Content uploaded by Alessandro Porotto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alessandro Porotto on Jan 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: LNG2014-1176
1
Athens Institute for Education and Research
ATINER
ATINER's Conference Paper Series
ARC2017-2315
Alessandro Porotto
PhD Candidate
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne
Switzerland
Kleinwohnung
vs
Existenzminimum
: Social
Housing Types from Inter-war Years
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
2
An Introduction to
ATINER's Conference Paper Series
ATINER started to publish this conference papers series in 2012. It includes only the
papers submitted for publication after they were presented at one of the conferences
organized by our Institute every year. This paper has been peer reviewed by at least two
academic members of ATINER.
Dr. Gregory T. Papanikos
President
Athens Institute for Education and Research
This paper should be cited as follows:
Porotto, A. (2017). "Kleinwohnung vs Existenzminimum: Social Housing
Types from Inter-war Years", Athens: ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, No:
ARC2017-2315.
Athens Institute for Education and Research
8 Valaoritou Street, Kolonaki, 10671 Athens, Greece
Tel: + 30 210 3634210 Fax: + 30 210 3634209 Email: info@atiner.gr URL:
www.atiner.gr
URL Conference Papers Series: www.atiner.gr/papers.htm
Printed in Athens, Greece by the Athens Institute for Education and Research. All rights
reserved. Reproduction is allowed for non-commercial purposes if the source is fully
acknowledged.
ISSN: 2241-2891
17/11/2017
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
3
Kleinwohnung
vs
Existenzminimum
: Social Housing Types
from Inter-war Years
Alessandro Porotto
Abstract
The interwar period was particularly crucial for urban policies in Europe
because it was characterized by an intense architectural and programmatic
debate concerning the form of the city and the production of social housing.
Of the European experiences Das rote Wien (Vienna, 1919-1934) and Das
neue Frankfurt (Frankfurt am Main, 1925-1933) developed the most
convincing typological solutions in answer to issues raised by housing
problems in the nineteenth century. In this perspective, the Viennese
Kleinwohnung (small flat) and the Frankfurt Existenzminimum (minimum
dwelling) correspond to two alternatives, but complementary, dwelling
types. The objective of this paper is to draw a comparison of these opposite
architectural types according to the following criteria: dimensions,
distribution, and spatial composition. Despite their evident differences, both
are the result of a modern and rational approach for designing the affordable
housing as well as for promoting a new living culture (Wohnkultur). The
main concern is the achieved comfort: for example, by adding the entrance
hall, the equipped kitchen, the toilets, and an efficient organization of
rooms. They constitute an improvement of the hygienic conditions, but also
the accomplishment of a democratization program, which means to
eliminate the distinction between social classes. The analysis is realized
using critical re-drawings of the houses plans in order to get the highest
graphic homogeneity. Therefore, the aim of this study is the critical
comparison of a selection of case studies from an architectural point of
view. Architectural historians and critics have often neglected or observed
in an ideological perspective these examples. Today, looking at those the
typological solutions means a new approach for a better comprehension and
a wider viewpoint of 1920s’ social housing experiences. The comparative
approach that animates this paper allows the analysis of several case studies
through homogeneous tools. The systematic use of redrawing, stresses the
key role of some architectural solutions, which are still today in the centre
of housing debate.
Keywords: Comparative approach, Housing typology, New Frankfurt, Red
Vienna, Social Housing.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
4
Introduction
The policies of social housing in Europe during the inter-war years
produced several architectural experiences in different cities, in order to
address the housing issue and speculative system of the nineteenth century.
In particular, the dwelling shortage, Wohnungsnot, paved the way to
formulate intervention strategies: «The Wohnungsnot is revealed in three
main points: the overcrowding, the health risks, and the high rents» (Kähler,
1985: 302). Furthermore, at the end of First World War, the main housing
projects were designed in an extremely delicate historical context from a
political, economic and cultural point of view.
We can identify two main models, which, beyond their peculiarities
conceived, however, the relationship between architecture and the city as
the connection between spatial organization and social practice (Panerai et
al., 2004). In this perspective, several European architectural experiences
dated 1920-1930have an essential role in the field of architecture and
society yet. Taking into account the contributions to the housing debate and
the considerable number of dwellings built, Austria and Germany carried
out the most convincing results. The so-called Das rote Wien (Red Vienna)
is a particularly significant example, while of the German urban initiatives
Das neue Frankfurt (New Frankfurt) is one of the most remarkable. In this
last one «the link between the municipal urban policy and architecture
reaches a level rarely equalled in other German cities» (Panerai et al., 2004:
90). Specifically, both cities adopted two alternative typological models of
social housing (Kähler, 1985): on the one hand, the large courtyard block
(Hof) in Vienna, on the other hand, the row houses in slab formation
(Siedlung) in Frankfurt. In this sense, «Vienna and Frankfurt are the extreme
polarities of the history of social housing in Europe in the first decades of
the twentieth century» (Ortelli, 2013: 192).
The two cities developed their housing policies by considering the
relationship between urban morphology and typology. Despite two models
being opposed, the design of different types is always linked to the research
for the most adequate dimensions for the modern housing. It is clear already
from the title of this paper that the comparison takes place between the
model of the Viennese Kleinwohnung (Bobek and Lichtenberger, 1966) and
the theory of Existenzminimum carried out in Frankfurt (May, 1929). Two
terms outline as well as two different way of thinking dwelling issue, but
German adjective “Klein”, as well as noun “Minimum” refer likewise to a
general idea of “reduction in dimensions”. This is linked to a typological
evolution from the point of view of composition and distribution of housing
space. Both had the common objective of extinguishing the housing
shortage and, at the same time, of improving the quality of urban dwelling.
The issue of the dwelling size is evidently linked to studies about comfort
and it represented a collective vision of society. Due to this reason, the
typological research in the inter-war years marks a new paradigm, literally a
new chapter in the history of the social housing. Therefore, the interest in
comparing the Kleinwohnung and the Existenzminimum models consist in
focusing on dwelling typologies: they have profoundly influenced the
evolution of modern living and still today they show their effects.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
5
Few comparative studies provide a complete image of the European
architectural experiences of the Twenties (Tafuri and Dal Co, 1976; Kähler,
1985). In particular, the typological comparison between different urban
contexts requires specific analytical tools from the architectural domain. It
does not intend to revise the historical facts, rather to deduce valid
principles for contemporary housing and urban issues. The comparative
perspective is based on re-drawings (including quantitative data of housing
types) carried out with the highest possible degree of homogeneity.
From a graphical and methodological point of view, the exhibition Die
Wohnung für das Existenzminimum, held in Frankfurt (1929) on the
occasion of the II International Congress on Modern Architecture, is here
the main reference (CIAM, 1930). This event had «the task of presenting in
a clear way and in the most concise and organized form the iconographic
material relating to the minimum dwelling in the main countries » (Kaufmann,
1929). Even there the theme of the dwelling typology is therefore exposed
expressing a comparative approach. «There is no picture, no photograph, no
graph, no building or furnished dwelling model, as in all previous exhibitions,
but above all plans [...]; all is at the same scale and sufficiently large,
following an absolutely identical process in the drawing style, with the
indication of all the most important data relating to the habitable surfaces,
necessary for a comparison [...]» (Kaufmann, 1929: 213).
This study proposes to analyse the main typological principles, clearly
stated in the housing programs, and it adopts an architectural point of view
to examine a selected number of case studies, in order to highlight the
differences between program’s intentions and the complexity of projects’
solutions. In this way, it is possible to show inherent architectural qualities
in both social housing models and to deduce some considerations for
contemporary perspective.
Typological Guidelines
For both cities, the publications concerning the housing policies had a
crucial role. The legitimacy of the adopted urban policies and the
demonstration of their results find space between the pages of books edited
directly by the official organs and the architectural magazines of the same
name Das neue Wien (DnW, 1926-1928) and Das neue Frankfurt (DnF,
1926-1931). The most evident difference is the structure: the Viennese
publications are characterized by a purely political approach, while those
from Frankfurt propose ourselves as a theoretical tool of architecture
(Grassi, 1975). It is no coincidence that in Vienna the texts’ authors were
somehow exponents of the socialist administration, while Das neue Frankfurt
magazine became an international milieu that involved architects, urbanists
and experts on the theme of the housing. This aspect also explains the
widespread distribution and success of the Frankfurt publications, by contrast
with the local scale of the Viennese ones.
In particular, there are two texts that reveal the importance of typological
research in the designing process for new and modern dwellings. In both
cases, they reported the initiatives carried out during the building program:
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
6
in Vienna, Die Wohnungspolitik der Gemeinde Wien (Gemeinde Wien, 1929)
was published at the end of the second five-year plan for housing policies;
in Frankfurt, Ernst May presents the constructed Siedlungen and elaborated
projects in Das neue Frankfurt (May, 1930).
The common starting point concerns the critical conditions of urban
fabric and dwelling that the speculation system had given rise in the second
half of the nineteenth century. Therefore, it is important to note that the
logic behind two respective architectural ideas was based on an in-depth
knowledge of urban conditions and the set of problems related to housing.
In this perspective, it is clear that both architectural experiences considered
the dwelling type as the most efficient instrument for constructing city and
for addressing poor hygienic conditions of urban fabric. As a consequence,
the typological research conducted in Vienna and Frankfurt corresponded to
the success of urban policies: at the same time, the adopted architectural
model and the degree of typological variations were intended to satisfy
housing demand from a quantitative and qualitative point of view.
In Vienna, «the municipality has tidily and progressively approached its
purpose of realizing as many new dwellings as possible: and it was never
lost the goal of building healthy and sufficiently spacious houses. [...] it has
always tried to provide dwellings, even in smaller dimensions, of all functional
equipment to save and make it easier to use» (Gemeinde Wien, 1929: 31). In
the same way, the Frankfurt purpose was «satisfying at the same time the
greater housing demand due to the rise of new families after the rise of
weddings and immigration. Second, the problem of the redevelopment of the
residential areas of the old city was to be solved» (May, 1930: 21).
The accomplishment of these intentions required, first of all, an
architectural choice. The choice of which housing model to be used came
from a criticism directed at the spatial organization of the speculative building
of the nineteenth century. The Hof and the Siedlung constitute a radical position
that involves a set of fundamental distributive and compositional principles,
which were capable of rationally answering to the housing issues.
In the new residential buildings «the construction system with a corridor
was excluded; each dwelling can be reached from the staircase and each floor
has four small apartments. Consequently, the number of staircases is higher.
Each house is provided with a toilet with running water, which can be accessed
by a small entrance. The kitchen is provided with running water. There is no
longer any living room lit indirectly. The kitchen also has a window directly to
the open air, on the road or on the large courtyard.
In the poor families the kitchen is of great importance as a living room; so
much more important, therefore, are good lighting and ventilation» (Gemeinde
Wien, 1929:45).
These principles can be defined as “spontaneous” reaction dictated by the
critical observation of the pre-existing city and, above all, by economic, timing
and logistics needs. Another essential point is that in the same publication the
Viennese administration seemed in a certain way to adopt Siedlung model: in
addition to some colonies of single-family houses, the final part of the text is a
wish for greater use of this housing model (Gemeinde Wien, 1929).
On the contrary, Frankfurt typological study is linked to the a priori
choice of the building type itself: « The ideal residential form, as the most
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
7
natural, is the single-family house. It guarantees the domestic peace and an
intimate life to the family, [...]. Only this dwelling type, allows the direct
connection of every single house with a garden […] » (May, 1930: 36).
Therefore, the attention is focused on the spatial articulation, in order to
« first of all conceive harmonic plans » (May, 1930: 37). It is fair that in the
technical office headed by Ernst May a group of collaborators worked
exclusively to the design of dwelling types (Mohr and Müller, 1984). For
this reason, the rigorous typological study published in the pages of Das
neue Frankfurt (DnF, 1929) assumes almost “scientific” connotations, so
that constituted an experimental open-air laboratory. The guidelines for
defining dwelling types confirmed the methodical character of the whole
approach used in Frankfurt:
1) The distribution of rooms is such that domestic economy processes
are carried out with the least amount of energy [...].
2) [ ...] dwelling must be arranged so that it is also comfortable. This
will not depend only on the shape of the rooms and their respective
position, but especially on the penetration of light and the sunlight
in the dwelling.
3) Plans of all multi-family houses are oriented so that possibly all the
bedrooms receive the sunlight in the morning and the living rooms
receive the afternoon sunlight. [...]
4) The dimensions of the main family living rooms emphasize its
importance in contrast with the other rooms. [...]
5) The kitchen is fully equipped, which are designed already under
construction, allowing the rational exploitation of the limited space
available. The organization of single parts is based on a rational use
of the kitchen. [...]
6) There is a need to avoid, building a sufficient number of rooms, that
parents have a shared bedroom with the adult children. [...]
7) The three-room dwelling is the average one for the mass of the less
well-off people. It can be designed perfectly in an area of 44 square
meters. This type features a separate bedroom for parents and
children. [...]
8) No dwelling should be without toilet. And as soon as possible it
should exist, even in the smallest home, at least a bath tub or a
shower. The bathroom should be between the bedrooms and be
accessible through a hallway.
9) Each house must be equipped with a cellar and a storage room. [...] .
(May, 1930: 38)
Following the principles for designing dwelling types, we can distinguish
that in Vienna the focus was mainly on distribution systems, while in Frankfurt
the interest went to spatial organization of internal environments. However,
in both cases, types suffer an ellipse: from object of liberal-capitalist
speculation of the bourgeois era, the dwelling becomes the social instrument
of the fundamental right to housing (Kähler, 1985).
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
8
Typological Comparison – Vienna
The typological guidelines, developed in Vienna and Frankfurt, were
not only fundamental in improving social housing from a theoretical point
of view. To understand the importance of the type within housing policies, it
is also essential to observe the concrete conditions of the buildings. In this
way, it is possible to demonstrate how much the general statements of housing
programs correspond to a great variety and typological flexibility, as well
showed by most of the dwelling.
Beyond the spatial quality of the apartments, in the Viennese buildings
the position of the staircases inside the courtyard is the starting point for the
change of paradigm. On the one hand, this aspect reflects a different
relationship with the city (Kähler, 1985); on the other hand, it represents a
more complex articulation that means a passage from the public space to
private apartments. The courtyard’s intermediate space has a positive effects
on collective life and functioning of the entire housing complex.
The Stiegen (staircases to the apartments) are the main functional
distribution elements. As already mentioned, the guidelines state that four
apartments are served on each floor. Although this is the most common
layout in all Viennese Höfe, there are some examples that show the possibility
of distributing more apartments. The most emblematic case is the staircase
at the intersection between two wings of the Schüttau-Hof (1924-1925): the
circular staircase distributes six apartments per floor, without giving up
natural lighting and altering the central structural wall (see Figure 1).
Despite the complexity of this distribution system, the apartments arrange
their distribution along the depth of the building, which means from a
mono-oriented type to a double-oriented one. The complexity of this system
is also visible in the geometry of the corners, where architects aimed to
guarantee the natural lighting and ventilation of the staircase and each room
of the apartment as well.
Looking at the apartment, another improvement in the living quality of
the Höfe consists in the design of entrance hall (Vorraum), of which there
are different configurations. The Vorraum «was also an interstitial, transitional
zone mediating the passage from public to private space. [...] But its importance
was not really quantifiable. It added little space to the apartment and could
not be considered an additional room. It did, however, add a grace note to
the proletarian dwelling, an interstitial zone not only between inside and
outside, but often also between the newly internalized toilet and the social
living space of the apartment itself; Something inessential that improved the
dwelling's quality. [...] the entrance hall became a controversial featured of
the new proletarian apartment» (Blau, 1999: 182). Still looking at the
Schüttau-Hof, only few apartments present the entrance hall; in actual fact
most of the cases one enters directly in the living room. Often the Vorraum
is connected to the toilet, in order to separate them from the living kitchen
(Wohnküche); in many situations the toilets are completely isolated from the
entrance hall: in the east-west wing of the Bebel-Hof (1925-1926) we can
find both examples on each floor (see Figure 2). In this case, the entrance
hall assumes a key role into spatial sequences and also it enlarges its
dimensions (3 sq. m.); instead, the Vorraum in the type of north-south wing
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
9
constitutes a joint space being able to transform the apartment in a double-
oriented type (see Figure 3). In these last examples, the toilets are accessible
from the living kitchen and are alongside the façade wall. In particular cases
such as Professor Jodl-Hof (1925-1926), this setting system permits to shape
sculptured volumes that characterize the whole housing complex (see Figure 4).
On the contrary in all Viennese instances the toilets have a smaller surface (in
fact inside the apartments there were only toilets, while the showers were
installed in collective spaces); nevertheless adding them inside the apartment
constituted an another important improvement in the overall dwelling comfort.
In general way, the toilets are symmetrically placed into strategic points, for
example: at both sides of the staircase, in correspondence of dividing walls
between apartments or alongside the structural wall of façade.
The kitchen also plays a fundamental role in the spatial composition.
Notably, some kitchen features influence the size of the room and the spatial
sequence inside the apartment. Most of the Höfe's kitchens were designed
according to Wohnküche principles that consist of modern equipment, but,
above all, they were designed «to make the best possible use of the available
space and to make the kitchen easier and less labor-intensive to operate. The
new Wohnküche was to be more efficiently planned according to the Taylor
work method - a method, claimed by the officials, which had great
advantages for the housewife» (Blau, 1999: 183). It is worth mentioning the
project for Wohnküche (1922) elaborated by the Viennese architect Margarete
Schütte Lihotzky, before she moved to Frankfurt where she started to work
with Ernst May. In this case, the kitchen area consists of the so-called
Kochnische, which is usually installed in-between the toilet and the façade
wall. Since 1926 the kitchen became an independent room in the apartment,
showing one of those typological changes to adapt the apartment according
to the Neues Bauen's living standards (Weihsmann, 2001). In Karl Seitz-Hof
(1926-1931) the Wohnküche was replaced by a kitchen separated from the
living room (Arbeitsküche) and directly allocated by the Vorraum (see Figure
5). The application of the Kleinwohnung model and the construction
system (central structural wall) prevented a real Dwelling orientation was
not only a priority for the Viennese architects. First of all, the construction
of the Höfe within the urban fabric did not provide the ideal conditions for
sunlight; secondly, the courtyard layout and the urban forms adopted
implied several typological exceptions and specific corner solutions.
Another important aspect is the relationship between housing and the
courtyard: in most of the cases, the Viennese apartments did not provide
special architectural elements in the transition between private and
collective spaces. Starting from 1927 the large courtyard blocks explored
the combination of balconies and loggias, as in the example of Karl Seitz-
Hof. This modification enlarged the surface of the house and also offered a
direct relationship with the green space of the Gartenhof achieving a greater
comfort. Concerning dimensions, the general instructions indicated that
until 1926 the units presented two standard sizes: the 38 sq. m. type,
composed by entrance hall, toilet, living kitchen and one bedroom; the 48
sq. m. type included one bedroom more (Gemeinde Wien, 1929). Due to
criticisms received at the International Federation for Housing Town
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
10
Planning in 1926, three other types of apartments were built: the 40, 49 and
57 sq. m. types (Gemeinde Wien, 1929). The real examples show, on the
contrary, a great degree of variety. Indeed, looking at the Schüttau-Hof,
Bebel-Hof and Professor Jodl-Hof, the apartments consist of entrance hall
(about 2 sq. m.), toilet (1 sq. m.), living kitchen (about 15 sq. m.) and
bedroom (18-20 sq. m.), with a total surface of 35-40 sq. m. Instead, the
other type with an additional room (9 sq. m.) ranges between 44 and 47 sq.
m. Karl Seitz-Hof was built after 1926 as mentioned previously. Indeed, it
has more generous apartments, due to the different spatial organization and
distribution. The smaller type (around 40-42 sq. m.) has an entrance hall (3-
6 sq. m.), toilet (1-1.5 sq. m.), kitchen (7-8 sq. m.), living room (18 sq. m.)
and bedroom (10 sq. m.); the type with an additional room (8 sq. m.) has a
mono-oriented configuration (47 sq. m.) and others have double aspect
exposure (57 and 61 sq. m.). Despite the explicit objective was developing
new types by using parameters similar to Neues Bauen (e. g. increasing the
dimensions and the number of rooms) it is important to note that the total
surface area did not change significantly: the main changes concerned the
new autonomous kitchen and consequent rational layout of the apartment
plan, probably influenced by the examples that Ernst May and Margarete
Schütte Lihotzky realized in the same years.
Figure 1. Re-drawing of Schüttau-Hof Apartment Types, Vienna
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
11
Figure 2. Re-drawing of Bebel-Hofeast-westapartment Types, Vienna
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Figure 2. Re-drawing of Bebel-Hof North-south Apartment Types, Vienna
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Figure 3 Re-drawing of Professor Jodl-Hof Apartment Types, Vienna
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
12
Figure 4. Re-drawing of Karl Seitz-Hof Apartment Types, Vienna
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Figure 5. Re-drawing of Karl Seitz-Hof Apartment Types, Vienna
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Typological Comparison – Frankfurt
The Viennese apartments have evidently a smaller surface than the
German Siedlungen.
The core concern of typological research in Frankfurt consisted in row
house type and its repetition in slab formation: on the one hand, the interest
focused on the efficiency of the domestic spatial sequencesin the single unit; on
the other hand, on the repetition and variation of housing types. Therefore, the
main purpose was the control at the different scales of all dwelling’s elements,
in order to achieve the highest level of rationality.
From this point of view, the 70 sq. m. row house with garden was viewed
as the most appropriate type where the best housing quality and the appropriate
spaces to the different functions of domestic life (Mohr and Muller, 1984).
The criteria, which drove Frankfurt architects, were profoundly different
from Viennese ones: indeed, row houses were designed by precise studies
about orientation, sunlight and reduction of construction costs. In contrast to
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
13
the Vienna projects, in Frankfurt the relationship between hygienical
requirements and surface decrease was controlled by objective factors that
allowed a typological standardization In this way, architects guaranteed the
same living benefits to all Siedlung inhabitants.
«The development of types of housing units and their grouping in terrace-
houses or blocks of flats served the purpose of both providing similar and equal
quality housing for all social classes and of reducing building costs. The
typified floor-plans, developed according to functional criteria, and the
equipment with space-saving elements such as central heating and wall
cupboards, allowed a reduction in the floor space. The typical 3-room flat was
65 instead of 75 sq. m. as it was until then. Due to the increasing economic
pressure from 1929 onwards, a further reduction in the living area was
necessary. The so-called minimal flat came into being with 40-43 sq. m. for 4
persons. This was only possible in more and more movable elements such as
sliding doors, folding beds, tables on wheels, etc.» (Dreysse, 1988: 4).
The instructions expressed by Ernst May in 1930 as well as the
standardization of housing typologies produced a total of 21 dwelling types, as
well documented in the drawings of in Das neue Frankfurt magazine (May
1930). The composition of one family houses and also those for several
families was evidently affected by the number of family members and,
consequently, the number of bedrooms.
Frankfurt experience distinguished from Vienna one also because Ernst
May and his collaborators translated dwelling features into different
identification codes which demonstrated his “scientific approach” (May, 1930).
The code consists of two components: the alphabetical abbreviation represents
the type of dwelling and family that can be accommodate; the numerical digits
indicate sequentially the number of rooms and the total surface in square
meters. For example, the code EFAKI 5.86 means Einfamilienhaus für
Kinderreiche (one family house for a large family); specifically the apartment
has 5 rooms with a surface of 86 sq. m. In addition, plans include the measures
of the façade, the depth of the house and the surfaces of each room.
However, observing the residential buildings, rarely the types were
constructed as those shown in the publications, in fact May and his
collaborators designed many typological variants.
The Siedlung Praunheim (1926-1929) is a project which consisted of three
stages of development, hence it is a typological experimentation laboratory.
Dwelling types used in different parts of the group layout reflect the
evolutionary process to get a rational organization and a diminution of
construction costs.
The first phase adopted three3-storey types with roof terrace (see Figure
7). They are assembled according to the site topography and the sunlight
orientation: consequently, there are a type for the north side facing the road and
another one for the south side. Between these types there are no substantial
changes in spatial composition, which on the contrary it is evident in other
cases. At the ground floor the small entrance (2 sq. m.) is connected directly to
the private stairway and to the living-dining room (14 sq. m.), which is
connected to the kitchen (7 sq. m.) and a room (9 sq. m.) on the garden side. At
the first floor the stairway distributes through a passageway (Flur) the parents’
bedroom (15 sq. m.), the one for children (9 sq. m.) and the bathroom (4 sq.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
14
m.). The second floor is exactly divided into two equal parts by a large multi-
purpose space (17 sq. m.) connected to the roof terrace (17 sq. m.). The
dwelling has a total surface area of approximately 80 sq.m.
The second phase of development introduced the Frankfurt prefabricated
construction system of concrete slabs: for this reason, the northern 2-floors type
(75 sq. m.) is completely different from the southern one. In this circumstance,
the stairway conditions the spatial organization, which stands parallel to the
façade, dividing the house into two parts on each floor in order to have a better
sun exposure for the largest main rooms (see Figure 8). Consequently, at every
storey there is a continuous path around the stairway. At the ground floor the
entrance communicates only with the living room (24 sq. m.), which is
separated from the dining room (7 sq. m.) and the kitchen (5 sq. m.). The upper
floor is composed, as in the previous example, from a bedroom for parents (20
sq. m.), a children’s room (11 sq. m.) and a bathroom (4 sq. m.).
In the third phase of development the investment costs had to be further
reduced due to the pressure of economic problems. For this reason, it was
reason able using the same 2-floors type (see Figure 9), reducing living areas
and standards (for containing costs about half were constructed in brick, the
other half in prefabricated slabs). Indeed, the width of the house decreased from
5 meters, as in the previous types, to 4.26 m, getting a total surface of 56 sq. m.
The typological rationalization is also possible by introducing a more compact
stairway, which defines the limit between two distinct functional parts. At the
ground floor, the entrance (4 sq. m.) serves directly the kitchen (6 sq. m.) on the
one side and the living room (18 sq. m.) on the other side; at the upper floor the
spatial scheme is repeated, but by replacing the previous rooms with the
bathroom (2.5 sq. m.), a small bedroom (6 sq. m.) and the parents’ bedroom (18
sq. m.). The simplicity of composition, the spatial optimization, and the
reduction of the distribution surface are not the weak points of the project,
rather they are typological and architectural solutions conceived to address the
difficulties that the theoretical guidelines face in the design process.
The most famous settlement of Das neue Frankfurt, the Siedlung
Römerstadt (1927-1928), is an example of mixed building construction
(Mischbebauung). However, the predominant type is the one-family house,
designed in two 2-floors types for the northern side (see Figure 10) and the
southern side of the road (see Figure 11). At the ground floor the northern type
(88 sq. m.) has a generous entrance (7 sq. m.) that becomes a distribution hall
for all other rooms (however, the rooms are connected to each other, so creating
a double internal circulation): the kitchen (8 sq. m.), the living-dining room (18
sq. m.) and an office room (11 sq. m.). At the upper floor the same distribution
and circulation system is repeated around the stairway: it distributes the
bathroom (2.5 sq. m.), the parents’ bedroom (18 sq. m.), the children's room (12
sq. m.) and a small additional room (4.5 sq. m.). Even in this case, we find the
addition of the corridor circulation, the bathroom and the other rooms are
connected to each other. The southern type (76 sq. m.), on the contrary, is
designed with more rational characters and influenced by solar exposure. Here,
the ground floor is similar to the third phase of Praunheim, but it presents with
a larger façade width (5,30 m). The bigger room’s dimensions are particularly
visible at the entrance (6 sq. m.) and in the living room (25 sq. m.), while the
kitchen maintains a regular surface (6 sq. m.). Similarly, at the upper floor the
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
15
stairway requires a corridor (3 sq. m.) to distribute a bathroom (4 sq. m.), a
bedroom for parents (20sq. m.) and a smaller bedroom (10 sq. m.). In both
types, the interior distribution occupies an important portion of the total surface:
in the first case, 12 sq. m., while in the other one 9 sq. m. Although this aspect
is a peculiar spatial quality, at the same time, Römerstadtdwelling types show
to belong to a period in which the Existenzminimum ideas were not still
perfectly developed.
The highest level of typological research in order to reduce the
construction costs, rationalize the rooms composition and offer the same
comfort conditions was achieved in the Siedlung Westhausen (1929-1931).
Only one 2-floorstype (see Figure 12) had been applied with an original square
shape (7.50 in length and 7.00 m in depth). At the beginning the dwellings were
designed as single-family houses, but the economic crisis pushed to realize
them in a two-family version with one flat per floor. Consequently, the spatial
schema is repeated at each level with a total area of 41 sq. m.: kitchen (4 sq.
m.), living-dining room (18 sq. m.), bathroom (4 sq. m.), bedroom for parents
(10 sq. m.) and children’s bedroom (5 sq. m.). At the same time, the type shows
flexible features which present a transformation of dwelling (one family), by
reusing the scale for interior distribution (Dreysse, 1988). Therefore it is
evident that the relationship between the reduction of dwelling surface, the
rationalization of space and the reduction of construction costs and,
consequently, the rental costs, provided comfortable houses even in times of
economic difficulty.
One of the highest symbol of the rationalization process and the efficient
use of space is the Frankfurter Küche (Frankfurt kitchen), designed by
Margarete Schütte Lihotzky. The main principle of this kitchen-laboratory is
that all food preparation functions are concentrated in a small work area
(Henderson, 2013).According to the New Frankfurt vision, the preparation of
meals and their consumption, two essential moments of daily and domestic life,
spatially with two different spaces, but one linked to the other by the
movements and paths within the house. Indeed, like the housing type, the
Frankfurt kitchen project is based on the Taylor and functional methods, taking
into account the distances, the actions in the kitchen, and the connections to the
adjacent dining room. «Though the Viennese kitchens were neither so well
equipped nor always as directly connected to the living/dining room of the
apartment as in the Frankfurt plans, the concept of discrete working kitchens
and adjacent living room was certainly the same» (Blau, 1999: 199).
Despite the obvious differences, the two models as well as many dwelling
types marked in both cities a profound “revolution” concerning the Wohnkultur
(living culture): the dwelling comfort is not limited to the family, but it includes
an entire social class. Both experiences produced the most significant examples
of the Twenties and they paved the way for a modern vision and in designing
social housing.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
16
Figure 6. Re-drawing of First Phase Type in the Siedlung Praunheim,
Frankfurt
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Figure 7. Re-drawing of Second Phase Type in the Siedlung Praunheim,
Frankfurt
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Figure 8. Re-drawing of Third Phase Type in the Seidlung Praunheim,
Frankfurt
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
17
Figure 9. Re-drawing of North Dwelling Type in the Sieldung Römerstadt,
Frankfurt
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Figure 10. Re-drawing of South Dwelling Type in the Siedlung Römerstadt,
Frankfurt
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
18
Figure 11. Re-drawing of Siedlung Westhausen Dwelling Type, Frankfurt
Source: © Alessandro Porotto.
Conclusions
The comparison of the 1920s housing models in Vienna and Frankfurt
carried out in this paper is far from a mere comparison between cities, in
order to determine which one prevails over the other. The first remark is that
the history of architecture passed down a distorted framework of events
related to the great social housing experiences of modern period. Indeed,
manuals of architectural history gave us a limited understanding of early
20th century modern mass housing projects. Architectural critics have never
shown particular interest (Tafuri, 1980) or, in rare cases, they have completely
discredited (Ungers, 1969) the typological research conducted by Red Vienna.
Making ideological evaluations, based on a priori preferences and
criteria, does not reflect the real importance of those experiences. Indeed, in
spite of the different trends, in general, the quality (from a dimensional,
spatial and technological point of view) of the dwellings realized in that
period is undoubtedly of a high standard, compared to living conditions and
historical situation prior to 1918.
Typical experiments in Frankfurt were based on a precise choice of
applying the row-house model, but in Vienna, every solution adopted in the
Kleinwohnung was the opposite answer to avoid the problems caused by the
intensive speculation. In both cities the housing type is the base unit to realize a
social model based on the living dignity. In the case of Kleinwohnung and
Existenzminimum, the concept of “minimum” «is not in the absolute sense an
issue of measures, dimensions, etc. but rather relating to general terms of
“civil” conditions, or indispensable ones to the social existence. [...] In this
sense, the real significance of a dwelling must not be commensurate with the
surface, but the number of beds it may contain (I do not mean bed as a simple
furniture, but the relationship between this and a room that makes it
independently accessible). [...] The “ration of dwelling” becomes the standard
to commensurate every correct building design; but the ration of dwelling
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
19
finds the other “necessity” parameter in the numerical composition of the
family nucleus» (Aymonino, 1971: 81).
It is important to underline once again that rational small dwellings do not
coincide with a simple decrease in terms of size. The rational organization of
space and technological equipment are the standards to get maximum comfort
in the house. In the case studies here presented, the surfaces of rooms had to be
intended as the most appropriate dimensions for a correct space utilisation to
improve domestic life. This approach resolutely takes position against any
speculative logic, but, mainly, refuses to apply quantitative data in a
“mechanical” way.
Nowadays, where the process of housing rationalizing has been widely
assimilated, the challenge is to avoid any operations that take into account
uniquely the respect of numerical issues and building market laws. In
particular, the economic crisis and the recent difficulties that European cities
are facing housing shortage, allow us to make some further observations. The
dwelling dimensions, the construction costs and the rental costs played a crucial
role in the Twenties, but they are still valid today. However, the main
difference is the political setting. The building programs in Vienna and
Frankfurt were realized in a historical period of economic and social crisis.
Nevertheless,Vienna built 63,000 apartments in 15 years and Frankfurt built
15,000 houses in 5 years. Vienna is hence a unique example in the European
context: the built apartments were not soldafter the World War.Consequently,
the Höfestill belongto the municipality of Vienna, demonstrating a strong
continuity of social housing policies from Twenties to the present day (Stadt
Wien-Wiener Wohnen, 2014).
The Höfe in Vienna and the Siedlung in Frankfurt are part of a rational
process that is able to control and intervene in different scales. « The process is
articulated as a “summation”: more bedrooms compose a dwelling, more
dwellings assemble a typological unit (building), more typological units
develop a settlement, and more settlements “are” the city » (Aymonino, 1971:
82). A typological research is therefore the direct instrument that has concrete
effects at the scale of the private sphere of the house and at the urban one.
The work of architects of the great housing experiences of the Twenties,
«despite being programmed as a moment of re-foundation, is the most
advanced stage in this process begun by the city of the nineteenth century»
(Grassi, 1975: 39). For this reason, Vienna and Frankfurt embody two extreme
polarities, which correspond to two coherent city and housing models: «The
research developed in those years is primarily about the definition of
hegemonic forms on a typological level related to the city» (Grassi, 1975: 40).
For this reason, the residential buildings demonstrate that they are alternative
and non-substitute solutions to the historical city. Studying those initiatives
does not imply any sort of nostalgia for the past, so much to claim a return to
the characters of the past city. Retracing the essential steps that have
characterized the construction of modern living has still a great impact on
today's debate and design. These should not only be interpreted as reference
examples for designing contemporary housing, rather as operative presence in
urban policies. What distinguishes the experiences of Red Vienna and New
Frankfurt from current initiatives is the critical potential of architecture.
What those projects leave us are valid suggestions about the quality of
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
20
architecture including a particular vision of society, because housing is the
element that characterizes the urban fabric and the city in general (Rossi,
1982). It is therefore essential to reconsider the type not only as an operating
instrument, but as a necessity of a place and a society, because it «reacts
dialectically with the technique, the function and the style, as well as with
both the collective character and the individual moment of the architectural
artifact» (Rossi, 1982: 41). The examples of Vienna and Frankfurt show that
typology, considered as a study of types, has a significant role in the
constitution of form, urban and societal ones. To sum up, these models prove
that typological research, assumed as main point of urban and social policies,
corresponds to a durable vision and a responsibility for the future of housing
in Europe.
References
Aymonino, C. 1971. L’ abitazione razionale [Rational housing]. Marsilio. Padova.
Blau, E. 1999. The Architecture of Red Vienna 1919-1934. The Mit Press. Cambridge,
London.
Bobek, H. and Lichtenberger, E. 1966. Wien. Bauliche Gestalt und Entwicklungseit der
Mitte des 19.Jahrhunderts [Vienna. Structural shape and development since the
mid-19th century].Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. Graz, Köln.
CIAM 1930. Die Wohnung für das Existenzminimum auf Grund Ergebnisse des 2.
Internationalen Kongresses für Neues Bauen [The housing for the subsistence
minimum based on results of the 2nd International Congress for New Buildings].
Englert & Schlosser. Frankfurt am Main.
Gemeinde Wien, 1929. Die Wohnungspolitik der Gemeinde Wien. Ein Überblicküber
die Tätigkeit der Stadt Wien seit dem Kriegsende zur Bekämpfung der
Wohnungsnot und zur Hebung der Wohnkultur [The housing policy of the
municipality of Vienna. An overview of the activities of the City of Vienna since
the end of the war to combat the housing shortage and the living culture].
Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsmuseum Verlag. Wien.
DnF 1926-1931. Das neue Frankfurt. Internationale Monats schrift für die Probleme
kultureller Neugestaltung [The new Frankfurt. International monthly for the
problems of cultural reorganization]. Englert & Schlosser. Frankfurt am Main
DnW 1926-1928. Das neue Wien. Städtewerk herausgegeben unter offizieller
Mitwirkung der Gemeinde Wien [The new Vienna. Städtewerk published under
the official participation of the City of Vienna]. Elbemühl Papier fabriken. Wien.
Dreysse, D. W. 1988. Ernst May Housing Estates. Architectural Guide to Eight New
Frankfort Estates (1926-1930). Fricke Verlag. Frankfurt am Main.
Grassi, G. 1975. Das neue Frankfurt 1926-1931 [The new Frankfurt 1926-1931].
Dedalo. Bari.
Henderson, S. 2013. Building Culture. Ernst May and the New Frankfurt Initiative,
1926-1931. Peter Lang Publisher. New York.
Kähler, G. 1985. Wohnung und Stadt: Hamburg-Frankfurt-Wien [Apartment and City:
Hamburg-Frankfurt-Vienna]. Vieweg Verlag. Braunschweig.
Kaufmann, E. 1929. Die Internationale Ausstellung “Die Wohnung für das
Existezminimum” [The International Exhibition "The Apartment for the Existence
Minimum"]. In Das neue Frankfurt, n. 11, 213-217.
May, E. 1929. Die Wohnung für das Existenzminimum [The apartment for the
subsistence minimum]. In Das neue Frankfurt, n. 11, 209-211.
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: ARC2017-2315
21
May, E. 1930. Fünf Jahre Wohnungsbautätigkeit in Frankfurt am Main [Five years of
building construction in Frankfurt am Main]. In Das neue Frankfurt, n. 2-3, 21-55.
Mohr, C. and Muller, M. 1984. Funktionalität und Moderne. Das Neue Frankfurt und
seine Bauten 1925-1933 [Functionality and modernity. The New Frankfurt and its
buildings 1925-1933]. Edition Fricke im Rudolf Müller Verlag. Köln, Frankfurt
am Main.
Ortelli, L. 2013. Realismi. Esperienze architettoniche del XX secolo [Realism.
Architectural experiences of the twentieth century]. In Malcovati, S. Visconti, F.
Caja, M. Capozzi, R. Fusco, G. (edited by) Architettura e realismo. Riflessioni
sulla costruzione architettonica della realtà. Maggioli. Santarcangelo di
Romagna.
Panerai, P. Castex, J. Depaule, J. C. Samuels, I. 2004. Urban Forms. The Death and
Life of the Urban Block. Architectural Press. Oxford.
Rossi, A. 1982. The Architecture of the City. The MIT Press. Cambridge, London
Stadt Wien-Wiener Wohnen 2014. Gemeindebaut. Wiener Wohnbau 1920-
1020/Residential construction in Vienna 1920-2020.Verlag Holzhausen. Wien.
Tafuri, M. 1980. Vienna Rossa. La politica residenziale nella Vienna socialista, 1919-
1933 [Red Vienna. Housing policy in socialist Vienna, 1919-1933]. Electa.
Milano.
Tafuri, M. and Dal Co, F. 1976. Architettura contemporanea [Contemporary
Architecture]. Electa. Milano.
Ungers, O. M. 1969. Die Wiener Superblocks [Viennese Superblocks].
Veröffentlichungen zur Architektur. Berlin.
Weihsmann, H. 2001. Das rote Wien: sozialdemokratische Architektur und
Kommunalpolitik, 1919-1934 [Red Vienna: social-democratic Architecture and
local politics, 1919-1934]. Promedia. Wien.
