Interview: Architect William Krisel

From right to left: William Krisel, Corinne Krisel, his wife, and David Rago.

California architect William Krisel designed tens of thousands of buildings in the 1950s and ‘60s, including entire middle-class housing tracts for the Alexander Construction Company in Palm Springs. But his were never cookie-cutter designs. He believed that good modern design enhanced people’s lives, and he got involved in every detail of his projects to make sure that the structure, the landscaping, the interior design and the colors were all in harmony. Interviewed in the film William Krisel, Architect,  by Jake Gorst, he said, “I’m a firm believer that good modern design can make your life happier and more productive and more enjoyable, and I would really hope that everyone would get an opportunity to experience that.”

Over the past few years, along with the resurgence of interest in midcentury design, Krisel’s work has been gaining new appreciation, especially his airy “butterfly” roof designs, with their soaring walls of glass, that fulfill so well the modernist ideal of indoor/outdoor living. New houses are even being built from his old plans, and the architect, now in his mid 80s, is once again being called upon for his expertise.

David Rago, Modernism’s co-publisher and executive editor and president of David Rago Auctions sat down recently at the Palm Springs Modernism Show for chat with Krisel.

David: What kinds of designs did you do before you started working with the Alexanders?

Bill: In terms of style, it’s more of a language called midcentury modern.  It was always expressed in the midcentury language.  My work was a California interpretation of Bauhaus and International Style, plus, of course, Frank Lloyd Wright.  What you see today evolved from the University of Southern California School of Architecture, trained in the midcentury language.  I was influenced by Wright, Breuer, Le Corbusier, in the early days, the ‘40s. It was so exciting to me. I knew all along I wanted to be an architect and read magazines and books on the subject, on the philosophy of the subject.   I understood why they did what they did and it’s why I appreciated it.  I know it might sound corny, but form followed function, and I still subscribe to that today.  It was a commandment you didn’t violate.  Whichever project you designed had to have a function and once you solved that, the form had to evolve from there.  

I like that the things we’re doing now have a name, such as ergonomic design. I get a kick out of energy conservation and sustainability.  Our language was that you studied the sites and the elements and the good and bad of each, and then you compensated for them.  The physical house took care of the problem with its design: heat, air, sun, etc.   I oriented the house for the views and weather, sunlight, wind, etc.  The function of the house was to compensate and take care of those problems.

David: What sort of direction did you get for the design of the Alexander houses? What were the developers looking for?

Bill: The typical builder/developer treated the architect as a hired gun. I  wasn’t one of those.  I understood the builder was in it to make money and I was in it for good design and architecture, so that people could benefit from it.  My problem was to design a house the public could afford to buy.  Life was easy once I figured out how to build a good home and make it profitable.  Seven of the 10 top builders in the U.S. were my clients. Builders are like sheep, and if a successful builder jumps off a cliff, all the others will follow because they think that’s the way.

Being a landscape architect,  I wanted to control it all, not to compromise design.  I didn’t want someone else doing interior, color, landscaping, etc.  I was able to do the landscaping on all of my projects.  Inside, outside, gardens, furniture.  We sourced other designers, such as Charles Eames, to outfit the homes from which our clients could choose.

Why did I get to design 40,000 living units?  I understood the builders, I knew how to work with them.  My design language satisfied their needs to work within a budget and the design tastes of the end buyer.  Nothing succeeded like success.  

It  all came to a dead end in 1969 or so.  Cinderella houses became popular: picket fences, dormer windows, etc.  I wouldn’t do that.  My time was over and I moved onto apartments and condos.  I never did another tract house.  When shelter magazines were on your side, it was great.  But once they hooked onto bric-a-brac, there it went.
 

David: When the Alexanders were selling a “lifestyle,” what is the lifestyle that they proposed? How did the houses you designed support this?

Bill: The initial concept was that these were second homes.  Palm Springs didn’t have a full-year occupancy, because air conditioning was relatively new.  You went to a theater or mall for that.  My homes were appropriate, easy to clean, taking advantage of what Palm Springs had to offer.  The Ocotillo Lodge was the first project by the Alexanders, a destination point.  For under $20,000, the first houses were almost at an impulse-buy level.  They were priced at  $19,000, $29,000 and $39,000.  The first development was called the Racquet Club.  The second was Twin Palms and the third was Las Palmas. The houses increased in size from 1200 square feet to 1600 square feet to 1,800 and 2,000 square feet.  All of them were three to four bedroom homes, with AC and pools and a minimum 100 x 100 foot lot and two palm trees.  Fully reconditioned, a $29,000 house sells for about $850,000 now.  A $19,000 is now about $550, 000 and a $39,000 home sells for  $1 to $2 million.
 

David: Can you talk a bit about the “butterfly” roofs and how they came about?

Bill: The butterfly roofs were not a new shape. Breuer did it.  The arch, the gable, the butterfly are all building forms.  The butterfly collected water and could save water.  You could control the two points.  I did it because when I looked at the mountains, I saw butterflies, gables and flats.  Each of my homes has a different look, taking into consideration the mountains. Each had its own function.
 

David: What do you think of the resurgence of interest in your work?  What do you think attracts people to it today? Are they the same things that attracted them in the 1950s and 1960s?

Bill: I’m pleased that midcentury modern has become an acceptable language and people appreciate it. My initial attempt was to get well designed housing into the general public. It’s very satisfying.  I had 100 people come to me today to tell me how much they enjoy living in my homes.

 David: What do you think about the new interest in green design and sustainability? Were you thinking about those things 50 years ago?

Bill: My homes were designed for the site.  Electricity was inexpensive and we were encouraged to use more and more.  You were given different ratings based on how electrified your homes were: silver/bronze/gold. Gasoline was also very inexpensive. There was no value in advertising you had a car that went 40 miles a gallon when gas was 11 cents.  Midcentury architecture designed into the building, as part of the function, the environment, the elements surrounding the home . [Sustainability] was not an important sales angle.  Two palm trees mattered a lot more to the consumer.
 

David: You have spoken about the architect 50 years ago as having designed all aspects of a house, and that today, the tasks (landscape, kitchen, etc.) are all done by different people, with the architect just supplying the empty box. Can you talk about what it was like to design as an architect 50 years ago?

Bill: Very few architects had the level of control I had.  I controlled it all.  All designs started with me and ended with me.  Even though I had a 60-person staff, I could walk by the drafting tables and spot a mistake.  Nothing left my office without my approval.  That was my biggest drawback in that I was unable to delegate.
 

David: You have mentioned that you were influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright. What aspects of Wright’s approach?

Bill: I liked the way his buildings fit the terrain.  The non-squares, the triangles, angles, forms, shapes…but it all had a reason, not just because he liked the shape.  It could be justified.  I asked Frank Lloyd Wright if he would allow me to come to Taliesen West for an interview.  I sat at his feet and he asked me where I went to college.  I told him and he said, “I said college, not high school.”  He asked me why I wanted to be an architect.  “We don’t need any more architects,” [he said.] “I’m still alive.”  I knew I didn’t want to be a disciple but I still admire his work.