DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45213#0190
190
Only a few buildings of the WUWA estate belong to this category: Gustav Wolf's eight-unit house
(Nos. 3-6); the gallery-access apartment block by Paul Heim and Albert Kempter (No. 1); and the
row-houses (Nos. 9-22). Their simple volumetric shapes were deprived of any decoration: the build-
ings were purely utilitarian.383 Perhaps their simple architecture reflected the exhibition's underlying
premises and its focus on small and affordable flats for the less affluent.
Fortunately, "the modern architects have never denied that architecture is more than mere
boxes, designed to perform elementary functions."384 More refined geometrical divisions underlie
Adolf Rading's building No. 7, the detached houses Nos. 26-27 by Theo Effenberger and No. 28 by
Emil Lange as well as the semi-detached house (Nos. 29-30) by Paul Hausler, with its flat roof overthe
entrance supported on a pair of disproportionately thin pillars. Rading's building (No. 7) comprises
of two separate wings connected by a common stairwell. The projecting upper section enlivens the
facade with a play of light and shadow. The loggias and the contrast between the elevation and the
dark shapes of the windows make the somewhat heavy building appear lighter. From the "purely
functionalist" perspective these elements would be considered decorative and thus superfluous.
Originally planned to be higher, the abridged final version reveals a certain proportional imbalance.
Had the original design for an eleven-storey structure been followed through, the building would
have contrasted even more with the surrounding lower structures.
The Functionalists postulated extracting form from functional relationships, the objective de-
clared by architects from Mies van der Rohe's circle as well as by Hugo Haring and Hans Scharoun, al-
though they carried it out in very different ways.385 Peter Blundel Jones maintains that the only true
Functionalist of the interwar period was Hugo Haring, the (until very recently) forgotten founder of
the so called Organic Architecture (organhaftes Bauen).386
Pursuing optimal form derived from the building's projected functions, Haring did not begin
with some arbitrary form but would develop the layout first and then procede to elaborate on the
external form of the building - in contrast to Le Corbuier.387 In his view, geometrical form was alien
to nature. Organic forms, he declared, perfectly fulfilled their practical functions. The architectural
form was thus a result of functional processes enfolding inside and the structure was just an exterior
shell enclosing the function, an outer skin offering protection against the weather. The interior of
the house was treated as an integral part of the landscape, opening onto the surrounding terrain,
which gave the building an individual character.
383 Adolf ROTHENBERG, op. cit., p.444. Gustav Wolf referred to his house Nos. 3-6 as a "purely utilitarian structure."
384 Antoni KOPP, op.c/t, p.19.
385 Peter BLUNDEL JONES, op.cit., p.18-19, mentions the English "Free School" of the late 19th century, which referred to Neo-Gothicism supported
by John Ruskin and William Morris, who also emphasised harmony between function and form. Apparently this criterion is not sufficient to
characterise an architectural trend. The debate between Mies van der Rohe and Haring concerned the relationship between form and content.
Mies van der Rohe ignored the latter to focus on abstract forms and thus created houses very difficult to live in.
386 Ibidem, p. 17. The author criticises Nicolaus Pevsner (the well-known author of An Outline of European Architecture) for ignoring Organic
Architecture pioneered by Haring. In his opinion, Pevsner's theory had been based on the opposition between Expressionism and Functionalism,
the former defined as individual, subjective and personal, the latter - as anonymous, objective and scientific. Pevsner's hero is Walter Gropius,
while those classified as the Expressionists are ignored for having eaten the forbidden fruit and sinned against the spirit of the times.
387 Piergiacomo BUCCIARELLI, 'Hugo Haring - architekt i teoretyk'. In: Hugo Haring wjego czasach, budowanie w naszych czasach. Exhibition
catalogue, ed. Christa Otto, Stuttgart 1992, p.27. Haring's views were opposed to those expressed by Le Corbusier at the first CIAM in 1928; Le
Corbusier insisted on geometry as the foundation of architecture.
Only a few buildings of the WUWA estate belong to this category: Gustav Wolf's eight-unit house
(Nos. 3-6); the gallery-access apartment block by Paul Heim and Albert Kempter (No. 1); and the
row-houses (Nos. 9-22). Their simple volumetric shapes were deprived of any decoration: the build-
ings were purely utilitarian.383 Perhaps their simple architecture reflected the exhibition's underlying
premises and its focus on small and affordable flats for the less affluent.
Fortunately, "the modern architects have never denied that architecture is more than mere
boxes, designed to perform elementary functions."384 More refined geometrical divisions underlie
Adolf Rading's building No. 7, the detached houses Nos. 26-27 by Theo Effenberger and No. 28 by
Emil Lange as well as the semi-detached house (Nos. 29-30) by Paul Hausler, with its flat roof overthe
entrance supported on a pair of disproportionately thin pillars. Rading's building (No. 7) comprises
of two separate wings connected by a common stairwell. The projecting upper section enlivens the
facade with a play of light and shadow. The loggias and the contrast between the elevation and the
dark shapes of the windows make the somewhat heavy building appear lighter. From the "purely
functionalist" perspective these elements would be considered decorative and thus superfluous.
Originally planned to be higher, the abridged final version reveals a certain proportional imbalance.
Had the original design for an eleven-storey structure been followed through, the building would
have contrasted even more with the surrounding lower structures.
The Functionalists postulated extracting form from functional relationships, the objective de-
clared by architects from Mies van der Rohe's circle as well as by Hugo Haring and Hans Scharoun, al-
though they carried it out in very different ways.385 Peter Blundel Jones maintains that the only true
Functionalist of the interwar period was Hugo Haring, the (until very recently) forgotten founder of
the so called Organic Architecture (organhaftes Bauen).386
Pursuing optimal form derived from the building's projected functions, Haring did not begin
with some arbitrary form but would develop the layout first and then procede to elaborate on the
external form of the building - in contrast to Le Corbuier.387 In his view, geometrical form was alien
to nature. Organic forms, he declared, perfectly fulfilled their practical functions. The architectural
form was thus a result of functional processes enfolding inside and the structure was just an exterior
shell enclosing the function, an outer skin offering protection against the weather. The interior of
the house was treated as an integral part of the landscape, opening onto the surrounding terrain,
which gave the building an individual character.
383 Adolf ROTHENBERG, op. cit., p.444. Gustav Wolf referred to his house Nos. 3-6 as a "purely utilitarian structure."
384 Antoni KOPP, op.c/t, p.19.
385 Peter BLUNDEL JONES, op.cit., p.18-19, mentions the English "Free School" of the late 19th century, which referred to Neo-Gothicism supported
by John Ruskin and William Morris, who also emphasised harmony between function and form. Apparently this criterion is not sufficient to
characterise an architectural trend. The debate between Mies van der Rohe and Haring concerned the relationship between form and content.
Mies van der Rohe ignored the latter to focus on abstract forms and thus created houses very difficult to live in.
386 Ibidem, p. 17. The author criticises Nicolaus Pevsner (the well-known author of An Outline of European Architecture) for ignoring Organic
Architecture pioneered by Haring. In his opinion, Pevsner's theory had been based on the opposition between Expressionism and Functionalism,
the former defined as individual, subjective and personal, the latter - as anonymous, objective and scientific. Pevsner's hero is Walter Gropius,
while those classified as the Expressionists are ignored for having eaten the forbidden fruit and sinned against the spirit of the times.
387 Piergiacomo BUCCIARELLI, 'Hugo Haring - architekt i teoretyk'. In: Hugo Haring wjego czasach, budowanie w naszych czasach. Exhibition
catalogue, ed. Christa Otto, Stuttgart 1992, p.27. Haring's views were opposed to those expressed by Le Corbusier at the first CIAM in 1928; Le
Corbusier insisted on geometry as the foundation of architecture.