On December 5, Frank Gehry, one of the most influential — and most joyfully undisciplined — architects of our time, passed away. And while collective imagination will remember him for oceanic museums, titanium auditoriums, and cultural centers that resemble migratory birds mid-evolution, the truth is that it all began, like so many architectural genealogies we love because they seem humble (and later turn out not to be) with a house. His house. A modest, unassuming home that, in less time than it takes a neighbor to utter “demolition order,” became the first recognizable heartbeat of the Gehry who would later emerge.
In the late 1970s, Gehry bought a perfectly ordinary bungalow in Santa Monica, built in the 1920s, one of those that line a neighborhood where the most daring aesthetic statement is usually a hydrangea of questionable color. And Gehry, instead of remodeling it with the restraint recommended by any mortgage survival manual, decided to subject it to an intervention so unusual that even today it’s difficult to describe without it sounding like performance art.
What’s truly fascinating — the master stroke that sets him apart from the rest of us mortals who think that renovating is just moving a partition wall and praying it’s not structural — is that he didn’t rebuild the house, but rather wrapped it. Literally. As if the traditional bungalow — a small Dutch-American house with a pleasing geometry — had grown, almost parasitically, a shell made of corrugated metal, construction mesh, plywood, and glass positioned in a way that defied any academic textbook.
Instead of concealing the old house, he embraced it. Gehry enveloped it in another architectural structure, creating a double object that functioned like a kind of contemporary matryoshka doll, where the outer shell is slightly chaotic, but the inner original house still works as a normal home. Between these two layers emerged recesses that belonged neither entirely inside nor outside, architectural chambers where the air circulated with that whimsical freedom usually reserved for improvised courtyards and Sunday afternoon science experiments. There, the light entered according to rules seemingly established by a committee of sunbeams with their own sense of humor.
And it worked. It functioned as a house. In its own way, of course, but it worked. Gehry lived there, amidst gaps and irregularities, exposed beams, rooms that opened onto ambiguous spaces, and terraces that seemed invented by a sculptor in the throes of therapeutic frenzy. To inhabit the place was to coexist with a mutating organism that offered microclimates, alternative routes to the bathroom, and a kitchen that acquired symbolic importance. A spatial remnant and, at the same time, a constructed, profoundly conscious remnant, breathing within that dual domestic anatomy.
The neighbors, for their part, reacted to the transformation like someone discovering that a meteorite, now paying property taxes, has settled on their quiet street of houses. They called the complex “the weird house,” with a mixture of suspicion and fascination that should be included in any sociological study on the limits of aesthetic tolerance in the American suburbs. Because suddenly, in that row of canonical houses, a three-dimensional collage emerged that seemed improvised, although in reality it possessed the precision of a goldsmith. There were criticisms, rumors, comments like “what is this?”, a few minor squabbles with regulations, but nothing that impeded the process. The 1970s, after all, were a different era. More experimental, less obsessed with the homogenous color scheme of the neighborhood.
In that project were already all of Gehry’s future obsessions: controlled fragmentation, forms with musical energy, material disobedience, the deliberate erasure of the boundary between inside and outside and, above all, the idea that a house can cease to be an object and become a conversation between layers.
This house was not his first work, but it is his first personal, risky project. A foundational building where his embryonic style — later called deconstructivism — appears unapologetically for the first time. Because Gehry was experimenting with something radical: architecture not as demolition, but as an envelope, as a gentle contradiction to the pre-existing, like that gesture of sketching something crooked on a napkin and then subjecting it to an almost surgical engineering process. The seed of the Gehry method is there, in that house, which he himself considered his laboratory. It wasn’t a game or a gratuitous provocation, but a serious experiment that allowed him to understand what he could do and, above all, what he was willing to do with architecture.
If you think about it, it’s colossal. That a domestic gesture — half crazy, half brave, yes, but domestic nonetheless — was the dress rehearsal for everything that would come after. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Walt Disney Concert Hall. The Fondation Louis Vuitton. Gigantic projects with astronomical budgets and complex conceptual frameworks, yet which come from this seed: a wrapped bungalow, a metal shell surrounding a small Dutch house, a fierce intuition that decided that architecture should tell a different story without erasing the previous one.
Because Gehry’s architecture doesn’t begin with the facade, institutional programs, or monumental iconography. It begins with an intimate decision: to envelop what already exists and force it to reveal something new. Gehry did this with his own house. And from that strange, checkered, luminous, and stubbornly original dwelling, emerged one of the most unclassifiable voices in contemporary architecture.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
