Description

“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 w ay 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 Central-Kitchen 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.

---

Originally published in: Susanne Schmid, Dietmar Eberle, Margrit Hugentobler (eds.), A History of Collective Living. Forms of Shared Housing, Birkhäuser, 2019. Translation by Word Up!, LLC, edited for Building Types Online.