Prefabrication experiments - 187 - Exhbition houses - 08 - Cocoon House - houses as test subjects

One of the representative areas of exploration in the elaboration of the modern dwelling is its generative link to military technology. As many architects had military training or were involved in various war efforts, they imagined repositioning their newly gained knowledge from military to civilian use. Buckminster Fuller’s Wichita house built from military grade aluminum or Charles Eames’ plywood chairs based on the same materials used as leg or arm splints exemplify the type of knowledge transfer that inspired a reforming of domestic architecture and design in general. Architects learned of and applied new methods. 

During the first half of the twentieth century, the architect’s role merged with the industrial designer’s, as housing design became somewhat akin to product design. Architects viewed the house as a complete work from furniture to structure and to its functionality. Paul Rudolf, an illustrious American architect, served in the Navy supervising shipbuilding at the Brooklyn yards from 1943 to 1946. His Cocoon House (1951) showcases knowledge transfer as it makes use of a simple catenary roof structure coated in the same type of Saran (Vinylidene chloride) spray the navy had used to winterize their fleet in a process called cocooning. The sprayed polymer could coat any reinforced fabric making it weatherproof and thermally resistant. Rudolf proposed this roofing material as revolutionary, making any roof simple to build and highly resistant to climatic conditions. 

The small, 760 ft²(71 m²), house’s section and plan are manifestly modern, based on a modular structural grid optimized for a unidirectional catenary curve suspended (22-foot span (6.7m)) from two perimeter beams. Steel straps suspended from the lateral beams support the thin membrane. Flexible insulation boards are attached to the straps as wood panels in a suspended bridge structure. The cocoon spray then rigidified the catenary canopy. The beams are supported by columns, which form a vertical roof, wall and floor truss.  Steel rods running from the roof beams to the prolonged floor beams, braced the catenary in tension. The small showcase dwelling illustrates Rudolf’s more expressive modern, as the rigid catenary is not an optimized structural form for the small dwellings span. Rudolf imagined this experiment as a testing ground for much larger spanning catenaries.  

Cocoon House from Architectural Forum : June 1951

Prefabrication experiments - 186 - Exhibition houses - 07 - Rheem houses - the modern prefab house

John Entenza, editor of Arts and Architecture magazine in the early 1940’s, launched The Case Study House Program (1945-62). The design, construction and publication of prototypes promoted the modernist movement in the USA. Influenced by European modernism and its migrating proponents, the California based magazine showcased recognized (Neutra, Soriano, Koenig, Ellwood) and not so recognized architects offering them a virtual loudspeaker for informing the public about new potentials for «post-war» living and «good design». CSH 8, 16, 22 remain the program’s icons. Although only 13 of the prototypes were built, it could be argued that the program’s influence on the ideal of architecture’s industrial production was long lasting. Steel, off the shelf components, new materials, modular coordination, transparency and the open plan were only a few of the modernist tenants that were put on display and visited by over 400 000 people during the program’s run. 

An interesting example of the mass-produced tract dwelling, the California established Rheem company operating in the early 1960s, argues for a potential link between the Case Study House Program and their house construction system. The company’s steel house platform proposed a compact strategy including some of the emblematic components of the case study houses; horizontal lines, clear distinction of serve and served spaces, ground floor living datum and exposed steel components and elements. Employing light steel stressed skin construction for the walls, the raft reinforced concrete foundation slab anchored the house to its site. The house’s central factory-made component, which facilitated on-site construction was a 9-foot (2.7m) by 36-foot (16.2m) service core which included a kitchen, 2 baths, equipment and links to adjacent spaces. Once the core was placed on the foundation the other spaces were simply built around the core. The dwelling’s options included three roof shapes. The folded plate roof, illustrated below, expresses the roof as the very basic function of a dwelling. Its dynamic accordion shape anchored to a steel skeletal structure gives it an almost fleeting aesthetic, linking the house to the horizon.  The system’s simple components, structure, core and skin demonstrate a precisely modernist view of mass-produced housing.

Rheem house components

Prefabrication experiments - 185 - Exhibition houses - 06 - Moelven Senior

The small, factory produced and highly standardized house is an expression of post-war living often associated with North America. Industrialized building culture applied to the single family dwelling reformed building strategies and the way in which house building knowledge was shared.  The personal and collective knowledge was lost as building became specialized, evolving from a customized craft to manufacturing. Established on the catalogue of plan types, which simplified the task of house production, consumers chose from a predetermined set of houses. This was the key to normalizing building for the masses. Before industrialization, house building knowledge and actual construction was a shared social process. The exploding use of the undemanding balloon frame helped globalize the small house type in Europe as well as in America. Norway’s industry produced an interesting take on the industrialized dwelling.  

Although the country’s architectural culture gave us great architects/theorists like Christian Norberg-Schulz who developed his own modernist inspired prototype dwelling for the middle class (Planeveien 14 ) in Oslo in 1955, the industry’s take on prefab was only marginally influenced by architectural culture. The industry, as in other countries moved to a more traditionally inspired version of the post-war mass-produced house with its modular plan, pitched roof and simple placement of small windows, dissociated from the modernist glass enclosed prefab dwelling.   

Moelven’s (Norwegian prefab house builder) simple house guide or catalogue expressed the industrial movement that was able to offer affordable and modest options for living. While architects continued to dream about affordability and mass production, the industry delivered.  The house system was based on juxtaposed manufactured segments. The segments were connected to infrastructure, anchored to their foundations and stitched together on site; wood cladding and metal roofing completed the «Norwegian vernacular» aesthetic. The straightforward plan surrounded back-to-back plumbing walls and was based on a 50-cm grid. Devices, or malleable spaces, such as carports or mudrooms could be adjoined as required.  The house was available in different sizes from the 48 sq.m. (mini)  to the 144 sq.m. (luxury model). The guide’s marketing strategy is familiar exposing the lasting, although ineffectual, conceptual link between the evolving prefab sector and the automobile industry. 

Melvin house catalogue and options