Casa Milá (or La Pedrera), Barcelona

Designed by Antoni Gaudí, completed in 1910 Barcelona, Spain
Casa Milá, located at the corner of the Paseo de Gracia and the Calle Provenza in
Barcelona, Spain, was designed and built between 1906 and 1910. It exemplifies the
exuberant forms and distinctly personal architectural sensibility of Antoni Gaudí (1852–
1926), whose work influenced the development of Modernismo, the Catalan adaptation of Art Nouveau.
Popularly known as “La Pedrera” (The Quarry), the large apartment building,
commissioned by wealthy businessman Pedro Milá i Camps and his wife, Rosario
Segimón Artells, received widespread critical attention for its massive, undulating facade
and innovative architectural and structural details. Although Casa Milá has been
described as a precursor of the Einstein Tower (1921) in Potsdam, designed by Erich
Mendelsohn (1887–1953), the explicitly organic references of Gaudí’s structure exhibit
closer stylistic affinities to Art Nouveau (Jugendstil) than to the German Expressionism
of Mendelsohn’s work.
Casa Milá is the last secular project undertaken by Gaudí before devoting his energies
exclusively to the design and construction of the Sagrada Familia (1926), also in
Barcelona. Gaudí began work on the Casa Milá during construction of another private
residence he designed (1906) on the Paseo de Gracia, Casa Battlò. As with the earlier
structure, the serpentine, organic appearance of Casa Milá results from the rhythmic
alternation of concave and convex bays and balconies and is further heightened by the
organic curves of the wrought-iron grillwork. Following a dispute with Milá over the
inclusion of a religious sculpture on the facade of the building, Gaudí abandoned the
project in 1909, leaving its completion to project contractor José Bayó Font. The
building’s interior and exterior decorative finishes were executed by Gaudí’s assistant,
José Jujol. The present appearance of the building reflects the conversion of the attic
structure into apartments, executed by F.J.Barba Corsini in 1954.
The J-shaped plan of Casa Milá contains two internal courtyards whose rounded forms
are consistent with the building’s general lack of orthogonal planes and are echoed in the
building’s facade. One of the most significant aspects of Casa Milá is the open plan of
Entries A–F 419
each floor, achieved by Gaudí’s use of columns rather than masonry bearing walls
throughout the structure. This strategy, which anticipates the free plan advocated by
modernists such as Le Corbusier, allowed architectural and structural autonomy for both
the facade and the individual floors. Additional structural support was provided by an
extensive framework of iron beams embedded in the floors, facade, and balconies,
including an elaborate umbrella-shaped iron structure within the floor of the courtyard
facing the Paseo de Gracia.
Among Gaudí’s numerous innovative design elements was a spiral ramp intended to
provide automobile access from the ground floor down to the basement garage and
continuing up to the top floor of the building. Although the ramp was later deemed too
large for the courtyard and never completed, the idea anticipates by almost 20 years the
internal ramp designed by Le Corbusier for Villa Meyer (1925) in Paris.
Because of the influence of novecentismo, or 19th-century historical eclecticism, in
Barcelona at the time Casa Milá was under construction, the building’s
unconventional facade met with a wide range of critical responses on
completion. The visual plasticity, marine-inspired decorative elements,
and grotto-like lobby spaces of Casa Milá were hailed by some
contemporaries as the pure architectural expression of a Mediterranean
sensibility, an interpretation strengthened by Gaudí’s published comments praising
Mediterranean light and shadow. It has also been suggested that the design of Casa
Milá’s facade was influenced by the massive, towered masonry structures of the Berber
tribes in North Africa, a region visited by Gaudí in 1887.
The materials and decoration of the facade of Casa Milá, particularly the use of
Catalonian limestone facing and ornate wrought-iron grillwork, reflect Gaudí’s interest
and background in local craft traditions. These choices also typify Gaudí’s deep
commitment to Catalan culture, which at the turn of the 20th century underwent a
widespread social, political, and economic revival known as the Renaixença, or Catalan
Renaissance.
Gaudí, a devout Catholic and follower of the cult of Mary, also intended Casa Milá to
serve a symbolic religious function. The explicit Marian references embedded in the
building’s facade include an inscription of the prayer of the rosary along the cornice and
a monumental sculpture group of the Virgin and two angels. The sculpture was intended
for a niche in the facade above the corner of the Paseo de Gracia and the Calle de
Provenza. However, a violent outbreak of anticlericalism in Barcelona in 1909 resulted in
the owner’s decision not to include the sculpture; Gaudí abandoned the project soon
afterward.
The undulating attic and roof of Casa Milá serve as a base for the elaborate sculptural
forms housing the building’s ventilation shafts, chimneys, and access structures, which
collectively produce Casa Milá’s distinctive roofline. The roof is celebrated for its
inventive use of Catalan vaults, which are composed of roof tiles laid end on end,
supported by transverse ribs. This technique, which may be compared to concrete
eggshell vaulting, permits great flexibility in the design of the vaults. In addition to the
Entries A–F 421
attic vaults at Casa Milá, which take the form of catenary arches, Gaudí used Catalan
vaults at numerous other projects, including the roof of the school building of the nearby
Sagrada Familia (1909). At Casa Milá, however, the attic arches stretch from the ground
to the roof of the attic structure, recalling the arcaded corridors Gaudí designed for the
Colegio de Santa Teresa de Jesús (1894) in Barcelona.
The decoration of the attic of Casa Milá represents a conflation of Gaudí’s sculptural
design aesthetic with local and regional artistic traditions. His use of azulejos , brightly colored
ceramic tile fragments embedded in masonry, at Casa Milá, the Park Güell (1914), and
other projects throughout his career contributed to the Catalan craft revival of the early
20th century. Although Casa Milá has received much critical attention as an Art Nouveau
monument, its sculptural plasticity suggests a more three-dimensional—and more
uniquely personal—design aesthetic than that of Art Nouveau.

CASA MALAPARTE

Designed by Adalberto Libera, completed 1963 Island of Capri
The Casa Malaparte is a villa on the island of Capri designed by the Italian rationalist
architect Adalberto Libera (1903–63) for the writer and journalist Curzio Malaparte
(1898–1957). The building’s dominant position on its rocky outcrop reflect its expressive
and outward-looking spirit. Its bold volumetric form and symmetrical planning reflects
Libera’s desire for “sin cerity, order, logic and clarity above all” (Malaparte, 1989). All in
all, it is a textbook example of modernist 20th-century architecture. At first glance, this
might seem to be an accurate description of the Casa Malaparte. However, a closer
examination reveals these seemingly uncontestable facts as increasingly problematic.
The Casa Malaparte is actually a curious and contradictory work that directly reflects
the nature of its curious and contradictory client: Curzio Malaparte. Born Kurt Erich
Suckert into a Protestant family, Malaparte denounced these roots when beginning his
writing career by taking his mother’s maiden name and then later, on his deathbed,
converting to Catholicism. Malaparte is best known for his writings that glorified
Mussolini and the Fascist Party, yet he was jailed by that same party between 1933 and
1935. While he subsequently tried to become a member of the Communist Party,
Malaparte also served as a liaison officer for the U.S. Army after World War II. These
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 416
examples are only the more concrete ones illustrating a soul who functioned in extremes
and was always torn between opposites.
The architect Adalberto Libera, a member of the rationalist Gruppo 7, is best known
for his works that helped advertise Fascist Italy: the staging of the Exhibition of the Tenth
Anniversary of the Fascist Revolution (1932), and the Italian Pavilions at the World
Expositions of Chicago (1933) and Brussels (1935). It is through these works that
Malaparte most likely became familiar with Libera. Sometime in early 1938, Malaparte
approached Libera to design a small villa on the island of Capri. The resulting design,
which was submitted for approval to the Capri authorities in March 1938, was never
built. For this reason, the attribution of the Casa Malaparte to Adalberto Libera can be
questioned. However, Libera’s initial design, although different from what was actually
built, can be seen as the “foundation” of the eventual building.
Libera proposed a two-story, elongated rectangular building with rooms on one side
and a corridor on the other. The linearity of the project took advantage of the linearity of
its site: the Massullo promontory. The project stepped up in section toward the sea, using
the lower portion’s roof as a sheltered terrace. The external ground-floor walls of the
project consisted of rough stone, presumably from the site, with the upper portion of the
walls plastered smooth. These characteristics of the project can be seen in the building as
built. However, this is where the similarity ends. Sometime during 1939, Libera and
Malaparte lost touch concerning the villa. Without an architect, Malaparte, however,
continued building, acting on advice from his builder, Adolfo Amitriano, and his circle of
artist friends as well as on his own thoughts and inspirations.
The most significant change to Libera’s initial project made by Malaparte is perhaps the
defining element of the Casa Malaparte: the curious wedge-shaped staircase to the roof
that extends for about one-third of the entire structure and gives the building its unique
silhouette. This form has been attributed to Malaparte’s memory of the Church of the
Annunziata, experienced during his exile imposed by the Fascists on the island of Lipari.
The staircase is a strange form, perhaps one that would never be designed by an architect,
yet it solved several problems for Malaparte once he began to deviate from Libera’s
project. First, although oversized, the staircase provided access to the roof terrace, which
Malaparte now placed on the very top of the building. Second, it unified the mass of the
building into a single, streamlined whole instead of a series of awkward jumps, as Libera
had proposed.
This unified mass, isolated on the rocky heights of a Mediterranean cliff, is what gives
the building its heroic and romantic appeal. However, these same characteristics also
strangely make the building belong to its natural surroundings: the building’s linearity
and the gradual slope of the staircase seem to echo the linearity of the site with its gradual
ups and downs. In addition, the color of the building, often described as “Pompeian red,”
is also subject to this paradox: on the one hand, it is not the typical Mediterranean (and
modernist) white, which would make it stand out from its natural surroundings of sea,
rock, and low shrubs; on the other hand, the deep red is completely foreign to an island
setting of natural blue, brown, and green tones.
Other changes that Malaparte made to Libera’s original design were less noticeable
than the staircase. Windows on the southwest facade were framed with a “braid of tufa
stone,” and iron security bars were installed on the ground floor. It is theorized that
Malaparte did this to make the house seem more like a prison, again evoking memories of
his exile. Yet, unlike a prison, the entire rooftop was to be used for sunbathing, with a
sweeping modesty wall to protect Malaparte from prying eyes.
Libera’s proposed interior configuration was completely changed by Malaparte from a
single-loaded corridor to a sym metrical layout, with the principal room consisting of a
large temple-like salon the entire width of the building. The building’s entrance,
however, was still located on the southwest elevation, and the resulting circulation pattern
is clumsy: once one is inside the principal entrance, an awkward L-shaped stair leads
upstairs to another awkward antechamber before the salon. In addition, to access the new
basement accommodation below the external staircase, a secondary external entrance also
exists on the southwest elevation. Although Malaparte masterfully reorganized the
building into a symmetrical layout that more accurately reflects the linearity of the
scheme, he was unable to follow this through to the circulation through the building.
In the end, the Casa Malaparte is an accurate reflection of the unusual “both/and”
character of its client: it is a combined product of its architect, client, and builder; an
example of both heroic modernism and humble vernacular traditions; an architectural
work that both dominates and engages its natural surroundings; and a house that is both a
prison and a temple. Indeed, Malaparte, on completion of the building, is known to have
described his Capri villa as a “house like me” and “a selfportrait in stone.”