Scroope
BETWEEN THE ABSTRACT AND
ANALYTIC: THE FORMATION OF A
LANGUAGE IN THE CASE OF THE
DOUGLAS HOUSE BY RICHARD MEIER
SALEEM DAHABREH & SAMA JABR
I
n the late 1960s, the Museum of Modern Art in New York
brought together the work of Peter Eisenman, Michael
Graves, Charles Gwathmey, John Hejduk, and Richard Meier,
a group that came to be known as ‘The New York Five’ in
the subsequent book Five Architects published in 1975 by
Colin Rowe. Their work, with an explicit reference to the classics
of Modernism in the 1920s and 1930s, especially that of Le
Corbusier’s villas, made the exhibition pivotal for the evolution of
architectural theory and history; it produced a critical benchmark
against which Postmodernism, deconstructivism, neo-Modernism
and others have referred, critiqued or subverted.1 Among the
five, Meier is the closest to the early Corbusian form, and even
Meier’s later buildings have all remained true to this aesthetic.2
His approach is manifested in the use of Le Corbusier’s five
points, especially in the separation of skin and structure, and
the articulation of a single mass regulated by geometry and
proportion. To support this aesthetic approach, starting with the
Smith House in the 1960s, Meier developed a set of work tactics
using design elements and operational procedures that have
become consistent across a wide spectrum of building types,
forming a recognizable style.
Meier’s style involves the interaction of spatial motifs and
themes, and formal syntax. A spatial motif is defined as a general
abstract concept that has no specific form but can be taken as
an underlying premise for the development of a project. Spatial
themes are constraints drawn from the reading of the context that
specify design desiderata without specifying morphology. Meier’s
themes include modulation and proportionality, layering, reversal
and twin phenomena, promenade architecturale, the colorlessness
of white to dematerialize structure and to stress a situation of
universality, and an a-contextual approach to design linked more
to an abstract ideal process than to the real surroundings.3,4 A
formal syntax realizes the previously undefined desiderata into
defined geometric form.5 Meier’s syntax includes elements such
as stairwells and ramps, squared white enamel skin, nautical
railings, expansive glazing with aluminum mullions, glass blocks,
102
piano curves, and brise-soleil, giving his buildings a ‘machine-like’
aesthetic.6,7
Across numerous publications, authors and researchers
have sketched out Meier’s formal language and its syntax: Rykwert
in 1984, Frampton in 1991, Richards in 1993, Giovannini in 1996,
and Cassarà in 2005, among others.8 This paper does not give an
exhaustive review of Meier’s biography, background influences, or
work; rather, it presents a study of Meier’s formal design language
through a formal analysis of the Douglas House. The choice of
the Douglas House is not coincidental; in his commentary about
Meier’s early houses, Morton (1973) noted that ‘[...] only in the
design of a private house do ideas have an opportunity to become
synthesized and crystallized [...] it can, in effect, stand testament
to his architectural theories and design ideas’.9 Similarly, Meier
himself comments that ‘the residential commission allows one to
formulate ideas and develop a set of principles that one hopes
will inform future works for a long time to come’.10 As such, the
Douglas House is selected because it represents the maturity and
consistency of Meier’s formal language in the 1970s and across
his later career.
The Douglas House
The house, constructed between 1971-1973 for James and Jean
Douglas,is located in Harbor Springs,Michigan.The white building,
aligned along a north-south axis with four floors composed in
pure geometry, is anchored on a sheer bluff overlooking Lake
Michigan. It lies in sharp contrast with the pine trees of the
wooded site (Fig. 1). The entry is off a quiet country road on the
east side (Fig. 2), and a flying bridge spans the ravine to the front
door vestibule (Fig. 3).The top floor, the only floor visible from the
road, contains an entrance vestibule and roof decks that restrict
the view of the lake to the west.
The layout of the house expresses a programmatic
separation of the public and private: small cabin-like bedrooms
are arranged on the east side shown in light orange, while the
103
 Scroope
Corridor
Wall
Fig. 3. Flying entrance bridge to the Douglas House. Photographer: Scott Frances
living room, dining room, shown in light blue, in addition to the
terraces and balconies, are located on the west side facing the
First Structural Axis lake. A corridor running parallel to the lake mediates these zones
on each floor (Fig. 4). Adjacent is a rectilinear light well that cuts
through the entire living space with an elegant curvilinear cut in
each slab (Fig. 5). The Douglas House is no exception to Meier’s
tendency to work in white; it is made up of white reinforced
concrete and glass, except for the wood flooring and the stainless
steel chimney pipes, which serve a white-box fireplace (Fig. 6).
Between Spatial Themes and Material Form
Light Well
Edge
Rowe discussed a duality embedded within the Smith House—
ideal and abstract on one hand, and real and analytic on the
other.11 Like its antecedent, the Douglas House has an abstract
quality manifested in the spatially layered linear system with
the clear circulation that runs along and across the layers.
Meier also expresses abstraction through the colorlessness and
a-contextualness of the house’s white mass. On the other hand, the
real or analytic has to do with three pairs of reference criteria: site
and program, circulation and entrance, structure and enclosure.12
The simple structuring of the house’s program into public and
private functions stresses the real and increases duality and
layering. The functional zones become spatial layers through the
vertical stratification of space marked by the walls and columns.
The overhead light coming through the light well emphasizes
the sense and concept of separation between the public and
the private areas.13 The functional division also affects physical
expression, since the private functions become a series of
enclosed cellular rooms. Reading the house as interplay between
the abstract and conceptual with the real and analytic shows
how Meier manipulated and reconfigured the real and analytic
to express abstract design themes and materialize them in a form
particular to his formal language.
The dialectic between the binary oppositions of
open and closed, private and public, are also expressed in the
Fig. 1 (title page). The Douglas House by Richard Meier & Partners Architects LLP (1973) overlooking Lake Michigan. Photographer: Scott Frances
Fig. 2 (above). Douglas House site plan drawing. © Richard Meier & Partners Architects LLP
3.65m
al Structural 104
Interval
Entrance Bridge Entrance Bridge
Scroope
Light Well
Corridor Public Zone
Private Zone
Fig. 4. Private, public, and mediating corridor zones in the Douglas House.
structure of the house. The private zone is composed of load
bearing walls with openings, while the public zone is a grid of
columns and beams that supports the horizontal planes with a
glass skin overlooking the view. The external facade treatment
also expresses the internal functional zoning: the western public
façade (Fig.4),with its large floor-to-ceiling windows,is open to the
surrounding landscape, and has the view of Lake Michigan, while
the eastern private facade, facing the road, is an opaque white
wall, fenestrated by only a few windows (Fig. 3). The treatment
of the façades also shows how Meier supports the duality of the
design using a theme of progression, from dark to light as well
as from solid to void. As such, the duality in the treatment of the
house reflects one of Meier’s reoccurring themes of reversal or
twin phenomena, as represented in both plans and elevations,
and experienced spatially throughout the house.
Meier refers to the Douglas House as ‘a machine-crafted
object that has landed in a natural world’.14 The contrast between
the machine made and the natural displaces the connotations
associated with Le Corbusier’s dictum that the house is a machine
to live in; here one lives in a tension and reconciliation between
the natural and the man-made, a composite order where the man-
made points to the natural and acts like a stage for appreciating
the natural. Furthermore, the Douglas House is often called
The Ship, most likely because of its white masses floating over
a naturally colored context. The steel chimney pipes, wooden
floors, as well as the numerous terraces with rounded metal rails
on multiple levels overlooking the panoramic view of the lake
further augment the nautical sense of the house in similar ways
as Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye.
Geometry and Proportion
Meier’s language emphasizes modularity, measure and
geometrical order as apparent in the house’s structural grid,as well
as in the overall organization of his designs.15 This is very clear in
the manner in which publications about his later works include
105
 Light Well
1x1m Module Structural Axes
Corridor Public Zone
1 2 3 4 5
Scroope Private Zone Scroope

Light Well
A 1x1m Module Structural Axes
Corridor Public Zone
1 2 3 4 5
Private Zone Light Well
1x1m Module Structural Axes
Corridor Public Zone
B 1 2 3 4 5
Private Zone
A

A
C
B

B
C

Fig. 7. Structural axes and a 1x1m module superimposed on the floor plan of the
9x9m Square 9x9m Square
Douglas House.

Corridor
9x9m Square 9x9m Square Wall

9x9m Square 9x9m Square

Corridor
Wall

Corridor
Wall

Fig. 8. The centerline of overlapping 9x9m squares on the Douglas House plan marks
the central corridor wall.

First Structural Axis

Golden Rectangle
First Structural Axis

First Structural Axis

Golden Rectangle Light Well
Edge
Golden Rectangle

Light Well
Edge
Fig. 5 (above left). The light well and main living space of the Douglas House.
Photographer: Scott Frances Light Well
Edge
Fig. 6 (left). Stainless steel chimney pipes connected to a white-box fireplace. Fig. 9. Applying the golden rectangle reveals the location of the first structural axis
Photographer: Scott Frances and the edge of the light well.

3.65m
Structural
Interval
Entrance Bridge
106 107
1:1√2 Rectangle
3.65m
Structural
Interval
 9x9m Square 9x9m Square
First Structural Axis
Scroope Scroope

Corridor
Wall Golden Rectangle

diagrams to help readers interpret the buildings. However, in the
case of the older houses, neither diagrams nor modular cladding
are included, and it is interesting to see whether Meier’s allure to
the use of geometry and proportion started earlier in his career.
While other aspects of his language are equally important from
the point of view of perceptual qualities and aesthetic judgment,
it is geometrical ordering that can encompass composition,
structure, and construction. This aspect of geometrical ordering
also coincides with the wider interest in the relationship between
geometry, proportion, and architecture, where every aspect of the
plan in its most abstract sense may appear in a pattern, creating
a continuum of scale and complexity.16 Some critics argue that
the proper use of ideal geometry instills the work of architecture
with discipline and harmony, allowing it to transcend material
considerations and induces a sense of order and nobility.17
The overall length and width of the house from the
furthest edges along the north-west axis is 15.5m and 9m along
First Structural Axis
the east-west axis. A 1x1m module, totaling a 9x13m rectangle,
regulates the actual plan. The structure of the house follows a
basic module: five axes (1,2,3,4,5) run parallel to the east-west axis
Golden Rectangle
at a fixed interval of 3.65m, while on the north-south axis, three
axes (A,B,C) are identified: C marks the center of the columns,
B runs through the middle of the plan, and A marks the center
of the east wall. The interval between C and B is 3.65m, while the
second interval between B and A is 4.5m (Fig. 7). ItLight
is interesting
Well
Edge
to note that the house’s entrance bridge does not correspond to
the general 1x1m module of the house or any of these marked
axes. Given Meier’s interest in geometry and precision, the
present study investigates these numbers more closely to uncover
underlying geometrical ordering and relationships.Light Accordingly,
Well
scanned images are redrawn accurately, then analyzed Edge and
examined to find out the geometric means Meier used to regulate
the dimensioning of the house.
Analysis of the middle floor plan shows that the overall
plan falls within the geometry of two 9x9m squares overlapping at
an interval of 2.5m (Fig. 8). The centerline of the squares, parallel
to the north-south axis, marks the middle of the house where the
internal wall defines the corridor and coincides with centerline B
shown in figure 7. The allocation of the first structural axis (1) can
be explained by drawing a golden section rectangle (Fig. 9). This
rectangle also holds the key to marking the edge of the light well;
starting at its upper north-east corner and drawing the smaller
3.65m
square of the golden rectangle, shown in dark yellow in figure 9,
Structural
marks the edge of the light well.
Interval
Nevertheless, the application
Entrance Bridge of golden rectangles does
not explain the 3.65m structural 1:1√2 interval or the allocation of the
Rectangle
entrance bridge. This prompts the investigation of whether other
proportional systems were used to regulate the design. Further
analysis uncovers that the position of the bridge is determined
by the application of a 1:√2 rectangle.The 1:√2 rectangle is drawn
from the same south-west corner of the layout as the previous
golden rectangle, and the arc of the 1:√2 rectangle intersects
with the line running through the middle of the plan (Fig. 10).
Extending the intersection of the arc with the center axis of the
plan marks the wall defining the bridge, shown in blue in figure
10.The distance between the extended blue line and the northern
wall is 3.65m, and determines the structural module and column
spacing in the plan. Thus, the application of the 1:√2 rectangle
explains both the allocation of the entrance bridge and the
structural interval.
The only wall that is unaccounted for in the plan is the
corridor beside the rooms to the east. Meier’s use of modules,
regulating lines, and proportional systems is not limited to the
plan and is extended to the section. In order to understand the
geometry of the section, three vertical axes are drawn going
through the back east elevation, the middle of the house and
the front west elevation (1,2,3), and four horizontal axes going
through the slabs (A,B,C,D) (Fig. 11). Axes for the slabs (A,B,C,D)
obey an implicit golden section drawn in yellow in figure 11.
The corridor wall on the east side is also determined by a 1:√2
rectangle drawn in green between axis A and B. The 1:√2 rectangle
is locating by extending a blue line from the smaller square of the
golden section between axis C and D, shown in figure 11, thus
revealing the room wall in the house. This analysis confirms that
the overall geometry of the layout as well as the location and
dimensions of the main design elements was not at all random;
various design elements are regulated and coordinated through
a structural module, the golden proportional system, and the 1:√2
proportional system.
Conclusion
The preceding analysis of the Douglas House leads to a number
of conclusions. The final form of the house depends on the
interaction between a design program and a formal syntax, yet
it is not determined solely by any. Abstract spatial themes such
as reversal and twin phenomena also materialize in the physical
form of the building through the artful manipulation of design
elements. Furthermore, analysis of the plans and sections shows
that the seemingly simple layout of the house is highly regulated
by the application of proportional systems. Accordingly, the
theoretical density of the Douglas House in particular, and Meier’s
designs in general, as well as their formal and aesthetic integrity,
do not arise from the complexity of forms but rather from the
complex though creative layering of simple morphology. Thus,
the aesthetic integrity of Meier’s work, such as the Douglas
House, arises neither from merely material elements, nor from
relationships between forms, but more fundamentally from the
complex overlay of geometric and proportional principles and
abstract concepts and themes manifested in material form.

3.65m Room Wall

Structural Notes
Interval
Entrance Bridge 1. Manfredo Tafuri, ‘American Graffiti: Five x Five =
Twenty-five’, Oppositions,Vol. 5 (1976), 35-73 (p.68).
1:1√2 Rectangle
2. Edouard Din and Athanassios Economou, ‘Surface
Symmetries: The Smith House Revisited’, International
Journal of Architectural Computing, 4:8 (2012), 485-505.
3. Silvio Cassarà, Richard Meier: Recent Works (New York:
Universe Publishing, 2005). Also see Joseph Rykwert,
‘The Third Installment’, in Richard Meier, Architect,Vol. 3:
1992-1998, by Kenneth Frampton and Joseph Rykwert
(New York: Rizzoli, 1999).
4. Saleem Dahabreh, ‘The Formulation of Design:
the Case of the Islip Courthouse by Richard Meier’
(unpublished PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 2006).
5. John Peponis, Chryssoula Karadima and Sonit Bafna,
‘On the Formulation of Spatial Meaning in Architectural
Design’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Space
Syntax Symposium, ed. by Julienne Hanson (University
College London, 2003), pp.2.1-2.20.
6. Joseph Rykwert, ’The Second Installment’, in Richard
Meier,Architect,Vol. 2: 1985-1991, by Richard Meier (New
York: Rizzoli, 1991), pp. 18-25.
7. Dana Hutt,‘Introduction: Richard Meier, Light + Space
Architect’, in Richard Meier: Architect, ed. by Lisa Green
(New York: Monacelli Press. 1999), pp. 8-11.
Fig. 10. The arc of a 1:√2 rectangle intersects with the centerline of the house to mark Fig. 11. Golden and 1:√2 rectangles appear in the section geometry of the house and 8. For further discussion on Meier and geometry
the entrance bridge and the 3.65m structural interval. locate the room wall on the east side of the central corridor.
see Joseph Rykwert, ‘Introduction’, in Richard Meier:
Architect, ed. by Joan Ockman (New York: Rizzoli, 1984),
‘Introduction’; Hutt, ‘Introduction: Richard Meier...’; and
Frampton,‘Works in Transition’ and Richard Meier.
pp. 11-23; Kenneth Frampton, ‘Works in Transition’, 16. Don Hanlon, Compositions in Architecture (London:
in Richard Meier: Architect 2, ed. by Frampton and Wiley, 2009).
Rykwert, pp.10-17; Stan Allen, ‘Working Space: the 17. Simon Unwin, Analyzing Architecture (London and
uses of abstraction’, in Richard Meier, ed. by Green, New York: Routledge, 2003).
pp. 12-27; Kenneth Frampton, Richard Meier (Milano:
Electaarchitecture. 2002).
9. David Morton,‘Richard Meier’, GA: An Encyclopedia of Images
Modern Architecture, 22 (1973).
10. Richard Meier, ‘Preface’, in Richard Meier: Houses Plans and sections were redrawn by the authors based
and Apartment, ed. by Ron Broadhurst (New York: on Meier’s original drawings: http://www.richardmeier.
Rizzoli, 2007), pp. 8-11. com/www/#/projects/architecture/name/0/107/1/
11. Five Architects: Eisenman, Graves, Gwathmey, Heiduk,
Meier, preface by Arthur Drexler, introduction by Colin Photographs are taken from the book Richard Meier
Rowe, critique by Kenneth Frampton, postscript by (2002) by Kenneth Frampton, published by Electra
Philip Johnson (New York: Oxford University Press, Milano, and distributed by Phaidon Press and used with
1975). Also see Steven Hurtt, ‘Introduction’, Five permission of Scott Frances.
Architects/Twenty Years Later (College Park: University
of Maryland Press, 1992).
12. Peter Göussel and Gabriele Leuthäuser, Architecture
in The 20th Century,Volume 2. (Köln: Taschen, 2005).
13. Paul Goldberger, ‘The “Douglas House”’, GA: An
Encyclopedia of Modern Architecture, 34 (1974).
14. Richard Meier, Architect 1964-1984, by Richard Meier
and Joseph Rykwert, ed. by Joan Ockman (Rizzoli: New
York, 1984), pp.71-81. Also see Frampton and Rykwert,
Richard Meier, Architect,Vol.3.
15. See Rykwert, ’The Second Installment’ and

Room Wall

108 109