housing estates in the berlin modern style - nomination for inscription on the unesco world heritage...

8/12/2019 Housing Estates in the Berlin Modern Style - Nomination for Inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List

1/286

HOUSING ESTATES IN THE BERLIN MODERN STYLE

NOMINATION FOR INSCRIPTION

ON THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST


2/286

1

State Party

Federal Republic of Germany

State, Province or Region

Federal State of Berlin

Geographical coordinates to the nearest second

Gartenstadt Falkenberg

terrestrial longitude East 13 34 00terrestrial latitude North 52 24 39

Siedlung Schillerpark

terrestrial longitude East 13 20 56

terrestrial latitude North 52 33 34

Grosiedlung Britz (Hufeisensiedlung)



Wohnstadt Carl Legien



Weie Stadt



Grosiedlung Siemensstadt

(Ringsiedlung)



Textual description of the boundary(ies) of the

nominated property


Boundaries: shared outer boundaries of the lots Akazien-

hof 126, Am Falkenberg 118120, Gartenstadtweg 1566,

68/72, 7499


Boundaries: the streets Bristolstrae, Dubliner Strae(street section: Dubliner Strae 62/66), Corker Strae,

Barfustrae (street section: Barfustrasse 23/31). Te

front garden area along Corker Strasse is part of the area

being nominated.


Section I:

Boundaries: the streets Fritz-Reuter-Allee (street section:

Fritz-Reuter-Allee 2/72, 78/120), alberger Strae, Paster-

Behrens-Strae (street section: Paster-Behrens-Strae

53/77), Parchimer Allee (street section: Parchimer Allee

96/104), Onkel-Brsig-Strae (street section: Onkel-

Brsig-Strae 12/142, boundary line along the back of the

lot boundaries bordering the school grounds and the

Fennpfuhl), Stavenhagener Strae (boundary line along

the back of the lot boundaries bordering the Akazien-

wldchen). Te front garden areas along the streets are

part of the area being nominated.

Section II:

Boundaries: the streets Buschkrugallee (street section:

Buschkrugallee 177/221, boundary line along the back of

the lot boundaries bordering the Buschkrug allotmentgardens), Parchimer Allee (street section: Parchimer

Allee 10/32, boundary line along the back of the lot boun-

daries bordering the Buschkrug allotment gardens) and

HOUSING ESTATES IN THE BERLIN MODERN STYLENOMINATION FOR INSCRIPTION

ON THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION HOUSING ESTATES IN THE BERLIN MODERN STYLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


3/286

2

Buschkrugallee (street section: Buschkrugallee 223/247),

Parchimer Allee (street section: Parchimer Allee 7/29),

Grner Weg (street section: Grner Weg 2/34). Te ront

garden areas along the streets are part o the area being

nominated.

Te entire width (road, median strip, and pavement) oParchimer Allee (street section: Paster-Behrens-Strae to

Grner Weg), as a connecting link between Sections I

and II, is part o the area being nominated.


Boundaries: the streets Kselstrae (street section:

Kselstrae 4/6, 16/18, 28/30, 34), Sltstrae (street sec-

tion: Sltstrae 11/25, boundary line along the back o

the lot boundaries and street section Sltstrae 30/44),

Erich-Weinert-Strae (street section: Erich-Weinert-

Strae 98/100), Lindenhoekweg, Sodtkestrae (street

section: Sodtkestrae 38/46), Georg-Blank-Strae (street

section: Georg-Blank-Strae 1/5), Gubitzstrae (street

section: Gubitzstrae 3246). Te ront garden areas

along the streets are part o the area being nominated.

Weie Stadt

Boundaries: the streets Gener Strae (street section:

Gener Strae 45/119), Emmentaler Strae (street sec-

tion: Emmentaler Strae 4056, boundary line along the

back o the lot boundaries), Baseler Strae (street section:

Baseler Strae 55/57), Bieler Strae, Gotthardstrae

(street section: Gotthardstrae 4/8), Romanshorner Weg(street sections Romanshorner Weg 54/62 and Romans-

horner Weg 61/79, boundary line along the back o the

lot boundaries and street section Romanshorner Weg

96/212), Schillerring (street section between Romans-

horner Weg and Aroser Allee), Aroser Allee (street sec-

tion between Bieler Strae and Gotthardstrae, street

section: Aroser Allee 141/193 with the bridge house

Aroser Allee 153154). Te ront garden areas along the

streets are part o the area being nominated.

Te entire width (road, median strip, and pavement) o

Aroser Allee (street section between Bieler Strae and

Gener Strae), Emmentaler Strae (street section be-

tween Emmentaler Strae 56 and 57 and Aroser Allee)

and Schillerring is part o the area being nominated.

Grosiedlung Siemensstadt (Ringsiedlung)

Boundaries: Mckeritzstrae, the S-Bahn (west o Jung-

ernheideweg), the intersection Mckeritzstrae / Jung-

ernheideweg / Popitzweg with boundary (across the

railway line o the S-Bahn) up to the ormer settlement

power station Goebelstrae 55A, through the streets

Goebelstrae (street sections: Goebelstrae 1/55 andGoebelstrae 120/122 with boundary line along the back

o the lot boundaries), Heilmannring (street section:

Heilmannring 98/100), Geilerpad, Heckerdamm (street

section between Geilerpad and Jungernheideweg, ex-

cluding the school property Heckerdamm 295/299),

Jungernheideweg (street section: Jungernheideweg

21/45, with boundary line along the back o the lot boun-

daries). Te ront garden areas along the streets are part

o the area being nominated.

Te entire width (road and pavement) o Jungernheideweg

and Goebelstrae are part o the area being nominated.

A4 (or letter) size map of the nominated property,

showing boundaries and buffer zone

6 A4-size maps showing the Housing Estates in the Ber-

lin Modern Style

a) Gartenstadt Falkenberg, scale approx. 1:7,500

b) Siedlung Schillerpark, scale approx. 1:7,500

c) Grosiedlung Britz (Hueisensiedlung),

scale approx. 1:7,500

d) Wohnstadt Carl Legien, scale approx. 1:7,500

e) Weie Stadt, scale approx. 1:7,500

) Grosiedlung Siemensstadt (Ringsiedlung),

scale aprox. 1:7,500

Justification

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

Te social housing settlements built in Berlin during the

1920s are a heritage that unites all the positive achieve-

ments o early modernism. Tey represent a period in

which Berlin was respected worldwide or its political,

social, technical and cultural progressiveness. Tis crea-tive environment acilitated the development o settle-

ments that can be regarded both as works o art and as

health and social policy achievements. When the best

architects and garden architects o Germany became in-

volved, housing estates became the model and actual in-

strument or the development o architecture. Teir in-

uence could be elt even decades later.

Te political and economic transormations in Germany

afer it had lost the First World War made the develop-

ment o housing estates the subject o social policy. Afer

Berlins incorporation o surrounding communities to

orm one large city in 1920, the Social Democrats ac-

quired ever more inuence on municipal urban develop-

ment. Te new trade union and cooperative building

societies like GEHAG, which were their close allies, prop-

agated the modern social housing development. Greater

Berlin with its spacious undeveloped properties became

the site o experiments in developing modern ats or the

people. When the architect and Social Democrat Martin

Wagner was elected urban development councillor in

1926, he embodied both movements at the same time: the

political movement and that o the reormist experts.

Te Berlin settlements, which had attracted the attention

o experts and o the specialised press even when they



4/286

3


were rst built, acquired a symbolic value also in the dis-

course on the history o 20th century architecture: along

with Bauhaus and the buildings o Neues Frankurt, they

appeared in all relevant publications as exemplary

achievements o modernist architecture and urban devel-

opment. However, they are not just part o history. Tey

suffered little damage during the Second World War androm improper renovation and thus are still standing to-

day, surrounded by spacious gardens and green areas:

attractive residential areas whose tenants ofen pass on

leases rom one generation to the next.

A new concept o spatial and social structure was imple-

mented in Berlin with these housing estates. Most but not

all o them were erected outside the city that was laid out

in James Hobrechts master plan o 1862. No longer were

the citys less prosperous inhabitants to be hidden away

in the smaller, less healthy, worse ats in the basements,

wings, cross buildings, attics and overcrowded tenements

o the densely built-up city centre. Tey were to get visible

space or themselves both or the privacy o their amilies

and or their public representation as a social class, as well

as or presenting the settlement communities.

In their design work, the imagination o the architects

aimed both at developing unctional oor plans or ats

that would promote health and amily lie and at arrang-

ing the buildings in larger urban structures, while always

keeping in mind the points o the compass and insola-

tion. Common spaces were to offer Aussenwohnrume(outdoor living spaces) (aut), which would invite them

to spend time outside enjoying the sunlight and resh air

and, last but not least, would help ght tuberculosis, still

rampant in Berlin at the time. One o these outdoor living

spaces ormed by a particularly impressive and powerul

urban structure has become the symbol o the housing

estate movement: the horseshoe, centre o the

Hueisensiedlung built by Bruno aut and Martin Wagner

in Britz rom 1925 to 1930.

Choosing between the many larger and smaller Berlin

settlements and residential estates is not easy. Many o

them have been preserved, most o them are attractive,

and all o them are different. Some o them have a dense

urban structure, others are open and dotted with green

spaces, some are based on a conservative artistic design

in the spirit o the Heimatschutzbewegung (movement

or the preservation o regional culture), others have a

more expressionist style. Te choice was made mainly on

the basis o the ollowing our criteria:

Te particular signicance o the architectural design and

o the urban structure rom the point o view o the arts

Te good condition o the original structure

Te social policy intentions o the developers

International awareness and recognition

It is certainly no coincidence that most o the settlements

chosen are works by Bruno aut. Like no one elses, his

name is linked with the heyday o social housing con-struction in Berlin during the years o the Weimar

Republic. His cooperation with the Berlin urban develop-

ment councillor Martin Wagner yielded exemplary suc-

cesses. Four settlements were chosen rom his rich oeuvre

in Berlin. Tey are all different rom each other, and their

differences illustrate the stages o auts artistic develop-

ment as an architect and urban developer:

Gartenstadt Falkenberg(19131916), developed by a

building cooperative as a model or reorming housing

estates and living, which emerged as the result o criti-

cism o big city lie and the Berlin tenement house sys-

tem

Siedlung Schillerpark(19241930), one o the rst ur-

ban residential projects built afer the end o the First

World War in Berlin; an ideal combination o all the ea-

tures o the new social housing developments that also

embodies the model o a modern culture o urban lie

Grosiedlung Britz (Hufeisensiedlung)(19251930),

the rst large German housing estate built afer the end

o the First World War and the years o ination; aimedat providing humane, healthy and hygienic living condi-

tions also or low-income groups by offering various

orms o housing

Wohnstadt Carl Legien(19281930), which, as the most

urban and most compact large housing estate in Berlin,

manages despite its density to create a housing envi-

ronment that appears green and open, thanks to a build-

ing design opened up to light and air in an exemplary

way

Te ollowing two large housing estates were erected at

the same time and represent other approaches to design

and urban development:

Weie Stadt (19291931), which was built as a large

housing estate with an urban character, consisting o rib-

bon buildings with green spaces in between; anything but

monotonous, ree and abstract spatial designs or mod-

ernist settlements were tried out here

Grosiedlung Siemensstadt ((Ringsiedlung), 1929

1931), a unctional housing estate pointing the way tointernational modern urban development and thus an-

ticipating the model o a spacious, structured city dotted

by green spaces


5/286

4


Weie Stadt(19291931) was designed by the Swiss ar-

chitect Otto Rudol Salvisberg, who was also responsible

or the master plan, and the two Berlin architects Bruno

Ahrends and Wilhelm Bning. Siemensstadt was mainly

designed by Hans Scharoun, who also did the master

plan. Walter Gropius, Hugo Hring, Otto Bartning, Fred

Forbat, Paul Rudol Henning and Hans Scharoun himseldesigned the buildings. Both settlements have become

symbols o international modernist design in Berlin and

beyond. Not only do they represent a paradigm shif in

architecture and urban development, they also reect a

change in social structures, which was expressed by the

development o mono-unctional satellite settlements with

a clear division between spaces or living and working.

Tis meant that leading architects o classical modernism

were involved in developing housing estates in Berlin.

Bruno auts our settlements, Weie Stadt, and

Siemensstadt reect the development rom garden town

ideas to cityscapes in Hans Scharouns spirit. Each o the

housing estates represents another stage, another and

very specic variation within the broad range o urban

and architectural design possibilities. All o them achieved

international renown, were discussed by the internation-

al specialised press, and were requently visited even at

that early stage by interested experts.

Criteria under which property is nominated

(II) exhibit an important interchange of human values,

over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world,

on developments in architecture or technology, monu-

mental arts, town-planning or landscape design

Te six Berlin estates are examples o the paradigm shif

in European housing construction, since they are an ex-

pression o a broad housing reorm movement and, as

such, made a decisive contribution to improving housing

and living conditions in Berlin. Tanks to their exem-

plary character, their inuence was elt all over Europe.

With modern ats with bathrooms, kitchens and sunny

balconies in houses with spacious recreation spaces and

playgrounds and without multiple courtyards and wings,

these housing estates set a hygienic and social standard

ar removed rom Berlins inhumane tenement system o

densely packed blocks o ats. Shortly beore the First

World War, ninety per cent o the Berlin population lived

in tenements with our or ve storeys. Nearly hal o the

ats were located in rear buildings and nine out o ten

ats did not have a bathroom.

During the Weimar Republic, the worsening shortage ohousing and the collapse o privately nanced housing

development made housing construction a social policy

challenge also in Berlin. With political support rom

Germanys Social Democrats and rom the trade unions,

trade union cooperatives and municipal and other non-

prot societies began nancing new social housing in

Berlin.

Te construction o settlements is an urban planning and

architectural response to social problems and housingpolicy issues arising in regions with high population den-

sity. Novel housing estate orms developed in particular

during the rst decades o the 20th century in big

European cities and metropolises. Building authorities,

architects and urban planners ofen cooperated on these

new settlements, which created better living conditions

or the poorer strata o the population in particular. Teir

quality o urban development, architecture and landscape

design, as well as the housing standards that were devel-

oped during this period, served as a guideline or the

social housing constructed afer the end o the Second

World War, and they retained their exemplary unction

during the entire 20th century.

Berlin was a city whose population had multiplied in just

a ew decades as a result o industrialisation, and into the

1920s it was characterised by a shortage o housing and

miserable living conditions in hopelessly overcrowded

tenements. In this situation, the housing reorm move-

ment was able to generate initial momentum mainly in

housing projects organised on a cooperative basis. Gar-tenstadt Falkenberg was built already beore the First

World War. It was a settlement project that aimed at cre-ating a new way o living, and with its standardised house

orms and ground plans or ats it served as an important

model or others.

In the 1920s, renowned designers, municipal authorities

and housing societies in Berlin developed social housing

construction to a level that was outstanding by interna-

tional standards. Te creation o social policy, economic,

architectural and legislative instruments made it possible

to implement hundreds o development projects. Housing

construction had previously been lef almost entirely to

speculators. Proven experts now approached it system-

atically, in the interest o beneting the public and on the

basis o the most advanced knowledge o architecture,

urban development, hygiene and social science.

Te nominated settlements were part o a broadly based

housing construction programme in Berlin that led to the

building o 140,000 ats within just a ew years. Tis mass

housing development was closely linked to new concepts

or the spatial and social structure o the city. Martin

Wagner, the citys urban development councillor at the

time, developed a modern urban planning concept basedon a model o unctional separation. Tis model was to

contribute to breaking up the contrast between city and

countryside, a contrast that was especially marked in


6/286

5

Berlins case. In the city itself dense residential quarters

with open structures of multi-storied buildings dotted

with green spaces lled gaps in the urban structure

(Siedlung Schillerpark, Wohnstadt Carl Legien), while

large housing settlements with spacious green spaces

were embedded in the landscape of Mark Brandenburg

on the outskirts of the city (Hufeisensiedlung Britz, WeieStadt, Grosiedlung Siemensstadt).

(IV) be an outstanding example of a type of building, ar-

chitectural or technological ensemble or landscape which

illustrates (a) signicant stage(s) in human history

Tese Berlin settlements are extraordinary examples of

the housing developments built during the early decades

of the 20th century and were models for housing and liv-

ing in the big cities of the modern industrial society.

Internationally renowned architects like Bruno aut,

Walter Gropius, Otto Rudolf Salvisberg and Hans

Scharoun developed new and exemplary settlement

structures. Tese not only facilitated the provision of

healthy ats with attractive amenities, but also offered a

basis for new forms of housing and living. Tese housing

estates were designed with community facilities offering

an exemplary social and service infrastructure and a wide

range of communal functional and event spaces, span-

ning models like the experiment of a cooperative-based

community, auts outdoor living space and Scharouns

concept of neighbourhood. Te participating architectsdeveloped new types of ground plans for houses and ats

that responded to modern demands on housing.

Te best of the housing estates built during this period

produced excellent solutions to the problem of designing

housing for many people living together in limited space.

Tey combined extraordinary architectural designs and

diversity of settlement structure and building form with

intelligent integration into urban structures in order to

develop useful and varied ats in healthy environments.

Light, air and sunshine were keywords. Tey also pro-

vided guidelines for the design of the settlements com-

munal facilities, such as playgrounds, spacious outdoor

facilities and tenants gardens. Renowned garden archi-

tects like Ludwig Lesser and Leberecht Migge ensured

that these reformist ideas were implemented in an out-

standing way.

Name and contact information of the offi cial local insti-

tution/agency

Ingeborg Junge-Reyer

Senatorin fr Stadtentwicklung

(Senator for Urban Development)

Wrttembergische Strasse 6D-10707 Berlin

Germany

el.: +49 30 9012 4710

Fax: +49 30 9012 3106

E-mail:

[email protected]

Internet:

http//www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de



7/286

6


8/286

7


9/286

8


10/286

9


11/286

10


12/286

11


13/286

2 D E S C R I P T I O N

JANUARY 2006


14/286

INTRODUCTION


15/286

I V

W O R L D H E R I T A G E N O M I N A T I O N H O U S I N G E S T AT E S I N T H E B E R L I N M O D E R N S T Y L E

Fig. I:Konservierung der Moderne? (Conservation of Modern Architecture?) Documentation of the ICOMOS conference, 1996. front page


16/286

Te years between the two world wars or more precise-

ly between the November revolution o 1918 and Hitlers

seizure o power in January 1933 were the years o

Berlins transormation into a metropolis o modern art.

In 1920, afer incorporating a number o surrounding

towns and villages, Greater Berlin had become one o

the worlds largest cities (876 square kilometres), and in

terms o population the worlds third largest afer New

York and London. It was considered to be the most im-

portant industrial city on the European continent, a tra-c hub, a European air hub and a attractive location or

international airs and modern media institutions.

Te legendary Golden 20s are indelibly associated with

the image o Berlin as one o the worlds leading centres

or culture and the arts. Internationally renowned artists

lived and worked here. Te Weltstadt o the Weimar

Republic, as town planner Martin Wagner called it, was

a magnet or the international avant-garde and a ocal

point o the cultural debate between tradition and mod-

ern age. Many artists, authors and journalists, painters

and sculptors, theatre directors and lm makers, mu-

sicians and actors o international standing visited the

city or had links to it, hoping to draw inspiration rom it

or to be well received in the citys cosmopolitan atmos-

phere. Others lived and worked here at least or a while

or permanently.

Te end o the First World War, the collapse o the

German Empire, the all o the monarchy and the procla-

mation o the Republic sparked new hopes in Germanys

political and artistic circles, some o them related to

a utopian dream o socialism. Te years ollowing theNovember revolution were characterised by the quick

development o critical, usually anti-bourgeois and ofen

international groups o artists such as Club Dada (1918

with Richard Huelsenbeck, Raoul Hausmann, George

Grosz, John Hearteld, Hannah Hch etc.), the circle

o the Berlin Constructivists (1922 with Naum Gabo,

El Lissitzky, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Oskar Nerlinger), or

the Blue Four (1924 with Wassily Kandinsky, Lyonel

Feininger, Paul Klee, Alexej Jawlensky). Some o these

artists were also involved with the Bauhaus movement,

both in Dessau (19241925) and in Berlin (1932/33). But

Berlin was not only a magnet or the avant-garde in the

visual arts: it also attracted renowned and innovative

personalities in the world o theatre, music and liter-

ature: directors and authors Bertolt Brecht and Erwin

Piscator, Alred Dblin and Erich Kstner, journalists

Carl von Ossietzki, Kurt ucholsky and Egon Erwin

Kisch. Composers and musicians such as Max Bruch,Arnold Schnberg, Kurt Weill and Hanns Eisler con-

rmed Berlins reputation as an incubator or innova-

tive aesthetic and political concepts.

T H E H E R I T A G E O F T H E B E R L I N M O D E R N A G E

Fig. II: Opening of the 1st International Dada Fair on 5 July 1920in Berlin

V

As the second artistic capital of Europe, after Paris,

Berlin was clearly likely to produce work of interest, but

it contained, in addition, a remarkable group of architec-

tural talents. No other centre in the early Twenties could

have boasted, as Berlin could, more than a dozen pro-

gressive architects of more than average competence,

sufficiently resilient in mental constitution to take in

their stride a major aesthetic revolution, from Expres-sionism to Elementarism, and to design in either style

with equal vigour and assurance.Reyner Banham,

Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, London 1960

THE LEGACY OF THE BERLIN MODERN STYLE

LARGE HOUSING ESTATES AS A CULTURAL ACHIEVEMENT


17/286

V I

Te new media not only the young world o ra-

dio broadcasting but also the rapidly growing cine-ma industry quickly ound producers and audienc-

es in Berlins open-minded and cosmopolitan culture.

Universum Film AG (UFA), ounded in Berlin in 1917,

became the largest company o its kind outside the

USA, and Berlin became known as the worlds most

important lm and cinema location afer Hollywood.

Directors and actors such as Wilhelm Murnau, Fritz

Lang and Marlene Dietrich made their debuts or expe-

rienced their breakthrough as artists in Berlin beore

emigrating to the USA. With his 1927 lm montage

Berlin Sinonie einer Grossstadt, Walter Ruttmann

created a memorial to the city and its cinematograph-

ic avant-garde. Fritz Langs Metropolis, produced by

UFA in Berlin in 1925/26 and rst shown there in 1927,

was added to UNESCOs Memory o the World register

in 2001. Legendary cinemas in the Berlin Modern style

the Babylon, by Hans Poelzig, or the Universum, by

Erich Mendelsohn, or instance are architectural me-

morials to the early years o the new medium.

A European metropolis of modern architecture

Architecture and urban development played a key role

in the artistic and social reorm movement that char-acterised the revolutionary period o 1918/19 and the

short cultural upswing experienced by the Weimar

Republic until the world economic crisis o 1929/30.

Te November Group, which included artists (Max

Pechstein, Kthe Kollwitz, Cesar Klein, Rudol Belling

etc.) as well as architects (Erich Mendelsohn, Ludwig

Hilberseimer, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Hans Poelzig

and others), and the Berlin Arbeitsrat r Kunst

(Working Council or Art), dating rom the same pe-

riod and including the young architects Bruno aut,

Walter Gropius, Otto Bartning, Adol Meyer and manyothers, provided inspiration in the early years and ul-

lled a catalyst unction or the phase o consolidation

which ollowed. Filled with a revolutionary spirit, these

groups published maniestos calling or a radically new

relationship between art and lie and attributing a lead-

ing role to architecture in the construction o a new soci-

ety and a new environment. Tis revolutionary impetus

is reected in an early appeal o the Working Council,

ormulated in 1918 by architect Bruno aut: Art and

the people must be united to orm one entity. Art shall

no longer be the preserve o a selected ew but a source

o happiness and lie or the masses. Te aim is to unite

the arts under the umbrella o great architecture. From

now on the artist, shaper o popular sensibilities, bears

sole responsibility or the visible appearance o the new

state. He must dene all design rom urban architecture

to coins and postal stamps.

Te association o architects ounded in 1923/24 by

Mies van der Rohe, Max aut, Erich Mendelsohn, Hugo

Hring, Hans Scharoun and others under the name Der

Ring (initially a ring o ten, then twelve, and nally 27

members nationwide as o 1926) developed into a kindo Sezession o German architects. It provided a com-

mon platorm or many different movements o modern

architecture between the two world wars and brought

together representatives o Neue Sachlichkeit and

Bauhaus as well as advocates o Organic Architecture.

Te Siemensstadt housing estate, designed by a number

o leading members o the Ring, was soon nicknamed

Ring Estate. Te greatest signicance o this circle o

architects, however, was its enormous external impact

as a multiplier or modern architectural programmes.

In 1928 its activities provoked a strictly conservative

counter-initiative called Der Block an association

o nationalistic colleagues created by Paul Bonatz, Paul

Schmitthenner, Paul Schulze-Naumburg and others.

In the 1920s, Berlin also increasingly attracted re-

nowned architects rom outside the city who wanted

to take a stance in the ongoing architectural debate by

giving lectures, holding exhibitions or designing build-

ings. Hannes Meyers Bundesschule des Allgemeinen

Deutschen Gewerkschafsbundes (Federal School o the

General German rade Union Federation) in Bernau on

the outskirts o Berlin (1928) and Emil FahrenkampsShell-Haus (1930) are reminders o this trend to the

present day. Berlins role as an international meeting

place or modern artists o the inter-war period and


Fig. III: Berlin. Die Sinfonie der Grosstadt. premiere poster 1927


18/286

V I I

its position at the centre o the international architec-

tural debate were the result o its open, cosmopolitanatmosphere, which had started beore the Great War

and developed rapidly during the years o revolution

and ination. Guest lectures and exhibitions in Berlin

and study visits to the city as well as lecture tours, study

visits and working visits o German planners and ar-

chitects abroad intensied this international exchange

o opinion and experience. Colonies o oreign artists

rom neighbouring European states, in particular rom

Russia (Charlottengrad was the nickname given to

the Berlin district o Charlottenburg), Italy and France

and even rom America, were the visible signs o this

new dialogue across national borders and art genres.

Under the Kaisers, the interest o the German reorm

movement in architecture, housing construction and

crafs had ocussed on the English example (Stephan

Muthesius), in particular on the English Garden City

Movement, the Arts and Crafs Movement and middle-

class housing construction in Great Britain, while ac-

knowledging only marginally developments in France,

Belgium, Holland or especially in the United States. In

the Weimar Republic, Berlin architects and architec-

tural journalists were mainly inuenced by develop-ments taking place in Russia and Holland. In Holland,

the housing law o 1901 had laid the legal and nan-

cial oundations or effi cient residential construction by

housing associations. Bruno aut travelled through the

Netherlands in 1923 to study housing estates built withstate subsidies. As early as 1920, Erich Mendelsohn had

been invited on a lecture tour o Holland, and in 1923

he held his hallmark lecture on dynamics and unction

in Amsterdam. J.J.P. Oud, Teo van Doesburg and El

Lissitzky are among the many oreign architects whose

work was perceived as particularly inspiring in the

Berlin o the 1920s.

Das Neue Berlin (Te New Berlin) title o the

monthly journal or the problems o the city ound-

ed in 1929 by the Berlin urban development councillor

Martin Wagner ollowing the example o Ernst May in

Frankurt shows that Berlin understood itsel above

all as the capital o a new culture o architecture and

building. In no other eld o culture did Berlin make

such a mark as the avant-garde centre o the universe

as in the eld o architecture and urban development.

Much o its cultural and urban identity was based on

the large-scale urban development projects and build-

ing activities o the inter-war years. Berlin owed its rep-

utation as an international centre o urban development

reorm and modern architecture to bold and visionary

designs as well as to sensational new buildings popu-larised in publications and lectures as programmat-

ic contributions to a new culture o building. Utopian

and mainly Expressionist projects such as the architec-


Fig. IV: Shell-house, 1930/31 by Emil Fahrenkamp,1931


19/286


20/286

I X

estates or the general population are the true embodi-

ment o the reorms in building and social policies thattook place between the two world wars in the eld o

urban development and housing. Nowhere else are the

social intentions and dimensions o the debate on mod-

ern architecture and urban development between the

two world wars more clearly reected than in the non-

prot and cooperative housing development projects o

those years.

Housing construction in Berlin grew enormouly afer

the mid-1920s, in particular under the Social Demo-

cratic urban development councillor Martin Wagner

(192633), an excellent organiser and multiplier o

the reorm policies. Te main precondition or this

great achievement was the ocused bundling o instru-

ments o state intervention and promotion with regard

to building and housing legislation as well as to the -

nancing and management o large numbers o ats. A

housing programme o hitherto unimaginable scope

could be implemented thanks to consistently standard-

ised design, planning and construction and to political

support or highly effi cient construction companies and

large non-prot housing associations. While Berlin had

built approximately 9,000 subsidised rental ats duringthe hard post-war years between 1919 and 1923, another

135,000 units were built between 1924 and 1930.

Berlins contribution to the cultural world heritage of the

twentieth century

In the 1920s, Berlin was sensationally renowned as

the city o modern architecture, thus securing its po-

sition in the annals o twentieth-century world archi-

tectural history. Te rst edition o the volume Berlin.

Kunstdenkmler und Museen (Berlin, Monuments and

Museums), published in 1977 by Reclam as part o theKunsthrer Deutschland (Art Guide or Germany)

series, claims that the re-design o Berlin during the rst

third o the twentieth century was o world standing

perhaps this is Berlins only architectural achievement

which really deserves this rank. Yet, in contrast to the

Berlin Schinkel school o the nineteenth century or to

the progressive Amsterdam school o architecture or

especially the conservative Stuttgart school o archi-

tecture o the twentieth century, the Berlin Modern

style o the years between the two world wars appears

to be less closed and schoolish. Its transnational, in-

deed intercontinental inuence was based on the mani-

old biographical intertwinings o its main actors and

even more on their enormous lecturing, publishing,

travelling and teaching activity at home and abroad.

Not to orget the many structures built by its protag-

onists and students in many parts o the world. Visits

to other countries or emigration due to the world eco-

nomic crisis and in particular as a result o the persecu-

tion o Jewish, socialist or oppositional artists and ar-

chitects during the Nazi years contributed to the spread

o Berlin examples o modern inter-war architecture all

over the world. Bruno aut (18801938), or instance,who had gone to Russia together with some co-workers

in 1931, had to emigrate to Japan in 1933 and got an ap-

pointment in Istanbul in 1936. Martin Wagner (1885

1957) emigrated to urkey in 1936 and to the USA in

1938, where he was appointed proessor or urban de-

velopment at Harvard University.

When preparations or updating the German tentative

list or the UNESCO world heritage began in 1995, two

Berlin proposals or the heritage o the twentieth cen-

tury were on the agenda. One o them was the indus-

trial heritage o Electropolis Berlin, in particular the

monuments o industry and technology built in the rst

third o the twentieth century by Berlin electrical en-

gineering and power-supply companies, the top global

players in their market at the time. Te other was the

heritage o modern architecture and publicly assisted

housing development in the Weimar Republic. In 1997,

the German ederal conerence o state ministers o ed-

ucation and cultural affairs gave priority to six large

housing estates built in the 1920s in the Berlin Modern

style. Tis selection was based on the orty or so years

o experience gathered in conserving the housing es-tates built in the Berlin Modern style between the two

world wars and on the wish to complement the World

Heritage List with examples o twentieth-century archi-


Fig. VI: Groes Schauspielhaus, 1918/19 by Hans Poelzig, 1920


21/286


X

tectural heritage, which is still under-represented in the

list, and o mass urban housing resulting rom industri-

alisation and urbanisation.

Te Berlin initiative was conrmed by the Montreal

Action Plan o ICOMOS (2001), which had been pre-

pared during the international ICOMOS conerences in

Helsinki (1995) and Mexico (1996). Te ICOMOS study

on the representativity o the World Heritage List Te

World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps an Action Plan

or the Future presented in February 2004 at the re-

quest o UNESCO stated that there was a lack o items

rom the past century and requested the signatory states

o the UNESCO World Heritage Convention to review

and improve their priorities in a dialogue with experts

o organisations such as ICOMOS, DOCOMOMO,

ICCIH, etc.

Nationally and internationally, the six nominations

housing estates built in the Berlin Modern style between

the two world wars represent key products o twenti-

eth-century publicly assisted housing development. Te

selected estates are outstanding combinations o archi-

tectural and urbanistic trends in modern mass housing

construction and examples o the variety o approaches

to social and housing policy reorms that inuenced theEuropean architectural debate even beyond Berlin and

Germany. Tey are not unique model projects or indi-

vidual prototypes like those presented as potential solu-

tions to housing problems at nineteenth-century world

exhibitions or as part o model collections at Werkbund

exhibitions in the twentieth century. Nor are they spe-cial or isolated solutions or industrial centres or con-

urbations as had already been implemented and en-

couraged by philanthropic or non-prot actors beore

the rst world war. Rather, these six chosen estates are

typical o many Berlin housing areas mixed with green

spaces as they were erected between the two world wars

and still exist today. From an urbanistic point o view,

these spacious estates represent an alternative orm o

development and housing to the extremely dense tene-

ment buildings o the nineteenth century.

In terms o typology and unctionality, the Berlin hous-

ing estates which have been proposed or entry in the

World Heritage List cover a segment o twentieth-cen-

tury cultural history which is not or only very insuffi -

ciently covered by the UNESCO World Heritage List: the

task o developing mass housing acilities in coherent-

ly planned, erected and occupied urban units. Leaving

aside the eminently signicant historic locations o

war and peace, o political persecution and resistance

in the twentieth century (the concentration camp at

Auschwitz-Birkenau (Owicim), the rebuilt centre o

Warsaw, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial GenbakuDome), which orm a category o their own, some cul-

tural world heritage sites o the twentieth century rep-

resent ensembles o a particular architects oeuvre or

Fig. VII: Ludwig Hilberseimer: Design study for restructuring the Berlin city centre, 1928


22/286

X I

are precursors or early orms o modern architecture

with historic roots in the years beore and afer 1900

(the Victor Horta townhouses in Brussels, the work oAntoni Gaud in Barcelona). Others represent in a nar-

rower sense the industrial and technical heritage o the

twentieth century (Zeche Zollverein in Essen, Germany,

the Varberg radio station in Grimeton, Sweden, the D. F.

Wouda steam pumping station in the Netherlands). Te

Fagus-Werk (Aleld) by Walter Gropius on the German

tentative list or world cultural heritage also belongs to

this special segment.

In contrast to the outstanding monuments o modern

architecture and residential culture represented on the

World Heritage List by amous artistic creations such

as the Rietveld Schrderhuis by Gerrit Tomas Rietveld

(Utrecht, Netherlands), the ugendhat Villa by Ludwig

Mies van der Rohe, (Brno, Czech Republic) or the Luis

Barragn house and studio (Mexico City, Mexico), the

proposed Berlin housing estates represent a socially ori-

ented contribution or solving urban housing problems

and providing ats or workers and the emerging mid-

dle classes. With respect to urban planning, the Berlin

estates anticipate individual aspects o unctional ur-

ban planning and International Style as they are rep-

resented by world heritage sites in Europe (the WhiteCity o el Aviv in Israel, Le Havre, the City Rebuilt in

France) and South America (Braslia in Brazil, Ciudad

Universitaria in Caracas in Venezuela). In a complete-

ly different typology and time context, Le Corbusiers

high-rise residential Units dhabitation in Marseille

(1950), which appear on the tentative list o France andSwitzerland, might be seen as an interesting illustration

o post-war modern style and a more vertically-oriented

counter-example.

Te nominated Berlin housing estates continue in the

tradition o the model settlements o the early indus-

trial and early socialist age o the eighteenth and nine-

teenth centuries and the Garden City Movement as rep-

resented in the World Heritage List by utopian settle-

ments such as New Lanark (Scotland) by Robert Owen

or the philanthropic textile workers village o Saltaire

(England). However, in contrast to these world heritage

sites o industrial culture which also include the com-

pany town o Crespi dAdda in northern Italy they are

not model settlements in rural areas but city-scale so-

lutions built in large series in the dense urban space o

an industrial metropolis, and as such they have become

characteristic or the twentieth century.

Monument conservation as appreciation

of cultural heritage

Soon afer the end o the second world war and liber-

ation rom Nazi rule, the housing estates o the 1920smet with high appreciation as monuments o modern

architecture and urban development and also o public-

ly assisted housing. Te large housing estates now being


Fig. VIII: Das Neue Berlin. Front page of the first issue, January 1929 Fig. IX: Wohnen und Bauen 1931. Conference documentation of theBerlin Conference for urban development and housing. Front page


23/286


X I I

proposed or entry in the World Heritage List were al-

ready acknowledged as important monuments o build-ing and art history in the rst post-war inventories o

the soon divided city. Te Siemensstadt Ring Estate,

or instance, is included in the list o Bauwerke und

Kunstdenkmler von Berlin (Berlin buildings and art

monuments) or the city and district o Charlottenburg

(1961) and or the city and district o Spandau (1971).

Parts o the estates were already legally protected and

offi cially entered in the list o monuments prior to 1975,

the European Monument Protection Year. Among them

is the Siemensstadt section designed by Hans Scharoun

and the central area o the Britz Horseshoe Estate

(both entered in 1959) and the Weisse Stadt Estate in

Reinickendor (entered in 1971). Te highly developed

awareness o owners and residents and also o architects

and politicians who identied with the achievements o

the inter-war Modern style contributed decisively to

ensuring that most o the estates were treated careully

even in the decades beore they were legally protected,

so that they have come down to us in a state o conser-

vation which is truly rare.

In the 1970s series Berlin und seine Bauten (Berlin

and its buildings), the Berlin Association o Architectsand Engineers published an initial scientic inventory

o the entire city covering 171 Berlin housing estates

built between 1919 and 1945. Tis inventory provided

the basis or protecting urther estates in the western

part o the city. Te legal opportunities were expand-

ed with the GDR Monument Conservation Act o 1975

(Denkmalpegegesetz) and the West Berlin Monument

Protection Act o 1977 (Denkmalschutzgesetz), and

these laws were used by curators on both sides o the

Iron Curtain to protect the most important exam-

ples o publicly assisted housing built in the inter-warBerlin Modern style. As early as 1977, Gartenstadt

Falkenberg (also known as the paint-box estate, or

uschkastensiedlung) and Wohnstadt Carl Legien in

the eastern part o the city were entered as monuments

o supra-regional signicance to the culture and way

o lie o the working classes and strata. In West Berlin,

urther parts o the Britz Horseshoe Estate (Neuklln)

were added to the list o protected monuments in 1986.

Since the all o the Berlin wall and the adoption o the

1990 act standardising laws in the State o Berlin, and

since the Gesamtberliner Denkmalschutzgesetz (mon-

ument protection act or the entire Berlin territory)

came into orce in 1995, all six o the nominated settle-

ments have enjoyed equal protection as monument sites

(entire estate, overall design), in a ll cases also including

all green spaces and outdoor acilities or the parts o the

estates that are protected as historic gardens.

Hardly any other city in Germany and probably only

ew in Europe have embarked upon new roads in monu-

ment conservation as early as Berlin or started to deal

with the legacy o the twentieth century in such a o-

cused manner. And hardly any other city has compara-ble experience in the eld o legal and practical monu-

ment conservation o 1920s estates. In 1978, as a con-

sequence o the European Monument Protection Year

(1975) and in connection with preparations or the citys

750th anniversary (1987), the West Berlin monument

conservation authority launched our pilot projects

to encourage a more comprehensive stock-taking and

analysis o damage as well as to develop restoration and

repair technologies suitable or preserving the 1920s es-

tates. In cooperation with the housing associations that

own or manage the estates, it produced comprehensive

and detailed documentations or all important building

elements and historic building materials and designs,

which now orm an indispensable basis or planning re-

urbishment measures and developing long-term mon-

ument conservation concepts.

Among the West Berlin model projects o the 1970/80s

that became known ar beyond Berlin as a result o

publications, exhibitions and lectures at home and

abroad are also three o the estates now being pro-

posed or entry in the World Heritage List: the Britz

Horseshoe Estate, the Siemensstadt Ring Estate andthe Weisse Stadt Estate in Reinickendor. As ear-

ly as 1985, the German National Committee or

Monument Conservation (Deutsches Nationalkomitee

Fig. X: Siedlungen der 20er Jahre (Housing estates of the 1920s)Documentation of the Berlin conference, 1985. Front page


24/286

X I I I


r Denkmalschutz) and Gesamtverband gemeinntz-

iger Wohnungsunternehmen e. V. (a ederation o non-

prot housing companies) used the extensive Berlin

experience as the basis or holding an inter-municipal

conerence and publishing a national report on monu-

ment conservation with regard to housing estates built

in the 1920s. In 1990, afer the border was opened, ex-

perts in monument conservation and the legal ownerso the estates in the eastern part o the city (Gartenstadt

Falkenberg and Wohnstadt Carl Legien) were able to

all back on this basis both with respect to methodol-

ogy and in practice. Gradually and with the help o con-

siderable public unding, the responsible housing coop-

eratives and housing companies restored East Berlins

protected residential buildings and outdoor acilities to

their appropriate historic and artistic state.

During the past twenty-ve years, the Berlin authority

or the conservation o historic buildings and gardens

has established new standards or the appropriate con-

servation and restoration o modern-style housing es-

tates and residential ensembles both in Germany and,

in a dialogue with colleagues rom other European

countries, internationally. Landesdenkmalamt Berlin

participated in the 2002 ICOMOS International Day

or Monuments and Sites, which was dedicated to the

topic o Conserving Monuments o the 20th Century

Heritage, by offering guided tours and events present-

ing the inter-war estates built in the Berlin Modern

style now nominated or entry in the World Heritage

List. Berlin is one o the initiators o efforts to estab-lish the ICOMOS International Scientic Committee

on 20th Century Heritage, where it is represented as

a ounding member by the Berlin state curator. Berlin

offers a platorm in the network o international monu-

ment contacts and European monument conservation

cooperation efforts. Most recently, UNESCOs so-called

Berlin Appeal on periodic reporting on the imple-

mentation o the World Heritage Convention adopt-

ed in November 2005 by 75 representatives rom 40

European countries attracted international attention

or the German capital.

Te selected six settlements are not only key representa-

tives o modern urban development and architecture:they also ascinate with their almost unadulterated au-

thenticity. Even today they are rmly anchored in the

citys cultural awareness and in great demand as attrac-

tive residential areas. Listing them as world heritage

sites would mean enormous recognition and urther

impetus or the politicians, conservation authorities

and other parties involved in their preservation. Te

relevant parties in Berlin are ul ly aware o the honour

connected with entry in the World Heritage List and o

the obligations arising rom it.

Fig. XI: European Heritage Day. Brochure issued by the Landesdenk-malamt. 2003

Prof. Dr. Jrg Haspel

State Curator o Heritage Conservation


25/286


X IV

No. 20th Century World Heritage (state 2005) Year of Inscription

1. Auschwitz Concentration Camp / Poland 1979

2. Historic Centre of Warsaw (Reconstruction) / Poland 1980

3. Works of Antoni Gaud in and near Barcelona / Spain 1984/2005

4. City of Brasilia / Brazil 1987

5. Skogskyrkogrden, Stockholm / Sweden 1994

6. Bauhaus and its Sites in Weimar und Dessau / Germany 1996

7. Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) / Japan 1996

8. Wouda Steam Pumping Station, Lemmer / Netherlands 1998

9. Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta, Brussels / Belgium 2000

10. Rietveld Schrderhuis, Utrecht / Netherlands 2000

11. Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas / Venezuela 2000

12. Tugendhat-Villa, Brno / Czech Republic 2001

13. Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex, Essen / Germany 2001

14. White City of Tel Aviv - the Modern Movement / Israel 2003

15. Luis Barragn House and Studio, Mexico City / Mexico 2004

16. Varberg Radio Station, Halland / Sweden 2004

17. Le Havre, the City Rebuilt by Auguste Perret / France 2005


26/286

XV


Fig. XII: 20th Century World Heritage (without Europe)

Fig. XIII: 20th Century World Heritage in Europe


27/286



28/286

CONTENTS

1.IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY 1

. Country 2

. State, Province or Region 3

. Name of Property 4

. Geographical coordinates to the nearest second 5

. Maps and Plans, showing the boundaries of the nominated property and buffer zone 5

. Area of nominated property (ha.) and proposed buffer zone (ha.) 30

2.DESCRIPTION 31

. Description of Property 32

. History and Development 53

3.JUSTIFICATION FOR INSCRIPTION 69

. Criteria under which inscription is proposed 70

. Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 71

. Comparative analysis 84

. Integrity and/or Authenticity 95

4.STATE OF CONSERVATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY 103

. Present state of conservation 104

. Factors affecting the property

(I) Development Pressures (II) Environmental pressures

(III) Natural disasters and risk preparedness

(IV) Visitor/tourism pressures

(V) Number of inhabitans within the property and the buffer zone 116

5.PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY 119

5. a Ownership 120

5. b Protective designation 121

5. c Means of implementing protective measures 122

5. d Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the proposed property is located 123

5. e Property management plan or other management system 1315. f Sources and levels of nance 137

5. g Sources of expertise and training in conservation and management techniques 138

. Visitor facilities and statistics 138

. Policies and programmes related to the presentation and promotion of the property 139

. Staffi ng levels 139


29/286

HOUSING ESTATES IN THE BERLIN MODERN STYLE NOMINATION FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST


30/286

CONTENTS

6.MONITORING 141

. Key indicators for measuring state of conservation 142

. Administrative arrangements for monitoring property 142

. Results of previous reporting exercises 142

7.DOCUMENTATION 143

. Photographs, slides, image inventory and authorization table and other audiovisual materials 144

. exts relating to protective designation, copies of property management plans or

documented management sytems and extracts of other plans relevant to the the property 145

. Form and date of most recent records or inventory of property 151

. Address where inventory, records and archives are held 157

. Bibliography 157

8.CONTACT INFORMATION OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES 171

. Preparer 172

. Offi cial Local Institution / Agency 172

. Other Local Institutions 172

. Offi cial Web address 172

9.SIGNATURE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE PARTY 173

ATTACHMENT 175 Architects biographies 177

Experts review 191


31/286


32/286

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY


33/286


2

. Country

Te Federal Republic of Germany

Fig. 1: Central Europe with Germany


34/286

1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY

3

. State, Province or Regionhe Federal State of Berlin

Fig. 2: Germany with Berlin


35/286


4

Fig. 3: The nominated housing estates on Berlin territory

. Name of the PropertyHOUSING ESTATES IN THE BERLIN MODERN STYLE

1 Gartenstadt Falkenberg

2 Siedlung Schillerpark

3 Grosiedlung Britz (Hufeisensiedlung)

4 Wohnstadt Carl Legien

5 Weie Stadt

6 Grosiedlung Siemensstadt (Ringsiedlung)


36/286

5

1 IDENTIFICATION OF T HE PROPERTY

Serial nomination table Id N 1239

ID-No. Name of the area District Core Zone (ha.) Buffer Zone (ha) Coordinates

1239-001 Gartenstadt Falkenberg Treptow-Kpenick of Berlin 4,4 ha 6,7 ha terrestrial longitude East

13 34 00terrestrial latitude North

52 24 39

1239-002 Siedlung Schillerpark Mitte of Berlin 4,6 ha 31,9 ha terrestrial longitude East

13 20 56

terrestrial latitude North

52 33 34

1239-003 Grosiedlung Britz

(Hufeisensiedlung)

Neuklln of Berlin 37,1 ha 73,1 ha terrestrial longitude East

13 27 00


52 26 54

1239-004 Wohnstadt Carl Legien Pankow of Berlin 8,4 ha 25,5 ha terrestrial longitude East13 26 01


52 32 47

1239-005 Weie Stadt Reinickendorf of Berlin 14,3 ha 41,1 ha terrestrial longitude East

13 21 03


52 34 10

1239-006 Gosiedlung Siemensstadt

(Ringsiedlung)

Charlottenburg-

Wilmersdorf of Berlin /

Spandau of Berlin

19,3 ha 46,7 ha terrestrial longitude East

13 16 39


52 32 22

TOTAL 88,1 ha 225,0 ha

List of the maps

ID-No. Name of the area Contents Scale

1239-001 Gartenstadt Falkenberg site plan 1 : 5.000

1239-001 Gartenstadt Falkenberg aerial view 1 : 5.000

1239-002 Siedlung Schillerpark site plan 1 : 5.000

1239-002 Siedlung Schillerpark aerial view 1 : 5.000

1239-003 Grosiedlung Britz (Hufeisensiedlung) site plan 1 : 5.000

1239-003 Grosiedlung Britz (Hufeisensiedlung) aerial view 1 : 5.000

1239-004 Wohnstadt Carl Legien site plan 1 : 5.000

1239-004 Wohnstadt Carl Legien aerial view 1 : 5.000

1239-005 Weie Stadt site plan 1 : 5.000

1239-005 Weie Stadt aerial view 1 : 5.000

1239-006 Gosiedlung Siemensstadt (Ringsiedlung) site plan 1 : 5.000

1239-006 Gosiedlung Siemensstadt (Ringsiedlung) aerial view 1 : 5.000

. Geographical coordinates to the nearest second

. Maps and Plans, showing the boundaries of the nominated property and buffer zone


37/286


38/286

1 I D E N T I F I C A T I O N O F T H E P R O P E R T Y

AE RI AL VI EWFig. 4: Gartenstadt Falkenberg, Gartenstadtweg 31, 2005

7


39/286


40/286


41/286


42/286


43/286

12 Fig. 8: Siedlung Schillerpark, nominated area and buffer zone, aerial view, scale 1:5.000

SIEDLUNG SCHILLERPARK


44/286


45/286


46/286


AE RI AL VI EWFig. 10: Grosiedlung Britz, aerial photograph with horseshoe and Hsung, 1990s

15


47/286

16 Fig. 11: Grosiedlung Britz, nominated area and buffer zone, aerial view, scale 1:5,000

GROSSSIEDLUNG BRITZ (HUFEISENSIEDLUNG)


48/286

17 Fig. 12: Grosiedlung Britz, nominated area and buffer zone, scale 1:5.000

GROSSSIEDLUNG BRITZ (HUFEISENSIEDLUNG)


49/286

WO HNS TAD T CAR L LE GIE N

Wohnstadt Carl Legien is situated in the district

of Pankow of Berlin, borough of Prenzlauer Berg.

Erich-Weinert-Strae 98/100, 101

Georg-Blank-Strae 1/5

Gubitzstrae 3246

Kselstrae 4/6, 16/18, 28/30, 34

Lindenhoekweg 2/6, 12/16

Sodtkestrae 134, 36/46

Sltstrae 1126, 30/44

rachtenbrodtstrae 234

Te geographical coordinates according to WGS 84 (GRS 80) are:

1. terrestrial longitude East 13 26 01

2. terrestrial latitude North 52 32 47


SITE PLAN

18


50/286


51/286

20 Fig. 14: Wohnstadt Carl Legien, nominated area and buffer zone, scale 1:5.000 aerial view, scale 1:5.000

WOH NS TADT CA RL LEG IEN


52/286

21 Fig. 15: Wohnstadt Carl Legien, nominated area and buffer zone, scale 1:5.000

WO HNS TAD T CA RL LE GIE N


53/286

WE IS SE STADT

Weie Stadt is situated in the district

of Reinickendorf of Berlin, borough of Reinickendorf.

Aroser Allee 116/118, 121153B, 154, 155/193

Baseler Strae 55/57

Bieler Strae 1/9

Emmentaler Strae 211, 13/37, 4057

Genfer Strae 45/119

Gotthardstrae 4/8

Romanshorner Weg 54/82, 61/79, 96/212

Schillerring 3/31

Sankt-Galler-Strae 5

Te geographical coordinates according to WGS 84 (GRS 80) are:

1. terrestrial longitude East 13 21 03

2. terrestrial latitude North 52 34 10


SITE PLAN

22


54/286


AE RI AL VI EWFig. 16: Weie Stadt, gate house Aroser Allee / Emmentaler Strae, 2005

23


55/286

24 Fig. 17: Weie Stadt, nominated area and buffer zone, aerial view, scale 1:5.000

WE IS SE STADT


56/286

25 Fig. 18: Weie Stadt, nominated area and buffer zone, scale 1:5.000

WE IS SE STADT


57/286


58/286


AE RI AL VI EWFig. 19: Grosiedlung Siemensstadt, part designed by Hans Scharoun at Jungfernheideweg, 2005

27


59/286

28 Fig. 20: Grosiedlung Siemensstadt, nominated area and buffer zone, aerial view, scale 1:5.000

GROSSSIEDLUNG SIEMENSSTADT (RINGSIEDLUNG)


60/286

29 Fig. 21: Grosiedlung Siemensstadt, nominated area and buffer zone, scale 1:5.000

GROSSSIEDLUNG SIEMENSSTADT (RINGSIEDLUNG)


61/286

SITE PLAN



Area of nominated property: 4,4 ha

Buffer zone: 6,7 ha

otal: 11,1 ha



Buffer zone: 31,9 ha

otal: 36,5 ha




otal: 110,2 ha




Gesamt: 33,9 ha

Weie Stadt



otal: 55,4 ha

Grosiedlung Siemensstadt (Ringsiedlung)



otal: 66,0 ha

. Area of nominated property (ha.) and proposed buffer zone (ha.)

30


62/286

SIEDLUNG SCHILLERPARKAction plan for the preservation and restorationof the historic garden


63/286

2. DESCRIPTION


64/286


32

. Description of Property

Te reormed housing development o Berlin stands out

rom among that o other metropolises o the early 20th

century by its high quality o architecture, an abundance

o experimental orms o social housing and a large

amount o buildings. Tese projects provided on a large

scale healthy, hygienic and humane living conditions or

the low income groups and demonstrated democratichousing development as it was not continued beore

Germanys social housing programmes afer 1945.

Te builders o the Berlin garden towns and large housing

estates ound the land they needed or implementing the

housing policy in the intended quality in the rural outer

districts o Berlin. It is quite obvious that the intense de-

velopment at the margin o the city required the existence

o the city itsel with its economy and its strong inrastruc-

ture the new housing estates were situated near the sta-

tions o the tightly knit and urther expanding Berlin com-

muter transport network. Gartenstadt Falkenberg at

Alt-Glienicke, which was built shortly beore the First

World War and also the estates which were built later, i.e.

Britz (at Neuklln), Weie Stadt (at Reinickendor) and

Siemensstadt (at Charlottenburg and Spandau) were

erected on the territory o ormer suburbs o Berlin which

were merged with the core o the city thus orming Greater

Berlin only in 1920. Only the estate at Schillerpark (dis-

trict o Wedding) and Wohnstadt Carl Legien (district o

Prenzlauer Berg) are located at the margin o the city cen-

tre on building ground which was subdivided into parcels

already in 1918. Te growing city has meanwhile reachedor even overtaken all o these settlements and they are now

islands o well-designed living within a city environment.

All nominated estates were built by cooperatives and non-

prot organisations which wanted to provide humane liv-

ing conditions. All o these estates are based on a holistic

settlement ground plan which reects the respective mod-

el o housing reorm o each o their developers. Te closed

tenements with densely packed structures are substituted

by concepts o open housing aiming at creating garden

towns and cities. Tese new concepts represent a radical

break with urban development o the 19th century with its

corridor-like streets and reserved spaces or squares.

Te most important urban development designer was

Bruno aut. His design o Gartenstadt Falkenberg o-

cuses on the modest single-amily house built as row

house or the double house with a garden or supplying

ood or the inhabitants. Where as aut afer the First

World War uses again and re-denes elements o garden

town design in a mixed structure o single-amily and

multi-storey buildings the other estates Schillerpark,

Carl Legien, Weie Stadt and Siemensstadt represent ex-periments with social housing in modern city mass resi-

dential development.

Te ideal was to create housing or all income levels with

equal standard and varying sizes, with dedicated bath-

rooms and kitchens and generous loggias and balconies

which aced the sun. Tis intention was complemented

by the desire to nd a modern architecture which reects

the ground plan structure and treats both ront and rearaades without hierarchy and to embed all this in com-

munal unctional green spaces. Tese housing estates are

dominated by multi-storied blocks o ats arranged in

open blocks or ribbons with at sizes o usually 2 or 2 1/2

rooms.

Another new aspect was that o the outdoor acilities

which became an inherent part o the design o the es-

tates. Te green spaces are very important in creating the

riendly impression which makes us eel even today that

the developers o these estates were not aiming only at

creating a new social and spatial order but that they want-

ed to create beautiul acilities and make the inhabitants

o these areas happy. Already or designing the housing

estate at Falkenberg aut had invited Ludwig Lesser or

designing the outdoor acilities and private gardens.

Lesser had a very good reputation and was committed to

social improvement. According to auts understanding

the inhabitants o the area should be offered common

areas he called them Auenwohnrume (outdoor liv-

ing spaces) which would invite them to come outside to

enjoy sunlight and resh air. With these spaces he wanted

to enhance the use value o the ats.

Te spacious garden grounds which Lesser designed

later or the courtyards o Weie Stadt are mainly sup-

Fig. 22: Grosiedlung Britz at the margin of the city, aerial photographmontage, in approximately 1930


65/286


33

posed to satisy the private needs o the inhabitants or

playing and staying outdoors. Leberecht Migges design

idea or integrating the ofen quoted glacial pond in the

centre o the horseshoe combines the motis o a ower-

ing ormal garden with that o a virgin landscape. Tis

design makes a major contribution to the symbol-likeimpact o the core o the Britz housing estate on the entire

housing estate movement. At Siemensstadt master plan-

ner Hans Scharoun and the garden artist Leberecht Migge

created an urban landscape whose wide lawns and old

trees give it the atmosphere o an open park town.

The individual housing estates


Gartenstadt Falkenberg built between 1913 and 1916 ac-

cording to a design by Bruno aut is located in the south-

east o Berlin near the city boundary. Its limits are the

street Am Falkenberg in the North, Bruno-aut-Strae in

the East and the thoroughare B 96a in the West. Not ar

rom it in the North passes the line o the ormer Berlin-

Grlitz railway (opened in 1867) with the commuter sta-

tion o Grnau. Because o its sensational use o colours

people started to call the garden town uschkastensiedlung

(paint box housing estate) soon afer its completion.

Te garden town is located in an attractive landscape near

the Grnau orest and the river Dahme. Still today this

landscape is characterised by lively glacial shapes. Te hillFalkenberg (25 m high) is located at the transition rom

the lowland o the rivers Dahme and Spree to the high-

land o eltow. At the northern slope o this hill

Gemeinntzige Baugenossenschat Gartenvorstadt

Gro-Berlin eGmbH (Non-prot building cooperative

garden suburb Greater Berlin registered limited liability

company) was able to complete two phases o a larger

plan or housing estate development beore they had to

terminate the works due to the war. Te housing estatesNorth and East o it are amorphous suburbs which are

characterised by commercial and industrial buildings as

well as villa-like residential buildings rom the late 19th

century. During the 1970s suburban residential develop-

ment advanced up to the gardens o the garden town.

Te housing estate was erected in two phases and the

houses o each phase orm open groups around the two

residential streets Am Akazienho (acacia yard) and

Gartenstadtweg which branch off in northern direction

o the street Am Falkenberg. Te rst development phase

began in 1913 and produced the intimate courtyard

Akazienho named afer the double row o acacias

planted in it. It has a total o 34 residential units. 23 o

them were erected as single-amily terraced houses in

several groups. Eight were built in multiple dwellings,

two in a double house and one in a single-amily house.

wo separate villa-like houses rame the narrow access

road to the courtyard: one is the house Haus Otto (Am

Falkenberg 119) designed by Heinrich essenow which is

his only contribution to the housing estate and the other

one is the double house Am Falkenberg 120 by Bruno

aut. Another double house by aut Am Falkenberg118 is also located here. It was completed in 1916 and

is the only completed building o the third phase.

Fig. 23: Gartenstadt Falkenberg, Akazienhof 58, row houses and multiple dwellings, 2005


66/286


34

Akazienhof

At Akazienho groups o row houses in varying design

are acing each other: along the western side stand twogroups o ve single-storey small houses each in paratac-

tical sequence under one roo. At the time when they

were built this was the most economical design. Te very

curved eaves cornice and the broad jamb wall window

one per unit are the only plastic motis. At the eastern

side are located two double-storied groups o houses with

a total o ten units arranged in pairs. Teir paired en-

trances are ramed by white painted pergolas.

Te spatial impression on Akazienho is determined by the

subtle asymmetry o the composition. Te house at the head

o the yard which is tripartite and axi-symmetric is shifed

out o the spatial axis. Te eastern row o houses ends with

a somewhat projecting tenement house and the western row

is interrupted by a ar retreating quadrimonium.

Te expressive colourulness o the houses surprises again

and again. Te colours which have regained their great

depth and brightness with the most recent restoration are

still unusual and interesting as colours or buildings. Tis

applies in particular or the deep brownish red and the

bright ultramarine blue which has become amous as

aut blue and appears again and again in his later de-signs. It is certainly not by chance that aut who as a

young man ound it hard to decide whether he wanted to

become a painter or an architect used colours at Falkenberg

which he had used in his early pastel drawings. Te blue

o the sky in his landscape paintings returns in the blue

aces o the Falkenberg row houses. Here at Falkenberg heused the colours or entire aces. It covers entire walls as

i they were panel paintings and the white painted eaves

cornices might well be the paintings rames.

Te sequence o the colours in the house units expresses

the compositional principles o sequencing and mirror-

ing and stresses the harmonic asymmetry o the place:

white or the tripartite house at the head, yellow and

brown or the double-storied houses and green, yellow,

blue and red alternating or the rows and pairs. Tis cre-

ates a colour composition o individual housing units

which still stand around the yard in solidarity express-

ing the sense o solidarity which was the basis o the

Falkenberg housing cooperative.

Gartenstadtweg

Te second phase built in 1914 and 1915 includes twelve

unitised groups o houses which are placed along both

sides o Gartenstadtweg rising towards the plateau o

Falkenberg. aut used here the hilly landscape or model-

ling the roadside environment to turn it into an attrac-

tively designed housing estate. Te street is designed as a

dele. Along both o its sides it has landscaped slopeswith multiple terraces which are ormed by walls, stairs

and low plants and constitute the ront gardens o the

rows o houses which are retreated rom the road.

Fig. 24: Gartenstadt Falkenberg, multiple dwelling at Gartenstadtweg 29/33, 2005


67/286


35

As at Akazienho these houses are a mix o double-sto-

ried multiple dwellings and single-storied as well as rows

o double-storied single-amily houses. 54 o the total 94apartments o varying sizes (ranging rom single-room

apartments with a chamber to ve-room apartments) are

located in small houses. Four tenement house units con-

tain a

housing estates in the berlin modern style - nomination for inscription on the unesco world heritage...

Documents