I have long wondered what Mies van der Rohe’s Brick Country House might look like in actual three dimensions, wanting to make a model I could walk around and view from all angles, then see where that took me.

It exists only as a perspective drawing

and a ground floor plan, both made a century ago, both often presented together, both of which tell us little about the second floor, beyond what we see.

I thought if I analyzed the plan carefully enough, long enough, I might come up with an inspiration that would provide a central concept that, once applied, would reveal the structure of the rest, unseen. I discovered the opposite, that there is no central concept. Rather the design, as much of it as we are given, depends upon being active and unpredictable. Order is a point of departure. I also studied his other houses of the time to get ideas—the Concrete Country House, the Dexel House, the Eliat House, the Krefeld Villas, the Tugendhat House, still more, all in varying degrees of completion and conception—all of them similar only in how different they all are. Mies is experimenting with different sites, different programs, different ideas. The only conclusion I could make is that the closer he came to a final, built version, the more compromises he had to make. That is not a problem with this house, which was never built. Mies had complete freedom.

There are other problems. The two drawings, despite appearances, do not match, and the perspective drawing has significant differences from the plan. Note, as Tegethoff points out, the shadow at A, easy to overlook. Clearly the roofline of the wall at B ends at the smaller chimney and pulls it closer, not far from the garden wall. It has also been moved well forward. Likely the small complex on the right would be moved forward as well or the chimney wouldn’t be functional. Everything beyond these two sides is called into question.

And there are stilll other divergences. The brick wall and window at B are both longer, with different proportions, while the front room is moved further back from the large chimney, marked at C. The garden walls, top and bottom, are much further apart, which significantly changes the overall layout and dynamics. The wall at D has a different and narrower window and, again, different proportions. The forward room on the second floor, at E, is hard to place. It is set further back, beyond the chimney, but it’s hard to tell where it stops on the right. The wall at F looks to be longer. Also the chimneys have different lengths, the smaller notably longer, and maintain a different relationship. I discuss the differences at length in my essay Mies van der Rohe: Meditations on a Plan. Closer inspection might yield more discrepancies.

As an aside, the base of the large chimney is wider than the rest, at G. Obviously it is intended for support of the deck above, but the deck already has support inside the chimney and it breaks the simplicity of the design and stands out, at any rate does not appear in the plan or my model.

In short, the perspective drawing is based on a substantially different plan from the one given, one we do not have. Very roughly, it might look like this:

It was the perspective drawing I wanted to capture so came up with this plan, making adjustments to the layout and program. Note the significantly greater distance between the top and bottom garden walls, compared to the ground floor plan. I had to open up the interior and change layout. I’m just guessing.

I also quickly made this quick second floor plan—two bedrooms flanking a sitting room with a glass front, where stairs enter, along with auxiliary rooms behind. Again, I’m guessing. (These two layout models were used for Version B, below, which I made first. In Version A I made several adjustments. I start with A because it is the design I prefer.)

I still tried to keep parts of Mies’s floor plan where I could but had to make changes. Note how the small cluster of rooms on the right has been moved forward, changing its orientation to the rest. Also note how much further the bottom and top garden walls, two of the three axes that drive the design, are moved apart by the extended front room, lessening the tightness and tension of the original plan. Combined with the general alignment of the two sides, they create the implication of a large square, a stability Mies could not have wanted. This is, after all, a country house, which, by tradition, should spread across site in relaxed, asymmetric arrangement. My model, accordingly, is longer and wider than reconstructions I’ve seen elsewhere—and closer to the perspective drawing.

With the cluster of rooms on the right forward, an L arrangement is strongly suggested for the overall layout that would simplify and settle what should be a complex and dynamic design. My solution was the partial intrusion of rooms in the center that complement the small cluster, break the L, and provide countering thrust within and against the implied square. In Version B I extended it to the second floor, adding mass to this diversion.

I had only general rules. I kept all openings full height, floor to ceiling (one in the small cluster may not be). Walls should exist in freestanding fragments, comprising nothing more, when they join, than an L or T. Beyond that, my overriding design principle was variety, that little be repeated, that one face not fully reflect or anticipate the next. Openness and free play are what most define the building. Elements should exist in some tension, yet combined should appear convincing and composed, giving the house its own notion of stability, a poise that does not rest. I let design determine program for the most part, though I only have an a vague notion of what that program is. As drawn, the interior space does not always speak for itself and Mies’s own notations are brief and highly abstract. I did not add guttering, the overhang from the roof all around, because I would have exaggerated it. I note, however, that it is much narrower and less noticeable in the perspective drawing than in the plan.

I worked with stock pieces, blocky at this scale, so had to make compromises. The perspective in the drawing is so wide it is difficult to read, one in which walls can quickly be foreshortened. I debate my proportions. And I suspect walls in the perspective drawing have been lengthened for effect, not accuracy. Finally, I can’t repeat with my camera the viewpoint for the drawing. Still on the two visible sides I have come fairly close.

Version A

The ground floor layout is about the same as that in my model of the plan, above, except I moved the cluster of rooms at the right back a bit and enlarged it to extend past the corridor that connects it to the main house, giving it a capping presence. I also opted for a fairly narrow second floor, yet one that has some complexity and variation from the other staggered rectangles. Program on the second floor has to be adjusted accordingly.

The room on the second floor, at E in my diagram, must be brought in on its right side a bit, because the glass wall of the room looks shorter than the wall below and you can see the slab between the floors. But that means the end wall of the second floor doesn’t rest on the load bearing wall. Other parts of the design pose similar structural questions—and make building a model challenging. There are many places where it was hard to believe what I was doing.

One controlling tension of the overall design is the diagonal created by the two chimneys, its relationship to the long garden walls—not fully modeled—and the rest of the house, a relationship that, like everything else, shifts in no regular or predictable way as you change your point of view, as does the arrangement and proportion of brick masses to glass. Yet both shifting relationships maintain control and have their own convincing character.

From this angle, the house appears largely solid brick.

The diagonal disappears from this side, where the second floor sets a horizontal orientation, and the mass opens up. I assumed there would be something to see in the upper right quadrant, so added windows on the second floor in similar but different arrangement to those elsewhere. The two windows on the far right are stacked one on top of the other, which is either interesting or just odd. The only reason I did that was so I wouldn’t break the L or T rule for walls, and it may be a case of rigidly following a rule and missing the overall sense.

On the right I repeated the second floor overhang from the other side, and I debated myself whenever I repeated anything in completing a design that depends on variation. In the plan, this overhang appears to be on the ground floor, which leaves questions about what to put above it, what it structurally can support. I’m not at all clear why these overhangs exist, especially since most windows have nothing to break the sun. Since doors are not distinguished from windows, it’s not clear either whether the roof is accessed anywhere on the second floor in what might be open decks.

Three different but substantial masses step back to the center, countering with some gradation the one-story wing on the left and the garden wall on the right, anchoring the whole design. This face is likely the rear, which perhaps should be closed. Also, as far as I can conceive the program, there is no good place for openings here.

From both the plan and perspective drawing, it is clear that the end wall, at a right angle to the garden wall, extends straight two floors, without having the second floor room staggered as we see elsewhere. This might be the most unusual aspect of Mies’s design, which presented me with my greatest challenge—an essentially horizontal house with overlapping volumes that ends on this side with a narrow vertical rectangle, largely free, largely solid brick.

Here glass dominates, much more so than either drawing might suggest. It is an open face that looks forward

but, angled in both drawings, is protected, providing privacy for the wide views.

Version B

This version used my ground floor model, keeping the placement of the cluster of rooms notched in at the corridor. This choice, again, is either interesting or odd. I also made a wider, more complex second floor to break the appearance of an L overhead. (The large chimney and the deck beside it are also longer—I shortened them in version A as they appeared too long.)

The model is essentially the same

until you make the turn

and look from this side. My major decision for the hidden sides was greater brick presence countering the glass on the other side.

On the very right I broke the L or T rule.

The three staggered vertical rectangles complement the chimney, but I repeat the shape three times, likely a mistake.

No great difference here

or here.

Coda

The best way to approach this project would be to make a dozen designs, weigh their merits, and debate them, perhaps make a dozen more. This is what Mies’s design most asks us to do, where it takes us, to explore options and question them. With the questions, the opening up, a different way of living, of seeing.

But, really, in a design that depends on unpredictable variation there is no compelling reason to make any decision. If Mies had designed it either way I did, I would find reasons to appreciate his choices. Alone, I like my decisions but have no confidence in any. I don’t think there is a good solution to this problem and wonder if Mies thought the whole design out, simply because he wasn’t interested in doing so for the purposes of his presentation. Then again, if asked he might have sketched the other side in a few minutes. We had him in this country for several decades. I wish someone had asked him.

Notes/See Also

For comparison, in Mies van der Rohe: The Brick Country House/According to Plan I make a model based on the ground floor plan.

Wolf Tegethoff, Mies van der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, MIT: 1985, sadly out of print. I take both images of the Brick Country House from there. The book, well illustrated and thoroughly researched, analyzes and gives historical background of Mies’s modern home projects, many unbuilt. We see a mind at work in a variety of domestic settings, with a variety of solutions. The projects are as interesting in their solutions as in the architectural ideas they explore. Invention, perhaps, like charity, begins at home. His discussion of the Brick Country House is especially extensive, where he corrects some of the critical excursions, past and present.

Again, my essay Mies van der Rohe: Meditations on a Plan explains the differences and explores larger meanings.

In an earlier essay, Completing the Mies van der Rohe Brick Country House, An Odyssey, which takes us in a different direction, I had not read the Tegethoff when I made the rough model, which is closer to the floor plan. An abbreviated version of the essay appeared at Archinect. More pictures of the model can be found here.

There are several models of the house online, all different. Carlos Soares Ribeiro and Luis Soares, of Virtuvius, have made a well-crafted virtual tour, inside and out.

.

.