 |
| Farnsworth House (www.e-architect.uk) |
In his 1974 book
Mies van der Rohe at Work Peter Carter wrote of Farnsworth House in Plano,
Illinois:
The
tranquil pavilion of steel and glass, from which every seasonal change may be
observed, is poised above the ground and kept usually open to the
landscape. In its relationship to the
natural surroundings, there exists no suggestion of a contrived formal
composition; indeed, the building’s
occurrence in the landscape would seem almost fortuitous were it not for the
harmony which has been established between the architecture and the
terrain. Independent, yet at the same
time interdependent, this alliance between the organic and the inorganic
creates a convincing image for a technological era.
On this date,
October 29, back in 1951 everything was most definitely NOT tranquil at
Farnsworth House as it sat, uncompleted, while Mies van der Rohe, its
architect, and Dr. Edith Farnsworth, its eventual owner, fired lawsuits at one
another.
On July 13, 1951
Mies filed a mechanic’s lien foreclosure suit against Dr. Farnsworth for
nonpayment of fees. The doctor did not
pay. Instead, on October 29
she filed a counter-suit in the Kendall County Circuit Court, alleging that the
architect had by “fraud and deceit” led her into paying $33,872 more than the
original price upon which they had agreed in 1949.
Additionally, the
suit charged Mies van der Rohe with negligence in the handling of construction
plans and with being less than honest in his accounting of expenses on the
project. The suit sought an accounting of all expenses.
The verdict was
still out on the architectural value of the home at the time.
The Chicago Tribune ended its article on the October lawsuit by
observing, “The Farnsworth house near Plano is reputed to be the only one of
its kind, and it has been visited by many of the world’s best known
architects. In reality, it is a
one-room, one story structure with flat roof and glass and steel outer walls,
constructed around an inner core containing kitchen, heating and sanitary
facilities.” [Chicago Tribune, October 29, 1951]
It took until the
first part of 1953 before the suit and counter-suits were heard before Master
in Chancery Jerome Nelson in Oswego.
Mies van der Rohe’s attorney, John Faisler, presented his client as “an
expert in modern design, a teacher and director of architecture at the Illinois
Institute of Technology, and underpaid for his work.”
 |
| Dr. Farnsworth and Myron Goldsmith in the offices of Mies van der Rohe (chicagotonight.wttw) |
Mrs. Farnsworth was
represented by Attorney Randolph Bohrer, his son, Mason L. Bohrer, and State Senator
Merritt J. Little. (Can there be any more appropriate name for an Illinois state
senator?) Papa Bohrer asserted that Mies van der Rohe was not qualified as an architect and that “boosting of the original
cost estimate is attributable either to ‘gross incompetence or stupidity of the
plaintiff.’” [Chicago Tribune, January
31, 1953] The name-calling did not
end there as the attorney called Mies an “ordinary charlatan and an egoist of
the Buhaus school which has committed more frauds upon this country than any
other organization.”
Mies van der Rohe
ended up winning the lawsuit and collecting his fees. Dr. Farnswoth ended up living in the glass
house for another 20 years. The two
never spoke to one another again.
The affair did considerable damage to the architect’s reputation. In a scathing critique of the home in 1953 House Beautiful magazine observed –
Does it work?
The much touted all-glass cube of International Style architecture is perhaps
the most unlivable type of home for man since he descended from the tree and
entered a cave. You burn up in the summer and freeze in the winter, because
nothing must interfere with the “pure” form of their rectangles—no overhanging
roofs to shade you from the sun; the bare minimum of gadgets and possessions so
as not to spoil the “clean” look; three or four pieces of furniture placed
along arbitrary pre-ordained lines; room for only a few books and one painting
at precise and permanent points; no children, no dogs, extremely meager kitchen
facilities—nothing human that might disturb the architect’s composition. [https://www.moma.org/momaorg/shared/pdfs/moma_learning/docs/CL_5.pdf]
Despite the lawsuits and the acrimony the 2,215 square foot house in Plano has stood the test of time and the ravages of nature. It is now viewed as one of the great triumphs of Mies van der Rohe’s career, more or less.
Or is that less is more?
Posts
