he said in an interview published in 1953 in the New York Times, anticipating present-day concerns in architecture, “In the end, you can only create and make decisions according to your own integrity.”24
21. Diderot, quoted in Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture, 1750–1950 (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967), 17. Collins pursues “an architectural philosophy evolved in the spirit of true eclecticism,” which he elaborates from Diderot. 22. Quoted in Saarinen, Eero Saarinen, 9 (1953). 23. When interviewed, Roche said that “Mies wanted to pull back all the layers and get to the heart. Eero wanted to embrace the entire body.” Francesco Dal Co, Kevin Roche (New York: Rizzoli, 1985), 22. 24. Quoted in Saarinen, Eero Saarinen, 14 (29 January 1953).
9
10
Buildings
An Architecture of Multiplicity
11
and Furniture
Buildings and Furniture
12
Buildings and Furniture
Buildings and Furniture
TWA Terminal, 1962 TWA Flight Center is an airplane terminal in New York City’s JFK International Airport. It was opened in 1962. The original design featured a prominent wing-shaped thin shell roof over the head house, or main terminal; unusual tube-shaped red-carpeted departurearrival corridors; and tall windows enabling expansive views of departing and arriving jets. The design straddles the Futurist, Neo-futurist, Googie and Fantastic architectural styles. Source: “Reconsidering Eero”. Metropolis Magazine, Paul Makovsky, September 19, 2005.
13
Buildings and Furniture
Executive Arm Chair, 1950 Designed in 1950, this Saarinen Executive Chair has remained one of Knoll’s most popular designs for nearly 70 years. The design, which is now found in dining rooms as often as it is in offices, transformed the notion of what executive seating could be with its sculptural form and modern finishing. Source: 71A Saarinen Executive Arm Chair, Knoll
14
Buildings and Furniture
Gateway Arch, 1967 The Gateway Arch is a 630-foot (192 m) monument in St. Louis, Missouri, United States. Clad in stainless steel and built in the form of a weighted catenary arch, it is the world’s tallest arch. Source: “National Historic Landmarks Program: Gateway Arch”. National Historic Landmarks Program. Archived from the original on August 4, 2009.
16
17
Buildings and Furniture
Buildings and Furniture
Tulip Armless Chair, 1957 With the Pedestal Collection, Eero Saarinen vowed to eliminate the “slum of legs” found under chairs and tables with four legs. He worked first with hundreds of drawings, which were followed by ¼ scale models. Since the compelling idea was to design chairs that looked good in a room, the model furniture was set up in a scaled model room the size of a doll house. Source: 151C Tulip Chir, Armless, Knoll.
18
Buildings and Furniture
Womb Chair with Ottoman, 1948 Eero Saarinen designed the groundbreaking Womb Chair at Florence Knoll’s request for “a chair that was like a basket full of pillows – something she could really curl up in.” This mid-century classic supports countless positions and offers a comforting oasis of calm—hence the name. Source: 70L Womb Chair, Knoll.
19
20
Buildings and Furniture
Buildings and Furniture
David S. Ingalls Rink, 1958 This hockey rink is designed by Eero Saarinen for Yale University. Usually this building is referred to The Whale because of the whale like design. This rink cost $1.5 million to construct, and it was finished at 1958. Source: “America’s Favorite Architecture”. American Institute of Architects. Archived from the original on 2011-05-10.
21
Abalos, lnaki, and Juan Herreros. Tecnica y arquitectura en la ciudad contemporanea. Madrid: Nerea, 1992.
Giedion, Sigfried. Space, Time and Architecture. 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
Albrecht, Donald, et al. The Work of Charles and Ray Eames: A Legacy of Invention. New York: Abrams, 1997.
Gropius, Walter. “The New Architecture and the Bauhaus”. London: Faber & Faber, 1935; Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965.
Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.
Guilford, J. P. Intelligence, Creativity and Other Educational Implications. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 1968.
Augustyn, Robert T., and Paul E. Cohen. Manhattan in Maps, 1527– 1995. New York: Rizzoli, 1997.
B
Banham, Reyner. Age of the Masters: A Personal View of Modern Architecture. London: Architectural Press, 1975. --. T he Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment. London and Chicago: Architectural Press and University of Chicago Press, 1969. --. D esign by Choice. London: Academy Editions, 1981. Bell, Daniel. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
H
Heyer, Paul. Architects on Architecture: New Directions in America. New York: Walker, 1978.
Belli, Gabriella, et al. Adalberto Libera. Opera completa. Milan Electa, 1989.
Hitchcock, Henry-Russell. Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. 4th ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
Bourdieu, Pierre. La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1979
Hozumi, Nobuo. GA 26, Eero Saarinen: TWA Terminal Building, Dulles International Airport. Photographs by Yukio Futagawa. Tokyo: Ada Edita, 1973.
Bulletin of Yale University. New Haven: Yale School of Fine Arts, 1931–33.
C
Cantacuzino, Sherban. “Eero Saarinen.” In Great Modern Architecture. London: Studio Vista, 1966. Christ-Janer, Albert. Eliel Saarinen. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
D Dal Co, Francesco. Kevin Roche. New York: Rizzoli, 1985.
I
Iglesia, E. J. Eero Saarinen. Buenos Aires: lnstituto de Arte Americano e lnvestigaciones Estéticas, 1966.
J
Jefferson, Thomas. Writings. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1984.
De Haan, Hilde, and Ids Haagsma. Architects in Competition. London: Thames and Hudson, 1988.
Johnson, Philip. Mies van der Rohe. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1947. --. W ritings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Department of City Planning. Zoning Handbook: A Guide to New York City’s Zoning Resolution. New York: Department of City Planning, 1990. Drew, Philip. Sydney Opera House. London: Phaidon, 1995. --. Third Generation: The Changing Meaning of Architecture. London: Pall Mall Press, 1972.
Jones, Cranston. Architecture Today and Tomorrow. New York: MacGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. Jordy, William H. “American Buildings and Their Architects”, Vol. 5. The Impact of European Modernism in the Mid-Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Drexler, Arthur, ed. The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. London: Secker & Warburg; New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977.
F
Foucault, Michel. L’Hermenéutique du sujet. Paris: Gallimard, Le Seuil, 2001. --. Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard, 1966. Frampton, Kenneth. Studies in Tectonic Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1995.
G Geddes, Norman Bel. Horizons. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1932. Reprint. New York: Dover, 1977.
22
Hausen, Marika, et al. Eliel Saarinen: Projects, 1896–1923. Hamburg: Gingko Press, 1990. --. T he Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
K
Koolhaas, Rem, and Bruce Mau. S, M, L, XL. New York: Monacelli Press, 1995. Krauss, Rosalind E. Richard Serra/Sculpture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1986. Kruft, Hanno-Walter. A History of Architectural Theory from Vitruvius to the Present. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994.
Bibliography
Bibliography
A
Bibliography
L
Lang, Berel. The Concept of Style. 2d ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. Larrabee, Eric. Knoll Design. New York: Abrams, 1981. Le Corbusier. La charte d’Athènes. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1957. --. “ Précisions sur un etat present de l’architecture et l’urbanisme”. Paris: Crès et Cie, 1930 Reprint. Paris: Altamira, 1994.
M Madec, Philippe. Boullée. Paris: Fernand Hazan, 1986. Meeks, Carroll L. V. The Railroad Station: An Architectural History. New Haven Yale University Press, 1956. Mumford, Lewis. The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1970.
N Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Scandinavia. Milan: Electa, 1990. Noyes, Eliot F. Organic Design in Home Furnishings. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1941.
P R
Picon, Antoine. L’Art de l’ingenieur. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou, 1997. Rorty, Richard. “Introduction: Pragmatism and Philosophy.” In Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. Rowe, Colin. “The Present Urban Predicament.” In As I Was Saying, Recollections and Miscellaneous Essays. Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1996. ---, and Fred Koetter. Collage City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1978. Rubino, Luciano. Ray & Charles Eames, ii colletivo della fantasia. Rome: Kappa, 1981 . Rybczynski, Witold. Home. New York: Penguin, 1986.
S
Saarinen, Aline, ed. Eero Saarinen on His Work. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962. Saarinen, Eliel. The City: Its Growth, Its Decay, Its Future. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1943. Scully, Vincent. American Architecture and Urbanism. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1988. Shapiro, Meyer. “Style.” In Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Smithson, Alison, ed. Team 10 Primer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974. Spade, Rupert. Photographs by Yukio Futagawa. Eero Saarinen. Tokyo: Bijutsu Shuppan-sha, 1968. Reprint. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971. Stern, Robert A. M. New Directions in American Architecture. 2d ed. New York: George Braziller. 1977. ---. Thomas Mellins, and David Fishman. New York 1960. New York: Monacelli Press, 1995.
T Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw. A History of Six Ideas: An Essay in Aesthetics. The Hague; Boston: Nijhoff; Hingham, MA., 1980. V Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. 2d ed. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977. Virilio, Paul. La vitesse de libération. Paris: Galilée, 1995.
W Willis, Carol. Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1995. Woodward, Geo. E. Woodward’s Country Homes. New York: Orange Judd and Co., 1865. Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Living City. New York: Horizon Press, 1958.
Z Zevi, Bruno. Storia dell’architettura moderna. Torino: Giulio Einaudi, 1975.
23
