Karel Teige: 3rd International Congress of Modern Architecture in Brussels
CIRPAC and Congresses
International congresses of modern architecture represent the organization of the architectural avant-garde on a global scale: their purpose is to ideate, theorize, and promote work in the field of new architecture. They aim to actively support the development and advancement of construction creation in the modern spirit, and they can best fulfill this task by addressing current issues in detail and from various perspectives, attempting to formulate the problems of the present and the coming future not merely within the limits of narrow expertise, but from all sides and in full scope, and by contributing through their discussions, exhibitions, and publications to the development and deepening of modern architectural work as scientific and research work. This is possible only if the architectural modernism, which organizes these congresses, secures organic and organized cooperation with economists, technicians, sociologists, hygienists, biologists, and doctors, historians, social welfare experts, etc. One of the main tasks of the congresses is to promote unity and permanent cooperation between architectural creation and other fields of science, technology, social work, and the entire social life.
The foundations for such an international organization of the architectural avant-garde and the left were laid in the summer of 1928 at the first preparatory congress of international modern architecture in Switzerland, at the castle of La Sarraz (near Lausanne), provided by Mme de Mandrot for the congress. The outcome of the discussions at the first congress was the establishment of an executive committee, which will henceforth direct the activities of the congresses: International Committee for the Realization of the Problems of Contemporary Architecture = Comité International pour la Réalisation du Probléme ď Architecture Contemporaine, abbreviated as CIRPAC. The Congress of La Sarraz also published a manifesto that articulated the ideological and action program and framework for future congresses, a kind of thesis of modern architecture. (STAVBA published detailed articles regarding the preparations and the manifesto of this congress in years VII, issues 2 and 5, to which we refer.)
Subsequent congresses, guided by CIRPAC, were to focus on specific architectural problems, according to their relevance.
The 2nd congress took place in the autumn of 1929 in Frankfurt am Main, under the presidency of Prof. Karel Moser from Zurich. The theme of this congress was the minimum housing (L'habitation minimum, Wohnung für das Existenzminimum). Undoubtedly the most pressing theme at a time marked by ongoing and worsening housing crises across nearly all of Europe. And exactly a theme that, if to be discussed comprehensively and broadly, must be addressed through collaboration between architects and other scientists, specifically sociologists and economists.
3. Brussels Congress 1930
The third congress in Brussels (November 1930) marked a sign of growth and strengthening for this international organization of modern architectural thought. Since the theme of minimum housing cannot be exhausted by a single congress and a year-long effort by CIRPAC, the Brussels congress further engaged with it, also extending it to the broader field: rational regulation and zoning plans for residential neighborhoods (with minimum housing). Therefore, the program of the Brussels congress was more comprehensive, and its working and promotional results were richer. The congress was particularly significant in promoting the interests of the Belgian group: in very few developed countries is modern architecture so overlooked, ignored, and boycotted by both officials and the general public as it is in Belgium: Belgian architectural modernism has had an incongruously small application in construction practice relative to its significance and qualities. The Belgian group, overcoming adverse conditions and public indifference with doubled efforts and enthusiastic dedication, achieved results that far exceeded their financial capabilities, without support and subsidies—so truly in the spirit of congresses that work without financial means.
"Les Journées de l'Habitation minimum"
In connection with the congress, the Belgian group organized a sort of "Week of the Minimum Housing," "Les Journées de l'Habitation Minimum," from November 22 to 26, 1930: a series of lectures and several exhibitions. The chairman of these "Journées" was Senator Albert Francois. The preparatory work of the Belgian group was directed by Victor Bourgeois.
The lecture series included the following themes: on housing constructions in Frankfurt presented by Jos. Gantner, editor of the magazine "Das Neue Frankfurt," on construction activities in Amsterdam by C. van Eesteren, on his architectural theories by Le Corbusier, on the ideological program of CIRPAC by secretary Dr. S. Giedion, on the problem of high versus low residential buildings by W. Gropius, on the housing question and modern architecture in Czechoslovakia by the author of this article. (The planned lecture by A. Sartoris had to be canceled as Italian authorities refused to issue travel documents to this leader of the Italian modern architectural movement!)
The collection of exhibitions was organized as follows:
1. A posthumous exhibition of the deceased urban planner and promoter of garden cities in Belgium, Louis van der Swaelmen.
2. An exhibition of 200 floor plans of minimum housing (a selection from the Frankfurt traveling exhibition).
3. An exhibition of "New Frankfurt," a traveling collection.
4. An exhibition of rational kitchens.
5. An exhibition of new architecture in Belgium (Bourgeois, Hoste, Verwilgen, Eggericx, de Konninck, Henveaux, Taelemans).
6. An exhibition of student works from the architectural specialty at the "Institut supérieur des Arts décoratifs," directed by Victor Bourgeois.
7. An exhibition of books, publications, and magazines dedicated to modern architecture (from Czechoslovakia, STAVBA and MSA were exhibited).
The congress meetings consisted of two types: public lectures and discussion evenings, as well as internal meetings, the gathering of delegates (CIRPAC) and the general assembly of congressists. The work of the congress began with a preparatory meeting of delegates (November 26). The congress was publicly inaugurated by the speech of chairman K. Moser (November 27) and the openings of the congress exhibitions. Then the program of public lectures was pursued: 1. discussions about high, medium, or low buildings; 2. reports from individual countries on the objective conditions of resolving the housing question, existing obstacles, and ideal proposals; 3. Le Corbusier's presentation regarding his survey on the hermetic house. The congress was concluded on November 30, 1930.
High, medium or low residential buildings? (Flach- Mittel- oder Hochbau?)
This is an urgently current topic. The core of the program and discussions at the congress. A desirable revision of established and presumably outdated views on the advantages of certain existing building types, namely low and medium houses. The issue of the residential skyscraper, which still almost universally encounters distrust: to what extent is this distrust justified? Speakers: Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, R. I. Neutra and Frankfurt architects Kaufmann & Boehm. Le Corbusier’s presentation: The problem of low, high, or medium buildings can only be viewed in a broad perspective, from the standpoint of the entire modern city. In urban planning, this problem is posed as a question of population density: should the density of population in large cities be increased or decreased? Should the area occupied by the metropolis be increased or reduced?
Cities are places for work and rest—homes. Modern industry has disrupted the old relationships between work and housing. A dangerous crisis has arisen. Man has become a slave to industry; his mental state is depressive and destructive. The phenomenon: the city and urban housing must be reorganized anew. Fortunately, modern industry and modern technology, which triggered this disruption, also provide solutions and opportunities for liberation. New constructive methods have revolutionized architecture. They offer means for new organization of cities. Until the mid-19th century, cities were enclosed in the bonds of fortifications: new life and the growth of cities have surpassed and broken this oppressive framework. Today, transport, cramped by old corridor streets, is also leaving these narrow confines. This state too needs to be overcome; cities need to be fundamentally rebuilt, which can only happen on the basis of rational economy, proceeding and acting systematically.
By constructing high buildings, administrative, commercial, and residential, it would be possible to significantly reduce the area of cities, which once again would favorably resolve the traffic crisis. High buildings (skyscrapers) would occupy approximately 12% of the total area of the city; streets about 8%; the entire remainder, approximately nearly 80% of the area, would be planted, turning into a vast garden, with spaces for sports, relaxation, always in immediate proximity to homes. Every window opens onto a wide green area. Naturally, there would be no yards. Le Corbusier substantiates his conclusions by referring to his proposal for the renovation of the Parisian center, the "Plan Voisin de Paris" from 1925, which is still considered a "paper utopia" only because it has not been realized, and to a proposal for a Moscow residential district that will soon be constructed. This Moscow district is designed to be built in open blocks resembling some meander; they are naturally collective houses (communal houses) of 10-12 stories, with about 200 residential units per floor. Four elevators serve 2000 residents. The corridors of these houses, much longer and wider than those typically used until now (and yet the main advantage of the gallery system, from an economic standpoint, is that one staircase is sufficient for a relatively large number of apartments, thus for a relatively significant length of the facade)—these corridors, leading from the elevator to the apartments, are essentially pedestrian streets, which significantly ease pedestrian frequency on traffic routes.
The internal organization of such houses, primarily those which Le Corbusier designed for Moscow, is characterized by the joint accommodation of functional housing, which liberates women from the kitchen and household chores.
Since the question of high versus low houses poses in terms of urban planning the issue of increasing or decreasing population density, the speaker demonstrates the necessity of increasing the population density in the residential sectors of modern cities to an average of 1000 inhabitants per hectare. Le Corbusier states that international statistics show the lowest mortality rates in densely populated areas: mortality decreases to the extent that the population concentrates.
However, it is necessary to note something regarding this statistical evidence that Le Corbusier perhaps forgets: that places with low population density today are often remote and underdeveloped villages in the poorest regions, where civilization has not yet penetrated, where there are no doctors, where there is no health awareness, and actually no education at all: remedying this deplorable state cannot clearly be achieved by concentrating hundreds of millions of rural population into a few large cities but through raising both the material and cultural level of that population, which requires, finally, the elimination of the difference between town and village.
At the end of his speech, Le Corbusier mentioned the ongoing discussion in the Soviet Union: urbanism or desurbanization? Le Corbusier, who naturally supports the standpoint of urbanism, seems not to fully understand what is meant by the term desurbanization. Desurbanization has nothing to do with the former utopian idea of Taut of "dissolving cities," nor with the English ideology of garden cities and decentralization of the city. It is not the place to explain in detail the stance on "desurbanization," which calls, in the sense of Marx's, Engels's, and Lenin's theories, for the abolishment of the difference and contradiction between town and village, a new layout of humanity according to the plans of new production "points" and the dissolution of the concentration of industrial enterprises that are not interconnected with the manufacturing process.
Le Corbusier, furthermore, provided another reason why he considers his urban solution advantageous and desirable: the city he proposes is allegedly the only one capable of defense in the event of a future aerial-chemical war. The ground level of the city, where heavy poisonous gases would settle, could be ventilated since it is built on stilts, and the rooftop terraces of high buildings, whose total area would be much smaller than the surface of roofs in old cities, could be equipped with armored plates against bombs: covering the roofs of old houses with armor is supposedly not financially feasible. Although this method of defense supposedly piques the interest of French military circles, one cannot fail to see that it is a dubious and naive reason that significantly compromises Le Corbusier’s more serious intentions.
At the conclusion of his speech, Le Corbusier stated that the first condition of rational urbanism is land reform and the reallocation of land in cities. Only then can urbanism begin its planned activities: which government and form of governance will allow these plans to be realized?
Walter Gropius's report:*
In the question of which residential form is most advantageous for city dwellers, personal opinions and preferences, lifestyle, employment, and especially the financial circumstances of that resident currently decide. The family low house with a garden is an ideal for many as a refreshing countryside amidst the straining city, because it is a housing form borrowed from rural settlements. Such a dwelling provides peace, separation from other families, rest in one’s own garden, easier supervision of children, etc. It is indeed an economically disadvantageous and unprofitable form for minimum housing. Housing here is relatively expensive, domestic work laborious, and occupants are firmly tied to one place. Moreover, colonies of low single-family houses require long access routes, increasing distances, causing loss of time, and complicating transport. Rational urban development is not conceivable this way. If everyone were to live in a single-family house, the city would be disorganized.
A high rental building ensures shorter distances and access streets, saving time and money with its shared facilities, easing household chores, and supporting collective lifestyles. Less favorable are concerns regarding the supervision of children outside the apartment, since gardens are relatively distant from the apartments situated on higher floors. As a housing form for minimum housing, the high house is advantageous. Economically and practically, a 10-12 story building is recommended as the most advantageous residential structure for all urban sectors close to the center or where land is expensive.
The medium house, averaging 2-5 stories, has neither the advantages of low houses nor those of high houses. It combines the disadvantages of both types plus its own disadvantages. Even though it is currently the most common and widespread residential structure, it must be noted that it cannot match either preceding types from a social, psychological, or often even from an economic standpoint. Overcoming the medium-type residential house will be a significant architectural advancement. Gropius recommends the high house, constructed in rows sufficiently spaced apart: with the same population density and maintaining the angle of sunlight, the distances between rows of 10-story buildings can be more than 8 times greater than the distances between rows of two-story houses. As a result, even occupants of ground floor apartments in high buildings can see the sky from their windows. Green spaces between buildings and gardens on the rooftop terraces ensure that the poles: city and countryside, come psychologically closer together. (Gropius calls this: it dissolves the differences between town and country. We note that urban gardens, green strips, and spaces do not at all correspond with what the Marx-Engels-Lenin theory means under that term.) Nature will then not be just a Sunday and English Saturday experience for city inhabitants.
According to Gropius, only high buildings meet the actual needs of urban residents, and on the outskirts low single-family houses. The medium urban house is said to be a relic. Gropius calls for states, authorities, municipalities, and professional institutions to support the construction of high buildings and to enable it financially, as it will surely be more expensive initially than conventional constructions: therefore Gropius maintains that today these buildings will most likely meet the housing needs of wealthy young childless couples.
At the conclusion of the lecture, Gropius emphasized that the future of new housing forms will be determined by the worldview of the population and the political development of circumstances. Based on these assumptions, Gropius developed several designs for buildings with a larger number of stories: including twelve-story buildings (steel skeleton) containing a gallery system (first prize in the Reichsforschungsgesellschaft competition) for the residential area of Spandau-Haselhorst near Berlin, and a large 10-story boarding house (Stahlwohnhochhaus mit zentralen Gesellschaftsraum), which he exhibited in the spring of 1930 in Paris in the German section (Werkbund) of the Société des Artistes Décorateurs. It is, however, a strange paradox to see here that Gropius, who so emphasizes the housing needs of the existence minimum class and recognizes the disintegration of the family unit within this class, is conceiving his boarding house for free men and women or childless couples, not for people at the existence minimum, but for very well-off and financially robust citizens. Thus, the social hall in his boarding house is not at all similar to a workers' club, a center of education, and a relaxation area, but a café, bar, a new form of salon, complete with even a pool. The residential unit of this house, which was developed by Marcel Breuer, consists of these rooms: a lady's room, a gentleman's room, with a common entrance hall between them, a bathroom, and a small kitchen, plus potentially a study. These rooms are universal living spaces for habitation, reading and studying, eating, resting, and sleeping: both man and woman can live independently and together here; their rooms communicate through the common entrance, bathroom, and kitchen, which separate them from one another. According to growing housing demands and needs, additional adjoining rooms can be attached to this residential unit: variability. The boarding house of this conception is, as is evident, not a collective house for the existence minimum: it is a fully modern comfort-equipped facility for wealthy tenants or an ordinary family hotel. It is merely a special case of bourgeois housing: the housing question is addressed as a secondary matter. It has been very rightly pointed out against this Gropius and Breuer project that it is ultimately secondary, whether a few families can arrange their lives in such a house in the manner of merry widows and carefree young men when hundreds of thousands of people live in cellar rooms, that this housing conception does not correspond to any new social ideal, but caters to extravagant lifestyles of certain petty-bourgeois and bourgeois strata.
Report by R. I. Neutra:
Neutra approached the given question primarily from a commercial perspective. He arrived at conclusions quite similar to those of W. Gropius. He stated that in the USA the skyscraper no longer exists as a technical puzzle: everything we still doubt here in Europe is in America a matter of daily routine: elevators, installations, ventilation, fire safety and infection safety, etc. Everyday practice over several decades has shown that high buildings are not economically disadvantageous.
Both categories, low and high buildings, find different applications in the USA. Low houses are favored by families with children. Neutra points out that in the USA, it has not been observed that ownership of a single-family house ties residents to one location, as these houses are relatively inexpensive in relation to a sufficiently high standard of living for workers: a worker who changes jobs sells the house and buys or rents a house elsewhere. The skyscraper, according to Neutra, did not arise to concentrate the city and reduce its area: this argument of Le Corbusier does not correspond to American reality. Skyscrapers also do not shorten traffic distances, as Gropius suggests, provided that appropriate gaps between houses are maintained. For traffic, neither distance nor frequency and intensity are decisive; rather, it is a rational urban and traffic plan that enables cars to develop speeds that compensate for time lost due to distance and prevents waiting at intersections. Neutra points to his proposal for bridging intersections (reproduced in Stavba IX, issue 1, illustration 11).
The most widespread building structure in the USA is not high buildings, but low houses: it is a classic country of independent family villas. However, there has recently been a significant increase in the percentage of residential skyscrapers in the overall construction movement, which demonstrates that low single-family houses do not have any substantial advantages over high ones and that high buildings are thus suitable structures for small apartments. They are increasingly sought after by less affluent strata. For families with children, however, the single-family house remains the most practical, and architects need to work on its further improvement.
Economically advantageous in the USA are also small single-family houses that can be built of lightweight and cheap materials, as well as skyscrapers. Medium houses, if built of fireproof materials and provided with the desired comfort, are less advantageous than both preceding types. A three or five-story house without a personal and cargo elevator would be unacceptable in America, as the population there is accustomed to lifts: it would be a prison, not a home.
The report by Kaufmann & Boehm: Frankfurt architects Kaufmann & Boehm addressed the issue only from the standpoint of construction costs. Assuming a modern type of zoning in rows (Einzelnreihenbebauung), where rows of houses are built in a north-south direction, with windows facing east and west, and where traffic streets run west-east along the side of the rows of houses, so that between the facades of the houses there are only lawns and paths for pedestrians, at such zoning the economic yield of a house rises to 5, possibly 6 stories. However, this calculation presumes that we are building houses up to 5 or 6 stories with load-bearing brick walls, without elevators, and without implementing central heating and gas. It is easy to demonstrate that a 5-story house with small apartments without an elevator, central heating, and gas is financially the most economical. However, can such a "minimum" be acceptable at all? Carrying coal to the 5th floor, without an elevator, is an expense that even if a poor housewife does this work, or a coal carrier of a higher gratuity, must be factored into the operation, as where there is no gas stove in the kitchen, no gas heaters, and no automatic machines in the bathroom, signifies a considerable entry. There is a question of whether it would even be advisable to install a bathroom in small apartments without gas lines, whether, under these circumstances, visiting a bathhouse might not be more comfortable. Kaufmann and Boehm's calculations indicate that the economic viability of such houses ends at the 6th floor since at greater heights it is necessary to account for elevators, central heating, and a steel or concrete skeleton construction; the efficiency of such a building increases with the number of additional floors and reaches its maximum between the 10th and 15th floors, without, however, achieving the profitability of that 5-story house.
Finally, a resolution, as proposed by CIRPAC, was adopted:
"We note that we have enough experience today with low houses and medium 4-5 story houses to assess their utility. Low houses, despite initially being uneconomical, have received widespread expansion, thanks to support and promotion from decisive authorities. The medium house was actually created during times of intensive growth of metropolises through private speculation, as it provides, compared to a low house, greater opportunities for exploitation in every respect. The high house can be substantiated by American experiences: here, however, it generally concerned apartments that are costly by our standards. The congress states that the high house is a housing form that can lead to the solution of the minimum housing issue; however, it does not consider this form to be the only correct and desirable one. It is necessary for the high house to be reconsidered, to recognize its potential, and to explore its advantages through implemented examples even if obstacles of a financial, technical, legislative, or sentimental nature oppose its realization."
This resolution is not, after all, a resolution: it is not a decision. It is merely the articulation of an opinion. We believe that today, under the given assumptions and on the basis of this discussion, a clear resolution would be premature. It is impossible to reach a more resolute position while considering the housing of a family with a traditional household and differences in the financial capabilities of the population. Objections against placing children and the elderly in the 10th floor cannot be dismissed. The problem is posed differently if we consider the house as a collective dwelling of the Soviet type. The significance of this discussion, which cannot be concluded today, lies primarily in the detailed discussion of a highly current issue and the array of arguments for and against that were raised in it.
Reports from groups on objective conditions of the housing question, on current obstacles and "ideal propositions":
Another public meeting involved the reading of reports from individual groups on the objective conditions for resolving the housing questions of the existence minimum, which is primarily an economic and social issue. In addition to explanations on the economic, political, legislative, and social conditions in various countries, reports were presented on current barriers, particularly obsolete building regulations and financial difficulties that authorities and financial powers impose on rational solutions to housing questions on a mass scale. These reports, presented by delegates from Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the United States, etc., pointed out the complete deficit in the housing issue for the existence minimum in all countries: conditions are poor in some areas and even worse in others; that is the whole difference. — It was noted that housing shortages cannot today be solved through private enterprise, but only through social legislation, through state housing care. To this, it must be remarked that sadly there is today no state or parliament in Western Europe and America that would be capable of and willing to vote the necessary financial and legal prerequisites for such a housing social policy.
Based on these reports, the congress stated:
1. The majority of the urban population lacks sufficiently cheap and healthy apartments.
2. In most countries, the current situation is recognized as inadequate (exceptions USA and Hungary).
Steps have been taken against this situation. Through state subsidies for construction activity, a certain reduction in construction costs has been achieved with traditional construction methods and traditional floor plans of constructed apartments. However, since the possibilities that today's technology offers for systematic housing organization have not been utilized, the reduction achieved is completely inadequate. It is so minimal that the amounts requested for worker housing are, in relation to the average wages, unattainable. The obstacles that are placed in the way of rational residential constructions can be classified as follows:
a) Lack of land legislation, excessively fragmented land ownership. The zoning plans do not take into consideration rational land distribution and regulation.
b) Height restrictions continue to apply to the zoning of individual urban districts, instead of limits being imposed according to the population density, not the number of stories. (This is especially true in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, and Czechoslovakia.)
c) Distrust of new constructions (Belgium, Switzerland).
d) Protection of monuments, beauty of home and the aesthetics of building committees fight against the form, the look of buildings conditioned by new constructive methods that cannot be reconciled with historical notions of beauty (Netherlands, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia).
e) Seeing the house exclusively as a capital investment or loan collateral. Inadequate credit options for houses with small apartments (Denmark, Netherlands).
f) Lack of interest at guiding places for the results and experiments that have been achieved and undertaken in other countries (Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Hungary).
Le Corbusier’s lecture on the hermetic house
In addition to these two main discussions, Le Corbusier publicly presented his explanation regarding his survey on the hermetic house, in which he asked both for architectural solutions for modern collective housing and also sought expert opinions on acoustics and sound insulation in these houses, and also on artificial ventilation and heating, in such a way that instead of heating systems, there would be a factory for "exact air" installed in the house, which would extract stale air from the rooms, purify it, ozonate it, heat or cool it to a constant temperature of 18° C, and reintroduce it into the rooms. The facades of such houses would be hermetically sealed against external air, and instead of windows, there would be large glass surfaces. On this principle, Le Corbusier is building a colossal palace Centrosojuzu in Moscow. A report on Le Corbusier’s questionnaire was published in STAVBA (IX, no. 4, p. 65). Le Corbusier’s commentary based on the stenographic protocol will be published another time.
Congress Exhibitions
CIRPAC organized two exhibitions for the Brussels congress: an exhibition of sliding horizontal windows, which because of its cost is unlikely to be organized elsewhere again, and a traveling exhibition of rational zoning and regulatory plans for residential neighborhoods.
The exhibition of horizontal sliding windows began with a presentation given by R. Steiger and P. Barbe. The study of the minimum housing problem shows that with the reduction of spatial dimensions, the question of window construction, which does not require a large space when opened, becomes increasingly relevant, as opening a normal, well-dimensioned window requires a space that occupies 15-20% of the floor area of a small apartment, and this almost fifth of the apartment is consequently unusable for the movement of inhabitants or placement of furniture. Vertical sliding windows, used in private wealthy houses, are hardly applicable for small apartments, as due to their mechanism, complicated production, and difficult installation, they are often more expensive than horizontal sliding windows, which are the only ones suitable for inexpensive apartments. For these reasons, it is to be welcomed that an exhibition of numerous models of these windows of international provenance was organized: this provided an overview of current performances and progress, and then comparative critiques of various systems can bring important impulses for further improvement of certain constructive details. The exhibition grouped nearly all utilized systems, mostly in real-size models. We find here a model of Le Corbusier’s sliding window, Guévrekian’s model, Frankfurt’s window standard, etc. The Czechoslovak section facilitated that the Bratislava company Kraus presented two models of its steel sliding and tilting windows at the exhibition, which received considerable attention and were generally recognized, especially for Belgium, as very affordable in price. Of course, horizontal sliding windows would need to be significantly reduced in price: otherwise, they are still quite expensive for small apartments and remain luxurious. In countries with milder climates, where sealing is not as necessary, sliding windows are significantly cheaper, and therefore they are used much more often. The exhibition in Brussels can serve as a prompt for the industry to intensively continue improving horizontal sliding windows, which today still remain an unresolved question, while there exists, especially in America, hundreds of models of vertical sliding windows. Given that the choice of window systems depends not only on financial considerations but primarily on climatic considerations, it would be desirable for the exhibited models to be studied regarding their air-tightness (Wärmetechnik, Luftdichtigkeit). However, it was certainly not possible to conduct these tests for the exhibition, as it is known that individual research institutes provide very different results from tests and above all, such tests on so many exhibited models would require timeframes of several months. These testing results should, however, be published in a book that CIRPAC intends to release about horizontal sliding windows.
At the opening of the exhibition of rational zoning plans for residential quarters (in which Czechoslovakia is represented by two works: Havlíček & Honzík, a residential quarter with houses of the "Koldom" type and Gillar & Špalek, a residential district with collective houses, proposals from this year's competition held by the Prague municipality for small apartments), Victor Bourgeois and C. van Eesteren gave explanations. A synoptic table was compiled based on the data of individual exhibited zoning plans and systems (population density, ratio of street area to land area, land price, etc.), which allows for a good overview and instructive comparison. Le Corbusier remains faithful to the zoning of open blocks of houses arranged in the form of some meander: otherwise, the row system (Einzelnreihenbebauung) seems to be winning: Gropius's regulations in Dammerstock near Karlsruhe, Spandau-Haselhorst by the same author, some Frankfurt settlements, and others. In the category of mixed buildings, we missed an exemplary zoning plan for Torten in Dessau, developed by the construction department of the Bauhaus under the leadership of Hannes Meyer (reproduction see STAVBA, VIII, no. 10).
The public discussions of the congress were concluded by a speech from chairman K. Moser, who emphasized that the end of the program is not the end of the work; rather, the congress has brought new themes that will require further development and that the issue of minimum housing, the question of rational zoning, and the problem of high versus low buildings could not be exhausted: it will be necessary to further deepen and resolve these issues.
"We have noted that the housing conditions of the existence minimum classes are more or less precarious in all countries. We must combat numerous obstacles, backwardness, and prejudices: against reaction. This is the true mission of congresses." In conclusion, Professor Moser thanked on behalf of the congressists Mrs. de Mandrot, who is "the mother of the banner of our congresses", and the Belgian group, which, under the leadership of V. Bourgeois, contributed much dedicated work to the success of this year's congress, which is brilliant and indisputable.
After the conclusion of the public program of the congress, several meetings of CIRPAC were still held, and then the general electoral assembly of congressists took place. The general assembly first elected a new executive committee -- CIRPAC. The newly elected committee then established a presidium and a commission for the preparation of the next congress. As Professor K. Moser, who was the first brilliant president of CIRPAC and the congresses resigned from his position, he was unanimously elected honorary president. The new president was elected C. van Eesteren, with Victor Bourgeois and Walter Gropius serving as vice presidents. Dr. S. Giedion was re-elected as secretary.
At the meetings of CIRPAC, it was resolved to hold the next congress in May 1932 in Moscow. The invitation from the Moscow group and the Soviet government was accepted unanimously and with applause. Considering that delegates from some countries would have considerable difficulties with travel documents to Moscow, it was resolved that the presidium would energetically intervene with the relevant authorities. The travel conditions offered by Moscow were accepted. The theme of the Moscow congress was set as "The Constructive, Functional City" (Konstruktive Stadt, La ville fonctionelle). The congress thus transitions in its work from the housing problem to the regulation of residential neighborhoods to the broad urban problem of the city as a whole, while continuing to work on the preceding themes. The program of this congress also includes (at the request of the Czechoslovak delegation) the discussion question "urbanism and desurbanization," as the newly founded socialist cities in the USSR have nothing in common with existing urban forms and because this discussion is currently at the forefront of interest not only in architectural circles: the elimination of the difference between town and countryside must be included in the agenda of the Moscow congress.
It was resolved, at the invitation of the German group, to hold a committee meeting of delegates (CIRPAC) in June 1931 in Berlin in connection with the construction exhibition there. It was decided to send a thank you telegram in response to the invitation and congratulatory telegrams to Moscow. Finally, upon reading the financial program, the meetings were concluded.
The work of the congress is not yet concluded, as it addresses highly current and alive issues, looking at them from a broad and modern perspective. Further work will continue on the theme "Minimum Housing" and simultaneously, the theme "The Constructive City." The exhibitions, lectures, discussions, and especially the publications of the congresses have undeniably great and favorable significance and influence for the broad international public. Congresses and CIRPAC demonstrate through their work that they are the architectural modern international and its executive body, which has a profound influence on the development of new architectural creation. The most important gain and contribution of the Brussels congress can be identified as the first appearance in Western Europe of the idea of new residential structures, collective houses, an idea which signifies a new chapter of revolutionary significance in the development of housing construction and in architectural development in general. Likewise, in the preparation for the next congress, the idea of the socialist city and the overcoming of the contradiction between town and village. This means that modern architecture is becoming aware of its place and its duties towards social and political development and struggles. These ideas will likely act as crystallization points within the architectural community: around them will cluster genuine architectural modernism, consistent left, the living core of pioneering architecture for tomorrow.
*) The latest issue of the journal "Das neue Frankfurt" (1931, 2.) publishes this Gropius report in full along with a number of interesting reproductions and explanatory diagrams. Likewise, discussions about high or low buildings are being conducted in other architectural journals, which proves that this question has become a contemporary issue in Europe.
International congresses of modern architecture represent the organization of the architectural avant-garde on a global scale: their purpose is to ideate, theorize, and promote work in the field of new architecture. They aim to actively support the development and advancement of construction creation in the modern spirit, and they can best fulfill this task by addressing current issues in detail and from various perspectives, attempting to formulate the problems of the present and the coming future not merely within the limits of narrow expertise, but from all sides and in full scope, and by contributing through their discussions, exhibitions, and publications to the development and deepening of modern architectural work as scientific and research work. This is possible only if the architectural modernism, which organizes these congresses, secures organic and organized cooperation with economists, technicians, sociologists, hygienists, biologists, and doctors, historians, social welfare experts, etc. One of the main tasks of the congresses is to promote unity and permanent cooperation between architectural creation and other fields of science, technology, social work, and the entire social life.
The foundations for such an international organization of the architectural avant-garde and the left were laid in the summer of 1928 at the first preparatory congress of international modern architecture in Switzerland, at the castle of La Sarraz (near Lausanne), provided by Mme de Mandrot for the congress. The outcome of the discussions at the first congress was the establishment of an executive committee, which will henceforth direct the activities of the congresses: International Committee for the Realization of the Problems of Contemporary Architecture = Comité International pour la Réalisation du Probléme ď Architecture Contemporaine, abbreviated as CIRPAC. The Congress of La Sarraz also published a manifesto that articulated the ideological and action program and framework for future congresses, a kind of thesis of modern architecture. (STAVBA published detailed articles regarding the preparations and the manifesto of this congress in years VII, issues 2 and 5, to which we refer.)
Subsequent congresses, guided by CIRPAC, were to focus on specific architectural problems, according to their relevance.
The 2nd congress took place in the autumn of 1929 in Frankfurt am Main, under the presidency of Prof. Karel Moser from Zurich. The theme of this congress was the minimum housing (L'habitation minimum, Wohnung für das Existenzminimum). Undoubtedly the most pressing theme at a time marked by ongoing and worsening housing crises across nearly all of Europe. And exactly a theme that, if to be discussed comprehensively and broadly, must be addressed through collaboration between architects and other scientists, specifically sociologists and economists.
3. Brussels Congress 1930
The third congress in Brussels (November 1930) marked a sign of growth and strengthening for this international organization of modern architectural thought. Since the theme of minimum housing cannot be exhausted by a single congress and a year-long effort by CIRPAC, the Brussels congress further engaged with it, also extending it to the broader field: rational regulation and zoning plans for residential neighborhoods (with minimum housing). Therefore, the program of the Brussels congress was more comprehensive, and its working and promotional results were richer. The congress was particularly significant in promoting the interests of the Belgian group: in very few developed countries is modern architecture so overlooked, ignored, and boycotted by both officials and the general public as it is in Belgium: Belgian architectural modernism has had an incongruously small application in construction practice relative to its significance and qualities. The Belgian group, overcoming adverse conditions and public indifference with doubled efforts and enthusiastic dedication, achieved results that far exceeded their financial capabilities, without support and subsidies—so truly in the spirit of congresses that work without financial means.
"Les Journées de l'Habitation minimum"
In connection with the congress, the Belgian group organized a sort of "Week of the Minimum Housing," "Les Journées de l'Habitation Minimum," from November 22 to 26, 1930: a series of lectures and several exhibitions. The chairman of these "Journées" was Senator Albert Francois. The preparatory work of the Belgian group was directed by Victor Bourgeois.
The lecture series included the following themes: on housing constructions in Frankfurt presented by Jos. Gantner, editor of the magazine "Das Neue Frankfurt," on construction activities in Amsterdam by C. van Eesteren, on his architectural theories by Le Corbusier, on the ideological program of CIRPAC by secretary Dr. S. Giedion, on the problem of high versus low residential buildings by W. Gropius, on the housing question and modern architecture in Czechoslovakia by the author of this article. (The planned lecture by A. Sartoris had to be canceled as Italian authorities refused to issue travel documents to this leader of the Italian modern architectural movement!)
The collection of exhibitions was organized as follows:
1. A posthumous exhibition of the deceased urban planner and promoter of garden cities in Belgium, Louis van der Swaelmen.
2. An exhibition of 200 floor plans of minimum housing (a selection from the Frankfurt traveling exhibition).
3. An exhibition of "New Frankfurt," a traveling collection.
4. An exhibition of rational kitchens.
5. An exhibition of new architecture in Belgium (Bourgeois, Hoste, Verwilgen, Eggericx, de Konninck, Henveaux, Taelemans).
6. An exhibition of student works from the architectural specialty at the "Institut supérieur des Arts décoratifs," directed by Victor Bourgeois.
7. An exhibition of books, publications, and magazines dedicated to modern architecture (from Czechoslovakia, STAVBA and MSA were exhibited).
The congress meetings consisted of two types: public lectures and discussion evenings, as well as internal meetings, the gathering of delegates (CIRPAC) and the general assembly of congressists. The work of the congress began with a preparatory meeting of delegates (November 26). The congress was publicly inaugurated by the speech of chairman K. Moser (November 27) and the openings of the congress exhibitions. Then the program of public lectures was pursued: 1. discussions about high, medium, or low buildings; 2. reports from individual countries on the objective conditions of resolving the housing question, existing obstacles, and ideal proposals; 3. Le Corbusier's presentation regarding his survey on the hermetic house. The congress was concluded on November 30, 1930.
High, medium or low residential buildings? (Flach- Mittel- oder Hochbau?)
This is an urgently current topic. The core of the program and discussions at the congress. A desirable revision of established and presumably outdated views on the advantages of certain existing building types, namely low and medium houses. The issue of the residential skyscraper, which still almost universally encounters distrust: to what extent is this distrust justified? Speakers: Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, R. I. Neutra and Frankfurt architects Kaufmann & Boehm. Le Corbusier’s presentation: The problem of low, high, or medium buildings can only be viewed in a broad perspective, from the standpoint of the entire modern city. In urban planning, this problem is posed as a question of population density: should the density of population in large cities be increased or decreased? Should the area occupied by the metropolis be increased or reduced?
Cities are places for work and rest—homes. Modern industry has disrupted the old relationships between work and housing. A dangerous crisis has arisen. Man has become a slave to industry; his mental state is depressive and destructive. The phenomenon: the city and urban housing must be reorganized anew. Fortunately, modern industry and modern technology, which triggered this disruption, also provide solutions and opportunities for liberation. New constructive methods have revolutionized architecture. They offer means for new organization of cities. Until the mid-19th century, cities were enclosed in the bonds of fortifications: new life and the growth of cities have surpassed and broken this oppressive framework. Today, transport, cramped by old corridor streets, is also leaving these narrow confines. This state too needs to be overcome; cities need to be fundamentally rebuilt, which can only happen on the basis of rational economy, proceeding and acting systematically.
By constructing high buildings, administrative, commercial, and residential, it would be possible to significantly reduce the area of cities, which once again would favorably resolve the traffic crisis. High buildings (skyscrapers) would occupy approximately 12% of the total area of the city; streets about 8%; the entire remainder, approximately nearly 80% of the area, would be planted, turning into a vast garden, with spaces for sports, relaxation, always in immediate proximity to homes. Every window opens onto a wide green area. Naturally, there would be no yards. Le Corbusier substantiates his conclusions by referring to his proposal for the renovation of the Parisian center, the "Plan Voisin de Paris" from 1925, which is still considered a "paper utopia" only because it has not been realized, and to a proposal for a Moscow residential district that will soon be constructed. This Moscow district is designed to be built in open blocks resembling some meander; they are naturally collective houses (communal houses) of 10-12 stories, with about 200 residential units per floor. Four elevators serve 2000 residents. The corridors of these houses, much longer and wider than those typically used until now (and yet the main advantage of the gallery system, from an economic standpoint, is that one staircase is sufficient for a relatively large number of apartments, thus for a relatively significant length of the facade)—these corridors, leading from the elevator to the apartments, are essentially pedestrian streets, which significantly ease pedestrian frequency on traffic routes.
The internal organization of such houses, primarily those which Le Corbusier designed for Moscow, is characterized by the joint accommodation of functional housing, which liberates women from the kitchen and household chores.
Since the question of high versus low houses poses in terms of urban planning the issue of increasing or decreasing population density, the speaker demonstrates the necessity of increasing the population density in the residential sectors of modern cities to an average of 1000 inhabitants per hectare. Le Corbusier states that international statistics show the lowest mortality rates in densely populated areas: mortality decreases to the extent that the population concentrates.
However, it is necessary to note something regarding this statistical evidence that Le Corbusier perhaps forgets: that places with low population density today are often remote and underdeveloped villages in the poorest regions, where civilization has not yet penetrated, where there are no doctors, where there is no health awareness, and actually no education at all: remedying this deplorable state cannot clearly be achieved by concentrating hundreds of millions of rural population into a few large cities but through raising both the material and cultural level of that population, which requires, finally, the elimination of the difference between town and village.
At the end of his speech, Le Corbusier mentioned the ongoing discussion in the Soviet Union: urbanism or desurbanization? Le Corbusier, who naturally supports the standpoint of urbanism, seems not to fully understand what is meant by the term desurbanization. Desurbanization has nothing to do with the former utopian idea of Taut of "dissolving cities," nor with the English ideology of garden cities and decentralization of the city. It is not the place to explain in detail the stance on "desurbanization," which calls, in the sense of Marx's, Engels's, and Lenin's theories, for the abolishment of the difference and contradiction between town and village, a new layout of humanity according to the plans of new production "points" and the dissolution of the concentration of industrial enterprises that are not interconnected with the manufacturing process.
Le Corbusier, furthermore, provided another reason why he considers his urban solution advantageous and desirable: the city he proposes is allegedly the only one capable of defense in the event of a future aerial-chemical war. The ground level of the city, where heavy poisonous gases would settle, could be ventilated since it is built on stilts, and the rooftop terraces of high buildings, whose total area would be much smaller than the surface of roofs in old cities, could be equipped with armored plates against bombs: covering the roofs of old houses with armor is supposedly not financially feasible. Although this method of defense supposedly piques the interest of French military circles, one cannot fail to see that it is a dubious and naive reason that significantly compromises Le Corbusier’s more serious intentions.
At the conclusion of his speech, Le Corbusier stated that the first condition of rational urbanism is land reform and the reallocation of land in cities. Only then can urbanism begin its planned activities: which government and form of governance will allow these plans to be realized?
Walter Gropius's report:*
In the question of which residential form is most advantageous for city dwellers, personal opinions and preferences, lifestyle, employment, and especially the financial circumstances of that resident currently decide. The family low house with a garden is an ideal for many as a refreshing countryside amidst the straining city, because it is a housing form borrowed from rural settlements. Such a dwelling provides peace, separation from other families, rest in one’s own garden, easier supervision of children, etc. It is indeed an economically disadvantageous and unprofitable form for minimum housing. Housing here is relatively expensive, domestic work laborious, and occupants are firmly tied to one place. Moreover, colonies of low single-family houses require long access routes, increasing distances, causing loss of time, and complicating transport. Rational urban development is not conceivable this way. If everyone were to live in a single-family house, the city would be disorganized.
A high rental building ensures shorter distances and access streets, saving time and money with its shared facilities, easing household chores, and supporting collective lifestyles. Less favorable are concerns regarding the supervision of children outside the apartment, since gardens are relatively distant from the apartments situated on higher floors. As a housing form for minimum housing, the high house is advantageous. Economically and practically, a 10-12 story building is recommended as the most advantageous residential structure for all urban sectors close to the center or where land is expensive.
The medium house, averaging 2-5 stories, has neither the advantages of low houses nor those of high houses. It combines the disadvantages of both types plus its own disadvantages. Even though it is currently the most common and widespread residential structure, it must be noted that it cannot match either preceding types from a social, psychological, or often even from an economic standpoint. Overcoming the medium-type residential house will be a significant architectural advancement. Gropius recommends the high house, constructed in rows sufficiently spaced apart: with the same population density and maintaining the angle of sunlight, the distances between rows of 10-story buildings can be more than 8 times greater than the distances between rows of two-story houses. As a result, even occupants of ground floor apartments in high buildings can see the sky from their windows. Green spaces between buildings and gardens on the rooftop terraces ensure that the poles: city and countryside, come psychologically closer together. (Gropius calls this: it dissolves the differences between town and country. We note that urban gardens, green strips, and spaces do not at all correspond with what the Marx-Engels-Lenin theory means under that term.) Nature will then not be just a Sunday and English Saturday experience for city inhabitants.
According to Gropius, only high buildings meet the actual needs of urban residents, and on the outskirts low single-family houses. The medium urban house is said to be a relic. Gropius calls for states, authorities, municipalities, and professional institutions to support the construction of high buildings and to enable it financially, as it will surely be more expensive initially than conventional constructions: therefore Gropius maintains that today these buildings will most likely meet the housing needs of wealthy young childless couples.
At the conclusion of the lecture, Gropius emphasized that the future of new housing forms will be determined by the worldview of the population and the political development of circumstances. Based on these assumptions, Gropius developed several designs for buildings with a larger number of stories: including twelve-story buildings (steel skeleton) containing a gallery system (first prize in the Reichsforschungsgesellschaft competition) for the residential area of Spandau-Haselhorst near Berlin, and a large 10-story boarding house (Stahlwohnhochhaus mit zentralen Gesellschaftsraum), which he exhibited in the spring of 1930 in Paris in the German section (Werkbund) of the Société des Artistes Décorateurs. It is, however, a strange paradox to see here that Gropius, who so emphasizes the housing needs of the existence minimum class and recognizes the disintegration of the family unit within this class, is conceiving his boarding house for free men and women or childless couples, not for people at the existence minimum, but for very well-off and financially robust citizens. Thus, the social hall in his boarding house is not at all similar to a workers' club, a center of education, and a relaxation area, but a café, bar, a new form of salon, complete with even a pool. The residential unit of this house, which was developed by Marcel Breuer, consists of these rooms: a lady's room, a gentleman's room, with a common entrance hall between them, a bathroom, and a small kitchen, plus potentially a study. These rooms are universal living spaces for habitation, reading and studying, eating, resting, and sleeping: both man and woman can live independently and together here; their rooms communicate through the common entrance, bathroom, and kitchen, which separate them from one another. According to growing housing demands and needs, additional adjoining rooms can be attached to this residential unit: variability. The boarding house of this conception is, as is evident, not a collective house for the existence minimum: it is a fully modern comfort-equipped facility for wealthy tenants or an ordinary family hotel. It is merely a special case of bourgeois housing: the housing question is addressed as a secondary matter. It has been very rightly pointed out against this Gropius and Breuer project that it is ultimately secondary, whether a few families can arrange their lives in such a house in the manner of merry widows and carefree young men when hundreds of thousands of people live in cellar rooms, that this housing conception does not correspond to any new social ideal, but caters to extravagant lifestyles of certain petty-bourgeois and bourgeois strata.
Report by R. I. Neutra:
Neutra approached the given question primarily from a commercial perspective. He arrived at conclusions quite similar to those of W. Gropius. He stated that in the USA the skyscraper no longer exists as a technical puzzle: everything we still doubt here in Europe is in America a matter of daily routine: elevators, installations, ventilation, fire safety and infection safety, etc. Everyday practice over several decades has shown that high buildings are not economically disadvantageous.
Both categories, low and high buildings, find different applications in the USA. Low houses are favored by families with children. Neutra points out that in the USA, it has not been observed that ownership of a single-family house ties residents to one location, as these houses are relatively inexpensive in relation to a sufficiently high standard of living for workers: a worker who changes jobs sells the house and buys or rents a house elsewhere. The skyscraper, according to Neutra, did not arise to concentrate the city and reduce its area: this argument of Le Corbusier does not correspond to American reality. Skyscrapers also do not shorten traffic distances, as Gropius suggests, provided that appropriate gaps between houses are maintained. For traffic, neither distance nor frequency and intensity are decisive; rather, it is a rational urban and traffic plan that enables cars to develop speeds that compensate for time lost due to distance and prevents waiting at intersections. Neutra points to his proposal for bridging intersections (reproduced in Stavba IX, issue 1, illustration 11).
The most widespread building structure in the USA is not high buildings, but low houses: it is a classic country of independent family villas. However, there has recently been a significant increase in the percentage of residential skyscrapers in the overall construction movement, which demonstrates that low single-family houses do not have any substantial advantages over high ones and that high buildings are thus suitable structures for small apartments. They are increasingly sought after by less affluent strata. For families with children, however, the single-family house remains the most practical, and architects need to work on its further improvement.
Economically advantageous in the USA are also small single-family houses that can be built of lightweight and cheap materials, as well as skyscrapers. Medium houses, if built of fireproof materials and provided with the desired comfort, are less advantageous than both preceding types. A three or five-story house without a personal and cargo elevator would be unacceptable in America, as the population there is accustomed to lifts: it would be a prison, not a home.
The report by Kaufmann & Boehm: Frankfurt architects Kaufmann & Boehm addressed the issue only from the standpoint of construction costs. Assuming a modern type of zoning in rows (Einzelnreihenbebauung), where rows of houses are built in a north-south direction, with windows facing east and west, and where traffic streets run west-east along the side of the rows of houses, so that between the facades of the houses there are only lawns and paths for pedestrians, at such zoning the economic yield of a house rises to 5, possibly 6 stories. However, this calculation presumes that we are building houses up to 5 or 6 stories with load-bearing brick walls, without elevators, and without implementing central heating and gas. It is easy to demonstrate that a 5-story house with small apartments without an elevator, central heating, and gas is financially the most economical. However, can such a "minimum" be acceptable at all? Carrying coal to the 5th floor, without an elevator, is an expense that even if a poor housewife does this work, or a coal carrier of a higher gratuity, must be factored into the operation, as where there is no gas stove in the kitchen, no gas heaters, and no automatic machines in the bathroom, signifies a considerable entry. There is a question of whether it would even be advisable to install a bathroom in small apartments without gas lines, whether, under these circumstances, visiting a bathhouse might not be more comfortable. Kaufmann and Boehm's calculations indicate that the economic viability of such houses ends at the 6th floor since at greater heights it is necessary to account for elevators, central heating, and a steel or concrete skeleton construction; the efficiency of such a building increases with the number of additional floors and reaches its maximum between the 10th and 15th floors, without, however, achieving the profitability of that 5-story house.
Finally, a resolution, as proposed by CIRPAC, was adopted:
"We note that we have enough experience today with low houses and medium 4-5 story houses to assess their utility. Low houses, despite initially being uneconomical, have received widespread expansion, thanks to support and promotion from decisive authorities. The medium house was actually created during times of intensive growth of metropolises through private speculation, as it provides, compared to a low house, greater opportunities for exploitation in every respect. The high house can be substantiated by American experiences: here, however, it generally concerned apartments that are costly by our standards. The congress states that the high house is a housing form that can lead to the solution of the minimum housing issue; however, it does not consider this form to be the only correct and desirable one. It is necessary for the high house to be reconsidered, to recognize its potential, and to explore its advantages through implemented examples even if obstacles of a financial, technical, legislative, or sentimental nature oppose its realization."
This resolution is not, after all, a resolution: it is not a decision. It is merely the articulation of an opinion. We believe that today, under the given assumptions and on the basis of this discussion, a clear resolution would be premature. It is impossible to reach a more resolute position while considering the housing of a family with a traditional household and differences in the financial capabilities of the population. Objections against placing children and the elderly in the 10th floor cannot be dismissed. The problem is posed differently if we consider the house as a collective dwelling of the Soviet type. The significance of this discussion, which cannot be concluded today, lies primarily in the detailed discussion of a highly current issue and the array of arguments for and against that were raised in it.
Reports from groups on objective conditions of the housing question, on current obstacles and "ideal propositions":
Another public meeting involved the reading of reports from individual groups on the objective conditions for resolving the housing questions of the existence minimum, which is primarily an economic and social issue. In addition to explanations on the economic, political, legislative, and social conditions in various countries, reports were presented on current barriers, particularly obsolete building regulations and financial difficulties that authorities and financial powers impose on rational solutions to housing questions on a mass scale. These reports, presented by delegates from Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the United States, etc., pointed out the complete deficit in the housing issue for the existence minimum in all countries: conditions are poor in some areas and even worse in others; that is the whole difference. — It was noted that housing shortages cannot today be solved through private enterprise, but only through social legislation, through state housing care. To this, it must be remarked that sadly there is today no state or parliament in Western Europe and America that would be capable of and willing to vote the necessary financial and legal prerequisites for such a housing social policy.
Based on these reports, the congress stated:
1. The majority of the urban population lacks sufficiently cheap and healthy apartments.
2. In most countries, the current situation is recognized as inadequate (exceptions USA and Hungary).
Steps have been taken against this situation. Through state subsidies for construction activity, a certain reduction in construction costs has been achieved with traditional construction methods and traditional floor plans of constructed apartments. However, since the possibilities that today's technology offers for systematic housing organization have not been utilized, the reduction achieved is completely inadequate. It is so minimal that the amounts requested for worker housing are, in relation to the average wages, unattainable. The obstacles that are placed in the way of rational residential constructions can be classified as follows:
a) Lack of land legislation, excessively fragmented land ownership. The zoning plans do not take into consideration rational land distribution and regulation.
b) Height restrictions continue to apply to the zoning of individual urban districts, instead of limits being imposed according to the population density, not the number of stories. (This is especially true in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, and Czechoslovakia.)
c) Distrust of new constructions (Belgium, Switzerland).
d) Protection of monuments, beauty of home and the aesthetics of building committees fight against the form, the look of buildings conditioned by new constructive methods that cannot be reconciled with historical notions of beauty (Netherlands, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia).
e) Seeing the house exclusively as a capital investment or loan collateral. Inadequate credit options for houses with small apartments (Denmark, Netherlands).
f) Lack of interest at guiding places for the results and experiments that have been achieved and undertaken in other countries (Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Hungary).
Le Corbusier’s lecture on the hermetic house
In addition to these two main discussions, Le Corbusier publicly presented his explanation regarding his survey on the hermetic house, in which he asked both for architectural solutions for modern collective housing and also sought expert opinions on acoustics and sound insulation in these houses, and also on artificial ventilation and heating, in such a way that instead of heating systems, there would be a factory for "exact air" installed in the house, which would extract stale air from the rooms, purify it, ozonate it, heat or cool it to a constant temperature of 18° C, and reintroduce it into the rooms. The facades of such houses would be hermetically sealed against external air, and instead of windows, there would be large glass surfaces. On this principle, Le Corbusier is building a colossal palace Centrosojuzu in Moscow. A report on Le Corbusier’s questionnaire was published in STAVBA (IX, no. 4, p. 65). Le Corbusier’s commentary based on the stenographic protocol will be published another time.
Congress Exhibitions
CIRPAC organized two exhibitions for the Brussels congress: an exhibition of sliding horizontal windows, which because of its cost is unlikely to be organized elsewhere again, and a traveling exhibition of rational zoning and regulatory plans for residential neighborhoods.
The exhibition of horizontal sliding windows began with a presentation given by R. Steiger and P. Barbe. The study of the minimum housing problem shows that with the reduction of spatial dimensions, the question of window construction, which does not require a large space when opened, becomes increasingly relevant, as opening a normal, well-dimensioned window requires a space that occupies 15-20% of the floor area of a small apartment, and this almost fifth of the apartment is consequently unusable for the movement of inhabitants or placement of furniture. Vertical sliding windows, used in private wealthy houses, are hardly applicable for small apartments, as due to their mechanism, complicated production, and difficult installation, they are often more expensive than horizontal sliding windows, which are the only ones suitable for inexpensive apartments. For these reasons, it is to be welcomed that an exhibition of numerous models of these windows of international provenance was organized: this provided an overview of current performances and progress, and then comparative critiques of various systems can bring important impulses for further improvement of certain constructive details. The exhibition grouped nearly all utilized systems, mostly in real-size models. We find here a model of Le Corbusier’s sliding window, Guévrekian’s model, Frankfurt’s window standard, etc. The Czechoslovak section facilitated that the Bratislava company Kraus presented two models of its steel sliding and tilting windows at the exhibition, which received considerable attention and were generally recognized, especially for Belgium, as very affordable in price. Of course, horizontal sliding windows would need to be significantly reduced in price: otherwise, they are still quite expensive for small apartments and remain luxurious. In countries with milder climates, where sealing is not as necessary, sliding windows are significantly cheaper, and therefore they are used much more often. The exhibition in Brussels can serve as a prompt for the industry to intensively continue improving horizontal sliding windows, which today still remain an unresolved question, while there exists, especially in America, hundreds of models of vertical sliding windows. Given that the choice of window systems depends not only on financial considerations but primarily on climatic considerations, it would be desirable for the exhibited models to be studied regarding their air-tightness (Wärmetechnik, Luftdichtigkeit). However, it was certainly not possible to conduct these tests for the exhibition, as it is known that individual research institutes provide very different results from tests and above all, such tests on so many exhibited models would require timeframes of several months. These testing results should, however, be published in a book that CIRPAC intends to release about horizontal sliding windows.
At the opening of the exhibition of rational zoning plans for residential quarters (in which Czechoslovakia is represented by two works: Havlíček & Honzík, a residential quarter with houses of the "Koldom" type and Gillar & Špalek, a residential district with collective houses, proposals from this year's competition held by the Prague municipality for small apartments), Victor Bourgeois and C. van Eesteren gave explanations. A synoptic table was compiled based on the data of individual exhibited zoning plans and systems (population density, ratio of street area to land area, land price, etc.), which allows for a good overview and instructive comparison. Le Corbusier remains faithful to the zoning of open blocks of houses arranged in the form of some meander: otherwise, the row system (Einzelnreihenbebauung) seems to be winning: Gropius's regulations in Dammerstock near Karlsruhe, Spandau-Haselhorst by the same author, some Frankfurt settlements, and others. In the category of mixed buildings, we missed an exemplary zoning plan for Torten in Dessau, developed by the construction department of the Bauhaus under the leadership of Hannes Meyer (reproduction see STAVBA, VIII, no. 10).
The public discussions of the congress were concluded by a speech from chairman K. Moser, who emphasized that the end of the program is not the end of the work; rather, the congress has brought new themes that will require further development and that the issue of minimum housing, the question of rational zoning, and the problem of high versus low buildings could not be exhausted: it will be necessary to further deepen and resolve these issues.
"We have noted that the housing conditions of the existence minimum classes are more or less precarious in all countries. We must combat numerous obstacles, backwardness, and prejudices: against reaction. This is the true mission of congresses." In conclusion, Professor Moser thanked on behalf of the congressists Mrs. de Mandrot, who is "the mother of the banner of our congresses", and the Belgian group, which, under the leadership of V. Bourgeois, contributed much dedicated work to the success of this year's congress, which is brilliant and indisputable.
After the conclusion of the public program of the congress, several meetings of CIRPAC were still held, and then the general electoral assembly of congressists took place. The general assembly first elected a new executive committee -- CIRPAC. The newly elected committee then established a presidium and a commission for the preparation of the next congress. As Professor K. Moser, who was the first brilliant president of CIRPAC and the congresses resigned from his position, he was unanimously elected honorary president. The new president was elected C. van Eesteren, with Victor Bourgeois and Walter Gropius serving as vice presidents. Dr. S. Giedion was re-elected as secretary.
At the meetings of CIRPAC, it was resolved to hold the next congress in May 1932 in Moscow. The invitation from the Moscow group and the Soviet government was accepted unanimously and with applause. Considering that delegates from some countries would have considerable difficulties with travel documents to Moscow, it was resolved that the presidium would energetically intervene with the relevant authorities. The travel conditions offered by Moscow were accepted. The theme of the Moscow congress was set as "The Constructive, Functional City" (Konstruktive Stadt, La ville fonctionelle). The congress thus transitions in its work from the housing problem to the regulation of residential neighborhoods to the broad urban problem of the city as a whole, while continuing to work on the preceding themes. The program of this congress also includes (at the request of the Czechoslovak delegation) the discussion question "urbanism and desurbanization," as the newly founded socialist cities in the USSR have nothing in common with existing urban forms and because this discussion is currently at the forefront of interest not only in architectural circles: the elimination of the difference between town and countryside must be included in the agenda of the Moscow congress.
It was resolved, at the invitation of the German group, to hold a committee meeting of delegates (CIRPAC) in June 1931 in Berlin in connection with the construction exhibition there. It was decided to send a thank you telegram in response to the invitation and congratulatory telegrams to Moscow. Finally, upon reading the financial program, the meetings were concluded.
The work of the congress is not yet concluded, as it addresses highly current and alive issues, looking at them from a broad and modern perspective. Further work will continue on the theme "Minimum Housing" and simultaneously, the theme "The Constructive City." The exhibitions, lectures, discussions, and especially the publications of the congresses have undeniably great and favorable significance and influence for the broad international public. Congresses and CIRPAC demonstrate through their work that they are the architectural modern international and its executive body, which has a profound influence on the development of new architectural creation. The most important gain and contribution of the Brussels congress can be identified as the first appearance in Western Europe of the idea of new residential structures, collective houses, an idea which signifies a new chapter of revolutionary significance in the development of housing construction and in architectural development in general. Likewise, in the preparation for the next congress, the idea of the socialist city and the overcoming of the contradiction between town and village. This means that modern architecture is becoming aware of its place and its duties towards social and political development and struggles. These ideas will likely act as crystallization points within the architectural community: around them will cluster genuine architectural modernism, consistent left, the living core of pioneering architecture for tomorrow.
*) The latest issue of the journal "Das neue Frankfurt" (1931, 2.) publishes this Gropius report in full along with a number of interesting reproductions and explanatory diagrams. Likewise, discussions about high or low buildings are being conducted in other architectural journals, which proves that this question has become a contemporary issue in Europe.
 |
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
