DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45213#0266
Housing). The idea was to promote economical and functional solutions that might improve the dire
housing situation not only in the city but also throughout Germany's eastern regions.
In order to appreciate the unique character of the WUWA estate, it is necessary to refer to other
experimental estates presented under the Werkbund's auspices. Characteristic of the WUWA proj-
ect was its regional and national character, emphasised by the organisers and commentators. The
exhibition was to attract attention to the Province of Silesia and its capital city in order to show that
Wroclaw was no Vladivostok and Silesia no Siberia.520 This ambition was expressed by Mayor Otto
Wagner in his opening speech. The decision to invite only local architects to participate in the proj-
ect (as supposedly best qualified to deal with the vagaries of the notoriously difficult local climate)
expressed the initiative's regional character. The underlying idea was to present the potential of the
local art community on the national stage. For the first time the exhibition's focus comprised of not
only the living space but also the work space. Model offices for white-collar workers and workshops
for craftsmen and artisans were arranged.
The WUWA experimental estate featured small, medium-sized and large apartments, testing
new materials and construction methods and providing creative solutions in other areas of artistic
and social activity. Detached and row-houses were also included. In terms of diversity of featured
housing types, only the 1927 Weissenhof estate in Stuttgart may be compared to the WUWA estate.
In other Werkbund estates the offer was more limited. The Dammerstock estate in Karlsruhe (1929),
the Eglisee estate in Basel (1930), and the Neubuhl estate in Zurich (1931) featured exclusively apart-
ment blocks and row housing, while the Novy Dum estate in Brno (1928) and the Lainz estate in
Vienna (1932) comprised only of detached and row-houses. The BABA estate in Prague (1932) pre-
sented exclusively row and detached houses.
The WUWA estate was also unique in addressing its housing offer to an exceptionally wide so-
cial spectrum of prospective inhabitants. It featured Existenziminimum housing along with luxury
homes (see: Table 1). The Existenzminimum housing was addressed to low-income families. In this
category, particularly worthy of attention were the exceptionally courageous and controversial vi-
sions of Rading (high-rise "commune"; No. 7) and Scharoun (hostel for singles and newly-wed cou-
ples; No. 31).
Rading's building was a voice in the ongoing debates in Germany, concerning high-risers (Hoch-
hausdiskussion) and the "commune" (Gemeinschaftdiskussion) as possible solutions to the housing
problem. In the following years interest in the high-rise idea waned - for some time. Rading and
Scharoun were probably inspired by the Soviet communal houses and American boarding houses
(apartment houses). Rading's "collective house" was a response to ongoing social changes in Ger-
many, particularly the increasing professional activity of women and the need to supply affordable
tenement apartments. Scharoun's hostel designated for single people and newly-married couples
was an entirely new idea, its continuation limited to the architect's later activity in Berlin.
The WUWA estate featured more types of tenement houses than did its Stuttgart counterpart.
The focus was on functional layouts and interior design. The architects designing apartment blocks
and multi-unit houses (Gustav Wolf, Emil Lange, Adolf Rading, Albert Kempter, and Paul Heim) gen-
erally followed Rfg guidelines defining the recommended sizes of apartments: 45 m2, 57 m2, 70 m2.
Scharoun presented small split-level apartments (27 m2 and 37 m2; based on Rfg guidelines) which
nevertheless seemed spacious and functional.
520 Georg MUNTER, op.cit, p.441.
housing situation not only in the city but also throughout Germany's eastern regions.
In order to appreciate the unique character of the WUWA estate, it is necessary to refer to other
experimental estates presented under the Werkbund's auspices. Characteristic of the WUWA proj-
ect was its regional and national character, emphasised by the organisers and commentators. The
exhibition was to attract attention to the Province of Silesia and its capital city in order to show that
Wroclaw was no Vladivostok and Silesia no Siberia.520 This ambition was expressed by Mayor Otto
Wagner in his opening speech. The decision to invite only local architects to participate in the proj-
ect (as supposedly best qualified to deal with the vagaries of the notoriously difficult local climate)
expressed the initiative's regional character. The underlying idea was to present the potential of the
local art community on the national stage. For the first time the exhibition's focus comprised of not
only the living space but also the work space. Model offices for white-collar workers and workshops
for craftsmen and artisans were arranged.
The WUWA experimental estate featured small, medium-sized and large apartments, testing
new materials and construction methods and providing creative solutions in other areas of artistic
and social activity. Detached and row-houses were also included. In terms of diversity of featured
housing types, only the 1927 Weissenhof estate in Stuttgart may be compared to the WUWA estate.
In other Werkbund estates the offer was more limited. The Dammerstock estate in Karlsruhe (1929),
the Eglisee estate in Basel (1930), and the Neubuhl estate in Zurich (1931) featured exclusively apart-
ment blocks and row housing, while the Novy Dum estate in Brno (1928) and the Lainz estate in
Vienna (1932) comprised only of detached and row-houses. The BABA estate in Prague (1932) pre-
sented exclusively row and detached houses.
The WUWA estate was also unique in addressing its housing offer to an exceptionally wide so-
cial spectrum of prospective inhabitants. It featured Existenziminimum housing along with luxury
homes (see: Table 1). The Existenzminimum housing was addressed to low-income families. In this
category, particularly worthy of attention were the exceptionally courageous and controversial vi-
sions of Rading (high-rise "commune"; No. 7) and Scharoun (hostel for singles and newly-wed cou-
ples; No. 31).
Rading's building was a voice in the ongoing debates in Germany, concerning high-risers (Hoch-
hausdiskussion) and the "commune" (Gemeinschaftdiskussion) as possible solutions to the housing
problem. In the following years interest in the high-rise idea waned - for some time. Rading and
Scharoun were probably inspired by the Soviet communal houses and American boarding houses
(apartment houses). Rading's "collective house" was a response to ongoing social changes in Ger-
many, particularly the increasing professional activity of women and the need to supply affordable
tenement apartments. Scharoun's hostel designated for single people and newly-married couples
was an entirely new idea, its continuation limited to the architect's later activity in Berlin.
The WUWA estate featured more types of tenement houses than did its Stuttgart counterpart.
The focus was on functional layouts and interior design. The architects designing apartment blocks
and multi-unit houses (Gustav Wolf, Emil Lange, Adolf Rading, Albert Kempter, and Paul Heim) gen-
erally followed Rfg guidelines defining the recommended sizes of apartments: 45 m2, 57 m2, 70 m2.
Scharoun presented small split-level apartments (27 m2 and 37 m2; based on Rfg guidelines) which
nevertheless seemed spacious and functional.
520 Georg MUNTER, op.cit, p.441.