A History of Collective Living by Birkhäuser

Susanne Schmid

A History of Collective Living Forms

of Shared Housing

Edited by Susanne Schmid, Dietmar Eberle and Margrit Hugentobler by Edition Wohnen ETH Wohnforum, ETH CASE

Birkhäuser Basel

Foreword to the Second Edition

This second edition reinforces the current relevance of the subject. We are very pleased to present the history of collective living to you with minor revisions. History takes its time to emerge and be written, and we have therefore refrained from incorporating any new content in the second edition. However, our interest in the topic remains high, especially due to today’s pressing social issues including the pandemic, migration, and climate change, all of which will certainly have an impact on future housing. It is not yet possible to say conclusively whether this will give rise to new motivations with an ecological background or whether the circle will close and economic drivers will once again come to the fore, especially as recent developments must first be incorporated into living concepts. However, the future will reveal what is to come and the history of collective living will continue.

Susanne Schmid, Dietmar Eberle and Margrit Hugentobler

Foreword to the First Edition

To understand living as a shared experience stands in direct contradiction to the notion of living being the highest form of privacy. This divergence means that, when it comes to housing, there is always the question of where to draw the line between what is private and what is public (or semi-public). Collective living is based on the idea of reducing privacy and placing greater emphasis on the community aspect.

Our understanding of law and economics is governed by the precept of privacy. Despite this clarity, there have been many attempts over the past 150 years to redraw the lines between private and public, to redefine them and to foster the social acceptance of publicness.

This history, however, is only interesting when viewed as a potential answer to the concept of privacy that has arisen over the past few centuries and which did not exist in earlier societies. The importance placed on privacy reflects the level of economic and commercial progress made in the development of our society.

Attempts are forever being made as documented in detail in this book to redefine these boundaries, depending on the respective economic situation and how it is specifically reflected in society. Such attempts are driven by a variety of different factors.

The relevance of collective living in the minds of a younger generation today is, on the one hand, an expression of a lack of sustainable access to living space on economic grounds and, on the other hand, a longing to understand and redefine oneself in a different way on the basis of experiences.

This book takes a close look at the issue of moving spaces from a private setting to a public one. The fact that the legal foundations for this

encounter very different laws and regulation in the various countries merely serves to highlight the lack of social clarity when addressing the notion of a community as an area located between the public and the private sphere.

This idea of community as its own individuality when distinguishing between what is private and what is public is an interesting one, but it also raises new questions. With this in mind, the renaissance of cooperative thinking plays a key role in managing and organizing these concepts of community. In the countries of Europe today, there are very different legal frameworks for such cooperative thinking. Nevertheless, we believe that this approach is a template of the future for a rapidly growing proportion of the population.

Architecturally speaking, the efforts to establish collective living cannot be identified by a specific design or style, instead always making use of architectural forms of expression appropriate to the times. The mere existence of shifting spaces and building mass from a private to collective setting is a credible expression of what the architectural projects aim to achieve. Focusing on this clear material principle lends an air of credibility to the individual projects.

It was difficult for us to understand why there has been no clear and comprehensible documentation of these many attempts up to now, and it is perhaps a sign of the uncertainty in dealing with the subject, which is regarded as a peripheral phenomenon in society. This book aims to close this gap and to address the topic in both a transparent and comprehensible way. We hope you enjoy reading it.

PROF. ETH DI DIETMAR EBERLE

144 Community Settlements as Staged Neighborhoods

164 Cooperative Living and the Opening of Living Spaces

187 Excursus: Collective Housing in the German Democratic Republic Sharing Based on Social Intentions

192 Sufficiency and Participation: Sharing Based on Social Intentions

195 Changing Living Spaces Due to Changing Lifestyles

Prof. Dr. Ingrid Breckner

200 Differentiation Processes in European Housing Markets in the 21st Century

205 Housing and Culture Projects as an Expression of Community

232 Community Households and Cluster Apartments with Services

272 Co-Living as Interconnected and Decentralized Housing

289 Excursus: Communal Households and Squatting Summary

294 Extending Individuality

302 Four Levels of Action: A Perspective

308 Index

312 Bibliography

318 Biographies

320 Acknowledgments

Models of Shared Living: Context and Overview

“The human act, in this case the act of dwelling, determines what a dwelling is.”

JOHN HABRAKEN 1

Through our experiences with the everyday practice of dwelling within a home, we think we know exactly what dwelling entails. However, this commonplace knowledge is the result of prior social processes that are influenced and controlled by a number of factors.2 Since the advent of industrialization, collective living has come to reference a distinctively different and unique way of life that is outside of the norm, despite the fact that, historically speaking, collective living was the first form of housing. Thus, while shared living is the cultural heritage of how we dwell, our experience with it has been lost during the past few decades even though our history with this form of living still affects aspects of life as diverse as the distribution of roles between men and women, the definition of a household and how to run it, the organization of work and services, the raising of children, and the ways we spend our leisure time. Collective living creates far more complex ways of living together than does living individually. It can occur through a variety of different housing models and has finely differentiated and graduated qualities, uses, and degrees of public access. Collective spaces can be used individually or together, temporarily or permanently. The degrees of privacy and publicness shift according to how the spaces and their uses are designed. Shared living is for people who prefer such types of spatial use and living options, or who prioritize them at a certain stage of their life. People who share living space have a different way of assessing their needs around ownership and sharing than do people who live individually. Collective living gives rise to open and interactive spaces within which individual and collective needs are negotiated and provides versatile options for taking part in and partaking of social and housing policy processes.

If collective living and community have been a continuum throughout history, then a question arises: Why is this topic currently so relevant?3 The number of discussions in online forums, the media, and scientific journals is considerable. Current debates center around recent model housing projects, above all in German-speaking nations, in which collective living spaces are being designed and used in new and versatile ways. Residential projects with innovative spatial allocation programs that encompass far more than the usual common rooms as we know them, and that rethink spatial and social cohabitation, are being integrated into urban life. Individual and often minimal living spaces are being complemented by options for use that can be integrated in many ways. These experimental models of shared housing are inhabited in different ways and are increasingly coming to the attention of a broader public. Are these forms of shared living space new to the Central European urban context? Do they result from an evolving strand of housing history? And how do their spaces and uses adapt to today’s social conditions? These questions form the foundation of this publication on the history of collective living. The aim is to orient contemporary communal living models in history and to discuss and correlate the respective forms of sharing, the driving social factors behind them, and their economic, political, and social parameters.

The act of dwelling is taken for granted, yet it is subject to consumption. Everybody has to live somewhere; it is a human necessity and a basic need. The requirement is not only physical, arising from our need for a living space and a roof over our heads, it fulfills psychological and emotional needs and important social functions as well. How we live is an expression of lifestyle and attitude and is reflected in our

choice of residence, surroundings, type of dwelling, and furnishings.4 The location, the spatial atmosphere of a dwelling, options concerning its space and use are often very important criteria today, reflecting our ideas about particular ways of life, at least in cases where choices can be made. While housing is a medium that represents cultural milieu and individual lifestyle,5 those functions of dwelling that serve to maintain our existence remain in the foreground.6 Sociologists Hartmut Häußermann and Walter Siebel define four central characteristics of living: the functional significance of the home, the social unity of housing, the socio-psychological importance of housing, and the legal and economic parameters of the home.7 Collective aspects of living affect each of these four fields of meaning.

The functional significance of homes encompasses production, reproduction, and regeneration, aspects which are reflected in the functional set-up and use of living spaces. Reproduction is generally defined as household tasks such as food procurement, cooking, washing, and cleaning, and familial tasks such as care of family members, childcare, and parenting. Demographically, reproduction also refers to procreation. Reproduction plays a central role in two ways: it fulfills the basic needs

1 Habraken (1961): Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing,, p. 16.

2 Nierhaus, Nierhaus (eds.) (2014): Wohnen zeigen, Modelle und Akteure des Wohnens in Architektur und visueller Kultur, p. 12.

3 ARCH+ 232 (07|2018): “An Atlas of Commoning, Orte des Gemeinschaffens,” p. 22.

4 Gilg, Schaeppi (2007): Lebensräume: Auf der Suche nach zeitgemässem Wohnen, p. 11.

5 Terlinden in Döllmann, Temel (eds.) (2002): Lebenslandschaften, Zukünftiges Wohnen im Schnittpunkt von privat und öffentlich, p. 109.

6 Schneider, Spellerberg (1999): Lebensstile, Wohnbedürfnisse und räumliche Mobilität, p. 23.

7 Häußermann, Siebel (2000): Soziologie des Wohnens, Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdifferenzierung des Wohnens, p. 15.

required to preserve the vitality and work capacity of household members and it ensures the family’s continuity. With the advent of industrialization, homes largely lost their importance as sites of production. Additionally, for a number of reasons including the changing roles of women and men, many of the reproductive tasks related to traditional home and family activities are increasingly outsourced from the home and carried out by a diverse array of service facilities and additional infrastructure. Examples include nursing homes, childcare centers, and restaurants. This shifts the primary significance of the home to regeneration. This is still an existential aspect, as every person needs a place to physically retreat, a defined territory where personal integrity can be maintained.8 A home that is a personal refuge becomes a place of regeneration and leisure, while other aspects of reproduction are outsourced to shared spaces or to external infrastructures.

The social living unit refers to the relationships between the occupants for example, whether the relationship is familial or the social living unit is non-familial and part of a smaller or larger network. In central Europe, social living units made up of nuclear families with two parents and a child or children comprise only about a quarter of all households.9 Other household types have long since replaced the historically traditional family. The integrative aspect of housing is highly relevant, since social anchoring, attachment, and belonging to a group are essential components of basic human needs.10 For most people, living in a stable social environment, whether inside a home, in an apartment complex, or in a neighborhood, is an important means of feeling embedded in society. Opportunities for and unhindered access to social exchange and par-

ticipation is an important component of a healthy social network, as is providing assistance to and receiving support from relatives, friends, and acquaintances. Through partaking in and belonging to a residential community, the social unit creates a sense of home that ties into the human need for recognition and appreciation.

The socio-psychological definition of living is based upon the protective unit created by a home, fulfilling the need for retreat and security, providing protection from external influences, and forming a contrast to public life. The home is a place of emotionality, intimacy, physicality and thus reproduction, hygiene, and personal care. The boundaries of privacy and intimacy have changed over the decades, adapting as forms of living have changed. Two centuries ago, a threshold of shame and embarrassment about physicality and intimacy separated the home from public space.11 This is still true in terms of physical spatial formulations, because living space has grown significantly as a result of the fourth industrial revolution. Now, digitization and new means of communication are once again blurring the boundaries between living and working. Thanks to the internet, the world and thus the public can be brought straight into the bedroom, so to speak. The insulating nature of the home as a place of intimacy is undergoing major changes, and the socio-psychological significance of habitation must be redefined and renegotiated as time passes.

The fourth aspect, the legal and economic parameters of the home, is of major significance, as it is associated with the need for security and control over one’s immediate living situation. In late-capitalist societies, housing is generally designed and produced by various kinds of professional groups of investors, plan-

ners, and architects. Ownership, partial ownership, and rent influence legal and economic power over home and living space, combined with degrees of security, control, and creative autonomy to influence the way people live. Home and living space is a product that is appropriated by the occupants and, in turn, regulated by negotiated contract terms, agreements, and house rules. In this area, transparent processes and legal security ensure a stable interplay between supply and demand. However, housing availability is often linked to factors that are difficult to influence. For example, external factors such as interest rates and the overall economy, location desirability and purchasing power, legal regulations such as rent laws, and urban development factors are all components of complex processes that affect the housing market in different ways.12

Collective living is characterized by these four basic elements and by specific motives for creating this collectivity that society values differently depending on the era. This publication is structured based upon these economic, political, and social intentions. Three models of collective living have been assigned to each intention, creating nine models of living that serve as examples, correspond to the zeitgeist in which they were created, and are also characterized by additional parameters such as legal circumstances, familial traditions and household forms, types of work and mobility, and the ever-changing cultural shifts that define the respective epoch. The aim of this history of collective living is neither to adapt historical models of living to the present time, nor to ensure that shared institutions and services continue into the future. Rather, it is our hope that more closely examining the developmental lines of these nine living models will lead to an understanding of the motivations behind their emer-

gence and, thanks to the systematic presentation method used, that the shifting of spaces from private into the collective and public spheres can be made visible.

In order to present possible developments in a uniform manner, the featured projects of each individual living model include information on their organizational form; resident demographic, user groups, and milieu; and operational and spatial structures, including the array of shared spaces and facilities. Additionally, the following chapters will detail the factors that made each project unique to its place, time, and social condition. The selected projects are presented in chronological order within the nine housing models, from the advent of industrialization to the present day. Although each housing model is marked by various economic, political, and social goals, the historical circumstances and era it is rooted in raise one intention or motive to the fore. The resulting lexicon on the history of collective living over the last 150 years should serve as a handbook and comprehensive contribution to the understanding of collective living and the housing models associated with it. The residential properties featured in greater detail were selected for their particular relevance, each one illustrating an innovative approach

8 Brändle-Ströh: “Was braucht der Mensch zum Wohnen?” In SozialAktuell, SBS (05|1999), p. 17.

9 Spellerberg (ed.) (2018): Neue Wohnformen – gemeinschaftlich und genossenschaftlich, Erfolgsfaktoren im Entstehungsprozess gemeinschaftlichen Wohnens, p. 2.

10 Zibell: “Wohnen ist mehr.” In Altenstraßer, Hauch, Kepplinger (eds.) (2007): Gender housing –geschlechtergerechtes bauen, wohnen, leben, p. 63.

11 Häußermann, Siebel (2000): Soziologie des Wohnens, Eine Einführung in Wandel und Ausdifferenzierung des Wohnens, p. 23.

12 Gilg, Schaeppi (2007): Lebensräume, Auf der Suche nach zeitgemässem Wohnen, p. 11. 13 ARCH+ 232 (07|2018): “An Atlas of Commoning, Orte des Gemeinschaffens,” p. 33.

Sharing Based on Economic Intentions

Efficiency and Rationalization: Sharing Based on Economic Intentions

“The city is, above all, a social phenomenon. You cannot say anything about a city unless you examine its social structure.”

ARTHUR KORN 1

The first three models of collective living we present the Large Housing Complexes of the utopian socialists, Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses for urban nomads, and Central-Kitchen Houses as a model of social reform can all be characterized as having primarily economic intentions. This does not mean that the initiators of these shared housing models were not also motivated by political and social factors. However, from industrialization until the Second World War, the primary focus of these collective living models was improving access to affordable and higher-quality dwellings for disadvantaged user groups.

Designed and built from 1825 to 1860, the Large Housing Complexes of the utopian socialists sought to cushion widespread housing shortages by creating affordable living spaces for the working class. The cramped and unhygienic conditions of tenement housing, often operated by speculators, were to be replaced by collective residential properties that centralized certain functions in order to improve household efficiency and harmonize daily life and work.

The construction of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses from 1900 to 1940 aimed to integrate the new user category of single working men and women into the housing market, making living space affordable and accessible by creating rational and functional living units that could be easily maintained. Buildings in this collective living model often had a doorman, serviced lobby, and central hall for resident services.

Central-Kitchen Houses spread throughout central European cities at around the same time. This system of collective living, too, was motivated by improving household efficiency. Typically, Central-Kitchen Houses had a direct food elevator connecting the main kitchen and

each individual, kitchenless apartment. In this model it was the educated middle classes and well-educated working married women who benefitted. Their loads were lightened by centralized housework and childcare, helping them create a better balance of paid employment with home and family work.

Economically motivated living models were characterized by service-oriented designs that transferred certain functions out of the apartment in order to size and equip private spaces more efficiently. Many of the collectivized aspects of housework, such as shopping for groceries, preparing meals, and cooking, were carried out by employees in the main kitchen. Other shared spaces in this living model were also set up to facilitate tasks; in addition to the central kitchen, there were rooms for doing laundry, ironing, drying clothes, and storing cleaning supplies. Additional shared living spaces included a communal bathroom, hall kitchen (one for each floor), cafeteria, and dining room. These spaces compensated for the sometimes quite basic facilities within individual dwelling units. Kept to a minimum, private living areas were expanded and complemented by common recreation rooms, libraries and reading rooms, social rooms, and restaurants. Some living models also offered educational facilities, childcare, and fitness areas. As a result, most private dwelling units were configured in a way that precluded autonomous functioning; essential basic facilities were lacking, spaces were small, and specific functions of living were shifted out of the dwellings. However, the amenities provided in this service-oriented design facilitated the tasks of everyday life. A central characteristic of this living model was its service-oriented design. These living models were designed and implemented from the top down. Developers

worked together with architects to decide how and which living spaces would be shared and serviced. The Large Housing Complexes of the utopian socialists were characterized by a provident and paternalistic ideology and organizational form. The floor plans of Men’s and Women’s Hostels and Boarding Houses were heavily influenced by the architectural avant-garde and the image of the modern human at the time. A liberal and social democratic women’s movement influenced the design of individual living areas and the facilities and operation of complementary common spaces within CentralKitchen Houses. Collective living spaces were founded not on the concept of living together, but on the desire to improve living conditions and daily life for the inhabitants.

1 Quoted from the minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the International Congress on New Building in Berlin (4–5 June 1931), unpublished typescript, in Fezer, Hiller, Nehmer, Oswalt (2015): Kollektiv für sozialistisches Bauen, Proletarische Bauausstellung, p. 161.

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

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

Operational service-oriented operation structure with employees, low level of participation

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

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

Isokon Building

1 excluding 10 % circulation area

In contrast to Scharoun’s Men’s and Women’s Hostel, the Isokon Building remained largely in operation as a boarding house over the course of several decades.1 Built in 1933 in northern London by Canadian architect Wells Coates, the Isokon Building, also known as Lawn Road Flats, contains 32 standardized small housing units supplemented by a few collective living spaces.2 The Isokon Building was initiated by Molly and Jack Pritchard, active participants in the progressive social life of the inter-war years, who aimed to provide suitable housing for young men and women.3 The married couple lived in a small penthouse apartment in the building, and the architect in a small unit on a standard floor. The apartments ranged from 32 to 49 m² and were fully equipped with a bathroom, kitchenette, and dressing room, although everything was designed with the most economic use of space possible. The small dwellings were reached via an access balcony, intended to encourage communication and community between residents.4 In terms of housing typology, the Boarding House type was merged with that of the Central-Kitchen House, with a dumbwaiter leading directly from the central kitchen into some apartments. Nevertheless,

Isokon Flats was a typical Boarding House, with the motivation for sharing rooted in the services, not in the collectivization of the household or even in shared living together. Extensive services were available, including a porter in the lobby, a meal service, and cleaning and laundry services. The common areas consisted of a tennis court, downstairs restaurant, and a bar, the Isobar, designed by Marcel Breuer, to which only designated club members were admitted.5

The Isokon Flats were mostly inhabited by residents without children, though it is known that the owners lived in the conventionally furnished penthouse with their two children. In any case, this new form of housing attracted a rather illustrious population of artists and culture creators of the upper middle class.6 However, the effects of National Socialism and World War II left their marks on the Isokon Building, extinguishing its dynamic liveliness. Many residents left not only the building but the country and continent, and shared areas were no longer kept in operation. After the war, the building served as an ordinary apartment house and was sold in the early 1970s by the Pritchard couple. As refurbishments were never undertaken, the building increasingly disintegrated, and was not restored until 2003. The Isokon Building is currently managed as an apartment building with a museum section. 7

1 The name Isokon Building is derived from the modular housing units, the designs of which the architect showed using an isometric view. The English term Isometric Unit Construction was evolved into the name Isokon.

See also Burke (2014): The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers and Artists, p. 1.

2 Aigner (2015): Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, eine Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, p. 79.

3 The couple visited various building exhibitions and model settlements, such as the Weissenhof Settlement in Stuttgart, and was very interested in new forms of living. See also Burke (2014): The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers and Artists, p. 18.

4 Aigner (2015): Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, eine Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, p. 81.

5 Burke (2014): The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers and Artists, p. 106 and Aigner (2015): Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, eine Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, p. 82.

6 Former residents included writer Agatha Christie, sculptor Henry Moore, and also communists and refugees fleeing the increasingly fascist countries of Central Europe like László Moholy-Nagy, Marcel Breuer, and Walter Gropius. See also Burke (2014): The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers and Artists, pp. 8, 43.

7 Aigner (2015): Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, eine Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, p. 83.

Garden façade. Cantacuzino ¸Serban, Wells Coates, A Monograph, 1978

Access balcony along the street side façade.

Cantacuzino ¸Serban, Wells Coates, A Monograph, 1978

Garden façade.

Cantacuzino ¸Serban, Wells Coates, A Monograph, 1978

Study with areas that can be separated by curtain.

Cantacuzino ¸Serban, Wells Coates, A Monograph, 1978

Minimalist living unit with sleeping alcove.

Cantacuzino ¸Serban, Wells Coates, A Monograph, 1978

Spatial structure

Local area map with ground floor 1 : 500

Standard floor

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Regelgeschoss

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat

Cross-section

Exterior: public collective Interior: public collective

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche privat

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat

Lobby with porter

Central kitchen Access balcony

Collective spaces not shown

Restaurant Bar Tennis court

Regelwohnung

Regelwohnung

Exterior: public collective Interior: public collective Standard apartment 1 : 250

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

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

Operational service-oriented operation with structure employees, low level of participation

Nutzfläche öffentlich Nutzfläche kollektiv

Apartments 32 units sized 32 to 49 m²

Nutzfläche privat

Aussenfläche öffentlich Aussenfläche kollektiv Aussenfläche privat

Areas total site area 2,110 m², 4 stories

Schnitt

Sharing Based on Political Intentions

Progress and Stability: Sharing Based on

Political Intentions

“The essence of the new way of living is apartment buildings that have an inward focus and are expanded by shared common spaces.”

ERWIN MÜHLESTEIN 1

Our next three models of living Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings with a vision of social reform, Community Settlements as staged neighborhoods, and Cooperative Living with its open living spaces shared the political intentions of improving housing quality and increasing social stability. Despite differences, these collective living models were primarily aimed at nuclear families and focused on providing quality, well-planned living spaces. New forms of living that provided collective spaces for other user groups did not emerge in this particular phase, from the early 20th century to the Second World War.

The construction of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings in this time period arose from an embrace of social democratic ideals. In addition to housing cooperatives and trade unions, municipalities also became actively involved in construction activities. The architecture and design of these generally larger-sized housing estates were influenced by the ideals of New Objectivity. Rationalization, standardization, and the use of new materials were also of great importance, as were qualities like light, air, and sun. The most essential shared areas in Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings were outdoors, for the first time providing spaces for outdoor recreation and growing food in front yards, courtyards, or squares. The self-contained family apartments were often supplemented by numerous collective facilities such as shared bathrooms, central laundries, daycare facilities, schools, libraries, meeting facilities, and community centers.

During the post-war period, a new Community Settlement living model emerged, lasting into the 1970s. The hoped-for political stability after the Second World War, accompanied by economic growth and the idealization of the nuclear family with traditional roles, promoted

a retreat into private life. It was only in the Scandinavian nations that some developers continued to reference the pre-war visions of collective living spaces by including shared amenities such as collective kitchens, dining rooms, daycare facilities, and recreation rooms. Other than this, common areas were often limited to open-air spaces such as balconies or shared accessways like rues intérieurs. The middle class established itself in the Community Settlements, replacing the working classes as the users of shared spaces. Not until Cooperative Living projects started in the 1970s to mid-1980s did closed-off living spaces begin to open up to the collective once more. Experiments with shared access areas in Community Settlements were undertaken and then improved upon. This led to broad hallways and expanded access areas designed for active use, each affiliated with the adjacent apartments. The spatial connection to private spaces enabled residents to interact in these shared areas. The social change of the late 1960s, marked by a questioning of traditional hierarchies and role models that increasingly influenced private spatial boundaries, directly led to this evolution within Collective Living and the opening up of the private sphere.

The first two housing models of this era were characterized by more paternalistic and providential forms of organization, planned top-down and financed by non-profit, municipal, and, occasionally, private property developers. The Cooperative Living models of the 1970s and 1980s marked the first attempts at involving residents in the planning, construction, and operation of these residential properties through participatory processes. The driving force behind these developments came from developers and architects, for the most part, rather than from the residents themselves. Over time, the degree of resident participation

steadily increased, and many residential properties were eventually self-managed. With political change and the women’s liberation movement, a new understanding of living as a shared, neighborly way of life was born. The goal of simply supplying accommodation receded into the background. This, in turn, affected the diversity of collective living spaces. While the collective areas of Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings were limited to additional infrastructure and outdoor areas, and Community Settlements were focused on collective access areas, Cooperative Living models established new types of and uses for common areas. Shared kitchens and collective living areas were complemented by shared recreational spaces such as workshops and craft rooms, photo labs, and saunas. Larger accessways could be used for meeting and communication areas.

Something common to all three housing models was that the family, which had not yet been challenged as a social unit, remained the central focus of the community. Thus, autonomous family apartments with functional workspaces for well-organized housekeeping remained a feature typical of the collective living projects of the time. For the most part, there were no services offered or employees managing the common living areas. With women’s changing status and the evolving values of the 1970s, Cooperative Living models began to reveal cracks in the acceptance of traditional roles and conceptions of the family. However, these developments did not have a structural or spatial impact on collective living models until the years that followed.

1 Cited from Museum of Design Zurich (ed.) (1986): Das andere Neue Wohnen, Neue Wohn(bau)formen, p. 7.

Cross-section 1 : 1,000

Exterior: public collective

Interior: public collective

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

Resident around 223 residents, demographic high educational level

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat

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

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

Areas total site area 13,690 m², 5 stories

Søborg Torv, Dänemark

Poul E. Hoff und Bennet

Kollektivhuset

Høje

Schnitt

Massstab 1:1'000

Conjunto Residential Tower

The Conjunto Residential Tower, with 78 two- to four-room apartments of 38 to 91 m², was developed by Oscar Niemeyer as part of the 1957 International Building Exhibition Berlin (IBA 57), an exhibition located in the mostly destroyed Hansaviertel in central Berlin. The reconstruction of the district was intended to signify a new beginning for architecture and the urban landscape.1 The development included concepts for modern shared family life, with entrance areas, kitchens, and bathrooms kept small and functional in favor of larger actual living spaces.2 The eightstory Conjunto Residential Tower is supported by two rows of six double buttresses, called pilotis. This architectural air floor and indeed the entire development is a reference to Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation. Only the fifth and eighth floors can be reached by elevator; all other upper floors are accessed via an internal staircase.3 Niemeyer’s and Le Corbusier’s deliberations on this type of collective circulation area go back to the collective housing of the Russian avant-garde. Shared necessities like rues intérieures, arcades, and rooftop terraces were employed to combine and connect private apartments with collective spaces, much like the streets and squares of a city.4

However, too little attention was paid to the design of the community-promoting access areas of the Conjunto Residential Tower, with windowless and cramped staircases that seem rather unfriendly and triste. Oscar Niemeyer incorporated an open story into this same circulation area, similar to a distributor floor, to be used as collective space. This open story provided the name of the project: in Brazil, conjunto refers to an open floor, and translated literally it means a collection, connection, or combination. The west face of the fifth floor was therefore open, with apartments arranged along the east side. The open floor was well-situated and could be accessed by all residents and from three different stories.

Despite these structural inducements, community life never developed.5 One reason was the lack of furniture, as the administration had the furnishings removed at the conclusion of the building exhibition. Thus, although a half-story was open for collective use, the function of this undefined space remained unclear; the residents never came to view the undefined empty space as an extension of their personal living space and therefore never appropriated it. At the turn of the millennium, the apartments in the Conjunto Residential Tower were converted into condominiums. According to statements by the Hansaviertel Resident Association, the half-story of open space still remains unused.6

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

Berlin Hansaviertel Oscar Niemeyer Wohnhochhaus Conjuto Schwarzplan Massstab 1:12000

2 Bürgerverein Hansaviertel e.V. (2015): Hansaviertel Berlin, Architekturführer zur Interbau 57, p. 16.

3 Schulz, Schulz (2008): Das Hansaviertel, Ikone der Moderne, p. 76 f.

4 Muscheler (2007): Das Haus ohne Augenbrauen, Architekturgeschichte aus dem 20 Jahrhundert, p. 170.

5 Schulz, Schulz (2008): Das Hansaviertel, Ikone der Moderne, p. 77.

6 Carsten Bauer of the Hansaviertel Resident Association notes that the open floor also remains unused because inadequate acoustic dampening measures were undertaken during construction of the adjoining apartments. Furthermore, the building’s residents simply did not then, and do not now, have an interest in participating in a shared life.

Conjunto Residential Tower

Open story

Detached circulation core with access to the ﬁfth and eighth floors.

© Ulrich Greiner

The open floor was furnished only during the IBA in 1957.

© Ulrich Greiner

Stairwell to the apartments.

Façade view with open story on the ﬁfth upper floor. Landesarchiv Berlin, F Rep. 290 (01)

Empty open floor.

© Ulrich Greiner

öffentlich

Spatial structure

Regelgeschoss

Standard floor

Regelgeschoss

Local area map

Open floor

Freigeschoss

Exterior: public collective

Freigeschoss

Interior: public collective

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat öffentlich

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche privat

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Conjunto Residential Tower

Sharing Based on Social Intentions

Sufficiency and Participation: Sharing Based on Social Intentions

“Self-initiative emerges from two main motivations, from a lack of suitable alternatives and from the wish to create something according to one’s own ideas.”

KRISTIEN RING 1

The next three models of shared living Housing and Culture Projects as an expression of the community, Community Households and Cluster Apartments with services, and Co-Living as interconnected and decentralized housing all place social intentions in the foreground. In this ongoing phase of development and diversification, housing has become more communicative, networked, and diverse. Not only are the user groups engaged in shared living becoming broader and more colorful, the available private and shared living spaces and facilities are following suit. In contrast to the housing models of the past, these current housing models are expected to continue to spread and develop in different variations.

The term Housing and Culture Projects refers to the mostly self-initiated residential properties founded in the years since the mid-1980s, a residential model that focuses on a collective living style and is specifically designed to fulfill the needs of the targeted user group. Demographic changes and evolving family structures are reflected in unique ways in each Housing and Culture Project. New aspects include a strong emphasis on social exchange and a rejection of the nuclear family as the dominant household paradigm and housing form. Thus, in addition to family constellations, new multi-family, post-family, and non-family forms of cohabitation have been included in floor plan designs and plans for communal areas. Reconciling family and work life remains an important aspect of this type of shared living, but, increasingly, it considers both parents. Once again, living and working spaces are being combined. Studios, shared offices, and seminar rooms can now be found in apartment buildings and residential complexes.

Community Households and Cluster Apartments represent a fresh model of living that can partially be explained as a logical evolution from the residential communities popular in the 1970s. This model recognizes and addresses the current renewed interest in shared forms of living and interaction. It is based on individual living spaces that are strongly minimalistic yet connected to adjacent communal spaces, creating a combination that functions as a residential unit. The private areas of Cluster Apartments include a basic bathroom and sometimes a small place to cook. This type of floor plan is increasingly bringing services back into the living area, often with employees cooking or cleaning in the auxiliary rooms. Thus, for Generation X and younger generations, sharing living spaces no longer signifies giving something up, but adding value. In addition to individualization and personal responsibility, residents are also seeking opportunities to enter into relationships that they themselves choose.

Like Housing and Culture Projects, Community Households and Cluster Apartments are designed for participation, which is usually begun early, during the conception and implementation phase. In large residential properties or settlements, Community Households and Cluster Apartments are increasingly being combined with more traditional apartments of different sizes. These housing models are primarily funded and organized by non-profit housing developers and sometimes by local municipalities. Private real estate developers are also involved in the planning and implementation of the latest shared living model, Co-Living, which originated in the 2010s. The Co-Living user group consists primarily of young, well-educated working people. Employ-

ment and housing are closely linked, with work and home life constantly intertwined through digitalization. As a result, Co-Living almost always goes hand-in-hand with co-working. Like Cluster Apartments, the minimal, hotel-like private living spaces of Co-Living have a small private bathroom and, often, a kitchenette, and they can function as a full living unit only in combination with the common living areas. Co-Living, however, distinguishes itself from the other two housing models in that it is much more separated; there are no connections to other collective or conventional forms of living.

The common spaces of all three living models are used mainly for recreational activities, with a few exceptions: the collective kitchen, dining, and living rooms of Community Households, Cluster Apartments, and Co-Living, in which basic living functions are shared. In addition to cultural facilities such as music rooms, cultural spaces, and event halls, there are also spaces for workshops, photo labs, bike repair shops, and many other services. Swimming pools, saunas, and fitness rooms provide opportunities for exercise. Collective spaces for residents to cook and eat together remain very popular. These include shared kitchens, cafeterias, outdoor kitchens, barbecue areas, and house bars. Shared washing rooms have been upgraded to launderettes or laundromat/cafés and also sometimes act as a meeting space. For the first time in shared living, plans include rooms with no designated purpose. So-called white rooms or flex rooms can be appropriated by individuals or groups of residents, temporarily or for a longer period. Flex rooms can help improve coordination, increasing or decreasing private living space for example, for young adults in the transition between

1 Ring (ed.) (2013): Self Made City, Berlin, Selfinitiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions, p. 15.

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

Resident around 142 residents, hetero-geneous demographic range of inhabitants, mixed level of education

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

Apartments 58 units, 1.5- to 6.5-room apartments

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

Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project

As the name Sargfabrik (coffin factory) suggests, the Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project in Vienna is located on a former factory site. The project ensures diversity and variable density within the overall neighborhood environment thanks to the public accessibility of most of its collective areas. After a ten-year planning phase, in 1996 BKK-2 Architecture completed 73 apartments comprised of 45 m² living modules. While not all modules have fundamental facilities such as kitchens or toilets, the modules can be combined to create full-fledged apartments with all necessities. Currently, most apartments are made up of two to three modules connected together, some even across two floors.1 One large residential unit consists of a total of six modules. This means of configuration makes it possible to put together relatively large residential units that still have rather reduced interiors. As a result, it becomes feasible to provide ample living space even for Community Households and families with numerous children. The individual apartments are predominantly accessed through the courtyard and access balconies, and the communal outdoor space includes, among other features, a rooftop terrace. The numerous collective

additional infrastructure facilities are diverse, including a cultural center with events hall and seminar rooms, a kindergarten, a guest apartment, workshops, and a restaurant. There is also a swimming pool with sauna, a Turkish bath, and a teleworking room that was initially planned as a computer room but is now used as a music and rehearsal room. As previously mentioned, these diverse collective facilities mean that some standard features, such as bathtubs, are omitted in the private units.2

A total of 210 people live in the Sargfabrik Housing and Culture Project. The apartment complex is organized by the non-profit Association for Integrative Lifestyle (Verein für integrative Lebensgestaltung), which is also the property owner, builder, operator, and landlord. All residents are members of the association.3 The Sargfabrik is self-managed through a combination of volunteer hours and professional work.4 Resident participation is desired, but not a prerequisite for living here. During the planning phase there was discussion about whether a large kitchen with dining room in the style of the Central-Kitchen Houses should be installed. The idea was eventually rejected, although residents are given a 20 percent discount on the restaurant leased out by the association.5 There is minimal turnover among residents; in fact, it has been possible for the project to expand.6 After only four years, the MISS Sargfabrik addition was built in close proximity to the Sargfabrik, offering a complementary range of shared spaces. For example, the MISS specifically includes shared-use spaces that had previously been lacking, such as livein art studios, a common room with kitchen, and a youth club room. This diverse range of communal spaces not only benefits the residents of the Sargfabrik and MISS, but now also

integrates the entire neighborhood; for example, non-residents are eligible to become members of the swimming pool.

1 Krosse (2005): Wohnen ist mehr, p. 179.

2 According to the Sargfabrik management.

3 Aigner, Karin (2015): Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, eine Typologie und ihre Vielfalt, p. 114.

4 The lifeguard, for example, is a paid employee. See also Krosse (2005): Wohnen ist mehr, p. 188.

5 Krosse (2005): Wohnen ist mehr, p. 185.

6 Elser (2008): Wohnmodelle, Experiment und Alltag, p. 256.

Restaurant

Cultural center

Courtyard

Seminar rooms

Collective spaces not shown

Guest apartment

Access balcony

Rooftop terrace

Music room

Public spaces not shown

Events hall

Kindergarten

Workshops

Restaurant

Swimming pool

Sauna

Turkish bath

Private living area of two modules.

Swimming pool with sauna and Turkish bath.

Cultural center and restaurant.

Spatial structure

Local area map with ground floor

Aussenfläche öffentlich

Aussenfläche kollektiv

Aussenfläche privat

Standard floor 1 : 1,000

Exterior: public collective

Interior: public collective

Sargfabrik Housing and Cultural Project

Extending Individuality

“Living is a social expression. Social cooperation and cooperation is expressed through living.”

GUDRUN SACK 1

Throughout history, societal changes have always had an impact on collective living, either directly or indirectly. Before industrialization, collective housing was the natural living and working community, and was necessary to secure a livelihood. Since then, different developers and user groups have experimented with a range of collective living models resulting from various structural changes and shifting values, leading them to evolve in different directions. Designed and partly implemented by the utopian socialists during the mid-19th century, collective living housing models exhibited great diversity in the first three decades of the 20th century, with several existing simultaneously. At the end of World War II, these developmental directions came to a halt. Though economic stress was enormous when construction activity resumed after the war, collective living nonetheless did not become more widespread. Pre-war forms of collective living, such as Men’s and Women’s Hostels, Boarding Houses, and Central-Kitchen Houses were eliminated, as were Garden Cities and Courtyard Apartment Buildings, with very little evolution in housing models occurring during the reconstruction phase. Isolated housing forms more focused on the nuclear family came to prevail. The idea of collective living was continued in Community Settlements, although the collective living spaces no longer formed the foundation of daily life, but instead complemented full-fledged, fully equipped family homes.

It was not until the political and social developments of the late 1960s that new initiatives for collective living emerged. In this phase of social upheaval, role models were questioned and redefined, and a more balanced way of raising children and running households jointly was sought. Women returned to paid

Acknowledg

ments

The first edition of this book was made possible with the important financial support of the following organizations:

– Albert Lück-Stiftung

– Beitragsfonds des Finanzdepartements der Stadt Zürich

– Bürgi Schärer Architekten AG

– IBA Wien1

– Jubiläumsstiftung der Schweizerischen Mobiliar Genossenschaft

– Max Pfister Baubüro AG

– Schindler Aufzüge AG

– Senn Resources AG

–

Allgemeine Baugenossenschaft Zürich ABZ

Anliker AG Generalunternehmung

– Baugenossenschaft mehr als wohnen

– BEP Baugenossenschaft des eidgenössischen Personals

– Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen BWO

– Ernst Göhner Stiftung

– Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Behörde für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen

– Halter AG

– Losinger Marazzi AG

– Pensimo Management AG

– RENESPA AG

– SBB Immobilien

– Steiner AG

– Stiftung Solidaritätsfonds von Wohnbaugenossenschaften Schweiz Verband der gemeinnützigen Wohnbauträger

Our thanks also go to the following organizations for their financial support of the first edition: AgeStiftung, Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Kraftwerk1, bonainvest Holding, Genossenschaft Kalkbreite, Julius der Weisse AG, VSI.ASAI. Vereinigung Schweizer Innenarchitekten/Architektinnen.

The first edition was printed with the support of Pro Helvetia, Schweizer Kulturstiftung.

Our special thanks to the many residents, architects, and developers who provided us with insight into their collective living projects and their work. Their diverse contributions through interviews, information, photographs, and planning documentation greatly enriched this publication. We thank Raphael Bruderer in particular, who prepared all plans for publishing with great commitment. Furthermore, we thank our guest authors for their contributions, which provide valuable additions to the content of the book. Many thanks to David Marold and Angelika Gaal at Birkhäuser Verlag for their support in the conception, proofreading, design, and printing of this volume.

1 The pioneering examples of collective living in Vienna create a historical backdrop for a focus on New Social Housing by the IBA, which provided ﬁnancial support for the research of this publication.

Editorial Team

Susanne Schmid

Dietmar Eberle

Margrit Hugentobler

Imprint

Author Susanne Schmid, CH-Lucerne

With contributions by

Ingrid Breckner, DE-Hamburg

Angelus Eisinger, CH-Zurich

Kathleen Scanlon, GB-London

Text and Content Editor

Margrit Hugentobler, CH-Zurich Acquisitions Editor

David Marold, Birkhäuser Verlag, AT-Vienna

Content and Production Editor

Angelika Gaal, Birkhäuser Verlag, AT-Vienna

Translation from German into English Word Up!, LLC

Design Sven Schrape, DE-Berlin Lithography pixelstorm, AT-Vienna

Printing Graspo Printing House, CZ-Zlín Paper Magno Natural Font

Arnhem; Helvetica Neue

Library of Congress Control Number 2024931448

Bibliographic information published by the German National Library

The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained.

ISBN 978-3-0356-2800-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-0356-2803-6

German:

ISBN 978-3-0356-2801-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-0356-2802-9

Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 www.birkhauser.com