Comparison

The study of these two cases demonstrates to have common aspects which address the initial research question, namely, how the built environment participates in emancipation.

The built legacy of two women architects

Both projects still stand today in reunified Berlin. Myra Warhaftig and Iris DullinGrund’s pathways were outstanding regarding the times in which they lived. Their built legacy plays a relevant part in the history of women’s architecture in Berlin, a record that began more than a century ago, corresponding with women’s access to architectural studies (Dörhöfer 2004). Because the architectural profession remains male-dominated today and women face limitations in their professional opportunities, commission’s attribution and role models in education, it is relevant to acknowledge and make women’s architectural work visible. Security of housing through state-ownership

Both projects were built from public resources and are still owned and managed by public companies today. This aspect is a fundamental emancipatory parameter since it creates the conditions for housing to be accessible to the most vulnerable in opposition to commodified housing. Both projects are located in areas subject to processes of gentrification. However, by being in the state’s hand, security of tenure and stable rents are guaranteed. Therefore the tenants can enjoy a ‘non-oppressive residential environment’ and a stabilised social situation (Madden and Marcuse 2016). In current urban processes, the more central and well-connected an area is, the less affordable and accessible consumption for lower-income populations will be. In other words, the accessibility of these infrastructures can only be genuinely emancipatory if other mechanisms would hinder the financial exploitation of such qualities and the exclusion of specific social categories.

Infrastructural accessibility

One characteristic that is common to both case studies is their integration into Berlin’s pre-war city fabric and the consequences it has today. Following the Second World War, East and West Berlin shared an inner-city landscape of dilapidated tenement housing from the 19th century. On the one hand, in West Berlin, ideas of the ‘critical reconstruction’ and ‘careful urban renewal’ followed by the IBA 1984/87 stemmed from post-modernist architectural theories as well as citizen movements protesting against the inadequate housing and build-and-raze policies. On the other hand, East Berlin shifted its attention to the old city’s fabric because the housing production goals set by the state could not be met only by building brand new housing estates on the city’s fringes that required costly transport infrastructure. Nowadays, more than 30 years after the fall the Wall, both projects enjoy great connectivity with public transport, schools, shops and socio-cultural facilities over short distances. The access to these amenities constituted the backbone of feminist planning demands in the 1980s against the division of workplaces and homes. As the statistics about the gender care gap in Germany show, today, women spend 1 hour and 27 minutes more than men doing housework and care work (‘Zweiter Gleichstellungsbericht der Bundesregierung’ 2018). Therefore, the accessibility and vicinity of daily life infrastructure are relevant to women’s emancipation, and the appreciation of the questioned dwellers confirms this. Adequate housing

The last element to consider in both projects is their provision of adequate living conditions. Even if this might be self-evident, from a larger perspective, it cannot always be assumed that housing is produced under these conditions. The two case studies offer dwellings with available services like running water or sanitation, sufficient space and physical safety. In that regard, they produce living conditions that facilitate their dwellers’ well-being and autonomy.