Essay : Politics and Aesthetics in Architecture

POLITICS AND AESTHETICS IN ARCHITECTURE SOCIAL SEGREGATION THROUGH ARCHITECTURE AND INSFRASTRUCTURE :BERLIN’ S M IETSKASERNE

BY :NUR HANIM OHD AZAHARI TUTOR :DR ISABELLE DOUCET 2017/2018

While it is still debatable how cities come about in the first place, it has undeniably become an important aspect of the modern age. Cities are the embodiment of its people, culture and lifestyle and this is more often than not affected by current politics and projected through its architecture. Architects, politicians and urban planners play an important part in designing and arranging the complex elements in a city that eventually affects the everyday man’s life. The layers that makes up a city’s urban fabric can be peeled back to reveal different layers which all helps to characterize the city and alter its productivity. Much like people, each city eventually develops its own personality that differentiates it from other cities. For example, German’s capital of Berlin’s colorful past has earned it a rather ironic nickname ‘The Grey City’ (Miruna, 2016). While Berlin today, as any other city continues to thrive and emerge as a cosmopolitan scene, its past atmosphere is not as vibrant as it is today. Berlin’s past has left the city with an eclectic array of architecture and changed its layout, heavily affected by politics, such as the separation of the city by the Berlin Wall. Housing programs in particular constitutes an important role in changing the city’s urban fabric. This essay pays particular attention to the architecture of the distinctive Berlin housing by the name of ‘Mietskaserne’, which translates directly to ‘rental barracks’ and how social segregation is evident through the design of these tenements, from its political use of ornament, or lack thereof, and other concerning factors. The term Mietskaserne itself is often regarded as a degrading term, a show of general reaction towards this somewhat oppressive tenements and ruthless capitalism.

1

Developments of cities are unavoidable and the post-industrial era in Germany in the 1900s gives birth to an erratic period of industrialization. Industrial cities had an insatiable need for labor and therefore, unsentimental worker’s housing, evidence that industrial fortunes were made on the base of meanness and misery. (Glancey, 2016, p. 138) Forced development of cities due to emerging societies including a new group of societies of working class people presents a new problem for urban planners. These tens of thousands of people arriving in the city needs to be accommodated and many families found themselves crammed into poor forms of shelter, undeserving of a better living condition. At its peak, Berlin even becomes Europe’s most densely populated and also its fastest growing city. However, apart from sweeping transformations in industry and infrastructure, this changing era has also brought along poverty and poor hygiene care. Such is the detrimental effect of massive population in Berlin that British health expert Edwin Chadwick called Berlin the "most foul-smelling, dirtiest and most pestilent" capital in the civilized world in 1872, declaring that its citizens could be "recognized by the smell of their clothes." (Schnurr, 2012). The “Mietskaserne’ or tenement barracks are seen as a profitable solution to the urgent need of mass housing by real estate companies, focusing mainly on the building’s feasibility and turning a blind eye on its aesthetic values. Overtime, the tenements are held responsible for the unavoidable; rampant spread of diseases, malnutrition, violence, crime and alcohol abuse. This inherently shows the lack of respect from the developer’s and designer’s part on the living quality of these working people, seeing them as means of acquiring rent money and disregarding their rights to a better living condition. These tenements however, are often romanticized as the founding ground of the working class culture.

2

Illustration 1: Representation of Berlin’s building regulations in 1853 and 1887, including the “Mietskaserne’. Maximum height of building (A) to be determined from street’s width from one building’s edge to the opposite building’s edge (12 meters minimum and 22 meters maximum). Maximum number of storeys limited to 5 floors to allow sunlight to flood in.

Courtyard size (B) in 1887 is set at a minimum of 60 meters squared as opposed to 31.60 meters squared in 1853. (Goodman & Chant, 1999)

3

Working class neighborhoods such as Wedding, Friedrichshain, Kreuzberg and Prenzlauer Berg consisted of these monotonous blocks of apartment buildings, with each building five to six floor high and integrated into the perimeter block through a unified façade.

(Hake, 2008). In order to generate more income from these tightly knitted spaces, the rental barracks houses not only residential areas but also commercial and factory spaces, forming a sort of ‘city within a city’. More often than not, the wives and children of these working class men had to do the occasional odd jobs for the higher-earning families to make ends meet and to be able to pay rent. Some families even rent out their apartments to other workers, to earn their own rent money, resulting in an even more crowded living space. These tenements worked as a sort of microcosm, each element playing its own little part in order to make sure everything runs well.

However, it should be credited that these tenements allows some degree of communal relations, whether the inhabitants liked it or not, as opposed to modern housing estates. All tenants, regardless of their social status would enter and exit through the same passage. Instead of separating different classes of societies according to locations, the design of the Mietskaserne forces these different classes to live together in close proximity to each other. To understand this as the different classes of society living harmoniously together however, would be an exaggeration. It was more along the line of the wealthier classes thinking of themselves as ‘guardian angels’ the poorer, working classes.

4

Image 1: Passage leading into Meyer’s Hof, one of the more famous Mietskaserne.

Photo from: The Berlin tenement house 1862-1945" by Johann Friedrich Geist and Klaus Kürvers

Basically, these rental barracks comprises of vertical slabs which looked out to courtyards. Courtyard plans were favored, with apartments lit and accessed from a series of internal courts that ran axially off the principal entrance on the store front. (Hvattum & Hermansen, 2004) The design of the Mietskaserne can also be seen as a ‘vertical layered segregation’. For example, the rent for First Floor is five times more expensive than the rent for Fifth Floor, and ten times more expensive than rents for the less desirable rear buildings. These two extremes seem to inhibit the structure of the tenements, both socially and built. In simpler terms, the lower the floor, the higher the social status. Despite the rent being significantly 5

cheaper on the higher floors, these working class people often still continuously struggle to earn enough to pay rent, forcing them to sub-let their rooms or even beds to lodgers. A negative effect from this prohibited activity is that other social elements of the Mietskaserne such as toilets and kitchen, which is already over-whelmed and poorly managed, is now made worse by these excess intake of lodgers. This situation of mass population in small contained areas eventually degraded the buildings and made the tenements a rather unpleasant place to live in.

The sizes of the apartments or rooms in these tenements vary, meeting the requirements of each social class. Since the apartments facing the street were the most privileged, only these would have bigger reception rooms than the rest in the back buildings. (Soto, n.d.) The first floor also has the highest ceiling and is made up of one unit only. In terms of ornamental use in the apartments, it is yet again different for the higher class families compared to the working class families. Some are of grandeur to the extent that it could rival hotel interiors, while some are limited to the most economical means in order to save money. (Bogatan, n.d.) This is evident as ornaments being used as a show of social status, instead of any real practical purpose. As ornaments usually requires money to hire someone of expertise to produce decorations of craftsmanship value, it is no surprise that only the wealthier families have the means to do this while the poorer families would have to settle for basic necessities. Here, decorations are seen as a want, rather than a need. One of the tenants in Meyer’s Hof whose family lived in a three room apartment on the first floor of the first building remembers that “those in the front building were better-off - staffers, clerks, jobs in better positions than the workers in the back - the difference was noticeable. There is linoleum covered staircase, the presence of curtains and the more beautifully painted walls as characteristics of the wealthier front building tenants.� (Kuck, 2010).

6

Having lived in the same building, it is inevitable that the poorer people would witness these opulence and show of wealth and as a result, feel somewhat intimidated by the richer families.

This demonstrates the weakness of this system of mixed-society in one building when one class of society is too far apart separated from another class in terms of living condition, despite being in the same building. This physical segregation through design by the architect, accentuates what is already a clear social segregation between these different social classes.

Another result of this mix of societies in Meitskaserne, particularly Meyer’s Hof is social cohabitation. For example, a poor worker living in Meyer’s Hof would still earn respect from his friends as would an occupier on the First floor. The mere address and reputation of Meyer’s Hof proved to be advantageous in certain social situations. The less-abled working class, which generally tends to be ignored and lacked acceptance in society therefore has benefited from the good names and reputation of their rich neighbors. In this situation, the role of ornaments in showing a person’s status is no more, as the guarantee of reputation and words of mouth is enough.

The ornaments decorating buildings becomes its envelopes, completely disconnected from the building’s programme and tectonics. They are a fundamental part of design, used to enliven surfaces, highlight particular parts of structure and generally make the building more attractive. (Cragoe, 2008) As such, in case of the tenements it could also be used deceptively to create an external image for the public’s eye. Taking into example one of the most well-known and more researched Mietskaserne is Meyer’s Hof in Wedding. The front façade of Meyer’s Hof 7

building which faces the street is laden with decorations of all sorts. A single passage graces the center of the building, and a flag and sculpture on the roof helps accentuate the vertical axis of the building. Heavily decorated columns and cornices adds to the opulence of the triple arch. The third and fourth floors are visually united in the facade design by means of seventeen Corinthian pilasters next to the sixteen windows on each floor. (Kuck, 2010) One glance of the rich façade of Meyer’s Hof would bring to mind the sophistication and grandness of a government building, or a palace even. The façade without a doubt stands out amongst its neighboring buildings. It is in these street-facing front buildings that the rich and wealthy lives. A look at the façade on the courtyard side is instead devoid of any form of ornaments. There are no forms of pilasters, friezers or risalits. The only plaster work is simple horizontal engravings. This stark difference in the facades creates the illusion of Meyer’s Hof being a place of grandeur when in reality behind the facades are over-crowded rooms and deteriorating hygiene. The deceptive stucco ornaments are allegedly devised to mask the ugly truth of poverty and pertinence. (Urban, 2012) The mandated five-storey height throughout all buildings and repeated use of decorations results in a rather monotonous appearance of the courtyard-facing facades.

8

Illustration 2: Drawing of façade elevation facing the street.

Each floor is decorated differently, with the lower floors being more intricately decorated than the floors above. ‘Meyer’s Hof’ is engraved at the top of the building, below a flag pole.

This, combined with the single passage located in the centre of the façade, provides symmertry and balance to the composition. The centre is accentuated by means of a risalit, which on the upper floors includes four out of sixteen windows in total. (Kuck, 2010, p. 6) The presence of the cornice is accentuated by the impressive frieze beneath it. Transition between building and roof is pregnant with heavy decorations.

9

Illustration 3: Drawing of façade elevation facing the courtyard.

Most apparent feature on the façade is the repetitive horizontal engravings across the building. All windows are of similar size and style, devoid of any forms of decorations, as opposed to windows on the façade facing the street. Transition between building and roof includes little to no decorations.

Another important element of these tenements are the courtyards, a simple rectangular or square space with law requirements for it to be large enough for a fire truck to turn around, with apparent absence of any sort of decorations, save for business advertisements plastered on passages. Building laws in Berlin at the time requires a minimum of 5.30 meter by 5.30 meters.

Meyer’s Hof’s courtyard exceeded this requirement with a length of 10 meters and width of 40 meters. (Kuck, 2010) Yet it became central in affecting the life quality in the barracks, especially 10

to the working classes. The commercial aspect of ‘Mietskaserne’ has deeply affected the mood and atmosphere in these courtyards. For example, businesses carried out in the courtyards eventually blocks out window views from apartments and basements where most of the poorer people take shelter. These commercial activities also results in different vehicles coming in and out of the tenements, plus a myriad of activities carried out in the small constrictive spaces made the ’Mietskasernen’ courtyards a concentrated social space. Meetings are even held in the courtyards, confirming the importance of this space.

Illustration 2: Illusion of a never-ending passage going into Erster Hof, one the courtyards within Meyer’s Hof in the neighborhood area of Wedding. As this façade does not face the main street, decorations are lacking with only basic plaster works.

11

Another group of society which highly profited from these courtyards are kids.

Specifically, kids from the lower class families, as kids from the richer families tend to be among themselves and prefer to play in their own lavish apartments. Although devoid of playground facilities, simply having this space to play has made childhood experience for kids in these tenements a colorful one, although having to share the space with businesses and transportations of all sorts. After a new building code in 1887 is passed, the dimensions of the courtyards and block in general improved in the sense that these spaces were now much larger, permitting a notable boost of natural light and air circulation into the deep courtyards. (Soto, n.d., p. 17) It is important to mention however, that such mutual living condition and liveliness of the courtyard is made possible only in tenements like Meyer’s Hof, thanks to its large courtyards. Other rental barracks with courtyards only built to be as big as the building law requires, did not have the same perception and experience of the courtyard. In the poorest housing, the courtyards barely functioned as light-wells. (Hvattum & Hermansen, 2004, p. 256) They are neither central nor socially important to the tenants, often left to become degenerate spaces.

In the end, Berlin’s rental barracks is an interesting case of mixed class, mass population housing driven by capitalism and greed, with its design’s sole purpose to cram in as many people as possible in a building. Its design, although non-uniform, allows for a broad range of economic and income levels, which is something that is becoming harder to witness in today’s housing plans, where rows upon rows or floors upon floors of exactly identical houses are being sold to a target market within the same economic range. It is interesting to think of how the Mietskaserne

12

would have functioned if they were designed like modern apartments, of uniform size and minimal decorations with no specific design for specific class, and yet still expected to accommodate these different social hierarchy of society. However, its deceptive use of ornaments which clearly contradicts on the street and the courtyard facing facades showcases an interesting use of ornaments as a political tool and the reasoning behind it. Ornaments here holds no craftsmanship importance, instead serves only to project a certain image to the outside world.

It is also worth it to note the positive effects that courtyards have on elevating life quality, especially in a cluster of buildings, and the usefulness of empty spaces. These tenements also serves as a reminder that overcrowding buildings only paves the way to more hygiene and social illness, and degrades living quality for tenants. It brings into light the extent of power that architects and designers have in conveying a message or value through their work, and how physical segregations results in the amplification of social segregation in society. In conclusion, while Berlin’s Mietskaserne has gained a rather negative reputation as tenements, it is not all that bad. The design of these buildings with courtyards, from its deceptive use of ornaments to its apparent social segregation through rental fees and floor plans, has resulted in a ‘city within a city’. The Mietskaserne is its own living, thriving organism during its time, heavily decorated on the outside and rotting with poverty and deteriorating conditions on the inside.

(2891 words)

13

REFERENCE

Bogatan, O. (n.d.) Architectural Research Tenement buildings. Academia.edu. [Online] [Accessed on April 27, 2017]http://www.academia.edu/8318444/Architectural_Research_Tenement_buildings.

Corneanu, M. (2016) 100 Cities and Their Nicknames. Travel Away. [Online] [Accessed on April 27, 2017]https://travelaway.me/100-cities-and-their-nicknames/.

Cragoe, C. D. (2008) How to read buildings a crash course in architectural styles. New York: Rizzoli.

Glancey, J. (2016) How to read towns & cities: a crash course in urban architecture.

London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Goodman, D. and Chant, C. (1999) European Cities & Technology: Industrial to Postindustrial City. New York: Routledge.

Hake, S. (2008) Topographies of class modern architecture and mass society in Weimar Berlin.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hvattum, M. and Cordua, C. H. (2004) Tracing modernity: manifestations of the modern in architecture and the city. London: Routledge.

Kuck, R. (2010) Mietskaserne. Mietskaserne, pp. 4–25.

Schnurr, E.-M. (2012) Teenage Angst: Berlin's Turn of the Century Growing Pains - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International. SPIEGEL ONLINE. SPIEGEL ONLINE. [Online] [Accessed on April 27, 2017]http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-late-19th-centurysaw-the-birth-of-modern-berlin-a-866321.html.

Soto, M. (n.d.) The Berlin Block as a Urban Tool: Rethinking the Urban Fabric. Academia.edu.

[Online] [Accessed on April 27, 14

2017]http://www.academia.edu/10456600/The_Berlin_Block_as_a_Urban_Tool_Rethin king_the_Urban_Fabric.

Urban, F. (2012) Tower and slab histories of global mass housing. London: Routledge.

15