DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45213#0224
ment possessed a separate entrance and cellar, safe and convenient stairs, the toilet separate from the
bathroom, niches with fitted wardrobes and cupboards, and an additional storage room. The objections
concerned: the dining room designed as a connecting room 496; the toilets located in the apartment's cen-
tral section and thus deprived of direct lighting, like in some buildings designed by Dutch architects497 (on
the ground floor in sections Nos. 10-12 by Ludwig Moshamer and on thefirst floor in sections Nos. 13-15 by
Heinrich Lauterbach); a bathroom located between the bedrooms, inaccessible from the corridor (section
No. 14 by Heinrich Lauterbach); stairs to the cellar inaccessible from the hall or kitchen (section No. 16 by
Moritz Hadda); the too long corridor in the one-storey corner house by Theo Effenberger (No. 22).498
The functional solutions and simple architecture of the detached houses by Theo Effenberger
(Nos. 26-27), Emil Lange (No. 28) and Paul Hausler (Nos. 29-30) were well received. Only Emil Lange's deci-
sion to erect part of his building on pillars seemed somewhat controversial: it reduced costs but resulted in
two bedrooms having two external walls as well as an external ceiling and floor.
Heinrich Lauterbach's house No. 35, Mortiz Hadda's No. 36 and Ludwig Moshamer's No. 37 were ad-
mired fortheir interesting architecture: "The concise treatment of volumes, restrained and functional forms
satisfy the viewer with their consistency with what is generally regarded as modern."499 The approval was
not unanimous. Ludwig Moshamer's house (No. 37) annoyed another critic: "There is no artistic justification
for taking on a small volume, breaking it up into two sections, rearranging them in relation to one another
and then making one section taller. The house is just too small for formal exercises of this kind."500
Heinrich Lauterbach's detached house (No. 35) was praised as "designed to fit the modern man, noth-
ing extravagant or superfluous [...] This house stimulates, soothes, comforts and lets one get back to work,
refreshed."501 The layouts of the three aforementioned houses had their critics, for example Georg Munter
i n Wasmuths Monatshefte fur Baukunst.502
Gustav Wolf's house (Nos. 32-33), with its very restrained form, was praised as an example of the archi-
tect's expertise 503: "one stands on firm ground here observing how the fleet is rolling on the waves" 504 - this
ironic remark refers to the neighbouring building No. 31 by Scharoun. While some commended Wolf's work
as an exception among the WUWA houses in demonstrating artistic ambitions and admired his handling of
detail, others perceived the building as unimaginative and boring.505
The Housewives' Association was very satisfied with the apartments' furnishings, praising the pre-
sented furniture for its simple forms, quality materials and dimensions appropriate for small rooms.506
496 Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.615.
497 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.445.
498 Ibidem, p. 446,447.
499 Gustav LAMPMANN, op.cit., p. 467. See: Rudolf Delius, op.cit., p.273.
500 0., op.cit., p. 298; Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.448.
501 Guido HARBERS, op.cit., p.287.
502 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.449,450. The layout of Heinrich Lauterbach's house was criticised for the transitive living room (there was no hall), for
placing the functions related to housekeeping and the children's quarters next to the entrance and for the wardrobe situated away from it. Ludwig
Moshamer's house was criticized for the faulty design of the inconveniently curving stairs.
503 0, op.cit., p.298.
504 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., 452
505 Guido HARBERS, op cit., p.288.
506 Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.616.
bathroom, niches with fitted wardrobes and cupboards, and an additional storage room. The objections
concerned: the dining room designed as a connecting room 496; the toilets located in the apartment's cen-
tral section and thus deprived of direct lighting, like in some buildings designed by Dutch architects497 (on
the ground floor in sections Nos. 10-12 by Ludwig Moshamer and on thefirst floor in sections Nos. 13-15 by
Heinrich Lauterbach); a bathroom located between the bedrooms, inaccessible from the corridor (section
No. 14 by Heinrich Lauterbach); stairs to the cellar inaccessible from the hall or kitchen (section No. 16 by
Moritz Hadda); the too long corridor in the one-storey corner house by Theo Effenberger (No. 22).498
The functional solutions and simple architecture of the detached houses by Theo Effenberger
(Nos. 26-27), Emil Lange (No. 28) and Paul Hausler (Nos. 29-30) were well received. Only Emil Lange's deci-
sion to erect part of his building on pillars seemed somewhat controversial: it reduced costs but resulted in
two bedrooms having two external walls as well as an external ceiling and floor.
Heinrich Lauterbach's house No. 35, Mortiz Hadda's No. 36 and Ludwig Moshamer's No. 37 were ad-
mired fortheir interesting architecture: "The concise treatment of volumes, restrained and functional forms
satisfy the viewer with their consistency with what is generally regarded as modern."499 The approval was
not unanimous. Ludwig Moshamer's house (No. 37) annoyed another critic: "There is no artistic justification
for taking on a small volume, breaking it up into two sections, rearranging them in relation to one another
and then making one section taller. The house is just too small for formal exercises of this kind."500
Heinrich Lauterbach's detached house (No. 35) was praised as "designed to fit the modern man, noth-
ing extravagant or superfluous [...] This house stimulates, soothes, comforts and lets one get back to work,
refreshed."501 The layouts of the three aforementioned houses had their critics, for example Georg Munter
i n Wasmuths Monatshefte fur Baukunst.502
Gustav Wolf's house (Nos. 32-33), with its very restrained form, was praised as an example of the archi-
tect's expertise 503: "one stands on firm ground here observing how the fleet is rolling on the waves" 504 - this
ironic remark refers to the neighbouring building No. 31 by Scharoun. While some commended Wolf's work
as an exception among the WUWA houses in demonstrating artistic ambitions and admired his handling of
detail, others perceived the building as unimaginative and boring.505
The Housewives' Association was very satisfied with the apartments' furnishings, praising the pre-
sented furniture for its simple forms, quality materials and dimensions appropriate for small rooms.506
496 Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.615.
497 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.445.
498 Ibidem, p. 446,447.
499 Gustav LAMPMANN, op.cit., p. 467. See: Rudolf Delius, op.cit., p.273.
500 0., op.cit., p. 298; Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.448.
501 Guido HARBERS, op.cit., p.287.
502 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., p.449,450. The layout of Heinrich Lauterbach's house was criticised for the transitive living room (there was no hall), for
placing the functions related to housekeeping and the children's quarters next to the entrance and for the wardrobe situated away from it. Ludwig
Moshamer's house was criticized for the faulty design of the inconveniently curving stairs.
503 0, op.cit., p.298.
504 Georg MUNTER, op.cit., 452
505 Guido HARBERS, op cit., p.288.
506 Eleonore COLDEN-JAENICKE, op.cit., p.616.