7

Modernist Interpretations of the Principle of Type

and Repeatability in the Work of Warsaw Architects
in the Period Between the World Wars
Jadwiga Roguska

Typicality, standardisation and the repeatability a principle, as creative imagination combined with tradition;
of components are an important feature of a great deal and the type as a tool to design building outlines that could
of 20th century modernist architecture. The widespread become a model for actual architecture to imitate and
availability of architecture, especially housing, to the mass copy. This perspective was first put forward by Quatremére
customer was a goal that determined the direction many de Quincy in his Dictionnaire historique de l’Architecture
distinguished architects would follow in the 20th century. As (1832), the second interpretation was given by Jean Nicolas
preconditions to industrialisation, typicality and repeatability Durand (published from 1802 onwards), who subjected the
both permeated 20th century thinking about mass-scale functional types of architecture to his innovative design
architecture to become one of the principles of modernism. method and, when publishing the results, came out in
I will focus on the period between the World Wars, favour of repeatability.2 Besides the possibility of short-term
which was a key formative time for the concept of type observation and perception, mass architecture had always
and repeatability. These phenomena changed over time; had processes of optimisation and selection going on at its
therefore there is a need to recall their origin and take note rudimentary level, and when they reached an appropriate
of the results that followed. I will use interpretations and critical mass they would become a conscious trend, issue
examples from Warsaw architects to illustrate the subject. or type.
Type and repeatability in architecture are not a 20th In the second half of the 19th century the issue of
century invention. It was rather a matter of discovery workers’ housing became pertinent enough to draw architects’
that they could be consciously used as the material and attention. The notion of “type” appeared in publications on
instrument of a system based on rational principles and the subject to describe layouts of flats and houses of local
the developments in science and technology to accelerate provenance, “more practical” ones and those that introduced
the development of optimised architectural solutions that improvements to the status quo.
would have taken a long time as a matter of natural course. The designation of “type” referred to solutions
A system that would make it possible to design and build developed in a natural process, best adapted to the climate,
eminently perfect architectural models of universal quality. customs, materials and economics. Workers’ flats, largely
Succumbing to the “mirage of immortality”, the belief that repeatable, were coupled into semi-detached houses,
a human-made system would last, a need and possibility four-plexes, terraced houses, in horizontal and storeyed
was noticed for its self-regulation, expressed in the concept layouts.3
of the designed types, capable of transformation into a In the second half of the 19th century, a time when
so-called “flexible layout” or so-called “types of growing mass needs in architecture were accumulating, tendencies
apartments and houses.” for repeatability and type (not fully crystallised yet) also
The typification and prefabrication of 20th century made a mark in public building e.g. hospitals, schools and
architecture resulted from a rationalist attitude and the railway stations. As an essence of culture and a way of life,
industrial age. Construed as the result of natural processes, the type also served as a space marker. Such a role, apart
as opposed to deliberate standardisation, typicality had from its function, had been played in the past by the Roman
always been a feature of mass architecture, a result of amphitheatre, the Roman temple etc. The type’s unifying
perfecting and selecting the solutions supported by virtue of role was used many times in the history of architecture.
function, material, custom, general culture and civilisation in In the architecture of the first half of the 20th century,
different eras. Long-term processes had brought about, for the issue of type existed in both meanings referred to
example, the standard Greek house, Roman amphitheatre, above: the universal ideal and models to be copied. The
bourgeois townhouse, etc. Architectural types, in the sense of awareness of the type and how to use it had grown. Ideal
functional standards, had their own place and time; produced concepts determined trends and inspired to improve specific
by the mechanisms of homeostasis, feedback and natural solutions, their selection and verification as a result of their
selection, they would fade away when no longer meeting practical use. Confronting an idea with reality could lead to
the requirement of equilibrium with their environment, its correction or even rejection and to the search for a new
while their components would blend into the new stages of one, along with a change in the environment.
architectural development.1
2. See The True, the Fictive, and the Real: The Historical Dictionary of
Enlightenment rationalism came up with two ways of
Architecture of Quatremere de Quincy. Introductory Essays and Selected
construing type in architectural theory. The type as an idea, Translations by Samir Younes, Andreas Papadakis Publisher, London 1999,
pp. 22-28, Bandini Micha, Typological Theories in Architectural Design,
1. Roguska Jadwiga, Helena i Szymon Syrkusowie: koncepcje typizacji Companion to Architectural Thought, London, 1993, p. 385.
i uprzemysłowienia architektury mieszkaniowej, “Kwartalnik Architektury 3. See Hinz Jan, Domy mieszkalne dla rzemieślników, “Przegląd Techniczny”,
i Urbanistyki”, 2000, No. 2, p. 117. Vol. XV, 1882, No. 1, p. 9 ff.

47
 At the turn of the 20th century, the idea of a garden
city, put forward by Ebenezer Howard in 1898, was perhaps
the most important concept in architecture, based on earlier
experiences and a new idea to lay out a small town from
scratch. It showed the way to heal the capitalist city. The
ideal model called for, among other things, a non-speculative
form of land ownership. It was vague enough to provide for
multiple interpretations and detailed solutions, including the
development of modern solutions for cheap small houses
derived from modernised local house types such as the English
cottage, the German landhaus, the Polish manor house or
the American prairie house. It confirmed the principle of
using cheap small house types, which dated back to the time
of industrialist-sponsored workers’ housing estates. Garden
city designs usually included several such types arranged
in various configurations, depending on the layout of the
street grid and the division of the land to accommodate
individual gardens. After the success of Letchworth, England
(established 1903, designed by Raymond Unwin and Barry
Parker), Howard’s idea became very popular in Germany
thanks to Hermann Muthesius. Germany’s first garden cities,
including Dalhauser Heide (1907-11) and Margarethenhóhe
(1909-13) in Essen, the garden city of Hellerau/Dresden
(established 1909, R. Riemerschmied, H. Tessenow) and even
later ones such as Staaken in Berlin-Spandau (1914-1917,
Paul Schmitthenner) were erected in the neighbourhood of
industrial plants, in line with the idea to rationalise workers’
housing.
In Polish lands (then under German, Austrian and
Russian partition), the idea of a garden city was appreciated
by physicians and social activists along with its modifications:
the garden settlement and the garden suburb; the concept
first appeared in the papers by students and architects
educated at German technical universities (Darmstadt,
Dresden, Berlin, Karlsruhe) who were effective in designing
small house types, depending on the number of rooms or
the number of families. The first small house designs for
a railway workers’ garden settlement near Warsaw come from
1907 and were published in the Warsaw Przegląd Techniczny
(Technical Review) magazine in 1908 (Z. Kalinowski,
Cz. Przybylski).4 1. Division and development plan for state-owned real estate
Simultaneously, conceptual work was going on to in the Żoliborz district of Warsaw made at the Ministry of Public
develop a Polish version of a modern small house with garden Works in 1925. A - Żoliborz Urzędniczy (Officials’ Żoliborz), B
surroundings in the form of a manor house based on local - Żoliborz Oficerski (Officers’ Żoliborz), C - Osiedle Wojskowe
tradition. This model was reinforced by the 1912 Exhibition (Military Estate), D - Warszawska Spółdzielnia Mieszkaniowa
of Architecture and Interiors in a Garden Environment in (Warsaw Housing Co-operative). Designs by architect A. Bojemski
Cracow, accompanied with a competition to design five types for two types of houses in Brodzińskiego St. (1919) for Żoliborz
of residential housing.5 Urzędniczy (1921-1922), acc. to “Architektura i Budownictwo”,
1926, No. 6
Around 1910, the designation “type” was used in
Poland most commonly in reference to garden cities as
workers’ settlements. In the case of garden cities with
other economic backgrounds (joint-stock associations), Nevertheless, this phase reinforced the idea of the garden
or unspecified targets - the designation of a model design city and the idea of healthy and affordable housing based on
(projekt wzorcowy) or a suburban house design (projekt the principle of type and repeatability.
domku podmiejskiego) was more likely. However, “type” was Immediately after Poland regained its independence
a progressive notion in architectural design descriptions and in 1918, a state-led campaign was launched in Warsaw to
as such became widespread, having dissociated its meaning erect houses for officials in housing settlements based on the
from working class connotations. principle of garden suburbs. The designs were ready before
Following a change in military doctrine and a decrease partial regulation plans had been completed (1921) and
in restrictions on building along the city’s fortifications in before the adoption of important housing legislation such
1911, education, competitions, exhibitions and a number as the Act of 1920, which allowed the forced purchase of
of simultaneous garden city initiatives surrounding Warsaw landed property within a 15-kilometre radius from the centre
led to the emergence of quite a large group of Warsaw- of Warsaw for the purpose of the city’s building development
based architects skilled in designing manor-type houses and reserve, the Act of 1921 on the transferral of certain state-
brought about the experience that showed a need for new owned land to housing co-operatives and the Act of 1922 on
legislation, a system to provide loans and especially methods land aid to co-operatives through municipalities.6
to procure land at low prices. In Warsaw’s case this could Even before the legal framework was in place, as early
only be agricultural land: landed property located beyond as in 1919 Warsaw architects including R. Świerczyński,
the fortifications. None of the city gardens surrounding K. Saski, Z. Mączeński and R. Gutt designed in Żoliborz,
Warsaw, which were at an advanced design stage at the time
(two in Młociny in 1910-13, one in Rakowiec in 1913 and the 6. Słomiński Zygmunt, Z działalności Komitetu Rozbudowy m. st.
Warszawy, “Architektura i Budownictwo”, 1925, Issue 2, p. 24; Wąsowski
garden city of Ząbki in 1911-14) was completed as planned.
Paweł, Architektura wielorodzinnych domów spółdzielni budowlano-
mieszkaniowych w Warszawie w okresie międzywojennym (1918-1939),
4. “Przegląd Techniczny”, 1908, No. 15, p. 197, plate IX, X.
“Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki”, 2008, Issue 1, p. 28.
5. Kopera Feliks, Sztuka polska 1795-1930, p. 810.

48
which had been incorporated into the city in 1916 and taken
over by the Polish state from the Russian Army in 1918; they
designed streets with modular housing consisting of several
types of manor and/or small-town houses. Spearheaded by
the Ministry of Public Works, these projects included a design
by Zdzisław Mączeński for the development of Pokorna
Street. The then-designed layout of housing estate streets in
Żoliborz, mainly along the north-south axis, shows that the
experience with design based on the garden city principles
led to a good idea of the pros and cons of various ways of
grouping repeatable segments, a harbinger of the preference
for the north-south axis in terraced housing, which would
soon be consolidated in the linear planning principle.
In keeping with the campaign to provide housing to
officials by the state, from 1921 onwards three streets were
built in Żoliborz Urzędniczy with typical repeatable manor
houses (Fig. 1). The streets were designed by three architects,
each by a different one. Wieniawskiego St. and its housing 2. Terraced houses in Brodzińskiego St. in the Officials’ Settle-
was designed by Marian Kontkiewicz, Brodzińskiego St. by ment (Kolonia Urzędnicza) in Żoliborz, Warsaw (1921-1922).
Aleksander Bojemski and Wyspiańskiego St. by Romuald Today the doors and windows have inconsistent colours. Photo
Gutt. Just two types of houses were enough to develop by J. Roguska, 2009
Brodzińskiego St.: detached and terraced buildings (Fig. 1).7
The repeatability also concerned the details, which have
survived, albeit with a flawed change in window colouring in was based on such an idea, used in a 1924 design in Łódź
several places (Fig. 2). Funded by the state, the development (Fig. 4) that architect Zdzisław Mączeński, department head
in Żoliborz Urzędniczy was largely uniform. at the Ministry, also designed a semi-detached school in
Żoliborz Oficerski, a garden suburb co-op housing Bartnicza St., Warsaw (1924-25). The publishing of Projekty
estate erected nearby in the 1920s, with three types of budynków szkół powszechnych (Comprehensive School
houses in multiple variants: from detached, through semi- Building Designs) was continued by the Ministry of Religions
detached to terraced houses for 3-10 families, was designed and Public Education in 1925-1935 (volumes 1-6).
by three architects: Tadeusz Tołłoczko (also the designer of Z. Mączeński’s work proves that the modernist principle
the detailed master plan), Rudolf Świerczyński and Romuald of type and repeatability permeated deep into architects’
Gutt. The location of their designs is jumbled up. As a result, studios in the 1920s, including those that stood well away from
Żoliborz Oficerski is less uniform than Żoliborz Urzędniczy, the avant-garde. In the 1920s, Z. Mączeński designed a type
with standard designs adapted to the wishes of the co-op of affordable and easy to build wooden church, meant to be
members.8 copied in the Lemkivshchyna (Łemkowszczyzna) region along
The north-eastern “quarter” of the Żoliborz layout, Poland’s border with Slovakia. This unifying role of a typical
divided into four parts by a “cross” of the district’s main church in an area which was poorly ethnically integrated,
streets (Fig. 1), contains the Military Settlement (Osiedle had the support from both the state and the Roman Catholic
Wojskowe) designed by Roman Feliński and begun in 1925.9 Church authorities. The same architect applied the principle
Described in the designs as “types” designated with numbers of a repeatable double segment even in framed townhouses,
and letter variants, the Settlement’s manor houses were an in late 1930s luxury housing architecture.11
example of absolute mastery in this kind of housing through In the mid-1920s the issue of type and repeatability
type and repeatability. It should be emphasised that this was taken to a new level, spurred on by an idea that had
stage in type and repeatability’s presence in the affordable
housing of the time concerned the house as a comprehensive 11. See Szmitkowska Agata, Działalność inwestycyjna warszawskiego
form containing flats. This is clearly demonstrated by the przemysłowca Jana Wedla i jego kręgu w dziedzinie mieszkalnictwa
w latach trzydziestych XX wieku, “Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki”,
1924 manor-like repeatable co-op house in Mochnackiego
2008, Issue 2, pp. 41, 42; Ibid., Zdzisław Mączeński (1878-1961) -
23/25, designed by R. Miller; it would be difficult to guess Sylwetka architekta, “Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki”, 2010, Vol. 4,
a semi-detached layout behind the house’s single portico pp. 120, 126.
(Fig. 3).10
Another area where the idea of type and repeatability
matured in the period between the World Wars was 3. Repeatable semi-detached house in 23/25 Mochnackiego
comprehensive school architecture, to accommodate the St., Warsaw, designed by arch. Romuald Miller, 1924. Photo by
J. Roguska, 2009
7-year education system introduced in Poland in 1921. This
extended schooling period made the shortage of school
buildings more acute.
In 1921, the Ministry of Public Works initiated
the publication of Materiały architektoniczne. Budowle
użyteczności publicznej wsi i miasteczka (Architectural
Materials. Public Utility Buildings in Villages and Small
Towns), with the first volume dedicated to primary school
designs. Despite the assurance that book’s purpose was not to
prescribe typical buildings, but rather to illustrate the trends
for a model school, the notion of type and repeatability did
appear in these designs, for example in the form of double
semi-detached schools with a shared gym to save money. It

7. See “Architektura i Budownictwo”, 1926, No. 6, p. 6; Roguska

Jadwiga, Warszawskie kolonie willowe lat 20. XX wieku. Symbioza
zachodnioeuropejskich zasad urbanistycznych i rodzimej formy
architektonicznej, “Urbanistyka”, 8/2004, pp. 33-36.
8. Ibid.
9. Lewicki Jakub, Roman Feliński, architekt i urbanista. Pionier nowoczesnej
architektury, Neriton, Warsaw 2007, pp. 85-87.
10. Roguska Jadwiga, Warszawskie kolonie willowe..., op. cit., p. 38.

49
4. Architect Zdzisław Mączeński, design for double (semi-detached) comprehensive schools in Podmiejska St., Łódź, 1924.
Z. Mączeński design archive, family collection

matured to be put in practice: to industrialise architecture The key sentence in S. Syrkus’ argument was:
and mass-produce housing. First put forward in an address “new industry has created a new type of housing.”14 This
by Hermann Muthesius delivered at the 1911 Congress of the confirmed the shift in the concept of the type from the house
German Werkbund, together with a motion to introduce work to the primary unit: the flat. This new line of development,
on the standardisation of architecture to the organisation’s once it got a new impulse from new technology, began
agenda, the concept of industrialised architecture set the from the beginning - from the primary unit of the flat. The
efforts of many modernists in motion. The stages of this house became the packaging or a set of various types of
maturation can be most clearly seen in Le Corbusier’s housing units. This change in approach is illustrated when
studies and practical work on housing architecture (the one compares a manor house from 1924, where the housing
Domino open floor plan structure - 1914, the Citrohan house units are hidden (Fig. 3) and a terraced housing design from
1920-1922, his studies and urban planning concepts from 1926, which brings them to the forefront (Fig. 5).
the early 1920s, the L’Esprit Nouveau pavilion, the Pessac The perception of the architect’s work was changing,
estate, 1925). their task was no longer to conceive a house, but rather to
By the mid-1920s, in many places the idea to design the assembly of factory-made components and - as
industrialise architecture accumulated to the point where it were - find beauty in the strong rhythm of repetition. The
it could transition from research to implementation. The flat, and then a house section with a group of flats, types
construction of the housing estates of New Frankfurt (1924- to be repeated, began to dominate the overall design of the
30) under the direction of Ernst May, who concluded his own house, the typification thereof was a logical prospect when
phase of designing garden cities in Wrocław (Breslau), became construing progress in this manner.
a vast experience-building opportunity. The 1927 Weissenhof In the second half of the 1920s, prefabricated
estate-exhibition in Stuttgart provided an excellent overview structural systems were maturing in experimental houses and
of the new housing achievements, including in the area of estates. Three trends appeared: the most available and least
technology. Also inspiring were the housing estates designed revolutionary system of crosswalls (first W. Gropius - Dessau-
by Walter Gropius in Törten-Dessau 1926-28, Dammerstock Törten (1926-28), in Poland - B. Lachert and J. Szanajca
in Karlsruhe (1927-28), Siemmenstadt in Berlin (1929) and - a three-segment house in 9-11-11a Katowicka St. in Warsaw,
Bruno Taut’s residential development in Berlin in the second 1928-32), then a slab structure - used by E. May in New
half of the 1920s after his design experience in the garden Frankfurt and finally a framed structure leading to a form
city mode in Magdeburg (1921-24). consistent with Le Corbusier’s five points of architecture15
From 1925, new concepts and achievements in the
mass production of housing were propagated in Poland in the 14. Syrkus Szymon, Preliminarz architektury, “Praesens”, 1/1926, p. 7.
15. Syrkus Szymon, Fabrykacja..., op.cit., pp. 288-296.
articles, studies and designs by Szymon Syrkus and his circle
of architects from the Praesens group, established in 1926,
which in 1928 became a Polish branch of the CIAM.
5. Design for two-room terraced house apartments by architects:
In his articles which introduced the issue, S. Syrkus B. Lachert, L. Niemojewski, J. Szanajca. First Prize at the Building
put forward the following claims: a house must be built Exhibition in Lwów, 1926. “Architektura i Budownictwo”, 1926,
of such pieces that can be factory made, the manufacture No. 10/11
of components should be transferred to the factory, this
manufacturing should be year-round and free of any seasonal
limitations related to wet technology (mortar, plaster), dry
assembly should be introduced using mechanical force, the
technology and materials should be replaced, the structural,
filling and utility components reduced to as few types as
possible, but - as S. Syrkus emphasised - as long as they
result from long and detailed research.12 It could be construed
that the human mind and rational typification could replace
the long natural processes of the development of a type.
Mass-produced components for entire housing estates
and extended production series were to bring savings and
faster capital turnover. The industrial production of buildings
was to be based on component typification and standardisation.
It was thought that this was the way to achieve the precision
and reliability of machine production.13

12. Syrkus Szymon, Fabrykacja osiedli, “Architektura i Budownictwo”,

1928, No. 8, pp. 277-303.
13. Ibid., pp. 279-280.

50
and the most prospective in the 1920s and 1930s. The
framing system made it possible to standardise layouts to
a great degree and to adopt the module (in Pessac - 5 m), to
think about creating a para-biological system of growing and
changeable components, of a flexible design.
All the above structural systems made it possible
to use non-bearing, thin façade walls with good insulation
properties. Local inventions would be used, with two-ply walls
with brick and external façade boards, prefabricated slabs
made of light porous concrete, sawdust concrete slabs etc.
The importance of grouping flats to the façade and the shape
of the building, the emphasis on repeatability, prefabricated
components, the repeatability of detail, the repeatability
of carefully designed panels meticulously outlined on the
façade became a common feature in the aesthetics of 1930s
architecture (Fig. 6). Even where there were no prefabricates
or assembly, the outline of the panels on the façade delivered
a message of innovation or a simulation thereof. To disturb 6. Fragment of the terraced housing project for the employees
of Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych - ZUS (Social Insurance
this rhythm of repetitive detail or to plaster over the real or
Company) in Dziennikarska St. in Warsaw-Żoliborz, designed by
simulated façade panels during refurbishment is today one B. Lachert, R. Piotrowski and J. Szanajca (1934-1935). Photo by
of the more common misconceptions and contradictions of J. Roguska, 2009
the ideas of modernist architecture.
The new understanding of type, repeatability and
prefabrication spread into practical Polish architecture the issue of the type of flat and its repeatability was taken up
selectively and was first tested on small buildings. We should on a broad scale in Warsaw in the designs for the modernist
recall H. and S. Syrkus’ using a framed steel structure in their housing estate of the Warsaw Housing Co-operative in
study designs for small detached houses from 1930, in detailed Żoliborz, where nine settlements were erected from 1925
construction plans for a house in Skolimów/Konstancin near until the outbreak of World War II. From 1927, the avant-
Warsaw from the same year and the construction of a villa garde architects Barbara and Stanisław Brukalski led the way
spa building in Konstancin, designed in 1931, with partially in designing for this project. Multiple stairwell and gallery-
prefabricated walls.16 One of the obstacles to the spread of access, two- and three-storey houses were built. Given the
this trial technology in Poland was the high price of steel. An strict financial constraints there was no experimenting with
analytical study from 1930 by architect Tadeusz Michejda of technology, focusing instead on the functionality and social
Katowice, with designs for a framed steel structure for one- issues. Observably, numerous types of flats for the houses
storey and multi-storey houses ordered by the Polish Steel of the first settlements were developed, with 1 to 3.5 rooms
Mill Syndicate, remained on the drawing board.17 and then the number of variants was reduced after 1930 as
There was an interesting attempt to take advantage a result of improved layouts and selection, actual needs and
of timber, a material that had both a long history of use and the impact of the idea of a minimum flat. By 1938, only two-
affordable prices in Poland, for modern prefabrication. Many room (36 m2) and one-and-a-half room (24 m2) flats with
designers with achievements in housing to their name took minor size variants were designed for settlement IX.20
part in the Your Own Inexpensive House exhibition, held in
1932 in Pola Bielańskie near Warsaw (today within the city 20. Mieszkania w Osiedlu Warszawskiej Spółdzielni Mieszkaniowej na
Żoliborzu, “Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie”, 1932, No. 11-12, pp. 9-31; Mazur
limits) under the auspices of the Polish Society for Housing Elżbieta, Warszawska Spółdzielnia Mieszkaniowa 1921-1939, Warsaw
Reform and timber producers.18 A wooden prefab detached 1993, p. 91.
house designed by Romuald Miller (Fig. 7), which won the
title of “Popular Favourite 1932”, became a type and was
copied 22 times over the 1932-35 period in the neighbouring 7. Architect R. Miller, design for the structure of wooden
Związkowiec estate owned by the Polish Railway Employees prefabricated detached house walls shown at the Your Own
Trade Union Co-operative, including the architect’s own Inexpensive House exhibition in Bielany (now Warsaw), 1932.
“Dom. Osiedle. Mieszkanie”, 1932, No. 7/8
house in 7 Karska St. (Fig. 8). Today, the relatively well-
preserved ensemble has houses with plaster covering the
wooden structure in varying degrees.
A milestone in the development of typification in
Poland came with the 1935 publication of the “Catalogue
of Typical Designs for Small Housing Development” with
58 designs to build, complete with working drawings and
priced bills of quantities, based on designs selected from two
competitions held by Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK),
provider of housing project loans. This was probably the first
time in Poland that the designation “BGK type” appeared on
lists of designs approved for construction under the heading
“architect’s name.”19
In the case of multi-family housing, which was best
suited to take up the issue of mass-produced apartments,

16. Syrkusowie Helena i Szymon, Dom wolnostojący, “Dom, Osiedle,

Mieszkanie”, 1930, No. 11, pp. 3-13; Dom wypoczynkowy na Królewskiej
Górze pod Warszawą, “Architektura i Budownictwo”, 1934, No. 4, pp. 117-
121.
17. Michejda Tadeusz, Jednorodzinne domy w konstrukcji stalowo-
szkieletowej, “Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie”, 1931, No. 12, pp. 5-12.
18. See “Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie”, 1932, No. 7-8, pp. 3-47, No. 9-10,
pp. 3-17; Porębska-Srebrna Joanna, Tani dom własny, “Architektura.
Murator”, 1995, No. 4, pp. 39-43.
19. See “Przegląd Budowlany”, 1935, 1936 - list of designs approved
for construction, eg. item 230/36 (Granowska St.), 271, 271, 275/36
(Barcicka St.).

51
 with the surrounding greenery, made attempts to regionalise
solutions and indicated the need to adjust the standards
after several years of experience.23
The most comprehensive theoretical presentation of
design in terms of type and repeatability which, at the turn
of 1930/31, summarised the studies and experience gained
so far, and also - as it seems today - was a harbinger of
the development of typification and prefabrication in Poland
after the World War II, was delivered by H. and S. Syrkus in
a study on the Mass Production of Housing.24 They developed
the study for the Polish Steel Mill Syndicate to research the
possibilities of using steel in high-rise developments. The
study was influenced by the experience of Otto Haesler in
Kassel and W. Gropius in Haselhorst, Berlin, and the ideas
of the CIAM.
H. and S. Syrkus set themselves the task to develop
8. Architect R. Miller’s own wooden prefab house in 7 Karska St., a type of flat in a steel-structure house that could be copied
Warsaw (1933). Photo by J. Roguska, 2009 multiple times, could be enlarged or reduced in size around
a permanent core, arranged in various combinations within
the block of flats and be possible to build with the industrial
Like many in the first generation of female architects, method. They assumed the span containing the sanitary
Barbara Brukalska brought a lot of empathy to design. compartment and kitchen to be the flat’s core (Fig. 10). The
She took up the problem of designing a small, functionally module was a 2.70 m structural span, which corresponded
arranged kitchen21 with standardised dimensions and to the scale of a human being i.e. a two-bed compartment,
furnishing, modelled after the “Frankfurt Kitchen” by Grete organisation of movement, the amount of air and light.
Schutte-Lihotzky, but derived from a knowledge of the local They designed flats which ranged from 1-span (9.9 m2) to
customs and conditions of Żoliborz, Warsaw. 4-spans (39 m2) in a corridor arrangement. The growing row
The next stage in the approach to typification of houses was bookended by storeyed flats. This sequence
and repeatability was determined by two big housing of systematically linked solutions developed according to
construction campaigns initiated by the government. These a uniform idea from the scale of a standardised building
were the housing development campaign of the Social
Insurance Companies (Zakłady Ubezpieczeń Społecznych 23. Piotrowski Roman, Architektura i T.O.R., “Architektura i Budownictwo”,
1936, No. 7, pp. 222-229.
- ZUS) commenced in 1929 (until 1933) and the work of 24. Syrkusowie Helena i Szymon, Masowa produkcja mieszkań, “Dom,
the Workers’ Estate Society (TOR - Towarzystwo Osiedli Osiedle, Mieszkanie”, 1931, No. 9, pp. 2-15.
Robotniczych) established in 1934. This can be considered
the beginning of centralised design concentrated in
nationwide design offices which later prevailed in Poland and 9. Biuro Projektów Zakładów Ubezpieczeń (Social Insurance
of typification based on methodological research. The design Companies Design Office) in Warsaw, types of flats and
offices and their studios, based in Warsaw and specialising in arrangements of typical working class multi-family houses,
affordable housing, developed designs for the entire country, 1930/31, “Przegląd Budowlany” 1931, No. 4
ran typification studies, developed layouts of apartment
types and their groupings/arrangements (Fig. 9) within
the standards specified in their by-laws and the prescribed
apartment size and furnishing standards.22 They would hold
architecture competitions with strictly determined guidelines
and standards. The affordable housing concept shifted from
the notion of a repeatable type of flat to typical groups of
flats and repeatable sections/segments of multi-storey
houses. In the case of TOR, established to provide “socially
most needed” housing for classes which could not meet their
housing needs without state aid, the most efficient corridor
and gallery passageway systems and the smallest one- and
one-and-a-half-room flat types were used. The repeatability of
house types took the issue of typification to the level of urban
space. The TOR estate in Koło, Warsaw (1935-36), consisted
of 19 almost identical corridor-type houses (2 types). The
ZUS design office, in turn, had considerable achievements in
the industrial production of standardised architectural detail.
The ZUS and TOR campaigns also produced designs
for single- and two-family houses, while the participation of
distinguished avant-garde architects led to such important
architectural creations as the ZUS estate in Dziennikarska
Street, Żoliborz, Warsaw (see above) and the Marysin estate
in Łódź.
The TOR architects were aware of the risks involved
with designing within the constraints of type, inferior
standards and repeatability. They saw a counterbalance to
the monotony of such a space in the houses’ relationship

21. See “Architektura i Budownictwo”, 1928, No. 2, p. 73.

22. Roguska Jadwiga, Program taniego mieszkalnictwa Zakładów
Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i jego realizacja w Warszawie [in:] Ubogi
modernizm i socmodernizm w architekturze domu 1925-1975. Wartości
i oddziaływanie. 2. Seminarium naukowe Sekcji Architektury Komitetu
Architektury i Urbanistyki PAN, Warsaw, 2005, pp. 5-9.

52
 blocks). They designed typical residential units and storey
structure, but took care to make the houses somewhat
individual. The design’s modular aspect was highlighted in its
façade.27 In Mokotów, praised for its urban layout, the idea
of the repeatability appeared in not just single buildings, but
entire building clusters (settlements) as well.
In the 1950s and 1960s typification, repeatability and
prefabrication became a dogma in Poland, forcing architects
who worked in central design offices to focus their entire
intellectual effort on crunching numbers, m3, m2, modules,
standards, prices and output, where “creative accounting”
also included losses and waste.
The use of reinforced concrete structures resulted in
housing estates made of enormous blocks of flats, such as
Za Żelazną Bramą in Warsaw (design 1961-65, construction
1965-72, Andrzej Czyż, Andrzej Skopiński, Jerzy Furman,
Jerzy Józefowicz) in a recurring linear urban layout, consisting
of nineteen 16-storey and several 11-storey buildings,
designed for 25,000 inhabitants (Fig. 13).
The emergence of a new structural unit (with studies
on the subject beginning in 1954) - large panel system (LPS)
prefab building blocks - led to 5- and 11-storey types of
houses being selected as the best from the point of view of
the construction industry.
After World War II, typification and repeatability
spread to other areas of design in Poland. Beginning in 1947,
designs were produced for typical cinema houses, because
film was considered to be an effective propaganda tool. The
ultimate symptom of the omnipotence of typification was the
1980 Decree of the Ministery of Education which banned the
10. H. and S. Syrkus, Study: “Mass Production of Housing”,
design of individualised school buildings wherever typical
1930/31. The Axonometry of a repeatable, standardised “core”
of a flat in a steel structure house - sanitary compartment and
designs could be used. Over two decades there had been
kitchen, 1930/31. “Dom. Osiedle. Mieszkanie”, 1931, No. 9 an accumulation of designs which met strict standards and
were adapted for prefabrication, intended for multiple use
regardless of the nature of the future site.

component, through a standardised flat, house and location, 27. Roguska Jadwiga, Helena i Szymon Syrkusowie, koncepcje... , op. cit,
pp. 114, 115.
to the scale of a standardised neighbourhood and city (Fig.
11). H. and S. Syrkus decided that the flexible standard
of the column location, which produced a growing type of 11. H. and S. Syrkus, Study: “Mass Production of Housing”,
flat, house and block of flats, entailed a standard situation 1930/31. Perspective view of a fragment of a city and a housing
ensuing from hygienic requirements, i.e. made it possible to estate with steel-structure high-rise development. “Dom.
support the house on columns and to use linear development Osiedle. Mieszkanie”, 1931, No. 9
regardless of the existing street grid arrangement.25
In 1931, the Praesens group, with H. and S. Syrkus,
prepared a draft for the Warsaw Housing Co-operative estate
in Rakowiec, Warsaw, with steel-structure houses in a linear
layout, repeating a single type of minimum flat 192 times.26
H. and S. Syrkus, who built the estate in 1932-34, did not
manage to use a steel structure. They erected identical
corridor-type houses, in a crosswall system, repeating
a single type of flat and windows to create modern ribbons
of glazing on the façades.
And so, in the 1920s and 1930s repeatability and
typification reached for the detail on the one hand and entire
houses on the other.
Repeatability and typification gained momentum
in Europe’s Eastern Bloc countries after World War II and,
where there was no alternative, led to a crisis of this trend
and its rejection in the 1980s and 1990s.
Warsaw’s first two post-World War II modernist
housing estates: WSM Koło II (1947-50) designed by Helena
and Szymon Syrkus and WSM Dąbrowskiego in Mokotów
designed by Zasław Malicki & Co., displayed a mature idea
of a modernist social housing estate and the application of
theoretical urban planning studies made during the war. In
the Koło II estate, H. and S. Syrkus introduced polygonal
prefabrication (Fig. 12), i.e. preparing the components on
the building site (50 x 50 x 25 cm crushed-brick concrete

25. Roguska Jadwiga, Helena i Szymon Syrkusowie, koncepcje..., op. cit.,

pp. 109-110.
26. Ibid., p. 108; Zespół Praesens, Osiedle Warszawskiej Spółdzielni
Mieszkaniowej na Rakowcu. “Dom. Osiedle. Mieszkanie”, 1931, No. 5,
pp. 1-13.

21
 (1968), Christopher Alexander used the achievements of
linguistics and structuralism to describe the language of
design, providing a new understanding of patterns which
in architecture “describes a problem which occurs over and
over again in our environment, and then describes the core
of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can
use this solution a million times over, without ever doing the
same thing twice.”30
The 1980s and 1990s retreat from typification and
repeatability in Polish architecture took place in an atmosphere
of considerable controversy. A typical flat was associated
with a windowless kitchen and small size, while the area
of a modernist housing estate evoked notions of boredom
and juvenile delinquents in hoodies. Architects themselves
were prone to heated stubbornness in their opinions, in
response to their artistic freedom being restrained and the
humiliations on a journey where they first played the role of
a demiurge - a co-creator of a new spatial and social order
- but ended up as slaves to output. This did not encourage
12. H. and S. Syrkus, The Principle of house construction and any objective assessment of architecture permeated by the
prefabrication in the Koło II estate in Warsaw (1947-50) idea of type and repeatability. However, we may surmise
that, just like the architecture of 19th century historicism,
which for several decades had been disavowed as “creatively
Architects saw the downsides of such total typification impotent”, the architecture of type and repeatability will
and prefabrication, but could only demand “open”, i.e. also get to be assessed in an objective manner, without
flexible typification.28 There was no room for any broader pigeonholing or stereotypes, in the history of architecture.
theoretical discourse. Until recently, this atmosphere of a distinct aversion
Meanwhile in the West, the 20th century notion of the to type and repeatability in architecture was conducive
type had been considerably amended through practical to a great deal of freedom in selective transforming and
validation. In the interpretation of Aldo Rossi (1966) the replacement of repetitive façade detail, asymmetrical
type, or more correctly, the archetype or artefact, understood conversion of semi-detached arrangements and a chaotic
in the context of temporal and spatial relationships, densifying of modernist housing estates with no regard for
was liberated from its close relationship with function to the regular repetitive rhythm of the urban layout. This is
become an idea: “a basic logical principle that is prior to changing, but given the gigantic scale of surviving modernist
form and that constitutes it.”29 In A Pattern Language mass architecture, it is by raising public awareness of its
cultural value and originally lofty goals, rather than by edicts
28. Kleyff Zygmunt, O dziejach typizacji zwanej otwartą, “Architektura”, and prohibitions, that the most valuable part of this heritage
1971, No. 10, pp. 395-397.
29. Wojtas Justyna, Neoracjonalizm Aldo Rossiego - główne założenia can be preserved.
teoretyczne i ich wpływ na twórczość architektoniczną. Doctor’s thesis
under the supervision of prof A. Niezabitowski, Wydział Architektury 30. Lenartowicz Krzysztof, Review of the Polish version of the book by Ch.
Politechniki Śląskiej w Gliwicach, Gliwice 1988. Alexander, Język wzorców, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, 2005.

13. Za Żelazną Bramą housing estate in Warsaw, design 1961-65, construction 1965-72. Architects: J. Czyż, J. Furman, J. Józefowicz,
A. Skopiński. Current state with hotel and office buildings introduced in between the housing development over the last two decades.
Photo by J. Roguska, 2009

54