In the September 1937 edition of House Beautiful, architect and editor Ethel Power describes the home she plans to build with her husband, “Gregory.” Titled “I’ve Got My Own Ideas,” Power writes with a direct and conversational charm, revealing her former overzealousness for closets and her desire for a child-friendly living room and open terrace. Throughout the piece, her technical prowess shines through—her understanding of how a home must be structured to maximize the “elusive quality” of livability was unmistakable. A quintessential 1930s reader of House Beautiful may have envied Power’s alluring design concepts; hoping to build a new home of their own, just like the lucky couple.

There was just one catch: Ethel Power was a Queer woman—she was never married to a man and never had children. In fact, she remained unmarried, instead living her life with her partner, fellow Architect Eleanor Raymond. They built a summer home together, one so dear that Power muses in a poem she could not “imagine anything lovelier.”

Of course, House Beautiful readers, presumably upper-middle-class white women, may not have embraced Power’s architectural visions without substituting her beloved Eleanor for fictional “Gregory.” But Power’s fabricated narrative was not solely a defensive gesture. It positioned her within the traditional hierarchy of the heteronormative, American-nuclear family. According to historian Gwendolyn Wright, this very association of women, children, and the domestic sphere limited women’s architectural practices to interior design. But some women broke out of this relegation, developing fascinating careers in architecture in the early half of the 20th century. And yet, their contributions remain unsung, vastly underdocumented, and miscredited.

In Women Architects at Work: Making American Modernism, Dr. Mary Anne Hunting and Dr. Kevin D. Murphy fill in this lacuna, unravelling the interconnected stories of Ethel Power, Eleanor Raymond, and dozens of other female architects who studied and practiced Modernist architecture. The authors delve into how women navigated inequitable systems without adequate opportunities, encouragement, and recognition, and yet, managed to leave an indelible mark on American Modernism.

Traditional architectural tomes canonize independent (male) architects who produce many sequential works with a stylistic throughline. As Hunting and Murphy write, “individual production, rather than creative exchange with a partnership, has long been a central premise in art [and architectural] history.” This builds the pernicious myth of the “solitary genius,” whose work is solely born from within, unaffected and uninspired by others. Hunting and Murphy challenge this notion, crafting a world in which women create and design as a reaction to one another, only able to do so through their interpersonal relationships. The authors also give substantive recognition to women who informed American Modernism through disciplines outside of architecture, like graphic design, museum curation, and fashion, as well as those without a prolific body of work, only able to create “singular statements” due to the lack of commission opportunities.

Women Architects at Work is organized thematically, rather than chronologically, beginning with the introduction of the Cambridge School—arguably, the foundation of the authors' study. Though the Cambridge School only existed for 27 years before it was absorbed by Harvard, it profoundly developed students through hosting exhibitions of their work and serving as an incubator for networks that lasted entire careers—and even lifetimes. The authors revisit these relationships throughout the book, as they remained relevant for many women architects’ professional careers.

In later chapters, Hunting and Murphy employ detailed project overviews and biographical sketches to explore women architects’ international inspirations, professional networks, collaboration, and housing projects. Certain sections are particularly laden with project summaries, but where the non-specialist’s patience may wear thin at one too many examples, it is assuaged by beautiful images of Modernist interiors/exteriors, preliminary sketches, and archival photographs. I was particularly delighted by the authors’ suffusion of minor anecdotes, organically adorning professional histories with a humanizing texture. One such example is that of Mary Coss: along with her architectural achievements, the authors mention her “unconventional” nature, wearing pajamas to class and painting her bedroom black (an alt-girl ahead of her time). Another is the story of architects Sarah Harkness and Jean Fletcher, founders of The Architects Collaborative, who took workplace camaraderie to new heights: they moved their families into the same house, which allowed them to share childcare and domestic responsibilities.

Despite Hunting and Murphy’s commitment to a just and thorough exploration of women’s architectural history, there are a few instances where I feel the authors faltered into undercurrents of gender essentialism. There is a subtle insistence of women’s inherent characteristics improving their capacity to be more accommodating and empathetic architects, Eleanor Raymond is described as “humble,” with “no intention of creating a monument to herself … as male architects tended to do,” and Douglass French is praised as “more accommodating than male modernist architects, who were notorious for evicting traditional furnishings.” Though obviously intended as complimentary, I would have preferred devoting more to explicitly uncovering why humility and agreeability may be traits imposed on women at a societal level, rather than praising them as professional strengths. By invoking a generalizing comparison to men, Raymond’s humility and pursuits are implicitly rendered as feminine. Her interest in community housing ultimately benefitted many, but she would be no less noble if she had erected a self-monument. Either refraining from gender-based comparison or using the opportunity for a nuanced discussion on the socialization of women in creative fields would have been more enriching.

Despite such moments, Women Architects at Work is an instrumental stride towards correcting inequities in women’s architectural histories, and a testament to women’s prevailing contributions to American Modernism. Hunting and Murphy show us history need not be encumbered with austerity—it is enlivened through learning not only what people built, but how they did it, and who they were. After all, what is better than reading about a complex and insightful architect’s professional achievements? Learning of her penchant for wearing pajamas to class. Perhaps we are not so different, Mary Coss.