A History of Collective Living: Models of Shared Living 9783035618686, 9783035618501

Citation preview

A History of Collective Living

Susanne Schmid

A History of Collective Living Forms of Shared Housing

Edited by Susanne Schmid Dietmar Eberle Margrit Hugentobler Edition Wohnen E T H Wohnforum ETH CASE

Birkhäuser Basel

Foreword

To understand living as a shared experience stands in direct contradiction to the notion of living being the highest form of privacy. This divergence means that, when it comes to housing, there is always the question of where to draw the line between what is private and what is public (or semi-public). Collective living is based on the idea of reducing privacy and placing greater emphasis on the community aspect. Our understanding of law and economics is governed by the precept of privacy. Despite this clarity, there have been many attempts over the past 150 years to redraw the lines between private and public, to redefine them and to foster the social acceptance of publicness. This history, however, is only interesting when viewed as a potential answer to the concept of privacy that has arisen over the past few centuries and which did not exist in earlier societies. The importance placed on privacy reflects the level of economic and commercial progress made in the development of our society. Attempts are forever being made — as documented in detail in this book — to redefine these boundaries, depending on the respective economic situation and how it is specifically reflected in society. Such attempts are driven by a variety of different factors.

Foreword

The relevance of collective living in the minds of a younger generation today is, on the one hand, an expression of a lack of sustainable access to living space on economic grounds and, on the other hand, a longing to understand and redefine oneself in a different way on the basis of experiences. This book takes a close look at the issue of moving spaces from a private setting to a public one. The fact that the legal foundations for this encounter very different laws and regulation in the various countries merely serves to highlight the lack of social clarity when addressing the notion of a community as an area located between the public and the private sphere. This idea of community as its own individuality when distinguishing between what is private and what is public is an interesting one, but it also raises new questions. With this in mind, the renaissance of cooperative thinking plays a key role in managing and organizing these concepts of community. In the countries of Europe today, there are very different legal frameworks for such cooperative thinking. Nevertheless, we believe that this approach is a template of the future for a rapidly growing proportion of the population. Architecturally speaking, the efforts to establish collective living cannot be identified by a specific design or style, instead always making use of architectural forms of expression appro­ priate to the times. The mere existence of shifting spaces and building mass from a private to collective setting is a credible expression of what the architectural projects aim to achieve. Focusing on this clear material principle lends an air of credibility to the individual projects. It was difficult for us to understand why there has been no clear and comprehensible documentation of these many attempts up to now, and it is perhaps a sign of the uncertainty in dealing with the subject, which is regarded as a peripheral phenomenon in society. This book aims to close this gap and to address the topic in both a transparent and comprehensible way. We hope you enjoy reading it. Prof. E T H D I Dietmar Eberle

Table of Contents

10 15 19

Models of Shared Living: Context and Overview Transitions between Public and Private Motives that Drive Shared Living



























Sharing Based on Economic Intentions 26 Eficiency and Rationalization: Sharing Based on Economic Intentions 28 Changing Organizational Structures of Living Kathleen Scanlon 34 The Economics of Shared Housing

41 The Large Housing Complexes of the Utopian Socialists 56 Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses for Urban Nomads 81 Central-Kitchen Houses as a Model of Reform 102 Excursus: Collective Housing

in the Soviet Union

Sharing Based on Political Intentions Progress and Stability: Sharing Based on Political Intentions 114 The Diversity of Collective Living Spaces and Options for Use 112

117

Dr. habil Angelus Eisinger The City and Collective Living: An Attempt at Rapprochement in a Conflicted Relationship

123 144 164

Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings: Visions of Social Reform Community Settlements as Staged Neighborhoods Cooperative Living and the Opening of Living Spaces

187 Excursus: Collective Housing in the German Democratic Republic

Sharing Based on Social Intentions 192 Sufficiency and Participation: Sharing Based on Social Intentions 195 Changing Living Spaces Due to Changing Lifestyles

Prof. Dr. Ingrid Breckner 200 Differentiation Processes in European Housing Markets in the 21 st Century

205 232 272

Housing and Culture Projects as an Expression of Community Community Households and Cluster Apartments with Services Co-Living as Interconnected and Decentralized Housing

289 Excursus: Communal Households and Squatting

294 302 308

Extending Individuality Four Levels of Action: A Perspective

Index Bibliography 318 Biographies 320 Acknowledg­m ents 312

10

Models of Shared Living: Context and Overview “The human act,   in this case the act of dwelling,   determines what a dwelling is.” n. j o h n h a b r a k e n !

Through our experiences with the everyday practice of dwelling within a home, we think we know exactly what dwelling entails. However, this commonplace knowledge is the result of prior social processes that are influenced and controlled by a number of factors. @ Since the advent of industrialization, collective living has come to reference a distinctively different and unique way of life that is outside of the norm, despite the fact that, historically speaking, collective living was the first form of housing. Thus, while shared living is the cul­ tural heritage of how we dwell, our experience with it has been lost during the past few decades — even though our history with this form of living still affects aspects of life as diverse as the distribution of roles between men and women, the definition of a household and how to run it, the organization of work and services, the raising of children, and the ways we spend our leisure time. Collective living creates far more complex ways of living together than does living individually. It can occur through a variety of different housing models and has finely differentiated and graduated qualities, uses, and degrees of public access. Collective spaces can be

11

used individually or together, temporarily or them, and their economic, political, and social permanently. The degrees of privacy and publicparameters. ness shift according to how the spaces and The act of dwelling is taken for granted, yet their uses are designed. Shared living is for peoit is subject to consumption. Everybody has to ple who prefer such types of spatial use and live somewhere; it is a human necessity and a living options, or who prioritize them at a cerbasic need. The requirement is not only physical, tain stage of their life. People who share living arising from our need for a living space and a space have a different way of assessing their roof over our heads, it fulfills psychological needs around ownership and sharing than do and emotional needs and important social funcpeople who live individ­ually. Collective living tions as well. How we live is an expression of gives rise to open and inter­a ctive spaces within lifestyle and attitude and is reflected in our choice which individual and collective needs are of residence, surroundings, type of dwelling, negotiated and provides versatile options for and furnishings. $ The location, the spatial atmo­ taking part in and par­t aking of social and sphere of a dwelling, options concerning its housing policy processes. space and use are often very important criteria If collective living and community have today, reflecting our ideas about particular been a continuum throughout history, then ways of life, at least in cases where choices can a question arises: Why is this topic currently so be made. While housing is a medium that relevant? # The number of discussions in online represents cultural milieu and individual lifeforums, the media, and scientific journals is style, % those functions of dwelling that serve to maintain our existence remain in the foreconsiderable. Current debates center around reground. ^ Sociologists Hartmut Häußermann cent model housing projects, above all in and Walter Siebel define four central characterGerman-speaking nations, in which collective istics of living: the functional significance of living spaces are being designed and used in new and versatile ways. Residential projects with the home, the social unity of housing, the sociopsychological importance of housing, and the innovative spatial allocation programs that encompass far more than the usual common rooms legal and economic parameters of the home. & Collective aspects of living affect each of these as we know them, and that rethink spatial and social cohabitation, are being integrated into four fields of meaning. urban life. Individual and often minimal living The functional significance of homes enspaces are being complemented by options for compasses production, reproduction, and use that can be integrated in many ways. These regeneration, aspects which are reflected in the experimental models of shared housing are functional set-up and use of living spaces. inhabited in different ways and are increasingly Reproduction is generally defined as household coming to the attention of a broader public. tasks such as food procurement, cooking, washAre these forms of shared living space new to the ing, and cleaning, and familial tasks such as care Central European urban context? Do they result 1 Habraken (1961): 5 Terlinden in Döllmann, from an evolving strand of housing history? Supports: An Alternative to Temel (eds.) (2002): And how do their spaces and uses adapt to today’s Mass Housing,, p. 16. Lebenslandschaften, social conditions? These questions form the 2 Nierhaus, Nierhaus (eds.) Zukünftiges Wohnen im foundation of this publication on the history of (2014): Wohnen zeigen, Schnittpunkt von privat Modelle und Akteure des und öffentlich, p. 109. collective living. The aim is to orient contem­ Wohnens in Architektur 6 Schneider, Spellerberg porary communal living models in history and und visueller Kultur, p. 12. (1999): Lebensstile, to discuss and correlate the respective forms 3 ARCH + 232 (07|2018): Wohnbedürfnisse und “An Atlas of Commoning, räumliche Mobilität, p. 23. of sharing, the driving social factors behind Orte des Gemeinschaffens,” 7 Häußermann, Siebel p. 22. (2000): Soziologie 4 Gilg, Schaeppi (2007): des Wohnens, Eine Ein­ Lebensräume: Auf der führung in Wandel Suche nach zeitgemässem und Ausdifferenzierung des Wohnen, p. 11. Wohnens, p. 15.

12

Models of Shared Living: Context and Overview

of family members, childcare, and parenting. Demographically, reproduction also refers to procreation. Reproduction plays a central role in two ways: it fulfills the basic needs required to preserve the vitality and work capacity of household members and it ensures the family’s con­ tinuity. With the advent of industrialization, homes largely lost their importance as sites of production. Additionally, for a number of reasons including the changing roles of women and men, many of the reproductive tasks related to traditional home and family activities are increasingly outsourced from the home and carried out by a diverse array of service facilities and additional infrastructure. Examples include nursing homes, childcare centers, and restaurants. This shifts the primary significance of the home to regeneration. This is still an existential aspect, as every person needs a place to phys­ ically retreat, a defined territory where personal integrity can be maintained. * A home that is a personal refuge becomes a place of regeneration and leisure, while other aspects of reproduction are outsourced to shared spaces or to external infrastructures. The social living unit refers to the relationships between the occupants — for example, whether the relationship is familial or the social living unit is non-familial and part of a smaller or larger network. In central Europe, social living units made up of nuclear families with two parents and a child or children comprise only about a quarter of all households. ( Other household types have long since replaced the historically traditional family. The integrative aspect of housing is highly relevant, since social anchoring, attachment, and belonging to a group are essential components of basic human needs. !) For most people, living in a stable social en­ vironment, whether inside a home, in an apartment complex, or in a neighborhood, is an important means of feeling embedded in society. Opportunities for and unhindered access to social exchange and participation is an important component of a healthy social network, as is

providing assistance to and receiving support from relatives, friends, and acquaintances. Through partaking in and belonging to a residential community, the social unit creates a sense of home that ties into the human need for recognition and appreciation. The socio-psychological definition of living is based upon the protective unit created by a home, fulfilling the need for retreat and security, providing protection from external influences, and forming a contrast to public life. The home is a place of emotionality, intimacy, physicality and thus reproduction, hygiene, and personal care. The boundaries of privacy and intimacy have changed over the decades, adapting as forms of living have changed. Two cen­ turies ago, a threshold of shame and embarrassment about physicality and intimacy separated the home from public space. !! This is still true in terms of physical spatial formulations, because living space has grown significantly as a result of the fourth industrial revolution. Now, digitization and new means of com­ munication are once again blurring the boundaries between living and working. Thanks to the internet, the world and thus the public can be brought straight into the bedroom, so to speak. The insulating nature of the home as a place of intimacy is undergoing major changes, and the socio-psychological significance of habitation must be redefined and renegotiated as time passes. The fourth aspect, the legal and economic parameters of the home, is of major significance, as it is associated with the need for security and control over one’s immediate living situation. In late-capitalist societies, housing is generally designed and produced by various kinds of professional groups of investors, planners, and architects. Ownership, partial ownership, and rent influence legal and economic power over home and living space, combined with degrees of security, control, and creative autonomy to influence the way people live. Home and living space is a product that is appropriated by the occupants

13

and, in turn, regulated by negotiated contract lowing chapters will detail the factors that terms, agreements, and house rules. In this area, made each project unique to its place, time, and transparent processes and legal security ensure social condition. The selected projects are prea stable interplay between supply and demand. sented in chronological order within the nine However, housing availability is often linked housing models, from the advent of industrialto factors that are difficult to influence. For ization to the present day. Although each example, external factors such as interest rates housing model is marked by various economic, and the overall economy, location desirability political, and social goals, the historical cir­ and purchasing power, legal regulations such as cumstances and era it is rooted in raise one intention or motive to the fore. The resulting rent laws, and urban development factors are lexicon on the history of collective living over all components of complex processes that affect the last 150 years should serve as a handbook the housing market in different ways. ! @ Collective living is characterized by these and comprehensive contribution to the understanding of collective living and the housing four basic elements and by specific motives models associated with it. The residential propfor creating this collectivity that society values erties featured in greater detail were selected differently depending on the era. This publi­ cation is structured based upon these economic, for their particular relevance, each one illus­ political, and social intentions. Three models trating an innovative approach to the topic. They of collective living have been assigned to each in- bear witness to the history of residential contention, creating nine models of living that struction, and their pioneering achievements act serve as examples, correspond to the zeitgeist in as models for going forward; their collective which they were created, and are also charac­ living spaces, facilities, and means of formation terized by additional parameters such as legal cir- go far beyond the ordinary and even redefine cumstances, familial traditions and household the concept of community. The projects presented forms, types of work and mobility, and the everare by no means an exhaustive list. Based upon changing cultural shifts that define the respecour historical review, and keeping current develtive epoch. The aim of this history of collective opments in mind, we use the final section of living is neither to adapt historical models the book to outline possible future collective of living to the present time, nor to ensure that housing types and projects and to explore opshared institutions and services continue into tions for further implementing the potential of the future. Rather, it is our hope that more closely collective living in the future. examining the developmental lines of these The focus of this book is on self-determined nine living models will lead to an understanding and long-term collective living in the Central of the motivations behind their emergence and, European context. We address neither temporary thanks to the systematic presentation method forms of housing such as hotels and hostels, used, that the shifting of spaces from private into nor institutionally organized and non-selfthe collective and public spheres can be made determined housing such as clinics and homes, visible. 8 Brändle-Ströh: “Was 11 Häußermann, Siebel In order to present possible developments braucht der Mensch zum (2000): Soziologie des in a uniform manner, the featured projects of Wohnen?” In SozialAktuell, Wohnens, Eine Einführung each individual living model include information S B S (05|1999), p. 17. in Wandel und Ausdifferen­ on their organizational form; resident demo 9 Spellerberg (ed.) (2018): zierung des Wohnens, p. 23. graphic, user groups, and milieu; and operational Neue Wohnformen – gemeinschaftlich und 12 Gilg, Schaeppi (2007): and spatial structures, including the array of genossenschaftlich, Erfolgs­ Lebensräume, Auf der shared spaces and facilities. Additionally, the folfaktoren im Entstehungs­ Suche nach zeitgemässem prozess gemeinschaftlichen Wohnens, p. 2. 10 Zibell: “Wohnen ist mehr.” In Altenstraßer, Hauch, Kepplinger (eds.) (2007): Gender housing – geschlechtergerechtes bauen, wohnen, leben, p. 63.

Wohnen, p. 11.

14

Models of Shared Living: Context and Overview

nor military and religious organizations such as barracks and monasteries. Collective living spaces are understood as being supplemental to private living space. Although private space can be pared down to a basic configuration dedicated to sufficiency, it exists according to the four key features of housing described above and is supplemented by collective living spaces. Residential projects located in urban contexts are the focus, although there have been and still are collective housing projects in rural areas. How­ ever, the demographic developments and spatial, social, and economic interdependencies and interactions of a city form a more versatile universe that feeds and continually causes collective living to evolve. The multi-layered systems of cities provide an ideal context for collective living, and the shared resources of an expansive infrastructure create diverse spaces that can be appropriated and shared. ! # A look back at the history of collective living illustrates the shifting definitions of housing and living over around the last 150 years. Economic and demographic changes to household and family types, the interplay of living and working, and the integration of new user groups into the housing market have, since indus­ trialization, repeatedly influenced col­­l ec­t ive living and caused it to evolve. The resident structures and organizational forms of housing projects are also continually changing. User background, in particular, is strongly connected to the motives behind sharing living space. Beyond this, collective living has been shaped over the decades by context, interaction with place, and the existing legal framework. To a certain degree, cultural norms also regulate ways of living together. Collective living is always also a spatial and social interaction, remaining an interesting and constantly changing phenomenon that is more or less pronounced and varied depending on economic, political, and social conditions and objectives. ! $

13 AR CH + 232 (07|2018): “An Atlas of Commoning, Orte des Gemeinschaffens,” p. 33. 14 Spellerberg (ed.) (2018): Neue Wohnformen – gemeinschaftlich und genos­s enschaftlich, Erfolgs­ faktoren im Entstehungs­ prozess gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, p. 8.

15

Transitions between Public and Private “Private space, a space for the unfolding   of intimacy and individuality,   and space protected from the eyes of others   must be differentiated   from other interior living spaces.” h a rt m u t h äu s s e r m a n n !

The private arises from the public, because creating two poles that, through their tension only by excluding the public from a living and mutual conditionality, form a basic principle environment can the private prevail as a counter- of shared social life. % According to Hans Paul world. With the shifting of production functions Bahrdt, these two social states are what lead to outside of the home and the dissolution of actual urbanity. The more pronounced the inter­ the Whole House, living spaces that had limited action of the two states, the more urban the life in a building, a settlement, or a neighboraccess and were considered private came about. @ hood becomes. ^ Correspondingly, workplace-based wage-labor outside the living quarters and the exclusion of This interaction between public and private has direct consequences for the daily coexisunrelated or distant relatives from the housetence of the residents of collective living spaces. hold created space for intimacy and autonomy Since public-private boundaries must be con­ from society. This evolved into the privacy provided by the home, which in turn caused the 1 Häußermann: “Für sich 3 Hannemann (5 May establishment of thresholds rooted in shame sein.” In Schneider, 2014): “Zum Wandel des and embarrassment, with physicality and emoNerdinger, Wand (2000): Wohnens.” tionality being largely eliminated from the Deutschland, Architektur im 4 Nierhaus, Nierhaus public sphere. # This development also created a 20. Jahrhundert, p. 69. (2014): Wohnen zeigen, 2 On this, Häußermann Modelle und Akteure paradox: if the private arises from the public, and Siebel write that rooms des Wohnens in Architektur then the interior always references the exterior. considered to be private und visueller Kultur, p. 1 6. th Private interior space is seen as the domain of did not appear until the 17 5 Bahrdt (1998): Die century. Before this, moderne Großstadt, Sozio­ the individual, of freedom, and of distance from living spaces were often logische Überlegungen zum societal rules and public outdoor space, yet at accessible to anybody Städtebau, pp. 24, 30. the same time it came about because of the very at any time and were also 6 Ulfert: “Zum Bedeutungspublic it provides distance from. $ Ergo, the shared. See Häußermann, wandel der öffentlichen Siebel (2000): Soziologie Sphäre – Eine Anmerkung public is what creates privacy. By definition, des Wohnens, Eine Ein­ zur Urbanitätstheorie the duality of public and private requires both, führung in Wandel und Aus­ differenzierung des Woh­ nens, p. 53.

von H.   P . Bahrdt.” In Siebel, (ed.) (2004): Die euro­ päische Stadt, p. 122.

16

Transitions between Public and Private

tinually explored and renegotiated according to social developments such as changing lifestyles, household types, modes of work, and mobility, the polarity is constantly in motion. Gradations between public and private are created, and degrees of public access can be decided upon. As the degree of public access within a space increases, the more accessible it becomes. A decrease in the degree of public access, however, results in increased intimacy and higher thresholds to access the space. Accessibility and degrees of publicness can be created by architecture and spatial design as well as social negotiation, resulting in an ongoing filtering effect. But shared spaces, characterized by multiple uses and user overlap, cannot be easily assigned a specific degree of public access. A room that is used by different people can be made extremely private and intimate, or it can be given a more public character. People who share and use housing spaces col­lectively nevertheless also have a desire for privacy, tranquility, and seclusion. As a place for regeneration and retreat, and also as a statement of individual appropriation and self-expression, private space is the territory in which one’s own rules apply. In collective living spaces, these rules are continually renegotiated and social roles reinterpreted. & Collective living spaces fluc­t uate between the two poles and varying degrees of collectivity and intimacy more often than do individual spaces. The interaction and the flowing transitions between the two poles are of great significance. The public character of a room is also determined by the activities within, which influence its nature, says Hanna Arendt in Vita activa. * Depending on whether the activity being carried out is public or private, the space may take on a public or private character. This means that, essentially, the room itself is neutral; it is the activities that take place within a specific room that determine its degree of publicness. The behavior of the users is also highly significant and can be defined using the concept of territoriality. ( Territoriality is the relationship of

an individual or group to a physical space and has the positive connotation of striving to control, personalize, and mark space. !) This type of appropriation, especially of shared living spaces, results in a kind of shaping through order and stability. It turns a neutral space into a defined, personalized, and marked space, leading to regulation and thus to an identity for the space. ! ! This then raises the question of how access can be designed and how thresholds serve as filters. Serving to create a spatial hierarchy between the two polarities of public versus private, so-called intermediate zones are often referred to as semi-public or semi-private, a terminology primarily shaped by Dutch structuralists Herman Hertzberger and Aldo van Eyck. They considered the social aspects of housing to be just as important as the structural ones and introduced the concept of intermediate zones, transitional spaces that mediate between the outside and the inside and are intended to guide the experience of entering a place. ! @ Several decades earlier, Russian-American architect Serge Chermayeff attempted an even more differ­entiated approach to the topic, introducing six domains to clarify the direct relationship of the city to the private sphere: urban-public, urban-semi-public, grouppublic, group-private, family-private, and individual-private. ! # Chermayeff understood these six domains not only spatially, but as a whole social system that includes mobility, infra­ structure, and the sociological aspects of living together. Along with the terminology used, these attempts to classify spaces in terms of their degree of public access demonstrate the topic’s complexity. Franck and Franck propose a system of spatial levels that creates a hierarchy of accessed and accessing rooms through either shielding or connecting. It is always spaces with a greater degree of publicness that access, and rooms with a higher degree of privacy that are accessed. ! $ The entrances and thresholds of the circulation system are understood to function as filters. ! %

17

However, the functions of the rooms, and the ac- into public space, into the larger perimeters and tivities carried out within them, are excluded surrounding areas, urban spaces, and beyond. from this system of accessed and accessing spaces. Public space can now be understood as all In purely spatial terms, then, this approach exterior and interior places that are accessible represents a certain hierarchization of degrees to everyone. These spaces can be used unhindered, of intimacy. However, it does not do justice and are regulated by society. Although the intito the complexity of spatial structures, uses, and macy of such areas is, in principle, low, activities resident populations with regard to collective carried out in such spaces can certainly take housing. In collective living practices today, inti- on a private character, such as having a picnic in macy and openness are in a strong interplay. the park. In contrast to the public space, col­ lective space is defined as the exterior and interior Privacy is part of the collective housing union, areas used by a settlement, housing developand borders must therefore be designed to ment, or residential community. People who be more flexible and permeable. Providing difparticipate in the community in some way gain ferent accesses to shared spaces with various access to these shared spaces and ultimately functions is intended to enable the public to regulate the space through their actions. The engage directly with the private sphere or, convariability of degrees of access is most intense in versely, for the private to interact with the collective spaces. For example, a collectively public. managed guest room becomes a very private space The collective living lifestyle is charac­ terized by open access, and the accessibility and through its dedicated use by a single person. inclusion of all residents. This open accessibility Private spaces, on the other hand, exclude the is different in each housing project and renego­ public by limiting access to just a single person tiated together in an ongoing process, as there is or a few people. Such spaces act as a refuge for a broad spectrum of needs and activities that individuality and intimacy and have the lowest range between the desire to be alone and the dedegree of public access. sire to participate in a community. For example, Ultimately, it is the residents themselves contact is more likely to be experienced as who classify degrees of publicness through their positive when it is voluntary in nature. ! ^ How 7 Krosse (2005): Wohnen 14 Franck, Franck (2008): ever, opportunities to establish contact must ist mehr, pp. 38, 59. Architektonische Qualität, be created spatially. In addition, needs for privacy 8 Arendt (1981): Vita activa p. 30 f. and intimacy vary depending on life phases, oder Vom tätigen Leben, 15 Ibid., p. 34. education levels, age, personality, nationality, p. 59. 16 Gerheuser, Schumann 9 Gerheuser, Schumann (1981): Kommunikatives gender, and prior living experiences. ! & It should (1981): Kommunikatives Wohnen, p. 24. be added that today, privacy can stretch to enWohnen, p. 59. 17 Walecki (2004): Was compass not just an apartment or house, but even 10 Walecki (2004): Was ist zwischen Öffentlichkeit ist zwischen Öffentlichkeit und Privatheit im zeit­ an entire neighborhood or community. We und Privatheit im zeit­ genössischen Wohnungs­ can carry out private activities in a café or on the genössischen Wohnungs­ bau?, p. 9. tram while, conversely, we can be in contact bau?, p. 10. 18 Ring (2015): Urban with the whole world from our desk or bedroom, 11 According to a stateLiving, Strategien für das ment by Christian Schmid zukünftige Wohnen, and then take to the streets to find time alone. ! * at the ETH Wohnforum p. 123. The boundaries between living space in the Workshop on 23 November home and community environment and the pub2016: “Space always has lic realm are becoming more permeable and regulators.” 12 Hertzberger, van flexible. Living space for the purpose of carrying Vlijmen (1995): Das Uner­ out private activities is expanding from private wartete überdacht: Herman Hertzberger, Projekte 1990–1995, p. 15. 13 Chermayeff (1972): Gemeinschaft und Privat­ bereich im neuen Bauen, p. 109 f.

18

Transitions between Public and Private

regulations and activities. Shared housing can contain a great variety of degrees of public access, which in turn leads to a hierarchization of these spaces. This gradation of intimacy creates intermediate zones that are essential to human coexistence and create identity in housing. Collective living involves an ongoing balancing of private and collective interests, private and community use or possession, and individual living culture in public spaces.

19

Motives that Drive Shared Living “Humans are more than   just individual use-maximizers.   Humans are   social beings attuned to cooperation.” e l i n o r o s t r o m !

Community and the way we live are closely linked. However, it was not until the rise of industrialization dissolved centuries-old organizational forms of living and working that col­ lective living was imbued with a new meaning that requires explanation. This contrasts with conventional individual living, which is carried out either alone or within a family, requires no legitimization, and seems to be a logical consequence of social development. Unconventional collective living must be justified; questions are posed about intentions, any value added by this type of living, and whether it was chosen freely or due to a lack of alternatives. Culture influences the reasons people share living space just as much as it influences their desire to live conventionally. Compared to conventional living, however, collective living is often a more con­ scious choice — partly because collective living can usually be understood as a criticism of conventional living. The deliberate decision to live together as a community, and the collective living models that result, can be seen as responses to social change. In the overall history of hous­ ing, then, collective living has played a significant role: providing the opportunity for reflection.

As a recurring phenomenon in the history of housing, collective living has been interpreted differently depending on the era and the varying economic, political, and social conditions at the time. This has resulted in fundamentally different living models, floor plans, and shared rooms and facilities. Collective living models over around the last 150 years have been witnesses to their era, varying widely in genesis, orga­ nization, occupancy, and operational structure. These models reveal a great deal about how each epoch perceived lifestyles, lived together, operated their households, raised children, and excluded or integrated wage labor into their housing situation. This perspective places great important on the social role played by women in each respective era. After all, the genesis of col­ lective living has often been a desire for a less burdensome or a shared form of household management and parenting. The aim is to better involve women in the paid employment system and to improve the interplay of career and family work. These intentions stand in great contrast to the increasing devaluation of housework and the role of the housewife. Collective housing models thus often include a critique of the pre-

20

Motives that Drive Shared Living

vailing conservative images of living and housing and reveal social processes through spatial expression, making developments in lifestyles and household types visible in a built form. Living spaces are shared for a variety of reasons that are influenced by economic, political, and social factors. These three aspects can be defined as the motivations behind sharing living space and greatly influence the various types of collective living. However, depending on the point in time and objective of each collective housing model, the factors must be assessed differently and, in some cases, also overlap. This makes a clear demarcation between the three motivations almost impossible. Each housing project has its own specific goals in addition to the economic, political, and social driving factors and is integrated into an existing context and legal framework. Often, the same or similar housing models are founded for very different reasons. Closer inspection can reveal that the three motivations are weighted quite differently, though a specific motivation usually comes to the fore due to the prevailing zeitgeist, circumstances, and problems of the time. The purpose of this publication is to classify the various collective living projects of the last 150 years into nine housing models according to the weighting of their motivations. Three housing models are attributed to each overlying motivation. This makes it possible to identify and clarify the developmental trajectories of collective living and to create connections between the various housing projects, thus sharpening our understanding of collective ways of living. Collective living models since industrialization are most strongly rooted in economic   motivations. This was seen for the first time in the housing models of the utopian socialists’ Large Housing Complexes starting in the mid-1820s, in the Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses in the 1900 s, and in the Central-Kitchen Houses @ that originated in 1905. In addition to providing adequate housing until the end of

World War I I , the primary economic motive for sharing housing was to relieve the pressures of housework — that is, to reduce the dual burden on working women. This was seen in the centralization and rationalization of housework and the sharing of services such as cleaning and laundering. In this developmental phase, not only kitchens were shared, but other basic facilities as well, such as bathrooms, which had not yet become the standard in working-class homes. Access to shared facilities such as a bathhouse or washing room were, in many places, a great improvement in hygienic conditions. In addition, collective housing was used to create affordable housing for user groups who had not yet been able to establish themselves, especially in Men’s and Women’s Hostels. Socialist and Social Democratic movements in the early 20 th century endowed the political motivations behind collective housing with increasing importance, a trend that continued in a variety of ways into the 1970s. The Garden City and Courtyard Apartment Building housing models flourished across Europe in an early phase, thanks to trade union, cooperative, and municipal developers, alleviating the housing shortage for the working-class people pouring into the cities. The goal was their de-proletarianization and general betterment. Closed, selfsufficient living spaces for each family, supplemented by additional shared infrastructure such as meeting rooms or shops, helped achieve this aim. After the peak of World War I I , the guiding social principle became stability and security, achieved through broad-based political consensus and ensuring the consolidation of the nuclear family as the primary organizational form of living. The diversity and variety of collective housing models then tapered off sharply. There was a rise of Community Settlements, with only sparse collective living spaces, often in­ itiated without resident participation. It was not until the student movement of 1968 (68er-  Bewegung) that the political arena opened up

21

enough for the housing model of Cooperative three different motivations make sharing a funLiving to develop, in search of new forms of damental form of human behavior that governs collective living. relationships of exchange and interaction, % In the 1970s, communication was menand they are based on values such as solidarity, tioned for the first time as a motivation — in justice, and mutual benefit, which in turn optiother words, a social reason for sharing. # A clear mizes personal benefit. The idea of mutual benedesire for community — a social motivation for fit is not new, and it is not something that can be effected alone. Like the forms of collective livsharing living space — thus came to the forefront with the last of the three housing models. In ing carried out in Central Europe long before the 1980s, Housing and Culture Projects sought industrialization, it becomes an indispensable out collective living as a means of expressing basis for living and working together, and thus flexible social relationships, increasing particifor securing one’s livelihood. Cooperatives and pation, and attaining a sense of community. $ what were called corporations, for example, were The Community Households and Cluster Apart- highly formalized legal entities for regulating the joint management of common lands, protected ments that emerged in the 1980s, but only became established in the 2010s, took things a step forests, and other communal goods in the agricultural sector. Through industrialization, the further. This housing model initially sought to break away from the isolation of families. Today processes of privatization and individualization rearranged the way that resources were shared it corresponds to changing households and lifestyles and considers itself to take a sufficiency and managed. When we talk about sharing today, the term approach towards managing living space. Cosharing economies often comes up. However, this Living, one of the newest models of collective living, is not only about seeking community, but contemporary model for sharing or col­lective use it also values sharing over ownership and clearly of resources has few similarities to the previous system of collectively managing common goods. targets Millennials as a user group. Co-Living is often associated with co-working. This housing The focus is more on creating economies through sharing and thus on increasing individual acmodel demonstrates how this youngest gener­ ation of adults can envision entering their own cess to certain goods and services without adding living biography and how working environments significant value to the community. It is a fun­ damentally different culture of sharing. In the could be shaped in the future. Today, desires for belonging, social exchange, and the integra- sharing economy, each person is merely a co-user, in contrast to the community-benefit approach tion of living and working drive the evolution of sharing as partaking, in which a member of a of collective living in many ways. cooperative, for example, is always also a partial No matter what the motivation is, collecowner. While the sharing economy is indeed tive living entails both partaking and partici­ pating. Partaking can include gaining access to 1 Ostrom (2008): Was 4 In a 1984 study, the ecothe housing market and an adequate living mehr wird, wenn wir teilen, nomic benefits of collective space, opportunities to unify work and family, Vom gesellschaftlichen living were valued less and options for participating in, exchanging Wert der Gemeingüter, than the desire for personal with, and belonging to a community. Partici­ p. 12. relationships, rejection 2 Various sources also of the bourgeois way of life, pating means taking action. The simple availabil- use the term kitchenless the dismantling of learned ity of collective spaces alone does not constitute houses. roles of men and women, shared living. Residents must appropriate the 3 Meyer-Ehlers, Haußthe desire for personal development, and the search spaces, negotiate them, and put them to use. The knecht, Rughoff (1973): Kollektive Wohnformen, for support and security Erfahrungen, Vorstellungen, in a group. See Bertels Raumbedürfnisse in Wohn­ (1990): Gemeinschafts­ gemeinschaften, Wohn­ formen in der modernen gruppen und Wohnver­ Stadt, p. 88. bänden, p. 230. 5 Frick, Hauser, Gürtler (2008): Sharity, Die Zukunft des Teilens, p. 6.

22

Motives that Drive Shared Living

about sharing and using resources together instead of owning them individually, it is none­ theless more a “renting economy” than anything else. ^ What is common to both approaches, however, is the creation of easier access to goods and services in order to make better use of certain resources. The motives of independence and selfresponsibility are also significant; at first glance they seem to signify individuality, but they also have a great impact on the community. Most of the nine housing models of recent decades aim to encourage the independence of the residents, whether through self-organized oper­ ational structures or by facilitating household management. Collective living does not mean conforming to predefined structures, but instead creating or invigorating them through active use. Participation in a collective living model is always driven by a need, which, depending on the motivation can be economically, politically, or socially rooted. This self-motivated approach, based upon an inner need, can hardly be applied from the outside. Thus, behind every collective living project lies the active element of a selfdependent decision to choose this specific form of living and lifestyle.

6 According to a presentation by Dominik Georgi at Grenchner Wohntagen 2016.

ic

Int

enti

ons

Based on

m

aring Sh

Ec

o n o

26

Efficiency and Rationalization: Sharing Based on Economic Intentions “The city is, above all, a social phenomenon.   You cannot say anything about a city   unless you examine its social structure.” a rt h u r k o r n !

The first three models of collective living we present — the Large Housing Complexes of the utopian socialists, Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses for urban nomads, and Central-  Kitchen Houses as a model of social reform —  can all be characterized as having pri­m arily economic intentions. This does not mean that the initiators of these shared housing models were not also motivated by political and social factors. However, from industrialization until the Second World War, the primary focus of these collective living models was improving access to affordable and higher-quality dwellings for disadvantaged user groups. Designed and built from 1825 to 1860, the Large Housing Complexes of the utopian social­ ists sought to cushion widespread housing shortages by creating affordable living spaces for the working class. The cramped and unhygienic conditions of tenement housing, often operated by speculators, were to be replaced by collective residential properties that centralized certain functions in order to improve household efficiency and harmonize daily life and work. The construction of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses from 1900 to

27

1940 aimed to integrate the new user category of mous functioning; essential basic facilities were single working men and women into the hous­ lacking, spaces were small, and specific funcing market, making living space affordable and tions of living were shifted out of the dwellings. accessible by creating rational and functional However, the amenities provided in this serviceliving units that could be easily maintained. oriented design facilitated the tasks of everyday Buildings in this collective living model often had life. A central characteristic of this living model a doorman, serviced lobby, and central hall for was its service-oriented design. resident services. These living models were designed and imCentral-Kitchen Houses spread throughout plemented from the top down. Developers central European cities at around the same worked together with architects to decide how time. This system of collective living, too, was and which living spaces would be shared and motivated by improving household efficiency. serviced. The Large Housing Complexes of the Typically, Central-Kitchen Houses had a direct utopian socialists were characterized by a provifood elevator connecting the main kitchen and dent and paternalistic ideology and organizaeach individual, kitchenless apartment. In this tional form. The floor plans of Men’s and Women’s model it was the educated middle classes and Hostels and Boarding Houses were heavily well-educated working married women who influenced by the architectural avant-garde and benefitted. Their loads were lightened by central- the image of the modern human at the time. ized housework and childcare, helping them A liberal and social democratic women’s movecreate a better balance of paid employment with ment influenced the design of individual home and family work. living areas and the facilities and operation of Economically motivated living models were complementary common spaces within Centralcharacterized by service-oriented designs that Kitchen Houses. Collective living spaces were transferred certain functions out of the apartment founded not on the concept of living together, but in order to size and equip private spaces more on the desire to improve living conditions and efficiently. Many of the collectivized aspects of daily life for the inhabitants. housework, such as shopping for groceries, preparing meals, and cooking, were carried out 1 Quoted from the minutes by employees in the main kitchen. Other shared of the Extraordinary spaces in this living model were also set up to Meeting of the International facilitate tasks; in addition to the central kitchen, Congress on New Building there were rooms for doing laundry, ironing, in Berlin (4–5 June 1931), unpublished typescript, in drying clothes, and storing cleaning supplies. Fezer, Hiller, Nehmer, Additional shared living spaces included a comOswalt (2015): Kollektiv für munal bathroom, hall kitchen (one for each sozialistisches Bauen, Proletarische Bauausstel­ floor), cafeteria, and dining room. These spaces lung, p. 1 61. compensated for the sometimes quite basic facilities within individual dwelling units. Kept to a minimum, private living areas were ex­ panded and complemented by common recreation rooms, libraries and reading rooms, social rooms, and restaurants. Some living models also offered educational facilities, childcare, and fitness areas. As a result, most private dwelling units were configured in a way that precluded autono-

28

Changing Organizational Structures of Living “Everything social comes from wanting togetherness.   Community and society are   created from the power of our souls.” l ot h a r b e rt e l s !

Living in a shared house or settlement involves much more than simply engaging in a collective everyday life. The formal and informal organizational structures of living reflect the interconnections and relationships between people, which can also take on a spatial form. Each model of living together results in a certain spatial formation that reveals the way of living. @ Housing typologies are generally classified from the point of view of urban planning, architecture, interior design, and construction. If the orga­nizational structures of housing and the processes related to living are included, this perspective expands to include the sociological. # The collective’s organizational structures and spatial design create a social unity that is fun­ damentally influenced by social values and norms. In pre-modern times, collective living was the predominant organizational structure, and housing, (home) economics, and work or production created a local unit. Collective housing and living together in a loose association of relatives and non-relatives was the rule rather than the exception. Technological processes and the related economic transformation of industrialization and post-industrialization led

29

to processes of political and social development. with greater clarity. Relaxation, sleeping, and eatThis was accompanied by a steady evolution ing no longer took place in the same living of organizational housing structures and the asso- areas, and the overall degree of collectivity was ciated shifting spatial designs and available lower than in the Whole House. In terms of shared living spaces. This means that, starting social living structures, the Bourgeois House is with the industrial revolution, the history of considered a pioneer of and model for the nuclear collective living has been in a state of permanent family, which was established in the wake of change. Depending on the era, the functions the industrial revolution. and forms of collective living are interpreted in Another significant influence was the coldifferent ways, leading to corresponding spatial lective living and working model in monas­ designs and uses that are reflected in how private teries — in this case referring to institutions housing either men or women — and beguinages. and public living spaces are distinguished. The collective living spaces and floor plans are there- Since antiquity, men and women had lived in sequestered orders characterized by religion and fore always witnesses to each era’s respective seclusion. Monasteries were long regarded as interpretation of collective living. The term the Whole House refers to the work- places of education, culture, and science and were marked by a strictly ordered daily life. The ing and living group that predominantly char­ acterized housing in the agricultural, trade, and monastic organizational structure inspired a different form of settlement, which later, postcommercial sectors prior to industrialization. The Whole House was a self-sufficient unit that industrialization, often served as a model for colproduced, lived, and carried out household tasks lective modes of living. ( Unlike monasteries, beguinages were reserved exclusively for the together. $ The functions of work, relaxation, sleep, food preparation, and reproduction were female sex. Life as a beguine enabled women to concentrated under one roof in a union of husbypass their socially imposed role and lead a band and wife, children, relatives spanning sev- self-determined life as part of a community, witheral generations, employees, and servants. out having to take a lifelong vow or renounce Livelihood and housing were closely connected any ownership. Originally in the Netherlands and according to the prin­c iple: all who work together Belgium, and later throughout Central Europe, live together. % The differentiations between 6 Häußermann: “Für sich 1 Bertels (1990): Gemein­ relatives and unrelated household members were sein.” In Schneider, schaftsformen in der fluid. A large household comprised up to 50 Nerdinger, Wand (2000): modernen Stadt, p. 22. people, with 20 to 25 people in a medium-sized Deutschland, Architektur im 2 Elias (1969): Die höfische household and 8 to 10 in a small one. ^ Without 20. Jahrhundert, p. 68. Gesellschaft, p. 70 f. 7 Ackerknecht (1972): 3 ARCH + 232 (07|2018): a government safety net for illness, old age, “Wohnerfahrungen,” p.  92. Kommune und Grossfamilie, or other social and economic emergencies, the 4 The term Whole House Dokumente – Programme – Whole House was the only arrangement that (das Ganze Haus) was Probleme, p. 19. introduced by Otto Brunner 8 Petsch (1989): Eigenheim secured livelihoods and pro­v ided reliable assisand encompasses the und gute Stube, Zur Ge­ tance and protection. & urban contexts of trade and schichte des bürgerlichen The development of private control of land crafts as well as the rural Wohnens, p. 11. in the late 18th century was widely regarded as context of agriculture. See 9 In Archithese (8|1973): Häußermann, Siebel “Anfänge des sozialen a precondition for the Bourgeois House. * In con(2000): Soziologie des Wohnungsbaus,” p. 2. trast to the Whole House, unrelated relatives, Wohnens, Eine Einführung 10 Sieck (2014): Das servants, and employees were housed separately. in Wandel und Ausdiffe­ Wiederaufleben der The spatial boundaries between related and renzierung des Wohnens, Beginenbewegung, p. 23; p. 22 f; see also Petsch Altenstraßer, Hauch, unrelated household members were now drawn (1989): Eigenheim und gute Stube, Zur Geschichte des bürgerlichen Wohnens, p. 25 ff. 5 Siebel (2006): “Zukunft des Wohnens.” In ARCH + 176/177 (05|2006), p. 45.

Kepplinger (eds.) (2007): gender housing – ge­ schlechtergerechtes bauen, wohnen, leben, p. 64.

30

Changing Organizational Structures of Living

Beguinage 

Monastery  

Collective working and living in a house group with multiple generations, distant relatives, servants, and employees

Collective working and living in a family group with multiple generations; servants and employees are separated

Collective working and living in a women’s group; renouncement of family; no waiver of ownership

Collective working and living in a women’s or men’s group; renouncement of family and ownership

Nuclear Family 

Bed-renters, Lodgers 

Additional Infrastructure 

Living in a traditional nuclear family

Living in another’s home in families, due to housing shortages and lack of supply

Additional infrastructure by dissolving generational living; non-family-based living with group-specific users such as young, old, or single

Single Family 

Multi-family 

Non-family 

Living in a family, couples with or without children; single-parent households

Collective living in a family group with independent family units

Living in a non-familybased multi-person household; one-person households

Post-industrial  (outsourcing of work = radical privatization)

Bourgeois House 

By dissolving the nuclear family

Whole House 

Pre-industrial   (working and living communities)

Social Organizational Structures   of Housing

31

women of different standing joined together to an immense housing shortage, at times affectestablish beguinages, mostly in cities. ! ) The ing around half of the European urban popu­ beguines owned, bought, or rented townhouses, lation. !# It was not possible to provide adequate in which they maintained private sleeping housing to the working-class population rushquarters but shared kitchens, living and dining ing into the cities, nor did the liberalization of the rooms, and prayer and work rooms. This medieval economic system improve the situation of wage economic and collective living form originated earners. Instead, property and income inequities in the 13t h century, not as a political movement for increased, often leading to inhumane living emancipation, but rather as a community of and housing conditions. The conse­q uences were solidarity among women as they established a precarious. In tenement blocks, several families religious and economic way of life that reached would share an apartment, with an entire family across all classes. !! In many ways, the Beguines living in a single room. !$ Bed-renters and night achieved an impressive diversity in their way of lodgers were taken in to supplement the houselife, with social activities and artisanal crafts hold budget, renting a bed that was shared with playing an important role in late medieval cities. other people, all of whom would sleep in shifts. With the advent of mechanical production, Boarders, who were shift workers as well, were the gradual introduction of trade freedom, also given food in private households. From agrarian reforms, and new servant ordinances the advent of industrialization to the turn of the that started in the second half of the 19 th cen­ century, around a quarter of households housed tury, the upheaval of the industrial revolution strangers in their homes. !% As neither privacy nor also changed the spatial and social organiza­ family life was possible under such conditions, tional structures of living. Along with the transocial neglect began to set in. A multitude of sition from a feudal-agrarian-manual society illegitimate children led to fragmented families. to a bourgeois-capitalist class-based society came New legislative regulations — for example, the dismissal of agricultural workers, journeymaking full-time employment a precondition for men, maids, and servants from the Whole House. marriage — contributed to legal insecurity withFrom this point on, these individuals were dein families. In many workplaces, the birth of pendent on wage labor and thus left to their own an illegitimate child was grounds for dismissal. !^ devices. !@ New industrial production sites were 11 Unger (2005): Die Begi­ 15 Häußermann, Siebel built in cities and the surrounding areas, leading nen, Eine Geschichte (2000): Soziologie des to urban migration and the proletarianization von Aufbruch und Unter­ Wohnens, Eine Einführung of wageworkers. For the first time, working and drückung der Frauen, in Wandel und Ausdifferen­ pp. 9, 57. zierung des Wohnens, living were now radically separated, funda­ 12 Petsch (1989): Eigen­ p. 73. mentally changing the ways that people lived and heim und gute Stube, Zur 16 Petsch (1989): Eigen­ worked. The outsourcing of work and thus the Geschichte des bürger­ heim und gute Stube, exclusion of the public from the living environ- lichen Wohnens, p. 18. Zur Geschichte des bürger­ 13 Häußermann, Siebel lichen Wohnens, p. 19. ment resulted in privacy within the dwelling (2000): Soziologie des In the late 19 t h century, space. The home was now a place of rest, reprothese deplorable circumsWohnens, Eine Einführung duction, education, and consumption, with tances led to a widespread in Wandel und Ausdifferen­ socio-political debate zierung des Wohnens, work in the home restricted to housework. Colon the topic of housing. pp. 66, 81. lective living became a phenomenon on the 14 According to Petsch, margins. the percentage of oneThe privatization of living space that result- room apartments in German cities could have been as ed from the separation of work and housing — high as 80 percent. Inhabiand the associated rapid urbanization — led to tants slept, cooked, and worked in that single room, which often even included a loom or sewing machine for working at home. See Petsch (1989): Eigen­ heim und gute Stube, Zur Geschichte des bürger­ lichen Wohnens, p. 78.

32

Changing Organizational Structures of Living

High housing density, with people even living in back-alley huts and cellars, resulted in untenable hygienic conditions that fostered epidemics, disease, and child mortality. Goals included stabilizing the newly formed urban societies, integrating the new arrivals, and increasing the quality of residential buildings. ! & New forms of housing and additional infrastructure emerged from this context, intended to support independent living within a community of specific users, such as single women and men, young immigrants, urban nomads, or the elderly. In Men’s and Women’s Hostels, it was socially acceptable to live without a family. Versatile collective living spaces complemented the minimal areas allotted for private dwelling. In parallel, the nuclear family, often known as the small family, evolved from the bourgeois ideal. It implied a closed-off unit consisting of two parents, mother and father, and their biological children. ! * With the relocation of wage labor and other gainful employment away from the living area, the home lost some of its functional significance. ! ( This created the separation of home and work, of leisure and working time, that seems so natural for us today. @ ) Increasing urbanization also changed ways of life; now, the norm was to rent an apartment in a building. Female domestic activities in the home remained, now defined as non-work or non-wage work. In the course of developing and differentiating social tasks, further functions were outsourced to supplementary facilities, such as childcare or the care of sick and elderly people. Fewer and fewer production and self-sufficiency activities took place in the home, with homes becoming more private and outsourced functions becoming more social and public. Those functions that remained in the apartment were now assigned specific rooms: kitchen, living room, parents’ bedroom and children’s bedroom, and adjoining rooms. Corridors and hallways led to the dif­ ferent rooms, forming an intermediate zone and protecting against unexpected entry. @ ! Thus, starting in the second half of the 19t h

century, centuries-old residential communities were dissolved and reformed. The spreading ideal of the nuclear family as the primary social structure would also help control the working class and stabilize the indecent conditions of urban slums. As housing construction progressed, de­ proletarianization slowly set in. Apartments were precisely tailored to meet the needs of the nuclear family, away from the public eye. Working men were to spend their leisure time together with the family, in private. @@ Women, responsible for domestic tasks and raising the children, were thus increasingly isolated from society by the enforced intimacy of the home. @ # As an organizational structure, nuclear families are today still firmly anchored in society. But there are signs of dissolution, and the percentage of nuclear families in total households has fallen sharply in recent decades. Demographic changes, evolving values, and technological advancements and related economic and social developments have led to a strong dynami­zation of our living and working worlds, something increasingly seen in the organization of our homes. This process has been accelerating since the late 1960s. Residential communities were founded in which multi-family or non-family living was tested. The motivations for this were also socio-political and socio-revolutionary, and other housing models such as Cooperative Living or Community Households soon followed. @^ Traditional gender roles were questioned, breaking the isolation of the nuclear family by increasing shared living opportunities, col­ lective childcare, and housework. This type of co­ habi­tation has often been associated with the pre-industrial organizational unit of the Whole House, although it lacked the key factor of shared economies. @% Outsourced living functions were not brought back into the private living area, but instead supplemented by shared spaces and the services offered. Often disregarded as an alternative movement and for a long time minimally institu­ tionalized, collective living continued to be a

33

marginal phenomenon. After some delay, yet dynamized by changing household forms and sizes and evolving ways of living and working, a new understanding of the social and spatial structures of housing has emerged in recent decades. In addition to new forms of living, such as Community Households, Cluster Apartments, and Co-Living, a variety of other housing types including multi-generational living are beginning to emerge in which community, living environment, and neighborhood participation are given a central role. Nuclear families are increasingly being replaced by single families as intra-family housing unions, or by multi-family housing associations with several independent family units. Non-family living has also long since been a standard, reflected in the ever-increasing number of single-person households. In addition, more and more new forms of housing for postfamily living are being sought as the family phase of life becomes shorter and life spans grow longer. Considering this new diversity in today’s organizational structures, it seems reasonable to assume that the proportional minimization of the nuclear family will lead to the establishment and evolution of more social organizational units in the near future.

17 Häußermann, Siebel 24 Ibid., p. 327. (2000): Soziologie des 25 Bertels (1990): Gemein­ Wohnens, Eine Einführung schaftsformen in der in Wandel und Ausdif­ modernen Stadt, pp. 84, 95. ferenzierung des Wohnens, 26 In Switzerland, for p. 81 f. example, the ban on concubinage was not fully 18 Ibid., p. 132 ff. repealed until 1995. See 19 Petsch (1989): Eigen­ heim und gute Stube, also Ferber (9 Dec. 2016): Zur Geschichte des bürger­ “Drum prüfe, auch wer lichen Wohnens, p. 26. sich nicht bindet,” in N ZZ . 20 Siebel (2006): “Zukunft des Wohnens.” In A R C H + 176/177 (05|2006) p. 45. 21 Petsch (1989): Eigen­ heim und gute Stube, Zur Geschichte des bürgerli­ chen Wohnens, p. 28. 22 Ibid., p. 80. 23 Häußermann, Siebel (2000): Soziologie des Wohnens, Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdif­ ferenzierung des Wohnens, p. 39.

34

G u e s t E s s ay

The Economics of Shared Housing

k at h l e e n s c a n l o n, London School of Economics   and Political Science L S E

Shared living differs from conventional housing in the ways that space within and around the home is allocated and used. Many self-organized intentional communities go further, challenging social norms around privacy, the ownership of goods, and the division between private and community tasks. Day-today life in shared housing may differ in small and large ways from routines in conventional housing. Not only are spaces shared, but homemaking functions such as food preparation, childcare, and cleaning may be undertaken communally. This seems a radical departure — but of course all multiunit housing involves sharing certain spaces and tasks. Conventional apartment blocks have shared lobbies, lifts, corridors, and gardens; some functions (gardening, cleaning, and maintenance of common areas) may be performed centrally rather than by individual households. The differences associated with “shared living” concern the degree of sharing, the nature of what is shared, and the way the shared facilities are managed — but not the fact of sharing itself. The key question from an economic point of view is not how the communal spaces or facilities are used, but how

35

they are owned and controlled. Are residents active economic agents, or are they consumers of services provided by others? There are (at least) two ways of thinking about the eco­ nomics of shared living. First, we can consider the incentives affecting the main actors themselves — that is, residents and suppliers of shared housing (if indeed the two are different; the examples in this book run the gamut, from schemes where residents exercise control over every decision to those where they are simply temporary customers). Here we are interested in prices and how the nature of sharing affects them, and in the business models of shared living. Second, we can look at the economic effects of shared housing on its immediate neighbors and on the wider community and society. These wider benefits, known as externalities, are not reflected in the transaction prices or rents that residents pay. The position of different forms of shared housing in the housing market, and the corresponding incentive structures, are shaped in important ways by the institutional and cultural contexts of the countries and cities where the housing is located. These nuances are not explored in the following discussion, which provides a general overview. Residents

Compared to conventional housing, shared living can lower costs for individual households. Residents with access to common washing machines or gardening tools, for example, don’t have to buy their own. The effect is not limited to costs strictly related to the home; the same holds for the communal cars that are available in some shared housing. For young families, joint childcare is one of the biggest potential benefits of shared living. (This is not a new observation: in 1935, English philosopher Bertrand Russell argued for the construction of flats with “a communal kitchen to relieve them of the care of meals, and a nursery school to take charge of the children during office hours.” Such a system,

36

G u e s t E s s ay

The Economics of Shared Housing

he said, would benefit the mothers, who would then be able to undertake “professional work.” ! ) For older people, sharing accommodation can reduce loneliness and stimulate mental and physical activity. These important social and health benefits have an economic value. In all types of shared living there are communal costs that must be divided amongst the residents. These may have to do with management (see below), but also with utilities, supplies, etc. The more shared facilities are provided, the greater the cost — a cost which at the end of the day is normally borne by the resi­ dents. Traditional housing providers employ standard methods for apportioning these costs among residents; they may be di­ vided equally amongst all units, or split on the basis of relative floor areas, or charged according to usage. In contrast, little is known about the internal business practices of non-commercial shared-living communities, which have received less scholarly attention than the social, environmental, or design aspects. It is clear, however, that there is a huge range of models, reflecting the specific circumstances (and likely personalities) in each community. While many collective housing schemes explicitly aim to provide affordable housing, shared living is not necessarily cheaper for residents than conventional housing. The net result depends on the physical characteristics of the scheme, the nature of the communal spaces and facilities, and the management arrangements. Management (sometimes = residents)

The more shared spaces and facilities are provided, the more management and organization is required, in terms of time and/or money. In profit-making schemes, the cost of providing and managing the shared facilities is reflected in the rents. Commercial Co-Living developments, for example, are run by un­

37

abashedly profit-seeking operators. Their business model of shared facilities combined with small individual units may appeal to millennials attracted by the concept of “sharing”, but it is actually closely akin to the hotel industry model. Management is entirely in the hands of the operator: residents may enjoy preparing meals with fellow tenants in communal kitchens or sharing a glass of wine on the roof terrace, but they have no responsibility for building operations (an arrangement that probably suits most of them very well). Here the provision of shared facilities does not lead to low housing costs; on the contrary, the tiny individual units command very high rents per square meter, enabling developers and operators to maximize returns in areas of high land values. In Co-Living schemes the relationship between resident and management is a purely commercial one. In most self-organized communities, by contrast, residents are not transient “guests” but rather the principals who collectively control the communal space. (This status is not necessarily linked to property ownership; similar levels of control can be exercised by renters, depending on the structure of the lease.) The work of Nobel lau­ reate Elinor Ostrom is relevant to this kind of collective housing. She showed how “common pool resources” (in this case the common elements of shared housing) can be managed by those using it, without the need for regulation or government intervention. Ostrom demonstrated that small groups of individuals can together devise institutional structures and ways of working that fairly allocate responsibility for, and use of, a joint resource. Her description of the challenges of collective action resonates with many shared living organizations: “All efforts to organize collective action, whether by an external ruler, an entrepreneur, or a set of principals who wish to gain collective benefits, must ad1 Russell (1935): “The dress a common set of problems. Those have Architecture of Social Design”, in In Praise of Idleness: And Other Essays.

38

G u e s t E s s ay

The Economics of Shared Housing

to do with coping with free-riding, solving commitment problems, arranging for the supply of new institutions, and monitoring individual compliance with sets of rules.” @ The internal management arrangements of cohousing groups are examples of how this works in practice: the residents are the management, together organizing and agreeing upon systems to maintain the common elements of their homes. Residents share the range of duties, from scrubbing the front steps to turning the compost to handling the bookkeeping, and in so doing must address all the problems that Ostrom identified: freeriding, different levels of commitment, organizational challenges, and monitoring. Developing shared housing

The preceding sections look at the economics of shared housing that is already occupied, but some of the most interesting economic questions center around the development of new shared housing. Many varieties of shared living, especially intentional communities such as cohousing, may seem to offer a communitarian alternative to the norms and financial logic of market housing, and (prospective) residents may be attracted to them precisely for this reason. In schemes that are truly collaborative from the beginning, residents themselves often shoulder the responsibilities for designing and building their homes. This gives them full control over all elements of the process, but it also means that they become developers. They must find and acquire a site (perhaps needing to outbid for-profit builders), employ contractors (or build the homes themselves), purchase construction materials, etc. —  and, crucially, finance the process and bear the considerable risks inherent in residential development .# Ironically, then, households involved in devel­oping collaborative housing may be much more exposed to the vagaries of the market than their counterparts living in conventional homes.

39

E x t e r n a l i t i e s : b e n e f i t s t o t h e c o mm u n i t y a n d n e i g h b o r h o o d

Advocates of shared living models like cohousing claim that they benefit not only residents themselves but also their wider communities, in several ways. For example, older people living in collaborative housing may enjoy more agency, social interaction, and physical activity, keeping them healthier for longer. In addition to the obvious benefits for residents themselves, improvements in their wellbeing could in the longer term reduce public expenditure on health and social care. At the other end of the age scale, Co-Living schemes bring a youthful clientele that can balance neighborhood demographics and boost demand for local businesses and services. Going further, it could be argued that some types of shared living attract a distinctive cohort of active, socially engaged, community-minded people, who might act as catalysts for neigh­ borhood networks and activities — another form of positive externality. (There are those who dissent: critics of some shared living developments say they are essentially gated communities for affluent people who have only limited interactions with their neighbors.) Shared housing can benefit local communities by providing meeting spaces, gardens, or other facilities for neighborhood use; more generally, such schemes serve as testbeds for good design and innovative sustainable housing models that could be more widely adopted. Many governments are convinced that shared living does indeed generate broader benefits and therefore deserves public support. This support takes different forms in different countries and cities, including financial subsidy, access to cheap or even free land, and specialist advice for aspiring 2 Ostrom (1990): Gov­e rning the Commons, p. 27. sharers. 3 Scanlon, Fernandez External benefits are widely recognized Arrigoitia (2015): “Development of New Cohousing: to exist but have yet to be rigorously evaluated Lessons from a London Scheme for the Over-50s.” In Urban Research and Practice 8:1, pp. 106–121.

40

G u e s t E s s ay

The Economics of Shared Housing

or measured; there is an urgent need for proper research in this area. Interestingly, there is almost no mention in the literature of any negative externalities of shared living. If there are indeed significant positive externalities and few/no negative ones, our societies would benefit from having significantly more opportunities for shared living. References — —Ostrom, (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [pagi­ nation from Canto Classics edition 2015]. — —Russell, (1935). “The Architecture of Social Design,” in In Praise of Idleness: And Other Essays. London and New York: Routledge Classics. — —Scanlon, and Fernandez Arrigoitia, (2015). “Development of New Cohousing: Lessons from a London Scheme for the Over-50s,” in Urban Research and Practice 8:1, pp. 106–121.

41

The Large Housing Complexes of the Utopian Socialists “On its own admission, therefore,   the bourgeois solution of the housing question has come to grief. (…)   The housing question can only be solved   when society has been sufficiently transformed.” f r i e d r i c h e n g e l s !

The first phase of collective living was established in the context of the urbanization and changing social structures that resulted from the Industrial Revolution. The utopian socialists sought new answers to address the fundamental changes occurring at work, home, and in the family, aiming to dissolve the institution of the Whole House as a self-sufficient unit. The Large Housing Complexes they designed in response to a changing society were strongly uto­ pian in philosophy. Forerunners of the socialist ideas of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, the utopian socialists authored various works prior to the European revolutions of 1848–1849, demanding, among other things, greater justice and common land ownership. The 1808 pub­ lication of Charles Fourier’s Théorie des quatre mouvements and, five years later, Robert Owen’s A New View of Society made exciting contributions to the concept of the ideal state, particularly in France and Great Britain. Sketches, drafts, and even actually built Large Housing Complexes made collective housing models a focus of discussion, creating influences that are still noticeable in the ways we live today.

42

The Large Housing Complexes of the Utopian Socialists

1 Engels (1872, English In the early 19 th century, the transition from feudal-agrarian-manual divisions to a bourgeois- translation 1995): The Housing Question, p. 9. capitalist class-based society led to a re­arrange­ 2 After the fall of Napoleon, ment of nations and the introduction of constiEurope was reconfigured at the Vienna Congress of tutional principles and fundamental citizen 1815, with numerous rights. @ These were years of reform and res­t ora­ national borders being retion. People wanted to free themselves from drawn. Working-class uprisings in several cities, the living conditions of the past, wanted to be such as Paris, during part of the social development and newfound the European revolutions of prosperity of the first industrial revolution. A 1848–1849 resulted in the strong flow of urban migration began, with pri- introduction of more fundamarily workers and a new bourgeois class flocking mental rights. See also Petsch (1989): Eigenheim in to join the old bourgeoisie in the cities. This und gute Stube, Zur Ge­ new arrangement shifted the social structure; # for schichte des bürgerlichen example, by the mid-19th century the majority Wohnens, p. 18. 3 Bahrdt (1998): Die mo­ of England’s population was now living in cities. $ derne Großstadt, Sozio­ The rapid growth of the urban population led logische Überlegungen zum to a massive demand for housing, which property Städtebau, p. 132. 4 Bortis (1991): Die owners were entirely unable to meet. % Property owners and developers turned the ongoing hous- englische Vorherrschaft um 1850, p. 4. ing shortages to their advantage, to the sig­ 5 Petsch (1989): Eigenheim nificant detriment of the working class. Workers und gute Stube, Zur Geschichte des bürgerlichen often had no choice but to live in overcrowded Wohnens, p. 65. and unhygienic tenement buildings. It quickly 6 Barbey (1984): Wohnhaft, became clear that not all levels of society were Essay über die innere Geschichte der Massen­ benefitting from the new prosperity. ^ wohnung, Sozialgeschichte, The aspiring bourgeois and urban classes Wohnungsgeschichte, demanded not only more influence in this newly p. 23. forming modern society, but also a greater 7 Winfried: “Sich versamfreedom to assemble and, with it, the right to free meln.” In Schneider, speech. & The trade union movement had begun. Nerdinger, Wand (2000): Deutschland, Architektur im Socialists throughout Europe became stronger; 20. Jahrhundert, p. 265. Europe’s first housing cooperatives were established in the Netherlands. The residential projects of the utopian socialists developed from this context, not only as an alternative to life in overcrowded tenements, but also as a represention of a newly conceived social order. These residential projects and designs were all strongly ideo­ logical, seeking a new social order with shifted political and economic conditions. The Large Housing Complexes penetrated deeply into state, societal, and household structures of that time and were paternalistic, providential, and aimed largely at providing for the working class. They

François Marie Charles Fourier (1772–1837), French social utopian. © ullstein bild — Granger, New York Robert Owen (1771–1858), Scottish entrepreneur and utopian socialist. © ullstein bild — Granger, New York

43

One of Robert Owen’s textile factories with work rules promi­ nently displayed on the wall. © ullstein bild — Granger, New York Title page of Robert Owen’s work. © Robert Owen, A New View   of Society, 1813

Tableau showing the flow of social relations according to Charles Fourier. © Charles Fouriers, Théorie des   quatre mouvements, 1808

44

The Large Housing Complexes of the Utopian Socialists

were meant not only to provide an alternative to the cramped, overcrowded, and unhygienic buildings that isolated the household from the workplace but also to create a widespread architectural model filled with greenspaces, diverse complementary uses, and collective infrastructure. * Work was integrated as an aspect of col­ lective living, with great emphasis on the education of the working class and their children. Living, working, education, and raising children were thus once again a unity, similar to the system of the Whole House, but embedded in a social structure much larger than the family network. The changing political climate starting in the 1860s led to the heavy suppression of European socialist and communist aspirations, with the phase of Large Housing Complexes coming to an end before the housing type and lifestyle could begin to spread. The sense of social and political optimism was further hindered by the 1878 Anti-Socialist Laws, which dramatically curtailed burgeoning social-democratic ideas. ( The utopian socialists strove to counteract the privatization of the family by dismantling the in­ stitution of the Whole House, often demanding a high degree of family publicness in built and designed Large Housing Complexes. However, these theoretical and ideological precepts were not necessarily favored by the working class at the time. ! ) While welcoming the long-term goals of a new social order and socialist ideas, the working class urged the immediate improvement of their housing situation. The utopian socialists’ failure was therefore not solely due to its po­ litical repression, but also to its absolutist and paternalistic urban planning and social systems, which reduced private living space to a degree that no longer allowed conventional family life. ! ! Other reasons for the failure included economic difficulties, organizational shortcomings, and internal conflicts, alongside overly rigid concepts of collective living. Further, the initiators of the Large Housing Complexes were mostly members of the higher social classes, !@ with overall social acceptance of collective living models remaining

extremely low. In many places, they were con­ sidered to be immoral, revolutionary, and irreligious. !# Consequently, landowners and devel­ opers had little interest in building housing that would change the social order. Although these architectural and social models were actually built and inhabited in only a handful of European cities, the effects of the utopian socialists continued well into the 20 th century, significantly impacting subsequent developments in collective living. For example, the Garden Cities that emerged in the early 1900s adopted and evolved ideas regarding uniting and interweaving living and working, along with the overall concept of cooperative forms. Once again, the target group was the working class. Around the same time, the reform model of the Central-Kitchen House came about, setting out to centralize household tasks and relieve women of housework by coordinating family and work. In this instance, the target group was part of the bourgeoisie: the educated middle class. The next phase, which introduced Community Settlements, continued to diversify various formulations of circulation that were designed to encourage communication. As with the utopian socialists, emphasis was placed on collective circulation areas that included access balconies, roof terraces, and inner courtyards to encourage interaction and contact among residents. The significance of the phenomenon of Large Housing Complexes goes far beyond just an architectural concept for collective living. The utopian ideals of the utopian socialists targeted humanity as a whole and dreamed of a humane society. Improvements in working conditions — such as the introduction of regulated working hours, higher wages, and even edu­ cation system reforms — can be traced back to the utopian socialists’ demands. ! $ Thanks to the unions and cooperatives they established and supported, it became possible to build other collective facilities, such as citizens’ centers. The intense preoccupation with equal rights for men and women led to an understanding of feminism that

45

was decisively shaped, in particular, by Fourier. He writes, “Harmony does not arise when we commit the stupidity of restricting women to kitchen and cooking pots,” further noting that social progress could be attributed to progress in the liberation of women. ! %

8 Archithese (8 |1973): 11 Petsch (1989): Eigen­ “Anfänge des sozialen heim und gute Stube, Zur Wohnungsbaus,” p. 21. Geschichte des bürger­ lichen Wohnens, p. 55. 9 The Socialist Law of Bismarck, named the Gesetz 12 Bertels (1990): Gemein­ gegen die gemeingefähr­ schaftsformen in der lichen Bestrebungen der modernen Stadt, p. 45. Sozialdemokratie (Law 13 Ungers (1972): Kom­ munen in der Neuen Welt, Against the Public Danger p. 66. of Social Democratic Endeavours), was intro 14 Bertels (1990): Gemein­ schaftsformen in der duced to the German Reich modernen Stadt, pp. 31, 44. in 1878 and upheld until 15 Fourier (1808): Die 1890. The law banned socialist activities and was Theorie der vier Bewe­ just one of the means gungen und der allgemeinen implemented to stem social Bestimmungen, p. 190. democratic and communist thought throughout Europe. See also Winfried: “Sich versammeln.” In Schneider, Nerdinger, Wand (2000): Deutschland, Architektur im 20. Jahrhundert, p. 266. 10 Häußermann, Siebel (2000): Soziologie des Wohnens, Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdifferen­ zierung des Wohnens, p. 132.

46

Selected examples of Large Housing Complexes

Cité Napoleon Company Housing Complex

1853 Paris, France City center Newly built Marie-Gabriel Veugny Société des Ouvriers de Paris Lægeforeningens Boliger Social Housing Project

1853 Copenhagen, Denmark Urban neighborhood Newly built M. B. Bindesbøll Copenhagen Medical Association

Page 47 Design of New Harmony Community

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developers

1825 (Design) New Lanark, Great Britain Outskirts — Robert Owen Robert Owen Page 49 Phalanstère Concept

1829 (Design) — — — Charles Fourier — Streatham Street Apartments

1847 London, Great Britain City center Newly built Henry Roberts George Peabody and Streatham Street

Page 52 Familistère Residential Complex

1859 Guise, France Outskirts Newly built Jean-Baptiste Godin Jean-Baptiste Godin Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground 1 : 12,000 diagram Local area map 1 : 2,500 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

47

Design of New Harmony Community

3 Benevolo (1971): Die sozi­ and realized them in New Lanark. alen Ursprünge des mo­ The results had great public appeal, dernen Städtebaus, Lehren as demonstrated by the entries of over 20,000 people in his guest book. von gestern, Forderungen für morgen, p. 52. Intellectuals and scientists visited 4 Bollerey (1974): Archi­ the New Lanark settlement alongside tekturkonzeptionen der Uto­ high-ranking politicians and monpischen Sozialisten, p. 26. archs. $ After his initial attempts at 5 The village consisted implementation in New Lanark, of numerous homes, dormi­ tories, mechanical workOwen took the risks necessary to shops, mills, a textile realize his design, this time in New factory, and distilleries. See Harmony in the United States. Ungers (1972): Kommunen In 1825, he bought a piece of land in der Neuen Welt, p. 46. in Indiana on which a village already 6 Participants were also existed, establishing a commune investors. Only a year after there that is considered to be the first launching, Owen enacted non-religious col­­l ective. % Although a concept of complete the village did not fully meet his equality, regardless of the design ideals, it contained numerous value of work done, but without any concrete orgacommunity facilities and worknization of accounting, shops that made for a good start. In labor division, or distribution the end, the community lasted of goods. only three years, with many factors 7 Ungers (1972): Kommu­ contributing to its failure. One nen in der Neuen Welt, essential factor was Owens’s absence; p. 47. as a patron and visionary, he traveled extensively to propagate his uto­ pian socialist ideas through delivering lectures. Another reason for the commune’s failure can be found in the selection of residents, as no one was refused. ^ This meant that, in addition to idealists, scholars, and artists from all parts of America and Europe, adventurous drifters were also wel­c ome there. Above all, there were not enough well-trained ca­ pable workers to carry on the busi­ nesses that the com­m unity had acquired. Nonetheless, Owen left behind a grow­i ng small town at New Harmony, in which new practices surrounding education and the arts, as well as the rights of women and children, had a major impact on the community. &

Beginning in 1799, Scottish social reformer and industrialist Robert Owen ran a highly successful cotton factory in New Lanark, Scotland that provided dignified social conditions for the workers. ! With an 1817 design known as New Harmony, Owen not only proposed an even better-functioning cooperative production of goods than in New Lanark, he also devel­ oped the idea of a village of co­ operation for approximately 1,000 residents that would have diverse shared living spaces. @ In addition to planning private rooms for families, he also outlined a central kitchen, dining halls, shared bedrooms for children, educational facilities such as a library, meeting rooms, and a school, and other facilities such as gymnasiums, an inn, and a hospital ward. Such ideas of collective housing and additional infrastructure were unique for the time and aimed at creating a new type of settlement that included education, 1 Robert Owen remuner­ated leisure, and consumption. # Un­ a portion of excess capital fortunately, documents about the back to the workforce concept are scarce, and no floor in the form of social beneplans of the proposed collective fits. He also reduced areas exist. working hours, introduced While searching for a place to health in­s urance, and realize his idea of the village of banned child labor under cooperation, Owen isolated certain the age of ten. See Korczak details of his settlement model (1979): Neue Formen des Zu­s ammenlebens, Erfolge und Schwierigkeiten des Experiments Wohn­ gemeinschaft, p. 48 ff. 2 Bertels (1990): Gemein­ schaftsformen in der modernen Stadt, p. 43.

48

Design of New Harmony Community

Robert Owen’s cotton factory in New Lanark, Scotland. © ullstein bild — Roger-Viollet Visualization of New Harmony. © ullstein bild — ullstein bild Draft of New Harmony, sketch by Thomas Stedman Whitwell. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München / Image Archive

Organization

initial private sponsorship, pro­v idently paternalistic and socialist, top-down initiation process

Resident demographic

model village for 1,000 residents, for working-class families, initially low levels of education, with intellectuals later attracted

Operational structure

social order with new political-economic conditions, imple­m entation tested in the United States with investment model

49

Phalanstère Concept

All living spaces were to be collectively organized and complemented with diverse shared uses and spaces for cultural, social, and sporting facilities. $ The collectivization of the household would promote the sense of resident com­ munity and reduce the private role of the family. Fournier designed the Phalanstère for exactly 1,620 people, a number he saw as the ideal size. % He reserved the ground floor for the elderly, the mezzanine for children, and the other floors for working residents. Fourier paid particular attention to the collective access areas, creating court galleries, so-called rues-galeries, to connect the various parts of the building. These covered court galleries were intended to create spatial closeness and provide an area for communication and recreation. A walkable roof zone was designed to be another communication area. ^ While Robert Owen’s personal fortune had enabled him to enact at least a portion of his ideas for New Harmony, the destitute Fourier had no choice but to limit himself to theories and plans. However, Albert Brisbane, one of Fourier’s pupils, succeeded in exporting the ideas and theories to America, introducing them into the conversation about housing. & Several phalanxes, com­ mu­n ities that lived together ac­ cording to Fourier’s ideology, were built.

French social theorist and reformer Charles Fourier spent his entire life studying social order, postulating that its ideal existed in the harmony of a community founded both on economics and love. While he saw architecture as playing a secondary role, he still deemed it necessary for implementing his ideas. ! In his 1829 concept for a Phalanstère, a palace-like Large Housing Complex, he did not clas­ sify the family as a formational unit of society, holding that the family was not the first stage of civilization. In his view, the first stage was a nucleus formed by the coexistence of several families because, he said, a society can only be considered a society when individuals unite 1 Bollerey (1974): Archi­ and live together in capacities other tekturkonzeptionen der Uto­ than father, mother, and child. @ pischen Sozialisten, p. 123. Fourier’s deliberations led him to 2 Uhlig: “Siedeln in Gedesign the Phalanstère, which meinschaft.” In Schneider, did not include individual rooms Nerdinger, Wand (2000): for families. In this way, he enviDeutschland, Architektur im sioned the dissolution of family 20. Jahrhundert, p. 42. households and, instead, offered a Charles Fourier is cited in selection of different apartments Victor Considerant (1906): Fouriers System der with various sizes and floor plans sozialen Reform. and across a range of prices. En­ suring a heterogeneous population 3 Bollerey (1974): Architek­ turkonzeptionen der Uto­ seemed to have been important to pischen Sozialisten, p. 157. Fourier, for he included a mix of dif 4 Häußermann, Siebel ferent societal classes as a precau(2000): Soziologie des tionary measure against the impend- Wohnens, Eine Einführung ing creep of segregation. # in Wandel und Ausdif­

ferenzierung des Wohnens, p. 95. 5 Petsch (1989): Eigenheim und gute Stube, Zur Ge­ schichte des bürgerlichen Wohnens, p. 53 f. 6 Archithese (8|1973): “Anfänge des sozialen Wohnungsbaus,” p. 22 ff. 7 Ungers (1972): Kommunen in der Neuen Welt, p. 58.

50

Phalanstère Concept

Design of an ideal Phalanstère. Jules Arnou, “Vue générale d‘un phalanstère, ou village sociétaire organisé d’après la théorie de Fourier,” 1847. Bibliothèque nationale de Paris, France

Sketch of a phalanx building. © ullstein bild — Granger, New York

51

Spatial structure

Theater Church Interior courtyards, some covered

Workshops

Stables and farm buildings

Local area map

Collective spaces   not shown Central kitchen Dining rooms Social rooms Guest apartments Rues-galeries

Cross-section

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Resident demographic

i deally 1,620 people, conceived for a heterogeneous population from different societal classes

Apartments

design of different dwelling units for children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

52

Familistère Residential Complex

women to work outside the home. A launderette, bath and wash house, and various additional facilities such as schools, nurseries, and a library were also shared. In addition, residents had access to a swimming pool, a theater, and various shops. With the shared accessways, Godin aligned himself with Fourier’s court galleries, evolving them into access balconies that reached the individual spaces along the covered courtyards. These glasscovered courtyards were a strongly community-forming spatial element that provided an ideal place to spend time, particularly for play and gatherings. The arcades were not only used as balconies for special occasions; they also gave residents an everyday way to observe the lively inner courtyards from above. In 1880, Godin transferred the Familistère and the cast iron factory to his workers through a cooperative. $ It was not until the late 20 t h century that the factory was privatized and the cooperative dissolved. The Familistère is still lived in today, but it serves mainly as a museum and site for cultural events.

Ten years after the European revolutions of 1848 and 1849, the most successful model of a collec­ tively and socialistically organized Large Housing Complex was built. Jean-Baptiste Godin’s Familistère drew from Fourier’s design, changing one essential parameter. At the Familistère, as the name of the complex implies, the intention was not to dissolve family units but to support them through a broad array of 1 Benevolo (1971): Die sozi­ shared living spaces and supplealen Ursprünge des mo­ mentary facilities. ! Godin, a French dernen Städtebaus, Lehren industrialist and member of parliavon gestern, Forderungen ment, secured the future of the nufür morgen, p. 72 f. cleus of the nation — the family —  2 Bollerey (1974): Architek­ and provided for his workforce of turkonzeptionen der Uto­ about 2,000 people with his large respischen Sozialisten, p. 203. idential complex, also dubbed a 3 Archithese (8 |1973): “social palace”, in the small town of “Anfänge des sozialen Wohnungsbaus,” p. 26. Guise. @ Each family had its own 4 Benevolo (1971): Die sozi­ apartment, usually with two or three alen Ursprünge des mo­ rooms. The basic facilities of the apartments were simple, with neither dernen Städtebaus, Lehren von gestern, Forderungen a kitchen nor a lavatory. Godin für morgen, p. 73. himself lived for a time in one of the kitchen-less apartments. A large kitchen with employees and a dining room was available for meals, and families were free to eat together in the dining room or in their apartments. # Bathrooms were used collectively. The intention behind the shared facilities was to centralize housekeeping and thus free up

Guise Baptis Gross Schwa Masss

53

Aerial view of Familistère. © Erwin Mühlestein West wing of the Large Housing Complex. © Erwin Mühlestein Covered courtyard with access balconies. © Zurich University of the Arts, archiv-zhdk

Festivities in the courtyard. © Zurich University of the Arts, archiv-zhdk Classroom. A theater was also located in the school. © Zurich University of the Arts, archiv-zhdk Private living space of a kitchen-less dwelling. © Erwin Mühlestein

54

Familistère Residential Complex

Spatial structure

Nursery and daycare

C overed courtyards Launderette ath and wash house B S wimming pool D ining room Butcher C anteen kitchen

C o-op store Bakery Café School Theater

Local area map

A ccess balconies

Two-room apartments with shared vestibule and cabinet-dressoir (could be merged into a 4-room apartment)

Two-room apartments, no vestibule or dressing room Two- and three-room apartments with shared vestibule

Two-room apartments with own vestibule

Grundriss Regelgechoss Standard floor plan Grundriss Regelgechoss

One-room apartment with own dressing room Lavatory Public space not shown Library

Cross-section Schnitt

Schnitt Exterior: Interior:

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche privat Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

public public

collective collective

Guise Baptiste Grosswo Umgebu Massstab

55

Organization

initially a private developer, later organized as a cooperative, occupancy through rent, later through partial ownership, topdown initiation process

Resident demographic

around 2,000 residents, used by working-class families with a low level of education

Operational structure

initially managed externally, later self-governed, employees for all shared infrastructure, including the canteen kitchen and launderette, medium degree of participation

Apartments

500 units

Areas

total site area unknown, 4 stories

56

Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses for Urban Nomads “Over the course of a time-sensitive development (…),   the city dweller crystalized as a type. (…)   The immense variety and differences in types of city   dwellers must be met by a broad range of housing opportunities   that offer an adequate form of living.” h a n s s c h a r o u n !

The new social order brought about by industrialization was also reflected in the housing policy debate that accompanied it and the emergence of new housing models such as Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses. In addition to the spread of the nuclear family, new household forms emerged that were comprised of singles, divorcées, and widows or widowers, as well as new forms for students and urban nomads, for whom no living space had been available on the housing market before the early 20 t h century. These very specific user groups not only originated from the working lower and middle classes, but also included members of the upper middle class and the newly emerging educated middle class. @ The heterogeneous target audience of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses shared the desire not to include children among the residents. # Thus, for the first time since the monasteries and beguinages, a housing form developed that was largely aimed at single persons and basically focused on living without children. In addition to offering access to adequate housing, an array of shared services also provided motivation for living together. The new housing models of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses and the

57

types of floor plans that resulted were heatedly a hotel, although the new lodging forms were debated by international experts and presented designed for longer stays. In each type of domito the public in congresses, exhibitions, and cile, very modest personal apartments were model settlements, mainly in Germany, Austria, sup­p lemented with services and collective living France, and Great Britain. The second congress spaces in which life could be shared. ( by architecture think tank CI A M (Congrès Inter 1 Cited in Eisen (2012): mained largely unaccepted national d’Architecture Moderne), held in in their private lives and in Frankfurt in 1929 on the subject of The Apartment Vom Ledigenheim zum Boardinghouse, Bautypo­ public society. Women for Subsistence Living, was of great importance, logie und Gesellschafts­ were not permitted to enter as were the 1927 Werkbund exhibitions in Stutt­ theorie bis zum Ende der public spaces such as resWeimarer Republik, p. 228. taurants or theaters alone. gart, The Apartment, and one in Breslau two 2 Eisen writes that Board­ They were not served, years later titled Living and Workroom, which also ing Houses were inhabited often harassed, and gener­ presented a model settlement. $ Here, architects by elegant ladies, noble ally seen as a foreign elebachelors, and cultivated ment in a male-dominated aimed to put standardization and a minimal world. See also Terlinden, form of living in direct relationship to the human couples. See Eisen (2012): Vom Ledigenheim zum von Oertzen (2006): Die body, drawing conclusions about minimum Boardinghouse, Bautypo­ Wohnungsfrage ist Frauen­ requirements for apartment size and drafting, logie und Gesellschafts­ sache! Frauenbewegung theorie bis zum Ende der und Wohnreform 1870– among other things, a number of floor plans Weimarer Republik, 1933, pp. 207, 253, 256. for Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding pp. 317, 320. 7 The term Men’s and Houses. % 3 Zurich Museum of Design Women’s Hostels didn’t While at the start of the 20 t h century Men’s (ed.) (1986): Das andere seem to fit for the middle-­ Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn­class bourgeois city and Women’s Hostels were still integrating (bau)formen, p. 12. nomads. See Eisen (2012): young single workers into the housing market, 4 CI AM was founded in Vom Ledigenheim zum by the 1920 s modern life had produced city Switzerland in 1928, Boardinghouse, Bautypo­ dwellers who were urban nomads, pursuing their pro­viding a platform for the logie und Gesellschafts­ development of common theorie bis zum Ende der activities internationally and testing out this goals and strategies among Weimarer Republik, p. 16. new lifestyle in Boarding Houses. The women’s avant-garde architects. 8 Eisen writes that board­ movement in particular pushed for a new form Weiss writes that the proing house also evoked grammatic positions of associations with to board, of housing, with small apartments to provide C I AM continued to shape as if to board a ship. In women with sufficient freedom and legitimacy urban planning discussions fact, the term comes from to thrive in their newfound lifestyles since, at and the development of the noun board, meaning modern architecture well a table and referring to the the time, there was no infrastructure for women into the post-war period. shared daily meal. Origi­ to live independently. This forward movement Similar to Werkbund, the nally, however, boarding was also seen in the emergence of so-called focus was on housing house was used for the women’s clubs, where women could relax, dine, construction. See Weiss pensions of large American (2009), “Bestandes­ cities, run by single or and amuse themselves without male accompa­ beschrieb CI AM .” On the widowed women to earn a niment. ^ Accordingly, this new form of housing gta Archive / E TH Zurich living. See Eisen (2012): was often initially called Apartments for the website. Vom Ledigenheim zum Working Woman. Later, however, the term 5 Schwarzrock: “EntwickBoardinghouse, Bautypo­ lungslinien der Weimarer logie und Gesellschafts­ changed to Men’s and Women’s Hostels or Men’s Republik.” In Neue Gesell­ theorie bis zum Ende der and Women’s Apartments. In addition to Men’s schaft für Bildende Kunst Weimarer Republik, and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses, the (1977): Wem gehört p. 295 ff. die Welt – Kunst und Gesell­ 9 According to Mühlestein, terms apartment suites and serviced living were schaft in der Weimarer the Apartment Houses also created. & The term boarding house, however, Republik, p. 97 f; and filled a gap in the market was suggestive of the modern and progressive Kuchenbuch (2010): Geord­ somewhere between luxury lifestyles of the inter-war period and was imme­ nete Gemeinschaft – apartments and hotel Architekten als Sozialin­ suites, where residents did diately associated with the United States. * All genieure, Deutschland und not need to do anything of these terms were suggestive of living as if in Schweden im 20. Jahr­ hundert, p. 79. 6 According to Terlinden, while women were able to take on gainful employment and thus take a big step towards independent living, single women re­

collectively. See Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau) formen, p. 12.

58

Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses for Urban Nomads

In the inter-war years, the rationalization and optimization of housing became a major policy issue. !) Floor plans and living standards needed to be tailored to the newly formed society that had been freshly shaped by the processes of industrialization. Usefulness, convenience, and functionality were the stated goals, implemented both by rationalizing apartment production through financial and spatial economies and through typification and standardization. The socially motivated desire to achieve minimal forms and find the smallest common standard­ izable denominator of living were important factors in the emergence of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses. ! ! However, the housing needs and lifestyles of these new urban nomads were for the most part unknown and as yet largely unexplored. Architects therefore relied heavily on scientific analysis to calculate biological minimum requirements for humans and, from this, the dimensions and facilities that would make a dwelling practicable and functional. The result included small dwellings and micro-apartments with monofunctional rooms, space-saving interiors, and built-in furniture. ! @ Without collective facilities and the asso­ ciated services such as laundry and cooking, complete living would not have been possible. The minimal micro-dwellings were designed so that operating and managing the household required the least possible effort, since residents were not at home during the day. !# The living quarters of the Men’s and Women’s Hostels were ad­ justed to make them affordable even for single workers. The reduction of personal spaces and the central shared provision of services were therefore not seen as an emergency solution to a new housing situation, but instead constituted a progressive concept for relieving residents, espe­ cially working women, of the burdens of housework and enabling them to lead independent lives. !$ Collective living also provided social protection and promoted the formation of familylike structures. These specific forms of collective living reflected the social inequality of men and women at the time. Prior to the emergence of Men’s and

Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses, single men often lived in furnished subleased homes or, if they were among the lower working class, were night lodgers. Due to societal restrictions, however, single women ran the risk of being deemed immoral if they stayed in an establishment with a landlady. Moreover, the inequality of wages at all salary levels made it virtually impossible for women to find affordable housing. ! % The increasing employment of women led to a new cross-class way of life, that of the independent working woman. In turn, this manifested itself in new housing models, though most were associated with being unmarried, as many professions — including teaching, nursing, and working in an office — long required celibacy. ! ^ When a woman married, she often had to give up gainful employment. It was not until the aftermath of World War I that working women slowly gained social recognition, and the generally difficult living conditions they faced increasingly entered public discussion. ! & Thus, the new living models were directed at sophisticated and progressive women and men who were breaking away from social and cultural traditions. The changing political environment in 1920s Europe led to strong notions of progress, combined with modern concepts of individuality and the liberation from traditional burdens, which created a counter-position to the established ideal of domestic coziness. ! * Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses closed a gap in housing construction, mainly by providing extremely small and functional apartments to a specific group of users. However, there were two primary areas of criticism: that far too few Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses were constructed to meet demand, and that the housing market was much too focused on building housing for families. ! ( The spatial separation of single persons was also judged to be a major disadvantage. As a result, the rationed, space-saving facilities and monofunctional rooms of the Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses never found broad favor. The working class in particular did not see the positive in the strictly formal objectivity

59

and enforced asceticism of these minimal dwellings, @ ) thus keeping the Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses a niche product of the housing market. After only a few years, their evolution was halted by Nazi ide­ ologies. @ ! The unique historical environment of the inter-war years and the political upheavals that led up to World War I I resulted in the end of this housing model around 1940, and it was never taken up again in quite the same form. Thus, this collective housing model, as well as that of Central-Kitchen Houses, remained a time-specific phenomenon that was not revived in a similar form until the turn of the millen­ nium — a good 80 years later — by the Cluster Apartment and Co-Living movements.

Thus, depending on wheth­er 10 Altenstraßer, Hauch, there was a shortage Kepplinger (2007): gender or oversupply of workers, housing – geschlechter­ women’s celibacy laws gerechtes bauen, wohnen, were relaxed or made more leben, p. 43. stringent. See also 11 Muscheler (2007): Das Ter­linden, von Oertzen Haus ohne Augenbrauen, (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage Architekturgeschichte aus ist Frauensache! Frauen­ dem 20. Jahrhundert, bewegung und Wohnreform p. 56 f. 1870 –1933, pp. 187, 252. 12 Weigel (1996): 17 Krosse (2005): Wohnen Die Einraumwohnung als ist mehr, p. 50. räum­liches Manifest der 18 Eisen (2012): Vom Moderne, p. 7. Ledigenheim zum Boarding­ 13 This was also demanded house, Bautypologie by the Housing Committee und Gesellschaftstheorie bis of the Workers’ Union zum Ende der Weimarer of the Coalition of German Republik, p. 263 f. Women’s Societies. See 19 Weigel (1996): also Das Wohnen (1930): Die Einraumwohnung als “Die Wohnung der berufsräumliches Manifest tätigen Frau,” p. 193 f. der Moderne, p. 130. 14 Becker: “Emanzipative 20 Schwarzrock: “EntwickWohnformen von Frauen.” lungslinien der Weimarer In Altenstraßer, Hauch, Republik.” In Neue Gesell­ Kepplinger (2007): gender schaft für Bildende Kunst housing – geschlechter­ (1977): Wem gehört gerechtes bauen, wohnen, die Welt – Kunst und Gesell­ leben, p. 155. schaft in der Weimarer 15 Ibid., p. 154. Republik, p. 100. 16 The belief that work and 21 Weigel (1996): family were incompatible Die Einraumwohnung als was enforced politically räumliches Manifest through labor laws in nuder Moderne, p. 10. merous European countries and cities and was also endorsed by the bourgeois women’s movement. In Zurich, for example, the celibacy requirement for teachers was not revoked until 1962. The laws were also seen as a way to prevent competition with men for their paid work.

Poster for the Werkbund exhibition The Apartment in Stuttgart, 1927. © bkp / Kunstbibliothek, S M B / Dietmar Katz Poster for the exhibition The Apartment for Subsistence Living in Frankfurt, 1929. © bkp / Kunstbibliothek, S M B / Dietmar Katz

60

Selected examples of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses

Page 64 Lettenhof Women’s Colony

1927 Zurich, Switzerland Urban neighborhood Newly built Lux Guyer Working Women’s Building Coopera­t ive, Lettenhof Building Cooperative, Imfeldsteig Housing Endowment for Single Women Lydia House

Whitechapel Rowton House

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developer

1902 London, Great Britain City center Newly built Harry Bell Measures Montagu Lowry Corry (Lord Rowton) Charlottenburg Men’s Hostel

1908 Berlin, Germany Urban neighborhood Newly built Rudolf Walter People’s Hotel Association of Hostels

Page 61 Rehhoffstraße Men’s Hostel

1913 Hamburg, Germany City center Newly built Wilhelm Behrens, Ernst Vicenz Hamburg Building Society

1927 Amsterdam, Netherlands Urban neighborhood Newly built Jan Boterenbrood Association for the Protection of Girls Page 68 Design of a One-Room Apartment for the Working Woman

1928 (Design) — — — Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky — Women’s Community House

1929 Basel, Switzerland Suburbs Newly built Paul Artaria, Hans Schmidt Basel Women’s Center

Home for Working Women

1929 Frankfurt, Germany Suburbs Newly built Bernhard Hermkes Women’s Housing Association Page 72 Breslau Men’s and Women’s Hostel

1929 Breslau, Germany Suburbs Newly built Hans Scharoun Breslau Housing Association Boarding House of the West

1930 Hamburg, Germany Urban neighborhood Newly built Rudolf Klophaus, August Schoch, Erich zu Putlitz C. Hinrichsen Arosa Collective House

1932 Prague, Czechoslovakia Suburbs Newly built Karel Hannauer Unknown Page 76 Isokon Building

1933 London, Great Britain Suburbs Newly built Wells Coates Molly und Jack Pritchard

61

Dolphin Square Boarding House

Rehhoffstraße Men’s Hostel

1937 London, Great Britain Urban neighborhood Newly built Gordon Jeeves Richard Rylands Costain Elfvinggården Collective House

1940 Stockholm, Sweden Suburbs Newly built Sven Backström, Leif Reinius Systrarna Elfvings Foundation Arabella Tower

1969 Munich, Germany Suburbs Newly built Toby Schmidbauer Josef Schörghuber Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground 1 : 12,000 diagram Local area map 1 : 1,000 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

The type of lodging provided by the first Men’s and Women’s Hostels could hardly be considered permanent. Numerous sleeping cubicles were arranged in large dormitories, rentable for a single night at a time, and the sleeping rooms were not accessible during the day. ! Additionally, not only the spatial conditions but also the company administration worked to create an environment in which levels of privacy were very low. Such hostels were initially only available to members of a single occupational group. One of the first hostels that pro­ vided individual bedrooms and was accessible to all trades was the Rehhoffstraße building in Hamburg. It was reserved for men, offering them an affordable place to live close to their work. The Rehhoffstraße Hostel was subsidized by the municipality in support of the overall political push to discourage private citizens from taking in night lodgers. As a result of the funding, in 1913 the Hamburg Building Society (Bauverein zu Hamburg) was able to construct the Rehhoffstraße Hostel quite close to the city center, and as a non-profit organization. A combination of generous common rooms and very small, functional, and furnished single rooms measuring 8 m² pro-

62

Rehhoffstraße Men’s Hostel

vided a home and security for the single male residents. A total of 112 single rooms without private sanitary facilities could be rented on a long-term basis, with the use of bathrooms, kitchen, and lounges organized collectively. There were cleaning and laundry rooms and toilets on each floor, and residents could use a bathhouse with tubs located in the basement. The ground floor included a restaurant with dining room, leisure areas, a reading room, a co-op store, and administrative offices. There was also a steward, @ who looked after the Rehhoffstraße Hostel, performed janitorial duties, organized cleaning and laundry services, and ensured adherence to social mores. The Rehhoffstraße Hostel operated this way for many decades, but over time a more profit-oriented business and space restructuring took place. The common areas were separated from the hostel and rented out, and ownership was transfered to a foreign investor in 2009. Dedicated citizens, residents, and people from the neighborhood set up a foundation to maintain the Rehhoffstraße Hostel as a historic artifact, testimonial to urban social history, and residence for single men. The city also intervened, rejecting all reconstruction plans sub­ mitted by the investors, citing the need to protect a historic neighborhood, and safeguarding the building as a monument. In 2012, 75 men still lived in the Rehhoff­ straße Hostel, about half of whom who had been there for at least 20 to 40 years. #

1 Eisen (2012): Vom Ledigenheim zum Boarding­ house, Bautypologie und Gesellschaftstheorie bis zum Ende der Weimarer Republik, p. 42 f. 2 Blicke in das Ledigenheim in der Rehhoffstraße; Das Gebäude (2.3|2012), p. 7. 3 Ibid., pp. 10, 18.

Street view from the corner of Rehhoffstraße and Herrengraben. © Hamburgisches Architektur­a rchiv, Photographer: G. Koppmann & Co Restaurant with dining room, lounges, and reading room. © Hamburgisches Architekturarchiv, Photographer: G. Koppmann & Co

Hostel entrance area. © Hamburgisches Architekturarchiv, Photographer: G. Koppmann & Co Hallway branching off to the individual rooms. © Hamburgisches Architekturarchiv, Photographer: G. Koppmann & Co Functionally furnished single room. © Hamburgisches Architekturarchiv, Photographer: G. Koppmann & Co

63

Spatial structure

Co-op store

Restaurant with dining room Reading room

Local area map with ground floor

Cleaning rooms

Washrooms Lavatories

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Collective spaces not shown Billiards room Bathhouse

Aussenfläche kollektiv Standard floor plan Aussenfläche privat

Re W Le Um Ma

Regelgeschoss

senfläche öffentlich

Cross-section

senfläche kollektiv

senfläche privat Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective Schnitt

Rehhoffstrasse 1 Wilhelm Behrens Ledigenheim Grundriss Regelg Massstab 1:500

64

Rehhoffstraße Men’s Hostel

Organization

non-profit corporation, privately operated since 2000, property of a charitable foundation since 2017, occupation by rent, top-down initiation process, house­k eeping and social services included with rent, restaurant organized as food cooperative

Resident demographic

112 persons, for single men only, working class with generally low level of education

Operational structure

externally managed by a building society or real estate company, today by a foundation, serviceoriented operation with employees, low level of participation

Apartments

112 single rooms sized 8 m²

Areas

total site area 570 m², 5 stories

total public collective private total public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 80 80 0 0 Usable floor space 1 605 0 725 880

in %

m@ / pers.

100 100 0 0

0.7 0.7 0 0

100 0 45 55

14.5 0 6.5 8.0

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Lettenhof Women’s Colony

Relatively early in the development of the housing model of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Board­i ng Houses, a bourgeois-oriented women’s movement in Zurich conceptualized the Lettenhof Women’s Colony, realized in 1927 by architect Lux Guyer. Two cooperatives and a foundation provided funding for the building: the Baugenossenschaft berufstätiger Frauen (Working Women’s Building Cooperative), the Baugenossenschaft Lettenhof (Lettenhof Building Cooperative), and the Wohnstiftung Imfeldsteig für alleinstehende Frauen (Im­ feldsteig Housing Endowment for Single Women). Financing of the project was made possible thanks to the City of Zurich’s proactive property policy, which in 1924 made it possible for non-profit housing developers to receive a loan from the city in the form of a second mortgage. Lux Guyer, one of the first women to practice architecture in Switzerland, designed the Lettenhof as a complex with four buildings grouped around a courtyard. There were three residential buildings, one for each of the developers, providing a total of 6 three-room apartments, 23 two-room apartments, and 22 one-room apartments for around 60 residents. ! The first residents ranged between 20 and 80

65

years of age. @ Some of the apartments had private bathrooms, while one-room apartments had a small private washing area, plus a shared bathroom. Depending on the number of rooms, each apartment had either a cupboard kitchen or a normal kitchen. There were also additional tea kitchens in the hallways. The minimalistic apartments were spatially well organized and brought considerable added value for the single women, who could live independently in the housing colony and take care of their spaces with very little time and effort. # Complementing the three main buildings that contained resi­ dences, a fourth building housed a publicly accessible, alcohol-free restaurant. When not cooking at home, residents could either eat in the restaurant or order a meal delivery to their apartment. Above all, the restaurant fulfilled the purpose of providing social contact and communication for residents of the surrounding neighborhood. At the time, it was seen as immoral for women to eat alone in a public restaurant. A caretaker couple supervised the general order and would arrange additional services such as washing and cleaning for an ad­ ditional fee. $ While the majority of residents were single women who had never been married, widowed and divorced women also lived at Lettenhof. The women’s colony is still largely preserved in its original form today, although the internal structure has been adapted over time by merging one-room apartments and converting the restaurant prem­ ises into lofts. In addition, all apartments have been equipped with personal bathrooms. % According to the Working Women’s Building Cooperative, the apartments are still rented predominantly by single working women today.

Overview from Letten Station with alcohol-free restaurant at the center. © gta Archives / E T H Zurich, Lux Guyer Building of the Protectorate for Single Women seen from Wasserwerkstrasse. © gta Archives / E T H Zurich, Lux Guyer

1 Claus, Huber, Schnitter 4 Rudolf (1928): “Wohn­ (2013): Lux Guyer 1894– kolonie für alleinstehende 1955 , Architektin, p. 78. Frauen im Lettenhof 2 Fankhauser (1991): Zürich.” In Werk (15|1928), Ein Volk ist weitgehend p. 145. das, was seine Wohnungen 5 Claus, Huber, Schnitter sind, Die selbständige (2013): Lux Guyer 1894– berufstätige Frau und ihre 1955 , Architektin, p. 181. Wohnsituation, p. 38. 3 Ibid., p. 23 f.

Working Women’s Building Cooperative building. © gta Archives / E T H Zurich, Lux Guyer East view of the Working Women’s Building Cooperative building. © Das Werk, Volume 15, Issue 5, 1928

66

Lettenhof Women’s Colony

Spatial structure

Local area map

Kitchenette Bathroom

Regelgeschoss

Standard floor 1 : 250 Regelgeschoss Working Women’s Building Cooperative building

Kitchenette

Ground floor 1 : 250 Erdgeschoss Working Women’s Building Cooperative building

Erdgeschoss

lich

ktiv lich

ktiv

Zürich Lux Guyer Lettenhof Zürich Grundrisse Lux Guyer1:250 Massstab Lettenhof Grundrisse Massstab 1:250

67

Bathroom Kitchen

Regelgescho

Obergeschoss Restaurant Upper floor of restaurant 1 : 250

Obergeschoss Restaurant

Ground floor of restaurant 1 : 250

Regelgescho

Alcohol-free restaurant with terrace

Erdgeschoss Restauraunt

Erdgeschoss

Erdgeschoss Restauraunt

Erdgeschoss

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche öffentlich privat Nutzfläche

Aussenfläche öffentlich privat Aussenfläche

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Cross-section

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Organization

non-profit development by co­o peratives and housing endowment, ongoing today, occupation through partial ownership (co­ operative) or rent (endowment), top-down initiation process

Resident composition

around 60 residents, single women only, working women only in the cooperative buildings, women of all ages and classes, heterogeneous education level

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

68

Lettenhof Women’s Colony

Operational structure

managed by cooperatives and endowment, service-oriented management in restaurant only, medium degree of participation

Apartments

51 units, 22 one-room apartments, 23 two-room apartments, 6 threeroom apartments

Areas

total site area 4,520 m², 4 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 3 125 2 975 10 140 Usable floor space 2 200 50 305 1 845

in %

m@ / pers.

100 95 0.5 4.5

52.3 49.6 0.2 2.5

100 2 14 84

36.6 0.8 5.1 30.7

1 excluding 10  % circulation area

Design of a One-Room Apartment for the Working Woman

At the 1928 Home and Technology exhibition in Munich, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky presented four designs for Hostels for the Working Woman, some units of which were constructed for an indoor presentation. ! With these designs, SchütteLihotzky presented her idea that the new housing market user group of single employed women didn’t need to have segregated housing but could instead be given space in a conventional tenement with, for example, six floors and traditional family apartments. @ Unlike the previously constructed Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses, Schütte-Lihotzky called for mixing single persons and families. The draft design showed different sizes of single-person units, adapted from standardized family dwellings, that could be rented to single women, scaled according to income. # The first design consisted of a full floor that had eight single rooms with shared living spaces such as a sitting room, kitchen, toilets, wash areas, and a bathroom. For the second type, SchütteLihotzky designed six slightly larger single rooms, which in turn were supplemented by a sitting room, kitchen, and shared sanitary facilities. The last two designs had no collective facilities, instead

69

drafted as variously sized autonomous apartments; the third type had five apartments per floor, and the fourth had two apartments per floor. In her designs, Schütte-Lihotzky examined not only the possible construction of the apartment buildings and the facilities necessary for single-person apartments and collective living quarters, but also the affordability and rent-toincome ratio for an average working woman. $

1 Weigel (1996): Die Einraumwohnung als räum­ liches Manifest der Moderne, p. 132 f. 2 Terlinden, von Oertzen (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage ist Frauensache! Frauen­ bewegung und Wohnreform 1870 –1933, p. 227. 3 Ibid., p. 227 f. 4 Ibid., p. 228.

Type 3 floor plan with seating and sleeping areas. © University of Applied Arts Vienna, Art Collection and Archives, Inv. No. 60/16/ F W / Photo: Unknown Type 3 floor plan at the 1928 Home and Technology exhibition in Munich. © University of Applied Arts Vienna, Art Collection and Archives, Inv. No. 60/12/ F W / Photo: Unknown Type 3 floor plan with wash area and kitchenette. © University of Applied Arts Vienna, Art Collection and Archives, Inv. No. 60/18/ F W / Photo: Unknown

70

Design of a One-Room Apartment for the Working Woman

Spatial structure

Bathrooms Kitchen Sitting room

Type 1 floor plan with 8 single rooms 1 : 250 Grundriss Typ1

mit acht Einzelzimmer

Grun mit se

Washroom Bathrooms

he öffentlich

he kollektiv

he privat

Type 2 floor plan

Grundriss Typ1 with 6 single rooms mit acht Einzelzimmer 1 : 250 Grundriss Typ2 mit sechs Einzelzimmer Grundriss Typ3 mit fünf Wohnelementen

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

mit Grundriss fünf Wohnelementen Typ4 mit zwei Wohnungeelementen

Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

Gru mit

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Type 3 floor plan with 5 autonomous apartments 1 : 250 Grundriss Typ3

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Grund mit se

Gru mit

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Margarette Schütte-Lioh Einraumwohung für die beruftätige Frau Grundriss Typ 1,2,3,4 Massstab 1:250

Grundriss Typ2 mit sechs Einzelzimmer

71

Type 4 floor plan with 2 autonomous apartments 1 : 250 Grundriss Typ4

mit zwei Wohnungeelementen

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Resident demographic

designed for single working women, medium educational level

Apartments

Type 1 — full story with 8 single rooms of 10 m², Type 2 — full story with 6 single rooms of 14 m², Type 3 — full story with 5 autonomous apartments of 19 m², Type 4 — full story with 2 autonomous apartments of 44 m²

Margarette Schütte-Liohtzki Einraumwohung für die beruftätige Frau Grundriss Typ 1,2,3,4 Massstab 1:250

72

Breslau Men’s and Women’s Hostel

House with Service would have been better suited to the modern living concept. # In the Men’s and Women’s Hostel, the structural center of the building acted as a hinge between the two staggered residential wings, housing the central and most impor­ tant common room: the entrance hall. The two user groups, bachelors and childless young married couples, were separated by this hub. $ The entrance hall featured places to lounge, a restaurant for collective dining, and a shared roof terrace. The individual micro-apartments were designed as split-levels. Scharoun Men’s and Women’s Hostel had corridors that alternately accessed an upper and a lower level of each apartment and was considered the first of its kind in Central Europe. This arrangement meant that only every second floor had a hallway to the apartments, making the hallways more highly frequented. Microapartments were sized 27 m² for singles and 35 m² for couples. In addition to a living room, bedroom, and full bathroom, they also had a cabinet kitchen with roll shutters, an electric stove, and a small sink, % making it possible to live in these tiny apartments independently of the restaurant and other common areas. In keeping with the unattached lives of the residents of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses, dwellings were rented fully furnished. Scharoun’s Men’s and Women’s Hostel was used as a permanent residential building only during the inter-war period. Later, it was converted for use as a hotel and is now open to the public.

Little was known about the housing needs and lifestyles of the new user group in the housing market, known as urban nomads. Architects therefore relied heavily on scientific analysis to calculate physical minimum requirements for humans and, from this, the dimensions and facilities that would make a dwelling livable and functional. The result was monofunctional rooms, with space-saving interiors and built-in furniture, a concept presented at various exhi­b itions. ! This was the case with the 1929 Werk­b und Model Settlement in Breslau, where Hans Scharoun built as an exhibition building his version of a Men’s and Women’s Hostel, a high-standard hotel-like facility for bachelors and childless married couples. Scharoun’s Men’s and Women’s Hostel was intended to express the Weltgefühl of the new modern lifestyle, and is considered to be an evolution of the earlier 1 Weigel (1996): Die Ein­ Men’s and Women’s Hostels, which raumwohnung als räum­ were accessible only to either liches Manifest der men or women — but not both — Mo­d erne, p. 7. and provided adequate housing for 2 Eisen (2012): Vom lower-class workers. @ Using the Ledigen­h eim zum Boarding­ term Men’s and Women’s Hostels for house, Bautypologie und Scharoun’s building creates some Gesellschaftstheorie bis zum confusion, as this type of hostel was Ende der Weimarer Repu­ otherwise reserved solely for blik, p. 227. 3 Schwarzrock: “Entwickthe unmarried; the term Boarding lungslinien der Weimarer Republik.” In Neue Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst (1977): Wem gehört die Welt – Kunst und Gesell­ schaft in der Weimarer Republik, p. 97 f. 4 Ibid., p. 231. 5 Ibid., p. 242 f.

Breslau Hans S Ledige Schwar Massst

73

Central structure with entrance hall, restaurant, and garden terrace. © Akademie der Künste Berlin; Hans-Scharoun-Archiv 3717, 7 077 030 View of the hostel entrance area. © Akademie der Künste Berlin; Hans-Scharoun-Archiv 3717, 7 077 036

Furnished living area. © Akademie der Künste Berlin; Hans-Scharoun-Archiv 3717, 7 077 067

Access corridor with split-level residential units. © Akademie der Künste Berlin; Hans-Scharoun-Archiv 3717, 7 077 072 Restaurant in central section. © Akademie der Künste Berlin; Hans-Scharoun-Archiv 3717, 7 077 077 Minimal cupboard kitchen. © Akademie der Künste Berlin; Hans-Scharoun-Archiv 3717, 7 077 070

74

Breslau Men’s and Women’s Hostel

Spatial structure

Entrance hall with lounge areas Restaurant Garden terrace Collective space not shown Rooftop terrace

Local area map and ground floor 1 : 750

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

75

Cross-section 1 : 250

Rege

Schnitt

Standard floor plan 1 : 250

Exterior: public collective Regelwohnungen Nutzfläche öffentlich Interior: public collective

Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Breslau Hans Scharouns Ledigenwohnheim Breslau Regelwohnungen/Schnitt Massstab 1:250

Breslau Hans Scharouns Ledigenwohnheim Breslau Umgebungsplan mit EG Massstab 1:500

76

Breslau Men’s and Women’s Hostel

Isokon Building

Organization

developer type during operation unknown, occupation by rent, top-down initiation process

Resident demographic

64 residents, single men, childless young married couples, high educational level

Operational structure

service-oriented operation with employees, low level of participation

Apartments

48 units, apartments sized 27 m² for singles, 35 m² for couples

Areas

total site area 6,530 m², 3 stories in the west wing, 4 stories in the east

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 4 785

in %

m@ / pers.

100

74.8

4 120

86

64.4

590 75 Usable floor space 1 690 0 355 1 335

12 2

9.2 1.2

100 0 21 79

26.0 0 5.5 20.5

1 excluding 10  % circulation area

In contrast to Scharoun’s Men’s and Women’s Hostel, the Isokon Building remained largely in oper­ ation as a boarding house over the course of several decades. ! Built in 1933 in northern London by Canadian architect Wells Coates, the Isokon Building, also known as Lawn Road Flats, contains 32 standardized small housing units supplemented by a few collective living spaces. @ The Isokon Building was initiated by Molly and Jack Pritchard, active participants in the progressive social life of the inter-war years, who aimed to provide suitable housing for young men and women. # The married couple lived in a small penthouse apartment in the building, and the architect in a small unit on a standard floor. The apartments ranged from 32 to 49 m² and were fully equipped with a bathroom, kitchenette, and dressing room, although everything was designed with the most economic use of space possible. The small dwellings were reached via an access balcony, intended to encourage com­ munication and community between residents. $ In terms of housing typol­o gy, the Boarding House type was merged with that of the Central-Kitchen House, with a dumbwaiter leading directly from the central kitchen into some apart-

77

1 The name Isokon Building ments. Nevertheless, Isokon Flats was is derived from the modua typical Boarding House, with lar housing units, the the motivation for sharing rooted in designs of which the archithe services, not in the collectiv­ tect showed using an ization of the household or even in isometric view. The English shared living together. Extensive term Isometric Unit Con­ services were available, including a struction was evolved into porter in the lobby, a meal service, the name Isokon. See also and cleaning and laundry services. Burke (2014): The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers The common areas consisted of and Artists, p. 1. a tennis court, downstairs restau2 Aigner (2015): Gemein­ rant, and a bar, the Isobar, designed schaftliches Wohnen, by Marcel Breuer, to which only eine Typologie und ihre designated club members were Vielfalt, p. 79. admitted. % 3 The couple visited The Isokon Flats were mostly various building exhibitions inhabited by residents without and model settlements, children, though it is known that the such as the Weissenhof Settlement in Stuttgart, owners lived in the conventionally furnished penthouse with their two and was very interested in new forms of living. See children. In any case, this new also Burke (2014): The Lawn form of housing attracted a rather Road Flats: Spies, Writers illustrious population of artists and Artists, p. 18. and culture creators of the upper 4 Aigner (2015): Gemein­ middle class. ^ However, the effects schaftliches Wohnen, of National Socialism and World eine Typologie und ihre War II left their marks on the Isokon Vielfalt, p. 81. 5 Burke (2014): The Lawn Building, extinguishing its dynamic Road Flats: Spies, Writers liveliness. Many residents left and Artists, p. 106 and not only the building but the country Aigner (2015): Gemein­ and continent, and shared areas schaftliches Wohnen, eine were no longer kept in operation. Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, After the war, the building served as p. 82. an ordinary apartment house and 6 Former residents included was sold in the early 1970s by the writer Agatha Christie, Pritchard couple. As refurbishments sculptor Henry Moore, and also communists and were never undertaken, the buildrefugees fleeing the increasing increasingly disintegrated, and ingly fascist countries of was not restored until 2003. The Central Europe like László Isokon Building is currently manMoholy-Nagy, Marcel aged as an apartment building with a Breuer, and Walter Gropius. museum section. & See also Burke (2014): The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers and Artists, pp. 8, 43. 7 Aigner (2015): Gemein­ schaftliches Wohnen, eine Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, p. 83.

Garden façade. Cantacuzino S¸ erban, Wells Coates,   A Monograph, 1978

78

Isokon Building

Access balcony along the street side façade. Cantacuzino S¸ erban, Wells Coates,   A Monograph, 1978 Garden façade. Cantacuzino S¸ erban, Wells Coates,   A Monograph, 1978

Minimalist living unit with sleeping alcove. Cantacuzino S¸ erban, Wells Coates,   A Monograph, 1978 Study with areas that can be separated by curtain. Cantacuzino S¸ erban, Wells Coates,   A Monograph, 1978

Nutzfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

h

79

Spatial structure

Central kitchen

Lobby with porter Access balcony Collective spaces   not shown Restaurant Bar Tennis court Local area map with ground floor 1 : 500

Standard floor

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Regelgeschoss

L W I E M

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Cross-section

Regelwohnung

Schnitt

Exterior: Interior:

Aussenfläche öffentlich

public public

collective collective

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat Aussenfläche privat

London Wells Coates Isikon Building Regelwohung / Schnitt Massstab 1:250

80

Isokon Building

Spatial structure

Standard apartment 1 : 250 Regelwohnung Exterior: Interior:

public public

Schnitt

collective collective

Organization

private developers, occupation by rent, top-down initiation process

Resident demographic

around 44 residents, for artists and culture creators of the upper middle class, high educational level

Operational

service-oriented operation with Aussenfläche öffentlich employees, low level of Aussenfläche kollektiv participation

utzfläche öffentlich structure

utzfläche kollektiv

utzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Apartments

32 units sized 32 to 49 m²

Areas

total site area 2,110 m², 4 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 2 005 1 470 495 40 Usable floor space 1 420 0 310 1 110

in %

m@ / pers.

100 73 25 2

45.5 33.4 11.2 0.9

100 0 22 78

32.3 0 7.1 25.2

1 excluding 10  % circulation area

81

Central-Kitchen Houses as a Model of Reform “An apartment building   where meatballs are being cooked in twenty little kitchens   above and below each other,   where in each and every children’s room   a delicate creature fades in isolation,   does it not call out for planned organization,   organization in the name of collectivism?” a l va m y r d a l !

The idea of Central-Kitchen Houses focused The resulting social democratic and bouron the centralization and socialization of house- geois women’s movement led to broad debate holds and was a radical reform to the culture on and examination of ways to relieve the burdens of living when it emerged at the beginning of the of housework with the help of technology and 20 th century. It was closely linked to the burmachines. In many places, this was contrasted by geoning women’s movement and the reorganiza- a state of ongoing unhygienic living conditions tion of society, salaried working conditions, that necessitated highly time- and energy-conand the family. @ To understand the ideas behind suming housekeeping, all done by hand. Often, the Central-Kitchen Houses, it is important to neither running hot water nor central heating was mention their sources of inspiration. As early as available. % The growing employment of women, 1878, German socialist leader August Bebel especially prior to World War I , thus increased wrote his seminal book Die Frau und der Sozialismus   the need for improved organization and cohesion in the spheres of housekeeping, child-rearing, (Woman under Socialism) discussing the role of women and their value in society. # Bebel called and employment. The growing women’s movement led to additional areas of equality, such for collective housing and community facilities as the right to vote and attend university. At the as a precondition of true equality for women. It was not only German social democrat Lily Braun 1897 Zurich Congress on Labor Safety, Braun pleaded that it was not the removal of barriers to who brought these thoughts up for debate at higher education, the courts, or parliament the 1897 Zurich Congress on Labor Safety, introthat would free women; rather, she held, being ducing an early conception of Central-Kitchen freed from cookstoves and washbasins would Houses. $ Hungarian women’s rights activist Rosika Schwimmer also spread the idea of the 1 Cited in Muscheler 4 Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ household as a large-scale enterprise across (2007): Das Haus ohne modell Einküchenhaus, Europe with her 1909 publication Neue Heim­ Augenbrauen, Architektur­ Wohnreform und Architek­ kultur (A New Culture of Home). geschichte aus dem turdebatte zwischen 20. Jahrhundert, p. 126. Frauenbewegung und Funk­ 2 Terlinden, von Oertzen tionalismus, p. 61 f. (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage 5 Petsch (1989): Eigenheim ist Frauensache! Frauen­ und gute Stube, Zur bewegung und Wohnreform Geschichte des bürgerlichen 1870 –1933, p. 145. Wohnens, p. 78. 3 Archithese (1974): “Das Kollektivwohnhaus,” p. 10.

82

Central-Kitchen Houses as a Model of Reform

enable women to participate in social life, thus Central-Kitchen Houses were by no means reducing their double burden. Despite progress, a phenomenon that appeared suddenly on the however, women continued to be denied timeline of housing history. !! The idea of Centraleconomic equality, with a married woman still Kitchen Houses was broadly supported by lacking any control whatsoever over marital earlier concepts upheld by society at large — and by specific circles/groups, such as the utopian prop­e rty. ^ It was thus the husband, the head of household, who was responsible for deciding socialists — for collectivizing households and whether to move into a Central-Kitchen House. integrating women into the paid workforce. For In principle, the economic efficiency of the the first time, women took part in housing Central-Kitchen Houses and the reduction in policy debates, introducing their topics to the the cost of living by reducing staff can be seen as discussion through highly effective public the primary motivation for shared living. & Howrelations work. !@ The political climate led several ever, the Central-Kitchen House concept can also European cities to adopt the idea of, and then actually build, the Central-Kitchen House. The be attributed to other motives. In addition to the aspiring women’s movement, the abolition of greatest impetus came from the Nordic countries, as employment rates for women in Sweden, the feudal servant order in the late 19 th century also had a significant influence on the develop- Denmark, and the Netherlands were higher ment of Central-Kitchen Houses. Servants were than in the rest of Europe. !# After initially focusnow able to demand higher salaries, * and new ing on Central-Kitchen Houses as a means income opportunities arose as industrialization of sharing servants in order to better reconcile progressed and factory work became available. 6 Terlinden, von Oertzen 11 Terlinden, von Oertzen Now, servants were able to at least partially escape (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage the demeaning work of serving masters and ist Frauensache! Frauen­ ist Frauensache! Frauen­ start to establish independent lives. ( Centralbewegung und Wohnreform bewegung und Wohnreform Kitchen Houses can also be seen as a response to 1870–1933, p. 156. 1870 –1933, p. 137. 7 Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ 12 In addition to the a new shortage of servants. Not only were the modell Einküchenhaus, Central-Kitchen Houses and kitchen and other facilities shared, but, in the Wohnreform und Archi­t ek­ the streamlining of the sense of “collectivizing the maid”, the servants tur­d ebatte zwischen household, household Frauenbewegung und Funk­ supervision was also an were shared as well. ! ) This collectivization tionalismus, p. 11. issue. The term was of labor made it affordable for an upper class of 8 Neue Gesellschaft für used to refer to a female society to maintain their standard of living Bildende Kunst (ed.) (1977): housing supervisor re­ and the amenities of having staff. Wem gehört die Welt – sponsible for improving Kunst und Gesellschaft in hygienic, social, and moral Although the Central-Kitchen Houses were living conditions, prevalent initially designed for the working class, a middle- der Weimarer Republik, p. 94. in the Weimar Republic class stratum of well-educated working couples 9 Lily Braun describes in of the early 19 th century with children emerged as the target group. The until World War I . Salaried detail why servants began female civil servants quitting their jobs, listing shared living spaces of Central-Kitchen Houses could actively review and the following reasons: lack were never intended to collectivize the resident enforce the household of freedom, incessant families. The Central-Kitchen House typology care of entire neighborsupervision, endless work hoods. See also Terlinden, hours, insulting treatment, mostly featured family flats and small apartvon Oertzen (2006): Die ments, which were closely tied to services, primar­ lack of a private room Wohnungsfrage ist Frauen­ (servants were often housed ily through dumbwaiters. Without meal deliversache! Frauenbewegung in a tiny cubbies below ies and other services, the apartments could not the ceiling), and lack of und Wohnreform 1870– 1933, p. 59. opportunities to socialize function independently. 13 At the beginning of the with friends except in 20 th century, over a quarter the kitchen under the super­ of all married women in vision of the masters. Sweden worked in a paid See Braun (1901): Die position. See Werk Frauenfrage, Ihre geschicht­ (24|1937): Special Issue liche Entwicklung und Schweden, Das Stock­ ihre wirtschaft­liche Seite, holmer Kollektivhaus, eine p. 414. neue Wohnform, p. 5. 10 Priesner (2015): Ein kontemporärer Blick auf das Einküchenhaus-Konzept, p. 14.

83

Title page of Die Frau und der Sozialismus (Women under Socialism) by August Bebel. August Bebel, Die Frau und der Sozialismus, 1919 Edition Lily Braun working at her desk. Vogelstein, Julie: Lily Braun.   Ein Lebensbild, Berlin-Grunewald 1922, after p. 100; AddF Collection, Kassel

Podium of the 1 st International Women’s Congress in The Hague in 1915 with Rosika Schwimmer (fourth from left). © AddF Collection, Kassel Title page of Neue Heimkultur  (A New Culture of Home) by Rosika Schwimmer. Rosika Schwimmer, Neue Heimkultur, 1909

84

Central-Kitchen Houses as a Model of Reform

motherhood, family, and work, the debate following World War I began to highlight other economic arguments, such as the cost savings of a large-scale operation versus a small household. The advancing mechanization and streamlining of home interiors was a primary focus. At the same time, soldiers returning from war displaced many women from their jobs. This trend then declined in the inter-war years, as unstable economic conditions during and after World War I drove women throughout Europe back into the home. The right to paid employment and thus financial independence had not yet been granted, especially to married women, for fear it would create competition for men. ! $ Experiences with centrally organized food supply systems during World War I also contributed to ambiguous feelings about collective kitchens. ! % Thus, although it was initially strongly supported by professional circles, the Central-Kitchen House concept found itself with a decreasing number of followers in the inter-war years. A handful of Central-Kitchen Houses were built in the 1930s, but only in Sweden, a country in which the crucial importance of the nuclear family remained unquestioned but the division of labor between the sexes was declared obsolete. ! ^ The Central-Kitchen House concept did not prevail, nor did it succeed in integrating women into the paid workforce. The model of the man as the sole provider became an established paradigm that remained largely a given until the late 1960s. ! & This development, combined with the marginalization of women in paid working positions, resulted in an effort to educate women to become “thinking housewives” and household experts. ! * As a result of these evolutions and the built Central-Kitchen Houses, which were sometimes only designed and exhibited, a fundamental rationalization of households occurred, impacting collectivized households and, even more dramatically, individual households and their living space design. The most well-known example of this is Margarete SchütteLihotzky’s Frankfurt Kitchens, presented to

the public in 1926, which introduced the concept of mass-produced built-in kitchens in private households, a practice still widespread today. Kitchen work was optimized through layouts that focused on functionality and streamlining the organization of work utensils and preparation locations. ! ( Schütte-Lihotzky showed three different types of Frankfurt Kitchens at the Neues Frankfurt (New Frankfurt) exhibition: one kitchen for households without servants, one for homes with a housemaid, and one for homes with two maids, of which the first model without servants became prevalent. @) This led to apartments without shared areas and with autonomous facilities. Built-in kitchens in a separated room became the norm, making the home a place of relaxation for husbands and a workplace for the wife. @ ! At this point, it is important to highlight some of the contradictions and complications in the ideology and organizational structure of Central-Kitchen Houses. Critics suggested that the arrival of Central-Kitchen Houses would only shift, but not eliminate, the dual burden on women, as the predominantly female staff continued to live traditionally. @ @ In addition, although they were operated cooperatively, Central-Kitchen Houses still had to generate enough profit to cover the cost of services. @ # Only a well-heeled resident population could afford these costs. @ $ However, many women in this higher income class did not pursue gainful employment or had no interest in collectivizing housework and servants. Accordingly, the target audience of Central-Kitchen Houses could only be comprised of middle-class families who were both well educated and well funded. In addition, the socialist parties, and in some cases even the social democratic women’s movement, did not support the concept of Central-Kitchen Houses. @ % Schwimmer reported, for example, that the Social Democratic Party in Denmark strongly opposed institutions such as the Central-Kitchen House. @ ^ They feared the collapse of the family and a diminished influence on workers

85

24 In Neue Gesellschaft für who might organize themselves outside of party Bildende Kunst (1977): structures. Due to the above-mentioned eco­ Wem gehört die Welt – nomic and political developments, the reform Kunst und Gesellschaft model lost relevance, and after 1945 the Centralin der Weimarer Republik, p. 94. Kitchen House and the ideology of dwellings without facilities were forgotten for a long period 25 Terlinden writes in detail about the personal of time. @ & There were no further developand political differences between Lily Braun and ments. It was not until the social upheaval of the Clara Zetkin, editor-in-chief late 1960s brought about a further big step of the social democratic towards emancipating women that the concept women’s newspaper Die of the Central-Kitchen House was tentatively Gleichheit. Central-Kitchen Houses found appeal redis­covered.

and support among radical social democratic and bourgeois wings in partic­ 14 In 1909, Schwimmer 20 See also Terlinden, von ular. See also Terlinden, writes that the complete Oertzen (2006): Die Woh­ von Oertzen (2006): Die economic independence of nungsfrage ist Frauensache! Wohnungsfrage ist Frauen­ women is the basis of Frauenbewegung und sache! Frauenbewegung women’s legal and social Wohnreform 1870–1933, und Wohnreform 1870– equality with men. See p. 89. 1933, pp. 140, 185. Schwimmer (1909): Neue 21 Altenstraßer, Hauch, 26 Schwimmer (1909): Heimkultur, Zentralhaus­ Kepplinger (2007): gender Neue Heimkultur, Zentral­ haltung, Ein­k üchenhaus, housing – geschlechter­ haushaltung, Einküchen­ p. 9. See also Uhlig (1981): gerechtes bauen, wohnen, haus, p. 8. Kollektivmodell Einküchen­ leben, p. 28; and Petsch 27 Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ haus, Wohn­reform und (1989): Eigenheim und gute modell Einküchenhaus, Architektu­r­d e­b atte zwi­ Stube, Zur Geschichte Wohnreform und Architek­ schen Frauen­bewegung und des bürgerlichen Wohnens, turdebatte zwischen Funktionalismus, p. 57. p. 38. Frauenbewegung und 15 Terlinden, von Oertzen 22 Kuchenbuch (2010): Funktionalismus, p. 139. (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage Geordnete Gemeinschaft – ist Frauensache! Frauen­ Architekten als Sozial­ bewegung und Wohnreform ingenieure, Deutschland 1870 – 1933, p. 163. und Schweden im 20. Jahr­ 16 Kuchenbuch (2010): hundert, p. 299 f. Geordnete Gemeinschaft – 23 A developer of CentralArchitekten als Sozial­ Kitchen Houses, the Lily ingenieure, Deutschland Braun Housing Cooperative und Schweden im 20. Jahr­ showed early on that they hundert, p. 70. could provide decent hous­ 17 Terlinden, von Oertzen ing to the working class (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage at much more favorable ist Frauensache! Frauen­ conditions than those of the bewegung und Wohnreform free market. In 1903, Braun 1870 – 1933, p. 62. herself founded a house 18 Kuchenbuch (2010): hold cooperative in order to Geordnete Gemeinschaft – establish a Central-Kitchen Architekten als Sozial­ House. Despite tenant ingenieure, Deutschland interest, the construction und Schweden im 20. Jahr­ was never realized. The hundert, pp. 71, 164. reasons for this lay in the 19 Haupt, (2014): Ein­ skepticism of funders, küchenhaus und Einbau­ who were willing to support küche, p. 15. neither a woman nor a social democrat. Terlinden cites Lily Braun as saying: “She feared the small aspects of a future communist state.” See also Terlinden, von Oertzen (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage ist Frauensache! Frauen­ bewegung und Wohnreform 1870–1933, pp. 140, 149.  

86

Selected examples of Central-Kitchen Houses

Page 90 Lichterfelde-West Central-Kitchen House

1909 Berlin, Germany Suburbs Newly built Herman Muthesius Berlin Suburbs CentralKitchen House Company



Page 87 Service House

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developer

1905 Copenhagen, Denmark City center Newly built Unknown Otto Fick Hemgården Central-Kitchen House

1907 Stockholm, Sweden Suburbs Newly built Georg Hagström, Fritiof Ekman Stock corporation

Het Nieuwe Huis Central-Kitchen House

1928 Amsterdam, Netherlands Urban neighborhood Newly built Barend van den Nieuwen Amstel Samenleving Cooperative

American House Central-Kitchen Houses

Page 97 John Ericsonsgatan Collective House

1917 Zurich, Switzerland Urban neighborhood Newly built Otto Schwank Living and Dining Housing Cooperative

1935 Stockholm, Sweden City center Newly built Sven Markelius Fägelbärsträdet Housing Rights Association

Design for a Central-Kitchen House

Marieberg Collective House

1919 (Design ) — — — Oskar Wlach — Design of the Immeuble-Villas

1922 (Design) — — — Le Corbusier — Page 94 Heimhof Central-Kitchen House

1923 Vienna, Austria Suburbs Newly built Otto Polak-Hellwig Heimhof Construction and Housing Cooperative

1944 Stockholm, Sweden City center Newly built Sven Ivar Lind Olle Engkvist Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground 1 : 12,000 diagram Local area map 1 : 1,000 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

87

Service House

removing any concerns about cleaning, ventilation, lighting, heating, and all activities associated with food preparation, such as shopping, cooking, serving, washing dishes, and so on. @ A total of seven employees provided these services. # It is striking that the first Central-Kitchen House had no collective rooms besides the central kitchen, which was actually used only by employees, not shared by residents. There was no communal dining room. Collective childcare was also not available at the Service House. $ The concept of sharing was therefore represented purely in the centralization and collectivization of housework, not cohabitation of any kind. This was also reflected in how the building was operated —  not cooperatively, as Lily Braun had initially envisioned, but purely as a business. % Fick was a businessman and ran the Central-Kitchen House like a company, sharing profits with the residents and staff. Run this way, the Central-Kitchen Houses could not last long. A Danish banking crisis forced Fick to sell the building to the city, which was also part owner, when he was no longer able to pay off the loans. ^ Ac­c ording to various

The first Central-Kitchen House was built in Copenhagen. By de­ signing what he termed a Service House, former school principal Otto Fick created a cultural housing alternative with a total of 26 threeto five-room apartments. ! In order to preserve each family’s privacy, the units were fully separate. However, instead of kitchens the apartments had only sideboards, each containing a small gas cooker and a dumbwaiter that led directly to 1 Archithese (14|1975): the central kitchen. In addition to a “Grosshaushalte,” p.  4. living room, each apartment also 2 As stated by Rosika included a dining room and one to Schwimmer. In Die three bedrooms. Various sources Umschau (52|1907). See mention criticism that the floor also Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ plans of the Service House were not modell Einküchenhaus, up to the standards of the time. Wohnreform und Architek­ Nevertheless, the technical facilities turdebatte zwischen were far superior to anything else Frauenbewegung und Funk­ tionalismus, p. 10. available. For instance, the Central 3 Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ Kitchen House in Copenhagen modell Einküchenhaus, was equipped with central heating, Wohnreform und Architek­ hot water, a connection to the turdebatte zwischen central vacuum system, a garbage Frauenbewegung und Funk­ disposal, and an in-house telephone tionalismus, p. 11. system, which had a direct line to 4 Zurich Museum of Design the central kitchen in the souterrain. (ed.) (1986): Das andere Laundry and dry cleaning services Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn­ (bau)formen, p. 28. could be requested as needed. The 5 Terlinden, von Oertzen Central-Kitchen House was praised for its communal philosophy, which (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage ist Frauensache! Frauen­ in this case referred to the centralbewegung und Wohnreform ization of the household, thus fully 1870–1933, p. 140. 6 Schwimmer (1909): Neue Heimkultur, Zentralhaus­ haltung, Einküchenhaus, p. 14.

88

Service House

sources, the house con­tinued to exist for some time, with kitchens being constructed in the apartments early on and the central kitchen laid to rest, later to be used as a common room. & The Central-Kitchen House was fully converted to individual living in 1942.

7 Archithese (14 | 1975): “Grosshaushalte,” p. 5.

Street façade of the first CentralKitchen House. Dansk arkitektur gennem 20 aar: 1892–1912, by K. Varming Central kitchen in the basement. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Archi­ tekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­b ewegung und Funktionalismus 1900–1933, 1981 A dumbwaiter connects the central kitchen and the sideboard of each family apartment. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell Ein­ küchenhaus. Wohnreform und Archi­ tekturdebatte zwischen Frauenbewegung und Funktionalismus 1900–1933, 1981 (Courtesy of the Anabas Verlag.)

h

89

Spatial structure

Local area map

Dumbwaiters

Standard floor plan

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Central kitchen Cross-section

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

collective Schnitt collective

90

Service House

Organization

private ownership with profit sharing to residents and staff, occupation by rent, top-down initiation process

Resident demographic

around 100 residents, for working women with family, higher classes with a good level of edu­c ation

Operational structure

externally managed and service oriented, 7 employees, low level of participation

Apartments

26 units, three- to five-room apartments

Areas

total site area unknown, 5 stories

total  public collective ! private

area m@ Usable floor space 3 215 0 840 2 375

Lichterfelde-West Central-Kitchen House

in %

m@ / pers.

100 0 26 74

32.1 0 8.4 23.7

1 excluding 10  % circulation area

Inspired by the Copenhagen example, the Einküchenhaus-Gesell­ schaft der Berliner Vororte (Berlin Suburbs Central-Kitchen House Company) planned five Central-Kitchen Houses in Berlin as part of a largescale program. Two were completed by Herman Muthesius in Lichter­ felde-West in 1909. The two buildings had a total of 21 two- to fourroom apartments and were con­n ect­ ed by an underground corridor, as the buildings shared a single central kitchen. A food cart on rails could be rolled back and forth along the corridor, making it possible to deliver meals directly to apartments on the ground floor and the two stories above via a dumbwaiter in each building. Unlike the Service House in Copenhagen, the apartments did not have a private sideboard, and the food elevator led only to the hallway. Also in contrast to the Service House, the central kitchen of the Lichterfelde-West CentralKitchen Houses was positioned on the ground floor and connected by an interior staircase to storage rooms in the basement. There was still no collective dining room, although the rooftop terrace, which was served by the dumbwaiter, could be used for shared meals. ! Muthesius also used the basement and attic stories to create collective

91

areas such as a gymnasium, mothproof cloakroom, darkroom, and bicycle room. Extensive services, such as cleaning, laundry, or ironing, were available. @ In addition to centralized housekeeping, collective childcare was integrated into the Berlin Central-Kitchen Houses, with a kindergarten in each building that was led by progressive educators. # In the view of the Einküchenhaus-Gesellschaft, intimacy within the family unit would be strengthened by the centralization of housework and education. $ In terms of organization, the initiators deliberately did not choose to establish a cooperative, as they felt that the cooperative management structure Photo of the Central-Kitchen could not compete with more House model, 1909. rigorous economic models. A comGünther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell   pany, on the other hand, would Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Archi­ be capable of addressing the mechatekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ nization and centralization of bewegung und Funktionalismus 1900– housekeeping. % The Einküchen1933, 1981 haus-Gesellschaft der Berliner Vor­ orte was a subsidiary of a second Roof terrace of the corner building. company, which was responsible for Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell   promoting a new culture of home Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Archito reform the housing, household, tekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ and education systems and to conbewegung und Funktionalismus 1900– nect with businesses in other cities. 1933, 1981 Both companies were driven by the (Courtesy of the Anabas Verlag.) socio-economic aim of using CentralKitchen Houses to solve the problem of housing for the working classes. ^ 1 See also Terlinden, von The demand for apartments in the Oertzen (2006): Die Woh­ five Berlin Central-Kitchen Houses was high, with all units rented even nungsfrage ist Frauensache! Frauenbewegung und before completion. Despite this, Wohnreform 1870–1933, the Einküchenhaus-Gesellschaft had p. 152. to be liquidated after only a few 2 Federn: “Die Einküchenmonths of operation, due to financial häuser in Berlin.” In Frau­ difficulties, organizational resisenbestrebungen (08|1909), tance, and an unsuitable composition p. 63. 3 Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ of residents — not enough young modell Einküchenhaus, families with working mothers. The Wohnreform und Architek­ two Lichterfelde-West Centralturdebatte zwischen Kitchen Houses were transferred to Frauenbewegung und Funk­ another company, which continued tionalismus, p. 31. to operate the buildings as Central- 4 Archithese (14|1975): Kitchen Houses until 1915. & Ac­ “Grosshaushalte,” p.  5. cording to various sources, the build­ 5 Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ ings were later demolished. modell Einküchenhaus, Wohnreform und Architek­ turdebatte zwischen Frauenbewegung und Funk­ tionalismus, p. 26. 6 Terlinden, von Oertzen (2006): Die Wohnungsfrage ist Frauensache! Frauen­ bewegung und Wohnreform 1870–1933, p. 152. 7 Ibid., p. 154 f.

Living room in a private apartment. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell   Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Architekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ bewegung und Funktionalismus 1900– 1933, 1981 Central kitchen on the ground floor. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell   Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Architekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ bewegung und Funktionalismus 1900– 1933, 1981 (Courtesy of the Anabas Verlag.)

lich

tiv

92

Lichterfelde-West Central-Kitchen House

Spatial structure

Dumbwaiters

Basement

Untergeschoss

Central kitchen Collective spaces not shown Kindergarten Darkroom Room with gymnastics equipment Bicycle room Moth-free cloakroom Washroom Drying room Ironing room Rooftop terrace with shower rooms

Untergeschoss

Ground floor

Erdgeschoss

Regelgeschoss

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Standard floor

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Regelgeschoss

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Einküchenhaus Hermann Muthesius Lichterfelde West Unter-Erd-Regelgeschoss Massstab 1:500

ch

v

93

Cross-section

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Organization

private developers, occupation by rent, top-down initiation process

Resident demographic

around 70 residents, for working women with families, senior civil servants, high level of education

Operational Aussenfläche structure

externally managed and

öffentlich service oriented, employees

Aussenfläche kollektiv provide various services,

low level of participation Aussenfläche privat Apartments

21 units, two- to four-room apartments

Areas

total site area 1,750 m², 3 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 1 305 1 100 175 30 Usable floor space 2 265 0 770 1 495

in %

m@ / pers.

100 84 13 3

18.6 15.7 2.5 0.4

100 0 34 66

32.4 0 11.0 21.4

1 excluding 10  % circulation area

94

Heimhof CentralKitchen House

Heimhof also became the first Central-Kitchen House with a dining room for shared meals. This was supplemented by additional shared facilities such as a social area, bathing facility, central launderette, and rooftop terrace. In addition to these collective areas, services such as laundering and cleaning were offered. Since the Central-Kitchen House was intended to include 264 residential units, the collective areas for the 24 units realized in the first phase were very large. When financial difficulties prevented the housing cooperative from completing construction, the City of Vienna took over and finished the project. In addition to completion of the remaining residential units, a kindergarten was also added in the courtyard. The cooperative retained management of Heimhof ’s daily operations, enabling the residents to remain active participants; they regularly staged events and held meet­i ngs to elect representatives responsible for the administration and management of the central kitchen. $ The Heimhof CentralKitchen House remained in operation until World War I I , when National Socialists liquidated the cooperative and closed the central kitchen and dining room. %

Completed in Vienna in 1923, Heimhof was the first CentralKitchen House to be built by a cooperative housing development organization. Ten years earlier, the Heimhof Construction and Housing Cooperative had built the first central-kitchen boarding house, for single working women, which operated successfully. ! The new Heimhof Central-Kitchen House aimed to house working families; before moving in, interested parties were required to prove that both partners in the family were employ­ ed. @ Following a design by Otto Polak-Hellwig, the 24 one- and two1 Austrian social reformer room apartments built during the and women’s rights ad­ first phase lacked kitchens or even an vocate Auguste Fickert was extra room for food preparation; a proponent of Centralinstead, the design included a cenKitchen Homes for women, tral kitchen, service lifts, and a which included a central main dining room on the ground kitchen and a library. See floor. Unlike the Central-Kitchen also Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ Houses in Copenhagen and Berlin, modell Einküchenhaus, the floor plans and furnishings Wohnreform und Architek­ turdebatte zwischen of the apartments were quite ration­ Frauenbewegung und Funk­ alized. The reduction of kitchen and living areas and the introduction tionalismus, p. 42. 2 Aigner (2015): Gemein­ of functional niches such as cupschaftliches Wohnen, board kitchens and bedroom alcoves eine Typologie und ihre meant that, for the first time, the Vielfalt, p. 64. central-kitchen housing model had 3 Weigel (1996): Die Ein­ lost all parallels with the floor plans raumwohnung als of bourgeois family apartments. # räum­liches Manifest der

Moderne, p. 29. 4 Museum of Design Zurich (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn­ (bau)formen, p. 29. 5 Uhlig (1981): Kollektiv­ modell Einküchenhaus, Wohnreform und Architek­ turdebatte zwischen Frauenbewegung und Funk­ tionalismus, p. 42.

Pilgerimga Otto Polak Heimhof Schwarzpla Massstab 1

95

Central kitchen facilities. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Architekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ bewegung und Funktionalismus 1900–1933, 1981

Street façade and main entrance. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer: Erwin Mühlestein The cooking and working niche of a private dwelling. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Architekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ bewegung und Funktionalismus 1900–1933, 1981 (Courtesy of the Anabas Verlag.)

A rooftop terrace compensates for the minimal size of the private residential units. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Architekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ bewegung und Funktionalismus 1900–1933, 1981 Private sitting area. Günther Uhlig, Kollektivmodell Einküchenhaus. Wohnreform und Architekturdebatte zwischen Frauen­ bewegung und Funktionalismus 1900–1933, 1981 (Courtesy of the Anabas Verlag.)

(Courtesy of the Anabas Verlag.)

h

h

96

Heimhof Central-Kitchen House

Spatial structure

Local area map

Central kitchen Bathing facility

Dining room

Erdgeschoss Ground floor

Erdgeschoss

Dumbwaiters Collective spaces not shown Social room Kindergarten Central launderette Rooftop terrace

Standard floor

Regelgeschoss Exterior: Interior:

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche privat Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

public collective Regelgeschoss public collective

97

Organization

non-profit developer, occupancy through fractional ownership, top-down initiation process

Resident demographic

number of residents unknown, for families with two working partners, middle-class

Operational structure

self-managed by residents, including the central kitchen, regular house meetings, employees provided certain services, cleaning and energy costs included in rent, high level of participation

Apartments

264 units, first phase of 24 units with one- to two-room apartments, sized 28 to 30 m²

Areas

total site area 4,145 m², 3 stories

total  public collective ! private

area m@ Usable floor space 1 330 0 505 825

John Ericsonsgatan Collective House

in %

m@ / pers.

100 0 38 62

— — — —

1 excluding 10  % circulation area

The most well-known CentralKitchen House is the John Ericsonsgatan Collective House in Stockholm, which was initiated in 1935 by architect and later municipal master builder Sven Markelius and sociologist Alva Myrdal. Although the term “collective house” could also refer to a different category of collective living, this project is clearly modelled on the Central-Kitchen House. Instead of private kitchens, the 50 one- to four-room apartments had a small cupboard kitchen connected by a dumbwaiter with the central kitchen. ! Unlike with pre­ vious Central-Kitchen Houses, this project clearly emphasized shared areas and collective childcare. Relieving the dual burden on Swedish women and professionalizing housework and other family tasks was not only important for Myrdal; the Swedish state also advocated all-day childcare and promoted collective residences, in response to a significant decline in births during the 1930s. @ For example, a government loan for housing stimulation provided financial support for the John Ericsonsgatan Collective House. Alva Myrdal saw a considerable waste of time and energy in amateurly fulfilled housework tasks and wanted to strengthen families by

98

John Ericsonsgatan Collective House

1 There is conflicting inforcollectivizing household care and mation on the exact child-rearing, maintaining that number of apartments. reducing the double burden on Mühlestein writes that women would help increase intimacy there were 55 apartments, and closeness within families. # while other sources indiFor this reason, a range of separate cate there were 48. Based living spaces such as a nursery and on a review of the plans, a public restaurant were included. we have determined there Indi­v idual families could decide was a total of 56 residenwhether they wanted to eat in the res­ tial units. See also Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) taurant or in their own apartment (1986): Das andere Neue dining room, and children could be Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau) delivered to the daycare facility formen, p. 36. on an individualized schedule. There 2 Archithese (14|1975): were rooms for babies as well as “Grosshaushalte,” p.  6. sleeping quarters for children who 3 Muscheler (2007): Das needed to stay overnight. Other Haus ohne Augenbrauen, services such as cleaning and launArchitekturgeschichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert, dry facilitated family life, and pp. 125 f., 133. Muscheler each apartment was equipped with also illustrates how all a dumbwaiter, laundry chute, facilities were tailored for and garbage disposal. children. For example, The John Ericsonsgatan Collecthe center of the ground tive House clearly showed how floor had play rooms the initially targeted sector of the that were outfitted with working class was excluded from miniature furniture. this form of housing both by ideolMühlestein also describes how the childcare facilities ogy and cost-prohibitiveness. at the John Ericsonsgatan Most residents living in Stockholm’s Collective House consti­tuted Central-Kitchen House were lefta new type of family leaning, socially engaged academics, composition. See Zurich intellectuals, and freelancers. $ Museum of Design (ed.) Their commitment and involvement (1986): Das andere Neue meant that the Central-Kitchen Wohnen, Neue Wohn­House was run as a socio-political (bau)formen, p. 37. experiment in emancipation and 4 Muscheler (2007): Das Haus ohne Augenbrauen, the liberation of women from houseArchitekturgeschichte aus work, allowing them to become dem 20. Jahrhundert, full members of society. For decades, p. 129 f. the John Ericsonsgatan Collective 5 Zurich Museum of Design House was operated as a full-fledged (ed.) (1986): Das andere Central-Kitchen House. However, Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn-­ a missed generational change led to (bau)formen, p. 38. too few children living in the house and the resulting closure of one of the most important foun­ dations, the kindergarten. Due to lack of resident demand, both the central kitchen and the restaurant were forced to open up completely to the public. Following a renovation in the early 1980s, the collective ideology came to an end. %

View of garden and outdoor daycare space. @ Erwin Mühlestein

99

Daycare with playroom and bedrooms. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer: Erwin Mühlestein

Public restaurant. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer: Erwin Mühlestein Dumbwaiter with direct connection between central kitchen and apartment. Archithese (14|1975): “Grosshaushalt e”

100

John Ericsonsgatan Collective House

Spatial structure

Restaurant

Central kitchen Central hall Cooperative store

Daycare with playroom Infant and children’s sleeping area

Local area map with ground floor

Dumbwaiters Collective space not shown Rooftop terrace

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Nutzfläche privat

egelgeschoss

kollektiv

Standard floor

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Nutzfläche öffentlich

öffentlich

Dumbwaiters

Regelgeschoss

Schnitt

Aussenfläche öffentlich

AussenflächeCross-section kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Schnitt

collective collective

Stockholm Sven Markelius

101

Organization

residents were members of the Housing Rights Association, occupancy through partial ownership, top-down initiation process

Resident demographic

around 80 residents, families, mostly with a single child, high educational level

Operational structure

building managed by the Housing Rights Association, service-oriented operation, employees for restaurant and childcare operation, residents given 25 % off in the public restaurant, childcare partially financed by the restaurant, medium degree of participation

Apartments

56 units, 9 one-room apartments, sized 20 to 30 m², 33 two-room apartments, sized 45 m², 1 threeroom apartment, 4 four-room apartments, sized 100 m², 9 single rooms without sideboard for staff

Areas

total site area 500 m², 7 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 375 65 115 195 Usable floor space 2 335 290 370 1 675

in %

m@ / pers.

100

4.6

17

0.8

31 52

1.4 2.4

100 12 16 72

29.1 3.6 4.6 20.9

1 excluding 10  % circulation area

102

excursus

Collective Housing in the Soviet Union

The period following the Russian Revolution of 1917 saw the creation of a number of notable apartment blocks with collective living areas that had a major influence on the further development of collective living in Central Europe. These apartment blocks were founded on the socialist utopian ideals of the new gov­ erning power, which was striving to establish a modern Soviet society, a so-called new way of life for the working class that was to take the form of a collective. ! This gave rise to four forms of collective living that established themselves primarily in the 1920s and 1930s: communal apartments, also called Kommunalki, youth communes, transitional communes, and fully col­ lectivized housing. @ After the revolution, the Kommunalki became the predominant form of housing in cities such as Moscow and Leningrad. The idea was that these would be the first stage of collective living, although the focus was not yet on col­ lectivizing life as a whole or on calling the very notion of family into question. # In the Kom­ munalki, several families shared an apartment that had often been upper middle-class before the revolution and was now expropriated. $

103

Each family was given one room. If the room titions for collective housing accommodating was larger than 13 m², it was again partitioned. 100 to 150 residents, with the architects focusing All families shared the kitchen and bathroom, particularly on rational planning and signifimeaning that five or more families could be ac- cantly fewer furnishings in the apartments. The commodated in an existing apartment dependterm transitional commune was coined because ing on its size. Although propagated as a form of these projects and plans did not yet fully encourage communalization of the family unit, and collective living, the Kommunalki were not inthus its dissolution, instead merely representing tended to encourage people to live together as such but to coerce them to do so as a result of the the next stage in this development. ! ) In the next step towards the new way of major housing shortage in the cities. This forced community had little in common with the utopian life, separate family apartments were no longer offered in the fully collectivized housing. Not ideals of the new way of life, since households only were individual household activities moved were not run collectively. Each family cooked, to a central kitchen, but all aspects of living washed, and lived for themselves. % The spirit of optimism after the revolution and family life were transferred to the community. ! ! The idea here was to give each room was more palpable in the youth communes, which saw themselves as the driving force behind exactly one function. Adults and children were the collective living movement. Even wages were divided into age groups and assigned shared shared in youth communes. They were mainly 1 Felde (2009): Konzepte 6 The young people pledhome to revolutionary students and young work- des kollektiven Wohnens ged to adopt the political ers who were at the forefront of industrialization, und Lebens in der Architek­ structures of order and living in accordance with the tenets of the tur der frühen Sowjetphase, cleanliness. Marriage and new way of life and rejecting both individual and p. 3. family life was also ques2 People’s kitchens were tioned. See Möbius (2012): petty bourgeois family life. ^ In contrast to the set up in addition to the Russische Sozialutopien Kommunalki, rooms were organized according to collective housing where von Peter I . bis Stalin, His­ their specific functions. There were shared torische Konstellationen workers could eat publicly und Bezüge, p. 437; and for free. See Möbius, bedrooms, living room, kitchen, and bathroom. Felde (2009): Konzepte des Thomas (2012): Russische Youth communes were in turn criticized for kollektiven Wohnens und Sozialutopien von Peter I . being more of a forced community borne out of bis Stalin, Historische Kons­ Lebens in der Architektur economic necessity rather than fully-fledged tellationen und Bezüge, der frühen Sowjetphase, p. 430. p. 23. collective housing in the idealistic sense. How 3 Felde (2009): Konzepte 7 Felde (2009): Konzepte ever, since young students and working people des kollektiven Wohnens des kollektiven Wohnens had similar lifestyles and did not yet have their und Lebens in der Architek­ und Lebens in der Architek­ own families, youth communes worked well tur der frühen Sowjetphase, tur der frühen Sowjet­ p. 16. phase, p. 50. for many years, in contrast to the Kommunalki. & 4 The bourgeois class was 8 Cramer, Zalivkako (1971): In the two forms of housing, Kommunalki pushed out of their urban Das Narkomfin-Kommune­ and youth communes, people lived together apartments when the haus in Moskau 1918–2012, private ownership of real p. 13. collectively in existing apartment blocks with estate in cities was abol­ 9 Chmelnizki (2007): Die conventional layouts and where the residents ished by decree in 1918. Architektur Stalins – lived rent-free until 1921. * It was not until the These apartments then Studien zu Ideologie und mid-1920s that new collective housing was became available to workers Stil, p. 53. who were being moved 10 Felde (2009): Konzepte built with architecture geared to the needs of into the cities to spur the des kollektiven Wohnens the residents and to collective living, at a time progress of the Industrial und Lebens in der Architek­ when new paths to building socialist cities Revolution. See Cramer, tur der frühen Sowjet­ Zalivkako, (1971): Das phase, p. 16. were being sought. ( State programs ran compe-

Narkomfin-Kommunehaus 11 Möbius (2012): Russische in Moskau 1918–2012, Sozialutopien von Peter I . bis Stalin, Historische Kons­ p. 13. tellationen und Bezüge, 5 Möbius (2012): Russische p. 538. Sozialutopien von Peter I . bis Stalin, Historische Kons­ tellationen und Bezüge, p. 428.

104

excursus

Collective Housing in the Soviet Union

ects in Central Europe was very significant. sleeping areas. ! @ These were intended only for sleeping; residents were to spend the rest of their Decades later, it was the designs of transitional housing in particular, with their economical and time after work or school in the communal highly functional layouts, that inspired apartareas. ! # Fully collectivized housing can also be ment blocks such as the Unité d’Habitation by seen as a rational fantasy of order, seeking to Le Corbusier. mathematically shape life through a precisely timed and predetermined daily routine. ! $ This idea was shaped by the notion that an indi 12 Cramer, Zalivkako (1971): 18 Chmelnizki (2007): vidual’s personality could only blossom in a Das Narkomfin-Kommune­ Die Architektur Stalins – community. ! % Only a handful of fully collectivStudien zu Ideologie haus in Moskau 1918–2012, ized apartment blocks were actually built in und Stil, p. 47. p. 15 f. urban areas; a much greater number were to be 19 Josef Stalin emerged 13 Felde (2009): Konzepte from the struggle for power des kollektiven Wohnens found in rural areas around the new industrial as the sole ruler. This und Lebens in der Architek­ factories. was followed by a wave of tur der frühen Sowjetphase, In the 1920s, inspiring talks were held cleansing that included p. 23 f. leftist socialists. Stalin forbetween Russian and Central European architects 14 Möbius (2012): Russische bid both collective housing Sozialutopien von Peter I . at the invitation of the Russian government. ! ^ and divorce at the same bis Stalin, Historische Kons­ The cooperation was focused on avant-garde time. It seemed as if both tellationen und Bezüge, buildings such as those of transitional communes p. 540 f. socialist and capitalist nations were quite happy 15 Felde (2009): Konzepte and fully collectivized housing, and was tied with the institution of to the hope of creating a solution for a centralized des kollektiven Wohnens isolated nuclear families. und Lebens in der Architek­ state model of a classless society. !& A volte-face The nuclear family’s striving tur der frühen Sowjetphase, for conformation and wellin Russian housing policy, which happened in p. 50. being combined with its 16 This exchange resulted in 1932, was something that could not have been wish to avoid endangering a number of exhibitions, foreseen either by architects from Central Europe chances of upward mobility such as the 1931 Proletarian or by local Soviet avant-garde architects. ! * represented a socially Building Expo in Berlin, and politically stabilizing The Russian government withdrew political favor that highlighted housing asset. See Archithese issues in capitalist states from communal living in collective housing, (14|1975): “Grosshaus­ and suggested solutions in condemning col­lective life and the dissolution of halte,” p. 12; and Museum the Soviet Union. For more, the family as egalitarianism that discredited für Gestaltung Zürich see also Fezer, Hiller, (ed.) (1986): Das andere Nehmer, Oswalt (2015): socialism. The communalization of all life in colneue Wohnen, Neue Kollektiv für sozialistisches lective housing was deemed both damaging Wohn(bau)formen, p. 10. Bauen, Proletarische and un-Soviet, as all efforts were to be directed 20 Chmelnizki (2007): Bauausstellung, p. 29; and Die Architektur Stalins – towards the rapid industrialization of the Chmelnizki (2007): Die Studien zu Ideologie Architektur Stalins – country. !( The political reorientation also meant und Stil, p. 456. Studien zu Ideologie und that contact between Western and Soviet archi 21 Fezer, Hiller, Nehmer, Stil, p. 78. tects was severed. @ ) The result is that there was Oswalt (2015): Kollektiv für 17 Fezer, Hiller, Nehmer, sozialistisches Bauen, Oswalt (2015): Kollektiv für never a mass movement towards collective Proletarische Bauausstel­ sozialistisches Bauen, housing in the Soviet Union, with it instead relung, p. 80. Proletarische Bauausstel­ maining an architectural consolidation of the 22 Möbius (2012): Russische lung, p. 79. Sozialutopien von Peter I . socialist utopia. @ ! While the actual number of bis Stalin, Historische Kons­ collective dwellings built was high in absolute tellationen und Bezüge, terms, it was still negligible when compared to pp. 425 f., 432. the total number of apartments. @@ In contrast, the influence on other collective housing proj-

105

Selected examples of Collective Housing

Page 107 Narkomfin Collective Residence

1930 Moscow, Soviet Union Urban neighborhood Newly built Moisej Ginzburg, Ignatij Milinis People’s Commissariat of Finance House for the New Way of Life



Design for a Collective Residence

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developer

1921 (Design) — — — Konstantin Stepanowitsch Melnikow —



Page 106 Design for a Collective Residence

1927 (Design) — — — Ivan N. Sobolev —

Design for a Collective Residence

1929 (Design) — — — M. Barschtsch, W. Wladimorow —

1965 Moscow, Soviet Union Outskirts Newly built Nathan Osterman Municipal Housing Construction Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground 1 : 12,000 diagram Local area map 1 : 1,000 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

106

Design for a Collective Residence

Spatial structure

Grundrisse

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Grundrisse

Nutzfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche kollektiv

The founding of the O S A Group Grundrisse (Organization of Contemporary Architects) in 1925 brought together an association of avant-garde Russian architects best known for their collective housing designs. ! These Nutzfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche öffentlich Collective Residences, also called Nutzfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat Aussenfläche privat plans Standard floor Housing Combines, consisted of economically sized housing units and a group of social buildings that inGrundrisse Schnitt cluded cafeterias, clubs, libraries, shops, childcare facilities, and sports halls designed to serve the 2,000 to 4,000 residents living in the complex. Ivan N. Sobolev Nutzflächesubmitted öffentlich Aussenfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv an early design to an O S A members’Aussenfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat Aussenfläche privat competition in 1927. @ Wholly in Cross-section the spirit of the rationalization of society, he aimed to reduce the Schnitt space required for horizontal accesspublic collective Exterior: ways, designing the complex as Interior: public collective centrally and economically as possible. In Sobolev’s design, a central corridor with access to the dwellings Aussenfläche öffentlich was only necessary Ivan N. Sobolev Aussenfläche kollektiv every third floor; Entwurf Kommunehaus Grundrisse / Schnitt Aussenfläche privat the two-story apartments alter­ Massstab 1:250 nated, with one going up and one down. While the bedrooms and other areas were on a single level, the living room in each apartment was two stories high. #

1 Khan-Magomedov (1983): Pioniere der sowjetischen Architektur – Der Weg zur neuen sowjetischen Archi­ tektur in den zwanziger und zu Beginn der dreissiger Jahre, p. 592. 2 Ibid., p. 334. 3 Ibid., p. 348.

107

Narkomfin Collective Residence

the typology. For example, Type C residential units were accessed by a corridor on each floor, while Types D and F were accessed by one corridor per two floors, i. e. splitlevel, and Type E had a single corridor for every three floors. According to analysis of the Building Typology Section, Type F proved to be the most rational. $ Using this wealth of information, the architects of the Narkomfin Collective Residence developed a highly heterogeneous mix of apartment types, designed for single government finance admin­ istrators as well as those with small and large families and aimed to collectivize lifestyles in various ways. % The result was a total of 23 one- and two-room apartments with kitchenettes, sleeping alcoves, and lavatories as well as 8 conventionally furnished family apartments and around 15 single rooms ranging from 35 to 125 m² in size. The small apartments in particular were quite functional and were com­ plemented by various collective fa­ cilities such as a foyer, meeting room, cafeteria, kitchen on each floor, laundry room, library, gym, and rooftop terrace. ^

The most well-known example of Russian avant-garde housing is the Narkomfin Collective Residence, built in 1930 in Moscow by architects Moisej Ginzburg and Ignatij Milinis for the state fiscal authority, or Narkomfin. This was a so-called transitional commune, designed to take an essential step in the evolution towards the complete collectivization of the family and thus its dissolution. Sources indicate that the collective residence was never 1 Nerdinger, Winfried, fully realized, as the design was for Eisen, Markus, Strobl, two six-story ribbon-like apartment Hilde (2012): Manifeste zur buildings to be connected by a Veränderung der Gesell­ bridge, with a third main building schaft, p. 203. for housing the collective areas. ! 2 Chan-Magomedov, However, only a single ribbon develSelim O. (1983): Pioniere opment plus the connecting col­l ec­ der sowjetischen Archi­ tive building were completed. The tektur – Der Weg zur neuen ribbon building was the residential sowjetischen Architektur in den zwanziger und zu wing, with corridors on the second Beginn der dreissiger Jahre, and sixth floors accessing the apartp. 389. ments, which then spread in split 3 ARC H + 218 (11|2014): levels across the remaining floors. @ “Wohnerfahrungen,” p.  64. Ginzburg was head of the Build­ 4 Chan-Magomedov, ing Typology Section of the BuildSelim O. (1983): Pioniere ing Construction Committee, which der sowjetischen Architek­ developed the specifications for tur – Der Weg zur neuen transitional communes and examsowjetischen Architektur in den zwanziger und zu ined and typified various building Beginn der dreissiger Jahre, forms and dwelling units in countp. 389. less competitions. # The manner 5 Nerdinger, Winfried, of accessing the apartments was con- Eisen, Markus, Strobl, sidered a very special feature of

Hilde (2012): Manifeste zur Veränderung der Gesell­ schaft, p. 204. 6 Möbius (2012): Russische Sozialutopien von Peter I . bis Stalin, Historische Kons­ tellationen und Bezüge, p. 537.

Moskau Moisej Gi Narkomfi Schwarzp Massstab

108

Narkomfin Collective Residence

Narkomfin with residential wing and collective building. Chan-Magomedow, Selim O., Pioniere der sowjetischen Architektur – Der Weg zur neuen sowjetischen Architektur in den zwanziger und zu Beginn der dreissiger Jahre, 1983

Organization

state developer, organizational form during operation unknown, occupancy process unknown, top-down initiation

Resident demographic

number of residents unknown, for employees of the People’s Commissariat of Finance and their families, medium educational level

Operational structure

service-oriented operation with employees, degree of participation unknown

Apartments

around 46 units, 15 single rooms, called living cells, 23 oneand two-room apartments, 8 family apartments

Areas

total site area unknown, 6 stories

tlich tlich ktiv ktiv t

t

109

Collective spaces not shown Hall kitchens Recreation rooms Cafeteria Library Gym Launderette Rooftop terrace

Spatial structure

Public spaces not shown Foyer Meeting room

Local area map with ground floor

Gundriss Typ F Gundriss Typ F

Standard floor of Type F 1 : 750

Gundriss Typ F

Standard floor of Type F 1 : 750

Gundriss Typ F

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv öffentlich Aussenfläche

Cross-section

Aussenfläche Aussenfläche kollektiv privat Aussenfläche privat

Exterior: Interior:

Schnitt public collective public collective

Moskau Moisej Ginzburg, Ignat Narkomfin Umgebungsplan mit Er Massstab 1:1000

al

Int

enti

ons

Based on

ic

aring Sh

it l Po

112

Progress and Stability: Sharing Based on Political Intentions “The essence of the new way of living is apartment buildings that have an inward focus and are expanded by shared common spaces.” e rw i n m ü h l e s t e i n !

Our next three models of living — Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings with a   vision of social reform, Community Settlements as staged neighborhoods, and Cooperative Living with its open living spaces — shared the political intentions of improving housing quality and increasing social stability. Despite differences, these collective living models were primarily aimed at nuclear families and focused on providing quality, well-planned living spaces. New forms of living that provided collective spaces for other user groups did not emerge in this particular phase, from the early 20th century to the Second World War. The construction of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings in this time period arose from an embrace of social democratic ideals. In addition to housing cooperatives and trade unions, municipalities also became actively involved in construction activities. The archi­ tecture and design of these generally larger-sized housing estates were influenced by the ideals   of New Objectivity. Rationalization, standardization, and the use of new materials were also of great importance, as were qualities like light, air, and sun. The most essential shared areas in Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Build-

113

ings were outdoors, for the first time providing The Cooperative Living models of the 1970s and spaces for outdoor recreation and growing food 1980s marked the first attempts at involving in front yards, courtyards, or squares. The self-  residents in the planning, construction, and opcontained family apartments were often suppleeration of these residential properties through mented by numerous collective facilities such   participatory processes. The driving force behind as shared bathrooms, central laundries, daycare these developments came from developers and facilities, schools, libraries, meeting facilities,   architects, for the most part, rather than from the and community centers. residents themselves. Over time, the degree of During the post-war period, a new Commu­ resident participation steadily increased, and nity Settlement living model emerged, lasting many residential properties were eventually self-  managed. With political change and the women’s into the 1970s. The hoped-for political stability after the Second World War, accompanied by liberation movement, a new understanding of economic growth and the idealization of the nu- living as a shared, neighborly way of life was born. The goal of simply supplying accommodation clear family with traditional roles, promoted   a retreat into private life. It was only in the Scan- receded into the background. This, in turn, affected the diversity of collective living spaces. While dinavian nations that some developers continthe collective areas of Garden Cities and Courtued to reference the pre-war visions of collective yard Apartment Buildings were limited to addiliving spaces by including shared amenities   such as collective kitchens, dining rooms, daycare tional infrastructure and outdoor areas, and facilities, and recreation rooms. Other than   Community Settlements were focused on collecthis, common areas were often limited to open-air tive access areas, Cooperative Living models esspaces such as balconies or shared accessways tablished new types of and uses for common areas. like rues intérieurs. The middle class established Shared kitchens and collective living areas were itself in the Community Settlements, replacing complemented by shared recreational spaces such the working classes as the users of shared spaces. as workshops and craft rooms, photo labs, and saunas. Larger accessways could be used for meetNot until Cooperative Living projects started in the 1970s to mid-1980s did closed-off ing and communication areas. living spaces begin to open up to the collective Something common to all three housing once more. Experiments with shared access areas models was that the family, which had not yet in Community Settlements were undertaken   been challenged as a social unit, remained the cenand then improved upon. This led to broad halltral focus of the community. Thus, autonomous family apartments with functional workspaces for ways and expanded access areas designed for   active use, each affiliated with the adjacent apart- well-organized housekeeping remained a feaments. The spatial connection to private spaces ture typical of the collective living projects of the enabled residents to interact in these shared areas. time. For the most part, there were no services The social change of the late 1960s, marked by   offered or employees managing the common   a questioning of traditional hierarchies and role living areas. With women’s changing status and models that increasingly influenced private   the evolving values of the 1970s, Cooperative spatial boundaries, directly led to this evolution Living models began to reveal cracks in the accepwithin Collective Living and the opening up   tance of traditional roles and conceptions of   of the private sphere. the family. However, these developments did not have a structural or spatial impact on collective The first two housing models of this era were characterized by more paternalistic and living models until the years that followed.  providential forms of organization, planned topdown and financed by non-profit, municipal, 1 Cited from Museum of and, occasionally, private property developers. Design Zurich (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau) formen, p. 7.

114

The Diversity of Collective Living Spaces and Options for Use “Life within a building changes, with spatial requirements periodically increasing and decreasing. The building must be able to adapt to this irregular ebb and flow of spatial needs.” h e r m a n n c z e c h !

Over time, the many forms of living together have resulted in multifaceted shared living spaces. The uses and functions of these spaces have changed time and again, as needs and lifestyles continue to evolve. Collective living spaces are generally understood to be living spaces that are not exclusively assigned to be used individually by a specific resident over the long term, but are instead available to and supported by a defined community. Within this definition, living spaces can be shared in many ways. @ Collective use may include sharing space within   an apartment, building, or residential development, or even an entire neighborhood. Shared spaces provide opportunities for collective practices that, in turn, reflect social behaviors and ways of living. This results in spatial formulations that correspond with the current zeitgeist via their economic, political, and social references. Ideally, the structural and spatial characteristics of shared spaces facilitate an interactive exchange within the user community, as communication is an essential component of collective living. # Collectively used spaces are always connected to access areas, but in order to make them usable as shared space, they must be larger

115

and have more comfortable spatial characteristics jacent collective living areas and additional inthan conventional access areas. Many collective frastructure have been taken into account. Beresidential properties also use entrance halls, cause these additional shared living spaces result courtyards, access balconies, terrasses communes, or from the distribution of living functions, they rues intérieurs to create expanded access areas. do not necessarily have to be in the same building, This facilitates a suitable spatial connection bebut can stretch into the complex, the neighbortween entrance areas and collective and private hood, and even out into the city. A shared workliving spaces, ideally turning them into spaces for space, guest room, or quiet room could even be interaction that provide opportunities to play, found in an adjacent apartment building. Decenrest, or socialize and thus extend the time that tralized housing can thus be understood as a   people spend there. dispersal of the uses and functions of living and Collectively used spaces that offer areas for is not to be confused with multi-local living, leisure, work, and cultural and social activities — which is defined as living spread across several and that have a neighborly feel — can encourage locations or residences. The phenomenon of coexistence and interaction within a commu­ multi-local living was not caused by globalization nity. These facilities, called collective additional and its concomitant freedom of movement and in­frastructure, do not serve a residential funcmobility. Even before industrialization, migrant tion yet add considerable value, since they extend workers led mobile lives, often characterized   personal space, open up social areas, and offer by living in several residences or changing dwellmixed uses and thus encourage a mixed array of ings. ^ Another typical feature of multi-local   users. With collective living, the loss of certain living is its impermanence, with residents having functions of the personal home, and the out1 Hermann Czech (ed.) 3 Krosse (2005): Wohnen sourcing of resi­dential activities such as childcare, (1995): Eine Muster-Sprache, ist mehr, p. 55. family member care, or food preparation, make p. 782. 4 Häußermann, Siebel the role of collective additional infrastructure in- 2 According to Karin Frick, (2000): Soziologie des creasingly important in cultivating urban comthe English term sharing Wohnens, Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdiffe­ munity. This process of outsourcing also relieves designates collective use. This act of sharing creates renzierung des Wohnens, households of certain tasks and obligations. $ connections between people p. 28. The individual dwelling as a space for leisure time and thus togetherness. In 5 Baumgartner speaks German, the term Teilen of decentralized housing as will continue to change in the future, due to   has two opposing mean­ an increasing topic in digitization, increasing mobility, and changing ings, designating both housing, noting that it can working hours, and this will also affect housesharing and division. Teilen help encourage smaller hold shared living and structural spatial factors is a fundamental form residences. See Baum­ of behavior that regulates gartner (2013): Zukunft des such as floor plans. relationships between Wohnens, p. 6. New ways of living and working may   people. In some ways, Teilen 6 Hilti (2013): Lebens­ favor decentralized housing, which means spacreates the foun­d ation of welten multilokal Wohnentially distributed habitation, something that   living together and is the der, pp. 18 f., 30. can already be seen in Community Households, most original form of social exchange. Unlike Tauschen Cluster Apartments, and Co-Living. In decen(to exchange, to barter), tralized housing, individual living functions and with Teilen the social rela­ tionship is at the forefront, activities are distributed or outsourced to varinot economic advantage. ous locations, with a permanent residence still Teilen has continually lost providing a home base. % For example, a small significance in Western apartment with a personal lavatory and a tea consumer society. Accord­ ing to Frick, it is increas­ kitchen can be fully functional only once the adingly becoming a con­ sciously executed action and an expression of a new social lifestyle. See Frick, Hauser, Gürtler (2008): Sharity, Die Zukunft des Teilens, p. 5 ff.

116

The Diversity of Collective Living Spaces and Options for Use

either no permanent address or several homes   at once. This is different from decentralized housing, where there is indeed a personal dwelling, although often it is quite minimal, which is extended and optimized by adding complementary use options. Dynamic living and spatial use are inherent to both types of living. Sharing living space does not necessarily entail simultaneous use, but can take place both collectively and individually. Collective use could refer to, for example, several people using a rec­ reation room or a workshop at the same time. In contrast, a shared guest room is used individually for a limited period of time, not simultaneously with others. The appropriation of collective living spaces also allows for multiple use and use overlap. As with a music room or the guest room described above, multiple use means that the living space is assigned a certain function and infrastructure and cannot be used by several people at once. Use overlap means that a room fulfills a   variety of functions depending on the goal and type of appropriation. For example, a flex room can be used for yoga classes, for a book club gathering, or as a playroom for children. With both multiple use and use overlap, the use is time-limited, agreed upon in advance, and adequately accessible to ensure availability. The   possible functions of such shared rooms can be strictly defined or left open. Well-considered   use options that extend one’s private space play a crucial role in collective living, in which   optimal access is a key focus. The term use option means not only that a certain amount and   va­r iety of shared living space is available, but   also that a certain number of people are able   to use these spaces. Ideally, this system of shared spaces with different functions, varied infrastructure, and a diverse user group ensures a   balance between appropriation and utilization.  

117

G u e s t E s s ay

The City and Collective Living: An Attempt at Rapprochement in a Conflicted Relationship

d r . h a b i l a n g e l u s e i s i n g e r, Regional Planning Association Zurich and Area R Z U

As so often happens, from a distance, everything looks clear and tidy in the case at hand: when one thinks about the history of the city and the history of housing, the two seem closely interconnected by definition. At first glance, neither history may be adequately understood without also considering the other. Against this background, the question of collective living and its relationship to the city, which this essay seeks to examine, seems like an in-depth chapter in the history of housing that expressly demands a relationship and engagement with the city in terms of community. But when we look at examples of collective living, we find that they seldom reveal their relationships with the city. What do such projects say about the processes of urban transformation, and how do they affect the city? The search for an answer may start with the fact that housing, like density and the separation of private and public spaces, belongs to the fundamental constituents of the city. During the last 200 years, social change in cities, from the industrialization of Manchester, Haussmann’s Paris, the bombardments of Coventry, Dresden, and Rotterdam, to slum clearances across Europe, may have been forcefully inscribed in concrete urban spaces over and over, destroyed housing and residential neighborhoods, or been fundamentally revolutionized. Yet the

118

G u e s t E s s ay

The City and Collective Living

past that was erased still seems to shape the course of local development. This underlies many post-World War I I reconstruction debates. Pierre Bourdieu, in viewing the revitalization of central Paris under Haussmann, noted it in the clusters of primitive shacks at the edge of the suburbs that housed the workers from inner-  city building sites, which he recognized as forming the nucleus of urban problems in the metropolitan Paris of today. Observing society through housing

In the 1960s, Aldo Rossi based his book, L’Architettura della Città, upon a similar principle of considerable, though not immediately apparent, continuities in a longue durée, and thus following the ahistoricity of functionalism that relied on optimizing functional sub-operations, he fundamentally redefined the conceptual relationship between building and city in the work of architecture. Architecture and the question of its conceptual foundations should not be at the core of this essay, however, but rather a reflection, guided by the history of the city and urban design, on the interrelationship or mutual conditions of the spatial-material configurations of collective living in the urban setting. The point of departure is as follows: collective living takes the relationships of the individual, the community, and the city, and redefines them. But that’s not quite all; what is true of collective living is absolutely true, in a more accentuated way, for housing: as the French sociologist Marcel Maus put it, it forms a fait social total, in which the complexity and richly facetted nature of the world are concentrated on a small scale. Housing therefore inevitably always has an aesthetic and economic, legal and moral, technical and socio-  morphological dimension, which is at once immanent. This also means that housing ceases to be a neatly delineated object of investigation that can be grasped, for example, by analyzing floor plans and the compositional proportions of private, semi-public, and public spaces. It can only be properly determined through an integrated view of those various dimensions. And this also makes it a comprehensive observatory of social change.

119

Co l l e c t i v e l i v i n g a s a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e c i t y

If we take a look at the extensive gallery on the history of collective living that Susanne Schmid offers us in this publication, we can confirm the accuracy of Hans Jürgen Teuteberg’s remark, made many years ago in his groundbreaking Betrachtungen zu einer Geschichte des Wohnens (Observations on the History of Housing): namely, that housing — and this applies to collective living in an accentuated form — is always a result and the premise of social change. The history of collective living thus creates an archive of descriptions of and responses to urban conditions over time. It provides comprehensive insights into the interplay of the city’s everyday routines, their discursive codings, their translation into the design of buildings and spaces, and ultimately, their physical and material realization within the technical and economic constraints of the time. A history based on such an understanding makes no further claim to be linear in its narrative. It certainly does not wish to act as an ambassador of an evolutionary path  towards a surplus and burgeoning perfection of collectiveness in the city. The narrative this history holds for us is instead more disjointed, more anarchic. But it is always local, meaningful, and specific, and thus prevents us from projecting our contemporary ideas about community onto previous eras. Now, as Susanne Schmid suggests, collective living may be understood as the conscious sharing of space, infrastructures, and everyday life. Compared to conventional housing research, the approach of a history conceived in this way broadens the field of  actors and creators of the collective considerably. The first question is: what demands on shared living are articulated — where, when, how, and by whom? It quickly becomes clear that collective living results from alliances of different stakeholders, who at times change markedly over time and from case to case. Early projects  in particular were often built as the direct result of reformist discourses or reactions to dire need or shortages. Most of these projects were motivated philanthropically, intending to benefit a select

120

G u e s t E s s ay

The City and Collective Living

group of those affected — such as working-class families, the unmarried, or single mothers. The architectural design then became an “inscription device” (Hans-Jörg Rheinberger), through which these propositions of a different, collectively shared world became sequences of spaces with different connotations. This elite network of actors provided inhabitants with spatial conglomerations that promised to overcome the problems. Contemporary proposals, such as the Sargfabrik in Vienna or the Kalkbreite in Zurich, differ fundamentally from such constellations of stakeholders and their power imbalances. They have reconfigured the power to define content and spatial configurations by allowing intense interaction between the future users and the architects and planners to shape the genesis of program and design in their projects. If we inquire directly about the urban images of collective housing, it is striking to note how many projects have formulated community in a context of deep urban skepticism. From Charles Fourier’s Phalanstère as a new social unit to the destruction of society through industrialization, from Ebenezer Howard’s hybridization of city and country to P. M. ’s bolo’bolo and its self-contained yet interconnected structures, many projects have sought to create a robust alternative to the existing city. Interestingly, however, in recent collective living projects, this moment of a spatially isolated utopia has dissipated. The aspirations of current trends in projects developed jointly with future users, such as Community Households and Co-Living, center on creating social and functional urban building blocks in close interaction with projects that understand their context. I n s p i r at i o n s

Now that we have outlined how the city and urban society inscribe themselves within concepts of collective living, the converse question remains: what impact do collective living projects have on the city? Interestingly, many of the standard works of urban design history and architectural history appear to be sketchy compendia of the history of collective living and simply integrate

121

it within the narrative of their respective disciplinary history. However, actual housing production takes place in the blind spots of these chronologies of the shining stars of architectural production. Therefore, any mode of thinking that follows the conventional triple jump of invention, innovation, and diffusion in pursuing the effects of collective living on the production of urban housing must inevitably go astray. Given the immense lethargy of the housing market, the inspiration for new architectures, building typologies, urban ensembles, and open spaces that the dynamics of collective living might provide is disappearing. Particularly in cities where housing demand has long exceeded the supply, there is no reason for developers and builders to break out of  familiar housing schemes — apart from superficial concessions to the whims of fashion. More often as not, wherever there is a housing shortage or even a housing crisis, whatever the market yields must be quietly accepted and absorbed on the demand side, as people like to say. A few clicks on online real estate portals in cities that are currently booming, such as Vienna, Hamburg, London, and Zurich, confirms this. Anyone who searches these cities for  innovations in the housing market that overcome the banal conventions of floor plan design, building organization, and open space, let alone the surrounding context, is not likely to succeed. None of these mundane market realities are likely to change anytime soon. However, the latest generation of collective living models in the city, as shown in Community Households, Cluster Apartments, and Co-Living projects, draws attention to another challenge that is particularly striking in booming cities, the key phrase being the preservation of urban spaces of opportunity. This topic has intensely occupied many cities during the last few years, under the auspices of the creative economy. The goal of the discussion was to find strategies for a sector acutely threatened by price hikes in the real estate market, so that it could play the role in the competition among cities assigned it by urban development policy. Since then things have gone very quiet in the creative econ-

122

G u e s t E s s ay

The City and Collective Living

omy. However, in the face of demographic changes in the cities — growing numbers of young and independent, and at the same time, the older and needier — the need to secure spaces of opportunity seems even more urgent where housing is concerned. At the same time, sociologically speaking, housing now takes place in the plural. Paternalistic approaches — as conceived by great visionaries and philanthropic entrepreneurs — are unlikely to play a role in the development of such projects. Indeed, housing policies barely make room for such ideas these days. In the past few years, many programs responding to the specific needs of urban society have emerged as self-help or bottom-up processes. One such example is the R50 project in Berlin, along with others. The motto here is: we define and create our collective living spaces ourselves. In such demands on the design and construction of specific spaces as formulated by civil society, new alliances and forms of commonality become tangible that recall the government sponsorships once established for cooperatives. The Klushuizen project in Rotterdam adds a further dimension to collective housing and community action that could be important to urban development in the future: the rehabilitation of derelict housing in rough neighborhoods by future residents, together with architects and financed by the municipality, to create attractive homes for young people. Such urban pioneers no longer seek to build an alternate world, but rather work towards transforming the city as it exists on the ground. In such moments, the collective and the city, which in the history of collective living often met only at the periphery, come together.

References — —Benevolo (1983): Die Geschichte der Stadt. — —Bourdieu (2016): Sozialer Raum und ‚Klassen’, Leçon sur la leçon, Zwei Vorlesungen. — —Posener (2014): Vor­ lesungen zur Geschichte der Neueren Architektur. — —Teuteberg (1985): “Betrachtungen über das Wohnen.” In: Homo habitans, Zur Sozialgeschichte des ländlichen und städtischen Wohnens in der Neu­ zeit, pp. 1–23.

123

Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings: Visions of Social Reform “It is (…) not about shaking down the remaining utopias to possibly revive them. No, it’s about surveying how they work and then reinterpreting them under current conditions.” g ü n t h e r u h l i g  !

It was not until the late 1890s, when the   Anti-Socialist laws had been revoked and the repression of socialist and social democratic ideas had ended, that the housing models of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings were introduced. @ This ideological repression is the reason behind the lack of residential properties with collective living spaces after the Utopian Socialists and during the second half of the 19th century. The ideas of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings were largely influenced by the 1898 writing of To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform by Ebenezer Howard, an English city planner and visionary. # The goal remained to improve the housing situation for working class families and to find alternative solutions for housing construction as part of the process of industrialization. In addition to newly emerging municipal developers, residential properties were initiated similarly to the Utopian Socialists and influenced by a patron from a higher social class. Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City was not only about urban planning, but also about social reform, a vision stemming from the cramped and unsanitary urban living conditions of the time. Not only did Howard adopt and add to the

124

Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings: Visions of Social Reform

ideals of the Utopian Socialists, his Garden City shifts in political constellations. Thus, significant model also introduced a settlement concept that improvements to municipal housing construcsaw the city and the country as magnets, and tion during the time was brought about by, among united them. $ He envisioned the cooperatively other things, the Weimar Republic, with a Social organized, decentralized central Garden City   Democratic majority after 1918, along with Red as ideal for around 58,000 inhabitants, ringed by Vienna. The Weimar Republic, for example, introduced several laws and regulations following   peripheral smaller greened cities with about 32,000 inhabitants each. Howard’s intention was the November Revolution that built on measures to change land policy by making it possible to taken before or during World War I . Among remove land and capital investment from specu- them were fundamental regulations regarding existing housing distribution, rent controls, lation and put them under collective ownership instead. On the other hand, he aimed for enabling tenant rights, and tenant protections. These measures led to a state-controlled housing economy, a broad section of the population to take part   in the prosperity of the Industrial Revolution. He since after the war private capital was invested primarily in the capital goods industry. ( did not at all consider the Garden City model   Red Vienna went a step further than the to be about agrarian romanticism or rural exodus, Weimar Republic. The term Red Vienna (Rotes as he preferred the amenities of urban life that   he implemented in his model. % 1 Uhlig: “Siedeln in Gemein­ 6 For the Werkbund in par­ In the early 20th century, various new asso- schaften.” In Schneider, ticular, founded in Munich ciations and institutions — such as the WerkNerdinger, Wand (2000): in 1907, housing, apart­ bund in German-speaking countries — emerged Deutschland, Architektur im ments, and the living envi­ from the British Arts and Crafts movement and 20. Jahrhundert, p. 43. ronment were predominant 2 Social democratic parties topics. Around 1919, Bau­ Bauhaus in Germany. ^ These associations and in- were not fundamentally haus began, an art school stitutions stoked a broad-based examination   forbidden by the Antithat aimed to bring to­ of the topic of housing, which was discussed in- Socialist Laws, but were gether arts and crafts, and indeed limited in their the discussion on housing tensively in specialist circles and was presented   options for action. The so­ was established in profes­ to a broad segment of the population via exhibicialist and social demo­ sional circles. Model settle­ tions and model settlements. Furthermore,   cratic thinking of the time ments were developed in political change throughout Europe around the was strongly influenced cooperation with the Werk­ by Friedrich Engels and bund. See Hanak, “Wie turn of the century led to strong social democratic Karl Marx, who wanted to wohnen?”, in TE C 21 forces in many places, boosting cooperatives   (3–4|2017), p. 21 ff. improve the situation and trade unions and thus bolstering the working 7 Mersmann, Novy (1991): of the working class and to classes. & Countless laws and decrees raised housGewerkschaften, Genosultimately dissolve the senschaften, Gemeinwirt­ ing standards and improved living situations for capitalist structures of pow­ schaft, Hat eine Ökonomie er. See Engels (1872, many — and above all for the lower classes. Neverder Solidarität eine English translation 1995): theless, the political climate remained strongly Chance?, pp. 25 f., 56. The Housing Question, 8 Workers were encouraged p. 40. influenced by a class-based society and thus the to spend their free time 3 The book rapidly sold bourgeois. The goal of new housing construction at home or in the garden — out and was reissued in was to deproletarianitize and at the same time that is, within the family. 1902 under the title Garden depoliticize the working class. Privatization of In addition, in some places Cities of Tomorrow. socialist newspapers still 4 Bertels (1990): Gemeinfamily life was seen as a tool to make this popu­ called for the immediate ter­ schaftsformen in der lation more easily controllable. * mination of the rental modernen Stadt, p. 63. The downfall of the great monarchies and system. See Petsch (1989): 5 Uhlig: “Siedeln Eigenheim und gute Stube, in Gemeinschaften.” In multiethnic states of Europe that took place Zur Geschichte des bür­ Schneider, Nerdinger, during World War I brought about fundamental gerlichen Wohnens, p. 80. Wand (2000): Deutschland, 9 Stratmann, “Wohnungs­ Architektur im 20. Jahr­ baupolitik in der Weimarer hundert, p. 44 and Uhlig Republik.” In Neue (1981): Kollektivmodell Gesellschaft für Bildende Einküchenhaus, Wohnreform Kunst (ed.) (1977): Wem und Architekturdebatte gehört die Welt – Kunst und zwischen Frauenbewegung Gesellschaft in der Weimarer und Funktionalismus, p. 13. Republik, p. 41.

125

Ebenezer Howard’s Three   Magnets model. Howard Ebenezer, To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, 1898 Residential city and surroundings. Howard Ebenezer, To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, 1898

Concept sketch of a Garden City, with ring-shaped towns surrounding a core city. Howard Ebenezer, To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, 1898 Drawing of a city segment   with individual functions arranged   in a ring. Howard Ebenezer, To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, 1898

126

Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings: Visions of Social Reform

Wien) refers to the social democratic government that led the Austrian capital from 1918 to 1934, before being disempowered by civil war and annexed by the Third Reich. Red Vienna was char­ acterized by extensive new building construction and communal housing developments, supplemented by numerous reforms to social, health, and education policy. ! ) The widespread funding of housing construction provided, among other things, the framework needed to build Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings, strengthening this phase of collective living. Low-  interest loans, tax exemptions, and construction laws on the transfer of land now made it possible for construction cooperatives and trade unions not only to create more housing, but also to improve housing standards. !! After World War I , Red Vienna introduced additional benefits for building cooperatives by demanding an earmarked housing tax. ! @ The resulting revenues covered almost a third of municipal housing construction costs. In addition to these building cooperatives and municipalities, the patrons   of large industrial companies often also became developers, in order to provide their workforce with adequate housing. As mentioned above, the aim was to depoliticize the working class and thus counteract the socialist movement. In the early 20th century, countless settlements were built that featured the characteristics of Garden Cities. In order to circumvent building speculators, municipalities and housing   cooperatives became developers, as did the now strong labor unions with, for example, settlements for railway workers. In the economically unstable period following World War I, it made more sense to provide affordable housing for workers and civil servants than to offer salary increases, which would only be canceled out by   inflation. Thus, in many places, lively cooperation between municipalities and non-profit housing developers came about. ! # There was always a   focus on offering terraced houses and apartments in different price ranges, in order to concord with the structural hierarchies of the work world

and maintain a heterogeneous resident population. In addition to providing gardens to increase self-sufficiency, these dwellings were often also outfitted with collective additional infrastructure such as meeting rooms, libraries, or even market­ places. However, unlike the housing models   of the utopian socialists, essential basic facilities that were intrinsic to family structures were rarely shared. Over time, more and more collective living facilities were moved into private spaces. In particular, shared bathing facilities and lavatories lost their significance, as toilets with private washing places increasingly found their way into the working-class home. !$ But in the end, extensive collective facilities and centralized household care seemed overly socialist to the patrons, unions, and cooperatives alike, who justified this rejection by stating that all functions of living should take place at the core of the family. ! % The domestic autonomy of the family took shape. ! ^ Thus, almost concurrently with the housing model of the Central-  Kitchen Houses starting in 1905, a reform model for the emancipation of housewives isolated in their homes began to develop. Due to their idealization of the family, the Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings also led to the development of Men’s and Women’s Hostels   and Boarding Houses, likewise started as a counter-model in the early 20th century. This established living arrangements that did not see the family as the core of society. But the onset of the economic crisis around 1929 led not only   to an abatement of housing construction activity for the Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings, but also to a right-wing ideological radicalization, high unemployment, and uncontrollable political upheaval. The heyday of non-profit and municipal housing construction came to an end, at least for the time being. However, the important influence of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings on urban and housing planning remains undisputed. The improvement of living conditions in tenement housing, which had slowly begun alongside

127

industrialization, can also be attributed to the construction activities of the cooperatives, which freed housing construction from speculative constraints — for example, by significantly reducing building density. !& For the first time, workers’ residences were built that included green courtyards, kitchen gardens, and adequate   facilities for a humane way of life. Building cooperatives became pioneers of urban and residential construction. However, a fundamentally social democratic approach to housing con­ struction was not universally applied. Another important component of this housing model was domestic intimacy. A private home became the ideal, and family life focused on the private sphere. ! *  10 Aigner (2015):Gemein- 14 Häußermann speaks of schaftliches Wohnen, an emotional wall that eine Typologie und ihre increasingly pushed itself Vielfalt, p. 41 ff. between individuals over 11 On this, Mersmann and the course of the civilization Novy write that by midprocess. The stronger the 1919 at the latest, it was boundaries of shame and clear that neither the embarrassment, the more private sector nor the state baths and lavatories were or municipality could be privatized. This resulted expected to provide ample in floor plans becoming in­ new construction for the creasingly specialized masses of people looking and hierarchical. See for housing. A self-help Häußermann, “Für sich movement was started in sein.” In Schneider, the construction industry. Nerdinger, Wand (2000): Mersmann, Novy (1991): Deutschland, Architektur Gewerkschaften, Genossenim 20.  Jahrhundert, p. 7 0. schaften, Gemeinwirtschaft, 15 Petsch (1989): EigenHat eine Ökonomie der heim und gute Stube, Solidarität eine Chance?, Zur Geschichte des bürgerpp. 56, 58. lichen Wohnens, p. 80. 12 Jahn (2014): Das Wun- 16 Barbey (1984): Wohnder des Roten Wien, haft, Essay über die innere Zwischen Wirtschaftskrise Geschichte der Massenund Art Deco, p. 15. wohnung, Sozialgeschichte, 13 Stratmann, “Wohnungs­ Wohnungsgeschichte, baupolitik in der Weimarer p. 89. Republik.” In Neue Ge­ 17 Mersmann, Novy (1991): sellschaft für Bildende Gewerkschaften, GenossenKunst (ed.) (1977): Wem schaften, Gemeinwirtschaft, gehört die Welt – Kunst und Hat eine Ökonomie der Gesellschaft in der Weimarer Solidarität eine Chance?, Republik, pp. 40, 44. p. 55. 18 Bahrdt, (1998): Die mo­ derne Großstadt, Soziologische Überlegungen zum Städtebau, p. 140.

128

Selected examples of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings

Page 133 Margarethenhöhe Company Housing Settlement

1912 Essen, Germany Suburbs Newly built Georg Metzendorf Margarethe Krupp Housing Foundation Wedau Railway Company Housing Settlement



Proskauer Straße Residential Complex

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developer

1894 Berlin, Germany Urban neighborhood Newly built Alfred Messel Berlin Savings and   Building Association Page 129 Homesgarth House

1903 Letchworth, Great Britain City center Newly built Clapham Lander First Garden City Ltd.

1915 Duisberg, Germany Outskirts Newly built Caspar Maria Grod Prussian Railways Civil Servants Association Metzleinstaler Courtyard Apartments

1920 Vienna, Austria Urban neighborhood Newly built Robert Kalesa City of Vienna Bon Marché des Amiraux Residences

1923 Paris, France City center Newly built Frédéric Savage,  Charles Sarrazin City of Paris Weissensteingut Railway Company Housing Settlement

1925 Bern, Switzerland Suburbs Newly built Franz Trachsel, Otto Ingold Bern Railway Building Cooperative

Page 136 Karl-Marx-Hof

1927 Vienna, Austria Suburbs Newly built Karl Ehn City of Vienna Page 140 Britz Hufeisen Settlement

1930 Berlin, Germany Suburbs Newly built Bruno Taut, Martin Wagner G E H A G Non-Profit Housing Corporation Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground   diagram 1 : 20,000 Local area map 1 : 10,000 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

129

Homesgarth House

1 : 12,000

Ebenezer Howard, who himself lived on site until 1920, had to admit   that the working-class residents preferred the terraced houses of the Garden City; the centralized orga­ nization of the household and   the decentralized cityscape of the Letchworth Garden City seemed contradictory. # In the end, only around 24 families wanted to move in to Homesgarth House, according to some sources, the residential project was never fully completed.   Only a handful of documents and plans concerning the project are known to exist. $ 

1 Data differs on the num­ ber of apartments. Ac­ cording to some sources, there were only 32. See The visionary Ebenezer Howard Miller (1989): Letchworth, was one of the founders of the   The First Garden City, first Garden City, named Letchworth p. 74 or also Muscheler Garden City, established as a co­o p­ (2007): Das Haus ohne erative near London in 1903. In 1909, Augenbrauen, Architekturthe Homesgarth House (now called geschichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert, p. 31. Sollershot House) was built in this 2 Muscheler (2007): Das Garden City by architect Clapham Haus ohne Augenbrauen, Lander and had a total of 48 apartArchitekturgeschichte aus ments, which shared a central   dem 20. Jahrhundert, kitchen, dining hall, and other colp. 29 f. lective recreation rooms. ! The   3 Uhlig (1981): KollektivHomesgarth House also included a modell Einküchenhaus, nursery and collective circulation Wohnreform und Architekpaths in the form of a colonnade that turdebatte zwischen Frauenbewegung und Funkdoubled as recreation and com­ munication space. The shared living tionalismus, p. 12. 4 Muscheler (2007): Das spaces of the residential project, Haus ohne Augenbrauen, which was built around a central Architekturgeschichte aus courtyard, had similarities with the dem 20. Jahrhundert, Central-Kitchen Houses but lacked p. 32.

full functionality. For example, there was no meal delivery to the indi­ vidual apartments via dumbwaiter, which was a typical feature of   Central-Kitchen Houses. @ The Homesgarth House was considered highly experimental, even within Europe’s first Garden City. The individual apartments functioned relatively autonomously and were less dependent on common areas than the housing models of Large Housing Complexes, Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses, and Central-Kitchen Houses.

130

Homesgarth House

Covered walkway (colonnade)   in the courtyard. © Garden City Collection

Façade view of the two- to three-story Homesgarth House. © Garden City Collection Courtyard with garden. © Garden City Collection

Collective dining hall. © Garden City Collection Private living area of a kitchen-less dwelling. © Garden City Collection

131

Spatial structure

Local area map 1 : 1,500

132

Homesgarth House

Spatial structure

Dining hall Central kitchen Recreation rooms

Courtyard with   colonnade Collective space not shown Nursery and daycare

Partial ground floor

Regelgeschoss Exterior: Interior:

Organization

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Nutzfläche privat

public public

collective collective

cooperative developer structured   as a corporation, occupancy Aussenfläche öffentlich through rent, top-down initiation Aussenfläche kollektiv process 

Aussenfläche privat

Resident demographic

24 families, working class with somewhat low level of   education 

Operational structure

land and buildings managed as a common good, somewhat   service-oriented operation, food,   other everyday items, and   service staff included in rent,   degree of participation unknown 

Apartments

48 units 

Areas

total site area unknown,  2 to 3 stories

133

Margarethenhöhe Company Housing Settlement

1 : 28.000

the Hellerau Garden City in Dresden. Metzendorf was hired not by the foundation but by the City of Essen, which shows how fully interwoven the city and the company were at the time. $ Metzendorf designed the company housing settlement with clear features of a Garden City, including orderliness, limited size, loose building density, plenty of greening, and points of cultural education. Additional infrastructure facilities included schools, daycares, community centers, co-op shops, and restaurants, making it a self-sufficient residential community. %   Metzendorf designed two different standard floor plans and applied them within the various types of buildings, which included single-  family homes, duplexes, row buildings in either one or two stories, and stacked in multi-story apartment buildings. ^ Extensive collective   facilities or central household ser- Essen Georg Metz vices were not provided at Marga- Margareten Schwarzplan rethenhöhe, and family apartmentsMassstab 1:2 remained self-contained. The goal was to provide enough livable   housing for the working-class families. As the core of the community,   families were to be empowered   yet also controlled, ensuring that workers remained tied to the   company. &

The Margarethenhöhe was one of Germany’s first company housing settlements to have a Garden City —   like character. On the occasion of her daughter’s wedding, Margarethe Krupp, widow of industrialist   Friedrich Alfred Krupp, established the Margarethe Krupp Stiftung   für Wohnungsfürsorge (Margarethe Krupp Foundation for Housing Supply) to donate one million marks to the City of Essen, along with   the land where the new settlement would be built. ! Between 1909   and 1932, 776 buildings with a total of 1,390 apartments were built   during more than 20 construction 1 Grütter, Heinrich Theodor phases. @ The workers’ housing   (2014): Die Gartenstadt estate not only provided employees Margarethenhöhe, Archiof the Krupp steel factory with   tektur und Geschichte, housing near their place of work, it p. 18. was also open to the population   2 Other sources speak of Essen. By setting an income limit of 700 or even 3,090 apart­ for inhabitants of the apartments, the ments. The varying data foundation ensured that working-  likely reflects the various Letchworth Garden City class families from different profesClapham Lander stages of construction, Homesgarth House which can be interpreted sions were able to rent functional Regelgeschoss yet modern living space. # In addition, differently depending on Massstab 1:500 perspective. The first Margarethe Krupp also influenced con­s truction phase lasted the urban planning concepts, conuntil 1932 and was followed struction density, and selection of by another 1,970 dwellings. the architect, who was tasked with See also Grütter, Heinrich designing the company housing   Theodor (2014): Die Gartensettlement as their life’s work, so to stadt Margarethenhöhe, speak. She settled on young Georg Architektur und Geschichte, p. 49. Metzendorf, a member of the   3 Grütter, Heinrich Theodor Deutsche Werkbund who had already (2014): Die Gartenstadt gathered some early experience at Margarethenhöhe, Architektur und Geschichte, p. 98. 4 Ibid., p. 28. 5 Ibid., p. 29. 6 Ibid., p. 34. 7 Petsch (1989): Eigenheim und gute Stube, Zur Geschichte des bürgerlichen Wohnens, pp. 54, 80.

134

Margarethenhöhe Company Housing Settlement

Archway building and gateway to Margarethenhöhe. © Anton Meinholz / P hoto Archive Ruhr Museum High-rise apartments around 1921. Rainer Metzendorf, Georg Metzendorf, 1874– 1934: Siedlungen und Bauten, 1994

Market square with inn. © Anton Meinholz / P hoto Archive Ruhr Museum Kruppscher Konsum (co-op shop). © Anton Meinholz / P hoto Archive Ruhr Museum Margarethenhöhe elementary school. © Anton Meinholz / Photo Archive Ruhr Museum

ch

v

ch

v

135

Spatial structure

Public spaces not shown School Kindergarten Community center Co-op store Restaurants

Local area map

Standard floor plan of apartments

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

collective collective

136

Margarethenhöhe Company Housing Settlement

Organization

charitable non-profit, occupancy through rent, top-down   initiation process 

Resident demographic

number of residents unknown, for working-class families,   rather low level of education

Operational structure

externally managed by a foundation, partially privatized   in the 1980s, low level of   participation 

Apartments

1,390 units, in single-family   homes and duplexes, row buildings, and multi-story apartment   buildings

Karl-Marx-Hof

The inception of the social democratic government in Vienna, starting in 1918, was marked by   soldiers returning from war and urgently in need of shelter and suf­ fering from food scarcity, and soaring unemployment. Having lost   the war, Vienna was heavily in debt. ! Due to bitter necessity, derelict   urban fields were initially made into so-called “board villages”, con­ glomerates of makeshift huts and kitchen gardens to provide the starving population with shelter and food. @ Over the course of the next 15 years, however, the Red Vienna government was able to implement its municipal housing policy quite extensively. To finance the residential buildings, a system of indirect taxation of everyday goods was introduced, then converted into an earmarked housing tax in 1923. The tax was on a steep sliding scale, with the majority of the population   paying only 2 percent and the higher-  taxed residents of the most ex­ pensive apartments accounting for almost half of the total tax revenue. All of the earmarked funds went   to municipal housing construction, which had set itself the goal of building 5,000 apartments every year that would be new, modern, bright, and hygienically adequate, each with its own water connection and toilet. # The apartments were not only built

137

according to the Garden City model preferred by avant-garde architects of the time, but were also realized as perimeter block devel­o pments or Courtyard Apartment Buildings, which typically feature courtyard access to the wings of the complex. $ One of the most striking buildings of the era is the Karl-Marx-  Hof, built in 1927 by architect Karl Ehn, a student of Otto Wagner. As with all municipal apartment buildings, access was via the courtyard, an expression of cohesion and community. Initial occupancy of the Karl-Marx-Hof was around 5,000 residents in 1,382 one- to five-room apartments. % The complex was equipped with extensive collective facilities, including collective   baths, a central launderette with   62 washing stations, two kinder­ gartens, a maternity counseling service, a library, several clinics and medical practices, a tuberculosis care center, and a pharmacy. ^ The complex also included a post office, a restaurant, coffeehouses, shops, and assembly halls, some of which were used for political events.   The collective living quarters and the additional infrastructure facilities were centrally located to encourage their use as meeting places for the community and even the surrounding neighborhood. Although the collective living spaces were extensive and varied, the design of the   individual apartments emphasized privacy for families. & The apartments were not minimalistic, but designed with all the amenities common for the times, including an   entry room that served as an intermediate zone and threshold to the more private areas. 

Aerial view of the Karl-Marx-Hof, with the Danube in background, around 1930. © ÖNB View of the front façade of the   main tract. © ÖNB

1 Jahn (2014): Das Wunder 5 Reppé (1993): Der Karldes Roten Wien, Zwischen Marx-Hof, p. 34. Wirtschaftskrise und Art 6 At the time, tuberculosis Deco, p. 10. was widespread and was 2 Ibid., p. 24. even dubbed the Vienna dis­ 3 Ibid., p. 15. ease as a result of its 4 As Franz Musil, Head high incidence in the city. of the Vienna Building Improved health conditi­ Authority, explained, Garden ons, including measures in Cities were considered housing, made it possible satellite cities, and the ad­ to cut occurrences of the ditional costs for infra­struc­ illness in half. ture, schools, and public 7 Reppé (1993): Der Karlbuildings, not to mention Marx-Hof, p. 35 f. traffic thoroughfares and residential streets, was not affordable. See Jahn (2014): Das Wunder des Roten Wien, Zwischen Wirtschafts­ krise und Art Deco, p. 20.

138

Karl-Marx-Hof

Library

Shared baths Central launderette Restaurant Coffeehouses

Post office Cooperative store  Pharmacy Courtyard with kindergarten. © ullstein bild — Imagno / Austrian Archives Playing in one of the two   kindergartens. © Döbling District Museum

Cooperative store

139

Spatial structure

Organization

non-profit municipal building,   occupancy through rent,   top-down initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 5,000 residents, for workingclass families, low education level 

Operational structure

managed by the municipality, low level of participation 

Apartments

1,382 units, one- to five-room   apartments 

Areas

total site area 156,000 m²,   mostly four stories

Kindergarten Courtyards Public spaces not shown Meeting rooms Maternity counseling center Tuberculosis   treatment center Doctor’s offices   and clinics

Local area map

Standard floors (sections) Regelwohnung

Regelwohnung Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

140

Britz Hufeisen Settlement

story apartment buildings. All residential units had one-and-a-half to four-and-a-half rooms and followed four basic typologies that were technically and organizationally ration­ alized in the spirit of Modernism and functioned fully autonomously, without shared spaces. % The col­­ lective aspect was in the additional infrastructure facilities such as schools, kindergartens, and a café in the so-called outdoor living space of the horseshoe-shaped building’s courtyard. This space could be entered from the street via a large staircase or through the basement   floor. Fruit trees lined the periphery,  and a pond stood at the center. In   the beginning, this outdoor living space was used only occasionally, since working-class families were Berlin unaccus­t omed to having access   Bruno Taut Hufeisensiedlung to usable green space and likely Schwarzplanhad Massstab 1:20000 inhi­b itions about using the sym­ bolically important courtyard. ^ Only through organized activities did residents begin using the outdoor living space as intended. 

Constructed in several stages between 1925 and 1930 and providing housing for 3,500–4,000 people, the Hufeisen Settlement in Berlin, officially named the Britz Large Housing Estate, was a symbolic representation of the collective and   cooperative spirit prevailing at that time. Architects Bruno Taut and 1 Nerdinger, Winfried, Martin Wagner, who was later a   Eisen, Markus, Strobl, Hilde Berlin City Councilor, designed the (2012): Manifeste zur VerHufeisen Settlement to embody   änderung der Gesellschaft, the spirit of togetherness and soli­ p. 252. darity. The public spaces of the   2 Technische Universität large housing estate, such as the Berlin (ed.) (1980): Huf­ courtyard and plaza, were of great eisensiedlung Britz 1926– importance, intended to create   1980, Ein alternativer com­m u­n ity by acting as outdoor livSiedlungsbau der 20er Jahre als Studienobjekt, p. 24 f. ing spaces. ! The Hufeisen Settle3 Nerdinger, Winfried, ment was nothing if not cooperative Eisen, Markus, Strobl, Hilde architecture, socio-politically   (2012): Manifeste zur Veridentifying with the working-class änderung der Gesellschaft, population, @ with even the prop­erty p. 253. developer, Gemeinnützige Heim­ 4 According to Bruno Taut’s stätten A G (Non-profit Homes A G ) essay “The New Dwelling, founded by German trade unions. # the Woman as Creator”, for This vision was accompanied by women the housing settle­ ment was simultaneously Bruno Taut’s conception of home as a worksite and home. Techni­ creation of the woman, promising   sche Universität Berlin (ed.) to relieve her burdens by increasing (1980): Hufeisensiedlung the efficiency of housework. $ Britz 1926–1980, Ein alterIn addition to 679 terraced nativer Siedlungsbau houses with private kitchen gardens, der 20er Jahre als Studiena total of 1,285 residential units objekt, p. 27. were constructed in the Hufeisen 5 Nerdinger, Winfried, Settlement and additional multi-  Eisen, Markus, Strobl, Hilde (2012): Manifeste zur Veränderung der Gesellschaft, p. 259. 6 Technische Universität Berlin (ed.) (1980): Huf­ eisensiedlung Britz 1926– 1980, Ein alternativer Siedlungsbau der 20er Jahre als Studienobjekt, p. 79.

141

Functionally equipped kitchen. © ullstein bild — Lambert

Aerial view of the settlement from ca. 1930. © bpk The courtyard as outdoor living space. © ullstein bild — Schnellbacher Access to the courtyard via a   large staircase from the street or basement level. © ullstein bild — ullstein bild Multi-story building with   apartments. © ullstein bild — C A R O /   Christoph Eckelt

142

Britz Hufeisen Settlement

Spatial structure

Local area map 1 : 5,000

143

Collective space not shown Washhouse Public spaces not shown Outdoor living area   in the courtyard School building Kindergarten Café Standard layout   of an apartment in the   GrundrissSettlement Regelwohnung Hufeisengebäude Hufeisen

Cross-section   of Schnitt terraced housing Reihenhaus Exterior: Interior:

Nutzfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

public public

collective collective

Aussenfläche öffentlichsocial housing,   Organization non-profit occupation Aussenfläche kollektiv by rent, terraced   housing units now private,   Aussenfläche privat top-down initiation process  Resident demographic

around 3,500 to 4,000 people, for working-class families   and young skilled workers,   low to middle education level 

Operational structure

externally managed by property developer, low level   of participation 

Apartments

1,285 residential units and   679 row houses from 49 to 124 m², 1.5- to 4.5-room apartments 

Areas

total site area 290,000 m²,   2 to 3 stories

Berlin Bruno Taut Hufeisensiedlung Grundriss / Schnitt Massstab 1:500

144

Community Settlements as Staged Neighborhoods “As such, it should also be possible to see a history of the family when looking at the history of apartments. However, every piece of architecture has a tendency, in view of its relatively long lifespan, to continue demanding certain forms of human life that have already been developed even though these might change within a much shorter period of time than the structures themselves.” g i s e la s ta h l  !

Community Settlements were characterized by the reconstruction work of the post-war years, being defined by social continuity and stability in Central Europe. The end of the Second World War saw the beginning of a phase of political   realignment during which time organizations such as the United Nations and the European Economic Community (upon which the European Union was built) were established to provide   political stability and security, among other things. The post-war order, however, led to the European continent being divided, with these borders felt particularly keenly in Germany, where a pinnacle was reached with the construction   of the Berlin wall. It is perhaps precisely for this reason that a political consensus was formed   in Western Europe that transcended party lines and defined broadly supported social models and basic ideas about the shape state and society should take. @ These political currents encouraged society to retreat into structures and the privacy of the family home. This trend towards privacy, both in respect of individual and family life, gathered pace in the following decades. # The family home was seen as a refuge away from urban life, which

145

had become a bleak environment on the back of continued to be planned and organized in a   growth processes seen in the post-war years. $ paternalistic way as a general rule. In contrast to the Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, more than 95 percent of adults in Germany were married and Buildings, however, residents were now less from over 90 percent of these couples had children. % a working-class background, but instead memUnlike in previous decades, marriage was part of bers of the middle class that had emerged in the   post-war years. the social standard. The dissolution of marriage in favor of a freer union between two mentally and The Community Settlement living model is economically independent people, as was someone that developed directly out of the Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings. Each times the case in the inter-war years, was now something to be prevented through conservative and every aspect of living took place in the independent and closed-off apartment, thereby guarfamily policy. ^ Marriage in the post-war period was, particularly for women, a way of guarantee- anteeing the domestic autonomy of the family, ing that they had a home, since housing for   as already postulated in the living model of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildsingle women (and men) never became available throughout the whole country. The ban on coings. The liberated and newly evolving people   habitation also made it difficult for unmarried 1 Cited from Neue Gesellthreatened the social func­ couples to find somewhere to live. & tion of the family. National Housing continued to be scarce in the early schaft für Bildende Kunst (1977): Wem gehört die Socialism also carried post-war years, as virtually no apartments had Welt – Kunst und Gesellout conservative family poli­ been built throughout Europe during the war, deschaft in der Weimarer cies. During this time, Republik, p. 89. cooperative ideologies were spite much of it having been destroyed. For   2 Stahel (2006): Wo-Woheld back by political con­ example, there were fewer apartments available Wonige!, p. 17. solidation, forced unifi­ in the Netherlands after the Second World War 3 Bahrdt (1998): Die mocation, or even dissolution. The political concept of than there were in the 1930s; and these were also derne Großstadt, Sozio­ logische Überlegungen zum self-help and self-sufficiency poorer in quality. * Only once the Marshall Plan Städtebau, p. 161. Bahrdt was lost. For more, was launched did an intensive phase of rebuilding also writes that the mutual see Ackerknecht (1972): and growth begin, a fact which was also re­ interaction of public and Kommune und Grossfamilie, private had shifted in mod­ Dokumente – Programme – flected in the level of construction activity that ern cities. Häußermann and Probleme, p. 24. See also con­tinued almost unabated until around 1970. ( Siebel come to the same Mersmann, Novy (1991): Although a substantial number of new apartconclusion when speaking Gewerkschaften, Genossenments were built during this period, the issue of of the increased intimacy schaften, Gemeinwirtschaft, and reduced publicness of Hat eine Ökonomie der collective living was barely discussed. The   the apartment, a process Solidarität eine Chance?, aforementioned political climate of the post-war that would lead to the social p. 31. years resulted in a housing policy that focused isolation of women. See 7 Stahel (2006): Wo-WoHäußermann, Siebel (2000): Wonige!, p. 7. mostly on building functional three- and fourSoziologie des Wohnens, 8 Bertlein (year unknown): room apartments for families. The handful of Eine Einführung in Wandel Sieg und Untergang des apartment houses that were erected as collective und Ausdifferenzierung Sozialen Wohnungsbaus in settlements during this period were initially des Wohnens, p. 39. Holland, p. 6. 4 This refers to cities in 9 Stahel (2006): Wo-Wobased on the architectural ideologies of the inter-  particular, which had to be Wonige!, p. 16. war years. The C I A M manifesto, the Athens   rebuilt due to the ravages 10 The Athens Charter was Charter, was considered to be a guiding light here, of the Second World War. the architectural manifesto Stahel (2006): Wo-Woof C I AM (Congrès Inter­ the content of which related primarily to the national d’Architecture functional unbundling of living, working, leisure, Wonige!, p. 9. Moderne), which was com­ 5 Schader-Stiftung (2001): and transport. ! ) Collective living projects also   posed at the fourth cong­ wohn:wandel, Szenarien, Prognosen, Optionen zur Zukunft des Wohnens, p. 16. 6 Ackerknecht describes how, from the conservative point of view, the increasing emancipation of women

ress on the topic of “The Funtional City” in Marseille and Athens in 1933. See Leggewie (2015): Wie tot ist die Charta von Athen?, p. 361 f.

146

Community Settlements as Staged Neighborhoods

4 th C I A M Congress between Marseille and Athens. © gta Archives / E T H Zurich, C I A M Exhibition of the 4 th C I A M Congress results on the topic of   “The Functional City”. © gta Archives / E T H Zurich, C I A M

in the modern sense became conformist citizens, !! a fact reinforced by the separation of work and home as well as by clearly assigned spatial functions that guided proportion, size, orientation, and furniture design. ! @ On top of this, technical progress changed the nature of housework, making it easier. For example, the washing of laundry was transferred back into the home thanks to the invention of the washing machine. ! # Reformed collective living models such as   Central-Kitchen Houses and Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses had been for­ gotten in the tumult of the Second World War. ! $ The diversity of collective living was largely dampened. This development meant that collective living in Community Settlement projects was mainly reserved for shared circulation areas, a typical feature of this housing model. Open spaces, such as open-use floors or extended access areas, sought to encourage the interaction that residents were missing in their closed-off family apartments. Yet, despite these experiments, women generally became increasingly isolated, with experts even identifying three kinds of   isolation: isolation in new districts on the outskirts of the city, isolation in family apartments, and, finally, isolation in the small, functionally furnished work kitchen. !% The working rooms of the apartments as well as rooms for entertainment and relaxation were based on the roles and family images of the time, in which the housewife and mother, who had been freed from the need of having to pursue gainful employment, could devote herself entirely to the upbringing of children and taking care of the household while the husband was out working. ! ^ The architecture reflected the way in which society allocated gender roles. ! & What this meant is that the   (house)wife, and the children as well, were not particularly integrated in publicly accessible   areas. ! * Another aspect of the Community Settlements is the attempt to create a staged neighborhood, which ultimately led to the failure of some

147

apartment buildings with shared living areas. As part of the reconstruction effort and urban   development, some developers pursued the idea of creating a sense of collective life by means of spatial structures in order to counter anonymity and isolation. ! ( However, while these efforts were largely ineffective and often met with a lack of interest on the part of the residents, the effects of Community Settlements on subsequent collective living developments were nevertheless apparent. For instance, Community Settlements experimented with communication zones, which went on to influence the subsequent development phase of Cooperative Living. The Cooperative Living housing model focused more attention on communication zones, and transitions between different degrees of public access were designed with correspondingly higher quality, an aspect which was often neglected in the Community Settlements. In addition, the top-down principle frequently applied in Community Settlements meant that subsequent housing   models addressed the topic of participation and it came to occupy a more prominent role.  

11 Eisen (2012): Vom 15 Altenstraßer, Hauch, Ledigenheim zum BoardingKepplinger (2007): gender house, Bautypologie und housing – geschlechter­ Gesellschaftstheorie bis zum gerechtes bauen, wohnen, Ende der Weimarer Re­ leben, p. 51. publik, p. 352. 16 The functionally 12 Krosse (2005): Wohnen equipped kitchen was con­ ist mehr, p. 9. trasted by the parlor, 13 The standard facilities used as a place of recovery of an apartment improved for entertaining on special signif­icantly during the occasions, which then 1950s due to new afford­ stayed closed during the able consumer goods week. This meant that such as vacuum cleaners, women’s range of move­ re­f rig­e r­a tors, and washing ment was now limited ma­c hines. See also during the course of the day Schuh (1989): Kollektives primarily to the functional Wohnen, Eine verglei­c hende kitchen and the wet rooms. Untersuchung in- und For more, see Stahel auslän­d ischer Bei­s piele, (2006): Wo-Wo-Wonige!, p. 31. p. 10. 14 Altenstraßer writes that 17 Altenstraßer, Hauch, the National Socialists Kepplinger (2007): gender succeeded in discrediting housing – geschlechter­ collective living by consol­ gerechtes bauen, wohnen, idating women’s groups leben, p. 48. by propagating the intimacy 18 Ackerknecht (1972): of the family. See Alten­ Kommune und Grossfamilie, straßer, Hauch, Kepplinger Dokumente – Programme – (2007): gender housing – Probleme, p. 25. geschlechtergerechtes 19 Philippsen (2014): bauen, wohnen, leben, Soziale Netzwerke in gep. 155. meinschaftlichen Wohn­ projekten, p. 33 f.

148

Selected examples of Community Settlements

Unité d’Habitation

1952 Marseilles, France Urban neighborhood Newly built Le Corbusier City of Marseille

Page 160 Neuwil Housing Estate

1965 Wohlen, Switzerland Outskirts Newly built Metron Architects A G Plurima Administration A G

Hässelby Family Hotel

1956 Stockholm, Sweden Suburbs Newly built Carl-Axel Acking Olle Engkvist Page 157 Conjunto Residential Tower

Klintegården Collective House

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developer

1937 Aarhus, Denmark Suburbs Newly built Ove Christensen Unknown Page 149 YK -Huset Collective House

1903 Stockholm, Sweden Urban neighborhood Newly built Hillevi Svedberg, Albin Stark Yrkeskvinnors Club Y K Zlin Collective Housing

1950 Gottwaldov, Czechoslovakia Urban neighborhood Newly built J. Wosenilek Unknown Page 152 Høje Søborg Collective Housing

1952 Copenhagen, Denmark Urban neighborhood Newly built Poul Ernst Hoff,   Bennet Windinge Dansk almennyttigt   Boligselskab DA B

1957 Berlin, Germany City center Newly built Oscar Niemeyer Private owners Carlsro Collective Housing

1958 Copenhagen, Denmark Suburbs Newly built Stephensen Thorball,   Alex Poulsen, Arne Jacobsen Dansk almennyttigt   Boligselskab DA B Halen Settlement

1961 Bern, Switzerland Outskirts Newly built Atelier 5 Private owners Torres Blancas

1962 Madrid, Spain Urban neighborhood Newly built Francisco Javier Saenz de Oiza Juan Huarte

Tour Raspail

1970 Paris, France Urban neighborhood Newly built Renée Gailhoustet,   Roland Dubrulle City of Paris Robin Hood Gardens

1972 London, Great Britain Urban neighborhood Newly built Alison and Peter Smithson Greater London Council G L C Garvergården Housing Estate

1977 Copenhagen, Denmark Urban neighborhood Newly built Hauge & Kornerup-Bang Foreningen Socialt   Boligbyggeri F S B Alt-Erlaa Residential Area

1985 Vienna, Austria Suburbs Newly built Harry Glück,   Kurt Hlaweniczka, Requat & Reinthaller & Partner G E S I B A Non-Profit Housing and Construction Corporation Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground   diagram 1 : 12,000 Local area map 1 : 2,000 1 : 500 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section

149

Y K -Huset Collective House

dence for a period. The ground floor featured versatile collective facilities such as a kindergarten and a central kitchen with restaurant. The restaurant in the Y K -Huset Collective House had a very public character, as all residents had a private and fully equipped kitchen in their apartment. Furthermore, a children’s playroom, referred to in some sources as a collective nursery, and a col­ lective exercise room were available to the residents of the 49 two- to four-room apartments. # The Collective Residence still exists today, but with fewer shared facilities — though the option to have meals   delivered to one’s floor is still   in place. 

1 Lindegren Westerman The Y K -Huset Collective House (2010): Arkitekterna in Stockholm, established in 1939 Albin Stark och Erik Stark, by architects Hillevi Svedberg and Stockholm i förvandling Albin Stark, represents the transi1909–2009, p. 90. tion from the Central-Kitchen House 2 Vestbro (year unknown): model to the Community SettleFrom Central Kitchen ment model. The basic idea, similar to Community Co-operation. to that of John Ericsonsgatan’s   Development of Col­lective Central-Kitchen House, was to focus Housing in Sweden, p. 2. 3 Lindegren Westerman on more efficient household man(2010): Arkitekterna Albin agement by relying on collective   Stark och Erik Stark, facilities such as a central kitchen Stockholm i förvandling and kindergarten to relieve the 1909–2009, p. 90. workload of working women. The Y K -Huset Collective House, how­ever, no longer included a dumbwaiter that led to each apartment. Instead, two small elevators connected the central kitchen directly with the hallway of each floor, where meals could be picked up. The typical charac­ teristic of a Central-Kitchen House was no longer present; the indi­ vidual apartments included fully equipped kitchens. ! The Collective Residence was initiated by the Yrkeskvinnors Klubb Y K , a club for working women, and was again intended to provide   a housing alternative for well-  educated couples with children where both partners worked and relied   on a collectively run household along with a range of services such as laundry and cleaning. @ The architect herself lived in the Collective Resi-

150

YK -Huset Collective House

Spatial structure

Local area map with ground floor 1 : 500

Exterior view of the Furusundsgatan with kindergarten on the ground floor. Photo: Okänd / Arkitekturoch designcentrum Exterior view of the slope side. Photo: Okänd / Arkitekturoch designcentrum

Standard floor

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

151

Kindergarten

Central kitchen Cooperative store

Restaurant Collective spaces not shown Children’s room  Changing room Exercise room Rooftop terrace Cross-section Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Fu Al YK Gr Ma

Furusundsgatan, Stockholm Albin Stark YK-Huset Umgebungsplan mit EG Massstab 1:500

Furusundsgatan, Stockholm Albin Stark YK-Huset Grundriss 1. OG / Schnitt Massstab 1:500

152

YK-Huset Collective House

Organization

self-initiated by a club of working women, occupation through   rent, later through ownership,   initiation both bottom-up   and top-down  

Resident demographic

number of residents unknown, for families with working   partners, high educational   level  

Operational structure

building managed by developer, service-oriented operation,   employees for restaurant, childcare, and services operation, medium   degree of participation 

Apartments

49 units, two- to four-room   apartments, 19 to 83 m²,   single rooms for the staff 

Areas

total site area 2,125 m²,  9 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 1 740 1 485 0 255 Usable floor space 5 020 545 450 4 025

in %

m@ / pers.

100 85 0 15

— — — —

100 11 9 80

— — — —

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Høje Søborg Collective Housing

During the post-war period, the Scandinavian region was the center of collective living development. During this time, the Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab D A B non-profit housing association created various Community Settlements based on the Swedish Col­l ec­ tive Residences of the pre-war period and targeted at working mothers and single parents. ! One of DA B ’s most successful residential properties is Høje Søborg Collective Housing in Copenhagen, completed in 1952 by architects Poul Ernst Hoff and   Bennet Windinge. With a 124 one- to four-room apartments, the Collective Residence was large enough to provide extensive shared rooms   and areas and to offer social and cultural events in line with the DA B program. @ The fully equipped units were quite small, measuring 28–82 m²; however, just under half of the built area consisted of collective spaces. The ground floor acted as a connecting spatial element, opening to   the four extending building wings of the five-story residential building. # The ground floor also housed common areas such as a restaurant, cafeteria kitchen, daycare, and various craft rooms. In addition, there was a reception area with a telephone switchboard and a small shop kiosk.

153

The building concierge also took reservations for the babysitting service and requests for services to   private spaces. Høje Søborg Collective Housing was one of the first residential properties in the history of collective living to have a recreation center available to the entire population of the neighborhood, in which music events, banquets,   and meetings were held. The facility also included a fitness room, a smoking room, roof gardens, and art studios. $ During the first 20 years of   operation, the numerous services and common areas were retained as originally planned, and used accordingly. In 1973, the cafeteria kitchen was closed, with meals now brought by a delivery service. % However,   the obligation for residents to dine   together remained a prerequisite for moving into the collective   residence. ^  

1 wohnbund e. V. (ed.) (2015): Europa, gemeinsam wohnen, p. 82. 2 Skodborg (year un­ known): Kollektivhuset Høje Søborg, kollektive islaet, p. 98. 3 Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau)formen, p. 44. 4 Skodborg (year un­ known): Kollektivhuset Høje Søborg, kollektive islaet, p. 100. 5 Ibid., p. 102 f. 6 wohnbund e. V. (ed.) (2015): Europa, gemeinsam wohnen, p. 82.

Reception area with shop kiosk and telephone switchboard. Skodborg Lene, Kollektivhuset Høje Søborg, collective islæt, undated

View as seen from Søborg   Hovedgade. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Restaurant with resident   dining room. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Daycare center in one of the building wings. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein

Høje Søborg Collective Housing 154

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Spatial structure

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Local area map   with ground floor   1 : 1,000

Søborg Torv, Dänemark Poul E. Hoff und Bennet Windings Kollektivhuset Høje Søborg

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Nutzfläche privat

155

Recreation center

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat

Cafeteria kitchen Reception area with   shop kiosk and telephone switchboard Restaurant (dining room)

Daycare center Collective spaces not shown Smoking room Guest apartments Craft rooms Studios Fitness room Laundry room Roof terrace

Upper floor plan   1 : 1,000

Public spaces not shown Grocery store Garden terrace Søborg Torv, Dänemark Poul E. Hoff und Bennet Windings Kollektivhuset Høje Søborg Grundriss 1.OG Massstab 1:1000

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

156

Høje Søborg Collective Housing

Spatial structure

Cross-section 1 : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

nfläche öffentlich

nfläche kollektiv

public public

collective collective

Organization

non-profit housing association   in accordance with social   housing regulations, occupancy through rent, top-down   initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 223 residents, high educational level 

Operational structure

building managed by developer, tenants’ association for the   organization of collective   spaces and events, collective   rent premium for the   collective facilities, service-  oriented operation with   21 employees, medium degree   of participation 

Apartments

124 units, one- to four-room   apartments sized 28 to 82 m² 

Areas

total site area 13,690 m²,  5 stories

nfläche privat

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 10 660 8 815 1 110 735 Usable floor space 14 805 1 985 3 440 9 380

in %

m@ / pers.

100 83 10 7

47.8 39.5 5.0 3.3

100 13 23 64

66.4 8.9 15.4 42.1

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Søborg Torv, Däne Poul E. Hoff und B Kollektivhuset Høj Schnitt Massstab 1:1'000

157

Conjunto Residential Tower

The Conjunto Residential Tower, with 78 two- to four-room apartments of 38 to 91 m², was developed by Oscar Niemeyer as part of the 1957 International Building Exhibition Berlin ( I B A 57), an exhibition located in the mostly destroyed Hansaviertel in central Berlin. The reconstruction of the district was intended to signify a new beginning for architecture and the urban landscape. ! The development included concepts for modern shared family life, with entrance areas, kitchens, and bathrooms kept small and functional in favor of larger actual living spaces. @ The eight-story Conjunto Residential Tower is supported by two rows of six double buttresses, called pilotis. This architectural air floor — and indeed the entire   development — is a reference to Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation. Only the fifth and eighth floors can be reached by elevator; all other   upper floors are accessed via an internal staircase. # Niemeyer’s and   Le Corbusier’s deliberations on this type of collective circulation area   go back to the collective housing of the Russian avant-garde. Shared   necessities like rues intérieures,   arcades, and rooftop terraces were employed to combine and connect private apartments with collective spaces, much like the streets and squares of a city. $

2 Bürgerverein Hansaviertel However, too little attention e.V. (2015): Hansaviertel was paid to the design of the commuBerlin, Architekturführer zur nity-promoting access areas of the Interbau 57, p. 16. Conjunto Residential Tower, with 3 Schulz, Schulz (2008): windowless and cramped staircases Das Hansaviertel, Ikone der that seem rather unfriendly and Moderne, p. 76 f. triste. Oscar Niemeyer incorporated 4 Muscheler (2007): Das an open story into this same circu­ Haus ohne Augenbrauen, lation area, similar to a distributor Architekturgeschichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert, floor, to be used as collective space. p. 170. This open story provided the name of 5 Schulz, Schulz (2008): the project: in Brazil, conjunto refers Das Hansaviertel, Ikone der to an open floor, and translated   Moderne, p. 77. literally it means a collection, con 6 Carsten Bauer of the nection, or combination. The west Hansaviertel Resident face of the fifth floor was therefore Association notes that the open, with apartments arranged open floor also remains along the east side. The open floor unused because inadequate acoustic dampening was well-situated and could be   measures were undertaken accessed by all residents and from during construction of three different stories. the adjoining apartments. Despite these structural induceFurthermore, the building’s ments, community life never de­ residents simply did not veloped. % One reason was the lack of then, and do not now, have furniture, as the administration an interest in participating had the furnishings removed at the in a shared life. conclusion of the building exhibition. Thus, although a half-story was open for collective use, the function of this undefined space remained unclear; the residents never came to Berlin Hansaviertel view the undefined empty space as Oscar Niemeyer an extension of their personal living Wohnhochhaus Conjuto Schwarzplan space and therefore never appro­pri­ Massstab 1:12000 ated it. At the turn of the millennium, the apartments in the Conjunto Residential Tower were converted into condominiums. According to statements by the Hansaviertel   Resident Association, the half-story of open space still remains unused. ^ 

1 One aim of the IBA 57 building exhibition in the Hansaviertel district was to show residents and the en­ tire world the free and democratic future of West Berlin, making the exhi­ bition itself highly political. The exhibition was a great success, with hundreds of thousands of visitors ar­ riving locally, from East Germany, and from abroad. For more, see Bürgerverein Hansaviertel e.V. (2015): Hansaviertel Berlin, Archi­ tekturführer zur Interbau 57, p. 13; and Schulz, Schulz (2008): Das Hansa­ viertel, Ikone der Moderne, p. 22.

158

Conjunto Residential Tower

Stairwell to the apartments. © Ulrich Greiner Empty open floor. © Ulrich Greiner The open floor was furnished only during the I B A in 1957. © Ulrich Greiner

View of façade of the fifth upper story with open floor. Landesarchiv Berlin, F Rep. 290 (01) No. 0000242_ C / Photographer: Horst Siegmann Detached circulation core with access to the fifth and seventh floors. Landesarchiv Berlin, F Rep. 290 (01) No. 0059435 / Photographer:   Horst Siegmann

Open story

159

Spatial structure

Local area map

Regelgeschoss

Standard floor

Regelgeschoss

Open floor

Freigeschoss Exterior: public Freigeschoss Interior: public

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat öffentlich Aussenfläche Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

collective collective

160

Conjunto Residential Tower

Neuwil Housing Estate

Spatial structure

Cross-section 1 : 750

public public

Exterior: Interior:

Organization enfläche öffentlich

enfläche kollektiv

enfläche privat



collective collective

in accordance with social   housing regulations, publicly   funded, occupation through   rent, later through ownership,   top-down initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 220 residents, middle-class families, medium   educational level 

Operational structure

no efforts by property management to encourage   participation and   appropriation, low level   of participation 

Apartments

78 units, one- to four-room   apartments sized 38 to 91 m² 

Areas

total site area unknown,   7 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space — — 0 450 Usable floor space 5 680 0 850 4 830

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — 0 2.0

100 0 15 85

25.8 0 3.9 21.9

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

With the Neuwil Housing   Estate in Wohlen, the first building of which was erected in 1965, Metron Architects showcased a feature typ­ ical of Community Settlements: they designed an inner avenue, often called a rue intérieur, that could be used as a collective circulation   area. This provided the slender elongated block building with an amply sized circulation space on every third floor, each of which was joined with the other common areas. !   On the ground floor, for example, is an inviting, lounge-like entrance hall, created by the inclusion of seating niches, a lavatory, a telephone booth, and a vending machine. @ A crafts room is adjacent to the entrance hall. On the two floors with corridors, play niches are situated along the inner avenue. A shared living room with fireplace and tea kitchen, a laundry room, and a   sun deck with a solarium and shared showers and toilets are located   on the top floor. This corridor design not only enlivened the often lackluster circulation zones but also minimized them, as only every third story had a corridor. Each of the other two floors was reached via short stairwell spurs, making it possible to add this reclaimed circulation space to the collective areas. # Additionally,

Berlin Hansaviertel Oscar Niemeyer Wohnhochhaus Conjuto Schnitt Massstab 1:500

161

the apartments on the remaining floors were naturally lit throughout the entire day. In the Neuwil Housing Estate, a total of 49 one- to four-  room apartments were available,   all of which contained attempts at creating flexible floor plans. Only the installation areas and functional rooms such as kitchen, bathroom, toilet, and entrance area were considered to be set fixtures; the rest of the apartment could be divided as the occupants wished. $ According to various sources, however, these freely divisible floor plans were not put to good use, and the opportu­ nity to alter the floor plan by shifting the dividing elements was rarely used. % Likewise, the collective facilities remained unused, with some even becoming the target of vandalism. An evaluation conducted after five years of operation made it clear that residents lacked a sense of community. ^  

1 However, only Metron Architects’ first-built and south-facing building was designed with an inner avenue. The later-built sec­ ond building was conven­ tionally constructed. See also Kurz, Maurer, Oechslin, Weidmann (2003): Metron, Planen und Bauen 1965 –2003, p. 132. 2 Das Werk (53 |1966): “Überbauung «Neuwil» in Wohlen AG“, p.  43. 3 Kurz, Maurer, Oechslin, Weidmann (2003): Metron, Planen und Bauen 1965– 2003, p. 65. 4 Das Werk (53|1966): “Überbauung «Neuwil» in Wohlen AG ”, p. 45. 5 A brochure titled My Apartment Is My Castle in­ vited residents to partici­ pate and select from various design options for their floor plans. For more, see also Pestalozzi (29 Aug. 2016): “Flexibilitätsexpe­ riment im Freiamt”, swiss-architects.ch. 6 Kurz, Maurer, Oechslin, Weidmann (2003): Metron, Planen und Bauen 1965– 2003, p. 65.

Private living room with   installation area. © Metron Architects A G

Exterior view of building. © Metron Architects A G Curved parking area shape,   a typical characteristic of Neuwil. © Metron Architects A G Entrance hall with seating niche, telephone, lavatory, and vending machine. © Metron Architects A G

162

Neuwil Housing Estate

Spatial structure

Entrance hall Crafts room

Local area map   with ground floor

Children’s play niche

zfläche öffentlich

zfläche kollektiv

Interior avenue

zfläche privat

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Ganggeschoss Corridor floor Ganggeschoss

Laundry room Lounge with tea kitchen and fireplace Collective spaces not shown Sundeck with solarium, showers, and toilets Top floor

Dachgeschoss Dachgeschoss

äche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

äche privat öffentlich

Aussenfläche privat öffentlich

äche kollektiv

äche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche kollektiv

163

Cross-section Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

entlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

vat

Aussenfläche privat

llektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Organization

private developer with conven­ tional business organization,   occupancy through rent, top-down initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 140 residents, mostly families, medium   educational level 

Operational structure

externally managed by developer, low level of participation 

Apartments

49 units, one- to four-room   apartments 

Areas

total site area unknown, 8 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space — — 330 770 Usable floor space 4 340 0 1 135 3 205

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — 2.4 5.5

100 0 26 74

31.0 0 8.1 22.9

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

164

Cooperative Living and the Opening of Living Spaces “Many dwellings do not make a settlement, even if certain things are supplied that are missing elsewhere.” r e i n h a rt k r a f t !

By the 1970s, criticism of the Community Settlements, along with the spirit of a new era and sense of emancipation that characterized the late 1960s, had developed into the collective   living model of Cooperative Living, which consolidated a user base solidly rooted in an edu­ cated milieu. @ During this period, collective   living established itself as an alternative way of life for the intellectual middle class. For the   first time, community cohabitation and participation became central intentions of collective living, with the desire for community and exchange now exceeding economic considerations. # However, new social structures were made possible only through political upheaval, which also encouraged the ongoing development of collective living. One of the most important critics of the uniform housing developments of the 1950s and 1960 s was Dutch architect N. John Habraken.   In his 1967 book, Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing, he notes that such developments discouraged individual effort and commitment,   essentially eliminating personal initiatives among residents. $ Changing values were also reflected in newly divergent definitions of terminology, including

165

phrases like alternative and new living models, with increasing employment among women.   collective and communicative living, and Co-  As the service, education, and care sectors expandhousing. % No other social movement embraced ed, the number of part-time jobs grew. ! @ The such imprecise terminology, making it difficult housing market, on the other hand, remained to create an empirical overview of the developdominated by traditional ideologies, as reflected ment phases. ^ Nonetheless, the Cooperative Liv- in financing regulation, subsidy guidelines,   ing projects had one thing in common: they   and housing legislation, all of which proved to be continued to focus on family life and did not see extremely sluggish to change and continued to collective living as a fundamental reorganizaalign with the ideals of the nuclear family. ! # The tion of human relationships. Initially, the nuclear 1973 oil crisis and subsequent economic slump family was not questioned, but rather opened   further bolstered the climate of conservatism in up to the community. & Residential objects were residential construction. Nevertheless, overall societal change imalso based on realizing shared life principles   and were — for the first time in the history of col- pacted collective living in many ways. Using collective living — self-initiated and self-organized. laborative methods, participatory processes   were explored for the first time, and previously Mutual support in daily life formed the basis   for this. * Users brought with them a high willing1 Kraft (1993): Mit den and land policies and try to ness to communicate and the intention to coop­ Pfunden wuchern, p. 39. strengthen the social eratively create and organize through democratic 2 The term educated milieu stability within settlements. decision-making processes, and they had the now replaces the term See Id22: Institute for necessary financial resources and time to do so. educated middle class, as Creative Sustainability Berlin the latter is strongly (2012): Co-Housing CulThe idealized family life embraced during associated with the newly tures: Handbook for Selfthe 1950 s and 1960 s seemed to disappear. With formed bourgeois class organized, Communitythe advent of a range of societal developments, of the 19 th and early 20 th oriented and Sustainable centuries. Housing, pp. 16, 20. written and unwritten laws governing the   3 Schuh (1989): Kollektives 6 Müschen (1982): Lieber hierarchies of social classes and gender gradually Wohnen, Eine vergleichende lebendig als normal! started to dissolve in this era as well. ( In 1971, Untersuchung in- und Selbstorganisation, kollekSwitzerland became one of the last European ausländischer Beispiele, tive Lebensformen und p. 8. alternative Ökonomie, p. 33. countries to grant women the right to vote.   4 Habraken also assumes 7 Brech (1989): Neue The prohibition of common-law marriage was that identification with Wohn­f ormen in Europa, largely abolished in Germany and Switzerland one’s living environment Berichte des 4. Intern­a ­ during this time. Family planning and lifestyles can only be established tionalen Wohnbund Kon­ when it is possible to do gresses, p. 105. not covered by the ideas of church and state   something to it, to influence 8 Pätzold, Seidel-Schulze, led to new household forms. In addition, feminist it in a way that one is Jekel, (2014): Neues criticism began to address the functional yet responsible for. It must be Wohnen – gemeinschaftliche Wohnformen bei Genossencramped and closed-off workspaces within tradi- possible to appropriate one’s living environment. schaften, p. 17. tional housing architecture. ! ) Emancipation   On this, Habraken distin­ 9 Stahel (2006): Wo-Wonot only increased women’s freedom of movement guishes between possession Wonige!, p. 10. and action, but also had an impact on the home. and ownership, defining 10 Altenstraßer, Hauch, possession as appropriation Kepplinger (2007): gender Instead of merely supplying living space, resihousing – geschlechter­ dences began to be regarded as a place where life through activity together with an action. See gerechtes bauen, wohnen, could be jointly shaped. ! ! From this arose a   Habraken (1961): Supports: leben, p. 51. An Alternative to Mass 11 Brech: “Ein Wandel im desire to participate as much as possible in the Housing, p. 11. Wohnen in der Zeit des planning, realization, and use of apartments 5 The idea of Cohousing Umbruchs”. In Wüstenrot and housing complexes as living space for the originated in Denmark Stiftung (1999): Neue family. The societal changes went hand-in-hand in the late 1960s and has Wohnformen, p. 60. since become an estab­ 12 Altenstraßer, Hauch, lished worldwide network. Kepplinger (2007): gender Cohousing projects aim housing – geschlechter­ to self-organize the devel­ gerechtes bauen, wohnen, opment of settlements leben, p. 55. that feature diverse collec­ 13 Brech: “Ein Wandel im tive living spaces, shared Wohnen in der Zeit des activities, alternative Umbruchs.” In Wüstenrot mobility, renewable energy Stiftung (1999): Neue resources, or that address Wohnformen, p. 86. the development of more compatible housing

166

Cooperative Living and the Opening of Living Spaces

private living spaces were opened to the com­ munity as a whole. There were experiments, for example, with communal kitchens or partial open-use floors, areas situated in front of several apartments that acted as enlarged circulation   areas with an inviting and utile atmosphere. The partial open-use floors were essentially unfurnished and lacked facilities such as kitchen or bathroom, but could be set up freely by the families of the adjacent apartments or dedicated   for shared use. In contrast to the open stories of the Community Settlement model, the partial open-use floors were directly connected to the apartments. This created an explicit spatial connection that enabled residents to appropriate the communal space and use it exactly as they chose. Changes in floor plan design — like placing the kitchen in a niche of the living room and   creating new opening options, such as sliding doors — led to more flexible connections between living and working spaces. The half-open kitchen then began developing into a fully   open kitchen, a kitchen-living room, in which the functions of cooking and living were more   closely linked spatially. This departure from functionally self-contained built-in kitchens to open kitchens was in keeping with, first, the demand for a central dwelling space and living room   for the family, and also with the desire for open spaces for the housewife. ! $ In Cooperative   Living projects, private kitchens remained fully equipped and therefore independent, and housekeeping continued to be organized individually. However, the communal areas made   it possible to look after children together, cook jointly in the shared kitchens, and provide   everyday assistance to one another. Despite increasing employment numbers, 80 percent of such collective activities continued to be carried out by women. ! % The Cooperative Living phase was highly significant in that it marked the definitive end of paternalistically organized collective living. User groups created self-organized living projects in complex participatory processes alongside  

female planners and, in some cases, even soci­o ­ logists. The inclusion of these professional perspectives was highly innovative for the time,   a strategy undertaken not primarily for economic reasons, but to advance the goals of living in community, improving human interaction, and creating a comforting sense of safety. ! ^ Residents accepted the additional efforts required for completing housework and organizing daily life. In contrast to earlier collective living housing models, such as Central-Kitchen Houses or Men’s and Women’s Hostels, there were no general   provisions for hiring staff to take care of shared living areas. ! & The projects’ long planning phases and participatory democratic processes often led to   unrealistic goal-setting or ideologically charged expectations, which had to be corrected in the early phases of settling in. ! * These processes did not always lead to greater stability and, in the medium term, resulted in homogeneous resident populations, even though social heterogeny   was initially a clear goal. Nevertheless, lifestyle, education level, political positions, age, and   type of household seemed to be prevailingly   homogeneous. !( The nuclear family was not fundamentally questioned in Cooperative Living per se, but rather regarded as being socially bankrupt. In the end, Cooperative Living aimed to help reduce authoritarian family structures and encourage social and cooperative behaviors. @ ) The ideal size of a Cooperative Living project was a property with 20 to 40 apartment   units, forming a clearly defined community. @ !   Smaller housing projects were considered more problematic, as changing needs and other   fluctuations could severely disturb the community. The number of residential units had a   significant impact on the boundaries between private and public space. A tendency to choose   one’s neighborhood carefully led to the conscious organization of social networks in Cooperative Living projects. The more privacy was shared within the neighborly network, the more the public boundaries shifted towards the outer edges   of the settlement. @ @

167

The impacts of Cooperative Living on later collective living models were particularly evident in the opening up of living spaces and the family to the community. Subsequent societal developments and the initial experiences with self-organized collective housing made by a   homogeneous population encouraged the spread of collective living. Starting in the 1990 s, a   new type of residential project emerged, one with clear social intentions. Beginning with the Housing and Culture Projects model, initiated as an expression of community, not only was living space shared between households, but shared additional infrastructure even encouraged the involvement of entire neighborhoods. User groups began to change and shift. The educated milieu remains crucial to ongoing high interest   in collective living and the initiation of housing projects. However, the resulting projects no longer primarily target families, instead addressing broader populations and sometimes even   explicitly addressing non-family or multi-  generational living.  

14 Altenstraßer, Hauch, 20 Gerheuser, Schumann Kepplinger (2007): gender (1981): Kommunikatives housing – geschlechter­ Wohnen, p. 6. Schneider gerechtes bauen, wohnen, writes that family life leben, p. 71. nevertheless tended to take 15 Schneider: “Wohnbau­ place primarily in the experimente, ein besseres evenings and on weekends, Wohnen für Frauen?” In and that collective activi­ Brech (1989): Neue Wohnties were more likely to be formen in Europa, Berichte part of everyday life. See des 4. Internationalen also Schneider: “Wohnbau­ Wohnbund Kongresses, experimente, ein besseres pp. 114, 120. Wohnen für Frauen?” In 16 Schuh (1989): KollekBrech (1989): Neue Wohntives Wohnen, Eine ver­ formen in Europa, Berichte gleichende Untersuchung des 4. Internationalen in- und ausländischer Wohnbund Kongresses, Beispiele, p. 24. p. 121. 17 Brech (1989): Neue 21 Jürgen Schuh writes Wohnformen in Europa, about 10—20 apartments, Berichte des 4. Inter­ but notes that 17 people nationalen Wohnbund Konwould live in 10 units. See gresses, p. 310. also Schuh (1989): Kol­ 18 Schuh (1989): Kolleklektives Wohnen, Eine vertives Wohnen, Eine ver­ gleichende Untersuchung gleichende Untersuchung in- und ausländischer in- und ausländischer Beispiele, p. 155; and Beispiele, p. 154. Wüstenrot Stiftung (1999): 19 Wüstenrot Stiftung Neue Wohnformen, p. 127. (1999): Neue Wohnformen, 22 Brech (1989): Neue p. 136. Wohnformen in Europa, Berichte des 4. Inter­ nationalen Wohnbund Kongresses, p. 37.

Title page of N. John Habraken’s volume. N. John Habraken, Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing, 1961 Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing was published without illustrations, with initial ideas for implemen­ tation illustrated in the concept drawing for an open building. Cuperus Ype, “An Introduction to Open Building”, undated

168

Selected examples of Cooperative Living

Lichtenrade Family Residences

Page 179 Stacken Collective House

1977 Berlin, Germany Suburbs Newly built Günther Behrmann,   Fried Schnabel Berlin-Lichtenrade   Church Parish

1982 Gothenburg, Sweden Suburbs Remodel Lars Agren Göteborgshem Non-Profit Housing Association Fuglsangpark Settlement

De Hilversums Meent Cohousing Settlement



Page 169 Overvecht-Noord Settlement

First occupancy 1971 City Utrecht, Netherlands Location Suburbs Building type Newly built H. W. M. Janssen Architect Developer City of Utrecht Construction and Housing Service Sofiegården Council

1972 Copenhagen, Denmark City center Conversion, new building Box 25 City of Copenhagen Page 172 Steilshoop Living Model

1973 Hamburg, Germany Suburbs Newly built Rolf Spille, Dieter Bortels New Hamburg GmbH

1977 Hilversum, Netherlands Outskirts Newly built Leo de Jonge, Pieter Weeda Centraal Wonen Association Page 176 Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement

1980 Roskilde, Denmark Outskirts Conversion Jan Gudmand-Hoyer,   Jes Edvars Private developer Stolplyckan Collective and Service House

1980 Linköping, Sweden Outskirts Newly built Höjer & Ljungquist Kollektivhusföreningen Stolplyckan Beaulieu Social Housing

1980 Poitiers, France Urban neighborhood Newly built Galmiche, Robain, Laval City of Poitiers Bijvanck Cohousing Residences

1982 Huizen, Netherlands Outskirts Newly built Luzia Hartsuyker-Curjel Centraal Wonen Association

1983 Farum, Denmark Outskirts Newly built Tegnestuen Vandkunsten Boligfonden Bikuben Lægeforeningens   Boligers Byggeselskab Gårdsåkra Future Living

1983 Eslöv, Sweden Outskirts Newly built Landskronagruppen Unknown Page 183 Houtwijk Cohousing Residences

1984 The Hague, Netherlands City center Newly built Andries Van Wijngaarden Centraal Wonen Association Living with Children

1984 Vienna, Austria Suburbs Newly built Ottokar Uhl, Franz Kuzmich, Martin Wurnig Association for Living with Children Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground   diagram 1 : 12,000 Local area map 1 : 2,000 1 : 500 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section

169

Overvecht-Noord Settlement

very wide corridors. Only once the building was completed were the corridors made into spacious communal areas by altering the façade recesses. The collective aspects of life were therefore not incorporated into the building project itself   but had to be organized by the residents. @ At the time the building was realized, the impact that these unconventionally established col­ lective areas would have on residential behavior could not be foreseen. The city administration even expressed concern that the apartments would be difficult to rent. # As a   result, the housing project was promoted in a broad public relations campaign in local media and at informational events. The selection process for prospective residents was steered by a questionnaire in which interested parties could express their ideas about and wishes for collective living, and the resident   population was assembled accordingly. This selection process re­sulted in a predominantly homo­geneous group of upper-level white-collar workers and academics. Blue-collar circles were less interested in this form of living, despite the attractive rent prices. Residents began to self-organize at the very outset of the use phase. Selected individuals from each group of four apartments and the partial open-use floor joined together to form a resident group to oversee administrative duties, the organization of collective life, conflict resolution, and tenant selection. $ In consultation with this resident group, various multi-floor uses blossomed in the partial open-use floors, including cafés and workshops. The partial open-use floors could also be used, for example,   as a children’s playroom, communal living and dining room, or library.  

In the Overvecht-Noord Settlement in Utrecht, completed in 1971, so-called partial open-use floors were implemented to create expanded circulation areas that could be shared as common space — one for every four family apartments.   The spatial connection encouraged a personal bond among residents and created a zone between the stairwell and private apartments. Each apartment entrance also had an additional front area with a cloakroom and lavatory, acting as a filter between shared areas and the private apartment. By affiliating each partial open-use floor with four private apartments, the communal areas were clearly assigned to a specific user base and made available to these residents as neutral open-use areas that could be furnished as   desired. The 168 apartments of the Overvecht-Noord Settlement were planned and realized by architect H.W. M . Janssen and funded by the City of Utrecht Administration   via the Department of Building and Housing Services. The standard   size of the units remained three- to 1 Bauen + Wohnen four-room apartments, correspond- (27|1973): “Experimentelles ing with the concept of a family Bauen und Wohnen apartment at the time. ! The partial in Utrecht Niederlande”, open-use floors of around 60 m² p. 229. were initially designed merely as

2 Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn­(bau)formen, p. 72. 3 Archithese (14|1975): “Grosshaushalte”, p.  19. 4 Hartmann (1978): Selber & gemeinsam planen, bauen, wohnen, p. 7 ff.

170

Overvecht-Noord Settlement

The Overvecht-Noord Settlement   is comprised of nine buildings. © Erwin Mühlestein Partial open-use floors are a central element of each building. © Erwin Mühlestein

Collective living space in a partial open-use floor. © Erwin Mühlestein The centralized location of the partial open-use floors promotes community. © Erwin Mühlestein A partial open-use floor used as   an open play area. © Erwin Mühlestein

171

Spatial structure

Local area map (section)

Partial open-use floors

Standard floor

Regelgeschoss

Cross-section Exterior:

public

Interior: öffentlich public Aussenfläche

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

collective collective

172

Overvecht-Noord Settlement

Steilshoop Living Model

Organization

in accordance with social   housing regulations, occupancy through rent, top-down   initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 650 residents, academic and intellectual families,   high educational level

Operational structure

partial open-use floors managed by a tenant-elected   “Centrale Groep” committee,   high level of participation

Apartments

168 units, three- and four-room apartments  

Areas

total site area unknown,   4 to 8 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space — — — 1 595 Usable floor space 24 090 0 4 210 19 880

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — — 2.4

100 0 17 83

37.1 0 6.5 30.6

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

The driving forces behind the 1973 Steilshoop Living Model in Hamburg were architect Rolf Spille together with the Urban Living   Association (Verein Urbanes Woh­ nen), founded to initiate a process for changing living culture. ! The Steilshoop Living Model was geared towards emancipating its residents, who were offered the opportunity to determine how they   wanted to live by participating in the planning phase. Collective   living was considered to be an exper­ iment aimed at providing an alternative to family life in order to solve personal and family difficulties. Although the majority of   the population consisted of young working academics and non-working but well-educated wives who had an average of two children, there was a deliberate effort to encourage a social mix of different milieus. @ Working-class families, large fam­ ilies, migrants, students, and even former prisoners and families   with special needs also participated in the Steilshoop Living Model. The collective living spaces and private apartments were not designed based on any historical model. Future residents met weekly in their still conventional apartments to jointly explore their housing wishes and requirements. The next

173

step was the formation of working from each other to consolidate   the community of the seven-story   groups to address such issues as playgrounds and youth work, neighresidential building. The spaces borhood building, residents’ meetshared by the entire building community were separated on the   ing planning, and managing shared roof and ground floor; as a result the facilities. Other groups worked   out the contractual basis of living collective use lost its natural and spontaneous character. &   together or developed floor plan layouts for the apartments. # The fact that residents got to 1 Wüstenrot Stiftung (ed.) know each other long before moving (1999): Neue Wohnformen, in created intense social interaction p. 23; and Archithese in the beginning. The Steilshoop (14|1975): “Grosshaushalte”, Living Model was met with considp. 21. erable political support and received 2 Gerheuser, Schumann public funding. $ In order to com(1981): Kommunikatives pensate for the collective areas, priWohnen, p. 5 f. vate outdoor spaces such as balco- 3 Hartmann (1978): nies were not built. The top floor, Selber & gemeinsam planen, bauen, wohnen, p. 1 5. however, did include a spacious ter4 Zurich Museum of Design race with a meeting room and tea (ed.) (1986): Das andere kitchen. A kindergarten, playrooms Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn-­ for children, a room for school(bau)formen, p. 90. work, a workshop, sports rooms, and 5 Hartmann (1978): a communal laundry room were   Selber & gemeinsam planen, located on the ground floor. % For the bauen, wohnen, p. 19. more than 220 residents, the self- 6 The building structure planned apartments remained the followed the S A R con­ struction method, which center of collective living. The   allowed for easy changes participatory planning process reand adjustments to the sulted in various individual apartfloor plan. After the living ments that were attached to com­ experiment was terminated, munal kitchens and collective spaces, this made the conversion as well as apartments that could   to traditional small apart­ be considered traditional family ments easy and economical. units. The largest unit was 400 m² The SA R construction and provided space for six families. method was developed by Dutch architect N . John After just over 11 years of   Habraken to facilitate user operation, however, all residential participation. See also units were converted back into   conventional apartments. ^ The resi- Lüchinger (2000): 2-Komponenten-Bauweise, p. 12; dent population changed early, in and Museum of Design the course of the first few years, with Zurich (ed.) (1986): Das financially better-situated inhabiandere Neue Wohnen, tants leaving the Steilshoop. This Neue Wohn(bau)formen, resulted in a mixture that included p. 90. 7 Hartmann (1978): an above-average number of stuSelber & gemeinsam planen, dents and problematic families. The bauen, wohnen, p. 19. collective areas became under-  managed, soon appearing worn and neglected. Additionally, it became apparent that the configuration of the collective areas did not encourage communication. Despite the existence of apartments with collective kitchens, living, and dining areas, the units were spatially too isolated

Courtyard façade, with balconies waived in favor of collective areas. © Erwin Mühlestein Communal kitchen, adjacent   to private apartments. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein One of the playrooms for children. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein

174

Steilshoop Living Model

Spatial structure

Kindergarten

Dining area Living area Communal kitchen Collective spaces not shown Playrooms for children Schoolwork room Workrooms Sports facilities Meeting room   with tea kitchen Laundry room Rooftop terrace

Local area map

Hamburg Rolf Spill Wohnmo Umgebun Massstab

ch

v

ch

v

175

Ground floor Erdgeschoss

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat Standard floor Regelgeschoss

Exterior: Interior: Organization

Resident demographic

Erdgeschoss Operational structure

Apartments

public public

collective collective

organized by the Genossenschaft Urbanes Wohnen Hamburg E. V. (Hamburg Urban Living Cooper­ ative), occupancy through rent; bottom-up initiation process around 220 residents, for middleclass, large, and low-income families, students with financial difficulties, and the integration of migrants, prisoners, and social welfare cases, very heterogeneous education level self-managed, participation in the planning phases, operations organized by working groups, high level of participation 35 units, 17 group and 18 family apartments

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area unknown, 7 stories area m@ Outdoor space — — 355 0 Usable floor space 6 060 320 1 555 4 185

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — 1.6 0

100 5 26 69

27.5 1.5 7.0 19.0

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

176

Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement

The Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement was established in 1980 in Roskilde, Denmark as an expansion of a disused factory building, a foundry built in 1946, which was initially supposed to be demolished. ! In the end, the high cost of demo­ lition combined with a local cohousing initiative led to the conversion and expansion of the old factory building. The first Cohousing projects were organized in Scandinavia as early as the 1970s, with the goal   of creating dedicated collectives with a community center to complement the adjoining private households   (mostly in terraced housing or single-  family homes, and rarely in the form of apartment buildings). @ Cohousing projects were funded either privately or through the state,   depending on local circumstances. The Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement was one of the first projects   to be developed privately by the initiators. # While planning the project, the initiators were supported by a group of students and later by   the architects Jan Gudmand-Hoyer and Jes Edvars. Planning was carried out in a participatory process that also included future residents, who later built quite a bit on their own. $ A total of 21 apartments   with sizes ranging from 38 to 127 m² were completed. % The different

sized housing units were intended to promote a mix of income classes and household types among the approximately 50 residents. ^ How­ ever, in the end the financial burden was so high that only well-educated people moved into the Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement. & The private apartments were similar to terraced housing and were connected to the collective factory hall. The kitchens of the units faced the communal area, while the living areas, with access to the private gardens, faced away. This turned the existing factory hall into a central hall and expanded the circulation area that acted as a covered courtyard, providing space for games and inter­a c­ tion, as well as extending the living area and supplying room for larger events such as festivals. To the   rear of the hall, the two-story   community building was designed as a room inside a room, within which were located a communal kitchen, dining room, and, upstairs, other spaces such as playrooms,   a T V lounge, workshops, a sewing room, and a laundry room. * The   final floor plan of the project is particularly interesting, as the original situation with the old factory   hall required a very specific solution. 

1 Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn­( bau)formen, p. 63. 2 wohnbund e.V. (ed.) (2015): Europa, gemeinsam wohnen, p. 41. 3 Durret, McCamant (1995): Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, p. 98. 4 Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau)formen, p. 63.

Roskilde Jan Gudm Gemeinsc Schwarzp Massstab

177

5 Differing information is available regarding the apartments and their sizes. Some sources mention 20 housing units between 21 and 120 m². See also Schuh (1989): Kollektives Wohnen, Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in- und ausländischer Beispiele, p. 106; and Durret, McCamant (1995): Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, p. 98. 6 Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau)formen, p. 63. 7 Schuh (1989): Kollektives Wohnen, Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in- und ausländischer Beispiele, p. 106. 8 Durret, McCamant (1995): Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, p. 93 ff.

The Cohousing Settlement and   old factory hall. © Erwin Mühlestein The private residential units   adjoin the factory building. © Erwin Mühlestein Access corridor between community building and private apartments. © Erwin Mühlestein

178

Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement

Spatial structure

Local area map with ground floor 1 : 500

Cross-section

Aussenfläche öffentlich Schnitt Exterior: public collective Aussenfläche kollektiv collective Interior: public

R J G U M

Aussenfläche privat

Organization

private ownership, self-initiated, appropriation by ownership,   bottom-up initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 50 residents, mixed household types,   high educational level 

Operational structure

self-managed settlement, high level of participation 

Apartments

21 units,   from 38 to 172 m² 

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area 6,055 m²,  2 stories area m@ Outdoor space 4 390 3 670 200 520 Usable floor space 1 775 0 490 1 285

in %

m@ / pers.

100 83 5 12

87.8 73.4 4.0 10.4

100 0 28 72

35.5 0 9.8 25.7

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

179

Stacken Collective House

Central hall Communal kitchen   with dining room Children’s playroom TV room Workshop and   sewing room Collective space not shown Laundry room

designed to supply the entire Collective Residence as well as its cafeteria. In addition to a daycare, open to   the entire neighborhood, there were several other recreational spaces,   including, for example, a sewing room. The Stacken Collective House was managed by a tenant association, which took care of not only main­ tenance and facilities work but also administrative tasks and kitchen services. Various self-organized working groups voluntarily undertook the necessary tasks. With the exception of the daycare, all collectively organized spaces were paid for through the residents’ rent. This constructional and organizational outcome came about through a participatory process in which the   architects and future residents developed the conversion concept over the course of two years. Financing for the conversion had also been clarified in advance by the owner, a non-profit housing association,   and the City of Utrecht, which bore the project’s planning costs. The co-determination by future residents was extensive, from outlining   redesign plans to preparing detailed house rules. By increasing the apartments’ quality of life, also achieved thanks to the shared living spaces, it was possible to reduce turnover among residents. $ How­ ever, according to a 1989 study,   after eight years of operation, only

The Stacken Collective House in Gothenburg, Sweden is indicative of the shifting social values of its period. Built on the outskirts of town in the boom of the 1960s, the conventional nine-story apartment building with a central stairwell stood virtually empty in the 1970s. An initiative by architecture pro­ fessor Lars Agren gave the Stacken building new direction as a self-  managed Collective Residence, now considered one of the first conversion projects of collective living, together with the Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement. ! The previously identical three-room apartments were converted into 33 two- to fourroom apartments housing a total   1 Schuh (1989): Kollektives of approximately 100 people and Wohnen, Eine vergleichende supplemented with extensive collecUntersuchung in- und tive living spaces. @ The ground   ausländischer Beispiele, floor includes, for example, a café, p. 111. various workshops, a photo lab, a 2 Jürgen Schuh writes of laundry room, and a sauna. Ad­d i­ 50 children and 47 adults, tional shared facilities were located while Mühlestein notes 77. on the fifth floor, as the existing See Zurich Museum of statics allowed scant room for creatDesign (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, ing the necessary openings. # How­ Neue Wohn(bau)formen, ever, the floor was not designed as an p. 92. open-use floor, as in the projects of 3 Schuh (1989): Kollektives the Community Settlement housing Wohnen, Eine verglei­ model, but was instead giving a   chende Untersuchung inspecific function through equipment und ausländischer Bei­ and facilities. The most important spiele, p. 112. common room was the large kitchen, 4 Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau)formen, p. 92.

180

Stacken Collective House

20 percent of residents still ate their meals in the communal dining room. The study also mentions that a great deal of ideological ballast had to be chipped away during the initial years of operation, and   a few early residents of the Stacken Collective House ended up leaving. %  

5 Schuh (1989): Kollektives Wohnen, Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in- und ausländischer Beispiele, p. 112 f.

Existing high-rise, into which the Collective House was integrated. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Communal kitchen on the fifth floor. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Dining room next to the communal kitchen. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein

Public daycare, also located on   the fifth floor. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein

181

Spatial structure

Large kitchen

Dining room Daycare

Sewing room

Open-use floor Freigeschoss

Collective spaces not shown Workshops Photo lab Sauna Regelges Laundry room Public space not shown Café

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Standard floor Regelgeschoss Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Göteburg Lars Agren Kollektivhaus Stacken Grundriss Massstab 1:500

182

Stacken Collective House

Spatial structure

Cross-section

Exterior: Interior:

Organization

nfläche öffentlich

Resident nfläche kollektiv demographic

nfläche privat

Operational structure

Apartments

public public

collective collective

non-profit housing association   as developer, managed by   tenant’s association, occupancy through rent, top-down   initiation process  around 100 residents, middle-class families, mid to high level of   education  tenant association assumes maint­enance, janitorial, and adminis­ trative work, 12 volunteer working groups take care of kitchen   services, garden work, etc., all   residents alternate in working groups, rent reduction of 20 percent   through self-management,   high level of participation  33 units, two- to four-room   apartments  

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area unknown,   9 stories area m@ Outdoor space — — 95 150 Usable floor space 5 495 620 865 4 015

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — 1.0 1.5

100 11 16 73

54.9 6.2 8.6 40.1

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Göteburg Lars Agren Kollektivhaus Stac Schnitt Massstab 1:500

183

Houtwijk Cohousing Residences

With the help of the non-  profit Centraal Wonen association,   Houtwijk Cohousing Residences were established in The Hague in 1984. The impetus came from a group of interested parties who knew each other from an earlier project that never materialized. When the group of interested parties grew   to around 20 and they identified a suitable plot of land, they began   negotiations with the City of The Hague regarding a building lease contract. ! In the next phase, the project was developed in close collaboration with the group of architects around Andries Van Wijngaarden and future residents. A participatory process was used for making many of the decisions, many of which were even self-built during realization. The four-story building was designed to form a courtyard around the shared garden. An interior circulation area acted as a crucial spatial element, designed to create a col­ lective main area that was far more than a rue intérieur. Not only did   it open up to several shared kitchens and communal living spaces, it also housed three guest rooms, a quiet room, a hobby room, a music room, and a sauna. All collective areas   and the 42 apartments of the Houtwijk Cohousing Residences had windows that visually connected to

the interior circulation area. This high level of transparency strengthened connections to the circulation area, a concept also supported by various atriums in the corridors. @ In order to make this generous communal area possible, residents chose to reduce their private living space. This active coalition remains a   vitally important aspect of the residential project; even today a lively collective lifestyle can still be found at Houtwijk Cohousing Residences. #  

1 Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn­(bau)formen, p. 84. 2 Ibid., p. 84. 3 https://www.cwhoutwijk.nl, accessed on 17 Mar. 2019.

D V G S M

184

Houtwijk Cohousing Residences

Communal kitchen

Collective   circulation area

Street view of the Cohousing Residence. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Interior courtyard with shared outdoor spaces. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein

Rue intérieur creating an inner connection. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Corridor extension with communal area along the rue intérieur. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Shared kitchen, adjacent to the   rue intérieur. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein

Collective spaces not shown Communal   living areas Guest rooms Quiet room Hobby room Music room Sauna Garden

185

Obergeschoss

Spatial structure

Ground floor

Erdgeschoss

entlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

vat

Aussenfläche privat

lektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Standard floor

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Obergeschoss

186

Houtwijk Cohousing Residences

Organization

self-initiated by non-profit   developers, occupancy through rent, bottom-up initiation   process  

Resident demographic

number of residents unknown, mixed household types,   medium educational level 

Operational structure

self-managed by a housing asso­ciation for the collective areas,   plus a tenant organization, working groups take care of various items such as finances and facility   management, plenary sessions   around seven times annually,   high level of participation 

Apartments

42 units,   from 32 to 52 m² 

Areas

total site area unknown,   4 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space — — 130 340 Usable floor space 4 060 0 1 580 2 480

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — — —

100 0 39 61

— — — —

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

187

Excursus

Collective Housing in the German Democratic Republic

With the post-war order and the division of ensure that there was one person per room and Europe, the newly founded German Democratic one family per apartment, with single-room Republic ( G D R ) introduced the applied socialist apartments being planned for single occupants way of life, the ultimate aim of which was to   as an alternative. $ There was no apparent col­ attain a classless society. In the socialist underlective organization of dwelling, work, and life standing, a dialectical connection was intended   beyond the isolated nuclear family in the G D R . % Apartments in the G D R were not a comto arise here between individuality and collectivity. ! This was founded on the notion that a social­ modity, but instead a social benefit provided by the state. Building on the 1920s concept of ist individual wanted to be consciously active   in the community and that this was the only way apartments designed for those living at subsisfor them to enhance their individuality. Another tence level, a modular principle was established with a variety of different floor plans for families core principle was the egalitarian view that all that allowed for the size of the apartment to people are equal, and that classes and layers of society should increasingly converge at a common vary. ^ This was characterized by what are known as the Wohnbauserie apartments (built using slab level in terms of income, education, and housing. Although the dissolution of the family was 1 Hunger (2003): Sozialisti- 5 Siebel (5|2006): “Zukunft debated and the concept of a bourgeois family sches Wohnkonzept und des Wohnen,” in ARC H + , rejected in the G D R , the nuclear family was conp. 45. Wohnungsbau in der D RR – sidered to be the smallest cell of society, constiDas Beispiel Halle-Neustadt, 6 On this, Hunger notes tuting the fundamental collective that was linked p. 71 f. that land reform freed 2 Ibid., p. 107 f. building property from the to other collectives such as the party or worker 3 Harlander, Kuhn (2012): laws of the market, intend­ collective. @ Home floor plans were tailored to the Soziale Mischung in der ed to create affordable nuclear family just like in the West, although Stadt, Case Studies, and healthy living situations very politically restrictive, family-based criteria Wohnungspolitik in Europa, for people. See Hunger Historische Analyse, p. 92. (2003): Sozialistisches to allocate these dwellings were established   4 Häußermann, Siebel Wohnkonzept und Wohn­ in the G D R . # The housing authorities worked to (2000): Soziologie des ungsbau in der DRR – Wohnens, Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdiffe­ renzierung des Wohnens, p. 171.

Das Beispiel Halle-Neustadt, p. 101.

188

E x c u r s u s Collective Housing in the GDR

construction), which were a dominant feature   of the newly erected apartment blocks of the   early 1970s. Prefabricated exterior walls or interior fixtures such as kitchens and bathrooms were simplified to the greatest extent possible and tailored to families with parents working on a full-time basis. & Although the G D R did not experiment with communal housing as in the Soviet Union’s housing models, this form of housing did most closely resemble the premises of Marxist-Leninist theory. * This meant that certain household functions were collectivized as a result of the high proportion of working women. This participation in the labor market was considered a measure of equality for women, leading to tasks such as cooking and childcare being organized at the collective level. ( In the G D R ’s understanding of socialism, for example, the upbringing of   children was not the sole responsibility of the mother, the family, or state institutions such   as schools, but instead viewed as a holistic process within society as a whole. !) As such, there were common areas such as day­cares, school cafeterias, and work canteens. A network of childcare facil­i ties covering virtually the entire nation, along with the relative social and economic independence of women, meant that during the 1980s nearly one baby in three was born to a   single mother. ! ! 

7 Harlander, Kuhn (2012): Soziale Mischung in der Stadt, Case Studies, Wohnungspolitik in Europa, Historische Analyse, p. 95 f. 8 Hunger (2003): Sozialis­ tisches Wohnkonzept und Wohnungsbau in der DRR – Das Beispiel Halle-Neustadt, p. 107. 9 This equality must, how­ ever, be relativized in light of the fact that women were disproportionately found in the lower income levels. See Hunger (2003): Sozialistisches Wohn­ konzept und Wohnungs­b au in der DR R – Das Beispiel Halle-Neustadt, p. 104. 10 Ibid., p. 19. 11 Ibid., p. 102.

al

Int

enti

ons

Based on

ci

aring Sh

So

192

Sufficiency and Participation: Sharing Based on Social Intentions “Self-initiative emerges from two main motivations, from a lack of suitable alternatives and from the wish to create something according to one’s own ideas.” k r i s t i e n r i n g !

The next three models of shared living — Housing and Culture Projects as an expression of the community, Community Households and Cluster Apartments with services, and Co-Living as inter­ connected and decentralized housing — all place social intentions in the foreground. In this on­ going phase of development and diversification, housing has become more communicative,   networked, and diverse. Not only are the user groups engaged in shared living becoming   broader and more colorful, the available private and shared living spaces and facilities are fol­ lowing suit. In contrast to the housing models of the past, these current housing models are   expected to continue to spread and develop in different variations. The term Housing and Culture Projects   refers to the mostly self-initiated residential prop­ erties founded in the years since the mid-1980s,   a residential model that focuses on a collective living style and is specifically designed to fulfill the needs of the targeted user group. Demo­ graphic changes and evolving family structures are reflected in unique ways in each Housing and Culture Project. New aspects include a strong emphasis on social exchange and a rejection of the nuclear family as the dominant household

193

paradigm and housing form. Thus, in addition to of the latest shared living model, Co-Living, family constellations, new multi-family, post-  which originated in the 2010 s. The Co-Living user family, and non-family forms of cohabitation have group consists primarily of young, well-educated been included in floor plan designs and plans   working people. Employment and housing are for communal areas. Reconciling family and work closely linked, with work and home life constantly life remains an important aspect of this type of intertwined through digitalization. As a result, shared living, but, increasingly, it considers both Co-Living almost always goes hand-in-hand with parents. Once again, living and working spaces co-working. Like Cluster Apartments, the mini­ are being combined. Studios, shared offices, and mal, hotel-like private living spaces of Co-Living seminar rooms can now be found in apartment have a small private bathroom and, often, a buildings and residential complexes. kitchenette, and they can function as a full living Community Households and Cluster Apart­ unit only in combination with the common   ments represent a fresh model of living that   living areas. Co-Living, however, distinguishes can partially be explained as a logical evolution itself from the other two housing models in   from the residential communities popular in   that it is much more separated; there are no con­ the 1970s. This model recognizes and addresses nections to other collective or conventional the current renewed interest in shared forms   forms of living. of living and interaction. It is based on individual The common spaces of all three living mod­ living spaces that are strongly minimalistic   els are used mainly for recreational activities, yet connected to adjacent communal spaces, cre­ with a few exceptions: the collective kitchen, din­ ating a combination that functions as a resi­ ing, and living rooms of Community House­ dential unit. The private areas of Cluster Apart­ holds, Cluster Apartments, and Co-Living, in ments include a basic bathroom and sometimes which basic living functions are shared. In addi­ a small place to cook. This type of floor plan is tion to cultural facilities such as music rooms, increasingly bringing services back into the living cultural spaces, and event halls, there are also area, often with employees cooking or cleaning   spaces for workshops, photo labs, bike repair in the auxiliary rooms. Thus, for Generation X and shops, and many other services. Swimming pools, younger generations, sharing living spaces no saunas, and fitness rooms provide opportunities longer signifies giving something up, but adding for exercise. Collective spaces for residents to value. In addition to individualization and   cook and eat together remain very popular. These personal responsibility, residents are also seeking include shared kitchens, cafeterias, outdoor opportunities to enter into relationships that kitchens, barbecue areas, and house bars. Shared they themselves choose. washing rooms have been upgraded to launder­ Like Housing and Culture Projects, Com­ ettes or laundromat/cafés and also sometimes act munity Households and Cluster Apartments   as a meeting space. For the first time in shared are designed for participation, which is usually living, plans include rooms with no designated begun early, during the conception and imple­ purpose. So-called white rooms or flex rooms mentation phase. In large residential properties can be appropriated by individuals or groups of or settlements, Community Households and residents, temporarily or for a longer period. Cluster Apartments are increasingly being com­ Flex rooms can help improve coordination, in­ bined with more traditional apartments of   creasing or decreasing private living space — for different sizes. These housing models are pri­ example, for young adults in the transition be­ marily funded and organized by non-profit tween living with their family and on their own. housing developers and sometimes by local mu­ 1 Ring (ed.) (2013): Self nicipalities. Private real estate developers are   also involved in the planning and implementation Made City, Berlin, Self-initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions, p. 15.

194

Sufficiency and Participation: Sharing Based on Social Intentions

Guest rooms that can be rented for just a few nights can help reduce the number of private liv­ ing spaces, maximizing the use of space. In large housing developments, integrating hotels or guest houses is becoming increasingly popular. All of these collective facilities require a pro­ fessional operating structure, especially in larger settlements. A main desk or reception area   serves as a point of contact and hub for renting shared rooms, utilizing services, and coordi­ nating participatory processes. In addition to social intentions, the princi­ ples of sufficiency and environmental sustain­ ability are increasingly important factors for the developers and residents of such housing mod­ els. The aim is to reduce per capita consumption of living space in affluent societies and, ulti­ mately, lower rising housing costs. Occupancy regulations concerning non-profit and muni­cipal housing developers help determine the number   of persons per apartment in relation to the num­ ber of rooms. In light of housing pressure in   urban areas, shared housing is also a way to pro­ vide affordable living space to a wider range   of population sectors. One key feature of collec­ tive living models that are based on social in­ tentions is sharing through engagement and participation. Further, the shared benefits for all three housing models are not limited to struc­ tural and spatial aspects. In addition to a desire for social interaction, societal inclusion, secu­ rity, and housing forms adapted to social changes, a sense of neighborhood and community is   becoming more important. For this reason, many shared areas and services — such as child care, hotels, and restaurants — also aim to include the neighborhood at large. Ground floors increasingly house services and small businesses that target the surrounding neighborhood, within walking distance or beyond. This not only adds value   to the residential property and its shared spaces, it also benefits the entire neighborhood by   providing a greater variety of different social   interactions. 

195

Changing Living Spaces Due to Changing Lifestyles “Future generations will probably adopt a fundamentally positive attitude towards more modest forms of housing and identify to a greater extent with immaterial goods. On top of this comes the fact that housing is becoming more akin to a consumer good.” d av i d s t r o h m !

Living space can essentially be acquired in do not fit current or changing living situations, three different ways: by purchase, rent, or ac­ uses, and lifestyles. Certain rooms are often only quisition of partial ownership through a cooper­ used at specific times of the day or certain days ative or building owner group model. Housing of the week, such as home offices, hobby rooms, cooperatives such as the ones in Switzerland or or guest rooms, meaning that a considerable the building owner groups of Germany and portion of the living space — a scarce commodity Austria are generally not profit-oriented forms in Central European urban environments — is of organization and erect residential buildings   not being used. on a non-profit and self-directed basis. They see In recent decades, growing levels of pros­ perity have led to a sharp rise in housing con­ themselves as an opposing model or as a neces­ sary addition to profit-oriented institutional and sumption that by far exceeds actual requirements private housing construction. This is often re­ for appropriate living space. According to the ferred to as the third way, i.e. an approach to Swiss Federal Statistical Office, the average ownership and availability that strikes a balance amount of available living space in Switzerland in between housing ownership purely for com­ 2016 was 45 m² per person. This represents an increase of 15 m² per person since 1970, @ putting mercial exploitation and rental housing. In ad­ dition to cooperatives or building owner groups, Switzerland in line with the European average. non-profit property developers also include   Denmark has the highest level with 52 m² per per­ cooperatives, foundations, and municipalities, son, Germany is somewhere in the middle with the latter primarily in Scandinavian countries, 47 m², while Sweden is at the lower end of the Austria, and in Switzerland to a certain degree. range with 41 m² per person. # If you compare While housing ownership can often influence these nationwide figures with those of European the typology and layout of the floor plan, renting 1 Strohm: “planen”. In N Z Z living space usually means accepting what is available in terms of space, interior design, mate­ am Sonntag (13 Dec. 2015). 2 Bundesamt für Statistik rials, and furnishings. These living areas often Schweiz BF S : “Gebäudeund Wohnungsstatistik, Strukturerhebung, Bau- und Wohnungsstatistik”. 3 eurostat, scb.se, destatis.de, and statbank.dk (25 Oct.  2018).

196

Changing Living Spaces Due to Changing Lifestyles

Most common household types in Switzerland, 1970 –2017.   Index 1970 = 100 Single-person households Couples without children Couples with children   under 25 Single-parent households   with children under 25 Source: Swiss Federal  Statistical Office F S O , 2019

340 300 260 220 180 140 100 1970

1980

1990

Household types in Swiss cities, in percent.   Non-family 38.1 % Single-person   households 2.8 % Multi-person   households Single family 27.4 % Couples without children 25.3 % Couples with children 5.7 % Single-parent   households Multi-family 0.7 % Households with   at least two   independent families Source: Swiss Federal Statistical Office F S O , 2013

2000

2010

2017

197

Average European household size, in persons per household, 2017.   1.9 to below 2.1 2.1 to below 2.2 2.2 to below 2.3 2.3 to below 2.5 2.5 to below 2.7 2.7 to below 2.9 Source: eurostat, Statista 2019

198

Changing Living Spaces Due to Changing Lifestyles

cities, it becomes evident that less living space is claimed per person in urban settings. The rea­ sons for this lie in urban density, more compact building structures, and higher land prices, which in turn mean higher housing costs in relation   to income. $ The availability of financial resources are seen as the driving force behind the consump­ tion of living space. More living space is con­ sumed if the housing market and income levels allow it in relation to housing costs. Efforts to make more appropriate use of liv­ ing space take on a whole new lease of life when cultivated land becomes scarce or a process of dis­ placement sets in. Spatial planning laws and building regulations are only suitable tools to a limited extent here, since successful strategies   to increase occupancy and make more intensive use of living space must also be found. The amendment to the Swiss Spatial Planning Act   (R P G ) in 2014 had the aim of limiting spatial   settlement development and compressing it in existing building zones. If, however, the con­ sumption of living space per person rises at the same time, the Federal Office for Housing be­ lieves that these efforts to increase densification may not be effective. % The continued increase   in small households is one of the main reasons for the rise in land consumption, with demo­ graphic developments and changing lifestyles having led to a sharp increase in the number of single-person households in recent decades. ^   In Switzerland, single-person households made up 35 % of nationwide housing in 2017, & climbing to as high as 45 % in Zurich and 46 % in Basel. *   In a comparison with other European cities, the share of such housing is even higher in Berlin   (52 %) and Amsterdam (55 %). ( This shift in house­ hold types means that the average size of both European and Swiss households shrank to 2.2 per­ sons per household in 2017, a phenomenon that is particularly visible in Central and Northern European cities. Berlin, for instance, has an aver­ age household size of just 1.7 persons. ! ) Given the widening gap between the type of housing available and the type needed for to­

day’s lifestyles, coupled with Europe’s progres­ sively ageing society, it is expected that the aver­ age household size will continue to shrink and that people’s consumption of living space will continue to edge upwards. ! ! Developments call for concepts that not only reflect structural   and spatial needs, but also social ones, and that respond in a more dynamic way to progressive structural change. The need for space changes de­ pending on people’s living arrangements and lifestyles, with the cycles becoming shorter and shorter as people in post-industrial societies pass through different forms of living more often than before. ! @ These dynamic living situations are reflected in new forms of inter-, post-, and non-family cohabitation. Labor market needs, declining numbers of children, the difficulty   of finding the right balance between family and working life, partners not living in the same house­h old, changing partnerships, the curtail­ ment of traditional family time, and multiple forms of multi-local living are only some of the factors that serve to further illustrate this   process. ! # Nevertheless, the family seems, for the time being, to remain firmly anchored in statistics   as the dominant social image of the household. The Swiss Federal Statistical Office includes non-families and multiple families among the household types that are on the rise, while that   of the traditional nuclear family is declining pro­ portionally, with the exception of single-parent households. ! $ The fact that the term “family”   is also used in a negated form for other types of households shows how strongly living and   types of households are still associated with the image of a family, although the social unit of   living, the household, is less and less that of a nuclear family. !% From a sociological point of view, the family is a form of living recognized under public law with the role of shaping the   relationship between children and their parents. This means the family is not only a form of   cohabitation, but also a social institution that emerged from industrialized society as a self- 

199

11 Wohnforschung 2016– contained core. !^ The strong influence of the nu­ 2019 (2016): “Forschungsclear family on housing construction can be   programm des Bundes­ seen not only in sociological terms, but also in amtes für Wohnungswesen terms of urban development and architectural B WO ”, p. 10. 12 Krosse (2005): Wohnen design. Family apartments built since the begin­ ist mehr, p. 11. th ning of the 20 century are almost exclusively 13 Fedrowitz, Gailing designed to satisfy the needs of the nuclear family (2003): Zusammen Wohnen, ideal. !& The apartments available today no longer Gemeinschaftliche Wohnprojekte als Strategie soziareflect how family and household structures ler und ökologischer Stadthave changed or the actual situation regarding entwicklung, p. 27. modern-day living arrangements and lifestyles. 14 Strohm: “Gemeinsam statt einsam”. In N Z Z This means that family apartments in urban soci­ am Sonntag (27 Sep. 2015). eties with a high proportion of single-person 15 Häußermann, Siebel households are often repurposed. ! * (2000): Soziologie des Living arrangements and lifestyles that   Wohnens, Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdiffe­ deviate from the fundamental social idea of the renzierung des Wohnens, nuclear family are in no way a marginal phe­ p. 322. nomenon anymore. The diversity and pluraliza­ 16 Bertels (1990): Gemeinschaftsformen in der tion of ways of living, such as people living alone with children, patchwork families, living-  modernen Stadt, p. 77. 17 Fedrowitz, Gailing apart-together couples, D I N K S (double income   (2003): Zusammen Wohnen, no kids), and yuppies (young urban pro­fessionals) Gemeinschaftliche Wohnprojekte als Strategie soziaare changing the way we live together and how ler, ökologischer Stadt­ living space is used. The social and functional entwicklung, p. 30. roles within and between households are being re­ 18 Hofer: “Von der Familienwohnung zum Clusternegotiated and redefined. These developments are changing the demands being placed on hous­ Grundriss”. In TE C 21 (07 | 2011). ing, how living space is designed, and the living 19 Krosse (2005): Wohnen environment. On top of this, the need to be ist mehr, p. 10. able to retreat or integrate, to have the freedom to choose where one resides, and to have con­ tact with other people may prove to be an oppor­ tunity to develop new quality cri­t eria when   it comes to designing, planning, and erecting residential buildings. ! (  

4 Strohm: “Etwas mehr 7 Bundesamt für Statistik Platz muss sein”. In Schweiz BFS : “Haushalte NZ Z am Sonntag (19 Jul. und Personen nach Haus2015). haltsgrösse”, 2017. 5 Wohnforschung 2016– 8 “Haushalte 2015 in der 2019 (2016): “ForschungsStadt Zürich” and programm des Bundes­ statistik.bs (25 Oct. 2018). amtes für Wohnungswesen 9 statistik-berlinB WO ”, p. 16. brandenburg.de and 6 Häußermann, Siebel urbannext.net (25 Oct.  (2000): Soziologie des 2018). Wohnens, Eine Einführung 10 statista.com (25 Oct. in Wandel und Ausdiffe­ 2018). renzierung des Wohnens, p. 288.

200

G u e s t E s s ay

Differentiation Processes in European Housing Markets in the 21 st Century

p r o f.  d r .  i n g r i d b r e c k n e r HafenCity Universität Hamburg

European housing markets in the 21 st century reflect a range of different social development processes when it comes to edu­ cation and employment, mobility, the distribution of wealth,  so­cio-cultural practices, and administrative regulations, resulting in residential developments with varying degrees of attractive­ ness, different time structures and use typologies of one or more dwellings, a wide spectrum of housing costs, as well as different concepts and practices for regulating living for oneself and for others. Regardless of current differentiation processes, however, the act of living continues to be one that is incorporated every­ where in biographical and social processes under different under­ lying social conditions and retains its existential significance even in the context of a rapidly changing present. Housing is some­ thing that is indispensable, even if some people are only able to take shelter “under the roof of the world” (Heidegger) on streets and squares, in lodgings, makeshift huts, vehicles, or tents, be­ cause it is not yet possible to legally claim a right to housing even in the richest of European countries. In any case, living in Europe is something that continues to be largely connected to buildings, ranging from villas, single-family, and terraced houses to a variety

201

of different multi-story apartment buildings and former com­ mercial properties. Access to housing for those seeking a place to live depends on their residency status, income, and willingness  to follow applicable housing regulations, and is something that  requires openness and tolerance on the part of the landlord or  seller. The use of land for housing and the ways in which living actually takes shape not only vary depending on living space costs and the ability of its users to pay, but also on the size of house­ holds, life phases, and living experiences, as well as social, envi­ ronmental, and aesthetic preferences. This is why highly diverse forms of living exist in most European communities: Single-person households, which make up more than half of the population in many large European cities, can be found in both large and small apartments, either by themselves or sometimes with their respective partners. Many of these households — along with childless couples, different types of families with children, and adults in the post-family phase — long for a greater sense of community. Such wishes can be satisfied by different concepts of collective living — often within the framework of building col­ lectives and new types of cooperatives — or increased neighbor­ hood activities once the concept of individual self-optimization  is no longer in the foreground. Older people often remain in dwellings that they can no longer fully occupy and care for properly after children move out, or fol­ lowing a divorce, as smaller yet more expensive apartments are unaffordable on an old-age pension. However, as life expectancy rises, the need for home care is also becoming a factor — a need being addressed to a greater or lesser extent through in-patient and out-patient, informal and institutionalized support and care concepts which many of the people concerned can barely afford on their own. Low incomes, patchy employment records, divorces, and age-related health restrictions are currently translating into an increase in poverty, especially among elderly women, which in turn means more cases of housing hardship in the long term. Immigrants with a tradition of collective living across several

202

G u e s t E s s ay

Differentiation Processes in European Housing Markets in the 21 st Century

generations have often needed to learn to cut down on living space and yet still achieve a high quality of life by taking a creative  approach to living space, adapting it to the time of day and/or physical needs. Administrative regulations to avoid overcrowding make such space-saving living practices difficult or impossible in some countries, and it is not uncommon for such regulations to be implemented to stigmatize approaches to living that are dif­ ferent. Even today, social living practices are not limited exclusively to apartments, but also include the surrounding environment with its open spaces and infrastructure, provided that it is attractively designed: For example, people eating and drinking outside even in colder climates; the act of working being partially relocated to restaurants, cafés, or co-working spaces due to a lack of offices at home or as a result of the need for social contact; playgrounds and green spaces used in particular by families as meeting places and all types of households for local recreational purposes. Mobility requirements in the context of employment and self-  defined mobility demands lead to different types of temporary and multi-local apartment use, having an impact on neighborhoods. More settled neighbors often react critically to temporary pres­ ence if this means that social control is restricted, or the parade of different tenants becomes a disruptive factor. Acceptance of multi-  local living practices tends to be found among neighbors who, for whatever reason, are mobile themselves and appreciate neighborly support — be it collecting mail or taking care of plants. Living conditions and housing practices in Europe differ less by whether they are in urban and rural areas than by the eco­ nomic strength of regions and types of communities. Higher in­ comes are generated where the economy flourishes, which in turn means that there is financially strong demand in the respective housing markets. Since many large cities have a higher degree of differentiation in their local economies and are also often produc­ tively networked with their regional hinterland and the associ­ ated resources, the migratory trend from sub- to re-urbanization

203

has seen a change here since the late 1990s. Pricier urban housing has become attractive again even for families, if it can be com­ bined with interesting and well-paid employment opportunities and reliable childcare. Higher social and structural density as well as rising housing costs are accepted, as are noise and odor pollu­ tion, because the preference is for short distances, diverse socio-  cultural and professional networks, and a broad spectrum of in­ frastructure for education, mobility, culture, and healthcare. The influx of people to what are referred to as swarm cities, however, is also contrasted throughout Europe by the economic and demo­ graphic decline of many small towns and rural regions, which have not shared in the benefits of globalization-related growth. There, living costs and property prices are stagnating or falling, and the infrastructure is gradually crumbling away due to a lack of suffi­ cient tax revenues. Moreover, extended periods of decline in sev­ eral European regions are behind a growing change in political mentality, which favors radical conservatism and nationalism and puts democratic political structures at risk. The new and sociologically relevant development of hous­ ing markets in the 21 st century has been the increasing power of international actors to shape the financing, production, and sale of living space. Since the financial crisis in 2008 in particular,  national and international investments in residential real estate have been an interesting proposition wherever comparatively low purchase prices promise high yields when resold. Investments in  “concrete gold” are often associated with the expectation of a quick return, which can then be used again to speculatively invest in land, housing, and capital markets. This means that buildings are often sold immediately after being completed. The responsibility for subsequent approaches to utilization and quality development possibilities for urban residential locations does not play a com­ parable role here, as is characteristic both for long-term owners and the shaping of European towns and villages. Sometimes land and existing buildings are only acquired when there is a prospective rise in value, which is then immediately realized as soon as the un­

204

G u e s t E s s ay

Differentiation Processes in European Housing Markets in the 21 st Century

used property, acquired only for speculative purposes, can be re­ sold at a profit. Such investors also generally lack a sense of respon­ sibility for the consequences of their actions for urban space and can only be prevented from pursuing their selfish economic prac­ tices by municipalities with difficulty through preemptive rights, building orders, or social maintenance ordinances. International­ ization and the increased standardization of housing construction due to economic considerations have an impact both on use struc­ tures and the aesthetics of urban design, moving towards a stan­ dardized urban environment which no longer does justice to the widening gap between what is needed and the structures of supply and demand in European housing markets. European housing markets at the beginning of the 21 st cen­ tury are characterized by both abundance and dearth. They are again the source of protest movements against rising rents, squat­ ting, and activities to collectively or individually reduce the use  of living space in housing projects or different variations of “tiny houses”. For the group of people who are dependent on afford­ able housing, who now account for 50 percent of the population in many large cities, the challenge is to ensure that appropriate housing continues to be available in the long term. In addition  to subsidized living space, which makes up one third of what is known as the one-third mix, without limited rental terms as far as possible, cooperative and new municipal housing construction continue to be of key importance, as well as the maintenance of existing affordable housing. Municipalities in particular must also put a stop to the misappropriation of living space through lucra­ tive tourist developments, in which city visitors threaten to dis­ place residents from their living space. It is hoped that the histor­ ical review in this book and the International Building Exhibition  (2020–2022) in Vienna, the historical Mecca of municipal housing, will be a source for discovering interesting approaches to “New Social Housing”, from which other European cities can also learn.

References: — —Bourdieu, Steinrücke (1998): Der Einzige und sein Eigenheim. — —Brede, Dietrich, Kohaupt (1976): Politische Ökonomie des Bodens und Wohnungsfrage. — —Häußermann, Siebel (1996): Soziologie des Wohnens. Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdiffe­ renzierung des Wohnens.

— —Hilti (2013): Lebens­ welten multilokal Wohnender. Eine Betrachtung des Spannungsverhältnisses von Bewegung und Ver­ ankerung. — —I BA Wien: “Neues soziales Wohnen”. https://www. iba-wien.at/ (Accessed on 19 Apr. 2019).

— —Klus (2013): Die euro­ päische Stadt unter Privatisierungsdruck. — —Lang, Carriou, Czischke (2018): “Collaborative Housing Research (1990– 2017): A Systematic Review and Thematic Anal­ ysis of the Field”. In: Housing, Theory and Society (Online First).

205

Housing and Culture Projects as an Expression of Community “A social negotiation becomes material and is petrified.” c h r i s t i a n s c h m i d !

Housing and Culture Projects were the first housing model in which the social motivation   to share came clearly to the foreground. To a large degree, Housing and Culture Projects emerged from the changing social values of the 1970s, in which traditional family constellations were   increasingly replaced by plural, egalitarian, and more communication-oriented systems. @ This change of values was accompanied by the emer­ gence of an alternative ecological movement that produced a broad spectrum of means of action, ranging from direct democracy to militant resis­ tance. # The social climate was shaped by public debates, citizen initiatives, and general action on long-neglected topics such as equality between the genders and generations, as well as an emerg­ ing interest in environmental issues. The polit­ ical stability of the previous decades dwindled;   in many places there was unrest among the   youth — for example the opera house riots in Zurich, where demonstrators demanded and fought for more affordable housing as well as more open space and cultural space. $ This was the backdrop for the Housing and Culture Proj­ ects that were realized starting in the 1980s. In German-speaking countries, the utopia described

206

Housing and Culture Projects as an Expression of Community

Concept sketch of a potential bolo. P. M ., bolo’bolo, 1983

Possible green belt around the city outskirts. P. M ., bolo’bolo, 1983 Bolo associations making up neighborhoods or quarters. P. M ., bolo’bolo, 1983

207

in the 1983 book bolo’bolo by Hans Widmer, pub­ in Switzerland, in office buildings empty due to a real estate crisis that occurred in the 1990s.   lished under the pseudonym P. M ., acted as   an ideological wellspring of ideas. In the book, a The projects’ collective spaces were multifaceted and novel, but the market environment remained slightly ironic analysis of capitalist society, P. M. created a sketch of what an autonomous lifestyle tense, with an increasing call from non-profit developers to permanently withdraw residential in a living and working community would look like. Although agricultural self-sufficiency was real estate from the market and thus from   spec­ulation. considered in the writings, bolo’bolo can be de­ In addition, the 1987 publication of the fined as an urban utopia. % Parallels to the utopian socialists are recognizable in the draft of a living Brundtland report, Our Common Future, continued to anchor the issues of ecology and sustain­ and working community, and the plans for   ability more deeply in public awareness. ! ) The regional self-sufficiency are also related to the report triggered a process that to this day still ideas of Ebenezer Howard. An upswing in the 1980 s eased the econom­ profoundly affects society as a whole and influ­ ences the housing market, with the high con­ ic situation that followed the oil crisis. Europe seemed to open itself when the Cold War came to sumption of living space per person increasingly raised for discussion. ! ! During this era, not   an end and, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in only did social space continue to open up, but 1989, there was even a spirit of optimism. ^ In addition, during the 1990s European cities begin with the advent of Housing and Culture Proj­ ects, ideological demands changed from those of experiencing a revival following the urban   exodus of the 1970s. & With the introduction of   1 Statement by Christian 8 Vester, Von Oertzen, the free movement of persons between most   Schmid, Professor of Geiling, Hermann, Müller European countries, pressure on the now-coveted Sociology at the Depart(2001): Soziale Milieus im urban centers increased. Well-trained specialists, ment of Architecture gesellschaftlichen Strukturabove all, created pressure on the housing mar­ E TH Zurich and researcher wandel, Zwischen Inte­ at the ETH Studio Basel, gration und Ausgrenzung, ket. * Housing conditions, whether collective or at the M AS ETH Wohnforum p. 40. conventional, began changing due to new, indi­ workshop, 26 Nov. 2015. 9 Mersmann, Novy (1991): vidualist ways of life, and were met with growing 2 Reichardt (2014): AuthenGewerkschaften, Genossen­ schaften, Gemeinwirtspatial requirements. While the number of one- tizität und Gemeinschaft, p. 359. schaft, Hat eine Ökonomie and two-person households increased signifi­ 3 Stahel (2006): Wo-Woder Solidarität eine cantly between 1970 and 1990, the consumption Wonige!, p. 1. The eco­ Chance?, p. 19 f. of living space per person also increased signifi­ logical movement is signifi- 10 The Brundtland Report cantly shaped by the 1972 was commissioned by cantly during the same period. In the late 1980s, publication of the report the United Nations World the New Right ushered in the deregulation   The Limits to Growth by the Commission on Environand privatization of markets, with far-reaching Club of Rome. The Club ment and Development. The report led to today’s comconsequences for housing. The state increasingly of Rome defines itself not as a political entity but as mon definition of sustain­ withdrew from the housing market, while   an international think tank ability, which is understood building cooperatives and other non-profit devel­ with an array of experts. to include social, economic, opers entered the vacuum, encouraging more 4 Ibid., p. 18 f. and environmental sus­ 5 Ibid., p. 63 f. tainability. solidarity and community with their Housing and 6 Ibid., p. 21 f. 11 For example, the Housing Culture Projects. ( Following a real estate crisis 7 There was often talk of Valuation System (Wohduring the 1990s, these Housing and Culture so-called A -cities, (“A“ nungs-Bewertungs-System, Projects were often established in unfamiliar loca­ standing for asocial) occuWB S ) of the the Swiss Federal Office for Housing pied only by the poor, tions such as outlying industrial wastelands,   awards fewer points if the elderly, the unemployed, or in converted existing buildings — for example, the net living area exceeds trainees, and alcoholics. See also Hofer, Schmid, Sonderegger (2008): Wohnen morgen, Standort­ bestimmung und Perspektiven des gemeinnützigen Wohnungsbaus, p. 20; and Zurich Museum of Design (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn­(bau)formen, p. 116.

a certain size. Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen B WO (2015): Wohnbauten planen, beurteilen und bewerten, p. 57.

208

Housing and Culture Projects as an Expression of Community

previous housing models and became more ethi­ cal, as the moti­v ation for sharing was no longer based solely on the act of collective living. ! @ Along with the loss of traditional assurances and the individualization that resulted, ecological considerations strengthened the development of new forms of collective living. In addition to shifting social values and the partial disintegration of traditional societal   and class roles during the 1980s, two additional factors are particularly noteworthy and charac­ teristic of the diversification of household constel­ lations at the time. Both factors are largely re­ lated to family structure and the societal role of women. In part due to increased employment rates among women and their resulting eco­nomic independence, the divorce rate in almost all Central European countries rose sharply. ! # In parallel, the role of the man as sole breadwinner and authority figure was increasingly called into question. Contrasting with rising divorce rates, the marriage rate fell. ! $ The social core of the family was no longer regarded as an economics-  related form of cohabitation, but instead as   a symbiotic gender relationship and emotional nucleus consisting of woman, man, and chil­ dren. ! % In addition, marriage ceased being the sole social foundation of a family. Legal matters could now also be regulated by means of a co­ habitation agreement or adoption. ! ^ A second factor in the diversification of households at   the time was the significant drop in birth rates after use of birth control became widespread   in the early 1970s. Various medical achievements had made it possible for individuals to practice effective family planning. The robust Baby Boomer generation was followed by decades of low birth rates. From the 1990s onwards, collective living was noticeably consolidated, with diverging   lifestyle concepts and inhomogeneous house­ hold forms becoming more a matter of course. Collective living offerings evolved into supple­ mentary use options that could be added to   a private room as desired. In addition, the social

pressure to participate was relaxed as Housing and Culture Projects were supported and coordi­ nated in an increasingly professional manner. Demographic shifts, changing family structures, rising levels of prosperity, and increasing indi­ vidualization and mobility led to freer participa­ tion in different lifestyles and forms of living, with people transitioning through what could be called housing careers over the course of their lives. The still traditionally oriented and tight housing market lacked options that responded to these social changes. Thus, this gap was increas­ ingly closed by a diverse group of initiators, such as building groups in Germany, a few coopera­ tives in Switzerland, and associations in Austria and Scandinavia, sometimes working in co­ operation with local governments. In the case of Housing and Culture Projects, care was taken   to improve the integration of work and family for both women and men and to offer suitable pro­ grams as part of the collective facilities. For the most part, those living in Housing and Culture Projects continue to come from an educational milieu, though the user group is becoming   more heterogeneous and diverse. Traditional families, young students, older people, and childless couples — in other words, people with very different lifestyles and in different phases of life — now come together to live collectively. In some Housing and Culture Projects, there   is an emphasis on integrating disadvantaged sec­ tions of the population, such as single mothers, into the housing market. Housing and Culture Projects also have new organizational structures. Although the processes generally remain self-  organized and self-initiated, the operational   organization is undergoing a continuous profes­ sionalization. For example, larger tasks are   put in professional hands instead of being car­ ried out by volunteers. So far, the Housing and Culture Projects housing model is displaying a high level of stabil­ ity, although the collective living phase has yet   to be handed on to the next generation. This sta­

209

bility stems from the fact that participation and interaction is not lived only by the residents,   but also by the developers, architects, sociologists, and residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The housing policy process is carefully shaped through interactive discussion and reflections on one’s own identity, with flexible relationships and living connections being created even in the face of contradictory interests. The functions and uses of the collective living spaces of Hous­ ing and Culture Projects have grown consider­ ably. There is a sense of optimism for collective living, with offerings that include shared kitch­ ens, dining rooms, lounges, spaces for leisure such as workshops and music rooms, guest rooms, and, increasingly, even spaces such as art studios, meeting rooms, and shared workplaces. This brings the workplace closer to the home once again. The widespread commercialization of the internet around 1991 initiated a process that   established completely new means of sharing in­ formation and communicating. Advancing   digitalization continues to both intensify and simplify communication between an increas­ ingly heterogeneous resident population. As such, flexible and communicative persons from an   educated background continue to characterize participants in collective living. 

12 Vester, Von Oertzen, 15 Altenstraßer, Hauch, Geiling, Hermann, Müller Kepplinger (2007): gender (2001): Soziale Milieus im housing – geschlechter­ gesellschaftlichen Strukturgerechtes bauen, wohnen, wandel, Zwischen Inte­ leben, p. 55. gration und Ausgrenzung, 16 In 1973, only 41 percent p. 396. of the German population 13 From 1970 to 1985, the regarded marriage as divorce rate tripled in an ideal, while 27 percent Belgium, France, and the preferred a partnership Netherlands. See Reichardt without marriage, and (2014): Authentizität und 17 percent stated a wish to Gemeinschaft, p. 359 f. live in a collective. See 14 Novy: “Neue HaushaltsReichardt (2014): Authentiformen, neue Lebensstile zität und Gemeinschaft, und die Suche nach den p. 357. neuen sozialen Bauherren”. 17 Van Wezemael, Huber In Brech (1989): Neue (2004): Neue Wege Wohnformen in Europa, im Genossenschaftlichen Berichte des 4. Inter­ Wohnungsbau, Kurzfassung nationalen Wohnbund KonSiedlungsevaluation Kraftgresses, p. 47. Werk1 und Regina-Kägi-Hof in Zürich, p. 38.

210

Selected examples of Housing and Culture Projects

La Petite Maison

Aegidienhof Housing Project

1987 Rennes, France Urban neighborhood Newly built Sophie Laisne Architecte Société Civile Coopérative   de Construction,   PA R A S O L Association

2001 Lübeck, Germany City center Conversion smf Architects Aegidienhof e.V.

Page 212 Färdknäppen Collective House



Blenda Collective House

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developer

1983 Uppsala, Sweden Outskirts Newly built Noark A B Uppsalahem A B Borettslaget Friisgate 6

1987 Oslo, Norway Urban neighborhood Newly built Asplan Prosjekt A S U S B L Housing Cooperative Brahmshof

1987 Zurich, Switzerland Urban neighborhood Newly built Kuhn, Fischer und Partner Evangelical Women’s   Association of Zurich

1993 Stockholm, Sweden City center Newly built Jan Lundqvist Arkitekter A B Familjebostäder (municipal property developer) Page 216 Dreieck Refurbishment

1996 Zurich, Switzerland Urban neighborhood Conversion and new building arc architects A G ,   Fahrländer+Fries Arch, Albers+Cerliani Dreieck Cooperative Page 220 Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project

1996 Vienna, Austria Urban neighborhood Conversion B K K -2 Architects Association for Integrative Lifestyle Hardturm Settlement

2001 Zurich, Switzerland Urban neighborhood Newly built Stücheli Architects,   Bünzli Courvoisier Architects Kraftwerk 1 Building and Housing Cooperative

WohnSinn 1

2003 Darmstadt, Germany Outskirts Newly built Planungsbüro faktor 10 WohnSinn Building and Housing Cooperative Page 225 Kreuzberg Beguinage

2007 Berlin, Germany Urban neighborhood Newly built Barbara Brakenhoff,   Lutz Siebertz P P L Factory Beguinage Association Page 228 Bofaellesskab Lange Eng

2008 Albertslund, Denmark Outskirts Newly built Dorte Mandrup A / S Private owners

211

Vrijburcht Residential and Work Complex

Vienna Housing Project

2008 Amsterdam, Netherlands Outskirts Newly built C A S A architecten Stichting Vrijburcht

2013 Vienna, Austria Urban neighborhood Newly built einszueins Architecture Association for Sustainable Living

ro*sa Women’s Living Project

Older Women’s Cohousing

2009 Vienna, Austria Outskirts Newly built Köb & Pollak Architecture ro*sa Women’s Living Project Association

2016 London, Great Britain Outskirts Newly built Pollard Thomas Edwards Hanover Housing Association, Older Women’s Cohousing Group O W C H

Tila Residential Building

2009 Helsinki, Finland Urban neighborhood Newly built Talli Oy, Pia Ilonen Private owners Mischen Possible

2010 Berlin, Germany Urban neighborhood Newly built B A R architekten GbF Building Collective,   private owners Giesserei Multigenerational House

2013 Winterthur, Switzerland Outskirts Newly built Galli Rudolf Architects Gesewo

Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground   diagram 1 : 12,000 Local area map 1 : 1,000 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

212

Färdknäppen Collective House

10 percent in order to finance the shared living spaces. The communal areas cover around 650 m² and are located pri­ marily on the ground floor. ! In   addition to a shared kitchen, there   is also a dining room, shared living room with library, work space,   sewing room, workshop, and shared laundry room. A guest room with lavatory can also be found on each of the six standard floors. There is   another common room on the top floor, with a fireplace, tea kitchen, and lavatory. These frequently   used rooms are complemented by   a photo lab, sauna with bath,   and fitness area in the basement. The Färdknäppen Collective House is operated by an association, of which all residents are members. The asso­ ciation can also be joined in order to get on the waiting list to become   a resident, which currently includes about 70 people. Although resi­ dents of the Färdknäppen Collective House are renters and not owners, they are the only ones to decide who is accepted as a new occupant.   The housing project is entirely selfoper­a ted, with residents par­t ici­ pating in cooking or cleaning groups on a rotating six-week cycle. Care is taken to ensure that the groups   have a good mix of retirees and those still working. @ 

The Färdknäppen Collective House in Stockholm, initiated in 1993 in close cooperation between the future residents, architect Jan Lundqvist, and the municipal devel­ oper Familjebostäder, still func­ tions today as originally designed, focusing on collective living in   the second half of life. The popula­ tion is nonetheless heterogeneous and comprises around 50 people aged 45 to 90 years. Only the propor­ tion of male residents, at about   25 percent, is generally considered too low, also by the current inhabi­ tants. A large part of the resident population is still employed. In the 1 The 650 m2 does not Färdknäppen Collective House,   include circulation areas. the motivations for sharing are 2 All information about the rooted, above all, in issues related to Färdknäppen Collective living in the post-family phase,   House is based on docuautonomy and independence in old ments sent to the author by age, and the possibility to pass on resident Kerstin Kärnekull. large family apartments and houses to the next generation. This means that there are no children living in the Färdknäppen Collective House. Grandchildren are particularly   welcome guests, but collective life itself is fundamentally targeted   at people without children, or those in the post-family phase. The build­ ing is made up of 43 fully equipped one-, two-, and three-room apart­ ments ranging from 37 to 75 m², with apartment size reduced by  

Sto Jan Ko Sch Ma

213

View of gardens with private   balconies and shared gardens. © Kerstin Kärnekull

Shared living room   with library and view   to the dining room. © Kerstin Kärnekull

Street view of Färdknäppen   Collective House. © Kerstin Kärnekull Cooking and baking together. © Kerstin Kärnekull Shared dining room with festive atmosphere. © Kerstin Kärnekull

214

Färdknäppen Collective House

Spatial structure

Work space

Laundry room Sewing room and workshop

Local area map with ground floor   1 : 500

zfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

zfläche privat

Standard Aussenfläche privat floor Regelgeschoss

zfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Aussenfläche kollektiv Cross-section Schnitt

collective collective

215

Communal kitchen

Dining room Living room with   library

Organization

municipal developer, operated by a tenants’ association, occupancy through rent, bottom-up initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 50 residents, persons in the post-family phase   and second half of life, high   educational level 

Operational structure

self-operated by the tenants’ association, all residents participate in working groups, possible to   influence choice of new residents, high level of participation 

Apartments

43 units, one- to three-room   apartments sized 37 to 75 m² 

Areas

total site area 1,275 m²,  8 stories

total public collective private Guest room

total  public collective ! private

Collective spaces not shown Common room with   tea kitchen Stockholm Jan Lundqvist Photo lab Kollektivhaus Färdknäppen Sauna Umgebunsplan mit Erdgeschoss Massstab 1:500 Fitness area

area m@ Outdoor space 945 0 870 75 Usable floor space 3 140 0 650 2 490

in %

m@ / pers.

100 0 92 8

18.9 0 17.4 1.5

100 0 21 79

62.8 0 13 .0 49.8

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

216

Dreieck Refurbishment

the project to this day. The high level of tenant involvement during the planning and execution phase of re­ furbishment has continued, and   remains the foundation for the suc­ cess of the Dreieck Refurbishment. The buildings were initially restored in order of urgency and then gently renovated. The existing building fabric, primarily built be­ tween 1870 and 1890, proved to   be extremely robust and fundamen­ tally worthy of being preserved. Nevertheless, two of the buildings had to be replaced by new struc­ tures due to the danger of collapse. $ A total of 58 apartments were built, complemented by a common room with kitchen, a central launderette, a guest apartment, various rooftop terraces, and shared outdoor space in the courtyard, including a garden, playground, and seating. A business concept was also conceptualized   in order to preserve the mix of resi­ dential use, small businesses, and neighborhood shops. % This has cre­ ated a lively quarter that will con­ tinue to evolve and develop through the recent acquisition of four more buildings. ^  

The Dreieck Refurbishment in Zurich is considered a pioneer proj­ ect in the effort to create affordable housing through the preservation   of existing buildings. ! The story goes back to a failed public transport   concept by the City of Zurich. In the 1970s, the city purchased the   13 buildings, centrally located on Ankerstrasse, Zweierstrasse, and Gartenhofstrasse and in a state   of complete dilapidation, to make 1 Stahel (2006): way for construction of a rapid-  transit railway and subway. However, Wo-Wo-Wonige!, p. 239. 2 Genossenschaft Dreieck a subsequent referendum rejected (ed.) (1997): Das Dreieck the project and left the city sitting 1997–2057, Erneuerung on poorly maintained properties eines städtischen Lebensthat were ripe for demolition. @ In a raumes in Zürich Ausseryears-long process, the existing   sihl, p. 7. residents of the 13 buildings vigor­ 3 Ibid., p. 9 f.; and Stahel ously resisted demolition through (2006): Wo-Wo-Wonige!, p. 235. various means of protest, cam­ 4 Ibid., p. 16 ff. paigning for the buildings’ preser­ 5 Stahel (2006): vation, and in 1997 the residents Wo-Wo-Wonige!, p. 74. succeeded in leasing the property 6 Wohnen (03|2019): from the city for a 60-year period. # “Smart Wohnen”, p. 28. Initially, the developer was the Foun­ dation for the Building of Afford­ able Housing without Public Fund­ ing (Stiftung zum Bau billiger Woh­n ungen ohne öffentliche Bei­ träge). After only a few years of   operation, the Dreieck Cooperative   (Genossenschaft Dreieck) was founded and remains responsible for

Zür div Dre Sch Ma

217

Renovated apartment. © Stéphanie Marie Couson Guest room with kitchenette   and half-bath. © Stéphanie Marie Couson

Perimeter of the Dreieck Refurbish­ ment from Zweierstrasse towards Ankerstrasse. © Stéphanie Marie Couson Street view from Gartenhofstrasse. © Stéphanie Marie Couson View into the courtyard with courtyard building. © Stéphanie Marie Couson

218

Dreieck Refurbishment

Spatial structure

eschoss

Grundriss 1. Obergeschoss Local area map

Art studios and offices Workshop

Launderette Common room with kitchen Ground floor  Zweierstrasse 48a/50a

Grundriss Erdgeschoss Zweierstrasse 48a/50a

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Grundriss Erdgeschoss

219

Zweierstrasse 50

Rooftop terrace Guest apartment Fourth upper floor Zweierstrasse 50

Grundriss 4. Obergeschoss

First upper floor  Zweierstrasse 50

s

Grundriss 1. Obergeschoss

Grundriss Erdgeschoss

Library Public spaces not shown Cafeteria Bar Grundriss Erdgeschoss Shops Zweierstrasse 48a/50a Courtyard

Ground floor Zweierstrasse 50

oss

s

Grundriss 1. Obergeschoss

Grundriss Erdgeschoss

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat Grundriss Erdgeschoss

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Zweierstrasse 48a/50a Cross-section   Zweierstrasse 50   with studio building

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Exterior: Interior: Aussenfläche privat

public public

collective collective

a

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Zürich diverse Architekten Dreieck Grundrisse Massstab 1:500

Zü div Dr Sch Ma

220

Dreieck Refurbishment

Organization

non-profit developer with cost-  based rents, occupancy through partial ownership, bottom-up   initiation process 

Resident demographic

around  142 residents, hetero­geneous range of inhabitants, mixed level of education 

Operational structure

self-managed by the cooperative, a solidarity fund supports members, private rooms can be designed   according to the parameters of the overall concept, very high level   of participation 

Apartments

58 units, 1.5- to 6.5 -room   apartments 

Areas

total site area 2,470 m²,  2 to 5 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 1 735 1 255 425 55 Usable floor space 4 450 635 850 2 965

in %

m@ / pers.

100 72 25 3

12.1 8.8 2.9 0.4

100 14 19 67

31.2 4.5 5.9 20.8

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project

As the name Sargfabrik (coffin factory) suggests, the Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project in   Vienna is located on a former factory site. The project ensures diversity and variable density within the over­ all neighborhood environment thanks to the public accessibility of most of its collective areas. After   a ten-year planning phase, in 1996 B K K -2 Architecture completed   73 apartments comprised of 45 m² living modules. While not all   modules have fundamental facilities such as kitchens or toilets, the   modules can be combined to create full-fledged apartments with all   necessities. Currently, most apart­ ments are made up of two to three modules connected together, some even across two floors. ! One large residential unit consists of a total of six modules. This means of con­ figuration makes it possible to put together relatively large residential units that still have rather reduced interiors. As a result, it becomes fea­ sible to provide ample living space even for Community Households and families with numerous chil­ dren. The individual apartments are predominantly accessed through the courtyard and access balconies, and the communal outdoor space includes, among other features, a rooftop terrace. The numerous col­

221

1 Krosse (2005): Wohnen lective additional infrastructure   ist mehr, p. 179. facilities are diverse, including a cul­ 2 According to the Sarg­ tural center with events hall and fabrik management. seminar rooms, a kindergarten,   3 Aigner, Karin (2015): a guest apartment, workshops, and Gemeinschaftliches a restaurant. There is also a swim­ Wohnen, eine Typologie ming pool with sauna, a Turkish und ihre Vielfalt, p. 114. bath, and a teleworking room that 4 The lifeguard, for examwas initially planned as a computer ple, is a paid employee. See also Krosse (2005): room but is now used as a music and Wohnen ist mehr, p. 188. rehearsal room. As pre­v iously   5 Krosse (2005): mentioned, these diverse collective Wohnen ist mehr, p. 185. facilities mean that some standard 6 Elser (2008): Wohn­ features, such as bathtubs, are omit­ modelle, Experiment und ted in the private units. @ Alltag, p. 256. A total of 210 people live in the Sargfabrik Housing and Culture Project. The apartment complex is organized by the non-profit Asso­ ciation for Integrative Lifestyle (Ver­ ein für integrative Lebensgestal­ tung), which is also the property owner, builder, operator, and land­ lord. All residents are members   of the association. # The Sargfabrik is self-managed through a combi­ nation of volunteer hours and profes­ sional work. $ Resident participation is desired, but not a prerequisite   for living here. During the planning phase there was discussion about whether a large kitchen with dining room in the style of the Central-  Kitchen Houses should be installed. The idea was eventually rejected,   although residents are given a   20 percent discount on the restaurant leased out by the association. % There is minimal turnover among resi­ dents; in fact, it has been possible for the project to expand. ^ After only four years, the MISS Sargfabrik addi­ tion was built in close proximity   to the Sargfabrik, offering a comple­ mentary range of shared spaces.   For example, the M I S S specifically includes shared-use spaces that   had previously been lacking, such as live-in art studios, a common room with kitchen, and a youth club room. This diverse range of com­ munal spaces not only benefits the residents of the Sargfabrik and M I S S , but now also integrates the entire neighborhood; for example, non-residents are eligible to become members of the swimming pool. 

Courtyard with access balcony and connecting bridge. © Hertha Hurnaus Evidence of the previous use. © Hertha Hurnaus

222

Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project

Restaurant Cultural center

Courtyard

Private living area of two modules. © Hertha Hurnaus

Seminar rooms Collective spaces not shown Guest apartment Access balcony Rooftop terrace Music room

Cultural center and restaurant. © Hertha Hurnaus Swimming pool with sauna and Turkish bath. © Hertha Hurnaus

Public spaces not shown Events hall Kindergarten Workshops Restaurant Swimming pool Sauna Turkish bath

h

223

Spatial structure

Local area map   with ground floor

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Standard floor 1 : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

224

Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project

Spatial structure

Cross-section 1 : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Organization

organized by a non-profit asso­ ciation, occupancy through rent,   bottom-up initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 210 residents, heterogeneous resident demographic,   diverse levels of education 

Operational structure

fentlich

llektiv

ivat

Apartments

self-managed by the association through a combination of volunteer hours and professional work, paid employees at öffentlich additional infrastruc­ Aussenfläche ture facilities, residents receive   Aussenfläche kollektivin the on-site a 20 percent discount restaurant, possible Aussenfläche privat to influence choice of new residents, high level of participation 73 units, made up of basic modules with 45 m² 

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area 4,650 m²,  7 stories area m@ Outdoor space 3 000 2 565 380 55 Usable floor space 7 560 1 700 350 5 510

in %

m@ / pers.

100 85 13 2

14.3 12.2 1.8 0.3

100 22 5 73

36.0 8.1 1.7 26.2

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

225

Kreuzberg Beguinage

2007 by Barbara Brakenhoff and Lutz Siebertz. The project targets women in their third phase of   life, and the average age of the 56 res­ idents is 60 years. The 53 two- to three-room apartments are fully equipped and, with an area of 56 to 76 m², comparatively large. With the exception of four maisonettes, all apartments and collective use   areas are barrier-free. The individual living spaces are reached by an   access balcony that also acts as a col­ lective circulation area. Other   communal living spaces include a common room with lavatory and kitchen, two guest apartments,   a rooftop terrace, a shared garden, and a laundry room. #  

1 amantine (2011): Gender Due to distinctions in lifestyle und Häuserkampf, p. 72. and housing choice, the residents   2 Besser (2010): Zusammen of most Housing and Culture Proj­ ist man weniger allein – ects are quite heterogeneous.   Alternative Wohnprojekte However, some projects are aimed für Jung und Alt, p. 157; exclusively at women. Initially and Unger (2005): Die founded and tested by Communal Beginen, Eine Geschichte Households in the 1970s, the evo­ von Aufbruch und lution of self-organized housing Unterdrückung der Frauen, projects and independent residences p. 167. 3 https://www. for women began to take place   sieplcoatesstudio.weebly. later. ! The reasons for separating com/beguinage, residents by gender are multi­ accessed on 25 Mar. 2019. faceted. Some residential projects try to circumvent the often still conventionally organized nuclear family, others focus on strong   (financial) autonomy, and still others are created by single mothers or same-sex couples. Mutual support is not the only basis for living to­ gether, but is supplemented by the desire to create a broad network   of communal living spaces and ad­ ditional facilities such as work   and cultural spaces or counseling services. @ A connection with the   beguinages of the Middle Ages is not only evident in terms of content   but also finds its way into the name of some of the projects, including various new beguinages that were built starting in the early 1990s, particularly in Germany. Among them is the Kreuzberg Beguinage in Berlin, realized in

226

Kreuzberg Beguinage

View of the courtyard with common rooms on the ground floor and access to the garden. Photographer: Uwe Thesling,   P P L -Barbara Brakenhoff

Shared terrace overlooking the city. Photographer: Uwe Thesling,   P P L -Barbara Brakenhoff Common room with seating nook. Photographer: Uwe Thesling, P P L -Barbara Brakenhoff Private maisonette apartment. Photographer: Uwe Thesling, P P L -Barbara Brakenhoff

227

Spatial structure

Guest apartments Common room with kitchen and lavatory Garden Local area map   with ground floor   1 : 500

Access balcony Collective spaces not shown Laundry room Rooftop terrace

Aussenfläche öffentlich

floor Standard Aussenfläche kollektiv

Regelgeschoss Aussenfläche privat

Regelgeschoss Aussenfläche öffentlich

Cross-section

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat Exterior: Interior:

Aussenfläche öffentlich

public public

collective collective

Berli Barb Begi Umg Mas

228

Kreuzberg Beguinage

Organization

private association as developer,   occupancy through rent,   bottom-up initiation process 

Resident demographic

about 56 residents, women in the third phase of life, medium educational level 

Operational structure

association self-manages the beguinage, significant influence   by residents, very high level   of participation 

Apartments

53 units, two- to three-room   apartments sized 56 to 76 m² 

Areas

total site area 1,660 m²,  7 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 1 930 0 1 685 245 Usable floor space 3 060 0 325 2 735

in %

m@ / pers.

100 0 87 13

34.5 0 30.1 4.4

100 0 11 89

54.6 0 5.8 48.8

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Bofaellesskabet Lange Eng

The Bofaellesskabet Lange Eng, born out of the Cohousing tradi­ tion, was completed in 2008 by   architect Dorte Mandrup. ! A group of the current residents came to­ gether as early as 2004, holding reg­ ular discussions about collective living, visiting other projects, and discussing the potential for their own collective living project. @ The idea eventually materialized in   Albertslund, amid other residen­ tial developments just outside   Copenhagen on the edge of the settle­ ment area. The complex consists   of 54 condominiums that house over 200 residents and enclose the   green courtyard like a perimeter block, with communal gardens, fruit trees, playgrounds, and seating in the center. # Each individual apartment is directly connected to this courtyard. A two-story community house is located at one corner of the   perimeter block, with a communal kitchen, large dining room for around 100 people, and toilets on the ground floor. There are various workshops upstairs, along with a playroom for children, a cinema, and a lounge area with tea kitchen and small library. The core of col­ lective life consists of cooking and dining together, offered at the   community house six evenings a

229

week. The Bofaellesskabet Lange Eng is self-operated and self-organized, with owners expected to be involved in one of the working groups. $ As   a result, work such as the daily cook­ ing or caretaking of the courtyard   is performed not by employees   but by residents, with the goal of strengthening their sense of   community. 

1 Wohnbund (ed.) (2015): Europa, gemeinsam wohnen, p. 81. 2 https://www.langeeng.dk, accessed on 30 Mar. 2019. 3 Lauri (ed.) (2015): Dorte Mandrup Arkitekter, p. 114 4 https://www.langeeng.dk, accessed on 30 Mar. 2019.

A gallery gives the interior areas   a spacious feel. © Laura Stamer

Exterior façade with a somewhat closed appearance. © Laura Stamer Lively collective courtyard. © Laura Stamer Direct connection from each apartment to the courtyard. © Laura Stamer

230

Bofaellesskabet Lange Eng

Spatial structure

Local area map   with ground floor

fentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

ivat

Aussenfläche privat

ollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

ch

v

231

Cross-section 1 : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Organization

Resident demographic

collective collective

resident contribution through home ownership, occupation through purchase, bottom-up   initiation process 

Areas

about 200 residents, mostly families, but also people   in the post-family phase, high   educational level 

total public collecive private

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Operational self-operated and self-organized, Aussenfläche kollektiv structure participation in working   Aussenfläche privat groups is required, very high   level of participation  Apartments

Courtyard Communal kitchen with dining room Collective spaces not shown Lounge area with tea kitchen and library Playroom Cinema Workshops

54 apartments, 10 types ranging from 71 to 128 m² 

total  public collecive ! private

total site area unknown,   2 to 3 stories area m@ Outdoor space — — 3 490 705 Usable floor space 6 695 0 955 5 740

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — 17.5 3.5

100 0 14 86

33.5 0 4.8 28.7

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

232

Community Households and Cluster Apartments with Services “Only now are the first cluster floor plans indicating how residential buildings that better fit today’s society and dense building patterns could look.” a n d r e a s h o f e r !

Community Households and Cluster Apartments first originated in the 1980s and can be seen as a consequence and further develop­ ment of the Communal Households that emerged in the 1970s. Early experiments in Community Households and Cluster Apartments started   to appear in the 1980s; however, experts didn’t begin noticing the developing trend until the 2010s. Timewise, the Community Households and Cluster Apartments housing model over­ laps with both Housing and Culture Projects and with Co-Living. The collective living spaces of Community Households and Cluster Apartments, however, are much more prominently devel­ oped, as the collective spaces compensate for the greatly reduced facilities and space of the in­ dividual apartments. For the first time since the inter-war years, apartments were once again built without having usable private kitchens. For this housing model, though, the term apartment must be expanded; a more applicable term could be living units or even clusters. The term satellite apartments is also used. The Commu­n ity House­ holds and Cluster Apartments housing model   includes the option to connect into living spaces and sees itself as a variant of Communal House­

233

holds, although more comfortable. In the Com­ shift in values also serves as a basis for sharing housing, with sufficiency and social participation munity Household principle, activities such   as cooking, eating, and relaxing together are out­ being weighted more highly. Private space is   often used only as a retreat, and is increasingly sourced to community rooms with different   degrees of public access, since the private living losing its importance as a place of representation. spaces lack the facilities for this. In Cluster As with the previous housing models of Apartments, partial housing units provide more Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses, privacy and, with bathrooms and sometimes   Community Households and Cluster Apart­ even kitchenettes, are capable of functioning au­ ments provide housing to a newly forming user base. With living becoming more open, com­ ton­omously, though they still rely on the col­ lective areas of the extended resident community. municative, and networked, ^ it is almost impos­ Each Cluster Apartment is a sub-unit that, to­ sible to make any clear determinations about gether with communal spaces and other Cluster household type, age, origin, income, or education Apartments, forms a full unit. Both types of level of the resident populations. The user base is housing generally also rely on services such as not only made up of Generation X but is also shaped by Generation Y , the Millennials, and in­ cooking or cleaning, responsibilities that are cludes another possible target demographic:   taken on by either residents or by employees,   the elderly. This new housing model is one pos­ depending on how the goals of collective living sible response to demographic trends charac­ter­ are interpreted and the level of financial re­ ized by a growing number of one-person house­ sources available. holds. New digital platforms and social media Housing policy pressure, on the rise in that enable instantaneous communication create many European cities, encourages the develop­ social networks and online communities, pro­ ment of Community Households and Cluster foundly affecting the way groups communicate Apartments. Steady growth and development pressure, together with rising population num­ and socialize. This has a significant impact on bers, have led to significantly lower vacancy rates the culture of living together. A central element of the Community House­ and higher rental prices. @ Income-rich strata holds and Cluster Apartments housing model   often displace lower-income populations, push­ is also a changing definition of living. Increas­ ing them to the city outskirts and suburban   areas. # Affordable housing and zoning policy are ingly, the functional division of living and work­ ing propagated during the last century is dis­ increasingly becoming social issues. Based on the New Economy, which began in 1989, not only 1 Hofer, in T EC 21 (07|2011): 3 amantine (2011): Gender is the ability to trade goods and services online “Von der Familienwoh­ und Häuserkampf, p. 49; proliferating, but supply and demand are being nungen zum Cluster-Grund­ and Bahner, Böttger (eds.) brought together in a more direct way, accel­ riss”, p. 23. (2016): Neue Standards, erating access to knowledge as well as the exploi­ 2 For example, the German zehn Thesen zum Wohnen, C B R E Empirica vacancy p. 13. tation of digital goods. The expansion of the index for 2015 shows that 4 Schader-Stiftung (ed.) sharing economy indicates that ownership values the vacancy rate of on(2001): wohn:wandel, are changing. Post-material goals such as   the-market apartment buildSzenarien, Prognosen, Optionen zur Zukunft des self-fulfillment, digital communication, and —   ing units in German cities has increased by 125,000 Wohnens, p. 17. instead of outright ownership — easy access   apartments in the last five 5 Loske, in Forum, Raum ­ to and availability of analogue goods are increas­ entwicklung (Feb. 2016): years. According to this ingly in the foreground. $ The conviction that   “Sharing Economy – Gutes study, Munich, for example, Teilen, schlechtes Teilen?” had a vacancy rate of use options are more important than possession p. 5. 0.2 % in 2015. Hamburg is is particularly evident in young people. % This 6 Altenstraßer, Hauch, currently at 0.6 %. The Kepplinger (2007): gender situation is similar in Zurich. housing – geschlechter­ According to Statistik gerechtes bauen, wohnen, Zürich, the vacancy rate leben, p. 56. ranged from 0.03 % to 0.06 % between 2008 and 2011, and has stabilized at 0.22 % over the last three years.

234

Community Households and Cluster Apartments with Services

solving. Particularly in urban contexts, living As newer forms of Community Households once again combines work, services, leisure, and and Cluster Apartments are still in the process   of being implemented, their relevance for further culture, incorporating the city structure and leaving fixed patterns of order behind. & However, developments in collective living can hardly   be estimated. However, it is evident that this   this migration of functions is never reversed; functions such as old-age care and child-rearing development interprets collective living in a more are not returning to private households. Instead, diverse way, similar to phases during the pre- they are increasingly being integrated into the and inter-war years, but complements it with a neighborhood — or, in the case of collective liv­ rich range of spatially flexible uses. The ways   ing, into the extended residential project —   in which housing are appropriated now appear and are being included in the planning phases. to be more mixed, with rent and ownership In addition to the shared living spaces of Com­ models often being integrated in the same hous­ munity Households and Cluster Apartments de­ ing project. In these projects, the typology and scribed above, guest rooms, workshop and   size of apartments are also more frequently var­ craft rooms, laundromats with cafés, or fitness ied. For example, Community Households and rooms and swimming pools are being inte­ Cluster Apartments are now emerging alongside grated, along with nurseries and daycares, meet­ conventional self-contained apartments of vari­ ing rooms, cultural venues, and shared work­ ous sizes, or scattered into individual buildings spaces. Collective living and cohabitation is once of larger innovative new housing estates or again growing in content and functional sub­ neighborhood development projects. The user stance. Often, a service desk is included that acts groups are also becoming more diverse as   as a central hub for organizing communal   people in different phases of life are brought   areas and, above all, the services offered, creat­ together in the same spaces.  ing a point of contact for all residents. Previous housing models, especially Coop­ 7 Stahel (2006): Wo-Wo- 9 Korczak (1979): Neue erative Living in the 1970s and Housing and   Wonige!, p. 73. Formen des Zusammen­ Culture Projects in the 1990s, have shown that 8 In 1989, Brech pointed lebens, Erfolge und success should not be measured by the smooth­ out that this had hardly Schwierigkeiten des Experi­ ness of the planning and implementation phases, been recognized before ments Wohngemeinschaft, then. Poorly set priorities p. 117. but by the outcomes of the actual use phase. *   can be sobering for resi 10 Caduff, Kuster (2000): It is not the architecture that helps collective dents, or can even elicit res­ Wegweisend wohnen, living succeed or fail, but the input and contri­ ignation. A correction of Gemeinnütziger Wohnungsthese emphases is long bau im Kanton Zürich butions of people themselves. When a housing overdue. He also holds that an der Schwelle zum collective fails, it simply means that a very specific shifting the focus to the 21. Jahrhundert, p. 33. constellation of people with contradictory   living and use phase would interests and ideas were not successful together. ( result in a radical change in how the issues are This realization has led to today’s initiators,   defined. The focus would developers, and cooperatives often including then not be on planning social workers or community counselors as   and construction, but on part of their projects. !) These professionals over­ the overall social organization of housing. See see the social aspects of cohabitation, guiding Brech (ed.) (1989): Neue and stabilizing integrative processes and thereby Wohnformen in Europa, reducing the burden on residents, although   Berichte des 4. Inter­ nationalen Wohnbund Konthis same professional support also increases gresses, p. 56. resident participation.

235

Selected examples of Community Households and Cluster Apartments

Kanzlei-Seen Housing Association

2010 Winterthur, Switzerland Outskirts Newly built Haerle Hubacher Architects Gesewo Page 243 Heizenholz Multigenerational Housing

2011 Zurich, Switzerland Outskirts Conversion Adrian Streich Kraftwerk 1 Cooperative

Cologne New City Design

First occupancy City Location Building type Architect Developer

1961 (Design) — — — Oswald Mathias Ungers — Page 236 Tanthof Cohousing Settlement

1981 Delft, Netherlands Outskirts Newly built Flip Krabbendam Centraal Wonen Association Het Hallehuis Cohousing Settlement

1984 Amersfoort, Netherlands Urban neighborhood Newly built Dolf Floors Centraal Wonen Association Page 240 Karthago Community Households

1997 Zurich, Switzerland Urban neighborhood Conversion Annette Spiro + Stefan Gantenbein Karthago Cooperative

Hunziker Areal House A 2015 Zurich, Switzerland Outskirts Newly built Duplex Architects More than Housing Building Cooperative Page 262 Zwicky Süd Settlement

2015 Dübendorf, Switzerland Outskirts Newly built Schneider Studer Primas Kraftwerk1 Cooperative MI N M AX Residential and

Neufrankengasse Multi-Family Apartments

2014 Zurich, Switzerland City center Newly built Vera Gloor Private owners

Commercial Building 2016 Opfikon, Switzerland Outskirts Newly built Edelaar Mosayebi Inderbitzin Architects A G U T O Real Estate Management A G

Page 248 VinziRast-mittendrin

wagnisArt Housing Project

2013 Vienna, Austria City center Conversion gaupenraub+/St. Stephen’s Communion of St. Vincent

2016 Munich, Germany Urban neighborhood Newly built Rainer Hofmann, Ritz Ritzer wagnis Housing Cooperative

Page 251 Spreefeld Settlement

Page 268 Zollhaus Residential and Commercial Building

2014 Berlin, Germany City center Newly built Silvia Carpaneto, fatkoehl architekten, B A R architekten Spreefeld Berlin Building and Housing Cooperative Page 255 Kalkbreite Residential and Commercial Building

2014 Zurich, Switzerland Urban neighborhood Newly built Müller Sigrist Architects Kalkbreite Cooperative

planned for 2020 Zurich, Switzerland City center Newly built Enzmann Fischer Partner Kalkbreite Cooperative Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground diagram 1 : 12,000 Local area map 1 : 1,000 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

236

Tanthof Cohousing Settlement

located along extended access areas, where the associated communal   areas such as shared kitchens, addi­ tional bathrooms, and open dining and lounge areas can also be found. One group is formed around each shared kitchen, with the groups then creating four clusters. Each cluster has additional common areas such as a garden, laundry room, bicycle room, and hobby room. @ In this way, private and collectively used spaces are distributed throughout the   entire settlement in an intricate net­ work. Additional shared infrastruc­ ture is concentrated in one building section, including an in-house   bar, a project room, and shared work­ places, all of which have a high   degree of public access. Since access to the individual living spaces   requires passing through the collec­ tive circulation area and the shared living areas, a high level of social control is unavoidable at Tanthof Co­ housing Settlement. However,   the individual groups and clusters create opportunities to use living spaces throughout the entire settle­ ment. This makes it possible, for   example, for young people to gather in a cluster farther away from   their family. Living in groups and clusters instead of apartments means   that the resident community of the Tanthof Cohousing Settlement   is constantly fluctuating. In the be­ ginning, around 30 children and 100 adults lived at Tanthof. While the initial target group was families,   in recent years families have been in­ creasingly replaced by young single persons between 20 and 45 years   of age, although care is now taken to ensure that students do not con­ stitute the majority of residents. 

In 1969, Centraal Wonen, a Dutch association for collective liv­ ing, started funding and developing its own collective living projects. ! One of the first projects they real­ ized is the Tanthof Cohousing   Settlement in Delft. Completed in 1981, the residential property not only offers shared facilities, the ar­ chitectural concept also deeply shifts private living space, primarily including not individual apart­ ments or housing units, but groups and clusters arranged around   communal living spaces. The hous­ ing concept was created at the ini­ tiative of architect Flip Krabbendam, in cooperation with the future   residents. Through the participatory process, residents were able to in­ fluence spatial distribution and floor plan layouts. The initiators of the Tanthof were not motivated solely by self-interest but also deliberately sought to dissolve family structures that they considered isolating — and developed interior architectures that supported this goal. 1 Schuh (1989): Kollektives Private rooms, groups, and clus­ Wohnen, Eine verglei­ ters divide the interior structure chende Untersuchung ininto three different spatial and social und ausländischer Bei­ levels. The smallest units are the   spiele, p. 65. 171 private rooms, some with their 2 All information regarding own kitchenette or bathroom, the organization of which are divided into 13 groups and private rooms, groups, and clusters is based on data provided by the architect, Flip Krabbendam.

Delft, N Ph. Kra Tantho Schwar Massst

237

Shared living area. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein Eating in the communal kitchen. © Flip Krabbendam Tanthof seen from Kraanvogel­ straat. © Flip Krabbendam Courtyard façade. © Flip Krabbendam Single-story building sections   with collective spaces. zurich university of the arts, archiv-zhdk. Photographer:   Erwin Mühlestein

238

Tanthof Cohousing Settlement

Spatial structure

ffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

rivat

Aussenfläche privat

ollektiv

ch

iv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Local area map   with ground floor

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Standard floor   1 : 1,000

239

Hobby room Launderette Communal kitchens Dining and lounge areas

Launderette Hobby room

Standard   Regelwohungen Erdgeschoss ground floor apartments

Regelwohungen Obergeschoss

Bathrooms Launderette Hobby room Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Project room

Delft, Nieder Ph. Krabbend Tanthof Regelwohnu Massstab 1:2

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Communal kitchens Dining and lounge areas Collective space not shown House bar Standard upper floor

Public space not shown Regelwohungen Erdgeschoss Workspace

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Regelwohungen Obergeschoss

Delft, Niederlande Ph. Krabbendam Tanthof Regelwohnungen EG / 1.OG Massstab 1:250

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Cross-section

Exterior: Interior: Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

public public

collective collective Delft, Niederlande Ph. Krabbendam Tanthof Schnitt Massstab 1:250

240

Tanthof Cohousing Settlement

Organization

private association as developer,   occupancy through rent,   bottom-up initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 130 residents, initially for families, today includes   many young single residents,   high educational level 

Operational structure

self-managed by association, significant resident influence, very high level of participation 

Apartments

171 units, ordered into 13 residential groups and 4 clusters 

Areas

total site area 6,875 m²,  1 to 4 stories

total public collective private total public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 4 490 3 540 925 25 Usable floor space 5 620 225 1 860 3 535

in %

m@ / pers.

100 79 20 1

34.5 27.2 7.1 0.2

100 4 33 63

43.2 1.7 14.3 27.2

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Karthago Community Household

Several of the initiators   and first residents of the Karthago   Community Household, built in 1997, originated from the squatter scene, which became especially promi­­n ent in Zurich in the 1980s, demanding more open space   and affordable housing. With the Karthago Com­m unity Household, the youth movement beginnings evolved into a form of housing that greatly reduced personal space,   instead creating a collective lifestyle with more exchange and social   interaction. ! The developer, founded in 1991, was the Karthago Coop­er­ ative. The organizational structure and residential project are both   bottom-up in nature, having been initiated by the future residents.   The Community Household form,   finally realized in an unused   office building converted by Anette Spiro and Stefan Gantenbein, was preceded by a long social and politi­ cal process. Financing was entirely private, with the federal government  pro­viding a guarantee only for the   second mortgage. @ The Karthago Community Household consists of four small and five large groups and a mansard apartment that currently sleeps around 46 adults and 8 children and adolescents. The average age is   between 35 and 45 years. The groups

241

are divided into three-, four-, and six-room units, each clustered around a shared living and dining room with kitchenette and communal bathrooms. Only the personal rooms are not shared. Additional facilities and communal living spaces can   be found outside of the groups, which share a cafeteria kitchen with dining room, a games and recreation room, a guest room, a workroom,   a shared office space, and two music rooms. The cafeteria kitchen is run by employees and serves shared eve­ ning meals on weekdays. It is also possible to take the food into one’s own living group and to eat in the shared dining room there. The cur­ rent resident population is quite mixed and consists of people of many ages and in many different stages   of life. In addition to a core group of about eight to ten people who were intensively involved during the   pioneering phase, Karthago also in­ cludes single mothers and fathers, students, and residents from abroad. Resident fluctuation levels seem fairly average. The option of switch­ ing internally from a small to a large group or vice versa is used quite often, allowing for spatial require­ ments to be adjusted according to the resident’s life phase. #  

1 Stahel (2006): Wo-WoWonige!, p. 68. 2 The ideological background for the project was P.M .’s bolo’bolo utopia. His writings describe the autonomous lifestyle of a residential and working community, somewhat like a Community Household, which, through selfsufficiency and a barter system, would result in a dense network of social relationships. Although P.M . stated that a distinction must be made between the ideas of his utopia and reality, his work nevertheless influenced a variety of different residential projects and impacted dis­ cussions on collective living in Zurich. For more, see Stahel (2006): Wo-Wo-Wonige!, pp. 63, 66 f. 3 According to documents provided by the Karthago Cooperative.

Courtyard view and events hall. © Helbling & Kupferschmid, Arazebra, Zurich

Street façade of Karthago with shared kitchen on the bottom floor. © Helbling & Kupferschmid, Arazebra, Zurich Community Household with kitchenette and shared living area. © Heinrich Helfenstein; gta Archive / E T H Zurich, Archive Heinrich Helfenstein Access to a private room, with optional open view. © Heinrich Helfenstein; gta Archive / E T H Zurich, Archive Heinrich Helfenstein

242

Karthago Community Household

Spatial structure

Games and   recreation room Events hall Cafeteria kitchen Dining room

Local area map   with ground floor 1 : 500 Erdgeschoss

Regelgeschoss

Bathrooms

Shared kitchenette Living rooms and lounges Collective spaces not shown Guest rooms Erdgeschoss Music rooms Workroom Shared office

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Standard floor Nutzfläche kollektiv

Regelgeschoss

zfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

zfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

zfläche kollektiv

Regelgeschoss

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Exterior: Interior:

Cross-section

Schnitt

public public

collective collective

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Schnitt

243

Heizenholz MultiGenerational House

Organization

non-profit developer and   cost-based rent, occupancy   through partial ownership,   bottom-up initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 54 residents, heterogeneous resident population,   mixed edu­c ational level 

Operational structure

self-managed by the cooperative, residents organize at house   meetings and general assemblies, employees for kitchen service,   solidarity fund supports   financially weaker individuals,   very high level of participation 

Apartments

10 units, 2 small four-room   units of 94 m², 2 small   three-room units of 79 m²,   2 large six-room units of   198 m², 2 large six-room   units of 215 m², 1 large six-  room unit of 242 m²,   1 two-room unit of 39 m²,   mansard apartment 

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area 680 m²,  6 stories area m@ Outdoor space 505 75 430 0 Usable floor space 2 445 80 1 360 1 005

in %

m@ / pers.

100 15 85 0

9.3 1.4 7.9 0

100 3 55 42

45.2 1.5 25.1 18.6

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

In Zurich, construction by coop­ eratives is particularly widespread, having experienced a significant upswing for some 20 years now. For example, the Kraftwerk1 Building and Housing Cooperative (Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Kraftwerk1) has realized several model housing projects in and around Zurich   with collective living spaces since the 1990s. One of these residential proj­ ects is Heizenholz, completed in 2011, a renovation project that made a multi-generational apartment house out of two existing buildings. Here, the Cluster Apartment typol­ ogy, among other things, was further developed. ! The five- to seven-story apartment building, designed by architect Adrian Streich, consists of a total of 26 residential units, all   of which are barrier-free or can easily be retrofitted accordingly. The   apartment array consists of two   Cluster Apartments, each covering   330 m², conventional one- to sixroom apartments, and two ten-room apartments for Community House­ holds, each with 253 m². This diverse range of living units is comple­ mented by additional collective areas, including a common room for the entire resident population, studios and offices, a music room, a work­ shop, and a guest apartment. At the heart of the Heizenholz project  

244

Heizenholz Multi-Generational House

is the terrasse commune, which brings together all residential units and communal areas in a single collec­ tive circulation area and does   not merely offer access to the living spaces but, as the name implies, serves as a place to pass time and communicate. During the planning phase, several of the current residents were able to express their wishes and contribute concepts, getting to know each other in the process. The par­ ticipatory process was supervised and guided by the Kraftwerk1 Coop­ erative and by the city planning com­ mission. Resident participation   was deliberately limited to a focus on social aspects such as apartment types, mix of residents, and use   of shared areas, with construction matters addressed by professionals. @ Today, residents have organized themselves into different working groups, such as a cooking or a   gardening group, and care for the communal areas on their own.   People from the surrounding neigh­ borhood are also often integrated into the working groups. 

Offices Common room with kitchen Studio

Workshop

1 Becker, Kienbaum, Ring, Schmal, (eds.) (2015): Bauen und Wohnen in Gemeinschaft, Ideen, Pro­ zesse, Architektur, p. 56. 2 Ibid., p. 58.

View as seen from Regendorfer­ strasse. © Michael Egloff The two existing buildings are connected to the terrasse commune. © Michael Egloff The terrasse commune serves   as access area, shared outdoor space, and gathering place. © Michael Egloff Dining and living area of a Cluster Apartment. © Michael Egloff

Nutzfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

245

Spatial structure

Local area map   with ground floor   1 : 500

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

collective collective

246

Heizenholz Multi-Generational House

Spatial structure

Terrasse commune Standard floor

Regelgeschoss Standard

Bathrooms

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Shared kitchen Dining and living room Collective spaces not shown Guest apartment Laundry room

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Standard floor  Cluster Apartments

Public space not shown Music room

Regelgeschoss Cluster Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Zürich Adrian Streich Kraftwerk 1 Heizenholz Grundrisse Massstab 1:500

h

247

Cross-section

Organization

non-profit developer and cost-  based rent, leased building   property, occupancy through   partial ownership, bottom-up   initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 85 residents, very mixed age range, household type,   Aussenfläche öffentlich income, and nationality, rather   high educational background  Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat Operational structure

Apartments

managed by the cooperative, self-organization by residents,   residents attend house   meetings four times a year,   the cluster acts as a rental   unit and includes all collective spaces, with occu­p ancy   regulations, very high level   of participation  26 units, 2 Cluster Apartments with 330 m², 2 Community   Households with 253 m², one-   to six-room apartments 

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area 4,060 m²,   5 to 8 stories area m@ Outdoor space — — 640 330 Usable floor space 3 630 210 935 2 485

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — 7.5 3.9

100 6 26 68

42.7 2.5 11.0 29.2

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

248

VinziRastmittendrin

and an adjoining penthouse studio that creates another collective out­ door space, which can also be rented and used by non-residents. Study and counseling rooms, a laundry room, and various workshops are also available. On the ground floor there is a restaurant with bar and garden, along with an events hall, all of which are operated by the residents, who can spend time there without being required to purchase any­ thing. % These collective spaces aim to promote social involvement   and self-initiative as well as respect between the various user groups and visitors while also meeting the residents’ special needs and life   situations. ^ The development and operation of the VinziRast project was and remains possible thanks to a tremendous amount of volunteer work, donations in kind, several   endowments from foundations, and housing subsidies from the City   of Vienna. &  

The story of the VinziRast-  mittendrin project in Vienna began in 2009, when students demon­ strated in protest of planned restric­ tions to university access. In the course of the protests, students   occupied an auditorium of the T U 1 LaFond, Tsvetkova (eds.) Wien, among other buildings. !   (2017): CoHousing Inclusive, Homeless people mixed in with the Selbstorganisiertes, gestudents and actively helped shape meinschaftliches Wohnen the occupation. Following the   für alle, p. 106. protest movement, some students 2 https://www.vinzirast.at/ expressed a desire to continue   projekte/vinzirastcommunicating and living with   mittendrin, accessed on homeless people. The St. Stephen’s 30 Mar. 2019. Communion of St. Vincent   3 Förster, Menking (eds.) (2018): Das Wiener Modell (Vinzenzgemeinschaft St. Stephan), 2, Wohnbau für die an association assisting homeless Stadt des 21. Jahrhunderts, people since 2003, worked with the p. 153. gaupenraub+/- architecture firm 4 gaupenraub+/- (undated): and located a centrally located vacant Projekt: VinziRast-mittenbuilding, which was converted   drin, p. 2. into a collective living space where 5 gaupenraub+/- (undated): students now live together with   Projekt: VinziRast-mittenformer homeless people in Commu­ drin, p. 1 f; and Förster, Menking (eds.) (2018): Das nal Households. @ Meanwhile,   Wiener Modell 2, Wohn­ VinziRast-mittendrin has become   bau für die Stadt des a meeting place for the entire   21. Jahrhunderts, p. 153. neighborhood. 6 Förster, Menking (eds.) A total of 27 people aged 20 to (2018): Das Wiener Modell 67 years live in the 30 private fur­ 2, Wohnbau für die nished rooms, which are organized Stadt des 21. Jahrhunderts, into ten Communal Households p. 152. and equipped only with a kitchen­ 7 https://www.vinzirast.at/ projekte/vinzirastette. # These are complemented by a mittendrin, accessed communal kitchen and a dining on 30 Mar. 2019. and living area on each floor, as well as an outdoor space designed as an extension of the access balcony. $ The building, four stories high after an addition, has a rooftop terrace

249

View from Währingerstrasse. © Sebastian Schubert Restaurant patio in the courtyard. © Sebastian Schubert Public restaurant and bar. © Sebastian Schubert Private room with   writing desk. © Sebastian Schubert Minimally furnished   private room. © Sebastian Schubert

250

entlich

VinziRast-mittendrin

Spatial structure

Restaurant with bar   and garden Workshops

Local area map   with ground floor 1 : 500

Access balcony Dining and living area Communal kitchen Kitchenette Bathrooms Counseling rooms

Collective space lektiv not shown vat Study room

Aussenfläche öffentlich

First upper floor

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Regelgeschoss

Public spaces not shown Events room Penthouse studio Rooftop terrace

Cross-section

öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

privat

Exterior: Aussenfläche privat

kollektiv

tlich

ktiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv Interior:

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv

public public

collective collective

251

Spreefeld Settlement

Organization

non-profit developer, occupancy through rent, bottom-up   initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 27 residents, for students and the formerly homeless,   very mixed level of education 

Operational structure

self-managed by the VinziRast Private Foundation, residents   operate the restaurant and   adjoining spaces, professional   support and guidance, very   high level of participation 

Apartments

30 units, divided into 10 Communal Households 

Areas

total site area 450 m²,  6 stories 

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 205 105 100 0 Usable floor space 1 515 600 540 375

in %

m@ / pers.

100 51 49 0

7.6 3.9 3.7 0

100 40 35 25

56.1 22.2 20.0 13.9

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

While the Cluster Apartment concept of the Heizenholz project is described by its cooperative as being a comfortable Communal House­ hold, the initiators of the Spreefeld Settlement speak of facilities that are spartan. ! The concept was real­ ized in 2014 through an architectural collaboration of Silvia Carpaneto, fatkoehl architekten, and B A R archi­ tekten in Berlin. Spreefeld, like­ wise organized by a cooperative, con­ sists of 64 residential units situated across three seven-story buildings. About half of the dwellings are con­ ventional one- to five-room apart­ ments. The remaining areas contain a variety of different rooms that   are used collectively. On the ground floor, for example, in addition   to business spaces with co-working areas and a daycare center, several   flex rooms have also been planned without specific function and are designed to be use-neutral. @ These flex rooms can be used temporarily by residents or any other interested parties from the neighborhood. # 1 Becker, Kienbaum, Ring, Schmal, (eds.) (2015): Bauen und Wohnen in Gemeinschaft, Ideen, Pro­ zesse, Architektur, p. 170. 2 LaFond, Tsvetkova (eds.) (2017): CoHousing Inclusive, Selbstorgani­ siertes, gemeinschaftliches Wohnen für alle, p. 38. 3 Becker, Kienbaum, Ring, Schmal, (eds.) (2015): Bauen und Wohnen in Gemeinschaft, Ideen, Pro­ zesse, Architektur, p. 170.

252

Spreefeld Settlement

The general assembly of the Spreefeld Building and Housing Cooperative   (Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Spreefeld) uses a competitive process to determine how the flex rooms are used. $ Thus, in addition to the   outdoor space, which faces the shore of the Spree, the three bottom   floors remain publicly available to all citizens. % Additional collective areas include one guest apartment per building, a rooftop terrace,   and a laundry room. There is also   a youth room, a music room,   and a fitness area. In addition to the flex rooms, the Cluster Apartments are also   particularly notable because they were designed with much less   communal space in comparison to the Heizenholz project due to   the number of clusters affiliated with each collective area. At Heizenholz there are six clusters per common area, while the Spreefeld Settlement has nine. The three Cluster Apart­ ments at Spreefeld are spread across two stories each and have total floor areas (including collective spaces)   of 580 m², 620 m², and 705 m². This spatial distribution indicates that the private areas are more extensive; in addition to one- and two-room units, clusters with three or four rooms are also available. While all residential clusters are equipped with a private bathroom, not all have a kitchenette, which is compensated for by the communal kitchens. 

4 According to architect Silvia Carpaneto, the three flex rooms are currently being used as a workshop with art studio, an open space for events such as dancing for kids, yoga, and exhibitions, and as a meeting room for clubs, workshops, and children’s birthday parties. 5 Ring (ed.) (2013): Self­ made City. Berlin: Stadt­ gestaltung und Wohn­ projekte in Eigeninitiative, p. 157.

Haus 1 BARarchitekten

The three buildings   with courtyard   and shared terraces. © Andrea Kroth

Nutzfläche öffentlich Settlement with public access   to the Spree. © Andreas Trogsich A ground-floor flex room. © Andrea Kroth Private living area. © Andreas Trogsich

Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

Haus 2 fatkoehl architekten 253

Spatial structure

Haus 3 silvia carpaneto

Flex rooms

Local area map   with ground floor

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Cross-section 1  : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

ssenfläche öffentlich

ssenfläche kollektiv

ssenfläche privat

public public

collective collective

Berlin Architekt Wohnsiedlun Schnitt Massstab 1:1

lich

tiv

254

Spreefeld Settlement

Spatial structure

Communal kitchen Dining and living room Bathrooms First upper floor   1 : 1,000

Collective spaces not shown Youth room Guest apartments Fitness area Music room Laundry room Rooftop terrace

1. Obergeschoss

2. Ob

Public spaces not shown Business spaces   Daycare   Co-working areas

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Second upper floor   1 : 1,000

2. Obergeschoss Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Berlin Architekt Wohnsiedlung Spreefeld Grundriss Massstab 1:1000

255

Organization

non-profit developer, occupation   by partial ownership, with   option for full ownership, bottom-  up initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 140 residents, strongly mixed age range, household   type, income, and origin, high   edu­c ational level 

Operational structure

managed by the cooperative, but with significant resi-  dent involvement, collective   areas self-managed by   residents, very high level of   participation 

Apartments

64 units, 3 Cluster Apartments   sized 580 m², 620 m²,   and 705 m², one- to five-room   apartments 

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area 7,415 m²,  7 stories area m@ Outdoor space 6 980 5 835 435 710 Usable floor space 7 495 1 145 1 085 5 265

in %

m@ / pers.

100 84 6 10

49.9 41.7 3.1 5.1

100 15 14 71

53.5 8.2 7.7 37.6

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Kalkbreite Residential and Commercial Building

The Kalkbreite Residential and Commerical Building’s fundamental concept embraces an interplay of different uses with a wide array of collective areas, additional infra­ structure, supplementary facilities, and different types of housing.   Located in Zurich, Kalkbreite was completed in 2014 by Müller Sigrist Architekten and is characterized   by a high degree of flexibility. This vision started around the turn of   the millennium as part of a discourse with the neighborhood population about how to prevent a purely   service-based building from being constructed at the very central   location. ! A dynamic participation process with broad-based profes­ sional support got underway, leading to the founding of an association that later became the Kalkbreite Co­ operative (Genossenschaft Kalk­ breite), which was finally able to ac­ quire the building plot from the   City of Zurich through a lease agree­ ment. A par­t icipatory process has guided the entire project, all the way from the planning phase to the present use. @ The Kalkbreite Residential   and Commercial Building consists of   91 residential units that ensure a dense and mixed use. The spatial pro­ gram is designed for heterogeneity and includes a range of floor plan

256

Kalkbreite Residential and Commercial Building

and the large amount of collective layouts, from standardized family apartments to housing with shared rooms and different residential unit facilities. All spaces are linked by   types. Although many things are initiated and carried out on a volun­ a rue intérieur. # The small, medium, teer basis, several people are em­ and large units range from one- to eight-room apartments, all of which ployed by the Kalkbreite Cooperative are fundamentally independent.   or work directly in the service of   In addition, units with three to ninethe various housing units, such as and-a-half rooms are merged to   the Community Households. Note­ worthy here are the “desk jockeys” create a Community Household that connects to a shared dining room who work in the entry hall, the hub and cafeteria kitchen that, on week­ of the entire complex, carrying   days, serves meals cooked by staff. out not only administrative tasks but There are also three types of clusters, also services such as accepting   each of which constitutes a housing parcels for residents.  unit. The cluster types are designed to accommodate different lifestyles. 1 An initiative submitted The Settler typology shares a com­ in 1978 made it clear that munal kitchen, dining area, and   the Kalkbreite grounds living area only with the other resi­ should be made available dents of the cluster, while the   for municipal and coop­ Nomad type shares common areas erative housing construc­ with an extended circle of people. tion. See Genossenschaft The third cluster type, called a Kalkbreite (ed.) (2015): Community Household, is affiliated Kalkbreite, ein neues Stück with a cafeteria kitchen. This cluster Stadt, p. 26. 2 The entire process was type therefore has only a collective professionally monitored. living room, but no kitchen or dining For example, in certain room. In addition, the Kalkbreite phases, expert knowledge Residential and Commercial Build­ was rated higher than ing also has live-in studios and   the participatory input. The flex apartments available for rent. public and future residents All of these apartments include   were able to contribute at least one kitchenette and a bath­ on topics where their input room. The only exception to this   could be particularly meaningful, with the result are the flex apartments, which have that added value was only a bathroom, since they act   created through the particias satellites and can be connected to pation process. According other units with kitchens. All of to Nina Schneider, Use, these housing units are comple­ Operation, and Participation mented by a guest house and a vari­ Manager of the Kalkbreite ety of collective living and additional Cooperative, during the infrastructure facilities located on planning and implemen­ the publicly accessible ground floor, tation phases this mainly applied to structural which also includes business spaces, issues, regulations, and the offices, shops, restaurants, and a management of collective movie theater. areas. This process is also This considerable range of   termed generic partici­ offerings inevitably leads to a high pation. This means that not degree of neighborhood integra­ only is participation modetion, which is additionally reinforced rated and professionalized, by the public nature of the court­ it also becomes its own yard-like terraces. Also noteworthy creative force. Cited from Andreas Hofer in Genosare the service-oriented operating senschaft Kalkbreite (ed.) structures at Kalkbreite, which re­ quire professional management due (2015): Kalkbreite, ein neues Stück Stadt, p. 8. to the high number of residents   3 Becker, Kienbaum, Ring, Schmal, (eds.) (2015): Bauen und Wohnen in Gemeinschaft, Ideen, Prozesse, Architektur, p. 210 ff.

The residential and commercial building has a strong   connection with the surrounding neigh­b orhood. © Martin Stollenwerk Stairway to the public courtyard. © Martin Stollenwerk

257

Cafeteria open to the public. © Volker Schopp

Courtyard with adjoining private apartments, public cafeteria,   and daycare. © Martin Stollenwerk Entry hall with reception desk, library, and laundromat in the rear. © Martin Stollenwerk Rue intérieur with peek into private kitchens. © Martin Stollenwerk

258

Kalkbreite Residential and Commercial Building

Spatial structure

Cinema Shops and retail stores

Restaurants

Medical practices Offices Daycare Library Cafeteria Hall with reception desk Courtyard Laundromat Bed and breakfast with guest rooms

che kollektiv

A

Nutzfläche privat

A

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Cafeteria kitchen and dining room (for Community Household)

che öffentlich

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Second upper floor 1 : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv

collective collective

A

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat

259

Local area map   with ground floor   1 : 1,000

Kalkbreitestrasse Müller Sigrist Ar Kalkbreite Umgebungsplan Massstab 1:1000

260

Kalkbreite Residential and Commercial Building

Spatial structure

Flex apartments

Shared office Kitchen, dining, and living room (for Settler and Nomad clusters) Rue intérieur Box Living room (for Commu­ nity Household clusters) Collective spaces not shown Bronx (used as a   workshop) Soundz (music studio) Shed Freeze (cold storage room) Roof garden Flex room for meetings

Third upper floor  1 : 1,000

Public space not shown Studios

öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

privat

Aussenfläche privat

kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Nutzfläche öffentlich

A

Nutzfläche privat

A

Nutzfläche kollektiv

A

261

Box (used, for example, as a sewing and yoga room) Flex apartments Outdoor kitchen

Top floor 1 : 1,000

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Sauna

Kalkbreitestrasse Müller Sigrist Ar Kalkbreite Grundriss 5.OG Massstab 1:1000

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat

Cross-section 1 : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

Kalkbreitestrasse, Müller Sigrist Arch Kalkbreite Schnitt Massstab 1:1000

262

Kalkbreite Residential and Commercial Building

Zwicky Süd Settlement

Organization

non-profit developer with   cost-based rents, 11 subsidized   apartments, leased building   property, occupancy through   partial ownership, bottom-up   initiation process  

Resident demographic

around 260 residents, mixed age range, household type,   income, and nationality, rather   high edu­c ational level 

Operational structure

managed by the cooperative, service oriented, self-  organized by residents through   various com­m ittees such as   a community council, solidarity commission, and clubs,   collective rooms and employee   salaries included in rent;   food charged separately, with   occupancy regulations,   very high level of participation 

Apartments

91 units, 3 cluster types with   1- to 1.5-room units sized   29 to 56 m², 9 units in the Settler,   12 units in the Nomad, and   9 units in the Community House­ hold, 2 1.5- to 2-room apartments,   sized 38 to 45 m², 14 2.5-room   apartments, sized 50 to 75 m²,   13 4.5-room, sized 95 to 133 m²,   8 5.5-room apartments,   sized 123 to 127 m², 6 6.5-room   apartments, sized 142 to 152 m²,   1 7.5-room, sized 142 m²,   1 9.5-room apartment, sized 215 m², 3 thirteen- to seventeen-room apartments sized 222 to 412 m²,   9 flex apartments, sized 27 to 29 m², 4 live-in studios with 2.5-room units sized 64 to 103 m² 

Areas

total site area 6,725 m²,   6 to 8 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 6 485 5 190 1 295 0 Usable floor space 14 550 4 600 2 165 7 785

in %

m@ / pers.

100 80 20 0

25.0 20.0 5.0 0

100 32 15 53

56.0 17.7 8.3 30.0

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

In 2015, the Kraftwerk1 Coop­ erative, together with architects Schneider Studer Primas, realized an­ other residential property with   collective living spaces at Zwicky Süd, an outlying former spinning mill grounds in Dübendorf, design­ ing it to be entirely mixed-use. During planning, particular care was taken to ensure that the various uses were coordinated and distrib­ uted throughout the construction sites and among the respective property developers. The cooperative espouses a combination of living, working, culture, and services   that aim to help turn the agglomer­ ation into a piece of the city. ! The location is challenging, in the midst of a large traffic junction and the asso­c iated development mix, but also perfectly connected to the pub­ lic transport systems. The Kraft­ werk1 Cooperative has built 129 res­ idential units in three buildings, connected by access balconies, court­ yards, and bridges. @ In addition   to conventional floor plan typologies, several experimental housing   units are also available. Residence types range from one-room studios to fourteen-and-a-half-room   apartments. Some apartments have been allocated to foundations   that offer assisted living or living for young people.

263

According to the cooperative’s charter, self-responsibility and self-organization are central focal points of the project. This also in­ cludes the innovative large commu­ nal households, a possible evolu­ tion from Cluster Apartments, which spread across two buildings and   are connected by a bridge. # The hous­ ing units are presented as “bridge   living” and consist of two Communal Households, one with seven and the other with ten private rooms, none of which have private bathrooms or kitchenettes. The two Communal Households each have sep­arate apart­ ment entrances but share the   bridge — a connecting element — as a collective outdoor space for in­ teraction. In particular, the floor plan of the block building, which has   a depth of more than 30 meters, re­ sults in idiosyncratic spatial solu­ tions, as the innermost rooms are reached by only minimal amounts of natural light. The areas intended   as living space extensions can be used, for example, as a library, work area, or movie room. The uses func­ tion only with a large and diverse number of residents, helping to   spatially divide the deep floor plan   into different zones. A variety   of spaces with different types of   appropriation are available   to residents. $  

1 https://www.kraftwerk1. ch/zwicky-sud/zwicky-areal, accessed on 25 Mar. 2019. 2 HOCHPA RT ERRE (11|2013): Themenheft, p. 22. 3 Wohnen (05|2016): “Neubau”, p.  34. 4 Wohnbaugenossen­ schaften Schweiz – Regionalverband Zürich (2018): Überblick Inno­v ative Wohnformen, p. 19.

Street façade from Neugutstrasse with public ground floor use. K E Y S T O N E / Markus Widmer Façade along Chriesbach stream with connecting private balconies. K E Y S T O N E / Andrea Helbling

264

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öf

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche pr

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Zwicky Süd Settlement

Aussenfläche ko

Spatial structure

Restaurant Business spaces

Common room Laundromat bar

Courtyard view with one of   the bridges. K E Y S T O N E / Markus Widmer A bridge connects two Cluster Apartments. K E Y S T O N E / Andrea Helbling Cluster apartment with an elongated floor plan and daylight sources through the light well   and staircase window. K E Y S T O N E / Andrea Helbling

Exterior: Interior:

public public

collective collective

ffentlich

ollektiv

265

rivat

Local area map   with ground floor

Dübendorf Schneider Studer Prima Siedlung Zwicky Süd

266

Zwicky Süd Settlement

Spatial structure

Fourth upper floor 1 : 1,000

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

267

Kitchen, dining, and living room (for large Communal Households)

Bridge Guest apartments Guest rooms   (Hotel rooms)

Cross-section  

Schnitt Haus A A Building

1 : 1,000

Access balcony

Arts and crafts rooms Collective space not shown Flex room 

Organization

utzfläche öffentlich

utzfläche kollektiv

Resident utzfläche privat demographic

Operational structure

Apartments

Exterior: Interior:

public public

non-profit developer and cost-based rent, leased building property,   occupancy through partial owner­ ship, initiation both bottom-up   and top-down  Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

around 300 residents, very mixed Aussenfläche privat age range, household type,   income, and nationality, mixed   educational background partially self-operated and selforganized by residents, but with more support, as the environment is not urban, residents orga­n ized into a settlement council and   working groups, as with previous projects, the large com­m unal house­h olds are indepen­d ently   organized through an association, with occupancy regula­t ions,   very high level of participation 129 units, 6 one-room studios sized 20 to 38 m², 5 one-room studios   sized 66 m², 32 2.5-room apart­ ments from 48 to 61 m², 33 3.5-room apartments from 81 to 92 m², 33 4.5room apartments from 99 to 126 m²,  7 4.5-room plus-size apartments with 175 m², 9 5.5-room apartments  from 126–160 m², 1 8.5-room large communal household sized 230 m², 1 11.5-room large communal   household sized 364 m², 1 13.5room large communal household   sized 430 m², 1 14.5-room large communal household sized 436 m² 

collective collective

Areas

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

total site area 11,500 m²,  6 stories area m@ Outdoor space — — 2 750 330 Usable floor space 17 740 2 950 2 280 12 510

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — —

— — 9.2 1.1

100 17 13 70

59.1 9.8 7.6 41.7

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

268

Zollhaus Residential and Commercial Building

ments are empty residential spaces that open up over one-and-a-half stories and that, with the exception of technical installations such as bathrooms and kitchens, can be fin­ ished by the residents themselves. The basic idea of hall apartments originates from the squatter scene, in which personal housing land­ scapes are self-built within empty office buildings. Integrating this   often illegal type of appropriation into a legal building process such as the Zollhaus project requires a great deal of assertiveness and, due to building regulations and the   limited financial resources of future residents, must be continually   readjusted. ! 

1 https: //www.kalbreite.net/ The Zollhaus project, which zollhaus, accessed on will be ready for occupancy in 2020, 25 Mar. 2019; and statetakes innovative and previously im­ ments by Nina Schneider plemented floor plans of Commu­ at the Wohnen im Rohbau nity Households and Cluster Apart­ event hosted by the ments and continues to evolve them. Kraftwerk1 Cooperative The developer is again the Kalk­ on 11 Mar. 2019. breite Cooperative and the property again located very near the city   center of Zurich, and — similar to the first project realized by the   cooperative — also unites two dis­ tricts of the city. The architectural competition was won by Enzmann Fischer Partner in 2015. The three buildings of the project all focus on different areas of use, with each   having its own open and outdoor spaces, and together will provide   a total of 56 residential units. The core of the project is the Forum, which stretches across three stories of the main building to provide   an array of different usable spaces, drawing in the surrounding neigh­ borhoods. In addition to living space, areas for culture, dining, sales, healthcare, offices, and childcare are planned. The parameters for collective living were defined in the compe­ tition specifications. In addition to the one-and-a-half to nine-and-  a-half-room apartments, the eight hall apartments are also given   high planning priority. Hall apart­

269

Model photo of the Forum with various collective spaces. © Enzmann Fischer Partner Model photo with Forum. © Enzmann Fischer Partner

Model photo looking into the Forum. © Enzmann Fischer Partner Rendering of the building looking towards the tracks. Rendering: Meyer Dudesek Architects

270

Zollhaus Residential and Commercial Building

Spatial structure

Local area map   with ground floor

Grundriss Haus A > Hallenwohnen Grundriss Haus A > Hallenwohnen

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv Standard floor Building A Grundriss Aussenfläche privatHaus B

Grundriss Haus B

Grundriss Haus C Standard floor Building C

Nutzfläche öffentlich Grundriss Haus Aussenfläche öffentlich C Nutzfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat Aussenfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

271

Standard floor Building A Grundriss Haus A > Hallenwohnen ( hall apartments) 

Grundriss Haus B

Cross-section Building A

Schnitt Haus A Exterior: Interior:

public collective Grundriss C public Hauscollective

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Aussenfläche kollektiv

272

Co-Living as Interconnected and Decentralized Housing “Communitarian action goes beyond self-sufficiency and intervenes in urban infrastructure.” n i k o l au s k u h n e rt e t a l .  !

The newest collective living housing model, Co-Living, can be distinguished starting in the 2010s. In this model, housing is more decentral­ ized, interactive in more ways with the neigh­ borhood and even extending into the city. Com­ munity Households and Cluster Apartments showed early signs of spatially distrib­uted living by designing individual spaces that could be flexibly supplemented with diverse use options and services. In Co-Living, collective living   spaces and functions continue to disperse. Addi­ tional functions and housing facilities are no longer necessarily found in the same apartment building, but can be spread across the neigh­ borhood or the entire city, or even to different cities. While this expanded definition of hous­ ing suggests that the resident population would also be increasingly heterogeneous, the first projects that have been realized or are still in planning indicate a very homogenous population. Young urban professionals, so-called yuppies, are particularly attracted to this housing model, using it to get settled in a city and live within   a community. For this reason, children are not included in this type of housing and living. As a result of the real estate bubble and  

273

financial and banking crisis that accompanied   room in an even more reduced form of kitchen. it, the global economy faltered in 2008, in many The new collective housing model of Co-  Living seems to interest everyone from private places leading to enduring stagnation. As a counter-movement to the much-cited neoliber­ and institutional investors to start-ups. Private alism, the Occupy Movement emerged, an ex­ rooms with different qualities are available, rang­ pression of dissatisfaction with the unfair distri­ ing from small two-room apartments to stu­ bution of burden and wealth. Generation Z , dios, and even to shared dormitory rooms, which   digital natives, were socialized during this time are then complemented by shared kitchen-living and are now pressuring the housing market. Co-  rooms or lounges with a variety of opportunities Living is a model of collective living that young for retreat. An important activity in the collec­ people see as an option for entering into housing tive spaces is co-working, right in step with the independence. The motivation behind sharing digital age. Flexible work methods, facilitated living space is rooted in a sense of togetherness by a laptop and smartphone, make it possible to and belonging to a community. For the young work anytime and from anywhere. Along with residents, the desire to share is not merely eco­ increasing automation and the sharing economy, nomic, but, in these times of easy digital access, a new way of working is emerging that sees grow­ appears to be a high priority. Tellingly, the website ing levels of freelancing, independently and of one provider of Co-Living apartments offers without the assurance of any kind of social secu­ the following promise: It’s more than just an afford- rity. Often, the well-educated residents of Co-  able way to live in the heart of the city. We are an Living projects are young entrepreneurs within international community committed to pioneering a this digital work environment who are looking more conscious and collaborative way of life. @ This to Co-Living to find like-minded people with justifies the motivation to share as a moral value. whom they can interact socially and intellectually. Co-Living is supported by new ways of   The communal spaces of Co-Living be­ living and, above all, ways of working that are come creative hubs, with the often international associated with digitalization. Co-Living is   resident population finding a balance between thus developing in close connection with the in­ private space and the services offered. To date, Co-  ternet revolution, connecting new ways of living Living has mainly been implemented in existing, with work. # Household activities continue to centrally located buildings, particularly in the depreciate in value and significance, and the prac­ case of smaller projects. In such instances, the ex­ tice of outsourcing, which began in recent de­ isting spatial structure forms the basis of the cades, is expanding. The growing participation of floor plans. It appears that Co-Living projects have women in the labor market has still not led to   not sought a typical architectural or interior   an equally increasing participation of men in all 1 Anh-Linh Ngo, Christian and family work in the years household activities. $ As English sociologist   1997, 2000, and 2004 rose Ray Pahl succinctly put it, “a professional woman Berkes, Ernst Gruber, Christina Lenart, Nicole only for activities related needs a wife.” % In Co-Living, the private house­ Opel: Cited in ARC H + to children. The amount of hold tends to be a field of work in which cleaners, (05|2010): “ IBA Hamburg, time spent on activities Haus der Zukunft”, p. 23. such as cleaning, washing, nannies, and caretakers for the elderly assume 2 https://www.techfarm. ironing, tidying, and shopany household activities that have not yet been life/k9, accessed on ping has remained virtually outsourced. Only cooking, increasingly seen   20 May 2017. the same. For more, see 3 Pavillon De L’Arsenal (ed.) Arbeitsplatz Haushalt, Zeitas a leisure activity, remains. The open kitchen, (2018): Homy  —   C oliving, aufwand für Haus- und successor of the functionally hermetic working Cohabiter, p. 3. Familienarbeit und deren kitchen, is now becoming a home accessory, a 4 Altenstraßer, Hauch, monetäre Bewertung linear front leaned up against a wall in the living Kepplinger (2007): gender (2006), p. 7. housing – geschlechter­ 5 Siebel (2004): Die eurogerechtes bauen, wohnen, päische Stadt, p. 45. leben, p. 55. A study by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office on the state of the household clearly shows that the average time men spent carrying out home

274

Co-Living as Interconnected and Decentralized Housing

design language, while placing a great deal of emphasis on the operational structures. ^ In many places, community managers organize com­ munity activities and arrange for services to be offered — cleaning and laundry, for example — as well as such services as organizing a move or obtaining any required permits or insurance. The operational structures seem to be in tune with the young population, which is homogeneous but rather inconsistent. Thus, in comparison to the previous housing models, the length of stay in the Cohousing model is the shortest and the degree of participation the lowest. & Collective everyday life together is regulated by a set structure in the use phase. The still nascent Co-Living housing model shows certain connections and similarities   to the former Boarding Houses, which, around a hundred years old, resemble Co-Living above   all in the resident population of young and well-  educated people. A comparison of the operational structures, with a wide range of services, like­ wise clearly shows similarities. However, spatial expression in Co-Living is fundamentally dif­ ferent from that in Boarding Houses, which be­ came known as a housing model primarily   because of its architecturally avant-garde build­ ings. In the case of Co-Living, the emphasis is not on architectural language, but on a pragmat­ ic spatial implementation in often already ex­ isting structures, which makes Co-Living more reminiscent of Communal Households. 

6 Pavillon De L’Arsenal (ed.) (2018): Homy —  C oliving, Cohabiter, p. 3. 7 Ibid., p. 138 f.

275

Selected examples of Co-Living

Ourcq Blanc

Quarters

2015 Paris, France Urban neighborhood Conversion Samuel Rémy Association Ourcq Blanc

2017 Berlin, Germany Urban neighborhood Newly built S E H W Architecture Medici Living Group

Live Zoku

The Babel Community

2016 Amsterdam, Netherlands City center Conversion concrete Unknown

2017 Marseille, France City center Conversion Luc Sergent Private owners   (Matthieu Brugières,   Benoît Jobert)

Page 280 Tech Farm K9

Page 276 Poolhaus

First occupancy City Location Building Architects Developer

2007 Vienna, Austria Outskirts Newly built pool architecture Z T Kabelwerk Building Developer Cohabs Botanique

2015 Brussels, Belgium Urban neighborhood Conversion Lionel Jadot Cohabs Invest Holding

2016 Stockholm, Sweden City center Conversion Storesund Arkitekter Private owners   (Tomas Björkman, Dan Erikson) Page 284 The Collective Old Oak

2016 London, Great Britain Outskirts Newly built P L P Architecture Private owners   (Reza Merchant) Happy Pigeons

2017 Berlin, Germany Urban neighborhood Conversion Yasmin Naqvi,   Plattenbau Studio Private owners   (Kai Drwecki, Marc Drwecki)

Plans (unless otherwise noted) Figure-ground   diagram 1 : 12,000 Local area map 1 : 1,000 Floor plans 1 : 500 Cross-section 1 : 500

276

Poolhaus

for Poolhaus residents. The project has 252 residential units, of which 33 are fully equipped conventional apartments and 219 units are fur­ nished one- to two-room units with private bathroom and kitchenette. $  

1 https://www.kabelwerk. at/objekte/appartements, accessed on 26 Mar. 2019. 2 Kries, Müller, Niggli, Ruby, Ruby, Vitra Design Museum (eds.) (2017): Together! Die Neue Architektur der Gemeinschaft, p. 291. 3 Ibid., p. 291. 4 https://www.pool-arch. at/de/projekte/poolhaus, accessed on 26 Mar. 2019.

The Poolhaus, realized in 2007 by pool Architektur Z T on the former Kabelwerk (cable factory) grounds in Vienna, was an early project of the Co-Living concept. Not all charac­ teristics of Co-Living are implement­ ed, and, for example, the connec­ tion to co-working is still missing. However, the target group is char­ acteristic, consisting of young work­ ing individuals, those just starting their career, and those still study­ ing, which implies a relatively short period of residence. In fact, per­ manent residence is not even possi­ ble at the Poolhaus. ! According   to the non-profit developer, space is available here for people who are new to the city or who, for example, would like to build a new circle of friends and acquaintances for other reasons. @ The residential property is di­ vided into two parts, which are   connected by a generous atrium. All circulation areas, which run through­ out the eight- to nine-story build­ ing, are open to the public and lead past the common areas all the way up to the rooftop pool. Community facilities such as the gym, sauna, and pool are publicly accessible and play an important role in neigh­ borly interaction. # Only the commu­ nal kitchens, hobby rooms, and laundromat are reserved exclusively

277

The Poolhaus in the newly   developed Kabelwerk grounds. © Hertha Hurnaus Rooftop terrace with pool. © Hertha Hurnaus

Southeast view from Otto-Bondy-  Platz. © Hertha Hurnaus Shared laundromat with lounge area. © Hertha Hurnaus Private apartment with furniture. © Hertha Hurnaus

278

Poolhaus

Spatial structure

First upper floor   1 : 1,000

ffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

rivat

Aussenfläche privat

ollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Communal kitchen

Third upper floor   1 : 1,000

279

Sauna

Seventh upper floor 1 : 1,000

Rooftop terrace   with pool Collective spaces not shown Hobby rooms Laundromat Public spaces not shown Atrium Fitness area Business spaces

Wien Pool Architektur ZT Poolhaus Grundrisse Massstab 1:1000

Cross-section 1 : 1,000

Exterior: Interior:

public public

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

collective collective

280

Poolhaus

Organization

non-profit developer, occupancy by rent, minimum rental period of   six months, top-down initiation process 

Resident demographic

number of residents unknown, for young working people,   no children, high educational   level 

Operational structure

externally managed by developers, low level of participation 

Apartments

252 units, 219 one- to three-  room apartments sized   25 to 50 m², 33 conventional   apartments 

Areas

total site area 5,405 m²,  8 to 9 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 3 925 1 440 2 155 330 Usable floor space 17 850 4 025 3 635 10 190

in %

m@ / pers.

100 37 55 8

— — — —

100 23 20 57

— — — —

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

Tech Farm K 9

The Tech Farm K 9, a Stockholm building converted by Storesund Arkitekter in 2016, offers 33 apart­ ments, each with a private bath­ room but no kitchenette. The private units range from live-in studios to hotel-style units and even dormito­ ries. The spatial program is de­ signed for a young, professional, and internationally networked audi­ ence. In addition to communal kitch­ ens and dining rooms, other offer­ ings include various collective living and recreation rooms, a quiet space, a library, and co-working spaces. None of the collective spaces are open to the public. While all living spaces, including those that are private, are furnished, residents are free to furnish both the private and shared rooms as they wish. The Tech Farm K 9, which was built in an existing building in   the city center, was realized by pri­ vate developers using an investment model and is one of several Tech Farms, including another in Stock­ holm and additional Tech Farms that are being planned for Berlin and London. In addition to Co-Living, new co-working concepts are also be­ ing implemented, with a structure and floor plan layout that can evolve in order to meet the needs of mil­ lennials. Likewise, the operational structures of the Tech Farm K 9  

281

appear to be adapted to the young resident population. One resident takes on the role of mediator be­ tween the property developer and the entire resident population, moderating collective living aspects. Any conflicts can be solved with   the help of readily available external specialists, and a house budget gives residents a degree of flexibility to make self-organized purchases, with this budget usually being used for shared activities. !  

1 According to Anton Chernikov, Tech Farm Communications Represen­ tative; and https://www. techfarm.life/k9, accessed on 20 May 2017.

Co-Living integrated into an existing building. © Tech Farm Large communal area with dining area and library. © Tech Farm Communal lounges on each floor. © Tech Farm

282

Tech Farm K 9

Spatial structure

First upper floor

Quiet room for shared activities   or single use. © Tech Farm

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Shared kitchen on each floor. © Tech Farm

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Furnished single room. © Tech Farm

Aussenfläche öffentlich

privat

Aussenfläche privat

kollektiv

Second upper floor

Exterior: Interior:

öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

public public

collective collective

283

Organization

private developer with   different Co-Living properties   in various cities, occupancy   through rent, top-down initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 50 residents, for young working people, no children,   high educational level 

Operational structure

externally managed by developers, residents organized into a resident community,   influence on new resident se­ lection, staff for cleaning   and cooking, medium degree of participation 

Apartments

33 units, 19 one-room units   of 18 to 25 m², 9 one-room   units of 12 to 16 m², 2 dormitories with 30 m², 3 live-in studios   from 20 to 22 m² 

Areas

total site area unknown,   4 stories

Communal kitchen Quiet room Living room and   lounge Library

Communal kitchen Dining room Collective spaces not shown Laundry area Co-working spaces

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space 24 0 24 0 Usable area 1 150 0 535 615

in %

m@ / pers.

100 0 100 0

0.5 0 0.5 0

100 0 47 53

23.0 0 10.7 12.3

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

284

The Collective Old Oak

room, a spa, and a laundry room spread throughout the floors. A con­ cierge desk offers 24-hour concierge service on the ground floor, along with a restaurant and bar, an events room, a gym, and co-working spaces. The connection between home, work, and leisure results not only from the wide array of services   offered; the Old Oak also provides a community manager, who orga­ nizes regular events and occasions to enable residents to get to know   each other, interact, and — according to the The Collective homepage — make them feel at home. # 

1 Pavillon De L’Arsenal (ed.) (2018): Homy  —  Coliving, Cohabiter, p. 161. 2 Ibid., p. 163. The Collective, a Co-Living or­ 3 https://www.thecollective. ganization, currently operates three com, accessed on 25 Mar. locations in London. Two of them 2019.

are exclusively for co-working, while the Old Oak residential property   in the northwest of the city unites co-working and Co-Living. Two more locations similar to the Old Oak are in the planning stage. The idea is to create a new way of living, working, and spending leisure time. The   residents of the Old Oak are young working people, often in the pre-  family phase, but the Old Oak is one of the few Co-Living properties to provide housing to parents or single parents with children. A total   of 550 people live in the ten-story building, completed by P L P   Architecture in 2016. ! The Old Oak offers a variety of individual apartments, most of which have an intermediate zone with bathroom and kitchen between the collective circulation area and private areas. This intermediate zone is often shared by two parties. The private living spaces are rented fully furnished, are minimal in size,   and are supplemented by extensive shared offerings. For example,   there is a communal kitchen with dining and lounge area on each floor, which can be used for private events. @ There is also a library, a   quiet room, a movie room, a game

285

Exterior with the public ground floor. © Nick Guttridge The Collective is one of the   first buildings to be constructed specifically for Co-Living. © Nick Guttridge

Co-working area for public use. © Amandine Alessandra,   The Collective Old Oak Extensive lounge areas. © The Collective Ground floor restaurant. © Amandine Alessandra,   The Collective Old Oak Private apartment with kitchenette. © The Collective

286

The Collective Old Oak

Spatial structure

Ground floor 1 : 750

e öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

e privat

Aussenfläche privat

e kollektiv

London PLP Architekture The Collective Old Oak Grundriss Erdgeschoss Massstab 1:12000

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Standard floor   1 : 750

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

London PLP Architekture The Collective Old Oak Regelgeschoss Massstab 1:500

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Cross-section 1 : 750

Nutzfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche privat

Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv

London PLP Architekture The Collective Old Oak Schnitt Massstab 1:500

287

Co-working spaces

h

Studio für Familien

Fitness room

Standard Studio mit einze oder gemeinschaftlichem

Kitchenette and bathroom

Studio für Familien

h

v

Standard family apartment,   studio 1 : 250

Restaurant and bar

Nutzfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche kollektiv Standard Studio mit einzelnem Aussenfläche privat oder gemeinschaftlichem Vorraum Exterior: Interior:

Aussenfläche privat

Public space not shown Event space

Standard apartment   with private or   shared anteroom,   Standard Studio mit einzelnem studio 1 : 250 oder gemeinschaftlichem Vorraum

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Shared kitchen   with dining and   Nutzfläche privat lounge area

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Collective spaces not shown Library Quiet room Movie room Game room Hindernisfreies Studio Spa Laundry room Rooftop terrace

Standard studio   apartment,   barrier-free  Hindernisfreies Studio 1 : 250

public public

collective collective

London PLP Architekture The Collective Old Oak Regelwohnungen Massstab 1:250

288

The Collective Old Oak

Organization

private developer with different Co-Living and co-working   properties in various cities, occu­ pancy through rent, top-down   initiation process 

Resident demographic

around 550 residents, for young working people, also with   apartments for residents with   children, high educational   level 

Operational structure

externally managed by developers, community manager organizes   social life, with employees   for the reception area and various   services, rent includes a   private room, the use of all   collective areas, cleaning   service, events and occasions,   and a gym membership,   low level of par­t icipation 

Apartments

550 units 

Areas

total site area unknown,   10 stories

total public collective private total  public collective ! private

area m@ Outdoor space — — 830 0 Usable floor space 11 880 1 915 4 720 5 245

in %

m@ / pers.

— — — 0

— — 1.5 0

100 16 40 44

21.6 3.5 8.6 9.5

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

289

Excursus

Communal Households and Squatting

From the late 1960s onwards, the Com­ there were no supply structures for such housing munal Households were a completely new form needs at that time, some of these young people of living, with the early residents of such house­ began to regulate their coexistence on their terms holds coming from the reformed middle class. ! by means of experimental lifestyles in low-priced, The number of students, pupils, and apprentices turn-of-the-century apartments. This led to saw a substantial increase throughout Europe the formation of three types of Communal House­ as a result of the rising importance of education, holds in the first phase, up to around 1975: also caused by a swathe of reforms. The grow­ communes, Red Monasteries (Rote Klöster), and ing demands of this new demographic group had extended families. % hitherto been largely neglected by the housing 1 Bertels (1990): Gemein­ 3 Cyprian (1978): Sozialisa­ market. These young people were demanding an schaftsformen in der tion in Wohngemein­ increasing level of self-determination and comodernen Stadt, p. 114. schaften, eine empirische determination, while at the same time the post- Vester also notes that the Untersuchung ihrer struk­ adolescent phase was being steadily prolonged. @ emerging educated class turellen Bedingungen, p. 1 f.; The emergence of Communal Households was no was pressuring conservative and Müschen (1982): political policies and the Lieber lebendig als normal! coincidence, since the loss of social stability old elites of the authori­ Selbstorganisation, kol­ and integration had to be compensated for once tarian state of the post-war lektive Lebensformen und years. Cf. Vester, Von alternative Ökonomie, the family’s importance here began to wane. # Oertzen, Geiling, Hermann, p. 41. A clear opposition to established social patterns Müller (2001): Soziale 4 Reichardt (2014): Authen­ took shape. The life of the middle-class gener­ Milieus im ge­s ell­s chaft­ tizität und Gemeinschaft, ation of parents, at times characterized by depri­ lichen Strukturwandel, p. 48. Zwischen Inte­g ration und 5 The differentiation of vation, repression, and social insecurity, was Ausgrenzung, p. 37. these three types follows a relic that belonged to the past. The new youth 2 Ibid., p. 39 f. Cf. also Peter Brückner. Cf. also culture was determined by a wave of change, Novy: “Neue Haushalts­ Müschen (1982): Lieber participation, and emancipation, of political up­ formen, neue Lebensstile lebendig als normal! Selbst­ und die Suche nach den organisation, kollektive heaval in society, and sexual liberation. $ Since neuen sozialen Bauherren”. In Brech (1989): Neue Wohnformen in Europa, Berichte des 4. Inter­ nationalen Wohnbund Kon­ gresses, p. 47 f.

Lebensformen und alterna­ tive Ökonomie, p. 45 f.

290

E x c u r s u s Communal Households and Squatting

The collective solidarity and living forms shown by the communes can be seen as the most revolutionary possible response to a changed society. The struggle against the dominating capitalist system and against authoritarian rela­ tionship and educational structures was led under the motto: Private life is politics. ^ The best known communes in the German-speaking area were Kommune 1 and Kommune 2, both es­ tablished in 1967 in West Berlin and accompa­ nied by considerable media attention. Children lived in both communes at times, with both collective and anti-authoritarian educational methods being tested out. Generally speaking, the principle of shared finances applied to all com­ munes from this period, with earnings from gain­ ful employment being shared. Another important aspect was a very intimate communicative ex­ change; all problems — including those of a per­ sonal nature — were discussed collectively in the commune. However, this desire to continually communicate led to a state of permanent re­ flection, in which every gesture was interpreted politically. & This led to signs of fatigue appear­ ing in many communes over time. The political motivations were gradually put into perspective; in some communes, more attention was paid to enjoying newly gained freedoms and possibil­ ities for shifting consciousness. In the Red Monasteries, on the other hand, the type of hous­ ing and living conditions were entirely second­ ary to the political purpose. The primary goal was to develop new forms of political action. With very few exceptions, only men came to live in the Red Monasteries. * In a similar vein to the youth communes of the 1920s in the Soviet Union, the young inhabitants were trying above all to put their political way of life into practice. In contrast to the Red Monasteries, extended families did not associate their existence with political objec­ tives. ( Instead, it was the emancipation of women, the fair distribution of domestic work, and new conditions for the socialization of children that played a role here. !) The household was communalized, with the extended family

raising children together, although, notwith­ standing the collective, children were still mainly cared for by their mother or both parents. ! ! All forms of these Communal Households were, in terms of size, based on the number of rooms in existing older apartments. Studies from the early 1980s showed an average number of 5.5 persons per Communal Household, with the lowest number of possible residents for a Communal Household being three. Communal Households were often limited in time, with the average duration at 15 months in the early 1970s, and then increasing to 35 months in the 1980s. ! @ The households shared the kitchen, living, and dining areas, as well as the bathrooms, with bedrooms often considered to be private space. Only in the early phase of Communal Households were the sleeping areas shared, a de­ velopment which, however, remained an ex­ ception. ! # The boundaries between private and public spaces were fluid in many Communal Households. On special occasions, for instance, the personal rooms were turned into common areas, !$ even when common areas were otherwise available. The Communal Households user groups were rather homogeneous and, with an average age of 20 to 30, formed a youthful community. ! % Communes in particular were very open and saw as many as ten people visiting each day. ! ^ Long-term overnight visitors were likewise not uncommon. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Commu­ nal Households still constituted a progressive subculture, one that often failed due to utopian, ideological, and exaggerated demands. ! & The political and revolutionary ideas eventually be­ came more pragmatic over the decades and the housing type became more established in the 1980s, with the desire for community, com­­ munication, solidarity, and emotional security remaining. Communal Households continue to exist today as communities of convenience, in which short-term cohabitation is seen as a costeffective step on the path to a one-person household or starting a family. ! * Even today,

291

Communal Households are not something infor two years. @ # Numerous housing projects, tended to last forever. ! ( Residents move in and particularly in Switzerland and in the Zurich area, out at regular intervals and for a variety of difare based on this scene, including the Karthago ferent reasons, with groups and social structures and Kraftwerk1 cooperatives. Over time, the continuously re-forming and new individuals initiators have developed a pragmatic, but no less being integrated. determined, approach to the implementation Squatting is characterized by an even and management of their housing projects, inshorter duration. The first isolated cases of squat- cluding through legalization by taking the ting in European cities were seen in the 1970s. form of a housing cooperative. The squatter scene A shortage of housing in the cities and youth un- is still active today in supporting tenants’ prorest fueled the phenomenon from the 1980s tests against the rising cost of housing, among on. In Zurich, the most obvious form of revolt other things, and continues to shape housing relating to living and social space was seen in policy discourse, as demonstrated by the example the 1980 opera house riots, during which young of the Koch site in Zurich. people demanded more social and structural freedom. There was also youth unrest in other 6 amantine (2011): Gender Stahel also notes that European cities. @ ) At the height of the phenom- und Häuserkampf, p. 63; house­work was considered enon, in the 1980s, Amsterdam, Berlin, and and Stahel (2006): Wo-Woto be the responsibility Zurich were regarded as hotbeds of squatting. Wonige!, p. 81. of women as an astonishing The movement, like Communal Households, 7 In Kommune 1, private matter of course. See Stahel (2006): Wo-Wo-Woemerged due to an insufficient supply of afford- letters from parents were even discussed together nige!, p. 84. able housing in the cities. However, the critiand then made public to the 12 Müschen (1982): Lieber cism being expressed also included political asmedia. For more, see lebendig als normal! SelbstReichardt (2014): Authentiorganisation, kollektive pects of housing and zoning policy, along with zität und Gemeinschaft, Lebensformen und alternaa lack of cultural spaces. In Zurich, the activists p. 390 f. tive Ökonomie, p. 56 f. chanted “Wo-wo-wonige” (How-how-housing), 8 Krebs (ed.) (1970): Die 13 Above all Kommune 1 in Amsterdam, “You can’t live in tanks” and in hedonistische Linke – had shared bedrooms. Beiträge zur SubkulturMedia voices reporting of Berlin, “Homes belong to those who live in them”. @ ! Debatte, p. 124. toilet doors being removed A state housing policy and capitalist ownership 9 Haider (1984): Wohngeare more myth than a were both re­jected by the squatters. The resismeinschaften in Österreich, true representation of actual tance was directed against restructuring and genDaten und Tendenzen living conditions in the einer gegenkulturellen InstiCommunal Households, trification measures, as well as against speculatution, p. 37. notes Reichardt. See also tive vacancies, the use of housing space for other 10 Müschen (1982): Lieber Reichardt (2014): Au­ purposes, modernization, and the destruction lebendig als normal! Selbstthentizität und Gemeinorganisation, kollektive schaft, p. 419 f. of affordable housing. Activists were also fighting Lebensformen und alterna- 14 Haider (1984): Wohngefor the establishment of cultural freedoms. @ @ tive Ökonomie, p. 45 f. meinschaften in Österreich, The appropriation of property by squatters often 11 Meyer-Ehlers, HaußDaten und Tendenzen went hand in hand with a lively cultural scene. knecht, Rughöft (1973): einer gegenkulturellen In­ stitution, p. 178. Habitation was considered to be a project, which Kollektive Wohnformen, Erfahrungen, Vorstellungen, 15 Reichardt (2014): was carried out jointly and with a very high Raumbedürfnisse in Authentizität und Gemeindegree of public access. One of the longest lasting Wohngemeinschaften, schaft, p. 368. Wohngruppen und 16 Meyer-Ehlers, Haußinstances of squatting was the occupation of Wohnverbänden, p. 185. It knecht, Rughöft (1973): the Wohlgroth site in Zurich which, starting in remains questionable if Kollektive Wohnformen, Er1991, had shared facilities such as a cinema, the dissolution of traditional fahrungen, Vorstellungen, the Volxküche (people’s kitchen), and a library gender roles was actually Raumbedürfnisse in Wohnpracticed in everyday house­ hold life. Many women describe how one could not really speak of truly equally shared housework. For more, see also amantine (2011): Gender und Häuserkampf, p. 72. In his study,

gemeinschaften, Wohngruppen und Wohnverbänden, p. 184 f.

292

E x c u r s u s Communal Households and Squatting

17 Philippsen (2014): Sozia- 21 The tank slogan came le Netzwerke in gemeinabout because the Amsterschaftlichen Wohnprojekten, dam authorities con­ p. 31. fronted demonstrators with 18 Reichardt (2014): tanks. See Bertlein (year Authentizität und Gemeinunknown): Sieg und Unterschaft, pp. 393, 458. gang des Sozialen Woh 19 Korczak (1979): Neue nungsbaus in Holland, p. 8. Formen des Zusammen­ 22 amantine (2011): lebens, Erfolge und SchwieGender und Häuserkampf, rigkeiten des Experiments p. 13. Wohngemeinschaft, p. 107. 23 Kries, Müller, Niggli, 20 As Reichardt ascertains, Ruby, Ruby, Vitra Design Swiss youth unrest hat Museum (eds.) (2017): a significant influence on Together! Die Neue Archithe Federal Republic of tektur der Gemeinschaft, Germany and other Europ. 30. pean nations, with their creativity and courage impressing many and inspiring others to new forms of action. See Reichardt (2014): Authentizität und Gemeinschaft, p. 504.

Summary

294

Extending Individuality “Living is a social expression. Social cooperation and cooperation is expressed through living.” g u d r u n s a c k  !

Throughout history, societal changes have always had an impact on collective living, either directly or indirectly. Before industrialization, collective housing was the natural living and working community, and was necessary to secure a livelihood. Since then, different developers and user groups have experimented with a range of collective living models resulting from various structural changes and shifting values, leading them to evolve in different directions. Designed and partly implemented by the utopian socialists during the mid-19th century, collective living housing models exhibited great diversity in the first three decades of the 20 th century, with several existing simultaneously. At the end of World War I I , these developmental directions came to a halt. Though economic stress was enormous when construction activity resumed after the war, collective living nonetheless did not become more widespread. Pre-war forms of collective living, such as Men’s and Women’s Hostels, Boarding Houses, and Central-Kitchen Houses were eliminated, as were Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings, with very little evolution in housing models occurring during the reconstruction phase. Isolated hous-

295

ing forms more focused on the nuclear family came to prevail. The idea of collective living was continued in Community Settlements, although the collective living spaces no longer formed the foundation of daily life, but instead complemented full-fledged, fully equipped family homes. It was not until the political and social developments of the late 1960s that new initiatives for collective living emerged. In this phase of social upheaval, role models were questioned and redefined, and a more balanced way of raising children and running households jointly was sought. Women returned to paid working positions and demanded better ways to harmonize family and work. In the Cooperative Living housing model, isolated living spaces began to reopen towards shared spaces for the first time. Starting in the 1980s, experiments with floor plans and socio-spatial forms of organization were seen in new housing models such as Housing and Culture Projects, Community Households, and Cluster Apartments. Today, a new diversity can be observed in the very different user groups of collective living — visible, for example, in the currently newest housing model of Co-Living, which has been continuously evolving since 2010.

informal associations, were often organized as non-profits and supported by foundations, coop­e ratives, and the public sector or set up as non-profit investor models. In the beginning, collective living was strongly paternalistic and shaped by ideological patrons who provided housing for the working class as the Industrial Revolution was ushered in. This guiding idea of providence, or providing for, shaped not only the housing projects of the utopian socialists, but also the emerging Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings after World War II, as well as several Community Settlement projects. There was a strong push, particularly by the women’s movement, to organize the Central-Kitchen Houses — and to some degree the Men’s and Women’s Hostels — co­operatively. Private sponsorship, however, was the general rule. The spirit of change and emancipation of the late 1960s and 1970s challenged existing hierarchies and structures, giving rise to non-profit, self-managed forms of orga­ nization. Along with social motivations for sharing living space, new values such as participation, independence, and solidarity come to the fore. Particularly in urban areas, the aim is now to withdraw properties from the investment market in order to provide apartments with collective areas, made affordable through nonprofit organization and cost-based rent. It currently appears that non-profit housing developers — and municipalities to a certain degree — are the most stable and long-term providers of collective living. This is all the more significant as the principle of sharing is also based on trust; accordingly, collective living must be profes­ sionally and reliably organized. With Co-Living, which became established around 2010, private developers begin to appear again. Co-Living spaces are strongly reminiscent of the Boarding Houses initiated more than a century ago, and

Organization and Developers Having a stable developer is a fundamental condition for a residential property to successfully operate over a longer period of time and withstand a generational change. Depending on the type of organization, residents contribute financially in various ways, buying shares for partial ownership or simply paying rent. The various organizational systems involve users in decision-making processes in different ways. Forms of organization that are open and transparently structured allow residents to participate and influence decisions. However, collective living has never been tied to any one particular 1 Sack: “Das Unterschied­ form of organization. Over the decades, various liche im Nebeneinander”. devel­o per models can be identified: private In Bahner, Böttger (eds.) organizations, such as building groups and other (2016): Neue Standards, zehn Thesen zum Wohnen, p. 111.

296

Extending Individuality

address a similar user group. It remains to be seen to what extent actual collective living will prevail in Co-Living, or if it will be merely an investment model for making modestly sized housing units available to a young urban public. Resident Demographic and Population Size While collective living was initially developed for the working class, an educated user group gradually established itself starting in the 1950s with the Community Settlement housing model. Early developments in this direction could be seen in the Central-Kitchen Houses and Boarding Houses. Today, the fundamental ne­ cessity of articulate communication and a readiness to communicate with other residents and participate in decision-making processes mean that the collective living user group is generally more educated. @ Collective living requires not only a desire for community, but also the ability to involve oneself in social processes and engage with the living environment. An awareness of political processes, building code, and legal and economic parameters is greatly helpful, espe­ cially since many collective residential properties today are self-initiated and self-managed. Since the start of the 1970s, this limitation of user background has been accompanied by a large proportion of collective housing residents with average to higher levels of income. # This makes collective living tend to be more of a middleclass phenomenon. The diversity of the resident structure and the different needs associated with this are directly related to an overlapping use of collective areas. Offering many different housing units and a balanced variety of apartment types helps encourage a mix of residents, which in turn increases the broad use of communal areas. CoLiving currently has the most homogeneous resident structure, as the user group consists only of young adults, or so-called Millennials. $ Thus, in Co-Living, with the exception of the work areas, the shared spaces are generally used only in the evening. While the Community

Settlements and Cooperative Living housing models were initially primarily targeted at families, their user groups have also become more diverse in recent years. The Housing and Culture Projects, Community Households, and Cluster Apartments housing models also show a stronger mix of residents, including families, couples, and singles in various stages of their lives. Often, developers even strive for a very heterogeneous population structure; examples include residential projects that have units for multigener­ational housing or subsidized or partially financed housing for financially weaker households. The developer’s aim is to make community-oriented living available to the broadest possible range of users, including various societal groups disadvantaged by the housing market, or to test new housing models such as multigenerational housing. Not only demographics but also the size of the resident population shapes the group dynamics and processes of collective living. Having a minimum number of participants and shared spaces is a prerequisite for a diverse collective life. If the population is too small, fluctuations and disagreements can quickly lead to instability, while too large a group makes intimacy and oversight difficult. Or as Hermann Czech writes, “People need an identifiable spatial unit to belong to us.” % While the initiators of the early housing model of Large Housing Complexes considered 1,000 to 2,000 people as an ideal number of inhabitants, this number declined as collective living models evolved, with the exception of the Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings. Central-Kitchen Houses, Men’s and Women’s Hostels, and Boarding Houses included around 60 to 100 residents, a number that grew to several thousand in the Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings. In the Community Settlement and Cooperative Living models, average resident population is around 220, and about 140 in the Housing and Culture Projects. Newer forms of housing such as Commu­ nity Households and Cluster Apartments accom-

297

modate an average of 50 to as many as 250 people, while Co-Living, with 50 to 550 residents, is even more versatile. However, reference values for this information are also relevant. While the Large Housing Complexes of the utopian socialists, as well as Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings, covered an entire development area, the Central-Kitchen Houses, Men’s and Women’s Hostels, Boarding Houses, Community Settlements, Cooperative Living, and Housing and Culture Projects are all limited to a single building or ensemble of buildings. With the newer housing models of Community Households, Cluster Apartments, and Co-Living, the project can sometimes be limited to an individual section of a building, a floor, or a housing cluster, with these living models being integrated into larger settlements. In addition, the size of the resident population raises questions not only about social processes but, from an economic point of view, also about the number of people needed to utilize the shared spaces and services of collective living and to bear the associated costs to make collective living attractive to users.

played by cooking and eating together. More diverse changes throughout the nine housing models can be seen in the additional infrastructure for cultural and social activities. In the early phases, these were often focused on education and raising children. In the Community Households and Central-Kitchen Houses above all, additional communal areas were set aside for collective childcare and education. As housing functions such as education and elderly care were increasingly outsourced and the balance between work and leisure time shifted, changes emerged in the shared facilities of spaces that were increasingly used for recreation. Current developments in industrial and business space are now geared to the increasing integration of living and working. In the Housing and Culture Project housing model, col­ lective facilities such as workrooms, seminar rooms, and studios were added, while Co-Living models usually also offer spaces for co-working. Digitization is increasingly shifting work back into private living spaces, a trend illustrated by the fact that just over 19 percent of the current working population in Switzerland occasionally work from home, and 10 percent in Germany often work from home. ^ In addition, many companies are eliminating individual permanently allocated workspaces, replacing them with desksharing and location-independent workspaces. & This means that services such as desk-sharing, which in many cases are already available today, can be an attractive addition to shared workspaces on the ground floors of residential properties, enabling residents to work in shared or in-house spaces without impacting their private living area. This keeps individual private space less impacted by the working world and thus more intimate.

Spatial Structure and Shared Facilities Depending on the housing model and era, shared living spaces and additional infrastructure are closely related to the evolution of the bathroom and kitchen. In the beginning, facilities not standard in the individual apartments, such as a private lavatory, were shared. In the early stages of collective living, shared bathrooms were a progressive proposition for improving sanitary conditions in cities. As the demand for functionality and usefulness caused kitchens and bathrooms to become the standard, the desire to centralize these facilities declined. Nevertheless, sharing kitchens has been a strong element of all 2 Gerheuser, Schumann 5 Czech (ed.) (1977): evolutionary phases and housing models of (1981): Kommunikatives A Pattern Language, p. 81. collective living, whether through communal Wohnen, p. 10. 6 Swiss Federal Statistical kitchens, hallway kitchens, kitchenettes, or 3 Philippsen (2014): Soziale Office F S O : Telework outdoor kitchens. The reasons for this can most Netzwerke in gemeinschaft­ Report 2015, statista.com (09 Jan. 2019). lichen Wohnprojekten, likely be found in the important social function 7 H OC H PARTE RRE p. 53 f. (05|2017): “Sharing 4 Co-Living providers such Sharing”, p. 21. as Tech Farm or The Collective also envision including children.

298

Extending Individuality

An analysis of spatial structures also provides indicators of the relationships between public, collective, and private areas. In Men’s and Women’s Hostels, Boarding Houses, and CentralKitchen Houses, around 27 percent of total floor space was designed as collective; however, almost none of this space was publicly accessible. The remaining 72 percent of floor area was reserved for private living spaces. The col­ lective areas were available for use solely by residents. After World War I I and the subsequent retreat into private areas, the average percentage of collective space sank to around 18 percent in the Community Settlements. The social upheaval of the late 1960s and the development of the Cooperative Living model brought this share markedly upward again, to an average of 25 percent, although publicly shared use remained marginal. Public sharing slowly came about with the Housing and Culture Projects model, at 7 percent. However, this was accompanied by a reduction of the collective use areas accessible only to residents, which fell to an average of 14 percent. About 79 percent of the floor plans of Housing and Culture Projects are reserved for private dwellings. Significant reductions in private space become apparent only in the most recent housing models. In Com­ munity Households, Cluster Apartments, and Co-Living, an average of 54 percent of usable space is private, and around 31 percent is for collective use. Around 15 percent of the total floor areas are publicly usable. Of all the housing models presented here, implemented over the course of several decades, an average of 68 percent of usable space is private, 25 percent is collective, and publicly usable space stands at approximately 7 percent. It must be noted that the costs of shifting these spaces into the collective and public areas are borne almost exclusively by the private spaces. Ultimately, the benefits of this shift of areas arise in the added value of sharing life together.

Table with area calculations for all projects Residental project Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses

Rehhoffstraße Men’s Hostel Lettenhof Women’s Colony Breslau Men’s and Women’s Hostel Isokon Building average

Central-Kitchen Houses

Service House Lichterfelde-West Central-Kitchen House Heimhof Central-Kitchen House John Ericsonsgatan Collective House average

Community Settlements

Y K -Huset Collective House

Cooperative Living

Overvecht-Noord Settlement Steilshoop Living Model Jernstoberiet Cohousing Settlement Stacken Collective House Houtwijk Cohousing Residences average

Housing and Culture Projects

Färdknäppen Collective House Dreieck Refurbishment Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project Kreuzberg Beguinage Bofaellesskab Lange Eng average

Community Households and Cluster Apartments

Tanthof Cohousing Settlement Karthago Community Household Heizenholz Multi-Generational House VinziRast-mittendrin Spreefeld Settlement Kalkbreite Residential and Commercial Building Zwicky Süd Settlement average

Co-Living

Poolhaus Tech Farm K 9 The Collective Old Oak average

All housing models

Høje Søborg Collective Housing Conjunto Residential Tower Neuwil Housing Estate average

average

299

Total area

Total outdoor space

Public outdoor space

Collective outdoor space

Private outdoor space

Total usable floor space

Public usable floor space

Private usable floor space Collective usable floor space ! in % in % area m@ m@ / pers. area m@ 725 45 6.5 880 55 305 14 5.1 1 845 84 355 21 5.5 1 335 79 310 22 7.1 1 100 78 — 25.5 6.1 — 74.0

area m@ 570 4 520 6 530 2 110 —

area m@ 80 3 125 4 785 2 005 —

in % 100 100 100 100 —

m@ / pers. 0.7 52.3 74.8 45.5 43.3

area m@ 80 2 975 4120 1470 —

in % 100 95 86 73 88.5

m@ / pers. 0.7 49.6 64.4 33.4 37.0

area m@ 0 10 590 495 —

in % 0 0.5 12 25 9.4

m@ / pers. 0 0.2 9.2 11.2 5.2

area m@ 0 140 75 40 —

in % 0 4.5 2 2 2.1

m@ / pers. 0 2.5 1.2 0.9 1.2

area m@ 1 605 2 200 1 690 1 420 —

in % 100 100 100 100 —

m@ / pers. 14.5 36.6 26.0 32.3 27.4

area m@ 0 50 0 0 —

in % 0 2 0 0 0.5

m@ / pers. 0 0.8 0 0 0.2

— 1 750

— 1 305

— 18.6

— 1 100

— 84

— 15.7

— 175

— 13

— 2.5

— 30

— 3

— 0.4

3 215 2 265

26 34

8.4 11.0

2 375 1 495

74 66

23.7 21.4

— 65 —

— 17 50.5

— 0.8 8.3

— 115 —

— 31 22.0

— 1.4 2.0

— 195 —

— 52 27.5

— 2.4 1.4

1 330 2 335 —

— 29.1 30.9

0 0 0

840 770

— 4.6 11.6

0 0 0

0 0

— 375 —

100 100 100 100 —

31.1 32.4

4 145 500 —

— 100 — 100 —

290 —

12 3.0

— 3.6 1.2

505 370 —

38 16 28.5

— 4.6 8.0

825 1 675 —

62 72 68.5

— 20.9 22.0

2 125 13 690

1 740 10 660

— 47.8

1 485 8 815

85 83

— 39.5

0 1 110

0 10

— 5.0

255 735

15 7

— 3.3

5 020 14 805

— 66.4

545 1 985

11 13

— 8.9

450 3 440

9 23

— 15.4

4 025 9 380

80 64

— 42.1

— — —

— — —

100 100 — — —

— — 47.8

— — —

— — 84.0

— — 39.5

0 330 —

— — 5.0

0 2.4 2.5

450 770 —

— — 11.0

2.0 5.5 3.6

5 680 4 340 —

25.8 31.0 41.1

0 0 —

0 0 6.0

0 0 3.0

850 1 135 —

15 26 18.3

3.9 8.1 9.1

4 830 3 205 —

85 74 75.8

21.9 22.9 29.0

— — 6 055

— — 4 390

— — 87.8

— — 3 670

— — 83

— — 73.4

— 335 200

— — 5

— 1.6 4.0

1 595 0 520

— — 12

2.4 0 10.4

24 090 6 060 1 775

0 320 0

0 5 0

0 1.5 0

4 210 1 555 490

17 26 28

6.5 7.0 9.8

19 880 4 185 1 285

83 69 72

30.6 19.0 25.7

— — —

— — 87.8

— — —

— — 83.0

— — 73.4

95 130 —

— — 5.0

1.0 — 2.2

150 340 —

— — 12.0

1.5 — 3.6

5 495 4 060 —

100 100 100 100 100 —

37.1 27.5 35.5

— — —

— — 100 — — —

54.9 — 38.8

620 0 —

11 0 3.2

6.2 — 1.9

865 1 580 —

16 39 25.2

8.6 — 8.0

4 015 2 480 —

73 61 71.6

40.1 — 28.9

1 275 2 470 4 650

945 1 735 3 000

18.9 12.1 14.3

0 1 255 2 565

0 72 85

0 8.8 12.2

870 425 380

92 25 13

17.4 2.9 1.8

75 55 55

8 3 2

1.5 0.4 0.3

3 140 4 450 7 560

62.8 31.2 36.0

0 635 1 700

0 14 22

0 4.5 8.1

650 850 350

21 19 5

13.0 5.9 1.7

2 490 2 965 5 510

79 67 73

49.8 20.8 26.2

1 660 — —

1 930 — —

34.5 — 20.0

0 — —

0 — 39.3

0 — 5.3

1 685 3 490 —

87 — 54.3

30.1 17.5 13.9

245 705 —

13 — 6.5

4.4 3.5 2.0

3 060 6 695 —

100 100 100 100 100 —

54.6 33.5 43.6

0 0 —

0 0 7.2

0 0 2.5

325 955 —

11 14 14.0

5.8 4.8 6.2

2 735 5 740 —

89 86 78.8

48.8 28.7 34.9

6 875 680 4 060 450 7 415 6 725

4 490 505 — 205 6 980 6 485

34.5 9.3 — 7.6 49.9 25.0

3 540 75 — 105 5 835 5 190

79 15 — 51 84 80

27.2 1.4 — 3.9 41.7 20.0

925 430 640 100 435 1 295

20 85 — 49 6 20

7.1 7.9 7.5 3.7 3.1 5.0

4 3 6 40 15 32

1.7 1.5 2.5 22.2 8.2 17.7

1 860 1 360 935 540 1 085 2 165

33 55 26 35 14 15

14.3 25.1 11.0 20.0 7.7 8.3

3 535 1 005 2 485 375 5 265 7 785

63 42 68 25 71 53

27.2 18.6 29.2 13.9 37.6 30.0

— —

— 61.8

— 18.8

2 750 —

— 36.0

9.2 6.2

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 —

225 80 210 600 1 145 4 600

— 25.3

0.2 0 3.9 0 5.1 0 1.1 1.5

43.2 45.2 42.7 56.1 53.5 56.0

— —

1 0 — 0 10 0 — 2.2

5 2 3 1 7 14

11 500 —

25 0 330 0 710 0 330 —

59.1 50.8

2 950 —

17 16.7

9.8 9.1

2 280 —

13 27.3

7.6 13.4

12 510 —

70 56.0

41.7 28.3

5 405

3 925

1 440

37

55

8

20

57

0 — 4.0

1 150 11 880 —

0 1 915 —

0 16 13.0

535 4 720 —

47 40 35.7

— 10.7 8.6 9.7

10 190

0 0 —

— 0 3.5 1.8

3 635

100 — 77.5

— 23.0 21.6 22.3

23

24 830 —

100 100 100 —

4 025

0 — 18.5

— 0 0 0.0

17 850

0 — —

— 0.5 1.5 1.0

330

0.5 — 0.5

— 0 — 0

2 155

24 — —

100 100 — —

–

— — —

615 5 245 —

53 44 51.3

— 12.3 9.5 10.9

—

—

—

33.8

—

60.8

26.0

—

29.9

4.7

—

9.3

1.9

—

—

36.4

—

7.1

2.8

—

24.9

8.6

—

68.0

25.0

100 100 100 100 — — 100 100 — 100 100 100 — —

(Access areas were included in calculations on collective usable floor area, with 10 % subtracted for circulation. Data is derived from available documentation and no liability for accuracy is assumed.)

620 445 630 515 495 550

17 740 —

100 100 100 100 —

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

m@ / pers. 8.0 30.7 20.5 25.2 21.1

300

Extending Individuality

Individuality and Community The boundaries of intimacy shift along with changing ratios between public, collective, and private spaces. Residents of collective living projects are exposed to different types of pub­ licness: as individuals within the community that shares the collective space, and as a user group with a common front for outside society, particu­ larly in the context of public interest garnered by housing collectives today. * This creates inter­ actions between the individual and the collective as well as between the collective and society. These nuances illustrate the different boundary levels between public and private, which are perceived differently by each individual. Disparate discretionary thresholds and needs for closeness and distance can be found within housing collectives as well. The way each individual perceives publicness, and the associated need for privacy, is determined not only by culture but also depends on gender, age, and phase of life. According to age and housing researcher François Höpflinger, the desire for privacy and retreat is less pronounced among youth and young adults, who often value outside relationships and ac­ tivities more than private living. The opposite is the case among older people, where the per­cep­ tion and significance of publicness changes significantly due to the social withdrawal which can result from leaving the labor force or experiencing increasing physical limitations. ( Spe­ cific contexts, social change, and shifting values also lead to different perceptions of degrees of publicness. For example, in the early 20 th century the smaller dwellings of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses were not seen as a restriction of privacy, but instead as an impor­ tant step towards independent life. Even in the mid-1970s, many residents of Communal House­ holds were not disturbed by the high degree of public access in their shared living quarters, as it met their need for communication and inter­action. ! ) Added value in collective living arises when users achieve a balanced personal relationship between closeness and distance and when sharing

among them is voluntary and natural. This is not about evaluating the two opposite poles of public and private, or even about creating an absolute contrast between them. Both qualities — exchange and communication as well as withdrawal, privacy, and intimacy — correspond with fundamental human needs and can be combined in many different ways in collective living. However, thresholds and filters are needed to create differentiated spatial sequences that correspond to our different perceptions of public and private. For example, in the Community Settlement and later the Cooperative Living models, private spaces were deliberately accessed via shared spaces such as lounges or expanded circulation areas in order to encourage the connection between individual and collective space. Another spatial expression of thresholds and transition areas was first seen in Boarding Houses and is now part of life in Cluster Apartments and Co-Living. Here, an anteroom acts as a buffer zone between the shared living spaces and indi­ vidual rooms, serving various functions such as a kitchenette, bathroom, or cloakroom. This anteroom creates not only a spatial transition but also provides a visual and noise buffer to the common living spaces. Our private living space will likely always be where we retreat in search of rest, security, and intimacy. Collective spaces expand this individual space and, depending on the degree of public access, offer different intensities of living together. These shared use options can even intensify the individuality of people and small groups such as couples and families, since the opportunities for differentiation and participation are even more versatile. Since shared living spaces create additional areas for communication and interaction, each individual person has more room for decision and action. Individualization processes do not necessarily lead to a loss of community, but instead bring in aspects such as higher levels of self-responsibility, a desire for collectivity in traditional family groups and elective families, and the pursuit of auto­ nomy. ! ! On the other hand, collective living also

301

8 Müschen (1982): Lieber necessitates a higher degree of analogue com­ munication and active shaping of neighborly and lebendig als normal! Selbst­ organisation, kollektive community relationships. Lebensformen und alterna­ tive Ökonomie, p. 42. 9 Höpflinger also notes Social Catalysts and Distribution that older people draw The evolution of the nine housing models the boundaries between the shows that residential projects in which a strong private and public much more precisely. Retreating social catalyst led to self-initiative and selfgovernment have so far proved the most stable, if to privacy can also occur within one’s personal indeed very diverse, form of collective living. apartment. Often, only The human need for participating in and belong- single rooms are used for this, leading to the in­ ing to a community creates an important found­ creased consumption of ation for sharing. Accordingly, the social and enhousing space (according vironmental sustainability aspects of collective to a conversation on living have been gaining in importance since the 31 Mar. 2017). 10 Reichardt (2014): 1970s. Sharing is now voluntary, and no longer Authentizität und Gemein­ primarily the result of practical considerations or schaft, p. 418. even economic constraints. It follows that the 11 Philippsen (2014): Soziale Netzwerke in ge­ number of people who can imagine a collective meinschaftlichen Wohn­ way of life will increase. projekten, p. 43. Studies indicate that about one-tenth of the 12 Wüstenrot Stiftung (ed.) population has a desire for collective living (1999): Neue Wohnformen, p. 128. Furthermore, spaces. ! @ The current trend towards a broader Grampp and Zobrist indi­ user group such as Millennials, as well as people cate that 29 percent in the second half of life and the post-family of the Swiss population has phase, shows that, going forward, collective living already shared an accom­ will no longer be limited to one single age group modation such as a house or apartment. However, or the educated milieu. A desire for co-deter­ this number also includes mination and community in housing is spreading temporary accommoda­ tions. See Grampp, Zobrist: to a broader population, a trend that will inten­ sify as coming generations begin pressuring the “Die Sharing Economy zwischen Wachstum und housing market. Generation Y (born 1980 to Regulierungsdruck”. 2000) and Generation Z (born 2000 and later) In Forum, Raumentwick­ lung (Feb. 2016): “Sharing continue to strive for self-determination and Economy – Sharing stärkt have different attitudes about ownership than den Trend zur Demateri­ their parents. For these generations, sharing alisierung”, p. 21. Likewise, things does not constitute a loss of status or secu­ François Höpflinger con­ firms that older people in rity. Future forms of collective living will thus particular have a greater benefit from demographic developments, evolv- demand for collective living ing household forms, increased mobility and space than the existing housing market supply can multi-locality, changing values, temporary and provide (according to a increasingly flexible working situations, and conversation on 31 Mar. perhaps also the increasingly precarious existence 2017). of certain social groups.

302

Four Levels of Action: A Perspective “Because building means having an attitude.” m a r k u s e i s e n  !

As we review the course of the evolution of collective living and its current relevance, questions arise about the future potential of such housing models. Can they be implemented more frequently and further integrated into our everyday lives? Which aspects should be considered in a broad-based discourse on collective living’s design processes and future floor plan layouts? And how can a more widespread dis­ tribution of shared living space be promoted in a non-ideological and practical way? In conclusion, we will discuss these questions while looking at the central themes of collective living on the following four levels of action: the influence of residents, the layering of rooms and uses, coexistence in the community, and flexibility of use and appropriation. These four action levels each move between two opposing parameters, and are defined accordingly. Influence: Market-Determined Versus Co-Determined At present, future residents cannot influence the planning and development of a residential project at all, or only to a very limited extent. The concepts of collective living and partici­ pation in housing design stand in contrast to the

303

generally more conservative and sluggish housing frequently seen as trivial in theory but which market and its related development processes. are highly important in practice, such as noise, Market access and the implementation of innorules and regulations, and cleanliness. Ideally, vative approaches by interested user groups challenges that must be addressed through a and housing developers are often hindered by a participatory process will be resolved in a comlack of options for implementation. In part, promise that addresses the needs of the user this is because the Central European housing base while implementing professional expertise market, particularly in growing cities, is preas necessary. Participation is often introduced dominated by providers of standardized housing, by the initiators of a residential project. It should which often neither meets the needs of collective be made possible to include the concerns of the living nor accommodates people’s changing first residents, as well as of later user groups, in household structures and ways of life. This is why the various phases of project development, the demand for collective living has been largely implementation, and operation in a carefully deneglected until recently, despite the increase signed process of participation, co-determination, in that demand in current decades. @ So far, gener- and appropriation. Digital tools and platforms can facilitate communication between the propally only non-profit groups, a growing number of municipal institutions, and self-initiated pri- erty developer and resident population. In recent years, some prosperous Central European vate developers, such as building groups, have been challenging standardized apartment layouts cities have initiated larger developments that attempt to take into account demographic develand subsequently implementing new types of opments, shared use of living space, and new shared living arrangements. Only recently have ways of everyday living. In such cases, direct repsome private and institutional investors and resentation and participatory processes for indevelopers begun to explore collective living as an innovative business sector and started adding terested future residents in the planning phase are often supplemented by including experts it to their portfolio. For the most part, residenfrom the social and communication sciences. tial properties with collective living spaces are Influence is associated with responsibility still initiated and implemented by dedicated and work input for all involved parties, as col­ non-profit and public developers, architects, or lective living spaces must be actively designed, building and resident groups, and only in a used, and cared for. When sharing is understood very few cases by profit-oriented developers, investors, and builders. in the sense of participation and appropriation, If new directions in the planning, implea balance must be found between privacy, autonmentation, and use phases are to be pursued, omous decision-making, and the collective there should ideally be professional organization 1 Eisen (2012): Vom Ledi­ for new forms of housing and moderation to oversee the participation in the collective living and co-determination by individuals and interest genheim zum Boarding­ house, Bautypologie und sector. Further, they say, groups. This would help ensure constructive Gesellschaftstheorie shared housing is currently processes and binding decision-making processes bis zum Ende der Weimarer not sufficiently lucrative Republik, p. 248. to be an investment vehicle within functioning communication structures. 2 François Höpflinger con­ for investors who are Otherwise, fatigue, frustration, and resignation firms this, seeing a solely financially motivated. can creep into often long processes. Structural greater demand for shared See Baumann, Flury, Fust, Hohenacker (2012): and organizational specifications should be clari­ living space, especially among older people, than Wohngemeinschaften, fied at an early stage in order to avoid later conthe existing housing ein Markt für Investoren? flict. This is particularly important on key issues market currently supplies. Voraussetzungen und The same conclusion is also reached by the study “Wohngemeinschaften – ein Markt für Investoren” (Communal Households  — An Investment Market), in which the authors note a substantial unmet demand

Rahmenbedingungen für ein neues Immobilien­ anlageprodukt, p. 92.

304

Four Levels of Action: A Perspective

negotiation of behaviors in the common areas. Although carefully planned forms of collective living can certainly contribute to creating affordable housing and reviving problematic housing projects, there is not a single simple recipe for the complex challenges involved. Without suitable moderation and the involvement of residents in developing and implementing collaborative processes, failures are inevitable. Purely structural and organizational solutions rarely or barely work. Community and sharing cannot be staged, but must instead align with the needs of the people involved and affected. Accordingly, municipalities and property developers should facilitate access to sites that are well suited to user groups that are interested in collective living while also strengthening and supporting the associated development processes. Layering: Temporary Versus Permanent The principle of layering refers to the spatial and social structure that allows private spaces to be qualitatively extended into shared spaces. Depending on function and facilities, collective rooms can be connected to private rooms either temporarily or permanently. This shared and thus more intensive use of connectable rooms and the resulting layering and assortment of uses can help reduce the consumption of individual living space in urban areas. However, achieving this will require high-quality design solutions, the management of collective areas, and a wide array of offerings to meet different needs. Exploring the possibilities of connectable shared areas and the consequent reduction in private living space requires critical analysis and a willingness to question personal living space consumption. # Does more living space really make for a higher quality of life? Or, in other words: how much private space is necessary to satisfy the human need for retreat and intimacy? Personal living space and privacy needs change and evolve depending on a person’s age and phase

of life. Elderly people, for example, and the very old in particular, are more likely to retreat into their living quarters, but for families with small children, the immediate living environment and outdoor spaces are also very important. By providing the option to layer spaces, collective living can create attractive ways to adapt living space requirements to the different phases of life. People’s housing careers are more versatile and changeable today than a few decades ago. According to François Höpflinger, the nuclear family will continue to exist, but it will become a demographic minority and be differentiated within the framework of single-parent families and patchwork families. $ In addition, the familyintensive time devoted to raising children is limited to a compact phase of life, which is preceded or followed by other types of relationships and living arrangements. Offering versatile forms of collective living within a neighborhood that are complemented by a diverse mix of apartment types creates options for remaining in a familiar living environment throughout many different life phases. Developers and municipalities would be wise to take on the task of improving conditions for collective living, as layering also means providing a range of dif­f er­ ent housing styles and uses, and thus a more optimal use of living space. Living Together: Heterogeneity Versus Homogeneity A key added value of collective living is its social nature and the benefits of interaction with a larger community. The culture of sharing promotes identification with a group of coresidents and makes it easier to relate to people who have similar values, interests, and aspirations, even if they are in different stages of life. In collective living, people with similar values and lifestyles often come together, forming a user group that is homogenous in many ways. This homogeneity can positively influence community activities, solidarity, interpersonal relationships, and social commitment while also minimizing

305

conflict. However, collective living also needs het­ Flexibility: Sharing Versus Owning erogeneity in order to foster the full extent of Collective living’s flexibility is characterenrichment and stimulation that diversity and ized by providing access to an extended range of mutual tolerance can create. This challenge uses and facilities not available, or only partially must be considered when selecting residents, as available, in private living spaces. Although should the different goals and living concepts ownership brings security and social status, it within an existing building. In the long term, also carries its own risks. Non-profit organizastrong homogeneity can lead to instability, par- tions can create housing security and trust among ticularly as generations change, since the use residents by means of ownership shares and layering of shared spaces requires a diverse poprights of use. Flexible housing use is also being ulation that utilizes them at different times driven by digitization and, in some cases, is of day and for different functions. Careful atten- already considered more important than ownertion must be paid to different tenant groups’ ship. ^ In our post-modern society, characterized demands and negotiation processes regarding by constant changes in working and living cirthe use layering of shared spaces if collective cumstances, housing flexibility and mobility are living models are to become a more widely estab- often valued more highly than home ownership, lished component of rental housing rather which can be seen as a commitment and a burden. than remaining a niche product for very specific Mobility at work and in recreational activities user groups. also stimulates social mobility, which will have an Collective living has the potential to make 3 The study “Living Space to the new concept of an important contribution to social inclusion social return on investment in our demographically changing and diversifying Consumption and Living Space Needs” shows, ( S R OI ), a method of calcu­ societies. As demonstrated in recent multilation that emphasizes for example, that almost generational housing projects, the act of sharing social profitability and 10 percent of Swiss social benefits along with households claim to have housing can stimulate integration and exchange the maximization of too much living space. between older people, families with children, profit. For many, another The cause of this dichotomy and individuals by informally organizing mutual advantage of shared between living space housing is the reduction of consumption and actual support systems, providing neighborly help, equity, as organizational need is not income, and facilitating other community activities. forms such as building but other factors such as Urban living environments have the advantage of groups and cooperatives age and household compo­ being part of a dense infrastructure network enable occupation of sition. See Delbiaggio, housing to occur, in addi­ Wanzenried (2016): Wohn­ and offering not only a large and easily accessible tion to ownership or flächenkonsum und range of services and leisure facilities but also rent, through a third means: Wohnflächenbedarf, p. 49. a variety of possible neighbors. This urban diver- partial ownership. See 4 According to an inter­ sity can result in a fine network of collective also Fedrowitz, Gailing view with François (2003): Zusammen Wohnen, living relationships in which people interact and Höpflinger on 31 Mar. Gemeinschaftliche Wohn­ 2017. exchange help, services, and knowledge, a process projekte als Strategie 5 According to Fedrowitz, that supports and relieves individual residents sozialer und ökologischer the true economic potential Stadtentwicklung, p. 62; and enriches the experience of living together. % of collective living is and Schrader Stiftung (ed.) dif­f icult to quantify. Costs It also benefits municipalities, developers, (2008): Raus aus der for individual households and property managers, as the responsibility for Nische – rein in den Markt, are certainly reduced, designing coexistence and mutual support is pp. 16, 123. as not only can many things 6 However, according to be shared, but everyone at least partially self-organized and more widely the 2018 Credit Suisse reaps benefits from infor­ distributed. mal, volunteer, and selforganized work and assis­ tance. For some people, this can lighten their load, enabling them to hold a job or hire fewer external services, among other things. This has given rise

Youth Barometer, a signifi­ cant portion of 16- to 25-year-olds still want to own property.

306

Four Levels of Action: A Perspective

increasing impact on living environments in lective living. Residents have strengths and the future. Foregoing ownership is not popular weaknesses, as well as individual and collective only for economic reasons; particularly among needs, but in collective living all seek a reliable the younger generations, a lifestyle without structure within which to create a home for ownership opens up wider options and is linked themselves. “There are no commons without comto a social network that includes other residents. & mon action,” writes economist Elinor Ostrom, Sharing rather than owning not only noting that through their various social networks, leads to a more decentralized way of living, it also people have an inexhaustible reservoir of knowledge, experience, and formal and informal necessitates a new service-oriented residential rules that all can participate in. ! ) We just culture that responds to the increasing demand need to pay attention. for optimized access to shared areas and other intangible assets. Likely future developments of at least one segment of residential projects in­ 7 N ZZ am Sonntag clude social management and service on demand. * (28 Aug. 2016): “Gar nicht For property developers, the challenge will wie die Eltern”. be to provide access to various services at a low 8 Krosse (2005): Wohnen threshold. This trend towards expanded services ist mehr, p. 221. 9 Häußermann, Siebel and reduced personal facilities raises the ques- tion of whether a household is still needed at all (2000): Soziologie des Wohnens, Eine Einführung or whether the remaining household functions in Wandel und Ausdif­ ferenzierung des Wohnens, can be completely outsourced and professionalized. At the turn of the millennium, Häußermann p. 14. 10 Ostrom (2008): Was and Siebel were already wondering whether mehr wird, wenn wir apartments will even be necessary in the future. ( teilen, Vom gesellschaftli­ If all household activities are outsourced or dele- chen Wert der Gemein­ güter, p. 16. gated as services, living will become a complete consumer good. An apartment without any housework can no longer truly be called a household, and the outsourcing and profes­sionalization of an increasing number of functions will cause a continuing decline in the home’s functional importance. At the same time, other features will gain in significance, including the dwelling as a social unit, socio-psychological aspects, and the legal and economic power of having a home at one’s disposal. Collective living’s greatest potential lies in its promise of diversity. Living spaces that have broad functionality and attractive facilities, offer a range of residential units, and are inhabited by a multitude of different people characterize urban collective living, make it a vibrant expe­ rience, and create a diversity of housing qualities. Different people take on key roles in shaping col-

308

Index

A Aarhus, 148 access balcony, 225, 248 Acking, Carl Axel, 148 additional infrastructure, 12, 32, 115, 126, 133, 137, 140, 167, 221, 255, 297 Aegidienhof Housing Project, 210 Agren, Lars, 168, 179 Albers+Cerliani, 210 Albertslund, 210, 228 Alt-Erlaa Residential Area , 148 Amerikanerhaus, 86 Amersfoort, 235 Amsterdam, 60, 86, 198, 211, 275, 291 apartment building, 20, 77, 107, 133, 112, 114, 123, 125, 133, 137, 140, 145, 176, 179, 193, 243, 272, 295 Apartment for the Working Woman, 57, 60, 68 Arabella Tower, 61 arc Architects A G, 210 Arendt, Hanna, 16 Arosa Collective House, 60 Artaria, Paul, 60 Arts and Crafts movement, 124 Asplan Prosjekt AS , 210 Atelier 5, 148 Athens Charter, 145 B Backström, Sven, 61 Bahrdt, Hans Paul, 15 ban on concubinage, 145 BAR architekten, 211, 251 Barschtsch, M ., 105 Basel, 60, 198 bath and wash house, 54 Bauhaus, 124 Beaulieu Social Housing, 168 Bebel, August, 81 bed-renters and night lodgers, 31, 58, 61 beguinage, 29, 56, 210, 225 Behrens, Wilhelm, 60 Behrmann, Günther, 168

Berlin, 86, 90, 94, 128, 140, 148, 157, 168, 198, 210, 211, 225, 235, 251, 275, 280, 290, 291 Bern, 128, 148 Bijvanck Cohousing Residences, 168 B K K -2 Architects, 210, 220 Blenda Collective House, 210 boarder, 31 Boarding House, 20, 26, 56, 126, 146, 233, 274, 295, 298 Boarding House of the West, 60 Bofaellesskab Lange Eng, 210, 228 Borettslaget Friisgate 6, 210 Bortels, Dieter, 168 Boterenbrood, Jan, 60 bourgeois house, 29 Box 25, 168 Brahmshof, 210 Brakenhoff, Barbara P P L, 210, 225 Braun, Lily, 81, 87 Breslau, 56, 60, 72 Breslau Men’s and Women’s Hostel, 60, 72 bridge living, 263 Brisbane, Albert, 49 Britz Hufeisen Settlement, 128, 140 Brundtland Report, 207 Brussels, 275 building groups, 208, 295, 303 Bünzli Courvoisier Architects, 210 C cabinet kitchen, 72 cafeteria, 27, 106, 107, 152, 179, 188, 241, 256, 293 Carlsro Collective Housing, 148 Carpaneto, Silvia, 325, 251 CAS A architects, 211 celibacy requirement, 59 Centraal Wonen, 168, 183, 235 central kitchen, 27, 44, 47, 58, 81, 87, 90, 94, 97, 103, 129

309

Central-Kitchen House, 27, flex room, 116, 193, 251 Hannauer, Karel, 60 cultural center, 221 44, 58, 76, 81, 86, 87, Floors, Dolf, 235 Happy Pigeons, 275 cupboard kitchen, 64, 97 90, 94, 97, 126, 146, 149, Fourier, Charles, 41, 49, Hardturm Settlement, 210 Czech, Hermann, 296 166, 221, 294, 298 120 Hartsuyker-Curjel, Luzia, Charlottenburg Men’s Francisco Saenz de Oiza, 168 D Darmstadt, 210 Hostel, 60 Javier, 148 Hässelby Family Hotel, 148 daycare, 98, 113, 133, 152, Chermayeff, Serge, 16 Franck, Dorothea, 16 Hauge & Kornerup-Bang, 179, 188, 234, 251 Christensen, Ove, 148 Franck, Georg, 16 148 De Hilversum Meent CI AM, 57, 145 Frankfurt am Main, 57, 60 Häußermann, Hartmut, 11, Cohousing Settlement, cinema, 228, 291 Frankfurt kitchens, 84 306 168 Cité Napoleon, 46 Fuglsangpark Settlement, Heimhof Central-Kitchen de Jonge, Leo, 168 Cluster Apartment, 21, 33, 168 House, 86, 94 decentralized housing, 115, 58, 115, 121, 192, 232, fully collectivized housing, Heizenholz Mulitgenera­ 192, 272, 306 235, 243, 251, 263, 268, 102 tional Housing, 235, 243 Delft, 235, 236 272, 295, 298, 300 Helsinki, 211 dining room, 27, 30, 52, Coates, Wells, 60, 76 G Gailhoustet, Renée, 148 Hemgården Central-Kitchen 62, 87, 90, 94, 96, Cohabs Botanique, 275 Galli Rudolf Architects, 211 House, 86 113, 169, 176, 180, 209, Cohousing, 38, 165, 168, Galmiche, Robain, Laval, Hermkes, Bernhard, 60 212, 221, 228, 241, 176, 183, 228, 235 168 Hertzberger, Herman, 16 256, 280 Co-Living, 21, 33, 36, 59, Gantenbein, Stefan, 235, Het Hallehuis Cohousing Dolphin Square Boarding 115, 120, 192, 272, 275, 240 Settlement, 235 House, 61 276, 284, 295, 298 Garden City, 20, 123, 128, Het Nieuwe Huis CentralDorte Mandrup A / S , 210, 228 collective circulation area, 129, 133, 137 Kitchen House, 86 Dreieck Refurbishment, 44, 129, 157, 160, 284 Gårdsåkra Future Living, Hlaveniczka, Kurt, 148 210, 216 collective residence, 168 Hoff, Poul Ernst, 148 Dübendorf, 235, 262 105, 106, 107, 149, 152, Garvergården Housing Hofmann, Rainer, 235 Dubrulle, Roland, 148 179 Estate, 148 Høje Søborg Collective Duisburg, 128 Cologne New City, 235 gaupenraub+/-, 235, 248 House, 148, 152 dumbwaiter, 76, 82, 87, Communal Households, German Democratic Höjer & Ljungquist, 168 90, 97 225, 232, 248, 263, Republic ( GD R ), 187 Home for Working Giesserei Multi­g enerational Duplex Architects, 235 274, 289 Women, 60 House, 211 communal kitchen, 35, Homesgarth House, 128, Ginzburg, Moisej, 105, 107 166, 173, 176, 228, 248, E Edelaar Mosayebi Inder­ 129 Gloor, Vera, 235 bitzin Architects AG, 235 276, 280, 297 Höpflinger, François, 300, Edvars, Jes, 168, 176 Glück, Harry, 148 commune, 289 304 Ehn, Karl, 128, 37 Godin, Jean-Baptiste, 46, Community Households, House for the New Way einszueins Architecture, 52 21, 32, 115, 120, 192, of Life, 105 211 Gothenburg, 168, 179 220, 232, 235, 241, 243, Housing and Culture Ekman, Fritiof, 86 Gottwaldov, 148 256, 268, 272, 295, 298 Projects, 21, 167, 192, Elfvinggården Collective Grod, Caspar Maria, 128 Community Settlements, 205, 210, 232, 296, 298 House, 61 Gudmand-Hoyer, Jan, 20, 44, 112, 144, 148, Houtwijk Cohousing Engels, Friedrich, 41 168, 176 160, 164, 295, 298 Residences, 168, 183 Engkvist, Olle, 86, 148 guest room, 17, 115, 183, concrete, 289 Howard, Ebenezer, entrance hall, 72, 115, 160 194, 195, 209, 212, Conjunto Residential 120, 123, 129, 207 Enzmann Fischer Partner, 234, 241 Tower, 148, 157 Huizen, 168 235, 268 Guise, 46, 52 cooperative, 20, 42, 122, Hunziker Areal, 235 Eslöv, 168 Guyer, Lux, 60, 64 124, 195, 204, 207 Essen, 128, 133 Cooperative Living, 21, 32, I Ilonen, Pia, 211 Immeuble-Villas, 86 event hall, 221, 248 H Habitation bon marché 112, 147, 164, 168, 234, Ingold, Otto, 128 expanded circulation area, des Amiraux, 128 295, 298, 300 Isokon Building, 60, 76 112, 115 ,176, 300 Haerle Hubacher Archi­ Copenhagen, 46, 86, 87, tects, 235 148, 152, 168, 228 J Jacobsen, Arne, 148 Hagström, Georg, 86 courtyard, 44, 52, 94, 113, F Fahrländer+Fries Arch, 210 Jadot, Lionel, 275 Familistère, 46, 52 Halen Settlement, 148 115, 129, 137, 140, 183, Jan Lundqvist Arkitekter Färdknäppen Collective hall apartment, 268 216, 221, 228, 256, 262 A B, 210, 212 House, 210, 212 hall kitchen, 109 Courtyard Apartment Janssen, H.W.M . , 168, 169 Farum, 168 Hamburg, 60, 61, 168, 172 Buildings, 20, 112, 123, Jeeves, Gordon, 61 fatkoehl architects, 235, 128, 145, 294, 298 Jernstoberiet Cohousing 251 co-working, 193, 202, Settlement , 168, 176 Fick, Otto, 86, 87 280, 284 John Ericsonsgatan Collec­ fitness area, 27, 153, 193, tive House, 86, 97 212, 234, 252

310

Index

K Kalesa, Robert, 128 Rennes, 210 New Harmony, 46, 47 Living with Children, 168 Kalkbreite Residential and Requat & Reinthaller & New Lanark, 46, 47 lobby, 27, 77 Commercial Building, 235 Partner, 148 New Objectivity, 112 London, 46, 60, 61, Kanzlei Seen Housing restaurant, 12, 27, 62, 65, Niemeyer, Oscar, 148, 157 76, 129, 148, 211, 275, Association, 235 72, 77, 98, 133, 137, Noark AB , 210 284 non-family, 32, 167, 193, Karl-Marx-Hof, 128, 136 149, 152, 194, 221, 248, lounge, 62, 72, 176, 209, 196, 198 Karthago Community 256, 284 226, 236, 273, 284, 300 non-profit developer, 207 Households, 235, 240 Ritzer, Ritz, 235 Lübeck, 210 nuclear family, 20, 29, kindergarten, 91, 94, ro*sa Women’s Living Lydia House, 60 32, 56, 84, 113, 165, 187, 98, 173, 140, 149, 173, Project, 211 192, 198, 295, 304 221 Roberts, Henry, 46 M M.B . Bindesbøll, 46 Madrid, 148 kitchen garden, 127, 136, Robin Hood Gardens, 148 Margarethenhöhe Company O occupy movement, 273 140 rooftop terrace, 90, 94, Housing Settlement, Older Women’s kitchenette, 76, 107, 193, 107, 157, 216, 220, 225, 128, 133 Cohousing, 211 233, 241, 252, 263, 248, 252 Marieberg Collective One-Room Apartment for 276, 280, 297, 300 Roskilde, 168, 176 House, 86 the Working Woman, Klintegården Collective rue intérieur, 113, 115, 157, Markelius, Sven, 86, 97 60, 68 House, 148 160, 183, 256 Marseille, 148, 275 open-use floor, 146, 166, Klophaus, Rudolf, 60 rue-galerie, 49 Marx, Karl, 41 169, 179 Köb & Pollak Archi­t ecture, Measures, Harry Bell, 60 Opfikon, 235 211 S Sargfabrik Housing and meeting room, 20, 47, Oslo, 210 Koch site, 309 Cultural Project, 210, 220 Sarrazin, Charles, 128 126, 209, 234 Osterman, Nathan, 105 Kollegiet Sofiegården, 168 satellite apartment, 232 Men’s and Women’s Ostrom, Elinor, 37, 306 Kommunalki, 201 sauna, 113, 179, 183, 193, Hostel, 20, 26, 32, 56, Ourcq Blanc, 275 Krabbendam, Flip, 235, 212, 221, 276 60, 65, 68, 72, 76, outdoor living space, 140 236 Savage, Frédéric, 128 126, 129, 146, 166, 233, Overvecht-Noord, 168, 169 Kreuzberg Beguinage, Scharoun, Hans, 60, 72 294, 298, 300 Owen, Robert, 41, 46, 47 210, 225 Schmidbauer, Toby, 61 Messel, Alfred, 128 Oy, Talli, 211 Kuhn, Fischer and Partner, Schmidt, Hans, 60 Metron Architects A G , 210 148, 160 Schnabel, Fried, 168 P Pahl, Ray, 273 Kuzmich, Franz, 168 Metzendorf, Georg, 128, Schneider Studer Primas, Paris, 46, 128, 148, 275 133 235, 262 partial open-use floor, L La Petite Maison, 210 Metzleinstaler Courtyard Schoch, August, 60 166, 169 Lægeforeninges Boliger Apartments, 128 school, 47, 52, 113, 133, Phalanstère, 46, 49 Social Housing Project, Milinis, Ignatij, 105, 107 140, 188 photo lab, 113, 179, 193, 46, 186 M IN M A X Residential and Schütte-Lihotzky, 212 Lander, Clapham, 128, 129 Commercial Building, 235 Margarete, 60, 68, 84 Planungsbüro faktor 10, Landskronagruppen, 168 Mischen Possible, 211 Schwank, Otto, 86 210 large families, 107, 172 monastery, 14, 29, 56 Schwimmer, Rosika, 81 Plattenbau Studio, 275 Large Housing Complexes, S E HW Architecture, 275 Moscow, 102, 105, 107 playroom, 116, 149, 20, 26, 41, 47, 129, 296 seminar room, 193, Müller Sigrist Architects, 169, 173, 176, 228 launderette, 52, 94, 137, P LP Architecture, 275, 284 221, 297 235, 255 193, 216 Poitiers, 168 Sergent, Luc, 295 multi-family, 32, 193, 196 laundry room, 62, 107, Polak-Hellwig, Otto, 86, 94 service desk, 234 multi-generational living, 160, 173, 176, 179, 212, Pollard, Thomas Edwards, Service House, 86, 87 33, 167, 243, 296, 305 225, 236, 248, 252, 284 211 service, 10, 20, 27, 32, 56, multi-local living, 115, Lawn Road Flats, 26 Pool Architecture ZT, 275, 62, 65, 77, 82, 87, 91, 198, 202, 301 Le Corbusier, 86, 104, 148, 276 94, 98, 113, 149, 153, Munich, 60, 68, 235 157 Poolhaus, 275, 276 165, 179, 193, 233, 255, music room, 116, 183, 193, Leningrad, 102 Poulsen, Alex, 148 272, 284, 297, 305 209, 241, 243, 252 Letchworth, 128, 129 Prague, 60 sewing room, 176 Muthesius, Herman, 86, 90 Lettenhof Women’s Proskauer Straße shared bathroom, 27, 103 Myrdal, Alva, 97 Colony, 60, 64 Residential Complex, 128 shared bedroom, 47, 52, library, 47, 52, 107, 137, 62, 65, 103, 113, 236, 169, 212, 228, 263, 280, N Narkomfin Collective Q Quarters, 275 241, 297 Residence, 105, 107 284, 291 shared kitchen, 20, 31, 113, Naqvi, Yasmin, 275 Lichtenrade Family R reading room, 27, 62 166, 173, 177, 179, 193, Neufrankengasse MultiResidences, 168 Red Monasterie, 289 216, 221, 225, 228, 236, Family Apartments, 235 Lichterfelde-West CentralRed Vienna, 124, 136 248, 256, 273, 276, Neuwil Housing Estate, Kitchen House, 86, 90 Rehhoffstraße Men’s 284, 290, 297 148, 160 Lind, Sven Ivar, 86 Hostel, 60, 61 shared office, 193, 241, Linköping, 168 Reinius, Leif, 61 243, 256, 268 Live Zoku, 275 Rémy, Samuel, 275

311

sharing economy, 21, 233, Winterthur, 211, 235 The Babel Community, 275 273 Wlach, Oskar, 86 The Collective Old Oak, sideboard, 87, 90 Wladimorow, W., 105 275, 284 Siebel, Walter, 275, 284 Wohlen, 148, 160 The Hague, 168, 183 Siebertz, Lutz, 210, 225 Wohlgroth site, 291 theater, 52, 256 single family, 30, 33, 133, WohnSinn1, 210 Thorball, Stephensen, 148 176, 200 Women’s Community Tila Residential Building, single-person household, House, 60 211 33, 196, 198, 201 workshop and craft room, Torres Blancas, 148 sleeping alcove, 94, 107 113, 116, 152, 160, 173, Tour Raspail, 148 smf Architects, 210 176, 179, 193, 209, 212, Trachsel, Franz, 128 Smithson, Alison, 148 221, 228, 234, 243, 248 transitional commune, 102, Smithson, Peter, 148 Wosenilek, J., 148 107 Sobolev, Ivan N., 105, 106 Wurnig, Martin, 168 social room, 27 U Uhl, Ottokar, 168 Sophie Laisne Architecte, Ungers, Oswald Mathias, Y Y K -Huset Collective House, 148, 149 210 235 youth commune, 102, 290 Soviet Union, 102, 188, Unité d’Habitation, 104, 290 148, 157 Z Zlin Collective Housing, 148 Spille, Rolf, 168, 172 Uppsala, 210 Zollhaus Residential and Spiro, Annette, 235, 240 utopian socialists, 20, Commercial Building, split-level, 72, 107 26, 41, 82, 123, 207, 295 235, 268 Spreefeld Settlement, 235, Utrecht, 168, 169 zu Putlitz, Erich, 60 251 Zurich, 60, 64, 81, 86, 198, V van den Niewen Amstel, squatting, 204, 289 205, 210, 216, 235, Barend, 86 Stacken Collective House, 240, 243, 255, 268, 291 van Eyck, Aldo, 16 168 Zwicky Süd Settlement, Van Wijngaarden, Andries, Stark, Albin, 148, 149 235, 262 168, 183 Steilshoop Living Model, Veugny, Marie-Gabriel, 46 168, 172 Vicenz, Ernst, 60 Stepanowitsch Melnikow, Vienna, 86, 94, 124, 128, Konstantin, 105 136, 148, 168, 204, 210, Stockholm, 61, 86, 97, 148, 220, 235, 248, 245, 276 149, 210, 212, 275, 280 Vienna Housing Project, Stolplyckan Collective and 211 Service House, 168 VinziRast-mittendrin, Storesund Arkitekter, 275, 235, 248 280 Vrijburcht Residential and Streatham Street Blooms­ Work Complex, 211 bury, 46 Streich, Adrian, 235, 243 W wagnis A RT Housing Stücheli Architects, 210 Project, 235 studio, 153, 193, 209, 221, Walter, Rudolf, 60 243, 248, 256, 262, Wagner, Martin, 128, 140 280, 297 washing room, 20, 193 Svedberg, Hillevi, 148, 149 washing station, 137 swimming pool, 52, 193, Wedau Railway Company 221, 234, 276 Housing Settlement, 128 Weeda, Pieter, 168 T Tanthof Cohousing Weimar Republic, 124 Settlement, 235, 236 Weissensteingut Railway Taut, Bruno, 128, 140 Company Housing tea kitchen, 115, 160, 173, Settlement, 128 212 Werkbund, 57, 72, 124, Tech Farm K 9, 275, 280 Tegnestuen Vandkunsten, 133 168 white room, 193 tenement building, 26, 42 Whitechapel Rowton tenement block, 31 House, 60 terrasse commune, 115, Whole House, 15, 29, 41 244 Widmer, Hans ( P. M .), 120, 207 Windinge, Bennet, 148, 152

312

Bibliography

Reference books, monographs A — Ackerknecht, Dieter et al. (1972): Kommune und Grossfamilie, Dokumente – Programme – Probleme, Bern: Paul Haupt. — —Alexander, Christopher; Ishikawa, Sara; Silverstein, Murray; Czech, Hermann (eds.) (1995): Eine MusterSprache, Vienna: Löcker Verlag. — —Altenstraßer, Christina; Hauch, Gabriella; Kepplinger, Hermann (2007): gender housing – geschlechtergerechtes bauen, wohnen, leben, Inns­ bruck: Studien Verlag. — —amantine (2011): Gender und Häuserkampf, Münster: UN R AST Verlag. — —Arendt, Hanna (1981): Vita acitva oder Vom tätigen Leben, Munich: Piper. B — Bahner, Olaf; Böttger, Matthias (Eds.) (2016): Neue Standards, zehn Thesen zum Wohnen, Berlin: Jovas. — —Bahrdt, Hans-Paul (1966): Wege zur Soziologie, Munich: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung. — —Bahrdt, Hans-Paul (1998): Die moderne Groß­ stadt – Soziologische Überlegungen zum Städte­ bau, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. — —Barbey, Gilles (1984): Wohnhaft, Essay über die innere Geschichte der Massenwohnung, Sozial­ geschichte, Wohnungs­ geschichte, Wiesbaden: Vieweg und Sohn. — —Bärsch, Jürgen; Brech, Joachim (1993): Das Ende der Normalität im Woh­ nungs- und Städtebau – Thematische Begegnungen mit Klaus Novy, Darmstadt: Verlag für wissenschaft­ liche Publikationen. — —Bartmann, Christoph (2016): Die Rückkehr der Diener, Das neue Bür­ gertum und sein Personal, Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag.

— —Baumgartner, Michael (2013): Zukunft des Woh­ nens, Kelkheim: Zukunfts­ institut GmbH. — —Bebel, August (1878): Die Frau und der Sozialis­ mus, Stuttgart: Dietz. — —Becker, Annette; Kien­ baum, Laura; Ring, Kirsten; Schmal, Peter (eds.) (2015): Bauen und Wohnen in Gemeinschaft, Ideen, Prozesse, Architektur, Basel: Birkhäuser. — —Benevolo, Leonardo (1971): Die sozialen Ursprünge des modernen Städtebaus, Lehren von gestern – Forderungen für morgen, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Fachverlag. — —Bertels, Lothar (1990): Gemeinschaftsformen in der modernen Stadt, Obladen: Leske Verlag. — —Bertels, Lothar (ed.) (2008): Stadtgespräche, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. — —Besser, Jutta (2010) Zusammen ist man weniger allein – Alternative Wohn­ projekte für Jung und Alt, Mannheim: Patmos Verlag. — —Bollerey, Franziska (1974): Architekturkonzeptionen der Utopischen Sozialisten, Berlin: Freie Universität. — —Braun, Lily (1901, reprint 1979) Die Frauen­f rage, Ihre geschichtliche Entwick­ lung und ihre wirtschaft­ liche Seite, Berlin: Verlag J . H.W Dietz Nachf. GmbH. — —Brech, Joachim (ed.) (1989): Neue Wohnformen in Europa, Berichte des 4. Internationalen Wohnbund Kongresses, Vienna: Verlag für Wissenschaftliche Publikationen. — —Breckner, Ingrid; Schauber, Antje; Schmals, Klaus M. (1981): Soziologie des Wohnens, Munich: Sozialforschungsinstitut. — —Bürgerverein Hansa­ viertel e.V. (ed.) (2015): Hansaviertel Berlin, Architekturführer zur Inter­ bau 57, Berlin: Bürger­ verein Hansaviertel e.V.

313

— —Bürgi, Hanspeter; Gallner D — Döllmann, Peter; Temel, — —Freisitzer, Kurt; Koch, — —Häußermann, Hartmut; Simon (eds.) (2015): Robert; Uhl, Ottokar (1987): Siebel, Walter (2000): Robert (eds.) (2002): Smart Sharing, Architektur Mitbestimmung im Wohn­ Soziologie des Wohnens, Lebenslandschaften, Zu­ und Technik, Raum und bau, ein Handbuch, Eine Einführung in Wandel künftiges Wohnen im Ressourcen: Mehr als ein Vienna: Picus Verlag. und Ausdifferenzierung Schnittpunkt zwischen Projekt für den Solar — —French, Hilary (2008): des Wohnens, Munich: privat und öffentlich, Decathlon, Lucerne: Quart Key Urban Housing of Juventa Verlag. Frankfurt/New York: Cam­ Verlag. the Twentieth Century, Plans, — —Hertzberger, Herman; pus Verlag. — —Burke, David (2014): The Sections and Elevations, van Vlijmen, Marieke Lawn Road Flats, Spies, London: Laurence King (1995): Das Unerwartete E — Eberle, Dietmar; Glaser, Writers and Artists, Wood­ Publishing. überdacht: Herman Marie Antoinette (2009): bridge: The Boydell Press. — —Frick, Karin; Hauser, Hertzberger, Projekte 1990– Wohnen, im Wechselspiel — —Buschfeld, Ben (2015): Mirjam; Gürtler, Detlef 1995, Rotterdam: Verlag zwischen öffentlich und Bruno Taut‘s Hufeisensied­ (2008): Sharity, Die Zukunft 010 Publishers. privat, Sulgen: Niggli Verlag. lung, Berlin: Nicolaische des Teilens, Rüschlikon, — —Hilti, Nicola (2013): — —Eisen, Markus (2012): Verlagsbuchhandlung Zurich: GD I Gottlieb Dutt­ Lebenswelten multilokal Vom Ledigenheim zum weiler Institute. GmbH. Wohnender, Wiesbaden: Boardinghouse, Bautypo­ Springer V S . logie und Gesellschafts­ — —Hofer, Andreas; Schmid, C — Caduff, Christian; Kuster, theorie bis zum Ende der G — Genossenschaft Dreieck (ed.) (1997): Das Dreieck Peter; Sonderegger, Alfons Jean-Pierre (2000): Weg­ Weimarer Republik, Berlin: 1997– 2057, Erneuerung (2008): Wohnen morgen, weisend wohnen, Gemein­ Gebr. Mann Verlag. eines städtischen Lebens­ Standortbestimmung und nütziger Wohnungsbau — —Elias, Norbert Oliver raumes in Zürich Aussersihl, Perspektiven des gemeinnüt­ im Kanton Zürich an der (1969): Die höfische Gesell­ Zurich: unknown. zigen Wohnungsbaus, Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhun­ schaft, Darmstadt: — —Genossenschaft Kalk­ Zurich: Verlag Neue Zürcher dert, Zurich: Scheidegger Suhrkamp Taschenbuch. breite (ed.) (2015): Zeitung. und Spiess. — —Elser, Oliver; Rieper, Kalkbreite, ein neues Stück — —Howard, Ebenezer (1898): — —Cantacuzino, Şerban Michael; Künstlerhaus Wien Stadt, Zurich: Genossen­ To-morrow: A Peaceful Path (1978): Wells Coates: (eds.) (2008): Wohn­ schaft Kalkbreite. to Real Reform, London: A Monograph, London: modelle, Experiment und — —Gerheuser, Frohmut; unknown. Fraser. Alltag, Vienna: FolioSchumann, Carola (1981): — —Huber, Andreas (ed.) — —Chan-Magomedow, Verlag. Kommunikatives Wohnen, (2008): Neues Wohnen Selim O. (1983): Pioniere — —Engels, Friedrich (1872, Brugg-Windisch: Metron in der zweiten Lebenshälfte, der sowjetischen Archi­ Berlin edition 2013): Planungsgrundlagen. Basel: Birkhäuser. tektur, Der Weg zur neuen Zur Wohnungsfrage, — —Gilg, Mark; Schaeppi, — —Hugentobler, Margrit; sowjetischen Architektur Leipzig: Der Volksstaat. Werner (2007): Lebens­ Hofer, Andreas; Simmen­ in den zwanziger und zu räume, Auf der Suche nach dinger, Pia (eds.) (2016): Beginn der dreißiger Jahre, F — Fester, Marc; Kraft, zeitgemässem Wohnen, Mehr als Wohnen. Genossen­ Dresden: VEB Verlag der Sabine; Metzner, Elke Kunst Dresden. Sulgen/Zurich: Verlag schaftlich planen – ein (1983): Raum für soziales — —Chermayeff, Serge; Niggli A G . Modellfall aus Zürich, Basel: Leben, Karlsruhe: Müller — —Grütter, Heinrich Theodor Alexander, Christopher Birkhäuser. Verlag. (ed.) (2014): Die Garten­ (1972): Gemeinschaft — —Hugentobler, Margrit; — —Fezer, Jesko; Hiller, stadt Margarethenhöhe, und Privatbereich im neuen Otto, Ulrich (2017): “Gemein­ Christiane; Nehmer, Architektur und Geschichte, Bauen, Mainz: Florian schaftliche Wohnformen für Alexandra; Oswalt, Philipp Essen: Klartext Verlag. Kupferberg Verlag. die zweite Lebenshälfte – (2015): Kollektiv für sozia­ — —Chmelnizki, Dmitrij Qualitäten im Kanton listisches Bauen, Proletari­ H — Habraken, John N . (1961): (2007): Die Architektur Zürich”. In Sinning, Heidi sche Bauausstellung, Die Träger und die Stalins – Studien zu Ideo­ (ed.): Altersgerecht Wohnen Berlin: Haus der Kulturen. Menschen, The Hague: logie und Stil, Stuttgart: und Leben im Quartier, — —Förster, Wolfgang; Arch-Edition. Ibidem Verlag. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer. Menking, William (eds.) — —Haider, Ernst (1984): — —Claus, Sylvia; Huber, — —Hunger, Matthias (2003): (2018): Das Wiener Modell 2, Wohngemeinschaften in Dorothee; Schnitter, Beate Sozialistisches Wohnkon­ Wohnbau für die Stadt Österreich, Daten und (2013): Lux Guyer (1894– zept und Wohnungsbau in des 21. Jahrhunderts, Berlin: JOV IS Verlag. Tendenzen einer gegenkul­ 1955). Architektin, Zurich: der DRR – Das Beispiel Halle-Neustadt, Hamburg: — —Fourier, Charles (1966): turellen «Institution», gta Verlag. Theorie der vier Bewe­ Diplomica GmbH. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. — —Cramer, Johannes; gungen und der allgemeinen — —Harlander, Tilman; Kuhn, Zalivkako, Anke (1971): Das I — Id22: Institut für kreative Bestimmungen, Frankfurt Gerd; Wüstenrot Stiftung Narkomfin-Kommunehaus Nachhaltigkeit Berlin am Main: Europäische Ver­ (2012): Soziale Mischung in in Moskau 1918–2012, (ed.) (2012): CoHousing lagsanstalt. der Stadt, Case Studies, Petersburg: Michael Imhof Cultures, Handbuch für — —Franck, Georg; Franck, Wohnungspolitik in Europa, Verlag. selbstorganisiertes, gemein­ Dorothea (2008): Historische Analyse, — —Cyprian, Gudrun (1978): schaftliches und nach­ Archi­t ektonische Qualität, Stuttgart: Krämer Verlag. Sozialisation in Wohn­ haltiges Wohnen, Berlin: Munich: Carl Hanser — —Hartmann, Monika gemeinschaften, eine empi­ Jovis Verlag. Verlag. (1978): Selber und gemein­ rische Untersuchung ihrer sam planen, bauen, strukturellen Bedingungen, wohnen, Munich: selfStuttgart: Ferdinand Enke published. Verlag.

314

Bibliography

J — Jahn, Harald A. (2014): Das Wunder des Roten Wien, Zwischen Wirtschafts­ krise und Art Deco, Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.

— —Philippsen, Christine — —Lindegren Westermann, N — Nerdinger, Winfried (2014): Soziale Netzwerke (ed.): L‘architecture enga­ Ann (2010): Arkitekterna in gemeinschaftlichen gée: Manifeste zur Ver­ Albin Stark och Erik Stark, Wohnprojekten, Berlin: änderung der Gesellschaft, Stockholm i förvandling Budrich UniPress. Munich: Institut für 1909–2009, Stockholm: — —P. M. (1983): bolo‘bolo, ­i nternationale ArchitekturArkitektur Förlag. Zurich: Paranoia City Verlag. K — Korczak, Dieter (1979): Dokumentation. — —Lüchinger, Arnulf (2000): — —P. M. , Wolkenstein, Neue Formen des Zusam­ — —Neue Gesellschaft für 2-Komponenten-Bauweise, Didymos, Reyneclod (1985): menlebens, Erfolge und Bildende Kunst (ed.) The Hague: Arch-Edition. Stauffacher, Aussersihl, über Schwierigkeiten des Experi­ (1977): Wem gehört die die inventiven Kräfte der ments Wohngemeinschaft, M — McCamant, Kathryn; Welt – Kunst und Gesell­ neuen Weltgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Durret, Charles (1994): Co­ schaft in der Weimarer Zurich: Verlag der Inven­ — —Krebs, Diethart (ed.) housing: A Contemporary Republik, Berlin: N G B K . — —Nierhaus, Irene; Nierhaus, tiven Kräfte. (1970): Die hedonistische Approach to Housing Our­ Andreas (eds.) (2014): Linke – Beiträge zur Sub­ selves, Berkeley, California: Wohnen zeigen, Modelle R — Reichardt, Sven (2014): kultur-Debatte, Berlin: The Speed Press. und Akteure des Wohnens in Authentizität und Gemein­ Luchterhand Verlag. — —Mersmann, Arno; Novy, Architektur und visueller schaft, Berlin: Suhrkamp. — —Kries, Mateo; Müller, Klaus (1991): Gewerk­ Kultur, Bielefeld: Transcript — —Reppé, Susanne Mathias; Niggli, Daniel; schaften, Genossenschaften, Verlag. (1993): Der Karl-Marx-Hof, Ruby, Andreas; Ruby, Ilka Gemeinwirtschaft, Hat — —Niethammer, Lutz (ed.) Vienna: Picus Verlag. (eds.) (2017): Together! eine Ökonomie der Soli­d a­r i­ (1979): Wohnen im Wandel, — —Richter, Claire (1919): Die Neue Architektur der tät eine Chance?, Cologne: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Das Ökonomiat, Hauswirt­ Gemeinschaft, Weil Bund-Verlag. Alltags in der bürgerlichen schaftlicher Grossbetrieb am Rhein: Vitra Design — —Metzendorf, Rainer Gesellschaft, Wuppertal: als Selbst­z weck, Berlin: Museum. (1994): Georg Metzendorf, Peter Hammer Verlag. G. Reimer. — —Krosse, Susanne (2005): 1874–1934, Siedlungen — —Novy, Klaus (1983): Ge­ — —Ring, Kirsten (ed.) Wohnen ist mehr, Frankfurt und Bauten, Darmstadt: nossenschafts-Bewegung. (2013): Self Made City, am Main: Lang. Hessische Historische Zur Geschichte und Zukunft Berlin, Stadtgestaltung und — —Kuchenbuch, David Kommission. der Wohnreform, Berlin: Wohnprojekte in Eigen­ (2010): Geordnete Gemein­ — —Meyer-Ehlers, Grete; Transit Buchverlag. initiative, Berlin: Jovis schaft – Architekten als Haußknecht, Meinhold; Verlag. Sozialingenieure, Deutsch­ Rughöft, Sigrid (1973): Kol­ O — Ostrom, Elinor (2008): — —Ring, Kirsten (ed.) land und Schweden im lektive Wohnformen, Was mehr wird, wenn wir (2015): Urban Living, Berlin: 20. Jahrhundert, Bielefeld: Erfahrungen, Vorstellungen, teilen – vom gesellschaft­ Jovis Verlag. transcript Verlag. Raumbedürfnisse in Wohn­ lichen Wert der Gemein­ — —Rudberg, Eva (1989): — —Kurz, Daniel (Ed.) (2003): gemeinschaften, Wohn­ güter, Munich: Oekom Sven Markelius, arkitekt, Metron: Planen und Bauen gruppen und Wohnverbän­ Verlag. Stockholm: Architektur 1965–2003, Zurich: G TA den, Wiesbaden: Verlag, E TH Hönggerberg. — —Owen, Robert (1813): Förlag. Bauverlag. A New View of Society, — —Miller, Mervyn (1989): L — LaFond, Michael; London: unknown. S — Schader-Stiftung (ed.) Letchworth, The First Garden Tsvertkova, Larisa (eds.) (2001): wohn:wandel, City, Sussex: Phillimore. (2017): CoHousing Inclu­s ive, Szenarien, Prognosen, — —Mitscherlich, Alexander P — Pätzold, Ricarda; SeidelSelbstorganisiertes, ge­ Schulze, Antje; Jekel, Optio­n en zur Zukunft des (1965): Die Unwirtlichkeit meinschaftliches Wohnen Gregor (2014): Neues Woh­ Wohnens, Darmstadt: unserer Städte, Anstiftung für alle, Berlin: Jovis nen – gemeinschaftliche Schader-Stiftung. zum Unfrieden, Frankfurt Verlag. Wohnformen bei Genossen­ — —Schittich Christian (2012): am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. schaften, Bonn: Bundes­ — —Lamm, Staffan (2006): Wohnen, best of housing, — —Möbius, Thomas (2012): institut für Bau-, Stadt- und Das Kollektivhaus, Frankfurt Munich: Detail. Russische Sozialutopien von Raumforschung. am Main: S. Fischer. — —Schneider, Nicole; Spel­ Peter I. bis Stalin, Histo­ — —Pavillon de l’Arsenal — —Lauri, Tomas; Bunde­ lerberg, Annette (1999): rische Konstellationen und (ed.) (2018): Homy – gaard, Christian; Mandrup, Lebensstile, Wohnbedürf­ Bezüge, Berlin: Lit Verlag. Coliving Cohabiter, Paris: Dorte (2015): Dorte nisse und räumliche Mobili­ — —Muscheler, Ursula Éditions du Pavillon de Mandrup Arkitekter, Stock­ tät, Obladen: Leske +  (2007): Haus ohne Augen­ l‘Arsenal. holm: Arvinius + Orfeus Budrich. brauen, Architekturge­ — —Petsch, Joachim (1989): Publishing. — —Schneider, Romana; schichte aus dem 20. Jahr­ Eigenheim und gute Stube, Nerdinger, Winfried; Wand, hundert, Munich: Verlag C .H . Beck. Zur Geschichte des Wilfried (eds.) (2000): — —Müschen, Klaus (1982): bürgerlichen Wohnens, Deutschland, Architektur im Lieber lebendig als normal! Cologne: Dumont. 20. Jahrhundert, Munich: Selbstorganisation, kol­ — —Peuckert, Rüdiger (2012): Prestel. lektive Lebensformen und Familienformen im sozi­ — —Schuh, Jürgen (1989): alternative Ökonomie, alen Wandel, Wiesbaden: Kollektives Wohnen, Bensheim: Extra Buchverlag. Springer V S . Eine vergleichende Unter­ — —Museum für Gestaltung suchung in- und auslän­ Zürich (ed.) (1986): Das discher Beispiele, Kassel: andere neue Wohnen, Neue Verlag für wissenschaft­ Wohn(bau)formen, liche Publikationen. Zurich: Kunstgewerbe­ museum.

315

— —Schulz, Stefane; Schulz, — —Unger, Helga (2005): Die Carl-Georg (2008): Das Beginen – Eine Geschichte Hansaviertel, Ikone der von Aufbruch und Unter­ Moderne, Berlin: Verlags­ drückung der Frauen, Frei­ haus Braund. burg im Breisgau: Herder — —Schwimmer, Rosika Spektrum. (1909): Neue Heimkultur, — —Ungers, Oswald; Ungers, Zentralhaushaltung, Liselotte (1972): Kommunen Einküchenhaus, in Kultur in der Neuen Welt, 1740– und Fortschritt No. 281, 1971, Cologne: Kiepenheuer Leipzig: unknown. und Witsch. — —Siebel, Walter (ed.) (2004): Die europäische V — Vester, Michael; von Stadt, Frankfurt am Main: Oertzen, Peter; Geiling, Edition Suhrkamp. Heiko; Hermann, Thomas; — —Sieck, Annerose (2014): Müller, Dagmar (2001): Weiberwirtschaften – Soziale Milieus im gesell­ Gemeinschaftlich wohnen schaftlichen Struktur­ und leben auch im Alter, wandel, Zwischen Integra­ Vienna: Ueberreuter. tion und Ausgrenzung, — —Spellerberg, Annette Frankfurt am Main: Suhr­ (ed.) (2018): Neue Wohnfor­ kamp Taschenbuch. men – gemeinschaftlich — —Vollmer, Lisa (2019): und genossenschaftlich, Mieter_ innen-Bewegungen Erfolgsfaktoren im Entste­ in Berlin und New York, hungsprozess gemein­ Die Formierung politische schaftlichen Wohnens, Kollektivität, Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden: Springer V S . Springer V S . — —Spille, Rolf (1975): W — Weigel, Doris (1996): Mieter planen mit, Ham­ Die Einraumwohnung als burg: Rowohlt. räumliches Manifest der — —Stahel Thomas (2006): Moderne, Grenchen: Edition Wo-Wo-Wonige!, Zurich: Argaus. Fakultät der Universität — —Wohnbund (ed.) (2015): Zürich. Europa, Gemeinsam Wohnen, Berlin: Jovis T — Terlinden, Ulla; von Oertzen, Susanna (2006): Verlag. Die Wohnungsfrage ist — —Wüstenrot Stiftung (ed.) Frauensache! Frauenbewe­ (1999): Neue Wohnformen, gung und Wohnreform Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohl­ hammer. 1870 bis 1933, Berlin: Reimer. — —Trias, Stiftung; Schrader Stiftung (eds.) (2008): Raus aus der Nische – rein in den Markt, Darmstadt: Trias Stiftung. U — Unknown author (1986): Karthago, am Stauffacher, Zurich: Verlag der Inven­ tiven Kräfte. — —Uhlig, Günther (1981): Kollektivmodell «Einküchen­ haus» – Wohnreform und Architekturdebatte zwischen Frauenbewegung und Funktionalismus 1900– 1933, Berlin: Werkbund Archiv 6.

316

Bibliography

Studies and Research A — Aigner, Karin (2015): Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, eine Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, Graz: Technische Universität. — —Albers, Martin; Henz, Alexander; Jakob, Ursina (1988): Wohnungen für unterschiedliche Haushalt­ formen, Grenchen: Bundes­ amt für Wohnungswesen BWO . B — Baumann, Beat; Flury, Beat; Fust, Raoul Christian; Hohenacker, Tillmann (2012): Wohngemein­ schaften, ein Markt für In­ vestoren? Voraussetzungen und Rahmenbedingungen für ein neues Immobilienan­ lageprodukt. — —Bertlein, Reinhold F. (year unknown): Sieg und Untergang des Sozialen Wohnungsbaus in Holland. — —Brändle-Ströh, Markus (1999): Was braucht der Mensch zum Wohnen?, in SozialAktuell SBS . — —Breit, Stefan; Gürtler, Detlef (2018): Microliving, Urbanes Wohnen im 21. Jahrhundert, G DI Gott­ lieb Duttweiler Institute. — —Bundesamt für Woh­ nungswesen B WO (2015): Das Wohnungs-Bewer­ tungs-System WBS, Wohn­ bauten planen, beurteilen und vergleichen. — —Bundesamt für Woh­ nungswesen B WO (05|2016): Wohnforschung 2016–2019 Forschungs­ programm des Bundesamtes für Wohnungswesen. — —Bundesamt für Woh­ nungswesen B WO (2018): Sharing-Economy-Platt­ formen, Mögliche Auswir­ kungen auf den schwei­ zerischen Wohnungsmarkt.

K — Korczak, Dieter (1978): Wohnkollektive, Erschei­ nungsformen und Stabilität eines Familientypus, Cologne: Wirtschafts- und Sozial­w issenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität zu Köln. C — Crayen-Kugler von, Silvia — —Kraft, Reinhart (1993): (1948): Kollektiv wohnen? Mit den Pfunden wuchern. Eine Untersuchung über die — —Priesner, Tina (2015): Entwicklung der Kollektiv­ Ein kontemporärer Blick auf häuser in Stockholm, sowie das Einküchenhaus-Konzept. über den allgemeinen Ein­ fluss der Berufstätigkeit der F — Senatsverwaltung für schwedischen Frau auf Stadtentwicklung und Um­ die Entwicklung der Bau­ welt Berlin (ed.) (2012): tätigkeit, Geneva: CrayenIBA Berlin 2020, Besondere Kugler. Wohnformen. — —Skodborg, Lene (year un­ D — Delbiaggio, Katia; known): Kollektivhuset Høje Wanzenried, Gabrielle Søborg, kollektive islaet. (2016): Wohnflächen­ — —Technische Universität konsum und Wohnflächen­ Berlin (ed.) (1980): Huf­ bedarf. eisensiedlung Britz 1926– 1980, Ein alternativer Sied­ F — Fachstelle Stadtwohnen, lungsbau der 20er Jahre Kantons- und Stadtent­ als Studienobjekt, Projekt­ wicklung Basel-Stadt (2014): arbeiten zur Analyse Ansätze und Steuerung einer städtebaulichen Raum­ zukunftsgerichteter Wohn­ bildung. formen und Wohnraum­ angebote. V — Van Wezemael, Joris; — —Fankhauser, Th. Huber, Andreas (2004): (ca.  1991): Ein Volk ist weit­ Neue Wege im Genossen­ gehend das, was seine schaftlichen Wohnungsbau, Wohnungen sind. Die selb­ Kurzfassung Siedlungs­ ständige berufstätige Frau evaluation KraftWerk 1 und und ihre Wohnsituation, Regina-Kägi-Hof in Zürich, Zurich: ET H . — —Fedrowitz, Micha; Gailing, Grenchen: BWO . Ludger (2003): Zusammen Wohnen, Gemeinschaftliche W — Walecki, Thomasz (2004): Was ist zwischen Öffent­ Wohnprojekte als Strategie lichkeit und Privatheit im sozialer und ökologischer zeitgenössischen Woh­ Stadtentwicklung, Dort­ nungsbau?, Zurich: E TH . mund: Institut für Raum­ — —Wohnbaugenossen­ planung. schaften Schweiz – Regio­ — —Felde, Olga (2009): Kon­ nalverband Schweiz, Hoch­ zepte des kollektiven schule Luzern Technik & Wohnens und Lebens in Architektur, Kompetenzzen­ der Architektur der frühen trum Typologie & Planung Sowjetphase, Dresden: in Architektur C C TP (2018): Fakultät Sprach-, LiteraturÜberblick Innovative Wohn­ und Kulturwissenschaften, formen. Institut für Slavistik. — —WS B , Institut für Wirt­ schaftsstudien Basel, G — Glockner, Marco; Gysi, Fachbereich Raum (2016): Susanne (2009): Hausge­ Analyse von Instrumenten meinschaften, Erkenntnisse zur Steuerung des und Beispiele, Zurich: ET H Wohnforum. Wohn­f lächenkonsums. — —Grossenbacher, Jürg — —Wüstenrot Stiftung (2015): Clusterwohnungen, (ed.) (2017): Wohnvielfalt, Herausforderung und Gemeinschaftlich wohnen – Perspektiven. im Quartier vernetzt und sozial orientiert.

317

Articles and Magazines A — Albers, Martin; Henz, Alexander; Jakob, Ursina in Werk, Bauen + Wohnen (76 |1989): Wohnform und Wohnungsform. — —Archithese (8 |1973): Anfänge des sozialen Woh­ nungsbaus. — —Archithese (12 |1974): Das Kollektivwohnhaus. — —Archithese (14 |1975): Grosshaushalte. — —ARCH + 176/177 (05 | 2006): Wohnen. — —ARCH + 198/199 (05|2010): IBA Hamburg, Haus der Zukunft. — —ARCH + 218 (11|2014): Wohnerfahrungen. — —ARCH + 231 (07 |2018): The Property Issue, Von der Bodenfrage und neuen Gemeingütern. — —ARCH + 232 (07 |2018): An Atlas of Commoning, Orte des Gemeinschaffens. B — Bauen + Wohnen (27|1973): Experimentelles Bauen und Wohnen in Utrecht Niederlande. — —Blicke in das Ledigenheim in der Rehoffstraße (2.2 |2012): Das Gebäude. — —Blicke in das Ledigen­ heim in der Rehoffstraße (2.3| 2012): Ein Zuhause. D — Das Wohnen (5|1930): Die Wohnung der berufs­ tätigen Frau. — —Die Zeit (28.07.2016): Deutsche wünschen sich Großfamilie. E — Eberle, Orlando (11|2015): Anders wohnen in der Stadt Zürich, in Stadtblick: Urbane Lebens­ stile.

S — Schlandt, Joachim in Bauen und Wohnen (25/1971): Servicehaus, Kollektivhaus, Kommune. — —Schrenk, Jakob (18 Dec.2016): Gehören wir nicht zusammen? in N ZZ am Sonntag. F — Frauenbestrebungen — —Siebel, Walter in A R CH + (1909): Die Einküchenhäuser (05|2006): Zukunft des in Berlin. Wohnen. — —Ferber (09 Dec. 2016): — —Strohm (27 Sep.2015): Drum prüfe, auch wer sich Gemeinsam statt einsam, nicht bindet, in N ZZ . in NZZ am Sonntag. H — Hanak, Michael, in TE C 21 — —Strohm (13 Dec.2015): (3–4|2017): Wie wohnen? Vorausschauend planen, in NZZ am Sonntag. — —Hannemann, Christine — —Tagesanzeiger (05|2014): Zum Wandel des (15 Sep.2015): Revoluzzer Wohnens. W G s werden salonfähig. — —Haupt, Isabel in NIKE Bulletin (1–2|2014): Ein­k üchenhaus und Ein­b au­ T — Trösch, Peter in Tages­ anzeiger Magazin küche. (1 |03 Jan.1976): Idastrasse — —H OC H PA RT ERRE (11|2013): Themenheft. 28, Zürich Wiedikon. — —H OC H PA RT ERRE (05|2017): Sharing Sharing. W — Weiss (2009), Bestandes­ beschrieb C I AM , gta Archiv — —Hofer, Andreas in T EC 21 (7|2011): Von der ETH Zürich. Familienwohnungen — —Werk (15|1928): Wohn­ zum Cluster-Grundriss. kolonie für alleinstehende Frauen im Lettenhof Zürich. l — Leggewie (2015): — —Werk (24|1937): Sonder­ Wie tot ist die Charta von heft Schweden, Das Athen? Stockholmer Kollektivhaus, — —Loske, Reinhard und eine neue Wohnform. Hauri, Ernst in Forum, — —Werk (53|1966): Raumentwicklung Überbauung «Neuwil» in (02|2016): Sharing Eco­ Wohlen AG . — —Werk, Bauen + Wohnen nomy – Gutes Teilen, (3|2017): Preiswert Wohnen. schlechtes Teilen? — —Wohnen (05|2016): Neubau. N — N Z Z am Sonntag (19 Jul.2015): Etwas mehr — —Wohnen (03|2019): Platz muss sein. Smart Wohnen. — —N Z Z am Sonntag (01 |2016): invest Immobilie, Vorausschauend planen. — —N Z Z am Sonntag (28 Aug. 2016): Gar nicht wie die Eltern. — —N Z Z am Sonntag (04 Sep.2016): Gemeinsam weiterkommen. — —Neue Zürcher Zeitung (27 Feb.2017): Die sterili­ sierte Stadt.

R — Rudolf (15|1928): Wohn­ kolonie für alleinstehende Frauen im Lettenhof Zürich, in Werk.

318

Biographies

Susanne Schmid Susanne Schmid studied Inte­r ior Architecture at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Architecture and completed the MAS program in Housing at the E T H Wohnforum — E T H C A S E in Zurich. In the process, she was inspired to research the sociological and architectural effects of collective living. Susanne Schmid is a partner of Bürgi Schärer Architects in Bern. She specializes in housing construction, accompanies the housing valuation system ( W B S ) of the Swiss Federal Office for Housing ( B W O ), and continues to work in interior architecture.

319

Prof. Dr.  Ingrid Breckner Ingrid Breckner is Head of Urban and Regional Sociology at Hafen­C ity University Hamburg. She teaches the sociology of urban development and scientific research methods and researches social inequality, (sub)urban living, demographic change, mobility and migration, (in)security, energy efficiency, consumer behavior, and regional food production and food culture. Prof. ETH DI Dietmar Eberle Dietmar Eberle studied Architecture at the T U Wien, graduating in 1978 under Anton Schweighofer. In 1979, he founded the Vorarl­ berger Baukünstler (1979–1982) together with Markus Koch, Norbert Mittersteiner, and Wolfgang Juen. He worked together with Carlo Baum­s chlager from 1984 to 2009. He heads the internationally renowned firm Baumschlager Eberle Architects, with 12 worldwide locations in eight countries. He has been teaching in Hannover, Vienna, Linz, Zurich, New York, Darmstadt, and Hong Kong since 1983. He was Professor at the E T H Zurich from 1999 to 2018, including leading the E T H Wohnforum — E T H C A S E (Centre for Research on Architecture Society and the Built Environment). Dr. habil. Angelus Eisinger Dr. Angelus Eisinger is a habili­ tated Urban Planning and Devel­ opment Historian. He has been Head of the Zurich Region and Surroundings Planning Association R Z U since 2013. Prior to this, he taught at various universities, including as Professor of Metropolitan History and Culture at the HafenCity University in Hamburg from 2008– 2013. In terms of content, his main focus is on researching the impact of architecture, urban development, and planning, and extracting prac­ tical knowledge from this research. He has written several books and numerous articles on the topic. He also works as a curator and adviser, including for the scientific committee of the I B A Basel 2020.

Dr. Margrit Hugentobler Margrit Hugentobler, Ph. D. (Sociology and Political Science), M S . W ., studied and worked at the University of Michigan, U S A . She began researching at the E T H Wohnforum in 1992 and was head of the interdisciplinary research group from 2009–2015. Her research topics are living situations and needs of different target groups (including women and the elderly), innovations in housing in the context of sustainable urban devel­ opment, and multi-local living. Kathleen Scanlon Kathleen Scanlon is a Distinguished Policy Fellow at the L S E London Research Unit, London School of Economics. Her crossdisciplinary research draws on techniques from economics, planning, and geography to explore contemporary housing policy and practice in the U K and Europe, and she has published on a wide range of topics related to housing, urban devel­op­ ment, and metropolitan governance. She has been researching cohousing and other forms of collabo­r ative living since 2011, with a particular focus on the financial and economic aspects of these housing models. Formerly a career diplomat, she has lived in seven countries and speaks Spanish, Italian, Serbian, Danish, and a bit of French.

320

Acknowledg­ ments

We also thank the following organizations for their financial support: Age-Stiftung, Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Kraftwerk 1, bonainvest Holding, Genossenschaft Kalkbreite, Julius der Weisse A G , V S I . A S A I . Vereinigung Schweizer Innenarchitekten /Architektinnen. Printed with financial support from Pro Helvetia, Schweizer Kulturstiftung. Our special thanks to the many residents, architects, and developers who provided us with insight into their collective living projects and their work. Their diverse contri­ butions through interviews, information, photographs, and planning documentation greatly enriched this publication. We thank Raphael Bruderer in particular, who prepared all plans for publishing with great commitment. Furthermore, we thank our guest authors for their contributions, which provide valuable additions to the content of the book. Many thanks to David Marold and Angelika Gaal at Birk­h äuser Verlag for their support in the conception, proofreading, design, and printing of this volume.

The publication of this book has been made possible by impor­tant financial support from the fol­­lowing organizations: – Albert Lück-Stiftung – Beitragsfonds des Finanzdepartements der Stadt Zürich – Bürgi Schärer Architekten A G – I B A Wien ! – Jubiläumsstiftung der Schweizerischen Mobiliar Genossenschaft 1 The pioneering examples – Max Pfister Baubüro A G of collective living in Vienna – Schindler Aufzüge A G create a historical back­ – Senn Resources A G – Allgemeine Baugenossenschaft Zürich A B Z – Anliker A G Generalunternehmung – Baugenossenschaft mehr als wohnen – B E P Baugenossenschaft des eidgenössischen Personals – Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen B W O – Ernst Göhner Stiftung – Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Behörde für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen – Halter A G – Losinger Marazzi A G – Pensimo Management A G – R E N E S PA A G – S B B Immobilien – Steiner A G – Stiftung Solidaritätsfonds von Wohnbaugenossenschaften Schweiz — Verband der gemein­ nützigen Wohnbauträger

drop for a focus on New Social Housing by the IBA , which provided finan­ cial support for the research of this publication.

321

Imprint

Text and Content Editor – Margrit Hugentobler, C H -Zurich Acquisitions Editor – David Marold, Birkhäuser Verlag, AT -Vienna Content and Production Editor – Angelika Gaal, Birkhäuser Verlag, AT -Vienna Translation from German into English – Word Up!, L L C Design – Gottschalk+Ash Int’l Lithography – pixelstorm, AT -Vienna Printing – Holzhausen Druck GmbH, AT -Wolkersdorf

Editorial Team – Susanne Schmid – Dietmar Eberle – Margrit Hugentobler Author – Susanne Schmid, C H -Lucerne With contributions by – Ingrid Breckner, D E -Hamburg – Angelus Eisinger, C H -Zurich – Kathleen Scanlon, G B -London

Library of Congress Control Number 2019940032 Bibliographic information published by the German National Library The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bib­ liographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained.

The editorial team has made great efforts to obtain all necessary permissions from copyright holders for this publication. If for any reason the copyrights of an image have not been respected, we kindly ask for your understanding. We request that individuals or institutions that were not reached and have copyright claims to images used in this book contact the editors. I S B N 978-3-0356-1850-1 e-ISBN ( P D F ) 978-3-0356-1868-6

German: Print- I S B N 978-3-0356-1851-8 e- I S B N ( P D F ) 978-3-0356-1870-9 © 2019 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel P. O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 www.birkhauser.com