DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45213#0217
Opinions about the WUWA experimental
housing estate
217
The Housewives'Association had a number of objections concerning the Stuttgart exhibition, the
criticism subsequently reflected in the formulation of 17 (negative) postulates concerning domestic
architecture.438 The organisers and architects of the WUWA project tried to take these opinions into
consideration, yet not always successfully. For example, the Association insisted that the building's
technical and functional aspects were more important than a beautiful architectural form.439
In contrast to Stuttgart, the organisers and architects of the WUWA project did not forget about
the children's needs. This was considered a more convincing sign of modernity than the flat roof.440
Both the kindergarten designed by Paul Heim and Albert Kempter (No. 2) and Richard Konwiarz's
day care centre for convalescent children (shown at the Exhibition Grounds close to the Centennial
Hall), with its adjacent playground, were enthusiastically received, particularly by women.441 The kin-
dergarten was praised for its meticulously-finished details and the architects exalted for their expert
use of wood and exploring the material's potential for modern design.442 Karel Teige commented
that the kindergarten provided a necessary complement to Adolf Rading's "boarding house" (No. 7),
freeing the child from the confines of a small family flat.443
438 See: note 337.
439 Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.613-616.
440 Guido HARBERS, op.cit., p.285.
441 Ibidem, p.289.
442 See: Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.446; Edgar NORWETH, op.cit., p.330; Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.615.
443 Karel TEIGE, Nejmensi byt. Praha 1932, p.179. In: Lubomir SLAPETA, Vladimir SLAPETA, op.cit., p.1437.
housing estate
217
The Housewives'Association had a number of objections concerning the Stuttgart exhibition, the
criticism subsequently reflected in the formulation of 17 (negative) postulates concerning domestic
architecture.438 The organisers and architects of the WUWA project tried to take these opinions into
consideration, yet not always successfully. For example, the Association insisted that the building's
technical and functional aspects were more important than a beautiful architectural form.439
In contrast to Stuttgart, the organisers and architects of the WUWA project did not forget about
the children's needs. This was considered a more convincing sign of modernity than the flat roof.440
Both the kindergarten designed by Paul Heim and Albert Kempter (No. 2) and Richard Konwiarz's
day care centre for convalescent children (shown at the Exhibition Grounds close to the Centennial
Hall), with its adjacent playground, were enthusiastically received, particularly by women.441 The kin-
dergarten was praised for its meticulously-finished details and the architects exalted for their expert
use of wood and exploring the material's potential for modern design.442 Karel Teige commented
that the kindergarten provided a necessary complement to Adolf Rading's "boarding house" (No. 7),
freeing the child from the confines of a small family flat.443
438 See: note 337.
439 Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.613-616.
440 Guido HARBERS, op.cit., p.285.
441 Ibidem, p.289.
442 See: Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.446; Edgar NORWETH, op.cit., p.330; Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.615.
443 Karel TEIGE, Nejmensi byt. Praha 1932, p.179. In: Lubomir SLAPETA, Vladimir SLAPETA, op.cit., p.1437.