Ironically, Migge was criticized by some of his contemporaries for "trivializing social problems." Heinrich Vogeler, a colleague of Migge's at Worpswede said in reference to Migge, "He believed a revolution was not necessary if people were enabled to build through their own efforts and around their own homes the basis for their own sustenance" (HÜlbusch, 1980). Today, this concept no longer sounds so far-fetched; historical and sociological research has demonstrated the significance of selfdetermination within a population, even if it only partially fulfills their needs for sustenance. Furthermore, Migge was advocating for revolution—a revolution of gardens. Leberecht Migge's work had its share of critics outside of the design community as well. Walter Rathenau, a contemporary of Migge, was perhaps one of the most outspoken critics of his work. Rathenau was a wealthy industrialist who felt that Migge's concepts of self-sufficient Siedlung housing were "destructive romanticism" (Haney, 2007). As an industrialist, he was instead a proponent of supporting young German farmers in largescale production. Even though Migge's designs were based on Modernist principles and rational planning, some contemporaries, including Rathenau, felt that they nevertheless belied the "romanticism of the vine covered cottage" (Haney, 2007). Migge contended that Rathenau simply didn't understand his work; as Migge had explained in his pamphlets and manifesto, he was not advocating for a return to Germany's agrarian past. On the contrary, he employed the latest scientific techniques of small scale mechanization (such as tillers and irrigation pumps) as well as ancient technologies applied to the modern scientific principles of soil nutrition (composting toilets and organic soil management through crop rotation). According to Migge, Rathenau's understanding of the new way of farming and
96