ON APRIL 11, 1933, the architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe stepped off the tram in the Steglitz neighborhood in southwest Berlin, crossed a bridge and found that his place of work had been surrounded by the police. The Bauhaus, where he taught and served as the director, had occupied an old telephone factory building there since 1932. The school first opened in Weimar in 1919, as a place for uniting craftsmanship with the arts in the service of architecture; over time, it changed, becoming more about uniting art with industrial techniques. Once Mies took over the directorship in 1930, it became almost purely a school for architecture.
But this instability, even vagueness, of purpose helped propagate its influence. In just over a decade, it had become a byword for modernity in design, a symbol of a progressive age across the world, from New York to Calcutta. The Nazis perceived the Bauhaus to be, along with atonal music and Expressionist painting, yet another specimen of the globe-spanning Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy they sought to eliminate. They weren’t wrong to intuit a basic radicalism at the heart of the Bauhaus project: Uniting all of its multiple tendencies and impulses was an attempt to put art and architecture to use as social regeneration for the world’s working classes. As National Socialism steadily took power across the country, the school became itinerant, always in search of a safe home. It traveled from Weimar, where it lay not far from where the constitution of the first German Republic had been drawn up, to industrial Dessau, where it left its most enduring architectural presence, before ending up in the capital, where its time would be fleeting, with no physical testament to its having ever been there. By that point, the Bauhaus was on its third director, Mies; political developments ensured that he was to be the last.
[Sign up here for the T List newsletter, a weekly roundup of what T Magazine editors are noticing and coveting now.]
The local government in Dessau, among the first municipalities in Germany to be won by the National Socialists in 1931, had voted to close the Bauhaus, which was a state-funded school, in 1932. Mies reopened it as a private institution in Berlin later that year, but it only lasted one semester. The Nazis in Dessau sought, according to one fascist editorial, nothing less than “the disappearance from German soil of one of the most prominent places of Jewish-Marxist ‘art’ manifestation,” and they were not going to relent. With Hitler now chancellor of Germany, the Dessau public prosecutor called for a search of the school’s new Berlin headquarters. The police found materials that were deemed to be subversive, making it subject to closure. Three months of fruitless attempts by Mies and others to forestall this inevitable conclusion followed; they tried various ways to accommodate themselves to the Nazis and preserve the Bauhaus as a private art school. But in the end, the Dessau authorities used a new Nazi law to declare that “support for and action on behalf of the Bauhaus, which presented itself as a Bolshevist cell,” amounted to a political crime. In July 1933, Mies and other Bauhaus masters gathered together at the studio of the interior designer Lilly Reich in Berlin. Mies discussed the financial and political situation of the school and proposed that it should be closed. The proposal was met with unanimous agreement, and the Bauhaus was dissolved.
THIS, THE FORMAL end to the Bauhaus as a school, only precipitated the birth of the Bauhaus as an enduring myth, with its various iterations created and carried on by its former students and teachers, who began to flee Germany, arriving on the shores and at the borders of other nations as refugees. What might plausibly have been only a minor episode in the history of Modernism became a recurring one, translated into different languages and geographies and contexts and economies: a movement whose aesthetic was inextricable from the fact of its diaspora. In retrospect, the Bauhaus invested a particular concept, “design,” with such a quantity of meaning that it overwhelmed the word. Governments across the globe were experimenting with forms of planning, from the city block to the factory floor to the entire economy itself. In that context, the Bauhaus was an idea that could accompany that process — could give aesthetic, architectural and spiritual weight to the revival of society through design.
Naturally, everyone had their own version of what this looked like. Over time, the exodus took the Bauhaus to London, New York, Chicago, Tel Aviv. Walter Gropius, the principal founder, made his way to Massachusetts and became a longtime professor at Harvard; Hannes Meyer, the second director and an avowed Marxist, followed his political ideals to the Soviet Union. After the war, some stayed abroad in their newly adopted homes; others returned to one or another side of a newly divided Germany, each part of which would refashion its own Bauhaus. The New Bauhaus was founded in Chicago in 1937 (now known as the Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology), and another “new” Bauhaus was founded in the West German city of Ulm in the 1950s (the Ulm School of Design). The politics of the Cold War constricted and hardened the available meanings of the Bauhaus. West Germany adopted the Bauhaus as a symbol of democracy, East Germany much later as a symbol of progress. For left-wing members of the ’68 student revolts, Bauhaus was stultifying conformity; for the right-wing American novelist and writer Tom Wolfe, author of the 1981 polemic “From Bauhaus to Our House,” it was the same. Everyone had founded or refounded or kept in their memory their own Bauhaus, each smaller than the original. It was among the oldest stories of exile: Remember Aeneas, the refugee, who, on the wayward trail to Italy, finds that Helenus, a son of Priam, is married to the widowed wife of his brother Hector, and that they have built for themselves a Troy in miniature.
I went to Germany in September of last year to visit the remaining sites of the Bauhaus in advance of the 100th anniversary of its opening, but it was impossible not to think of its closing and the trajectories of the school’s refugees. “You’ve picked an interesting time to come to Germany,” a friend told me when I arrived in Berlin. Just days before, thousands of neo-Nazis had marched in Chemnitz, in eastern Germany, and, surrounding an enormous statue of Karl Marx, who had once fled Germany for political reasons himself, had declared their hostility to immigration and refugees. In Bitterfeld, where I was transferring trains from Dessau to Weimar — toward the end of the German Democratic Republic, it was the world’s most polluted city — a drunk man seated himself next to me and repeatedly asked me where I came from and why I came, denouncing Angela Merkel’s refugee policy. Inspecting the collections of the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, the archivist reminded me that the Bauhaus was forced to leave the city because of the rise of the political right — “just like today!” she cried, with gallows cheeriness. Last October, Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party posted disastrous results in regional elections in Bavaria and Hesse, and Merkel announced that she would step down as party leader and would not seek re-election as chancellor in 2021. Even sections of the political left were proposing more restrictions on asylum for refugees.
Germany is beset by anniversaries, many of them celebrating unhappy or ambiguous events, which it nonetheless feels duty bound to observe. But the founding of the Bauhaus happens to be one of the few good ones, and the country is marking the centenary with a flurry of building and activity. Two new museums are set to open this year, in Dessau and Weimar; the Bauhaus-Archiv in Berlin is adding a new building to be completed in 2022; and all the various sites, from small housing projects to the central, monumental building in Dessau, are being outfitted with new displays. A full calendar of events is taking place in each city throughout the year. Television shows are in the works: During my visit, at the site of the school’s first headquarters in Weimar, a German production company was filming a six-part dramatic mini-series with the working title “Bauhaus: The New Era.” The floors were strewn with piles of camera equipment and period newspapers, and I waited for a mustachioed, cream-suited, fictional Gropius to finish conducting business in the real Gropius’s original office before I could make my visit. The subject of the show is typical of a newer approach to the Bauhaus: The main protagonist is a historical figure, Dörte Helm, a painter who entered the school in 1919 and found both freedom and constriction in the heady atmosphere. In the show, Helm has an affair with Gropius (there was a rumor that he had an affair with a student in Weimar, but it was never proven), and she protests the unequal treatment of women at the school. For years, the roster of Bauhaus luminaries — such as Gropius, Mies, Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee — was seen as exclusively male; recently, the contributions (as well as marginalization) of its brilliant women designers — such as Gunta Stölzl and Anni Albers in textiles; Lotte Stam-Beese in architecture; and Ré Soupault in fashion design, photography and journalism — have been the subject of continuing scholarship. “Blaupause” (“Blueprint”), a well-received novel by Theresia Enzensberger about a female student at the Bauhaus who wants to be an architect, is coming out in English this year.
While “Bauhaus” became shorthand for functionalist architecture, an identikit style of angular, boxy white buildings and ribbon windows, there were, in fact, many different Bauhauses that existed during the school’s short life span, and even more so in its afterlife. What made for its vitality was the sheer number of movements for which the Bauhaus provided temporary shelter: Expressionism, functionalism and — as the Nazis correctly surmised — Communism. Many came to the Bauhaus because they wanted to refound the world, from the pot in which you brewed your tea to the painting you hung on your wall to the housing complex that you lived in and the street that you walked on. Only a few buildings emerged from the brains on campus. More common were the designs for typefaces, furniture, flatware: a planned revolution in the texture and feel and look of everyday life. Gropius would speak of a “new unity,” first of craft and fine art, later of art and technology, the ultimate aim being the building as a Gesamtkunstwerk, or total work of art (he would later call this “total architecture”). It was a school that was also — unusual for Germany — a campus: a place where students and teachers came to live. It was meant to embody the life that its teachers and students were also expected to make available to the world.
The sensuous, humane, world-changing spirit of the Bauhaus was captured by the American poet, essayist and former architecture student June Jordan in her book “Civil Wars” (1981). Recalling her early interest in architecture in New York City, she remembered thinking while paging through design books at the public library that:
If I could make things as simple, as necessary, and as wonderful as a spoon of Bauhaus design, then I could be sure, in a deep way, of doing some good, of changing, for instance, the kitchen where I grew up, baffled by the archaeological layers of aimless, wrong-year calendars, and high-gloss, clashing wall colors, and four cans of paprika and endlessly, dysfunctional clutter/material of no morale, of clear, degenerating morass and mire, of slum, of resignation.
One hundred years on, the Bauhaus will once again be exhumed, today amid conditions around the world that echo those of its birth and collapse: a decade of economic crisis; hundreds of millions poorly or not at all housed; plutocracy unchecked; the far-right rampant; endless war, now often conducted under the aegis of the United States; swelling attacks on migrants and refugees; the appearance everywhere of walls, camps, barbed wire; the sudden resurgence in the public sphere of Nazi salutes and swastikas.
In Berlin, where the Bauhaus ended, it also re-emerges in one of the worst housing crises since the end of World War II, where lately prices have been rising faster than in any other city in the world. “The hardest hit, as everywhere, are those who have no choice,” wrote the philosopher Theodor Adorno, reflecting broadly on the idea of the home, in 1944. “They live, if not in slums, in bungalows that tomorrow may be leaf-huts, trailers, cars, camps, or the open air.” The Bauhaus emerged to forestall just such a dire situation, only to be defeated by it. But what remains of its sparse record, its ennobled settings for the underprivileged, demonstrates the possibility for art and architecture to not only serve as a balm for a turbulent history but also as an alternative to it.
TO FOLLOW THE TRAIL of the Bauhaus is in some sense to invite disappointment. Not much was built that the Bauhaus could call its own. The central building, finished in sleepy Dessau in 1926, has been lovingly restored and is its one gleaming masterpiece: an asymmetrical complex separated into functions, only comprehensible in its use rather than at a single glance, with brightly colored beams and accent walls. The Masters’ Houses, where Gropius and his colleagues lived, give less to the imagination. Both Gropius’s and the photographer Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s homes were bombed during the war and were reconstructed in a more streamlined form in 2014 by the architecture firm Bruno Fioretti Marquez; the Kandinsky/Klee House, which survived the war, is being renovated. In fact, all of these buildings were designed by Gropius’s office, not by students or teachers in the Bauhaus. But part of the disappointment also comes from the fact that some of the school’s best achievements are, while thoughtful, not immediately beautiful. They bear the impress of a collective setting out to solve fundamentally social, rather than formal, problems.
The Bauhaus was founded in 1919, when the already renowned architect Walter Gropius took over the Grand Duccal Academy of Art and the School of Applied Arts in Weimar, rechristened the combined institution the Bauhaus and turned it into a force for artistic and architectural Modernism, bringing together the visual artists Paul Klee, Josef Albers, Wassily Kandinsky and Lyonel Feininger; the textile artists Gunta Stölzl and Anni Albers; and the painter and theater designer Oskar Schlemmer. Hidden in the folds of this fairly straightforward history is an enormous variety of activities that went on under the name Bauhaus: controversies and internal dissent, party going and occult happenings, affairs and fights and struggles simply to maintain the school’s financial existence in one of the most tumultuous periods in the history of Germany. Gropius, a man of military build and significant reserve — his ex-wife, Alma Mahler, wrote to him, “Your beautiful male hardness is a wall around you” — emphasized collective work but preserved medieval hierarchies: In the manner of a guild, there were various ranks of “masters.” When Gropius introduced an architecture course led by Hannes Meyer in 1927, women were steered away from taking it, and overall, they were largely segregated in the textile classes.
Much of the early controversy around the Bauhaus centered on Johannes Itten, the first teacher of the school’s innovative, multidisciplinary preliminary course (Vorkurs). A follower of Mazdaznan, a religion with roots in Zoroastrianism, he shaved his head, dressed in robes and practiced strict vegetarianism. (Alma Mahler, a composer who, before Gropius, was married to the composer Gustav Mahler, and after to the writer Franz Werfel, expressed in her 1958 memoir her horror at the “obligatory diet of uncooked mush in garlic” that Itten insisted be served on campus and noted that she found “Bauhaus disciples recognizable at a distance, by the garlic smell.”) Itten began classes with gymnastics and breathing exercises before moving on to elemental discussions of the nature of materials, the contrasts between them and aspects of color theory — all in order to reground students in new perceptions of the basics of making art and objects. He held classes at the Tempelherrenhaus, an 18th-century neo-Gothic folly, where he could scandalize the bourgeoisie of Weimar en plein air. Eventually seen as too spiritual and craft-oriented for the early Bauhaus, Itten was essentially forced to depart by Gropius. He was replaced in 1923 by Moholy-Nagy, who had a far more traditional pedagogical approach — though Itten’s influence on the curriculum persisted for several years.
On the other side of Ittenism lay the Bauhaus’s communism, another insolubility. Early histories of the Bauhaus, filtered through West Germany, where the first Bauhaus archive was founded, and the United States, where several of the key instructors lived after the school closed down, minimized the influence of socialism on the school. At the start of the Bauhaus, Gropius’s own sympathies were often unstated and unclear. In 1920, he had designed an exceptional monument to the striking workers who had resisted a putsch attempt to end the German republic in Weimar: a snaking concrete thunderbolt rising up in the middle of the cemetery among the grave sites of Thuringia’s most hallowed bourgeois families. His appeals to unite craft and fine art echoed the British socialist William Morris, who blamed capitalism for the degradation of the decorative arts, among other societal ills. But he was otherwise unaffiliated, and having moved to the United States in 1937, he did his best after World War II to accommodate himself to the Cold War norm.
The mandarin Mies, who had also produced a monument to the left — his was to the assassinated Communists Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg — made no secret of his hostility to Communists at the Bauhaus, expelling many of them, as he programmatically tried to ensure that the Bauhaus became strictly an architecture school, focused on producing work of high quality for the upper classes. Both Mies’s and Gropius’s leftist memorials were eventually destroyed by the Nazis, but in 1933, out of some combination of ego, opportunism and survival instinct, the two of them seriously competed for Hitler’s first big architectural commission, a new building for the national bank, which brings to mind the Bertolt Brecht aphorism “Robbing a bank’s no crime compared to owning one.”
Historians have especially sought to separate the Bauhaus from politics by denigrating the contributions of its least-understood director, Hannes Meyer, a committed Communist who led the Bauhaus from 1928 to 1930. Where Gropius had attempted to move the school toward a closer union with German industry, with the aim of making products for a general market, as well as adopting a broadly formalist approach to architecture, Meyer, though also working with industry, was more explicitly political in his aims. “Volksbedarf statt Luxusbedarf” (“The needs of the people instead of the need of luxury”) became his slogan and that of the students who followed him. He reorganized the curriculum, emphasizing the importance of building as a social, rather than formal, phenomenon. In April 1919, Gropius had published the founding manifesto along with the basic program for the school: “The ultimate aim of all artistic activity is building!” he wrote. “The ultimate, if distant, aim of the Bauhaus is the unified work of art.” In 1929, writing in the Bauhaus journal, Meyer consciously revised the statement, in poetic form, no less: “thus the ultimate aim of all Bauhaus work / the summation of all life-forming forces / to the harmonious arrangement of our society.” Later, Gropius would adopt similar language, calling for the planner and designer to take up “the civilized life of man in all its major aspects,” a form of dirigisme that could only be satisfied under comprehensive central planning.
Despite his short tenure, Meyer has a nearly equal claim with Gropius to what remains of the Bauhaus’s built record, including the one Bauhaus building in the region around Berlin: a trade-union school in the De Chirico-dreary suburb of Bernau. This building, not a standard stop on the Bauhaus tour, is one of the school’s most extraordinary achievements and a monument to its educational mission. Except that here, the education was designed for ordinary workers, and the spirit of the Bauhaus was meant to infuse the everyday lives of trade unionists.
Unlike Gropius’s Bauhaus building, which rises from a flattened landscape and makes a show of a long glass curtain-walled facade, the ADGB Trade Union School is built into a hillside, its various rooms and functions disaggregated into a series of connected buildings of diminishing height: more a complex than a single structure, incomprehensible at any particular moment or angle. Its most bravura feature is a glass-walled corridor that descends the slope on the school’s northwest side, breaking off on the right into dormitories as you walk down. Even on a gray afternoon, floods of light pour in through the windows, and the landscape runs right up to meet you on the other side of the curtain wall. There is also a subtle use of materials and color: The low, dark-wood-slatted roof is threaded with thin red beams, and the floor is gray cement, at once brightening and subduing the atmosphere. Like the corridor, designed to encourage fraternizing in between courses, the other collective spaces are simultaneously light-filled, airy and monumental-feeling. In the extraordinary dining hall, thick exposed concrete columns and beams lift and segment the roof, which is lined with glass brick to filter in light.
Outside the bungalows for the ADGB Trade Union schoolteachers, a small plaque with a relief sculpture records a tribute to Hermann Duncker, one of the founders of the German Communist Party, with the slogan “Jeder kann alles lernen” (“Everyone can learn everything”). After 1933, the Nazis turned the ADGB into a training school for the SS.
THE HISTORY OF the Bauhaus is therefore also a history of its controversies, false starts and failures: Directors failed to maintain order, politics overran the school, women were consistently subordinated. It is also a history in which design as a social concern gave way to design as the styling of consumer goods. But it is also a history of other schools, with which it was contemporary and to which it gave birth. The poet Rabindranath Tagore’s Visva-Bharati University, founded in Santiniketan in rural West Bengal, India, in 1921, bears comparison with the Bauhaus. (Tagore, who visited the school on a trip to Europe that year, also helped organize a 1922 exhibition in Calcutta featuring artists from the Bauhaus and the Indian avant-garde.) So, too, does Black Mountain College in Asheville, N.C., founded in 1933, the year the Bauhaus closed, where Josef and Anni Albers taught. Max Bill, a former Bauhaus student, co-founded the Ulm School of Design in 1953 in West Germany, which collaborated early on with the German manufacturing company Braun, whose Dieter Rams-designed products directly influenced Jony Ive, the chief designer of Apple. Which brings us back via a commodius vicus to design as the styling of consumer goods.
Why did things end up there? After all, the Bauhaus began as a protest against the thoughtless direction of industrialization, the harm it did to mind and spirit. “Only work which is the product of an inner compulsion can have spiritual meaning,” Gropius wrote in 1923. “Mechanized work is lifeless, proper only to the lifeless machine ... The solution depends on a change in the individual’s attitude toward his work.” But Gropius was also intent on partnering with German industry to market Bauhaus products; under Meyer’s directorship, the Bauhaus actually became profitable through its commercial partnerships. Nonetheless, he encouraged the internal agitation of the increasing number of Communist students — even the Bauhaus journal took on a communist bent — and his activities (not to mention the prospect of a financially independent Bauhaus) began to be viewed with alarm by the Dessau authorities. In July 1930, the mayor dismissed him, and Mies was anointed as his successor. In an alternately lugubrious, self-pitying and sarcastic open letter, Meyer accused the city of “attempting to rid the Bauhaus, so heavily infected by me, of the spirit of Marxism”:
Morality, propriety, manners, and order are now to return once more hand in hand with the Muses. As my successor you have had Mies van der Rohe prescribed for you by Gropius and not — according to the statutes — on the advice of the Masters. My colleague poor fellow, is no doubt expected to take his pickax and demolish my work in blissful commemoration of the Moholyan past of the Bauhaus. It looks as if this wicked materialism is to be fought with the sharpest weapons and hence the very life beaten out of the innocent white Bauhaus box. ... I see through it all. I understand nothing.
In 1930, Meyer arrived in Moscow along with several of his students. He became involved in several Soviet projects, including commissions related to the country’s first five-year plan, but he found that scarcity of materials, plus the neo-Classical taste of Joseph Stalin, stymied many of his efforts. Like countless others, Meyer and his foreign associates came under suspicion in the era of Stalin’s purges, and in 1936, he emigrated to Switzerland. Two years later, he moved to Mexico, where he was appointed the director of a short-lived institute for urban planning. He remained there for 10 years, working mostly in public service, before returning to Switzerland, where he died in 1954.
The triumph, after the war, of the Bauhaus as a style and a brand were almost inversely proportional to its failure as a social program. Bauhaus furniture and objects became marketable, Bauhaus architecture a cuboid product available to anyone. Bauhaus became one more form of enabling the growth of consumer society, with its microgradations of taste corresponding to class and status. One of the high (or low) points was the exhibition of a model house by the Bauhaus alumnus Marcel Breuer in the sculpture garden of the Museum of Modern Art in 1949: An early blockbuster exhibition in MoMA’s history, it also betrayed the spirit of the school by showing a house that was far too expensive for most working-class Americans. (John D. Rockefeller Jr. bought the actual house that was exhibited and used it as a guesthouse on his estate in Pocantico Hills, N.Y.) This was a trend observable even to Bauhaus contemporaries. In a 1930 essay titled “Ten Years of the Bauhaus,” the Hungarian art theorist Erno Kallai, who edited the Bauhaus journal under Meyer, laconically telegraphed the standardization of form at the expense of content: “Tubular steel armchair frames: Bauhaus style. Lamp with nickel-coated body and a disk of opaque glass as lampshade: Bauhaus style. Wallpaper patterned in cubes: Bauhaus style. No painting on the wall: Bauhaus style.”
One of the fears that attends the centenary is that this Bauhaus brand will overwhelm any similar attempt to revive the radical spirit of the school at its founding. As the Bauhaus’s influence spread across the world as the pre-eminent global design concept of the postwar era, its history and goals became increasingly watered down, a way to sell gift-shop-ready objects and promote cultural tourism instead of using design to improve the lives of working-class people. This contrast has created a complicated legacy. A loose grouping of intellectuals and architectural theorists, which goes under the name Projekt Bauhaus, intends to take the problem head-on. Last September, I met with Anh-Linh Ngo, one of its members and the editor in chief of Arch+ magazine, in eastern Mitte, a now tony section of former East Berlin with many examples of spruced up Plattenbau, prefab concrete housing construction. Ngo told me the group wants to “look at the legacy of the Bauhaus from an outside, critical perspective.” In honor of the original Bauhaus’s critical spirit, they intend — while everyone in Berlin, Dessau and Weimar is celebrating the centenary — to conduct a ceremonial “burial” of the Bauhaus, culminating in a musical requiem directed by Schorsch Kamerun at the Volksbühne theater in Berlin in June.
“We need to bury this kind of undead figure — this kind of zombie — to put certain aspects of the Bauhaus to rest in order to deal with our own problems,” Ngo told me. Those problems are much in evidence in Germany, he said, with the rise once more of the far right. He pointed to their attempts to gain hegemony in urban spaces using techniques pioneered by the student movement. There are reconstruction projects taking place all over Germany that focus on aspects of pre-20th century German heritage (especially churches), which are primarily initiatives of the far right. Perhaps thinking of the attacks on refugees that had taken place in Chemnitz just a week before we spoke, he suggested quietly that, rather than resurrect the Bauhaus once again, it was “more important to think about the mutual obligations we have toward each other.”
TO SEE THE SITES of the Bauhaus firsthand today is in many ways to glimpse the failure of its collective wisdom: Buildings that weren’t destroyed or commandeered by the Nazis were left to slowly decay after the war, and the ones that still function mostly do so as tourist landmarks. And yet, especially with the works that still operate as they were originally intended, it is possible to glimpse the image of the future that the Bauhaus evoked for its students, teachers and contemporaries.
Unlike Weimar, with its overwhelming German classical and Romantic heritage — the erstwhile home of Goethe and Liszt — the eerie, moribund town of Dessau is overwhelmed by the legacy of the Bauhaus. The capital of one of the country’s numerous provincial princely states from the 16th to the early 19th century, it was almost completely destroyed by Allied bombing in World War II, which targeted the city because of its role in airplane manufacturing. During the onslaught, the main Bauhaus building was somehow spared, if damaged. During the German Democratic Republic, it again became an industrial center and played host to an impressive variety (if that is the term) of Plattenbau, still visible across the skyline. The average age of the residents is 50.
In Dessau, the complex known as the Laubenganghäuser, and usually translated with dogged literalness as the “Houses With Balcony Access,” reflects the humane principles of reproducible workers’ housing. Designed under Hannes Meyer, these, like the ADGB Trade Union School, were true Bauhaus buildings, conceived and executed under the collective imprimatur of the Bauhaus. Three-story brick buildings, with apartments linked by long-running balconies — a precursor to the “streets in the sky” of later British social housing complexes — the Laubenganghäuser cram a number of amenities into small spaces. Kitchen cabinets are hidden behind sliding doors; bright shades of maroon and mauve enliven the otherwise incredibly tight quarters, which give off an impression of openness and space. A current resident recently told Berlin’s Monopol magazine that because there aren’t “sterile corridors in the building,” residents “spend a lot of time outdoors, so neighbors often come into contact with each other. It feels more like a community than an apartment building, and many people have become friends.” Here was a vision of the Bauhaus’s potential beyond consumer society, beyond the rule of markets and private property — one in which collective provision defeats private greed, and in which strangers are made to feel welcome as members of a group. Had history not intervened, there might have been more of them in Dessau: nearly anonymous testaments to the ideals of the old, fractious, continuously fascinating school, present only by implication, as its students and teachers wanted, in everyday life.
Production: Monika Bergmann at Picture WorxB:
【在】【波】【涛】【城】【中】，【白】【凡】【一】【呆】【就】【是】【一】【周】【的】【时】【间】。 【这】【期】【间】。 【整】【个】【波】【涛】【城】【中】【的】【偷】【鸡】【摸】【狗】【之】【辈】【感】【觉】【自】【己】【是】【倒】【了】【八】【辈】【子】【血】【霉】，【一】【偷】【东】【西】【就】【会】【被】【盯】【上】，【不】【偷】【的】【话】，【白】【凡】【直】【接】【偷】【了】【塞】【到】【他】【们】【手】【里】，【然】【后】【光】【明】【正】【大】【地】【抓】【他】【们】。 【就】【算】【是】【没】【被】【抓】【到】【现】【行】【的】【小】【偷】【流】【氓】【也】【没】【被】【放】【过】，【反】【正】【只】【要】【是】【白】【凡】【知】【道】【了】【的】，【都】【给】【抓】【出】【来】【打】【一】【顿】。 【也】
“【你】【输】【了】！” 【嘴】【角】【还】【带】【着】【一】【抹】【鲜】【血】，【康】【纳】【看】【着】【刚】【刚】【才】【从】【他】【精】【神】【冲】【击】【的】【眩】【晕】【中】【回】【过】【神】【来】【的】【玛】【蒂】【娜】【沉】【声】【说】【道】： 【此】【时】【他】【的】【天】【赋】【法】【术】【暗】【影】【锁】【链】【在】【他】【的】【操】【控】【之】【下】，【距】【离】【玛】【蒂】【娜】【的】【咽】【喉】【只】【有】【些】【许】【距】【离】，【康】【纳】【只】【需】【一】【个】【念】【头】，【暗】【影】【锁】【链】【往】【前】【轻】【轻】【一】【刺】，【那】【么】【这】【位】【高】【挑】【冷】【艳】【的】【玛】【蒂】【娜】【小】【姐】，【瞬】【时】【间】【就】【会】【在】【这】【片】【无】【人】【的】【山】【谷】【中】【中】【香】【消】
【王】【涛】【大】【概】【是】【理】【解】【错】【来】【者】【的】【话】【意】【了】，【他】【可】【能】【以】【为】【四】【娘】【是】【要】【给】【投】【降】【的】【蛮】【子】【们】【治】【病】，【所】【以】【从】【感】【情】【上】【并】【不】【愿】【为】【那】【些】【家】【伙】【们】【提】【供】【帮】【助】。【但】【有】【脾】【气】【的】【不】【止】【是】【一】【个】【人】，【苦】【战】【一】【通】【到】【现】【在】【还】【憋】【着】【一】【肚】【子】【火】【的】【四】【娘】【还】【不】【高】【兴】【呢】。 【她】【一】【听】【有】【人】【不】【尊】【重】【自】【己】【就】【相】【当】【不】【满】【了】：【眼】【下】【还】【有】【一】【个】【人】【等】【着】【自】【己】【去】【赶】【紧】【救】【治】，【那】【么】【要】【紧】【的】【事】【情】【怎】【容】【一】【个】【养】天下彩开奖免费【八】【月】【份】【我】【把】【书】【友】【群】【解】【散】【了】，【当】【时】【心】【境】【真】【的】【超】【级】【复】【杂】，【再】【此】【向】【那】【些】【进】【了】【群】【的】【书】【友】【道】【歉】。 【现】【在】【我】【戒】【掉】【了】【烟】，【整】【个】【人】【也】【变】【得】【自】【律】【了】【许】【多】，（【虽】【然】【没】【怎】【么】【码】【字】）【希】【望】【你】【们】【能】【回】【来】。 【另】【外】，【我】【知】【道】【还】【有】【很】【多】**【爱】【没】【进】【群】，【其】【实】【我】【想】【说】，【我】【真】【的】【很】【想】【和】【你】【们】【认】【识】，【也】【真】【的】【特】【别】【想】【了】【解】【读】【我】【的】【书】【的】【是】【一】【群】【怎】【样】【可】【爱】【的】【人】。
【各】【位】【读】【者】**【爱】： 【因】【为】【羽】【兮】【刚】【得】【知】【自】【己】【要】【当】【妈】【妈】【了】，【但】【由】【于】【身】【体】【体】【质】【比】【较】【虚】，【怀】【孕】【初】【期】【需】【要】【多】【休】【息】【安】【胎】。【因】【此】【接】【下】【来】【两】【部】【作】【品】【都】【要】【断】【更】【一】【段】【时】【间】，【非】【常】【抱】【歉】，【等】【过】【三】【四】【个】【月】，【胎】【相】【稳】【定】【了】【之】【后】，【再】【继】【续】【更】【新】。【我】【不】【会】【弃】【坑】【的】。 【非】【常】【感】【谢】【大】【家】【之】【前】【的】【支】【持】，【感】【谢】【每】【一】【个】【订】【阅】、【收】【藏】【和】【点】【击】，【尤】【其】【是】【那】【些】【给】【我】【打】【赏】【过】
【龙】【灵】【心】【里】【紧】【张】【至】【极】，【它】【不】【知】【道】【为】【什】【么】【很】【害】【怕】【这】【个】【人】。 【明】【明】【躺】【着】【的】【时】【候】【没】【什】【么】【啊】—— 【而】【且】！！！ 【为】【什】【么】【他】【能】【听】【到】【自】【己】【说】【话】？ “【她】【看】【到】【了】【这】【个】，【怎】【么】【说】？”【厉】【烬】【野】【捏】【住】【支】【票】，【那】【个】【女】【人】【竟】【然】【没】【有】【花】【钱】，【每】【天】【骑】【着】【电】【动】【车】【工】【作】，【她】【是】【什】【么】【笨】【蛋】。 “【她】【说】【你】【装】【死】【骗】【她】……”【咸】【菜】【啊】，【我】【自】【我】【检】【讨】【一】【会】，【我】【好】
【小】【夏】【想】【起】【昨】【个】【下】【山】【时】，【那】【爷】【俩】【因】【为】【他】【们】【的】【驴】【误】【食】【了】【毒】【草】【而】【落】【在】【了】【后】【面】。 【又】【曾】【见】【无】【人】【埋】【那】【三】【人】，【似】【乎】【很】“【热】【心】”【的】【和】【那】【爷】【俩】【凑】【在】【一】【块】。 【再】【加】【上】【昨】【晚】【他】【和】【翠】【儿】【去】【那】【山】【顶】【的】【亭】【子】【时】，【为】【摆】【脱】【夜】【猫】【和】【陈】【福】，【小】【夏】【背】【着】【翠】【儿】【跃】【上】【了】【房】【顶】。【在】【从】【一】【家】【歇】【店】【的】【房】【顶】【上】【经】【过】【时】，【正】【看】【见】【下】【面】【的】【无】【人】【埋】【和】【赵】【无】【据】【鬼】【鬼】【祟】【祟】【的】【回】【那】【店】【里】
【大】【殿】【门】【口】【有】【十】【余】【名】【筑】【基】【期】【的】【守】【殿】【弟】【子】，【一】【见】【余】【刑】【二】【人】，【自】【然】【恭】【恭】【敬】【敬】【的】【上】【前】【见】【礼】，【有】【几】【人】【更】【是】【忍】【不】【住】【的】【不】【停】【偷】【瞅】【余】【刑】【几】【眼】。 【余】【刑】【眉】【头】【一】【皱】，【鼻】【中】【轻】【轻】【一】【哼】。 【此】【哼】【声】【别】【人】【听】【到】【耳】【中】【似】【乎】【平】【常】【之】【极】，【但】【落】【入】【那】【几】【名】【偷】【看】【的】【弟】【子】【耳】【中】，【却】【犹】【如】【晴】【天】【霹】【雳】，【将】【这】【几】【人】【震】【的】【心】【惊】【胆】【颤】，【急】【忙】【低】【首】【下】【去】，【不】【敢】【多】【看】【一】【眼】。