During the 1920s, problems in housing started to emerge in Europe. In Britain, people were “housed in the most squalid conditions” without “decent communal or private amenities” (pg241). At the same time, a housing crisis was also emerging in France (pg246). Similarly, in Vienna, a census during 1917 revealed that “three quarters of existing lodging was unhygienic and overcrowded” (pg253). In response to the growing problems across Europe, several architects, in particular Bruno Taut, Ernst May and Le Corbusier, emerged to reform housing and urban planning. These architects not only sought to improve living conditions by synthesizing a mechanized society with nature but also to evoke a social emancipation of the working class through their architecture. However, many of their utopian and idealistic dreams were never realized due to their occasional overly utilitarian and inhumane nature.
The “Horseshoe” housing estate in Berlin, by Bruno Taut, embodies the vision for the emancipation of the working class and the birth of an egalitarian society. Taut “sought to imbue the standardized and repetitive forms of his designs with an aura of dignity and…communal spirit” (pg251). Every apartment unit in the housing complex is identical in size, color and form. Furthermore, due to the axial placement of the units and the uniform window sizes, every apartment was designed to receive equal amounts of natural light and air. The housing complex can also be seen as a unified, singular unit, a motif used by Taut’s contemporaries to “solidify the urban fabric”. (pg245) The Britz housing plan, configured as a singular entity or object, a horseshoe, is also emblematic of a grounded and unified urban community. The imagery, in addition to the parallel oblongs and green space in between, represent a direct rejection of “free standing bourgeois villas” and “unsanitary working class tenements” of the nineteenth century (pg251). Taut’s design of the “Horseshoe” estate attempted to portray egalitarian ideals and create a new architecture for a new social order (pg241).
The numerous Siedlungen in Sttugart, designed by Ernst May in 1925, is paradigmatic of an architectural design that was successful in ameliorating the living environment of the working class through integrating machines and nature. Much attention was not only devoted “to natural setting, the creation of hygienic living spaces, and proximity to the place of work”, but also the usage of industrial mass production techniques to create rational housing prototypes (pg249). Moreover, May’s designs were also concerned with “proportion” and “light”, unlike the many “mietskaserne” in Berlin which often had no exposure to sunlight (Neumann). The Romerstadt Siedlung, built in 1927, uses stucco painted as “white or colored surfaces” which were “enlivened…by the play of shadows from trees and the juxtaposition of lawns and planting” (pg 249). The designs by May reveal his desire to create improvements in dwelling conditions through the harmonious interplay between machine and nature in the Romerstadt Siedlung and in many of his other architectural designs.
However, the “bubble” that encapsulated the utopian dreams of many European architects soon “burst” because their architecture seemed overly utilitarian and inhumane. The “Horseshoe” estate in Berlin, while able to instigate the egalitarian aspirations of its architect, was also viewed as containing “a perpetual danger that reductivism and reputation might degenerate into mere banality” (pg251). The Siedlungen, while able to synthesize industry and nature to improve living conditions, was also sometimes parodied as an “inhuman” and “scientific” invasion of the home mainly due to the “monotonous repetition of standardized modules and constructional elements” (pg249). The flat roof, a feature present in both complexes and across Europe, was most likely implemented as a symbol of modern urbanity. One advantage of the flat roof is that it is simpler in design and implementation, allowing for prefabrication. In addition, it allows the use of the same material as facade, decreasing the overall production cost.(Neumann) As Mies van der Rohe points out, “So as long as we use the same materials, the character of the building will not change…Industrial production of all the parts…will result in greatly reduce building costs.”(pg82) However this feature was susceptible to rain without proper drainage, which led to leakage or even the collapse of the roof. The flaw of the flat roof is ironically demonstrated in Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, which while modern in its form, was not functional in its design as the leaking roof garden resulted in the house being uninhabitable by Mrs Savoye (Neumann). The flat roof is symbolic of how overly utilitarian designs were sometimes a cause of downfall.
While some of the modern housing projects were realized, others such as Ville Contemporaine by Le Corbusier in 1922 were never constructed but still provided insightful examples that revealed what the architects tried to achieve. In this plan, Corbusier envisioned an urban society in which “living was…combined with open space…fresh air through the use of new techniques like steel and concrete”(pg247). His city was an attempt at “harmonizing the forces of industry in the service of human… emancipation.” (pg247) In essence, these goals were parallel to those of Taut and May in that he sought harmony in industry, nature and society. However, in reducing the city to its elements, his designs were overly idealistic and “over simplified” (pg247). If the Ville Contemporaine were built, “it would have mossed a crushing uniformity” (pg248) in a “high-density” (pg247) and very much inhumane living environment.
The works of the architects discussed demonstrate attempts in tackling problems in urban housing and a desire to influence the social and environmental climates of their time. However, their visions were occasionally too quixotic in nature, and as a result, overly utilitarian and sometimes even un-functional. However, despite the varying degrees of success in these realized and unrealized plans, we nonetheless learn how architecture was viewed as a power capable of instigating change. As Le Corbuisier famously said in Towards a New Architecture, “Architecture or Revolution. Revolution can be avoided”.