La Maison de Verre: Negotiating a Modern

Domesticity
M. Jean Edwards, M.F.A. and W. Geoff Gjertson, M. Arch., University of Louisiana at Lafayette

ABSTRACT

The Maison de Verre (1928–1932), built in Paris and designed by Pierre Chareau in
collaboration with Dutch architect Bernard Bijvoët, metalworker Louis Dalbet, and the
clients, Dr. and Mme Dalsace, does not fit easily within the canon of modern architecture
and interior design. Though acknowledged at the time of its construction for the ground-
breaking use of modern building materials and technological innovations, it went un-
acknowledged throughout much of the twentieth century as a defining modernist building
until a 1969 essay by Kenneth Frampton rescued the house from critical obscurity. In his
essay, Frampton asks whether the house is to be understood as a conventional building
or as a piece of furniture. The possibility that the house might be better understood as a
“piece of furniture” suggests two questions: (1) Is the Maison de Verre more significant for
its interior design than for its architecture and (2) can its significance be located in the
quality of livability that resulted from the negotiation between the ideals of early modern-
ism and the demands of habitation?

Our purpose is to propose answers to these questions by analyzing the complexities of

Chareau’s design in relation to the rhetoric of early modern architectural theory and its
challenge to the nineteenth-century concept of domesticity. We assert that Chareau’s
design resolution as expressed in the interior of the Maison de Verre represents a case
study in livability that warrants greater attention in the context of the history and theory of
interior design distinct from architectural history and theory.

Introduction dialogue between modernism and livability, a quality

The Maison de Verre (1928–1932), built in Paris and
designed by Pierre Chareau in collaboration with
Dutch architect Bernard Bijvoët, metalworker Louis
Dalbet, and the clients, Dr. and Mme Dalsace, does
not fit easily within the canon of modern architecture
and interior design. Though acknowledged at the
time of its construction for the groundbreaking use of
modern building materials and technological innova-
tions, the house has remained relatively unacknowl-
edged in the literature of interior design, where it has
been dismissed as “stylistically” modern without
contributing to the critical dialogue of the modern
interior. The recent acquisition of the Maison de
Verre by Robert Rubin, an American architectural
historian, has occasioned renewed interest in the
position of the house within the history of modern
architecture. Significantly, he is intent on carefully re-
storing the house as a place of habitation for himself
and his family, not as a museum piece. This intent
suggests that the house continues to contribute to the
of domesticity more identified with the interior than
the exterior. Thus, a reassessment of the house in the
context of interior design history and theory seems
timely and appropriate.
Kenneth Frampton first rescued the Maison de Verre
from critical obscurity in a 1969 essay in Perspecta:
The Yale Architectural Journal. At the beginning of
his essay, Frampton acknowledges the difficulty in
classifying the house conceptually, stylistically, and
in terms of its genre, highlighting the problematic na-
ture of this house when viewed within what he calls
“accepted” norms. Frampton then sets out to claim
the house for architecture by locating the house
within “the genealogy of modern architecture”
(Wigglesworth, 1998, p. 266). However, his opening
question, “Are we to regard it as a building in the
accepted sense or should we rather think of it as a
grossly enlarged piece of furniture, interjected into an
altogether larger realm?” (Frampton, p. 77) remains
unanswered according to Chareau’s biographer Brian

© Copyright 2008, Interior Design Educators Council,

Journal of Interior Design 15 Journal of Interior Design 34(1)
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
Metaphorically ... furniture often performs a defining role in the understanding
and apprehension of interior architectural space, serving as a direct mediator
between the human occupant and the building structure.
Brace Taylor (Taylor, 1992). This question of genre
(building or furniture) has both practical and meta-
phorical implications for understanding the Maison de
Verre. Practically speaking, furniture plays only a sup-
portive role in the architectural conception. It is not
necessarily attached or otherwise critical to the archi-
tectural structure; instead, it functions to support
human activity. Metaphorically, however, furniture
often performs a defining role in the understanding
and apprehension of interior architectural space, serv-
ing as a direct mediator between the human occupant
and the building structure. The possibility raised by
Frampton that the house might be better understood
as a “piece of furniture” thus suggests two further
questions: Is the Maison de Verre more significant for
its interior design than for its architecture, and can this
significance be located in the quality of livability that
resulted from the negotiation between the ideals of
early modernism and the demands of habitation?
Purpose and Method
Our purpose is to propose answers to these questions
by analyzing the complexities of Chareau’s design for
the Maison de Verre, focusing particularly on the
design of its interior. The analysis is based on a litera-
ture review and personal observation of the house.
We begin with an overview of the treatment of the
house and its designer within literature specific to
interior design and its history, as distinct from archi-
tecture, noting at the outset the limited role the house
has played to date in this literature. We then examine
early modern architectural theory, primarily in the
work of Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier to establish the
theoretical context within which the house was built
and has been considered. Our review concludes with
a look at the work of contemporary authors who have
focused particularly on the spatial organization and
detailing of the Maison de Verre’s interior through the
dual lens of domesticity and gender. We include refer-
ences to the literature of domesticity as it relates to the
changing interior of the early twentieth century.
Direct observations of the house also contribute to the
analysis and understanding of the interior. A personal
Journal of Interior Design
tour of the Maison de Verre taken in the summer of
2007—one of the last private tours of the living quarters
before the new owner closed the house for renovation—
and observations made by Chareau and his contempo-
raries at the time of its construction provide experiential
readings of the house. We compare and contrast these
reflections to the dwelling requirements as articulated
by Le Corbusier in Towards a New Architecture, a pub-
lication contemporary with the construction of the
house. We also examine the observations in relation to
qualities associated with domestic livability as currently
understood. The analysis concludes that the Maison
de Verre represents a case study that warrants greater
attention in the context of the history and theory of
interior design distinct from architectural history and
theory, especially in relation to its domestic livability.
Literature Review
The Maison de Verre is far less well known than such
modernist icons as Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye (built
around the same time), and it plays a tertiary role, at
best, in the literature of modern architecture and inte-
rior design. The obscurity of the house is due at least
in part to the fact that the clients and their descen-
dents have owned and lived in the house for most of
the time since its completion—it was briefly aban-
doned during World War II—making access to the
house very restricted. The longevity of this habitation,
however, attests to the livability of the house, a qual-
ity not necessarily associated with other modern mas-
terpieces, such as the Villa Savoye and Mies van der
Rohe’s Farnsworth House, both of which were built
as weekend retreats, not as primary residences.
The Savoye family spent roughly a decade in their
villa before abandoning it:
In September 1936, six years after the villa’s
official completion, Madame Savoye com-
pressed her feelings about the performance
of the flat roof into a (rain-splattered) letter
[to Le Corbusier]: “It’s raining in the hall,
it’s raining on the ramp, and the wall of the
garage is absolutely soaked. What’s more,
it’s still raining in my bathroom, which floods
16 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
Interior design historians from the ’80s through 2000 have generally dismissed the
Maison de Verre as a unique example of a “stylish” modernism.
in bad weather, as the water comes in through
the skylight.”…“After innumerable demands
on my part, you have finally accepted that
this house which you built in 1929 is unin-
habitable,” admonished Madame Savoye in
the autumn of 1937. “Your responsibility is
at stake and I have no need to foot the bill.
Please render it habitable immediately. I sin-
cerely hope that I will not have to take re-
course to legal action.” Only the outbreak of
the Second World War and the Savoye fami-
ly’s consequent flight from Paris saved Le
Corbusier from having to answer in a
courtroom for the design of his largely unin-
habitable, if extraordinarily beautiful, ma-
chine-for-living (de Botton, 2006).
In the case of the Farnsworth House (1945–1951), the
owner and the architect fought in court and out over
problems with the glass structure, and its heating,
plumbing, and electrical systems. In addition to these
problems, their conflicts included different conceptions
of how to furnish the interior. Dr. Edith Farnsworth
intended to use her family heirlooms and other acces-
sories redolent of traditional domestic environments,
while Mies sought to minimally furnish the house with
his own designs, including his Barcelona chairs to be
upholstered in pink suede. “These, [Dr. Farnsworth]
claimed, would not only be too heavy but would ‘make
the house look like a Helena Rubenstein studio’”
(Friedman, 1998, p. 143). In the end, her struggle with
the lack of privacy in her glass house drove her out.
After twenty years, Farnsworth abandoned the fight:
Having sold the house … and moved to
Italy in the early 1970’s, she looked back on
the experience with bitterness. … “I would
prefer to move as the women do in the Old
Quarter of Tripoli, muffled in unbleached
homespun so that only a hole is left for them
to look out of.” Best of all, she said, the
world outside would “not even know where
the hole was” (Friedman, 1998, p. 147).
Despite their arguable lack of success as domestic
edifices, however, both of these modern houses, the
Villa Savoye and the Farnsworth House, have con-
Journal of Interior Design
tributed significantly to the critical discussions of
twentieth-century domestic architecture. In addition,
they are much more frequently illustrated and dis-
cussed in the context of interior design history and
theory than is the Maison de Verre.
The Maison de Verre in the Literature of
Interior Design
Interior design historians from the ’80s through 2000
have generally dismissed the Maison de Verre as a
unique example of a “stylish” modernism. Their
criticisms seem based on the degree to which the house
deviates from the rhetorical concerns of early modern
architects. Massey (1990) states, “Designers like Cha-
reau … incorporated modern materials and tubular-
steel furniture into their designs to provide a modish
effect, and cared little for the aims and ideals of Le Cor-
busier or the Bauhaus” (pp. 100–101). This statement
by Massey seems to suggest that to the extent that the
modernism of the Maison de Verre represents a style
rather than a theoretical position, it can be dismissed as
insignificant to the critical history of interior design.
Authors Tate and Smith (1986), who provide a gener-
ally thorough and balanced overview of twentieth-cen-
tury interior design, limit their discussion of the Maison
de Verre to a brief description of the interior insofar as
it expresses the Machine Age Moderne style. This de-
scription includes acknowledgment of the technical in-
novations of the mechanical operations of the house:
It has black metal bookcases, a ladder, and
industrial rubber flooring among its furnish-
ings in the two-story living room; upholster-
ies on Chareau-designed sofas were tapestries
by the painter Jean Lurçat.
The mechanical system in the Maison de
Verre is integrated into the structural system:
grilles along perimeter platforms supply duct-
ed warm air. Electrical and telephone wiring
is conveyed along the steel columns, with
clustered control panels for both switcher and
outlets. Up lights at the upper level reflect
ambient lighting from the ceiling (p. 305).
17 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
This commission attests to their [the Dalsaces] satisfaction with and faith in Chareau as
the appropriate designer to realize their intention to build a modern house that would
accommodate the doctor’s office and surgery along with a family residence.
The degree to which these innovations may or may
not have contributed to the livability of the house,
however, is not analyzed. In contrast they devote over
three pages and several illustrations (among them the
plan and the living room of the Villa Savoye) to “The
Purism of Le Corbusier” (pp. 305–310) thus ascrib-
ing much greater significance to his work in their dis-
cussion of interior design history.
Suzanne Trocmé in Influential Interiors (1999) devotes
only a single paragraph and one illustration to the
Maison de Verre, again merely describing its use of
industrial components. She reiterates the assertion that
Chareau “did not share the social aims of the Bauhaus
and Le Corbusier or care much for theorizing, but
welcomed the industrial materials and general ideas of
the Modern movement” (p. 99). Pile (2000), in A His-
tory of Interior Design, similarly limits his coverage of
Chareau and the Maison de Verre to one paragraph
and one illustration. Pile acknowledges that Chareau’s
furniture designs for the house are suggestive of
“a move from Art Deco to the International Style”
(p. 309), but this remains a stylistic observation, not
an examination of the spatial complexities and or the
livability of the house within the larger context of
modern interior design. Again, the emphasis is on the
style rather than the substance of the house.
In Interior Architecture Kurtich and Eakin (1996) rec-
ognize Chareau as a master of interior space, but they
neglect to mention the Maison de Verre. Instead they
reference the Dalsaces’ two-room apartment that Cha-
reau designed for them in 1918 (p. 340). The Dalsaces
lived in this apartment for ten years before commis-
sioning the Maison de Verre. This commission attests
to their satisfaction with and faith in Chareau as the
appropriate designer to realize their intention to build
a modern house that would accommodate the doctor’s
office and surgery along with a family residence.
Pierre Chareau and the Early
Modern Movement
There is evidence that Pierre Chareau was, in fact,
sympathetic with many of the aims of the early mod-
Journal of Interior Design
ern movement. Throughout the 1920s and ‘30s Cha-
reau’s designs were published in the contemporary
press and regularly exhibited in public venues that in-
cluded both the avant-garde Paris Salon d’Automne as
well as the more conventional Salon des Artistes Déco-
rateurs (a salon supported by the French Ministry of
Culture). He eventually broke with the Société des Ar-
tistes Décorateurs to help found the Union des Artistes
Modernes, a group that embraced the industrial mate-
rials and formalist ideas of the modern movement. In
addition, he served on the editorial board of the maga-
zine L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui that also was iden-
tified ideologically with modern architecture.
He, along with Le Corbusier and other avant-garde
architects and designers, was a founding member of
the Congrès Internationale d’Architecture Moderne
(CIAM). This organization sought to define and pro-
mulgate the principles of a rational and functionalist
modern architecture. In its La Sarraz Declaration of
1928, CIAM (1970) made the following pronounce-
ments regarding the new architecture:
1) … The true problems of dwelling have
been pushed back behind entirely artificial
sentimental conceptions. The problem of the
house is not posed.
Clients, whose demands are motivated by nu-
merous factors that have nothing to do with
the real problem of housing, are generally
very bad at formulating their wishes. … The
tradition is created of the expensive house,
the building of which deprives a large part of
the population of healthy living quarters.
2) … A body of fundamental truths could be
established forming the basis for a domestic
science (for example: the general economy of
the dwelling, the principles of property and
its moral significance, the effects of sunlight,
the ill effects of darkness, essential hygiene,
rationalization of household economics, the
use of mechanical devices in domestic life,
etc.). (CIAM, 1970, p. 111)
Chareau and Le Corbusier, along with twenty-two other
architects, signed this declaration on June 8, 1928.
18 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
... the concept of domesticity becomes inextricable from constructions of gender.
Chareau was thus engaged, along with other early
twentieth-century avant-garde architects and design-
ers, in a search for appropriate responses to the
social, cultural, and technological changes brought
about by the industrial revolution. This search
included an interest in issues of housing and chal-
lenges to nineteenth-century domestic conventions.
Domesticity and Gender in the
Nineteenth Century
The nineteenth-century concept of domesticity, itself
a modern construct, resulted from the “confluence of
capitalist economics, breakthroughs in technology,
and Enlightenment notions of individuality” (Reed,
1996, p. 7). The separation of work from the home
occasioned by the industrial revolution had solidified
the division of labor into fixed roles: the public/work
role of the male in the world and the private/home-
making role of the female in the home. By the end
of the century, women had gained almost exclusive
control over the domestic interior environment; they
focused on providing the male a private place of
retreat and respite from the cares of the public world
and establishing a “livable” environment for the con-
duct of (nuclear) family life. Furnishing and decorat-
ing the interior became essential activities in the
creation of this “livable” environment. “Livability”
in this context “means the services that a particular
ambient reality can provide in terms of convenience,
ease, or habitability. In short, comfort” (Maldonado
& Cullars, 1991, p. 35).
In her essay in the volume Not at Home Tiersten
(1996) describes the context of Parisian domestic
interiors at the turn of the century. She states, “The
public character of the aristocratic hôtel had demand-
ed the skills of the professional decorator; but as the
private arena of family life, the bourgeois home could
only be properly decorated by the lady of the house”
(p. 21). By the end of the nineteenth century the
domestic interior represented
a separate sphere of feminine aesthetic self-ex-
pression and identity formation. The ascrip-
tion of new aesthetic expertise to women by
Journal of Interior Design
the popular literature on decorating served to
professionalize the role of housewife, helping
to solidify the boundaries between private and
public and to assert the particular cultural au-
thority of the domestic realm (pp. 18–19).
Hence the concept of domesticity becomes inextricable
from constructions of gender.
Early Modern Architectural Rhetoric: Attack
on Domesticity
Among the more vociferous theorists of modern archi-
tecture were Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier, both of
whom rejected the overly decorated and feminized
interiors of bourgeois society as antithetical to modern
living. In his famous 1908 manifesto “Ornament and
Crime,” Adolf Loos states unequivocally, “The evolu-
tion of culture is synonymous with the removal of
ornament from utilitarian objects. … Therein lies the
greatness of our age [the modern age], that it is inca-
pable of producing new ornament” (1970, p. 20).
In his 1920 book Towards a New Architecture: Guid-
ing Principles Le Corbusier charges that the tradi-
tional domestic environment oppresses modern man.
Weighing in on the bourgeois interior he writes,
One can see these same business men, bank-
ers and merchants, away from their business-
es in their own homes, where everything
seems to contradict their real existence—
rooms too small, a conglomeration of useless
and disparate objects, and a sickening spirit
reigning over so many shams—Aubusson,
Salon d’Automne, styles of all sorts and ab-
surd bric-à-brac… (1986, pp. 18–19).
Le Corbusier (1986) proposes, “the house is a machine
for living in” (p. 107) and demands “industry on the
grand scale must occupy itself with building and estab-
lish the elements of the house on a mass-production
basis” (p. 227). He goes so far as to outline a dwelling
manual that specifies certain relationships within the
house that must be established (pp. 122–123). He
recommends replacing conventional notions of domes-
ticity with a precisionist and mechanistic approach
19 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
In more recent literature, a number of authors have begun examining
the Maison de Verre’s interiors in relation to evolving architectural
concepts of domesticity and gender.
that would strip the interior to its bare essentials. His
new standards for the “dwelling house,” call for using
“the limousine, the steamship and the airplane” as
models for the new spirit that housing must follow.
Of particular concern for him are issues of health and
hygiene that he considers to be severely compromised
in the conventional bourgeois domestic interior. The
house-machine must have “baths, sun, hot-water,
cold-water, warmth at will, conservation of food,
hygiene, beauty in the sense of good proportion.
An armchair is a machine for sitting in and so on”
(p. 95). While this list addresses some aspects of
livability, it reduces them to mechanistic functions.
Even the idea of beauty is delimited as simply a “sense
of good proportion,” implying that this could be
mathematically, that is, rationally, determined.
Chareau reveals his familiarity with the ideas of
Le Corbusier in the technological explorations and
innovations of his design for the Maison de Verre.
According to Chareau, quoted from an article in
L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, he intended the Maison
de Verre to be a “model made by artisans with a view
toward standardization” (Futagawa, Bauchet, &
Vellay, 1988, p. 6). This expressed intention suggests
that Chareau conceptualized the house as a transition
from the hand crafted decorative arts tradition of
previous centuries to the industrial motivations of the
early twentieth century. Chareau’s design, however,
transcends Le Corbusier’s mechanistic functionality
with what Frampton (1969) calls a “poetry of tech-
nique” that “pervades the whole house and must
prevail over any simple functional interpretation of
its conception and realization” (p. 79).
Reevaluations of the Maison de Verre in
Current Literature
In more recent literature, a number of authors have
begun examining the Maison de Verre’s interiors in
relation to evolving architectural concepts of domes-
ticity and gender. Wigglesworth (1998, pp. 263–286)
suggests an interpretation of the house emphasizing
the fact that the interior program requires the inclu-
Journal of Interior Design
sion of a gynecological office in an otherwise residen-
tial context. Her interpretation suggests a reading
based on the connection she makes between the
building and gynecology—that is, that the house is an
“insertion” into the existing body of the city block
(p. 264). Wilson (2005, pp. 234–251) also examines
the Maison de Verre’s interior in terms of a program
requiring a (public) gynecological office as well as a
(private) residence. He uses the visual construction
of two opposing views, “the medical gaze” and the
“domestic glance,” to delineate the distinction be-
tween these two areas and the gender roles implied
by the distinction.
Wiederspahn (2001) focuses on the movable ele-
ments of the interior and examines the variety of
transformable elements within the Maison de Verre,
explaining how they produce alternative programs
and construct the patterns of life to be lived within
it. He frames his argument in terms of a contrast
between the terms “performance” and “function,”
explaining,
“Performance” is an alternative term to
“function” that can address both the instru-
mental and the ontological value of mutable
space. For example, function can denote an
architectural program, as in, “this space
functions as the living room.” Unlike func-
tion, however, performance implies that
there is a thinking subject, an inhabitant that
first understands that the space is a living
room and, hence, will inhabit the space as a
living room. By displacing “function” with
“perform” in our sample sentence, as in,
“this space performs as the living room,” the
meaning changes; here, the inhabitant cogni-
tively interprets the space as a living room.
Performance recognizes the interaction of
the inhabitant and the space he or she occu-
pies. … The Maison de Verre denies mere
functionalist readings of [its] mutable do-
mestic space [our emphosi] (p. 265).
Wiederspahn implies that while architecture concerns
the “function” of a building, the interior demands
20 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
In a deviation from the early Modernist ideal of the single architect working alone
to realize his vision, Chareau enlisted the combined expertise of another architect,
Bernard Bijvoët and the metalworker Louis Dalbet.
“performance” vis-à-vis the occupant—in other
words, a quality of livability. Thus, examining the
Maison de Verre in the context of this distinction
between “performance” and “function” yields a rich-
er understanding of the negotiation Chareau conducts
between the “functionalism” of the early Modernist
rhetoric and the “performance” of the interior in
relation to the domestic program.
The Maison De Verre:
A Collaborative Enterprise
Chareau found the ideal patrons in Dr. and Mme
Dalsace. As clients they represented both the conven-
tional and the unconventional in their relationship
and in their desires for a new home. “As a bourgeoise
[sic] wife with leisure time and servants to relieve her
of the domestic chores, Mme Dalsace played a conven-
tional role as ‘home-maker,’ negotiating with Chareau
on the requirements of the house” (Wigglesworth,
1998, p. 265). Unconventionally, however, “she was
among the first to be excited by modernism” (Vellay,
2007, p. 9). Dr. Dalsace was a passionate advocate
for the latest advancements in medical practice for
women, including contraception and family plan-
ning. They were both political activists and deeply
involved in the cultural and intellectual life of Paris
(p. 148).
Chareau shared their enthusiasm for modern theater,
art, and music. Taylor (1992, p. 9) reasons that it
was, in fact, the Dalsaces who introduced Chareau
to the Parisian avant-garde, with whom he made sig-
nificant personal and professional associations.
These associations placed Chareau at the heart of
the progressive movement in architecture and de-
sign. At the same time he established his reputation
and made his livelihood through his interior and fur-
niture designs for cultured and wealthy clients. This
inevitably linked him with the taste of the Paris
bourgeoisie. The Maison de Verre stands as his nego-
tiation between these two seemingly contradictory
positions.
Journal of Interior Design
In a deviation from the early modernist ideal of
the single architect working alone to realize his
vision, Chareau enlisted the combined expertise of
another architect, Bernard Bijvoët and the metal-
worker Louis Dalbet. Together they and the clients,
Dr. and Mme Dalsace, avowed modernists, negoti-
ated the themes and concepts of early modernism
in a design that demonstrates both support for early
modernist propositions and Chareau’s allegiance
to meeting the work and domestic needs of a particu-
lar family. Temperamentally, he preferred to work
with clients rather than to dictate to them. Boissiere
(1998) states:
It has to be said that Chareau never seems to
have felt the irresistible attraction for archi-
tecture that makes brilliant careers. … He
counted himself among the meubliers, the
name then given to furniture-designers, and
the ensembliers (interior designers) halfway
between the society commission and the
luxury design (p. 77).
In another departure from architectural convention,
Chareau did not produce detailed plans of the interi-
or. Instead his collaborator, the metalworker Louis
Dalbet, produced mock-ups of the interior details.
According to Wigglesworth (1998):
The use of full-scale three-dimensional pro-
totypes suggests that Mme Dalsace played an
important part in the development of the
design of the interior. … Building full-size
mock-ups is a time-consuming and expensive
way of designing, and indicates a more com-
plex authorship in which a triangular rela-
tionship between Chareau, Mme Dalsace
and Dalbet brought the design process to
fruition (p. 266).
Other authors provide additional rationales for the
idea that Mme Dalsace especially played a pivotal
role in the interior design of the Maison de Verre. For
example, Friedman (1998) states in her book, Wom-
en and the Making of the Modern House:
It is not unreasonable to expect that a signifi-
cant shift in thinking about the family, gender,
21 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
The close collaboration between designer and client facilitated by the use of
mock-ups produced many of the technological advances within the house that
are clearly placed at the service of the lives to be lived there.
or middle-class women’s roles would find ex-
pression in the design of houses, nor that some
privileged women, given the opportunity to act
as clients in their own right, would seek out
new architectural solutions to accommodate
unconventional ways of living (pp. 15–16).
Frampton (1969) confirms the importance of Mme
Dalsace’s role in a note to his article in which he
states that he has previously remarked that “both the
Maison de Verre and the Rietveld-Schroeder house
involved the direct patronage of highly cultivated
women” (p. 77). Mme Dalsace’s granddaughter con-
firms her grandmother’s role in the development of
the interior, stating unequivocally “This house was
her work” Vellay (2007, p. 9).
While Annie Dalsace did not “decorate” the Maison de
Verre, per se, her collections of art and books displayed
throughout the house as well as the furniture designs by
Chareau reflected her enthusiasm for modernism and
her commitment to live a modern life. The conflation of
the doctor’s work environment with the family’s
residence and the inclusion of a major social space, the
Grand Salon, represent deliberate choices to combine
public function with that of the private, a choice con-
firming her participation in a wider public realm beyond
the narrow confines of the strictly domestic.
The close collaboration between designer and client
facilitated by the use of mock-ups produced many of
the technological advances within the house that are
clearly placed at the service of the lives to be lived
there. The collaboration also belies the modernist
myth of the male architect as hero, a myth associated
particularly with the ideas of Le Corbusier, who posits:
The Architect by his arrangement of forms,
realizes an order which is pure creation of his
spirit; by forms and shapes he affects our
senses to an acute degree, and provokes plas-
tic emotions; by the relationships which he
creates he wakes in us profound echoes, …
he determines the various movements of our
heart and of our understanding; it is then
that we experience the sense of beauty (Le
Corbusier, 1986, p. 11).
Journal of Interior Design
According to this myth, the male architect conceives of
a design, then nurtures and gestates it. By setting it down
on paper, he “gives birth” to it and it emerges fully
fledged from his own, individual creative genius. Rather
than the work of a single male genius, the Maison de
Verre is fundamentally the result of a collaboration that
defies the early modern architect’s view that clients are
“awkward impediments that handicap the clarity of the
designer’s thinking and compromise the ‘purity’ of his
conception” (Wigglesworth, 1998, p. 265).
Visiting the Maison De Verre
A recent tour of the Maison de Verre by one of the au-
thors on Thursday, June 7, 2007 (one of the last private
tours that included the upper living floors led by Ph.D.
candidate Mary Johnson) leads to a reexamination of
the house and its interiors based on personal observa-
tion. The house, located on a narrow street (Rue St.
Guillaume) off the Boulevard St. Germaine, is barely
visible through the carriageway windows (Figure 1).
This covert introduction to the Maison de Verre con-
firms the importance of the clients’ programmatic
requirement of privacy (Taylor, 1992, p. 29) .
Chareau himself recognized a universal need for pri-
vacy in addition to the need for socializing:
People ask for privacy, but also to be able to
gather conveniently and move easily. By way
of regrouping spaces and the use of appro-
priate techniques, all those needs can be met
in their house. The question of translucent
façades is nevertheless often posed. The
house, [and] urbanism are a function of time
and human scale. All contemporary architec-
tural solutions will be created by taking these
essential relations into account (Cinqualbre,
2001, p. 39).1
Here we begin to see a departure from the tenets of
modernism that advocate transparency at the expense
of privacy, as in the Farnsworth house.
After passing through the carriageway into the court-
yard, the house does not assert itself as a stand-alone
form in space (like the Villa Savoye in its meadow),
22 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Glass block performs as the animator of the interior spaces by allowing the penetration
of light deep into the house while it also functions as a privacy wall, denying
visual access from the exterior into the interior.

but instead it is carved out of a solid block of
traditional apartment buildings. Chareau’s first task
had been to demolish an existing eighteenth-century
building while maintaining the structural integrity
of the top floor that needed to remain in place. This
infilling of the “modern into history” marks Chareau’s
initial negotiation between the house and its physical
context. Chareau’s restraint and respect for the con-
text reflects a modesty very different from the monu-
mentality suggested by both the Villa Savoye and the
Farnsworth House (Figure 2).
The appearance of the courtyard façade revealing
Chareau’s use of structural steel columns and a large
expanse of glazed surfaces immediately identifies the
Figure 1. Maison de Verre façade seen through
carriageway window.
structure as modern, resonating with Le Corbusier’s
notion of the free façade. Unlike the facades of the
Villa Savoye and the Farnsworth House, however,
this one is made up of textured (translucent) glass
block. Taylor (1992) discusses this choice of exterior
material, concluding that the glass block met Dr.
Dalsace’s need for light and his need for privacy for
his patients and his family. Glass block performs as
the animator of the interior spaces by allowing the
penetration of light deep into the house while it also
functions as a privacy wall, denying visual access
from the exterior into the interior. In addition to
these concerns “the architect himself was strongly in-
fluenced by an ideological trend in French architec-
tural thinking that emphasized physical and mental
hygiene; what better choice … than a relatively stur-
dy, durable material needing little maintenance or
cleaning on the exterior and offering maximum illu-
mination inside” (p. 29). Consequently, even in the
most modern aspect of the house, its façade, Chareau
balances the rhetorical and the practical.

Entering the house at its modest and somewhat

hidden front door, one begins an architectural prome-
nade unlike Le Corbusier’s rationally ordered plans or

Figure 2. Courtyard façade of Maison de Verre.

Translucent glass block forms the exterior wall of
the upper floors.

Journal of Interior Design 23 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
Throughout the ground floor as well as in the rest of the house, Chareau presents various
degrees of privacy mediated by translucent screens and operable panels.
even Beaux Arts classically ordered sequences (Fig-
ures 3–5). It is clear that Le Corbusier’s dictum; “the
Plan is the generator” (Le Corbusier, 1986, p. 45) did
not guide Chareau in the interior space planning of the
Maison de Verre. The sequence of the spaces is nonhi-
erarchical, asymmetrical, and non-axial. First, the en-
trance is perpendicular to the approach and the façade.
Once inside, the corridor is not defined as “entry;”
there is no threshold or place to pause. There is no fo-
cal point or aligning figural object to move toward.
Two equal choices are presented: straight ahead to-
ward a wall at the end of the corridor or to the right
toward another ambiguous, seemingly dead-end hall.
After either of these choices, a ninety-degree turn into
another hall is required. This is the entry experience of
the first-floor doctor’s office today. However, when the
doctor’s office was in operation, a receptionist helped
negotiate this maze-like arrangement of corridors. The
hallways and enclosed spaces reflect the required privacy
of exam and operating rooms especially in the context
of a gynecological clinic. Although the columnar struc-
ture of the house would have allowed Le Corbusier’s
free plan, the demands for privacy dictate otherwise.
Throughout the ground floor as well as in the rest of
the house, Chareau presents various degrees of pri-
vacy mediated by translucent screens and operable
panels. While passing through the entry corridors,
one perceives spaces beyond the circulation route that
provoke curiosity. For example, the main stair to the
residential floors is screened by sliding panels of per-
forated aluminum that demarcate the line between
public and private. Both the material permeability
and the functional operation of the screens provide a
negotiable flexibility of program and multiple paths
of movement (Figure 6).
Arriving at the waiting area of the doctor’s office, the
visitor (or patient) enters a space flooded with light
from the glass block wall of the rear garden façade.
A single line of clear glass “ribbon windows,” as pre-
scribed by Le Corbusier’s five points of architecture (Le
Corbusier of Jeanneret, 1970, p. 100), marks the path
from the waiting room to the doctor’s consulting room.
Although view to and from the outside is implied by
Journal of Interior Design
the use of clear glass, Chareau’s placement of these
windows confounds this purpose. Unlike the location
of the windows of the Villa Savoye, Chareau places
these windows above the sight lines of seated patients
and below the eye level of patients walking to the doc-
tor’s consulting room, thus maintaining the anonymity
of the patient (Wigglesworth, 1998, p. 272) (Figure 7).
Dr. Dalsace’s consulting room presents a double-height
volume with a wall of translucent glass block (again
ensuring privacy) towards the rear garden. The adjoin-
ing exam and operating rooms reflect Chareau’s and
other early modernists’ concerns for hygiene and health.
The exam room is fitted with a circular dressing cham-
ber that preserves the patient’s modesty while seeming
to conform to Le Corbusier’s attitude that undressing
“is not a clean thing to do and makes the room horribly
untidy” (Le Corbusier, 1986, p. 122). Exposed, gleam-
ing plumbing fittings reveal the focus on cleanliness
and sanitation within the surgery area and the early
modernists’ obsession with hygiene.
On the tour we follow the path of the late Dr. Dalsace,
moving up to the private areas of the Maison de Verre
on the doctor’s personal metal stair that connects his
consulting room with his private study on the first
floor (Figure 20). His study occupies a balcony over-
looking the route between the patient’s waiting area
and his consulting room below. Here Chareau’s subtle
arrangement of spaces and attention to sightlines
blurs the line between work and home life while
still separating public and private. One can imagine
the doctor taking a short nap or break here between
patients. From this study, he could also open the wall
separating him from the primary living space in order
to participate in the social events taking place in the
Grand Salon (Figure 8).
Mme Dalsace’s sitting room adjoining the doctor’s
study also shares a view down to the ground floor
path from the patient waiting room to the doctor’s con-
sulting room (Figure 7). Here the “liberated” lady of
the house could enter, if only visually, the workplace
of her husband. By providing this view, “Chareau im-
plies that the housewife’s gaze exerts a subtle control
24 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Figure 3. Ground floor plan. Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre. New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 155.

Journal of Interior Design 25 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Figure 4. First-floor plan. Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre. New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 157.

Journal of Interior Design 26 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Figure 5. Second floor plan. Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre. New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 159.

Journal of Interior Design 27 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Mme Dalsace’s sitting room also boasts the first full view of the garden as well a
conservatory or greenhouse window for houseplants.

Figure 6. View through screen of main stair.
Photograph © 2007 François Halard in
Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre. New York:
Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 19.
Figure 7. Circulation route from patient waiting
area to Dr. Dalsace’s consulting room. Mme
Dalsace‘s lookout can be seen above. Photograph
© 2007 François Halard in Vellay (2007).
La Maison de Verre. New York: Thames
& Hudson, Inc., p. 132.

over personal and professional relations, asserting

domestic morality” (Wigglesworth, 1998, pp. 281–
282)—a sense of control also reinforced by a bust of
Annie Dalsace sculpted by Lipchitz that once looked
down on Dr. Dalsace at work from the height of the
bookshelf in the doctor’s consulting room.
Mme Dalsace’s sitting room also boasts the first full view
of the garden as well a conservatory or greenhouse win-
dow for houseplants (Figure 9). There are also multiple
connections to other interior spaces: access to the doc-
tor’s study, connection to the dining room, and a me-
chanical drop-down stair linking the sitting room, to the
master bedroom above. Le Corbusier’s (1986, p. 123)
demand for “bare walls” and “good art” is reflected in
the longest uninterrupted wall to be found in the house
where Mme Dalsace displayed her collection of modern
art. According to Mme Dalsace’s granddaughter,
My grandmother received her guests seated
on a divan covered with lemon-yellow otto-
man fabric. In front of her would be a little
glass-topped table [designed by Chareau]
where the tea cups would be set out. In this
room, pictures were hung close together on

Journal of Interior Design 28 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Convenience becomes apparent in the relationship between the served and

servant spaces, as experienced in the choreographically designed
relationship between the dining room and butler’s pantry.

Figure 8. Dr. Dalsace’s private study on the first
floor above the patient circulation space. Photo-
graph © 2007 François Halard in Vellay (2007).
La Maison de Verre. New York: Thames &
Hudson, Inc., p. 65.
Figure 9. Mme Dalsace’s first-floor sitting room.
Chareau’s furniture designs, chairs and glass-
topped table, furnish the room. The retractable
stair connecting to the master bedroom above can
be seen in the background. Photograph © 2007
François Halard in Vellay (2007). La Maison de
Verre. New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 75.

picture rails. She wanted a room exclusively

for listening to music (Vellay, 2007, p. 8).
Chareau’s technological amenities in the room in-
clude a lazy Susan through which the servants could
supply the tea that Mme Dalsace served to her guests.
Other furnishings by Chareau and high-backed chairs
upholstered by Jean Lurçat completed the room, a
space clearly conceived as a place for art and com-
fort.
From the sitting room, the tour proceeds to the din-
ing room, a space that occupies both the vertical and
horizontal center of the Maison de Verre (Figure 10).
Convenience becomes apparent in the relationship
between the served and servant spaces, as experi-
enced in the choreographically designed relation-
ship between the dining room and butler’s pantry.
The butler’s pantry is essentially a screened hallway
that allows direct access from the kitchen to the din-
ing room. The space is subtly revealed with perfo-
rated screens that allow an early warning of the
servant’s approach.

Journal of Interior Design 29 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

From the position of the dining room one finally begins to understand the spatial
arrangement of the home and, through pause and open vistas, its details.

From the position of the dining room one finally begins
to understand the spatial arrangement of the home and,
through pause and open vistas, its details. Here Le Cor-
busier’s “free plan” is fully embraced by Chareau in a
dynamic pinwheel of dining room and main stair con-
necting the ground floor to the Grand Salon, another
double-height volume that dominates the courtyard side
of the first and second floors of the house (Figure 11).
The Grand Salon adheres to Le Corbusier’s (1986,
p. 122) requirement in “The Manual of the Dwelling”
that the “mothers of families” “demand one really
large living room instead of a number of small ones.”
As the primary interior space within the residence, it
Figure 10. The dining room facing the hallway to
the butler’s pantry. Photograph © 2007 François
Halard in Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre.
New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 61.
represents a fundamentally public space that has been
cited often for its theatrical quality (Taylor, 1992;
Wiederspahn, 2001; Wilson, 2005). Dr. and Mme
Dalsace in fact hosted receptions, musical recitals,
and literary performances within this large space.
In this interior space, the glass block courtyard wall
not only prohibits a view in from the outside but also
blocks the view out to the courtyard. One’s attention is
focused on the center of the space and thus the activity
within—an emphasis on people not nature. This space,
probably the most well known and documented of the
house, has served as its iconic image—the abiding view
Figure 11. Grand Salon toward Dr. Dalsace’s study
with second floor gallery above. Photograph
© 2007 François Halard in Vellay (2007). La Maison
de Verre. New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 52.

Journal of Interior Design 30 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

The second floor, containing the private spaces of bedrooms and baths,
projects both efficiency and generosity.

of the Maison de Verre and the one by which the house Figure 12. Grand Salon wall of bookshelves with
is remembered in the history of modernism. traveling library ladder. Photograph © 2007
François Halard in Vellay (2007). La Maison de
Verre. New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 45.
As suggested by Wiederspahn’s distinction between
“performance” and “function,” the Grand Salon
served as a “performance” space in the Paris salon
tradition, and it also functioned as a display space,
another recall of domestic tradition. The Grand Salon
“performed” as a living center for the Parisian intel-
lectual elite, which included the most avant-garde art-
ists and thinkers of the day, and it functioned to
display the collective passions of the Dalsaces: Annie
Dalsace’s modern art and the couple’s vast collection
of books. Chareau provides access to the double-
height bookshelves that occupy the main interior wall
of the Salon by way of a rolling ladder that travels the
length of the wall (Figure 12). This combination of
“performance” and “function” illuminates the sig-
nificance of this house to interior design, not just its
significance as functionalist modernist architecture.

The second floor, containing the private spaces of

bedrooms and baths, projects both efficiency and gen-
erosity (Figure 5). Built-in, black-lacquered steel cabi-
nets with curved doors insulate the bedrooms from
the gallery corridor that overlooks the Grand Salon
(Figure 11). Chareau designed these storage units to
provide a buffer between the private spaces and the
public area of the Salon. The cabinets can be accessed
from two sides—from the bedroom and from the gal-
lery corridor (Figure 13).

The interior of each cabinet is detailed individually to
respond to a specific storage need, be it for shoes or
for sweaters. This customization not only reflects the
close collaboration between the designer and his cli-
ents, it shows that Chareau addresses dwelling ame-
nities within the dictates of modernism as expressed
by both Le Corbusier and Loos. Le Corbusier (1986,
p. 123) advises the inhabitant to, “demand fitments
for your linen and clothing,” and “built-in fittings
to take the place of much of the furniture.” In this
regard, Taylor (1992) also notes that Chareau’s stor-
age solution in the Maison de Verre demonstrates
agreement with “Loos’ observation of 1924 that ‘it is
even less modern to keep clothes in closets [armoires]
which offer themselves as showpieces. Imagine this:
a closet is nothing more than a kind of case for a
precious ornament’” (p. 33).
The master bathroom and the bathing areas in the other
bedrooms exude a focus on cleanliness and hygiene, a
preoccupation Chareau shared with other early modern
architects. Located on the SE wall of the house, the mas-
ter bathroom adheres to Le Corbusier’s (1986, p. 122)
admonition to “demand a bathroom looking south. …
One wall to be entirely glazed, opening if possible on
to a balcony for sun baths.” The room overlooks the

Journal of Interior Design 31 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Within the master bathroom operational translucent screens allow for control of views
and privacy, as well as connection to other interior and exterior spaces.

Figure 13. Detail of sweater cabinet from bedroom
side. Photograph © 2007 François Halard in Vellay
(2007). La Maison de Verre. New York: Thames &
Hudson, Inc., p. 104.
the tour guide, theorized that Chareau’s bidet design
referenced the traditional chamber pot that would
have been stored below the lavatory in traditional
houses (pers. comm., 2007) (Figure 14).

Sliding screens and pivoting bidets are repeated through-

out the second floor in the other bathing facilities
located within the remaining bedrooms. In one of the
other bedrooms, the one designed originally for Mme
Dalsace’s daughter, a tub is enclosed by screened book-
shelves that slide open for access to the tub (Figure 17).

A tour of the home is not complete without discussing

the servant spaces. Just as the visual and access control

Figure 14. Swiveling bidet and cupboard in the

master bathroom. Photograph © 2007 François
Halard in Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre.
New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 95.

garden to the rear of the house, and a balcony extends

the bathing space to the exterior.

Within the master bathroom operational translucent

screens allow for control of views and privacy, as well
as connection to other interior and exterior spaces
(Figure 15). These screens allowed Dr. and Mme
Dalsace visual privacy as he showered and she bathed,
while maintaining the possibility of verbal communi-
cation. Operable storage cabinets providing flexible
storage, metal clothing hooks sliding along a track
(Figure 16), and a swiveling bidet all add to the sense
of convenient living accommodation. Ms. Johnson,

Journal of Interior Design 32 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
Despite Chareau’s adherence to many of the principles of early modernism, the overall
impression of the house is one suggesting a fundamental focus on livability that is not
immediately apparent in other modern iconic houses.
Figure 15. Bath screens between Mme Dalsace’s
bathtub and her husband’s showering area.
Photograph © 2007 François Halard in Vellay
(2007). La Maison de Verre. New York: Thames &
Hudson, Inc., p. 89.
provided in Mme Dalsace’s sitting room liberates the
lady of the house, the servant quarters in Maison de
Verre also create a more egalitarian relationship for the
maid. Rather than the traditional cramped attic spaces
of French hôtels or the tight ground floor servant spaces
of Le Corbusier’s piloti-raised villas, Chareau provides
a more generous living accommodation. Although
separated in a flanking wing, the kitchen and servant
quarters are afforded views into the Grand Salon,
allowing quick responses to serving requests. While
Journal of Interior Design
efficient, these spaces are also generous in size and
amenities even to the extreme of providing the pivot-
ing bidets found elsewhere in the home.
Despite Chareau’s adherence to many of the principles
of early modernism, the overall impression of the
house is one suggesting a fundamental focus on liva-
bility that is not immediately apparent in other mod-
ern iconic houses. Ironically, the most modern space
by which the Maison de Verre is best known, the
Grand Salon, is not the space one perceives as the most
revealing or even the most interesting when touring
the house. The other residential spaces reflect a more
private and compelling modesty in their inventive
practicality.
Unlike the Villa Savoye or the Farnsworth house, the
Maison de Verre is introverted. The demarcation
between inside and outside is definitive, not demate-
rialized as in these other modern masterpieces. This
focus on the interior awakens one’s sensual apprecia-
tion of the visual, tactile, and aural qualities of the
materials: textured wire glass, warm fir cabinets, soft,
hazy aluminum perforated panels, and velvety steel.
The surfaces of the spaces are, in fact, warm and
comfortable (Figures 15, 16).
These surfaces do more than function; they perform
in response to human activity and touch. This distinct
articulation of each element and surface may have oc-
casioned Frampton’s comparison of the house to a
large piece of furniture, an observation that also dif-
ferentiates the Maison de Verre from Le Corbusier’s
seamless “purist” forms. Care and concern for the
joinery and connections of each element also reflect a
furniture-maker’s sensibility (Figure 17).
These surface manipulations along with the subtle ma-
terial and elevation shifts within the house create what
Nicolai Ouroussoff describes as “the house’s elasticity,
allowing for varying degrees of solitude and intimacy”
(Ouroussoff, 2007, p. AR23). Again, the experience of
the house is predicated on its interiority.
Though the Maison de Verre drew heavily on indus-
trial means of fabrication like those in airplane or
33 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

Here again, we see negotiation between architectural rhetoric (relative to mechanical

modes of transportation and the concern for health and hygiene) and the
specific domestic needs of a particular family.

Figure 16. Detail of duralumin clothes hangers. Figure 17. Secondary bedroom with screened
Photograph © 2007 François Halard in Vellay bookshelves enclosing the tub. Photograph © 2007
(2007). La Maison de Verre. New York: François Halard in Vellay (2007). La Maison de
Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 92. Verre. New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 115.

automobile construction (Vellay, p. 13), it is the high-

ly refined, hand-forged work of the locksmith Dalbet
that really allows for flexibility within the spaces.
Pierre Chareau remarks:
I have often heard a saying: A house
is neither an airplane, nor a ship, or a
laboratory—let us rather accept the religion
of house-gods than the tyranny of the
machine-god. (Cinqualbre, 2001, p. 36.
See n. 1).
Sliding panels of perforated metal, operable vents,
the lazy Susan, and sliding stairs are all movable
elements that permit the human operators to engage
the interior spaces as needed. Here again, we see
negotiation between architectural rhetoric (relative to
mechanical modes of transportation and the concern
for health and hygiene) and the specific domestic
needs of a particular family.
On each floor, the ground plane shifts constantly,
whether in actual elevation with both subtle steps and
dramatic stairs, or in the transition of flooring materi-
als from wood block to rubber to carpet to terrazzo
to tile. The variety of stairways allow for multiple

Journal of Interior Design 34 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY

EDWARDS AND GJERTSON

The complexity of the circulation is in direct contrast to the simplicity of the organization
of spaces from public to private.

paths and discretionary movement throughout the Figure 19. Stairway between first floor and
house, and from floor to floor. There is no single un- second floor. Photograph © 2007 François Halard
interrupted circulation route connecting the ground in Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre. New York:
Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 127.
floor to the first and the second floors. The complexity
of the circulation is in direct contrast to the simplicity
of the organization of spaces from public to private.
From ground level to the second floor and from the
courtyard side of the house to the garden side, one
moves clearly from public/social space to private/
family space. The movable elements and screening
devices provided serve to negotiate the transitions in
a flexible manner (Figures 18–20).

Figure 18. Main stairway between ground floor

and first floor. Photograph © 2007 François Halard
in Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre. New York:
Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 27.

After an hour and a half of touring the Maison de

Verre, the author reached the conclusion that this
house is about “living” in an organic, accommodating
way. As the critic Julien Lepage says:
There is nothing mechanistic about this
house. None of the equipment is menacing.
It is all treated with such delicacy and its
function is so well revealed that all these
pieces are more like organs than instruments
(Frampton, 1969, p. 81).2
Chareau’s approach lies in stark contrast to Le
Corbusier’s more mechanistic and aesthetic notion of

Journal of Interior Design 35 Volume 34 Number 1 2008

 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
The house operates as furniture for the inhabitants insofar as it performs to generously
support their day-to-day lives in the context of both work and private life.
Figure 20. Private metal stair from Dr. Dalsace’s
ground floor consulting room to his study on the
first floor. Photograph © 2007 François Halard in
Vellay (2007). La Maison de Verre. New York:
Thames & Hudson, Inc., p. 67.
the house as a “machine for living.” This opinion is
substantiated by Paul Nelson’s observation in his
original 1933 critique in Architecture d‘Aujourd’hui:
It is built. It functions. It is not solely based
on the dictates of abstract ideas, for it works.
The walls are solid; the sliding doors slide.
There are no leaks, the air conditioning
works. It would appear that one does not
suffer from either the heat or the cold. It is
realized (Frampton, 1969, p. 85).3
Journal of Interior Design
Of his own recent visit to the Maison de Verre,
Ouroussoff (2007) claims, “the Maison de Verre is an
architect’s ultimate poem” (p. AR 1). This statement
seems to reinforce Frampton’s claim for Chareau’s
“poetry of technique,” a poetry that reveals itself in
the detailed articulation of the interior furnishings.
After describing the phenomenological experience of
living in the house for a weekend, Ouroussoff further
asserts: “The experience drove home how liberating
the house must have felt during those first years, when
it still hummed with life. … The house was a perfect
balance between the need for companionship and
solitude, a utopia of the senses” (p. AR 23).
Conclusion
The easily operable moving elements and the rich ma-
teriality of the Maison de Verre function in such a
way that reinforces the clients’ domestic program and
the livability of the space. The house operates as
furniture for the inhabitants insofar as it performs to
generously support their day-to-day lives in the con-
text of both work and private life. That Ouroussoff
could imagine the lives once lived in a house now
devoid of the original occupants suggests that the
design of the interior continues to communicate the
possibilities for human habitation. This also implies
a depth of design that goes beyond mere function or
surface style.
In the Maison de Verre, Chareau successfully negoti-
ates between modernism’s theoretical rhetoric and
the demands of domestic habitation. While engaging
the latest technology of the day, both in the structure
and in the furnishing of the house, the design also
manages to respond effectively to the demands of
living, not only for the generation that commissioned
the house originally, but also for those who followed.
In this regard, the Maison de Verre offers an instruc-
tive historical precedent that needs to receive greater
attention in the literature of interior design.
In conclusion, the livable quality of this negotiated
interior reflects more appropriately than many more
36 Volume 34 Number 1 2008
 NEGOTIATING A MODERN DOMESTICITY
EDWARDS AND GJERTSON
well-known and studied domiciles the complexity
of human habitation. Thus, the Maison de Verre
provides a valuable case study of an alternative mod-
ernism that provides a living environment more con-
ducive and responsive to human habitation than the
theoretical propositions of early modern rhetoric.
References
Boissiere, O. (1998). Twentieth-century houses: Europe. Paris: Pierre
Terrail Editions.
de Botton, A. (2006). The architecture of happiness. Pantheon
Books. Retrieved June 3, 2008, http://calitreview.com/48
Congrès Internationale d‘Architecture Moderne (CIAM). (1970). La
Sarraz declaration. In U. Conrads (Ed.), Programs and manifes-
toes on 20th-century architecture (pp. 109–113). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1928).
Cinqualbre, O. (2001). Pierre Chareau: La maison de verre. Paris:
Jean-Michel Place Editions.
Friedman, A. T. (1998). Women and the making of the modern
house: A social and architectural history. New York: Harry N.
Abrams.
Frampton, K. (1969). Maison de Verre. Perspecta, 12, 77–128.
Retrieved May 31, 2008 from JSTOR, Stable URL: http://www.
jstor.org/stable/1566961
Futagawa, Y., Bauchet, B., & Vellay, M. (Eds.). (1988). La Maison
de Verre: Pierre Chareau. Tokyo: A.D.A. EDITA.
Kurtich, J., & Eakin, G. (1996). Interior architecture. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Le Corbusier. (1986). Towards a new architecture. Mineola, NY:
Dover Publication, Inc. (Unabridged and unaltered republication
of: Le Corbusier. (1931). Towards a new architecture. As trans.
from 13th French edition. London: John Rodker).
Le Corbusier & Jeanneret, P. (1970). Five points towards a new
architecture. In U. Conrads (Ed.), Programs and manifestoes on
20th-century architecture (pp. 99–101). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press. (Original work published 1928).
Loos, A. (1970). Ornament and crime. In U. Conrads (Ed.), Programs
and manifestoes on 20th century architecture (pp. 19–24).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1908).
Maldonado, T., & Cullars, J. (1991). The idea of comfort. Design
Issues, 8(1), 35–43. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from JSTOR,
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511452
Massey, A. (1990). Interior design of the 20th century. New York:
Thames & Hudson.
Journal of Interior Design
Ouroussoff, N. (2007, August 26). The best house in Paris. The
New York Times, AR1, AR22–23.
Pile, J. (2000). A history of interior design. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Reed, C. (1996). Introduction. In C. Reed (Ed.), Not at home: The
suppression of domesticity in modern art and architecture (pp.
7–17). New York: Thames and Hudson.
Tate, A., & Smith, C. R. (1986). Interior design in the 20th century.
New York: Harper & Row.
Taylor, B. B. (1992). Pierre Chareau: Designer and architect.
Cologne: Taschen.
Tiersten, L. (1996). The chic interior and the feminine modern: Home
decorating as high art in turn-of-the-century Paris. In C. Reed
(Ed.), Not at home: The suppression of domesticity in modern art
and architecture (pp. 18–32). New York: Thames and Hudson.
Trocmé, S. (1999). Influential interiors. New York: Clarkson Potter.
Vellay, D. (2007). La Maison de Verre: Pierre Chareau’s modernist
masterwork. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Wiederspahn, P. (2001). Mutable domestic space: The choreogra-
phy of modern dwelling. In S. Bozdogan and Ü. B. Çopür
(Eds.), Occidental/Oriental, Geography, Identity, Space:
Proceedings of the Association of Collegiate Schools of
Architecture (ACSA) International Conference (pp. 265–269).
Washington, DC: Association of Collegiate Schools of
Architecture.
Wigglesworth, S. (1998). Maison de Verre: Sections through an
in-vitro conception. The Journal of Architecture, 3, 263–286.
Wilson, C. (2005). Looking at/in/from the Maison de Verre.
In H. Heynen & G. Baydar (Eds.), Negotiating domesticity: Spatial
productions of gender in modern architecture (pp. 234–251).
New York: Routledge.
Notes
1 Cinqualbre,
O. Pierre Chareau: La Maison de Verre (Paris: Jean-
Michel Place Editions, 2001). A reprint of the documentation
and critical assessments of the Maison de Verre originally
published in L‘Architecture d’Aujourdhui, No. 9, November/
December 1933. Trans. from the French by Robert Poncelet, a
personal friend of the author.
2 Frampton, Kenneth. (1969). Maison de Verre. Perspecta, 12, 81.
An English trans. of the L’Architecture d’Aujourdhui critique cited
in n. 16 of Frampton‘s article.
3 Ibid.,p. 85. An English translation of Paul Nelson from
L’Architecture d‘Aujourdhui, No. 9, November/December
1933, p. 9.
37 Volume 34 Number 1 2008