Twentieth Century Modern Architecture and the Countryside: Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's design for a country gold clubhouse for the Krefeld Golf Club Association

This paper investigates relationships between modernity and monumentality in the architecture of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. In his Modern Architecture, the critic and historian Kenneth Frampton separated Mies’ work into two historical periods, 1921-1933 and 1933-1967; the first he entitled ‘Mies van der Rohe and the significance of fact,’ the second ‘Mies van der Rohe and the monumentalisation of technique.’ The two historical periods correspond to two different geopolitical phases of Mies’ career, the first in Weimar Germany the second in the United States. By looking at a number of designs and texts made by Mies in the 1930’s and 1940’s, this essay questions the validity of separating Mies’ architecture into such clear-cut categories, where each one can enjoy a seeming independence from the other. The fulcrum for the discussion is Mies’ design of 1930 for a country golf clubhouse for the industrial town of Krefeld in north-western Germany. Our attention to the golf clubhouse design was prompted by the recent installation (2013), in which a 1-1 model of the design, made primarily from plywood, was erected in a field close the the site of Mies' original proposal.

The design studio as liminal space

The context of this research focuses on the efficacy of design studio as a form of teaching and learning. The established model of project-based teaching makes simple parallels between studio and professional practice. However, through comparison of the discourses it is clear that they are of different character. The protocols of the tutorial tradition can act to position the tutor as a defender of the knowledge community rather than a discourse guide for the student. The question arises as to what constitutes the core knowledge that would enable better self-directed study. Rather than focus on key knowledge, there has been an attempt in other fields to agree and share ‘threshold concepts’ within disciplinary knowledge. Meyer and Land describe threshold concepts as representing “a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress [1]. The tutor’s role should be to assist in transforming student’s understanding through the mastery of the ‘troublesome knowledge’ that threshold concepts may embody. Teaching and learning environments under such approaches have been described as ‘liminal’: holding the learner in an ‘in-between’ state new understanding may be difficult and involve identity shifts. Research on the consequence of pressures on facilities and studio space concur, and indicate that studio spaces can be much better used in assisting the path of learning [2]. Through an overview map of threshold concepts, the opportunities for blended learning in supporting student learning in the liminal space of the design studio become much clearer [3] Design studio needs to be recontextualised within the discourse of higher education scholarship, based on a clarified curriculum built from an understanding of what constitutes its threshold concepts. The studio needs to be reconsidered as a space quite unlike that of the practitioner, a liminal space. 1. Meyer, J.H.F. and R. Land, Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Overcoming Barriers to Student Learning: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge., 2006: p. 19. 2. Cai, H. and S. Khan, The Common First Year Studio in a Hot-desking Age: An Explorative Study on the Studio Environment and Learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment 2010. 5(2): p. 39-64. 3. Pektas, S.T., The Blended Design Studio: An Appraisal of New Delivery Modes in Design Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 51(0): p. 692-697.