DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45213#0223
223
The gallery-access apartment block designed by Paul Heim and Albert Kempter was also well
received. "Housing for the 'common man' - a problem very important for the city and entire Ger-
man East - has been wisely and professionally approached in this building."489 "The gallery-access
block of flats is a sign that the new domestic architecture has emerged from the experimental stage
to make an unquestionable contribution to contemporary art", wrote Ernst May, considering it the
most successful of all WUWA buildings.490 "All the house's details have been worked out to per-
fection."491 Some observers expressed doubts about the practicality of the open external galleries,
which perhaps should have been glazed for protection from the weather. Only the Polish architects
were rather sceptical about the gallery-access apartment block, recalling similar English experiments
and their discouraging results despite a much milder climate.492
Detached and row-houses
The detched houses of the WUWA estate were praised for a number of interesting and innovative
solutions: "The detached and row-houses stand out, in a positive way, among other 'caricatures of
domestic architecture'. Some present really good solutions. Fortunately, the majority of local archi-
tects involved in the exhibition have demonstrated that they do not need architectural extravagan-
cies to gain acclaim."493 Commentators appreciated the functional layouts and practical benefits of
separate "day" and "night" zones. On the other hand, some houses were criticised as too extravagant
and costly: "several talented artists [...] have submitted to the temptation of the exhibition's devil and
forgotten about economy, which today is the most important factor to be considered in designing
domestic architecture."494 Another critic complained that only some detached houses (especially by
Heinrich Lauterbach and Ludwig Moshamer) and Adolf Rading's building presented a dynamic treat-
ment of architectural form, in contrast to the prevailing "boxiness" and monotony, resulting from the
lack of experience in using new construction methods and building materials.495
The representatives of the Housewives' Association were especially appreciative about the row-
houses, emphasising the benefits of duplex apartments that accommodated more beds; each apart-
489 L.M., op.cit., p.55.
490 M. [Ernst May ?], op.cit., p.204.
491 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.443.
492 Edgar NORWERTH, op. c/t., p. 330.'The practicality and rationa I ity of this arrangement seems questionable because ofthe many inconveniences
experienced in similar flats. The potential benefits of this cost-cutting solution are in this case quite small and, cannot compensate for its
negative effects.'
493 Waiter BARANEK, op.cit., p.357.
494 M. [Ernst May ?], op.cit., p.204.
495 Paul KLOPFER, 'Die Breslauer Werkbundsiedlung', Stein, Holz, Eisen 1929, vol.43, no.29, p.445-449. Im Lubomir SLAPETA, Vladimir SLAPETA, op
cit., p.1438.
The gallery-access apartment block designed by Paul Heim and Albert Kempter was also well
received. "Housing for the 'common man' - a problem very important for the city and entire Ger-
man East - has been wisely and professionally approached in this building."489 "The gallery-access
block of flats is a sign that the new domestic architecture has emerged from the experimental stage
to make an unquestionable contribution to contemporary art", wrote Ernst May, considering it the
most successful of all WUWA buildings.490 "All the house's details have been worked out to per-
fection."491 Some observers expressed doubts about the practicality of the open external galleries,
which perhaps should have been glazed for protection from the weather. Only the Polish architects
were rather sceptical about the gallery-access apartment block, recalling similar English experiments
and their discouraging results despite a much milder climate.492
Detached and row-houses
The detched houses of the WUWA estate were praised for a number of interesting and innovative
solutions: "The detached and row-houses stand out, in a positive way, among other 'caricatures of
domestic architecture'. Some present really good solutions. Fortunately, the majority of local archi-
tects involved in the exhibition have demonstrated that they do not need architectural extravagan-
cies to gain acclaim."493 Commentators appreciated the functional layouts and practical benefits of
separate "day" and "night" zones. On the other hand, some houses were criticised as too extravagant
and costly: "several talented artists [...] have submitted to the temptation of the exhibition's devil and
forgotten about economy, which today is the most important factor to be considered in designing
domestic architecture."494 Another critic complained that only some detached houses (especially by
Heinrich Lauterbach and Ludwig Moshamer) and Adolf Rading's building presented a dynamic treat-
ment of architectural form, in contrast to the prevailing "boxiness" and monotony, resulting from the
lack of experience in using new construction methods and building materials.495
The representatives of the Housewives' Association were especially appreciative about the row-
houses, emphasising the benefits of duplex apartments that accommodated more beds; each apart-
489 L.M., op.cit., p.55.
490 M. [Ernst May ?], op.cit., p.204.
491 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.443.
492 Edgar NORWERTH, op. c/t., p. 330.'The practicality and rationa I ity of this arrangement seems questionable because ofthe many inconveniences
experienced in similar flats. The potential benefits of this cost-cutting solution are in this case quite small and, cannot compensate for its
negative effects.'
493 Waiter BARANEK, op.cit., p.357.
494 M. [Ernst May ?], op.cit., p.204.
495 Paul KLOPFER, 'Die Breslauer Werkbundsiedlung', Stein, Holz, Eisen 1929, vol.43, no.29, p.445-449. Im Lubomir SLAPETA, Vladimir SLAPETA, op
cit., p.1438.