case study house 8

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

AD Classics: Eames House / Charles and Ray Eames

• Written by Adelyn Perez

Text description provided by the architects. Originally known as Case Study House No. 8, the Eames House was such a spatially pleasant modern residence that it became the home of the architects themselves. Charles and Ray Eames began designing the house in 1945 for the Case Study House Program in Los Angeles' Arts and Architecture Magazine published and built these case study homes that had to focus on the use of new materials and technologies developed during World War II. The intention was for the house to be made of prefabricated materials that would not interrupt the site, be easy to build, and exhibit a modern style.

The house is situated on a three-acre site on top of an 150-foot cliff that overlooks the Pacific Ocean. The site is a flat parcel on otherwise steep land that creates a retaining wall to the west. The response to this condition was a concrete retaining wall that ties together the two boxes separated by a courtyard that make up the parti of the residence.

The two boxes serve two different functions. One is for the residence itself and the other is a studio.  Both provide double-height spaces at the corners and outer ends of both programs. This allows for a composition that breaks the space up rhythmetically, and is read on the exterior of the house with the exterior courtyard serving as a double-height space in between both boxes.

Along with the retaining concrete wall, a simple steel frame was used for the structure of the house. The steel frame used 4-inch H-columns for the walls and 12-inch deep web joists for the roof. The steel frame was filled in with different solid and transparent colored panels arranged to create a shifting light in the interior throughout the day. 

The importance given to light in the design, with the exterior arranged in this particular way, can be connected to Japanese influence. This attention to detail, however, did not hinder the aspect of displaying the idea prefabrication. The house was built largely of standard components, such as the windows which measure a standard width of 3-feet 4-inches.

Contrast to the cold steel framing that forms the structure, the interior of the house is warm and comforting with its wood-block floor and the soft light penetrating into each room through each day. Wooden staircases float effortlessly connecting the lower and upper levels. The use of natural materials on the interior bring the residence closer to nature, giving the appearance of the house resting softly on the earth.  A row of eucalyptus trees was also planted at the front that provide shade and blend parts of the house with outdoors.

The Eames House is a beautiful continuation of space. The rooms are liberating, flowing into one another even between floors through the double-height spaces. Private and public spaces are not strictly divided. For example, the bedroom on the upper level overlooks the public living room with a short terrace that connects the rooms. There are no major divisions other than the separation of the two boxes, which still merge into one another with the courtyard. The house is an unrolling scroll of a Mondrian painting that exemplifies the use prefabricated materials to create beautiful endless space.

• Architects: Charles and Ray Eames
• Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  1949
• Photographs Photographs: Flickr - User: An Amateur , Flickr - User: rpa2101 , architectenwerk.nl , Stephen Canon

Project gallery

Materials and Tags

• Sustainability

世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!

想浏览archdaily中国吗, you've started following your first account, did you know.

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

Check the latest Chandeliers

Check the latest Wing Chairs

• RANDOM INSPIRATION
• HISTORICAL TIMELINE
• INFLUENTIAL ARCHITECTS
• BOOKS & RESOURCES

The Eames House: A Deep Dive into Case Study House 8

Nestled in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles stands the Eames House, also known as Case Study House No. 8. It is more than just a work of mid-century modern architecture; it’s an enduring testament to the design sensibilities and philosophies of Charles and Ray Eames, the husband-and-wife team who not only designed it but also called it home. Built in 1949, this iconic structure encapsulates the couple’s holistic approach to design and life.

Eames House Technical Information

• Architects: Ray and Charles Eames
• Location: 203 North Chautauqua Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles , USA
• Topics: Mid-Century Modern
• Area: 1,500 ft 2 |  140  m 2
• Project Year: 1945 – 1949
• Photographs: © Eames Office, See Captions

The role of the designer is that of a very good, thoughtful host anticipating the needs of his guests.  – Charles and Ray Eames 1-2

Eames House Photographs

The Eames House: A Living Laboratory for Design Exploration 

From its initial construction to its life today as a museum, the Eames House offers a rich tapestry of history, ingenuity, and practical elegance. Commissioned by Arts & Architecture magazine for their Case Study House program, this residence has endured as a beacon of what Charles and Ray stood for—efficiency, innovation, and the honest use of materials. As Charles once said, “Just as a good host tries to anticipate the needs of his guest, so a good architect or a designer or a city planner tries to anticipate the needs of those who will live in or use the thing being designed.”

The Eameses purchased 1.4 acres from Arts & Architecture owner John Entenza in 1945, but the journey to the final construction was rife with modifications and resource constraints. Initial designs by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen , which envisioned a glass and steel box cantilevering dramatically over the property, were shelved. In part, due to material shortages in the post-war era, Charles and Ray turned inward, observing and soaking in the nuances of the site. The eventual design had the house sitting quietly in the land, harmonizing with the natural surroundings rather than imposing on it.

Two distinct boxes make up the residence—one serves as the living quarters and the other as a studio. The house and studio are separated by a concrete retaining wall that integrates seamlessly with the existing landscape. An 8-foot tall by 200-foot long concrete wall helps to anchor the site while also setting a dramatic backdrop for the architecture.

Both structures are predominantly characterized by their steel frame construction, filled with a variety of colored panels. The colored panels aren’t merely decorative; they are functional elements carefully calibrated to provide shifting patterns of light and shade throughout the day. The impact of light, so finely tuned in the design, showcases influences from Japanese architecture.

The Eames House doesn’t just make a statement from the outside; the interiors are equally compelling. The house is a melting pot of the Eameses’ diverse interests and design sensibilities—featuring Isamu Noguchi lamps , Thonet chairs, Native American baskets, and more. The living spaces are meticulously designed to serve multiple functions—a living room that transforms into a workspace, alcoves that turn into intimate conversation spots, and hallways lined with functional storage closets.

Living as Work, Work as Living

One of the most unique aspects of the Eames House is how it serves as a living laboratory for Charles and Ray’s iterative design process. As is evident from their film “Powers of Ten” or the constant evolution of their iconic furniture, the couple believed in refining, adjusting, and perfecting. The house was no different—it was a perpetual project, an embodiment of their philosophy of “life in work and work in life.”

For Charles and Ray, details weren’t just details—they were the product. The panels, steel columns, and even the gold-leaf panel marking the entry door were not afterthoughts but an integral part of the architectural dialogue. The Eames House reflects this in its intricate interplay of textures, colors, and spaces that come together to create a harmonious whole.

The Eames House is notable for its De Stijl influences, seen in the sliding walls and windows that allow for versatility and openness. It stands as a successful adaptation of European modernist principles within an American context.

The Eames House is not just an architectural statement but a comprehensive worldview translated into physical form. From its thoughtful integration with the landscape to its detailed articulations, it represents the legacy of two of the 20 th century’s most influential designers. Charles and Ray

Eames House Plans

Eames House Image Gallery

About Ray and Charles Eames

Charles and Ray Eames were a husband-and-wife design team who became icons of mid-20th-century modern design. Working primarily in the United States, they gained prominence for their contributions across multiple disciplines, including architecture, furniture design, industrial design, film, and exhibitions. Perhaps best known for their innovative furniture pieces, like the Eames Lounge Chair and Molded Plastic Chairs, they also left a lasting impact on architecture, most notably with the Eames House, also known as Case Study House No. 8. Their work is characterized by a playful yet disciplined approach, with a focus on functional design, innovative use of materials, and the importance of user experience.

Notes & Additional Credits

• While the quote is not specifically about the Eames House, it reflects the philosophy the Eameses applied to their design work, including their home. The Eames House is a manifestation of their belief in the “guest-host relationship,” where every design decision is made with the user’s experience in mind.
• Charles & Ray Eames: 1907-1978, 1912-1988: Pioneers of Mid-century Modernism  by Gloria Koenig

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

• Topics Overview
• Influential Architects
• 2020’s
• 2010’s
• 2000’s
• 1990’s
• 1980’s
• 1970’s
• 1960’s
• 1950’s
• 1940’s
• 1930’s
• 1920’s
• American Architecture
• Austrian Architecture
• British Architecture
• Chinese Architecture
• Danish Architecture
• German Architecture
• Japanese Architecture
• Mexican Architecture
• Portuguese Architecture
• Spanish Architecture
• Swiss Architecture
• Auditoriums
• Cultural Centers
• Installations
• Headquarters
• Universities
• Restaurants
• Cementeries
• Monasteries
• City Planning
• Landscape Architecture
• Top Book Recommendations
• Top Drawing Tools Recommendations
• Gifts for Architects

Email address:

Timeless Architecture

• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

• Eames Foundation

find us on:

• Eames House
• Charles and Ray

Eames House and the CSH program

• Case Study House Bluff
• Photo Gallery
• How to Visit
• Covid-19 Safety Protocols
• Guided Exterior Tour
• Group Guided Exterior Tour
• Interior Tour
• Members Appreciation Day
• Small Wedding
• Specialty Events
• Visitors Submissions
• Memberships
• Corporate Sponsorship
• 250 Year Project
• Collections
• On-going Studies
• Conservation Management Plan
• Team Thanks

The Eames House (also known as Case Study House No. 8) is a landmark of mid-20th century modern architecture located in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles. It was designed and constructed in 1949 by husband-and-wife Charles and Ray Eames to serve as their home and studio.

It was one of roughly two dozen homes built as part of The Case Study House Program. Begun in the mid-1940s and continuing through the early 1960s, the program was spearheaded by John Entenza, the publisher of  Arts & Architecture magazine. It was developed to address a looming issue: a housing crisis. Millions of soldiers would be returning from the battlefields of World War II, and were wanting to start families. John Entenza recognized that houses needed to be built quickly, inexpensively, yet without sacrificing good design. In a challenge to the architectural community, the magazine announced that it would be the client for a series of homes designed to express man’s life in the modern world. These homes were to be built and furnished using materials and techniques derived from the experiences of the Second World War. Each home was designed with a real or hypothetical client in mind, taking into consideration their particular housing needs.

Click here to see their design brief more clearly from the December 1945 issue of Arts & Architecture .

First Design: Bridge House (unbuilt)

The first plan of the Eameses’ home, known as the Bridge House, was designed in 1945 by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen. The design used pre-fabricated materials ordered from catalogues, a continuation of the idea of mass-production. The parts were ordered and the Bridge House design was published in the December 1945 issue of the magazine, but due to a war-driven shortage, the steel did not arrive until late 1948.

While they were waiting for delivery, Charles and Ray picnicked in the meadow with family and friends, flew kites and did archery.  By then, Charles and Ray had “fallen in love with the meadow,” in Ray’s words, and they realized that they wanted to avoid what many architects had done: destroy what they loved most about a site by building across it.

Second Design: Eames House

Charles and Ray then set themselves a new problem: How to build a house that would 1) not destroy the meadow and trees, and 2) “maximize volume from minimal materials”.  Using the same off-the-shelf parts, but notably ordering one extra steel beam, Charles and Ray re-configured the House. The new design integrated the House into the landscape, rather than imposing the House on it. These plans were published in the May 1949 issue of Arts & Architecture .  It is this design that was built and is seen today.

Charles and Ray moved into the House on Christmas Eve, 1949, and lived there for the rest of their lives.  The interior, its objects and its collections remain very much the way they were in Charles and Ray’s lifetimes.  The house they created offered them a space where work, play, life, and nature co-existed.

While many icons of the modern movement are depicted as stark, barren spaces devoid of human use, photographs and motion pictures taken at the Eames house reveal a richly decorated, almost cluttered space full of folk art, thousands of books, shells, rocks, prisms, etc. The Eameses’ gracious live-work lifestyle continues to be an influential model.

The House has now become something of an iconographic structure visited by people from around the world.  The charm and appeal of the House is perhaps best explained in the words of the Case Study House Program founder, John Entenza, who felt that the Eames House “represented an attempt to state an idea rather than a fixed architectural pattern.”

Help us share the Eameses’ joy and rigor with future visitors, so they may have a direct experience of Charles and Ray’s approach to life and work.

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

Iconic House: The Eames House, Case Study House 8

Iconic House

House: Case Study House 8, 1945-1949 Architect: Ray and Charles Eames Style: Mid-20th century modern Location: 203 North Chautauqua Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California

About the Case Study House Program

The Eames House, Case Study House 8, was one of roughly two-dozen homes built as part of The Case Study House Program. John Entenza, the publisher of Arts & Architecture magazine, spearheaded the program in the mid-1940s, and it continued through the early 1960s. In a challenge to the architectural community, the magazine announced that it would be the client for a series of homes designed to express man's life in the modern world. These houses were to be built and furnished using materials and techniques derived from the experiences of the Second World War.

About the Architecture

The current building was initially designed as the “Bridge House” by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen. Early sketches were published in the Arts & Architecture magazine in 1945, however war-related shortages delayed construction. In 1948, when the material finally arrived, Charles and Ray had fallen in love with the surrounding meadows and reformatted the building using the same material, with the addition of a single steel section. The new plans were published in Art & Architecture magazine in 1949.

The architect had the liberty to choose his client, real or hypothetical, in order to designate the particulars of the house. Charles and Ray proposed that the house they design be “for a married couple working in design and graphic arts, whose children were no longer living at home.” Eames House is a prominent architectural example of the influence of the De Stijl Movement outside Europe. The sliding walls and windows give it the trademark versatility and openness of the De Stijl Movement.

Current Status

In 2004, Charles's daughter, Lucia Eames, created a not-for-profit organization called the Eames Foundation to preserve and protect the Eames House and to provide educational experiences that celebrate the creative legacy of Charles and Ray Eames.

Search the Site

Popular pages.

• Historic Places of Los Angeles
• Important Issues
• Events Calendar

Eames House and Studio (Case Study House #8)

One of the most famous Mid-Century Modern buildings in Los Angeles, designed by its owners, legendary designers Charles and Ray Eames, as two simple boxes that reflect the Eames' love of industrial design and materials.

Place Details

• Charles and Ray Eames

Designation

• Private Residence - Do Not Disturb

Property Type

• Single-Family Residential
• Los Angeles

Case Study House #8, better known as the Eames House and Studio, is one of the most famous Mid-Century Modern buildings in Los Angeles. It was designed by its owners, legendary designers Charles and Ray Eames, for  Arts & Architecture  magazine’s Case Study House program.

Completed in 1949 along with the adjacent Entenza house (designed by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen), the Eames property actually contains two adjacent buildings: the two-story house and the matching studio, separated by a small patio. Both buildings are simple boxes that reflect the Eames’ love of industrial design and materials, as well as Ray Eames’ bold graphic and monochromatic sensibility. They are built of steel frames clad in fixed panels made of plaster, wood, and glass, some opaque, some translucent, and some transparent. Pops of white and bright primary colors among the beige, black, and gray panels lend a Mondrian-style touch to the façades.

The design is modular, highlighting its industrial nature, and the structure of the buildings is abundantly evident. But the house’s interior is anything but rigid and cold.

Clad in warm woods and packed with custom-designed furniture, plants, and folk art, the inside of the house illustrates how inviting Modern design can be.

The two-story-high living area feels like a treehouse, lit with natural sunlight dappled by the eucalyptus trees outside. Today, the Eames Foundation maintains the Eames House and Studio as a truthful and inspiring icon of Modern design.

The Conservancy does not own or operate the Eames House and Studio.

Related Content

Bailey House (Case Study House #21)

St. Martha’s Episcopal Church

St. John’s in the Valley Methodist Church (Demolished)

The Eames House & Foundation

The Eames Foundation is a non-profit established in 2004 to preserve and protect the Eames House and provide educational experiences that celebrate the creative legacy of Charles and Ray Eames.

The Eames House

The Eames House, or Case Study House #8, was designed by Charles and Ray Eames to serve as their primary residence and secondary work studio. The house’s initial design, the “Bridge House,” was introduced alongside seven other Case Study Program homes in the January 1945 issue of Arts & Architecture magazine. After material shortages and a heavy reconfiguration of the plan, the Eameses constructed their double-story, two-structure home in 1949. 

The house is a living laboratory of the Eameses’ ideas and creativity, illuminating their approaches to life and work in a multi-layered, visceral manner. The Eameses nestled this iconic piece of architecture in an idyllic setting overlooking the Pacific Ocean just north of Santa Monica, sided by an expansive meadow of eucalyptus trees. Its materials, interior collections, and landscaping are maintained as they were during Charles and Ray’s lifetimes; all three elements tell the story of the couple’s life and work.

The house and its 1.4-acre site were formally declared a National Historic Landmark on the day that would have been Charles’s 100th birthday: June 17th, 2007. 

“We began by trying to gain an understanding of family behavior and a vocabulary of materials and techniques, correlated through a logical approach to economics and adapted to an industrialized system of mass production. We agreed that the House must make no insistent demands for itself, but rather aid as a background for life in work.” Charles Eames

The Foundation

The Eames Office acted as a founding partner of the Eames Foundation alongside Vitra and Herman Miller, the two furniture companies that have held a lasting relationship with Charles and Ray’s furniture since the 1940s. Additionally, the Eames Foundation’s partnership with the Getty Conservation Institute is helping secure the physicality of the house and its collections through special ongoing conservation projects. The Eames House is considered one of the most influential post-World War II residences in the world—one in which we hope will continue to inspire architects, designers, and an array of people across the globe.

“I really felt that the house is the keystone…I hope it will be like the center of the sun radiating out, enticing people who are interested in new ways of communicating.” Lucia Eames, daughter of Charles Eames

Click here to schedule yo ur Eames House visit. 

• Random Project
• Collaborate

Eames House / CSH nº8

Introduction

Did you find this article useful?

Really sorry to hear that...

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

Eames Case Study #8 House

Eamesprecedent Case Study #8 House

Kristen Flores + Caterina V. Garcia Table of Contents

3 Background 4 Ray + Charles 5 Social + Historical Context 6 Location 7 Site + Context 8 Materials 9 Spatial Relationships 10 Program 11 Design + Aesthetics 12 Technical Drawings 13 Long Elevations 14 Short Elevations 15 Floor Plans 16 Sustainability 17 References Background

Case Study #8: Eames House Built: 1949, Pacific Palisades Designers: Ray + Charles Eames

Case Study #9: Entenza House Built: 1950, Pacific Palisades Designers: Charles Eames + Eero Saarinen

The Case Study Program (1945-1966) commissioned popular architects to build inexpensive and efficient homes for the post-World War II housing boom. It was designed to accommodate the large numbers of soldiers who were returning home from the war and did not have financial capital to purchase homes and was sponsored by the Arts & Architecture Magazine. Thirty-six houses were designed, but not all were built. Most of the homes that were built are located in Los Angeles . 3 Ray + Charles

Charles and Ray Kaiser met while they were studying architecture at the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Michigan. They married in 1941, after Charles’ divorce from his first wife, Catherine. Besides their integral roles in the world of architecture, the Eameses were also influential in the worlds of furniture design, graphic design, fine art, and film. Together they received many distinctions such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) “Twenty-Five Year Award” in 1977, the Royal Gold Medal in 1979, and the Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) “Most Influential Designer of the 20th Century” in 1985.

In 1949, Charles and Ray, a husband and wife team, designed and built their home as part of the Case Study House Program. This house became very popular and well known due to their design and innovative use of materials throughout the home. The home was designed to express a man’s life in the modern world. It is considered one of the most important post-war residences. The Eameses’ goal was to bring American modernism to the rest of the world. Their furniture, toys, buildings, films, exhibitions, and books were all aimed at improving the lives of average people. Charles and Ray Eames were communicators and educators, always looking for inventive ways to share their ideas with broader audiences. In 1945, Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen designed the first plan of the home, which was known as the Bridge House. Charles and Ray were finally able to move into their house on Christmas Eve of 1949. 4 Social + Historical Context

Ray and Charles Eames Design was formulated in The home was designed created a home that would order to preserve the trees to be economical to be functional + affordable for that were naturally found on build, while also using many people. The homes were the site, i.e. Eucalyptus trees. affordable materials because designed to use materials The home was designed to many soldiers returning that were readily available, integrate the foliage that was home from World War II and could be ordered from native to the site, so the trees might be using this design a catalog. Despite the envelop the home. When in order to accommodate affordability of the home, they first started designing, themselves and their families. they were able to enhance they used the method of The privacy of these families the design of the house by placement on the site, they was also taken into account, including many glass panels later modified that design so the Eameses decided which allowed the people to integrate the structure to incorporate solid panels living within the house to be with the site and nature, which blocked the view of more highly integrated with including a meadow that the outsiders to the interior spaces nature and the natural world. designers fell in love with. they deemed necessary. 5 Location

The home is located on a 1.4 acre lot in the Pacific Palisades along the Pacific Coast between Santa Monica and Malibu on a lower plateau on the northern edge of the Santa Monica Canyon. Three-acre site on top of a 150- foot cliff that overlooks the Pacific Ocean. The north side of the lot slopes up to a wooded bluff; in the middle is a grassy meadow. Charles and Ray “fell in love with the meadow” on the site and wanted to integrate the home with the landscape. Because of the geographical area the home was in, they did not want to give up the beauty of the landscape in order to build their home. 6 The site is a flat parcel on Ray and Charles came up otherwise steep land that with various schemes in creates a retaining wall to order to allow lighting into the west. The response to certain spaces at certain the flat plot of land was a times of the day through concrete retaining wall that color, transparency, and ties together the two boxes placement of the wall panels. separated by a courtyard The main steel frame itself that make up the parti of the is purposefully thin in order residence. The two boxes to give the impression of serve two different functions. uninterrupted space going One is for the residence itself from the exterior into the and the other is a studio. interior. Contrast to the cold Both provide double-height spaces at the corners and steel framing that forms the outer ends of both programs. structure, the interior of the This allows for a composition house is warm and comforting that breaks the space up with its wood-block floor and rhythmically, and is read on the soft light penetrating into the exterior of the house with each room through each the exterior courtyard serving day. The Eames House as a double-height space is a beautiful continuation in between both boxes. The of space. The rooms are use of natural materials SITE + Context liberating, flowing into one on the interior bring the another even between residence closer to nature, floors through the double- giving the appearance of the height spaces. Private and house resting softly on the public spaces are not strictly earth. The colors of the solid divided. For example, the exterior panels correspond bedroom on the upper level to the interior functions overlooks the public living that are taking place. The room with a short terrace house is screened by a row that connects the rooms. of eucalyptus trees that run There are no major divisions parallel to the main façade other than the separation of the studio and residence. of the two boxes, which still From that line of trees, the property then slopes merge into one another with downward to the meadow and the courtyard. Large open is left at its natural state and spaces in the interior spaces with all of these thoughtful are purposefully open to landscape features they were not force a certain use into able to contribute to the overall each space but rather them feel of the Eames House. all be multi purpose spaces. 7 MATERIALS

The roof is covered in a gravel material which integrates the natural environment which surrounds the home, and a steel decking forms the underside of the roof, which is flat, and runs perpendicular to the frames. Each bay within the home is also infilled with materials, such as plaster, plywood, asbestos, glass, and pylon. There was a mixture of transparent and translucent glass used throughout the home, while the area in the studio used reinforced glass. Many of the glass areas throughout the home create the exterior walls of the home, allowing for a great amount of transparency and filtration of natural light. The house uses materials and techniques that resulted from the experiences and material shortages caused by the Second World War. It was designed to use pre-fabricated materials that could be ordered from catalogs which emphasizes the idea of mass-production. The main materials are concrete (for the foundation); glass, stucco, wood, asbestos, metal, and synthetics (for the walls); asphalt (for the roof); and metal through the use of a steel frame. The northernmost boundary of the home has a drive edged with a winding brick wall with mortar, designed by Richard Neutra. 8 RELATIONSHIPS SPATIAL The house is divided into two rectangular sections which create a residential area and as well as a studio area. The house was designed for a married couple that made up of two graphic artists, whose children no longer lived at home. The two separate buildings help to keep the living space and the working space separate, but conveniently closely located. The house highly integrates the natural landscape which surrounds it, an aspect that was closely measured by the designers. The materials within the home serve to emphasize the landscape, through the use of wood, a natural element; and glass, an element which allows for extreme transparency, the house almost becomes one with the natural landscape. The walls that face the rear of the house are solid, which allows for a greater amount of privacy within the home. The two separate areas of the home are connected with the use of a courtyard and the interior of the home also connects these two seemingly separate spaces through the use of double height ceilings, which allow for a greater transparency and interconnection.

9 The program outlined specific objectives which included the integration of outdoor and indoor living spaces, the application of the techniques of mass production to integrate into the process of home building, creating a unique design for a home by using prefabricated, standard, and off-the-shelf parts, promoting Modernism through simple form, and trying to avoid referencing any historical styles. The designer and client in this project were one in the same, though the design was meant to be used repeatedly by other American families. The design supports the separation of work and home life. The house is made up of two volumes, one is the residential portion, and the other is the studio. The residential portion accounts for 1,500 square feet of the home, while the studio makes up the remaining 1,000 square feet. The home is made up of 20’ x 7’ 4”x 17’ bays. The house’s emphasis on the studio area demonstrates the importance of the art culture in the designer/client’s life. The rear (westernmost) wall’s solidity provided for a much more private house, while the large glass walls allowed for high integration with the natural surroundings. The spaces, including the courtyard between the two structures were all designed to provide a dialogue between interior spaces and the exterior. PROGRAM 10 Design + Aesthetics The look and feel of the project is displayed throughout the house in unique ways. Panels in black, white, blue, red, and yellow resemble Mondrian paintings that are attached to the prefabricated materials within the house. These panels are placed strategically in order to allow light to flow in to the house, and the trees in front allow for shade to help keep the inside cooler. Their desire to maintain the meadow allowed for the integration of inside and outside through the mixture of the materials and created by the courtyard that is divided between the living area and studio. On the interior, double-height, glass-paneled spaces occupy the outermost portions of each component, which creates alternating positive and negative spaces. Smaller interior spaces, like the upstairs bathrooms and bedrooms, have well placed glazed panels that provide light without compromising privacy. The double height spaces throughout the home have solid rear walls. The design of the house as a whole reflects space, light, and flexibility. There is a rhythm between double height and single height spaces, creating public and private spaces within the living area and the studio, but not strictly. Individual bays are defined by steel frames which have two rows of 4” H-columns that are 20’ apart with a 12” open-web joint that forms top. The rear elevation’s vertical members are partially embedded into 8’ high poured concrete columns. On the exterior of the home, there is a visible diagonal cross-bracing, which provides structural stability for the frames.

11 Technical Drawings

Exploded Isometric

Plans, Elevations, Site Context

12 Long Elevations

West Elevation

Colored Panels Clear Glass Panels

Wooden Panels Black Panels Steel Frame

East Elevation

Clear Glass Panels Metal Panels Steel Frame

White Panel Colored Walls Black Panel Retaining Wall 13 Short Elevations House–North Elevation House–South Elevation White Panel

Clear Glass Panels Clear Glass Panels

White Panel

Retaining Wall

Wood Panels Steel Frame

Studio–North Elevation Studio–South Elevation

Colored Panels

Retaining Wall Wood Panels

White Panel Steel Frame

Steel Frame

14 Floor Plans

Grey Tile Parquet Wood Flooring

White Tile Brick (Courtyard)

15 SUSTAINABILITY Ray and Charles Eames sought to maintain the environmental integrity of the land which they used to build this home, and work with the site in order to incorporate the existing landscape and natural greenery. The Eames House was designed to use prefabricated materials, which allowed material cost to be lowered; and because the home only took about a day and a half to build, the labor costs were also lowered. The design worked with the site to prevent the relocation of any of the trees, mainly the eucalyptus trees, which were native to the area in which the home was built. The inclusion of glass surfaces allowed for much more natural light than most homes, which resulted in lower energy costs. The materials found within the site have remained virtually intact, with the only real change being the maturation of the natural landscape.

16 References http://www.archdaily.com/66302/ad-classics-eames-house-charles-and-ray-eames http://eameshouseresearch.weebly.com/blog http://www.eamesfoundation.org http://www.nps.gov/nhl/find/statelists/ca/Eames.pdf http://www.eamesoffice.com/the-work/eames-house-case-study-house-8/ http://inhabitat.com/the-eames-house-sparked-new-thinking-in-modern-living/

Case Study House 8. Charles and Ray Eames

Made a National Historic Landmark in 2006 and included on the top 10 all-time list of Los Angeles houses in 2008, it is clear that Case Study House #8, located in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of LA, is highly considered to be a landmark in mid-20th century modern architecture and domestic design.

Initially incepted jointly by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen, the ‘Eames House,’ as it came to be known, was later modified during the construction process by Eames and his wife Ray in order to maximize its spatial area.

Like so many other case study houses , #8 was built, almost ergonomically, as an attempt to create a living space that understands and accentuates the possibilities and eases of everyday domestic life.

For the Eames’s, who required a space that combined their professional lives with their domestic lives as most of their work preparations took place in the home, concentration and relaxation were continually mixed and permeated the fabric of family living. This is reflected in the home that they built together and Case Study House #8 was simply designed to seamlessly incorporate the often separate spheres of work life and domestic life within one single abode.

By laying out the house in this manner, the Eames’s were able to create a ‘separate-but-close’ space where one could work for a time and then switch effortlessly into comfortable domestic life by simply moving to another room within the house. For the Eames’s, whose professional lives and domestic lives so often overlapped, Case Study House #8 functioned as an integral part of the living pattern of its occupants and was therefore ‘used’ in a very full and real sense; a notion often unusual in such an avant-garde domestic design.

Charles and Ray Eames chose to use industrial, prefabricated materials, including steel, glass, asbestos and cemesto board, for the entirety of the construction and uses these materials, their varying textures and colors, to ‘animate’ the buildings rectangular design.

After World War II, however, these ‘off-the-shelf’ materials were in short supply and it wasn’t until approximately three years after the house’s design was completed that the materials were delivered and this time was spent thoroughly searching for an appropriate plot of land on which to build the house.

The actual site of Case Study House #8, found on North Chautauqua Boulevard, was excavated in a hillside behind a row of tall eucalyptus trees; a quiet, calm location that enjoyed an unobstructed view of the ocean.

The feeling that the house had grown out of the hills and the secluded nature of the location exuded a sense that the Eames House had been created in its own little world , screened all around by high trees, foliage and rolling hills. This was the perfect location for such a harmonious home, which, despite being conceived as prototypical, was lovingly lived in and works as a highly personal reflection of the possibilities and coexistences of work and leisure; simple characteristics of Charles and Ray Eames’ unique was of life.

The Case Study Houses Program: Richard Neutra’s Bailey House

The case study houses program: craig ellwood’s case study house 18.

• Uncategorized

The Eames House, or Case Study House no. 8

I am sticking around the Pacific Palisades to talk about another one of my favorite places in Los Angeles–The Eames House and Foundation. But first a film.

I hope this video gave you some context about why the Eames House is such an important part of Los Angeles’ cultural landscape. I love taking my friends here who love architecture and Mid-Century design. The Eames house is a marvel in making do with what you have and testing the limits of what an object can do.

Table of Contents

The Case Study House Program

The Case Study House program, which the Eames House is part of, was ahead of its time in many ways. The idea came from a group of editors at Art and Architecture Magazine who posed a question to architects on how to produce homes cheaply and quickly. The program coincided with a projected population boom in the Western states after the end of WWII. One of the criteria was using materials that were readily available during the war. Think of the 3 Rs-Recycle/Reuse/Restore before it was cool.

The Case Study question was brought to several architects and designers that now read like a who’s who of the Mid-Century aesthetic: Richard Neutra, Eero Saarinen, Pierre Koenig, and Craig Ellwood, to name a few. In all, thirty-six houses were designed. Many of these were never built or were demolished before they could be protected. Luckily, two of these homes are on tour to the public in Los Angeles. Case Study House no. 22, or the Stahl House, and Case Study no. 8, built by Charles and Ray Eames.

The name Eames may not be familiar to you, but I assure you that you have seen their work copied again and again by places like Design Within Reach and West Elm. In addition to being architects of Case Study House No. 8, this husband and wife team designed all the furniture and textile pieces featured in the home. All the Eames designs are both aesthetic and functional.

The Eames’ home

What you notice about Case Study No. 8, which ended up being the Eames’ home, is that the house is separated into two buildings made from sections of shipping containers. A working space that served as their design studio and another larger space which I will talk about more in-depth in a second. The walkway between the two buildings is a green space meant to leave the worries of work at work.

The Eames were purveyors of the guest/host relationship. The home was designed so that it has a natural flow and puts guests first in the kitchen, then to the dining room, and ending the evening in the living room. After dinner, they can sip their after-dinner drinks with a spectacular view of the sun setting over the Pacific Ocean. This house was definitely planned with dinner parties in mind. The floor-to-ceiling windows really showcase the nature surrounding the property. The meadow outside is lined with milkweed that attracts Monarch butterflies that flit around the property. Tall eucalyptus trees with peeling bark reveal new colors and smell sweet on the air. Looming in the distance is the outline of Catalina Island.

Hours, cost, and information

Case Study No. 8 is now run by The Eames House Foundation who offers tours of the home and grounds.

• Website: http://eamesfoundation.org
• Location: 203 Chautauqua Boulevard, Pacific Palisades
• When: By appointment, closed on Wednesdays and Sundays
• Cost: As of this update, 4/6/23, they are only offering guided exterior tours at $30 per person. Check the website for all costs and to make an appointment
• Ages: All are welcome on the exterior tour. People under 15 years of age are not allowed on an interior tour

[Getting there: Driving: Just an FYI that although the directions to the place are good, please note that this area straddles two cities–one side of the street is Vance while the other is Corona Del Mar, a helpful hint since there is no place to turn around once you have missed the street.  By Public Transit: Los Angeles Metro bus 602.]

Missed my first favorite place; check out Monday’s post .

Did you know I have a newsletter? Subscribe here .

Share this:

Comments (2).

Hannah Siller

September 10, 2020 at 8:47 am

I had no clue this existed and I’ve lived in Southern California my whole life. Might have to check it out.

Leo Carrillo State Beach's Tide Pools –

September 10, 2020 at 10:52 am

[…] I hope I convinced you to incorporate Leo Carrillo State Beach’s tide pools to your trip and life in Los Angeles. If you missed out on my other favorite things to do in Los Angeles, check out the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine and the Eames House. […]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine

Leo carrillo state beach's tide pools.

Eames House – The Modern Stylings of Case Study House 8

The Eames House, which is also referred to as the Case Study House 8, is a prime example of modern architecture that is found in Los Angeles. The Eames House had a large impact on interior design as a concept and is overall very inspirational to architects and interior designers alike. Charles and Ray Eames were pioneers of combining human-centered design with warmth and comfort to create a perfect living and working space for them, their family, and guests.

Table of Contents

• 1.1 About Charles and Ray Eames
• 2.1 How the House Was Built
• 2.2 The Exterior of the Eames House
• 2.3 The Interior of the Eames House
• 3 Conservation of the Eames House
• 4.1 Who Lived in the Eames House?
• 4.2 How Many Case Study Houses Still Exist?
• 4.3 Are the Case Study Houses Open for Visitation?
• 4.4 What Is a Case Study in Architecture?
• 4.5 What Is the Significance of the Eames House?
• 4.6 How Much Is the Eames House Worth?
• 4.7 How Much Does It Cost to Visit the Eames House?

History of the Eames House

The Eames House was part of the Los Angeles Arts and Architecture Magazine Case Study Program when it was designed in 1945. The goal of these case study homes was for them to prioritize the use of modern technology and materials that were invented during World War II.

The Case Study House 8 was designed and built by the husband-and-wife duo, Charles, and Ray Eames in 1949, who moved into the house that same year. The house served as their home and creative studio for the remainder of their lives, which was a total of 40 years of occupying the house. Charles passed in 1978 and Ray passed in 1988, exactly ten years later, to the day.

The objective of the house was for it to be built entirely from prefabricated materials that would not in any way disturb the site and surrounding nature while demonstrating a modern style that is economical and easy to build.

The brief also stated that the architect had the choice of freedom when it came to the real or hypothetical client. The proposal that Charles and Ray submitted suggested that the client of the house is to be “a married couple working in design and graphic arts, whose children were no longer living at home”, which uncoincidentally was exactly the period where they were in their lives, making the client very real.

Originally, the house was baptized the “Bridge House” and designs were published by Charles Eames and fellow architect Eero Saarinen.

War-related shortages, however, put an abrupt stop to their original plans for the house. Originally Charles and Ray wanted to build two separate buildings: A hillside studio and a separate house with a view of the ocean. By the time the war was over, the couple had a close connection to the surrounding meadows, and they chose to reconceptualize Case Study House 8.

They did this by merging the two buildings while still making use of the same amounts of materials, with the addition of a single steel segment.

In 2004, Lucia Eames, Charles’s daughter, created the Eames Foundation, which is a nonprofit organization that aims to protect and preserve Ray and Charles’ house as well as offer educational events to celebrate the legacy of Charles and Ray Eames. In 2006, the house was selected as a national historic landmark. In 2020, over 200 eucalyptus trees were harvested on the property for preservation purposes.

Two of these trees were used to manufacture a special edition of the class Eames Low Table Rod (LTR) table, which included solid-wooden tops.

About Charles and Ray Eames

Charles Ormond Eames, Jr. and Bernice Alexandra “Ray” Kaiser Eames were industrial designers, graphic designers, artists, and filmmakers. Charles and Ray met in 1940 at the Cranbrook Academy of Art, where Charles was first a scholar of an industrial design fellowship, but later became an instructor. Ray enrolled in multiple courses at the academy in order to expand upon her preceding education in abstract painting. Charles separated from his first wife and then married Ray in 1941. They used their honeymoon time to move to Los Angeles.

It was in Venice, Los Angeles where they began The Eames Office in a former garage while working on furniture design for 13 hours a day and seven days a week.

They worked under the name of their own company, the Eames Office where they contributed greatly to architecture and furniture design. The most well-known furniture pieces that they have designed are the Eames Lounge Chair and the Eames Dining Chair. The Eames were believers in “learning by doing”, and they taught multiple notable designers.

They were the founding fathers of plywood molding, which they tested over and over until they perfected the skill.

Charles and Ray Eames were also the masterminds of the company Herman Miller, which is a 112-year-old global décor and furniture company. Some of the original Herman Miller furniture designs were even created in and for the Case Study House 8, such as their ottoman and lounge chair.

Charles strongly believed in the architectural design principles of Frank Lloyd Wright , which unfortunately resulted in him being expelled from Washington University’s architecture program. In terms of his architecture career, he designed three houses in St. Louis as well as two churches in Arkansas without an architecture license.

Charles and Ray Eames were big believers in ergonomic design: designing for the needs and measurements of humans. They were known for sampling and testing designs and furniture pieces over and over until they got it exactly right.

The lines were blurred between their living and working life, and as such their guests were usually the happy guinea pigs of their new inventions.

Taking a Closer Look at the Eames House

What started out as a case study turned into the lifelong home and workplace of two creatives who intended for the house to be a blueprint for living. In order to fulfill Charles and Ray’s wishes it is important that we closely analyze their intent for the house, the site as well as the interior and the exterior in order to be able to fully understand how all of it came together.

How the House Was Built

Solely making use of the off-the-shelf parts that were ordered, along with one extra steel beam, a two double-story structure with two parts was erected and designed into the landscape, instead of just enforcing the building on top of it. A concrete retaining wall that is 8 feet tall and 200 feet long acts as a support for the steel frame. The steel frame of the house consists of two rows of four-inch I-beams that were placed 20 feet apart.

The foundation for the house and the steel frame was completed in a mere 16 hours by a total of five workers, and the rest of the house was finalized within a short eleven months.

The house consists of two boxes that serve two different functions: One box was for living, and the other served as their work and creative studio. Both boxes are double volume at each end of the combined cube which continues through to the exterior courtyards. A simplistic pre-manufactured steel frame was used to build the house.

The steel frames consist of four-inch I-beams for the walls and further 12-inch-deep web trusses for the structure of the roof.

The Exterior of the Eames House

The house is built on top of a 150-foot cliff with views of the Pacific Ocean. The site is mostly flat aside from one steep part of the land that imitates a western retaining wall. The house is a true example of the De Stijl Movement that took place outside of Europe.

Key characteristics of the De Stijl Movement were sliding walls and windows, which the Eames House has plenty of.

Between the steel frames are a variety of transparent and solid-colored panels that are made from glass, fiberglass-like “pylon”, asbestos, plywood, and plaster. These panels were arranged specifically according to the changing sunlight inside the house throughout the day. The arrangements of these panels suggest a clear Japanese influence.

The combination of the black lines created by the pre-manufactured steel supports and the primary-colored panels have a sense of familiarity to it because it strongly reminds of the famous Piet Mondrian paintings . While doing a paint excavation study for the conservation plan of the house, researchers found that some of the panels were previously painted a warm gray, which indicated that Ray Eames mixed the paint by hand.

Somewhere along the road, black paint was used over the existing gray paint.

The entrance door has a clearly marked gold-leaf panel above it, which makes it easily identifiable. A small courtyard splits the main house and the studio and was not part of the original plans, but luckily only required one extra beam. A central courtyard that visually combines the two buildings is paved with brick, marble, and wooden pavers that were arranged in a grid shape.

The Interior of the Eames House

In contrast to the cold steel frames that make up the skeleton of the house, the interior of the Ray and Charles’ house is very warm, colorful, and inviting, especially considering the wooden floor finish used throughout. Wooden staircases connect the upper and lower level of the house.

The use of these natural materials is an ode to nature, linking the interior with the exterior and blurring the lines of architecture and nature.

The underside of the ribbed ceiling of the Ferrobord roof decking was painted white, which makes the colorful primary painted exposed web joists stand out against it and makes it a design feature in its own right. The interior of the house is a completely free-flowing space with no evident divisions between spaces, even private and public areas are blurred. For example, the bedroom on the top floor overlooks the public living area on the bottom floor, with only a short terrace that joins the two rooms.

There is, however, a corrugated glass screen that conceals the utility area behind the kitchen, where food was prepared in copious amounts by Ray on a regular basis. This was because they loved hosting others but also believed that the mess of daily life should be hidden in some way from your guests to make their experience as pleasurable as possible.

The lower level of the house includes a living room with an alcove with a built-in corner sofa, a spiral staircase, a hallway with closets, the kitchen, and utility space.

The Eames House bedroom can be found on the upper mezzanine level of the house. The bedroom has a sliding wood panel in the middle, that when closed, clearly divides the Eames House bedroom into a separate master bedroom and a guest bedroom when needed. The Eames House bedroom overlooks the double-volume living area and acts as a mezzanine level. Also included on the second story are multiple hallways with aluminum closets, two bathrooms, and a wire-fixed skylight.

The studio building also boasts a mezzanine level, but one that is much shorter in length than that of the main building. The studio’s ground floor consists of a bathroom, a utility sink, a dark room for the processing of photographs, and also a large double-volume space to inspire and create within. The mezzanine was originally used only for storage, but also served occasionally as the guest quarters.

The main house consists of two bathrooms, which was a surprising thing for the time, as it was the norm for traditional houses to only contain one bathroom.

The reasoning behind this was that only the husband had to get ready for work during the mornings. Of course, post-war, when women were also becoming accustomed to having jobs, the multi-bathroom home became a popular notion in America. The multi-bathroom facilities are also an ode to how Charles and Ray valued their visitors and their experience of the house visit. The studio block also contains a bathroom, as the family usually ended up sleeping there during the summer.

The décor inside the house consists of a wide collection of things that Charles and Ray accumulated throughout their lives: fold art, toys, seashells, bright textiles, expressionist abstract paintings, antiques, and furniture pieces designed by themselves. The interior of the house is a great example of the style of that period as well as the role that California modernism played in architecture within an international context. Their interior collection also includes Isamu Noguchi floor lamps, Japanese kokeshi dolls, Native American baskets, Chinese lacquered pillows, and Thonet chairs.

The interior of the house is sometimes described as maximalist, which sparked controversy as it was so contrasting to the much-loved Modernism-style. Fans of the Eames house applauded Charles and Ray for “humanizing” modernism.

The items in the Eames House living room were briefly transferred to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and displayed from 2011 to 2012 for an exhibition. This was something that had to be done to obtain the necessary funds to address the general wear and tear on the house. During this time, the deteriorated floor tiles were also removed, which exposed the original concrete floor below.

Conservation of the Eames House

Although the house was so easy to erect, and a delight to live in as well as visit, the Ray and Charles’ house is not without its problems. Being so close to the ocean, the steel columns have to be repainted constantly to deter rust and corrosion. Although right next to the ocean, being in LA, the site is very desert-like as well, which is not a positive characteristic for the site on which a building is to be conserved. This along with the use of rubber flooring that discolors over time and the wear and tear of the parquet flooring makes the house a very high-maintenance building.

Being a historic treasure, these faults pose a great threat, as they become an eye sore to the visitor, which alters the experience that Charles and Ray wanted people to experience when visiting the house: to enjoy the house in relation to the landscape.

The Getty Conservation Institute has started implementing practical but unobstructed ways to conserve the house moving forward. The idea is to keep the house as true as possible to the time when Charles and Ray Eames were occupying it. This means that things like watermarks in corners that result from Charles spritzing his beloved plants with water daily should be left untouched where possible and only finished with invisible UV protectors to extend the materials’ life.

During the Getty-sponsored exhibition in 2011, where all the contents of the double-volume Eames House living room were temporarily relocated to the Los Angeles County Museum, professional conservators had the opportunity to properly assess the damage to the structure. With the entire Eames House living room cleared out, it was the perfect opportunity to repair asbestos-covered cracked flooring, which needed urgent attention. The floor was replaced with vinyl-composite tile flooring.

The most urgent of all the problems was the separation of glazing and steel caused by water seeping down the glass facades. The first phase of the repairs needed to be done before the contents of the house could be reinstated and ended up costing almost five thousand euros.

The problem was that to respect the wishes of Charles and Ray Eames, the house could not be sealed off like typical museums. The idea was for living things like plants and flowers to still be very evident in the house and for visitors to use the house as Charles and Ray intended it to be used. This meant that live plants had to be included and windows and doors had to be in working condition.

Along with the previously mentioned measures, the furniture and décor of the house are kept in the same locations as Charles and Ray had them when they were still alive. The curtains of the house also remain drawn most of the time to reduce the damage of light exposure to the contents within the house.

The Eames House is regarded as the most successful out of the twenty-five Case Study houses that were built. This is because it was considered a functional and comfortable living space while at the same time making an architectural statement. The Case Study House 8 was such an inspiration that it was even used as the setting for fashion shoots during the 1950s and 1960s for magazine publications like “Vogue”. Just goes to show that human-centered design was and will probably always be the most sought-after design style.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who lived in the eames house.

The house was not only designed and overseen by the husband-and-wife duo, Charles and Ray Eames, but it also served as their primary home and art studio. The couple happily lived in the house until their deaths.

How Many Case Study Houses Still Exist?

Until today, 20 out of the 36 experimental prototypes still exist, although many were never built to begin with. Most of the case study houses can be found in Southern California, and a few are also in Northern California and San Diego. Another small group of Case Study apartments was also established in Phoenix.

Are the Case Study Houses Open for Visitation?

The two most popular case study houses, being the Eames House and the Stahl House , are open for visitation to the public. The Eames house is restricted to four or five visitors at a time in order to preserve the house as much as possible while raising funds for the necessary repairs.

What Is a Case Study in Architecture?

A case study is seen as the in-depth research and documentation of a built project from the design process right through to the installation and habitation. The aim of case study houses is to continually learn from mistakes and improve on future builds.

What Is the Significance of the Eames House?

The Eames House is an almost perfect example of the De Stijl movement that originated outside of Europe. The most obvious characteristics are the versatility and openness of the interior space. After the Eameses passed, the house also remained mostly unchanged and very well preserved throughout the years.

How Much Is the Eames House Worth?

During its time, Case Study House 8 was estimated at one dollar per square foot. In 2018, this number has sprung to over ten dollars per square foot.

How Much Does It Cost to Visit the Eames House?

Currently, it costs $10 to tour the exterior of the house and only peek through the windows to the interior views.

Kylie Deyzel is an interior designer and sustainability enthusiast from Cape Town, South Africa. She has a passion for writing and educating others on various interior design topics. Her favorite interior design topics include interior design theory, interior design history, and most of all: sustainable interior design.

She received her B-tech degree in interior design from the University of Johannesburg in 2018 and has worked at various interior design firms since and had a few of her own freelance interior design clients under her company name binnekant.

Learn more about the Art in Context Team .

Cite this Article

Kylie, Deyzel, “Eames House – The Modern Stylings of Case Study House 8.” Art in Context. July 8, 2022. URL: https://artincontext.org/eames-house/

Deyzel, K. (2022, 8 July). Eames House – The Modern Stylings of Case Study House 8. Art in Context. https://artincontext.org/eames-house/

Deyzel, Kylie. “Eames House – The Modern Stylings of Case Study House 8.” Art in Context , July 8, 2022. https://artincontext.org/eames-house/ .

Similar Posts

The Vessel in New York – The Hudson Yards Vessel History

Salesforce Tower – Visiting the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco

Famous Modernist Buildings – Examples of Modern Architecture

Barcelona Pavilion – A Quick Barcelona Pavilion Analysis

Willis Tower – Taking a Look at the Sears Tower in Chicago

Oldest Buildings in the World – A Glimpse into 15 Ancient Wonders

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Top of page

Photo, Print, Drawing [Case Study House No. 8 for Charles and Ray Eames (Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California). Elevations and details]

Back to Search Results

Full online access to this resource is only available at the Library of Congress.

About this Item

• [Case Study House No. 8 for Charles and Ray Eames (Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California). Elevations and details]
• Working architectural drawing showing glass panels of house and studio as elevations and details.
• Eames, Charles, architect

Created / Published

• 1948 Jan. 19, revised 1949 March 14.
• -  Eames, Charles--Homes & haunts--California--Los Angeles
• -  Eames, Ray--Homes & haunts--California--Los Angeles
• -  Eames House (Los Angeles, Calif.)--1940-1950
• -  Houses--California--Los Angeles--1940-1950
• Architectural drawings--1940-1950.
• Blueprints--1940-1950.
• Blueprints--1940-1950
• Architectural drawings--1940-1950
• -  House designed by Charles Eames.
• -  Detail sheet F, "Office Copy."
• -  Conservation control no. 8.95.835.241
• 1 print : blueprint and graphite.

Call Number/Physical Location

• Unprocessed in PR 13 CN 1989:150 [item] [P&P]

Source Collection

• Work of Charles and Ray Eames (Library of Congress)
• Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA
• ppmsc 00023 https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsc.00023

Library of Congress Control Number

Rights advisory.

• Publication may be restricted. For information see "The Work of Charles and Ray Eames," http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/res/069_eame.html

Online Format

Lccn permalink.

• https://lccn.loc.gov/97519376

Additional Metadata Formats

• MARCXML Record
• MODS Record
• Dublin Core Record
• Prints & Photographs Online Catalog (Library of Congress) (954,655)
• Prints and Photographs Division (1,074,395)
• Library of Congress Online Catalog (1,621,594)
• Photo, Print, Drawing

Contributor

• Eames, Charles
• Los Angeles
• Architectural Drawings
• Eames House (Los Angeles, Calif.)
• Homes & Haunts

Rights & Access

More about Copyright and other Restrictions

For guidance about compiling full citations consult Citing Primary Sources .

• Rights Advisory : Publication may be restricted. For information see "The Work of Charles and Ray Eames," http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/res/069_eame.html
• Reproduction Number : ---
• Call Number : Unprocessed in PR 13 CN 1989:150 [item] [P&P]
• Access Advisory : ---

Obtaining Copies

If an image is displaying, you can download it yourself. (Some images display only as thumbnails outside the Library of Congress because of rights considerations, but you have access to larger size images on site.)

Alternatively, you can purchase copies of various types through Library of Congress Duplication Services .

• If a digital image is displaying: The qualities of the digital image partially depend on whether it was made from the original or an intermediate such as a copy negative or transparency. If the Reproduction Number field above includes a reproduction number that starts with LC-DIG..., then there is a digital image that was made directly from the original and is of sufficient resolution for most publication purposes.

If only black-and-white ("b&w") sources are listed and you desire a copy showing color or tint (assuming the original has any), you can generally purchase a quality copy of the original in color by citing the Call Number listed above and including the catalog record ("About This Item") with your request.

• If there is no information listed in the Reproduction Number field above: You can generally purchase a quality copy through Duplication Services. Cite the Call Number listed above and include the catalog record ("About This Item") with your request.

Price lists, contact information, and order forms are available on the Duplication Services Web site .

Access to Originals

Please use the following steps to determine whether you need to fill out a call slip in the Prints and Photographs Reading Room to view the original item(s). In some cases, a surrogate (substitute image) is available, often in the form of a digital image, a copy print, or microfilm.

Is the item digitized? (A thumbnail (small) image will be visible on the left.)

• Yes, the item is digitized. Please use the digital image in preference to requesting the original. All images can be viewed at a large size when you are in any reading room at the Library of Congress. In some cases, only thumbnail (small) images are available when you are outside the Library of Congress because the item is rights restricted or has not been evaluated for rights restrictions. As a preservation measure, we generally do not serve an original item when a digital image is available. If you have a compelling reason to see the original, consult with a reference librarian. (Sometimes, the original is simply too fragile to serve. For example, glass and film photographic negatives are particularly subject to damage. They are also easier to see online where they are presented as positive images.)
• No, the item is not digitized. Please go to #2.

Do the Access Advisory or Call Number fields above indicate that a non-digital surrogate exists, such as microfilm or copy prints?

• Yes, another surrogate exists. Reference staff can direct you to this surrogate.
• No, another surrogate does not exist. Please go to #3.
• If you do not see a thumbnail image or a reference to another surrogate, please fill out a call slip in the Prints and Photographs Reading Room. In many cases, the originals can be served in a few minutes. Other materials require appointments for later the same day or in the future. Reference staff can advise you in both how to fill out a call slip and when the item can be served.

To contact Reference staff in the Prints and Photographs Reading Room, please use our Ask A Librarian service or call the reading room between 8:30 and 5:00 at 202-707-6394, and Press 3.

Cite This Item

Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.

Chicago citation style:

Eames, Charles, Architect. Case Study House No. 8 for Charles and Ray Eames Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California. Elevations and details . California Los Angeles, 1948. , revised 1949 March 14. Photograph. https://www.loc.gov/item/97519376/.

APA citation style:

Eames, C. (1948) Case Study House No. 8 for Charles and Ray Eames Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California. Elevations and details . California Los Angeles, 1948. , revised 1949 March 14. [Photograph] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/97519376/.

MLA citation style:

Eames, Charles, Architect. Case Study House No. 8 for Charles and Ray Eames Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California. Elevations and details . , revised 1949 March 14. Photograph. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/97519376/>.

Body camera video shows Sonya Massey's final moments before she was fatally shot by a deputy

Authorities released body camera footage Monday of Sonya Massey 's final moments before she was fatally shot by law enforcement at her home in Springfield, Illinois.

Massey, 36, was killed July 6 after she called the Sangamon County Sheriff's Office because she was afraid there might be a prowler outside, according to an attorney for her family and Illinois State Police.

Former Sangamon County Deputy Sean Grayson is accused of shooting Massey in the face after he and another deputy were dispatched to her home shortly before 1 a.m.

Grayson has been indicted on charges of first-degree murder , aggravated battery with a firearm and official misconduct, said Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser.

Grayson pleaded not guilty last week, according to his lawyer, Dan Fultz, who declined to comment after the body camera footage was released.

In the footage, Grayson and a second deputy can be seen knocking on Massey's door a few times until Massey opens it.

"Please don't hurt me," Massey is heard saying to Grayson. The second deputy was not identified by authorities.

"Why would I hurt you? You called us," Grayson responds.

The deputies tell Massey they checked the area around her house and didn't see anybody, and then ask if she needs help with anything else. Grayson also asks Massey if she's doing OK mentally, to which she answers, "Yes."

"I love ya'll, thank ya'll," Massey says as she's closing her door. The deputies ask her if a black SUV in her driveway with a smashed window is hers, to which she says no and that someone brought it there.

The deputies then go into Massey's house, where they ask her for her name so they "can get out of your hair."

Massey then moves to her stove, where she picks up a pot from a burner. The situation escalates when she moves the pot from the stove.

"Where you goin'?" she asks the deputies.

"Away from your hot, steaming water," Grayson responds.

"I rebuke you in the name of Jesus," she says.

Massey does not approach the deputies with the pot and stays in her kitchen.

"You better f------ not I swear to God I'll f------- shoot you in your f------- face," Grayson says before pulling out his gun.

"OK, I'm sorry!" Massey says as she ducks.

The second deputy also pulls out his gun.

"Drop the f------- pot!" Grayson screams.

Three gunshots are heard as Grayson continues to yell at Massey to drop the pot. Massey cannot be seen from behind the kitchen counter, but video from Grayson's body camera shows that Massey had let go of the pot when she ducked.

The deputies called for emergency personnel.

The second deputy says he's going to get his kit.

"Nah, headshot dude, she's done," Grayson says to him. "You can go get it but that's a headshot."

"Yeah I'm not taking f------- boiling hot water to the f------- head," Grayson continues. "Hey look, it f------- came right to our feet too."

He then goes to get his medical kit, saying, "I mean, there's not much we can do."

"We can at least try and hold the, stop the blood," the second deputy says. He then goes into the kitchen, finds a towel and holds it to Massey. Massey is blurred out in the footage, but a large pool of blood can still be seen near her head, and she can be heard gasping.

When Grayson makes his way back into the home, he asks another deputy who has since entered, "Is there anything we can do for her?" The deputy responds, "No."

"All right, I'm not even going to waste my med stuff then," Grayson says.

The deputy asks Grayson, "Where's the gun?"

"No, she had boiling water and came at me with boiling water," Grayson says.

When Grayson leaves the house, a member of law enforcement standing outside asks him if he's OK.

"Yeah I'm good. This f------- b---- is crazy," he responds and walks to his vehicle shortly afterward.

The second deputy stays with Massey, holding the towel to her head until medical help arrives. Grayson is not seen trying to aid Massey.

Massey was taken to a hospital, where she was declared dead, according to state police.

A use-of-force review conducted by state police found that while Grayson did not attempt to de-escalate the encounter, he was justified in pointing his service weapon at Massey to get her to comply. But it found the shooting was not justified because Grayson advanced toward Massey and put himself in a position where he could have been injured. 

Milhiser, the Sangamon County state's attorney, said in an earlier statement that a review of the state police investigation, including body camera footage, “does not support a finding that Deputy Sean Grayson was justified in his use of deadly force.”

Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell said in a statement last week that Grayson had been fired because it was clear he “did not act as trained or in accordance with our standards.”

In a statement posted Monday to Facebook, Campbell said Massey is dead because of an "unjustifiable and reckless decision" made by Grayson.

"Grayson had other options available that he should have used," Campbell said. "His actions were inexcusable and do not reflect the values or training of our office. He will now face judgment by the criminal justice system and will never again work in law enforcement."

The sheriff went on to say that Massey "needlessly lost her life" and that her family deserves answers.

President Joe Biden also weighed in on the killing on Monday, saying Massey should still be alive and lauding prosecutors for their "swift actions."

Biden said he is "heartbroken" for Massey's children and her family.

"When we call for help, all of us as Americans — regardless of who we are or where we live — should be able to do so without fearing for our lives," the president said. "Sonya’s death at the hands of a responding officer reminds us that all too often Black Americans face fears for their safety in ways many of the rest of us do not."

In a news conference Monday, Ben Crump, the attorney representing Massey's family, contemplated whether race played a role in the deadly shooting.

"That is the lingering question in our community because many of us looked at that video and said, 'If it was a white woman, he would not have done this,'" Crump said.

In a subsequent statement, the lawyer praised a decision to hold the former deputy without bond, describing the move as "another crucial step in the pursuit of justice for Sonya Massey’s family."

Grayson’s next court date is scheduled for Aug. 26.

"We want equal justice for Sonya Massey," Crump said at the news conference. "We said it before: whatever Grayson would be convicted of and sentenced to had it been a white woman is the same thing we want for this Black queen named Sonya Massey."

Breaking news reporter

Which States Improved Child Tax Credits and EITCs in 2024?

July 25, 2024

Neva Butkus State Policy Analyst

During the almost-finished 2024 legislative season, four states expanded or boosted refundable tax credits for children and families, and the District of Columbia is poised to create a new Child Tax Credit. These actions — in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Utah, and D.C. — continue the recent trend of improving the well-being of children and families with refundable tax credits.

Two of these four states plus D.C. have credits that are fully refundable. When credits are refundable, households receive the full value of the credit regardless of how much they owe in state income taxes, meaning the credit can help offset the impact of more regressive taxes like sales and property taxes. This makes both EITCs and CTCs better at improving equity in state tax codes.

Colorado passed an expansion of its Earned Income Tax Credit that will bring its match to 50 percent of the federal credit for the 2024 tax year. Lawmakers there also created a new credit — called the Family Affordability Tax Credit – that will boost the state’s existing Child Tax Credit and could provide an additional credit of up to $3,200 per child in years of strong economic growth . D.C’s new Child Tax Credit of $420 per qualifying child under 6 will also be fully refundable. And Illinois created a new child benefit through its existing Earned Income Tax Credit that will boost the credit for EITC-qualifying families with children under 12 years old.

Utah expanded its nonrefundable Child Tax Credit to include four-year-olds (it previously cut off once a child was over three). On the administrative side, Minnesota lawmakers built out the structure to provide periodic payments for the state’s historic Child Tax Credit passed in 2023. Additionally, New York is providing a one-time boost to its Empire State Child Tax Credit for 2024.

For nearly 40 years, states have used EITCs to boost the economic security of low- and middle-income families. States only began administering CTCs in 2006 when New York created their Empire State Child Credit. After the federal expansions of the EITC and CTC in the American Rescue Plan Act expired in 2022, many state lawmakers took the future of these powerful poverty-reducing credits into their own hands. Since 2022, 12 states plus D.C. have either created or expanded CTCs. And 17 states plus D.C. have created or expanded EITCs.

As state Child Tax Credits and Earned Income Tax Credits increase in popularity, lawmakers have also merged these two policies to create more impactful credits. In recent years, we have witnessed this in states like Washington and Minnesota. Washington is the first state that has no income tax but has passed an EITC — but unlike traditional EITCs, it has no income phase-in. In 2023, Minnesota lawmakers restructured their EITC – known as the Working Families Credit –  so it could better couple and phasedown simultaneously with the state’s new CTC.

This continued in 2024 as Illinois passed a new child benefit boosting the state’s Earned Income Credit for households with a child under 12 by matching the state credit at 40 percent (the match will be 20 percent in 2024 as it phases in). Conversations are still ongoing in many states on merging their credits. For example, New York lawmakers have considered merging their Empire State Child Credit and EITC in a way that better targets the lowest-earning families while also ensuring no family is penalized by the changes.

Another noticeable trend this year was movement on Child and Dependent Care Credits (CDCTCs). This is a nonrefundable federal credit that reimburses families for a small portion of their childcare expenses; some states offer either a refundable or nonrefundable match of this credit. This year states such as Kansas, Colorado, and Wisconsin expanded their Child and Dependent Care Credits.

Often conversations about CDCTCs and CTCs went hand-in-hand. But despite their similar names, the CDCTC and CTC are very different policies. While CTCs provide low- and moderate-income families with a larger tax return that allows them to make their own spending decisions, a CDCTC is essentially a reimbursement for childcare expenses already paid. Most families claiming the CDCTC must also make enough to afford childcare in the first place while a CTC gives families unrestricted dollars to be spent on childcare or other needs.

Refundable credits such as EITCs and CTCs make our state tax systems more equitable, build stronger communities, and help families afford necessities.  Lawmakers in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Utah, D.C., and the many states who have created and expanded these credits in recent years know these credits are a proven investment in their state’s workers and families.

Full Archive

All Blog Posts

Related Content

These three local eitcs are boosting family incomes at tax time, our taxes can set kids up for success, three things to know this tax filing season.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

An Escalating War in the Middle East

Tensions are on a knife edge after israel carried out a strike on the hezbollah leader allegedly behind an attack in the golan heights..

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Ben Hubbard

Produced by Rachelle Bonja and Sydney Harper

With Shannon M. Lin and Will Reid

Edited by Lexie Diao and Patricia Willens

Original music by Dan Powell and Sophia Lanman

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Warning: This episode contains audio of war.

Over the past few days, the simmering feud between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, has reached a critical moment.

Ben Hubbard, the Istanbul bureau chief for The New York Times, explains why the latest tit-for-tat attacks are different and why getting them to stop could be so tough.

On today’s episode

Ben Hubbard , the Istanbul bureau chief for The New York Times.

Background reading

Israel says it killed a Hezbollah commander , Fuad Shukr, in an airstrike near Beirut.

The Israeli military blamed Mr. Shukr for an assault on Saturday that killed 12 children and teenagers in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Ben Hubbard is the Istanbul bureau chief, covering Turkey and the surrounding region. More about Ben Hubbard

Advertisement

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Influence of the geometric shape of the courtyard of traditional wooden folk houses on the lighting performance of their central room: a case study of the traditional folk houses of the tujia people in western hunan, china.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 3.1. study area and object, 3.2. research factors, 3.3. research methodology, 3.4. research framework, 4. results and discussion, 4.1. analysis of model validation results, 4.2. the impact of the geometric dimensions of l-shaped residential courtyards on indoor lighting, 4.3. the impact of courtyard geometric dimensions on indoor lighting in u-shaped and courtyard-style dwellins, 4.4. effect of courtyard angle on the light performance of the central room, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Evans, M.; Yu, S.; Song, B.; Deng, Q.; Liu, J.; Delgado, A. Building energy efficiency in rural China. Energy Policy 2014 , 64 , 243–251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, B.-J.; Yang, L.; Ye, M.; Mou, B.; Zhou, Y. Overview of rural building energy efficiency in China. Energy Policy 2014 , 69 , 385–396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Y.; Lin, B. Sustainable housing and urban construction in China. Energy Build. 2004 , 36 , 1287–1297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Y.; Li, H.F. Attention to Rural Green-Building Design in China. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013 , 357–360 , 327–331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paquette, S.; Domon, G. Changing ruralities, changing landscapes: Exploring social recomposition using a multi-scale approach. J. Rural Stud. 2003 , 19 , 425–444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bilsborrow, R.E.; DeLargy, P.F. Land Use, Migration, and Natural Resource Deterioration: The Experience of Guatemala and the Sudan. Popul. Dev. Rev. 1990 , 16 , 125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, W.; Liu, M. Assessment of decoupling between rural settlement area and rural population in China. Land Use Policy 2014 , 39 , 331–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, M.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, K. Influence of the variation in rural population on farmland preservation in the rapid urbanization area of China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2021 , 31 , 1365–1380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Zang, Y.; Yang, Y. China’s rural revitalization and development: Theory, technology and management. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020 , 30 , 1923–1942. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X. The core of China’s rural revitalization: Exerting the functions of rural area. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2019 , 12 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, F.; Yu, M.; Zhu, F.; Shen, C.; Zhang, S.; Yang, Y. Rethinking Rural Transformation Caused by Comprehensive Land Consolidation: Insight from Program of Whole Village Restructuring in Jiangsu Province, China. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 2029. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, J.; Yang, R.; Chen, M.-H.; Su, C.-H.; Zhi, Y.; Xi, J. Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021 , 47 , 35–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Asabere, P.K.; Hachey, G.; Grubaugh, S. Architecture, historic zoning, and the value of homes. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 1989 , 2 , 181–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albu, S.; Albu, I. Depreciation of the Economic Value of Historic Properties. Open J. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 1256–1267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zahirovic-Herbert, V.; Chatterjee, S. Historic Preservation and Residential Property Values: Evidence from Quantile Regression. Urban Stud. 2012 , 49 , 369–382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oliveira, M.L.S.; Neckel, A.; Pinto, D.; Maculan, L.S.; Zanchett, M.R.D.; Silva, L.F.O. Air pollutants and their degradation of a historic building in the largest metropolitan area in Latin America. Chemosphere 2021 , 277 , 130286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shipley, R.; Utz, S.; Parsons, M. Does Adaptive Reuse Pay? A Study of the Business of Building Renovation in Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2006 , 12 , 505–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Powe, M.; Mabry, J.; Talen, E.; Mahmoudi, D. Jane Jacobs and the Value of Older, Smaller Buildings. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2016 , 82 , 167–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, J.; Mendes, J.F.G.; Silva, L.T. Assessment of energy efficiency in street lighting design. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2010 , 129 , 705–715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marc, G.; Risteiu, M.; Ileana, I.; Olteanu, E. Optimal Control of Real Ambient LED Lighting Powering ; Cristea, I., Vladescu, M., Tamas, R., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2015; p. 925814. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hao, H.-G.; Zhang, D.-D.; Tang, S. Analysis of the LED Lamp Arrangement for Uniformity of Illumination in Indoor VLC System. J. Opt. Soc. Korea 2014 , 18 , 663–671. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petrinska, I.; Georgiev, V.; Ivanov, D. Lighting control system for public premises, based on evolutionary optimization algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2018 20th International Symposium on Electrical Apparatus and Technologies (SIELA), Bourgas, Bulgaria, 3–6 June 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Linnartz, J.P. Intelligent illuminance control in a dimmable LED lighting system. Light. Res. Technol. 2017 , 49 , 603–617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, B.; Wang, J.; Gao, Z.; Gao, N. Light Source Layout Optimization Strategy Based on Improved Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021 , 2021 , 8099757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stankovic, B.; Kostic, A.; Popovic, M.J. Analysis and comparison of lighting design criteria in green building certification systems—Guidelines for application in Serbian building practice. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014 , 19 , 56–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, H.; Choi, C.-H.; Sung, M. Development of a Dimming Lighting Control System Using General Illumination and Location-Awareness Technology. Energies 2018 , 11 , 2999. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taleb, H.M.; Antony, A.G. Assessing different glazing to achieve better lighting performance of office buildings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). J. Build. Eng. 2020 , 28 , 101034. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albatayneh, A.; Juaidi, A.; Abdallah, R.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Influence of the Advancement in the LED Lighting Technologies on the Optimum Windows-to-Wall Ratio of Jordanians Residential Buildings. Energies 2021 , 14 , 5446. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, P.; Cai, R.; Tan, Y. Improving Energy Efficiency of Indoor Lighting System Based on Computer Vision ; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 547–558. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katunský, D.; Dolníková, E.; Doroudiani, S. Integrated Lighting Efficiency Analysis in Large Industrial Buildings to Enhance Indoor Environmental Quality. Buildings 2017 , 7 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chew, I.; Karunatilaka, D.; Tan, C.P.; Kalavally, V. Smart lighting: The way forward? Reviewing the past to shape the future. Energy Build. 2017 , 149 , 180–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gassar, A.A.A.; Koo, C.; Kim, T.W.; Cha, S.H. Performance Optimization Studies on Heating, Cooling and Lighting Energy Systems of Buildings during the Design Stage: A Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9815. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boyce, P.R.; Brandston, H.M.; Cuttle, C. Indoor lighting standards and their role in lighting practice. Light. Res. Technol. 2022 , 54 , 730–744. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heschong, L.; Wright, R.L.; Okura, S. Daylighting Impacts on Human Performance in School. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 2002 , 31 , 101–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krüger, E.L.; Dorigo, A.L. Daylighting analysis in a public school in Curitiba, Brazil. Renew. Energy 2008 , 33 , 1695–1702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, D.H.W.; Tsang, E.K.W. An analysis of daylighting performance for office buildings in Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 2008 , 43 , 1446–1458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahar, D.; Bayan Abu, Q.; Riziq, H. Daylight Quality in Healthcare Design, Daylight Measurements Results and Discussion, Case Study: Jordan University Hospital. J. Energy Power Eng. 2017 , 11 , 141–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lam, J.C.; Li, D.H.W. An analysis of daylighting and solar heat for cooling-dominated office buildings. Sol. Energy 1999 , 65 , 251–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pellegrino, A.; Cammarano, S.; Lo Verso, V.R.M.; Corrado, V. Impact of daylighting on total energy use in offices of varying architectural features in Italy: Results from a parametric study. Build. Environ. 2017 , 113 , 151–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Husini, E.M.; Kandar, M.Z.; Arabi, F.; Yazit, R.N.S.R.M. The Effects of Daylight Fluctuation and Illuminance Level in Office Building ; Future Academy: London, UK, 2019; pp. 846–855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Omrani, M.; Lian, Z.; Xuan, H. Effects of the courtyard’s geometry in dig pit underground dwellings on the room’s daylighting performance. Build. Simul. 2019 , 12 , 653–663. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, R.; Liu, J.; Shi, Z.; Zhang, G.; Yang, W. Patio Design Optimization for Huizhou Traditional Dwellings Aimed at Daylighting Performance Improvements. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 583. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sui, G.; Liu, J.; Leng, J.; Yu, F. Daylighting performance assessment of traditional skywell dwellings: A case study in Fujian, China. J. Build. Eng. 2023 , 68 , 106028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nocera, F.; Lo Faro, A.; Costanzo, V.; Raciti, C. Daylight Performance of Classrooms in a Mediterranean School Heritage Building. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 3705. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mondal, A.; Ghosh, K.; Bardhan, S. An Approach to Interior Lighting Design for a Heritage Building. J. Assoc. Eng. India 2015 , 85 , 34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balocco, C.; Calzolari, R. Natural light design for an ancient building: A case study. J. Cult. Herit. 2008 , 9 , 172–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhen, M.; Du, Y.; Hong, F.; Bian, G. Simulation analysis of natural lighting of residential buildings in Xi’an, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 690 , 197–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sorooshnia, E.; Rashidi, M.; Rahnamayiezekavat, P.; Samali, B. Optimizing Window Configuration Counterbalancing Energy Saving and Indoor Visual Comfort for Sydney Dwellings. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michael, A.; Gregoriou, S.; Kalogirou, S.A. Environmental assessment of an integrated adaptive system for the improvement of indoor visual comfort of existing buildings. Renew. Energy 2018 , 115 , 620–633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bournas, I.; Dubois, M.C.; Laike, T. Perceived daylight conditions in multi-family apartment blocks—Instrument validation and correlation with room geometry. Build. Environ. 2020 , 169 , 106574. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, T.; Sun, L.; Xu, X.; Li, H.; Shao, Z. Exploring the impacts of spatial morphology of underground shopping mall atriums on natural lighting performance. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, Z.; Song, J.; Fang, Z.; Pang, D.; Chen, Y. Daylighting Performance and Thermal Comfort Performance Analysis of West-Facing External Shading for School Office Buildings in Cold and Severe Cold Regions of China. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 14458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xue, Y.; Liu, W. A Study on Parametric Design Method for Optimization of Daylight in Commercial Building’s Atrium in Cold Regions. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 7667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cabeza, L.; Almodovar, M.; Dominguez, I. Daylight and Architectural Simulation of the Egebjerg School (Denmark): Sustainable Features of a New Type of Skylight. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 5878. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deng, X.; Wang, M.; Fan, Z.; Liu, J. Dynamic daylight performance oriented design optimizations for contemporary reading room represented deep open-plan spaces. J. Build. Eng. 2022 , 62 , 105145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, D.H.W.; Lam, J.C. Daylighting in residential districts undergoing urban renewal. Int. J. Ambient. Energy 2001 , 22 , 115–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, J.; Zhou, J.; Deng, Y. Heritage values of ancient vernacular residences in traditional villages in Western Hunan, China: Spatial patterns and influencing factors. Build. Environ. 2021 , 188 , 107473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• GB 50033-2013 ; Standard for Daylighting Design of Buildings. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2013. (In Chinese)
• GB 55016-2021 ; General Code for Building Environment. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2021. (In Chinese)
• Eriksson, S.; Waldenström, L.; Tillberg, M.; Österbring, M.; Sasic Kalagasidis, A. Numerical Simulations and Empirical Data for the Evaluation of Daylight Factors in Existing Buildings in Sweden. Energies 2019 , 12 , 2200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petrinska, I.; Ivanov, D. Comparison of Experimental and Simulation Data for Daylighting. In Proceedings of the 2018 Seventh Balkan Conference on Lighting (BalkanLight), Varna, Bulgaria, 20–22 September 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bian, Y.; Ma, Y. Analysis of daylight metrics of side-lit room in Canton, south China: A comparison between daylight autonomy and daylight factor. Energy Build. 2017 , 138 , 347–354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shikder, S.H.; Price, A.D.; Mourshed, M. Evaluation of four artificial lighting simulation tools with virtual building reference. In Proceedings of the European Simulation and Modelling Conference (ESM 2009), Leicester, UK, 28–29 October 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghasemi, M.; Kandar, M.Z.; Noroozi, M. Investigating the effect of well geometry on the daylight performance in the adjoining spaces of vertical top-lit atrium buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 2016 , 25 , 934–948. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.; Liu, J.; Pei, J.; Cao, X.; Chen, Q.; Jiang, Y. Experimental and simulation study on the performance of daylighting in an industrial building and its energy saving potential. Energy Build. 2014 , 73 , 184–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al junaibi, A.A.; Al Zaabi, E.J.; Nassif, R.; Mushtaha, E. Daylighting in Educational Buildings: Its Effects on Students and How to Maximize Its Performance in the Architectural Engineering Department of the University of Sharjah ; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 141–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haşim, A.; Jitka, M. Windows Influence on Room Daylighting in Residential Buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2015 , 9 , 291–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalaimathy, K.; Shanthi Priya, R.; Rajagopal, P.; Pradeepa, C.; Senthil, R. Daylight performance analysis of a residential building in a tropical climate. Energy Nexus 2023 , 11 , 100226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Hao, Y.; Li, Z.; Wu, J.; Liu, J. Influence of the Geometric Shape of the Courtyard of Traditional Wooden Folk Houses on the Lighting Performance of Their Central Room: A Case Study of the Traditional Folk Houses of the Tujia People in Western Hunan, China. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2390. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082390

Hao Y, Li Z, Wu J, Liu J. Influence of the Geometric Shape of the Courtyard of Traditional Wooden Folk Houses on the Lighting Performance of Their Central Room: A Case Study of the Traditional Folk Houses of the Tujia People in Western Hunan, China. Buildings . 2024; 14(8):2390. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082390

Hao, Yongchun, Zhe Li, Jiade Wu, and Jixin Liu. 2024. "Influence of the Geometric Shape of the Courtyard of Traditional Wooden Folk Houses on the Lighting Performance of Their Central Room: A Case Study of the Traditional Folk Houses of the Tujia People in Western Hunan, China" Buildings 14, no. 8: 2390. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082390

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals