THE COMEBACK 7 The books and work carried out by the German ar- Y HE RETURN chitect (1876-1950) were largely re- covered and used at the end of sixties decade by part of OF TESSENOW the European architectural critics. One of the main rea- sons for this was the publication in Italy in 1974 of the JOSEP MARIA MONTANER works of Tessenow, with a prologue written by Giorgio Grassi, one of his main supporters.1 Grassi had already referred to Tessenow in his first book, La coslmzione lógica dell'architettura, written in 1967. Other books and works were also published at the same time as part of the vindication movement of this figure.2 These books, especially those by Grassi, though accepting some of the links that he no doubt had with the reactionary ar- chitecture of , used the figure of Tessenow as that of a valuable architect whose work and ideas were of key importance for the project of reformulating the discipline of architecture in which many of the Europe- an architects of the sixties were involved, especially the Italians. Thus, it began to be spoken once again of a person who had been very uncomfortable to most and who, logically, had been left out in much of the historiogra- phy linked to the Modern Movement. Pevsner, Zevi, Giedion, and also Benevolo and Tafuri, and even Frampton, had avoided referring to this architect whose work spanned the first three decades of the xxth Century. An architect who had been dedicated to an essencialist architecture, defending the trade and craft- work involved in it and who still believed in the stanr dard components of classicism. Tessenow will always be an unclassifiable and uncomfortable individual, as were others at the end of the xixth and beginning of the xxth centuries: the team formed by McKim, Mead and White, Erik Gunnar Asplund, Sigurd Lewerentz, Jozef Plecnik, Willem Marinus Dudok and others. All these architects did not fit well within typical evolutive inter- pretations, the optimistically Hegelian interpretations of conventional historiography; these individuals were the ones who mostly created the crisis of the ob- solete traditional categories. When speaking of Tes- senow, Grassi had already written:

If we try to put him within the suggestive frameworks of the official critics of the Modern Movement, there is probably no other individual who is more uncom- fortable.3

JOSEP M. MONTANER Tessenow's ideas on architecture, very critical towards Doctor in Architecture. Official pro- the Modern Movement, and certain points of contact lessor ol Composition at the School between his architecture and the architecture later pro- of Architecture in Barcelona. Author ol the hooks L'ojlci de l'arquitectura. 19H3; Arquitectura industrial a Cata- lunya, del 1732 al 1929. 1984. and Los 1. See the text by Grassi, G., «Introducción a Tessenow». in La ar- museos tic la última generación. 1986. quitectura cunto oficio. Ed. Gustavo Gili. Barcelona. 1980. Awarded «Lluís Domènech i Monta- 2. In 1976 Tessenow's complete works were published care of Wan- ner». Contributor to the Universal gerin. Gerda, and Weiss, Gerhard, in the book Heinrich Tessenow, 1876- Encyclopaedia Espasa and to the 1950, Richard Bacht GMBM Publishing, Essen. 1976. newspaper El País. 3. Grassi, G., op. cit. Temes de ttssenv, 19)1/5. pp. 205-211 moted by the nazi era —a defense of traditional hous- democrats. Later he simply began to move away from ing, the activity of his pupil , the erection any outlook that had to do with politics. I used to see built in 1936 titled Strength through Happiness, etc.— him frequently but by then, logically, he was very have made him especially uncomfortable to deal with. careful. If he had said what he probably thought, that Recently, Tessenow has begun to be spoken of once would have been the end of his career as a professor.6 again. The most outstanding result of this is the article published by Michael Hays, of Northamerican na- During the twenties in Berlin, the two project profes- tionality, which simultaneously appeared in 9H and As- sors at the Berlin Polytechnic were Tessenow and Poel- semblage.4 In this case, in 1989, Hays's interpretation is zig. The students could choose either one or the other. completely opposed to that of Grassi. While Grassi's If they opted for Poelzig, this meant choosing experi- interpretation is of a disciplinary and culturalist nature, mentation, the study of all possibilities, in other words, using Tessenow in order to promote his defense of the doubt. If they chose Tessenow, this implied opting for permanent value of architecture, its statute as a collec- his line of thought based on considering craftwork es- tive factor, the value of tradition and the laws of craft- sential and trying to understand tradition, underlining work, Hays's interpretation is more ideological and cri- the importance of simplicity and repetition, trying to tical, and Tessenow serves to explain the reactionary understand the infinite difficulty of having to consider values of all those architectures whose pretense is to the demands of everyday life and considering even the recover the elements and reasons of times gone by, in smallest details meaningful. According to Julius Pose- an attempt to deal with the divisions and contradictions ner, that are already manifest in society at that time. his projects for small houses for workers, which seem so simple, were really studied in great depth, from the THE CELEBRITY proportions of the windows to the house as a whole. For him it was a difficult task, but he thought that it In the case of Tessenow, as with many other artists was just as necessary to dedicate so much attention to and thinkers of the xxth Century, it is difficult to sepa- the houses for the poor as to the palaces for the very rate ideological factors from architectural factors. The rich.7 fact that Albert Speer, Hitler's official architect, worked with him has been used many times to attack him. In a Nevertheless, both Tessenow and Poelzig had in com- interview carried out in 1977, Speer himself greatly cla- mon the fact of not being openly committed to the prin- rified the extent of his collaboration with Tessenow: ciple of functionalism, thus generating at the School of Architecture a generation of people who were very criti- I wasn't with him in his study for very long; more or cal of functionalism, even at a time when the latter was less nine months. 1 did a few drawings, but not inde- at its prime. Posener explains: pendently. I only did what had already been previous- ly decided by Tessenow and his closest collaborators. Among the young people, around 1930, there were Later I was named his assistant at the University. This many who were very critical of functionalism, a move- meant that I had to assist him in teaching his ideas to ment in which I also participated. But, where were we the students. I wasn't, therefore, involved in any of his heading? Many of them returned to German traditio- projects since they were all carried out in his study. nal architecture when this step backward was offi- That was his job.5 cially demanded. Tessenow's students were probably more exposed to this virus than Poelzig's pupils, be- Tessenow was a professor at the Berlin Politechnic cause it was easier to exchange Tessenow for a proto- until 1934. Since it was a wellknown fact that he did not nazi architect. Many of Poelzig's students left Ger- sympathize with the regime, he was withdrawn from many after 1933. In his group there were more Jews, teaching by the nazis. One of the reasons that he was left wing liberals and socialists than in Tessenow's. given for this was his participation in the circle of friends Undoubtedly, therefore, Tessenow's ideas were easily of the editor Cassirier. After some time, nevertheless, usable by reactionary ideology. Nevertheless, there is Speer managed to have him admitted once again but also no doubt about Tessenow's aversion towards na- Tessenow did not accept. In the aforementioned inter- zism.8 view, Speer explains that Tessenow was, Proof of this is that during the last years of his life, in a certain sense, very much committed to and inspi- since 1945, he was especially well treated and welcomed red by socialism. (...) His first loyalty was to the social by the soviets.

4. Hays, M., «Tessenow's Architecture as National Allegory: Criti- 6. Extracted from Dal Co, F., and Polamo, S., op. cil. que of Capitalism or Protofascism?», Assemblage, n° 8, New York, 7. Extracted from Posener, J., « e Heinrich Tessenow February, 1989. alia Technische Hochschule in Berlin - Charlo Henburg», Lotus. n° 16, 5. Extracted from Dal Co, F., and Polamo, S., «Interview with Albert Italy, September, 1977. Speer», Oppositions, n° 12, Spring, 1978. 8. Posener, J., op. cit. THE DIFFERENT VISIONS already lost and splintered. Tessenow defends the bour- geois objectualworld as a.whole. Tessenow insisted on ideas that had specific value Therefore, the commonplace that is always applied during the 1910's and 1920's; these same ideas had a in reference to Tessenow is true, that is, his conservative different value during the sixties and seventies, and attitude towards preserving the formal qualities of a another different one today. Tessenow did not trust the specific world, that of the bourgeois of the end of the formal slogans of the architects of the Modern Move- xixth Century and the standard components of classi- ment. As many other members of his generation, he did cism. A world that would be pushed aside by new in- not follow the architectural evolution and changes of ventions, by the development of modern civilization those years: he fully trusted the principles of craftwork and the growth of large cities. A world that was becom- and the tradition of classical components. For this ing anachronic and which Adolf Loos systematically reason Giorgio Grassi and other architects of the six- and harshly criticised in his work. In fact, in spite of the ties consider that defending Tessenow implies defend- fact that both Tessenow and Loos shared a tendency ing the role of tradition, established typologies, a uni- towards formal simplification and a recurrence to the versal and collective way of doing things, very much sources of tradition, their attitude versus the contempo- detached from fashion. For Hays, Tessenow represents rary situation was very much opposed; in one case, it the meant trying to save the bourgeois world from falling apart; in the other, it meant developing radical criti- conciliatory return towards conservative architectural cism of the established topics. forms, in an effort to re-establish the remains of a tra- Another recent interpretation of Tessenow has ap- ditional authority (an authority which is presumed to peared in a book by Juan José Lahuerta, in which Tes- be disappearing), through the creation of an illusory senow is part of a personal discourse on the abstraction unity and totality in a compensatory communication during the period between wars.10 In this text a parallel- system.9 ism is suggested —in reference to the admiration for discretion and order— though not studied in depth: a Although Hays does not mention them, his criticism parallelism between Tessenow and Goethe. In fact, the of Tessenow is the same that could be said of Quinlan link between them, though their time and activities were Terry, Leon Krier, Thomas Gordon Smith, Robert Stern, different, was a desire to save a world that was disap- ¡ Ricard Bofill, Óscar Tusquets and other contemporary pearing; in both cases, various states of bourgeois men- ¿Q7 architects who base their work on an anachronic classi- tality. Due to this, both have been criticised by many cism. —for example, Manuel Sacristan's criticism of Goethe Between these two points of view —Grassi's and or Michael Hays's criticism of Tessenow— who have Hays's— there is the distance marked by the uprise of preferred to use more ideological arguments rather than postmodern architecture and its crisis. The return to a more profound evaluation of their work. According to classicism and the vernacular architectures is viewed as these two critics, both Goethe and Tessenow were es- attractive in the seventies because it portrays a renewed sentially two cinics who, in the face of the imminent belief in discipline, the recovery of memory and a resis- end of a given culture, not only did not do anything to tence against the capitalist consumption of architec- fight it and anihilate it, but rather tried to preserve it as ture; but by the end of the eighties the path of histori- long as possible. cism has, in many cases, a conservative, consumist and conciliatory meaning between antagònic worlds that share a return to the authority of the past and the illuso- ry reconstruction of a totality as an acritically satisfac- THE WORKS tory system. According to Grassi, Tessenow goes back to the memory of architecture because he interprets it Beyond these issues about his way of understanding as a collective factor. According to Hays he only does society —issues that Grassi did not consider important, this in order to save an anachronic world threatened by as opposed to Hays who did— and even beyond the extinction. Therefore, according to Hays, the argument conservative position of traditional architecture from according to which architectural work must reflect the which he stems, it is basic to analise the importance reality split off from contemporaneity itself, rejecting and values of Tessenow's architecture. the return to the authority of the past, is basic. In this In thi-s sense, Tessenow's architectural contributions sense, the reactionary aspects present in Tessenow's at- should not be scorned and, a few decades later, they titude are unquestionable: his denial to accept and ex- can still contribute elements of judgement. press the tensions of his times in an attempt to recom- Firstly his neat, tidy architecture is attractive not only pose the authority, order and comfort of a world that is for the comfort and detail of the small interiors but also for the general balance of the units. Tessenow's work is made up of a long list of one fam- 9. Hays, M., op. cil. 10. Lahuerta. J. J., 1927. La abstracción necesaria en el arte y la arqui- ily houses and public buildings, especially schools. The tectura europeos de entregue/ras, Anthropos, Barcelona, 1989. private buildings attempt to preserve the comfortable and projected atmosphere of traditional housing; the Another basic idea is that of identifying craftwork public buildings attempt to recreate in a moderate way with traditional bourgeois values. This leads him to the courtly character of the large buildings of the clas- give importance to the aspiration for order, loyalty and sical era. In reality, his projects of houses and public rigour as fundamental bourgeois values. Order, sim- buildings are exempt of monumentalist and romantic plicity and clarity are also related to repetition as ins- nationalist exaltations. There is no doubt that Tesse- truments used by simple people. This makes him tend now tried to save something of what was being attacked towards a sort of primitive functionalism, a minimalist by the of the xxth Century: the tra- architecture that seeks to produce a strong and rich im- ditional idea of privacy and the concept of monument. pression by means of repetition. In his books and his Thus, he pinpoints two of the subjects that will remain work, Tessenow always defended a rigorous research unsolved throughout the Modern Movement and its task of the essential forms: crisis: the subject of domestic space —the necessary conciliation between memory and advanced technolo- The simplicity to which we aspire can represent the gy— and the subject of the communicative and repre- greatest richness, just as the formal variety that we sentative values of public architecture. have at our disposal can reveal itself as very poor." Amongst his works we must point out, on the one hand, the large amount of one family households, such As Grassi pointed out to us, the interest in Tessenow's as those built in the Garden City of (1909-11), ideas was to contribute issues that had to do with the and his participation in some Siedlungen in Berlin. discipline which the Modern Movement was leaving These houses always obsessively repeat the same out, and that had to be recovered at the time when this themes stemming from the vernacular and classicist movement was in crisis: the aspiration for order, the traditions: the slanted roof, a reminder of the classical rigorous research for essential forms, the reevaluation pediment, symmetry, the repetition of elements, the of craftwork, the defense of traditional bourgeois archi- small surrounding gardens. The interior of the houses tecture of the end of the xixth Century. But even when is always equipped with equal neatness: furniture, Tessenow maintained a critical attitude towards some small objects of personal use, curtains, plants... of the formal topics of the international style (like the On the other hand, the public buildings, such as the discussion about flat roofs), in many aspects he follows Institute for Rhythm Gymnastics in Hellerau (1911-12) the same path as the architects of the Modern Move- and the State School in near (1925- ment: formal simplicity; defense of technical sincerity, 26). Both present a measured and abstract classicism research into norms that could be objective, logical and reduced to its basic elements, with more emphasis on easily transmittable. the conception of architecture as a the component criteria of the classical tradition than cultural and social good. on language. The school at Klotzsche has a beautiful garden patio defined by the central building and, on either side, giant porticos made up of fine columns that THE ROOF stem from the level of the grass to roof level, like flag- poles. The article that asked Tessenow to write for number 7 of the Das Neue magazine that appeared in October-December 1927 with the title THE IDEAS «Special number on flat roofs» is a clear example of Tessenow's ideas and line of reasoning. Tessenow's basic ideas were expressed in his text Many of the main figures of the time appeared in this Hausbau und Dergleichen, a very didactic book in which monographic number —May, , Lurcat, he goes over the basic and permanent issues of archi- Wright, Oud and Frank— and were invited to define tecture, as well as presenting his projected work until themselves on the issue known as the «roof battle». 1916. May, nevertheless, gives Tessenow the last word. It One of the basic ideas is not to substract from archi- must be remembered that Tessenow designed a few tecture the dignity that it has gained over the years. This buildings with a flat roof, such as the Heinrich-Schütz argument was shared by the Italian architects who, dur- School in Kassel (1927-30). ing the fifties and after, defended the primordial impor- In this writing —that at the end of the present article tance of tradition in architecture, of the effort accumu- is translated from German— Tessenow, stemming from lated during centuries of experience and the distrust his own logic, attemps to evaluate both possibilities (flat versus the experimentalist rhetorics who seek the for- roof and slanted roof) in a critical and architectural way, mal renewal of architecture. giving a perfect example of his critical spirit. Tessenow rationally analises the advantages of the flat and slant- ed roofs, evaluating the flat roof as one more step in the 11. Extracted from his text Hausbau und Dergleichen, specifically its general evolution of the roof which, in most cases, will Italian translation: Tessenow, H., Osservazioni elementan sui costruire continue to develop in slanted rather than flat shapes (care of Giorgio Grassi), Franco Angeli Editore, Milan, 1974. and forms. The formal, construction, economic, every- day, psychological and custom arguments are evalu- nature. We must not forget that very important and sin- ated by Tessenow as being of prime importance. gular architects of the xxth Century have decidedly In an implicit way, Tessenow evidences the fact that adscribed themselves to a certain antiurban tradition. a house cannot be understood only as an object of con- Among them: Frank Lloyd Wright, Luis Barragán, José sumption, as a product, as a rationalizable space. The Antonio Coderch. Sverre Fehn, Christopher Alexander. different parts of a house also possess symbolic and Tessenow proposed an intermediate option between cultural values. The basement is the place for the irra- the large city (Grosstadt) and the rural town (Dorf): the tional, and the attic, which appears under the slanted small city (Kleinstadt), a colony which, in fact, took after roof, is the place for memories. Tessenow does not ac- the British idea of garden cities. Therefore, Tessenow cept the slogan rhetoric, the formalist topic on the flat has a theory on the ideal dimensions of cities which roof. He is conscious that the great examples of the his- partly stems from the introduction in by Mu- tory of architecture have been based on the peculiar thesius of the formulation of the British household and resolution of the problem of covering space: the Greek the idea of garden cities. His architectural works —small temple, the Roman pantheon and baths, the gothic ca- one family houses, schools, gymnasiums, etc.— were part thedral. For this reason, he understands the flat roof as of this idealized city of controlled and medium sized a negation that can be used in many cases, although it grandeur. Not in vain, the Kleinstadt projects that he will never do away with the many possible solutions proposed to the soviets in the forties were constituted offered by slanted roofs. In this sense, Tessenow clearly on the basis of repeating his typical simple houses with announced what would happen a few years later, dur- a slanted roof. ing the fifties, with the development of the sculptural After the war he was named Honorary Professor of expressivity of great roofs as an essential issue of the the Berlin Polytechnic by the soviets who entrusted him renewal of the formal repertoire of modern architec- with a great deal of projects, especially studies on hous- ture. Suffice it to remember the Sydney Opera House by ing for garden cities. But by then Tessenow's health was Jorn Utzon (1957-65), the church at Ronchamp by Le not very good and he lived far from the city, alternating Corbusier (1950-54) and the TWA Terminal in New between a life related to working in the country and his York by Eero Saarinen (1960), only to mention a few work producing strictly theoretical projects. examples. Therefore his rejection of the large city, the modern Tessenow participates in this discussion because he metrópoli, is clear enough, as is his protest in favour of believes that it is one of the most basic elements of ar- an improbable «beautiful city» seen from an equally chitecture: the method used for covering an architectu- improbable «wheat field», as Grassi puts it.12 In 1929 ral space, a problem which is at once formal, technical he had already said in one of his classes: and spatial. Though Tessenow understands the reasons of modern architects for eliminating the roof—a nega- The large city is a horrible thing. If you ask people tion of academicism, an antimonumentalist attitude, a how they live in it they will answer fine. But they really proximity to cubist art—, he also points out its trans- live in a miserable way. A large city is a compendium cendence: the fact that due to its expressive, symbolic of the old and the new. The old has no alternative but and technical importance, it is not a subject that can be to succumb. Due to this, large cities are a battle, a bru- solved just by negation. tal fight. But although everything that is pleasurable The development of the flat roof has, in the long run, is alien to it. at the same time it is an ideal place to showed part of the disadvantages that Tessenow had work in.13 already pointed out: its technological complications for evacuating snow and water; the loss of symbolic values in a formal evolution which, by negating the roof, leads TESSENOW'S LESSON us via a path with no return; and lastly, the need for continuing to experiment on new ways and forms for the Beyond the not very far reaching ideological battles roof, of not limiting oneself to an established abstract and leaving aside objections related to the use of con- solution. ventional classical language, Tessenow's great lesson lies in the defense of simplicity and his special critical ca- pacity versus contemporary topics. His work portrayed CRITICISM OF THE METRÓPOLI the possibility of a simple and reasonable architecture, and his works proved the value of knowing how to ex- Another basic aspect of Tessenow's ideas was his press complicated things in a clear and precise way; criticism of large cities; a criticism of the metrópoli that this is no doubt a quality only possessed by especially is still very valid, in spite of the fact that in many as- intelligent people with a capacity to impress. pects it can be related to alternatives of a conservative

12. Grassi, G., op. oil. From Reichlin, B., «Heinrich Tessenow negli appunti d'uno studente 13. Extracted from a class given by Tessenow on June 26th, 1929. herlinese 1929-1932». Casabella, n° 349. June, 1970. that can be considered «decisive». As a novelty we only have several types of non-blackened tarred cardboard ROOF which, though they are no doubt an improvement from H.TESSENOW the point of view of our construction practice, neverthe- less must not fool us into thinking that fiat covering is always the best type of roof in all cases. In any case, the most important thing here, even more important than A roof doesn't care whether it covers one floor or the advent of non-tarred cardboard, is that we are de- many. Any normal foundation that can hold a ground veloping more and more our sensibility versus building floor can always hold two more floors; in the same way forms. From the economic point of view, as long as we that any foundation that must only hold a ground floor have no better means for covering flat roofs than those represents an expenditure that must be taken into ac- already in use, it is better to proceed cautiously every count, likewise in reference to the roof special care must time we get enthusiastic about flat roofs. At the same be taken to achieve a maximum economy in its con- time, we should at least try to give slanted roofs a shape struction. that might seem adequate even to the most sensible eyes. The main question on whether small houses are bet- We must not forget the fact that the main objective of ter covered with a flat of a slanted roof can be consid- our roof is to divert rain water and melting snow as fast ered an attractive issue today, susceptible of being treat- as possible and, in this sense, the slanted roof always ed in an extensive way with many pros and cons. In the has a more adequate shape for carrying out this impor- present article it will suffice to discuss the following tant mission. All our flat roofs, and there is no possible ideas. philosophy on this, have a fundamental error to which Our recent architectural history, which entails the I would like to refer and underline, since our modern harshest critique against anything that is old, also in- architecture lacks, above all, a respect for the most ele- cludes a global critique against the old shapes of more mental and stable arguments: the lack of a clear way of or less slanted roofs. This rejection of visible roofs is formulating an alphabet of considerations and basic very seducing since a large part of the absurd common- norms. place images in our houses would not occur if we could Flat roofs must always be covered and taken care of not see the respective roofs. carefully and scrupulously. Then it will only be consi- The most important reason for our predilection to- dered one of the more solid covers when it is built on a day for flat roofs is our effort to achieve the greatest strong base of wooden boards as a Holzzementdach, or possible purity of architectural forms. Or, even better over a solid roof —with an intermediate layer of the put, it has more to do with today's special sensibility best asphalt and with an overlayer of agglomerated culture than with the general concepts of architecture. sheets of cooked mud—, or like a metal roof made up The total confusion of shapes in many of our habitu- of sheets of lead. These and other types of similar roof al rooftops, which will no doubt be rejected by anyone can be even better, insofar as resistence, than normal with a minimum of sensibility, should be reason enough slanted roofs made of gables and roofs made of slate; for desiring the disappearance of all visible roofs, that but all these flat coverings are so expensive that they is, if we consider the formal purity of our houses as are not recomendable for the building of low cost hous- something important. ing. On the other hand the slanted roof—wheter it has But the great diffusion of the slanted roof, its abso- two layers of gables, two layers of slate or the simple lute predominance over the flat roof, is based on very slanted «German» type of roof— can be considered one solid reasons. In reference to the flat roofs of North and of the best types for its solidness and is recomendable, Central Europe, they have been predominantly used for due to its cost of construction, for building low cost its covering —apart from different types of metallic roof housing. and the so-called Holzzementdach1— tarred cardboard, Covered roofs, although cheap and made of either very much used in many places, especially in North tarred cardboard or non-blackened cardboard, can nev- Germany for the construction of cheap houses. But ertheless be very solid, though from the technical point even if we must admit the merits of tarred cardboard, of view they are never the best kind of roof. At the mo- this does not change the fact that, in general, the slant- ment of construction they are considerably more eco- ed roof is always preferred. If we do not wish to judge nomical, but the maintenance is much more demand- the majority of building technicians as ignorant, we ing than that of good slanted stone roofs which are, must admit the strong and inequivocal preference for nevertheless, more expensive since they cannot simul- the slanted roof as proof that, insofar as building tech- taneously sustain the layers of the roof and, at the same nique, in general it is always the best type of roof. What's time, contain a large attic, which is a very valuable more, there is no innovation within the field of roofing space in buildings constructed for housing. It's also true that these arguments could be considered as not 1. Holzzementdach literally means 'wooden cement cover or roof. It being especially important; their evaluation will always is a flat floating roof made of solid cement and wood, invented during depend on the purely sentimental relationship between the mid xix Century by a merchant named Hausler (Translator's note). us and the slanted or flat roof, in the sense that, ulti- mately, the purely sentimental value plays the most de- about the appearance of systematic opponents; thus, I cisive role. For this reason all the economic considera- would like to make it clear, in case the arguments pre- tions are also useless. From the strictly arithmetical sented here have not portrayed it clearly enough, that I point of view we cannot exactly prove whether the flat do not side with these opponents. I love the fiat roof or slanted roof is better. Still decisively important is the and in my architectural practice I have often used it in fact that the sentimental value of a house, or its expres- more than one of its many possibilities. But in this case sion, largely depends on whether much of the roof is I feel that, as in general, it is worth distrusting the typi- visible or not, or not visible at all. cal topics. And in avantgarde architecture the fiat roof The greatest benefit brought about by our recent con- has clearly become a topic. cern for the flat roof will possibly not be the flat roof in itself but rather the greater purity of forms in the images of our houses. In any case, the flat roof educates our List of Figures sensibility towards this purity in an extraordinary way, and this aspiration can be considered today as a rea- PAGE 40. (1) Design from Hausbau and Dergleichen. (2) House in sonable-aim. The flat roof is a very adequate means of Falkenberg, Berlin, 1913. achieving it. PAGE 41. (3) Project of two unifamiliar houses. (4) Unifamiliar hou- But every time we work towards achieving pure forms ses in file. we run the specific risk of attaining empty or poor forms, PAGE 43. (5 and 6) Insides. and this is probably —from an intuitive point of view— PAGE 45. (7) Institute for Rhythm Gymnastics in Hellerau. the weakest aspect of the fiat roof. Because just as we are conscious, even if only in an approximate way, that we want a clearly expressive richness in our houses, to a certain extent we are precisely evaluating the visible roof as a means of expression. Independently of the shape or the type of cover used, the visible roof always has a very different aspect than that portrayed by other ways of crowning constructed volumes. When we inten- tionally project the volume of a house in such a way that the roof remains visible, we are doing more or less what the musician does when he avoids playing sounds full of richness. This limitation can be a great virtue, but it only partially takes into consideration the gener- ally valued laws of composition, which always recom- mend the use of the widest possible range of means of expression. Apart from this, we possess a centenary and accredited tradition in the construction of roofs, which is not only valid —especially clear in our many and varied towers and domes—, but has also given this ar- chitectural element a marked intensity. Therefore, it would be totally inconceivable to completely or partly reject the slanted or visible roof. The idea of the slanted roof is as just and solid in our temperate climate as is the traditional staircase, which is not worth less just because of the simultaneous exis- tence of mechanical stairs, elevators or conveyer belts. The fact that we defend the fiat roof, trying to im- prove it, and that sometimes we prefer it due to its «ne- gation» character, should seem natural to any archi- tect; and on the other hand, the opinion that the flat roof will soon win over all the rest is based on a ridicu- lous contempt for the slanted roof, which will always undoubtedly have a greater diffusion among us, espe- cially in the construction of low cost housing, even if only because in our climate it is unquestionably the best basic form. At present, when our avantgarde architecture decid- edly prefers the flat roof, there are what we could call systematic opponents versus the fiat roof. The search for new paths and means of expression always brings