The Weissenhof Exhibition: Proposal for Living in a Modern World
By Agata Strausa
The Weissenhof Siedlung was a showcase of Modernism in architecture as seen from the eyes of international contemporary architects. The estates of the Weissenhof exhibition in 1927 were model homes of a new way of construction of homes and promoted a better living for the residents. Seventeen Architects from 5 different countries created 21 homes at the Killesberg in Stuttgart. The building exhibition was initiated by the Deutscher Werkbundcollective and it was build between spring and summer 1927 under the supervision of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The estates were composed of single-family-houses, apartments and row-houses which were prototypes for modern living and domestic work. The models should exhibit innovative solutions for the housing shortage after the war. The city of Stuttgart sponsored this project as it conveyed a democratic approach of construction by proposing progressive design for the masses. Weissenhof primarily addressed the working and middle classes. The estates showed unity in their arrangement because they were organized around each other and they were similar in their minimalistic style. By taking a closer look, they also showed a range of variety. They all shared a basic shape and were composed of simple geometric forms. They all also avoided any decorative ornament and most of them were painted in white color. Additionally, all buildings had flat roofs, as they obeyed the ideal of standardization and rationalization. On the other hand, the three homes designed by Walter Gropius, Peter Behrens and Mart Stam each proposed different solutions to make the current living conditions more suitable for modernity and the residents. Their individual designs were also controversial, because not all were as effective and functional as the designers imagined them.
At Weissenhof, Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus-architect and principal, implemented the innovation of prefabrication system. His single-family house had the look of an off-white painted box. The clear lines of the building were in accordance to the grid pattern of the interior. The prefabricated walls were part of a modular system that Gropius developed. Outsourcing the wall panels to a workshop where they could be assembled in dry construction allowed the building process to go on faster, even independent from the weather conditions. The building is Gropius comment on how to build industrially. Additionally, this prototype showcased the Bauhaus attempt to show that the school’s output has a value for society. Gropius underlined the principles of the synthesis of machine production, technological advance and the arts. The modular system not only implemented innovative materials and allowed a quicker fabrication; it was also modifiable to the needs of any commission. The concept was similar to Theodor Bogler’s combination tea-set for the Bauhaus. It hinted at endless possibilities of arranging the individual parts. Nevertheless, this system was not limitless. The walls could only be arranged in accordance to the designed grid system. The connections between the panels determined how they can be put together. That is why the house was criticized to be a “dumb box”, with only rectangular angles, as Dora Epstein Jones points out. However, she also underlines the role of the architect to be active for the better of the society. Gropius stressed his institution, the Bauhaus’ and the architect’s importance in constructing a new social environment.
Another innovation at Weissenhof was showcased by the German architect Peter Behrens. His contribution to the Weissenhof Estates was the apartment complex called the “Terrassenhaus”. The dwelling’s striking element was the staircase-shaped arrangement of roof terraces. Behrens imagined it as an alternative to the miserable and cheerless blocks of flats in the big cities. His design showed one, two, three and four story houses that are combined in a staircase-like way. The roofs of the smaller houses provided roof-terraces for the next taller story. The terraces were meant to be used as access to fresh air and sunlight. Light is a significant factor, because the previous dark and damp living conditions of the city caused bad hygiene and supported the spread of deceases such as tuberculoses. The material of the walls and flat roofs further supported better ventilation of the flats. As Behrens explained, the terraces should be used as urban roof-gardens and used for open-air activities where even children could play. Maybe it was meant to get the worker’s offspring off the streets. It is questionable though, whether Behrens took into consideration that the average working class family probably had little time for nurturing a garden on the roof. However, bringing a garden as replacement for nature into the workers’ housing functioned as additional entertainment and pleasure to the routine life of an average worker. On the other hand of this rather romantic concept, the design of the windows, which were framed by casket grids resembles fortress-like look with limited access to sunlight. As can be read on the homepage ofWeissenhof, the window design was criticized as looking like prison windows. It may be exaggerated, but it seems as if Behrens had build a worker’s fort, massive and rectangular. All in all, the “Terrassenhaus” depicted a working class quarter that metaphorically tried to order and clean the social conditions. The apartments should help to enhance the resident’s life.
The third example are the three row-houses designed by Mart Stam, who was an artist from Rotterdam. He designed three family homes connected to each other and structured according to the needs of a “modern family”, as he pointed out. Stam’s idea was to rationalize the living situation. His buildings were very minimalistic in their expressiveness, with plain rectangular facades without any kind of decoration. These homes were not meant to represent status, like villas do. These dwellings were meant to be stereotypical and anonymous and therefore they should fit any resident. Stam was determined to develop a model of rationalization even for the interior. The daily housework, that was the duty of the housewife, should be reduced. To do so, Stam suggested installing as many machines in the household as necessary and possible. He even suggested to outsource everyday tasks, such as laundry cleaning, to the industry. The housewife should have more time to look after the family. Nonetheless, Stam included a room for a house-maid in his plan of the minimalistic dwelling. To hire a maid seems like a relic of a bourgeois lifestyle; yet it may be a try to include conventional German forms of living. The work makes visible how difficult it was to address a specific “market”.
The significance of the Weissenhof exhibition is that it depicts more than just individual artists utopias of contemporary housing in the city. It is a manifestation of the modernist movement. The international flair of the individual contributions reminds of the exchange of artistic ideals of artist from the Netherlands, such as Stam, and Germany’s Behrens and Gropius. Even though the buildings claim to be responses of the contemporary needs of the working class, they address more the middle classes. Mies van der Rohe had allowed a wide artistic freedom to the individual contributors and resulting in dwellings that are more artwork than science-based engineering. New materials and technologies were applied, but functionalism was a guideline for design, not a doctrine.
At Weissenhof, Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus-architect and principal, implemented the innovation of prefabrication system. His single-family house had the look of an off-white painted box. The clear lines of the building were in accordance to the grid pattern of the interior. The prefabricated walls were part of a modular system that Gropius developed. Outsourcing the wall panels to a workshop where they could be assembled in dry construction allowed the building process to go on faster, even independent from the weather conditions. The building is Gropius comment on how to build industrially. Additionally, this prototype showcased the Bauhaus attempt to show that the school’s output has a value for society. Gropius underlined the principles of the synthesis of machine production, technological advance and the arts. The modular system not only implemented innovative materials and allowed a quicker fabrication; it was also modifiable to the needs of any commission. The concept was similar to Theodor Bogler’s combination tea-set for the Bauhaus. It hinted at endless possibilities of arranging the individual parts. Nevertheless, this system was not limitless. The walls could only be arranged in accordance to the designed grid system. The connections between the panels determined how they can be put together. That is why the house was criticized to be a “dumb box”, with only rectangular angles, as Dora Epstein Jones points out. However, she also underlines the role of the architect to be active for the better of the society. Gropius stressed his institution, the Bauhaus’ and the architect’s importance in constructing a new social environment.
Another innovation at Weissenhof was showcased by the German architect Peter Behrens. His contribution to the Weissenhof Estates was the apartment complex called the “Terrassenhaus”. The dwelling’s striking element was the staircase-shaped arrangement of roof terraces. Behrens imagined it as an alternative to the miserable and cheerless blocks of flats in the big cities. His design showed one, two, three and four story houses that are combined in a staircase-like way. The roofs of the smaller houses provided roof-terraces for the next taller story. The terraces were meant to be used as access to fresh air and sunlight. Light is a significant factor, because the previous dark and damp living conditions of the city caused bad hygiene and supported the spread of deceases such as tuberculoses. The material of the walls and flat roofs further supported better ventilation of the flats. As Behrens explained, the terraces should be used as urban roof-gardens and used for open-air activities where even children could play. Maybe it was meant to get the worker’s offspring off the streets. It is questionable though, whether Behrens took into consideration that the average working class family probably had little time for nurturing a garden on the roof. However, bringing a garden as replacement for nature into the workers’ housing functioned as additional entertainment and pleasure to the routine life of an average worker. On the other hand of this rather romantic concept, the design of the windows, which were framed by casket grids resembles fortress-like look with limited access to sunlight. As can be read on the homepage ofWeissenhof, the window design was criticized as looking like prison windows. It may be exaggerated, but it seems as if Behrens had build a worker’s fort, massive and rectangular. All in all, the “Terrassenhaus” depicted a working class quarter that metaphorically tried to order and clean the social conditions. The apartments should help to enhance the resident’s life.
The third example are the three row-houses designed by Mart Stam, who was an artist from Rotterdam. He designed three family homes connected to each other and structured according to the needs of a “modern family”, as he pointed out. Stam’s idea was to rationalize the living situation. His buildings were very minimalistic in their expressiveness, with plain rectangular facades without any kind of decoration. These homes were not meant to represent status, like villas do. These dwellings were meant to be stereotypical and anonymous and therefore they should fit any resident. Stam was determined to develop a model of rationalization even for the interior. The daily housework, that was the duty of the housewife, should be reduced. To do so, Stam suggested installing as many machines in the household as necessary and possible. He even suggested to outsource everyday tasks, such as laundry cleaning, to the industry. The housewife should have more time to look after the family. Nonetheless, Stam included a room for a house-maid in his plan of the minimalistic dwelling. To hire a maid seems like a relic of a bourgeois lifestyle; yet it may be a try to include conventional German forms of living. The work makes visible how difficult it was to address a specific “market”.
The significance of the Weissenhof exhibition is that it depicts more than just individual artists utopias of contemporary housing in the city. It is a manifestation of the modernist movement. The international flair of the individual contributions reminds of the exchange of artistic ideals of artist from the Netherlands, such as Stam, and Germany’s Behrens and Gropius. Even though the buildings claim to be responses of the contemporary needs of the working class, they address more the middle classes. Mies van der Rohe had allowed a wide artistic freedom to the individual contributors and resulting in dwellings that are more artwork than science-based engineering. New materials and technologies were applied, but functionalism was a guideline for design, not a doctrine.