Practices in building housing and settlements in the Nazi era. Case study: Breslau

Beate Störtkuhl

doi:10.37190/arc210303

Abstract

The aim of the article is to present housing development in Wrocław, after 1933, in National Socialism period. At that time, the goals and organizational structures of societies involved in the construction of new apartments and housing estates were revised. The activities of Herbert Boehm (1894–1954), who returned to the capital city of Silesia in 1936, will be presented. Boehm collaborated with Ernst May in the early 1920s as part of the Schlesische Heimstätte (Silesian Homesteads) housing company, and from 1925 on the creation of New Frankfurt; then, until 1941, he dealt with spatial planning in the town planning office of Wrocław. Boehm’s activity included the development of urban spaces and new districts both in the Weimar Republic and the Nazi era. The article is based on sources from the State Archives in Wrocław and the Museums of Architecture both in Wrocław and in Frankfurt am Main.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2021

3(67)

DOI: 10.37190/arc210303

Beate Störtkuhl*

Practices in building housing and settlements

in the Nazi era.

Case study: Breslau

Introduction

After the National Socialists seized power in 1933,

the aims and organisational structures for building new

housing and settlements were revised. This article, using

Bres lau as case study, will examine how this happened,

and those who made it happen; one such was Herbert

Boehm (1894‒1954), who had returned to the capital of

Silesia in 1936. Boehm had worked with Ernst May in

the early 1920s at the social housing association Schle-

sische Heimstätte (Silesian Homesteads), and from 1925

had collabo rated in creating the New Frankfurt; he subse-

quently worked until 1941 on town planning in the Bre-

slau city planning oce. Boehm’s career, with its breaks

and continuities, encompassed the development of urban

spaces and new districts, both in the Weimar Republic and

the Nazi era.

In order to extend and rene the current state of re-

search, this article is based on sources from the State

Ar chive (Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu) and the

Ar chitecture Museum (Muzeum Architektury we Wro cła

wiu), both in Wrocław, and the Boehm Collection in the

City Archives in Frankfurt/Main

* Bundesinstitut für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im

östlichen Europa/Carl von Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, Germany,

e-mail: beate.stoertkuhl@bkge.uni-oldenburg.de

I would like to thank Silvia Stenger from the Institut für Stadt-

geschichte Frankfurt am Main for repeatedly providing support for

my research on Herbert Boehm. My thanks also go to my colleague

prof. dr Jerzy Ilkosz, the Director of the Muzeum Architektury [Museum

of Architecture in Wrocław], for making available to me the planning

materials in the museum’s archives. On the architectural history of Bre-

slau under National Socialist rule, see: [1]–[4]. A key work on housing

construction under National Socialism is Tilman Harlander [5].

Change of power,

and paradigm shift

Nazi propaganda was intended to draw a clear line un-

der the large developments and the living concepts of the

Weimar Republic. In particular, the rhetoric of Nazi cul-

tural policies ostracized the Modernist Movement

. The

mayor of Breslau, Hans Fridrich announced in his inaugu-

ral speech in October 1934 that:

We will not be putting up any blocks of ats, we will not

be conducting any wild building experiments, we don’t

want an alien housing culture designed in the overween-

ing style of arty exhibitions [8, fol. 36].

Fridrich was referring to the model estate in the 1929

“Wohnung und Werkraum” (Living and Working Space,

WuWA) exhibition; it had been much criticised

, so he

was sure his words would be widely well received. During

its early years, the Third Reich presented its housing pro-

grammes as a new beginning, but the “new” label applied

by Nazi propaganda was intended to hide the reality that

they were in fact a continuation of the emergency-driven

suburban developments of the late Weimar Republic. The

negative concepts of “unemployed” and “suburban estate”

were replaced by the word Heimstättensiedlung (an estate

of homesteads)

which played into the expli cit main con-

cern of Nazi housing policy, “to re-root the popu lation in

German soil”

Ideological pioneers included Paul SchultzeNaumburg [6] and

Paul Schmitthenner [7].

On this, see for example [2, p. 353].

Cf. [9].

Cited in: [10, p. 11]. The foundations and changes in housing pol-

icy until 1940, from the point of view of the DAF, are summarised in [11,

pp. 211–228]. Cf. [5, p. 67].

26 Beate Störtkuhl

loans to build their own homes – socalled Reich home-

steads (Reichsheimstätten)

. This nancial instrument

had been introduced as a crisis measure during the late

Weimar Republic, but it wasn’t until the Nazi regime that

it became a cornerstone of housing policy

During the Weimar Republic the ownership patterns in

housing developments had been about 70 percent public

and 30 percent private, but this was now reversed

. The

housing associations might act as developers, but the indi-

vidual homes were usually sold to private buyers, mostly

in leasehold arrangements. Having borrowed, the owners

were then tied to the land, thus forcing them to comply

with the intended policy of (re)rooting them [in German

soil]

. The loan programme also stimulated the construc-

tion industry, which boomed between 1935/1936 and 1938.

Basically, the urban expansion plans developed in

1928 for Breslau were continued after the change of gov-

ernment, but were realised according to designs that tted

with the revised directives. This happened, for example,

in the development plan for the newly incorporated sub-

urb KleinMochbern (Muchobór Mały), designed in 1930

by Heinrich Knipping. The slightly curved streetplan runs

north–south and is still recognisable in modern maps of

the area. The plan to build an estate of multi-storey build-

ings on the main road leading to Klettendorf (Kleciń ska

Street) was abandoned. The land originally allocated to

the Breslau Municipal Housing Association was sold to

developers from the party-led Deutsche Arbeitsfront [12,

p. 2f], and covered with tiny buildings, semidetached or

terraced houses, and small blocks of up to four homes.

Schlesische Heimstätte had specialised, since its found-

ing in 1919, in standardised tiny dwellings; this housing

association and its subsidiaries were therefore the main

beneciaries in Breslau of the new political situation; and

it displaced the Breslau Municipal Housing Association,

previously the most signicant stakeholder, in the estab-

lishment of the city’s new neighbourhoods

. By the end

of 1936 the society had 161 employees, of whom 118

were in Breslau

Like Ernst May in the early 1920s, Schlesische Heim-

stätte did not operate only as developer; in many cases it

also provided building designs which were used, for exam-

ple, in the estates in Stabelwitz (Stabłowice), Goldschmie-

den (Złotniki) and Neukirch (Żerniki) on the western side

of the expanding city, which between 1933 and 1938/1939

were almost entirely covered with standardised tiny build-

ings, mostly semidetached houses (Fig. 1). Most of the

homes in Stabelwitz had a reduced amount of living space

On this, see: [16, p. 240f].

This continuity was not denied, though the systematic approach

of the Nazi era was pointed out; cf. [10, p. 11].

This is reected in many places in the Breslau archives – e.g. [17].

Cf. [18, pp. 54–61].

Of the 7,128 small homes built in the whole Breslau district

in 1937, Schlesische Heimstätte built around 3,300, which represented

46.3% [19, p. 6].

GStA PK I.HA Rep. 151 Finanzministerium, I C, Nr. 12433:

Schlesische Heimstätte in Breslau, Vol. 1, 1935–1939, Bericht über die

Aufsichtsratssitzung am 19.10.1937. ‒ Schlesische Heimstätte had branch

oces in Brieg, Görlitz, Liegnitz, Hirschberg and Reichenbach [20].

The new government introduced extensive changes

to the ways in which welfare housing had been provided

during the Weimar Republic. Social housing associations

such as the Schlesische Heimstätte, which had previously

operated under the aegis of the Prussian Welfare Ministry,

were reallocated to the Reich Ministry of Labour (Reichs-

arbeitministerium, RAM). After the abolition of trade

unions in May 1933, their housing associations were taken

over by the Reich Homestead Settlement Oce (Reichs -

heimstättenamt) of the German Labour Front (Deutsche

Arbeitsfront, DAF) under the direction of Johann Wil-

helm Ludowici. In Breslau, this aected amongst others

the subsidiary of DEWOG (German Housing Company

for State Ocials and Workers, Ltd.)

. Municipal hous-

ing developers were sidelined: between 1919 and 1932

the Breslau Municipal Housing Association Siedlungs -

gesellschaft Breslau AG had built on average 657 dwell-

ings per year; between 1 January 1933 and 31 December

1936, only 513 dwellings were completed [12]. The story

in Mu nich, for example, was very similar

The permanent housing association architects – in Ber-

lin this was Bruno Taut – were no longer being commis-

sioned. In Breslau, this aected among others Theodor

Eenberger, who therefore took up a teaching position in

the State Art College in Berlin

, and the DEWOG archi-

tect Hugo Leipziger, who emigrated because of his Jewish

ancestry and began work in 1939 as a high school teacher

and urban planner in Austin, Texas. There was however

some level of continuity in the personnel: from 1932 until

his death in 1941, Franz Auer directed the architectural

oce of the Schlesische Heimstätte. In order to practise

as an architect, one had to be admitted as a member of the

Reich Chamber of Culture, established on 15 November

1933; to become a member, one had to demonstrate “ra-

cial” background and political reliability.

“Reich homesteads”

The organisational alterations […] following the po-

litical changes’ included the establishment of the “Bres

lau National Socialist Silesian Housing Association Ltd.”,

a subsidiary of Schlesische Heimstätte, which started

work as early as 1933 on “a very large number of sub-

urban estates for members of the two NSDAP groups, the

Stahlhelm and the Frontliga”

. Prospective occupants

were subsequently selected not only for the estates specif-

ically built for the core party organisations, but also more

generally for state-subsidised new homes.

The funding policy was adjusted accordingly. Instead

of subsidising rented accommodation provided through

state or municipal welfare, private ownership was pro-

moted through national monetary bonds, a state-run loss

guarantee that enabled lower earners to take out bank

Table “Bautätigkeit der Wohnungsunternehmen der Deutschen Ar-

beitsfront”. In: “Bauen, Siedeln, Wohnen” 1938, Jg. 7, cited in: [5, p. 145].

For the situation in Munich cf. [13, p. 299f].

Cf. [14, pp. 161–177].

[15], letter from Dworack and Hellwig, 29 Apr. 1933, “Organisa-

torische Veränderungen bei der Schlesischen Heimstätte”.

Practices in building housing and settlements in the Nazi era. Case study: Breslau 27

of between 55 m

and 65 m

; the semi-basement, shed and

toilet increased the usable space up to 80 m

. The homes

did not have baths, but did have a laundry in the basement.

All the dierent patterns had the high gabled roof and

small lattice windows that had characterised the houses

built in the “Homeland” vernacular style of the two rst

decades of the 20

century: the wooden dormer windows

and gables described as “Type 11c” and used in 1934/1935

in the southeastern section of Stabelwitz (in Jagniątkows-

ka, Przesiecka, and Jeżowska streets, for example) are sim-

ilar to Ernst May’s standard blueprints in the settlement for

policemen in Neustadt (Prudnik, 1922/1923)

(Fig. 2).

Thanks to an economic boom and favourable credit ar-

rangements, there were also increased numbers of individ-

ual family houses, which contributed signicantly to the

higher house-building statistics up until 1938. In Breslau

there were further extensive new developments, for exam-

ple south of the district of Eichborngarten (now Podróżni

cza, Pionierska, Ojca Beyzyma, and Stolarska streets), in

Wilhelmsruh (Zacisze) and in parts of Carlowitz (Karło-

wice) and Bischofswalde (Biskupin). The building designs

were very similar across the whole of the German Reich

and showed little in the way of variation: they either had

a triangular pediment and a gabled roof, or they were cubic

in shape with two full stories and a hipped roof, known

familiarly as “coee grinders”. The lattice windows, at-

tened arches in front of doors and windows, and the shut-

ters were all typical, and belonged to the design repertoire

of the “German home” that traced its genealogy back to

around 1800 and to Goethe’s Gartenhaus in Weimar

Cf. [21].

Cf. [22].

Dwellings for rent: Volkswohnungen

The Reich homesteads concept promised a privately

owned home – however small – to every “national com-

rade” (Volksgenosse) and until 1936 it drove Nazi housing

policy. However, as had been the case during the early

1920s, reality did not live up to the ideal. Even mini-

mal specication houses called for uneconomic land and

building costs, making it impossible to meet the housing

need in the cities. Until 1937, construction went well:

around 315 698 new dwellings were completed in 1937,

which almost matched the 1929 gure of 317 682 under

the Weimar Republic

. For a variety of reasons, however,

the housing market remained stretched, especially in large

cities: the “fouryear plan” announced in October 1936

focused national spending on militarisation, at the ex-

pense of housing and social spending. The construction of

the bunker system in the so-called Siegfried Line caused

a price increase in building materials and services, as did

the laying out of the motorways and the raising of mon-

umental party edices in Berlin, Munich and Nuremberg.

These projects generated an economic revival and a drop

in unemployment, fostering an increase in marriages and

new families, and consequently in the number of people

seeking to buy new homes

. Even when they had found

work, though, those at the lower end of the earnings scale

were not able to benet from the favourable loan condi-

tions and amass sucient capital to get onto the private

ownership housing ladder, so there was a need to build

aordable homes for them

The statistics are in Dieter Münk [23], based on Vierteljahres

hefte zur Statistik des Deutschen Reiches, 1939, 2, and the Statistisches

Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich 1936.

Cf. [23, pp. 243–247].

Cf. [11, p. 219f]. Also described in, e.g., Bericht der Geschäfts

leitung der Schlesischen Heimstätte für die Aufsichtsratssitzung vom

19.10.1937 [20]. See also [5, pp. 97–100].

Fig. 1. Semi-detached house of Nationalsozialistische Schlesische

Siedlungsgesellschaft, designed by Franz Auer, Type 11c,

WrocławStabłowice (formerly BreslauStabelwitz),

Drogosławicka Street 11, 1934–1935

(photo by M. Łanowiecki, source: Museum of Architecture in Wrocław)

Il. 1. Dom bliźniaczy spółki Nationalsozialistische Schlesische

Siedlungsgesellschaft, projekt Franz Auer, Typ 11c,

WrocławStabłowice (dawniej BreslauStabelwitz),

ul. Drogosławicka 11, 1934–1935

(fot. M. Łanowiecki, źródło: Muzeum Architektury we Wrocławiu)

Fig. 2. Semidetached houses of Schlesische Heimstätte,

the settlement for policemen designed by Ernst May, Prudnik

(formerly Neustadt), 1922–1923 (source: [21, p. 152])

Il. 2. Domy bliźniacze spółki Schlesische Heimstätte,

osiedle dla policjantów, projekt Ernst May, Prudnik

(dawniej Neustadt), 1922–1923 (źródło: [21, s. 152])

28 Beate Störtkuhl

Recognising this need, on 18 July 1935 the Reich Mi

nistry of Labour announced support for the construction

of […] very cheap homes for rental in single-storey or

lowrise blocks, providing very basic levels of living

space and furnishings

. Nazi propaganda had redesignat-

ed the Weimar Republic “estates for the unemployed” as

“homestead estates”, and now the concept of the “national

at” (Volkswohnung) replaced the 1920s “homes for the

minimum level of subsistence”, even though the latter had

been signicantly better equipped. The prescribed living

space was between 35

. for the smaller ats and up to

for families with several children, and the monthly

rent was to be 25RM at the most, and thus no more than

a quarter of the minimum wage.

The Volkswohnung homes were built in Breslau exact-

ly according to the designs and amenities specied by the

Reich Ministry of Labour. Some looked from outside like

the former types of small two-storey semi-detached hous-

es, but each in fact contained two ats, one on each oor,

so that the building now could accommodate four fami-

lies instead of two (Fig. 3). The RAM preferred Volks-

wohnung ats to be provided in small “cosy” buildings

of this type, but in the end the limitations of cost meant

that they had to resort to multi-storey blocks

. In such

cases, the recommended arrangement was to have three

Published in [24]. For a collection of decrees on housing issues,

see: [5, pp. 97–100], [23, pp. 239–242].

On 28 January 1936 a supplementary decree from the RAM or-

dered that multi-storey buildings should be promoted “where the land

available for low-rise Volkswohnung homes was insucient and too ex-

pensive”. Published in “Bauen, Siedeln, Wohnen” 1936, Jg. 5, p. 129;

cited in: [5, p. 97].

ats per oor with stairwells (an arrangement known as

Drei spänner), thus casting aside one of the key sanitary

requi rements for the construction of social housing in the

Weimar Republic: the middle at could not benet from

cross ventilation (Fig. 4).

The discrepancy between claims and reality in Nazi hous-

ing policies could not be disguised by euphemisms, as party

leaders and ministerial ocials were well aware; grassroots

party members and the Gestapo kept them informed of mut-

terings among the population about the contrast between the

lack of dwellings and the erection of showy “boulevards”

and “palaces for the administration”

Large settlements: Berlin intervenes

With the return of multistorey blocks of rented ats,

the fortunes of specialist housing associations such as the

Breslau Municipal Housing Association were boosted

Many projects were drawn up to increase the capacity of

existing districts, such as Pilsnitz (Pilczyce) to the south

of the city

In September 1936, Herbert Boehm returned to Bres-

lau

; he had begun his career in 1921 in the architectural

See: [16, pp. 237–239].

Cf. the situation in Munich [13, p. 299f].

Siedlungsgesellschaft Breslau, Geschäftsbericht 1939 (included

in [20]).

Boehm was the senior town planner in the Breslau planning

department between 1 Sept. 1936 and 31 Aug. 1941; Institut für Stadt-

geschichte Frankfurt am Main, Boehm Collection, S/35013. Boehm,

born in 1894 in Dorpat/Tartu (now Estonia), did not follow May into the

Soviet Union in 1930. After working in Gdynia/Gotenhafen from 1941

to 1945 he returned to work in the city building authority in Frankfurt.

Fig. 3.

Semidetached houses (with four apartments) of Schlesische Heimstätte, designed by Franz Auer and Herbert Wiehr,

Volkswohnungen, Type V 3702, WrocławStabłowice (formerly BreslauStabelwitz), Boguszowska Street (formerly Gottesberger Strasse)

(source: Museum of Architecture in Wrocław, T. 1406)

Il. 3. Domy bliźniacze (z czterema mieszkaniami) spółki Schlesische Heimstätte, projekt Franz Auer i Herbert Wiehr,

Volkswohnungen, Typ V 3702, WrocławStabłowice (dawniej BreslauStabelwitz), ul. Boguszowska (dawniej Gottesberger Strasse)

(źródło: Muzeum Architektury we Wrocławiu, T. 1406)

Practices in building housing and settlements in the Nazi era. Case study: Breslau 29

oce of the Schlesische Heimstätte. In 1925 he had moved

to work with Ernst May to the Frankfurt city planning

oce, before moving back to Breslau to take over from

Heinrich Knipping in the city planning department. It is

possible that Boehm was invited back by his former con-

tacts, such as Günther Trauer, an engineer who had collab-

orated with Max Berg in the construction of the Cen tennial

Hall (1911–1913). Trauer worked throughout his career

for the Breslau city planning oce, until his retirement in

1939; from 1925 he was director of the civil engineering

department, and from 1937 he was director of both civil

engineering and building construction. Trauer certainly

knew Boehm as co-creator with May of the concept of

satellite cities, which had been ercely debated during the

Breslau urban expansion competition in 1921/1922; the

collaboration that now evolved between the two men was

one they remembered with “unclouded joy”

Boehm framed the development plan for the rst large

settlement in Breslau since the end of the Weimar Repub-

lic. In 1935 Knipping had planned a settlement of 350

small buildings – family houses and Volkswohnung ats

similar to those in Stabelwitz – for a large plot in Maria

Höfchen (Nowy Dwór), and submitted a loan application

to the RAM [26]. Only once the funding commitment had

been secured was the building plot bought from the city,

for 1.3 million RM. Boehm simultaneously drew up a new

development plan for a “selfsucient community settle-

ment [satellite]” of 2500 homes in two and threestorey

rental blocks and family houses

. Boehm was reviving

On the 1921 satellite concept, see among others Wanda Kono-

nowicz [25, pp. 3–26], [2, pp. 171‒175]. Quotation from the condolence

letter from Trauer to Boehm’s widow on 17 Nov. 1954, Institut für Stadt-

geschichte Frankfurt am Main, Boehm Collection, S/35013.

[26, fol. 86–91], Boehm’s annotations on the development plan,

submitted by Trauer on 7 Aug. 1937. Herbert Boehm, in his article [27],

explicitly referred to his 1921/22 competition entry.

both the name and the concept from the satellite cities he

and Ernst May had elaborated; his design was for a fully

independent community with its own infrastructure and

large open spaces for communal use (Fig. 5).

Although Boehm’s draft followed the new guidelines

for housing construction, mixing the types of building

in order to break down social barriers and thus reinforce

the cohesion of the national community (Volksgemein-

schaft), it did not meet with approval in Berlin. On 27

August 1937 the government buildings inspector, Werner,

travelled from the Reich Ministry of Labour (RAM) to

a meeting in Breslau. It seems clear that the development

plan was too reminiscent of Weimar Republic styles: Wer-

ner was critical of the layout of the buildings in rows and

complained that the design included too many blocks of

several storeys and too few family houses. Boehm was

directed to revise the plans or, better still, to bring in the

Schlesische Heimstätte architects, or Professor Heinrich

Blecken from the Technical University of Breslau, an ar-

chitect trusted by the DAF

Boehm and Trauer, together with the Breslau city may-

or, Fridrich, were summoned to a meeting at the RAM in

Berlin on 24 September 1937, in order to present a “gen-

eral housing plan” and possibly to launch an associated

competition. Fridrich did not agree to the competition, as

he felt it would delay the start of the works; Boehm took

on the whole of the programme.

Only four weeks later the RAM intervened again. Wer-

ner March, the creator of the Berlin Olympic Stadium

and one of the Nazis’ star architects, was to be brought

in to […] help achieve an satisfactory solution in terms

of urban design for this large and beautiful planning

[28, fol. 75], meeting with the District President and Govern-

ment Buildings Inspector Werner on the development plan for Maria

Höfchen, 27 Aug. 1937.

Fig. 4. Multifamily house (with three flats per storey – socalled Dreispänner) by Schlesische Heimstätte, designed by Franz Auer and Herbert Wiehr,

Type SSC 4003, WrocławPsie Pole (formerly BreslauHundsfeld), 1940 (source: Museum of Architecture in Wrocław, T. 739)

Il. 4. Dom wielorodzinny (z trzema mieszkaniami na jednej kondygnacji – tak zwany Dreispänner) spółki Schlesische Heimstätte,

projekt Franz Auer i Herbert Wiehr, Typ SSC 4003, WrocławPsie Pole (dawniej BreslauHundsfeld), 1940

(źródło: Muzeum Architektury we Wrocławiu, T. 739)

30 Beate Störtkuhl

task

. In the meantime, on 4 October 1937, Hitler had an-

nounced the “law on the new concept for German towns”;

this represented a strong intervention in local planning,

and it also aected Breslau

At the end of 1937 the city mayor submitted the altered

plans for the Maria Höfchen district to the RAM, this time

without any low-rise elements. At the same time he submit-

ted Boehm’s tenyear plan for housing development from

1938 to 1947, which would provide 30,000 new dwell-

ings

. On 22 January 1938 there was a further meeting at

[28, fol. 107], letter from Dr. Knoll, Reich and Prussian Labour

Minister, 20 Oct. 1937.

The German term was “Gesetz zur Neugestaltung deutscher

Städte”; on Breslau, cf. [2, pp. 363‒369], [4].

[26, fol. 107–120], letter from Oberbürgermeister Fridrich to

the District President, 31 Dec. 1937: “Anmeldung des Siedlungsvor-

the ministry to examine the plans. In the meantime a new

problem had arisen: the western part of Maria Höfchen

lay in the approach path for the airport and for defence

reasons nothing could be put there. In June, Trauer and

Boehm therefore submitted a new general development

plan for Breslau, which suggested moving the airport to

its current location in Strachwitz, to the south-west of the

city and away from the planned residential areas. Boehm

had labelled it “provisional”, but this general development

plan remained the only one up until 1945 [27] (Fig. 6).

Mayor Fridrich complained about the hindrance to

the Reich Minister of Labour, Franz Seldte – something

habens Mariahöfchen [sic!]”; Anlage (fol. 110–120): Zielsetzung für die

Wohnungsbautätigkeit der kommenden 10 Jahre: 1938–1947, ausgear-

beitet von Herbert Boehm.

Fig. 6. General development

plan for Breslau,

(source: Institut für

Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am

Main, Nachlass Herbert Boehm,

isg_ffm_s1_350_8_12)

Il. 6. Plan generalny

rozwoju Wrocławia,

projekt Herbert Boehm, 1938

(źródło: Institut für

Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am

Main, Nachlass Herbert Boehm,

isg_ffm_s1_350_8_12)

Fig. 5. Model of the settlement,

WrocławNowy Dwór

(formerly BreslauMaria Höfchen),

(source: Institut für

Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am

Main, Nachlass Herbert Boehm,

isg_ffm_s1350_nr_8220001)

Il. 5. Model osiedla,

WrocławNowy Dwór

(dawniej BreslauMaria Höfchen),

projekt Herbert Boehm, 1937

(źródło: Institut für

Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am

Main, Nachlass Herbert Boehm,

isg_ffm_s1350_nr_8220001)

Practices in building housing and settlements in the Nazi era. Case study: Breslau 31

that not everyone dared to do in a totalitarian state

. The

complaint seems not to have adversely aected the Reich

building loan granted for the building of Volkswohnung

ats in Maria Höfchen

The work on site, however, did not begin until the

spring of 1939. The building companies involved were

Wohnbau and Deutsches Heim, two subsidiaries of Schle-

sische Heimstätte, and the commercial company Bau-

und Finanz AG des Schlesischen Handwerks. The Drei-

spänner design, in three storey buildings, stayed largely

unaltered, in spite of the involvement of a number of ar-

chitects: Albert Jaeger, Martin Helmert, Franz Auer and

Herbert Wiehr [29] (Fig. 7). That Jaeger was awarded the

contract may have been due to an intervention by Boehm

– they had met when Jaeger had done a study placement

in May’s architectural practice in the early 1920s. He had

been a successful DEWOG architect, but since 1934 he

had not been commissioned to build any estates.

The start of the war in September 1939 further inter-

rupted the building work. On 15 November Fritz Todt,

the General Plenipotentiary for Regulation of the Con-

struction Industry, issued a decree halting all construction

work except “war-critical” projects. This was followed by

a decree on 16 February 1940 forbidding any new pro

jects that had not yet begun on site

The surviving documents on the construction on the

Maria Höfchen land provide an excellent example of the

room for manoeuvre in the construction industry. On

17 June 1940 work was halted on 100 homes by the Bau-

und Finanz AG; on 22 October 1940 the building company

informed the mayor of Breslau, however, that 42 homes

[26, fol. 140], letter from Oberbürgermeister Fridrich to the

Reich Minister of Labour Seldte, 11 Jun. 1938.

[29]: Errichtung von 144 Volkswohnungen in BreslauMaria

Höfchen, 1938–1944.

Announced in (among other places): [30, p. 5].

would be available for rent in the current year. On 25 Ja

nu ary 1941 Wohnungs- und Heimbau reported that the ap-

plication to designate the undertaking as especially urgent

would probably be granted, as the Ministry of Aviation

needed housing for the workers of the Breslau Vehicle

and Engineering Works, Ltd. On 16 June 1941 exceptio

nal permission was indeed granted by the RAM. The next

interruption happened in February 1942, when the con-

struction workers were conscripted for the operations of

Albert Speer in his new function as Reich Minister for

Armaments and Ammunition (Reichsminister für Bewa-

nung und Munition). In a decree on 15 March 1943, The

Reich Commissioner for Social Housing, Robert Ley,

forbade the construction of any further new dwellings. In

July 1943 work nally resumed on the settlement, after

Fig. 7. Settlement WrocławNowy Dwór (formerly BreslauMaria Höfchen),

(source: Institut für Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am Main,

Nachlass Herbert Boehm, isg_ffm_s1350_nr_8220001)

Il. 7. Osiedle WrocławNowy Dwór (dawniej BreslauMaria Höfchen),

projektowane przez wielu architektów, 1937–

(źródło: Institut für Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am Main,

Nachlass Herbert Boehm, isg_ffm_s1350_nr_8220001)

Fig. 8. Model of the settlement WrocławPsie Pole (formerly BreslauHundsfeld), designed by Herbert Boehm, 1940

(source: Institut für Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am Main, Nachlass Herbert Boehm, isg_ffm_s1350_nr_8240002)

Il. 8. Model osiedla WrocławPsie Pole (dawniej BreslauHundsfeld), projekt Herbert Boehm, 1940

(źródło: Institut für Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am Main, Nachlass Herbert Boehm, isg_ffm_s1350_nr_8240002)

32 Beate Störtkuhl

the handover of 150 homes [28]. Of the 2500 dwellings

planned for Maria Höfchen, the three construction com-

panies in the end only achieved around 900

The description “war-critical building”, which gave

exemption from the ban on new construction, applied to

accommodation for the defence rm RheinmetallBorsig,

a branch of which had been established in Breslau-Hunds-

feld in 1936. In January 1940 Boehm drew up a devel-

opment plan for a large-scale settlement with its own

infrastructure in the North Hundsfeld area, near the train

station and the arterial road (Fig. 8). It was to include an

administration building, a Hitler Youth Centre, a church

and community room, a school and a kindergarten, a cin-

ema, and shops. The plans did not include any family

houses, but instead 1800 dwellings in multi-storey blocks,

with open green spaces between them. The buildings were

arranged in rows along gently curving east–west through

roads, with smaller streets going north–south creating an

open feeling [31]. In presenting his plans Boehm did not

refer to contemporary debates about using as inspiration

the idea of the Ortsgruppe, the local and smallest unit in

the structure of the National Socialist party; instead, he

once again cited his earlier satellite model

By the time construction work stopped in 1943, about

a sixth of the originally planned development had been n-

ished at the site of today’s PiwnikaPonurego Street (Fig. 9).

The infrastructure had not been created. The designs by Auer

and Wiehr for the developer Deutsches Heim have simi-

lar exteriors to the houses in Maria Höfchen, with air-raid

Boehm [27, p. 538], wrote in summer 1939 “Structural work

completed on 850 homes”.

“The Ortsgruppe as the cell of a settlement” was being discussed

in 1940 by Konstanty Gutschow among others; cf. [32]. Boehm spoke of

“the satellitelike suburb Hundsfeld”: [33, fol. 60], letter from Boehm to

the District President 12 Feb. 1941.

shelter cellars, living space on two storeys, and a gabled

roof. In Hundsfeld there are only two ats per storey, the

large ones measuring 66.10

to 85

, with between

three and ve rooms; all the ats have kitchens and bath-

rooms. They were let to the engineers and craftsmen at

Rheinmetall-Borsig

. By now, the majority of the heavy

phy sical work in the factory was being done by forced la-

bourers and prisoners of war.

Leaving aside the narrow scope for creativity in Nazi

housing construction, the huge contribution by the two

Schlesische Heimstätte architects Auer and Wiehr led to

a distinct lack of variety in the 1930s Breslau develop-

ments, in both the small houses and the blocks of ats.

The most remarkable project of the time, from the archi-

tectural point of view, was a private one by investors at

Polinkeweg (Na Polance): Inge, Jutta and the architect

Heinrich Lauterbach had received a shared inheritance. In

1938/1939, on a site on the northern bank of the Oder near

the Rosenthaler bridge, they built three rows of houses,

each on three oors, and with fourstorey wingbuildings

on the side facing the river. Because of the graded heights

of the elements, Heinrich Lauterbach succeeded in break-

ing up the monotonous lines of the foursquare design

with pitched roofs. They did not include the usual lattice

windows or segmented arch windows, and the glazing on

the loggias and the roof superstructures unashamedly ref-

erence the Modern Movement (Fig. 10). In his memoirs,

Lauterbach attributed the planning permission directly to

Herbert Boehm, who certainly was not responsible for

building permits: Trauer, the city planning director, must

have given his support to the project

Planning for

“German housing construction after the war”

Boehm’s overall building plan, conceived as a ten

year plan to last until 1947, served as the basis for the

Breslau “Preparations for German housing construction

after the war”, which Hitler announced as a plan for the

Reich in a decree on 15 November 1940; in the very rst

year after the war, 300,000 homes were to be built

. As

early as May 1940 the deputy mayor, Wolfgang Spielha-

gen, had notied the regional council that the city already

had established plans for housing construction after the

war; land had been identied for 13,500 homes, and work

could start as soon as the war was nished [33]. Herbert

Boehm’s personal situation, however, was deteriorating.

At the beginning of 1941 Karl Hanke (1903–1945?) was

appointed the new Gauleiter for Lower Silesia, and his re-

lationship with Boehm’s mentor, Mayor Fridrich, became

Breslauer Adressbuch 1943, Pt 2, p. 63, 155.

Akademie der Künste Berlin, Baukunstarchiv, Lauterbach

Collection [AdK], LAU01132: Notizen zur Abschiedsvorlesung am

30.01.1958, p. 13. The mention in the notices of a “now vanished Nazi

city planning ocer” who had turned down the plans as “not National

Socialist” referred to Rudolf Kühn, who left the oce as early as the

start of 1937 and was succeeded by Trauer. On the settlement on Polinke

Street: [34], [35].

Reichsgesetzblatt [RGBl.] 1940 I, 1495. Cf. [36, pp. 250–270],

[5, pp. 183–256]. On the case of Breslau: [33].

Fig. 9. Multifamily house of Schlesische Heimstätte,

(formerly BreslauHundsfeld), PiwnikaPonurego Street

(formerly Dreyse Strasse, Hofmann Strasse), 1940–1943

(photo by S. Klimek)

Il. 9. Dom wielorodzinny spółki Schlesische Heimstätte,

projekt Franz Auer i Herbert Wiehr, WrocławPsie Pole

(dawniej BreslauHundsfeld), ul. PiwnikaPonurego

(dawniej Dreyse Strasse, Hofmann Strasse), 1940–1943

(fot. S. Klimek)

Practices in building housing and settlements in the Nazi era. Case study: Breslau 33

Fig. 10. Multifamily houses, designed by Heinrich Lautebach, WrocławRóżanka (formerly BreslauRosenthal),

Na Polance Street (formerly Polinkeweg), 1938–1939 (source: Museum of Architecture in Wrocław, Mat_IIIb_1053_3)

Il. 10. Domy wielorodzinne, projekt Heinrich Lautebach, WrocławRóżanka (dawniej BreslauRosenthal),

ul. Na Polance (dawniej Polinkeweg), 1938–1939 (źródło: Muzeum Architektury we Wrocławiu, Mat_IIIb_1053_3)

References

[1] Dobesz J.L., Wrocławska architektura spod znaku swastyki na tle

budownictwa III Rzeszy, Ocyna Wydawnicza PWr, Wrocław 1999.

[2] Störtkuhl B., Moderne Architektur in Schlesien 1900–1939. Bau kultur

und Politik, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München 2013.

[3] Jara K., The Architecture of the Third Reich in Silesia and Spatial

Planning in the “German East”, “kunsttexte.de/ostblick” 2019, No. 3,

https://edoc.huberlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/21476/Jara.pdf

[accessed: 16.07.2021].

[4] Ilkosz J., German Modernism in the Shadow of the NSDAP – the

Experience of Wrocław, [in:] J. Purchla, Ż. Komar (eds.), Dissonant

Heritage? The Architecture of the Third Reich in Poland, Mię dzy na

rodowe Centrum Kultury, Kraków 2021, 273–294.

[5] Harlander T., Zwischen Heimstätte und Wohnmaschine. Wohnungs-

bau und Wohnungspolitik in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, Birk-

häuser, Basel–Berlin–Boston 1995.

[6] SchultzeNaumburg P., Das Gesicht des deutschen Hauses, Call-

wey, München 1929.

[7] Schmitthenner P., Baugestaltung, Pt. 1: Das deutsche Wohnhaus,

Konrad Wittwer Verlag, Stuttgart 1932.

[8]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu, Akta miasta Wrocławia (2440)

12979: Reden des Herrn OB Dr. Fridrich, Vol. 1, 1934–1942, fol. 36.

[9] Kunze R., Wohnen mit sozialer Bindung. Aufstieg und Niedergang

des Reichsheimstättenrechtes, “Informationen zur modernen Stadt-

geschichte” 1993, Jg. 29, H. 2, 24–27.

[10] Drei Jahre Heimstättenarbeit, vorgelegt vom Vorstand des Reichs-

verband Deutscher Heimstätten Dr. Hans Wagner. Mit einem

Vor wort von J. W. Ludowici, Siedlungsbeauftragter im Stabe des

Stellvertreters des Führers, Leiter des Reichsheimstättenamtes der

DAF, Berlin 1936.

[11] Fundamente des Sieges. Die Gesamtarbeit der Deutschen Arbeits-

front 1933 bis 1940, O. Marrenbach (Hrsg.), Deutsche Arbeits-

front, Berlin 1940, 211–228.

[12]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu

, Akta miasta Wrocławia,

14288 (3729): “Beteiligung an der Siedlungsgesellschaft Breslau

AG.” Breslau – Hauptakten, Geschäftsbericht für das Jahr 1933.

[13] Haerendel U., Kommunale Wohnungspolitik im Dritten Reich.

Siedlungsideologie, Kleinhausbau und “Wohnraumarisierung” am

Beispiel Münchens, Oldenbourg, München 1999.

acrimonious. Günther Trauer had retired at the end of 1939.

There was a vacancy lasting eighteen months, during which

Boehm was eectively directing the construction de part

ment;

Gerhard Petrick, a close collaborator of Albert Speer’s,

was then appointed the new Breslau city planning director,

and he began work on 1 October 1941.

In these circumstances, Boehm was no longer willing

to stay in Breslau, and just then a new opportunity opened

up for him: he moved in the autumn of 1941 to become

city planning director in Gdynia, the modern interwar

Polish port, known as Gotenhafen under the German oc-

cupation

. Soon afterwards he recruited Heinrich Lauter-

Although Boehm left his position in Breslau by the end of Au-

gust (cf. footnote 26), he still submitted a nal draft in the context of

bach and the painter and interior designer Hans Leistikow,

with whom he had worked for many years both in Breslau

and in Frankfurt, to work with him in the Gotenhafen city

planning authority

It seems that Gerhard Petrick did not develop any fur-

ther comprehensive plans for Breslau.

Translation from German

by Sarah Patey

the alteration plans for the Breslau city centre in December 1941; cf. [2,

pp. 363‒367]. On the plans for Gdynia, see: [37]; cf. [38].

See also the memories of Heinrich Lauterbach: AdK LAU01132,

Notizen zur Abschiedsvorlesung am 30.01.1958, p. 13f. Cf. [39, p. 65].

34 Beate Störtkuhl

Abstract

Practices in building housing and settlements in the Nazi era. Case study: Breslau

The aim of the article is to present housing development in Wrocław, after 1933, in National Socialism period. At that time, the goals and orga-

nizational structures of societies involved in the construction of new apartments and housing estates were revised. The activities of Herbert Boehm

(1894–1954), who returned to the capital city of Silesia in 1936, will be presented. Boehm collaborated with Ernst May in the early 1920s as part

of the Schlesische Heimstätte (Silesian Homesteads) housing company, and from 1925 on the creation of New Frankfurt; then, until 1941, he dealt

with spatial planning in the town planning oce of Wrocław. Boehm’s activity included the development of urban spaces and new districts both in

the Weimar Republic and the Nazi era. The article is based on sources from the State Archives in Wrocław and the Museums of Architecture both in

Wrocław and in Frankfurt am Main.

Key words: housing, social housing, settlement, National Socialism

Streszczenie

Domy mieszkalne i osiedla w okresie narodowego socjalizmu. Studium przypadku: Wrocław

Celem artykułu jest zaprezentowanie zabudowy mieszkaniowej Wrocławia po 1933 r., w czasach narodowego socjalizmu. Wówczas to zrewi-

dowano cele i struktury organizacyjne towarzystw zajmujących się budową nowych mieszkań i osiedli. Przedstawiona została działalność Herberta

Boehma (1894–1954), który powrócił do stolicy Śląska w 1936 r. Boehm współpracował z Ernstem Mayem we Wrocławiu na początku lat dwudzie-

stych w ramach spółki mieszkaniowej Schlesische Heimstätte (Śląskie Domostwo), a od 1925 przy tworzeniu Nowego Frankfurtu; następnie do 1941

zajmował się planowaniem przestrzennym w urzędzie urbanistycznym Wrocławia. Działalność Boehma obejmowała rozwój przestrzeni miejskich

i nowych dzielnic zarówno w okresie Republiki Weimarskiej, jak i narodowego socjalizmu. Artykuł opiera się na źródłach z Archiwum Państwowego

we Wrocławiu i Muzeów Architektury zarówno we Wrocławiu, jak i we Frankfurcie nad Menem.

Słowa kluczowe: mieszkalnictwo, budownictwo socjalne, osadnictwo, narodowy socjalizm

[14] Nielsen C., Theo Eenberger 1882–1968. Architekt in Breslau

und Berlin, Dissertation, Universität Bonn, HänselHohenhausen,

Egelsbach 1999, 161–177.

[15] GStA PK I.HA Rep. 151 Finanzministerium, I C, Nr. 12432: Schle-

sische Heimstätte in Breslau, Vol. 1, 1931–1934.

[16] Führer K.C., Anspruch und Realität. Das Scheitern der nationalso-

zialistischen Wohnungspolitik 1933–1945, “Vierteljahreshefte für

Zeitgeschichte” 1997, Jg. 45, H. 2, 225–256.

[17]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu, Akta miasta Wrocławia 33057:

Wohnungsreform, Wohnungs fürsorge und Kleinwohnungsbau, fol. 178,

Bericht über die Bau tätig keit in Breslau im September 1934.

[18]

Ludovici J.W., Das deutsche Siedlungswerk, Winter, Heidelberg 1935.

[19]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu

, Rejencja Wrocławska 14291

(3732): Beteiligung an der Schle sischen Heimstätte GmbH, 1935–

1944, Geschäftsbericht der Schle

sischen Heimstätte 1937.

[20] GStA PK I.HA Rep. 151 Finanzministerium, I C, Nr. 12433: Heim 

stätte in Breslau, Vol. 1, 1935–1939.

[21] May E., Die Siedlung Neustadt O.S., “Schlesisches Heim“ 1923,

Jg. 4, H. 7, 150–156.

[22] Voigt W., Vom UrHaus zum Typ. Paul Schmitthenners “deu tsches

Wohnhaus” und seine Vorbilder, [in:] V.M. Lampugnani, R. Schnei-

der (Hrsg.), Moderne Architektur in Deutschland 1900 bis 1950,

Bd. 1: Reform und Tradition, Hatje, Stuttgart 1992, 244–265.

[23] Münk D., Die Organisation des Raumes im Nationalsozialismus.

Eine soziologische Untersuchung ideologisch fundierter Leitbilder

in Architektur, Städtebau und Raumplanung des Dritten Reiches,

Pahl-Rugenstein, Bonn 1993.

[24] [n.a.], Gesetze und Richtlinien, “Deutsche Bauzeitung” 1935, Jg. 69,

H. 32, 642.

[25] Kononowicz W., Wrocławskie dokonania urbanisty i architekta

Ernsta Maya w latach 1919–1925 – etapem w drodze do funk cjo

nal nego Frankfurtu, “Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki” 2010,

t. 55, z. 1–2, 3–38.

[26]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu

, Rejencja Wrocławska

16285: Landbeschaung für Kleinsiedlungen in der Stadt Breslau,

1935–1938.

[27] Boehm H., Städtebauliche Weiterarbeit an Breslau, “Deutsche

Bau zeitung” 1939, Jg. 73, H. 26, 537–540.

[28]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu

, Rejencja Wrocławska 14291

(3732): Landbeschaung für Kleinsiedlungen in der Stadt Breslau,

1935–1944.

[29]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu

, Rejencja Wrocławska 16963,

16964: Errichtung von 144 Volkswohnungen in Breslau-Maria

Höfchen, 1938–1944.

[30] “Der deutsche Baumeister. Mitteilungsblatt des Generalbevoll-

mächtigen für die Regelung der Bauwirtschaft” 1940, Jg. 2, 3.

[31]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu

, Rejencja Wrocławska 16290:

Finanzierungsbeihilfe zu den Erschließungsarbeiten in Breslau

Hundsfeld, 1940–1941.

[32] Kuchenbuch D., Geordnete Gemeinschaft. Architekten als Sozial-

ingenieure ‒ Deutschland und Schweden im 20. Jahrhundert, tran-

script Verlag, Bielefeld 2010.

[33]

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu

, Rejencja Wrocławska 16549:

Bebauungsplan für Breslau, 1940‒1943.

[34]

Quiring C., Z prądem i pod prąd: osiedla Heinricha Lauterbacha

z lat dwudziestych i trzydziestych we Wrocławiu, [in:] J. Ilkosz (red.),

Hein rich Lauterbach. Architekt wrocławskiego modernizmu, Mu-

zeum Architektury, Wrocław 2012, 237–259.

[35] Duda M., Osiedle na Polance, [in:] J. Ilkosz (red.), Heinrich Lau-

terbach. Architekt wrocławskiego modernizmu, Muzeum Architek-

tury, Wrocław 2012.

[36] Teut A., Architektur im Dritten Reich 1933–1945, Ullstein, Berlin–

Frankfurt/Main–Wien 1967.

[37] Boehm H., Gotenhafen – eine Aufgabe besonderer Art, “Deutsche

Bauzeitung” 1942, Jg. 76, H. 19, 435−440.

[38] Omilanowska M., Herbert Boehm: Architekt miejski Gotenhafen

i jego działalność w Gdyni w latach 1941‒1945, “Porta Aurea”

2012, nr 11, 320–335.

[39] Steingräber I., Heinrich Lauterbach (1893–1973). Życie i twór czość,

[in:] J. Ilkosz (red.), Heinrich Lauterbach. Architekt wrocławskie-

go modernizmu, Muzeum Architektury, Wrocław 2012, 13–69.