Unit 6: Urban development until the end of World War II

(Yvonne Köster, Tanja Menzel, Cornelia von Scheven; revised by D. Wiktorin)

The structural changes of society caused by industrialization are impressively reflected in the picture of the modern big city of the turn of the century. This city is a sheer symbol for the uprising into modernity as it is proved by its reception through the fine arts. The big city not only was a popular topic in the literature [2] of the early 20th century but in music [3] and painting [4], too. This becomes understandable, if one takes into account the enormous increase of importance and power large cities achieved since the phase of intensive industrialization. Whereas only 8 cities had a population of more than 100,000 at the foundation of the German Reich in 1871, the number increased to 48 in 1910. In this period of time, the proportion of people living in such cities grew from 4.8% to 21.2%. So, every fifth German lived in a city with a population of more than 100,000 at the outbreak of World War I (Reulecke 1985 : 68). The increasing urbanization was the result of a complex network of causes consisting of population growth, industrialization and intra-national migration (rural-urban shift). The urban places in the up-coming coal and steel region at the Rhine and the Ruhr as well as the transportation nodes in the new railway system - e.g. Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, Frankfurt - were influenced to a very particular extent by these processes.

The constructional, functional and social patterns of those cities had completely changed since the beginning of the period of promoterism [5]. The constructional boom, which began with the foundation of the German Reich, endured without any break until about 1905. Imposing public buildings like railway stations, court houses, theatres and city halls were built in the eclectic architectural style [6] of the time. However, the type of the tenement block was created then, too, and became the most characteristic symbol of the industrial city (Benevolo 1993: 180). In the capital of the German Reich, Berlin [7], the construction of tenement blocks reached the most distinct form. But other features contributed to the characteristics of the city of that time, too: an enormous increase of the density of the already built-up areas within the cities, the extension of the city by incorporating suburban municipalities and a systematic enlargement of urban built-up areas with street plans based on the one of Paris (so-called Haussmann style). The extensive growth at the outskirts of the city was only possible because of the development of modern means of transportation, first of all of the railway [8], but then also of the public short distance transportation systems like street cars and later on the subway. And only by the invention of technical infrastructure - e.g. high pressure water supply, gas as well as sewage disposal systems - the new moloch could be kept alive. In 1908, 92% of the German big cities had a waterworks, 80% had gas and electric power systems and 44% a electric street car system (Zimmermann 1996: 31).

Parallel to the growth in population and the built-up area a strong spatial differentiation of functions took place. The central cores of the big cities had developed into modern CBD districts [9] with shops, banks and offices. Their high position in the central place hierarchy was demonstrated in particular by the new insignia of mass consumption - the impressive buildings of the department stores. However, not only a differentiation of secondary and tertiary functions (basic functions of a CBD) took place but a segregated spatial distribution of housing due to social classes evolved, too. Besides the residential areas of the middle and upper classes with detached houses and villas [10] the classic working class quarter was created, dominated by tenement blocks or - as a company-owned settlement - small semidetached [11] or detached houses. Severe social and hygienic grievances [12] occurred in the densely built-up, heavily overcrowded quarters, which only had very few green spaces (Kieß 1991: 102).

Particularly these unacceptable housing and living conditions strongly led to social reform movements at the turn of the century. The probably most well-known idealistic general principles of a human urban development was the so-called garden city idea [13] of Ebenezer Howard [14], a British citizen. In his book "To-Morrow : A Peaceful Path to Real Reform" published in 1898 he introduced a conception, which acted as an alternative against the uncontrolled urban growth and the existing urban distress. This conception was welcomed in Germany with great enthusiasm and already in 1902 the "German Garden City Society" was founded. Garden cities in a strict sense, that is fulfilling all conditions in the sense of Howard were not built in Germany. However, a big number of settlements close to that idea were erected. Prominent examples are the Gartenstadt Staaken [15] in Berlin or Dresden-Hellerau [16]. Many ideas of the garden city principles are also apparent in company-owned settlements like Essen Margarethenhöhe [17]. And the planning of urban green is very much influenced by principles of Howard, too.

In particular the idea of co-operatives which is an essential of his conception became a basic element of the new reform movement in urban Germany (Heineberg 1989: 80). Almost everywhere non-profit housing co-operatives were founded, which became involved in finding a solution of the housing shortage problem. As a consequence, many non-profit residential complexes that evolved in the 1920s were constructed in block structure with generously over-grassed inner courtyards. The famous Roemerstadt (Romans' town) of Ernst May [18] in Frankfurt or the Hufeisensiedlung (horse shoe settlement) of Bruno Taut [19] in Berlin-Britz are convincing examples of this idea. At the same time, they do represent a modern style of architecture, which was outlined already at the Werkbund exhibition [20] in Cologne in 1914. This style became established after WW I and was strongly influenced by the Bauhaus [21] (an college for architecture and arts in Weimar) and was called "Neues Bauen" (New Architecture) or a "Klassische Moderne" (Classic Modern Art). The very simple functionality was the main characteristic of the designs, propagating the "pure form" in contrast to the eclecticism with its mixture of elements or to the conservative so-called Heimatschutz style.

In urban planning, which started to become an independent discipline since the 1920s, the ideas of the modernists were generally summarized in the Charta of Athens, formulated in 1933. This urban manifest, which was initiated by the CIAM (Congrès International d'Architecture Moderne) did formulate a new model for future urban development. In contrast to the situation in the dark tenement blocks of the period of promoterism the living conditions of the modern citizen in the big cities should be improved by considering sun, fresh air and hygiene, by using modern techniques and materials and in particular by a spatial separation of the dimensions housing, labour, leisure and transportation. Although parallels to the garden city conception are evident, the supporters of Howard were more concerned in turning away from the big city whereas the modernists can be characterized as declared enthusiasts of an urban way of life - e.g. of high-rise buildings. One of the most well-known advocate was the Frenchman Le Corbusier [22], whose ideas also inspired German urban planners to a great extent. In Germany the call for a spatial separation of the different functions was translated into action for the first time when the early urban land use plans (Bebauungs- und Bauzonenpläne) were carried out in the beginnings of the 1920s.

This development was interrupted abruptly by Hitler´s takeover of power. The National Socialists banned the plans and concepts of the advocates of Classic Modern Art as degenerated [23] and many prominent architects of this time like for example Walter Gropius or Mies van der Rohe (the main exponents of the Bauhaus) had to flee into exile. From now on, the remodeling of the cities in Germany was in the hand of the central power of the fascist state. The general principles of urban development of the National Socialists were very much determined by the view Hitler had about architecture [24]. These ideas were carried out into concrete models and plans by a planning group (Planungsstab) centred around the architect and later minister of war Albert Speer [25] (Durth/Gutschow 1988: 14). The general ideas of the National Socialists about how a city should be organized and look like were very ambivalent. The planning of residential areas was dominated by an anti-urban attitude. As a consequence, the majority of houses in new urban settlements between 1933 and 1939 were built according to the architectural style of the Heimatschutz and arranged as a rural village. However, the strict opposite direction was taken in planning the centre cores of the big cities. The historical spatial structure with small parcels of land should be re-changed into a rectangular street pattern [26] with North-South- and East-West-axes and huge marching up squares - a spatial expression of totalitarian power. The axes were bordered by imposing buildings of the party and the state. Special importance was attributed to the four so-called Fuehrerstaedte (cities of the leader) and to the Gauhauptstaedte (capitals of the National Socialist provinces). The four Fuehrerstaedte were: Munich, as the capital of the National Socialist movement and of arts; Nuernberg [27], as the city of the party meetings; Berlin, as the capital of the Reich and which should be renamed into "Germania" in the future; and Linz (Austria), the birth place of Hitler. The urban agglomerations became connected through an about 4000 km long network of highways [28] (Autobahn), which basically was already planned before in the period of the Weimar Republic.

Before the historical structures of the German city could be wiped out completely by the planning of the National Socialists, a majority of the cities were destroyed by the bombing in WW II [29]. In a first phase, the damages primarily were caused by so-called area bombing that is within a short period of time a huge amount of incendiary bombs were thrown off onto the destinated area - mostly industrial sites and transportation structures. From 1941/42 on, the Royal Air Force bombed inner city districts to an increasing extent in order to destroy the roots of urban life and to incense the population against the ruling class (moral bombing). The devastating attacks were also an answer to the raids the Germans flew against British cities - e.g. London or Coventry [30]. The most painful loss on the German side probably was the complete destruction of the Baroque style inner city of Dresden, when it was bombed in the night of February 14/15, 1945 and an estimated number of 35,000 people lost their lives. After the end of the war a strong regional variation in the intensity of destruction could be observed. To sum it up, the housing losses were higher in West German cities compared to the cities of the later GDR. And the industrial regions of Central and Southern Germany were much less hit than those which were targets since the very beginning of the air war: the Rhenish-Westphalian industrial region [31], Southwest Germany [32] and parts of Northern Germany [33] which are in close distance to England (Hohn 1993: 20). In the following years after the end of the war reconstruction of the cities was the main task in both the German states. In the beginning the hope existed that the tabula rasa of the destroyed cities might be a good background for creating something completely new. But very soon it became clear that a real new beginning was not possible. The reconstruction was very much - in particular in West Germany - determined by the persistence of people and general principles.

[1] http://www.hitler.org/speeches/02-01-33.html
[2] http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/adoblin.htm
[3] http://csunix1.lvc.edu/~snyder/em/russolo.html
[4] http://en.fondation-hermitage.ch/
[5] http://www.gruenderzeitmuseum.de/new/
[6] http://www.leipzig-info.net/Info/NeuesRathaus.html
[7] http://www.friedrichshain-kreuzberg.de/index_80_de.html
[8] http://www.db.de/site/bahn/de/unternehmen/bahnwelt/dbmuseum/ausstellungen/landerschliessung/landerschliessung.html
[9] http://www.museum-der-arbeit.de/Rundgang/index.en.html
[10] http://www.blasewitz1.de/blasew.htm
[11] http://www.route-industriekultur.de/routen/19/19_12.htm
[12] http://www.route-industriekultur.de/routen/19/19_12.htm
[13] http://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/howard.htm
[14] http://web.ukonline.co.uk/john.birch/Vivienne/Letchworth/Default.htm
[15] http://www.gartenstadt-staaken.de/
[16] http://www.hellerau.com/
[17] http://www.essen-margarethenhoehe.de/
[18] http://www.archinform.de/arch/206.htm
[19] http://www.archinform.de/arch/162.htm
[20] http://www.deutscher-werkbund.de/htm/dwb_ev/historie/d_ev_his_m01.htm
[21] http://www.bauhaus.de/bauhaus1919/architektur/index.htm
[22] http://www.tu-harburg.de/b/kuehn/lec2.html
[23] http://rzserv2.fh-lueneburg.de/u1/gym03/expo/jonatur/geistesw/zwischen/entartet/geschich/geschich.htm
[24] http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/kunst/architektur/
[25] http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/SpeerAlbert/index.html
[26] http://www.hitler.org/art/city_planning/
[27] http://www.museen.nuernberg.de/english/reichsparteitag_e/pages/all_info_e.html
[28] http://www.hitler.org/artifacts/autobahn/
[29] http://www.historisches-centrum.de/ruhr/uk/uk-1.htm
[30] http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/blitz/
[31] http://www.historisches-centrum.de/ruhr/pocket/kessel0.htm
[32] http://www.altfrankfurt.com/Krieg2.htm
[33] http://fhh1.hamburg.de/fhh/internetausstellungen/rathausausstellung/ausstellung/tafel33/ausstel331.htm

Bibliography