In Alice Friedman’s essay, People Who Live in Glass Houses, she speaks about issues of gender and sexuality in the 20^th century with an emphasis on two iconic buildings: Philip Johnson’s Glass House and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House. While designed and constructed around the same time, the two structures allow for different discussions to arise, touching on topics of agency in the house and transparency versus invisibility.

Friedman argues a complex analysis of both houses individually, drawing attention to their function, form and occupation as she compares the differences between the glass houses. With the compelling exploration of the intricate relationship between architecture and the construction of gender and sexual identities during the modernist era, she navigates through the complex web of connection between spaces, structures, and the humane experience, provoking thought for how architecture played a significant role in shaping societal normals and challenging traditional understandings of the matters.

By examining the works of notable architecture, Friedman reveals how they not only responded to changing norms of the time. The title of the book, which is an adaptation of the common adage “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”, emphasizes the idea that architectural space can be both revealing and transformative, offering a unique perspective on the intersection of identity and design.

Throughout the essay, the main conflict happens from the point of view of the clients, the user: one single female doctor and another queer architect who occupy these Glass Houses. There is a realization that conventional building types at the time and patterns of domestic planning were inadequate responses to the needs of gendered space, both programmatically and. Ideologically. The main argument on the Farnsworth House becomes the relationship between the architect and the client as Edith Farnsworth explains her view on the house she commissioned for herself and became a public attraction. With the intricate relationship between the architectural ideology the “floating glass house” conveys and the human experience of the client, the question arises: is the ultimate success of the project through the architect and their ideals or the experience of the client?

In contrast to the Farnsworth House, her analysis of Johnson’s Glass House shows a different perspective: the architect becomes the client. The house is a form of exhibitionism to its fullest, the emphasis being on the transparency of what is going on in the so-called living area. Friedman further argues that there is an embrace from Johnson’s side of embracing transparency, unlike Farnsworth. Finally, the contrast between the Guest House and the Glass House catches the attention. The pairing confirms the acknowledgment of Johnson on various subjects: his own need for privacy but also the impossibility of the glass house as a family home, paying tribute to Farnsworth’s alert.

Friedman’s essay provides a refreshing lens through which to examine the multifaceted nature of modernist architecture. It encourages us to consider how built environments have the potential to both reflect and subvert established social hierarchies and prejudices. With the comparisons, she highlights the biases of what queer space can be and how to exist in it.