J. R. Davidson: A European Contribution to California Modernism 9783035619379, 9783035619225

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
1 MODERNISM
The European Years 1903–1923: Davidson’s Education and His Notebooks
Emigration to the United States 1923
First Commissions: Retail Work
During the Great Depression: Hotels and Bars in Chicago and Los Angeles
Furniture
Davidson’s Contemporaries and Collaborators
European Ideas about Living
International Style
Case Study Houses: Adaptive Reuse of Floor Plans
2 REGIONALISM
Soft Modernism
Bungalow and Ranch House: Adopting Local Building Typology
Mid-Century Style
Public Buildings
3 CONCLUSION
Introduction
Bibliography
List of Works
Index
Illustration Credits
About the Author

Citation preview

J. R. Davidson

Lilian Pfaff

J. R. Davidson A European Contribution to California Modernism

Birkhäuser Basel

For Pauline, June and Nika

Frontispiece: J. R. Davidson, 1952

Contents



Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

1 MODERNISM

The European Years 1903–1923: Davidson’s Education



and His Notebooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13



Emigration to the United States 1923. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36



First Commissions: Retail Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38



During the Great Depression: Hotels and



Bars in Chicago and Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Davidson’s Contemporaries and Collaborators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101



European Ideas about Living. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107



International Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111



Case Study Houses: Adaptive Reuse of Floor Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

2 REGIONALISM

Soft Modernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159



Bungalow and Ranch House: Adopting Local Building Typology. . . . . . . . . . . 189



Mid-Century Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207



Public Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

3

CONCLUSION

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

List of Works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Illustration Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262



About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Preface

Today, the German architect Julius Ralph Davidson is almost unknown in both American and European architectural history. A native Berliner, he moved in 1923 to Los Angeles, where, 18 years later, he built the now famous villa for the exiled German author Thomas Mann on San Remo Drive in Pacific Palisades. Although Davidson was the first architect to be asked to contribute to the unique and seminal Case Study House program published by Arts & Architecture magazine, his contribution has been virtually forgotten. Despite having been somewhat overlooked, Davidson’s work and career development are of great interest today. Arriving on the West Coast before Richard Neutra, and bringing with him modern European ideas from Germany, England, and France, he can be seen as paving the way for the California Modernism that flourished in the decades that followed. Reyner Banham, the renowned English architectural critic, refers to him as “ingenious and underrated” in his 1971 landmark work on Californian architecture, Los Angeles:

The Architecture of Four Ecologies.1 Some of Davidson’s work was included by Esther McCoy in her anthology The

Second Generation (1984), even though it is his younger colleagues like Gregory Ain, Raphael Soriano, and Harwell Hamilton Harris who really constitute the Second Generation. McCoy acknowledges this in her preface,2 however, at the same time she appears to be at a loss as to where else to place him. The fact that she nevertheless included him in her book has less to do with her close friendship— there was even rumor of a more intimate connection—than with Davidson’s Modernist, European leaning, and rational architectural language. Being almost an exact contemporary of Richard Neutra, Davidson fits better with the Neutra/Schindler era than with the younger Second Generation. He is “the one designer in the 30s who most elegantly brought the European modern and California styles together,” 3 while other architects, working in Neutra’s office, almost exclusive represented the International Style. As David Gebhard notes, Davidson “handsomely sums up the ideal pre-World War II Modern house.” 4 As early as 1930, Davidson was represented in Pauline Schindler’s exhibition “Contemporary Creative Architects in California” 5 as one of the leading representatives of California Modernism and was ranked in the same group as Schindler, Neutra, and Frank Lloyd Wright. “Neutra, Schindler, J. R. Da-

8  J.R. Davidson

vidson, Harwell H. Harris, Gregory Ain, and Raphael Soriano created a corpus of work, which, by 1940, could aptly be referred to as the ‘Los Angeles School’,” says Gebhard. 6 Davidson’s position in the canon of California architecture, his influences, and his contribution to Modernism, will be discussed in this first survey and classification of his oeuvre. “Maybe there actually needs to be a book on the first generation because there never really has been one. In other words I think you’re quite right, and I am going to be honest with you as well. I think it’s very interesting that Gebhard was never able to do a solo show just on J. R. either. Not that his archive isn’t really great, ‘cause his archive is great. I have gone through the drawings, we’ve got great photographs… But I think what is interesting is this notion of the first generation, because right now the only people that we’re aware of as the first generation are Schindler and Neutra. But the first generation was Weber, Davidson, Jock D. Peters who died very young, and Schindler. Neutra hadn’t even really started yet, so it was really that group of people. And as we continue, I think one of the major obstacles to be very frank with you, is that what you really need is a combination. You need someone who is completely familiar with the German-Austrian environment, that Central European environment that these people were all raised in; and then an understanding, a really strong understanding, of Los Angeles and the context. And you need to have something that combines. For most of us it’s really difficult.” 7

This book is structured chronologically in an attempt to retrace influences from Germany or, more precisely, from Europe. In my research, I had to rely heavily on Esther McCoy’s essay, her 1974 interview with Davidson, as well as the various­ versions of her text preserved in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art in Washington. 8 During the course of the research, it turned out that names and dates in the recollections of J. R. Davidson did not always match with the official data. In general, he was reluctant to mention his time in Europe, presumably because he neither completed his secondary schooling, nor had any formal architectural training. His architectural ideas were based instead on self-taught, first-hand observation, museum visits, and books, as well as his close study of furniture design. A more accurate reconstruction of Davidson’s early European life became possible only after I discovered his 20 notebooks and a few letters and documents in the Santa Barbara home of Davidson’s daughter-in-law Barnaby Davidson. These doc-

Preface  9

uments reveal how he had outlined his ideas and suggestions. Davidson himself observes that “sketching makes you see closer.” 9 In 2012, these records were turned over to the Architecture & Design Collection, UC Santa Barbara, along with the remaining pieces of furniture and drawings. The UCSB Archive houses the entire Davidson estate.10 This book owes its structure to a similar book about the long-forgotten architect Edward A. Killingsworth, An Architect’s Life 1917–2004. “Killingsworth [was] not a self-promoter, but rather a modest man.” 11 Davidson had a similarly modest approach to architecture. Sometimes the façades of his single-family houses are unspectacular, yet his floor plans are strikingly clear and functional. The 2012 conversations I had with Davidson’s daughter-in-law Barnaby about his collaboration with his wife and son were an insight into the architect’s design practice, his intentions, and ideas. So was the conversation between Barnaby and Kurt Helfrich, recorded and transcribed in 2004. Thomas Hines’s interview with J. R. and Greta Davidson, in the archives of the Getty Research Institute, is an impressive testimony to this architect’s personality.12 Despite having had an English father, Davidson maintained his German accent to the end of his life in America. The Esther McCoy papers at the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution in Washington are the most important source besides the estate. Not only was she a close friend of J. R.’s who went to see the Davidsons several times a week, she also knew his work much better than anyone else. And, in 1964, she had her Santa Monica apartment refurbished by Davidson. Doris Fienga tried her hand at categorizing Davidson in “The International Style in Los Angeles, 1930–1942. As Reflected in the Work of J. R. Davidson.” 13 The text primarily focuses on the history of Modernism in Europe and therefore remains somewhat general, repeating the well-known history that Davidson and Neutra, etc. emigrated to California and brought modern ideas with them. She does not mention that there were already several local architects like Irving Gill, who designed in a pre-modern style that came out of the reduction of Spanish Colonial Style, a totally different origin to that of European Modernism. In Davidson’s architecture, especially after 1940, these two modern origins merged. Various articles in architecture magazines helped cast light on the materiality and colorful design of Davidson’s houses, since most photographic documents are in black and white. A list of works with all realized buildings as well as those never built is itemized at the end of this book. As early as 1971, the architecture theorist Reyner Banham aptly formulated the architectural research challenge for California Modernism. “The general history of modern architecture…has still to face up to the consequences of the earlier exiles

10  J.R. Davidson

who gave Southern California an independent body of modern architecture contemporary with the rise of the International Style in Europe, or to acknowledge the fact that in Southern California some worthwhile possibilities of pre-1914 European architecture were to achieve a fulfilment denied them in Europe.” 14 Davidson’s extensive oeuvre is extant to this day, although some of the homes he designed are still being demolished instead of preserved. This book aims to highlight Davidson’s importance within modern Californian architecture and contribute to saving his remaining works. The Thomas Mann House has already been rescued from sale and demolition through a major media campaign involving this author. The German Foreign Office purchased the house for 13.25 million dollars, to make it available as fellows’ residence for the newly invented fellowship program—similar to the existing program at Villa Aurora. 15 Davidson realized far more interesting projects than the Thomas Mann House, a fact reflected by the lack of contemporary documentation. Only one magazine article in California Arts & Ar-

chitecture (December 1942) about this house is known. What is more, it is not even mentioned in Davidson’s own lists of his built houses. I would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation, which funded the project for two years; Vernon Price for the contemporary photographs and all the homeowners of Davidson houses for their help and willingness to open up their home; Melinda Gandara, Dr. Silvia Perea, and Julia Larson for providing the plans and photographs in the archive at UC Santa Barbara, J. R.’s daughter-in-law Barnaby Davidson for finding and donating the notebooks, the grandchildren Erica Avrahm (Santa Barbara) and Dr. Carlos Davidson (San Francisco), as well as numerous colleagues, Prof. Dr. Christopher Long, Prof. Dr. Volker Welter, Dr. Martino Stierli, Frank Escher and Ravi GuneWardena, Dr. Wim de Witt, for the professional support; Michael Kerkmann and Kitty Bocking for their thoughtful editing; acquisitions editor Ria Stein from Birkhäuser for the professional work. I am thankful to Jocelyn Gibbs, Dr. Bruce Robertson, and Elyse Gonzales for believing in the project and providing me with the opportunity to realize an exhibition at the Art, Design and Architecture Museum at UC Santa Barbara. Support came also from the Villa Aurora & Thomas Mann House. Without the generous support of my parents Hans and Dr. Annette Pfaff the publishing of this book would not have been possible.

Preface  11

Notes 1

Reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies (New York: Harper and Row, 1971; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001, reprint), p. 163.

2

“J. R. Davidson does not really belong with the second generation as he was older than Schindler and arrived in Los Angeles before Richard Neutra; he is here because there is no other convenient place for him.“ Esther McCoy, Preface to The Second

Generation (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1984). 3

David Gebhard and Harriette von Breton, Los Angeles in the Thirties: 1931–1941, 2nd edition (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1989), p. 100.

4

Ibid.

5

Together with the Germans Kem Weber and Jock D. Peters, the Austrians Rudolph M. Schindler and Richard Neutra, as well as F. L. Wright.

6

Gebhard and von Breton, Los Angeles in the Thirties, p. 6.

7

J. R. Davidson’s daughter-in-law Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich,

8

Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smith-

Santa Barbara, October 11, 2004, transcript, p. 54, UCSB Archive. sonian Institution. 9

Postcard by J. R. Davidson to David Gebhard, August 25, 1975, David Gebhard Papers, UCSB Archive.

10 It was turned over by J. R. Davidson himself in 1972 and 1975. In 2004, Barnaby Da-

vidson handed over more objects, including the notebooks in 2012. 11 Jennifer M. Volland and Cara Mullio, Edward A. Killingsworth: An Architect’s Life

(Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2013), p. 15. 12 J. R. Davidson and Greta Davidson in a conversation with Thomas Hines, June 27,

1974, in: Thomas S. Hines, interviews regarding Richard J. Neutra 1972–1980, Oral History, Box 1, Item C2–C3, 7’50, The Getty Research Institute. 13 Doris Fienga, “The International Style in Los Angeles, 1930–1942. As Reflected in the

Work of J. R. Davidson,” unpublished manuscript, 1967, UCSB Archive. 14 Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies, p. 161. 15 The 2018 renovation of the house leaves much to be desired; the entire building was

stripped down to its wooden structure. The original plaster and the Davidson color were hastily retrofitted from what was still left according to preservationist aspects. Elke Richter, “‘nostalgic German‘ und kalifornisch-modern. Das Thomas-Mann-Haus in Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles. Zusammenfassung der Baudokumentation und baugeschichtliche Einordnung.“ Erstellt im Auftrag des Auswärtigen Amtes – Immobilienmanagement Ausland – Kulturinstitute und Deutsche Schulen, Berlin, 2017. Unpublished.

1 MODERNISM

The European Years 1903–1923: Davidson’s Education and His Notebooks Julius Davidson was born on February 7, 1889, in Berlin, one year after his brother Ralf and one year before his sister Friedel. Much later, in America, he took on the middle name Ralph in honor of his brother Ralf, who had died in childhood. The U.S. authorities changed the f into a ph. Davidson never wanted to be addressed by his first name, but always by the initials ‘J. R.’1 Davidson’s mother Emelie Davidson (born Kauffmann) died in 1895, when Julius was six years old, while swimming in the North Sea at Helgoland island. His father, David Davidson, had achieved some prosperity; he often traveled on business to London, while the children Julius and Friedel followed him with their own chauffeur and nanny.2 In 1865, Davidson Sr., aged 16, had gone to New Zealand with his brother Joseph in search of gold. They settled in Hokitika, a port city on the west coast. When the gold rush craze came to a standstill in 1880, the brothers returned home, where they each married a daughter of their cousin Frieda, whose husband, Solomon Kauffmann, had made his fortune in South African diamonds. David Davidson married Emelie and settled in Berlin in 1886, (Fig. 5) while his brother Joseph married her sister, also called Frieda, and moved to London.3

Posen 1903–1907 Julius was 14 years old when his father died. The guardian of the two remaining siblings Julius and Friedel was now Solomon Kauffmann, who sent Julius to a boarding school in Posen (today Pozna´n in Poland) in 1903, and his sister to London to live with their uncle Joseph Davidson and his wife Frieda. Drawings in his notebooks tell us that Julius Davidson lived in Posen with a family on Wiener Straße 7. (Fig. 2) There is no record that his sister actually lived in London. It is equally possible that she lived with Julius in Posen, since in 1915 and 1916 he sent her postcards from the war to a Posen address. Fig. 1 J. R. Davidson, Notebook V, 1910, Drawings and measurements of furniture

14

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 2 J. R. Davidson, Notebook II, 1904–1905. View from Julius’s window in the family’s apartment on Wiener Straße 7 in Posen

Julius’s schooling was cut short in 1907 after an incident with the authorities involving a drawing of an army officer and a lack of proof of citizenship. He was sent back to Berlin. His numerous notebooks—a total of 18 during his time in Europe and two in the U.S.—provide biographical information, as well as evidence of his artistic and architectural interests. They have different formats and are quite elaborate, some with colored drawings. Most of them contain details and dimensions of furniture from many museums in Berlin, London, and Paris, as well as of buildings that he has seen while traveling. Specification in the notebooks of years and places allow for a reconstruction of this time period, which is otherwise undocumented. They also provide an insight into sources of inspiration that shaped his autodidactic training, most notably his thorough studying of cabinetmaking based on furniture pieces in museums and his reading of architecture and arts and crafts books as well as interior magazines. The earliest surviving small notebook dates from 1902–1903. Its cover reveals Davidson’s attempt to write his signature in different styles. It also demonstrates his study of color, ornament, and costume. His biographer, Esther McCoy, says of those studies: “They recorded also his emotions at the time of his father’s death when he was fourteen.”4 She perceives gray clouds and dark figures in the drawings—a dramatic

MODERNISM

15

interpretation yet unsubstantiated in the documentation available. The subsequent notebook from 1904–1905 was compiled in Posen and Berlin. It includes landscapes of Unterberg near Posen, a person as a Mephisto character, and a view from Julius’s window. Colored studies of monkeys, rhinos, and pelicans populate the 1905 notebook, as well as studies of people at work on the Baltic Sea’s Kolberg beach, where Davidson presumably spent his weekends. By

Fig. 3 J. R. Davidson, Notebook IV, 1908. Studies for a

then we already find detailed sketches

sideboard

of precisely measured furniture. (Fig. 1) There are no notebooks from the period between 1906 and 1907—the police may have confiscated them. As is apparent in his notebooks, he repeatedly draws officers and passers-by; rapidly executed sketches of nonetheless unrecognizable people. (Fig. 4) The police action, eventually resulting in Davidson’s dropping out of school, is today difficult to understand. Esther McCoy relates the story after talking to Davidson: “When taken to the headquarters it was discovered that his father was born in England and his mother in South Africa, and that he was stateless. He was not permitted to finish the term and receive his certificate. He was sent home immediately.“5

When we consider the politically tense climate in Posen at that time, however,

Fig. 4 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XII, 1916. Soldier

16

J.R. Davidson

the reaction becomes clearer. Posen, formerly Polish, had been annexed by Prussia in 1815. In Davidson’s time, about 6,000 Prussian soldiers were stationed there to oversee Germanization, and the German language was introduced to supersede Polish. Esther McCoy reports what followed after J. R. was sent home to Berlin. On a hike along the Baltic Lakes he met by chance the renowned German architect Peter Behrens. The famous man saw the architectural talent of the drawing boy and, as a result, Julius began to dream of studying art or architecture in England, while living off his inheritance.6

Berlin 1908–1909

Fig. 5 J. R. Davidson’s parents, Emelie and David Davidson

The notebooks resume in 1908, when Julius began to draw sculptures, such as Michelangelo’s “John the Baptist,” which at the time was exhibited in the Royal Museum of Berlin.7 Davidson made numerous drawings of furniture in 1908 in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum and the Gewerbemuseum in Berlin. He also captured in color Schinkel’s Old Museum with its ornaments, as well as mosaics from the Pergamon Museum. It can be assumed that Davidson went to Kassel, since his drawings also include the Kassel City Palace. Davidson’s uncle Solomon, however, believed that the boy would do better to learn something “respectable,” and for a two-year time period (1908–1909) apprenticed him to the Hungarian interior and furniture designer Moritz (Mor) Hirschler (1864–1940) in Berlin. Hirschler was a co-founder of the Hungarian Arts and Crafts movement who left Hungary for Berlin in 1896. In Berlin, Hirschler worked from 1908–1929 at the Kunstgewerbliche Werkstätten Platow & Priemer. Inspired by Hungarian Art Nouveau, Hirschler designed and executed simple modern furniture with Art Nouveau elements. In 1908, Davidson, now aged 19, (Fig. 6) encountered the world of architecture through Hermann Muthesius’s book The English House (1904), which introduced him to the art of construction in England.8 Until then, not much in his notebooks refers to modern styles, and they contain neither spatial or architectural designs nor drawings, though an occasional floor plan occurs, like the one of the Altona Town Hall in Hamburg. Davidson appears to be more interested in details and dimensions of furniture, lamps, and porcelain. (Fig. 1) From French Rococo to Art Nouveau, his drawings also display a love of detail and obsession with ornamenta-

MODERNISM

17

tion as well as with decorative elements in furniture design. (Fig. 7) While researching her book The Second Gener-

ation in the early 1970s, Esther McCoy asked Davidson about his time in Berlin. At the time of the interview, he had already been living for several years in Ojai, California. McCoy was frequently frustrated by Davidson’s responses, however, because he appeared to confuse many facts, and he could not, or did not want to, remember them. Looking back, he especially admired Gropius’s Fagus Factory (1911), as well as Alfred Messel’s Wertheim Department Store in Berlin (1896–1906), where he says he

Fig. 6 J. R. Davidson, 1909

saw modern merchandise displays for the first time ever.9 This new department store had an extraordinary effect on the general population and on architecture connoisseurs alike and this is corroborated by the numerous contemporary newspaper and journal articles written about the building, as well as statements by well-known architects and critics. They all greatly praised the vertical layout of the façade, an exterior expression of the interior purpose. This much-admired department store with its merchandise display could well have had an enormous effect on Davidson and shaped his ideas for the first storefronts in Los Angeles. On the other hand, Davidson had not seen in person any buildings or stores by his contemporary colleagues Adolf Loos or Charles R. Mackintosh, yet their designs nonetheless played a role in his ideas around store architecture. During his Hirschler apprenticeship, Julius met Grete Wollenstein (1888–1978), a designer for the Kürtner fashion house in Berlin, which tailored cheap versions of

haute couture dresses for sale in provincial retail.10 Julius, aged 21 and with access to some of his inheritance, traveled with her and other friends to Sweden via Hamburg and Copenhagen. The notebook from 1910 mentions the Copenhagen City Hall, and it records their stay in Stockholm and Gothenburg on August 13, 1910. “There he is immensely impressed by the village houses. The naturalness of the floor plans, the charming use of color he called ‘harmonious and joyous.’”11 Not much of that, however, finds its way into the notebooks, and Davidson may have romanticized this journey and its significance in hindsight. (Fig. 8)

18  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 7 J. R. Davidson, Notebook III, 1905. Drawings of furniture

Fig. 8 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XII, 1916. Ground floor plans and elevation studies of farmhouses

MODERNISM  19

London 1910–1912 Davidson then continued alone through Belgium and Holland and eventually to London, where he visited museums12 and drew furniture, predominantly armchairs and decorative elements, in his notebook. It is interesting to note the lack of influence of the rationalist architecture of the Netherlands, like the buildings of J. J. P. Oud, which he must have recently seen. While in London, he successfully applied to be a draftsman to the English furniture designer Frank Stuart Murray, whose office on Tottenham Court Road was close to the British Museum. Davidson found a room nearby, in Russell Square.13 From this point on, his notebooks are in Eng­ lish. Although disappointed that his uncle had not allowed him to study architecture, he was quite happy in Murray’s office. Over the course of a year, Davidson attended various lectures, and he and his colleague Murray Adams-Acton toured buildings around London by Richard Norman Shaw, C. F. A. Voysey and M. H. Baillie Scott. He also admired the furniture design of Charles R. Ashbee. “He was impressed with the restricted palette of materials, the organization of windows into banks, and the simplifications of interiors.”14 His archive contains pages torn from books referencing the Hill House by Charles R. Mackintosh in Helensburg, cottages by W. A. H. Masters in England, as well as a country house by Edwin Lutyens, and a house in Scarborough by R. S. Lorimer.15 From 1890 until the First World War, the second generation of the Arts and Crafts movement in England was shaped by M. H. Baillie Scott, C. F. A. Voysey, Charles R. Ashbee, Charles R. Mackintosh, Parker & Unwin and others. Unlike the previous generation of William Morris or Richard Norman Shaw, M. H. Baillie Scott was one of the first architects to apply simpler, more abstract and stylized design characteristics. Baillie Scott also achieved attention for his theoretical writings, such as the book Houses and Gardens (1906, translated into German in 191216), where he argued the case for architecture that faces away from the street and toward the garden, absorbing and bringing inside the color schemes of the exterior. His most important contribution, however, was a more open floor plan that would eliminate the Victorian drawing room, replacing it with a living space, the so-called “houseplace.” Davidson later names it the “family room.” “The space is closely interrelated to adjacent dining, study and sleeping areas, which were made subordinate. The focal point of these spaces is invariably an immense fireplace surrounded by built-in furniture and often covered by a projecting copper repoussé overmantel emblazoned

20  J.R. Davidson

with a heart, meant to symbolize the very ‘heart’ of the house. In his planning in terms of areas and levels rather than rooms and floors, he was a pioneer of Modernism.”17

Baillie Scott’s simple and box-like furniture shunned any historical reference. He also designed unadorned wallpapers and panels in simple colors. The homes Davidson built later in California clearly indicate how much he was impressed by opening and orienting the façade toward the garden, as well as by dividing the floor plan into functional zones. Baillie Scott’s choice of color and the simplicity of his furniture design, especially the chairs, were likewise an inspiration to him. C. F. A. Voysey’s Garden Corner house in London (1906) and its interior decoration may also have shaped Davidson’s color schemes. “In the typical Voysey interior the low ceilings and deep friezes were white; the woodwork was unpolished oak, if possible, or cheaper deal painted white. Colours in furnishings, tiled fireplaces and wall and floor coverings were soft and light, for example delicate greens and heathery purples, with a few bright accents of red and turquoise. There was no clutter in a Voysey interior: furniture was sparse and the use of pattern in wallpapers, carpets and metalwork was sparing.”18

Davidson’s mentor in London, Frank Stuart Murray (1848–1915), owed his reputation to the furniture company Waring & Gillow, which had designed and built interiors for two ocean liners, the “Mauretania” and the “Lusitania” (1906). A drawing of the smoking saloon features a Pompeiian or classical wall design. Parts of the main hall, however, are clad in dark wood and furnished with Roman arches. “The woodwork in the saloon is of Italian walnut, and this type of work requires a special knowledge of ship construction. Joints have to lap to allow for ‘camber’ and expansion, and the fittings are made to templates.”19 The “Mauretania’s” chief interior designer, however, was the Englishman Harold Peto with his concept of the dark “gentlemen’s style.” Peto’s design featured wooden cabinets, furniture and paneling made from 28 different woods and the main room paneling was carved by 300 Palestinian craftsmen. Murray, fluent in six languages, engaged effortlessly with all the royal houses of Europe. He designed a barge for the Turkish sultan, a yacht for the German Kaiser Wilhelm II (either “Meteor IV,” 1909, at the Krupp Germania shipyard in Kiel, or “Meteor V,” 1914), and the yacht “Lysistrata,” 1900, for James Gordon Bennett Jr., son of the New York Herald founder and first transcontinental yacht race winner.

MODERNISM  21

“Mr. Murray was a small man physically, with a high piping voice, who dearly loved a joke, even though it was one on himself.”20 Murray also decorated Windsor Castle, as well as Queen Alexandra’s studio at Marlborough House. When the furniture company Waring & Gillow encountered financial problems, Murray and a handful of colleagues left to establish Durand, Murray & Seddon. Davidson must have worked for Murray at this time. Later, shortly before his death, Murray worked for Waring & Gillow’s rival company, which designed furniture for the general public, rather than the upper classes. “The charm of Murray’s work...lay in its refined simplicity, and it was this characteristic which so pleased his royal patrons. If no hint was given him as to the treatment he would generally choose as the motif the Colonial Adam style. He claimed the development of this style as his own special creation, and said that he himself had named it.”21

A neoclassical 18th-century style of architecture and interior design, the Adam style was practiced by the Scottish brothers Robert Adam (1728–1792) and James Adam (1732–1794). “The Adam brothers were the first to advocate an integrated style for architecture and interiors; with walls, ceilings, fireplaces, furniture, fixtures, fittings and carpets all being designed by the Adams as a single uniform scheme.”22 The Adam style gained new popularity toward the end of the 1800s. Between 1880 and 1920 it was very fashionable among the middle classes, being a light elegant design in contrast to the lumbering dark interiors of the second half of the 19th century. From Davidson’s notebooks, it is clear that Murray’s was the ideal place for him to find outlet for his love of classical and baroque furniture. This neoclassical influence resurfaced later in 1920–1921 as Biedermeier style in Davidson’s retrofitted Berlin apartment. He mentions repeatedly that the furnishing of ships taught him how to accommodate maximum functionality in the smallest possible space. It will be discussed later in this book to what extent this really impacted the unique features of his architecture. Murray’s celebrated luxury liner and yacht commissions actually date back to an earlier period when Davidson did not work for him. Esther McCoy quotes Davidson: “This was before the First World War when modern design was shy, but the most provocative of it was the interiors of liners, usually in the smaller boats, and never in first cabin. The best design was always in

22  J.R. Davidson

second or third cabin, very simplified solutions. The experience was invaluable for learning space economy and coordination.”23

She also refers to drawings and plans made by Davidson that provide precise information on the height and width of shoes in the closet of a private house seen for the Berkson Residences and the Sam A. Taylor Residence.24 There are yet other incidences of Murray’s influence on Davidson’s architectural development. McCoy describes how Davidson often attended meetings in Murray’s house on Sundays where he enjoyed the company’s camaraderie.25 Murray was a gifted draftsman. His watercolors reflect both architectural and coloring skills. In his essay “Color in Common Things” (1912) Murray describes his conception of colors in architecture.26 He points out that beautiful colors occur in everyday objects such as clothing, and emphasizes that he does not want to diminish the value of natural or primary colors, nor the ones we remember from famous buildings like the Ravenna churches. Given that Davidson made his costume and clothing drawings in his notebooks in color and drew city views in watercolor, (Fig. 9) his affinity with Murray’s ideas seems quite evident. “[A]s John Ruskin says, speaking of another matter, ‘in the dust of the troubled street’ that [sic] we have to seek for instruction and example in our present needs. In the commonplace round of everyday experience you may justly expect, and quite certainly find, ample illustration or example of restful and harmonious color in street, lane, factory, suburb, and in the insides of the comfortable ugly shells that shelter us. The real obstacle to a proper appreciation of the value of the ‘Color of Common Things’ lies in the habit of association of ideas. Many very sordid, ignoble things are full of fine color, only there will always be a natural prejudice operating. The ordinary purple grey slate, which is used with such devilish persistency for continents of cheap roofing, is not really a bad color in proper place and contrast. In a late autumn day, with a mellow afternoon sun shining through the mist of town, it becomes a tone of really fine quality. But the monotony of a thousand such roofs, seen from the window of a railway carriage, the dreary sameness and squalor of the streets that channel the desert of slate, blunts any appeal the color might justly make. Take, for an illustration, the tones of ordinary common packing-paper. Largely because the color is an accidental thing and not studied, that it comes out of the native impurities of the material, it is commonly quite good, but it makes no pretense of being artistic [sic].”27

MODERNISM

23

Fig. 9 J. R. Davidson, Notebook I, 1902–1903. View of Klopstockstraße, Berlin

According to Murray, beautiful colors already occur in ordinary things and therefore set the color palette without any need to “acquire” them artistically. He adds a description of the colorful architectural details in the Church of St. Clement Danes in London:

24  J.R. Davidson

“Let us suppose it to be what the picture painter calls a ‘grey’ day—not a gloomy one; one of those sleepy, quiet, autumn days, that shorten the hateful town winter and make us almost forget the green glory and abounding light of June and the purple sheen of August evenings. Right ahead is the steeple and porch of St. Clement Danes. Rain and wind matched against the smoke of a thousand chimneys, and have left a wonderful chequer-work [sic]; spire, cornice, pillars and carvings all palest of ivories, silver grey, amber, rich warm black; and, where the mellow sunshine cast the strongest shadows, a deep warm blue. The foreground is broad and simple in composition, but beyond lie the fronts of Fleet-street-windows, roofs and pinnacles innumerable, broken into every variety of height and projection. The mystery of the colour maze defies analysis. It is as elusive as the scaled enamel of a snake on the checq­uered fret-work of wild flowers in a spring field. The foreshortened facade is a tesserae of doors, windows, cornices, signs and placards, of tones innumerable and bewildering as their shapes. Let us look into it for a while a little nearer. First comes a bank—two-storied, with granite columns grey and rose. The pink columns we recognize as certain extraordinary touches of warm color that we saw when further away against the sombre grey tone of the lead roof of the church. The side of the bank, built in brick for cheapness, makes a grand broad mass of warm tone. The brick is weathered to purple in places, and patterned by wavy masses of smoke from the chimneys of the older houses on either side—none so eminent as the great building. One of these lower houses has a new zinc roof, pale and luminous, with a glint of green here and there. The next front is being painted. It has a coat of pink priming in places; the uncovered parts are greyish gold. The window sashes are out, and the patches of shadow chequer the front with oblongs of deep velvety brown.”28

Davidson adopted these views and applied them to his first commissions to retrofit retail stores. The floors, in a scheme of green, yellow, gold, gray, and violet, are strongly reminiscent of Murray’s descriptions. This influence remains strong— stronger even than his later encounters with fashionable Art Deco in Paris. In the summer of 1911, after a year in England, Davidson traveled to Paris to meet Grete, now his fiancée. Passing through Leiden, The Hague, and eventually Brussels, he made a point, according to McCoy, of visiting the Maison du Peuple (1899) by Victor Horta.29

MODERNISM  25

Paris 1913–1914 In addition to his fluency in German and English, Davidson also spoke French, which must have been very helpful when in early 1913 he moved to Paris to be with Grete. This period of 18 months, with the then developing Art Deco movement, was of particular influence. Initially his friends Murray Adams-Acton and others came to Paris to participate in a watercolor contest.30 Grete31 was apprenticed as fashion designer at Maison Lanvin, 22 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, which was set up by Armand Albert Rateau. Around that time (1913) Jeanne Lanvin, founder and owner of the fashion salon, designed the “robe de style.” “Her design was inspired by 18th century styles of small waistlines, billowy crinolines, and bouffant skirts. In her early version of the ‘robe de style’ she adhered to the natural waistline and added full flowing skirts which generally fell right above the ankle.”32

For a while, Davidson worked in Paris for the English interior designer Fred Osborn, who also knew Murray. Later, from November 12, 1912, to May 31, 1913, he earned a living in the studio of Paul and Arsène Dumas. In the back of the studio they worked on various projects for the fashion designer Paul Poiret.33 Among these are at least six wallpaper designs, jointly created by the Dumas brothers, as well as scenery backdrops, interior designs, and costumes for Poirets’ legendary fancy dress balls. The studio was located at 24–26 Rue Notre-Dame des Victoires, while the factory with its printing workshop34 was housed in Montreuil-sous-Bois, about four miles east of central Paris. In addition to the paper prints, the studio also produced furniture and home decorations. Of Paul Poiret, Nancy J. Troys says: “Not only did he introduce a radical simplified female silhouette, but he also pioneered the sale of women’s clothes together with lifestyle accessories such as perfume and decorative objects for the home.”35 A noteworthy connection exists between Dumas and Paul Poiret, who is considered one of the Art Deco pioneers. After a visit to Josef Hoffmann in Vienna in 1910, Poiret opened first École Martine, a school for young women to learn the design of tapestry, and then La Maison Martine, his own interior design studio in Paris in 1911 in which he collaborated with different artists like the painter Raoul Dufy, who designed fabrics for him from 1910 until 1912. Initially he created mostly wallpaper and textiles, later carpets and lamps as well as hand-painted glasses and ceramics. To get this all into production, he needed to team up with experts like—Paul Dumas!

26  J.R. Davidson

“While exoticism in style, color, and ideas was a constant over the course of Poiret’s career, the Martines brought this aesthetic to fruition on fabric with their abstraction of natural elements and naiveté of expression. Crudely drawn, the untamed flow of wildflowers, use of abnormal shapes, and bursts of vibrant colors became the Martines’ trademarks that could just as easily accentuate the wallpaper of a room as the allure of a garment. Accessories were also prey to crossover in the Poiret oeuvre, like the tassel on the belt of an Empire-style gown that seamlessly transitioned as a decorative feature for a group of Martine pillows. An interior could now be ‘Martinized’, a term synonymous with a refreshingly contemporary sensibility.”36

But there is also criticism of Poiret’s new concept of transferring such design to everyday objects: “Certainly couturiers have never before insisted that chairs, curtains, rugs, and wall-coverings should be considered in the choosing of a dress, or rather that the style of a dress should influence the interior decorations of a home.”37

Davidson may have seen Poiret’s costumes and decors for his dress balls, such as the legendary “Thousand and Second Night” party in 1911, based on the stories of One

Thousand and One Nights. This lavishly appareled ball introduced Poiret’s harem pants and his revolutionary lampshade tunic, which was worn by Poiret’s wife Denise in a setting filled with Persian-influence musicians, parrots, plants, variously colored cushions and a thousand flashing lights. (Fig. 10) We have an extant drawing of the lampshade tunic by Davidson. (Fig. 11) The 300 guests were expected to arrive in Persian costumes, with those who didn’t comply either going home or putting on Poiret-designed apparels.38 This event may well have inspired Davidson’s later design of the Cocoanut Grove nightclub at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. “The scene played out just as Poiret envisioned; he ultimately exploited his private party to stage what was possibly the very first fashion show, a fantasy-inspired arena designed to publicize his latest creations with guests unwittingly serving as models… Many suggested Scheherazade, a controversial ballet staged by Sergei Diaghilev for the Ballets Russes the year before, largely influenced the party, though Poiret dismissed any comparisons.”39

MODERNISM

27

Fig. 10 Pantomime dancers in Persian-style

Fig. 11 J. R. Davidson, drawing of

dresses designed by Paul Poiret, Paris, ca. 1914

lampshade tunic designed by Paul Poiret

Poiret’s rich color scheme—his use of red, green, and purple—was fundamentally different from Murray’s. Poiret’s colors had a longlasting impact on Davidson’s preference for textiles continuing into the 1950s—when he decorated his buildings with floral sofas and curtains, such as the Dann House (1950). “I always select the fabrics for my houses—or Greta does—and the selection of colors begins with the design.”40 According to Esther McCoy’s notes, Davidson proceeded to work as a designer for two Rothschild family homes in southern France. Unfortunately, we have no details for these. “He had little to say of these except that he kept them unpretentious.”41

The War Years 1915–1919 With the outbreak of the First World War, xenophobia in France was on the rise, prompting Grete and Julius to return to Berlin in October 1914, where they married on December 24th. From 1915, Davidson served in the war. McCoy writes that, due to his French language skills, he was first stationed in the Army’s Corps of Engineers on the French coast. This is questionable, however, since his sister

28

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 12 Postcard of J. R. Davidson on

Fig. 13 J. R. Davidson and his wife Grete

horseback during his military service on

(Greta after 1924), Berlin

the Russian border, 1916

Friedel received two postcards sent by army postal service, the first one dated December 26, 1915, addressed c/o Ettinger in Posen, Hohenzollernstraße 29, and the second dated February 12, 1916. (Fig. 12) Both cards were mailed from the Russian town Zdzienciol, allowing for a different interpretation of events: he may equally well have been based in Russia for the entire period of his service. With her husband drafted just four months after their wedding, Grete wrote42 about the beginnings of her marriage and her husband’s stay on the Russian border. She went to see him in the Russian border town Gołdap where he was completing training with the Army’s Corps of Engineers. In 1919, after the end of the war, Davidson traveled back to Berlin via Lübeck, Kiel, and Flensburg.

Berlin 1919–1923 On his return from the front, Grete and Julius Davidson settled in Berlin. (Fig. 13) The 1918–1919 notebook XIII contains information on rifles and their range, as well as renderings of tombstones and weeping willows, and the first drawings of sofas and beds, probably for their young household. This notebook dated January 1919, records the address of Davidson at Voßbergstraße 2, Schöneberg, Berlin. He

MODERNISM  29

acquired two Vierländer chairs, one with armrests, for 36 and 20 marks for his home. Mr. Pfeifferling, his first client, was a trader in precious metals, who commissioned the remodeling of a residence in Grunewald, Berlin. It was from the proceeds of this job that Davidson was able to rent his new office. (Fig.  16) Davidson’s façade retrofitting for the Pfeifferling home was a “cleaned up baroque,”43 as Esther McCoy writes, and he designed new furniture for the dining room. “It was here he designed the blue lacquered sideboard. The chandelier of enameled copper was reminiscent of Lutyens, which Davidson had sketched ten years before.”44 According to McCoy, Bruno Paul’s students did the sideboard carving. The German furniture and interior designer Bruno Paul and Davidson might have known each other and his influence on Davidson is especially visible in the early store design in Los Angeles. The notebook

Fig. 14 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XIII, 1919. Studies for a dressing table

includes other projects, albeit in minimal sketches, (Fig.  14) such as the remodeling of the Dupont apartment in Charlottenburg, Berlin, from where we have a photograph of the dressing table. (Fig.  15) In addition, Esther McCoy mentions the home of a Dupont partner in Saxony, as well as Hans Feigen’s Norman Shaw-style house in Bonn. Neither the archive nor any historical documents or publications of the time provide any information about these projects. Work on these buildings was probably done in the years between 1919 and 1922, and presumably consisted of interior work only. Davidson would otherwise have kept photographs or included these projects in his lists of built houses.45 He may also have been involved in the retrofitting of the Starck Villa, home of the entrepreneur

30

J.R. Davidson

Hermann Starck, at Bertinistraße 6–9 in Potsdam, the architect in charge being Michael Rachlis. A letter from Starck to Davidson in 1926 suggests they knew each other.46 Starck wrote the letter on his return trip to Germany from New York, after having unsuccessfully attempted to see Davidson in Los Angeles around Christmas of 1925. A 1926 letter from Alexander Koch, mentions the architect Michael Rachlis as their good mutual friend.47 As Esther McCoy points out,48 Davidson grew tired of working in the baroque style in Berlin, though we should differentiate: it is not so much baroque as the aforementioned Adam style— which then morphed into a kind of BieFig. 15 Conversion Dupont apartment, Berlin, 1919. Interior

dermeier. Greek Revival blends in here with Art Nouveau. Among the many architectural periodicals of the day, it appears that Davidson primarily consulted Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration (1897–1932). His notebooks refer to it repeatedly, particularly the 1918–1919 publications, while he also copied furniture and architectural details from its illustrations. Other architecture magazines from this time are: Berliner Ar-

chitekturwelt (1899–1919), Wasmuths Fig. 16 Davidson’s business card, Berlin, 1920

Monatshefte für Baukunst und Städtebau (1914–1931), Zentralblatt der Bauver-

waltung (1881–1931), Zeitschrift für Bauwesen (1851–1931), Deutsche Bauzeitung (1867–1920), Baumeister (1902– present), Form (1925–1934), and Das

Plakat (1914–1921). Davidson may also have subscribed to the magazine In-

MODERNISM

31

Fig. 17 Conversion Davidson apartment, Berlin, 1921. Ground floor plan

nendekoration (1900–1944).49 Only once do his work and name come up, when Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration in 1924 published his converted penthouse. Nothing else was published.

Apartment Conversion, Berlin, 1921 In 1920–1921 Davidson retrofitted the former servants’ quarters on the attic floor of the apartment building Am Park 18 in Berlin into his private five-bedroom apartment. Below him in the building lived the publisher Ernst Wasmuth. Davidson’s apartment overlooked Schöneberger Park and was surrounded by a large roof area, which he converted into a 200-square-foot wrap-around roof terrace. (see floor plan, Fig. 17) None of the rooms were rectangular, and the walls followed the man-

32

J.R. Davidson

sard roof curvature. “He made use of the alcoves formed by the dormers for closets, as a recess for a bed, a bathtub, and kitchen cabinets; the alcove off their new library became a drafting room.”50 Davidson installed double and folding doors between the rooms, so that daylight could penetrate the apartment. “In a corner was a dining bower of metal lath, in summer covered with vines growing from large pots. Fig. 18 Conversion Davidson apartment. Entrance door with curtain

Along the parapet wall a hedge was planted in a deep metal trough.”51 Davidson took the planning documentation along with his notebooks to the U.S. which allows us to revisit the apartment. We enter it through a vestibule containing a mirror and a table. (Fig. 18) Off to the right are the living room (Fig. 20) with fireplace and the integrated study with access to the terrace. Adjoining this space is a lady’s parlor, (Fig. 19) which also connects to the outside patio. A suite of private rooms

Fig. 19 Conversion Davidson apartment. Tapestry in Grete Davidson’s room

runs behind these public spaces: a lady’s bedroom, right next to the lady’s parlor, is connected through a dressing room to the master bedroom, the beds facing each other in the spatial alignment. The kitchen area and bathroom are grouped on the apartment’s left-hand side. The distinct division clearly positions the living rooms to face the park, while the bedrooms are kept separate in the smaller and darker mansard spaces. Notebook XIII (1919) relates dimensions and prices of household items, such as pictures and fur-

Fig. 20 Conversion Davidson apartment. Fireplace

niture. The publishing house Alexander

with chair similar to the one Davidson later

Koch featured an image of the lady’s bed-

brought to Los Angeles

room in an advertisement,52 highlighting

MODERNISM

33

that even in the most simple and ordinary architectural task (Fig. 22) “[T]he decisive element will always be the formative organizing energy, which unites everything harmoniously. This energy creates order and beauty by applying simple and distinctive printed fabrics, even on finished wood. Of what use are the most lavish resources, if not to fill a beautiful home with the lively spirit of love and taste, while nurturing that taste through good role models and thus inspiring confidence in the ability of one’s own creative power? To offer such stimulation in words and images is the aim of both the magazine

Innendekoration, as well as of the Neuzeitliche Wohnkultur publications by Alexander Koch publishers, Darmstadt—a guidance to creating and not Fig. 21 Conversion Davidson apartment. Wall lamps

just viewing.”53

The only extant documents of Davidson’s early creative period, the ground floor plan and the description in the article, and the photographs of his apartment, (Fig. 21) convey his architectural conception—yet, its author, Anton Jaumann, notes: “An architect wishing to be faithful to true home decor will welcome the challenge of retrofitting an attic floor. No specific architectural skills are required. He does not need to show off a new style.”54 The critic further emphasizes and applauds how the spaces are suffused with light. By questioning the architect’s classical spatial configuration, he in fact elevates Davidson’s creative vision: “Are gradations in light, shade, and space not equally created by the color palette? Davidson’s penthouse loft unfortunately does not display any of our typical spatial art.“55 One paragraph down he accurately characterizes the design: “How peculiar that an architect who has worked for several years in England, then settled in Berlin for some time and is now working in California would have conceived rooms of such a German and Biedermeier character!”56

34

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 22 Conversion Davidson apartment. Grete Davidson’s bedroom shown in an advertisement by Alexander Koch Verlagsanstalt

MODERNISM  35

Jaumann goes on to say that Davidson’s work does not seek any national distinctions, and that it is, in that sense, like the style of middle-class mansions in California. “[F]urniture styles as plain and simple as possible reveal the spirit of the authentic middle-class home. Atmosphere and subtlety come to a striking fruition through these light and artless shapes. Aren’t we already familiar with an artists’ group in Vienna working towards that same goal? By no means is Davidson’s penthouse apartment one-of-a-kind in Germany.”57

In 1922, the shoe retailer Stiller, sporting Lucian Bernhard’s well-known store logo, commissioned Davidson to design two retail stores with glass showcases.58 This was Davidson’s first opportunity to work with indirect lighting. “The glass cases were evenly illuminated by incandescent bulbs concealed in a pocket in the top, with frosted glass spreading the light so there were no shadows.”59 McCoy also points out how the shoes seem to float lightly inside them. Later, when designing his dessert carts for the Hi-Hat Restaurant, Davidson draws from these store showcases. In the conversation with McCoy, Davidson establishes a direct connection to Lucian Bernhard, a colleague of Bruno Paul’s, but it is doubtful whether Davidson and Bernhard ever met. There is though a notebook mention of the magazine Das

Plakat, which frequently published Bernhard’s work, so Davidson was probably familiar with his work. In the same year, Davidson was commissioned to fit out the 200-seat auditorium of the Hupfeld piano factory in Leipzig with indirect lighting. He “bathed walls in reflected light by aiming hidden incandescent bulbs at the coving around the ceiling. Each method of lighting he used required different structural pockets.”60 Later, Julius Davidson could not remember much of his time in Europe. Frequently he brought up dates that did not match actual events. Whether he deliberately reinterpreted them, or added something, remains unclear. Esther McCoy, a friend of J. R. and Greta, says at the beginning of her book: “Let the talk turn to his youth in Berlin, and his guard went up. Clearly he had been an unhappy young man. Even his son knew little about his childhood.”61 He may have avoided answering questions regarding his architectural training in Europe because he never had any—the sole sources of his self-taught formation were museums, books, and eventually the Alexander Koch publications Deutsche Kunst und

Dekoration and Innendekoration, as well as his furniture apprenticeship.

36  J.R. Davidson

Emigration to the United States 1923 In 1923, with inflation paralyzing Berlin, the Davidsons sold their home for $8,500 on December 12th. Three days later, after transferring the money to an American bank account, they left Germany via Hamburg on the S. S. “Albert Ballin.” Following their arrival in New York on December 31st, the couple stayed for three weeks with Grete’s colleague Kate Goldberg and her husband Dan. The next day, on January 1, 1924, J. R. officially registered in the United States as Julius Ralph Davidson. Grete soon began to use the name Greta as that seemed more in tune with the English-speaking environment. To help him find a job in New York, the Goldbergs introduced him to various architects. Despite this, he decided, however, to move to Los Angeles. As McCoy suggests, this may have had to do with the German architect Kem Weber. After working for Bruno Paul on the construction of the German Pavilion for the Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco, Weber got stuck in the U.S. during the First World War and finally moved to Los Angeles in 1921. It is highly likely that Davidson had heard about Weber from Bruno Paul. Contrary to what one might expect, Davidson did not make sketches of early New York skyscrapers, but focused his attention on Spanish Renaissance buildings, Mexican tiles and residential structures. (Fig. 23) He studied Mexican architecture at the Hispanic Society as well as at the Architectural League of New York and lists numerous books on the subject in his notebook (1924), (Fig. 25) as if it were a kind of preparation for Los Angeles. The notes include a storefront with a very simple glass showcase design featuring indirect lighting. (Fig. 24) He may have traveled to Los Angeles via Chicago, since he drew the façade of the Art Institute of Chicago.62 At age 36, Davidson arrived in Los Angeles, where he worked for nine months for the architect Robert D. Farquhar, who at that time was building the UCLA William Andrews Clark Memorial Library. Davidson was put in charge of the interior design of the archival area, work involving the shelves and their lighting. When Farquhar left town in 1925, he made inquiries with movie director Cecil B. DeMille, who had just started his own business, to see if Davidson could work as a set designer for the movie The Golden Bed. Davidson then spent two years working for MGM in Hollywood. Under the art director Cedric Gibbons, he worked on the movie “It,” which propelled “It Girl” actress Clara Bow to stardom. From 1942 on, he created sets for Paramount Studios, probably for the documentary movie The Hitler Gang (1944), where he had to recreate the Reichstag fire. The exact date remains unclear, as the daughter-in-law of J. R. talks about a participation before leaving to Chicago around 1933. The Paramount ID of Davidson is from the year 1942. (Fig. 26)63

MODERNISM  37

Fig. 23 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XIV, January

Fig. 24 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XIV, January 1924.

1924. Tile studies from the book Spanish

Storefront study with display case

Colonial Architecture in Mexico, seen in the Art Institute of Chicago library.

Davidson also worked on two of Farquhar’s buildings, probably the Harry Cohn House, Los Angeles, 1927, and the Richard I. Rogers residence, Beverly Hills, ca. 1927. As McCoy points out, Davidson appreciated being involved in these projects, in order to better understand the differences and similarities between an American and a European office environment.64 For Davidson there were hardly any differences at all: “Essentially they were the same, although here they would cover a wall with plywood, with a stile around the molding. Quick and easy.”65 His last notebook from 1929 concludes with contrasting the different measurement systems (Fig. 27)—joint connections with U.S. designations, conversion tables from centimeters to inches, the composition and mixing ratio of concrete, as well as other technical details. It is basically his own personal manual on how to do construction in America, or rather, in California.

38

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 25 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XIV, January 1924. Spanish hacienda

First Commissions: Retail Work The first commissions under Davidson’s own name were store retrofittings. The Spanish Renaissance or Spanish Colonial Revival style that was prevalent in 1920s commercial architecture in Los Angeles was less concerned with technical progress than with a past romantic tradition in a way that set the West Coast region apart architecturally from the rest of America. The first major cluster of stores can be found on Wilshire Corridor and 7th Street, next to Westlake Park (now MacArthur Park). “Called Westlake Square, the project was undertaken by several property owners as a coordinated effort to form a new exclusive shopping district.”66 All seven buildings, including the Seventh and Grandview Building, as well as the Bilicke Estate and Thorpe Building were erected as one ensemble by the architects Morgan, Walls & Clements for various owners in 1923–1924.67 The venFig. 26 J. R. Davidson’s ID card for Paramount

ture turned out to be not much of a

Studios, Los Angeles, 1942

success due to the lack of parking space,

MODERNISM

39

Fig. 27 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XV, 1929. American measurements and building systems

and many of the exclusive stores moved to Wilshire Boulevard, which was redeveloped for commercial use in 1923. “The architectural character of Westlake Square nevertheless set the tone for much of the small-scale commercial development along Wilshire and other outlying areas.”68 Richard Longstreth explains in his overview about the development of retail in Los Angeles that the leading architects, Morgan, Walls & Clements, were advancing a new style inspired by Northern French influences in addition to the Spanish historical style elements. “This formalized, abstracted, and overtly commercial adaptation of French domestic sources conveyed a sense of old-world stylishness appropriate to fashion-oriented emporia.”69

Storefront, 2214–2226 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, 1926–1927 Both Davidson and his wife had worked in Paris—Grete in the fashion industry— and they both shared the same aesthetic in architecture and interior design. David-

40  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 28 Hilda Deesy Gowns Clothing Store. Drawing of façade

son’s color palette, his use of Art Deco signage and lines, as well as his choice of stylish materials seemed to fit the Zeitgeist of the time. This is probably why Davidson was commissioned to design the storefronts at 2214–2226 West 7th Street (1926–1927).70 The illustration in Architectural Record is an overview, and shows the sequence of stores with their shared character, all the lettering displayed at the same height, although each store is individually designed. (Fig. 31) The first one, Hilda Deesy Gowns, 2216 West 7th Street (1926), featured an impressive striped marble façade framing the two store windows with the central entrance. The lettering is functional and simple but brightly lit, as shown in the design plan. (Figs. 28, 29)

MODERNISM

41

Fig. 29 Hilda Deesy Gowns Clothing Store, 2216 West

Fig. 30 Madame Louise Germaine Beauty Shop, 2218

7th Street, Los Angeles, 1926. Storefront with striped

West 7th Street, Los Angeles. Color drawing of

façade

storefront

For the adjacent store, Madame Louise Germaine Beauty Shop, on 2218 West 7th Street (1926), Davidson designed the letters in small Art Deco typography. The smaller store window at eye level displayed various perfume bottles and beauty products. The façade was made of polished cement with aluminum frames surrounding the big windows, while colored glass provided the salon’s customers with some privacy. (Fig. 30) The unassuming and sparsely decorated façade moved the focus away toward the entrance with its geometric design and simple lines. Davidson established his own office, “J. R. Davidson Interior Architecture,” in the third remodeled store, 2222 West 7th Street (1927), which he shared with “C. R. Hite Property Development Investments.” (Fig. 32) Davidson still saw himself first and foremost as an interior designer. (Fig. 34) Once again, the façade stands back here to put emphasis on both store window and door. To make room for two company names, Davidson divided the storefront, with his name over the window while the C. R. Hite logo was placed above the door. (Fig. 33) Both are backlit (see the detail drawing published in Architectural Record). A rim of green polished cement ran around the façade, while aluminum strutting protected against cracks in the concrete. Davidson created a frame of discolored oak wood around the door

42  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 31 Three storefronts at 2214–2226 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, designed by the office of Davidson and Hite-Bilicke and published in Architectural Record, October 1928

MODERNISM

43

Fig. 32 Office J. R. Davidson Interior Architecture, with

Fig. 33 Office J. R. Davidson Interior Architecture.

C. R. Hite Property Development Investments, 2222

Entrance with the drawing of Tierney & Co. Restau-

West 7th Street, Los Angeles, 1927. Construction site

rant and Café-Bar on display in the window.

with Davidson’s logo

and window, while bronze-colored panels gave the area below the window a certain hint of sophistication. The façade brings to mind Frank Lloyd Wright or Rudolph Schindler, showing the architectural tradition in which Davidson saw himself. On entering the Hite section, customers immediately took in the interior quality and design of the reception area and the office space, which they could then order for themselves at Davidson’s office. By contrast, C. R. Hite’s reception space still stuck to Art Deco’s formal elements: “Wall panels of Philippine mahogany, slightly stained. Aluminum moldings between horizontal mahogany panels, carried around room through sash, radiators, doors and shelves, to give unity of effect. Linotile floor in four colors: dark brown, light brown, dark blue, gray blue. Linotile base 3 inches high. Radiator of black Belgian marble with aluminum strips. Ceiling of plaster tinted a pale blue. Center ceiling light fixture with aluminum brackets with two decks of sand-blasted glass. Seat in reception room of dark blue leather.”71

44  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 34 Office J. R. Davidson Interior Architecture. Drawing of the façade

The office room, on the other hand, featured a rather sober, dark gray oak decor. Walnut struts in the style of the California Arts and Crafts movement held the panels together. Table and chairs were made of walnut. In Davidson’s office the floor pattern of the waiting room as well as the Hite office’s wood paneling continue. A large fireplace provided a living room atmosphere, and the lights in the corners already anticipated the Hi-Hat Restaurant. (Fig. 35). Comparison of this storefront with the remodeling of Preissman & Co. Real Estate Office on 817 5th Avenue in Los Angeles (1929) makes apparent the progress in Davidson’s work. The much simpler façade was composed of a large entrance with windows on either side of the entrance. These windows were not for display purposes since the building was used as an office, similar to Davidson’s own office. On the inside the room was painted white. Desks and a wall lamp also designed by Davidson occupy the minimal space. (Fig. 36) Davidson’s interior designs were now widely published, and he received numerous requests to design storefronts. Long before he ever built a home he had already acquired quite a reputation.

MODERNISM

45

Fig. 35 Office J. R. Davidson Interior Architecture.

Fig. 36 Preissman & Co. Real Estate Office, 817

Interior

5th Avenue, Los Angeles, 1929. Interior with a Constructivist wall lamp also designed by Davidson on the far right.

“J. R. Davidson received more commissions for retail stores and offices than any other Modernist during the decade. His general approach was more strongly rational, sophisticated and elegant than that of the other Modernists.”72 David Gebhard says in the first chapter of his book Los Angeles in the Thirties, that modern architects such as Schindler, Neutra, and Ain played only a marginal role in 1930s commercial architecture. There are two possible reasons for Davidson’s success in this particular area, the first being his English and German origin. Neutra and Schindler, however, were from Europe as well. Having studied with Adolf Loos they were definitely familiar with his early modern storefronts and decor. The other, perhaps more important reason—and one which distinguished him from Neutra and Schindler—was the fact of his apprenticeship and study of furniture and materials during his period in Europe. Christopher Long relates Davidson’s specific choice of materials in his first stores to his time in Paris:

46  J.R. Davidson

“Davidson’s aesthetic sensibility had been strongly shaped by his work on sophisticated Parisian interiors: what he developed in his residential and commercial projects was a sleek, refined look dependent on flush details, indirect lighting, and polished contemporary materials.”73

As early as 1914, the design of an office in Paris —we are left with only one single photograph and no further information—shows the typical minimizing of furniture while the interior decoration is reduced to the color scheme of wall, floor, and ceiling. Add to that the sparingly used lighting and the high-quality materials. This combination brings Davidson closer to store designs by Adolf Loos than the latter’s compatriots Neutra and Schindler ever were. Loos had built 30 stores and restaurants in Vienna, and he was especially interested in fashion, coffee houses, bars, and retail. Loos designed both the façade and interior for his most famous shop, Goldman & Salatsch, in 1912. The ground floor’s lingerie section consisted of showcases, a large number of mirrors, and lots of glass, while the dressing rooms upstairs provided a more intimate setting. It helped that Loos claimed to have his clothes made in England, and he received many commissions for his trademark ‘English sophistication’. The downstairs sales room revealed a dramatic spatial design which “relied on the rhythmic patterning of modular display cases fabricated from Guyanese snakewood, and the glass, lamps, and mirrors on the upper walls, edged with polished brass mullions. The contrast between the richly colored cabinetry and the light reflective elements conveyed a sense of refinement and luminosity, a look that would soon become Loos’ s trademark.”74

With the Sigmund Steiner store façade (1906) as well as with the Kärntner Bar (later American Bar, 1908), the façade succeeded due to the simplicity of the design. Façade ornamentation was replaced with a variety of marble materials, which embodied a clear and elegant luxury. For the Kärntner Bar, Loos used mirrors to enlarge the space in the same way he did in his first store. Being familiar with the psychological effect of architecture, he knew how to lure passers-by into a store by using simple architectural resources, a technique that he also applied to residential construction: true-to-material details, built-in cabinets, mirrors to enlarge space and, if structurally feasible, the merging of floor levels. But he was especially concerned with storefronts, where he preferred the use of marble or mottled stone and the largest possible display areas.

MODERNISM  47

We find similar approaches in Davidson’s first store, the decoration and remodeling of the Hilda Deesy Gowns clothing store (1926). “Loos often creates a psychological magnet effect on potential customers with façade set-backs and curvatures.”75 He achieved spatial distances through open areas and large lettering. Davidson adopted this principle and added backlit signage. But his most important influence may have been Bruno Paul, whose students also helped with the furniture for Davidson’s retrofitting commissions in Berlin.76 Both their backgrounds are similar. Just as Davidson had wanted to become an architect, Paul had wanted to become an artist: both ended up designing furniture. From 1904–1909, Paul provided interior decors for three ocean liners such as the “Crown Princess Cecilie” for the shipping company Norddeutscher Lloyd. As a co-founder of the Vereinigte Werkstätten für Kunst im Handwerk, Munich, he was one of the most sought-after designers in Berlin, where he taught at the Kunstgewerbeschule. Paul’s design for the president’s office at the Bayreuth Government Building was included in the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis—a precursor to the rectilinear Machine Age.77 Simple yet prestigious, its wooden wall paneling has similarities with Davidson’s and Hite’s Los Angeles office. Interestingly, after Paul’s involvement in

Typenmöbel and its reproducibility, he took a quite different path in 1910, a “historicizing-graceful one that borrowed from classicism and Biedermeier and that became the home décor of the upper middle class.”78 After seeing some of these bourgeois homes, Davidson may have found inspiration for his Berlin penthouse apartment. The Biedermeier interior appealed to contemporary tastes, even after the establishment in 1907 of the Deutscher Werkbund with its calls for industrial mass production based on solid craftsmanship, a concept that was later further developed in the Bauhaus education. Bruno Paul’s design for the Café Telschow in Berlin (1925) (Fig. 37) shows obvious parallels to Davidson’s restaurants, such as the Hi-Hat (1929). The pastry shop’s façade displayed a simple geometrical grid. The doors, lintels, and the huge second-floor window directed daylight into the café’s interior, a design reminiscent of Josef Hoffmann or Adolf Loos. The counter inside, with display cases behind, contrasted with an arrangement of simple chairs and tables in the café area. Additional lighting on the walls, as well as floriated ceiling and floor lamps, created an airy and floral ambiance, despite the wooden fixtures (counter, showcases, and wardrobe). The wall-mounted lamps and the furniture’s clean lines sustained the interior’s reduced-style language. Like the flowers of a plant, the wall lights consisted of light bulbs that were attached to the silvered brass racks. (Fig. 38) The vegetal lamp reappeared in the lighting of the Cocoanut Grove (1926) (Figs. 39, 41) and the Premiere Confectionery Store (1927) (Fig. 40) as hanging ceiling lamps.

48

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 37 Bruno Paul, Café Telschow, Berlin, 1925,

Fig. 38 Bruno Paul, lamp designs for Café Telschow

outside façade

Fig. 39 Cocoanut Grove, Ambassador Hotel, Los Ange-

Fig. 40 Premiere Confectionery Store, Los Angeles,

les, 1926. View of courtyard with new lamps

1927. Interior renovation and lamp design

MODERNISM

Fig. 41 Cocoanut Grove. Lamp details

49

Fig. 42 Edwin Lutyens, Delhi Mercury Ball chandelier, New Delhi, 1919

There are quite a few similarities with the oeuvre of the astounding English architect Edwin Lutyens— especially if we consider the Delhi Mercury Ball lighting for the Viceroy in New Delhi (1919) by Lutyens (Fig. 42) and compare it with Davidson’s oriental lamps at Cocoanut Grove (1926). It is noteworthy that Edwin Lutyens’s only son, the interior designer Robert Lutyens (1901–1972), created star-shaped ceiling lights for Brooke House (1936), while Davidson had already created his comparable Cocoanut Grove star ceiling lamps ten years earlier (1926). Worth mentioning in this context is G. Wibo’s Petit salon de thé du printemps, created 1908–1911 in Paris. Besides star-shaped ceiling lighting, the salon also features strip lights, as we find later in Jock D. Peters’s Bullocks Wilshire Department Store (1929) (Fig. 44) and also in Davidson’s Satyr Book Shop (1929). (Fig. 43) Apparently, both types of lighting had already been around in Paris for quite some time. Both Paul’s Bar-Raum design (1928) in the “Das Glas” exhibit in Berlin and Davidson’s own office floor (1926–1927) clearly borrow from Art Deco. The Bar-Raum floor’s large shapes of different colors are blending into the wall and ceiling design.

50

J.R. Davidson

After a trip on the French luxury liner “Île de France” (1928), Bruno Paul became fascinated with Art Deco’s light effects and use of mirrors. In considering the wall division in his restaurant for Tierney & Co, Davidson had similar ideas. (Fig. 45) An early project (ca. 1927), this restaurant with its coffee bar in red and black Art Deco patterns and with glass showcases, was a beautiful design, but it is unknown if it was ever realized. The entire setting is also comparable to Kem Weber’s Art Deco concept in his Rainbow Isle Restaurant at the Mayfair Hotel, Los Angeles (1926– 1927). Unfortunately, we can only compare the interiors, since no drawings exist of Davidson’s façade. As indicated in the red and black sketch, the design Fig. 43 Satyr Book Shop, Los Angeles, 1929. Interior

of wallpapers and lamps, as well as of

with special lighting

furniture and color arrangement is more reminiscent of the original Nikabob Restaurant dining room by Morgan, Walls & Clements (1926), for which Davidson designed the menu card, than of a light and airy café. (Fig. 46) The Art Deco-inspired interior of the Tierney & Co. Restaurant is similar to the new interior decor of the Los Angeles Bullocks Wilshire Department Store, co-designed by Jock D. Peters, a fellow German.79 Earlier, in 1926, P. G. Win-

Fig. 44 Jock D. Peters, Bullocks Wilshire Department Store, Los Angeles, 1926. Interior of perfume hall

nett had commissioned the highly respected interior designer Eleanore De Maire to retrofit the Downtown department store. De Maire, in turn, hired Peters. In addition, she employed various

MODERNISM

51

Fig. 45 Tierney & Co. Restaurant and Café-Bar, Los Angeles, ca. 1927 (probably project)

artists (including Sonia Delauney) for the Bullocks Wilshire interior design. Overseen by Feil & Paradise as well as by Peters, the lobby on the ground floor was designed in collaboration with the artists. There was no lack of enthusiastic reaction, once the two-million-dollar department store opened. In the words of Pauline Schindler: “Bullocks Wilshire is a significant contribution to the culture of our generation. It will effect a revolutionary development in taste in southern California, which will eventually penetrate to the more conservative north, and will strongly modify the development of architecture.”80 Behind the store entrance by the Bauhaus style elevators, the customer reached the cosmetics concourse, which Peters “accented with light panels with vertical, metallic stripes, creating a soft glow and welcoming ambience.”81 (Fig. 44) In the Bullocks Wilshire Saddle Shop, Peters used panels in different colors and cubist elements on both ceiling and floor, reminiscent in their simplicity of Art Deco. He decorated the men’s department in a ‘concrete block style’ suggesting Frank Lloyd Wright, who was then very much en vogue. “There was an emphasis on rectilinear forms, with rough, tanned plastered walls juxtaposed with patterned borders.”82 The space was set up as a two-level vertical structure that provided an airy impression, while the display area was organized in a private intimate way. One of the most well-known rooms is the Furs Atelier, specially known for its use of materials:

52

J.R. Davidson

“[C]ork board walls, dull pink ceiling and oyster-gray center panels. The floor was designed in checkered random blocks, and seats were covered in brilliant coral velour edged with Chinese vermilion. Opal glass lanterns with silver rings and black tassels hung from the ceiling.”83

Less important floors were completed by other interior designers, but even those had an innovative and elegant appearance.

Storefront, 3925–3931 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, 1929 With Bullocks Wilshire in close proximity, Davidson’s work underwent a substantial push toward modernization— Fig. 46 Redesign of Nikabob menu card, 1928

as becomes evident when comparing the stores on West 7th Street from

1926–1927 with those on Wilshire Boulevard from 1929. After 1935, more changes, including streamline-shaped forms, began to appear. In the case of the Preissman & Co. Real Estate Office (1929), Davidson used significantly more glass than before as well as clear shapes and lines. He applied these in simpler façade designs, typically just signage above the window front, surrounded by thin metal frames. In many instances, a display window right next to the entrance door created a lit-up front allowing for good views into the elongated stores. A never-realized 1929 design for a pharmacy positioned the store on a street corner, featuring a dichromatically backlit façade.84 In doing so, Davidson followed emerging ideas for a new store design: corner stores work best when separate entrances on more than one side allow for the largest possible display and better indoor light.85 In addition, the entire façade was to be made of glass. Concave set-backs offered sufficient surface for display purposes in his proposal. Davidson’s next project in 1931, also a pharmacy but integrated into the Drive-in Curb Market, was in striking contrast. Although designed a little later, the 1931 plan is much more conventional both in typeface and window design, with the middle window protruding toward the corner. (Fig. 47)

MODERNISM

53

Fig. 47 Pharmacy, Los Angeles, 1931. The store at a street corner was to be part of the Drive-in Curb Market, here still in Art Deco style.

“Photographs of his shops and restaurant interiors began to appear regularly in ads, and as his name was mentioned his reputation grew.”86 In collaboration with Archie Bilicke, as Bilicke-Davidson Architecture Department, a row of five different stores and retail fronts was created at 3925–3931 Wilshire Boulevard (1929). According to Davidson this was a “group of individual stores. Different materials and colors, but unity in design characteristic. Show window arrangements to fit merchandising display problems.”87 Carl Archibald (Archie) Bilicke was the son of Albert Clay Bilicke, the hotel entrepreneur, investor, and real estate broker in Los Angeles. Bilicke senior was in charge of the development of Broadway and Spring Street in Downtown Los Angeles. He also opened a number of hotels. He died in the sinking of the ocean liner “Lusitania,” when it was torpedoed by a German U-boat. At that time Archie was eight years old. His mother Gayle sued the German Reich for a large amount of money, and young Archie eventually followed his father into real estate management. Davidson and Archie Bilicke made a good team, occupying a joint office at

54  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 48 Schilling’s Flower Store, 3931 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, 1929. Drawing of the façade

2222 West 7th Street. There, Davidson designed numerous pieces of furniture for the apartment of his investor and partner. Schilling’s Flower Store (Store No. 1) at 3931 Wilshire Boulevard (1929) was the first project in this storefront design. (Fig. 48) It was fitted with impressive interior ceiling lights and an otherwise rather reduced design with bright colors. The flowers, arranged on a step platform, were clearly visible from the outside.88 (Fig. 49) Next door, at 3929 Wilshire Boulevard, was the Satyr Book Shop (Store No. 3). Two showcases flanked its entrance. Lit from above, they provided sufficient display space for the narrow store. (Fig. 50) The V-shaped entrance area virtually drew customers into the shop—in a manner similar to the Manz Bookstore in Vienna by Adolf Loos (1912). (Fig. 51) The Loos design featured a similarly recessed entrance with showcases, plus additional display cases in the façade. Davidson’s shop did not have the room for that. Inside, the magnetic effect was sustained by a sequence of recessed dark gray bookshelves moving through three rooms, creating a flow past the shelves, and by dis-

MODERNISM

55

Fig. 49 Schilling’s Flower Store. Interior view. Both the

Fig. 50 Satyr Book Shop. Storefront with vitrines in

lighting design and the presentation of the flowers on

the entrance

stages were noted by contemporary architecture magazines.

play tables in the very center of each room. (Fig. 43) The walls and ceiling reflected a green-yellow hue, while the floor was made of polished plum-colored cement.89 Neon tubes emitted indirect light, reminiscent of the L. P. Hollander Company Store in New York by Jock D. Peters (1929) and its even more distinctive mounting of corner lights. Schilling’s Flower Store, at 3931 Wilshire Boulevard, was soon replaced with the Bachelor’s Haberdashery Shop (Store No. 2). (Fig. 52) Offering menswear, it became known simply as the Bachelor’s. The window façade remained virtually unchanged. Davidson removed the awning, while adding strong and impressive back lighting behind the lettering with the motif of a man’s head wearing a hat. “Impeccable style for male attire. Wall cases in Makassar ebony, waxed natural; aluminum strips; coral and red lacquered venetian blind partitions.”90 Davidson was particularly proud of this store, and the architecture magazines of the time printed the interior

56

J.R. Davidson

design frequently.91 Elegant stools and chairs, carefully placed on the sides of this airy interior, invited the customer to stay. (Fig. 53) Showcases, some recessed and embedded into the walls, some freestanding, presented the merchandise. “Paneling and built-ins in Zebrawood with polished chrome trim. Seat covered with pig skin. Carpeting in 2 tone green laid in special design. Upper wall light green.”92 There are huge differences, mainly in interior decoration, between this store and men’s outfitters shops designed by Adolf Loos. Take, for example, Kniže & Fig. 51 Adolf Loos, Manz Bookstore, Vienna,

Comp. (1913), anticipating Loos’s

1912

house built for Goldman & Salatsch on Michaelerplatz, or the men’s fashion

salon by P. C. Leschka & Co., Spiegelgasse 13 (1923), both Vienna. While Davidson’s store came close to a present-day boutique with only display items in view, Loos’s shops still looked like traditional clothing retailers, where the entire available merchandise is customer-accessible.The façade designs, however, did not differ that much, except that Davidson’s lacked the dramatic marbling design. “Davidson achieved a striking simplicity by eliminating all enframements or mouldings around the window area, which was disposed as a transparent volume set off to one side, projecting forward from the plane of the entrance to the shop.”93

If anything, Davidson’s intriguing lighting effects at night directed the attention to the interior. As a result, the storefront and the depth of the space inside became visible to motorists as well. One article characterized it this way: “The show window is treated as a stage with movable lighting fixtures and variable sets, curtains and ‘atmospheric’ props.”94 In 1932, Davidson remodeled the Lora Lee Dress Shop at 6560 Hollywood Boulevard, a branch of the “Lora Lee” chain for women’s apparel. He designed the furniture and a contemporary receding window passage. (Figs. 54, 55)

MODERNISM

57

Fig. 52 Bachelor’s Haberdashery Shop,

Fig. 53 Bachelor’s Haberdashery Shop. This

Los Angeles, 1929. The lighting of the shop

clothing store for men was clad in expensive

window made the store visible at night.

materials like mahogany.

“Show window lobby is of glass and polished aluminum. Ceiling, which projects 2 ½ feet over the sidewalk, is of frosted glass. Illumination is supplied by reflectors behind glass panels...white neon tube lighting outlines the lobby ceiling and leads through the middle back toward the entrance door. (They point like arrows to the entrance, [author’s note]) The store name stands free on the canopy projection; letters are of gold leaf with gold neon tubing.”95

The Lora Lee receding window fronts on Hollywood and Vine were already in place at an earlier Davidson store on 7th Street, right next to his own architecture office, as seen in the overview drawing published in Architectural Record. As Esther McCoy says, the Lora Lee project set an example for similar store designs. Chromium and brass in particular became a new staple.96 The Lora Lee Dress Shop shared characteristics with Victor Gruen’s New York stores. Gruen emigrated from Vienna to New York in 1938, where he kept himself afloat by working for the 1939 World’s Fair. Having already owned seven stores in Vienna,97 Ludwig Lederer, himself an Austrian emigrant, hired Gruen as well as the architect Morris Ketchum to retrofit a Fifth Avenue store.

58

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 54 Lora Lee Dress Shop, Hollywood, 1932. The staggered shop windows, illuminated by night

The store, Lederer de Paris (1939), was easy to miss, and so Gruen framed the façade, which opened to an illuminated rectangular arcade leading inside. This encouraged passers-by to find their way into the store, while also adding more display space. As a result, the simple and unassuming appearance attracted quite some attention. For the business next door, Ciro, he created a curvilinear entrance passage, intriguing pedestrians by dramatically spotlighting the few select pieces of jewelry in the window display.

MODERNISM

59

Davidson, though using a fairly similar design for Lora Lee, drew people somewhat more discreetly into the store with recessed glass cases. There are two significant—and therefore frequently mentioned—features of the Davidson stores: the interior lighting (in both day and night time) and the specific material of his showcases that makes them stand out in their immediate environment. It was this careful choice of high-quality materials that made the customer feel welcomed, comfortable, and special. Davidson’s seating islands

Fig. 55 Lora Lee Dress Shop. The interior has a seating island in the middle.

in the center of the room became standard. There are related examples in various Werkbund exhibitions in Europe, as reported in the magazine Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration. One article offers instructions for successful retail design, even specifying dimensions for the display vitrines’ height—a clear indication of where design is heading. “Many recent shops attain a striking degree of refinement with a simple background or frame of quietly interesting material or pattern for the whole lower floor, a narrow metal band around glass and doorway, and some distinctive lettering of identifying device… Show Windows: These have become stages fully equipped for dramatizing merchandise and are credited with earning one-third of profit of all sales.”98

Next door to the Bachelor’s was the Hi-Hat Restaurant, as described in the following chapter. The last of these exclusive retailers was Pearl Stroup (Store No. 5), 3925 Wilshire Boulevard. “An effective front of dark chocolate colored precast terrazzo slabs, chromium plated metalwork; inside show window painted pale green-yellow.”99 For the first time Davidson used curtains here in the upper window section, just as Adolf Loos did, in much more detail, for Albert Matzner’s lingerie store at Kohlmessergasse 8, Vienna (1930). (Fig. 56) Curtains for lingerie or women’s clothing had been in use routinely since the turn of the century. Davidson completely draped the curvaceous and streamlined glass front of the 68-foot-long California Fashion Publications building with curtains (project, 1952). (Fig. 57) Lilly Reich and Ludwig Mies

60

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 56 Adolf Loos, Lingerie Store Albert Matzner, Kohlmessergasse 8, Vienna, 1930. Curtains characterize the windows.

Fig. 57 California Fashion Publications building (project), Los Angeles, 1952. A closed curtain acts as the façade.

MODERNISM

61

van der Rohe had previously displayed such room partitions for the Café Samt & Seide booth at the trade fair exhibition “Die Mode der Dame” (The Lady’s Fashion) in Berlin in 1927. (Fig. 58) On the second floor of the Pearl Stroup Store was the Lee Hamilton Beauty Salon, while the Drive-In Curb Market (1931) was intended to be constructed right behind the entire row of retail-

Fig. 58 Lilly Reich, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, trade fair

ers. The corner stores were not

exhibition “Die Mode der Dame,” 1927

designed by Davidson.

Drive-In Curb Market, Los Angeles, 1931 (Project) Richard Neutra’s earlier 1926 ideas for a Drive-In Market in Rush City Reformed was the reference for Davidson’s never-realized Drive-In Curb Market. Neutra insisted that Rush City Reformed was not about utopian ideas but about specific, urbanistic studies. Ultimately, as Thomas Hines puts it, it represented a source of ideas for later projects.100 Neutra’s more conventional plan, dating to July 1929, showed a fruit market with a central rotating beacon transmitting a beam of light. Neutra saw these visual elements as innovations. “The front was to be two stories high, completely open, surmounted by a thin parapet with large illuminated signs…,101 numerous mirrors in different angles hang from the projecting canopy, illuminated at night by the rotating light beam...so that from the street the impression would be of a signboard suspended above an ethereal interplay of machines, people and products.”102 Similar to another of his projects, the Los Angeles Drive-In Market (September 1928), Neutra’s greatly innovative concept and layout, was precisely tailored to the needs of car drivers. (Fig. 59) They could drive around a semi-circle to all retail departments without ever getting out of the car. In the end, however, the design was impractical and not easy to implement in reality. The single access driveway to the market was at too abrupt an angle, and only a few customers could be served at once because of the need to park side by side. Other factors contributing to the impracticality were that shoppers would need to know exactly what they wanted, what items the store carried, and the precise location of each individual retailer. At

62  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 59 Richard Neutra, Los Angeles Drive-in Market, 1928. Design sketch

that time Neutra did not realize the importance of positioning a store in a corner lot so as to have double the drive-by traffic that might stop at the store. “Neutra prepared several designs for drive-in markets that were probably self-initiated as a means to refine his ideas of a machine-age aesthetics and perhaps to secure clients in a potentially lucrative sphere.”103 Nevertheless, Neutra’s project may have inspired Lloyd Wright’s Yucca-Vine Market in Hollywood (1930), which displayed a similarly cantilevered roof. Wright’s far more conventional floor plan, however, does not include a semi-circle, and the overall accents are far more sparing: back walls and roof are made of corrugated, galvanized iron, spray-painted with aluminum finish. A different Wright drive-in market design of 1931 for a very narrow lot on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills was accessible on both sides, with an expressionist, slightly leaning and soaring tower. Yet, it amounts to little more than a “covered display area.”104 Few examples for drive-in markets exist in the U.S. and, due to climate, they are mostly based in California. Most popular (and most widely published) are J. Byron Severence’s Palm Market (1928–1929) at 8300–8328 Wilshire Boulevard and George J. Adams’s Mesa-Vernon Market (1928) at 4330–4344 Crenshaw Boulevard. They were the standard models from the 1930s to the 1950s. Before that, drive-in service, apart from gas stations, was not very widespread. By 1945, however, as Richard Longstreth notes, “for over a decade southern California had provided ground for new forms of commercial architecture oriented to the motorist.”105 Even though various drive-ins were created elsewhere, as a brand they were improved and became most popular in Los Angeles.

MODERNISM  63

“The drive-in phenomenon in Los Angeles was not incidental, but part of a broad-based trend to address conditions affected by the region’s great size and low-density settlement patterns, its salubrious climate, and the infatuation with motoring shared by many of its inhabitants.”106

European commercial architecture was, however, extremely innovative, especially when reflecting the characteristics of car culture. It is no surprise then that Neutra, given his European background, expressed this enthusiasm for car culture in his drive-in markets.107 “Neutra’s first drive-in market scheme, published in the Architectural Record and Nation’s Business in 1929, appears to have gained an appreciative audience during the 1930s among some young practitioners and students. Its minimalistic vocabulary of framing, glass, and giant overhead sign became a standard for hundreds of retail complexes after World War II.”108

Yet the architectural expression remained more an idea of movement and car, and was less geared to the actual driving. Similar complications, mostly related to parking and accessibility, arose for the Dixie Drive-In Market (1929) designed by Neutra, on Vine and High Streets, Lexington, Kentucky, a design with up to four floors for restaurants and offices. “The imagery employed for L.A.’s commercial architecture of the 30s mirrored the shifts in architectural fashion occurring throughout the U.S. during this decade. The region’s commercial buildings also reflected the changing in patterns of use, especially those changes brought about by the automobile. That ‘super-charged mechanism’ pressed architects and clients to adopt new forms of drive-in architecture. It forced designers to come up with new packaging, based not on the traditional slow impact of a building on the pedestrian, but rather on how to impinge on a viewer as he speeded past and, hopefully, to persuade him to enter the establishment in his private capsule.”109

Given their very box-like structure and with only one façade facing the street, supermarkets are not really of interest to modern architects. Davidson is one of the exceptions. “He emphasized transparency—an open front with no visual frame, topped by an advertising panel, perhaps translucent, perhaps backlit—that would have been particularly effective at night.”110

64  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 60 Drive-in Curb Market. Design sketch of the first proposal with a coffee shop in the center to attract customers. The design is similar to Neutra’s idea from 1928.

While a drive-in market offered customers the convenience of driving directly up to the store and staying in their cars without otherwise changing their purchasing habits, customer support was necessarily limited. A curb market, on the other hand, faces directly onto the street with store windows visible to passing motorists. To use the store, however, they have to park behind the building or on the street. In his never-realized “hypothetical” project (1931),111 Davidson attempted to work around these two drawbacks by combining drive-in with curb access.112 Due to the market being open on two sides, there was no need to walk around it, and customers could see and access merchandise directly from the sidewalk. As “J. R. Davidson Architectural Division of Hite-Bilicke, Ltd.,” Davidson developed two different concepts.113 Initially, in the more conventional solution, he followed Neutra’s Los Angeles Drive-In Market. (Figs. 60, 61) Behind a small drive-in corner restaurant he placed an access road and a parking lot for the drive-in market. The detailed plan shows how, in addition, he combined the traditional sidewalk storefront of a pharmacy with the drive-in façade. (Fig. 47) Davidson eventually abandoned this concept in favor of completely opening both façade and corner to the traffic intersection, while storage and administration rooms were located on an upstairs level. This created extra display surface and also allowed for the addition of a fountain in the middle.

MODERNISM  65

Fig. 61 Drive-in Curb Market. Ground floor plan of first proposal

In his presentation, however, Davidson wrote only about his favorite version, the open market highlighting the corners (January 1931). (Fig. 62) This was intended to be integrated into the 1929 A. C. Bilicke Building, designed by Morgan, Walls & Clements, at the northeastern end of Wilshire Boulevard and Gramercy Place (right behind Davidson’s retail front). The market’s original floor plan was designed by M. Hayashida and Davidson had to re-structure the existing plan. Davidson envisioned the market’s entire structure as a “display window,” roughly 280 feet long and 20 feet tall, a single large, open, and fluid space offering perfect ventilation.114 Billboards, either translucent or backlit, would crown the open front, which was not bound by any visual perimeters, and provide free advertising for the various merchants. (Fig. 63)

66  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 62 Drive-in Curb Market, Los Angeles, 1931 (project). Second proposal with ground floor plan open to both sides

There are interesting parallels here with Richard Neutra’s 1931 Carl Laemmle Movie Theater, located next door to Sardi’s Restaurant (remodeled by Davidson in 1937). “The idea of the drive-in market as a billboard appealed to no one more than Richard Neutra.”115 Like Davidson, Neutra designed upstairs billboards and downstairs stores. He applied the same concept for the movie theater by installing the backlit film advertisement on the upper floor.116

Drive-in Arts & Crafts Shopping Center, Los Angeles, ca. 1940 (Project) Another Davidson project exploring drive-in stores was the unrealized Arts & Crafts Shopping Center (ca. 1940). (Figs. 64, 65) A completely new concept, the drive-in idea here included walking activities, like enjoying a park and strolling to a restaurant. Artists in their studios and workshops could connect with potential

MODERNISM

67

Fig. 63 Drive-in Curb Market. Presentation drawing. With the market on the ground floor and offices on the second floor, the design resembles the Carl Laemmle Movie Theater project by Richard Neutra (1931).

buyers. Since parking was to be provided on both sides of the Shopping Center, next to the studios, the entire front section of the complex would be accessible by foot. Upon entering, visitors could step into an event space for exhibitions, lectures, and films (see floor plan, Fig. 65, No. 1). And, while leisurely walking to the restaurant, they could visit individual art studios on their way. “The tapered plan of the sidewings is not merely fanciful. The different shop sizes help to create the splay in the plan of the court toward the restaurant. Into this splay, the tapered projection of the open air dining terrace fits harmoniously. These and the corresponding curves of the restaurant and exhibition gallery achieve a pleasing rhythm, while the receding street front leads the shoppers toward the entrance.”117

68  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 64 Drive-in Arts & Crafts Shopping Center, Los Angeles, ca. 1940 (project). Presentation drawing

European ideas seem to have influenced this concept of a pedestrian-friendly haven amidst a world of shopping. Given the nature and product range of the market, it is also easy to imagine art classes being held in the park. It is still unclear whether this project was meant to be a proposal for the campus of the Art Center School redesigned, also as a project, in 1938 by Kem Weber (Fig. 66) and his students—a plan which also included an arts and crafts shopping center on the ground floor. From 1936–1938, Davidson belonged to the faculty in the Industrial Design department of the Art Center School.118 Davidson’s description of this unrealized project for the Drive-in Arts & Crafts Shopping Center could be read as a hint that he wished to be involved in the re-design of the Art Center campus: “It has been felt that public interest would be stimulated if arts and crafts people could be given an appropriate setting for their work within individual stores and workshops having, as their center, a communal exhibition gallery…”119 The increasing transparence of storefronts became more apparent in Davidson’s unrealized storefront designs from the 1940s, an undated project of a real estate insurance office for Herman Koniarski (probably from the late 1940s) and in another project, a bookstore for the American screenwriter Ilia Khmara (1946) with

MODERNISM  69

Fig. 65 Drive-in Arts & Crafts Shopping Center. Ground floor plan with courtyard for art classes, an art gallery at the entrance, and art studios with parking space in front.

two inward-pointing façades. In both storefront projects a billboard in a flowerbed or a planter portioned off the two sides of the store with a recessed entrance area. (Figs. 67, 68) The lettering above the façades in the unrealized stores, either modern or historicist typography, varied depending on the client. Store windows came almost to sidewalk level, inviting the passers-by inside. The same is true for the less public real estate or insurance brokers’ offices. A presumably unrealized, yet spectacular, storefront project for the Morgan Camera Shop from 1938 included a streamlined canopy jutting out toward the street corner.120 (Figs. 69, 70) The de-

70

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 66 Kem Weber, Art Center School, Los Angeles, 1938 (project). This proposed art supplies store has some similarities with the Arts & Crafts Shopping Center proposed by Davidson.

tailed interior, however, with its showcases and remarkable furniture, such as the tripod stand, may very well have been completed. It is interesting to observe that Davidson stacked his glass showcases at the building’s corner like the folding bellows of an old camera, similar to the renowned Marcus P. Miller structure (1938), which brought the Streamline Moderne to the Miracle Mile; “a photographic shop in the form of a streamline camera.”121 Such sleek and smooth structures were a graceful contribution to the overall streetscape.

During the Great Depression: Hotels and Bars in Chicago and Los Angeles Cocoanut Grove, Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles, 1926 Davidson’s sophisticated choice and use of materials, along with the modern lighting designs for his retail projects, were making him famous. He was receiving ever more requests to remodel restaurants and cafés. The first of such assignment came

MODERNISM

71

Fig. 67 Bookworm, bookstore for Ilia Khmara, Los Angeles, 1946 (project). Presentation drawing with historical signage and writing

Fig. 68 Herman Koniarski Real Estate Insurance Building, Los Angeles, undated (project). A billboard in a planter acts as an entrance divider.

72  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 69 Morgan Camera Shop, Los Angeles, 1938. Presentation drawing showing a curved overhang to attract passing cars

Fig. 70 Morgan Camera Shop. Built-in furniture and showcases

MODERNISM  73

from the renowned Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard, which commissioned him to create lighting for the famous Cocoanut Grove nightclub (1926). Whether he made any further changes to the club remains unclear. As a growing business district in the late 1920s, Wilshire Boulevard was pivotal in the east-west development of Los Angeles. The architect Myron Hunt was building the seven-story, 500-room Ambassador Hotel, with its four wings and irregular floor plan, by 1921. A few years later, a swimming pool with a sand beach was added, as well as six bungalows at the property’s edge and ten tennis courts. A former hippodrome was eventually converted into the hotel’s convention center, later to become the Embassy Ballroom. The legendary Cocoanut Grove was located on the first floor with access through an oval-shaped entrance on the north side.122 Photographs of Davidson’s new lamps show lanterns right out of One Thousand and

One Nights—with a touch of Hollywood too. This influence appeared again in his scenic stage set design for The Happy Hypocrite (1925), which is almost identical to the Cocoanut Grove club, even though the scenery represents a garden theater. (Figs. 71, 72) The bedroom interior scenery also featured Middle Eastern lamps similar to Davidson’s Cocoanut Grove, with lighting that fluctuated between clear Art Deco lines and playful oriental patterns, as in the lamps’ suspension, or the dangling tassels. Abstract flower patterns with little cantilevered bells are typical lamp ornamentations, and are seen in photographs that reveal four different lamp types as well as star-shaped ceiling lights. Their geometric and leaf-shaped patterns are reminiscent of old German coats of arms or carnival lanterns. Davidson’s notebooks include a 1916 drawing of Russian bags (Fig. 74) very similar to these lamps. A comparison with German interiors of that time makes the origin of such vegetal lamp shapes quite apparent. The January 1925 issue of the magazine Innendekora-

tion featured strikingly similar lamps by Austrian architect Hugo Gorge. (Fig. 73) This oriental Art Nouveau lantern reappeared in Davidson’s 1927 Premiere Confectionary Store. (Fig. 40)

Hi-Hat Restaurant, Los Angeles, 1929 His Hi-Hat Restaurant (Store No. 4), later The Brown Derby and Perino’s Restaurant, at 3927 Wilshire Boulevard (1929) was part of J. R.’s storefront design.123 (Fig. 76) Davidson’s daughter-in-law talked about his design ideas for restaurants and bars. She told one of J. R.’s favorite stories of how he responded to the owner’s request for an English tavern: “And J. R. didn’t say, ‘No, I don’t do English taverns. I am a modern architect.’ But he said, ‘I will give you the feeling that you get in an English tavern, but

74

J.R. Davidson

within the modern idiom.’ And that’s what he did by using metals and fabrics with warm tones to them and created what he knew the owner wanted. One reason he knew that was because before he came to this country, through his family, he designed many hunting lodges for very wealthy people who had huge amounts of land and went out hunting. And then retired to their lodges to eat and drink and carouse.”124

At the entrance a light box with abstract geometrical patterns welcomed the guests. The wall paneling, with very simple corner wall lights—the same as those in Davidson’s own office on 7th Fig. 71 Stage set design, The Happy Hypocrite, 1925

Street—joined the various seating ar-

(project). The bedroom design reflects the conversion

rangements together. (Fig. 75) Horizon-

of his own apartment in Berlin.

tal dividers separated the individual booths from each other, which, unlike the larger tables in the room’s center, provided a sense of privacy. “The dining room is finished in redwood and oak, with a flooring of linoleum tiles in brown and blue gray, and a copper-leafed ceiling. The plan indicates the subdivision of the room to give privacy to differently sized groups of guests and, at the far end, shows

Fig. 72 Stage set design, The Happy Hypocrite. The garden party scene is similar to the Cocoanut Grove remodeling.

the pantry buffet with open display counters.”125

Davidson designed two different dessert carts for the restaurant:

MODERNISM

75

Fig. 73 Hugo Gorge, lamp, Vienna, 1925. Davidson was influenced by other European architects of that time, illustrated by this similar lamp design.

76  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 74 J. R. Davidson, Notebook XII, 1916. Drawing of Russian bags, very similar to the lamps Davidson designed for the Cocoanut Grove

“A transparent dessert cart with cantilevered trays is of heavy glass and brass fittings, an outgrowth of the display cases for shoes in Berlin. A hot cart for restaurants has brass frame and fittings, an elegant design which could move in any company.“126

Due to the Depression, the shops Davidson had designed were already closed by 1930. The Hi-Hat Restaurant soon became The Brown Derby before Alexander Perino stepped in (1932) and renamed it Perino’s Restaurant. A fire on August 15, 1934, destroyed the restaurant’s interior, and in 1935 Davidson refurbished the Satyr Book Shop at 3929 Wilshire Boulevard and made it into a cocktail lounge and bar for the restaurant. “When it was taken over by Perino’s, Davidson cut off one end to fit in a shop. The Bodega, ‘shop’ in Spanish, had its own sign­age in copper, and a long copper panel separated the restaurant from the shop.”127 Esther McCoy’s comment about downsizing the restaurant to a bodega or bar may have been true for a while. A 1941 photograph from Julius Shulman shows two entrances next to the Bachelor’s store: it seems Davidson had indeed converted the Satyr Book Shop into a bodega, while Perino’s Restaurant had become a popular hangout for the Hollywood elite. (Fig. 76)

MODERNISM

77

In 1950, the restaurant moved to a better location at 4101 Wilshire Boulevard, and Paul R. Williams was commissioned to design a $400,000 expansion, which opened with much hoopla in a New Orleans-inspired style (1950). Davidson got through the Great Depression by taking on smaller jobs and designing furniture, for projects such as the Roosevelt Hotel’s main lobby in Hollywood (1930),128 where the first Academy Awards ceremony had taken place the year before. A sketch of an armchair for Archie Bilicke’s apartment No. 3 from 1930 was redeveloped into a lobby chair, with the option of joining two of them together into a bench. (Fig. 77) The “loveseat of the same design” was basically a low-slung armchair with similar though somewhat wider armrests and a thicker seat, an-

Fig. 75 Hi-Hat Restaurant, Los Angeles, 1929. Interior

other version being the chunkier and

wood paneling with the same lamps as in Davidson’s

angular Art Deco lounge chair with

office

closed armrests. In 1928, Davidson redesigned the menu card and logo for the Nikabob Restaurant at 875 S. Western Avenue and 9th Street, a well-known establishment named after Nick and Bob Cobb from The Brown Derby Restaurant. It opened in 1929 in a Morgan, Walls & Clements building, featuring an Art Deco-style dining room by Stiles O. Clements. Davidson used the existing matchbox logo with a running waiter for his menu design, while abstracting it in green

Fig. 76 The Hi-Hat Restaurant was later called Perino’s.

and pink colors. (Fig. 46) One might

On the left is the entrance to the bodega.

speculate whether an undated cocktail

78  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 77 Furniture for the Roosevelt Hotel lobby, Hollywood, 1930. The regular armchair is doubled and becomes a loveseat.

lounge project of the same colors was also intended for Nikabob. For example, a matchbook labeled “Cocktail Lounge” in green and pink shows a modern, streamlined bar. (Fig. 78) Davidson may have built such a bar in the early 1930s, since a drawing of the early years confirms his vision of a cocktail lounge. (Figs. 79, 80) “This layout & design, in every detail, is the property of the designer and cannot be copied either in its entirety or in any part thereof!” The writing on the plan and the business card of Davidson with its decorated characters, date from the late 1920s or early 1930s. There are clear similarities with Kem Weber’s Cocktail Lounge at the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago (1943), as in the undulating rear walls and the round seating booths.129 Davidson’s design, however, appears to be much more radical with its elongated and undulating bar. Davidson’s choice of materials in colorful salmon and green, pillars encased with glossy tiles, and lighting provided by free-floating curved neon tubes in the undated Cocktail Lounge project predate 1950s’ interior design.

MODERNISM

79

The 1930s left Davidson with few commissions; in times of crisis, new storefronts are not much in demand. “After some months without work, he had a call from the art director Hans Dreier, who Ernst Lubitsch had brought to Hollywood—would Davidson design sets of the parliament building for a film about

Fig. 78 Matchbook of Nikabob Restaurant, Los Angeles, designer unknown

the Reichstag fire?”130 Before completing the sets, he had a request from his friend Dan Goldberger, who had put him up in New York; now a manager of three major hotels in Chicago, he asked Davidson to refurbish them. “He (Goldberger [author’s note]) wanted an architect familiar with the best cafés in Paris and Berlin.”131 From November 1932 until December 1935 Greta and J. R. traveled back and forth between Chicago and Ojai, leaving their young son Tom in California with Kem Weber and his six children.132 (Fig. 81) On March 19, 1937, Davidson became a naturalized U.S. citizen; he had submitted the application with the job description “Jewish designer” in July 1933. Davidson renovated and remodeled three hotels in Chicago, and another in Gary, Indiana, according to Esther McCoy.133 No blueprints or drafts of that latter project survive, however. Large hotels around the turn of the century were built mostly as so-called palace or luxury hotels. A trend toward commercial hotel design occurred in the 1920s, when Statler’s most famous and successful hotel opened in 1923 in Buffalo, New York. “The essence of the hotel plan is, after all, its usefulness as a service machine in providing for the comfort of the guest.”134 Business travelers and tourists with cars, among them increasingly women, required a multi-functional hotel with parking space, lobby, servicerooms, restaurants, and cafes. Women often had their own Asian-themed tea salons.135 “The unmet demands of the lucrative convention trade inspired the 1920s hotel building boom. In 1925, Chicago hosted more than 800 conventions.”136 Sales pitches and merchandise presentations began to be held in hotel rooms, and not long after, hotel ballrooms were accommodating entire trade fairs. Hotels added a variety of new spaces, beyond lobbies and bedrooms, to meet the increased demand for new services. Public areas like shops and restaurants were typically located on the first two floors, while the hotel rooms, as well as lobby, ballroom, and dining room, which in the past had extended over two floors, were now moved further up the building. “Offering a variety of food service options to attract a high-volume business became particularly important after Prohibition eliminated the popular and profitable barroom.”137

80

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 79 Cocktail Lounge (possibly for Nikabob Restaurant). Presentation drawing

Fig. 80 Cocktail Lounge. The ground floor plan shows an organic flow.

MODERNISM

81

During the Great Depression the hotel industry needed to reconsider again: “Hotel development came to an abrupt halt with the advent of the Great Depression in 1929. By 1932, an estimated 70 percent of the hotels of the United States were in receivership.”138 Hotel rooms were frequently downsized or converted into apartments. With Prohibition ending, big restaurants were once again subdivided into several bars, which incorporated small seating areas. This introduced the cocktail lounge, where unaccompanied women could consume alcohol.

The Red (Golden) Lion Inn, Sheridan Plaza Hotel, Chicago, 1934 When retrofitting The Red (Golden) Lion Inn (1934) on

Fig. 81 J. R. Davidson, Greta, and

the ground floor of the Sheridan Plaza Hotel,

their son Tom, ca. 1931

139

4601 N. Sheridan Road, Chicago, Davidson avoided any fixed seating or table settings, and he composed an array of different light sources above the elongated bar. The barroom’s façade was reminiscent of historic taverns: doorjambs and entrances framed with copper metal panels, reliefs of lions, grapes, fish, and cows. 140 Yet inside, the customer entered a bright and spacious room, due to interior lighting and a window facing the street, where small dishes were prepared in an open kitchen close to the entrance.

Bar and Tavern, Hotel Knickerbocker, Chicago, 1934 The remodeling of the bar and tavern at the Knickerbocker Hotel (1934), 163 E. Walton Place, Chicago, 141 required the architect to reduce the dining room by about half and to integrate a bar with more than one door to the street. “Several existing odd rooms were combined for this bar and tavern. The combination of room shapes developed interesting perspectives and corners, which helped to create its atmosphere. Various ceiling levels and columns were designed to conceal existing vent ducts and plumbing pipes.”142

The semi-circular bar, extending sideways, was finished in glossy red. The recesses behind it, with their openings and shelves, were bright yellow whereas the foot rail and the counter with its trimming, as well as the hanging rack, were made of copper, as was the ceiling above the bar. The remaining walls and ceilings displayed

82

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 82 Bar, Cocktail Lounge, and Rooms, Hotel Shoreland, Chicago, 1934. Round seating

different shades of gray, and the artist Mrs. Congdon provided the murals. Dark blue tables topped with mahogany were surrounded by likewise dark blue chairs with blue pigskin seats. “Floor, Accotile in light and dark grey, dark and light blue, dark and light purple-brown.”143

Bar, Cocktail Lounge, and Rooms, Hotel Shoreland, Chicago, 1934 Davidson was also asked to provide designs for a bar and cocktail lounge for the Hotel Shoreland (1934), 225 N. Columbus Drive, Chicago, 144 Of all the dining rooms Davidson ever converted into a bar-with-dining area, this one is the smallest and most fragmented, at just under 750 square feet and accommodating just 32 people. Nevertheless, this room turned out to be enormously popular. (Figs. 82, 83) “The deep comfortable seating (in flamingo color fabric [author’s note]), the lightweight chrome and blue chairs, the small glossy black tables were set in an atmosphere of gold walls and coral ceilings, which gave

MODERNISM

Fig. 83 Hotel Shoreland. Bar

83

Fig. 84 Hotel Shoreland. Refurbishment of hotel rooms with modern furniture

way to zebra wood paneling along the bar... The bar mirror and the columns were covered with sheet chrome, striped in blue and red.”145

During the Depression, the 13-floor hotel with its 1,000 rooms was partially repurposed for residential use. Davidson reduced the room size and refurnished them as bedroom studios, replacing the Biedermeier furnishings with contemporary furniture. (Fig. 84) It remains unclear why he did not remodel the lobby as well. It could be because of his return to Los Angeles in 1936. Possibly the hotel management wanted to continue the work with a local architect. This they did when James Eppenstein146 from Chicago modernized the lobby in 1937 as well as some hotel rooms, some of which he joined together into apartments. The two men’s design techniques were of a similar spirit and appear to be compatible. J. R. Davidson and Greta may even have been friends with the Eppensteins.147 Davidson’s three-year stay in Chicago from 1933–1936, during which he refurbished hotel rooms and designed their interiors, coincided with the time when Mies van der Rohe was slated to become Director of the Armour Institute of Tech-

84

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 85 Sardi’s Restaurant, Los Angeles,

Fig. 86 Sardi’s Restaurant. The undulating glass-and-aluminum

remodeling, 1937. Interior view. The light

wall received plenty of attention in the contemporary press.

fixture resembles a lamp still in the Thomas Mann House today.

nology in Chicago. Davidson was quite au courant, as we can tell from Gela Archipenko’s 1938 letter to Greta Davidson, which also alludes to the shutting down of the Bauhaus in Germany and the effort by László Moholy-Nagy to find some other financial support.

Sardi’s Restaurant, Los Angeles, 1937 The Davidsons returned to Los Angeles in 1936. That same year the Hite-Bilicke company with the “J. R. Davidson Architectural Division” was commissioned to remodel the Senator Hotel in Sacramento, involving installing air conditioning and a heating system in the ballroom, a new lobby and bar, as well as rearranging room layouts. Davidson interfered only very little with the actual substance of the building and most of the remodel was discussed on the site.148 An extension to the ballroom, however, did create some visible changes to the exterior, which caused the fenestration design to appear out-of-balance. He also designed a new café, meticulously planning the number of tables and their arrangement. A U-shaped counter, not unlike a bar, welcomed the patron upon entering. We have extant

MODERNISM

Fig. 87 Sardi’s Restaurant. The unusual choice

85

Fig. 88 Sardi’s Restaurant. Tables with artwork

of materials, such as copper for the ceiling, and the subtle use of color made the space seem larger.

plans for the capitals of the pilasters in the mezzanine and lobby with their vegetal-themed ornamentation in bronze and iron. Back in Los Angeles, Davidson’s career seamlessly picked up where he left off. His joint venture with Bilicke continued to operate smoothly and they received very much the same sort of design commissions as before. Eddie Brandstatter asked them to refurbish the famous Sardi’s Restaurant (1937) at 6313 Hollywood Boulevard, next to Neutra’s Carl Laemmle Movie Theater, after it burnt down in 1936. It was originally built by Clifford A. Balch in 1933, with Rudolph Schindler in charge of interior design and furniture.149 “He gutted the three-story building, transforming it into one level, sculpting the space by terracing the floor, giving volume to a massive area and creating an inviting space for people to party. Schindler added customized features such as revolving hatracks and distinctive materials such as polished chrome, gold leaf and sanded glass.”150

86  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 89 Sardi’s Restaurant. Ground floor plan

Davidson not only redesigned the interior, he also integrated different functions into a confined space. (Figs. 85–89) Reports of the time liked to emphasize how the folded zig-zag-like glass partitions cleverly separated the bar from the restaurant in the rather small area. The copper ceiling and indirect lighting also drew some attention. A major challenge was to create two street entrances, one into the bar, another into the restaurant, in a façade merely 10 feet long. In addition, accommodation for different parties of diners from one to ten or more people was required. Both the design of the partitions and the subtle color choice allowed Davidson to maneuver and manipulate the interior with flexibility, and to visually expand the space.151

Furniture Davidson, and for that matter Richard Neutra, had designed a large number of furniture and other objects, but these were not produced in quantity for the market, unlike the big-league Bauhaus brands such as Marcel Breuer and Mies van der Rohe,

MODERNISM

87

whose designs were produced and distributed by Knoll.152 Both Davidson’s and Neutra’s furniture designs are hardly known and only a few individual pieces are still preserved.153 Like Neutra, Davidson designed custom-built furniture such as tables, chairs, sofas, and wardrobes that are intrinsically embedded into the surrounding architecture. These objects are therefore either still in situ in the respective homes or have been destroyed. It is essential, then, to

Fig. 90 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House. In the study, a built-in typewriter can be pulled out or stored away as needed.

distinguish between freestanding objects and built-in pieces of furniture. At the beginning of his career, J. R. referred to himself as an interior designer, and in that period he developed lamps and indirect lighting. Later, he designed built-in or component elements for a bar, a radio, for bookshelves, or a dressing table and, eventually, freestanding furniture objects for each house. The focus was by then on multi-functional elements such as the fold-out table in Neutra’s VDL House, which simultaneously covered the sink.154 A Davidson design reveals a sewing machine when turning the tabletop (Jack G. Shapiro House), or has a typewriter moving out from a shelf on the wall (Mrs. Paul Kingsley House). (Fig. 90) A Motorola radio advertisement features the installation of a device in a Davidson-designed home: “Architect J. R. Davidson puts 2 New Motorola Radios in his house designed for G.I.s... Model 65T21B—a thrilling ‘furniture styled’ Continental table model in mellow walnut or rich blonde finish...”155

Lamps Davidson created lamps for his numerous shops and businesses, including doctors’ offices. His ceiling lights were typically flat-shaped or hidden behind a ledge or border at the edge of the room. While the opening chapter has already discussed the different lamp designs and their influences, the following pages will summarize the various types. In the 1910s, Davidson took note of new designs, like star-shaped lamps in Paris, which he later used in America. He used old German lantern motifs and added Art Deco patterns, or he integrated vegetal Art Nouveau figurations into metallic bulb holders, adding a winding organic flow to a design consisting only of simple light bulbs. Neon tubes installed for example in the Satyr Book Shop (Fig. 96)

88

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 91 Lamp design 1: This table lamp was realized in the Davidson House

Fig. 92 Lamp design 2: Round table lamp

MODERNISM

89

Fig. 93 Movable light above the desk for Case Study House #1

were en vogue in Paris and used in Los Angeles in department stores like Bullocks Wilshire. He also designed two table lamps that can be used both as bedside and desk lamps. One was round and modern with a chrome-colored shade156 and just two bulbs, while the second, more rectangular, lamp was reminiscent of steel tube Bauhaus furniture, displaying white fabric or plastic157 and tilted stainless steel stands. (Figs. 91, 92) This lamp was realized for his own home and survived as an object in the Davidson archive. (Fig. 94) His work lamps for doctors’ or real estate offices were similarly quite unadorned, forgoing any redundant decorative details. Neutra designed two lamps, a floor lamp “VDL,” and a Constructivist wall lamp “Marx,” consisting of a steel spring, bringing to mind Naum Gabo’s light sculptures, while the floor lamp exhibited a

Fig. 94 Table lamp on nightstand, 1940

90

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 95 Drawing of cellarette. The cart can be opened up, a

Fig. 96 Ceiling light at Satyr Book Shop

concept Davidson used later for his design of a cigarette box.

minimal lampshade. Davidson created a comparable Constructivist wall sconce for the reception area in his Preissman & Co. Real Estate Office. His penchant for lamp design became apparent in his very detailed plans for Case Study House #1. For the desk he created a hanging ceiling light that could be moved in different directions, and he set up indirect light from single light bulbs on the ceiling. (Fig. 93) After honing his expertise in indirect lighting at the Hupfeld piano auditorium in Leipzig, as well as in retail shops in Los Angeles, he now put it to use in single-family homes.

Restaurant Supplies When retrofitting hotels and bars, Davidson designed restaurant supplies, such as sugar bowls or carts for the Hi-Hat Restaurant, in addition to the actual furniture (counters, club chairs, tables). His dessert carts were based on the display glass cases for Stiller Shoes in Berlin, and they were much more modern than his hot food cart, which was still somewhat stuck in Art Deco style and color. In 1936, he applied for a patent for his cigarette holder “Server for Cigarettes or the Like,” which was granted in 1937. (Fig. 98) “This invention relates to containers adapted to be readily opened to permit the serving of the contents thereof, and more particularly it

MODERNISM  91

Fig. 97 Design for a cigarette box, ca. 1936

Fig. 98 “Server for Cigarettes or the Like,” patent for cigarette holder, 1937

relates to containers for cigarettes or the like. It is an object of the invention to provide a cigarette container which is easily opened and closed. Another object is to provide such a container in which the opening and closing actions are semi-automatic. Another object is to provide a cigarette container which is simple in construction and compact.”158

The round cigarette case shaped like a can with a handle has a hint of a handbag. Davidson’s drawing “Cigarettes and Cigars, Matchboxes” (Fig. 97) probably paved the way to this patent, first designed as an easy-to-open can. The lid slides out and individual slots can be removed, similar to the “cellarette,”159 dating from his time in Chicago. (Fig. 95) This featured a pullout bar on wheels with a top that flips open like a suitcase. The overall concept is simple and Modernist in its geometry, composition, and functionality, but the details, like the mounting support, are still reminiscent of Art Deco.160

92

J.R. Davidson

Built-in Furniture As with Rudolph Schindler and Richard Neutra, the better part of Davidson’s furniture products consists of built-in furniture elements, since “the best way to exercise complete control over the space in an interior was to build in as much of the furniture as possible.”161 A sofa with side shelves and cabinets for a record player or a bar are Davidson standards. He typically adds a dining table with chairs as well as a service hatch and closets, still visible in Case Study House #1.

Chairs and Armchairs The cover design (1925) for House Beau-

tiful shows a chandelier, a bed, and garden furniture, reflecting Davidson’s German ideas of home decoration. (Fig. 100) The chair in the drawing, a piece first designed in Berlin, with the slightly curved armrests, is not unlike Fig. 99 Drawing with exact measurements of the

Bruno Paul’s dining-room armchairs.

armchair that Davidson brought with him from Berlin

(Fig. 99) Davidson, however, uses wick-

in 1923.

er covering, and his later rattan furniture reflects his preference for the country house style. (Fig. 101)

Davidson’s numerous chair and table designs don’t vary much and are usually interpretations of an earlier concept. Although his notebooks only give evidence of Renaissance, Baroque, and Rococo decor, his American furniture designs clearly commit to Modernism. That said, his tweaking of, or adding to, existing concepts never comes close to the radical tubular steel or cantilever chairs of a Mart Stam or a Mies van der Rohe (around 1927–1928). They actually echo more the Typenmöbel or modern unit furniture, developed by Erich Dieckmann at the successor institution to the Bauhaus in Weimar, the Staatliche Bauhochschule Weimar. In the Bau-

MODERNISM

93

haus carpentry workshop, Dieckmann designed plenty of wood furniture, which was widely distributed.162 “Both the Bauhochschule and Dieckmann apparently succeeded in meeting the specific taste of a bourgeois audience open to innovations that, while wishing to be modern, did not appreciate a too futuristic design, in particular did not want tubular steel furniture.”163

In 1931, Dieckmann summarized a theory of standardized wood furniture in his publication Möbelbau in Holz, Rohr und Stahl.164

Fig. 100 Cover design for the magazine

House Beautiful with Biedermeier furniture, 1925 (project)

Fig. 101 Rattan chair, ca. 1939. The design is almost the same as the armchair from Berlin.

94

J.R. Davidson

With Marcel Breuer’s departure, the Bauhaus furniture workshop experienced a transformation. Under Josef Albers,

the

workshop

crafted

multi-functional furniture, increasingly made of simple materials explicitly avoiding any aesthetic added value.

Tables In a letter to Mr. Menken, Davidson proposes several options for table designs and develops ideas about their economic production. In the same letter, he also encloses design sketches for tables. “Large square table: if this table is intended with a top of wood or

Fig. 102 Draft of a letter from Davidson to Mr.

wood curved with formica etc. the

Menken, c/o Design Lab, 2614 Wilshire Blvd., Los

steelangle rim and its support can be left out and top screwed

Angeles, not dated, about the costs and production of different tables, page 3

directly to base (see my drawing). This should save quite some money.”165 (Fig. 104)

Davidson was curious about such a table’s possible retail price or value. Of a second table he said: “the small table with the 4...legs should have the 4 corners of the top more rounded to fit better to the corner of the legs.”166 (Fig. 105) He actually carried out this design, however with white tubular steel feet for a glass garden table. There is an article among his documents about similar furniture from Mexico, “El Hierro en Los Muebles Moder-

Fig. 103 Drawing of table design. In the Vigeveno House, Ojai, 1941, Davidson realized a similar table with round legs.

MODERNISM  95

Fig. 104 Letter from Davidson to Mr. Menken, page 1

Fig. 105 Letter from Davidson to Mr. Menken, page 2

nos,”167 displaying garden seating made of white rope and black metal legs—quite similar to Hendrik van Keppel and Taylor Green’s furniture for Case Study House #21. Davidson used their design in his own home for Julius Shulman’s photo shoot. His table designs differed merely in the treatment of the materials; how the chair legs were attached, or what the table’s purpose was (dining or coffee table). Davidson thought in practical terms by using materials such as blue Formica for the tabletop, which he had used earlier for a desk. (Figs. 102, 103) The legs’ design allowed for two tables to be attached to one another. In their functionality and clear simplicity, the tables look like an integral component of the house; despite their unique design they do not stand out. To some extent chunky and robust, they suggest the good old German dining table that does not aspire to elegance. Plainly crafted like the hatch, they are a rather unassuming element in the room, comparable to Marcel Breuer’s Isokon Table (1936). Some table designs with their positioning of legs anticipate Neutra’s Camel Table (1940), though Davidson’s tables were not hinged. (Fig. 106)

96  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 106 Drawing of a walnut table

Outdoor Furniture In 1939, Davidson produced a full line of garden furniture, made of rattan and bamboo: chairs, armchairs, loungers, tables, carts, and lamps, as well as a coffee and a cocktail table, for the Berkson Residences. (Figs. 101, 107) Much of this took after the patio furniture of Neutra, who wrote in one of his rare texts on the topic: “You may find a lumberyard near the railroad track and get a piece of plyboard cut; you screw, glue and finish a little and start making your original porch furniture, your low occasional table, your easy chair with homemade seat cushions on straps and perhaps a hung cushion to lean your head against.”168

MODERNISM  97

Fig. 107 Rattan furniture for Maurice Berkson Residences, Encino, 1939

Davidson’s rattan furniture has a strong affinity to “Chair 1936” by Paul T. Frankl, who opened his Frankl Galleries on Wilshire Boulevard in 1934. Prior to that, Frankl had been teaching industrial design at the Chouinard Art Institute in the summer of 1933. Although he started by selling his New York style in California, he eventually experimented with rattan and bamboo. “In his dramatically shaped chairs and sofas, he stacked individual frames to form the bases, and for the arm assemblies, he twisted the rattan into his soon-to-be-familiar ‘square-pretzel’ shape.”169 Frankl also changed the treatment of furniture; instead of using dark, glossy lacquer he had his wood furniture waxed by hand. He created bamboo furniture, side tables, and armchairs without any distinction between indoor or outdoor use. His rattan furniture was particularly successful and popular in Hollywood. In 1940, Paul László, who produced a similar line, opened a shop right across the street from Frankl’s.170 Although Davidson designed and crafted the living room furniture for the Berkson Residence himself, he borrowed from Frankl’s ideas. As well as from Frankl’s Asian influences, Davidson took inspiration from classic wooden furniture, for example

98

J.R. Davidson

the Berlin armrest chair, but used different materials. (Fig. 101) The three chaises longues, however, possibly created in the late 1920s (see glued-on business card on the plans), borrow from the design of objects for another function like hinged design objects. The side view of one of them appears to be inspired by a tennis racket. In other words, Davidson’s choice of materials is rather contemporary; his formal con-

Fig. 108 Rattan chaise longue I, ca. late 1920s. The

cept, however, hails from another

design was possibly inspired by a tennis racket.

world. (Figs. 108–110)

Room Dividers Room dividers were highly fashionable in the mid-1930s, due not just to Asian influences but also to ideas like entryways or vestibules arriving in California from cooler regions. Façades, now increasingly transparent, required new components that provided privacy. In order to make a room appear larger or to create a spatial continuum that also

Fig. 109 Rattan chaise longue II, ca. late 1920s

included the outdoors, Richard Neutra worked with floor-to-ceiling mirrors, whereas Davidson preferred translucent partitions and entrances. (Fig. 111) The house attached itself to nature, even if simply by a potted plant by the front door. The discreet encroachment of vegetation opened up the house without making it completely transparent. Indoors, glass partitions separated the entrance from the living room. Davidson’s European background again came into play, where an entryway between

Fig. 110 Rattan chaise longue III, ca. late 1920s

MODERNISM

99

Fig. 111 Herbert Stothart House, Santa Monica,

Fig. 112 Rubin Sabsay House, Los Angeles, 1940.

1937–1938. Entrance with translucent glass screen

Entrance screen with shelf to separate entrance and dining area, Sabsay House today

front door and living space kept the cold out. He used these room dividers in almost all of his houses, and they still exist today in the Rubin Sabsay House (1940) and the Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence (1949). (Figs. 112, 113) The “curtain” in his Berlin penthouse apartment functioned in exactly this way and could be considered an early form of such a room divider. (Fig. 18) Gordon Drake created the same opaque screen for his own Drake House in Beverly Glen, Los Angeles (1946). Other Californian architects such as Smith and Williams followed suit. The transition from outdoors to indoors took on different shapes, from an in-between transparent green area, to individual screens or partitions.171 For Case Study House #1, Davidson designed a translucent wooden room divider that separated the house’s entrance from the adjoining open living space. Most of the time, his semi-transparent glass partitions extend up from built-in cabinets to the ceiling, thus providing a clear subdivision while still bringing light into the interior. Neutra, too, was very interested in a spatial continuum; he spent less time on the actual floor plan than he did on designing a transparent glass vitrine to divide space by the front door.172

100

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 113 Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence, Los Angeles, 1949. A translucent wall of corrugated fiberglass shields the dining room from the hallway, Tyler Residence today.

Davidson’s built-in shelving, cabinets, or dressers were wall-mounted and did not disrupt or block the transparency of the room. When meant to separate, they were half-height with curtain-like room dividers above them. Unlike Rudolph Schindler’s architectural design, Davidson’s components drew their form from their function. Seating, for example, was designed in order to be comfortable. Furniture was supposed to blend in naturally with the rest of the room. A case in point is the built-in bench in the Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence (1949). (Figs. 114, 115) These devices were most of the time multi-functional; here the bench doubles as storage space. The design of the furniture reflects the Zeitgeist and was not an unmistakable signature of the architect. Davidson shared this approach with Richard Neutra, who did not experiment much either, but used a previously developed standard repertoire of unassuming furniture components. “Although Neutra, who sometimes had a way of overshadowing Schindler, is inarguably a master of modern architecture, his furniture designs are unspectacular.”173 We don’t know much about the actual manufacturing or production of the furniture. Although Christopher Long compares J. R. Davidson with Kem Weber and his

MODERNISM

101

Fig. 114 Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence. Built-in bench with

Fig. 115 Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence. The bench without

storage underneath in Tyler Residence today

cushions and with open storage bins

furniture production, there is no evidence for serial production for Davidson’s designs.174 According to Long, his furniture and other objects were handmade. In a letter to Mr. Menken from the Design Lab, located at 2619 Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica, Davidson described two tables he wanted to introduce to the market: “I think that the 2 tables should be good sellers. So please let’s rush through the necessary steps to get them into production and on the market.”175 To get an idea of Davidson’s overall interior design, photographs of the now lost Joseph Kingsley House, once taken for an auction, as well as a few surviving design objects, are revealing. (Fig. 94) “Davidson also designed custom furniture for the house; items up for auction ‘include a biomorphic occasional table, two coffee tables (one a nod to a K.E.M. Weber design), as well as an articulated wall light, and a dining suite comprised of a table and ten chairs.’”176

Davidson’s Contemporaries and Collaborators Letters responding to the birth announcement of J. R.’s and Greta’s son, Ralph Thomas Davidson, on July 9, 1926, show that they must have kept in touch with friends and clients in Europe. In time, however, the contacts gradually break off. According to his daughter-in-law Barnaby, Davidson’s sister Friedel also moved to

102

J.R. Davidson

California at about this time. She continued to live in Los Angeles, owning a toy store. The Davidson’s acquaintance with the Kem Weber family—to whom he entrusted his son for almost three years—brought them into contact with both the Schindlers and the Neutras, resulting in a lifelong friendship between Greta Davidson and Dione Neutra. When the artist, art collector, and critic Galka Scheyer lived

Fig. 116 Davidson with some colleagues (from left

with the Schindlers as a guest, Greta

to right: Lloyd Wright (far left), J. R. Davidson in a

worked for her as a secretary. A 1928 photo shows J. R. with Kem Weber and Lloyd

long coat in the middle, Kem Weber second on the right), ca. 1928

Wright. (Fig. 116) The three of them maintained friendly professional relations and were represented together in group exhibitions. Davidson also participated in a meeting convened by Kem Weber (1930) to co-found the West Coast Chapter of the AUDAC (American Union of Decorative Artists and Craftsmen).177 Davidson was teaching architecture at the Chouinard Art Institute and is quoted in a brochure as saying that “architecture is always modern in its time. A study of the styles of architecture as well as the interiors should be done with this point clearly in mind.” We don’t know for sure how Davidson got this position. From 1938 he also taught for two years at the Art Center School at the West 7th Street location. Kem Weber, who had been working at the newly founded Art Center School since 1932, may have recommended Davidson for a teaching position in interior design there. Davidson also designed both an office and a desk for the school’s director, Edward A. “Tink” Adams (1947), at the new premises on 3rd Street in the Hancock Park neighborhood.

Exhibitions As one of the leading representatives of California Modernism, Davidson participated early on in two exhibitions and is ranked with Schindler, Neutra, and F. L. Wright. The first of these occasions was on March 24, 1929, when Davidson participated in the informal exhibition at the Academy of Modern Art, which Franz K. Ferenz178 founded in 1927 after moving from New York to Los Angeles. “[The] Modern Arts exhibition sponsored by the Los Angeles Architectural Club, likely also

MODERNISM  103

curated by Delano, featured many of the same CAC members such as Kem Weber, Richard Neutra, R. M. Schindler, Conrad Buff, George Stanley, Feil & Paradise and J. R. Davidson and took place at the Architect’s Building at 5th and Figueroa.”179 Ferenz became friends with Neutra and Schindler and took part in numerous art salons. He asked Neutra to lecture at his Academy of Modern Art, where he was heard by Harwell Hamilton Harris and Gregory Ain. At their insistence, Neutra taught there a course entitled A Practical Course in Modern Building Art from January to May 1929.180 One year later, Pauline Schindler organized the exhibition “Contemporary Creative Architects in California,”181 which ran from April 21 to 29, 1930, at UCLA.182 The show included lectures, among others by Neutra and Schindler, however not Davidson.183 Arthur Millier wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “[T]his exhibit at U.C.L.A. is not of a school of modern architecture, but represents the work of thinking artists each trying to design creatively for the present age... this is still an ungrateful field in which these architects are lucky pioneers. So far, in this country, there is no public demand or interest in the modern house, which does not borrow its style from a past period. They swim upstream and are men of ideas and ideals. Whether their work is good or imperfect it is honestly conceived and of a different breed to the imitation French-modern stuff that is issuing copiously, just now, from the drafting-rooms of academic architects who regard the whole modern idea as a temporary fad.”184

In her introduction to the exhibition, Pauline Schindler wrote: “Based upon the principle that form follows function; influenced by the work of Louis Sullivan and of Frank Lloyd Wright, and by the logic of the machine age, modern architecture strongly tends toward a structural integration, a freedom from applied decoration, a reduction of forms to their essence.”185 

Pauline Schindler promoted not just her former husband—they separated in 1927— but also California Modernism itself in numerous articles in the journal Architectur-

al Record from 1930–1931. A selection of the published designs (with some storefronts by Davidson) was included in April 1931 in the 50th Anniversary Exhibition of the Architectural League of New York at the Grand Central Palace.186 Pauline Schindler’s presentation can be seen as a precursor to the legendary 1932 show at

104  J.R. Davidson

New York’s Museum of Modern Art, “Modern Architecture: International Exhibition.” Organized by Philip Johnson and Henry Russell Hitchcock, the New York exhibition, with Richard Neutra as its sole West Coast artist, was on show at the Bullocks Wilshire Department Store in Los Angeles from July 23 to August 30, 1932. MoMA itself hosted the large survey exhibition “Modern Architecture in California” from October 2 to 4, 1935. Ernestine M. Fantl as curator of the MoMA exhibition, presented work by five architects, Neutra and Schindler among them, though she did not include Davidson. The press release summarized the exhibit’s subject thus: “An exhibition of architectural models, plans and enlarged photographs of the recent work of modern architects in California, with special emphasis on the work of Richard J. Neutra. The exhibition will also include photographs of modern architectural sets that have been used in motion pictures.”187

Davidson’s only other appearance in an exhibition was much later in 1950 when his private home was featured in a show at Scripps College: “Sixteen Southern California architects exhibit contemporary trends in a group showing at Scripps College.”188

Collaborators The only other person in Davidson’s office besides a drafting technician was his son Tom (Ralph Thomas Davidson 1926–1981), while Greta took care of the bookkeeping. Tom studied psychology and went on to a master’s degree in Social Research at UCLA. He and his wife Barnaby initially lived in Pittsburgh, but decided to return to California, where Tom wanted to work in architecture. He had always worked as a drafter for his father. “And he had worked in the office and he also became a framing carpenter, because J. R. believed that architects should know about building.”189 While working for Richard Neutra, and because of the need to support a family of his own, he also worked as a contractor, specializing in hillside homes. “So he began working as a building contractor and discovered that he loved the work.”190 He completed numerous of his father’s buildings, such as the Dr. R. H. Jokl House (1958) or the Dr. Hanna Fenichel Residence (Los Angeles, 1958. Fig. 81, p. 226). Barnaby was a landscape architect and J. R. collaborated with her on his final project, the Justman family’s 1975 remodeling of the Margrit Munk House in Brentwood, Los Angeles (1955). He made it clear, however, that he want-

MODERNISM  105

ed to design the surroundings himself, as was the case in the early houses (for example the Jack G. Shapiro House). In the 1950s, he collaborated on two projects with landscape architect Garrett Eckbo. One, the Sam A. Taylor Residence, with its huge property divided into different zones, was incorporated into the landscaping. The other was a project where Eckbo may have recommended or brought Davidson in as the architect for the House of the Book, to judge from correspondence between Eckbo and the client (see section on “Public Buildings,” p. 221). Although some of the building permits identified Davidson as “certified,“ he was not strictly a licensed architect. It is not documented whether he was actually legally limited to building only single or multi-family homes with no more than four apartments on two floors. What we do know is that he refused to be admitted to the AIA. Kem Weber was not an AIA member either but saw himself more as an industrial designer. “I think...that his whole childhood he (J. R.) spent looking for a home... When he thinks about a structure, he thinks of home and heart and not a building.”191 Being a perfectionist, J. R. tried to confront his clients’ concerns by sometimes handing out questionnaires in order to learn about their lives, something that Richard Neutra did also. “[H]is drawings as you know are absolutely covered, but they are legible, you can read them but every inch, somebody would finally have to go into the office and forcibly take those plans away from him and take them to the blue printers. Because he was still working, working, refining, having found the right solution. Unlike Schindler he had a completely different mode of working…(Schindler was) much more inclined to let things go until the crucial moment until everything was about to crash and then jump in and do something. J. R. wanted everything that he had learned, hours and hours with the client, he wanted to put that all together and then start working with the people who were actually going to build the building.”192

Greta Davidson worked with her husband on designing kitchens and was primarily in charge of arranging storage space and appliances. Her ideas were based on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s 1926 Frankfurt Kitchen, which was tailored to both the homemaker’s needs and to efficiency. A trained textile and fashion designer, Greta Davidson added color and distinct choices of material to her husband’s rather sober architecture, which was more focused on the effects of light and space. To what extent he also worked with other textile designers is unclear. A letter from

106  J.R. Davidson

Dorothy Liebes described her involvement in the Sam A. Taylor Residence and Davidson’s interest in her work. He used her wallpapers in all the rooms, as well as the large curtain patterns.193 They must have known each other from the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco when Liebes invited Davidson to exhibit one of his light designs.194 Greta’s ideas were reflected in the large lady’s bedroom with its own private vestibule. Davidson’s ideas about women were largely old-fashioned, however. He did not design kitchens as living spaces, but rather as confined rooms with a hatch. Unlike the Eames’s office, Greta was never made an official partner in the Davidson firm. He does, nevertheless, mention her as a collaborator in reference to his first Case Study House #1. “[B]efore they were married, he courted her for something like seven years. She said that she wanted to work with him as a designer. And he said yes and they got married and he never really honored that promise. Which Greta never forgave him for that... Not that he didn’t…I think he just, he wasn’t able to do anything else because as I said with the kitchens he probably was the only architect who listened when he was told and that’s a big advancement right there. But he couldn’t go the whole way even though they were good friends with the Eameses. But, from another country, from another time, they were, of course, much younger than Greta and J. R. He couldn’t acknowledge this office is the ‘Greta and J. R. Davidson Office’ as the Eameses always did.”195

Nonetheless, Greta is clearly credited with the role of interior decorator by her daughter-in-law Barnaby: “And she did...very definite things like picking out fabrics, deciding on other materials that might be used in interior space or just that all the photographs were set up by her.”196 Esther McCoy’s observations on Davidson give us an understanding of his work and personality, as well as the recognition he attracted in the Los Angeles architecture world: “He was a shy man, and his long face in repose was as solemn as a St. Bernhard’s. He was five-feet-seven, with muscular arms, and hands too broad for the delicate detail in his drawings. In large groups he looked out from behind his mask and said little; with clients his work flowed as he followed their daily life through the floor plan he had drawn; with old friends he was bantering and affectionate.”197

MODERNISM  107

Ultimately, like Neutra, he took his clients’ wishes seriously, as opposed to many of his colleagues. Overshadowed by his fellow architect, it appears that Davidson received those commissions rejected by Neutra, as was clearly the case with the Joseph Kingsley House. Thomas Mann also very likely preferred Davidson to Neutra precisely because of his quiet and considerate demeanor. Initially always mentioned side by side with Neutra and Schindler, Davidson’s reputation later faded—he did not care to promote himself. His reputation was not helped by Esther McCoy, who gave him the posthumous epithet “The Second Generation” in 1984.198

European Ideas about Living Maitland Residence, Bel Air, 1937 Davidson’s 1937 assignment at the Maitland Residence included retrofitting a conventional Georgian-style home to house the client’s modern art collection, and to open a view from the building to the adjoining valley. (Figs. 117–121) “No attempt has been made to give the house a stylistic face, but all inessential details outside and inside were removed.”199 Davidson’s time spent working in England, where he would have gained an appreciation of Georgian architecture, may have helped him get this job. Pictures in the estate archive offer possible models of inspiration: Castle Eaton residences in Wiltshire, and buildings by the architect W. A. H. Masters.200 Here the origins of Davidson’s unpretentious and simple design for the brick building’s door and windows can be seen. The archive contains a photograph showing an agricultural site and subsidiary buildings before the alterations. Davidson converted the western section into an open terrace by breaking up the symmetry of windows and doors in the façade. New steel and glass sliding doors were embedded into the northern façade to open up the house toward the garden and the scenery beyond. It is worth noting Davidson’s corner design, one that is similar to a design at the Herbert Stothart House, which was roughly contemporary. He added another window at right angles to the new living room’s terrace door, creating the impression of a floating corner—not unlike Walter Gropius’s Fagus Factory in Alfeld on the Leine (1911–1913) or the Bauhaus in Dessau (1925–1926). He also extended the library with a window-corner space that admitted more light into the room, below which he added a built-in sofa, similar to the bay windows of old German houses. By staggering the spaces, so that they projected toward the garden (see also the Stothart House floor plan, Fig. 131), he created new vistas and opened up an en-

108

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 117 Maitland Residence, Bel Air, 1937. Exterior

Fig. 118 Maitland Residence. The covered outdoor space

view of the refurbished Georgian-style house

creates an outdoor living room.

Fig. 119 Maitland Residence. Glass corner of the living

Fig. 120 Maitland Residence. Living room

room

tirely different panorama, while the interior merged with the outdoors. The floor plan looks as if Davidson simply pushed the original rectangular house out of the building line in two places with a narrow glass-enclosed porch—one by the dining room and the other by the library where he added the bay window. This was probably achieved by demolishing and opening up a section of the corner of the room, as the original floor plans show. These mention an outdoor living room with the western exterior wall still intact, which later disappears in the finalized project. The new terrace upstairs created a canopy over the outdoor space below and thereby

MODERNISM

109

extended the living space to the outside. The upper floor’s layout appears unchanged. Above the living room is a picture gallery with light coming in from the sides and with terrace access directly from the landing. Davidson defined the exterior as living space by simply putting a roof or canopy over it, while the supporting columns or posts created simultaneously an invisible extended room. “Materials and colors throughout were selected with regard to the pictures, in an effort to secure a neutral background. Simplification was carried through the smallest details; for example, cabinet work has no handles, but

Fig. 121 Maitland Residence. Built-in seating area in the bay window

continuous fingerpulls shaped into the wood; hinges are of the invisible type.”201

The plans for the inside of the house called for a remodeled wood-paneled staircase and numerous shelves. Davidson’s time in Europe, his research, training, and studies in Germany, England and France influenced him in many different ways. Books like Houses and Gardens by M. H. Baillie Scott (1906), or the three-volume work The English House by Hermann Muthesius (1904), as well as Davidson’s personal middle-class environment, informed his architectural and home-decorating ideas. A combination of sophisticated interiors and generous patrician floor plans (including maids’ rooms) became apparent in his first residential projects from the 1930s. “Not unlike Loos who is remembered for designing from the inside out, Davidson developed a strong sense for visualizing and manipulating space through these early projects dealing with interior architecture.”202 To understand Davidson’s professional development, let us summarize here the main premises of Muthesius and Baillie Scott as exponents of the English Arts and Crafts movement, and William Morris’s treatment of wall paints. Baillie Scott ded-

110  J.R. Davidson

icated himself mostly to spaces, layouts, and furnishings of a universal or ideal house type as an integral part of architecture, whereas Muthesius saw the standards of contemporary architecture best represented in the traditional English house. He outlined his ideas in his subsequent publication Das moderne Landhaus und seine

innere Ausstattung (1905). Baillie Scott wanted to open the living area toward the garden. He envisioned a central space with adjoining rooms, the classic main hall becoming a dining or living room separated by sliding doors. He highlighted his preference for a rectangular floor plan: “In general, a layout including a long central shape, sufficiently stretched in length to align the main rooms along a southern façade, but also deep enough to avoid too much of an exterior wall front. That way you get several benefits.”203 Muthesius clearly favored the villa over the city apartment by directly linking the

raison d’être of a country house to contemporary traffic trends.204 He emphasized that “the essence of the country house is that the living spaces open up onto the garden… Merging the house with the garden should therefore be the most important aspect in building a house.”205 A residence’s layout, limited to two to three floors, should follow a well-defined structure: dining and living rooms on the first floor, bedrooms on the second, while guests and staff are housed on the attic floor.206 “English domestic architecture has shown us the leading way. The continent’s deliberate modernity would be the last thing the architect of an English home would want to engage with. Its effects are truly distressing to him, since he so deeply cares about the values of longes­tablished forms of shelter. And yet, his natural instinct forbids him to simply imitate the past. Neither does he desire to be ‘old-fashioned’, nor ‘modern’, but confines himself to being accurate, to meet the modern requirements in an unbiased way.”207

According to Muthesius, a different spatial layout makes all the difference: “At first, a number of newly added rooms have in great measure improved comfort and convenience in domestic living. Separate rooms for the gentleman, the lady of the house and the children replace the erstwhile drawing room. The purpose of the dining room is less a combined living and dining space, but serves more for the sole purpose of dining. Most obvious, however, is a proliferation of new secondary rooms. Vestibule, dressing room and pantry used to be quite unknown. The bedroom is now invariably accompanied by a dressing room.”208

MODERNISM

111

Davidson’s earlier projects kept tradition with separate dining rooms or vestibules, as in the Maitland Residence, where he was inspired by country homes. In later projects though, such as the Case Study Houses, he ascribed particular functions to certain areas in the house: hallways were defined as dressing, telephone, or even breakfast rooms. Contrary to his contemporaries, Davidson designated many more different rooms, resulting in additional storage space and overall great efficiency for homemakers. His clients highly valued his practical de-

Fig. 122 Richard Bransten Residence, San Francisco, 1931 (project). Presentation drawing

signs, and he was quite in demand as an architect of comfortable and functional homes.

International Style “About 1936 marked a turning point in Davidson’s architectural career. He received a commission for planning a quality residence in Pacific Palisades for Herbert Stothart, the composer of operettas… The Stothart house is an entirely successful realization of several principles of planning and of design which Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson described as the International Style in their publication of 1932.”209

Davidson had previously approached or experimented with Modernism’s design language, as for example in his unrealized house for Richard Bransten in San Francisco (1931). The Blake G. Smith House (1944), a vacation home in Laguna Beach, illustrates how Davidson evolved from a Modernist façade but with conventional floor plans to an open layout. The completed Herbert Stothart House (1938) is the manifestation of an interim step, while the Laguna Beach vacation home most profoundly demonstrates the complete transformation toward Modernism.

112  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 123 Richard Bransten Residence. Basement plan

Fig. 124 Richard Bransten Residence. First floor plan

Richard Bransten Residence, San Francisco, 1931 (Project) Davidson’s portfolio for this San Francisco project includes elevations, floor plans, and sections as well as a project description. (Figs. 122–127) The client was the writer Richard Bransten, son of a successful coffee manufacturer in San Francisco. Bransten married Louise Rosenberg in 1929 and their son was born in 1938. Davidson was asked to design a house for a family with two children. We do not know the specific circumstances in which J. R. got this assignment.

MODERNISM  113

Fig. 125 Richard Bransten Residence. Second floor plan with bedrooms and library

Fig. 126 Richard Bransten Residence. Third floor plan with guest rooms

The plans feature a house on a slope with three terraced levels and a modern white façade with two round De Stijl-type windows. Contrary to the Modernist spirit, the living spaces are not one contiguous area, but have the appearance of a patrician residence. Davidson designed a prestigious curved staircase up through the house, leading finally to a separate staircase joining the servants’ rooms. There are winding passages, like the one from the dining room to the large 1000-square-foot living room. His portfolio elevation shows it as a narrow hallway lined with paintings and plants, reminiscent of side passages surrounding light shafts in a German res-

114  J.R. Davidson

idential building. The library is not adjoining the living room, as one would expect, but is instead right next to the bedroom of the owner on the second floor. Steps, midway down from the living room, also lead outside into the garden. The second-floor atrium, suffusing the house with light, is well suited for outdoor cocktail and breakfast receptions. Davidson describes the leitmotifs of Modernism: “The layout is designed with these main points in view, 1) To secure the utmost of sunshine, light and air without glaring, 2) To preserve the beautiful and valuable view over bay, hills to the city to the north without blocking this view for the neighbors, 3) To provide a social and homelike atmosphere for a young growing family and an unpretentious frame for a future personal and contemporary art collection. A variety of possibilities for outdoor, semi-outdoor and indoor groupings for the grown-ups and the children.”210

On the outside, this design by Davidson has similarities with other contemporary architects. It also has clear differences. In 1939–1940, Richard Neutra built a house for businessman Sidney Kahn, at 66 Calhoun Terrace. It too was a multi-story hillside dwelling, with terraces, and overlooking the San Francisco Bay. “Kahn asked for the entertaining space to be on the top floor, served by a curving stair plus an elevator with shelving to transport both persons and drinks. Unlike Neutra’s other houses in San Francisco, this one has the classic bands of window and stacked boxes and terraces that bear his signature.”211

Davidson’s spatial concept went in the opposite, rather more conventional direction, one more aligned to Muthesius. The third floor, which provided the best views, accommodated the guest bedrooms, while the family bedrooms were on the second floor, and dining and living rooms on the first floor. The origin of the round windows remains unclear. His colleague Jock D. Peters had already introduced an equivalent design in the Hi-Hat House (1926–1927) and the Shepard House in San Marino (1932), but the nautical suggestion of Davidson’s round windows also fitted very well with the setting above San Francisco harbor. One porthole looked out from the vestibule, the other one from the children’s area, giving a stylistic, decorative component to the front façade. Other than the Bransten Residence, round windows were not integral parts of Davidson’s oeuvre.

MODERNISM

115

Fig. 127 Richard Bransten Residence. Presentation drawing

Blake G. Smith House, Laguna Beach, 1944 Davidson included maritime elements again in his vacation home for Blake G. Smith in Laguna Beach (1944). For a long narrow plot on top of the cliffs, he designed a home with an open floor plan, incorporating bunkbeds separated only by a curtain, a dinette and kitchen, as well as a living room opening up to a terrace with an ocean view. Davidson’s plan shows an outdoor shower, an enclosed patio by the badminton court to the east, and an option for an annex. The entire eastwest façade, including the front door section by the badminton court, was encased in a glass front, shielding it from the wind and also creating a uniform façade for both the enclosed patio and the residence. On the western end, a staircase led down to the “natural sea pool.” The sleeping area with the bunkbeds had an ocean view, the service rooms were grouped next to the front entrance, while the area with the semi-circular living space jutted out over the cliffs, supported by a single pillar. (Figs. 128, 129) But for the terrace railing, the end-to-end glass façade provided an unobstructed view of the sea. The formal design of this home recalls Carl Fieger’s Kornhaus Restaurant on the Elbe River in Dessau (1929). Hinting at the shape of a ship’s deck, it was originally designed with an open patio, but was turned into a glass porch during construction.

116  J.R. Davidson

These nautical themes are well-known concepts in Los Angeles and not just limited to the Bauhaus milieu. Hungarian émigré Paul László’s model for his private home (1937) is another variation on the theme. While the design for the San Francisco residence has clear subdivisions into different living spaces, Davidson opened up the floor plan in Laguna Beach. By using dividers and partitions he maintained distinct functional or operational segments. Nevertheless ancillary rooms became peripheral, adding to an open and contiguous main section where the house’s exposure to the sea allowed for a sweeping panorama.

Herbert Stothart House, Santa Monica, 1938 The Stothart House, reflecting Davidson’s open floor plan concept, was built in 1937–1938 for Herbert Stothart, composer and director of the MGM Studios’ Music Department, in Santa Monica. The 1-acre212 plot is perched on a hill on the edge of the exclusive Riviera Country Club, overlooking the Santa Monica Mountains and the ocean. While the architect and his client worked closely in the planning phase, Davidson soon asserted that he would be the person in charge of everything, from landscaping to interior design and decoration, “to carry out the harmony of the house.“213 His main objective was to give every family member the best possible view of the ocean. “With this purpose in view all service quarters and 3 car garage were located towards the street—the house being set back from the street 150 feet—thus providing space for a standard tennis and badminton court and a generous driveway with motorcourt for parking.”214

This ten-room mansion—at $30,000 (not including the landscaping and pool design)215— for a family of five, blended into the surrounding topography. Garage, terrace, and pool were stepped out of the slope and were accessed sequentially and gently downhill so as not to interrupt the magnificent view. (Figs. 130–132) Entry to the house was between the garage and kitchen, which was tucked away behind a high wall that created a service yard and an open porch. Beyond the front door and typical bourgeois entrance hall and staircase was the living room, shielded by a translucent glass screen with Davidson’s hallmark potted plant placed in front. (Fig. 111) This not only created the characteristic German windbreak, it also facilitated a continuous flow of the outside into the inner space, which was further enhanced by the living room’s suspended indirect lighting.

MODERNISM

117

Fig. 128 Blake G. Smith House, Laguna Beach, 1944. Design sketch of this vacation home with landscape

Fig. 129 Blake G. Smith House. Ground floor plan. The service rooms are pushed toward the entrance to open the view to the ocean.

118  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 130 Herbert Stothart House, Santa Monica, 1938. Presentation drawing of the house with garden façade and pool

Fig. 131 Herbert Stothart House. Site and ground floor plan. The outdoor living room is a special feature of the house.

“The living room has large glass walls which roll back into a wall pocket, extending the room out into the open, where terraces and lawns invite for leisure hours... The continuous trellis and overhangs protect against glare and support creeping vines and plants which are incorporated into the design of the house.”216

MODERNISM  119

Fig. 132 Herbert Stothart House. Terrain study with different levels of the house, pool and garden

To its east, the living room extended into an outdoor sitting area with a bar, accessible through a glass door and covered by a pergola.217 Through the living room’s glass façade was glimpsed a little pond on the far side of the chimney. Finally, a vertical white and semi-transparent latticed wall separated the exterior living room from the property boundary and contributed to the sense of continuation of space with the rooms, garden, and outdoor space merging. (Figs. 133–135) A trellis of the same white latticework ran around the roof edge of the ground floor, connecting the various protruding cubes of which the house consisted, and providing privacy and protection from the sun, while at the same time casting interesting shadows. (Fig. 137) Upstairs, the bedrooms, all with access to the exterior, faced either the terrace on top of the living room or the balcony to the front side of the house. The way the architect tilted the building where master bedroom and Stothart’s studio meet, anticipated the Thomas Mann House (1941), where the study is separate from the noise of the children. “What was so good about Davidson’s original design was the variety of experiences it offered, from the full sun of the terrace to the gauzy sun of the shade court, and from the full north light of the living room to the south light filtered through an unpolished glass screen, with light also bending down from the high south windows in the two story entry hall. Light and plan, in fact, were the strongest characteristics of a Davidson house.”218

Regrettably, the house today is completely changed and not much of the original design remains visible. 219

120

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 133 Herbert Stothart House. Presentation drawing of the living room

Fig. 134 Herbert Stothart House. View from second floor onto the pool and trellis

MODERNISM

121

Fig. 135 Herbert Stothart House. A trellis over the terrace and on the side of the windows provides shade.

122

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 136 Herbert Stothart House. View of driveway and entrance façade

“The horizontal emphasis of the entrance façade, the flat roof, the continuous band of uniform windows which line the recessed and the projecting plane surfaces of the upper level, the uninterrupted parapet and wall band which traverses the entire length of the façade unifying the whole, all these elements of things suggest assimilation with the architectural vocabulary of the International Style.”220 (Fig. 136)

The floor plan, however, continued to reflect a bourgeois layout, with a coat vestibule, clearly separated dining and living rooms, as well as various integrated service rooms. A space continuum between living spaces and garden, as famously demonstrated in Mies van der Rohe’s Villa Tugendhat in Brno (1928), was apparent. The seamless transition occurred not so much between individual rooms, but rather from the inside of the living room across the glass door to the outdoor seating area. Although the house was built as a two-by-four timber frame standard construction, it included distinctive International Style characteristics like horizontal windows, large glass openings, flat roofs and a cubic white façade with different volumes. In the 1940s Davidson was clearly integrating the vocabulary of the International

MODERNISM

123

Style into his architectural designs, sometimes using round volumes like the curved dining room in the Dr. J. S. Druckman Residence (1940), or horizontal window bands and glass block corners, or a round staircase such as the one in the H. S. Anderson Residence (1940), which becomes a floor plan essential, reflecting the outside street line on the inside.

Gretna Green Apartments, Los Angeles, 1940 Planned as an investment for Hannah Drucker (and therefore also called Drucker Apartments after the client), the Gretna Green Apartments (1940) were determined by limited financial resources and the property’s location

Fig. 137 Herbert Stothart House. Garden façade

and size, a corner plot of 50 × 148 feet,221 and therefore very suitable for a comparison with the Bauhaus ideas about living on limited space. Many Bauhaus-affiliated architects and housing reformers favored individual row houses with small yards or gardens. Davidson diverged from the Neues Bauen movement and the 1920s row houses in Germany, yet he knew how to maintain their underlying merits. In order to rent out the apartments most effectively, Davidson designed the floor plans with privacy and recreational concerns in mind that would otherwise only be thinkable in a single-family home. (Figs. 138–141) Each of the four apartments has its own exterior space extending the living room outside, either as patio or sundeck. A high garden wall shields the first floor and a trellis the second-floor apartments. The two buildings are directly accessible from the street. One consists of a garage downstairs, with a bachelor apartment above. The second, and bigger, building has three apartments, two of them on the first floor and a larger one upstairs. A narrow space separates the two structures. In the two lower-level apartments, a patio provides dedicated outside areas for the living room, dining room, and bedrooms. Upstairs is a larger apartment with two bedrooms and two large terraces. To give privacy to the bachelor apartment, the terraces are on the other end of each building.

124

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 138 Gretna Green Apartments, Los Angeles, 1940. Presentation drawing

Fig. 139 Gretna Green Apartments. Ground floor plan

MODERNISM

125

Presumably referring to the terrace windows in the bachelor apartment, Davidson noted that “the room effect was enhanced by the continuation of a ‘cornice’.” And he added: “Privacy is secured by facing the deck away from the main apartment building, and by slat screens on the service side.”222 This bachelor apartment is planned in great detail. A sliding door opens the living room to the terrace and a different “cello-glass” sliding screen conceals the eatin kitchen.223 A small dressing room

Fig. 140 Gretna Green Apartments. A small screened

with closets connects to the bathroom.

porch is located outside the living room.

Behind the buildings, a narrow service alley leads to the shared courtyard, akin to the German concept of a cooperative with a shared garden or laundry room. Davidson seems less interested in the façade.224 The smaller building has the appearance of a closed garage front, with the window alignment above, extending into the terrace, adding an airiness to it, as in Le Corbusier’s and Pierre Jeanneret’s Maison Citrohan (1927) or the roof terraces of the Weissenhof Estate in Stuttgart (1927). The stairs leading to the apartment above suggest Greek or Arabic dwellings. (Fig. 138) Designed with aus-

Fig. 141 Gretna Green Apartments. View from the bigger apartment down into the private patio

tere simplicity, the three unpretentious doors in the main house’s front façade indicate the three apartments—a suggestion of symmetry, although not consistent with the window ribbon above. While keeping in line with the formal rigor and spartan forms of the International Style, Davidson diverged from the style with his choice of external color. Unlike Modernism’s typical white exteriors, Davidson chose a terracotta-colored plaster for the façades, (Fig. 143) accentuated by blue window frames made of wood, a scheme which helped the Gretna Green Apartments to integrate well into the surrounding California vegetation.225

126

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 142 Gretna Green Apartments. The smaller bachelor apartment on top of the three-car garage is turned away from the three-unit building

MODERNISM

127

Fig. 143 Gretna Green Apartments in 2013, still in the original color but without the blue window frames. Today the building is painted white.

128  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 144 Kem Weber, Medical Building, date and location unknown (project)

Feingold and Harris Medical Building, Los Angeles, 1942 The Feingold and Harris Medical Building (1942) on Wilshire Boulevard is a great example of how Davidson’s work differed from the designs of his contemporaries. It was built on a very narrow, 55-foot-wide lot, which had to allow access to parking in the back. The specifications required that two different medical offices, those of Dr. B. F. Feingold and Dr. J. M. Harris, a gynecologist and a pediatrician, be housed in the building. A shared waiting room joined the two practices. (Fig. 145) Access was either through a glass vestibule at the front or from the parking lot at the rear. Administration and laboratory were immediately next to the waiting room. Off to the right or left were the doctors’ offices, grouped along the perimeter of the building. The assistants’ rooms were located in the center of the building, with daylight coming in through various skylights that also provided light for the hallways. Because of the building’s location on a busy street, the double-glazed windows could not be opened, so ventilation was delivered via a central cooling system. Cool air traveled through a subterraneous filter unit, passing through the house, and eventually exiting through an air vent on the roof, exchanging the air indoors

MODERNISM  129

Fig. 145 Feingold and Harris Medical Building, Los Angeles, 1942. Ground floor plan with one office on each side

Fig 146 Feingold and Harris Medical Building. Presentation drawing

130

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 147 Feingold and Harris Medical Building.

Fig. 148 Feingold and Harris Medical Building.

Curved roof above the glass entrance at the

The glass entrance, with plants inside and

corner of the street

outside, works like a vitrine at night.

Fig. 149 Feingold and Harris Medical Building. Common waiting area for both offices

MODERNISM  131

every ten minutes. On colder days, air was heated by three heating units that provided the rooms with warm air passing through three ducts. Special attention was paid to acoustics to ensure privacy for each of the two medical practices. Ceilings were treated with noise-absorbing plaster, and walls were insulated with greater efficiency in the doctors’ rooms than in the waiting room and bathrooms, which were only moderately insulated. To give them an expansive appearance, Davidson had the rooms painted all in the same finish. The floors were covered with linoleum. With the exception of the examination rooms, the light was indirect and scattered. “Through the entire building prevails an atmosphere of restful cheerfulness, professional dignity and efficiency.”226 In his captions, Davidson differentiated minutely between the various materials, for instance the linoleum floor: “Linoleum beige jaspé with brown and coral lines.“227 Illustrating the colors unreproducible in black and white photography, he described the waiting room: “Hardwoven curtain material in natural gray and coral yarns. Settees in oak and covered with blue-green leather. Table covered with ‘Rawhide’ natural white-beige color base in oak.”228 The entrance area, rather like a large showcase, was decorated with plants—a continuum of outdoor vegetation through the transparent glass. While the plants provided privacy, the upper section of the glass structure let in plenty of daylight. In the first draft the entrance area was shaped into a corner, making it visible from both sides of the street. A Kem Weber project (undated and unrealized) presented a similar situation, possibly designed for that very client. (Fig. 144) Weber moved the front steps toward the sidewalk, and added a handrail in front of the open landing. His design also integrated another, recessed, building, so that the street-side section did not have to turn around the corner.229 Davidson’s curved roof tilted toward the glass case and became a visible and recognizable feature. Initially planned as an open patio with plants, the entrance in Davidson’s design was remodeled slightly into a simpler version, with the glass casing compensating for lack of space. (Figs. 145–149)

Case Study Houses: Adaptive Reuse of Floor Plans The Case Study Houses program was launched in January 1945 by John Entenza, who bought California Arts & Architecture in 1938, renaming it Arts & Architecture in February 1944.230 Thirteen houses and seven projects were planned in an initial phase up till December 1949. The program’s main objective, according the editor, was to define architecture for the postwar house. Given the many preceding hous-

132  J.R. Davidson

ing programs in Europe, this was hardly uncharted territory. Most famous among these was the Weissenhof Estate in Stuttgart (1927), under the auspices of Mies van der Rohe, which was the product of ten architects from the Deutscher Werkbund. The Österreichischer Werkbund exhibition in Vienna (1930) had a similar concept of creating the future home. Prior to the CSH program, a variety of residential home exhibitions and programs had been organized by the state of California, by magazines, or by contracting businesses.231 In the U.S., the Golden Gate International Exposition (1939–1940) in San Francisco integrated buildings for the first time in a real-world environment, instead of merely showcasing them temporarily in exhibition surroundings. Prior to this “the primary purpose was to display and sell building materials and equipment and the manufacturers customarily chose the architect, a practice that resulted in a bewildering stylistic diversity.”232 In Europe, the aim was to represent a modern architectural style and to design ideal prototypes, which prompted a rigorous selection of architects. John Entenza, publisher of Arts & Architecture, called for similar criteria. The European model houses, their interior furnishings included, were seen as a guideline for formal architectural innovations, suggesting a new lifestyle and awareness. “As an attempt at formulating low-cost, steel-frame prototypes for houses responsive to immediate postwar social conditions and to the landscape of southern California, the minimal skeleton was used to frame and intensify suburban existence, and (in combination with trellis, screen and deck) to make delicate pavilions poised in the trees, with fine views of city and nature.”233

Although only a minority of the constructed CSH houses, the program’s steel frame houses have gone down in the history of architecture. They comply best with the intention of advancing new materials and techniques. To call it, as in Europe, “lowcost” housing, would be misleading.234 Nor was it the idea. The objective was to create homes for the middle class, for “the average American.”235 It was about finding “a good solution of each problem, which in the over-all program will be general enough to be of practical assistance to the average American in search of a home in which he can afford to live.”236 Entenza explained in detail how the selection of architects was finalized for the 1945 program.237 The first eight of his chosen architects were not merely talented, he argued, but they were also able to evaluate real-life residential needs pragmatically, offering high-level “reasonableness.” He then summarized the program’s intent:

MODERNISM  133

“We hope to be able to resolve some part of that controversy now raging between those who believe in miracles and those who are dead set against them. For average prospective house owners the choice between the hysterics who hope to solve housing problems by magic alone and those who attempt to ride into the future piggy back on the status quo, the situation is confusing and discouraging.”238

Therefore, argued Entenza, the CSH project’s meaning was to “pose specific problems in a specific program.”239 He concluded that the program was not about “the spirit of the neatest trick of the week,”240 but was about creatively confronting the housing problem by working with good architects and manufacturers. The architects reported only to their client, the editors of Arts & Architecture. The essentials, as stated in the 1945 first printed edition, included a concrete budget, an ideal client, new materials, compliance with building codes, the possibility of replicating buildings, new furniture for the specific house, as well as public ­accessibility for the magazine’s readers. These objectives were similar to those of the Stuttgart Weissenhof Estate. The CSH program’s emphasis was on new materials as well as stan­dardization and prefabrication such as replicating floor plans as a way to reduce costs: “[E]very consideration will be given to new materials and new techniques in house construction... No attempt will be made to use a material merely because it is new or tricky. On the other hand, neither will there be any hesitation in discarding old materials and techniques if their only value is that they have been generally regarded as ‘safe’.”241 … “The house must be capable of duplication and in no sense be an individual ‘performance’.”242

Esther McCoy outlined, somewhat emphatically, John Entenza’s choice of Davidson for the program: “Davidson came to the Case Study Program with a secure reputation for leisurely and efficient large houses with an orderly elegance. He has always been maneuvering a floor plan to stretch the limits of privacy and openness; a felicity with color, which he uses to support his compositions; and the best organized and most ingenious storage spaces of any of the contemporary architects. [sic]”243

134  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 150 Plot plan South Barrington Avenue with Parcel A: Mrs. and Mr. Robert Cron, Parcel B: Mrs. Robin Park, Parcel C and Parcel D: Greta and J. R. Davidson

Fig. 151 Case Study House #1. The first proposal for CSH #1 was a two-story house.

MODERNISM  135

Fig. 152 Case Study House #1. Ground floor plan

Fig. 153 Case Study House #1. The second floor features a guest room with its own terrace.

136  J.R. Davidson

“I think J. R. was in that group because he and John Entenza were quite close—as close as two men like that can get. John also had his formalities.”244 Barnaby Davidson also relates that Entenza was a frequent visitor at her father-in-law’s house. “And the house on Barrington, the Case Study House was right on Barrington. Then there was a long drive, and Thornton Abell did two houses, and then the two last properties J. R. built his house and office overlooking the VA wooded area. [sic]”245

Case Study House #1, Toluca Lake, 1948 Davidson’s first draft for CSH #1 proposed a two-story building as a multi-generation home that could be adapted over the years, comprising two bedrooms in different areas of the house; a master bedroom and a room for a teenage daughter, to be used as an office or guest room in the event of her moving out. The mother-inlaw would have her own separate area on the second floor with a garden view from her bedroom. (Figs. 151–153) “It is only necessary to invent a fairly typical American family of a type that has, in large numbers, indicated its wish to enter the postwar building market. Let us then presuppose Mr. and Mrs. X, both of whom are professional people with usual business interests, the family consisting of one teenaged daughter away at school and a mother-in-law who is an occasional welcome guest in the house.”246

Robert Cron, Advertising Manager at Arts & Architecture, and his family served as hypothetical clients. As per the site plan, the property on South Barrington Avenue was divided into four lots, two of which were owned by the Davidsons (Parcel C and D), who later on built their own house there. Two smaller lots were intended for development as investment properties for lease. Of these two, Parcel A belonged to the Cron family, Parcel B to Mrs. Robin Park.247 (Fig. 150) The two-story building on 1,800 square feet followed Modernist principles as reflect­ ed in the choice of materials and rested on standardized 2-foot interval modules. “Concrete slab floors finished with rough, natural, buff-colored cement in the living area; asphalt tile floors in the kitchen, laundry, and bathrooms; walls of painted insulation board, glass, or naturally finished plywood; and ceilings of insulation board and translucent plastic set over fluorescent tubes.”248

MODERNISM  137

Fig. 154 Case Study House #1. Garden façade

Fig. 155 Case Study House #1. Ground floor plan with the guest quarter separated from the house on the left

138

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 156 Case Study House #11, Los Angeles, 1946. Entrance with different translucent layers of glass

MODERNISM

139

Fig. 157 Thornton Abell’s bathroom for the model home “The Californian,” shown at the Los Angeles Seventh National Home Show and Building Exposition, Inglewood, 1952, appropriated Davidson’s idea of translucent glass with plants behind.

140

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 158 Case Study House #11. Julius Shulman’s photographs of CSH #11 on a presentation board

MODERNISM

141

142  J.R. Davidson

Davidson’s understanding of a modern house included a movie screen above the piano that would accompany silent film projections. He also set up a ventilation system—even for the closets—throughout the house. In 1948, he changed the original two-story floor plan design to a single-story house with no hallways and with garden access from all sides. It would be completed not on the same site on South Barrington Avenue, but in North Hollywood in Toluca Lake as Case Study House #1. (Figs. 154, 155) “This first Case Study House design, even though not built as originally planned, encapsulates several major achievements. The compact, efficient planning of room units with built-in furniture and storage spaces, the introduction of a complex home entertainment center, and the provision of separate, yet attached, guest quarters, as well as the future income units of the original design, represent Davidson’s prime contributions to the thrust of the evolving Case Study House program.”249

The sole guest room—the mother-in-law’s second-floor home from the first draft— was now separated from the main living area by an outdoor 7-foot-wide covered passage. An enclosed service yard by the entrance and in front of the kitchen, screening off the street,250 was new to this design and was something that Davidson added to almost all of his other homes. Floor-to-ceiling sliding glass doors in the combined living and dining area provided access to a terrace. The dining room itself, located in the corner, had the option of opening completely to the exterior, as did the breakfast room. The two family bedrooms, on the opposite side of the house and away from the guest room, had their own outdoors area. A fence separating this area from the terrace offered privacy.

Case Study House #11, Los Angeles, 1946 A much smaller version and adhering more to the CSH program’s ideas of a two-bedroom, two-bathroom house, was CSH #11, completed in 1946 for the Cron family on South Barrington Avenue (the former original site for the two-story CSH). CSH #11 was a compact house that did not exceed the maximum 1,100-square-foot limit, set by government regulations.251 Supplies were rationed and restricted during these postwar years, meaning Entenza’s steel construction could not be carried out. Consequently, the house was built in a conventional mullion-and-transom method. Nevertheless, Davidson managed to accommodate a wide range of functions into the confined space. Completion took more than six

MODERNISM  143

Fig. 159 Case Study House #11. Drawing of dressing room

months instead of the planned three months from the laying of the corner stone. The Myer Brothers contractors observed: “The braveness of the house is not in the materials, but in the bold and simple way of putting them together and in a miraculously workable floor plan without halls.”252 Davidson achieved this by dividing the rooms up as if it were a large mansion, and not a low-cost house. (Figs. 158, 159) The master bedroom was separate from the guest or child’s bedroom, and each had its own bathroom and private garden space, shielding off the living room terrace with a screening fence. CSH #11 sat on a 70 × 100-foot property and was offset from the road by 13 feet, giving it a bit of front yard space. It was visited by over 55,000 people. In contrast to Case Study House #1, and for reasons of budget, there were no closets in CSH #11. Nor were there standardized modules for construction. Despite a horizontal window band and flat roof, its dark wood framing gave it a rather conventional appearance. Inside, however, the floor plan conveyed comfort. Davidson

144  J.R. Davidson

created his signature main entrance in the smallest of spaces; a potted plant shining through to the outside via the translucent front door. (Fig. 156) It corresponded with another plant shining through from the living room behind a glass screen rising up from a waist-high bookcase, and in the far back you could see the landscape through the glass façade. In a 1947 Arts & Architecture survey, the house’s shortcomings—largely caused by budgetary cutbacks—became evident. Clearly the residents enjoyed the unconventional indoor-to-outdoor lifestyle as well as the flooring and the heating system, yet the wooden frames of the sliding doors could only be moved with great effort, a lack of gutters caused real problems, and the “casement windows on the house’s street side ‘rattled like the devil and leaked like sieves.’”253 Although Davidson created more homes with that same floor plan toward the end of the 1940s, their location or numbering as a Case Study House is not determined in academic literature.254

Case Study House #15, La Cañada Flintridge, 1947 In 1947, a house nearly identical to CSH #11 was built as CSH #15 in La Cañada Flintridge, where John Entenza had originally planned a whole colony of Case Study Houses. The building’s slightly altered façade was covered here in vertical gray-brown redwood, with light gray window frames. The kitchen was to the right of the front entrance, with bathroom and dressing room to its left. “Floor plan is basically that of another Davidson house, Case Study House #11. However, some changes in the original plan were made by the general contractor. Patio shape became oblong, small planting areas were added, living room wood paneling was given a high gloss, a basement utility room was excavated, private entrance to the second bedroom was eliminated and a double garage replaced the single garage in the original plan.” 255

For a limited budget, new furniture was commissioned from “the designers,” presumably Davidson, and manufactured by Glenn Incorporated. “Furnishings necessary for such a house are determined and a price, figured from a maximum budget of about $2,500, is allocated to each piece... The results so far produced are a clean simplicity and maximum utility.”256

MODERNISM  145

All furniture was made of light-colored woods—birch, bleached mahogany, and ash. The house was automatically heated or cooled by a thermostat, with a hot water heater operated by gas. Two warm heat registers in the living room were able to provide heat evenly to the entire room with its long glass façade,257 and bathroom heaters were built into the walls. Not much else is known about the bathrooms, they were not pictured in any of Davidson’s projects. There is, however, mention of a freestanding toilet, a sink on chromium legs, and a metal cabinet with large sliding glass doors above it. Not everybody was complimentary. Dolores Hayden made this feminist criticism of the Case Study Houses: “J. R. Davidson cast Mrs. X in the role of circus juggler: The kitchen is adjacent to the dressing-bedroom wing, and by this arrangement, Mrs. X can attend easily to the preparation of breakfast or quick meals while dressing or working at the bedroom desk.”258

This view could be countered by Esther McCoy’s statement that Davidson kept the dressing room or vestibule accessible to guests and not only as a private area for the wife or husband but not only as a private area for the wife or husband but as an area dedicated to common use.259 He also often dubbed his master bedrooms women’s bedrooms, emphasizing that a woman should have her own dressing room, even in the smallest of houses. Davidson always introduced the woman as a working person, unlike architect Sumner Spaulding (and John Rex), who in his Case Study House #2 assumed the client was a “stay-at-home mom.” Thirteen years later CSH #11 was demolished, like Davidson’s own home and studio, both located in the same street. A new zoning law meant that high apartment buildings were now built on South and North Barrington Avenue left and right of Sunset Boulevard. Davidson was the only CSH architect to replicate two homes from one prototype.260 He realized a reuse of floor plans in several other projects, such as his own home or the Floyd D. Crosby Residence. Most of his houses were built after 1946 as a result of the CSH program, which had promoted Davidson for his functional and practical homes, but the boost in the postwar economy and the need for middle-class housing were also factors.

146  J.R. Davidson

Notes 1

Esther McCoy mentions this in her manuscript. She first met J. R. in 1941. Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

2

Lilian Pfaff, interview with Barnaby Davidson, unpublished manuscript, Santa

3

See Esther McCoy’s research work, The Second Generation (Salt Lake City:

Barbara, May 19, 2012. Gibbs Smith, 1984), pp. 3–4, as well as her inquiries sent to J. R.’s grandson Carlos Davidson, kept as letters at Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 4 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 4. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7

Wilhelm von Bode, Die italienische Plastik. Handbücher der königlichen Mu-

seen zu Berlin mit Abbildungen (Berlin: W. Spemann, 1891), p. 149. 8 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 5. 9

Ibid., p. 2.

10 Ibid., p. 5. 11 Ibid. 12 The Victoria & Albert Museum and Kensington Palace on October 9, 1910. 13 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 5. 14 Ibid. 15 All pages from The Studio. Year-Book of Decorative Art (London, Paris, New

York: Studio Vista, 1907), pp. 31–35. 16 M. H. Baillie Scott, Houses and Gardens: Arts and Crafts Interiors. (London:

George Newnes, 1906). 17 Gordon Campbell (ed.), The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts, Vol. 1

(London: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 63. 18 Charles Voysey, Wikipedia, accessed January 1, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Charles_Voysey_(architect). 19 Percy A. Wells and John Hopper, Modern Cabinet Work, Furniture & Fitments,

3rd edition (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1922), p. 258. 20 “Written in the Semi-Editorial Vein,” in: Furniture, Manufacturer and Artisan,

April 1915, Vol. 70, No. 4, p. 193. 21 Ibid. 22 Adam Style, Wikipedia, accessed January 1, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Adam_style. 23 Davidson, quoted in: McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 5. 24 As e.g. in the plans for the Sam A. Taylor Residence (1947), or for the two

Berkson Residences (1939). 25 Ibid. 26 Frank Stuart Murray, “Color in Common Things,” in: The Painter and Decorator,

Vol. XXVI, No. 5, May 1912, pp. 299–301, and No. 6, June 1912, pp. 367–368. 27 Ibid., p. 300. 28 Ibid., pp. 367–368. 29 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 5.

MODERNISM  147

30 Davidson’s watercolor of the Place de Vendôme always hung in his study,

according to Esther McCoy. McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 6. 31 Grete Wollenstein, born January 26, 1888, wrote about her family in the

unpublished manuscript “The Golden Wedding” on the occasion of her grandparents’ 50th wedding anniversary. They lived with their youngest daughter Rosa, Grete’s aunt, in a red brick house in Birschau on the Vistula near the Polish border. Rosa had studied piano at the Gdansk Conservatory. Their street was named after their grandfather: Leopold-Hirschfeld-Straße. Retroactively composed in English, she wrote about another beloved aunt in “Thank you, Aunt Franciska,” unpublished manuscript, UCSB Archive. Franciska was childless and married to a rabbi. 32 Phyllis G. Tortora and Keith Eubank, Survey of Historic Costume, 5th edition

(New York: Fairchild, 2010), p. 46. 33 McCoy, The Second Generation, pp. 6–7. A letter confirms that Davidson

worked there as a designer. Letter from Dumas to J. R. Davidson, May 31, 1913, UCSB Archive. 34 “En 1906, Paul et Arsène Dumas rachètent les usines de Montreuil-sous-Bois

installées place de la République par Valette en 1896. L’usine de papiers peints Dumas est édifiée en 1913 par les architectes Lecœur et Jodard à l’emplacement de l’ancienne usine de papiers peints Valette. Détruite par un incendie en 1921, elle est reconstruite la même année sur les plans de J. Demoison, ingénieur-architecte, spécialiste des constructions industrielles. ” See also: http://opac.lesartsdecoratifs.fr/fiche/manufacture-dumas and http://www.actuacity.com/usine-de-papiers-peints-dumas--actuellement hotel-industriel-et-centre-de-formation-professionnelle_m155712. 35 Nancy J. Troy, “Introduction to Poiret’s Modernism and the Logic of Fashion,”

in: Harold Koda and Andrew Bolton (eds.), Poiret, exhibition catalog, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2007), p. 17. 36 Sarah Ferguson, “Paul Poiret’s Total Look: Revolutionary Design Before Its

Time,” in: Elle Décor (November 1990), p. 64. 37 ”Poiret’s New Kingdom,” in: Vogue 40, No. 1 (July 1, 1912), p. 16, as quoted

in Fiona Fisher et al., Performance, Fashion and the Modern Interior: From the

Victorians to Today (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011), p. 100. 38 Troy, “Introduction to ‘Poiret’s Modernism and the Logic of Fashion’,” p. 21. 39 Ibid. 40 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 7. 41 Ibid., p. 6. 42 Greta Davidson, “The Train,” unpublished manuscript (March 1958), UCSB

Archive. 43 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 8. 44 Ibid. 45 Several handwritten lists of projects are extant, including where they were

published. UCSB Archive. 46 Letter from Hermann Starck to J. R. Davidson, September 2, 1926, UCSB

­Archive.

148  J.R. Davidson

47 Letter from Alexander Koch to J. R. Davidson, September 4, 1926, UCSB

Archive. 48 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 8. 49 Letter from Alexander Koch to J. R. Davidson, UCSB Archive. 50 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 8. 51 Ibid. 52 Alexander Koch sends this to Davidson with a personal letter (1926), inquir-

ing if Davidson would be interested in promoting the magazines. He expresses hope that Davidson is still subscribed to them, and also encourages him to send materials for publication. UCSB Archive. 53 Advertisement, UCSB Archive. The volumes of Handbuch für neuzeitliche

Wohnkultur were published before the First World War, and therefore contain none of Davidson’s works. However, modern examples, like Josef Hoffmann and others, are included. Vol. 1 “Das Schlafzimmer,” 1912, Vol. 2 “Das Herrenzimmer,” 1912, and Vol. 3 “Das Empfangs- und Wohnzimmer,” 1914. 54 Anton Jaumann, “Eine Dachwohnung,” in: Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration,

Vol. 28 (December 1924), p. 157. 55 Ibid., p. 158. Translation by author. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. There is an English translation of this passage by Greta Davidson in the

UCSB Archive. 58 See McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 8. 59 Ibid. 60 McCoy, Manuscript, The Second Generation, Esther McCoy papers, 1876–

1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 61 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 2. 62 See also: Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara,

October 11, 2004, transcript, p. 18, UCSB Archive. 63 1974 interview with J. R. Davidson, by Esther McCoy, Box 39, Folder 12,

Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 64 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 10. 65 Davidson as quoted in McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 10. 66 Richard Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall. Architecture, the Automo-

bile, and Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920–1950 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997), p. 109. 67 Ibid., p. 111. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Davidson’s participaton is not mentioned in Longstreth’s publication. David-

son’s name does not even appear in the index directory, although below the Westlake Square photograph we can see another picture of the Bilicke Building, 3921–3933 Wilshire Boulevard, from 1929–1930, the second of the Davidson-designed storefronts. Morgan, Walls & Clements are named as the architects, but clearly Davidson’s three store façades are shown here. 71 “C. D. Hite Company. Small Shops,” in: Architectural Record (October 1929),

p. 355.

MODERNISM  149

72 David Gebhard and Harriette von Breton, Los Angeles in the Thirties, 2nd

edition (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1989) p. 37. 73 Christopher Long, “The Rise of California Modern Design, 1930–1941,” in:

Wendy Kaplan (ed.), California Design, 1930–1965: “Living in a Modern

Way,” exhibition catalog (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 60–89, 66. 74 Christopher Long, The Looshaus (New Haven, London: Yale University Press,

2011), p. 30. 75 Markus Kristan, Adolf Loos. Läden und Lokale (Wien: Album Verlag, 2001),

p. 7. 76 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 8. 77 Sonja Günther, Bruno Paul 1874–1968 (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1992),

p. 20. 78 Ibid., p. 21. 79 Jock D. Peters grew up on a farm in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, near the

Danish border. He first wanted to become an artist, later an architect. However, at age 14, his father sent him to Hamburg to train with a stonemason. Four years later, in 1907, he began studying architecture at the Hamburg Baugewerbeschule (Building Trades School). He worked for Peter Behrens (1913–1915) and won an architectural competition for a power station in Hamburg. During the First World War he was assigned to an ammunition repair shop on the Belgian border, and in 1920 he became director of the Kunstgewerbe­schule (School of Applied Arts) in Hamburg, where he tried to restore the school’s reputation. Due to these circumstances, but also because of his poor health—half his lung was destroyed after he was exposed to gas during the war—he followed his brother George to California. In 1923, he moved via New York to Los Angeles, where he held a position as Art Director at Paramount Studios (1924–1927). The two brothers started their own architectural firm in 1927, “Peters Brothers Modern American Design.” After the Bullocks Wilshire success, he received another commission for interior design at the ladies’ department store L. P. Hollander & Co., New York, 1930. Other film sets followed as well as numerous commissions for homes in Los Angeles. See: Margaret Leslie Davis, Bullocks Wilshire (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991). Since the death of Peters in 1934 at the age of 45, his limited oeuvre is hardly known. The Art, Design and Architecture Collection of UC Santa Barbara holds his archive. Christopher Long is currently working on the first monograph on Peters. 80 Pauline Schindler, “A Significant Contribution to Culture: The Interior of a

Great California Store as an Interpretation of Modern Life,” in: California Arts

& Architecture, January 1930, p. 23. 81 Margaret Leslie Davis, Bullocks Wilshire, n. p. 82 Ibid., n. p. 83 Ibid., n. p. 84 “All glass in two tones with minimum of metal frame—illuminated from the

back—change of color scheme through change of different colored electric bulbs.” Written on the back of the photo taken from the sketch.

150  J.R. Davidson

85 “The Shop Checklist,” in: Architectural Forum (May 1933), pp. 381–398,

p. 382. 86 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 11. 87 Written on the back of the photograph displaying the row of stores. UCSB

Archive. 88 “Portfolio of Shops and Small Stores,” in: Architectural Record (December

1930), p. 460. 89 “The Shop Checklist,” caption, p. 386. 90 “The Shop Checklist,” caption, p. 388. 91 “Davidson gave attention to such seemingly minor details as to have the

pavement in front of the shop incised with a rectilinear grid pattern complementary in plan to the schema in elevation.” Doris Fienga, “The Interna­tional Style in Los Angeles, 1930–1942. As Reflected in the Work of J. R. Davidson,” unpublished manuscript, Santa Barbara 1967, UCSB Archive, p. 11. 92 Written on the back of the photo. 93 Doris Fienga, “The International Style in Los Angeles, 1930–1942,” p. 11. 94 “The Shop Checklist,” pp. 381–382. 95 “Lora Lee Shop, The Chainstore for Womem's Dresses,” in: Architectural Re-

cord (November 1933), p. 390. 96 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 12. 97 Jeffrey M. Hardwick, Mall Maker. Victor Gruen, Architect of an American

Dream (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), p. 20. 98 “The Shop Checklist,” pp. 381–382. 99 “The Shop Checklist,” caption, p. 383. 100 Thomas S. Hines, Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture,

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994; New York: Rizzoli, 2006, 4th edition), p. 82. 101 Richard Longstreth, The Drive-In, the Supermarket, and the Transformation

of Commercial Space in Los Angeles, 1914–1941 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), p. 65. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid., p. 63. 104 Ibid., p. 67. 105 Richard Longstreth, “Don’t Get Out: The Automobile’s Impact on Five Build-

ing Types in Los Angeles, 1921–1941,” in: Arris, Journal of the Southeastern

Chapter of the Society of Architectural Historians, 7 (1996), p. 32. 106 Ibid. 107 Longstreth, The Drive-In, p. 67. 108 Ibid. 109 Gebhard and von Breton, Los Angeles in the Thirties, p. 31. 110 Longstreth, The Drive-In, p. 108. 111 Ibid. 112 This is Davidson’s own assessment in his project description. See: J. R. David-

son, description “Drive-In Curb Market,” UCSB Archive. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid.

MODERNISM  151

115 Richard Longstreth, The Drive-In, p. 63. 116 Carl Laemmle, Movie Theater project, Richard and Dion Neutra papers 1925–

1970, UCLA Special Collections. 117 “Arts and Craft Center,”in: Arts & Architecture (December 1944), pp. 34–37. 118 Christopher Long, Kem Weber: Designer and Architect (New Haven and Lon-

don: Yale University Press, 2014), p. 188. 119 “Arts and Craft Center,” pp. 34–37. 120 The store was founded in 1932 by Willard Morgan and his brother Gilbert

Morgan at 6262 Sunset Boulevard. A historical photo shows that Davidson probably did not carry out the project like this. 121 Gebhard and von Breton, Los Angeles in the Thirties, p. 33. 122 Paul R. Williams remodeled the ground floor coffee bar as well as other spac-

es. The hotel is now demolished, see: Lilian Pfaff, “Leere Gesten,” in: TEC21, 39, 2010, pp. 31–35. 123 “Working Details,“ in: Architectural Record (September 1930), pp. 231, 235–

241, 253. 124 Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11,

2004, transcript, p. 11, UCSB Archive. 125 “The Shop Checklist,” p. 398. 126 Caption on back of photos in Esther McCoy’s papers, 1876–1990, bulk,

1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 127 Caption, McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 4. 128 The Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel was a historic hotel designed in the Spanish

Colonial Revival style, located at 7000 Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. Named after United States president Theodore Roose­ velt and financed by a group including Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, and Louis B. Mayer, it first opened its doors on May 15, 1927. 129 Long, Kem Weber, Designer and Architect, pp. 218–219. 130 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 12. 131 Ibid. 132 Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11,

2004, transcript, p. 18, UCSB Archive. “The son, Tom, was very young—he had just started school, I think. The Chicago schools had collapsed or were in the process of it. They were hellish places and [his parents] just wouldn’t send him. But it was work, so J. R. stayed. Greta came back here and that was the first time she went to Ojai to put Tom in that school. Actually, then she went back to Chicago. Tom stayed with the Kem Weber family. I think they had six girls. And Tom remembers it as a particularly wonderful time, even though I am sure he was not happy because his parents were, well, his mother was back and forth. J. R. stayed in Chicago.” 133 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 12. 134 Lisa Pflueller Davidson, “A Service Machine: Hotel Guests and the Develop-

ment of an Early-Twentieth-Century Building Type,“ in: Perspectives in Ver-

nacular Architecture, Vernacular Architecture Forum, Vol. 10, Building Environments (2005), pp.113–129, 113.

152  J.R. Davidson

135 By the end of the 1920s, 25 percent of all hotel guests were women, see ibid.,

p. 122. 136 Ibid., p. 118. 137 Ibid., p. 115. 138 Ibid., p. 124. 139 The hotel was built by Walter Ahlschlager in 1921 as the first high-rise struc-

ture in Uptown Chicago. Its 12 floors accommodated about 400 rooms. 140 See a quote from Barnaby Davidson, when her father-in-law was asked to

design an English tavern (pp. 73–74 in this book). 141 The Davis Hotel opened in 1927. Rissman & Hirschfeld Architects designed

the building with 14 floors and 350 rooms. After Allan Hurst bought it in 1931, he renamed it after his Dutch ancestors: The Knickerbocker Hotel. 142 “The Restaurant,” in: The Architect and Engineer (December 1935), p. 35. 143 Ibid. 144 Meyer-Friedstein built the hotel in 1926. See The Architect and Engineer (De-

cember 1935), p. 34 (bedroom, p. 36); Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 145 McCoy. The Second Generation, p. 13. 146 Patrick Steffes, Good Modern. The Forgotten Work of James F. Eppenstein,

Part 1, accessed February 1, 2019, http://forgottenchicago.com/features/ good-modern-the-forgotten-work-of-james-f-eppenstein-part-1. 147 See letter from Gela Archipenko to Greta Davidson, November 5, 1938, UCSB

Archive. 148 Note Esther McCoy, March 3, 1972. “Which is the reason why there are no

extant plans.” Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 149 Cf. PCAD–Pacific Coast Architecture Database, http://pcad.lib.washington.

edu/. The building was designed by A. C. Blach and Rudolph Schindler for Adolph Edward ‘Eddie’ Brandstatter Architects. Sardi’s opening was delayed at least twice, likely due to financial difficulties Brandstatter was facing. The opening occurred at the height of the Great Depression and money, even in Hollywood, had become very scarce. Sardi’s was part of a small retail complex that included a drug store, jewelry shop, and tailor shop. The interior of Sardi’s included separate bar areas, such as the Jewel Box Bar, popular with Hollywood film stars and producers, which opened in 1935. Sardi’s seated 200 diners when it opened for lunch on February 9, 1933. Warren MacArthur Aluminum Furniture produced the tubular aluminum furniture designed by Schindler that was used in the interior. Sardi’s operated 24 hours a day when it first opened. It was demolished by a kitchen fire on November 1, 1936. 150 “Designing for Restaurant Dining,“ in: Los Angeles Times, September 6,

2009. 151 The exact choice of materials and the equipment of the restaurant can be

found in the specifications for the contractors. UCSB Archive. 152 According to Richard Neutra’s son Dion Neutra: “He designed for his clients

primarily. No one stepped up and offered to produce in quantity.” E-mail to the author, January 11, 2010.

MODERNISM  153

153 See essay: Lilian Pfaff, “Gestalteter Komfort: Zum Möbeldesign von Richard

Neutra,“ in: Marta Herford and Klaus Leuschel (eds.), Richard Neutra in Eu-

ropa 1960–1970 (Köln: Dumont, 2011), pp. 205–218. 154 Thomas G. Hines, Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture,

p. 136. 155 Motorola Advertisement, page out of unknown magazine, UCSB Archive. 156 “Chrome, aluminum, brass, or lacquer or combination of two of these mate-

rials,” description on lamp design drawing, UCSB Archive. 157 “Parchment or plastic shade, glued or clipped to metal frame. Shade to be

semi-opaque or opaque.” Written on plan. UCSB Archive. 158 Davidson, patent, January 1, 1937, UCSB Archive. 159 A cellarette is a small furniture cabinet, available in various sizes and shapes,

which is used to store bottles of alcoholic beverages. 160 As shown in his flower and fruit dish from his Chicago days, conceived as

glass dishes with footstand (1937). 161 David Gebhard and Patricia Gebhard, “The Furniture of R. M. Schindler,” in:

Marla C. Berns (ed.), The Furniture of R. M. Schindler (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997), p. 16. 162 Christian Wolsdorff, “Stühle, Tische, Betten. Das Bauhaus und die Möbel,” in:

Peter Hahn and Christian Wolsdorff, Bauhaus-Möbel. Eine Legende wird be-

sichtigt (Berlin: Bauhaus Archiv, 2002), p. 42. 163 Ibid. 164 Erich Dieckmann, Möbelbau in Holz, Rohr und Stahl, Baubücher, Vol. 11

(Stuttgart: Julius Hoffmann Verlag, 1931). 165 Draft of a letter from Davidson to Mr. Menken, c/o Design Lab, 2614 Wilshire

Blvd., Los Angeles, not dated, UCSB Archive. 166 Ibid. 167 Ibid. 168 Richard Neutra, “Furniture Made by the User for Himself,“ manuscript for

Woman’s Day Magazine, 1–2 (Spring 1945), Richard and Dion Neutra papers 1925–1970, UCLA Special Collections. 169 Christopher Long, “The Rise of California Modern Design, 1930–1941,”

p. 78. 170 Ibid. 171 See also: Lilian Pfaff, “Defining View: Nature as Architectural Element,“ in:

Jocelyn Gibbs, Debi Howell-Ardila, Anthony Denzer, Lilian Pfaff, Alan Hess; Santa Barbara Museum (eds.), Outside In: The Architecture of Smith and Wil-

liams (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2015), pp. 129–155. 172 Correspondence about Delcourt House, France, Richard and Dion Neutra

papers 1925–1970, UCLA Special Collections; Lilian Pfaff, “Maison Delcourt, Croix,” in: Marta Herford and Leuschel (eds.), Richard Neutra in Europa

1960–1970, p. 116. 173 Michael Boyd, “Furniture as Micro Architecture,“ in: Michael Boyd (ed.),

R. M. Schindler’s Gingold Commissions (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2007), p. 16. 174 Long, “The Rise of California Modern Design, 1930–1941,“ p. 71.

154  J.R. Davidson

175 Letter from Davidson to Mr. Menken, UCSB Archive. 176 Adrian Glick Kudler, “Never-Altered JR Davidson Modern in Pac Pal to Be

Demolished,“ in: Destruction Watch (Curbed LA, May 17, 2013). https://la. curbed.com/2013/5/17/10247976/neveraltered-jr-davidson-modern-in-pacpal-to-be-demolished. 177 Long, Kem Weber. Designer and Architect, p. 89. 178 “A Viennese émigré like Schindler and Neutra, Ferenz first came to the U.S.

in 1914, the same year as Schindler. A citizen from 1919, Ferenz became a successful book dealer and gallery owner at 425 Madison Avenue (at 49th Street), where he sold Viennese arts & crafts, books on fine and industrial art and etchings and prints.” Bulletin of the Art Center, New York, June 1923, p. 242. 179 “Modern Design to be Architect’s Subject,“ in: Los Angeles Times (March 18,

1929). 180 “Neutra to Lecture,“ in: Los Angeles Times (February 3, 1929).  181 The exhibition included the Germans Kem Weber and Jock D. Peters, the

Austrians Rudolph M. Schindler and Richard Neutra, as well as F. L. Wright. 182 It then traveled to the Denny-Watrous Gallery in Carmel (May 1 to 15) and

to the California Art Club in Barnsdall Park in June. From there, it went on to the Honolulu Academy of Fine Arts, the Henry Art Gallery at the University of Washington in Seattle, the Portland Art Association, and the San Diego Fine Arts Gallery. 183 For detailed information see: https://socalarchhistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/

pauline-gibling-schindler-vagabond.html. 184 “Building for Our Age: California Designers of Modern Style Architecture Dis-

tinguished from Those Who Imitate,” in: Los Angeles Times (April 27, 1930). 185 “Modern Architecture Show,” in: Los Angeles Times (April 20, 1930). 186 https://socalarchhistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/pauline-gibling-schindler-­

vagabond.html. 187 MOMA_1934-35_0065_1935-09-03_35903-27.pdf. 188 “Sixteen Southern California architects exhibit contemporary trends in a

group showing at Scripps College,” in: Arts & Architecture 67 (April 1950), pp. 22–23. 189 Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11,

2004, transcript, p. 4, UCSB Archive. 190 Ibid., p. 5 191 Ibid., p. 38. 192 Ibid., p. 15. 193 Dorothy W. Liebes, Letter to Davidson, March 29, 1948, UCSB Archive. 194 Dorothy W. Liebes, Letter to Davidson, November 22, 1938, UCSB Archive. 195 Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11,

2004, transcript, p. 59, UCSB Archive. 196 Ibid., p. 60. 197 McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 2. 198 Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11,

2004, transcript, p. 52, UCSB Archive.

MODERNISM  155

199 “Remodeled House in Bel-Air,” in: Architectural Forum (August 1940), p. 116. 200 Torn-out page from: The Studio. Year Book of Decorative Art, 1907, p. 34,

UCSB Archive. 201 “Remodeled House in Bel-Air,” p. 117. 202 Fienga, “The International Style in Los Angeles 1930–1942,” p. 4. 203 M. H. Baillie Scott, Houses and Gardens: Arts and Crafts Interiors, p. 10. 204 Hermann Muthesius, “Die Bedingungen und die Anlage des modernen Land-

hauses,” in: Das moderne Landhaus und seine innere Ausstattung (München: F. Bruckmann, 1905), pp. 1–16, 3. 205 Ibid., p. 13. 206 Ibid., p. 15. 207 Ibid., p. 7. 208 Ibid., p. 8. 209 Fienga, “The International Style in Los Angeles, 1930–1942,” p. 13. 210 J. R. Davidson, description “Richard Bransten Residence,” UCSB Archive. 211 http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2010/07/23/telegraph_hill_richard_neutras_

kahn_house.php. 212 “Casa en Santa Monica, California,“ in: Nuestra Arquitectura (July 1948),

p. 246. 213 Additional note on the margin in his description. See: J. R. Davidson, descrip-

tion “Stothart House,” UCSB Archive. 214 Ibid. 215 “Herbert Stothart House,” in: LIFE Magazine (October 1945), p. 111. 216 J. R. Davidson, description “Stothart House,” UCSB Archive; reiterated in:

“California Modern, the Stothart Residence,” in: California Arts & Architec-

ture (May 1940), p. 26. Except that here it says 12-room instead of ten-room house. 217 “House of Herbert Stothart,“ in: Architectural Forum (January 1940), p. 44. 218 Esther McCoy, “Something to Wrap the Herring In,“ in: Progressive Architec-

ture 67 (February 1986), p. 25. 219 Herbert Stothart died in 1949. “By 1980, it had become one of the last intact

examples of the Style in the area, largely due to Gifford Phillips, the second owner, who moved in his family and art collection and changed nothing, having an eye for a good architect and a good place to hang a Rothko or Kline.” McCoy, “Something to Wrap the Herring In,“ p. 25. MGM bought the house to accommodate VIP guests; later it was bought by Mel Brooks, who raised the roof, integrated skylights and built a swimming pool on top of it. A 10-foot orange wall was put up in front of the house to shield it from the road. Neighbors, such as the former editor of the journal Arts & Architecture, David Travers, joined forces to prevent further walls. Film director Roger Corman then purchased the house in 1984 and had it remodeled by architect Craig Hodgetts for $175,000, so that it is now unrecognizable. The main transformation was to enlarge the living room and combine it with the dining room, while built-in furniture components were removed. In addition, Hodgetts raised the living room and tore out Stothart’s soundproof studio. “The living room is now a great meadow of yellow carpeting and yellow so-

156  J.R. Davidson

fas, with the front door and curving stair to the second floor visible from almost anywhere in the living room. The elegant stainless steel stair rail has been painted pink.” McCoy, “Something to Wrap the Herring In,“ p. 25. 220 Fienga, “The International Style in Los Angeles, 1930–1942,” p. 15. 221 J. R. Davidson, description “The Gretna Green Apartments,“ UCSB Archive. 222 Ibid. 223 “Houses,” in: Architectural Forum (September 1944), p. 114. 224 Lilian Pfaff, “A more gemütlich version of the International Style: Julius Ralph

Davidson,“ in: archithese, No. 5 (2011), pp. 34–39, p. 37. 225 Today they are white, with the doors painted in a De Stijl color scheme.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/12/rent_in_a_landmark_1940_brentwood_quadruplex_by_jr_davidson.php. 226 J. R. Davidson, description “Feingold Medical Building,” UCSB Archive. 227 Davidson’s description on back of the photo of the waiting room of Feingold

and Harris Medical Building, UCSB Archive. 228 Ibid. 229 “Little, though, distinguished these works from what was by then becoming

the norm for modern building in the region.” Long goes on to say that the younger architects or even the older Modernist architects built it in the same stylistic idiom, and in some cases better than Weber, see: Long, Kem Weber,

Designer and Architect, p. 205. 230 See: http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/about.html. 231 Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for Modern Living:

History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998). 232 Helen Searing, “Case Study Houses. In the Grand Modern Tradition,” in: Mu-

seum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for Modern Living, p. 109. 233 William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture since 1900, 3rd edition (London,

New York: Phaidon Press, 2001), p. 405. 234 Ibid. 235 John Entenza, “Case Study House Program,” in: Arts & Architecture

(January 1945), p. 38. 236 Ibid. 237 Ibid., pp. 37–39. 238 Ibid., p. 39. 239 Ibid., p. 38. 240 Ibid. 241 Ibid. 242 Ibid. 243 Esther McCoy, Case Study Houses, 1945–1962 (Santa Monica: Hennessey +

Ingalls, 1977), p. 13. 244 Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11,

2004, transcript, p. 50, UCSB Archive. 245 Ibid.

MODERNISM  157

246 “Case Study House #1 (Collaborator Greta Davidson),“ in: Arts & Architecture

(February 1945), p. 43. 247 “And so they started… he did another one that was supposed to be in the

valley. And that I think fell through. The owners had to wait until someone bought it and then they could actually build. And the people who bought it backed out at the last second; so then I think the plans for the Barrington one were all ready to go and they had two buyers. It was a smaller house too, than the one in the valley. And they had two buyers who both worked at Arts and

Architecture magazine. And, so they went ahead with that one. Even though, maybe initially, that didn’t have the number one. But, since it was the first one to be built it became the number one. Because I heard Esther always refer to it as Case Study House number one. John always referred to it as that. And Susan Jonas, who ran Arts and Architecture magazine referred to it as Case Study House number one. But that’s how it got to be numbered that way. I think maybe at this point we should remove all the numbers. The important point was to make postwar housing affordable and that has not happened.” Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11, 2004, transcript, p. 51, UCSB Archive. 248 Amelia Jones and Elizabeth A. T. Smith, “The Thirty-Six Case Study Projects,“

in: Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for Modern Liv-

ing, pp. 41–83, p. 42. 249 Ibid. 250 Ibid., p. 43. Esther McCoy sees this as the unique feature of this altered plan. 251 McCoy, Case Study Houses, p. 13. 252 Ibid. 253 “Case Study House #11: Tenancy Study,“ in: Arts & Architecture (March 1947),

p. 38. 254 “In fact, Entenza’s erratic Case Study numbering contradicted his usual bent

for logic and order and was confusing, even to the participants themselves, since the numbers represent the date of conception or designation, not necessarily of completion.” Thomas S. Hines, Architecture of the Sun: Los Angeles

Modernism 1900–1970 (New York: Rizzoli, 2010), p. 519. 255 See: “Case Study House #15,” in: Arts & Architecture (January 1947), p. 37. 256 Ibid., p. 36. 257 Ibid., p. 37. 258 Quoted in Hines, Architecture of the Sun: Los Angeles Modernism 1900–1970,

p. 512. 259 “[O]ne bath with a dressing room accessible to the entrance for the conven­

ience of guests.” McCoy, Case Study Houses, 1945–1962, p. 13. 260 Amelia Jones and Elizabeth A. T. Smith, “The Thirty-Six Case Study Projects,”

p. 57.

2

REGIONALISM

Soft Modernism In order to understand how Davidson’s work evolved, especially from 1940 onwards, it helps to look at the architectural trends and debates in California at the time. Most prominent in that discussion would be Regionalism, especially in the Bay Area, largely represented by the architect William Wurster.1 Regionalism combined Modernist architecture with local and regional features wherein climate, topography, or locally available materials played a part, as well as local or rural building types, and historical templates. In Northern Europe in the 1930s, “the progressive humanization of the modern movement” was referred to as “New Empiricism,”2 but at times also as “soft Modernism” versus “hard Modernism.”3 Sometimes, the term “moderate Modernity” replaced “soft Modernism,“ especially in Switzerland and Germany. In February 1948, the Museum of Modern Art hosted the symposium “What Is Happening to Modern Architecture?,”4 which included the debate on Regionalism triggered by Lewis Mumford’s article “The Sky Line” in The New Yorker.5 “ …that native and humane form of modernism which one might call the Bay Region style, a free yet unobtrusive expression of the terrain, the climate, and the way of life on the Coast. That style took root about fifty years ago… The style is actually a product of the meeting of Oriental and Occidental architectural traditions, and it is far more truly a universal style than the so-called international style of the nineteen-thirties, since it permits regional adaptations and modifications.”6

During the symposium, Lewis Mumford insisted on setting the Bay Area architecture against the International Style: “The rigorists (Modernists [author’s note]) placed the mechanical functions of a building above its human functions; they neglected the feelings, the sentiments, and the interests of the person who was to occupy it.”7 He then defined the Bay Area style:

Fig. 1 Thomas Mann House, Pacific Palisades, 1941. A trellis over the balcony on the second floor creates shade for the bedrooms.

160  J.R. Davidson

“What is the Bay Region Style? Nothing but an example of a form of modern architecture which came into existence with our growth and which is so native that people, when they ask for a building, do not ask for it in any style… To me, that is a sample of internationalism, not a sample of localism and limited effort.”8

The participants argued about the exact nature of Bay Area Regionalism. “To sum up, the Bay Region style is not, like the New Empiricism, the architecture of a land which feels that it has come through the Modern Movement, but is rather a parallel development to the Modern Movement, local in origin though ever becoming less so in effect.”9

In the symposium, Alfred H. Barr labeled Europe’s Regionalism (or “New Empiricism”) “cottage style,”10 using the somewhat sarcastic German “gemütlich,” as Thomas Mann did when referring to his house in Pacific Palisades. “That there has developed during the past ten years an informal and ingratiating kind of wooden domestic building cannot be denied, but if one studies British, Swiss, and Scandinavian architectural magazines, it is clear that this style, too, is international. Indeed, I think we might call this kind of building the International Cottage Style, for it appears to be a kind of domestication of the International Style itself, a kind of neue Gemütlichkeit with which to supersede the Neue Sachlichkeit of the 1920s.”11

Other than that, the participating architects differed only occasionally in formulation or emphasis, as in the following statements by Marcel Breuer and Richard Neutra. Marcel Breuer said: “I don’t feel too much impulse to set ‘human’ (in the best sense of word) against ‘formal.’ If ‘human’ is considered identical with redwood all over the place, or if it is considered identical with imperfection and imprecision, I am against it; also, if it is considered identical with camouflaging architecture with planting, with nature, with romantic subsidies.”12 Richard Neutra saw Regionalism as “regional differentiation in which the differences do not arise from vernacular reference or local history but are the result of the very down-to-earth realities of a region’s economic opportunity, expectations of quality, and available local labor, the financial and practical mechanics of our building activity that make work in each region distinctive.”13

REGIONALISM  161

There are various reasons why the whole discussion with regard to William Wurster had become so tense. For one thing, there was the criticism by the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland of an architectural style coined as “The International Style” by MoMA’s 1932 exhibition. The question arose as to whether the International Style did not, in fact, address specific local and regional production concerns. How this tied in with the Gleichschaltung under the Nazis, i.e. their attempt to homogenize design styles if not an entire society, cannot be analyzed here. Another issue that concerned the symposium was how the simple architectural idiom of a William Wurster, which made the architect redundant, would tackle public buildings. Barr, and others, made the point that when it came to public building, everyone resorted to the International Style again. The symposium’s results did not influence Californian Architecture and would only be ascertained14 two years later in the San Francisco exhibition “The Domestic Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area.”15 This exhibition confirmed the symposium’s assertion that a unique and modern Northern California style incorporated regional contexts and traditions. It is worth mentioning that steel companies like Bethlehem Steel were promoting typical “modern” materials such as steel and aluminum for single-family homes, while the California Redwood Association supported the efforts of a regional school in the Bay Area. An important backdrop to this discussion is that the “Bay Region Style, became an outpost of national identity in architecture.”16 Mumford also argued that the characteristics of American architecture were in danger of disappearing. “The Bay Area turned into an instrumental and timely example reasserting the presence of a distinctive idiom in American architecture that owed nothing to the European tradition.”17 In the same vein, Pierluigi Serraino concluded his text about the alienation between International Style and Regionalism as follows: “Regionalism was the reaction to the consciousness of the Modernist vision; by playing up the native character of the land, European Modernism was kept at a distance.”18

Thomas Mann House, Pacific Palisades, 1941 Davidson’s Thomas Mann House exemplifies nicely moderate Modernism and also what can be characterized as “gemütlich” and “German.” Recognized in his lifetime as one of the greatest German writers, Thomas Mann was awarded the 1929 Nobel Prize in Literature. An outspoken critic of the Nazi regime, he and his family emigrated to Switzerland in 1933 and received Czechoslovakian citizenship and passports in 1936. In 1939, following the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, he emigrated to the United States. Mann entered the U.S. as visiting professor to the University of Princeton. In July 1940, he and his wife Katia traveled by train to the

162  J.R. Davidson

West Coast, where they lived at 441 North Rockingham Avenue in Brentwood, Los Angeles, until October of that year. By early September, Thomas Mann had made the decision to settle down permanently in California.19 Through a real estate agent he found a property on San Remo Drive and, after a brief interlude back in Princeton, the family returned to California for good in April 1941. They resided at 740 Amalfi Drive, Pacific Palisades, and from February 5, 1942, in the newly built home, designed by Davidson, at 1550 San Remo Drive in Pacific Palisades.20 The Mann family had initially, i.e. in September 1940, commissioned the Hungarian architect Paul László to build their house. László, who had come to the United States in 1936, had already made quite a career as designer of mansions for Hollywood stars. Unfortunately, the blueprint he submitted to the Manns on September 26th has been lost. The family initially had more traditional ideas of a colonial style villa with columns and portico,21 but, with the estimated $22,000 costs being too high, they asked László to revise the project. They did not like the revised design, however, and rejected it.22 How Davidson eventually ended up building the Thomas Mann House is unclear. Esther McCoy suggests Ernst Lubitsch, a mutual friend from the Hollywood film industry, as a possible connection,23 as well as art collector Galka Scheyer.24 J. R.’s daughter-in-law Barnaby Davidson claims that Thomas Mann’s brother Heinrich was the link, he and Davidson having been acquainted in Germany. Correspondence from March 1941 exists between the two of them, including birthday greetings from Davidson to Heinrich.25 Whether the Mann family cared at all for modern architecture is questionable, according to Barnaby. Katia Mann by her own account definitely did not. “It was a torture for him from the very beginning. He needed to think of a house that would accommodate a family of eight… it was very difficult. And of course because J. R. was used to the opposite of working especially with the woman of the household, so this was a complete reversal for him. She didn’t want anything that he had to say. And she wasn’t interested in the structure of the house… Mann was able to get the house design he wanted and Katia was able to decorate it as she wanted.”26

The daughter-in-law refers here to the interior decoration by Paul Huldschinsky, who obviously appealed to Katia Mann’s bourgeois 19th-century lifestyle. This, presumably, is the reason that there are no photographs of the house’s interior. Barnaby suggests that, unlike Neutra who wanted to build Mann’s house, Davidson

REGIONALISM  163

was willing to accept these conditions and stay out of the interior decoration and “he (Davidson) didn’t want the chintz to be photographed.”27 The Richard Neutra episode comes up regularly in various secondary sources. The Manns apparently found Neutra too pushy and pretentious, while Neutra, in turn was frustrated that the family finally handed the contract to Davidson: “Why settle for less—when you can get the best?” (Neutra).28 This affected both the relationships between the two men and between their wives, who up until this point had been best friends, and Dione Neutra ended up sending Greta a not very convincing letter of apology.29 Correspondence reveals that in the spring of 1941, while the Mann family was already in touch with Davidson, they were also considering commissioning New York architect Paul Lester Wiener, who was supposedly willing to waive his fee.30 The construction had its challenges,31 and at some point was even postponed for financial as well as political reasons.32 Although the United States had entered the War, resulting in a freeze on private home building, the project eventually came to completion. In letters to his brother Heinrich, Thomas Mann briefly mentioned the house twice.33 On September 22, 1940, he wrote from Brentwood that he recently acquired a property through a broker “with seven palms and many citrus trees.”34 This, he wrote, was inspiration for his current work on “Joseph the Provider,“ the fourth volume of his Joseph novel, since he was reminded of biblical Egypt. On February 4, 1941, he referred again to progress on the new house: “We are in avid correspondence with Davidson our architect, and have reached a basic agreement on the plans, so work on the house can begin soon.”35 In an interview36 with Thomas Hines, Davidson mentioned that the Manns initially planned to hire Paul László as interior designer, though they ended up choosing Paul Huldschinsky, a family friend from their Munich days, himself an émigré in Los Angeles since 1939.37 The following original Davidson statements are from that interview with Hines: “Let me tell you what I feel about this house. I start with the places and the plan. I visualize them, that’s my strength. All my clients are very happy, because they realize it when they live on the property and they discover things in the plans they didn’t expect including Thomas Mann. Thomas Mann was teaching in Princeton and was away. So many things were settled by letters with Katia Mann. Then he came back and I visited several times.” Thomas Hines: “Did he give you a program?” Davidson: “I asked him and Katia liked me. He has built like seven or

164  J.R. Davidson

more buildings (it was actually three—[author’s note]) before in several places and they had quite an impact on his writings. I took all I could get by letters, descriptions, what exactly they want. I asked him what to do. And he has a very organized day schedule. In the morning he writes on his writings, then he makes a little walk on the piers on the esplanade in Santa Monica, then he has lunch and rest. Then I as an architect you could come at two or three get coffee and then could talk. Then he got tired. The admirers could come at four to five.”38

From April to June 1941 the Mann family tried to figure out whether or not to build a house in a time of political crisis. After negotiating Davidson’s price down from $30,000 to $24,000, they took on Ernest M. Schlesinger, another fellow German, as contractor. This surviving “Building Construction Contract” dates from June 21, 1941, and specifies the house as a “20 room single family residence and double garage.”39 Only 140 days later, the house was ready for them to move in. The courageous decision to build the house was in keeping with Thomas Mann’s idea of wanting to settle down and be part of his environment. (Fig. 2) Press attending the foundation stone ceremony on July 7, 1941, quoted him: “‘I will become a real Californian now,’ he added, pointing to the scores of lemon trees which surround his property on all sides.”40 A caption to a photograph in the New York magazine

Aufbau from August 15th announced that the villa “will be named ‘Seven Palms’ after a group of tall palm trees.”41 As if to reinforce the name, a professional photographer at this time created a series of pictures of Thomas Mann in which he always appears before a backdrop of palm trees.42 The Mann family finally moved into their newly built home on San Remo Drive on February 5, 1942, and on April 10, 1942, Mann wrote to Davidson that it took a while until the last curtain was hung. (Fig. 3) “In building and shaping our home, you have combined the practical and the tasteful with real mastery.”43 And he concludes: “A friendly and intimate environment is of such great spiritual importance in today’s oppressive times, and therefore we are greatly indebted to you and truly thankful for your service.”44 Davidson thanked Thomas Mann on April 18, 1942, and hoped “that you and your family may spend many happy hours with creative energy in that house.”45 Mann himself described the elongated two-story house with its large garden as a “country house,”46 while his grandson Frido, in his autobiographical novel Profes-

sor Parzifal, referred to it as a protective castle that provided shelter and seclusion from the world.47 Davidson himself pointed out a special feature of the house:

REGIONALISM  165

Fig. 2 Thomas Mann House. The ground-breaking ceremony for the Thomas Mann House was a media event covered by the newspapers.

166  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 3 Letter from Thomas Mann to thank J. R. Davidson, April 10, 1942

REGIONALISM

167

“To assure the greatest privacy for Dr. Mann to work, a special wing was designed with the study on the ground floor and a private stairway leading directly up into his second floor bedroom with sundeck. The wall extension of the Study into the garden acts furthermore as a baffle against noises from the nearby terrace.”48

According to Ehrhard Bahr the house “by no means corresponded to the international modern style of the thirties, so that the architect did not count it among his best buildings,”49 and “once referred to it in a nostalgic sense of the word as ‘German’.”50 The house, in its cubic outline, is quite radical and unembellished. Its 19th-century interior, which exudes middle-class coziness, stands in stark contrast to the building’s overall sober architectural language. It is likely that Davidson did not perceive the bourgeois interior design as problematic, since he had already integrated this kind of interior design style into his own Berlin penthouse—though in a more modernized French tradition, as his diaries show. Possibly he simply did not want to be associated with the interior. Either the Mann family didn’t know that Davidson was a renowned interior designer, or they wanted to be loyal to their friend. They may simply have found the interior design of Huldschinsky more suitable, conveying a familiar bourgeois mentality and continuity. From the summer of 1941 to March 1942, colors, wallpaper, furniture, and fabrics were selected. Davidson and contractor Schlesinger decided jointly on the exterior color. Heinrich Wefing interprets the contrast of inside and outside as the two principles of exile: “On the outside adapting to the new Californian world, inside the attempt to reenact, yet incompletely, what’s lost.”51 The Thomas Mann House is one of the few new-build homes of German émigrés. It is also the most prestigious, although little is known about the actual construction phase.52 Mann wrote many of his books there: Doctor Faustus,

Lotte in Weimar, Joseph the Provider as well as parts of Confessions of Felix Krull. The villa’s “moderate Modernity”53 is not so much defined by the actual shape of the building but rather by its

Fig. 4 Thomas Mann House. The French doors in the living room, leading to the side patio, were originally divided and had a window in the upper part. The all-glass doors used in the 2018 renovation are more reminiscent of the International Style.

168  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 5 Thomas Mann House. The ground floor plan with a terrace in front of the living room and the angled private quarter of the writer.

Fig. 6 Thomas Mann House. Second floor plan. A secret staircase allowed Thomas Mann to escape directly from his study to his bedroom upstairs.

REGIONALISM  169

Fig. 7 Thomas Mann House. The details of the staircase and handrail were carefully designed. East elevation and section

details, for example the segmented layout or the way that the second-floor rooms face the veranda. (Figs. 5–7) The gently sloping roof complied with planning laws but was at odds with the International Style, as were the framed windows, which were not arranged in the expected continuous strip. The lack of indoor-outdoor flow, and the consequent inward-looking spatial orientation also demonstrate a resistance to modern influences. Floor-to-ceiling glass windows and doors in the Modernist style are subdivided at window level, and there is a rather more conventional separation of living and dining rooms instead of a spacious open plan. Davidson’s heritage and personality may have been the deciding factor in why the Mann family chose a modern house in the first place—rather than “an aesthetic or even cultural-political statement.”54 He must have been the right man, one who would not engage in experiments—be they in spatial layout or the choice of materials. The building has a conventional wooden frame structure and is traditionally plastered. Davidson’s primary concern was not to build a modern-style home, but to reflect the lifestyle and needs of its inhabitants. Visitors reach the building’s front door by a walkway next to the elongated north façade. (Fig. 8) They enter a hall with a staircase and an immediate entry to the

170

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 8 Thomas Mann House. Entrance façade with Lappen children around 1952

Fig. 9 Thomas Mann House. Photo of side façade from the time that the Mann family was living there

REGIONALISM

171

Fig. 10 Thomas Mann House. Garden façade

Fig. 11 Thomas Mann House. The house was placed in the midst of lemon trees.

living room with its fireplace and large windows and doors facing the curved south terrace. Morning light enters through French double doors facing east.55 (Figs. 4, 9) Opposite is the dining room, and behind it, the kitchen and staff quarters. (Fig. 13) Thomas Mann’s study with its panoramic windows to the southeast is a separate cube, tilting away from the ground floor’s center, the living room. (Figs. 12, 14) The study is connected to Mann’s bedroom upstairs via a private staircase from a narrow hallway lined with bookshelves. A freestanding wall extending the façade of

172

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 12 Thomas Mann House. The library and study of Thomas Mann today, renovated in 2018.

Fig. 13 Thomas Mann House. The kitchen today with its original yellow tiles. Previously, the floor was red terracotta tiles as in the other public areas.

REGIONALISM

173

Fig. 14 Thomas Mann House. Garden view of the house today. The second trellis or pergola above the terrace was added during the renovation.

the tilted wing and closing off the southern terrace, gave privacy to the writer in his office and protected him from noise in the garden. Upstairs, three bedrooms are lined along the balcony with Katia Mann’s bedroom at the end connected to her husband’s bedroom in the angled wing of the building. These two bedrooms each have their own bathroom, while children and grandchildren share a bath between their three bedrooms. (Figs. 10, 11) Thomas Mann prized his study, and after moving in he described it to his daughter Erika as the most beautiful study he ever had. (Fig. 15) Later, when living in Switzerland, he wrote: “The house was so completely my own. I do

Fig. 15 Thomas Mann House. The client in his

not like this one.”56

study with closed blinds

174

J.R. Davidson

Building the home of the famous German writer did not really add to Davidson’s reputation. Only one journal published the project, and the architect himself did not even add the house to his various lists of works.

J. R. Davidson House, Los Angeles, 1947 The extent to which Davidson accepted compromise in design is best revealed in his own house, completed in 1946–1947 on South Barrington Avenue. Built on property D and C, which he acquired within the Case Study House program, it stands out for the way in which he organized living and work areas as well as for the landscaping. The house combines the necessities of a flexible lifestyle with the need for privacy. While the living room, with its curiously angled floor plan, opens to the garden with two large sliding glass doors, the bedrooms, tucked away to the east, are more reminiscent of an intricate German floor plan. (Fig. 18)

Floyd D. Crosby Residence, Los Angeles, 1946 Davidson repeatedly used this ground floor plan with an angled wing away from the living room. One example can be seen in the October 1949 edition of Arts &

Architecture, which displayed a plan, not of his own home, but that of the Floyd D. Crosby Residence, Los Angeles, 1946 (though it is captioned “Suburban House by J. R. Davidson”). The first draft of Davidson’s own house corresponds exactly to what is shown in the magazine, but which is actually the Floyd D. Crosby Residence. Here Davidson placed all the bedrooms into the angled wing in the extension of the entrance and moved them by more than 90 degrees away from the living room. (Fig. 17) This was due to postwar zoning restrictions that caused Davidson to start out with just a one-bedroom house, albeit with the configurations and foundations in place and ready for three more bedrooms. Presumably he simply added on later the adjoining bedrooms for the two sons of the Crosby family. Next to the kitchen—according to the original plan—the architect outlined a bathroom with a dressing room later to be converted into a darkFig. 16 Floyd D. Crosby Residence, Los Angeles, 1946. The interior design of the residence was very different

room.57 In the living room the fireplace wall was painted, like the ceiling, a light

from Davidson’s own house, even though the ground

yellow. (Fig. 16) The two adjoining walls

floor plan is the same.

with built-in furniture were paneled in

REGIONALISM  175

Fig. 17 Floyd D. Crosby Residence. The ground floor plan is almost identical with Davidson’s own house.

Fig. 18 J. R. Davidson House, Los Angeles, 1947. Ground floor plan

176

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 19 J. R. Davidson House. View from Greta’s room. The table lamp was also designed by Davidson.

Fig. 20 J. R. Davidson House. View from above onto the private space outside Greta’s bedroom

REGIONALISM

177

Douglas fir, while the floor was rust-colored cement, and the fireplace was made of bricks. The boys’ rooms’ closets are also made of Douglas fir, with floors of gray-blue-colored cement.58 In Davidson’s own house he sited his son’s bedroom in the same way as a separate area behind the entrance, and also similar to the first draft for CSH #1 when it was still planned as a two-story house. Unlike the Floyd D. Crosby Residence, where all the bedrooms were

Fig. 21 J. R. Davidson House. Large windows and plants create a smooth transition between in- and outdoors.

placed here and this section was transparent and open to the outdoors, he designed a closed wall with high ribbon windows, providing privacy. He then placed the two bedrooms for himself and his wife between the kitchen and bathroom on the east side and moved the garage further back, to create a separate patio for Greta. (Figs. 19, 20) Once again, potted plants on both sides of the glass façade brought the exterior and interior together. (Fig. 21) Eucalyptus trees along the property line appeared like a distant screen from inside the living room. There were three options for

Fig. 22 J. R. Davidson House. Greta and J. R. on their terrace with a guest and child during Sunday breakfast

dining: in the living room, in the kitchen, or in the garden under a covered, cantilevered pergola in front of the kitchen. (Fig. 22) The kitchen itself is a very functional and organized space, quite similar to Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s Frankfurt kitchen, developed in 1926. In Davidson’s later projects such as the Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence or the Sam A. Taylor Residence, the kitchen plan is more open. This is in particular the case in the latter one where a glass vitrine opens the view into the living room. (Figs. 23, 24) The unusual floor plan, where access to the front door took visitors past the bedrooms, was designed to facilitate the living space’s unobstructed vista through the large glass windows. On their way to the entrance across a courtyard or “family court,“ visitors would behold the open landscape. (Fig. 25) Continuing past a wall

178

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 23 Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence, Los Angeles, 1949.

Fig. 24 Sam A. Taylor Residence, Los Angeles, 1947.

The original kitchen stills exists today.

The original kitchen has been preserved, including a glass vitrine for the client’s plants.

Fig. 25 J. R. Davidson House. Entrance to Davidson’s

Fig. 26 J. R. Davidson House. The compound of

architecture office and to the courtyard of his private

buildings around a courtyard is reminiscent of Louis

residence

Barragán’s houses.

REGIONALISM

179

Fig. 27 J. R. Davidson House. View of the garden with outdoor furniture by Hendrik van Keppel and Taylor Green

Fig. 28 J. R. Davidson House. Living room

180  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 29 J. R. Davidson, description “J. R. Davidson House,” August 1947, page 1. Davidson’s only theoretical writing describes the most important characteristics of his design.

under a high window band, they turned the corner and entered the house through a narrow front door, finding themselves suddenly in the “see-through” living room with its panoramic view. (Figs. 27, 28) The stucco wall outside, however, gave the visitor a different impression—one of being closed out. (Fig. 26) The house seemed unapproachable, like Luis Barragán’s patio houses. “Consequently the ‘glass wall’ of the living room is by far the richest and most interesting wall in the house. Its tapestry is a living one... In his hands, glass as a building material was a plus, because he took care to create not only the glass window but the view that was to go with it.” 59

REGIONALISM  181

Fig. 30 J. R. Davidson, description “J. R. Davidson House,” page 2

Fig. 31 J. R. Davidson, description “J. R. Davidson House,” page 3

182  J.R. Davidson

One might assume that Davidson’s own house would be his manifesto. Yet, what he cared about most was comfortable living, or, as he himself put it in one of his rare writings: “A house that rambles with reason around four secluded garden rooms.”60 (Figs. 29–31). He was concerned mainly with the four different garden rooms and with privacy. “Glass walls are indispensable, where windows and gardens are planned for each other. A window wall is as good as the garden it overlooks.”61 It is not surprising that, after the Mann house, Davidson focused closely on the interior decoration of his own house: “For serenity the walls and ceilings are flat gray, for sparkle the floor is yellow (smooth rubber).”62 Yet, in another article he stated: “Walls of the room are yellow stucco, the floor is flagstone, the rug is a finely textured blue linen. The sofa is sand-colored and the chairs are persimmon. The fireplace is in an Arizona stone, white in color and rather rough in texture.” 63

Joseph Kingsley House, Pacific Palisades, 1946 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House, Pacific Palisades, 1946 Joseph and Lore Kingsley, both German Jews like Davidson, left Germany in the early 1940s. They seem to have considered Richard Neutra at first for the construction of a 105 × 185-foot house in a lemon grove. Neutra, however, refused to design a breakfast room that they requested, and so they decided against him and went with Davidson instead.64 The two architects generally had little in common. In Davidson’s words: “I was not influenced by Neutra, nor did we know each other before we met in Los Angeles.”65 The Amalfi Drive property in Pacific Palisades slopes gently down from the road with its south side facing the ocean, a feature that became essential to the floor plan. The entrance was to the north with the garage facing west. Behind the south façade, completely in glass and opening to the garden, were the living, dining, and breakfast rooms. At a 90-degree angle along the building’s east side were the bedrooms, almost in a separate wing. The guest room faced the street and shared a bathroom with the nursery, while the master bedroom had its own bathroom and dressing room. A wall jutting out from the south façade extended the wall between the living room and bedroom section of the house, providing privacy for the master bedroom, which opened on two sides with large glass windows. Some of the 12-foot-large glass panels were made to slide open, others were stationary. Davidson’s first draft did not yet plan a completely transparent living room but included additional wall space on the garden façade, a concept he eventually abandoned. “An 8’, partly open roof overhang, which extends over a portion of the white flagstone terrace, gives protection against sun and glare. All furniture in the living room was designed by the architect.”66

REGIONALISM

183

Fig. 32 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House, Pacific Palisades, 1946. Covered entrance

A white flagstone walk led to the dove-blue front door, which was covered by a trellis extending to the east. The flagstones continued into the entrance hall, ultimately right up to the living room. A 12-foot-large translucent glass pane separated the two spaces. On the hallway side the pane rested on bookshelves, while behind it, on the living room side, was a curved built-in sofa corner with an integrated turntable to play records. The walls and ceilings in the living and dining areas were painted light yellow. “The ceiling of the entrance hall is of fir plywood, which forms the cove for indirect lighting toward the living room.”67 To the west of the entrance was a “powder room,” which received natural daylight through a window next to the front door. A plant placed outside the window made it look like a mirror or picture. A custom-designed, curved dresser and make-up table with mirror were available to visitors. Another specification requested by the client was the tucked-away breakfast room, accessed directly from the kitchen but also from the dining room through a swing door. A year later, the initially planned servant quarter or maid room was added to the west of the 2,684-square-foot house, right next to the garage and the laundry

184  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 33 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House. The original ground floor plan of this compact house for Joseph Kingsley’s mother (located next to the Joseph Kingsley House)

REGIONALISM

185

Fig. 34 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House. In the realized plan the bedroom is moved to the opposite side, away from the Joseph Kingsley House, for more privacy.

186

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 35 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House. Garden façade

Fig. 36 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House. A translucent screen separates the hallway and entrance from the living room.

REGIONALISM  187

room. Davidson returned about ten years later to build a swimming pool and an almost butterfly-shaped pool house with a remarkable Joan-Miró-like mural on a pale yellow background. The cabana’s soffit and the shade-giving overhang were painted coral red. Although no documentation or plans have survived, the structure’s color scheme suggests that Davidson had some part in it.68 He also designed various pieces of furniture for the house, some of which have survived. At the same time, Davidson planned the Mrs. Paul Kingsley House next door, for Joseph Kingsley’s mother.69 The two homes, on the same slightly sloping property, were mirror images of each other and had the same 105 × 185-foot dimensions. Since local zoning regulations required two-bedroom homes to be no less than 2,400 square feet in size,70 this second house appeared more compact, or in Davidson’s words “direct and simple.“71 (Fig. 32) The basic idea though was the same: the spatial arrangement and the house’s southern exposure toward lemon grove and ocean. The garage and utility rooms were both located on the same side as the bedrooms in the first drawing, (Fig. 33) but in the final plan (Fig. 34) he changed the position of the bedrooms to the opposite side of the Joseph Kingsley house, probably to give the two owners the most distance and privacy between the two houses. The Mrs. Paul Kingsley House had only two bedrooms, each with its own bathroom. Its terrace, also paved with Arizona flagstones, and covered by a 40-foot trellis resting on a steel structure, linked the service and living areas.72 (Figs. 35, 37) A similar translucent glass screen separated entrance hall from living room with potted plants on either side. This sequence of the two entrances, with another translucent glass wall off to the left, “is a structural design between the hall and the living room, which admits light, and serves as the focal point of the interior. Plant containers (part of the screen) bring the outdoors to the indoors at this focal point, with similar versions of this cooling atmosphere repeated throughout the house.”73 Living room and dining room were again merged into one large space with access to the breakfast room. (Fig. 36) The addition of a staff room is also in place in the draft, although it is placed behind the garage next to the breakfast room. A service yard with access to the laundry room ran between the garages of the two houses. “Colors chosen for the interior blend from light shades of gray (for the outside stucco façade and the wood trim as well as the entrance door in dark gray [author’s note]) to dusty pink, while the walls of the entrance hall are of a stronger cocoa color. Large house plants and chairs in deep green create a pleasant contrast. The pebble-weave carpet in light cocoa is used uniformly throughout the hall, living room, dining room and bedrooms.”74

188

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 37 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House. A trellis provides protection from the sun and a beautiful light and shadow play.

REGIONALISM  189

The kitchen floor was laid out with a marble-patterned linoleum, while the wooden cabinets were eggshell, a light yellow color as the tiles in the Thomas Mann House. Splashback and countertop were red, and the curtains were yellow and white striped. In the woman’s bedroom, the walls and woodwork were all painted in pale rose, the curtains and bedspread were of a natural beige color, and the rug of a rose pebble weave. The bathrooms were painted in light gray with white metal moldings, while the floors were made of black and white rubber tiles.

Bungalow and Ranch House: Adopting Local Building Typology Initially Davidson built houses in Art Deco style, then in Streamline Moderne and High Modernism.75 He moved on to “humanize” this architecture by softening Modernism’s radical geometry. The angles that orient living quarters away from each other are one example of the softening. Although he used standardized components, he cladded them with local materials (as in his last Case Study House #15), thereby achieving a moderation of Modernism—his own “Soft Modernism.“76 From the mid-1940s, Davidson incorporated local building types such as the bungalow and the ranch house, which can also be identified as “Soft Traditionalism.“ The bungalow dates back77 to the last phase of the transcontinental railroad expansion (ca. 1887).78 “A large proportion of them had come form the Midwest and were attracted by the rusticity of the Bungalow Style. Thus, the California Bungalow became the low-cost response to the massive housing demand created by this rush.”79 The years 1900 to 1920 were the Bungalow Style’s heyday. This style became popular at around the same time as the emergence of “Women’s Clubs,“ and was thought of as a transitional home, “half-way house,” “simple” and “artistic,“80 expressing hope for social advancement and marketed as such. A single-story home with garden, the bungalow was celebrated as a suburban house, benefitting from railway and highway construction. The bungalow was not actually a Californian invention but came from Europe, probably from England. The Bengali word “bangala” describes a typical local house in India; “a one-story building with a porch or ‘verandah.’”81 The original Indian bungalow was a simple house, albeit with all the amenities of western civilization. The English created a design hybrid from this and British army tent models.82 In Europe, the bungalow embodied simple life in an idealized landscape and by the end of the 19th century became a vacation home in the country or by the sea.

190  J.R. Davidson

“Exactly how the concept of the bungalow as a retreat reached America has not been precisely determined. It must have come through literature and travel.”83 The bungalow’s success story in California84 is, according to Clay Lancaster, linked to the state’s mild climate and more innovative architecture (take the creation of an “upper room” for better ventilation as an example). Though small, bungalows were affordable. With the offer of privacy and a small garden, they had strong appeal for the middle classes.85 “The bungalow, as a one-story building, had many advantages and no disadvantages. It saved the labor of servants and also that of the occupants, particularly in climbing stairs; invalids in wheel-chairs had access to all the rooms; neither children nor adults could fall on stairs; removal of furniture up and down stairs was avoided; loss of life by fire was avoided as occupants could climb out of the windows; there was security from the spread of fire as walls of rooms were carried up to the roof; gas, water and bell wires could be laid and removed more easily; soil and water pipes could not leak and damage ceilings and walls; from an architectural viewpoint, it was easier to proportion rooms as there was no upper-story to consider.”86

Women’s magazines like Ladies Home Journal or design magazines such as Crafts-

man promoted the Bungalow Style, less so industry periodicals like Architectural Record or The American Architect. Keith’s Magazine on Home Building actually dedicated an entire issue to it. Numerous books appeared on the topic, largely as manuals for entrepreneurs and builders. Since the plans in these publications were often from unidentified architects, they could be adapted according to individual preferences. “Always the reader was instructed to avoid the temptation to turn over the rudimentary elevation and floor plan to a builder.”87 Since bungalows came pre-fabricated, the entire production and building process was short and simple. For example, the California Ready-Cut Bungalow Company promised: “You buy a ‘Ready Cut House’ and you or your carpenter simply nail it together and ‘put it on’ the lot—you don’t have to wait three to six months for your home to be completed.”88 Bathroom and kitchen accessories, as well as the entire interior decoration, were typically included with the construction package. The Southern California Standard Building Investment Company of San Diego and Los Angeles even published its own bungalow book, chiefly targeting immigrants from the eastern United States. Financing plans were provided as well as help for property exchanges in the east for bungalows in the west. Some of the Chicago

REGIONALISM  191

School architects were actually bungalow builders who then incorporated Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie Style homes into their design. “I would go further and suggest that people were observing a real connection between the Prairie Style and the bungalow. Although I have no documentary proof except that Wright built some bungalows, I would surmise that the bungalow was at least one of the sources of the Prairie Style. To push the point further I would note that the reason Wright’s Prairie Style, redwood-clad Stewart House (1909–1910) does not seem to be out of place in the rolling hills of Montecito, California, is that it had its esthetic roots in the California bungalow.”89

Bungalow manufacturers appeared all over the U.S., but bestsellers were always the California-based exhibits with names like “The Pomona” or “The Pasadena.“ Often available for under $1,000, these ready-cut homes were extremely popular. They also embodied their own informal and healthy lifestyle, breaking finally with Victorian conventions. Bungalow floor plans90 were all alike. A few steps up to the porch, which extended along the entire front façade, you reached the entrance, which led straight into the living room. Adjacent was the dining room, next to a tiny kitchen without a pantry.91 Unless they were upstairs, as was often the case in California, bedrooms were grouped to the side of the house. Mirrors and inglenooks, or archways between living and dining rooms, gave the impression of larger spaces, referred to as family rooms, as in F. L. Wright’s designs. The “significance given to the family room (gathering around a fireplace) cannot be overlooked as a symbolic gesture of conserving earlier values in an era of social fragmentation.”92 If there was an attic, it typically housed a small bedroom, later designed as a playroom or guest room. “Obviously the orientation of the bungalow was toward the street, though the idea of privacy inherent in the bungalow gradually turned it to the garden and later the swimming pool.“93 Exteriors were made mostly of brown, green, and dark gray painted wood with white window frames. If the roof did not consist of shingles, it was either white or decorated with red ceramic tiles. The idea was for the house to blend in with the natural surroundings. The bungalow can best be described as a variation of a Swiss châlet with a nod to oriental form, as is evident in roof shapes or woodwork design on terrace pillars. A low floor emphasized the horizontal orientation of the house, and the cement terraces were intended to connect indoors and outdoors. The interior design adopted features from the English Arts and Crafts movement, which were published in the Craftsman magazine: decorative bordures running

192  J.R. Davidson

under the ceiling in the living room, which was simple and dark with a “masculine” bent, or Mission Style furniture, once used only for the patio or garden, now providing indoor ease and leisure—a setup often referred to as “cottage by the sea.“ Bathrooms and bedrooms, however, were technologically innovative and also more “feminine,“ with light colors and striped wallpapers. “Fittings for a bungalow should be as condensed as the equipment of a yacht.”94

Hans Buki House, Los Angeles, 1941 (Project) Davidson’s projected house for Hans Buki (1941) went beyond the classic bungalow characteristics by orienting the building toward the garden. The front door, in midway position, still led through a hallway into the living area in the back. (Fig. 38) The wrap-around porch, however, was remodeled into a private garden shielding the street-facing bedroom. The second floor was to house a playroom, bounded by a balcony and terrace. What looked like a bungalow from the outside, opened to the surroundings, connecting literally with them. It is unlikely, though, that this design was ever realized or, if so, it was altered.95

Houston Branch Residence, Los Angeles, 1939 In his first color drawings made for the Houston Branch Residence (1939), Davidson made an effort to accommodate the client’s personal taste. A first draft shows a two-story house on a hill in strictly Modernist style with a shady trellis that emphasizes the horizontal orientation and austerity of the cubic building. Two L-shaped balconies open to the entrance, giving the house a rather compact appearance and bringing to mind a European townhouse. (Fig. 40) The second draft differs mainly in the design of a sloping roof and a closed space above the garage, the former terrace now converted to a window band. (Fig. 39) Everything else remains unchanged. These alterations bring about a more conservative touch, yet a more suitable integration into the surrounding hills. In the end, a different floor plan was carried out, the design following the more conservative draft. This is not visible in the Shulman photographs, however, since the pictures, taken from below, do not capture the entire roof. It may appear therefore as a Modernist house. In his drawing Davidson reversed the floor plan, placing the garage to the south with bedrooms above (as he did later in the Gretna Green Apartments). Davidson was presumably not at all familiar with the terrain as he completely ignored the slope on the south side, noting on the plan that the specifications required as few “excavations” as possible. It is somewhat peculiar that the home was publicized as a two-bedroom “Small House on a Hill,“ while Davidson promoted his plans as a “six-room house for Houston Branch.“96

REGIONALISM  193

Fig. 38 Hans Buki House, Los Angeles, 1941 (project). The floor plans show characteristics of a bungalow. It was probably not built.

194

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 39 Houston Branch Residence, Los Angeles, 1939. The presentation drawing of the first proposal shows a conventional roof.

Fig. 40 Houston Branch Residence. The second presentation drawing has a flat roof and horizontal windows.

REGIONALISM  195

The house was cleverly designed in that it allowed for sufficient room for a living and dining space above the garage and for an adjoining terrace overlooking the valley. This floor plan was quite the opposite of Davidson’s typically horizontal concepts. Stairs led up to the front door, which, in turn, led to rooms on either side, boosting the bungalow look. One side featured a living room with balcony, the other side bedrooms with a garden terrace. Davidson tried to create as much outdoor space as possible at the back of the house and, according to an expansion proposal, he intended to enlarge the terrace. An additional playroom was planned in the basement by the garage, as well as another terrace with a loggia. “The exterior walls up to the window sills are in brick painted a warm gray with the remainder in stucco painted a lighter shade of gray. The steps are dark red tile and the soffit of the roof overhang is in Douglas fir plywood painted blue.”97 A new project for another house and location for Houston Branch (1948) in Playa Del Rey, also planned on two floors, featured a German-type façade and was therefore far less modern and at the rear of the building there was an almost classicist order of doors and windows à la Friedrich Schinkel. On closer inspection, however, the fenestration, as with the Gretna Green Apartments, turns out to be quite asymmetric.

Maurice Berkson Residences, Encino, 1939 Rather than continue to develop the Bungalow Style, Davidson devoted his attention to the ranch house, which became increasingly prevalent in California from 1940. He dismissed the even more popular “decorated stucco box” at that time. “By the 1920s, the bungalow was out of fashion in Southern California. The characteristic residential housing style of the interwar period was the simple stucco box, decked out perhaps in the trappings of Tudor, Georgian, Colonial, Spanish, or Mission revival.”98

In his project listings, J. R. Davidson himself referred to his two Maurice Berkson homes as ranch houses. According to the historian John Mack Faragher, both the bungalow and the ranch house were native first to California, then spread to the eastern United States and eventually gained national significance. The ethnohistorian A. Irving Hallowell called this “backwash of the frontier.”99 Henry H. Saylor, editor of The American Architect, was the first to consider ranch houses relevant to Californian architecture.100 The leading proponent of the ranch house was Cliff May, who also wrote about it. This building type typically features a U- or L-shaped structure, often elongated, close to ground and mostly erected on a concrete slab,

196  J.R. Davidson

with long, lightly inclined overhanging and low-lying roofs, and a backyard. The street façade was characterized by an unremarkable front door with a one- or two-car garage. Large windows or sliding glass doors opened the inside to the outside. Interiors were airy and spacious with no hallways or separated living spaces. Exteriors were rustic walls with integrated boulders or board and batten cladding. This concept continued inside with visible beam and masonry construction.101 The first ranch house may be Cliff May’s 1932 adobe hacienda built around a patio, which he saw as a response to box-shaped houses.102 Built as a speculation object, it sold immediately. As a result, May continued to build 50 more projects in San Diego. Kitchens and bathrooms were given special attention. The cabinets absorbed plumbing and hardware and, keeping up with the Zeitgeist, a garbage disposal, described as essential in George Nelson and Henry Wright’s Tomor-

row’s House: A Complete Guide for the Home Builder.103

Fig. 41 Maurice Berkson Residences, Encino, 1939. The site plan shows the two identical houses, one for the parents and one for the children, placed opposite to each other.

“The ranch house shared a number of important characteristics with Modernist houses—slab foundations, plans developed in accord with efficiency studies, the use of machine made or prefabricated components, the new materials such as plastics and composite sheeting. But while Americans almost universally rejected modernist houses as sterile, they embraced the ranch house enthusiastically.”104

The comparison of the Case Study House program with the ranch house is a good indicator for the Ranch Style’s popularity. Although Cliff May did not participate in the Case Study House program, he published ranch houses in Good Housekeeping and House Beautiful and had quite an impact on postwar construction. Not so the

REGIONALISM

197

Fig. 42 Maurice Berkson Residences. The ground floor plan shows a servants’ wing on one side and the family wing on the other side.

Case Study House architects, who had little stylistic influence on the housing market. May, in turn, was given little attention by expert architects. The G. I. Ranch House (1946), the first model of its kind, was similar in size (1,000 square feet) to Davidson’s CSH #11; it likewise featured an open floor plan, sliding doors, skylights and large windows. Different from the Davidson design, though, was the rustic interior with the visible beams and the sheeting. “Built in inexpensive materials on a concrete slab foundation, using conventional framing methods and prefabricated windows and doors, the G. I. Ranch House was a natural for mass construction techniques.”105 Cliff May summarized these ideas in his 1946 book Western Ranch

Houses,106 published by Sunset magazine.

198

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 43 Maurice Berkson Residences. The ranch house building blends into the surrounding landscape.

Fig. 44 Maurice Berkson Residences. The two identical houses shared a pool and tennis court.

REGIONALISM

199

Fig. 45 Maurice Berkson Residences. Drawing of built-in furniture

Fig. 46 Maurice Berkson Residences. Husband’s dressing room

200

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 47 Maurice Berkson Residences. Wife’s dressing room

REGIONALISM

201

Fig. 48 Maurice Berkson Residences. Rattan occasional table

Fig. 49 Maurice Berkson Residences. Rattan chairs in the dining room

202  J.R. Davidson

After licensing his designs and handing them to contractors, May moved on from the Pasadena Bungalow to large-scale ranch house construction in the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys. In a 1946 survey of 11,428 households conducted by

Better Homes and Gardens magazine, most responders preferred the ranch house, assuming it had originated in the Southwest. “The California bungalow accommodated the rural values of California emigrants at the beginning of the century, and the California ranch house reflected the ‘California dreaming’ of the emerging middle class of the postwar era.”107 Both types embodied simplicity, functionality, and informality, albeit with fundamentally different floor plans and materials. In 1939, Davidson built two identical Ranch Style houses in Encino on a 6-acre lot with cherry, apple, and orange trees for Chicago lawyer Maurice Berkson,108 his wife and two children. (Fig. 41) House No. 1, closest to the street and the electronic access gate, was for the children, while House No. 2 was occupied by the parents. They were separated by a small river, but shared a common pool with adjacent tennis courts to the north. Not only did the two buildings have identical floor plans, (Fig. 42) they were also equally oriented to the view as well as to the sun’s position “while providing separation and privacy.”109 Differences were in the exterior façades (Figs. 43, 44) and especially in the interior color schemes: “Variation was achieved through landscaping and certain exterior details with a different choice of interior colors and furnishings.”110 (Fig. 45) Both houses consisted of three architectural elements as shown in the floor plan. In the middle behind the entrance were the living and dining rooms, as well as the kitchen. The dining room had a special screened and roofed terrace, like the typical German glass-enclosed sunroom that allows for cold-season dining in an extended interior, which was in this case the opposite and was used for ventilation in the hot sommer months. The long hallway with its adjoining bedrooms (Figs. 46, 47), as well as the tilted and angled shapes of various sections of the house which assume a U- or V-shape, were typical ranch house characteristics. Davidson also designed the rattan furniture for the family rooms (Figs. 48, 49), as well as the more modern furniture in the children’s house: “The children’s house is done in egg shell with accents of green and copper metal in some rooms and Chinese red in others. The color scheme of the parents’ house is a variation of delicate blue, mulberry, and dusty pink.”111 The bedroom section is oriented to the northwest, while kitchen and servant rooms are in a separate wing on the other side. According to Sunset magazine “[s]o many problems have been solved so successfully that in plan and detail it is a happy hunting ground for idea collectors.”112 The house’s character would remain unchanged if one of its wings was left out, said the magazine, making it suitable for every budget. And it would not even need a pool, the article

REGIONALISM

203

continued, since the property’s design fitted perfectly into the landscape, as if it were growing out of the soil. Attention was also given by Davidson to the rooms’ exposure toward the sun and to the shady, overhanging trellis, and to how the roof’s ventilation could withstand hot summer temperatures.

James Vigeveno House #1, Ojai, 1941 Davidson designed another ranch

Fig. 50 James Vigeveno House #1, Ojai, 1941. View of the original U-shaped carport and entrance with service yard behind the fence

house on Besant Drive in Ojai (1941), an area where at the time ranches still existed among orange groves. At first a vacation home for Los Angeles art dealer James Vigeveno,113 his wife Annie Regina Stern, and their three children, it later became their main residence. “It is perched on a gently sloping 2-acre hilltop, protected by oaks and lemon gums.”114 A terrace to the northeast offered a mountain panorama, while

Fig. 51 James Vigeveno House #1. Side façade

views were revealed toward the south-

of former entrance with balcony. The area

western valley from a glass-screened

behind the tree has changed over time.

porch that extended the dining room into a sunroom. (Figs. 58, 59) A cantilevered roof protected the interior from the sun outside. (Fig. 55) Two small bedrooms, which could be merged into one, faced the ocean to the southwest. They had a bathroom with a skylight (still existing today) that could be opened for ventilation. (Fig. 54) Nicely contrasting in an otherwise light gray kitchen were the blue cabinets. The hatch between kitchen and dining room could be sealed with panels. (Fig. 53) The current owners have changed the original entrance (Figs. 50–52, 56) and enlarged the kitchen by enclosing the service yard. They also have kept the U-shaped driveway; however, a pool was added in the 1940s

115

and a pool house, now used

as a yoga and artist’s studio. There is another house by Davidson for the same client, James Vigeveno House #2, designed in 1960 right next to the first Vigeveno

204

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 52 James Vigeveno House #1. Ground floor plan, quite similar to the Berkson Residences

Fig. 53 James Vigeveno House #1. The dining room

Fig. 54 James Vigeveno House #1. Skylight in

with original furniture and a service hatch.

bathroom for ventilation

REGIONALISM

205

Fg. 55 James Vigeveno House #1. Hallway

Fig. 56 James Vigeveno House #1. Entrance.

from the dining porch to the bedrooms with

The house today is slightly altered. The

telephone booth

service porch was enclosed and is now part of a larger kitchen, while the original entrance has disappeared and is part of the balcony.

Fig. 57 James Vigeveno House #1. Garden façade with the screened dining porch

206

J.R. Davidson

House but with totally different characteristics. Nothing is retained from the ranch house concept of James Vigeveno House #1, the design resembles office buildings in Mid-century style, although it was planned as a single-family house.

Walter Foster House, Bishop, 1944 R. A. Mia House, Johannesburg, 1946 (Project) These two projects demonstrate in depth

Fig. 58 James Vigeveno House #1. View from the garden.

Davidson’s entire design range. While the Walter Foster House in Bishop, California (1944), held on to the classic Ranch Style courtyard (Fig. 61), the R. A. Mia House project in Johannesburg, South Africa (1946), was a blend of ranch house, bungalow, and Case Study House. The gabled roof of the Walter Foster House (Fig. 60) was impressive: “But Davidson casts the traditional canted roof in metal sheets,

Fig. 59 James Vigeveno House #1. The dining porch is

spinning the house around a

screened in.

central hearth, and taking a radial approach to the patio, which—with its curved windbreak—is developed as a fully equipped parlor and dining room open to sun and starlight.”116

By using some of the same materials inside and outside, Davidson integrated the exterior with the interior, an example being the way in which the floor in the room continues out to the courtyard. The seamless indoor-outdoor transition, the absence of doorframes and entrance halls are reminiscent of his Case Study Houses. An architectural dichotomy manifested itself in the R. A. Mia House, which may be the reason why it is generally referred to as a country house. The layout plan and elevation show a clear tripartition into different functions. A long wall separates the rectangular bedroom section from the saddle-roofed ranch house, which

REGIONALISM  207

adjoins it at a 90-degree angle. (Fig. 62) What’s more, the second segment—the main building—is divided again into a living area and a service wing. It’s as if Thomas Mann’s wall, intended to seal off noise from the garden, has taken on a more pronounced shape here. Although cantilevered roofs covering both the front and the rear terraces contribute to the general ranch house character, the structure lacks the typical ranch courtyard. The T-shaped outline, however, allows for some enclosed garden space under the trellis. The interior displays Davidson’s glass partition between entrance area and living room, as well as the intended use of local materials such as flagstone floors and wood-paneled ceilings. (Fig. 63)

Mid-Century Style As seen already in the South African project R. A. Mia House, Davidson continued to incorporate regional materials into Modernism in the late 1940s. While Cliff May added Modernist elements to his ranch houses, Davidson on the other hand, increasingly absorbed local materials into modern architectural shapes by using local floor plans such as the ranch house. In this growing trend toward Regional Modernism, also referred to as “Romantic Rationalism,” architects like Alvar Aalto and others aspired to achieve both functionality and concern for local contexts. Harwell Hamilton Harris, once a Neutra student and early Modernist, had an approach that contrasted with that of Davidson. He copied architectural elements from local architects like Greene and Greene or Richard Maybeck into his mostly wooden buildings, as can be seen in his J. J. Mulvihill House in Sierra Madre (1948). For this somewhat nautical house, Harris chose a Japanese-inspired roof edge that provided shade below. Davidson, however, did not rely on role models. His clients’ homes, many of them for doctors or psychologists, seem more aligned with the architecture taught at the University of Southern California (USC) and realized by the so-called Pasadena School associated with it. He especially shared a preference for exposed beams with Smith and Williams, whose inspiration came from traditional Japanese wooden architecture. Davidson also used exposed brick for fireplaces and their surrounding surfaces, both indoors and outside on the façade. In the Sam A. Taylor Residence (1947), he followed his clients’ wishes, although he was not initially familiar with using a grid and, although it looks like it, it does not conform to tatami proportions. Tatami mats are rectangular mats made of rice straw with a soft rush covering. The mats are sized on a 1:2 scale, the length being double the width. Davidson’s integration of nature, whether through potted plants at the Feingold and

208

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 60 Walter Foster House, Bishop, 1944. The low overhanging roof structure replicates the local Ranch Style.

Fig. 61 Walter Foster House. The indoor-outdoor connection is expressed in the continuous floor and the outdoor kitchen.

REGIONALISM  209

Fig. 62 R. A. Mia House, Johannesburg, 1946 (project). The drawing shows a combination of a ranch house and the upcoming Mid-century style.

Fig. 63 R. A. Mia House. A translucent glass wall behind the sofa separates the hallway from the living room.

210  J.R. Davidson

Harris Medical Building or the orientation of his houses to vista and landscape, are a significant feature he shared with Smith and Williams, who designed interior spaces filled with plants. My remarks regarding Smith and Williams in my text “Defining View” for the Smith and Williams catalog apply equally to Davidson:

“Smith and Williams used nature as material and turned it into a space filter, space divider, room covering, and conclusion to a space, and thus an architectural element. They are concerned less with the physical proximity of nature, which is accessible outside the door and through the window, than with adopting such elements as screens, wooden panels, raised covered walkways, and landscape ideas to articulate the transition between inside and out and the staging of nature. Any means was justified for integration of the building into its surrounds regardless of whether it derived from the Californian bungalow, European Modernism, or the Japanese tradition.”117 In Smith’s own words: “The house itself will become an adjunct to the landscape, rather than a monument imposed upon it.”118

Dr. David Rabinowitz House, Bel Air, 1957 All this became quite evident in Davidson’s Rabinowitz House (1957) as well as in the House of the Book (1959), one of Davidson’s few public buildings, on which he collaborated with landscape architect Garrett Eckbo. The house for Dr. David L. Rabinowitz and his family was built in Bel Air on a 100 × 200-foot plot with a spectacular panorama. In what appears to be a letter of recommendation for the architect, Mrs. Rabinowitz wrote to Mrs. Katherine M. F. Creighton about how much the family valued the home’s openness, its lack of solid walls being its highest quality, offering an all-around view over mountains and hills from everywhere in the house—except from the children’s bedrooms—through large glass panes. Moreover, they prized the complete seclusion from the street as well as the separation between public and private areas inside. (Fig. 65) They wanted the architect to establish “a) a feeling of openness, b) sufficient flexibility to satisfy the needs of two small children and provide room for entertaining the parents’ friends.”119 On a grid consisting of 20 × 8-foot modules, the mullion and transom construction did not require any load-bearing walls. The first draft shows the rooms in their different functions surrounded by open spaces such as a terrace and play yard to one side of the dining room and family room. A future extension to the nursery rooms on the street side is included. (Figs. 64, 67)

REGIONALISM  211

Fig. 64 J. R. Davidson, description “Dr. David Rabinowitz House”

The detailed floor plan emphasizes the open construction: “Except for bed rooms and bath rooms, solid walls between spaces are either omitted or are storage walls of varying heights, open or glazed above, thus giving an added feeling of spaciousness to the living quarters.”120 Access to the house was via a canopied patio. The bedrooms were located off a gallery-like hallway, which the family used as a reception area and reading room.121 The play yard was right by the kitchen, so that the parents could keep an eye on the children. A special feature was an indoor flowerbed between dining room and terrace, bringing the garden into the house. (Fig. 66) It may also have served as a

212  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 65 Dr. David Rabinowitz House, Bel Air, 1957. Presentation drawing with Japanese-inspired front garden

Fig. 66 Dr. David Rabinowitz House. Post and beam structure

REGIONALISM  213

Fig. 67 Dr. David Rabinowitz House. Schematic ground floor plan on a grid of 20 × 8-foot modules

214  J.R. Davidson

screen for the dining room wall as well as for the terrace, where, later, a swimming pool would be added.122 The dining room furniture was flexible, and a breakfast counter was mounted directly below the hatch, as shown in Marvin Rand’s photographs. (Fig. 68) The counter was apparently meant to replace kitchen dining, and in their letter the owners express regret at not having listened in that regard to the architect. A skylight above the natural stone fireplace accentuated the living room furniture. (Fig. 69) As Esther McCoy puts it: “Its design features and lights the corner but doesn’t deprive it of the feeling of security.”123 A waist-high bookshelf served as room divider between kitchen and living room. Exterior walls were stucco-plastered, indoor walls were painted drywall or wood paneling, while the floors were covered with corkboard and “the ceiling (was) of exposed specially grooved 2” × 4” T & G roof sheathing, except in bathrooms. Copper radiant heating pipes (were) to be embedded in the insulated reinforced concrete floor.”124 Davidson’s houses from the 1960s were all quite similar in how well they were embedded in the landscape, how their indoor-outdoor interaction was achieved, and what kind of materiality they had. They also often featured a Japanese-style front garden. (Fig. 65)

Dr. R. H. Jokl House, Los Angeles, 1958 This consideration of placement in the landscape became particularly apparent at the house for the Jokls, a pair of psychiatrists, in Los Angeles (1958). The lot’s complicated location posed an enormous challenge, as did some of the clients’ requirements. Esther McCoy’s publication in the Los Angeles Times about the house was tellingly titled: “They Started with Nothing but Problems.”125 The property had an unusual shape with a storm ditch cutting across, and building regulations that required any living space to be set 15 feet away from it. Davidson designed an access footbridge and placed the garage atop the storm drain. (Fig. 70) The living room further back opened directly onto the slope, which made for an amazing natural view. Davidson was asked to create a separate section for a doctor’s office—with independent access—to include a treatment and waiting room. By setting apart two rooms, each tilting away from the living room, he achieved singular privacy with a secluded garden outside the guest room, and with a semi-circular patio, enclosed with opaque glass, next to the study and treatment room, shielding the patients from the outside. Nature pervaded everywhere: potted plants inside, or vegetation outside. The living room remained completely open, merging with the terrace into one space. A waist-high buffet divider partitioned off the breakfast room, which had its own special view into a garden area with rare plants. (Fig. 71)

REGIONALISM

Fig. 68 Dr. David Rabinowitz House. Kitchen

215

Fig. 69 Dr. David Rabinowitz House. Chimney with skylight

There is a conceptual similarity to Davidson’s own home and his personal separate studio, although externally the differences could not be greater. What comes across as very sober and modern in Davidson’s home, the only articulate formation being the angled bedroom of his son, is in the Dr. R. H. Jokl House a conglomeration of spaces jutting out into nature and—transparent as they are—merging with it. The mullion and transom construction, consisting of 7-foot modules, had at times spans of 21 feet and 6 inches with no posts obstructing the various spaces. The concrete floor is partially covered by a rug. The ceiling as well as the roof structure above the terrace are of Douglas fir.126

Gustav H. Dann House, Los Angeles, 1950 Gustav H. Dann’s house, built 1950, is a rare exception to Davidson’s tendency toward single-storied homes that blended in with the landscape. Here, however, the terrain to the east and south was very steep, so that Davidson had to build upward

216  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 70 Dr. R. H. Jokl House, Los Angeles, 1958. Ground floor plan with the storm drain ditch

to two floors. The title of the article “City Residence Boasts Country Privacy”127 says it all, and the house was indeed designed to maximize privacy. Due to the precipitous terrain Davidson designed a long driveway moving past a curved salmon-colored brick wall that shielded the terrace and eventually merged with the building’s façade. (Fig. 72) The wall had two doors, one leading to the garden, the other onto the terrace, which required a retaining wall underneath. From below only the second floor was visible. Translucent plastic screened the bedroom balcony, which extended into a classic conservatory, its cypress wood parapet providing partial but not full privacy for the bedrooms. The window frames here were painted lemon yellow and the façade of the house was quite colorful in general. The salmon-red brick wall carried over into the redwood siding at the house, corresponding with aluminum window frames, while inside the entryway, coral-colored wood paneling continued up the stairs from the ground floor. An aluminum roof connected the

REGIONALISM

217

Fig. 71 Dr. R. H. Jokl House. Living room with garden view and waist-high buffet separating off the breakfast room

front door area with the garage. The eggplant-colored front door contrasted with the light red-orange tones of the brick wall and the Arizona flagstone that stretched into the entrance area. (Fig. 73) “Small wood mesh screens separate vestibule from hall.”128 Similar to the architect’s earlier houses with their translucent glass partitions and potted plants behind them, reminiscent of Japanese sliding room dividers, these elements reappear here in the hall and between living and dining space. The living room’s wall and ceiling were wood-paneled, the floor was covered by a rug. The floral pattern on the curtains and the sofa were very 1950s in style. (Fig. 74) A brown carpet covered the stairs and the second-floor landing, and built-in low cabinets with a plant box functioned as a parapet at the end of the hallway. Curtains were of woven bamboo, and the hallway wall was painted a matching brown.129 The landing gave access to the two symmetrically arranged master bedrooms, both of which opened to the balcony.

218

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 72 Gustav H. Dann House, Los Angeles, 1950. The presentation drawing shows the long driveway with the two-story house on top of a hill, hidden behind a brick wall.

REGIONALISM

Fig. 73 Gustav H. Dann House. Entrance

219

220

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 74 Gustav H. Dann House. Bedroom on second floor with flower curtains and carpet

While Pierluigi Serraino defines Northern California as “a playground for a variegated Mid-century architecture,”130 it is equally true for Southern California that the mid-century architecture came in a variety of manifestations. The floor plans of J. R. Davidson’s houses were becoming increasingly experimental, and no longer referred directly to the ranch house or bungalow. When choosing materials connecting the interior and exterior, or creating translucent and curved “in-between” spaces, he achieved an integration of his houses into their natural environment. Davidson’s work retained the privacy of bedrooms while maintaining their direct contact with the outdoors. Other recurring features were glass walls or shelves as transitional elements between entrance halls and adjoining open living rooms. The dark and set-back entrances, often located between garage and service area, with their skylights or pergolas, were a remarkable contrast to the much lighter and airy living spaces that opened to a terrace.

REGIONALISM  221

Public Buildings Fairfax Temple, Society for Jewish Culture, Los Angeles, 1942 Although Davidson was honored by the American Institute of Architects and was therefore entitled to obtain his architecture license retrospectively, he refused to do so. As a consequence, he probably was denied large public contracts. Nevertheless the Jewish Community that he belonged to commissioned two buildings, and the very detailed drafts for one of them suggest that the renovation might actually have been realized. He remodeled the temple for the Society for Jewish Culture in Los Angeles on Fairfax Avenue (1942), which is no longer extant. Since we have no information on how this project came about, and no further records or publications were found, we have to rely on the drafts. It looks as if Davidson made considerable changes to the synagogue. He enlarged the main entrance and moved it to the lateral façade, and he integrated a podium with side rooms for storage to the east. (Fig. 75) The building featured a remarkable semi-circular end with long windows and niches, intended for outside planting. The overall design style showed Art Deco influence. (Fig. 76)

House of the Book, Brandeis Institute, Santa Susana, 1959 A letter by Eckbo, dated November 5, 1957, in the Garrett Eckbo Archive in Berkeley,131 outlines the plan for the Brandeis Institute’s House of the Book on a 25-acre site in Santa Susana. This was Davidson’s second project with the landscape architect. Whether at that point J. R. had already been charged with the planning is not clear. The wording in the project description indicates that they might have first approached Eckbo, who then brought in Davidson. It sounds like Eckbo had planned this huge biblical-themed landscape design first. (Fig. 77) Situated on Simi Valley’s highest point, the specific location for this new addition to the Brandeis Institute campus was not to be changed under any circumstances as it says on the plans of Davidson. “The location suggested a circular type of building, and it was finally decided that a hexagonal building came nearest to fulfilling all the requirements.”132 Eckbo and Davidson had previously collaborated on the Sam A.Taylor Residence (1947) in Los Angeles. A detailed garden plan for this house exists in the Eckbo Archive. Seldom do we find plans of a garden design by Davidson himself. He also sometimes collaborated with local landscape architects, once even with his daughter-in-law. This new assignment for Brandeis was to create a facility for a children’s summer camp, which could also be used for weekly programs throughout the year.

222  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 75 Fairfax Temple, Society for Jewish Culture, Los Angeles, 1942. The ground floor plan of the remodeling shows the opening up of the entrance hall to the auditorium.

Fig. 76 Fairfax Temple. South elevation

REGIONALISM

223

Fig. 77 House of the Book, Brandeis Institute, Santa Susana, 1935. Landscape design by Eckbo, Dean & Williams

It had to include an auditorium that could accommodate 300 people, a library, as well as spaces for religious services. (Fig. 78) Davidson described the concept of the building in his detailed drafts: “The core of the building is the assembly hall, surrounded by six sections which serve as entrance, libraries, and shrine. Behind the shrine section are offices, kitchen and mechanical equipment. The library sections become separated from the main auditorium by folding walls.”133

All areas of the building could be reached from outside patios, which were extensions to the various libraries. Behind the music library, the patio rose slightly and turned into an amphitheater. Six 37-foot-tall steel pillars with a 60-foot span supported the structure in the six corners of the hexagonal auditorium, allowing the outer walls to serve as freestanding curtain walls. (Fig. 80) Daylight entered the

224

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 78 House of the Book. Davidson with the model

building through skylights above all six segments as well as through the sides of the suspended and acoustic-enhancing ceiling that covered the Star of David, just below the rooftop. A triangular fountain placed on an elevated access platform pointed arrow-like toward the main entrance, thus emphasizing the door’s position within the structure’s expanse under its wide cantilevered roof. (Figs. 79, 80) Two of Davidson’s typical design concepts stood out again in this project: his emblematic directed lighting, and the transition from an inside space to a private outdoor area with separating options such as curtains and room dividers, which created individual rooms, stages, and performance areas. This would have perfectly fulfilled the idea of Eckbo, who said that “every garden is a stage, every occupant a player.”134 It is debatable whether this structure was ever built according to Davidson’s plans. In 1973, there clearly was and still exists a House of the Book on the campus, but it was designed and realized by Sidney Eisenshtat.

REGIONALISM

225

Fig. 79 House of the Book. Presentation drawing of the entrance

Fig. 80 House of the Book. Ground floor plan with the open patios

226

J.R. Davidson

Fig. 81 Dr. Hanna Fenichel Residence, Los Angeles, 1958

REGIONALISM  227

Notes 1

William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture since 1900, 3rd edition (London, New York: Phaidon Press, 2001), p. 399.

2

“The New Empiricism,” in: Architectural Review, 103, No. 613 (January 1948), p. 10.

3

Wayne Andrews, Architecture, Ambition and the Americans: A Social History

4

The speakers included Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Walter Gro-

of American Architecture (Glencoe: Free Press, 1964). pius, George Nelson, Ralph T. Walker, Christopher Tunnard, Frederick Gutheim, Marcel Breuer, Peter Blake, Gerhard Kallmann, Talbot Hamlin, and Lewis Mumford, plus there was a section of written comments by Carl Koch, Lewis Mumford, and Alfred H. Barr, Jr. 5

Lewis Mumford, “The Sky Line: Status Quo [‘Bay Region Style’],” in: The New

6

Mumford quoted in: Vincent B. Canizaro (ed.), Architectural Regionalism,

Yorker (October 11, 1947), pp. 104–110. Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity, and Tradition (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007), p. 291. 7 Ibid. 8 9

Ibid., p. 306. “Bay Region Domestic,” in: Architectural Review (October 1948), pp. 164– 170, 164.

10 Barr describes the Bay Area’s Regionalism as Cottage Style and refers mainly

to villas and single-family homes. 11 Alfred H. Barr quoted in: Canizaro (ed.), Architectural Regionalism, pp. 297–298. 12 Ibid., p. 303. 13 “Introduction to Regionalism,“ in: Canizaro (ed.), Architectural Regionalism,

p. 276. 14 “Is There a Bay Area Style?,“ in: Architectural Record (May 1949), pp. 94–95. 15 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, September 16–November 6, 1949. 16 Pierluigi Serraino, “Regionalism versus the International Style: The Origins of

a Split,“ in: Pierluigi Serraino (ed.), NorCalMod: Icons of Northern California

Modernism (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2006). 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Peter de Mendelssohn (ed.), Thomas Mann, Tagebücher 1940–1943 (Frank-

furt am Main: S. Fischer, 1982). Diary entry of September 3, 1940. 20 Thomas Mann became a U.S. citizen in 1944. He moved back to Switzerland

in 1952, where he lived until he died August 12, 1955. 21 Heinrich Wefing, “Das Haus des Zauberers: Julius R. Davidson, Paul Huld-

schinsky und Thomas Manns Villa in Pacific Palisades. ‘We are at Home Wherever the Desk Stands’: Thomas Mann’s Residence in Pacific Palisades,“ in: Mechthild Borries-Knop (ed.), Building Paradise: Exile Architecture in Cali­

fornia (Berlin: Kreis der Freunde und Förderer der Villa Aurora e.V., 2004), pp. 48–101, here p. 57. 22 Mendelssohn (ed.), Thomas Mann, Tagebücher 1940–1943. Diary entry of

September 18, 1940.

228  J.R. Davidson

23 Esther McCoy, The Second Generation (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1984),

p. 20. 24 The Esther McCoy archive contains a note that Galka Scheyer, for whom

Greta Davidson had worked as secretary, was the connection. See Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 25 On March 31, 1941, Heinrich Mann wrote a letter to Davidson thanking him

for his best wishes, presumably as response to birthday greetings. Letter from Heinrich Mann to J. R. Davidson, March 31, 1941, UCSB Archive. 26 Barnaby Davidson, interviewed by Kurt Helfrich, Santa Barbara, October 11,

2004, transcript, p. 47, UCSB Archive. 27 Lilian Pfaff, interview with Barnaby Davidson, unpublished manuscript, Santa

Barbara, May 19, 2012. 28 Ibid., also Esther McCoy, The Second Generation, p. 21. 29 Ibid. 30 Mendelssohn (ed.), Thomas Mann, Tagebücher 1940–1943. Diary entry of

April 19, 1941. 31 Ehrhard Bahr, “Nach Westwood zum Haareschneiden. Zur externen und in-

ternen Topographie des kalifornischen Exils von Thomas Mann,“ in: Newslet-

ter of the International Feuchtwanger Society, Vol. 8, 2010, pp. 12–24, 20. 32 According to the April 18th diary entry, there was a discussion with the archi-

tect about abandoning the project and the sale of the property. Mendelssohn (ed.), Thomas Mann, Tagebücher 1940–1943. Diary entry of April 18, 1941. 33 Hans Wysling (ed.), Letters of Heinrich and Thomas Mann, 1900–1949, trans-

lated by Don Reneau (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1970). 34 “Letter to Heinrich, Los Angeles, Brentwood, September 22, 1940,“ in: Wys-

ling (ed.), Letters of Heinrich and Thomas Mann, p. 238 (the property was purchased September, 12, 1940). 35 “Letter to Heinrich, Princeton, February, 4, 1941,“ in: Wysling (ed.), Letters

of Heinrich and Thomas Mann, p. 242. 36 J. R. Davidson and Greta Davidson in a conversation with Thomas Hines, June

27, 1974, in: Thomas S. Hines, interviews regarding Richard J. Neutra 1972– 1980, Oral History, Box 1, Item C2–C3, 7’50, The Getty Research Institute. 37 Bahr, “Nach Westwood zum Haareschneiden,” p. 20. 38 J. R. Davidson and Greta Davidson in a conversation with Thomas Hines, June

27, 1974. 39 Building Construction Contract “Thomas Mann House,” UCSB Archive. 40 Quoted from: “Thomas Mann Home Started on Riviera, Noted Novelist Plans

to Become Californian,“ in: Evening Outlook (July 12, 1941), p. 7. 41 “Kalifornien ist das Wunschland der Architekten,” in: Die Westküste. Kaliforn-

ien-Ausgabe des Aufbau, 7, No. 33 (1941), p. 11. 42 Presumably Ernst (Ernest) Gottlieb, a German emigrant (1938), who was

Thomas Mann’s portraitist. Photographs of the house with the Mann family and the architecture also appeared in the article “House for Thomas Mann,“ in: California Arts & Architecture (December 1942), pp. 36–38.

REGIONALISM  229

43 Letter from Thomas Mann to J. R. Davidson, April 10, 1942, UCSB Archive. 44 Ibid. 45 Letter from J. R. Davidson to Thomas Mann, April 18, 1942, UCSB Archive. 46 Thomas Mann, Die Entstehung des Doktor Faustus (Amsterdam: Ber-

mann-Fischer/Querido-Verlag, 1949), p. 681. 47 Wefing, “Das Haus des Zauberers” p. 65. 48 J. R. Davidson, description “Thomas Mann House,“ UCSB Archive, corre-

sponds to the text published in: “House for Thomas Mann,“ in: California

Arts & Architecture (December 1942), pp. 36–38. 49 Bahr, “Nach Westwood zum Haareschneiden,“ p. 20. 50 Notes from Esther McCoy, Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–

1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 51 Wefing, “Das Haus des Zauberers,” p. 83. 52 Ibid., p. 51. 53 This designation, also called “other Modernity,“ goes back to German-lan-

guage research on Modernism and is used, e.g., to classify the buildings of the Swiss architect Otto Rudolf Salvisberg. 54 Ibid. 55 Historical photographs of the Lappen family, who bought the Thomas Mann

House in 1952, show that the doors were divided in the lower third and thus simulate traditional patio doors. Cf. p. 167 in this book, Fig. 4. Lappen Family Archive. 56 Inge Jens (ed.), Thomas Mann, Tagebücher 1953–1955 (Frankfurt am Main:

S. Fischer, 1995), p. 34. Diary entry of March 3, 1953.

Susan Sontag does not comment on the house after meeting with Mann in the house on San Remo Drive. She does, however, remember the darkness of the study. Konrad Wachsmann notices the beautiful property, but says about the house: “By Californian standards, nothing special.” Susan Sontag, “11: Pilgrimage,“ in: Stephen D. Dowden (ed.), A Companion to Thomas Mann’s

The Magic Mountain (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 1999), pp. 221–239; and Wefing, “Das Haus des Zauberers,” p. 70, Note 42. In 1952 the house was difficult to sell. The new owners, Chester and John Lappen, removed the wall between Mann’s study and the living room, and they built a pool in the garden. In the spring of 2016, the house entered the real estate market without the architect or the famous builder being named. In a spectacular rescue operation, it was acquired by the German government in the summer of 2016 and now houses participants of a fellowship program. See: Lilian Pfaff, “Kulturdenkmal auf dem Immobilienmarkt,“ in: TEC21 (16/2016) and Lilian Pfaff, “Dieses Haus soll mehr sein als ein Denkmal,“ in: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, June 20, 2018, p. 36. 57 See floor plan in the article: “Four Contemporary American Houses, Archi-

tects: R. J. Neutra, J. A. Stein, C. Ellwood, J. R. Davidson,“ in: Arts & Architec-

ture (October 1949), p. 38. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid.

230  J.R. Davidson

60 J. R. Davidson, description “J. R. Davidson House,” i. e. Davidson’s theoretical

publication on his own house, “A house that rambles with reason around four secluded garden rooms,“ divided in A, B, C, D, to J, not dated, possibly August 1947, UCSB Archive. 61 J. R. Davidson, description “J. R. Davidson House,” UCSB Archive. 62 J. R. Davidson, description “J. R. Davidson House,” UCSB Archive. 63 George Nelson (ed.), Living Spaces (Interiors Library No. 1), (New York: Whit-

ney Publications, 1952), p. 38. 64 The son of Joseph and Lore, Roger Kingsley, recalls his parents’ brief meeting

with the Modernist architect: “When Neutra came in to discuss the house, my parents very much wanted a breakfast room with a passageway to the kitchen. Neutra said, ‘I don’t do breakfast rooms.’ And that was the end of Neutra.” https://lamodern.com/Press/fate-of-j-r-davidson-house-in-peril-furnitureto-go-to-auction/ 65 J. R. Davidson, letter to David Gebhard, September 10, 1973, UCSB Archive. 66 “Fate of J. R. Davidson House In Peril; Furniture to Go to Auction” https://lamod-

ern.com/2013/04/fate-of-j-r-davidson-house-in-peril-furniture-to-go-to-auction. 67 “City House,“ in: Arts & Architecture (January 1948), p. 31. 68 After Lore Kingsley’s death in 2013, the house was sold for $4.5 million and

was then demolished. In 2015, an ordinary seven-bedroom/eight-bathroom home was sold in its place for $13.9 million by the same real estate developer. 69 Glick Kudler, “Never-Altered JR Davidson Modern.” 70 “Planned for Terrace Living,“ in: Architectural Record (August 1948), p. 92. 71 “House Near the Pacific Ocean,“ in: Arts & Architecture (July 1948), p. 29. 72 “This Is the Way you Like to Live,“ in: The Californian (Fall 1952), p. 35. 73

Ibid., p. 36.

74 “House Near the Pacific Ocean,“ p. 29. 75 David Gebhard distinguishes between “Zig-Zag” Modernity, “Streamline Mo-

dernity,“ as well as “High-Art Modernity” evolving from Art Deco. See: David Gebhard and Harriette von Breton, Kem Weber (Santa Barbara: University of California, 1969), n. p. 76 David Gebhard, “William Wurster and His California Contemporaries. The

Idea of Regionalism and Soft Modernism,“ in: Marc Treib (ed.), An Everyday

Modernism: The Houses of William Wurster (Oakland: University of California Press, 1996), p. 167. 77 Robert Winter, The California Bungalow (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls,

1980). 78 Los Angeles was the West’s largest industrial center with oil, service, and tire

factory industries and the production of steel, glass, chemicals, aircrafts, and cars. Each year, the city grew by 100,000 new residents, many coming from rural areas. While the first wave (1880–1910) was middle-class, later migration was predominantly working-class. By 1920, L.A.’s population was at 600,000. At that point, the bungalow had already become an object of ridicule in California, with the Cottage or Ranch Styles now dominating the magazines.

REGIONALISM  231

79 Robert M. Fogelson, The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles 1850–1930

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 67. 80 Winter, The California Bungalow, p. 18. 81 “The English used variations on the bangala, related also to the English ‘cot-

tage’, as accommodations for themselves and other foreigners who traveled about India but certainly had no intention of going native.” Winter, The Cal-

ifornia Bungalow, p. 19. 82 Anthony King, “The Bungalow in India: Its Regional and Pre-Industrial Ori-

gin,“ in: Architectural Association Quarterly, 5 (1973), pp. 8–18, p. 9. 83 Winter, The California Bungalow, p. 21. 84 The Bungalow was first mentioned in America in 1880, see Clay Lancaster,

“The American Bungalow,“ in: Art Bulletin, 40 (1958), pp. 239–253, p. 239. 85 Winter, The California Bungalow, p. 23. 86 Anthony King, “The Bungalow: Social Process and Urban Form: The Bunga-

low as an Indicator of Social Trends,“ in: Architectural Association Quarterly, 5 (1973), pp. 6–26, pp. 4–5. 87 Winter, The California Bungalow, p. 28. 88 Ibid., p. 31. 89 Ibid., p. 44. 90 Some critics attribute the floor plan to that of a farmhouse, that being the

only existing model. Robert Winter thinks the bungalow echoes the Spanish-Mexican hacienda. Architects indeed freely used the hacienda’s U-shape, which resulted in the Patio Bungalow, a version partially covered with canvas. Smith and Williams provide this description: “A trellis, later glazed, was erected over the patio so that canvas could be rolled across during the hottest part of the day and then rolled back for a view of the Sierra Madre in the evening. The patio gained rustic interest because the walls were built of cobblestone, as were the exterior walls.” Winter, The California Bungalow, p. 41. 91 The kitchen was only steps away. “The maid’s room almost disappears in the

bungalows of the twenties.” Winter, The California Bungalow, p. 37. 92 Robert C. Twombly, “Saving the Family: Middle Class Attraction to Wright’s

Prairie House, 1901–1909,“ in: American Quarterly, 27 (1975), pp. 57–72. 93 Winter, The California Bungalow, p. 37. 94 Clarence Eaton Schermerhorn, “Planning the Bungalow,“ in: William Phillips

Comstock and Clarence Eaton Schermerhorn, Bungalows, Camps, and Moun-

tain Houses: 80 Classic American Designs (Washington 1908; reprint New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2007), pp. 33–40. 95 Today a typical Bungalow Style house is at that address, but as far as can be

seen, bedroom and kitchen are reversed, which makes more sense from a practical point of view than Davidson’s proposed plan. 96 “Small House on a Hill,“ in: California Arts & Architecture (October 1941),

pp. 30–31. 97 Ibid., p. 30. 98 John Mack Faragher, “Bungalow and Ranch House: The Architectural Backwash

of California,“ in: The Western Historical Quarterly, 32 (Summer 2001), p. 163. 99 Ibid., p. 149.

232  J.R. Davidson

100 Cliff May with the editorial staff of Sunset —The Magazine of Western Living,

Sunset Western Ranch Houses (San Francisco: Lane Publishing Co., 1946), p. 21. 101 Faragher, “Bungalow and Ranch House,” p. 164. 102 Esther McCoy and Evelyn Hitchcock, “The Ranch House,“ in: Charles W.

Moore and Kathryn Smith (eds.), Home Sweet Home: American Domestic Ver-

nacular Architecture (New York: Rizzoli, 1983), pp. 85–89. 103 George Nelson and Henry Wright, Tomorrow’s House: A Complete Guide for

the Home Builder (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1945). 104 Faragher, “Bungalow and Ranch House,“ p. 168. 105 Ibid., p. 170. 106 Cliff May, Sunset Western Ranch Houses. 107 Ibid., p. 173. 108 He was the founder of the law firm Sunshine, Berkson, Lantman, Levinson &

Morse in Chicago, and he represented movie stars and theater actors. 109 “Twin Houses in Encino for Maurice Berkson,“ in: California Arts & Architec-

ture (August 1940), p. 26. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 “How to Look at a House,” in: Sunset—The Magazine of Western Living (April

1944), p. 10. 113 The James Vigeveno Galleries operated in Los Angeles and Ojai from 1940 to

1956 (LA) and 1957 to 1975 (Ojai). From 1957 to 1964 there were also periodic exhibitions of works from the Vigeveno Collection at the Hotel Bel-Air. See archive:

http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/james-vigeveno-galleries-re-

cords-9586 114 Pamela Burton and Marie Botnick (eds.), Private Landscapes. Modernist Gar-

dens in Southern California (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), p. 114. 115 Ibid. 116 Jocelyn Gibbs and Nicholas Olsberg, “Prototypes and Possibilities: 1920s to

1960,“ in: Carefree California: Cliff May and the Romance of the Ranch

House (Santa Barbara and New York: Art, Design & Architecture Museum UCSB with Rizzoli, 2012), p. 164. 117 Pfaff, “Defining View,” p. 153. 118 “Japanese Influence in California Architecture,” undated typescript, Smith

and Williams records, UCSB Archive. Though unsigned, the manuscript was likely written by Whitney Smith, with assistance from Ed Fennemore. 119 Letter from Dr. and Mrs. David L. Rabinowitz to Mrs. Katherine M. F. Creigh-

ton, UCSB Archive. Other requirements included the kitchen to be placed next to the dining room; kitchen smells, however, were not to enter the rest of the house. The kitchen was to face the play yard, and it should be located close to the garage for grocery shopping convenience. Mrs. Rabinowitz liked to cook and requested the kitchen to be as functional and efficient as possible. The lake in the valley and the city had to be visible from the house. The living room was to be as private as possible, with an integrated music system and bookshelves. 120 J. R. Davidson, description “House in the Bel-Air Hills,” UCSB Archive.

REGIONALISM  233

121 Letter from Dr. and Mrs. David L. Rabinowitz to Mrs. Katherine M. F. Creigh-

ton, UCSB Archive. 122 Ibid. 123 Esther McCoy, “Tranquil House: Modern Airy,” in: Los Angeles Times Home

Magazine (May 22, 1960), p. 40. 124 J. R. Davidson, description “House in the Bel-Air Hills,” UCSB Archive. 125 Esther McCoy, “They Started with Nothing but Problems,” in: Los Angeles

Times Home Magazine (July 8, 1962). 126 “House designed by J. R. Davidson,” in: Arts & Architecture (September

1962), pp. 16–17, p. 17. 127 “City Residence Boasts Country Privacy, House for Mr. and Mrs. Gustav Dann,

Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles, California,” in: Architectural Record (August 1953), pp. 141–147, p. 146. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Pierluigi Serraino, “Regionalism versus the International Style: The Origins of

a Split,” in: Pierluigi Serraino (ed.): Icons of Northern California Modernism (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2006), n. p. 131 Letter from Garrett Eckbo to Dr. Shlomo Bardin, National Director Brandeis

Camp Institute (November 5, 1957). Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley. 132 “Religious Center by J. R. Davidson,” in: Arts & Architecture (May 1959),

pp. 20–21, p. 21. 133 Ibid. 134 Garrett Eckbo, “Small Gardens in the City,” in: Pencil Points (September

1937), p. 573.

3

CONCLUSION

Westgate Apartments, Los Angeles, 1965 Davidson’s architectural development can be illustrated clearly by comparing his only two completed apartment buildings. (Fig. 2) The difference is apparent already from the outside when comparing the Gretna Green Apartments of 1940 with his last project, the four Westgate Apartments of 1965. Pink stucco and doveblue window frames dominate the two Gretna Green buildings with private space on the rooftops and patios. On the other hand, the four units of the Westgate Apartments, one was owned by Davidson himself, feature brown wood paneling with white window frames on a compact residential building whose units each have their own street entrances. Davidson designed two different versions for the Westgate project. The first one remained closely related to the Gretna Green Apartments. Here, he designed apartment 1 as a single-family home for himself and his wife Greta, where courtyards and plant beds provided privacy by shielding the one-story apartment from the street corner. Behind the entrance door, a room divider separated the living room to one side and access to the bedrooms on the other side. The second apartment was accessed independently on the side of the building above the first apartment’s bedroom area. Eventually, Davidson realized a second version, in which all apartments had the same floor plan and were sold as two-story townhouses. The outdoor space was much reduced and limited to French balconies. The floor plans, however, were open and spacious. It seems that Davidson had given in to the economic situation and consequently abandoned his flexible spatial designs. In summary, Davidson’s very personal journey into modern architecture was shaped initially by his European background and experience. (Fig. 1) He found inspiration, as seen in his notebooks, mostly in observation and in practical furniture design. Architectural styles of the day, like Biedermeier, Arts and Crafts as well as Art Deco, added to his experience. A Modernist of the early 1930s, he attracted attention with his airy and colorful interiors, his innovative materials, as well as with his lighting concepts. He did not, however, engage much with the so-called International Style. Curved overhanging roofs, oversized glass façades that opened rooms to the garden, or window bands and white cubic forms were soon abandoned. Colors took on soft

Fig. 1 J. R. Davidson around 1945, smoking in the garden

236  J.R. Davidson

pastel tones, windows became more conventional again, flat roofs were now gently inclining, and angled rooms were added into the rigid cubic floor plans to create more privacy for bedroom quarters. Working in a more “humane” version of Modernism—also referred to as Soft Modernism—Davidson adapted traditional local styles like the bungalow, and particularly the ranch house, by integrating their floor plans and characteristics into his Modernist designs. Within the broad context of mid-century architecture, Davidson combined different forms after 1950, aligning more with his contemporaries—especially those affiliated with the USC School—and taking into consideration the California climate and local materials. “A region may develop ideas. A region may accept ideas. Imagination and intelligence are necessary for both. In California in the late Twenties and Thirties modern European ideas met a still developing regionalism. What was relevant was accepted and became part of a continuing regionalism.”1

This adjustment process was typical of First Generation emigrants, and most evident in Rudolph Schindler’s earlier works where he adopted Irving Gill’s concrete slab method of assembling exterior walls directly on site. Richard Neutra, too, adapted to Californian conditions such as climate and light, integrating the house into the landscape by designing spider legs, reflecting pools, and open glass façades. J. R. Davidson, by contrast, showed virtually no interest in the locale in the early years of his Los Angeles career. A clear regional trend among the expatriate group of architects did not set in until the mid-1940s and coincided with European “moderate Modernity.” On the other hand, there were the students of Richard Neutra—Gregory Ain, Raphael Soriano, and others, like the architect Maynard Lyndon, all native Californians—who were fascinated by the European ideas of the Bauhaus and who tried to follow and implement these ideas in their California design practice. This so-called Second Generation used the established architectural language of the International Style with its white cubic shapes much more directly than their exiled European teachers and colleagues ever did. There were also, however, many Californian architects like Smith and Williams, graduates of USC after the Second World War and considered USC or Pasadena School, who had a stronger regional leaning, drawing on Greene and Greene and Japanese-Asian influences, and working in contrast to the International Style. The return of U.S. war veterans may have been an additional factor that increased a tendency toward the homely, regional, or customary.

CONCLUSION  237

Fig. 2 Westgate Apartments, Los Angeles, 1965. The presentation drawing shows the four identical two-story townhouses, of which Davidson himself owned one.

Another possible factor in the new regional direction was the Red Scare, which became manifest when Gregory Ain was excluded from the Case Study Program because of his political beliefs, and when the “white style” was denounced as “communist.” “To them (architectural commentators), modern architecture, with its lack of stylistic differentiation and its European roots, seemed un-American and vaguely undemocratic, possibly socialist—or, even worse, communist.”2 Or possibly, a general rejection of Modernism occurred, because American architecture was not to be associated with Europe, as shown in the MoMA debate on Regionalism. Modern architecture from Europe was clearly not held in high esteem in the private construction sector immediately after the war. Yet although Modernist principles seemed to take hold among only a few of Neutra’s students, they were in fact being applied time and again because of their standardized ideas and prefabrication and thus financial advantages in public buildings like churches and schools, as well as in administrative buildings. Modernism was simply one style among many. Architecture was now for entrepreneurs or large companies who developed the postwar house and hired architects to carry out the job. That said, there were some very accomplished examples, like the more than 11,000 Eichler Homes, built in California between 1950 and 1974.

238  J.R. Davidson

Essentially, two different sides of “Modernism” met in California. The version brought in by European émigrés like Neutra, Schindler, and also Davidson blended with the regional version that had emerged from an Irving Gill-inspired modern Spanish Colonial Style. While the students of this First Generation, Ain and Soriano, drew from European concepts, the actual émigrés meanwhile became more and more involved in regional design, as if to dissociate themselves from their origins. The term ‘mid-century architecture’ is confusing because it encompasses all of California’s styles, and in general all buildings that open to the landscape. After 1945, this binary fusion took on a regional turn that continued to absorb other varied influences. As a result, the buildings began to resemble each other, despite having evolved within their own specific frameworks. It is possible that the Case Study House program led to this standardization. Its straightforward and streamlined marketing strategy for postwar Californian architecture may have had more of an impact than the diverse opinions of many architects. Mid-Century Modern is everything that pleases and that adds a regional touch. The triumphant march of the open floor plan began in the 1950s; it included the outdoor lifestyle as well as landscaping and a pool. Architects were hardly needed anymore.

Notes 1

Harwell Hamilton Harris, quoted in: Lisa Germany, “The Schism Intensified: Regionalism Becomes an Issue, 1948–1949,” in: Lisa Germany, Harwell Ham-

ilton Harris (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991), pp. 119–125, 120. 2

Wim de Wit, “The Style of the Future? The Vicissitudes of Modernism in Los Angeles,” in: Wim de Wit and Christopher James Alexander (eds.), Overdrive:

L. A. Constructs the Future, 1940–1990 (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2013), p. 65.

Bibliography  239

Bibliography Books and Articles Adamson, Paul, and Marty Arbunich, Eichler: Modernism Rebuilds the American Dream (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2002). Albrecht, Donald, Designing Dreams: Modern Architecture in the Movies (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2000). Alofsin, Anthony, Frank Lloyd Wright–Europe and Beyond (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). Alofsin, Anthony, Frank Lloyd Wright–The Lost Years, 1910–1922: A Study of Influence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Andersen, Timothy, et al., California Design 1910, catalog of an exhibition held by California Design, October 15–December 1, 1974 (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, reprint 1980). Andree, Herb, and Noel Young, Santa Barbara Architecture from Spanish Colonial to

Modern (Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 1975, rev. ed. 1995). Armstrong, Elizabeth, Birth of the Cool: California Art, Design, and Culture at Midcentury (Berlin: Prestel Publishers, 2007). Bacon, Mardges, Le Corbusier in America: Travels in the Land of the Timid (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003). Bahr, Ehrhard, “California Modern as Immigrant Modernism: Architects Richard Neutra and Rudolph  M. Schindler,” in: Ehrhard Bahr, Weimar on the Pacific: German Exile Culture in

Los Angeles and the Crisis of Modernism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), pp. 148–171. Bahr, Ehrhard, “Nach Westwood zum Haareschneiden: Zur externen und internen Topographie des kalifornischen Exils von Thomas Mann,” in: Newsletter of the Interna-

tional Feuchtwanger Society, Vol. 8, 2010, pp. 12–24. Baillie Scott, M. H., Houses and Gardens: Arts and Crafts Interiors (London: George Newnes, 1906). Banham, Mary, A Critic Writes: Essays by Reyner Banham (New York: Harper and Row, 1971; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001, reprint). Banham, Reyner, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971, reprint 2001). Banham, Reyner, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, 2nd edition (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980). Barron, Stephanie, exiles + emigrés: The Flight of European Artists from Hitler (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1997). Barron, Stephanie, et al., Reading California: Art, Image, and Identity, 1900–2000 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). Berns, Marla C. (ed.), The Furniture of R. M. Schindler (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997). Bode, Wilhelm von, Die italienische Plastik. Handbücher der königlichen Museen zu Berlin

mit Abbildungen (Berlin: W. Spemann, 1891). Boyd, Michael, “Furniture as Micro-Architecture,” in: Michael Boyd (ed.), R. M. Schindler’s

Gingold Commissions (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2007).

240  J.R. Davidson

Brooks, H. Allen, “Frank Lloyd Wright and the Wasmuth Drawings,” in: The Art Bulletin, 48, No. 2 (June 1966), pp. 193–202. Brown, Sally, “This Is the Way You Like to Live,” in: The Californian (Fall 1952), pp. 34–36. Buisson, Ethel, and Thomas Billard, The Presence of the Case Study Houses (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2004). Burton, Pamela, and Marie Botnick (eds.), Private Landscapes: Modernist Gardens in

Southern California (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002). Campbell, Gordon (ed.), The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts, Vol. 1 (London: Oxford University Press, 2006). Canizaro, Vincent B. (ed.), Architectural Regionalism: Collected Writings on Place, Identity,

Modernity, and Tradition (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007). Chase, John, Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving: Reflections on Building Production in the

Vernacular City (New York: Verso, 2004). Chase, Laura, “Eden in the Orange Groves: Bungalows and Courtyard Houses of Los Angeles,” in: Landscape, 25:3 (1981), pp. 29–36. Chusid, Jeffrey M., “Frank Lloyd Wright’s Textile Block System: The Freeman House,“ in: Carpenters-Contractors Cooperation Committee of Southern California, Concrete in

California (Los Angeles: The Committee, 1990), pp. 13–19. Clark, Alson, Wallace Neff, Architect of California’s Golden Age (Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 1986). Clark, Robert Judson, “Romanticism and Integration, 1880–1930,” in: Thomas S. Hines, Los

Angeles Transfer: Architecture in Southern California 1880–1980 (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, 1983), pp. 3–55. Clausen, Meredith L., et al., Wallace Neff, 1895–1982: The Romance of Regional Architec-

ture (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1998). Colomina, Beatriz, Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994). Craig-Kentgens, Margret, Bauhaus-Architektur: Die Rezeption in Amerika 1919–1936 (Frankfurt am Main, New York: Peter Lang, 1993). Cuff, Dana, The Provisional City: Los Angeles Stories of Architecture and Urbanism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). Curtis, William J. R., Modern Architecture since 1900, 3rd edition (London, New York: Phaidon, 2001). Dailey, Victoria, Natalie Shivers, and Michael Dawson, LA’s Early Moderns: Art/ Architecture/

Photography (Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 2004). Davis, Margaret Leslie, Bullocks Wilshire (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991). De Long, David G., et al., Frank Lloyd Wright: Designs for an American Landscape 1922–

1932 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996). De Wit, Wim, and Christopher James Alexander (eds.), Overdrive: L.A. Constructs the Future

1940–1990 (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2013). De Wit, Wim, “The Style of the Future? The Vicissitudes of Modernism in Los Angeles,” in: Wim de Wit, and Christopher James Alexander (eds.), Overdrive: L.A. Constructs the

Future 1940–1990 (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2013), pp. 65–80. Demetrios, Eames, An Eames Primer, revised edition (New York: Rizzoli, 2013).

Bibliography  241

Denzer, Anthony, Gregory Ain: The Modern Home as Social Commentary (New York: Rizzoli, 2008). Deverell, William, Whitewashed Adobe: The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of Its

Mexican Past (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004). Dieckmann, Erich, Möbelbau in Holz, Rohr und Stahl, Baubücher Band 11 (Stuttgart: Julius Hoffmann Verlag, 1931). Dogramaci, Burcu, and Karin Wimmer, Netzwerke des Exils: Künstlerische Verflechtungen,

Austausch und Patronage nach 1933 (Berlin: Gebrüder Mann, 2011). Dunlop, Beth, Building a Dream: The Art of Disney Architecture (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996). Eckbo, Garrett, Landscape for Living, New York, 1950 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press in association with LALH, 2002, reprint). Escher, Frank (ed.), John Lautner, Architect (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998). Faragher, John Mack, “Bungalow and Ranch House: The Architectural Backwash of California,” in: The Western Historical Quarterly, 32 (Summer 2001), pp. 149–173. Ferguson, Sarah, “Paul Poiret’s Total Look: Revolutionary Design Before Its Time,” in: Elle

Décor (November 1990), p. 64. Ferris, Helen McElfresh, “Irving John Gill, San Diego Architect 1870–1936,” in: Journal of

San Diego History, 17 (Fall 1971), pp. 1–19. Fienga, Doris, “The International Style in Los Angeles, 1930–1942. As Reflected in the Work of J. R. Davidson,” unpublished manuscript, Santa Barbara 1967, UCSB Archive. Fisher, Fiona, et al., Performance, Fashion and the Modern Interior: From the Victorians to

Today (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011). Fogelson, Robert M., The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850–1930 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967). Gebhard, David, “The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California (1895–1930),“ in:

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 26, No. 2 (May 1967), pp. 131–147. Gebhard, David, “William Wurster and His California Contemporaries: The Idea of Regionalism and Soft Modernism,“ in: Marc Treib (ed.), An Everyday Modernism: The

Houses of William Wurster (Oakland: University of California Press, 1995), pp. 164–183. Gebhard, David, and Harriette von Breton, Architecture in California 1868–1968 (Santa Barbara: University of California, 1968). Gebhard, David, and Harriette von Breton, Kem Weber (Santa Barbara: The Art Galleries, University of California, 1969). Gebhard, David, and Harriette von Breton, Los Angeles in the Thirties, 1931–1941, 2nd edition (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1989). Gebhard, David, and Patricia Gebhard, “The Furniture of R. M. Schindler,“ in: Marla C. Berns (ed.), The Furniture of R. M. Schindler (Santa Barbara: University of California, 1997), pp. 13–37. Gebhard, David, “Architectural Imagery, the Mission and California,” in: Harvard Architec-

ture Review, 1 (Spring 1980), pp. 136–145. Gebhard, David, Romanza: The California Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1988). Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter, Los Angeles: A Guide to Recent Architecture (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1994).

242  J.R. Davidson

Germany, Lisa, Harwell Hamilton Harris (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991). Gibbs, Jocelyn, and Nicholas Olsberg, “Prototypes and Possibilities, 1920 to 1960,“ in:

Carefree California: Cliff May and the Romance of the Ranch House (Santa Barbara and New York: Art, Design & Architecture Museum UCSB with Rizzoli, 2012), pp. 138–208. Gill, Irving, “The Home of the Future: The New Architecture of the West: Small Homes for a Great Country,” in: The Craftsman, 30 (May 1916), pp. 141–152. Glick Kudler, Adrian, “Never-Altered J R Davidson Modern in Pac Pal to Be Demolished,” in:

Destruction Watch (Curbed LA, May 17, 2013). https://la.curbed. com/2013/5/17/10247976/neveraltered-jr-davidson-modern-in-pac-pal-to-be-demolished Goldstein, Barbara, and Esther McCoy, Arts & Architecture: The Entenza Years, reprint (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1998). Graupe, Paul, Die Bestände der Firma Flatow & Priemer in Liquidation, Berlin: Versteigerung

146 am 10. und 11. Oktober 1935 (Berlin: Paul Graupe, 1935). Grawe, Gabriele D., Call for Action: Mitglieder des Bauhauses in Nordamerika (Weimar: VDG Weimar–Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, 2002). Gregory, Daniel P., Cliff May and the Modern Ranch House (New York: Rizzoli, 2008). Günther, Sonja, Bruno Paul 1874–1968 (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1992). Hardwick, Jeffrey M., Mall Maker: Victor Gruen, Architect of an American Dream (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Hatheway, Roger, and John Chase, “Irving Gill and the Aiken System,” in: Carpenters-Contractors Cooperation Committee of Southern California, Concrete in California (Los Angeles: The Committee, 1990), pp. 21–28. Hayden, Dolores, “Model Houses for the Millions: Architects’ Dreams, Builders’ Boasts, Residents’ Dilemmas,” in: Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for

Modern Living: History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), pp. 197–211. Helfrich, Kurt, Interview with Barnaby Davidson, Santa Barbara, October 11, 2004, transcript, pp. 1–69, UCSB Archive. Heredia, Juan Manuel, “The Work of Max Cetto: Restorations of Topography and Disciplinarity in Twentieth Century Modern Architecture,” thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2008. Hess, Alan, The Ranch House (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2004). Hines, Thomas S., Architecture of the Sun: Los Angeles Modernism 1900–1970 (New York: Rizzoli, 2010). Hines, Thomas S., “Case Study Trouvé: Sources and Precedents, Southern California, 1920–1942,” in: Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for Modern

Living: History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), pp. 83–106. Hines, Thomas S., “Designing for the Motor Age: Richard Neutra and the Automobile,” in:

Oppositions 21 (Summer 1980), pp. 34–51. Hines, Thomas S., interviews regarding Richard J. Neutra 1972–1980, Oral History, Box 1, Item C2–C3, 7’50, The Getty Research Institute. Hines, Thomas S., Irving Gill and the Architecture of Permanence (New York: The Monacelli Press, 2000). Hines, Thomas S., “Los Angeles Architecture: The Issue of Tradition in a Twentieth-Century City,” in: David G. De Long et al., American Architecture: Innovation and Tradition (New York: Rizzoli, 1986), pp. 112–129.

Bibliography  243

Hines, Thomas S., “Rationalism and Reintegration 1920–1980,” in: Thomas Hines et al., Los

Angeles Transfer: Architecture in Southern California 1880–1980 (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, 1983), pp. 59–120. Hines, Thomas S., Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994; New York: Rizzoli, 2006, 4th edition). Hines, Thomas S., et al., Los Angeles Transfer: Architecture in Southern California 1880–1980 (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, 1983). Hitchcock, Henry-Russell, and Philip Johnson, The International Style, 1932 (New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 1997, reprint). Howell-Ardila, Deborah, “The USC Experiment in Modern Architectural Pedagogy 1930 to 1960,” thesis, USC School of Architecture, Los Angeles, 2010. Hudson, Karen E., The Will and the Way: Paul R. Williams, Architect (New York: Rizzoli, 1994). James, George Wharton, “The Influence of the Mission Style upon the Civic and Domestic Architecture of Modern California,” in: The Craftsman, 5 (October 1903–March 1904), pp. 458–469. James-Chakraborty, Kathleen, Bauhaus Culture: from Weimar to the Cold War (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006). James-Chakraborty, Kathleen, “Erich Mendelsohn in America: Reinventing a Reputation for Modernism,” in: Bernd Nicolai, Architektur und Exil: Kulturtransfer und architektonische

Emigration von 1930 bis 1950 (Trier: Porta Alba, 2003), pp. 133–143. Jaumann, Anton, “Eine Dachwohnung,” in: Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, Vol. 28 (December 1924), pp. 156–162. Jencks, Charles, Heteropolis: Los Angeles, the Riots and the Strange Beauty of Hetero-Archi-

tecture (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1993). Jones, Amelia, and Elizabeth A. T. Smith, “The Thirty-Six Case Study Projects,“ in: Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of

the Case Study Houses (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), pp. 41–81. Jordy, William H., “The Aftermath of the Bauhaus in America: Gropius, Mies and Breuer,” in: Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn, The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America

1930–1960 (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969). Kamerling, Bruce, Irving J. Gill, Architect, San Diego (San Diego: San Diego Historical Society, 1993). Kamerling, Bruce, “Irving Gill: The Artist as Architect,” in: Journal of San Diego History, 25 (Spring 1979), pp. 151–190. Kaplan, Sam Hall, LA Lost & Found: An Architectural History of Los Angeles, 1987, reprint (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2000). Kaplan, Wendy (ed.), California Design 1930–1965: “Living in a Modern Way,” exhibition catalog (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011). Kaufmann, Edgar, Jr., “Frank Lloyd Wright’s Years of Modernism, 1925–1935,” in: Journal of

the Society of Architectural Historians, 24, No. 1 (March 1965), pp. 31–33. King, Anthony: “The Bungalow in India: Its Regional and Pre-Industrial Origin,” in:

Architectural Association Quarterly, 5 (1973), pp. 8–18. King, Anthony: “The Bungalow: Social Process and Urban Form: The Bungalow as an Indicator of Social Trends,“ in: Architectural Association Quarterly, 5 (1973), pp. 6–26.

244  J.R. Davidson

Klein, Norman M., The History of Forgetting: Los Angeles and the Erasure of Memory (London: Verso, 1997, revised edition 2008). Kristan, Markus, Adolf Loos. Läden und Lokale (Wien: Album Verlag, 2001). Lancaster, Clay, “The American Bungalow,“ in: Art Bulletin, 40 (1958). Lancaster, Clay, The Japanese Influence in America, 1963, reprint (New York: Abbeville Press, 1983). Lavin, Sylvia, Form Follows Libido: Architecture and Richard Neutra in a Psychoanalytic

Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007). Lee, Howard, “Set in a Lemon Grove,” in: Los Angeles Times (March 28, 1948). Lint-Sagarena, Roberto, “Building California’s Past: Mission Revival Architecture and Regional Identity,” in: Journal of Urban History, 28:4 (2002), pp. 429–444. Long, Christopher, Kem Weber: Designer and Architect (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2014). Long, Christopher, The Looshaus (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2011). Long, Christopher, “The Rise of California Modern Design, 1930–1941,” in: Wendy Kaplan (ed.), California Design 1930–1965: “Living in a Modern Way,” exhibition catalog (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 60–89. Longstreth, Richard, City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and

Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920–1950 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997). Longstreth, Richard, “Don’t Get Out: The Automobile’s Impact on Five Building Types in Los Angeles, 1921–1941,” in: Arris, Journal of the Southeast Chapter of the Society of

Architectural Historians, 7 (1996), pp. 32–56. Longstreth, Richard, The Drive-In, the Supermarket, and the Transformation of Commercial

Space in Los Angeles, 1914–1941 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999). Loughrey, Peter, R. M. Schindler: The Gingold Commissions (San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2008). Lowell, Waverly, Elizabeth Byrne, and Betsy Frederick-Rothwell, Design on the Edge:

A Century of Teaching Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, 1903–2003 (Berkeley: College of Environmental Design, University of California, 2009). Mann, Thomas, “Letter to Heinrich, Los Angeles, Brentwood, September 22, 1940,” in: Hans Wysling (ed.), Letters of Heinrich and Thomas Mann, 1900–1949, translated by Don Reneau (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1970), p. 238. Matthews, Henry, “The Promotion of Modern Architecture by the Museum of Modern Art in the 1930s,“ in: Journal of Design History, 1 (1994), pp. 43–59. May, Cliff, with the editorial staff of Sunset—The Magazine of Western Living, Sunset

Western Ranch Houses (San Francisco: Lane Publishing Co., 1946). McCall, Ethel, “Three Levels of Living,” in: Los Angeles Times (May 4, 1952). McCoy, Esther, “A Statement of Architectural Principles,” in: Los Angeles Times Home

Magazine (1954). McCoy, Esther, Case Study Houses, 1945–1962 (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1977). McCoy, Esther, “Expecting a Crowd,” in: Los Angeles Times (November 28, 1958). McCoy, Esther, Five California Architects (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1960). McCoy, Esther, “Interview J. R. Davidson, Ojai 1974,” in: Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Bibliography  245

McCoy, Esther, “J. R. Davidson,” in: LA Architect (May 1977). McCoy, Esther, “Magic Color from Mexico,” in: Los Angeles Times (January 24, 1954). McCoy, Esther, “Something to Wrap the Herring In,“ in: Progressive Architecture, 67 (February 1986), p. 25. McCoy, Esther, The Second Generation (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1984). McCoy, Esther, “They Started with Nothing but Problems,“ in: Los Angeles Times Home

Magazine (July 8, 1962). McCoy, Esther, “Tranquil House, Modern, Airy,” in: Los Angeles Times Home Magazine (May 22, 1960), pp. 40–41. McCoy, Esther, Vienna to Los Angeles: Two Journeys (Santa Monica: Arts & Architecture Press, 1979). McCoy, Esther, “Want a Practical House,“ in: Los Angeles Times Home Magazine (December 1, 1946). McCoy, Esther, and Evelyn Hitchcock, “The Ranch House,” in: Charles W. Moore and Kathryn Smith (eds.), Home Sweet Home: American Domestic Vernacular Architecture (New York: Rizzoli, 1983), pp. 85–89. McMillian, Elizabeth Jean, “Erich Mendelsohn and His Influence on American Architecture and Design of the Thirties,” thesis, USC School of Architecture, Los Angeles, 1984. Mendelssohn, Peter de (ed.), Thomas Mann, Tagebücher 1940–1943 (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 1982). Meyer, Kimberly, and Susan Morgan, Sympathetic Seeing: Esther McCoy and the Heart of

American Modernist Architecture and Design (Nürnberg: Verlag für moderne Kunst, 2012). Millier, Arthur, “Building of Our Age: California Designers of Modern Style: Architecture Distinguished from Those Who Imitate,” in: Los Angeles Times (April 27, 1930). Moore, Charles W., et al., The City Observed: Los Angeles, A Guide to Its Architecture and

Landscapes (New York: Vintage Books, 1984). Morgan, Susan, Piecing Together Los Angeles: An Esther McCoy Reader (Los Angeles: East of Borneo Books, 2012). Mumford, Lewis, “The Sky Line: Status Quo [‘Bay Region Style’],” in: The New Yorker (October 11, 1947), pp. 104–110. Murray, Stewart Frank, “Color in Common Things,“ in: The Painter and Decorator, XXVI, No. 5 (May 1912), pp. 299–301, No. 6 (June 1912), pp. 367–368. Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for Modern Living: History and

Legacy of the Case Study Houses (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998). Museum of Modern Art, Modern Architecture in California (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1935). Muthesius, Hermann, Das englische Haus: Entwicklung, Bedingungen, Anlage, Aufbau,

Einrichtung und Innenraum, 1–3 (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1904). Muthesius, Hermann, Das moderne Landhaus und seine innere Ausstattung (München: F. Bruckmann, 1905). Nelson, George, and Henry Wright, Tomorrow’s House: A Complete Guide for the Home

Builder (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1945). Neutra, Richard, “Furniture Made by the User for Himself,“ manuscript for Woman’s Day

Magazine, 1–2 (Spring 1945), Richard and Dion Neutra papers 1925–1970, UCLA Special Collections.

246  J.R. Davidson

Neutra, Richard, “Regionalism in Architecture, 1939,” in: Vincent B. Canizaro (ed.),

Architectural Regionalism: Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity, and Tradition (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007), pp. 276–279. Neutra, Richard, Wie baut Amerika? (Stuttgart: J. Hoffmann, 1927). Nicolai, Bernd, Architektur und Exil: Kulturtransfer und architektonische Emigration von

1930 bis 1950 (Trier: Porta Alba, 2003). Nicolai, Bernd, “Exil Akkulturation Kulturtransfer: Prolegomena zu einer Professionsge­ schichte der deutschsprachigen Architekten in der Emigration 1930–1960,” in: Bernd Nicolai et al., Architektur und Exil: Kulturtransfer und architektonische Emigration von

1930 bis 1950 (Trier: Porta Alba, 2003), pp. 5–13. Oechslin, Werner, “Exil versus Internationalismus,” in: Bernd Nicolai, Architektur und Exil:

Kulturtransfer und architektonische Emigration von 1930 bis 1950 (Trier: Porta Alba, 2003), pp. 15–24. Olsberg, Nicholas, et al., Between Heaven and Earth: John Lautner (New York: Rizzoli, 2008). Olsberg, Nicholas, et al., Carefree California: Cliff May and the Romance of the Ranch

House (New York: Rizzoli, 2012). Pascal, Patrick, Kesling Modern Structures: Popularizing Modern Design in Southern

California 1934–1962 (Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 2002). Pastier, John, “Funny, It Didn’t Look Depressed,” in: Los Angeles Times (April 14, 1975). Pfaff, Lilian, “Defining View: Nature as Architectural Element,“ in: Jocelyn Gibbs, Debi Howell-Ardila, Anthony Denzer, Lilian Pfaff, Alan Hess, Santa Barbara Museum (eds.),

Outside In: The Architecture of Smith and Williams (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2015), pp. 129–155. Pfaff, Lilian, “Die Planungen von Victor Gruen: Der Konsum revolutioniert die Stadt,” in:

archithese, No. 5 (2011), pp. 34–38. Pfaff, Lilian, “Dieses Haus soll mehr sein als ein Denkmal,” in: Neue Zürcher Zeitung (June 20, 2018), p. 36. Pfaff, Lilian, “A more gemütlich version of the International Style: Julius Ralph Davidson,” in:

archithese, No. 5 (2011), pp. 34–39. Pfaff, Lilian, “Gestalteter Komfort: Zum Möbeldesign von Richard Neutra,” in: Marta Herford and Klaus Leuschel (eds.), Richard Neutra in Europa, 1960–1970 (Köln: Dumont, 2011), pp. 205–218. Pfaff, Lilian, “Go West: Transatlantischer Austausch zwischen Europa und Kalifornien,” in:

archithese, No. 5 (2011), pp. 28–33. Pfaff, Lilian, “Interview Barnaby Davidson, Santa Barbara, May 19, 2012,” unpublished. Pfaff, Lilian, “Kulturdenkmal auf dem Immobilienmarkt,“ in: TEC21 (August 2016), p. 6. Pfaff, Lilian, “Leere Gesten: Das Ambassador Hotel,“ in: TEC21, 39 (2010), pp. 31–35. Pflueller Davidson, Lisa, “A Service Machine: Hotel Guests and the Developement of an Early-Twentieth-Century Building Type,“ in: Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, Vernacular Architecture Forum 10: Building Environments (2005), pp. 113–129. Polyzoides, Stefanos, et al., Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles: A Typological Analysis (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1982, reprint 1997). Richardson, Sara S., J. R. Davidson. A Bibliography, Architecture Series, Bibliography A 1832 (Monticello: Vance Bibliographies, 1987). Riedel, Hubert, Lucian Bernhard: Unter anderem Plakate, Brandenburgische Kunstsammlungen (Berlin: Fata Morgana, 2002).

Bibliography  247

Rouillard, Dominique, Building the Slope: Hillside Houses 1920–1960 (Santa Monica: Arts and Architecture Press, 1984). Samson, Miles David, “German-American Dialogues and the Modern Movement Before the ‘Design Migration 1910–1933’,” thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1988. Schermerhorn, Clarence Eaton, “Planning the Bungalow,“ in: William Phillips Comstock and Clarence Eaton Schermerhorn, Bungalows, Camps, and Mountain Houses: 80 Classic

American Designs (Washington 1908; reprint New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2007), pp. 33–40. Schindler, Pauline, “Group Offices for Physicians, an Alteration in Los Angeles,” in:

Architectural Record (August 1932), pp. 88–90. Schindler, Rudolph  M., “Care of the Body’: Shelter or Playground,” Los Angeles Times, May 2, 1926; reprinted in August Sarnitz, R. M. Schindler Architect: 1887–1953 (New York: Rizzoli, 1988), pp. 46–47. Schulenburg, Silke, et al., Pacific Palisades: Wege deutschsprachiger Schriftsteller ins

kalifornische Exil 1932–1941 (Lübeck: Mare Verlag, 2006). Searing, Helen, “Case Study Houses in the Grand Modern Tradition,” in: Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA (ed.), Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of the

Case Study Houses (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), pp. 107–130. Serraino, Pierluigi, “Regionalism versus the International Style: The Origins of a Split,” in: Pierluigi Serraino (ed.), NorCalMod: Icons of Northern California Modernism (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2006), n. p. Serraino, Pierluigi (ed.), NorCalMod: Icons of Northern California Modernism (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2006). Sitton, Tom, and William Deverell (eds.), Metropolis in the Making: Los Angeles in the 1920s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001). Sklarek, Rolf, “Making the Most of California,” in: Los Angeles Times (April 15, 1951). Smith, Whitney Rowland, “Japanese Influence in California Architecture,” undated typescript, Smith and Williams records, p. 1, UCSB Archive. Smith, Elizabeth A. T., Case Study Houses: 1945–1966, The California Impetus (Köln: Taschen, 2007). Smith, Elizabeth A. T., and Julius Shulman, Case Study Houses: The Complete CSH Program

1945–1966 (Köln: Taschen, 2002). Smith, Elizabeth A. T., and Michael Darling, R. M. Schindler: Architektur und Experiment (Ostfildern: Hatje-Cantz, 2001). Smith, Kathryn, “Chicago–Los Angeles: The Concrete Connection,” in: CarpentersContractors Cooperation Committee of Southern California, Concrete in California (Los Angeles: The Committee, 1990), pp. 5–11. Smith, Kathryn, “Frank Lloyd Wright, Hollyhock House, and Olive Hill, 1914–1924,” in: The

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 38, No. 1 (March 1979), pp. 15–33. Sontag, Susan, “11: Pilgrimage,” in: Stephen D. Dowden (ed.), A Companion to Thomas

Mann’s The Magic Mountain (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 1999), pp. 221–239. Steffes, Patrick, “Good Modern: The Forgotten Work of James F. Eppenstein,“ Part 1, accessed November 1, 2016, http://forgottenchicago.com/features/good-modern-theforgotten-work-of-james-f-eppenstein-part-1/. Sweeney, Robert, Wright in Hollywood: Visions of a New Architecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994).

248  J.R. Davidson

Tortora, Phyllis G., and Keith Eubank, Survey of Historic Costume, 5th edition (New York: Fairchild, 2010). Treib, Marc, An Everyday Modernism: The Houses of William Wurster (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). Troy, Nancy J., “Poiret’s Modernism and the Logic of Fashion,“ in: Harold Koda and Andrew Bolton (eds.), Poiret, exhibition catalog, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 17–24. Tselos, Dimitri, “Frank Lloyd Wright and World Architecture,“ in: Journal of the Society of

Architectural Historians, 28, No. 1 (March 1969), pp. 58–72. Turner, Paul V., Mrs. Hoover’s Pueblo Walls: The Primitive and the Modern in the Lou Henry

Hoover House (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004). Twombly, Robert C., “Saving the Family: Middle Class Attraction to Wright’s Prairie House, 1901–1909,” in: American Quarterly, 27 (1975), pp. 57–72. Vidler, Anthony, Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008). Volland, Jennifer M., and Cara Mullio, Edward A. Killingsworth (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2013). Wagener, Wolfgang, Raphael Soriano (London, New York: Phaidon, 2002). Wayne, Andrews. Architecture, Ambition, and the Americans: A Social History of American

Architecture (Glencoe: Free Press, 1964). Wefing, Heinrich, “Das Haus des Zauberers: Julius R. Davidson, Paul Huldschinsky und Thomas Manns Villa in Pacific Palisades: ‘We are at Home Wherever the Desk Stands’: Thomas Mann’s Residence in Pacific Palisades,“ in: Mechthild Borries‐Knop (ed.), Building

Paradise: Exile Architecture in California (Berlin: Kreis der Freunde und Förderer der Villa Aurora e.V., 2004), pp. 48–101. Wells, Percy A., and John Hopper, Modern Cabinet Work, Furniture & Fitments, 3rd edition (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1922). Whiteley, Nigel (ed.), Reyner Banham, Historian of the Immediate Future (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003). Wigley, Mark, White Walls, Designer Dresses: The Fashioning of Modern Architecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996). Winter, Robert, The California Bungalow (Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1980). Winter, Robert (ed.), Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of

California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). Wright, Gwendolyn, and Janet Parks (eds.), The History of History in American Schools of

Architecture, 1865–1975 (New York: The Temple Hoyne Buell Center for the Study of American Architecture, with Princeton Architectural Press, 1990). Wysling, Hans (ed.), Letters of Heinrich and Thomas Mann, 1900–1949, translated by Don Reneau (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970).

Unpublished Sources and Newspaper Articles Notebook I: 1902–1903 Notebook II: 1904–1905 Notebook III: 09/05/1905 Notebook IV: 16/02/1908 Notebook V: 01/08/1910

Bibliography  249

Notebook VI: 1911 Notebook VII: 05/09/1912 Notebook VIII: 1912 Notebook IX: 1912 Notebook X: 02/06/1913 Notebook XI: 1913 Notebook XII: 1916 Notebook XIII: January 1919 Notebook XIV: January 1924 Notebook XV: April 1929 Notebook XVI: undated Notebook XVII: undated Notebook XVIII: undated Notebook XIX: undated Notebook XX: undated All of Davidson’s surviving 20 notebooks are at the UCSB Archive, Box 6, Folder 4–23. The Roman numerals are not part of the original documents but were added to make the chronology apparent. The dates are given as noted on the originals and follow the German order, where the day precedes the month. “C. D. Hite Company. Small Shops,” in: Architectural Record (October 1929), pp. 355–360. “Modern Architecture Show,“ in: Los Angeles Times (April 20, 1930). “Building for Our Age: California Designers of Modern Style Architecture Distinguished From Those Who Imitate,“ in: Los Angeles Times (April 27, 1930). “Inexpensive Type Home Plan Shown,” in: Los Angeles Times (June 22, 1930). “Art Club Presents Exhibition: Contemporary Creative California Architecture to be Shown,“ in: Los Angeles Times (June 22, 1930). “Restaurant at Los Angeles,” in: Architectural Record (September 1930), pp. 235–241. “Working Details,” in: Architectural Record (September 1930), pp. 3, 231, 235–241, 253. “Satyr Book Shop,” in: Architectural Record (December 1930), pp. 457–459. “Schilling’s Flowers,” in: Architectural Record (December 1930), p. 460. “Portfolio of Shops and Small Stores,” in: Architectural Record (December 1930), pp. 6, 457–459, 460. “The Bachelors,” in: Architectural Record (April 1932), pp. 223–234. “The Shop Checklist,” in: Architectural Forum (May 1933), pp. 381–398. “Lora Lee Shop. The Chainstore for Women’s Dresses,” in: Architectural Record (November 1933), pp. 388–390. “Hotel Shoreland, Chicago, Apartment Interior and Bar,” in: Architectural Record (June 1934), pp. 516–519. “Two Bars, two Bedrooms Revised, a Shop, a Restaurant,” in: Architect and Engineer (December 1935), pp. 35–36. “The Restaurant,” in: Architect and Engineer (December 1935), pp. 34–39. “New Sardi’s Café Makes Ingenious Use of Glass,” in: Architectural Record. Building News (December 1937), pp. 28–30. “Restaurant Sardi en Hollywood,” in: Nuestra Arquitectura (May1939), pp. 160–163.

250  J.R. Davidson

“Thirty Distinguished Houses and Plans,” in: House and Garden, Section II. (November 1939), pp. 1–34. “House of Herbert Stothart,” in: Architectural Forum (January 1940), pp. 44–45. “Residence of Dr. and Mrs. L. M. Maitland,” in: California Arts & Architecture (March 1940), pp. 26–27. “California Modern, the Herbert Stothart Residence,” in: California Arts & Architecture (May 1940), pp. 26–27. “Remodeled House in Bel-Air,” in: Architectural Forum (August 1940), pp. 116–117. “Twin Houses in Encino for the Maurice Berksons,” in: California Arts & Architecture (August 1940), pp. 26–27. “Villa a Santa Monica,” in: Costruzioni Casabella 13 (December 1940), p. 44. “Kalifornien ist das Wunschland der Architekten,” in: Die Westküste. Kalifornien-Ausgabe

des Aufbau, 7, No. 33 (1941). “Illustrating the Perfection of Terra Cotta Ceramic Veneer,” in: Architect and Engineer (April 1941), pp. 40–51. “Gretna Green Apartments, Brentwood, California, Designed by J. R. Davidson,” in:

California Arts & Architecture (June 1941), pp. 26–27. “Thomas Mann Home Started on Riviera, Noted Novelist Plans to Become Californian,” in:

Evening Outlook (July 12, 1941), p. 7. “Small House on a Hill,” in: California Arts & Architecture (October 1941), pp. 30–31. “Interiors…,” in: California Arts & Architecture (November 1941), pp. 24–25. “Multiple Dwelling,” in: Los Angeles Times (July 5, 1942). “Small Medical Building,” in: California Arts & Architecture (September 1942), pp. 26–27. “House for Thomas Mann,” in: California Arts & Architecture (December 1942), pp. 37–38. “Three Medical Buildings,” in: Architectural Forum (November 1943), pp. 91–98. “Small House,“ in: California Arts & Architecture (March 1944), p. 27. “How to Look at a House,” in: Sunset—The Magazine of Western Living (April 1944), pp. 10–13. “Interiors by J. R. Davidson, Mr. and Mrs. Rubin Sabsay,” in: California Arts & Architecture (June 1944), pp. 28–29. “Living,” in: Architectural Forum (June 1944), pp. 33–35. “Home of Dr. and Mrs. L. M. Maitland, Bel Air, California,” in: House and Garden (August 1944), pp. 40–41. “Country House,” in: California Arts & Architecture (September 1944), pp. 30–31. “Houses,” in: Architectural Forum (September 1944), pp. 113–117. “Country House,“ in: California Art & Architecture (September 1944), pp. 30–31. “Mountain View and Ocean Breeze,” in: Western Building (November 1944), pp. 8–9. “Snapshots,” in: Interiors (November 1944), pp. 66–69, p. 90. “Quietud y Frescura con innovaciones: Davidson Projectas,” in: Nuestra Arquitectura (November 1944), pp. 391–397. “Arts and Craft Center,“ in: Arts & Architecture (December 1944), pp. 34–37. “Case Study House Program,” in: Arts & Architecture (January 1945), pp. 37–39. “Case Study House # 1 (Collaborator Greta Davidson),” in: Arts & Architecture (February 1945), pp. 42–44 (March 1945), pp. 48–52. “Modern Planning for the Market,” in: Architectural Record (May 1945), pp. 92–94.

Bibliography  251

“Country House for Mr. and Mrs. James Vigeveno, Ojai Valley, California,” in: Architectural

Record (July 1945), pp. 100–103. “Apartments, West Los Angeles,” in: Architectural Forum (July 1945), pp. 122–124. “Can we Expect ‘Miracles’ in Postwar Houses?,” in: Los Angeles Times (August 5, 1945). “Herbert Stothart House,” in: LIFE Magazine (October 1945), pp. 111–114. “Lighting Specifications of Case Study House #1,” in: Arts & Architecture (November 1945), pp. 45–48. “Case Study House #11,” in: Arts & Architecture (January 1946), pp. 37–44. “A Poem in Architecture,” in: Los Angeles Times (February 17, 1946). “Forty Houses: Architectural Forum’s Special House Issue,” in: Architectural Forum (April 1946), pp. 120–121. “California Plans for Living,” in: The New York Times Magazine (July 1946). “Case Study House Solves the Living Problems of a Small Family,” in: Architectural Forum (October 1946), pp. 106–108. “Case Study House #15,” in: Arts & Architecture (January 1947), pp. 35–37. “Case Study House #11: Tenancy Study,” in: Arts & Architecture (March 1947), pp. 37–41. “1946 Progressive Architecture Awards,” in: Pencil Points, 28 (June 1947), pp. 53–60. “It Isn’t the Size of a House that Counts. Case Study House #15,“ in: Better Homes and

Gardens (August 1947), pp. 42–45. “The Year’s Work,” in: Interiors (August 1947), p. 89. “Providing for Essentials Only,” in: Interiors (September 1947), p. 84. “The New Empiricism,“ in: Architectural Review (January 1948), p. 10. “City House,” in: Arts & Architecture (January 1948), pp. 30–31. “Case Study Houses,” in: Arts & Architecture (May 1948), pp. 26–27. “Casa en Santa Monica 1, California,” in: Nuestra Arquitectura (July 1948), pp. 246–257. “Casa en Santa Monica 2, California,” in: Nuestra Arquitectura (July 1948), pp. 2–12. “House Near the Pacific Ocean,” in: Arts & Architecture (July 1948), pp. 29–31. “Planned for Terrace Living,” in: Architectural Record (August 1948), pp. 92–99. “This Year’s Work,” in: Interiors (August 1948), pp. 76–113. “Houses: Architectural Building Type Study, Number 141,“ in: Architectural Record (September 1948), pp. 82–134. “Custom-Designed for a Steep Site,” in: Architectural Record (September 1948), pp. 114–116. “Bay Region Domestic,” in: Architectural Review (October 1948), pp. 164–170. “Lore Kingsley: We built a modern house,” in: Mademoiselle Living Magazine (Winter 1948). “Is There a Bay Area Style?,” in: Architectural Record (May 1949), pp. 94–95. “Four Contemporary American Houses, Architects: R. J. Neutra, J. A. Stein, C. Ellwood, J. R. Davidson,” in: Arts & Architecture (October 1949), pp. 32–38. “Houses,” in: Architectural Forum (March 1950), pp. 126–129. “Sixteen Southern California architects exhibit contemporary trends in a group showing at Scripps College,“ in: Arts & Architecture, 67 (April 1950), pp. 22–33. “Space is what you make it,” in: House & Garden (October 1950), pp. 190–192. “House in the Hills,” in: Arts & Architecture (December 1952), pp. 24–25. “Residencia en Los Angeles,” in: Nuestra Arquitectura (March 1953), pp. 73–76. “City Residence Boasts Country Privacy, House for Mr. and Mrs. Gustav Dann, Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles, California,” in: Architectural Record (August 1953), pp. 141–147. “Residencia en Los Angeles,” in: Nuestra Arquitectura, 2 (February 1954), pp. 42–46.

252  J.R. Davidson

“Respect for Age-group Needs,“ in: Progressive Architecture (February 1954), pp. 94–97. “House,” in: Arts & Architecture (August 1956), p. 21. “Religious Center by J. R. Davidson,” in: Arts & Architecture (May 1959), pp. 20–21. “You Need Shelter—Somewhere,” in: Los Angeles Times (April 3, 1960). “California Living. J. R. Davidson’s Home for Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Taylor,” in: The Califor-

nian Magazine (reprint). “House Designed by J. R. Davidson,” in: Arts & Architecture (September 1962), pp. 16–17. “J. R. Davidson, 1889–1977,” in: Progressive Architecture (September 1977), p. 25, 28. “Second Time,” in: Los Angeles Times Magazine (January 18, 1998). “Fate of J. R. Davidson House,“ in: Peril; Furniture to Go to Auction https://lamodern. com/2013/04/fate-of-j-r-davidson-house-in-peril-furniture-to-go-to-auction/.

List of Works  253

List of Works All works in bold still exist.

BERLIN 1919 ·  House Pfeifferling (façade and dining room) Berlin-Grunewald

·  Conversion of Dupont Apartment, Berlin-Charlottenburg



·  House in Saxony (for a partner of Dupont)



·  House Hans Feigen, Bonn

1921 ·  Apartment conversion, Berlin-Schöneberg 1922 ·  Two stores for Stiller Shoes, Berlin

·  Auditorium Hupfeld Piano (lighting concept), Berlin

LOS ANGELES 1925 ·  Stage set design for The Happy Hypocrite  (project)

·  House Beautiful Cover (project)



·  California Sport Cover (project)

1926 ·  Cocoanut Grove, Ambassador Hotel (lighting), Los Angeles (destroyed)

·  Hilda Deesy Gowns Clothing Store, Los Angeles (destroyed)



·  Madame Louise Germaine Beauty Shop, Los Angeles (destroyed)

1927 · Hite-Bilicke and J. R. Davidson Office, Los Angeles (destroyed)

· Premiere Confectionery Store (interior renovation and lamp design),



·  Tierney & Co. Restaurant and Café-Bar, Los Angeles (probably project)

Los Angeles (destroyed) 1928 ·  Nikabob Restaurant (menu design), Los Angeles 1929 · Hi-Hat Restaurant (Store No. 4; later The Brown Derby and Perino’s Restaurant), Los Angeles (destroyed)

·  Bachelor’s Haberdashery Shop (Store No. 2), Los Angeles (destroyed)



·  Pearl Stroup (Store No. 5), Los Angeles (destroyed)



·  Satyr Book Shop (Store No. 3), Los Angeles (destroyed)



·  Schilling’s Flower Store (Store No. 1), Los Angeles (destroyed)



·  Lee Hamilton Beauty Salon, Los Angeles (destroyed)



·  Preissman & Co. Real Estate Office, Los Angeles (destroyed)

1930 ·  Archie Bilicke Apartment (remodeling and furniture), Los Angeles (destroyed)

·  Roosevelt Hotel lobby (furniture), Hollywood, California

1931 ·  Drive-in Curb Market for Hite-Bilicke, Los Angeles (project)

·  Hovde and Mulligan Office Building (interiors and furniture), Hollywood, California



·  Richard Bransten Residence, San Francisco (project)

1932 ·  Lora Lee Dress Shop (remodeling and furniture), Hollywood, California 1934 · Red (Golden) Lion Inn at the Sheridan Plaza Hotel (remodeling and furniture), Chicago (destroyed)

· Bar and Tavern at the Hotel Knickerbocker (remodeling), Chicago (destroyed)



· Bar, Cocktail Lounge, and Rooms, Hotel Shoreland (remodeling), Chicago (destroyed)

1935 · Cocktail Lounge and Bar, Los Angeles (project) 1936 · Stephen A. Hoag Residence, Toluca Lake, North Hollywood, California (destroyed)

· Senator Hotel (remodeling), Sacramento (destroyed)

254  J.R. Davidson

1937 · Maitland Residence (remodeling), Bel-Air, California

· Sardi’s Restaurant (remodeling and furniture), Los Angeles (remodeled later)

1938 · Herbert Stothart House, Santa Monica, California (destroyed)

· Morgan Camera Shop (remodeling and furniture), Los Angeles (project)

1939 · Houston Branch Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)

· Maurice Berkson, Two Residences, Encino, California (remodeled later).



· Samuel D. Cytron Residence, Beverly Hills, California (destroyed)

1940 · H. S. Anderson Residence, Los Angeles (remodeled later)

 retna Green Apartments (Drucker Apartments), Los Angeles ·  G



· Dr. J. S. Druckman Residence, Los Angeles (remodeled later).



 ubin Sabsay House, Los Angeles (remodeled later by Schindler) ·  R



· Drive-in Arts & Crafts Shopping Center, Los Angeles (project)

1941 · Hans Buki House, Los Angeles (project)

 homas Mann House, Pacific Palisades, California (remodeled later) ·  T



·  James Vigeveno House #1, Ojai, California

1942 · Dr. B. F. Feingold and Dr. J. M. Harris Medical Building, Los Angeles (destroyed)

 tudio D. Rajagopal House, Ojai, California ·  S



· Fairfax Temple, Society for Jewish Culture (remodeling), Los Angeles (destroyed)

1943 · Jack G. Shapiro House, Los Angeles 1944 · Development Duplex, Los Angeles (project)

· John Farrow Office Building, Paramount Pictures (interiors), Los Angeles (destroyed)



· Walter Foster House, Bishop, California



· Blake G. Smith House, Laguna Beach, California (remodeled and extended later)

1945 · Robert Rosson Residence (remodeling and furniture), Los Angeles 1946 · Edward A. Adams Office (interior and furniture), Art Center College of Design, Los Angeles (destroyed)

· Floyd D. Crosby Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)



· Joseph Kingsley House, Pacific Palisades, California (destroyed)



 rs. Paul Kingsley House, Pacific Palisades, California (remodeled later) ·  M



· Bookworm, bookstore for Ilia Khmara, Los Angeles (project)



· R. A. Mia House, Johannesburg, South Africa (project)



· Adolph Rosenstein Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)



· Dr. E. Kost Shelton Residence, Los Angeles (remodeled later)



· Ben Silver Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)



· E. L. Stancliff Residence, Pacific Palisades, California (destroyed)



· Irving Stone Residence (remodeling and furniture), Beverly Hills, California



· Case Study House #11 (Cron House), Los Angeles (destroyed)

1947 · Case Study House #15, La Cañada Flintridge, California (identical with CSH #11 design) (remodeled later)

· Julius Ralph Davidson House, Los Angeles (destroyed)



· A. R. Golden Residence, Los Angeles (remodeled later)



 am A. Taylor Residence, Los Angeles. With Garrett Eckbo ·  S



· Milton Wichner Residence, Los Angeles (remodeled later)



· Mrs. Dr. J. H Billing Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)

1948 · Houston Branch Residence, Playa Del Rey, California (remodeled later)

· Mrs. J. M. Gross House, Duarte, California (destroyed)

List of Works  255



·  Case Study House #1, Toluca Lake, North Hollywood, California



· Helen Nace Saterlee Residence, Los Angeles (remodeled later)



·  A. E. Wollman Residence, Los Angeles



Joseph R. Osherenko Residence, Beverly Hills, California · 

1949 ·  Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence, Los Angeles 1950 · Rachford Harris House, Los Angeles (remodeled later)

· Arthur M. Ross Residence, Los Angeles



· Gustav H. Dann House, Los Angeles (destroyed)

1951 · Charlotte Auerbach Residence, Los Angeles (remodeled later)

· Sampson Schoenbrun Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)



· Kurt Greer Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)

1952 · Joseph R. Osherenko Commercial Building (remodeling and furniture), Los Angeles (destroyed)

· California Fashion Publications building, Los Angeles (project)

1953 · Sam A. Harris Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)

· Dorothy Hindin Residence (recreation room addition), Los Angeles



· Fausto Ricci Residence (interior), Beverly Hills, California



· John Stroud Residence, Catalina, California (project)

1954 · Dr. C. O. Furniss Residence (remodeling and guesthouse), Los Angeles,

· Dr. C. O. Furniss Vacation Home (project)



· Dr. Anna Kulka Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)

1955 · Dr. Roger Egeberg House, Los Angeles

· Margrit Munk House (addition), Los Angeles



· Arnold H. Newman Residence, Los Angeles

1956 · Mr. Fenichel and Mrs. Munk House (garage and deck), Malibu, California 1957 · Earl Cohen Residence (remodeling), Beverly Hills, California (project)

· W. H. McLauchlan Residence, Hemet, California



Dr. David Rabinowitz Residence, Bel Air, Los Angeles · 

1958 · Dr. R. H. Jokl House, Los Angeles (destroyed)

 r. Hanna Fenichel Residence, Los Angeles ·  D



· Fritz Katzky Residence, Los Angeles (destroyed)

1959 · House of the Book, Brandeis Institute, Santa Susana, California (project). With Garrett Eckbo 1960 · James Vigeveno House #2, Ojai, California 1963 · Joseph R. Osherenko House (terrace roof), Beverly Hills, California 1964 · Esther McCoy Duplex (remodeling), Santa Monica, California (destroyed)  estgate Apartment (four units), Los Angeles 1965 · W 1968 · R. P. Klein House (remodeling), Los Angeles

· Joseph R. Osherenko House (remodeling), Beverly Hills, California

1972 · Mark Bloome House (remodeling), Los Angeles 1975 · Justman House (remodeling and addition to existing Margrit Munk House), Los Angeles Date unknown 

· Herman Koniarski Real Estate Insurance Building, Los Angeles (project, probably late



· Cocktail Lounge, Los Angeles (project, possibly for Nikabob Restaurant)

1940s)

256  J.R. Davidson

Index

Aalto, Alvar 207 Abell, Thornton 136, 139

Bauhaus 47, 51, 84, 86, 89, 92, 94, 107, 116, 123, 236

Academy of Modern Art, Los Angeles 102, 103

Bayreuth Government Building 47

A. C. Bilicke Building, Los Angeles 65

Behrens, Peter 16

Adam, James 21

Bennett, James Gordon Jr. 20

Adam, Robert 21

Berkson, Maurice 202

Adams-Acton, Murray 19, 25

Bernhard, Lucian 35

Adams, Edward A. “Tink” 102

Better Homes and Gardens 202

Adams, George J. 62

Bilicke, Albert Clay 53

Ain, Gregory 7, 8, 45, 103, 236, 237, 239

Bilicke, Carl Archibald 53, 77

Albers, Josef 94

Bilicke-Davidson Architecture Department 53

Alexander Koch publishers 32, 33, 34

Bilicke, Gayle 53

Altona Town Hall, Hamburg 16, 17

Blake G. Smith House, Laguna Beach 111, 115,

Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles 26, 48, 70, 73 American Institute of Architecture 221 Archipenko, Gela 84

117 Bookworm, bookstore for Ilia Khmara, Los Angeles 71

Architectural League of New York 36

Bow, Clara 36

Architectural Record 40, 41, 42, 57, 63,

Brandstatter, Eddie 85

103, 190 Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington 8

Bransten, Richard 111, 112 Breuer, Marcel 86, 94, 95, 160 British Museum, London 19

Armour Institute of Technology, Chicago 84

Brooke House 49

Art Center School Los Angeles 68, 70, 102

Buff, Conrad 103

Architecture & Design Collection, UC Santa

Buki, Hans 192

Barbara 9, 10 Art Institute of Chicago 36, 37

Bullocks Wilshire Department Store, Los Angeles 49, 50, 51, 52, 89, 104

Arts & Architecture 7, 131, 132, 136, 144, 174 Ashbee, Charles A. 19 AUDAC (American Union of Decorative Artists and Craftsmen) 102 Aufbau 164

Café Samt & Seide, trade fair exhibition “Die Mode der Dame,” Berlin 61 Café Telschow, Berlin 47, 48 California Arts & Architecture 10, 131 California Fashion Publications building 59, 60

Bachelor’s Haberdashery Shop (Store No. 2),

Camel Table 95

3931 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 55,

Carl Laemmle Movie Theater 66, 67, 86

57. 59, 76

Case Study House #1, Toluca Lake 89, 90, 92,

Bahr, Ehrhard 167

99, 106, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140,

Balch, Clifford A. 85

142, 143, 144, 145, 177

Ballets Russes 26

Case Study House #2 145

Banham, Reyner 7, 9

Case Study House #11, Los Angeles 138, 140,

Barr, Alfred H. 160, 161 Barragán, Louis 178, 180

142, 143, 144, 145

Index  257

Case Study House #15, La Cañada Flintridge 144, 189

Design Lab, 2619 Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica 101

Case Study House #21 95

Deutsche Bauzeitung 30

Case Study Houses 111, 131, 132, 133, 134,

Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration 30, 31, 35, 59

135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,

Deutscher Werkbund 47, 59, 132

143, 144, 145, 174, 196, 197, 206, 207,

Diaghilev, Sergei 26

237, 239

Dieckmann, Erich 92, 93

Castle Eaton residences, Wiltshire 107 Chouinard Art Institute 97, 102

Dixie Drive-In Market, Vine and High Streets, Lexington, Kentucky 63

Church of St. Clement Danes, London 23, 24

Drake House, Beverly Glen, Los Angeles 99

Ciro, New York 58

Drake, Gordon 99

Clements, Stiles O. 77

Dr. David Rabinowitz House, Bel Air 210, 212,

Cobb, Nick and Bob 77 Cocoanut Grove Nightclub, Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles 26, 47, 48, 49, 70, 73, 74, 76

213, 214, 215, 225 Dr. E. T. Tyler Residence, Los Angeles 99, 100, 101, 177, 178

Cocktail Lounge, Bismarck Hotel, Chicago 78

Dr. Hanna Fenichel Residence 104, 226

Congdon, Mrs. 82

Dr. J. S. Druckman Residence 123

Contemporary Creative Architects in California

Dr. R. H. Jokl House, Los Angeles 104, 214,

103

215, 216, 217

Copenhagen City Hall 17

Dreier, Hans 79

Craftsman 190, 191

Drive-in Arts & Crafts Shopping Center,

Creighton, Katherine M. F. 210 C. R. Hite Property Development Investments 41, 43 Cron, Robert 134, 136, 142

Los Angeles 66, 68, 69, 70 Drive-in Curb Market, Los Angeles 52, 53, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67 Drucker, Hannah 123 Dufy, Raoul 25

Das Plakat 30, 35

Dumas, Paul and Arsène 25

Davidson Apartment Conversion 31, 32, 33,

Dupont Apartment, Charlottenburg, Berlin 29

34, 35

Durand, Murray & Seddon 21

Davidson, Barnaby 8, 9, 10, 101, 104, 106, 136, 162

Eames, Charles 106

Davidson, David 13, 16

Eames, Ray 106

Davidson, Emelie 13, 16

Eckbo, Garrett 105, 210, 221, 226

Davidson, Frieda 13

École Martine 25

Davidson, Friedel 13, 101

Eichler Homes 239

Davidson, Greta, née Wollenstein 9, 17, 23,

Eisenshtat, Sidney 224

24, 25, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 79, 81, 83,

Entenza, John 131, 132, 133, 136, 142, 144

84, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 134, 163,

Eppenstein, James 83

176, 177, 235 Davidson, Joseph 13

Fagus Factory, Alfeld 17, 107

Davidson, Ralf 13

Fairfax Temple, Society for Jewish Culture,

Davidson, Ralph Thomas 79, 81, 101, 104

Los Angeles 221, 222

Delauney, Sonia 51

Fantl, Ernestine M. 104

Delhi Mercury Ball Lighting, New Delhi 49

Faragher, John Mack 195

De Maire, Eleanore 50

Farquhar, Robert D. 36, 37

DeMille, Cecil B. 36

Feigen, Hans 29

258  J.R. Davidson

Feil & Paradise 51, 103 Feingold and Harris Medical Building, Los Angeles 128, 129, 130, 210 Ferenz, Franz K. 102, 103

Herbert Stothart House, Santa Monica 99, 107, 111, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 Herman Koniarski Real Estate Insurance Building, Los Angeles 68, 71

Fieger, Carl 115

Hi-Hat House 114

Fienga, Doris 9

Hi-Hat Restaurant (Store No. 4), later The

Floyd D. Crosby Residence, Los Angeles 145, 174, 175, 177 Form 30 Frankfurt Kitchen 105, 177 Frankl Galleries 97 Frankl, Paul T. 97

Brown Derby and Perino’s Restaurant, 3927 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 35, 44, 47, 59, 73, 76, 77, 90 Hilda Deesy Gowns, 2216 West 7th Street, Los Angeles 40, 41, 47 Hill House, Helensburg 19 Hines, Thomas 9, 61, 163

Gabo, Naum 89

Hirschler, Moritz 16, 17

Gebhard, David 7, 8, 45

Hispanic Society 36

German Pavilion, Panama-Pacific International

Hitchcock, Henry Russell 104, 111

Exposition, San Francisco 36

Hoffmann, Josef 25, 47

Getty Research Institute 9

Horta, Victor 24

Gewerbemuseum, Berlin 16

Hotel Knickerbocker, Bar and Tavern, Chicago 81

Gibbons, Cedric 36

Hotel Shoreland, Bar, Cocktail Lounge, and

Gill, Irving 9, 236, 239

Rooms, Chicago 82, 83

G. I. Ranch House 197

House Beautiful 93, 196

Glenn Incorporated 144

House of the Book, Brandeis Institute, Santa

Goldberg, Dan 36, 77 Goldberg, Kate 36 Golden Gate International Exposition, San Francisco 106, 132

Susana 210, 221, 223, 224 Houston Branch Residence, Playa Del Rey 192, 194, 195 H. S. Anderson Residence 123

Goldman & Salatsch, Vienna 46, 56

Huldschinsky, Paul 162, 163

Good Housekeeping 196

Hunt, Myron 73

Gorge, Hugo 73, 75

Hupfeld piano factory, Leipzig 35, 90

Greene and Greene 207, 236 Green, Taylor 95, 179

Innendekoration 31, 33, 35, 73

Gretna Green Apartments 123, 124, 125, 126,

Isokon Table 95

127, 192, 195, 235 Gropius, Walter 17, 107

Jack G. Shapiro House 87, 105

Gruen, Victor 56

James Vigeveno House #1, Ojai 94, 203, 204,

Gustav H. Dann House, Los Angeles 27, 216, 218, 219, 220

205, 206 James Vigeveno House #2, Ojai 206 Jaumann, Anton 33

Hallowell, A. Irving 195

Jeanneret, Pierre 125

Hans Buki House, Los Angeles 192, 193

J. J. Mulvihill House, Sierra Madre 207

Harris, Harwell Hamilton 7, 8, 103, 207

Johnson, Philip 104, 111

Harris, J. M. 128

Joseph Kingsley House, Pacific Palisades 101,

Harry Cohn House, Los Angeles 37 Hayashida, M. 65 Hayden, Dolores 145 Helfrich, Kurt 9

107, 182, 184, 185 J. R. Davidson House, Los Angeles 88, 145, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181

Index  259

Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin 16

Mackintosh, Charles Rennie 17, 19

Kärntner Bar 46

Madame Louise Germaine Beauty Shop,

Kassel City Palace 16

2218 West 7th Street, Los Angeles 41

Kauffmann, Solomon 13, 16

Maison Citrohan 125

Keith’s Magazine on Home Building 190

Maison du Peuple 24

Ketchum, Morris 57

Maison Lanvin 25

Khmara, Ilia 68, 71

Maitland Residence, Bel Air 107, 108, 109, 111

Killingsworth, Edward A. 9

Mann, Erika 173

Kingsley, Joseph 182, 184, 187

Mann, Frido 164

Kingsley, Lore 182

Mann, Heinrich 162, 163

Kniže & Comp 56

Mann, Katia 161, 162, 163, 173

Knoll 87

Mann, Thomas 7, 107, 161, 162, 163, 164,

Koch, Alexander 30

166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 173

Koniarski, Herman 68

Manz Bookstore, Vienna 54, 56

Kornhaus Restaurant, Dessau 115

Margrit Munk House, Brentwood 104

Kunstgewerbeschule, Berlin 47

Marlborough House 21

Kunstgewerbliche Werkstätten Platow &

Masters, W. A. H. 19, 107

Priemer 16

Maurice Berkson Residences, Encino 22, 96, 97, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202

Ladies Home Journal 190

May, Cliff 195, 196, 197, 207

La Maison Martine 25, 26

Maybeck, Richard 207

Lancaster, Clay 190

McCoy, Esther 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22,

Lanvin, Jeanne 25 László, Paul 97, 116, 162, 163

24, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37, 57, 76, 79, 106, 107, 133, 145, 162, 214

Le Corbusier 125

Menken, Mr. 94, 95, 101

Lederer de Paris store, New York 58

Mesa-Vernon Market, 4330–4344 Crenshaw

Lederer, Ludwig 57

Boulevard, Los Angeles 62

Lee Hamilton Beauty Salon 61

Messel, Alfred 17

Liebes, Dorothy 106

MGM 36, 116

Lingerie Store Albert Matzner, Vienna 59, 60

Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig 59, 61, 83, 86, 92,

Long, Christopher 10, 45, 100, 101

122, 132

Longstreth, Richard 39, 62

Miller, Marcus P. 70

Lora Lee Dress Shop, 6560 Hollywood

Millier, Arthur 103

Boulevard, Los Angeles 56, 57, 58, 59 Lorimer, R. S. 19 Loos, Adolf 17, 45, 46, 47, 54, 56, 59, 60, 109

Miró, Joan 187 Modern Architecture: International Exhibition 104

Los Angeles Architectural Club 102

Moholy-Nagy, László 84

Los Angeles Drive-In Market 61, 63, 64

Morgan Camera Shop 69, 72

Los Angeles Seventh National Home Show and

Morgan, Walls & Clements 38, 39, 50, 65, 77

Building Exposition, Inglewood 139 Los Angeles Times 103, 214 L. P. Hollander Company Store, New York 55

Morris, William 19, 109 Mrs. Paul Kingsley House, Pacific Palisades 87, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188

Lubitsch, Ernst 79, 162

Mumford, Lewis 159, 161

Lutyens, Edwin 19, 29, 49

Murray, Frank Stuart 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27

Lutyens, Robert 49

Muthesius, Hermann 16, 109, 110, 114

Lyndon, Maynard 236

260  J.R. Davidson

Nation’s Business 63

R. A. Mia House, Johannesburg 206, 207, 209

Nelson, George 196

Rateau, Armand Albert 25

Neutra, Dione 102, 163

Rattan chaise longue 98

Neutra, Richard 7, 8, 9, 45, 46, 61, 62, 63, 64,

Reich, Lilly 59, 61

66, 67, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 95, 96, 98, 99,

Reichstag, Berlin 36, 79

100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 114, 160,

Rex, John 145

162, 163, 182, 207, 236, 237, 238

Richard Bransten Residence, San Francisco 111,

Neuzeitliche Wohnkultur 33

112, 113, 114, 115

New York Herald 20

Richard I. Rogers Residence, Beverly Hills 37

Nikabob Restaurant, 875 S. Western Avenue

Riviera Country Club 116

and 9th Street, Los Angeles 50, 52, 77, 78,

Roosevelt Hotel, main lobby, Hollywood 77, 78

79, 80

Rosenberg, Louise 112 Royal Museum, Berlin 16

Office J. R. Davidson Interior Architecture, 2222 West 7th Street, Los Angeles 41, 43,

Rubin Sabsay House, Los Angeles 99 Ruskin, John 22

44, 45, 54 Old Museum, Berlin 16 Osborn, Fred 25

Sam A. Taylor Residence, Los Angeles 22, 105, 106, 177, 178, 210, 221, 226

Österreichischer Werkbund 132

Sardi’s Restaurant, Los Angeles 66, 84, 85, 86

Oud, J. J. P. 19

Satyr Book Shop (Store No. 3), 3929 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 49, 50, 54, 55, 76,

Palm Market, 8300–8328 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 62

87, 90 Saylor, Henry H. 195

Paramount Studios 36

Scheyer, Galka 102, 162

Parker & Unwin 19

Schilling’s Flower Store, 3931 Wilshire

Park, Robin 134, 136

Boulevard, Los Angeles 54, 55

Paul, Bruno 29, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 50, 92

Schindler, Pauline 7, 51, 103

P. C. Leschka & Co, Vienna 56

Schindler, Rudolph Michael 7, 8, 43, 45, 46, 85,

Pearl Stroup (Store No. 5), 3925 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 59, 61

92, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 236, 238 Schinkel, Karl Friedrich 16, 195

Pergamon Museum, Berlin 16

Schlesinger, Ernest M. 164, 167

Peters, Jock D. 8, 49, 50, 51, 55, 114

Schütte-Lihotzky, Margarete 105, 177

Petit salon de thé du printemps 49

Scott Baillie, M. H. 19, 20, 109, 110

Peto, Harold 20

Scripps College 104

Pfeifferling 29

Senator Hotel, Sacramento 84

Poiret, Denise 26

Serraino, Pierluigi 161, 220

Poiret, Paul 25, 26, 27

Server for Cigarettes or the Like 90, 91

Preissman & Co. Real Estate Office, 817 5th

Seventh and Grandview Building,

Avenue, Los Angeles 44, 45, 52, 90

Los Angeles 38

Premiere Confectionery Store 47, 48, 73

Severence, J. Byron 62

Price, Vernon 10

Shaw, Richard Norman 19, 29 Shepard House, San Marino 114

Rabinowitz, Mrs. 210

Shulman, Julius 76, 95, 140, 192

Rachlis, Michael 30

Sidney Kahn House, 66 Calhoun Terrace,

Rainbow Isle Restaurant, Mayfair Hotel, Los Angeles 50

San Francisco 114 Sigmund Steiner Store Façade 46

Index  261

Smith and Williams 99, 210, 236

van Keppel, Hendrik 95, 179

Soriano, Raphael 7, 8, 236, 239

VDL House 87

Southern California Standard Building

Vereinigte Werkstätten für Kunst im Handwerk

Investment Company of San Diego and Los Angeles 190

47 Vigeveno, James 206

Spaulding, Sumner 145

Villa Aurora 10

Staatliche Bauhochschule Weimar 92, 93

Villa Tugendhat, Brno 122

Stam, Mart 92

Voysey, C. F. A. 19, 20

Stanley, George 103 Starck, Hermann 30

Walter Foster House, Bishop 206, 208

Starck Villa, Potsdam 29

Waring & Gillow 20, 21

Stern, Annie Regina 206

Wasmuth, Ernst 31

Stewart House 191

Wasmuths Monatshefte für Baukunst und

Stiller Retail Stores 35 Storefront, 2214–2226 West 7th Street, Los Angeles 39, 40 Storefront, 3925–3931 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 52

Städtebau 30 Weber, Kem (K. E. M.) 8, 36, 50, 68, 70, 78, 79, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 128, 131 Wefing, Heinrich 167 Weissenhof Estate, Stuttgart 125, 132, 133

Stothart, Herbert 111, 116

Wertheim Department Store, Berlin 17

Sullivan, Louis 103

Westgate Apartments, Los Angeles 235, 237

Sunset —The Magazine of Western Living

Westlake Square 38, 39

197, 202

Wibo, G. 49 Wiener, Paul Lester 163

The American Architect 190, 195

Williams, Paul R. 77, 99

The Californian 139

Windsor Castle 21

The Domestic Architecture of the San Francisco

Wright, Frank Lloyd 7, 43, 51, 102, 103, 191

Bay Area 161

Wright, Lloyd 62, 102

The Golden Bed 36

Wright, Henry 196

The Happy Hypocrite (stage set design) 73, 74

Wurster, William 159, 161

The Hitler Gang 36 The Red (Golden) Lion Inn, Sheridan Plaza

Yucca-Vine Market, Hollywood 62

Hotel, Chicago 81 Thomas Mann House, Pacific Palisades 10, 84, 119, 158, 161, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 182, 188, 207 Thorpe Building 38 Tierney & Co. Restaurant and Café-Bar, Los Angeles 43, 50, 51 Troys, Nancy J. 25 UCLA William Andrews Clark Memorial Library 36 University of Southern California 207, 236

Zeitschrift für Bauwesen 30 Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung 30

262  J.R. Davidson

Illustration Credits Cover: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. Photo: Ernest Ludwick (Herbert Stothard House, Santa Monica) Frontispiece: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. Photo: Valeska

MODERNISM, pp. 12–157 Figs. 1–4 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 5 By permission of Erica Avrahm and Carlos Davidson Fig. 6 Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution Figs. 7–9 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 10 akg-images/ullstein bild/Wilhelm Willlinger: (Photo ca. 1914, by Wilhelm Willlinger. Published in: Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung 3/1914.) Fig. 11 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 12, 13 By permission of Erica Avrahm and Carlos Davidson Fig. 14 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 15 Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution Fig. 16 By permission of Erica Avrahm and Carlos Davidson Figs. 17–21 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 22 By permission of Erica Avrahm and Carlos Davidson Figs. 23–25 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 26 By permission of Erica Avrahm and Carlos Davidson Figs. 27–30 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 31 Photo: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. By permission of Architectural Record Fig. 32 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 33 Photo: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. By permission of Barbara and Willard Morgan photographs and papers, Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA

Illustration Credits  263

Fig. 34 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 35, 36 Photo: Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. By permission of Barbara and Willard Morgan photographs and papers, Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA Figs. 37, 38 Photo: Heidelberg University Library, https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/ innendekoration1925/0224. © 2019 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn Figs. 39–41 Photo: Mott Studios, courtesy of Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 42 Image courtesy of Phillips Fig. 43 Photo: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. By permission of Barbara and Willard Morgan photographs and papers, Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA Fig. 44 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 45–48 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 49, 50 Photo: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. By permission of Barbara and Willard Morgan photographs and papers, Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA Fig. 51 Andreas Praefcke, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wien_Manz_Kohlmarkt_16.jpg. Public Domain Figs. 52, 53 Photo: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. By permission of Will Connell Jr. Figs. 54, 55 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 56 Martin Gerlach Jun. Inv. ALA 3295, The Albertina Museum, Vienna Fig. 57 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 58 Image: © The Museum of Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA/Art Resource, NY. © 2019 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn Fig. 59 Design sketch by Richard Neutra in the magazine Chain Store Review, September 1928 Figs. 60–65 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 66 Karl Emanuel Martin (Kem) Weber papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 67–72 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 73 Heidelberg University Library, https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/innendeko­ ration1925/0224. © 2019 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn

264  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 74 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 75 Photo: Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. By permission of Barbara and Willard Morgan photographs and papers, Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA Fig. 76 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Fig. 77 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 78 From The Chris Nichols Collection Figs. 79, 80 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 81 By permission of Erica Avrahm and Carlos Davidson Fig. 82 Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. Photo: Hedrich-Blessing Studio Fig. 83 Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution Fig. 84 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 85–88 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 89–110 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 111 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 112–115 Photo: Content Production Fig. 116 Karl Emanuel Martin (Kem) Weber papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 117–121 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 122–133 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 134 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. Photo: Robert C. Cleveland Figs. 135–137 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. Photo: Ernest Ludwick Figs. 138, 139 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 140–142 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Fig. 143 Photo: Content Production Fig. 144 Karl Emanuel Martin (Kem) Weber papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 145, 146 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara

Illustration Credits  265

Figs. 147–149 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 150–155 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 156, 157 © Julius Shulman. Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 158, 159 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara

REGIONALISM, pp. 158–233 Fig. 1 Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. Photo: Ernst Gottlieb Fig. 2 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 3 All rights reserved S. Fischer Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main Fig. 4 By permission of the Lappen Family Figs. 5–7 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 8 By permission of the Lappen Family Fig. 9 ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Thomas-Mann-Archiv/Photo: unknown. TMA_4435 Figs. 10, 11 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. Photo: Ernst Gottlieb Figs. 12–14 Photo: Content Production Fig. 15 ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Thomas-Mann-Archiv/Photo: unknown. TMA_3044 Fig. 16 Page out of a magazine, courtesy Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 17, 18 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 19–22 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 23, 24 Photo: Content Production Figs. 25–28 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 29–31 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 32 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 33, 34 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 35–37 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 38–42 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 43, 44 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10)

266  J.R. Davidson

Fig. 45 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 46–50 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Fig. 51 Photo: Content Production Fig. 52 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 53, 54 Photo: Content Production Figs. 55, 56 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Fig. 57 Photo: Content Production Figs. 58, 59 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 60–67 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 68, 69 Photo: Marvin Rand Archive, courtesy Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 70 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 71 Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. Photo: Leland Y. Lee Fig. 72 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Figs. 73, 74 Julius Shulman © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Figs. 75, 76 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 77 Garrett Eckbo, Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley Fig. 78 Esther McCoy papers, 1876–1990, bulk, 1938–1989. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution Figs. 79, 80 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara Fig. 81 Photo: Content Production

CONCLUSION, pp. 234–238 Figs. 1, 2 Julius Ralph Davidson papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara

Considerable efforts have been undertaken to identify, find and credit the copyright holders of the images in this book. If unintentional omissions occurred, we sincerely apologize and ask for notice. Such mistakes will be corrected in the next edition of the publication.

About the Author  267

About the Author Dr. Lilian Pfaff is an architectural historian and critic as well as a realtor. She is the editor of Clocks and Clouds: The Architecture of Escher GuneWardena, published by Birkhäuser (2017), Ernst Neufert Peter Neufert, published by Hatje Cantz (2015), and of Prada Aoyama Tokyo: Herzog & de Meuron, published by the Fondazione Prada (2003). Between 2003 and 2007 she served as editor-in-chief of the Swiss weekly architecture magazine TEC21, and between 1999 and 2002 she worked as assistant curator at the Architekturmuseum Basel. She has curated exhibitions internationally and has held teaching positions in Switzerland and the U.S., currently at the Southern California Institute of Architecture, Woodbury University, and Otis College of Art and Design. Her writing has been published extensively in magazines, newspapers, and catalogs. In 2018, she became a partner in the real estate firm Deasy Penner, which specializes in architectural properties. Dr. Pfaff received her PhD from the University of Zürich in 2010, with a dissertation on Vito Acconci’s architectural projects. Prior to her doctorate, she had completed a Master of Advanced Studies in Architectural Theory at the ETH Zürich in 2000, and an MA in Art History at the University of Hamburg in 1998. While researching J. R. Davidson, she saved his Thomas Mann House from being sold and demolished by mounting a media campaign in Germany. As a result, the German government bought the house in 2017 for 13.25 million dollars.

Graphic design, layout and typesetting  Miriam Bussmann Translation into English Uli Minoggio Copy editing Kitty Bocking Project management Ria Stein Production Bettina Chang Paper Magno Volume, 135 g/m2 Lithography bildpunkt Druckvorstufen GmbH, Berlin Printing Beltz Grafische Betriebe GmbH, Bad Langensalza

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019943032 Bibliographic information published by the German National Library The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained. ISBN 978-3-0356-1922-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-0356-1937-9 © 2019 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel P.O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printed on acid-free paper produced from chlorine-free pulp. TCF ∞ Printed in Germany 987654321 www.birkhauser.com