how to visit maison de verre

• INSPIRATION

Maison de Verre: The Glass House of Paris by Pierre Chareau & Bernard Bijvoet

Maison de Verre, or the Glass House, is a unique residence located in Paris, France. Conceived by Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet in the early 20 th century, it serves as a tangible testimony to architectural innovation, passion, and the potential of the human imagination.

Maison de Verre Technical Information

• Architects 1-2 : Pierre Chareau & Bernard Bijvoet
• Location: Paris ,  France
• Topics: Industrial Architecture , Glass Houses
• Project Year: 1928 – 1932
• Photographs: © August Fischer , © Trevor Patt , © François Halard

The house should have a space for every function – Pierre Chareau 3 -4

Maison de Verre Photographs

The Glass House: A Study in Light, Transparency, and Modernism

To appreciate Maison de Verre’s essence, one must first understand the historical context. The house was built in the 1930s, a period marked by significant socioeconomic challenges but also a significant artistic revolution. France was then a hub of intellectual discourse and artistic exploration. The Modernist movement was sweeping across various disciplines, casting aside traditional constraints and offering a fresh perspective that emphasized function, simplicity, and a harmonious relationship between form and purpose. This movement significantly influenced the architectural scene, setting the stage for unique structures like Maison de Verre.

The House of Glass was commissioned by the Dalsace family, who sought a unique design that echoed their forward-thinking mindset. The task fell to two remarkable architects: Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet. Chareau, a prominent figure in French architecture, was known for his modernist inclinations and his unconventional approach. Bijvoet, although lesser known, was a committed architect who believed in the synthesis of aesthetics and functionality. Their collaboration resulted in the Maison de Verre, a testament to their shared vision of a modern, functional, and beautiful living space.

The construction of Maison de Verre was no ordinary feat. A significant challenge was the client’s demand to preserve the existing upper floors of a traditional building while transforming the lower structure into an avant-garde living space. The architects responded with a pioneering steel and glass structure that offered structural integrity and a striking visual appeal. This delicate task necessitated the careful dismantling of the lower levels and the construction of the new structure under the suspended upper levels—a process that pushed the boundaries of conventional construction techniques.

The Essence of the Maison de Verre: Form, Function, and Aesthetics

The design elements and spatial organization within the House of Glass are key to understanding its essence. The architects adopted an open floor plan , a feature not common in residential architecture of that era. Rooms are separated by mobile screens instead of solid walls, providing a degree of flexibility and adaptability to the house’s configuration. Moreover, the pervasive use of glass creates an airy, spacious ambiance, thus earning the house its moniker. The industrial aesthetic pervades throughout, reflected in the use of steel framework, rubberized floor tiles, and perforated metal sheeting, a nod to the Modernist emphasis on function over ornamentation.

But the most defining feature of the Maison de Verre is perhaps its expert use of light and transparency. During the day, sunlight filters through the glass blocks, casting an ethereal glow across the house. At night, the house becomes a luminous beacon, with light radiating from its glass façade. The transparency, while offering a sense of openness, also maintains a balance with privacy and intimacy—a clever interplay between the visible and the hidden, the public and the private.

The interplay between the light and the glass structure makes the house a living, breathing entity. During the day, sunlight bathes the interiors, creating a kaleidoscope of shimmering reflections and refractions, highlighting the rhythmic lines and geometric patterns of the industrial aesthetic. As darkness descends, the house transforms into a glowing lantern. The light from within softens the rigid steel and glass facades, blurring the boundary between the private and public realms.

This notion of boundaries, transparency, and privacy is fundamental to the Maison de Verre. While its glass façade allows the observers a glimpse into the interior, clever design features ensure the intimacy of the space is maintained. The use of translucent glass blocks, curtains, and mobile screens allows the occupants to regulate the level of privacy, creating a delicate equilibrium between transparency and seclusion. The house’s exterior engages with its urban surroundings, while its interior maintains a peaceful sanctuary, fostering a unique connection between the house and its environment.

The Legacy of Maison de Verre: Influence and Continual Inspiration

The Maison de Verre stands as a paragon of functional aesthetics. It is an affirmation of the modernist belief that form should follow function. Yet, this dedication to utility does not compromise the house’s aesthetic appeal. The steel framework, glass blocks, and other industrial materials, in their raw authenticity, become a form of visual poetry. This integration of industrial and residential design is a testament to the ingenious minds of Chareau and Bijvoet, who dared to merge these two spheres into a harmonious and innovative living space.

Moving beyond its immediate context, Maison de Verre’s influence and legacy are profound. Upon its completion, the house sparked discussions on architectural conventions and the use of industrial materials in residential spaces. It was, and still is, a bold challenge to the status quo of architectural design.

The impact of Maison de Verre extends beyond its time. Its open-plan layout, the intricate balance of privacy and transparency, and the symbiosis of form and function have all resonated with later architectural concepts. The house’s aesthetic and philosophical principles have influenced many contemporary architects, positioning it as a key reference point in the field of modernist architecture.

Maison de Verre Plans

Glass House Gallery

About Pierre Chareau

Pierre Chareau (1883 –1950) was a renowned French architect and designer best known for his pioneering contributions to the Modernist movement and his innovative use of industrial materials in residential settings. His most emblematic work, the Maison de Verre or House of Glass, was a collaborative project with Dutch architect Bernard Bijvoet. Born in Bordeaux and educated at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, Chareau combined traditional architectural training with a unique approach to space, light, and materials, making him a standout figure in architecture and design. Post World War II, he relocated to the United States, continuing his architectural practice. Chareau’s work remains a significant influence in modern architecture and continues to inspire architects and designers worldwide.

Notes & Additional Credits

• Client : Dr. Jean Dalsace
• Craftsman: Louis Dalbet
• A philosophy that is clearly embodied in the design of the Maison de Verre, where function, light, and space are interwoven to create a living environment that is as beautiful as it is utilitarian
• La Maison de verre: Le chef-d’oeuvre de Pierre Chareau  by Dominique Vellay

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• * ArchEyes Topics Index
• Architects Index
• 2020’s
• 2010’s
• 2000’s
• 1990’s
• 1980’s
• 1970’s
• 1960’s
• 1950’s
• 1940’s
• 1930’s
• 1920’s
• American Architecture
• Austrian Architecture
• British Architecture
• Chinese Architecture
• Danish Architecture
• German Architecture
• Japanese Architecture
• Mexican Architecture
• Portuguese Architecture
• Spanish Architecture
• Swiss Architecture
• Auditoriums
• Cultural Centers
• Installations
• Headquarters
• Universities
• Restaurants
• Cementeries
• Monasteries
• City Planning
• Landscape Architecture

Email address:

Timeless Architecture

• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

• No products in the basket.

Browse Categories

• Arts & Culture
• All Stories

Design Stories

All Design Stories All stories

Maison de Verre

A cubist tableau. A light show. A maverick of modernism. Hugo Macdonald explores a Parisian masterpiece. Words by Hugo Macdonald. Photography by François Halard & Dominique Vellay.

Hidden in an enclosed courtyard on rue Saint-Guillaume, in Paris’ seventh arrondissement, is a house of holy grail status for the architecture community. In description alone, it sounds like something from a fairy tale: a glowing, three-story home made from glass bricks, wedged under the fourth-floor apartment of an 18th-century townhouse. The fact that it lay dormant for decades, unseen by all but a handful of family members and their friends, only adds to its legend…

Even today, to visit the Maison de Verre you need to apply months in advance with proof of a connection to the profession of architecture. To call this house precious is an understatement. It is the sole surviving building (of only four completed) by the French architect Pierre Chareau. Built between 1927 and 1932 for Jean and Annie Dalsace, the house is an outstanding example of creative patronage. It is testament to Chareau’s imagination and skill, but perhaps more to the friendship between the architect and client: An extraordinary level of trust would have been required to commission this experimental home.

The Dalsaces were an enlightened couple. Jean was a gynecologist who would in later life be an active promoter of contraception and found the French National Association for the Study of Abortion. Annie mixed in the avant-garde cultural circles of the time: “She was less interested in pearl necklaces and fur coats than in the works of Braque, Ernst and Picasso,” her granddaughter Dominique Vellay wrote in a publication about the house.

It was thanks to Annie, more than Jean, that the Maison de Verre came into existence. Annie had met Louise Dyte, Pierre Chareau’s English wife, in 1905. As well as teaching Annie to speak English, Louise introduced her to the progressive Parisian artists, musicians and writers that she and her husband mixed with and the two couples became close friends. It was Annie’s parents who funded the work at Rue Saint-Guillaume in 1927, and Annie who was the open mind and driving force behind Chareau’s creation.

The Maison de Verre has a peculiar infill setting, thanks to a tenant on the top floor of the existing building who refused to budge. Undeterred, Chareau propped up the apartment, demolished the rest of the building underneath it and constructed a double-height, open plan space out of steel girders in its place.

He wrapped the courtyard-facing facade in translucent glass bricks, from which the house takes its name. It is said that he wanted the house to be “a box of light.”

It is hard to emphasize the imagination, not to mention the bravery, behind these moves. Despite the mind expansion of cultural innovation sweeping through western Europe in the 1920s, the principles of modernist architecture were stark. Buildings tended to adhere to strict theories of process and function; they did not play freely with form and feeling. “The Maison de Verre is a whimsical place, a tour de force and a site of contradictions,” says Esther da Costa Meyer, Professor of Architecture at Princeton University, who curated an exhibition on the house at the Jewish Museum in New York. “Today we are used to houses with glass facades but at the time, they were new.”

She also underscores the inventiveness of the building on the inside: “Though Chareau produced elegant bespoke furniture for the house, the interior was full of mass-produced industrial materials exposed to view: rubber flooring, metal doors, exposed pipes, industrial lighting fixtures.” If the exterior of the house was unusual for the time, the interior was another world entirely.

The girder supporting structure of the building meant that large spaces could be left open, concrete floors appeared to float and different spaces could be opened up or sectioned off with moving screens, all bathed in translucent light from the glass bricks on one side, with occasional flashes of views out to the garden on the opposite side. The effect is a house that feels like it is alive and changing constantly, with the movement of walls and parts, of light, and of people through it. It is the closest we might get to experiencing life inside a cubist painting.

There is an infectious sense of fun that runs throughout the Maison de Verre. This is a house with charm and charisma in every detail, from the phone booth with a light operated underfoot, to the aluminum coat hangers shaped like moustaches and the single red button by the entrance that lights the house on a timer, allowing just enough time to make it from the front door to the bedrooms. There are moments of ethereal beauty, surprising joy and utter genius intertwined. Yet, for all of its unusual character and ingenuity, the house has considerable domestic intimacy and comfort, too. Chareau balanced his use of industrial materials with natural ones: Pirelli rubber flooring and metal grate stairs are softened elsewhere with wood, slate and polished lacquer. Surfaces are smooth to touch and hard edges have been rounded. There’s a surprising blue carpet in the less surprisingly named blue sitting room. Tapestry screens and embroidered upholstery by Jean Dalsace’s school friend Jean Lurçat bring tactile layers of intrigue. What can look cold in photographs feels warm in the flesh.

Chareau also designed all the furniture and lighting in the house (except an early 19th-century mahogany dining table and set of chairs). This means the interior works perfectly with the architecture and, given his intimate friendship with the Dalsaces, he was able to create a world that they could inhabit effortlessly, however radical it might have been at the time. “The house was a place of friendship and open to everyone,” Dominique Vellay remembers. The Alsaces’ granddaughter later moved into the Maison de Verre with her daughter. “It was a meeting place where avant-garde ideas, artistic concepts and the most beautiful of utopian ideals could be expressed.” She remembers her grandmother as the lady of the house, standing at the top of the stairs waiting to receive guests. She recalls the dinners, the parties, the music concerts. Interesting people were always passing through.

When the Germans occupied Paris in the Second World War, the Dalsaces and the Chareaus fled to America. The Maison de Verre was stripped of its furniture, which was hidden in a barn by a relative in rural France. The story goes that the Germans tried to requisition the house, but gave up when they realized they could neither heat it nor light it. After the war, the Dalsaces returned and the home stayed in the family until 2006, when it was sold to Robert Rubin, an American collector and investor-turned-architect. Rubin has meticulously restored it and lives there with his French wife and their children. Pierre Chareau stayed in America and built just two further projects in his life, neither of which remain today. It is a testament to the genius of the Maison de Verre that it has, by itself, cemented its creator’s legacy as a maverick in the canon of modern architecture.

Some have questioned if the need for sectioning off private from professional space was Chareau’s starting point for including so many moving parts within the building: One of the construction requirements was a consultation and surgery space for Dr. Dalsace’s private medical practice on the ground floor. But more likely it was thanks to Chareau’s clients’ proclivity for playfulness and the opportunity they presented to experiment widely with his collaborators, the genius metalworker Louis Dalbet and Dutch architect Bernard Bijvoet. “Dalbet handcrafted all the metal parts: the ventilation louvers in the living room, the retractable stairs in Madame Dalsace’s bedroom, the incredible elements in the bathrooms,” da Costa Meyer explains. Movable aluminum panels like airplane wings separate Jean’s shower space from Annie’s bath space.

New York’s Jewish Museum has created a 3-D rendering of the Maison de Verre that visitors can tour in virtual reality.

This story is from Kinfolk Issue Thirty

Rebuilding the legacy of desert architect Alistair Knox.

Nine lofts designed to challenge your senses.

A visit to the Parisian cul-de-sac where the legacy of Robert Mallet-Stevens lives on.

The Austrian architect laid the foundations for unornamented modernism.

Buoyed by the bossa nova experimentalism of mid-century Brazil, an opera-loving landscape architect struck out against the diktats of cool modernism.

The São Paulo home of Julio Roberto Katinsky is a living, breathing masterpiece of Brazilian modernism: all curves, concrete and creeping vegetation.

Kinfolk.com uses cookies to personalize and deliver appropriate content, analyze website traffic and display advertising. Visit our cookie policy to learn more. By clicking "Accept" you agree to our terms and may continue to use Kinfolk.com.

Cookie banner

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy . Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use , which became effective December 20, 2019.

By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

Site search

• Los Angeles
• San Francisco
• Historic Homes
• Home Ownership
• Renting a Home
• Homes for Sale
• Tiny Living
• Home Tech Tips
• Interior Design

Filed under:

• Critical Eye
• Exhibitions

Maison de Verre, the other glass house

Diller Scofidio + Renfro creates a technology-forward exhibition about French architect Pierre Chareau’s influential—and overshadowed—1930s residence

There was a time when I wrote about many apartments. Apartments with rubber floors. Apartments with transparent bathtubs. Apartments with flip-up facades. Toward the end of interviewing their architects I would ask, almost as a throwaway, “is there a house that inspires you?” Nearly everyone answered, “the Maison de Verre.”

Maison de Verre —designed by architects Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet in Paris in 1932—is, as its name suggests, a glass house designed to solve a set of strangely familiar urban problems: a historic hôtel particulier ; a tenant who won’t move out; a doctor who wants to work from home.

The result is a poetic machine, a two-story building set in a courtyard between two existing party walls, that creates a specific atmosphere out of its compromises through the deployment of translucent, textured curtain walls and movable parts—louvered windows, retractable stairs, pivoting screens. It makes those other glass houses, which only have to keep out the rain, look a little bit lazy.

Apparently, you have to see it to believe it , which makes the idea of a retrospective on Chareau (1883-1950) that’s not in Paris, home of his only remaining work of architecture, seem perverse at best.

But New York City’s Jewish Museum , which has just mounted such a show , guest curated by Princeton University professor Esther da Costa Meyer with museum curator Claudia Nahson, has deployed a secret weapon: technology. Or Diller Scofidio + Renfro (DSR). Or maybe they are the same thing. Chareau was a master of the modern interior and a maker of some very lush, expressionist furniture but one without the other could make for a very dull exhibition.

The retrospective, the first in the U.S. on Chareau, who lived in exile in New York from 1940 to 1950, occupies the same space as that on landscape architect Roberto Burle Marx , which suffered in its own way for having no access to the outdoors.

“These pieces are meaningful in their native settings, but when they are removed from those settings they are orphaned,” said Elizabeth Diller at the press preview. “The period rooms that have been surgically extracted at the Met have the ability to transport museum visitors in time and space” but Diller would never stoop to a fake.

Instead, the exhibition design by DSR has remade Chareau in three ways, using their common architectural interests in movement, transparency, and unusual domestic arrangements without swamping the past in contemporary ribbons or wedges.

There are, however, screens . The first gallery has been divided into vignettes by sweeps of white PVC-coated polyester fabric that curve toward the ground like a photographer’s seamless backdrop. From the exhibition door you can see flickering movement, video projections of silhouetted figures working at the kitchen table, primping at a vanity, smoking in an armchair. The gestures seem slightly sped up, as if in an old film. Walk around the screen’s paper-thin edge, and you find the furniture without the figures, the stage set without the actors. The stationery furniture is enhanced, subtly, through the application of dramatic paper shadows, as if the contrast in the gallery was shifted to 100 percent.

The language used to describe Chareau’s furniture is full of action verbs: “a table that swivels out from an attached bookcase on an outsize ball foot,” a study for an ambassador whose walls “open and close like a fan.” Chareau also collaborated on the sets for a number of films with figures like architect Robert Mallet-Stevens and couturier Paul Poiret, understanding in the 1920s that decor told a story. The silhouetted actors stand in for all of us, longing to take a seat at such a beautiful table.

The furniture is legitimately spectacular: a sofa whose back comes to an expressionist point, a bed that looks ready to float downstream, a table lacquered in a queasy green, and, my favorite, the La Religieuse lamps, the nun’s habits made of undulating metal crowned with shards of alabaster. But how dispiriting it would have been to walk into a room with these pieces lined up against the wall, reduced to their sighing lists of luxurious materials.

In the next gallery you can go further into a virtual inhabitation of Chareauspace: Virtual reality goggles, set on tiny pedestal stools, await you inside a gray cube (called the “grand salon”). More of Chareau’s furniture is arranged on risers as it had been at the Maison de Verre and its garden, plus two other interiors (now lost). Through the lenses, you see Chareau’s spiky metal garden furniture behind the house, his lushly embroidered easy chairs (with bright abstract patterns by French artist Jean Lurçat) in the salon. Smoke curls from a cigarette in a virtual ashtray in the living room of the Farhi Apartment. (Kyle Szostek worked with DSR on the VR settings.)

Armchairs from the Maison de Verre #pierrechareau // embroidery by #jeanlurçat A photo posted by Alexandra Lange (@langealexandra) on Nov 1, 2016 at 8:24am PDT

While effective as snapshots, I wished there was a little more depth, and a little less garishness to the vignettes. They needed a historicizing Instagram filter. Were they really doing the job better than a combination of photographs and real furniture? The rendering style turned apartments in Paris in the 1920s and ’30s into over-bright contemporary hotel rooms, evocative in the wrong way. It was cute that they made you sit down for the experience, but an armchair would have better set the mood.

In the hallway around the virtual reality cube, a rail displays photographs and handmade renderings of more interiors. I was most taken with an isometric drawing of the house made by historian Kenneth Frampton in 1965 (he’s speaking at the museum on November 17 ), that, in today’s aesthetics, suggests the all-seeing viewpoint of the arcade. Would the last stage of our technologically enhanced journey be a Monument Valley-esque quest through a Maison of Virtual Verre? It didn’t seem like a terrible idea. I wanted in.

Instead, in the last room, DSR does something rather more clinical (to use a favorite word of Diller’s): a room-size digital reconstruction that moves you through the house from the opaque masonry front of the hotel particulier to the back garden, tracked on a plan of the house on the floor with a line of red light. It was a doctor’s office, after all. Here’s the firm’s X-ray moment, a technique it also deployed in its installation for the Met’s Charles James exhibition.

What the successive sections show is the layered nature of the façade, as public gives way to private as you move from street to green courtyard. At times, the scan stops, and a red rectangle highlights a particular room: on the wall, actors playing a couple use that room, operating what’s operable.

Perhaps by 2017 we will also be able to operate such avatars? Or furniture exhibitions could develop their own version of Sensurround, allowing me to touch the upholstery? While undeniably impressive—Diller told me the base 3D model for the house's grand salon had been made by a German hobbyist, Bertrand Benoit—this way of rendering the house was architectural and distancing.

House clients don’t love sections, they like the realism of the plan (it feels like your own dollhouse) and elevation (an opportunity to admire the wallpaper). Chatting with Diller, she said one of the most interesting aspects of Chareau’s design was that it was “beautifully polluted.” Earlier she said it was “decorative and functional,” “clinical, gynecological, lush.” All of which might be applied to DSR’s work too, on a good day.

But this mode of rendering, in the only gallery devoid of actual Chareau artifacts, left out the tapestry and mahogany, the swirl of burled wood, the brutalism of the Modigliani sculpture, displayed in a vitrine, that was once part of Pierre and Dollie Chareau’s art collection. At the very moment when we are supposed to be able to inhabit the Maison de Verre, despite being in New York, it slips away.

A reassuring moment for architecture: It hasn’t yet been supplanted by the digital. But DSR’s technological feats make the Chareau retrospective far more inventive and topical than it has any right to be. Cue another round of homage.

Pierre Chareau: Modern Architecture and Design at the Jewish Museum is open until March 26, 2017.

Next Up In Critical Eye

• New York Needs to Rethink Time, Not Space, To Actually Reopen
• from Curbed NY New York City’s two biggest design stories of 2019 are also design failures
• Navigating the new MoMA
• Who’s afraid of the pedestrian mall?
• The Big Little Lie of the TV kitchen island
• from Curbed NY New York City is a mall

Share this story

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

La Maison de Verre: The best house in Paris

By Nicolai Ouroussoff

• Aug. 29, 2007

PARIS — No house in France better reflects the magical promise of 20th-century architecture than the Maison de Verre. Tucked behind the solemn porte-cochere of a traditional French residence on Rue Saint-Guillaume, a quiet street in a wealthy Left Bank neighborhood, the 1932 house designed by Pierre Chareau challenges our assumptions about the nature of Modernism. For architects it represents the road not taken: a lyrical machine whose theatricality is the antithesis of the dry functionalist aesthetic that reigned through much of the 20th century.

Its status as a cult object was enhanced by the house's relative inaccessibility. For decades it was seen only by a handful of scholars and by patients of a gynecologist whose offices took up the first floor. Later it was mostly used as occasional guest quarters for friends of the doctor's family, who had long since settled into a traditional 18th-century apartment across the courtyard.

So when I heard over dinner here with some friends a year or so ago that the family had sold the house to an American entrepreneur, I was astonished. My dinner companion, an architect who had never met the new owner, lamented the sale as evidence of France's cultural decline, akin to the construction of Euro Disney. Waving a dismissive hand, she invoked the cliché of the ugly American, pockets stuffed with dollars.

As it turns out, although the buyer, Robert Rubin, made his money on Wall Street, he is far from a crass trophy hunter. After buying the house, he embarked on a painstaking renovation of its intricate — and for its time, ingenious — mechanical systems. He enlisted a corps of architectural historians and graduate students to decipher its secrets. With the first phase of the renovation completed, he plans to open it up eventually for limited tours. In his loving devotion to the house and its historical particulars, he has emerged as a role model for those who seek to preserve an architectural relic without turning it into a mausoleum.

Rubin, 54, is a born collector. He restored his first car, a Jensen Healy, when he moved to New York City in his early 20s. After racking up money as a commodities trader in the mid-1970s, he turned his eye to bigger prizes, like a 1960s Ferrari 275 GTB and later a rare 1933 Bugatti that had once belonged to King Leopold of Belgium. His fascination with industrial objects eventually led him to the works of Modernist architects like Jean Prouvé and Chareau, whose creations were elaborate Machine Age fantasies.

Approaching his new subject with the zeal of a scholar, Rubin went back to school in 2001, enrolling at Columbia University's graduate school of architecture at the age of 48. He worked as a teaching assistant for Kenneth Frampton, the architectural historian who wrote a celebrated textbook on 20th-century Modernism.

Around the same time Rubin bought Prouvé's Maison Tropicale, a prefabricated metal shelter conceived in the late 1940s as a prototype for affordable housing in colonial Africa and later erected in the Congo. After a methodical restoration, he organized a series of exhibitions on the Prouvé house, shipping it to Yale and to the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles. Last year he donated it to the Pompidou Center. (By contrast the hotelier André Balazs recently bought a version of the Maison Tropicale at Christie's, for $5 million and plans to make it the centerpiece of a Caribbean resort.)

Yet nothing Rubin had collected up to this point could compare — in scale or in the weight of responsibility — to the Maison de Verre. The house is often compared to another early-20th-century masterpiece, Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye. Both houses were built in the brief period between the two world wars, the high point of classical Modernism. Both embody that movement's obsession with hygiene, and the fiercely held notion that a house could function as a tool for physical and psychic healing. But while Le Corbusier's masterpiece was intended as the expression of a broad vision — a philosophical rejoinder to the squalid disorder of the medieval city — Chareau's ambitions were more humble.

Born in 1883, he began his career as a draftsman for a traditional English furniture maker in Paris. By the early 1920s he had designed the interiors of some elegantly appointed apartments for wealthy clients and was mostly admired for his furniture designs, elaborate wood and metal pieces with movable parts that reflect a taste for refined machinery.

The Maison de Verre itself has been described as an elaborate piece of furniture. It was commissioned in the late 1920s by Dr. Jean Dalsace and his wife, Annie, who had bought the site, an existing 18th-century hôtel particulier, but were unable to evict the woman who lived on the top floor. As a result Chareau was obliged to carve out his creation underneath her apartment. Viewed from just inside the courtyard the house looks like a glowing translucent box, its great glass-block facade embedded in the 18th-century fabric and capped by the old one-story apartment level above.

The house's poetic force has resonated through decades. Chareau conceived its interior as a delicate composition of interlocking forms, with the two-story private quarters seeming to float atop the doctor's office on the first floor. Upon entering, you can either descend a few steps into the doctor's waiting room or turn back and climb a broad staircase. From there you turn again before stepping up into the double-height grand salon of the private quarters, which is illuminated through the towering glass block wall.

The series of turns is a shrewd strategy. With each step the old Paris — the world of medieval squares and 19th-century boulevards — grows more distant, allowing you to become enveloped in Chareau's fantasy. A towering metal bookcase of small richly bound volumes stands along the salon's back wall. Stairs lead to a narrow balcony that frames two sides of the salon and continues on to the bedrooms. The only views of the outside world are at the back of the house, which overlooks a small private garden.

The house has been compared to a Surrealist artwork, a theater stage and an operating room. That effect is animated by the play of light. During the day the facade has a strange milky glow; at night floodlights illuminate the wall from the outdoors, so that it glows like a lantern, bathing the salon in amber light. A single-story dining room and a smaller salon are set just off this central space, so that you are always conscious of its dramatic scale.

But the house is above all an exquisite machine. Chareau worked closely with Louis Dalbet, a talented ironworker, and the house's detailing has as much in common with centuries-old craft traditions as with the efficiency of the 20th-century assembly line. Big curved perforated metal screens at the bottom of the entry stair rotate to shut the apartment off from the office below. A rolling ladder set along the salon bookcase is fabricated from a single piece of steel pipe and inlayed with wood. The glistening brass window casements at the back of the house are assembled from the window panels of a passenger train.

The Maison de Verre had a profound impact on generations of architects who were seeking to free themselves from the rigid orthodoxies of mainstream Modernism. Richard Rogers, a designer with Renzo Piano of the 1976 Pompidou Center, with its exposed tubes and bright colors, was captivated by the house when he first saw it in the early 1960s. A quarter-century later architects like Ben van Berkel would visit to try to decipher the uncannily fluid relationship between the house's spaces for work and play, for public and private life.

The house stayed in the Dalsace family for more than 70 years. In the 1980s Dr. Dalsace's daughter, Aline Vellay, and her husband considered selling it to the French government. Their thought was that it might be turned into a national landmark, as Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye was decades ago. But the government did not take them up on it.

Rubin and his wife, Stéphane, approached the family in 2004 at the suggestion of a mutual friend and bought it for an undisclosed price in 2006.

"I think they finally sold it to me because of what I had done with the Maison Tropicale," he told me recently in an interview in his apartment on Central Park West. "It was a very heavy responsibility to have."

Although he loved the house, he added, "I didn't want to fetishize it."

The notion of owning a Modernist landmark has been fashionable for decades now. The usual impulse was to embark on a multimillion-dollar top-to-bottom renovation, then move into an immaculate architectural gem, upgraded with a SubZero refrigerator and a Viking stove.

The problem with this template is that something always gets lost: the essential character, the gently worn eccentricities, the patina that accumulates over time. French preservationists call this unrenovated state "dans son jus" — literally, "in its juice." When it is erased wholesale, the result can be sterile and artificial, like radical cosmetic surgery.

To avoid that possibility Rubin approached his task deliberately. He began by slowly restoring the house's mechanical systems, first the electrical wiring, and then the original heating and plumbing systems. The outdoor spotlights, most of which had been lowered or taken down decades ago, were restored to their original position on a steel frame in the courtyard. He also bought a fancy new stove.

But he left many of the most visible scars untouched: the worn textiles and dulled metal surfaces as well as some of the structural alterations made over the years. He decided not to polish the perforated panels in the salon. The old rubber flooring, whose pattern of small disks looks cracked and worn down in some places, is still there.

"The whole question of originality and restoration always bugged me," Rubin said. "It started with cars. My Bugatti was originally a Grand Prix car, and then Bugatti painted the car black. But the exhaust had blown some of it off, and you could see original blue factory paint underneath. I kept that. I thought if you restore it, you lose its soul. You need to feel some direct connection to the past."

I recently had the chance to test this idea firsthand. For a few days this summer Rubin let me stay there with my girlfriend. The visit fulfilled a fantasy, but it was also a concession to various editors who have suggested that I briefly live in a house and then write about it. (Usually this suggestion arises from one of the tiredest clichés in architecture: that the more unorthodox a house is, the more difficult it is to live in.)

We arrived at the house in the late morning after a long flight from New York. A housekeeper greeted us at the door and methodically took us through the rooms. Light switches. Check. Bathrooms. Check. Where to hang our clothing. Check.

As we strode through the house, I was reminded of an essay by Frampton that compared the house to Marcel Duchamp's 1923 "Large Glass" ("The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even"). Like Duchamp's work, he wrote, the house is separated into male and female zones, with the downstairs office offset by the bedrooms upstairs. These worlds leak into each other at carefully controlled points. A narrow retractable ship's stair links the female realm to the main floor; a hidden stairway leads from the office to an upstairs study.

But the assignment of gender roles could just as easily be reversed. As the day wore on, my friend and I found ourselves locked in a gentle pas de deux, slipping in and out of rooms, yet always coming back to the grand salon, which seemed to arrest us momentarily in space. We began to appreciate the house's elasticity, allowing for varying degrees of solitude and intimacy.

This effect was amplified by the play of light and sound. By turning on and off the various floodlights outside, you could adjust the mood of the entire house. When the lights are dimmed, for example, the house becomes less theatrical, more tender. Voices too travel through the rooms, so that you are always faintly aware of the presence of the other.

It wasn't until we arose the next morning, however, that we fully understood Chareau's choreography. The bathroom floor is raised in certain areas so that as we crossed it, we could catch occasional glimpses of each other before suddenly dropping back out of view.

A pair of perforated metal panels that divide the shower and bath can swing open, enabling us to chat with each other as we bathed. When they were closed, you could see the outline of a human silhouette moving behind the screen. It was the same dance we had performed around the central salon, now brought to its most intimate scale. The experience drove home how liberating the house must have felt during those first years, when it still hummed with life, with and Dalsace circling into and out of each other's orbit. The house was a perfect balance between the need for companionship and solitude, a utopia of the senses.

Alas, Chareau barely got to witness his greatest accomplishment. A few years after the house was completed the Germans marched into Paris, and Chareau — like the Dalsaces, a member of the city's Jewish intellectual elite — fled. He traveled to Marseilles, then Morocco, and finally New York, where he arrived penniless and unknown.

In the mid-1940s the artist Robert Motherwell commissioned him to design a small studio house in the Hamptons. (That structure — an innovative experiment in low-cost construction that resembled a Quonset hut — was callously demolished in 1985.) Even Motherwell would later admit that, like most people in New York, he had never been fully aware of Chareau's accomplishments.

Chareau never received another commission after that, surviving partly on what money his wife could earn giving cooking lessons to wealthy Americans. In an attempt to resurrect his reputation, he reached out in 1950 to the director of the Musée National d'Art Moderne in Paris. Around the same time he began negotiating with the Museum of Modern Art about a possible New York show of his work.

The Paris show never materialized. And Philip Johnson, the mercurial director of MoMA's architecture department, who had just completed his own Glass House in New Canaan, Connecticut, vetoed an exhibition. By the end of 1950 Chareau was dead.

And now it is an American who has taken it upon himself to preserve the jewel of his legacy.

House of Glass

The Maison de Verre was built from 1928 to 1932 in Paris, France. Constructed in the early modern style of architecture, the house's design emphasized three primary traits: honesty of materials, variable transparency of forms, and juxtaposition of "industrial" materials and fixtures with a more traditional style of home décor. The primary materials used were steel, glass, and glass block.

Opening hours

The house is private and thus not open to the public.

More information and contact

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_de_Verre

More information http://www.parisinfo.com/musee-monument-paris/71135/Maison-de-Verre

Phone +33 1 45 44 91 21

Address 31 Rue Saint-Guillaume, 75007 Paris, France

Coordinates 48°51'13.561" N 2°19'42.287" E

Tours and activities: House of Glass

Paris: 1-hour river seine cruise with audio commentary, versailles: palace of versailles and marie antoinette tour, from paris: day trip to champagne with 8 tastings & lunch, sygic travel - a travel guide in your pocket.

More interesting places

• Privacy Policy
• STOCK 360° TRAVEL VIDEOS

Maison De Verre

The Maison de Verre (House of Glass) is a collaboration of the interior and furniture designer Pierre Chareau, the Dutch architect Bernard Bijvoet and The French metal craftsman Louis Dalbet. It was built between 1928 and 1932 and is a stunning example of modern architecture in the beginning of the twentieth century.

The Maison de Verre was commissioned by Dr. Jean Dalsace and his wife, Annie, who had bought the site, a 18th-century hotel particulier next to the Latin Quarter in Paris. Much to their chagrin, the elderly tenant on the top floor of the building absolutely refused to sell, and the Dalsaces were obliged to demolish the bottom three floors of the building and construct the Maison de Verre underneath, without disturbing the original top floor. Viewed from the courtyard the house which cannot be seen from the street looks, the house looks like a glowing translucent box, its great glass-block facade embedded in the 18th-century fabric and capped by the old one-story apartment level above.

The Maison de Verre's glass facade is made up of glass blocks supported by a steel frame structure. In the interior, spaces are separated by movable, sliding, folding or rotating screens in glass, sheet or perforated metal. Other mechanical components include an overhead trolley from the kitchen to dining room, a retracting stair from the private sitting room to Mme Dalsace's bedroom and complex bathroom cupboards and fittings. The whole steel structure with bare beams, the canalisation and conduits remain visible from the outside and contribute to the architecture thus transforming utilities into decorative elements. The glass block wall itself, is able to stand alone without the heavy frame. Ventilation through the glass block wall is provided by a series of movable traps. A weight and pulley system opens the window panels, allowing for natural ventilation. This unique system causes a minimum of visual impact on the glass facade of the structure.

The house which was used as a residency also comprised Dr. Dalsace's gynecological practice which was located on the ground floor. A rotating screen hid the stairs leading to the private apartment in the upper floors from patients during the day, but framed the stairs at night. Pierre Chareau who was a distinguished furniture designer in Paris at the time gave enormous attention to detail, so much that the house itself was sometimes half-mockingly described as an elaborate piece of furniture.

In the mid-1930s, the Maison de Verre's double-height "salle de sejour" on the first floor was transformed into a salon regularly frequented by Marxist intellectuals like Walter Benjamin as well as by Surrealist poets and artists such as Louis Aragon, Paul Eluard, Jean Cocteau, Yves Tanguy, Joan Miro and Max Jacob. When the Nazis arrived in France, The Dalsaces had to flee the country. In 2006, Robert Rubin, an American collector, bought the house from the Dalsace family and carefully restored it. Today it is still in use as a private house.

• New York Times: August 26th, 2007

All our texts and many of our images appear under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License ( CC BY-SA ). All our content is written and edited by our community.

Hanns House

Skywalk Rennweg

Cartier Foundation

• Accessories
• Architecture
• black and white
• Ceramic Tile
• Craftsmanship
• Guest Blogger
• Inspiration
• Interior Design
• The Perfect Bath
• Waterworks Promo

Best Practices

• Q & A with Barbara
• Apartment Therapy
• artinfo.com
• Cool Hunting
• Dering Hall
• Editor At Large
• Grant Gibson
• Life & Times
• Life in Sketch
• Live The Life You Dream About
• My Notting Hill
• Quintessence
• Remodelista
• Simplifying Fabulous
• The Corinthian Column
• The Peak of Chic
• The Style Saloniste
• Things That Inspire
• Velvet & Linen
• About Barbara

Maison de Verre (House of Glass) Paris

During our trip to Paris we were fortunate to visit Maison de Verre, a former 18th century townhouse turned into a modern dwelling by Pierre Chareau in 1928. There was no precedent for how he created this house considering that Chareau could not touch the top floor of the existing building. An “old lady” was living there who could not be moved. So he left the top floor intact and replaced the exterior of the lower levels with translucent glass bricks, completely re-imagined the interior space, installed remotely controlled swiveling windows, and divided the interior with perforated metal screens that either rotate or slide. There are no plastered walls in this amazing glass box.

We thought we had the wrong address for the visit because from the street the house is invisible. It is an amazing juxtaposition to cross a typical cobble stone courtyard and approach its glass facade. This was the home of Dr. Jean and Annie Dalsace. It served both as their residence and the doctor’s office. The doctor occupied the ground floor with his office, waiting room, examination room and laboratory. The two upper floors were family functional and entertaining spaces. Like the first floor, the rest of the house uses contemporary materials including black lacquer built in cupboards, perforated screens, rubber floor tiles and terrazzo. The upper floors are a fabulous open living space with sky high tall bookcases and furniture designed by Chareau, a small salon for Mrs. Dalsace, bedrooms, and baths.

Our exceptional docent/curator, Mary Johnson, fully understood the subtleties, intricacies and transformative architecture in the house. There are many secrets, from the telephone booth used primarily by the doctor to the surprise unfolding of the space itself viewed from the bottom of the main staircase. Exposed structural columns with rivets and bolts, a lack of “decoration” and integration of ergonomics, the house easily accommodated a pioneering young doctor, the art of family life and the entertaining of friends.

This is a bold house. Its interior spaces can expand or shrink at will. The furnishings used fabrics from lemon-yellow upholstery tapestries to dark blue carpets. This was the house of an owner with a great imagination and determination and an architect who was willing to innovate and create imaginative solutions.

Barbara Sallick

cheap jerseys

Discount wholesale nba jerseys, wholesale cheap nba jerseys, wholesale discount baseball jerseys china, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Posts

Woven Mosaic Patterns

Heavenly Bodies

My Book: The Perfect Bath

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE

Featured Posts

New waterworks catalog and studio fittings.

We are very excited to share our new Waterworks Studio sales tool. The special attribute of Waterworks Studio is that the entire collection is in stoc … →

Industrial Chic Baths

Industrial design has hit a new high for American interiors. We see it in everything from lighting in restaurants and hotels to hardware on furniture  … →

Gray Kitchens

The recent popularity of gray kitchens follows the trend for the color in general. From light to dark and cool to warm, gray is the new neutral.  It  … →

Select materials thoughtfully and layer them with care

Make certain that grids align from floor to wall

There should be no unsightly cuts (plan ahead)

Use the smallest grout joints possible

Select grout color in the planning phase

Dry lay the material by opening all boxes and blending material for color variation

Request that your installer make a small sampling of his installation with grout on a piece of plywood

Vet your contractor by viewing completed projects he has done before

Select your contractor by the quality of his work and not the price

• Buy the Books
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

cate st hill

interiors writer, stylist and designer – simple design for everyday living

Maison de Verre, Paris by Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet

While I was in Paris for New Year I visited the famous Maison de Verre, translated as the House of Glass, designed by Pierre Chareau and Dutch architect Bernard Bijvoet. Visits to the house are by appointment only (see the bottom of the post for visiting details) and we were only able to see the exterior of the building by sheer luck in passing a woman who lived in the same courtyard or hôtel particulier. But, just seeing the translucent glass block walls, tucked behind a traditional porte-cochere on a quiet street in the wealthy seventh arrondissement, was well worth the visit.

The building on rue Saint-Guillaume was designed as a family home and surgery for a Dr. Jean Dalsace in 1931. Built at around the same time as Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, the Maison de Verre embodied the inter-war obsession for an honesty of materials, transparent forms and industrial elements, including bare steel beams and mechanical light fixtures. The Dalsace family purchased the site in the late 1920s, but unable to evict the woman who lived on the top floor, were forced to demolish the bottom three floors and insert the glass addition below, without disturbing the original top apartment. The glass facade thus appears ‘stuck onto’ the original building, concealing the extent of the rooms behind.

Internally, the spaces are divided by the use of sliding, folding or rotating screens in glass, sheet or perforated metal. Other mechanical components include an overhead trolley from the kitchen to dining room, a retracting stair from the private sitting room to Madame Dalsace’s bedroom and complex bathroom cupboards and fittings.

Dennis Sharp described the building as “one of the unique buildings of the twentieth century” in his Twentieth Century Architecture: a Visual History:

It is like a complete mechanized scenario, a set clinically constructed for the performance of modern medicine. The earlier Scheerbartian ‘glass architecture’ notion finds its full interpretation in the hands of Chareau and Bijvoet, whose attention to detail in this building is breathtaking. The dissolving of the views through semi-transparent materials, the juxtaposing of metal and glass, ‘free’ space and solid add a dynamic dimension to this house which almost takes it into the realms of Surrealism.

The house is now owned by Robert Rubin, a former Wall Street trader, who went on to study architectural history at Columbia University. You can watch a lecture by him about the Maison de Verre here .

To visit the Maison de Verre :

-You must be a student or professional working in architecture or a related field.

-If you’re eligible, send a letter describing your interest and your qualifications to  [email protected]  to reserve a tour.

-If you plan on visiting the Maison by yourself, reserve your tour 3 to 4 months in advance. If you’re visiting as part of a group, you’ll need reserve your tour 5-6 months in advance. Groups cannot exceed 10 people.

-Tours last for an hour and a half and are scheduled for Thursdays at 2 and 3:30 p.m. Tickets cost 40 euros per person and 20 euros for students and professors of architecture.

You might also like...

Pingback: Architect's Inspiration: Maison de Verre | DSLocicero, Architect

Comments are closed.

• Illustrations

Maison Verre

• Author : Pierre Chareau in collaboration with Bernard Bijvoet
• Location : France (Paris)
• Year : 1928
• Function : Individual Housing
• Elements : Facade , Room
• Status : Built
• Tags : furniture , Glass , Plans , Structure

Through his career, at least until The Maison de Verre, the work of Chareau wavered continually between the cult for the “ready-made”, which he owed in part to the influence of Dadaism, and the standards of quality craftsmanship of the Salon des Artistes Décorateurs.

Frampton, Kenneth (1984).  Pierre Chareau an eclectic architect.

A través de su carrera, al menos hasta la Maison de Verre, el trabajo de Chareau osciló continuamente entre el culto por el “ready-made”, el cual estaba influencia en parte por el Dadaismo, y el gusto por la calidad constructiva de la artesanía del Salón de los artistas decorativos

. Frampton, Kenneth (1984). Pierre Chareau, un arquitecto ecléctico.

CONTEXT |  CONTEXTO

In  1928, Madame Dalsace bought an old hotel building in the 31st Saint-Guillaume Street with the idea of demolishing the existing building and design a new house for Dr. Dalsace and herself as well as a gynecology consulting clinic. The hotel was in the interior of a block between two courtyards that defined its geometry. The initial plans of the couple had to be reconsidered because a protected tenant on the second floor refused to leave his apartment. That was the starting point of the Maison Verre project.

En 1928, Madame Dalsace compró un antiguo hotel en el número 31 de la Calle Saint-Guillaume con la intención de demoler el edificio existente y construir una nueva vivienda para ella y el Dr. Dalsace así como la clínica ginecológica de éste último. El hotel se encontraba en el interior de la manzana entre dos patios que definían su volumetría. Los planes iniciales del matrimonio tienen que ser reconsiderados debido a que la inquilina de la segunda planta, la cual tenía un alquiler protegido rechazó abandonar su apartamento. Éste se convierte en el punto de partida del proyecto de la Maison Verre.

STRUCTURE |  ESTRUCTURA

Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet decides to underpin the second floor with a new metallic structure and demolishing the lower floors. The result is the construction of three new floors instead of the two original ones and creating double height spaces in some areas of the house. Moreover, the new exposed metallic beams and columns offer a structural and material honesty to the project.

La solución que toman Pierre Chareau con Bernard Bijvoet es apuntalar la segunda planta del hotel mediante una nueva estructura metálica y demoler las plantas inferiores. El resultado es la construcción de tres nuevas plantas a partir de las dos originales así como la creación de dobles alturas en los espacios deseados. Además, las nuevas vigas y columnas metálica, completamente al descubierto, ofrecen una sinceridad estructural y de materiales.

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION |  ORGANIZACIÓN ESPACIAL

The access to the house is through a narrow passageway that finishes in a courtyard with the different entrances. The consulting room of the Dr. Dalsace is located on the ground floor facing the rear garden. In front of the reception of the clinic and hidden by a series of translucent movable translucent panels, there is the main stair of the house that leads into the house of Dalsace’s marriage. When you are going up, you can start to perceive the interior effect created by the glass facade. This effect is totally felt in the living room, the main double height space of the house. Facing north, the constant natural light shows all the design intentions of Pierre Chareau for the Maison Verre: a structural sincerity showing the metal profiles, and an ornamentation based in the combination of complex system of movable partitions with furniture, mainly built with wood, closer to the Art Nouveau style. This level also contains the kitchen, the dining room, a solarium and a small study room with independent access from the Dr. Dalsace office. The master bedroom and the secondary bedrooms are located on the third floor facing the rear garden whereas the service area is located in the north, within the new built volume.

A la vivienda se accede a través de un estrecho pasadizo que desemboca en un patio pavimentado donde se localizan sus diferentes entradas. En la planta baja se encuentra la consulta del Dr. Dalsace, que se orienta al jardín trasero. Enfrentada a la recepción de la consulta y oculta por una serie de paneles translucidos móviles, se encuentra la escalera principal que lleva a la vivienda del matrimonio Dalsace. Según se sube, uno comienza a percibir el efecto interior creado por la fachada de vidrio que se descubre totalmente al llegar a la sala de estar, el espacio principal de la vivienda a doble altura. Con una luz constante debido a su orientación norte, esta habitación muestra todas las intenciones proyectuales de Pierre Chareau para la Maison Verre: una gran sencillez y sinceridad estructural mostrando los perfiles  metálicos, y una ornamentación basada en la combinación de un complejo sistema de particiones móviles con muebles, principalmente en madera, más cercanos al Estilo Art Nouveau. En esta misma planta también se encuentra la cocina, el comedor, un solárium, y un pequeño estudio al que se accede de manera independiente desde la consulta médica del doctor Dalsace. Tanto el dormitorio principal como los dos secundarios se encuentran en la planta tercera  con vistas al jardín trasero mientras que el área de servicio se localiza al norte, en el nuevo volumen construido.

FABRICATION |  FABRICACIÓN

The  Maison Verre is the transformable plan par excellence, to the extent that the ultimate motive of each transformation can appear completely variable, passing from necessity in one case to convenience in the next, or let us say this “poetry of equipment” has a more overtly symbolic significance in one instance than in another.

La Maison de Verre es el transformable por excelencia, en donde la razón última de cada transformación puede ir variando, desde la necesidad en algún caso, hasta la conveniencia en el siguiente, o mejor dicho a la “poética del equipamiento” donde tiene un significado abiertamente simbólico en algunos casos.

Frampton, Kenneth (1984). Pierre Chareau, un arquitecto ecléctico.

The physical boundaries in the Maison Verre are blurred by a constructive complexity of its partitions. When you look at the floor plans, you can see how the walls that  divide the different rooms are not drawn as single double lines, but as elements that can fold or rotate and do not follow the structural grid of the house. Looking at the interiors of the project, these lines become complex railings, ladders that move trough space, translucent screens or glass and metal shelving. This complex aesthetic does not attempt to a functional target as Kenneth Frampton states at his  essay Pierre Chareau an eclectic architect , but a constructive poetry that leads technology to the fabrication limits of its time. The complexity of its movable elements places the Maison Verre in a timeless situation within the history of architecture. We cannot strictly situate in within the Modern Movement and its aesthetic is closer to architecture designed in the 1950s and 1960s.

En la Maison Verre los límites espaciales se difuminan por una complejidad constructiva en sus particiones. Ya al analizar las plantas, vemos como los muros que dividen las distintas áreas no están dibujadas como simples líneas dobles si no mediante un elementos que se pliegan o rotan sobre sí mismos y que no continúan la malla estructural de la vivienda. Al pasar a las fotografías de los interiores, están líneas se convierten en complejos pasamanos, escaleras de mano que se pueden mover en el espacio, biombos translucidos o estanterías en metal y madera. Esta estética de  lo complejo no tiene una finalidad funcional, como bien explica Kenneth Frampton en su ensayo  Pierre Chareau, un arquitecto ecléctico , sino en una poética constructiva que lleva la tecnología de la época a sus límites de fabricación. La complejidad de los acabados y los elementos móviles sitúan el proyecto de la Maison Verre en un situación atemporal dentro de la historia de la arquitectura, alejándola de los principios del movimiento moderno, y acercándola a una estética que no se haría popular hasta los años 50.

TRANSPARENCY |  TRANSPARENCIA 

The Maison de Verre is just as difficult to classify according to accepted genres or common ideologies as is Marcel Duchamp’s equally atypical work,  Le Grand Verre, his famous glass construction created during the years 1915-1923, more accurately known as  The Bride Stripped  Bare by her  Bachelors , even. This comparison goes much further than the seemingly trivial fact that the two works break all the classificatory rules which accord with a traditional understanding of their respective disciplines. Frampton, Kenneth (1984).  Pierre Chareau an eclectic architect.

La Maison de Verre es tan difícil de clasificar de acuerdo a géneros aceptados e ideologías comunes como Le Grand Verre de Marcel Duchamp, su famosa construcción en vidrio creado entre 1915 y 1923. Esta comparación va mucho más allá del hecho trivial de que los dos trabajos rompen todas las reglas tradicionales de cada una de sus  disciplinas.

The Maison de Verre has many study approaches that locate this project in a complex situation within the official historiography of architecture. Probably, the most ambiguous aspect of this Project is the relation with glass and transparency. The two main facades of the house (north and south) are built using a translucent glass block fabric with clear glass openings in very specific moments. During the first half of XX Century, glass had become one of the iconic materials of the Modern Movement (for instance, Mies Van der Rohe built the Barcelona Pavilion in 1929 and the Villa Tugendhat in 1930) but associated to the concept of transparency as an element of architectural sincerity and hygiene. Pierre Chareau challenges these values associated to glass, by building a translucent curtain wall. From the interior, this glass facade works as a wall of light sifted without any reference to the exterior landscape, neither the access yard or the rear garden. This contradiction to the conventional material features is one of the clearest examples of Chareau’s working method. Cultural context did not bias his design decisions or modified the attempt of creating new spaces and atmospheres.

La Maison de Verre tiene muchas perspectivas de análisis que la sitúan en una situación compleja dentro de la historiografía oficial de la arquitectura. Posiblemente el aspecto más ambiguo de este proyecto sea su relación con el vidrio y la transparencia. Sus dos fachadas principales (norte y sur) están construidas mediante una fábrica de bloques de vidrio translucido, con ventanas transparentes en lugares muy específicos. En la primera mitad del siglo XX, el vidrio se había convertido en uno de los emblemas del movimiento moderno (por ejemplo, Mies construye el Pabellón de Barcelona en 1929 y la Villa Tugendhat en 1930) pero asociado al concepto de transparencia y como un elemento de sinceridad arquitectónica e higienismo. Pierre Chareau desafía estos valores asociados al vidrio construyendo un muro cortina translucido que desde el interior funciona como un muro de luz tamizada sin ninguna referencia al paisaje exterior, tanto sea el patio de acceso como al jardín trasero. Esta contradicción frente a las características del material es uno de los ejemplos más explícitos de la forma de actuar de Chareau a la hora de abordar un proyecto, donde el contexto cultural no le influía en su toma de decisiones y en la búsqueda de nuevos espacios y ambientes.

All color images via Catview except cover image, via AIA KnowledgeNet

• Random Project
• Collaborate

Maison de Verre

Introduction

Ground floor, first level, second level, metal frame, glass blocks.

Fotos archivo

Fotos Agust Fischer

Did you find this article useful?

Really sorry to hear that...

Help us improve. How can we make this article better?

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

AD Classics: Maison de Verre / Pierre Chareau + Bernard Bijvoet

• Written by Brian Pagnotta

• Architects: Bernard Bijvoet , Pierre Chareau
• Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  1932
• Photographs Photographs: Wikimedia user: Subrealistsandu

Text description provided by the architects. Designed by Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet, the Maison de Verre translated as “House of Glass,” is a milestone in early modern architectural design. 

Built in 1932, the house uses various industrial and mechanical fixtures juxtaposed with a traditional style of home furnishings all under the transparency and lightness of the façade. 

Unable to expel an elderly woman on the top floor, the house was engraved underneath an existing apartment. As such, the house uses skeleton frame steel construction allowing a free plan and the use of omnipresent lightweight materials, such as glass and glass block.

An interesting aspect of this house is the ubiquitous mechanical fixtures. On the ground floor was a medical suite for Dr. Jean Dalsace. 

This unusual circulation arrangement was resolved by a rotating screen which hid the private stairs from patients during the day, but framed the stairs at night. 

Other mechanical components include an overhead trolley from the kitchen to dining room, a retracting stair from the private sitting room to a bedroom, and complex bathroom cupboards and fittings.

Spatial division inside is customizable by the use of sliding, folding, and rotating screens in glass, sheet or perforated metal.

The honesty of materials, variable transparency of forms, and the juxtaposition of “industrial” materials and traditional home décor makes Maison de Verre a landmark in 20th century architecture.

Project gallery

Materials and Tags

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

AD 经典：玻璃之家 / Pierre Chareau + Bernard Bijvoet

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

Check the latest Rocking Armchairs

Check the latest Sofa Beds

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories

Maison de Verre

By Alex Michaelis

Visiting the Maison de Verre, designed by architects Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet, is a surreal experience. I first went in 2008, finding a nondescript wooden door on a Paris street, and on entering felt curiously underwhelmed. This glass house was not as I expected: the shimmering cube floating in isolation that I had seen carefully framed by photographers in magazines; in reality, the maison , built between 1927 and 1932, was a remarkable piece of urban infill, both frustrating and successful. The fourth storey of an 18th-century town house frames the three-storey edifice, because the residents on that floor had refused to move out. As I moved slightly closer, however, I began to feel the clamouring pull of the building’s allure. Through the blur of glass bricks, colour, light and metalwork details began to emerge…

The Maison de Verre has an incredibly simple material palette. Its steel frame is infilled with glass bricks inside and out, with no unnecessary layers. Chareau was an industrialist; everything is just what it is – no additional layers; it is purely structure and architecture , which reinforces my philosophy that you have to keep it simple. Create a space that works for what you are trying to make. Cut through everything. Keep it pared down from concept to result.

Inside, the maison is immersive and stimulating – it felt like looking at a rainbow of details. There was Pirelli rubber flooring, slightly fraying in places; the staircase – so light, slightly transparent, with a bit of bounce as you climbed it; industrial radiators with spirals of fins; custom joinery; metal and touches of timber ; bespoke lighting and door handles. All of it developed specifically for the house. Everything is tactile. I could have spent hours there, touching handles and doors, moving bathroom cabinets, walking on the soft rubber floor, and there would still be more layers to discover. (I wish I had enough time to design every detail in each house I work on.)

The whole experience made me feel like I should do better, work harder on details. Chareau let everything else slip away to concentrate on this one house – disregarding all the noise. Every movement was considered, and he conceived it in the days when designs were all hand-drawn. I have tried to find the drafts in vain; instead I imagine his huge book of coloured Rotring drawings of each and every detail. Today I have my own notebook – of craftspeople, finishes and ideas – waiting to personalise a house into something completely unique; whether it’s a dining table made out of a 20-year-old piece of ash wood, or a spindly handrail inspired by an Italian villa. Each detail is a reward to the user.

Reflecting on my own work, I see the influence of the Maison de Verre emerging in different ways. Our ‘Infinity’ handle designed for British hardware manufacturer Joseph Giles holds the tactility, in its circular shape, leather grip and ergonomic finger marks. Our glass-brick shower for the Williamsburg Hotel playfully blurs the lines between privacy and transparency. You spend your time looking up at New York’s great buildings from the streets of Manhattan , then you step into a glass-brick shower in Brooklyn to see the whole city skyline laid out for you.

Top: Maison de Verre by Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet in Paris, 1932. Photography: François Halard / Trunk Archive

Author: Alice Inggs

Author: Bertrand Raison

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Ghost of the Glass House

By Adam Gopnik

The Rue Saint-Guillaume is a short, narrow, dignified street on the Left Bank of Paris. It begins a few blocks below the river, crosses the Boulevard Saint-Germain, and exhausts itself, in a Chaplinesque T-shape, only two blocks later, at the Rue de Grenelle. That last block, in particular, has a funny hauteur. The only light on the western side of the street is an illuminated sign, which hangs beside a green gate guarding a courtyard. The sign, a blue circle within a red circumference, blinks off and on all night. It means, simply, “No Parking.” Yet at dusk, around the time when the sign is first lit, it is not unusual to see a little clutch of well-dressed Americans or Germans or Japanese, notebooks out, cameras ready, waiting beneath the light as though it were a beacon or a symbol.

They are waiting for the gate to open, so that they can look, for a little while, at a house that sits inside the courtyard. The house is called the Maison de Verre—the Glass House. It was built in 1931 by a minor French interior decorator named Pierre Chareau, who designed it and all its furnishings, never built another house in France, and died, forgotten and alone, in New York in 1950. For most of the past ten years, the house has been uninhabited—closed to all but some friends of the owners and a few architects and designers. The visitors continue to arrive, but after dark the gate is usually shut, and the code to the little electronic keypad that opens it is kept secret.

Nonetheless, over the years a cult and a literature have grown up around the house. “The Louise Brooks of modern houses,” someone once called it, in reference to its mystique, its sleek yet lyrical modernity, and, above all, its tragically interrupted and then revived career as a modern monument. At the end of the century, it seems to stand outside the squabbles of modernism and postmodernism, and point in a direction entirely its own—the house at the end of the road not taken.

Late one afternoon in June of 1989, an old friend, who had moved to France a year before, called my wife and me at our hotel while we were visiting Paris, and said that she thought she might be able to arrange a visit that evening to the Maison de Verre. Dominique Vellay, who was, she explained, one of the members of the house’s family (odd expression, I thought), would be glad to show it to us. I had only a vague, graduate student’s notion of what the Maison de Verre was, but my marriage was built on the extremely shaky foundation of my wife’s illusion, constructed in the first year of our courtship, that in Paris I actually knew my way around town. (I had lived in Paris for a year as a teen-ager, mostly going to see old American movies in dusty repertory houses.) So I said yes, of course, the Glass House—of course we’d love to visit. We arranged to meet at six on the Rue Saint-Guillaume. Then we fell asleep, and woke up at five to six. We ran all the way from our hotel, on the Rue de Montalembert, along the Boulevard, and down the Rue Saint-Guillaume.

Someone had left the gate open. We stepped through, and saw, at the far end of a cobblestone courtyard, a wall of glass, gleaming in the early-evening light. It seemed unsupported—a block of translucent crystal floating in space. Then we saw that the block was cantilevered out over a steel-and-glass entranceway, and that its walls were made of hundreds of small facets of glass—cells of glass brick. It was hard to say how big the wall of glass was. It almost filled the width of the courtyard, and so it filled your field of vision.

Suddenly, the house turned on: the glass front began to glow like a Japanese lantern, lit from without (by two floodlights, I saw after a moment, which were set at a distance from the house on two metal ladders) in a way that made it seem to be lit from within. The articulated facets disappeared, melting into one great glow. On the lower right of the glass-brick block was a simple metal plaque, with red lettering set into it: “P IERRE C HAREAU 1931; COLL —B IJVOET ; FERS —D ALBET .” The house was signed, it seemed, like a painting.

Afterward, we remembered that first visit as an almost random daze of quick impressions: first, a doctor’s office, which had high ceilings and a floor covered with ancient, eroding rubber matting—the kind of bumpy circles-within-a-square rubber that you see now on the floor of every industrial showroom—and an extendable Cubistic desk of veneered mahogany. On the wall above the desk hung a portrait of an elegant man in a white coat, and with streamlined features and a long French jaw. A bronze Cubist bust of a woman, all facets and angles, sat on a wall cabinet. Dominique Vellay and her boyfriend, the photographer François Halard, met us in the hallway, and explained that the man was her grandfather, Dr. Jean Dalsace, and the woman her grandmother, Annie Dalsace, née Anna Bernheim. They had commissioned the house and its furnishings, she explained. Dominique’s father, Dr. Pierre Vellay, still kept his practice in the office.

Then Dominique and François led us back out of the office and down a long, narrow tiled hallway, the evening light streaming in shafts around us, and we turned a corner and came to the foot of a long stairway. Tall, curving, perforated-metal screens stood at the foot of the stairs, and made the forms of the furniture that we could just glimpse on the landing above look dreamy and softened, like the forms in a Seurat drawing. Dominique parted the screens—they came toward us on a hidden track and then quickly receded into a sheath. The stairway, we saw, had no handrail; it hung in space, and led up toward the light. Somehow, the house had turned us around inside it: the walk through the narrow hallway from the doctor’s office had apparently taken us along a gentle, insinuating spiral, so that the wall of glass was now in front of us again, this time seeming to be the rear wall of the house—the light at the top of the stairs. (The house was to work this trick on me dozens of times in the next few years, and I never quite figured out how.) We climbed the stairs, which were clad, like the doctor’s office, in faded matting, and when we came to the top we turned to our left.

We were facing a room like no other I had ever seen: a vast, two-story salon that was set alongside the great glass wall. A single bookcase, with a running ladder, filled one long wall, floor to ceiling. Over our heads, wrapped around two walls of the two-story space, was a continuous mezzanine, decorated with perforated-metal screens and low bookshelves, and punctuated by panels of burled ash. In the center of the library floor, which was also covered with rubber matting, were sofas, settees, and lots of little tables. Some of this furniture was in a style that I thought of as Art Deco; the rest was in the same jumpy, Cubist style as the desk In the doctor’s office. Some of the pieces were flamboyantly upholstered; others were lacquered wood. A big Surrealist picture—a blue landscape or still-life with an unidentifiable forest of forms—stood on an easel off to one side. The entire ensemble seemed laid out casually, naturally—sofa facing sofa, chair facing chair—as though a party had been interrupted.

Three steel girders, rising right up from the foundation to the roof, stood at the corners of the room. The girders were unadorned-their rows of bolts still visible, painted a bright industrial orange and faced with black slate. The electrical wiring and the plumbing were exposed, too, and rose along the side walls in a series of attenuated, freestanding pipes. An intricate system of wheels and gears, which recalled the factory set in Chaplin’s “Modem Times,” stood at one end of the glass wall. It seemed to be a ventilation system: one of the wheels had apparently been turned in such a way as to push a column of steel vents open.

And yet the room, for all its industrial candor, had nothing raw about it. Each element had been polished or refined so that it seemed festive in its forthrightness. The exposed fixtures, the naked girders were like the fittings on a liner—signs of engineered luxury rather than of raw utility. The industrial materials—brushed aluminum and perforated metal and rubber matting—were so varied that they seemed opulent rather than reductive: a little glossary of utilitarian forms. A principle of transparency ruled. Punched screens, or aluminum mesh, held everything together; light passed even through metal.

Behind the salon was a little sitting room, all in cream, canary yellow, and marine blue, with a ship’s ladder at one end, which communicated with the master bedroom, on the floor above. The ladder, Dominique showed us, could be hauled up on pulleys and hidden away in the room above, to seal it off; you could just pull it up behind you when you went to sleep. Everything in the house seemed movable: perforated-metal partitions slid; ten-foot-high metal cylinders came open at the touch of a finger, revealing themselves to be closets, as beautifully partitioned as steamer trunks. There was a preposterous bathroom upstairs, which you entered from the mezzanine that ran around the salon. It was made of white tile and brushed duralumin, and was designed, like the set of a farce, with complicated partitions, so that a man and a woman could be in it together, bathing and shaving and talking, without ever actually seeing each other.

Everywhere one’s eyes turned a new harmony seemed visible: a grid of glass brick set off against a table as brightly lacquered as a Japanese box; a long stretch of rubber matting interrupted only by the polished surface of a grand piano; a folding screen painted with Cocteau-like figures placed directly behind a black iron girder—a happy marriage of Fritz Lang and Fred Astaire. It was as though everything charming and lovable that modernism had ever produced had been brought together into a single secret storeroom in the middle of Paris.

“Who lives here?” I asked.

“No one now,” Dominique said. She had tried for a long time, she said, and now . . . She let the sentence trail off in the air “ Un fantôme. A ghost.”

It was only after my wife and I returned to New York that we came to understand that what had felt like a revelation was really a vogue. When we talked to people in New York who knew about modern houses, we realized that a cult had grown up around the Glass House and its architect, Pierre Chareau. An architectural bookstore on Thompson Street had three books about the Maison de Verre constantly on order, including one in Japanese, all of them published in the last ten years. Someone told us about an international organization, the Friends of the Glass House, which exists simply to keep fans of the house in touch with one another. Though its “friends” know the house almost entirely through photographs from the three books—our visit, it turned out, was a special event—some of them had nevertheless constructed full-scale replicas of its glass façade. Not long after we got back from Paris, one popped up on a corner of Duane Park, in downtown Manhattan. A lot of big, spectacular buildings that have gone up in the last twenty years, including such outsized, multivitamin buildings as the Pompidou Center and the Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris, turn out to be the progeny of the little Glass House on the Rue Saint-Guillaume. (On a more mundane level, the value of the furniture inside the house is the subject of a separate, parallel cult, spearheaded by the owner of a men’s store in Beverly Hills.)

But, for all its fame, the Glass House is an oddly reclusive and mysterious building. The mother of a friend of mine in New York, it turned out, had been a patient of Dr. Pierre Vellay’s, and my friend had visited him and his wife, Aline, countless times in their apartment above the house, but had never been invited to go downstairs into the Maison de Verre itself. No one, in the books about the Glass House, could even decide exactly what it is . In the literature about the house, it has been compared to, among other things, a yacht, a classical Japanese temple, a Chinese Communist barracks, a furniture cabinet, Giacometti’s “Palace at 4 A . M .,” and Marcel Duchamp’s “Large Glass.” It has even been described as a window onto the fourth dimension.

The house was built, I gradually came to realize as I read more about it, as a treasure house to hold all the things that the self-consciously modern people who built it believed in; the office that we had seen on the ground floor may have been the first unofficial family-planning center in France, for instance, and the salon above had been designed to unite the Cocteau generation of French artists with the Communist intellectuals. But as these ideas dimmed or went out of fashion one after another, the house seemed to become, as if by a spell, uninhabitable. I learned that the house had been built for Dr. Dalsace and his wife, that they had had two children—a boy, Bernard, and a girl, Aline—and that Aline had married another gynecologist, Pierre Vellay, with whom she had five children. Three of the children lived in apartments in the courtyard—around, above, and across from the house. It was their legacy, and their burden. The family question was: What is to be done with the Glass House? But none of them lived inside the house.

Over the next five years, my wife, Martha, and I tried to find out why the house was uninhabited. As we did, it became our ambition to live in the Glass House, and our illusion to believe that we could.

“As a little girl, I hid here,” Dominique was saying in July of 1990. Martha and I were with Dominique and Francois again, sitting on the mezzanine overlooking the salon of the Glass House. “We would kneel down here, behind the screens, invisible, to watch the soirées—the women and men talking,” Dominique went on. “Everything is meant to be seen through a scrim or a screen, like this, like a memory. Do you know, the house is like a wave, something shimmering. The magic of the light that went on in the bathroom—seeing it just gleam beneath the black metal doors!” She turned and gestured to her left, toward a pair of black metal doors that led off the mezzanine to the master bedroom. The house was terribly hot. Paris was in the midst of a heat wave. It was a French heat wave, though: intense but shapely. This heat wave began at eight in the morning, rose to a pitch of intensity around noon, subsided a little in the evening, and then, at midnight, nearly to the beat, was swept away by a breeze.

“It’s a passionate object, but a destructive one, like all passionate objects,” Dominique went on. “I lived inside for a long time, you know. Why did I leave? I think I might have stayed.”

François looked at her and then he said, gently, “Dodo, it was the best thing.”

“Yes, it was like Sleeping Beauty,” she said, laughing. Their apartment, across the courtyard from the Glass House, which I had seen, was a world of light and color—Louis XVI furniture and parquet floors and yellow linen curtains. There were three Twomblys hanging on the yellow-washed walls. Only a single Chareau metal coatrack, in the hallway—the hangers of heavy, broad metal, like big French mustaches—reminded you of the proximity of the Glass House. I thought, a little disloyally, that the apartment might have seemed a bit of a relief after the austerities of the house She seemed to think so, too.

“Did you know,” she said after I praised the apartment, “that it was Léon Daudet’s apartment in the thirties?” She shook her head, in apparent wonder. But the name meant little to me, and I let it go by.

We drove to Le Voltaire, a restaurant on the Quai Voltaire that the Vellay family frequents. “It suits me better, doesn’t it?” she said of the apartment, after we had sat down and ordered champagnes framboises . “And the house is still across the way—our parents looking down at us, like two giant overseeing eyes. All families build a Glass House, open to the world, and live inside it: these houses are our inheritance. My family’s house has the burden of being real as well. It needs to be heated and have its taxes paid.”

Now Dominique said, abruptly, “Do you want to know what really led to the Glass House? Did you notice the furniture in the dining room? That is one of the keys to understanding the house.”

Later, when I went back to the house, I looked at the dining-room furniture. The dining alcove, which was tucked away beside the salon, contained a table and chairs that were uncharacteristically simple, clunky, appealing—the kind of dining-room set my grandparents had.

“That was the Bernheim family furniture, and it was always kept in the house, though in style it didn’t really belong,” Dominique said. “But it was important to my grandmother. The house was built because my great-grandfather loved his daughter to distraction. He bought her pictures, furniture, and a house. The Glass House began because of the love of a father for his daughter.”

To understand how the Glass House came to be, I began to see, it was necessary to learn something about French Jews, Parisian houses, and German glass. In France, at the beginning of this century, some Jews tried to keep just below the ordinary surface of French life, while others tried to skim along just above it. The first impulse, which feels familiar to Americans, because Jewish life here followed a similar course, involved merchants and real-estate agents and other newly arrived middle-class people—people who made a little money, spent it somewhat lavishly, and occupied a satisfied, watchful position just outside the mainstream of French society. Many of them had German names. They had fled from Alsace-Lorraine as the Franco-Prussian War ended, in 1871.

The second impulse was more peculiarly French. You saw it in civil servants and Army officers and diplomats—Jews who were not merely “assimilated” but passionately committed to an ideal of French identity that was not commonplace even among other French people. They saw the French nation that had emerged since the Revolution as a place destined to remove Jews from the ghetto and return them to the world. (In the eighteen-nineties, the “Prayer for France” in the standard Jewish prayer book began, “Almighty protector of Israel and humanity.”) This was the milieu that Dreyfus himself emerged from—and, oddly, returned to, even after Devil’s Island.

Pierre Chareau came from the more ordinary milieu. His mother was Sephardic, his father a wine merchant who had fallen on hard times. Though from childhood Pierre wanted to design things, he was not able to study architecture, which in those days was still a grand profession in France, dedicated to teaching its adherents how to construct libraries and operas and triumphal arches rather than houses. (His lack of absorption into the rules of the grand profession, it turned out, was part of his good luck, though it could not have seemed that way at the time.) He worked as a draftsman in the Paris office of Waring & Gillow, the prominent English furniture-and-design company, until 1914.

It was not a plum job but not quite a dead end, either. The furniture that Pierre Chareau designed for Waring & Gillow was mostly undistinguished. What he loved was shows. He wrote little operas, and was putting them on as early as 1905; in fact, the first designs of his that are known to have survived are sketches for a series of amateur tableaux vivants . Waring & Gillow designed several theatres while Chareau was there, among them the Gaïté, the Vaudeville, the Ambigu, and the Renaissance, some of which still survive.

He had another enthusiasm as well. In our fixed imagination of the early twentieth century, we have by now assigned technical innovation to America, and bonheur de vivre to France: we fly the rockets and they serve the cheese. At the beginning of the century, though, and even after the First World War, the French tradition of innovation and Invention had a style of its own. You see that alternative civilization at work in Lartigue’s photographs of his family in balloons, or in Méliès’s first movies: airplanes and cars and rockets imagined in a way that allied them, however preposterously, with sport and romance rather than industry. Chareau belonged to this vein of the ingénieux , as the French like to put it, more than to any kind of Beaux-Arts manner. He loved tinkering, thinking up new inventions. Every great designer has a pet object, a motif of self-expression. For most of the major moderns, that object was the chair. Chareau’s medium was closets. His early closets have doors that swing open and spin around like cake stands, or have doors inside their doors, which unfasten to reveal yet more doors, with fragrant cedar panels hidden inside. To the end of his life, Chareau kept coming up with such schemes and inventions, designed to lend romance to everyday necessities. The designer Francis Jourdain, one of his oldest friends, recalls a dream he had just after Chareau’s death: in his dream, he saw an old-fashioned glass elevator, with a wood-burning stove and a telescoping stovepipe inside, scaling up and down the façade of a house. “Pierre Chareau designed that!” he remembers thinking in the dream.

Chareau’s enthusiasm for invention would probably have come to nothing more than a footnote had he not been discovered by a couple who could afford to have him make built-in closets on a dramatic scale. Annie and Jean Dalsace represented a marriage of the two streams of French Jewish life. Annie Bernheim’s father was a self-made man whose family, like so many, had come west from Alsace-Lorraine after 1871. The Bernheims settled in Paris at the turn of the century, and made a small fortune in real estate. Then, around the time of the First World War, they moved to an apartment on the Rue d’Anjou, on the Right Bank. The Bernheims’ only son, Pierre, was killed in the Argonne in April, 1915. All the family’s love and hope (and money) then came to be lavished on its only daughter.

Annie was born in 1896, and as a teen-ager she was already aristocratic—shy, precise, demanding, and gifted. She was one of those women in the early years of the century who, still unable to pursue a profession or “career,” began to invest the “feminine” sphere of life with a wild but systematic passion. Not that her tastes were frivolous or superficial. Once, for her birthday, her father offered her jewelry, and she asked instead for a picture by a young painter named Picasso. By her teens, she had taken over the decoration of the Rue d’Anjou apartment. Fashion, flowers, jewelry, cooking, furniture, the colors of a house, the shape of a living room—all these things quickly came under her precise eye, and were reshaped to a new rule. Annie believed that pleasures benefitted by being made subject to principles. She had rules for looking. If you went to an art gallery, you were to look at five pictures, no more and no less. Four would have been insufficient; six would have been dilettantism. “It was a time of red roses, and she made them white,” Dominique said, epigrammatically, of her grandmother.

Jean Dalsace, whom Annie married in 1918, was a perfect product of the official stream of French Jewish life. His father came from a line of high-ranking civil servants, and he hoped that his son would study law. But Jean wanted to be a doctor instead, and after he got his law degree he went to medical school, and in 1926 got a degree in gynecology. In America, such a choice would have been unlikely for an intellectually ambitious young doctor; gynecology here was still a homely, sympathetic specialty. But in France the scientific study of reproduction had an overtone of courage and optimism. Its displaced subject was sex. To plan babies, without the peasant mystifications of midwifery or the overtones of shame and necessary suffering that a Catholic society still imposed, was to take part in the modern revolution: it was, in an alarmingly, almost comically literal sense, to seize control of the means of production.

Jean Dalsace was a man of the left. After the Second World War, he even joined the Communist Party and visited Moscow. (“Annie was not a Communist,” Dominique told me, “but she declared herself a woman of the left.”) Jean systematically believed in systematic belief. Later in life, he joined Freud to Marx, and became a lay analyst himself (“I asked him once why a gynecologIst would want to be an analyst,” Dominique recalled. “ ‘Fundamentally,’ he said, ‘it is the same investigation.’ ”)

The Dalsaces’ seems like a touchstone “hypergamous” marriage: she supplied the money, and he supplied the social position. She had the style; he had the ideas. But it was more complicated than that. Annie was an obsessive, rather than a fashionable, woman. Her tastes were too intense, and too singular, to be charming or conventionally “social.” She did not supply her husband, as fashionable women are expected to, with conventional comfort or conventional elegance. Theirs was a love based on a set of common beliefs, invested in a set of charmed objects: the clinic; the higher, misty reaches of French Marxism; and, above all, the place where they lived, and the way it was made to look. When they decided to build a house, in 1927, there was only one man whom they even considered to design it.

Annie had met Pierre Chareau when she was still a girl. One of the things that made her so French was her love of things English—a talisman, as in Proust, of advanced taste in Paris at the beginning of the century. It was natural for Annie to ask her father for private English lessons, and during the First World War she studied with an Englishwoman named Louise Chareau, whom everyone called Dollie. (Dollie had admired Pierre’s ability in music, painting, and drawing since their first meeting, when he was sixteen and she was nineteen; they had married in 1904.) Dollie was sixteen years older than Annie, and seems to have been the kind of woman who was always quick to make up her mind, and quick to make up the minds of other people for them. It was through Dollie that Annie became acquainted with modern painting and design, and it was also through Dollie that Annie became acquainted with Pierre Chareau, when he came back from the war. The Dalsaces and the Chareaus became inseparable. Though Pierre and Dollie were the poorer of the two couples, they soon became among the keenest collectors of avant-garde art in France. There is a wonderful photograph of Chareau from the nineteen-twenties, posing in front of his three great early Picasso Cubist collages. He also bought one of the very first Mondrians to enter a French collection. Yet in his own early work—for Waring & Gillow, and also in what he did after he set out on his own—there was very little radical or avant-garde invention. Mostly, he made luxury furniture, in a comfortable, bourgeois style.

The only original characteristic of Chareau’s early design is a vein of gentle and obstinate tyranny. He designed a whole serIes of desks, for instance, with steeply sloping surfaces, just because he hated the look of stray paper. Put your work down on a Chareau desk and a moment later it is on the floor. The sloping desks look out at you from the Chareau catalogues like divas, self-satisfied and impossible. The desks are perhaps an index to his character. His friends, in their memoirs of Chareau, use a descriptive language—“hypersensitive,” “high-strung,” “temperamental”—that has about it a hint of affectionate euphemism. In plain English, Chareau was touchy and moody—charming, but without the commanding self-confidence that makes prima donnas tolerable, or even exhilarating. It isn’t any surprise, really, that he could work only for a small circle of clients—basically, just for the young Dalsaces and the old Bernheims.

Annie and Jean had been living since their marriage in an apartment at 195 Boulevard Saint-Germain—in an arrondissement that, without being unfashionable, still had about it a slight bohemian air, like Greenwich Village in New York at the same time. Eventually, Jean decided that he wanted to incorporate his office, and his practice, into his home, and the Bernheims bought their daughter and son-in-law an eighteenth-century hôtel particulier —a residential building that wraps around a courtyard—on the Rue Saint-Guillaume. They wanted to build a house that could serve as an office, a clinic, a home, and a salon—a house “created under the sign of amity, in perfect affective accord,” Jean wrote later.

At first, Chareau intended simply to pull down the old building and put up a new one in its place. But an old woman and her daughter—durable anti-Semites, according to family legend—lived in an apartment on the top floor of the rear quarter, and refused to vacate. So Chareau realized that the house would have to be inserted under the women’s apartment, rather than constructed from the ground up. This suited him fine: the entire house could become a kind of built-in cabinet, a closet. In part because the courtyard didn’t get much light, and in part because it had never been done before, he decided to enclose the house within two walls of glass.

“Tell me what you want to know. Marc Vellay, Dominique’s brother, said, a little impatiently, when we met by the door to the house on another hot evening. “I could spend several days showing you the interior.” Marc is the Dalsaces’ grandson—the fifth child and only son of Aline and Pierre Vellay—and after a long period as a ’68-vintage anarchist he became devoted to the Glass House and the memory of Pierre Chareau. His two books on Chareau (one written with the historian Kenneth Frampton) are the most important and thorough sources of information on his life and work. (“Marc was essentially a Trotskyist, really,” Dominique once explained to me gravely. “The Maoists were too spontaneous for him.”)

I said that I was interested in everything, and he began to show me through the house again.

“The first radicalism of the house lies in the orientation of the entrance, and the series of implied spirals that are as much a part of the architecture of the house as the glass façade,” he said as we walked inside. “It is the first house where you have to enter by making a sharp turn. This brings you in. During the day, the light invites you in toward the office, and you describe a small circle.” He stopped, took a piece of paper from his pocket, and drew the path you had to take to get from the front door to the stairs; it was a diagram of the trick the house kept playIng on me.

“Then at night—when you enter the social realm of the house—you describe a much larger spiral, but still a spiral, as the floodlit glass bricks lead you up toward the now opened stairway.” He drew a second diagram. “So this series of tighter or looser spirals and spiralling movements is a human element of the house, in contrast to the vertical and horizontal orientation of the other elements. The coördination of the human spirals with the steel-and-glass architectonics is the real grammar of the house. The architecture, the furniture, and the human movement of the Maison de Verre are an ensemble.” As we mounted the stairs toward the library, he asked rhetorically, “Does that mean that every piece of furniture must remain in place?” and answered, “No, of course not. In fact, the ensembles of furniture have changed, been moved, several times. The notion of a fixed, invariable ensemble is fictitious. However, the number of possible solutions is delimited. The house itself, like a thinking machine, will reject the wrong solutions.”

Upstairs, we looked at the furniture in the library. “The idea of an ensemble had long been present in Chareau’s work,” Marc said. “The breakthrough or discontinuity in Chareau’s work does not lie there. It is that before this there is no obsession with light.” Gesturing broadly around us, he went on, “The house is an extrapolation of a life space that lies behind so much twentieth-century architecture: the artist’s studio. The single big space and a working, sleeping space above—that’s the controlling idea. Here it is articulated with invisibility. The articulation of space is essentially the same as that of a classic hôtel particulier of the eighteenth century, with the owner’s hobby rooms on the ground floor; entertaining on the first floor, called the ‘noble’ floor; the intimate family life on the second floor; and servants’ quarters above.”

Then he asked himself another question—“Is there any Japanese architectural influence?”—and answered, “No. There are two manifest decorative influences in the house.”

“Deco?” I volunteered.

“Not Deco at all. There is nothing Deco in the Glass House. There are elements of nautical design and of Japanese-influenced design.” He was referring to the popularity of Japonaiserie in the late nineteenth century. “Not Japanese architecture itself. There were no Japanese books available. The technology for the kind of glass brick Chareau used was only six months old when he embraced it.”

Before we went down to the ground floor, we stood for a moment at the top of the stairs. “My grandmother would always greet her guests up here, at the head of the stairs,” he said. “The light behind her would appear . . .” He paused.

“Glowing?” I suggested.

He looked at me again. “She appeared with an aureole of light illuminating the social space behind her,” he said calmly. “The Light House would be a better name than the Glass House, in many ways, since glass is an element here only for the manipulation of light.”

I asked him what future he could foresee for the house.

“I do not want to live in the house,” he said, “but I want the house to live.”

Before 1900, a glass house meant either a hothouse or a railroad station. Glass was as much the material of the nineteenth century as of the twentieth, but found its expression mostly in vast public buildings—the Crystal Palace and its kin. Only at the beginning of the twentieth century did architects and designers begin to think about making glass houses for people to live in. The change was partly technical-lightweight steel frames could now support entire walls of glass brick—but mostly intellectual, “ideological.” The functional, positive tradition that had produced the great exhibition halls of the nineteenth century treated glass as a public material, a showcase for the triumphs of civilization. It was this tradition that continued to inform the faith in glass architecture of the Bauhaus and Le Corbusier. We should live within a “public” skin, they thought, because all life should be communal.

But in Europe just before the First World War a second tradition of what a glass building could be began to be revived—a tradition rooted in fantasy rather than in fact. Its distant roots, as the art historian Rosemarie Haag Bletter has pointed out, lay in the old architectural legend that Solomon had built a palace of glass for the Queen of Sheba. It looked back, as well, to the stained-glass cult of the Middle Ages, and ran through to a nineteenth-century German tradition of nature mysticism—the notion that transparent houses could connect man and nature.

It was Paul Scheerbart, a German writer and designer, who, in 1914, gave this second, fantastic vision a form for modernity. In what may be the most sublimely goofy novel of the twentieth century, “Gray Cloth and Ten Per Cent White”—one part Jules Verne fantasy to nine parts Windex ad—he tells the story of an American architect named Edgar Krug (though the story is set in Chicago, the characters all have German names), who travels around the world in his private dirigible, equipped with a glass gondola, and solves mankind’s problems by building glass houses for everybody. In the end, Mr. and Mrs. Krug relax in their own glass house, leaning back and staring up at the cupola to watch the changing patterns of light.

Scheerbart was somehow able to rein in the fantasy long enough to write, in that same year, a manifesto for glass building—it was called “Glass Architecture”—whIch was taken quite seriously, and became immensely influential; he inspired a whole group of architects and designers in Germany, who called themselves the Glass Chain. In a passage that seems to anticipate the Maison de Verre, he wrote, “In order to raise our culture to a higher level, we are forced, whether we like it or not, to change our architecture. And this will be possible only if we free the rooms in which we live of their enclosed characters. This, however, we can only do by introducing a glass architecture which admits the light of the sun, of the moon, and of the stars, not only through a few wIndows, but through as many walls as feasible, these to consist entirely of glass—of colored glass.”

This vein of Expressionist fantasy inspired even Walter Benjamin, whose gloom about modernIty has done so much to make other people gloomy about it, too. In 1940, just before his suicide in the South of France, Benjamin looked back longingly at Scheerbart’ s vision. The children of the twentieth century, he wrote, still “yearn for a world in which they can bring their poverty—the outer and ultimately the inner too—to such a pure and clear validity that something decent will come out of it.” This purity might still be achieved by glass buildings. “To live in a glass house is a revolutionary virtue par excellence,” Benjamin wrote. “It is also an intoxication, a moral exhibitionism that we badly need.”

Whether Chareau knew the “crystal” tradition at first or second, or even third, hand will probably never be known. It was his genius to direct his glass fantasy into a classical, rectilinear style. He got to the fantasy by sticking doggedly to the facts. Instead of imagining a vast, crystalline house, transparent Gothic vault piled upon clear Byzantine arch, he simplified the structure of his house, making it an almost absurdly plain sandwich: a glass-brick wall on the front, a glass-brick wall on the back, and floors on stilts between them. Then he lit the house, from outside, with spots. He was thinking just like a cabinetmaker, but the result was a house that held glass fact and glass fantasy in perfect balance. Then, inside the house he used glass the way an interior decorator can—sweetly, on a small scale, and with decorum.

The house took four years to build. In its construction, Chareau had a crucial ally, an ironsmith named Bernard Dalbet. Dalbet is the forgotten genius—perhaps the real maker-of the Glass House. (His is the third name on the signature plate of the house: “Fers—Dalbet.” “Fers” is short for ironwork. Bijvoët, the other name, was Chareau’s Dutch architectural collaborator.) Dalbet was an artisan—just a blacksmith, really—of a very old-fashioned French sort. (He did the wonderful ironwork in the Bofinger brasserie up near the Bastille, which is still intact.) Sensing that something new might be made of forged furniture, Chareau had begun to collaborate with Dalbet the year just before he undertook the construction of the Glass House, and, with Dalbet as his instrument (or, perhaps, as his inspiration), he had begun to make objects—desks, lamps, wardrobes—that had some of the character we associate with the Glass House: openness, a quirky sense of scale, an illusion of freedom, of change and movement. Dalbet, without plans, forged the house’s fixtures—its chairs and rails and doors—every night in his smithy, on the Rue Capron. Although the Glass House is made to look as if it had been factory- or machine-produced, each structural element in the house was in fact custom-wrought. I once came across a photograph of the Dalbet smithy. It is something right out of Goya: three smiths, forearms dense with muscle, hammering away at a forge.

According to the Dalsace family legend, Le Cor busier would come secretly to the courtyard and watch as the house rose. Then he went and built the Villa Savoye. Around this time, Philip Johnson visited the house, too. I spoke to him about it once, over lunch.

“Well, you have to remember the last time I was in the Maison de Verre it was unoccupied,” he said after I began quizzing him about the house. I assumed he meant that he had seen it in the last twenty years, since the Dalsaces had died. Had that been in the late sixties? I asked.

“No, no,” he said crossly. “I mean in 1929, before anybody moved in.”

But Johnson and his colleague Henry Russell Hitchcock left the Glass House out of their big and influential 1932 show, on the “International Style.” They thought, I gather, that it looked too decorative. Its absence meant that throughout the thirties the house had almost no reputation in England and America. The French press, for its part, was contemptuous of the Glass House. When it opened, in 1931, it became a minor scandale in the Parisian papers, with a predictable round of jokes about houses made of glass, and people who live in them. The columnist Lucien Farnoux-Reynaud wrote in Le Figaro, “Didn’t they just build the famous house of glass in a Parisian street? . . . It is neither wisdom nor folly. . . . What does this innovation mean? What advantages does It have? . . . The best use of glass is, still, for drinking.”

Nevertheless, the Glass House became a salon. For a few years, everyone went there. The dramatis personae on the Rue Saint-Guillaume throughout the nineteen-thirties were a nearly astrological configuration of all the intellectual forces at work in France. The Communists and Surrealists were all there: Aragon and Paul Éluard, Cocteau and Tanguy and Miró and Max Jacob.

For the people who loved it, the Glass House was simply a superior salon, a folly, a place to go for talk and dinner, one more amusing place in Paris. For some other people, it had more sinister meanings. When Dominique mentioned that she lived in the apartment where Léon Daudet had lived In the thirties, I thought of him only, and vaguely, as a minor French literary figure. Léon and Lucien Daudet, I found out later, were sons of Alphonse Daudet, the great novelist of the late nineteenth century. Lucien had been a friend of Proust’s, perhaps one of his closest friends. But Léon was a writer, too—a sharp, skillful essayist and editorialist. He was also the most virulent, active, and powerful anti-Semite in France. He was the leading editorial writer of Charles Maurras’s L’Action Française, and every day he explained to his readers, from his apartment looking down on the Glass House, that it was the cosmopolitan, modernizing Jews who were destroying France, and that they ought to be removed from Paris, or killed.

“I was in the house for the first time in 1939,” Pierre Vellay told me one evening over a meal at the restaurant on the Quai Voltaire. “My romance with Aline began in September, we were engaged in October, and we married in November. All in Vichy—I am a Vichyssois.”

We had just come from the apartment over the house—the anti-Semitic women’s apartment—where Pierre and Aline Vellay have lived since just after the Second World War. There had been no light shining on the house that night. It must be broken, I’d thought, and I imagined how complicated and expensive it must be to keep the house lit. In the Vellays’ apartment only a single Chareau lamp as you came in reminded you of where you were. Dr. Vellay, a tall, dapper, gently ironic man in his early seventies, was wearing, in the heat, a short-sleeved white shirt with thin blue stripes. He’d offered us Scotch, not wine, and crackers, which he called “cakes,” using the English word.

“When I saw the house for the first time, I thought that it was terribly cold,” he said now. “I was a petit bourgeois, from a bourgeois place. A house where the rooms were not rooms shocked me. It was terrifying—her parents, this strange house. The first time I saw the house, you see, it was already empty. They had stored all the furniture and all the books in the country. Throughout the war, I came to Paris clandestinely, and I slipped inside the house on the Rue Saint-Guillaume, to see that everything was all right. The Gestapo considered taking the house for a little while, but there was no way to light it after curfew. And soon, before we knew it, Jean and I were both in the Army. After the fall of France, I joined the Resistance in 1940. We had to construct a parallel health corps, and that took some time. I kept coming back to Paris for meetings. Was I frightened? No. I would come back and look at the Glass House. The concierge let me in, to check. Was she a friend of the family? No, just a concierge. The courtyard was empty then. I would come to Paris and look at the house, and then come and sit among the Germans, unconcerned. They never would have thought that I was in the Resistance. I looked—Aryan.” He made the word sound intrinsically comic. “I came here, and liked to sit among the Germans.”

“Where did you go?” I asked.

He looked a little puzzled.

“Here,” he repeated.

“ ‘Ici’-où ?” I said. Where in Paris, I meant.

“In the cellar. Here- ici .” Suddenly, I realized that by “ ici ” he did not mean “here in Paris.” He meant “here in this restaurant.” (The next day, I went back to the Voltaire, and belatedly found, on its façade, a plaque stating that its owners had been leaders in the French Resistance, during the Occupation.)

“Jean helped launch me as an obstetrician,” Pierre went on. “It’s a good métier. Jean was a complete man, a man of a sort no longer made in the world. He was the most widely read man I have ever met—medicine, literature, engineering. Look at the double shelves in his library! He intimidated me, believe me, he was so widely read. I am a man of narrowly gauged interests, and I am not ruled by passion. I am a logical man, a demi-bourgeois, only half a man of the left. Jean was a man of constant, immense courage. He fought for birth control in the thirties, when it was still forbidden. He won the Croix de Guerre in the war. It’s a paradoxical thing—we are the most decorated pacifist family in France. My own son, Marc, became an anarchist.” Dr. Vellay used the same tone for “anarchist” that he had used for “métier.” “Dr. Dalsace supported him. For me, the spirit of the house is all of Rue Saint-Guillaume, not just the house so called. It is the spirit of freedom. I want only things that have this spirit to happen at the house. Whoever inherits, it must be someone who really loves Chareau. After Dr. Dalsace’s death, we thought of moving downstairs. But we were comfortable. It was our home. We had a home, we couldn’t leave it. The Maison de Verre is a portrait of another marriage. If I died tomorrow I’d have had a satisfying life—experiences, opportunities. If I died tomorrow, my life would have been complete. The Maison for me is a place where, even if the children should leave, the spirit of the Maison de Verre would remain.”

With the kind of unearned intimacy you can sometimes achieve on a first meeting, I asked Dr. Vellay how he had come to be a humanist. He looked at me gravely, and said, “With a Catholic mother, a Protestant father, a Jewish wife, and a Communist father-in-law, what other choice did I have?”

Chareau went to work for the French Army in 1939. He had a typically Chareauesque idea for fighting the war. He designed a system of wooden packing cases for supplies; at the delivery end, they could be turned into tables and chairs for the soldiers who unpacked them. The French government thought that this was a good idea; Chareau worked on it until the French government surrendered.

By the time the Germans arrived, the Dalsaces had abandoned the house and joined the Resistance; Chareau and Dollie had fled to America. They arrived in New York at what might have seemed to be the perfectly auspicious moment. It was a time when the great generation of European architects were all arriving in America—Mies, Gropius, Marcel Breuer—and each was beginning to create a following and a body of work. But not Chareau. Of all the émigré architects and artists whose reputations have held through or grown into our own day, Chareau had the hardest time in New York, and accomplished the least. He built nothing in the city, and very little trace of him remains. He designed a house in East Hampton for the painter Robert Motherwell, but that was about all. (He later built a little cottage for himself: but it was hardly more than a shack.)

Motherwell, who knew and loved French culture, had seen pictures of the Glass House, and asked Chareau to design a house for him. It was the middle of the war, and Motherwell had little money to spend. Chareau, with more ingenuity than conviction, perhaps, remodelled a Quonset hut—one of those semicircular corrugated-metal temporary shelters in which soldiers were housed—cutting away one side and turning it into a rudimentary house and greenhouse. It lasted until 1985 and was, on the evidence of a few surviving photographs, a kind of makeshift Maison de Verre. By a generous eye, it can even be seen to anticipate some of Frank Gehry’s funky California houses.

Why was Chareau so unsuccessful, when all around him the other émigré modernists were in an extase of renewed ambition? It is hard to find a convincing answer. His work depended on an entirely “artisanal” approach to building, of course, and that was not easily adapted to the technological production of American architecture. But other architects—Breuer, for instance—had to make similar leaps from small-scale, handmade domestic work to big corporate work. There were rich men’s houses as well as rich men’s offices to build. Why couldn’t Chareau have designed a few of those?

“He was never really around, ” Philip Johnson says, with bewilderment, trying to recall Chareau in the forties. That may be it. Architecture—for good or ill, but inevitably—is a social art. The job is to get the job. Mies and Gropius were masters, with schools that trailed behind them. Nobody trailed behind Pierre Chareau. He probably wouldn’t have known what to do if anybody had.

In the last two years of Chareau’s life, his close friends were a young émigré couple who collected art and summered in East Hampton—Leo Castelli and Ileana Sonnabend. “Chareau was a wonderful man,” Ileana recalls. “He was so lovely, and so funny. He had wit without cruelty, which is a rare thing. He had it, though. He was such a spiritual presence—he never spoke of himself, never pressed forward. Never complained . It would have been ugly. And he never spoke of the Glass House, because it would have been to speak of himself. Dollie was living in New York, and she would come over—they understood each other. But she was in New York, and he was in East Hampton. Things would suddenly bring him up, out of himself. The smallest thing could set him off into joy. Once, Motherwell’s wife was cutting vegetables in the kitchen. It was just—I don’t know—beautiful. Pierre became so excited. Life should be like that, he said, a stage—a house should be a stage, with the smallest things set off: done properly. He loved life—pretty women, good food and wine. He disliked few people. He disliked Harold Rosenberg. Harold would come over, and everyone would drink. He would place a bottle in front of Motherwell, tease him about being a ‘Boy Scout.’ Pierre hated that. He knew very few architects. Perhaps that’s why he had no prospects. I remember once someone, so thoughtlessly, introduced him to a new person as ‘Motherwell’s decorator.’ ”

So Chareau stayed out in the country, playing with the Quonset-hut house. In New York, the bigger or more able or more ambitious architects of his generation all began to build in glass. The glass architecture that had been the expressive utopian-dream style of the first half of the century quickly became the corporate, official, inescapable style of the second half. Scheerbart’s fantasies all came true, but nothing looked the way it was supposed to look. The glass buildings were not even transparent.

When the war was over, the Dalsaces, after a long, clandestine voyage throughout France during the Occupation, managed to reëstablish their life in Paris. But Paris was a different place. The romance of Communism was finished there and, though Dr. Dalsace continued as a member of the editorial board of Pensées, the French Communist philosophical journal, he gradually retreated from the Party, leaving it for good in 1956, after Hungary. He devoted himself to family planning. (His writings on planned parenthood could be a little alarming—or, anyway, very “French.” Toward the end of his life, he was the co-author of a little book about family planning, though the practice was still illegal in Catholic France. Trying to persuade his readers that birth control was a necessary thing, he avoided the Anglo-Saxon line that it made for a better society; instead, he argued that it made for better sex. “In a union contracted by true love, the real danger is monotony, and the boredom that can result,” he wrote. “It is easier to be a lover than a husband. . . . Monotony must be avoided at all costs . . . . That is the psychosexual justification of some sort of regulation of births.”) Annie died In 1968, and Jean two years later.

Chareau died in East Hampton in April of 1950, and it would not be entirely romantic to say that he died of a broken heart. “He came over every morning for breakfast,” Ileana Sonnabend told me once, “And we always expected him. He had built a little house, one room, on the Motherwell grounds, and he loved it. One morning, we waited and waited. And he did not come. Leo went across the street, and found him there. He had no phone, though it wouldn’t have mattered if he had. He had a stroke. I cried and cried. He was such a spiritual presence.” In a letter to Annie Dalsace, he had written, at the end, “Say that I fought like a lion for your house. For your house I keep the first beating of my heart.” The Motherwell house survived, in a diminished condition, until the boom of the mid-eighties, when it was bought by an East Hampton entrepreneur and put up for sale—derisively, for a dollar, to anyone who would restore it. No one wanted it, and in 1985 it was destroyed.

The architects and architectural historians who rediscovered Chareau in the nineteen-sixties loved the Maison de Verre because it was one of the few modem buildings to value function and fantasy equally, without succumbing to the lure of historical pastiche—“the one isolated poetic interpretation of the pure glass and steel aesthetic,” the British architect Richard Rogers, who was, with Kenneth Frampton, one of the key rediscoverers of the Glass House, has written.

“I saw the house for the first time in ’56,” Rogers, whose Pompidou Center, in Paris, displays the influence of the Maison de Verre, recalled recently. “I was knocked sideways. At the time, there was the classical tradition of Mies and the romantic, organic tradition of Frank Wright. That’s what was available. This was neither—it was a tone poem about what you could do with glass and steel. It gave the idea of a modular house, too. Of course, it isn’t a modular home itself. It’s a handcrafted one-off if ever there was one. That space between what it seems to be and what it is is probably part of the mystique of the house. The house gives the impression, as you approach it, of being infinitely expandable. The façade is as big as anything could be, though in fact it’s a small house. But it’s not articulated as a façade—there isn’t any sense of how large or small it could be. It seems to have a poetic idea of the module in it: you could expand it endlessly—mass-produce it. Of course, it was handmade, and one knew that—had to keep reminding oneself of that—but the idea seemed so powerful.

“Eventually I got to know the Dalsaces—they were lovely and wonderful to me—and became close to Marc. And then, later, Roo, our son, was delivered by Pierre Vellay. We got the address of an obstetrician and I was startled—it was the Glass House. When my wife and I went in, all I could concentrate on was the detailing in the office. The Glass House has affected everything I’ve done. Look around here.” He waved a hand around the living room of his London town house. There is a blue girder standing upright in the middle of the room—an obvious homage to the girders in the Glass House. “All I need in here is the bookshelves and the piano, and I guess I have it.”

Rogers’ recollection of his discovery of the house in the fifties reminded me that a small postmodernist movement preceded the big one. Though that first postmodernism, which began in the fifties and ran up through the early sixties, involved a rejection of the big, official modem styles, it was, in its way, at least as romantic as the original modern taste had been. It wanted to restore a lost vitality and poetic reach. But romantic postmodernism required constant new infusions of faith; ironic postmodernism required only cynicism, which has been in late-twentieth-century culture the one self-renewing resource.

The rediscovery of the Glass House was a minor event in the history of that early, failed postmodernism. Yet, oddly, the cult of the house persists. This is probably because, though it is easy to think ironically, it is very hard to live that way. Beneath the accepted, official academic stream of postmodern thought, there remains a little stream devoted to things that are self-consciously artificial without being particularly ironic, and this taste devotes itself, above all, to houses and to décor. The revivals of certain houses in the past twenty years—the Tugendhat house of Mies, Wright’s Fallingwater—are in part reflections of that taste, which is not hopeful, exactly, but suggests a nostalgia for hope.

More than any other, the Glass House fills the bill. It is lovely rather than bold, feminine rather than masculine; it is entirely modem without being part of modernism, and witty without being ironic. The ship’s ladder that seals off the bedroom would have been far too frivolous a device for serious modernist design but far too ingenuous for postmodem. It is not an allusion to a ship’s ladder; it is a ship’s ladder. You can pull it up behind you when you go to bed.

One morning in June of last year, my wife and I went, at last, to live in the Glass House. We got out of the cab, punched the code on the little electronic keypad by the gate to the courtyard, and I dragged our bags across the cobblestones and up to the door of the Glass House.

Our invitation to live in the house had come about, after much hoping and scheming, with ridiculous simplicity. Three years before, we had gone back to Paris for Thanksgiving, and had been invited to have dinner with Aline and Pierre Vellay in their apartment, above the house. I walked up the stairs, and, fumbling for the doorbell, flicked a switch just to the left of the door.

A blaze of light appeared—so bright and so sudden that it seemed audible, as loud as an explosion. The house was suddenly alight; all the floodlights on the ladders had come on. I felt at first as if I had accidentally pressed the launch button on a missile and then, just as quickly, I felt disappointed: So there’s no more to it than that. The floodlights are on a switch, and the switch is by the door. When you want to illuminate the house, you do not consult a calendar or a ritual, or even an electrician. You just turn it on, and then (I quickly did this, too) turn it off. You could do it naturally, as part of the flow of life; it’s no different from turning your own bathroom light on and off in the middle of the night.

We were leaving for New York the next day, and I made my thanks and talked about the house.

“Come and live in it,” Dr. Vellay said abruptly.

“Oh, well . . .” we said.

“No,” he said. “The next time you’re in Paris, stay in the house. It’s the simplest thing in the world. You love the house. Why not live in it? It would be good for you.” And then he added, “ C’est comme chez vous. ”

Now we were back and on the threshold. Dominique had told us that someone might be inside, so we should ring. We did, and at last a young woman appeared.

“Oh,” she said, with less enthusiasm than I had ever before heard in a human voice. “You are the Americans.”

She gave us the key to the Glass House, which turned out to be a goofy-looking two-toothed cylinder—like a skate key—with a fat blue-and-white acrylic pompom on its chain. We carried our bags upstairs and into the master bedroom—Jean and Annie’s room, the one that could be entered either from the mezzanine or by the little ship’s ladder. Our luggage looked wildly out of place, as though it had come from another dimension, through a time warp. There was a curved burled-wood bed, under a coffee-brown cover; a series of cabinets, built in, which were also of honey-colored burled wood and had a curving, oceanic front; a rug with a zigzag pattern; a night table; glassed-in bookshelves over our heads. A passageway led into the bathroom; Martha put her soap next to one basin, and I put my razor next to the other.

For a few hours, that first day, we were entranced by the details of everything we saw: we would lie on the bed, on the settee, on the daybed, and look—luxuriate in the act of looking. One wall of our room—the wall that faced the garden—was a wonder of materials, laid out one against another like an architectural pousse-café: glass on top, then red painted metal, then a larger band of glass, and then copper sheathing.

But we quickly discovered that the freedom that people had always admired in the house—its capacity for infinite change—was largely symbolic. The sliding screens and moving doors and fanning-out tables—all the little fixtures of the house—express an ideal of change, fluidity, and mobility instead of actually providing it. The Glass House is like a poem, and, like any poem, it presents a universe of possible readings to the contemplative mind while remaining fixed, structured, and essentially inalterable—change a word and you’ve ruined the effect. Every day in the house, we would, earnestly, Americanly, try to “experience” it—extend our knowledge, our understanding, of it from that of the day-tripper to that of the inhabitant. But it turned out that all you could really do was change places. You could settle in this chair and then in that chair, and then get up and go to a different room. “This isn’t living,” Martha said at one point. “This is sitting .”

Often, we found ourselves being forced back into the styles of life as it had been led when the Glass House was built. The house dictates a life. After two days of vague disquiet at breakfast, I actually went to Galeries Lafayette and bought a burgundy silk robe with tiny white dots.

But if the house dictates a life, it also makes one aware of life as life—a force that can only be temporarily enclosed by any house. We had arrived with notebooks, intending to document our week in the Glass House in Biosphere 2 fashion But the house seemed to slip away from us, and life asserted itself. Laundry became a major theme of our week in the house. We spent a day schlepping our bagful of dirty clothes around the Boulevard Saint-Germain. What had Jean and Annie done? Given it to the servants, probably—but then where had the servants gone? Or had Jean done the laundry himself, Communistically, carrying a big white bag down to a Zola-style bassin in a working-class arrondissement? Finally, we found a laundromat—a Lavo-Club, on the Rue de Seine—and sat there and read Allo! with all the Algerian gardiens of the neighborhood.

Plumbing became another theme: the meaning of the house immediately shifted from the library and bedroom to the bathroom and kitchen. For one thing, we had to share them. We soon found out who the young woman was who had let us in, and called us “the Americans.” It turned out that one of the Vellay nephews had come to town to study for one of the sets of examinations that are the eternal rites of middle-class life in France, and the young woman was his girlfriend. Sometimes other friends would visit them in the servants’ quarters, over behind the kitchen. They played records, and left wine bottles behind.

We shared the kitchen with them and, all night long, listened to them enjoying themselves in the servants’ quarters At first, we resented them, and then pretty soon we envied them. They were not “living in the house”; they were just living. We smelled cigarette smoke and heard laughter. In the mornings, we would come down into the kitchen for breakfast and see the books that the French students were reading. They were mostly books about New York, the kind of studied, hardboiled American fiction that the French love: Jerome Charyn, Paul Auster, Charles Bukowski. I picked up “American Psycho”—it was a big favorite in France then—and read the blurb. “At night, he leads the typical life of the New York Yuppie,” it read in French. “The lines of coke, the clubs, the significant depravity . . .”

Martha and I had the big bathroom to ourselves, but we all shared the toilet, which was the only working one in the house. It was in a kind of D.M.Z. on the mezzanine, between the kitchen and our bedroom. Books and magazines piled up there. We left copies of Le Monde; they left copies of bandes dessinées: old Marvel comics translated into French—the X-Men, the Avengers. Desperate for something lowbrow to read, I would sneak them back into the bedroom. In “X-Men,” I read bits and pieces about a mythologized New York that was obviously as dear to the French students’ hearts as our imaginary Saint-Germain was to ours. I saw Professor Charles Xavier, up at Columbia, with Low Library behind him (in film-noir chiaroscuro), about to leave for his “hermitage de Westchester”: “Certes, J’aime enseigner aux X-Men et aux Nouveaux Mutants. . . . Mais leur mode de vie, la spécificité de leurs besoins! . . . lci, au moins, mes responsabilités sonts moindres.” (“Certainly I like to teach the X-Men and the New Mutants. But their life style, the specificity of their needs! . . . Here, at least, my responsibilities are reduced.”) The New York present seemed as available to them as the Parisian past had seemed to us.

The façade of the house was always dark. Dominique had asked us not to turn on the floodlights, because they might disturb her parents. Sometimes, as we entered the darkened house, we would hear the sound of the toilet roaring throughout—from the doctor’s office to the top of the library. With all its hard surfaces, glass and metal, the Glass House conducts sound like an amplifier. The simple, familiar sound of rushing water would echo around the steel girders, bounce from hard glass brick to hard glass brick, strike the old matting, and resonate back up to the punched-metal balcony, as loud and reverberant and alarming as a tidal wave striking a rockbound coast. It seemed to pick up the Glass House by the nape, and shake it for a minute. Then the sound would subside—gurgle, like a big animal that has just had dinner—and we would tiptoe up to our room. You enter culture, but you just sneak home.

One rainy afternoon while we were living in the house, I walked all the way up to the Place Pigalle—at the other, north end of Paris—in order to visit Madeleine Milhaud, the widow of the composer Darius. She is in her nineties, and one of the last of the circle who shared the Glass House with the Dalsaces. I had been saving my visit to her for last, and I hoped that she could make me see what the house had been like in its prime.

As for her house, it wasn’t hard to find. There was a plaque outside: “In this house lived the composer Darius Milhaud.” Mme. Milhaud turned out to be a small, perfectly poised elderly woman, with the kind of unnaturally pink and youngish skin that the very old sometimes have.

She spoke in English, and her manner was formal. “Our friendship with Annie and Jean Dalsace was not touched by snobbism,” she said. ’We knew both the Chareaus and the Dalsaces. Dollie Chareau had a great influence on Annie She helped her develop a taste for modern painting But there is no influence without inclination.

“You find the house humane? Rather cold, in fact. Let’s be frank. Let’s be candid with each other. It’s not a house at all, but a sort of machine. Do you recall that elevator that rose from the kitchen?” She was referring to a dumbwaiter, which had been out of order all the time we were in the house. “It never worked—the cook was always running after it with the salt. I was quite amused by the idea. There was no comfort in the house. That frightening staircase! I was always sure I would fall. Let’s be frank. It is true, of course, that our tastes change about art. I recall the first time I saw Bernhardt. I thought that she was sublime.” She pronounced the word in the French manner: “sue-bleem.” “I wished to be an actress myself: and imitate her. Her way of singing, chanting, the words. I saw her again a few years later, and I thought, She has no psychology! No inner understanding, no variation! She disgusted me. So, you see, to ask what we thought about the house is simply to offer a bit of our memoirs, no more. Perhaps I will find the house humane sometime in the future.

“What can I tell you about Jean and Annie? Let’s be frank. Politics and medicine were Jean’s concern. He fought for the first transfusions of blood. Her father was a self-made Jewish man who came from Lorraine. They were real-estate people, who bought land and became prosperous. Annie’s father was an extraordinarily simple man, honest and straightforward. Annie was sophisticated, bashful, and didn’t communicate easily. There were two schools of childbirth then, you know. The bourgeois right took the English fashion, and the left followed the Russian school.

“Milhaud and I lived in the house, too, you see.” (It is a sign of respect in France for even the intimates of great men to refer to them by their last names.) “In ’47, we came back and stayed with the Dalsaces. I was always frightened of being locked into one of those black cupboards! Annie came to meet us at the boat—she would have come to meet any of the painters and writers that they cared for. The house was never empty then, and it must never be empty now. A concert was held there for Milhaud’s centenary, in September, 1992. No one should have been back in Paris, but everyone came. I thought it was very touching—a friendly evening. People were there who were daughters of friends. Honegger s daughter, the children of Les Six. All those people who were concerned with Milhaud. The Glass House for me is a symbol of friendship, and friendship is life.”

The phone rang, and Mme. Milhaud began a long, guarded, formal conversation, in French, about a forthcoming concert: “What is the date? At what time will your concert be held? . . . What is the program? . . . Well, I will try to be there. . . . Yes. Very good.”

I assumed that someone was arranging a Milhaud concert, and I asked her what ensemble would be playing.

She shook her head. “No, no, no. That was my granddaughter. She wishes me to attend her recital.” She paused. “I have discovered, in the course of a long life . . .” She paused again, as if to collect herself. “I have discovered, in the course of a long life, that there is nothing more demanding than a small child with a flute.”

On our last night in the house, I went down, alone, into the library and gazed at all the books. They seemed to have been left untouched since Jean Dalsace died. I climbed the ladder and picked out a first edition of the first French translation of “Ulysses.” I opened to the first page. “Majestueux et dodu, Buck Mulligan . . .” Then I turned to the last page, Molly Bloom speaking French: “Pour qu’il sente mes seins tout parfumés oui et son coeur battait comme fou et oui j’ai dit oui je veux bien Oui.”

Finally, after a week of resisting temptation, I walked over to the switch, and turned on the outside floodlights. Everything came alive again. It was another house—brilliant, full of light, waiting for something to happen. It was so lovely, so inviting, that I wondered, in frustration, why, like so many people who had tried to live in the house since the first couple left, we had been defeated by it. We had failed, I thought, angrily, because we hadn’t tried hard enough. We should have stayed up all night long, sat in the library, and planned our lives. Why did we step outside the house even for a moment? But then I thought of our long walks back to the house from dinner, and of how one night, on our way back from Le Voltaire, I had said that I regretted that we had not always stayed put, and Martha had said, “You know, I won’t be sorry to see the last of the Glass House.” We had both laughed, in relief at speaking the unspeakable. It wasn’t that It was less than we had expected. It was just that you couldn’t inhabit the house, really. You could only re inhabit it, and we had been too American, or too lacking in confidence and largeness of spirit, to pull it off—too small for the parts. And, as I said those words to myself, too small for the parts , I suddenly understood, in a moment, that that was it—that the Glass House was not architecture, or interior decoration, or a boat or a barracks, or any of the other things it had been said to be.

I called Martha out to the mezzanine. “Look,” I said, waving toward the light.

“Oh!” she said at once. “We’re onstage.”

It was a theatre . The house, I realized, was a piece of stage design. Chareau, groping to make a new kind of house, had turned unconsciously to the thing he knew—the one kind of building he had actually helped construct. The bandbox theatres of the Boulevards were the real ghosts of the Glass House. The house had a downstairs lobby and a great playing space in the center—the library—with dressing rooms leading to it, and balconies for the spectators overlooking it.

Chareau believed that to build a house was to change the world—that to put on a show was to change the possibilities of life. If we changed our hats, he thought, our hearts would follow. The reduction in scale of the dream of glass architecture over the preceding century—from the nineteenth-century public building to the twentieth-century home, from the Crystal Palace to the Glass House—was in a sense a sign of this belief: not a reduction, in fact, but a vast enlargement of faith in what a house could do.

There had probably never been a chance that the house could become a beacon, or a model, or a temple. “Moral exhibitionism” could not change life, because life is not an exhibition. The house’s fate all along was to become exactly what it is—an empty theatre, a cult object. Still, a cult at least produces a credo; in fact, only a cult can produce a credo. Chareau’s vision—that life can be lived in harmony, with the industrial and the sensual, pleasure and responsibility, domestic pleasure and public responsibility combined—survives, just as a vision. The fantasies can’t change the facts—to think that they could was the modern fallacy. But the fantasies are themselves facts of another order. They count just by being there. The Glass House gives them an address in Paris.

There was a big Chareau exhibition at the Beaubourg last winter, which caused one more flurry of attention to the house and its makers: articles appeared in Le Monde and Vogue and Metropolis and Elle Decor . The cult has by now become so pervasive that it is losing a bit of its cultishness. The future of the house is still up in the air, though. An attempt has been made to interest some private collectors. So far, nothing has come of it.

When I think about the Glass House now, I think a lot about something that Mme. Milhaud told me. We were talking about the house, its strange past and uncertain future, and she said, “It is a difficult thing to have in your family a house of that fashion. I would oblige all architects to live in their own houses. The tyranny of their machinery!

“Let me tell you a story about the troubles of architecture. I knew a person once who was an investor in the Eiffel Tower. It was not a great success, financially. However, he had an illness that was diagnosed as whooping cough. He hated to go to the mountains, so he went to the third floor of the Eiffel Tower to live, and recovered his health.” She paused, and then she explained, “So, you see, it turned out to be an excellent investment after all. The fate of marvels is complicated.” ♦

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Calvin Tomkins

By Amy Waldman

By Amanda Petrusich

By Susan B. Glasser

• à propos

Bernard Bijvoet & Pierre Chareau

Maison de verre.

The Maison de Verre ( French for House of Glass ) was built from 1928 to 1932 in Paris , France . Constructed in the early modern style of architecture , the house’s design emphasized three primary traits: honesty of materials, variable transparency of forms, and juxtaposition of “industrial” materials and fixtures with a more traditional style of home décor. The primary materials used were steel , glass , and glass block . Some of the notable “industrial” elements included rubberized floor tiles , bare steel beams , perforated metal sheet, heavy industrial light fixtures , and mechanical fixtures.

The design was a collaboration among Pierre Chareau (a furniture and interiors designer), Bernard Bijvoet (a Dutch architect working in Paris since 1927) and Louis Dalbet (craftsman metalworker). Much of the intricate moving scenery of the house was designed on site as the project developed. The external form is defined by translucent glass block walls, with select areas of clear glazing for transparency. Internally, spatial division is variable by the use of sliding, folding or rotating screens in glass, sheet or perforated metal, or in combination. Other mechanical components included an overhead trolley from the kitchen to dining room, a retracting stair from the private sitting room to Mme Dalsace’s bedroom and complex bathroom cupboards and fittings.

The program of the home was somewhat unusual in that it included a ground-floor medical suite for Dr. Jean Dalsace. This variable circulation pattern was provided for by a rotating screen which hid the private stairs from patients during the day, but framed the stairs at night.

The house is notable for its splendid architecture, but it may be more well known for another reason. It was built on the site of a much older building which the patron had purchased and intended to demolish. Much to his or her chagrin, however, the elderly tenant on the top floor of the building absolutely refused to sell, and so the patron was obliged to completely demolish the bottom three floors of the building and construct the Maison de Verre underneath, all without disturbing the original top floor.

Dr. Dalsace was a member of the French Communist Party who played a significant role in both anti-fascist and cultural affairs. In the mid-1930s, the Maison de Verre’s double-height “salle de séjour” was transformed into a salon regularly frequented by Marxist intellectuals like Walter Benjamin as well as by Surrealist poets and artists such as Louis Aragon , Paul Éluard , Pablo Picasso , Max Ernst , Jacques Lipchitz , Jean Cocteau , Yves Tanguy , Joan Miró and Max Jacob . According to the American art historian Maria Gough, the Maison de Verre had a powerful influence on Walter Benjamin , especially on his constructivist - rather than expressionist - reading of Paul Scheerbart ‘s utopian project for a future “culture of glass”, for a “new glass environment [which] will completely transform mankind,” as the latter expressed it in his 1914 treatise Glass Architecture . See in particular Benjamin’s 1933 essay Erfahrung und Armut (“Experience and Poverty”).

Client: Dr. Jean Dalsace Craftsman: Louis Dalbet Photography: François Halard - Dominique Vellay - August Fischer Text: Wikipedia

• Become a Member
• Renew Your Membership
• Member Portal
• Using the Member Portal
• Affiliate Groups
• Chapters & Partners
• Member Stories
• SAH Commons

Conferences

• SAH 2024 Albuquerque
• Virtual 2024
• SAH 2025 Atlanta
• Past Conferences

Publications

Latest issue:.

• JSAH Online
• SAH Archipedia
• Buildings of the United States
• SAH Newsletter
• SAH Data Project

Public Programs

• SAH CONNECTS
• SAH Celebrates
• Charnley-Persky House Tours

Member Programs

• Member Meetups
• Method Acts
• GAHTC Workshops
• Graduate Student Book Group
• Graduate Student Lightning Talks

Award Programs

• Publication Awards
• Award for Film & Video
• SAH Fellows
• SAH | Places Prize
• Brownlee Dissertation Award

Jobs & Opportunities

• SAH Career Center
• Submit an Opportunity
• Browse Opportunities
• Digital Resources
• Graduate Student Resources

Fellowships

• Research Fellowships
• Annual Conference Fellowships
• H. Allen Brooks Travelling Fellowship
• Membership Grants
• Field Trips Grants
• Support SAH
• Pull Together Campaign
• Donor Recognition
• Advertising
• Board of Directors
• SAH IDEAS Initiative
• Preservation Advocacy
• Charnley-Persky House

SAH Offers Unique Opportunity to Visit the Maison de Verre

The society of architectural historians to host a two-day fundraising event at the maison de verre in paris that includes visits to the villa savoye and the maison louis carré.

The Maison de Verre was designed by Pierre Chareau and Bernard Bijvoet as a residence and medical office for the doctor Jean Dalsace and his wife. Completed in 1932, the house transformed domestic space with its use of modern materials including glass block, exposed steel beams and metal fixtures. Access to the house is usually only granted on a limited basis to architects and architecture students, but owner Robert Rubin, a former SAH board member, is opening his glass house to help raise funds for SAH Archipedia .

After a day spent exploring two other iconic Modern masterpieces just outside Paris—Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye and Alvar Aalto’s Maison Louis Carré—participants will arrive at the Maison de Verre to enjoy supper, wine and conversation. Rubin and Mary Vaughan Johnson, the curator of the house, will give a seminar the following morning and share details of their meticulous conservation work. The group will be treated to lunch in the house’s garden, a spot not usually open to visitors.

“SAH is very grateful to Robert Rubin for opening his iconic Modern house for us this July not once, but twice,” said SAH Executive Director Pauline Saliga.

“Robert felt it was important to have our visitors experience the house at different times of day so they could see firsthand how the house’s character changes in the glow of sunset, in diffused morning light, and in the bright noontime sun,” said Saliga. “This is the quintessential architectural experience of a lifetime.”

The event benefits SAH Archipedia ( sah-archipedia.org ), a media-rich, peer-reviewed online encyclopedia of American architecture developed by SAH in collaboration with the University of Virginia Press . In 2013, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) granted SAH $450,000 for the expansion and development of SAH Archipedia. In order to secure the entire NEH grant, SAH must raise $150,000 in matching funds. SAH Archipedia currently contains over 13,000 building histories, photographs, maps and essays from the Society's award-winning Buildings of the United States series and is available to members in  SAH Archipedia  and to the public in its open-access counterpart,  SAH Archipedia Classic Buildings . The Society's goal is to add more than 4,000 histories of the most significant and representative buildings from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, providing a comprehensive online resource for American architecture. About SAH Founded in 1940, the Society of Architectural Historians is a nonprofit membership organization that promotes the study, interpretation and conservation of architecture, design, landscapes and urbanism worldwide. SAH serves a network of local, national and international institutions and individuals who, by vocation or avocation, focus on the built environment and its role in shaping contemporary life.  SAH promotes meaningful public engagement with the history of the built environment through advocacy efforts, print and online publications, and local, national and international programs. Learn more at  sah.org . Download Release (printer-friendly version): Society of Architectural Historians Offers Unique Opportunity to Visit the Maison de Verre

• SAH Indigenous Architecture Affiliate Group
• Chapters and Partners
• SAH Member Stories
• Registration
• Tours & Public Events
• Travel Information
• Exhibitors, Sponsors & Advertisers
• For Session Chairs & Speakers
• Child Care Grants
• Call for Papers
• Booklists and Exhibition Catalog Lists
• Chicago Architects Project
• Graduate Student Programs
• 2021 Photo Gallery
• Study Programs
• SAH Member Meetups
• Opportunities
• SAH Fellowships and Grants
• Professional Resources
• Pull Together
• SAH Committees
• Visit The House
• Virtual Tour