Architectural
Institute of Japan
Translated Paper
Space and composition of Craig Ellwood’s residential
buildings, focusing on structural systems
Ryo Masuoka1 and Shingo Suekane2
1
Department of Architecture and Arts, Otemae University, Nishinomiya-shi, Japan 2Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering,
Kobe University, Kobe-shi, Japan
Correspondence
Ryo Masuoka, Department of Architecture and Arts,
Otemae University, 6-42 Ochayashocho, Nishinomiya-shi,
Hyogo 662-8552, Japan.
Email: masuoka@otemae.ac.jp
Funding Information
No funding information is provided.
The Japanese version of this paper was published in
Volume 81 Number 720, pages 489–498, https://doi.org/
10.3130/aija.81.489 of Journal of Architecture and Plan-
ning (Transactions of AIJ). The authors have obtained
permission for secondary publication of the English ver-
sion in another journal from the Editor of Journal of
Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ). This
paper is based on the translation of the Japanese version
with some slight modifications.
Received May 5, 2022; Accepted September 1, 2022
doi: 10.1002/2475-8876.12288
1. Introduction
This discussion [Note 1] is part of a study to elucidate the architec-
tural characteristics of the works of Craig Ellwood (1922–1992),
the leading architect of post-World War II American West Coast
architecture, best known for case study houses (CSH) #16 (1953),
#17 (1956) and #18 (1958), among other works, with a particular
emphasis on the characteristics of the spatial composition of stan-
dalone houses, which were his primary output. Previous research
focused on the openness of the space in Ellwood’s dwelling
design, primarily on the qualities of their site and floor plans
[Note 2]. Subsequently, the paper concentrated on the spatial com-
position materials and modules, analyzing interior and exterior
cladding and frame materials as the spatial composition materials,
and demonstrated how he created spatial rhythm in both the inte-
rior and exterior by arranging them along a regular module and
exposing the frame material [Note 3]. The focus of this study is on
frame [Note 4], which provides a regular rhythm for space, and its
objective is to highlight the qualities of Ellwood’s spatial composi-
tion by illuminating the expression and composition of frames in
both interior and exterior spaces.
Craig Ellwood was born in Texas in 1922 and relocated to Los
Angeles in 1929. When he graduated from high school, he was
drafted to fight in World War II and served in the Air Force. When
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Japan Architectural Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Architectural Institute of Japan.
Abstract
In this study, the type and transformation of the spatial composition of Craig Ell-
wood’s residential works were investigated, focusing on structural systems. The
analysis addressed 28 works, evaluating the structure construction, structure of
the main facade, and inner space structure. As a result, the following points were
derived: In the 1950s, the order in space was created by setting directions and
showing beams in inner and outer spaces. In the 1960s, the order in space was
achieved by forming an architectural framework with columns and beams clearly
exposed in the exterior space.
Keywords
architectural framework, case study house program, Craig Ellwood, spatial
composition
the war ended in 1945, he started to work at a construction com-
pany and became involved in the works of West Coast architects,
such as Charles Eames, Richard Neutra, and Raphael Soriano, and
gained architecture-related knowledge and skills. He established
his business in 1948. During the same year, he enrolled at the
University of California, Los Angeles to study structural mechan-
ics. In the 1950s, he participated in a CSH program (CSHP). Dur-
ing this time, he primarily designed standalone houses, including
three CSHs: CSH #16, Smith House (1958), and Korsen House
(1959). He is considered a member of the third generation1 of
architects who participated in the CSHP, such as Pierre Koenig,
and created works that used steel frames. In 1960, he started to
design offices, commercial facilities, and educational facilities in
addition to standalone houses under the influence of Mies van der
Rohe, whom he knew personally. He also created large-scale
architecture such as the Art Center College of Design (1975), in
which he used steel frames as he did in houses. Ellwood designed
98 architectural works before he passed away in 1992, 58 of which
were standalone houses.
With his experience studying structural mechanics at the uni-
versity, he was interested in the role of structure in creating
space, and he believed that form and structure are complemen-
tary. He once said that “structure through technology is the only
way to right form” [Note 5] and also stated the following.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

Form must express a rationality. Form must have conviction. As architects, opinion, studying Ellwood’s CSH works is insufficient to sum-
one of our main tasks is to find structural forms for new materials, because marize his architectural characteristics. As a result, a typologi-
only through structure can we create new architecture [Note 6].
cal evaluation of the characteristics of Ellwood’s entire career,
including their transitions, has not been conducted and is the
Ellwood considered the structure to be an important element
goal of this study.
in architecture, he believed that form must express the
rationality of the structure, and that new architecture can only
be created through the structure. As a result, Ellwood’s spatial 2. Analysis Subject and Method
composition is distinct in that he created spaces that empha-
According to our research [Note 10], Ellwood planned 58 stan-
sized frame types, both in standalone houses, such as the three
dalone houses, 38 of which were built. They focused primarily
CSH works that used standardized steel, and in large-scale
on the 1950s and the early 1960s. This paper focuses on Ell-
facilities. Moreover, Ellwood believed that by exposing
wood’s standalone house design, which was his main activity.
frames, it is possible to provide a principle to the space
The analysis subjects are 28 works whose analysis documents
through a regular rhythm. On the frame that created this prin-
are comprehensively available according to the survey of exist-
ciple [Note 7] and its technology, he said
ing documents conducted in advance (Table 1; the symbols
True, great architecture is art, and the art in architecture is an immeasur-
included here are used in the subsequent tables). The basic
able quality. But great Architecture is primarily technique, and therefore a documents used for the analysis are the plans and sections pre-
building must clearly reflect the order, the discipline, the measurable pared by this author based on drawings, photographs
aspects of its being [Note 8]. [Note 11], and monographs of works2–6 by Ellwood, data were
collected through field research and archives (Figure 1).
Therefore, Ellwood believed that frames and their technol- As deduced from Ellwood’s definition of the frame as an
ogy are important for architecture and that frames are required important element in spatial composition that forms the skele-
to give order and rules to architecture. He added the following ton of the space and gives architecture an order, this paper
in this order: focuses on frame types and adapts the following three analysis
items. (1) Frame composition, (2) Frame used on the main
Creativity cannot evolve without ego, true - but also creativity cannot facade, and (3) Frame used in the internal space.
evolve without order. Order is basic; there can be no freedom without it
[Note 9].
The characteristics of exterior forms and frames that form
the internal and external thresholds are discussed in Section 3.
Ellwood believed that order is the foundation of architecture, As Ellwood created forms through the rationality of the frame
and by giving a building order through a frame type, it is pos- and its expression, he regarded the composition of frame mate-
sible to form the skeleton of a building and conduct free spa- rials as important to him. Therefore, this paper will concentrate
tial composition. In this paper, Ellwood’s frame type in houses on the framework, create framing plans for houses, and deter-
is regarded as an important element in spatial composition that mine the relationship between the frame and exterior. Hence,
functions as an expression of structural material and also as an Ellwood designed open spaces. This study elucidates the char-
element that gives order to architecture and determines its acteristics of frames designed by Ellwood and their chronolog-
skeleton, and which is also capable of creating uniform spaces ical changes regarding the directionality of frames by
and also spaces that are special with regionality achieved extracting the relationship between the directions of external
through the use of standard materials. Furthermore, considering space or views [Note 12] and the axis of the frames in the
the discovery by previous research that there were two signifi- public space. [Note 13]
cant phases in Ellwood’s career as an architect, despite the fact
that it only lasted for a short period of approximately 20 years,
this paper focuses on the internal and external frame types to TABLE 1. Works to be analyzed
present some of the characteristics of Ellwood’s architecture
by understanding their typologies and chronological changes. No Works Year No Works Year
Ellwood’s frame type was used in the houses. [E01] Lappin House 1948 [E15] House in Sherman 1956
Existing studies on Ellwood include the monograph by Oaks
Esther McCoy that chronologically discussed works by Ell- [E02] Epstein House 1949 [E16] Kuderna House 1956
wood, from his architecture to furniture designs,2 with a focus [E03] Zimmerman House 1950 [E17] Hunt House 1957
on their importance from the 1990s.3 Since the 2000s, books [E04] Broughton House 1950 [E18] Smith House 1958
have summarized the life of Ellwood by Neil Jackson4,5 and [E05] Heller House 1951 [E19] Case Study 1958
discussed the major works of Ellwood by Alfonso Perez- House #18
Mendez.6 Ellwood is frequently mentioned in Japan as a third- [E06] Hale House 1951 [E20] Korsen House 1959
generation architect who took part in the CSHP.7 Studies on [E07] Case Study 1953 [E21] Daphne House 1961
the CSHP by Nasu et al.8 or by Yamanaka et al.9,10 discussed House #16
the three works by Ellwood among CSH, namely CSH #16, [E08] Zack House 1952 [E22] Rosen House 1963
#17, and #18. A study by Maeda and Kutsuki et al. focused on [E09] Johnson House 1953 [E23] Moore House 1965
the development process of Ellwood’s work.11,12 A report by [E10] First Pierson House 1953 [E24] Kubly House 1965
Tomohiro Miyashita13 discussed the characteristics of CSH [E11] Andersen House 1954 [E25] Goldman House 1968
#16, and a study focused on Ellwood’s philosophy was con- [E12] Case Study 1956 [E26] Palevsky House 1969
ducted by Takuya Hirata.14 Therefore, the majority of Japanese House #17
studies on Ellwood focused either on his position within the [E13] Carlson House 1956 [E27] Kawahara House 1970
CSH or only on a small number of works, as his assessment [E14] Steinman House 1956 [E28] Harris House 1972
was primarily based on the evaluation of CSH #16. In our

Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 2

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
FIGURE 1. Basic materials for analysis
The relationship between the exterior walls and the frame at
the main facade is explained in Section 4. Ellwood’s designs
are distinguished by the use of exposed frames, both inside
and outside, to form an architectural skeleton and provide a
consistent rhythm to the exterior. Frame joining and its tech-
nology are particularly important for frame composition in reg-
ulating externally exposed frames. As a result, by extracting
the main facades that were intentionally designed and planned,
and analyzing their shapes, three-dimensional (3D) composi-
tions, the relationships between the exterior walls and frames,
and the relationships between frame joints, the frame types
used on the main facades, and their chronological changes are
elucidated.
The relationship between the frames, interior walls, and ceil-
ing in the interior space is explained in Section 5. Similar to
the exterior, Ellwood created a spatial rhythm in the interior
space by exposing frames as well as spatial territories. As a
result of analyzing the relationships between the beams and
the ceiling, between the interior walls and columns, and
between frame joints, the frame types used in the interior
space and their chronological changes are revealed.
3. Frame and Exterior
The uniqueness of Ellwood’s architecture is inferred from the
fact that he emphasized the relationship between the frame and
the form of buildings and that he formed the spatial skeleton
through frames. Ellwood used the warm climate of the Ameri-
can West Coast throughout the year to create spaces that initi-
ated the continuity of interior and exterior spaces. This paper
focuses on Ellwood’s frames and analyzes the relationships
between the building exterior, framework, room use, columns,
and beams, as well as the relationship between the directions
of views or external space and frame, to understand the direc-
tionality of frames and elucidate their characteristics by
extracting their chronological changes.
The relationships and directionalities of the frames, orga-
nized according to the framing plans (Figure 2), prepared by
extracting only the building exterior and main frames from the
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 3
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE
basic analysis documents (Figure 1), are presented in Table 2,
which was used to guide our analysis.
3.1 Frame types
The structures of the 28 houses are as follows:15 “steel
framing,” 10 “mixed framing” with steel columns and wood
beams, and 3 “timber framing” with wood columns and
beams. Broadly speaking, those built in the 1950s frequently
have mixed framing, whereas those built in the 1960s fre-
quently have steel framing. Their frame types are as fol-
lows: 15 “one-way rigid frames,” where portal frames are
arranged in one direction, all with cantilever beams, and 13
“two-way rigid frames,” where columns and beams are
assembled as lattices, three with cantilever beams. Accord-
ing to available documentation, the main members of both
frame types have rigid joints. Furthermore, among houses
with two-way rigid frames, there are six designs of floor
joists that were lifted from the ground surface, particularly
in the 1960s. Furthermore, because one-way rigid frames
have directionality, the shapes of their members are impor-
tant. When the shapes of their columns and beams were
examined, it was discovered that the beam shape was the
most common type, with the beam depth in the span direc-
tion. Thus, the columns were divided into four “squares,”
six “H-shapes,” and five “rectangles.” Regarding rectangles
and H-shapes among them, which have differences in their
rigidity and durability depending on their orientations, rect-
angles are arranged such that the long side, which is the
member’s strong axis direction, is in the span direction,
whereas H-shapes are placed on the web side, which is the
member’s weak axis in the span direction. Such an arrange-
ment is illogical in terms of load and direction, but it
reveals that Ellwood intended to express the H-shaped frame
in both interior and exterior spaces. In terms of the chrono-
logical transition, he frequently used “mixed framing” with
a one-way rigid frame in the 1950s and steel framing in
conjunction with a two-way rigid frame in the 1960s. Fur-
thermore, for two works with timber framing, such as [E24],
he used a two-way rigid frame.
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE
FIGURE 2. Frame drawing and analysis
3.2 Relationship between frame and exterior
Regarding the relationship between frame and exterior, in
seven designs they “match,” and in 21 they “differ”. Those
that are “unusual” create half-outdoor spaces by extending the
frame from the exterior and installing a roof. Consequently,
the usage types of the half-outdoor spaces are as follows: ten
“terraces” and only three “corridors,” one “terrace and corri-
dor,” and one set of “terraces, parking, and corridor.” Half-
outdoor spaces are frequently used as “terraces,” and those
with “parking” are common in works from the first half of the
1950s. Furthermore, an examination of the use of interior
space facing the half-outdoor spaces among those that are “dif-
ferent” revealed that they are frequently used as “living
rooms” or “dining rooms.” In terms of chronological transition,
the frame and exterior frequently “differed” in the 1950s and
early 1960s. Although some of the half-outdoor spaces are
used as “parking”, the majority of them are used as “terraces”
that face a public space of “living room” and “dining room.”
Ellwood regarded half-outdoor spaces as the second living
room in the American West Coast climate, which is warm
throughout the year, and considered the continuity of interior
and exterior spaces important. Thus, by extending the frame to
the outside and using its roof to block intense sunlight, the
architects’ intention to create continuity between interior and
exterior spaces can be identified. In the second half of the
1960s, he transitioned to compositions where the frame and
the exterior match.
3.3 Relationship between columns, beams, and exterior walls
The previous section examined the relationship between the
frame and the exterior. In this section, we examine the col-
umns and beams within the frame and analyze their relation-
ship with the outside environment. The analysis subjects are
the main frames and the exterior that contain the public and
private space [Note 14], and the parts with functions such as
parking that form annexes or separate buildings are not
analyzed.
In terms of the relationship between the columns and the
exterior, in 24 works they match and in four works they mix,
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
which means that some parts match, whereas other parts “dif-
fer.” The majority of the designs from the 1950s and late
1960s match. Moreover, those from the early 1960s have main
parts where the columns and exterior match while having sec-
tions where they differ, such as the eaves of the entrance of
[E21] or the terrace part of [E22].
Therefore, in seven works the beams and exterior “match,”
in 15 they “differ,” and in six they are “mixed.” Furthermore,
as in [E08], the beams used in those that differ have a compo-
sition in which there are no beams orthogonal to the direction
of the beams extending from inside to outside. The designs
from the 1950s were frequently “different” by extending
beams from the inside to the outside. Because they do not
have beams in orthogonal directions, these buildings display
clear spatial directionality, which is Ellwood’s signature frame
usage. In the 1960s, he added to the compositions by moving
the beams and exteriors to either match or be mixed.
Hence, the frame typology based on the correlation between
columns, beams, and exterior is as follows: in nine “frame-
work types,” the skeleton of the space is formed by the col-
umns and beams; in four “exterior framework types,” the
skeleton of the space is formed by the columns and beams but
some exterior walls are recessed; and in 15 “beam formation
types,” the beams are extended from inside to outside. Given
that the beam formation type is the most common, Ellwood
may have attempted spatial composition with unique frames
that emphasized the beams. Their chronological transition
shows that compositions with beam formation types were com-
mon in the 1950s, and they transitioned to compositions with
framework type or exterior framework type in the 1960s. It
has been demonstrated that in the 1950s, Ellwood mostly used
a composition in which the interior and exterior spaces were
created through beams, but he also used a composition in
which they were created by forming skeletons with columns
and beams.
3.4 Frame direction
Ellwood’s frame composition was examined in the preceding
sections. The present study focuses on the relationship between
the frame directions, the view from the public space, and the
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 4
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 MASUOKA AND SUEKANE

TABLE 2. Relationship between the frame and the interior and exterior spaces

Relationship Eaves/Roof Relationship

Shape between between Relationship
Number Shape of of the frame and External column and between beam Type of Frame
No of floors Structure column frame outline use Internal use outline and outline frame direction

[E01] 1 M A ①M ② T L + D ① ② ③ ②
[E02] 1 M A ①M ② T L + D+B ① ② ③ ②
[E03] 1 M A ①M ② T L + D+B ① ② ③ ②
[E04] 1 M C ①M ② T L + D+B ① ② ③ ②
[E05] 1 S B ② ① - - ① ① ① ①
[E06] 1 M B ①M ② T L + D + K +B ① ② ③ ②
[E07] 1 S A ①M ② T+ P L + D + B ① ② ③ ②
[E08] 1 S B ①M ② T+ P L + D + B ① ② ③ ②
[E09] 1 M B ①M ② T+ P L + D + K ① ② ③ ②
[E10] 1 M B ①M ② T+ P L + D + B ① ② ③ ②
[E11] 1 M C ①M ② T+ O L + D + K +B ① ② ③ ②
[E12] 1 S B ①M ② T L + D + K +B ① ② ③ ②
[E13] 1 M B ①M ② T+ P L + D + B ① ② ③ ②
[E14] 1 M C ①M ② T L + D + K ① ② ③ ②
[E15] 1 M C ①M ② T+ P+O L + D + K +B ① ② ③ ②
[E16] 1 S B ② ① - - ① ① ① ①
[E17] 1 S C ①M ② T L +D+K ① ② ③ ②
[E18] 1 S A ②M ② O L +D ① ① + ② ① ①
[E19] 1 S A ②M ② T+ P L +D+B ① + ② ① + ② ② ①
[E20] 1 S B ② ② O E ① + ② ① + ② ② ①
[E21] 1 S B ②M ② O E ① + ② ① + ② ② ①
[E22] 1 S B ②M ② T L +D+K+B ① + ② ① + ② ② ①
[E23] 1 W A ②M ① - - ① ① ① ①
[E24] 1 W A ②M ① - - ① ① ① ①
[E25] 2 S B ② ① - - ① ① ① ①
[E26] 1 S B ②M ② T L +D+K+B ① ① +② ① ①
[E27] 1 S B ②M ① - - ① ① ① ①
[E28] 2 S B ②M ① - - ① ① ① ①

direction of the exterior space. In terms of the relationship
between frame and direction of view, in 13 of Ellwood’s works,
there is no directionality in the frames and the view direction
and girder are “orthogonal,” and in 15 other works, the span
direction of the frames and the view direction are “parallel.”
Those that are parallel, particularly, those with compositions
where the frames are extended from inside to outside, do not
have beams in the orthogonal direction. Ellwood’s intention to
clearly display directionality from inside to outside is clearly
identified. The chronological transition of frame directionality
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 5
shows that he deployed compositions that were parallel to the
direction of the view or the exterior space in the 1950s, and he
transitioned to orthogonal compositions in the 1960s.
3.5 Characteristics of frames and their transition
The frame types, exteriors, room use, and directionality were
examined in the preceding sections. Frame compositions and
their chronological transitions are examined in this section.
Those from the 1950s have a one-way rigid frame, and their
columns match the exterior, whereas their beams do not match
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

the exterior, instead extending from inside to outside and

arranged parallel to the view direction. These compositions
aim to create a sense of continuity between interior and exte-
rior spaces and display clear directionality. In contrast, those
from the 1960s have two-way rigid-frame compositions, in
which both the columns and the beams match the exterior, and
the frames are arranged such as to be orthogonal to the view
direction. Furthermore, floor joists were separated from the
ground surface. These are compositions in which the spatial
skeleton is clearly formed by the frames. Thus, Ellwood transi-
tioned from the frame composition to the frame type, empha-
sizing the beams to the composition with the frame type where
columns and beams form the skeleton.

4. Frame Type of the Main Facade

Ellwood saw the frame as more than just a framework to
support a building; he saw it as an important component of
the architectural skeleton. Furthermore, he attempted to pro-
vide an architecture in some order using frames for exterior
expressions. In this section, the main facade, where the
intended order is clearly reflected, is extracted to elucidate
the relationship between the frames, exterior walls, and frame
joints. The facade facing the traffic line from the frontal road
to the main entrance is considered to reveal the intentions of
the architect of that building, and this side is extracted as the
primary facade. Because Ellwood was known to create open
spaces by attempting continuity of interior and exterior spaces
for the public spaces of his buildings, the side where the pub-
lic space continues to the exterior space has a view that
reflects Ellwood’s intention. As a result, as the next step, this
side is extracted as the secondary facade (Figures 3 and 4).
Subsequently, these two types of facades are used to analyze
the exterior frame types and to extract their chronological
transition to elucidate their characteristics. Stage or pho-
tographs of the completed buildings published in journals and
other media reflect the intentions of the architect. When such
views of the building under consideration in this paper were
studied, they revealed either the primary or secondary facade.
As a result, the examination of these two types of facades
was sufficient.
4.1 Composition of facade
In Table 3, the symmetry, type, three-dimensionality, and a
number of divisions of the external forms of facades related to
the facade composition were organized. The following analy-
ses are based on this table.
(1) Regarding the external forms of facades, there are 19
“Symmetry-1,” in which the form is bilaterally symmetric and
rectangular, three “Symmetry-2,” in which the form is bilater-
ally symmetric but toothed, three “Asymmetry-1,” in which
the form is bilaterally asymmetric and L-shaped, and three
“Asymmetry-2,” in which the form is bilaterally asymmetric
and with protrusion. The most common external forms are
symmetric and rectangular. Regarding the 3D composition,
there are eight “toothed” buildings, in which the volume cre-
ates protrusions and indentation in the outline of the buildings,
two “eaves” buildings with eaves or roof, nine “recessed exte-
rior wall” buildings, in which the exterior walls are recessed
from the skeleton formed by columns and beams, five “flat”
buildings with no protrusion or indentation, two toothed build-
ings where toothed and recessed exterior wall styles are com-
bined, and two buildings where toothed and eaves styles are
combined.
FIGURE 3. Example of elevation extraction
FIGURE 4. Example of primary and secondary elevations
There are 3D compositions such as a toothed or recessed
exterior wall. An examination of the number of divisions in the
facades revealed five “no divisions,” nine “two divisions,”
twelve “three divisions,” and two “four divisions.” The most
common facade division is three divisions, particularly in the
cases where the facade is divided into left and right sides with
the entrance as the center. Their chronological progression
demonstrates that he frequently deployed bilaterally symmetric
forms with 3D composition in the 1950s and early 1960s, using
the volume to create a toothed outline or eaves, which often had
three divisions. In the late 1960s, he moved on to simple forms
that were bilaterally symmetric rectangles, flat without three-
dimensionality and without division. Numerous two-
dimensional (2D) compositions are possible, such as a toothed
or recessed exterior wall. Therefore, an examination of the num-
ber of divisions in facades revealed that five no divisions, nine
two divisions, twelve three divisions, and two four divisions
based on the three-dimensionality of the facade or the composi-
tion of the exterior finishing material. The most frequently used
facade division is three divisions, particularly when the facade
is divided into left and right sides with the entrance in the cen-
ter. Their chronological progression demonstrates that, in the
1950s and early 1960s, he frequently employed bilaterally sym-
metric forms with 3D compositions, either through the use of
volume to create a toothed outline or through the use of eaves
with three frequent divisions. In the late 1960s, he developed
simple forms of bilaterally symmetric rectangles that are flat
and devoid of three-dimensionality and division.

Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 6

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 MASUOKA AND SUEKANE

TABLE 3. Composition of facade

Primary facade Secondary facade

No Solid Split Solid Split Solid Split

[E01] Asymmetry-1 1 +2 3 Asymmetry-1 3 4

[E02] Symmetry-1 2 2 Symmetry-1 1 +2 3
[E03] Symmetry-1 1 2 Symmetry-1 2 2
[E04] Symmetry-1 3 2 Symmetry-1 3 2
[E05] Symmetry-2 3 2 Symmetry-2 1 +3 3
[E06] Asymmetry-2 1 +3 3 Symmetry-1 2 1
[E07] Symmetry-1 1 +3 2 Symmetry-1 1 +2 2
[E08] Symmetry-1 2 3 Symmetry-1 1 +2 3
[E09] Asymmetry-2 1 +2 2 Symmetry-1 1 +2 2
[E10] Symmetry-1 1 3 Symmetry-1 2 1
[E11] Symmetry-1 3 2 Symmetry-1 2 2
[E12] Symmetry-1 1 3 Symmetry-1 1 +2 3
[E13] Asymmetry-2 1 3 Symmetry-1 2 1
[E14] Symmetry-1 3 3 Symmetry-1 2 1
[E15] Symmetry-1 1 2 Symmetry-1 1 +2 3
[E16] Asymmetry-1 1 2 Symmetry-1 1 +3 3
[E17] Symmetry-1 4 3 Symmetry-1 2 1
[E18] Symmetry-1 1 4 Symmetry-1 1 +2 2
[E19] Symmetry-1 3 3 Symmetry-1 1 +2 3
[E20] Asymmetry-1 3 4 Symmetry-1 2 2
[E21] Symmetry-1 3 3 Symmetry-1 4 3
[E22] Symmetry-1 4 3 Symmetry-1 3 1
[E23] Symmetry-1 4 1 Symmetry-1 4 1
[E24] Symmetry-1 4 1 Symmetry-1 4 1
[E25] Symmetry-2 3 1 Symmetry-2 3 1
[E26] Symmetry-1 1 3 Symmetry-1 2 1
[E27] Symmetry-2 3 1 Symmetry-1 4 1
[E28] Symmetry-1 4 1 Symmetry-1 4 1

(2) Regarding the external forms of facades, there are 25
Symmetry-1 forms that are bilaterally symmetric and rectangu-
lar, two Symmetry-2 forms that are bilaterally symmetric but
toothed, and one “Asymmetry-1” form that is bilaterally asym-
metric and L-shaped; the most frequently used are symmetric
and rectangular. Regarding the 3D composition, there are nine
eaves buildings with eaves or roofs, four recessed exterior
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 7
walls in which the exterior walls are recessed from the skele-
ton formed by columns and beams, five flat buildings with no
protrusion or indentation, two buildings with a combination, of
toothed style and recessed exterior wall style, and eight build-
ings in which toothed and eaves styles are combined. In terms
of 3D compositions, nine eaves buildings have eaves or roofs,
four recessed exterior wall buildings have exterior walls
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE
receded from the skeleton formed by columns and beams, five
“flat” buildings have no protrusion or indentation, and two
buildings have a combination of toothed style and “eaves.” An
examination of the number of divisions in facades revealed
three dimensionalities of facades, and the composition of exte-
rior finishing materials revealed 12 no divisions, seven two
divisions, eight three divisions, and one four divisions. The
most frequently used facade is no divisions. Their chronologi-
cal progression demonstrates that he frequently used bilaterally
asymmetric rectangles and frequently employed 3D composi-
tion, utilizing volume to create toothed edges or eaves, which
often had two or three divisions in the 1950s. In the late
1960s, he experimented with simple forms of recessed exterior
walls or flat surfaces devoid of three-dimensionality and with-
out division.
4.2 Frame type at facade
The facade compositions were analyzed as described in the
previous section. Here, the relationship between the frames
and exterior walls at the facades was analyzed. In Table 4, a
list of the relationships between columns, beams, and exterior
walls within the types of frames used on the exterior is pre-
sented. The following analyses are based on this table:
TABLE 4. Frame type at facade
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
(1) I: Regarding the relationship between exterior walls and
columns, 10 buildings have “buried columns” that are not visi-
ble from the external walls, 18 buildings have “visible col-
umns” that are visible from the exterior walls, and four
buildings have “independent columns” that have separate exte-
rior wall surfaces and columns. Buildings often have columns
that are visible or independent to make them recognizable
from the exterior walls.
Regarding the relationship between exterior walls and
beams, 13 buildings have “buried beams,” wherein the beams
are hidden behind the external walls, eight have “decorated
beams,” wherein the beams are covered in decorative material
but recognizable, and 11 have “exposed beams,” wherein the
beams are exposed but recognizable. The beams are frequently
covered or exposed such that they are recognizable against the
exterior wall.
This examination of the correlation between “type based on
the relationship between exterior walls and columns” and “type
based on the relationship between exterior walls and beams”
revealed that many works combine these types, and six typolo-
gies with similar characteristics were extracted (in the follow-
ing, typologies are extracted using this method). There are
eight “wall types” in which columns and beams cannot be
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 8
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
recognized from the exterior walls, five “column types” in
which only columns are recognizable, two “beam types” in
which only beams are recognizable, and six “column/exterior
wall contact types” in which the beams are covered by decora-
tive materials, but the columns are exposed up to the lower
edge of the beams, seven “mixed column and beam types” in
which both columns and beams are recognizable, and four
“emphasized column types” in which both columns and beams
are recognizable, but columns are independent of the exterior
walls for emphasis. Many compositions make both columns
and beams recognizable from the exterior walls. Their chrono-
logical transition shows that the 1950s design often did not
disclose columns and beams in relation to the exterior walls or
only made columns recognizable. In the late 1950s, he started
to expose columns and make beam recognizable, although they
were covered in decorative materials. By the 1960s, he transi-
tioned to compositions in which both columns and beams were
clearly recognizable. “E22” features a clearly articulated archi-
tectural skeleton due to the usage of the frame type, which
exposes both the beams that support the ceiling and the sup-
porting beams. Moreover, the fact that the same composition
can be seen in timber construction, such as “E23” using the
same frame type used in steel constructions, reveals Ellwood’s
greater skill in using frames.
(2) Secondary facade: Regarding the relationship between
exterior walls and columns, three buildings have “buried col-
umns,” where the columns are not recognizable from the exter-
nal walls, 22 have “exposed columns,” where the columns are
recognizable, and five buildings have “independent columns”
where the exterior wall surface and columns are separate. As
these facades often have openings, their columns are often
exposed or independent of being recognizable.
There are nine decorated beams in which the beams are cov-
ered in decorative material but recognizable, 13 exposed
beams in which the beams are exposed, and eight “beam
edges” in which only the edges of the beams are recognizable.
Many compositions make only the edges of the beams recog-
nizable by extending the beams and roof from the interior to
the exterior space.
This examination yielded six typologies “type based on the
relationship between exterior walls and columns” and “type
based on the relationship between exterior walls and beams.”
There are three “beam types” in which only beams are recog-
nizable, five “column/exterior wall contact type” in which the
beams are covered by the decorative materials and the columns
are exposed up to the lower edge of the beams, nine “mixed
TABLE 5. Types of frame structures on the first and second elevations
Secondary facade
Beam type
Primary facade Wall type [E01][E02] [E03]
Beam type
Column type
Column/Exterior
Wall contact type
Mixed column and beam type
Emphasized column
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 9
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE
column and beam types” in which both columns and beams
are recognizable, eight “beam section types” where only the
columns and the edges of the beams are recognizable, and five
“emphasized column types” in which both columns and beams
are recognizable but columns are made independent from the
exterior walls for emphasis. All works contain both columns
and beams, and many are either “beam section types” or
“mixed column and beam types.” Their chronological transi-
tion shows that while Ellwood often exposed columns by
deploying fully opened compositions with continuity from inte-
rior to exterior space, the beam composition differed each
time. In the 1950s, he mainly exposed the edges of the beams,
and in the 1960s he started to use compositions with exposed
beams. Works from the 1950s that have visible beam edges
are fully open from the floor to the roof, have no beams in the
direction orthogonal to the beam edges, and the horizontal
force is supported by the roofing. A framework such as this
shows Ellwood’s framing ability.
4.3 Frame types for main facades and their transition
The different types of primary and secondary facades are listed
in Table 5. When their typologies are the same in a single
building, they are sometimes referred to as “mixed column and
beam types” or “emphasized column types,” which were the
most commonly framed types in the 1960s. These are the
framework elements that unify the entire perimeter of a build-
ing. They also have a simple rectangular facade and a clear
skeleton formed by exposed frames that are visibly recogniz-
able. Moreover, buildings with “wall type” or “column type”
for the primary facade and “beam section type” for the sec-
ondary facade were the most common in the 1950s. These
works have simple and symmetrical facade compositions that
use walls to establish roadside thresholds. These compositions
are irregular to create continuity between the interior and exte-
rior spaces, and their beams are exposed and extended from
the inside to the outside. It has been demonstrated that the
frame type for the main facade Ellwood used was designed to
emphasize beams mainly in the 1950s. However, in the 1960s,
he composed frames by exposing both columns and beams,
while emphasizing columns to make them independent.
5. Interior Frame Types
Ellwood’s interior spaces show that the frames are exposed to
create a regular rhythm and also form areas corresponding to
their functions and to create a continuity between inside and
Column/
Exterior Wall Mixed column and
contact type beam type Beam section Emphasized column
[E02] [E08] [E10] [E11] [E03]
[E13] [E14]
[E18] [E17]
[E09] [E12] [E16] [E06] [E08]
[E07] [E18] [E04] [E19] [E05]
[E16] [E20] [E22] [E15]
[E23] [E25] [E26]
[E21][E24] [E27] [E28]
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE
TABLE 6. Interior Frame Types
outside. In this section, the relationships between the interior
walls and columns, as well as the relationships between the
ceiling and beams, are analyzed, and their chronological transi-
tions are extracted to elucidate the characteristics of the frame
types in the interior space. Within the interior space, the rela-
tionships between the interior walls and columns, as well as
the ceiling and beams, are listed in Table 6. This table serves
as the foundation for subsequent analysis. Note that while the
expressions of columns toward the outside used for the exterior
walls were analyzed in the previous section, this section
focuses only on the columns used in the interior space, particu-
larly for the partition walls.
5.1 Interior wall and frame types
There are 10 “buried columns” that are buried inside the
walls and 18 “exposed columns” that are exposed from the
walls regarding the relationships between the interior walls
and columns. Works from the 1950s are often distinguished
by “buried columns,” whereas those from the 1960s are dis-
tinguished by “exposed columns.” Moreover, in the 1960s,
compositions with the entire perimeter made of glass
increased, which also removed columns from the interior
space using single-span frames, and detached interior walls
from the main frames.
5.2 Ceiling and frame types
There are 11 exposed beams, which are beams that are
exposed from the ceiling, 1 “exposed lower beam,” which is a
partially exposed beam, and 16 buried beams, which are beams
that are buried. Moreover, all works with exposed beams or
“exposed lower beams” have visible beams that are extended
from inside to outside. Additionally, those with buried beams
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
from the early 1950s had beams that extended to the outside.
Their chronological transition shows that some compositions
from the early 1950s have buried beams that extend to the out-
side, whereas others from the early 1950s and early 1960s
have “exposed beams” that extend to the outside, and those
from the late 1960s return to buried beams but change to com-
positions in which beams are not extended to the outside. By
clearly revealing the beams, Ellwood attempted to create a reg-
ular rhythm in the interior space and provide space organiza-
tion.
5.3 Frame types in interior space and their transition
The studies in the preceding sections extracted four typolo-
gies “type based on the relationship between interior walls
and columns” and “type based on the relationship between
interior walls and beams.” There are five “beam types” in
which the columns are buried in the walls and the beams are
exposed, five “wall and ceiling types” in which both col-
umns and beams are buried, five “column and beam types”
in which both columns and beams are exposed, and 11 “col-
umn types” where only columns are exposed. Works in
which both columns and beams were buried date from the
early 1950s, making it a common composition among Ell-
wood’s designs from the early years of his office. From the
mid-1950s to the early 1960s, “beam types” and “column
and beam types” with exposed beams became common,
whereas in the late 1960s, “column types” with hidden
beams became common. It has been demonstrated that frame
compositions that mostly focus on beams from the 1950s to
the early 1960s and those that primarily emphasize columns
from the late 1960s are Ellwood’s signature frame types in
his interior spaces.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 10
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
TABLE 7. Transition of Ellwood’s frame format
6. Conclusions
This study on Ellwood frame types examined the relationships
between frames and external forms and frame composition in
the exterior and interior, and these relationships as well as
their chronological transitions were elucidated. The results of
these analyses are presented in Table 7. In general, Ellwood
frame types can be divided into two broad tendencies into the
1950s and the 1960s.
In the 1950s, he employed one-way rigid frames; the col-
umns and exterior were matched, whereas the beams were
extended from inside to outside, and the frames were com-
posed to match the direction of the view from the public space
or that of the exterior space. The exteriors were bilaterally
symmetric rectangles and were given three-dimensionality by
measures, such as irregular volumes or eaves. In the composi-
tion, where columns were buried in the walls, beams were
exposed in one direction, and the edges of the beams were
exposed, particularly on the side facing the exterior space,
were used on the exterior. As a result, Ellwood gave order to
the spaces by directing the beams in both interior and exterior
spaces as well as exposing them.
In the 1960s, he employed two-way rigid frames and frame
composition, where both columns and beams were matched
with the exterior form, that is, without directionality, because
the beams were arranged orthogonally to the view direction
from the public space. The exteriors were bilaterally symmet-
ric rectangles with flat facades, using the composition where
columns and beams were exposed from the walls on the
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 11
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE
exterior and the composition where columns were buried but
beams were exposed on the interior. By clearly exposing the
columns and beams to the exterior, he formed the architectural
skeleton and ordered space.
From these examinations, it is clear that Ellwood’s frame
types transitioned from a composition where columns were
emphasized to a composition where beams were emphasized
from inside to outside, and finally to a spatial composition
where space was more clearly ordered by moving from irregu-
lar forms to a simple and symmetrical form. Ellwood demon-
strated a more sophisticated architectural order through the
removal of unnecessary elements and the use of simple forms
and clear expressions of frame types.
Thus, this study focused on frame types and showed that
they provide order to the architecture. Through an analysis of
Ellwood’s architectural philosophy, it is possible to shed light
on Ellwood’s spatial composition characteristics.
Disclosure
The authors have no conflict of interest.
Data Availability Statement
Research data are not shared.
Notes
Note 1) This discussion is based on the following presentations and is
reconstructed by adding new knowledge. Ryo MASUOKA, Shing
MASUOKA AND SUEKANE
SUEKANE: A study on the Craig Ellwood’s Spatial composition and
structure system in the modern house, Summaries of technical papers of
annual meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, F-2, pp. 463–464,
2002.8.
Note 2) Ryo MASUOKA, Shingo SUEKANE: Space and its composi-
tion in the openness of Craig Ellwood’s residential buildings focusing
on the type and its transformation, Journal of Architecture, Planning
and Environmental Engineering (Transactions of AIJ), vol. 79, No.714,
2775–2485, 2014. (in Japanese)
Note 3) Ryo MASUOKA, Shingo SUEKANE: Space and its composition
of Craig Ellwood’s residential buildings focusing on material and modular
system, Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering
(Transactions of AIJ), vol. 79, No. 706, 2775–2785, 2015. (in Japanese)
Note 4) The framework is defined in the Architectural Dictionary 2nd Edi-
tion (Shokokusha) as “it is divided into methods such as Ramen and Truss
or their combined use depending on the framework that constitutes the
building and how the members are assembled.” In the 5th edition (Iwanami
Shoten), it is defined as “a structure made by combining materials.” In this
study, the combination of columns and beams, which are the main struc-
tural materials of the building, and walls supporting the bearing capacity
are collectively referred to as the frame.
Note 5) This is an excerpt from Ellwood’s lecture “nonsensualism”
(1960).
Note 6) This is an excerpt from an Ellwood paper “on architecture”
(pp. 153–154, 1966, contained in Reference 2).
Note 7) “Principles” are defined in the Kojien fifth edition (Iwanami
Shoten) as fundamental rules of human activities. In this study, certain
rules given to spaces are called principles.
Note 8) This is an excerpt from an Ellwood paper “on architecture”
(pp. 153–154, 1966) contained in Reference 2.
Note 9) This is an excerpt from an Ellwood paper “on architecture”
(pp. 153–154, 1966) contained in Reference 2.
Note 10) We collected data from Ellwood’s collection of works,
magazines, and archives from California. State Institute of Technology
Pomona (CSPU).
Note 11) In December 2001, we conducted a site survey, collected draw-
ings and photographs from the Ellwood archives, and visited existing
works to be analyzed in September 2014. We also conducted an internal
survey of the work and conducted interviews with owners and residents.
Note 12) The direction of the view is the direction from the public
space to the external space, or a direction overlooking the distance. If
there are two or more views, the direction in which the view is
intended is the main view of the furniture layout at that time.
Note 13) Public room space includes living rooms, dining rooms, and
kitchens. In the study, even if there is no indication such as a living
room on the floor plan or the explanatory text of the collected materi-
als, it is considered a living room if it can be judged to be a living
room. This is included in the public room space.
Note 14) Private room space is defined as an area for personal use,
such as a master bedroom, bedroom, study room, or guest room. If
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
there is no wall or door between the living and private rooms, it is
considered a public room.
References
1 McCoy E. Case Study Houses 1945–1962. Santa Monica, CA: Hennessey &
Ingalls; 1962, First ed.
2 McCoy E. Craig Ellwood. Santa Monica, CA: Hennessey & Ingalls; 1997
3 Perez-Mendez A. Craig Ellwood: 15 Houses. 12th ed. Barcelona, Spain: 2G
(Gustavo Gili); 1999
4 Jackson N. Craig Ellwood. London: Laurence King Publishing; 2002
5 Jackson N. California Modern – the Architecture of Craig Ellwood. New
York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press; 2001
6 Perez-Mendez A. Craig Ellwood in the Spirit of the Time. Barcelona: Gus-
tavo Gili; 2003
7 Kishi W, Ueda M. Case Study House. Tokyo: SUMAI Library Publishing
Company; 1997, Housing Science System 087.
8 Nasu S, Kitahara K, Oshima KT. The ideal evident in “the case study house
program.” A comparison of design theories and building composition.
J Archit Plan Environ Eng (Transactions of AIJ). 1998;504:249–255. (in
Japanese)
9 Yamanaka F, Kawamukai M. The “spaciousness” in the case study house
program: As a key concept of a postwar house with a sense of rootedness.
J Archit Plan Environ Eng (Transactions of AIJ). 2006;604:203–210. (in
Japanese)
10 Yamanaka F, Kawamukai M. Generation of areas in case study houses – as
a method to dwell in view. J Archit Plan Environ Eng (Transactions of
AIJ). 2007;614:253–260. (in Japanese)
11 Ito K, Maeda T, Kutsuki Y, Kato K, Kitano M. The meaning of 3 houses by
C. Ellwood, A study on the form-making modifications in the case study
house 5. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural
Institute of Japan, F-2. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan; 2005:589–
590.
12 Ito K, Maeda T, Kutsuki Y, Kato K, Kitano M. The plan of 7 Seven House
by C. Ellwood, A study of the form-making modifications in the case study
house. The Kinki Branch Research Report of the Architectural Institute of
Japan. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan; 2005:913–916.
13 Miyashita T. A study on the relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces
in Case Study House#1, #16. The Architectural Institute of Japan Kanto
Branch Research Report. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan; 1998:585–
588.
14 Hirata T, Suekane S, Yamasaki Y. Study on structure of main concepts in
Craig Ellwood’s architectural writings and spatial composition focusing on
the relation between “rhythm” and “order”. Architectural Institute of Japan
Kinki Branch Research Presentation. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan;
2011:817–820.
How to cite this article: Masuoka R, Suekane S. Space
and composition of Craig Ellwood’s residential
buildings, focusing on structural systems. Jpn Archit
Rev. 0000;00:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-
8876.12288
Jpn Archit Rev | 2022 | 12