Tanja Poppelreuter - Raumplan After Loos

Fabrications
ISSN: 1033-1867 (Print) 2164-4756 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfab20
Raumplan after Loos
Tanja Poppelreuter
To cite this article: Tanja Poppelreuter (2015) Raumplan after Loos, Fabrications, 25:1, 84-103,
DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2015.1006761
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2015.1006761
Published online: 28 May 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 136
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfab20
Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 31 March 2016, At: 14:34
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:34 31 March 2016
Figure 1: Kulka, Weißmann House, Vienna, 1930 – 1933. Street facade. Condition in 2012.
Photograph by Gary Quigg Photography.
84 FABRICATIONS – JSAHANZ
Raumplan after Loos
The European Work of Heinrich Kulka, 1930 – 1939
Tanja Poppelreuter
Abstract
This paper analyses a selection of houses built by Heinrich Kulka between 1930
and 1939 that were influenced by the spatial design that Kulka termed
“Raumplan” in the first monograph on his teacher Adolf Loos in 1931. The
exterior organisation and the dynamically shifting volumes of the Raumplan,
where each room is proportioned in accordance with its purpose, are
characteristic of the work of both architects. A comparison between selected
aspects of Kulka’s and Loos’ houses gives insights into the similarities with, and
the advancements of, Loos’ designs, and to the ways in which both architects
organised the static exterior and dynamic interior, as well as the living functions
such as entering and representing. Kulka’s work displays a detailed understanding
of Loos’ thinking, and an ability not only to continue, but also to adapt and
further develop Loos’ spatial design principles.
Introduction
Heinrich Kulka (1900 Litovel, Germ. Littau, Moravia – 1971 Auckland, New
Zealand) was a pupil of Adolf Loos (1870– 1933) and the editor of the 1931
monograph Adolf Loos. Das Werk des Architekten.1 The monograph broadened
the knowledge of the work of Loos, who is best known for his critical article
“Ornament und Verbrechen” (“Ornament and Crime”) and his 1910 Goldman and
Salatsch building in Vienna. The article demanded the rejection of ornament on
all objects of daily use and the Goldman and Salatsch building demonstrated this
principle in that the upper floors were rendered in white and devoid of ornament.
The article and the building gained Loos the reputation as an advocate of
functionalism and as “one of the most important and influential pioneers of the
Modern Movement.”2
Kulka was among the younger generation of Loos’ pupils which included
Zlatko Neumann (1900 –1969), Leopold Fischer (1901–1975) and Norbert
Krieger (1901– 1969), all of whom collaborated closely with Loos on projects
between 1924 and his death in 1933, during the period of Loos’ career in which
he developed the so-called “Raumplan”, a term that Kulka coined in the 1931
monograph and which hadn’t been used by Loos previously. It describes
concepts, which Loos applied when developing the interior and exterior
organisation of his houses.3
Throughout his life, Kulka maintained that Loos had influenced him both
personally and professionally. In June 1939, shortly before he left
Czechoslovakia to escape the Nazi regime, in a letter to Ludwig von Ficker
Fabrications, 2015
Vol. 25, No. 1, 84–103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2015.1006761
Ñ 2015 The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand
TANJA POPPELREUTER 85
(1880– 1967), the publisher of the monograph, as well as of Loos’ Ins Leere
gesprochen (Spoken Into the Void, 1921) and Trotzdem (In Spite Of, 1931),
Kulka wrote:
These days I must think often of one of the last sentences of the teacher, which he
said to me before his final illness: “Don’t ask where you are going, so you will go
furthest!” In my work I followed in his footsteps. I have the comfort to feel this and
the will to continue this way. God will destine whereto.4
In 1970, after a career in New Zealand, where he had emigrated in 1940, this
position towards Loos didn’t appear to have faded:
Today also one must hark back to Loos to have solid ground beneath one’s feet . . . At
the crossroads of my work his teachings have always shown me the right way so that
I was able to continue working in this manner.5
Within the literature on Kulka such statements fostered the perception of him as a
chronicler, whose contribution to architecture might be found in his knowledge
about and memories of his teacher, but perhaps to a lesser degree in his own
architectural work. Kulka’s houses prior to 1939 were appraised as “a direct
continuation of the villas and country houses of Loos at the end of the twenties
including the details of the arrangement of the structure and the interior,”6 and
another critic saw no independent development in Kulka’s work after Loos’ death
in 1933.7 Vera Behalova, who in 1974 published descriptions of a selection of
Kulka’s work and correspondence, focussed on his relationship with Loos, so that
her article also presented him as an architect in the shadow of Loos.8
Only a few authors suggest analysing Kulka as a contributor. Among
those was J. Sapák, who regarded “Kulka as more than a simple fellow-
worker of Loos’ – [and asked to] recognize his qualities as an
independent creator.”9
In addition to the scarce literature on Kulka, Loos’ design principles and
Raumplan concept have only been given heightened attention since the second
monograph on Loos’ work was published by Ludwig Münz and Gustav Künstler in
1964. Max Risselada’s first edition of Raumplan versus Plan Libre (1987),
Burkhardt Rukschcio and Roland Schachel’s monograph Adolf Loos: Leben und
Werk (1987) and more recently Beatriz Colomina’s, as well as Hilde Heynen’s,
publications on Loos’ Raumplan and interior arrangements offer findings
whereby Kulka’s villas can be analysed in comparison to Loos.10 A greater
understanding can be gained of how Kulka made use of Loos’ design principles
and of how Kulka understood and enhanced these.
Heinrich Kulka
Kulka commenced studying at the Bauschule of the Österreichische Technische
Hochschule in Vienna in 1918, but ceased attending university between 1920
and 1923 to join Loos’ private Bauschule.11 The school was independent from
governmental organisations and studying there did not lead to an officially
recognised degree.12 Here, one of Kulka’s designs – which would later be the
basis for the Weißmann House (see Figs 1 and 2) – caught Loos’ attention and
subsequently Kulka commenced working in Loos’ office as a draughtsman, at
the time when Loos was developing House Rufer (1922) among other
projects.13 After Loos moved to Paris in 1924/1925 Kulka re-enrolled at the
Österreichische Technische Hochschule.14 At the same time he seems to have
worked for Loos’ practice as a technical manager and – together with Grethe
Hentschel and Zlatko Neumann – as an intermediary between Loos’ Paris and
Vienna offices.15
Between April 1927 and February 1928, Kulka worked in the Stuttgart practice
of Ernst Otto Oßwald (1880– 1960). Here he was responsible for draughting the
exterior and interior production and detail drawings for the Tagblatt-Turmhaus
(1928) and the administration building Eisenfuchs (1928–1930).16
While in Paris, Loos invited several of his former students to work with him on
his projects there and Kulka also joined Loos after his appointment in Stuttgart17
and seems to have returned to Vienna together with Loos in 1928. Until Loos’
death in 1933 Kulka worked on several projects in Loos’ practice – now in the role
as Loos’ office manager – while at the same time running his own independent
practice from 1930.18 Loos’ 1930 Country House Kuhner in Payerbach, and the
1932 contribution to the settlement of the Werkbund in Vienna, were developed
Figure 2: Kulka, Weißmann House, Vienna, 1930 –1933. Floor plans.

Courtesy of Bauarchiv Wien, Archive No.: E.Z.994/Lainz.
cooperatively;19 the 1930–1933 Weißmann House20 was Kulka’s first indepen-
dently executed one-family house.21
By 1933, Kulka was running an office in Vienna and another one in Hradec
Králové (Königgrätz) – his wife’s hometown – and was working on several
projects in Czechoslovakia.22 Among those were the 1933–34 Villa Kantor in
Jablonec (Gablonz) (see Figs 3 and 4), the 1933 Apartment Semler in Plzeň
(Pilsen) (see Figs 6 and 7) and the 1937 Villa Holzner23 in Hronov (Hronow)
(see Fig 5).
On 14 March 1938, just days after Adolf Hitler annexed Austria into Germany,
Kulka, who was of the Jewish faith, gave up his apartment and office in Vienna and
fled to Hradec Králové, from where he prepared to leave Europe. After Hitler
occupied Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Kulka left the country on 30 June that
same year. He arrived in New Zealand in March 1940 after spending six months in
London and his family joined him soon after.24 Heinrich Kulka died in Auckland
in 1971.
Raumplan after Loos

Kulka’s publications on his own buildings often referenced Loos and repeated
passages from the 1931 monograph on Loos’ work,25 so that little distinction
between Loos’ and his own work was made. The boundaries between Kulka’s
understanding of Loos’ work and Kulka’s descriptions of his own work are
therefore blurred. This is unsurprising since Kulka, in his changing roles at Loos’
office and as editor of the monograph, had been involved in the development of
several houses since 1922 where a Raumplan was executed.
Figure 3: Kulka, Villa Kantor, Jablonec, 1933 – 34. Garden facade.

Heinrich Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” Forum. Zeitschrift für Architektur, freie und angewandte Kunst, 7
(1937): 104. Photographer unknown.
Figure 4: Kulka, Villa Kantor, Jablonec, 1933 – 34. Street facade.

Heinrich Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” Forum. Zeitschrift für Architektur, freie und angewandte Kunst, 7
(1937): 106.
As Loos’ agent, Kulka’s words in the monograph – such as the term

“Raumplan”26 – were interpretations and reflections of his understanding of
Loos’ principles.27 Kulka’s account of the Raumplan here is ambiguous and
represents only a few aspects of what Loos’ spatial designs entailed. Additionally,
Kulka’s publications in the 1930s primarily adhered to factual descriptions that
aimed mainly to convince readers about the economic viability of the Raumplan
idea.
Figure 5: Kulka, Villa Holzner, Hronov, 1937. Garden facade.

Photographer unknown Ñ Foibos Books, Prague www.slavnestavby.cz.
This, however, changed in Kulka’s 1960 article, “Adolf Loos, 1870–1933”,
published in the Architect’s Yearbook. Kulka again paraphrased and cited his own
monograph and Loos’ books, Spoken into the Void and In Spite Of, and arranged
these into a text that displayed his assessment and understanding of Loos’
designs:
A house is not a shelter, but a place for contemplation, recreation, intimate
conversations, where people are born and die. All the forms, proportions and
materials used should express a spirit of sincerity and unpretentiousness which will
result in a serenity of beauty that should not offend even a dying man: materials
alone can evoke joy and grief, fear and serenity. The primary problem should be to
express the three-dimensional character of architecture clearly, in such a way that
the inhabitants of a building should be able to live the cultural life of their generation
successfully.28
In 1960, after twenty years of practice in New Zealand and now in the role as a
historian, Kulka reflected on the interior organisation, impressions of space,
complex spatial arrangements and the arrangement of spaces into a compact unit.
He departed from the primarily factual tone of his earlier monograph and his
description of Loos’ work predates publications such as the 1964 monograph by
Münz and Künstler.29 Insights that Kulka displayed here demonstrate a
comprehensive understanding of Loos’ writings and of Loos’ architecture.
As Kulka’s commitment to Loos persisted until the end of his life, his analysis
of Loos in his 1960 article also gives insights into ways in which Kulka viewed his
own European work retrospectively.30
A comparison between Loos and Kulka can therefore not seek to find sudden
departures from Loos’ principles in Kulka’s independent work, but instead must
look for aspects that appear as different and derivations from Loos’ Raumplan
principles, so that an understanding can be gained of how, and for what reasons,
Kulka adapted and developed Loos’ Raumplan.
Kulka’s Weißmann House (8 £ 7.7 £ 7 m) (see Figs 1 and 2), Villa Kantor (see
Figs 3 and 4) and Villa Holzner (see Fig 5) are all variations of Loos’ “cubic
houses” that were also characteristic of Loos’ Rufer (1922)31 and Moller House
(1928), as well as of Villa Müller (1930), among others. The street facade of the
Weißmann House appears forbidding and monumental due to a windowless bay
protruding from the first floor, whereas the garden fac ade is more relaxed due to
a balcony on the first floor and a terrace on the ground floor of the slightly sloping
site. The exteriors of most of Kulka’s houses achieve clarity with the help of a
flush roof finish that is repeated in the rendering around the windows, loggias
and balconies.
By adhering to the constrictions of a cube, Kulka displayed his ability to design
“three-dimensionally”, which was essential to Loos’ design principles and had
been part of his teachings at the Bauschule from as early as 1913:
The projects had to be planned from the inside out, floor and ceiling . . . were
primary, the fac ade secondary. Most stress was laid on the dispensation of exact axis
and the correct placing of furniture. This way I made my students think three-
dimensionally, within the cube.32
The cubic exterior added clarity aesthetically and correlated therefore with Loos’
program aimed at the omission of ornament, as indicated in the 1931 monograph:
“Loos brings the clearest shape, the cube . . . to life.”33 Kulka described the ways
in which Loos “awakened” the cube in more detail in relation to Villa Kantor.34
The cube in this case is explained as the result of providing each room with the
volume that its specific purpose required. Rooms were situated on different levels
“so that a cohesive house-cube evolves.”35 This spatial thinking enabled the
architect to confine the house to a cubic shape on the exterior, while at the same
time avoiding any superfluous internal hollows, since the frames of the spaces
were tangential to each other. Kulka presented this spatial design method as an
economical way of enlarging the living space, because it reduced material costs,
utilised the cubic space as fully as possible, truncated circulation spaces, and
lowered operating costs.36 The exterior cube was therefore intrinsically linked to
the interior Raumplan, consisting of dynamically shifting volumes, as it served
the purpose of establishing a clear distinction between interior and exterior –
and thus of private and public – while at the same time leading to an economical
solution.37
The Weißmann House was a “Bausparerhaus” and thus financed with the help
of a Building Society savings scheme. The economical nature of this design
principle might have been what had attracted the interest of the accountant Ernst
Moritz Weißmann and his wife Helene.38
The Weißmann House related to a project Kulka had developed as a student in
Loos’ Bauschule, at the time when he also was involved with draughting plans for
Loos’ Haus Rufer. Similarities between the Weißmann House and the larger Rufer
House (10 £ 10 m) can be found in the axial arrangement of the plans, the
placement of utility rooms on the ground floors, and the entry arrangements that
led through a vestibule and cloakroom via a stair onto a landing on the first floor.
Here, dining and living were – as in several of Loos’ houses – arranged in one
space, but separated by an elevated dining platform overlooking the living rooms.
A similar organisation can also be observed in Loos’ Villa Müller and in Kulka’s
Villa Kantor. In keeping with the smaller size of the Weißmann House its interior
execution is less luxurious than at the Rufer House. Some of the more austere
interior finishing might have been either the result of a change of taste towards a
more functionalist appearance that had gained popularity by 1930, or to the
limited budget of the Weißmann family.
Many of the similarities between the Weißmann House and the Rufer House
might be explainable due to it being first designed in Loos’ Bauschule. However,
Kulka developed a theme here that had not been present in Loos’ mature
houses. The balcony above the protruding bay at the Weißmann House (see Fig
1) appears not as a place for relaxation, but rather as an observation platform
comparable to the balconies on the street facades of Loos’ Tzara (1926) and
Moller (1928) houses. Kulka revisited this theme in Villa Kantor and Apartment
Semler, but instead of placing a balcony above the front door, Kulka placed a
study at Villa Kantor and a room designated as the Lady’s Room at Apartment
Semler above the entries.
While Loos created spaces of intimacy and control in the interiors of his
urban houses,39 as Beatriz Colomina has shown with the example of the raised
sitting area off the living room at the Moller House,40 Kulka extended this
motif. At Villa Kantor (see Figs 3 and 4) the owner, a physician, could overlook
the entry to observe the arrival of patients, and at Apartment Semler, the
homeowner was also able to observe the entry and the arrival of guests. The
window allowed the inhabitant to see who was at the door without being seen
themselves and so provided them with control over the entry and knowledge
about the activities there. In the urban context of Kulka’s houses the
development of this motif appears as an extension of the juxtaposition of a
street fac ade, designed to give the impression of being impenetrable, and open
private garden fac ades or terraces from which views towards the surrounding
cityscape, but not onto the entrance, are possible. Kulka did not open the
house up towards the street fac ade but instead enhanced this juxtaposition, so
that the effect is not only achieved via architectural means, but also with the
help of the inhabitant, who is now put into a place where the entry can be
observed.
The interior arrangement of the cubic houses consisted of differently sized
and placed volumes that led to a condensed interior organisation. Kulka’s Villa
Kantor, one of the first modern houses in Jablonec,41 incorporated the surgery
of the physician Dr. Alfred Kantor, his family home, as well as an apartment
for the caretaker and rooms for the maid.42 Kulka conceived the villa mainly
around the needs and requirements of the physician, who needed a separation
between the surgery and living spaces as well as effective circulation spaces43
(see Fig 4). A noticeable distinction was made between spaces for work and
entertainment, and between private and shared spaces. The maid, caretaker
and physician could gain easy and quick access to their places of work as they
had circulation spaces that were both independent of each other, and
independent of the other users of the house.44 Within the confined space of the
cubic volume, a correlation between the user of the spaces and the function of
the space was established. Where, for example, the physician needed quick
access to his study or surgery, spaces were tightly arranged; but where visitors
and patients entered spaces, these were more spacious and their interior
execution more opulent. Villa Kantor was in this way comparable to Loos’
Moller House and Villa Müller, where boundaries between dissimilar realms of
the house – those of men and women, hosts and guests, domestic staff and
family – were also observed.45 The architect created not only boundaries
between the inside and the outside, but also within the house. It was adapted
to the work and social roles of each of its users so that no user inhabited the
house in the same way, but instead experienced it according to their role in the
house; a motif that can also be found in Loos’ Villa Müller. The more complex
requirements of the client at Villa Kantor allowed Kulka to expand and adapt
the parameters of the Raumplan, developed in relation to living spaces for a
wealthy clientele, towards incorporating the use of the space for professional
means as well.
The ability to maintain such boundaries was at the core of Loos’ position
towards residential design. This was a position that, as Hilde Heynen suggested,
was at the same time responsible for Loos not having been subsumed into the
architectural canon after World War I as readily as his contemporaries. The
disambiguation of the term “modern” was different for Loos than it was to his
contemporaries. In his 1960 article on Loos, Kulka cited Henry-Russell
Hitchcock’s Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture and Nikolaus
Pevsner’s Pioneers of Modern Design in his footnotes, as both were at the time
among the most comprehensive surveys of modern architecture in Europe.
In doing so, Kulka pointed out that Loos’ spatial design was known to a much
lesser degree than his text “Ornament and Crime” or the interior design of the
Kärntner Bar.46 The reasons why Loos’ mature work was neglected in these
surveys Kulka found in Loos’ understanding of what was considered as
“modern”:
With his [Loos’] hammer blows against ornament . . . , he became known as a
functionalist, but I hesitate to call him one, for Loos invariably guarded human
values and would have opposed the functionalism of an engineer-architect, who can
become the victim of his ideas and so sacrifice human values to technology . . . his
functionalism was always based on the study of human beings and their needs.
He aimed to create buildings in which a modern way of living could naturally
develop.47
This corresponds with Heynen’s explanations, whereby she suggests that

Loos is difficult to place within twentieth-century modern architecture
because he did not “conjure up any vision of a future in which all the
different realms of life would merge,”48 nor did he support ideals pursued
by the Bauhaus of uniting craftsmen and industry. Heynen explains that
Loos’ version of modernism was instead characterised by boundaries:
“He draws a clear dividing line between art and culture, between private
and public, between dwelling and architecture. This division, he argues, is
fundamental to the modern condition.”49 Kulka too adhered to establishing
such boundaries and further enhanced them, as seen in the compact interior
arrangements and in the window above the entries at Villa Kantor and
Apartment Semler.
Windows over entries not only intensified the boundaries between inside and
outside; they also placed additional emphasis on the entrance itself. The
entrances in Loos’ houses were designed to prepare the visitor by imbuing a
sense of respect for the privacy and personality of the host. Kulka explained
Loos’ intent in 1970:
The anterooms were low, he arranged the entering person to make turns to, as
he said “increase the moment of surprise when entering the living rooms.” He
called this arrangement the “Introduktion” into the house. After crossing
through the low anterooms the normal height of the living rooms appears more
imposing.50
Kulka described his own designs a year later using similar words.51 Introduktion
as a musical term describes a slow, short prelude to chamber music or
symphonies. Kulka used the term to describe a succession of transient spaces that
create anticipation and prepare visitors to meet the host and leave behind the
street.
The main emphasis of the apartment for Oskar Semler and his wife Hanne
(see Figs 6 and 7), co-owner of a needle factory and a timber yard in Plzeň,
was on representational features and entertaining.52 Kulka designed the
Introduktion in order to enhance the effect of these rooms on the visitor. The
apartment was created by connecting two apartments in the mezzanine and
first floor, as well as the souterrain of an existing apartment house. The
Introduktion and main hall of the apartment are comparable to the Country
House Khuner in Payerbach (1930)53 which Loos and Kulka designed
collaboratively. This comparison had been made already in 1935 in the two-
page spread “Im Geiste Adolf Loos’ arbeitet sein Schüler Heinrich Kulka” (“In
the spirit of Adolf Loos works his student Heinrich Kulka”) in the journal Die
Bühne (see Fig 6).54 Interior photographs of Villa Khuner and the double-
height hall in both houses stressed that the Apartment Semler was designed in
the manner of Loos.
At Villa Khuner, the Introduktion unfolded as the visitor first traversed a
small and narrow anteroom into a spacious vestibule. After walking past the
stairs the visitor entered underneath the gallery and into the double-height
living hall.
The Semler apartment was entered through an extension to the existing
apartment building and via a vestibule and spacious entry hall that was lit by
a semi-transparent skylight.55 Visitors were led towards a horizontal opening
Figure 6: Photographs of interiors at Villa Khuner, 1930, Payerbach and Apartment Semler, 1933 – 35 (bottom
right).
Photographs by Martin Gerlach.
through which glimpses of the main double-height living hall could be seen.
To enter this hall, the visitor first turned right, ascended several steps, and
then turned left to arrive underneath the gallery at the threshold of the
hall. This hall was, as at Khuner, the centre of the apartment. Several
Figure 7: Kulka, Apartment Semler, 1933 – 1935, Plzeň, living hall. View
towards the gallery and bar. Condition in 2013.
Ñ The Gallery of West Bohemia in Pilsen, Karel Kocourek, 2013.
seating areas, as well as a large fireplace in jade-green quarry stone and an
inbuilt cocktail-bar, indicated it to be a space for conversation and
entertainment. From here, a succession of steps led onto a landing from which
a terrace, study, octagonal dining room and, via further steps, the gallery were
accessible.56
Kulka was aware of the effects of the Introduktion on the social usage of the
house and had explained in 1931:
The theater has galleries or annexe (loges) which, as high as floors, are stacked on
top of each other and which are in open connection to one large main room, which
encompasses the height of several floors. Loos recognised that the construction of
the narrow loge could not be tolerated if one could not look into the large main
room.57
In referring to theatre architecture, the function of the hall is viewed as a stage

and thus as a performance space for social interactions. The Introduktion to the
hall helped to orchestrate not only a moment of surprise, but also enhanced the
effect of a social stage. This interpretation ties in with an interpretation of Loos’
interiors, which allowed the inhabitant to wear the mask deemed appropriate
and expected for social gatherings. Loos supported this understanding in
writing:
One who is modern and intelligent must have a mask for people . . . Only mentally
disabled people dress in an individual way because they have a need to cry out to the
world who they are and how they really are.58
The wearing of masks here is an indicator for the modern man and for the ways in
which Loos, and also Kulka, interpreted and defined the meaning of how to design
in a “modern” way.59 Masking, in the sense of deceiving or pretending, had been
disapproved of since the first half of the nineteenth century, whereas the
disclosure or unmasking of the architectural structure had been likened to honesty
and had become a primary characteristic of the architecture of the Neues Bauen
since World War I.60 In the same ways in which he did not adhere to the
functionalist credo of honesty in the display of the architectural construction of
the exterior, Loos did not follow the ideal of exposing honesty in social settings as
the above statement demonstrates.61 The rigorous distinction between the interior
and the exterior that Loos made in his houses concurs with his understanding of
the inhabitant whose mask helps to also create a distinction between their social
personas and “who they really are.”
The metaphor of the mask in Loos’ work has been analysed in several
instances. In Hilde Heynen’s understanding, the mask provides a shield:
The home must be shielded from the outside world. The surroundings of the
metropolis, with the demands it makes in terms of social status, speed, and
efficiency, goes counter to an idea of dwelling that is based on familiarity,
intimacy, and personal history. A distinction has to be made between the world
outside – the public world of money, and of all that is equivalent – and the
indoor world, which is the private world of everything that is inalienable and non-
equivalent.62
Providing inhabitants with a space that enables the wearing of a “social mask” was
another way for Loos to maintain boundaries, which ties in with his understanding
of modern design. The Introduktion is the transitional space that signals visitors to
put on the mask necessary to enter the social stage. It was designed to emphasise
the status of the hosts, who at Apartment Semler could choose to join a party via
the gallery. Guests would observe the hosts walking along the gallery and down to
the living hall – a theatrical effect was created where the approach of the hosts was
viewed but greetings had to be deferred. The hosts, on the other hand, would gain
an instant overview as to who was present in the hall.
While this might have been the case for both houses, Kulka’s Introduktion at
Semler created an effect slightly different from that of the living hall at Loos’ Villa
Müller or Country House Khuner. The differences between Loos’ and Kulka’s
designs are subtle and can be described not as a departure from Loos’ principles,
but instead as an enhancement of it.
The experience of surprise when entering the double-height hall is enhanced at
both houses through the use of different ceiling heights in the anterooms and
vestibules, but the semi-transparent glass ceiling at Semler further enhances the
impression of the length and the low height of the vestibule that draws the
attention to the ceiling before entering the double-height space.
Upon entering the double-height hall Loos’ Introduktion produced an element
of surprise that was only accomplished once – the first time a visitor entered the
space. By adding a small window between the vestibule and the hall Kulka allowed
for glimpses into the hall and so did not provoke surprise but instead anticipation,
as the visitor could hear the sounds and see the movements in the hall while
depositing their coats and moving through the vestibule. Kulka incorporated a
more dramatic and possibly a more sustained effect than that achieved at Khuner
or at Villa Müller.
Conclusions
Throughout his European career Kulka was indebted to Loos as a source of
inspiration and, while a formal influence of contemporary Czech functionalist
architecture might be detectable in the rendering of the exterior of some of Kulka’s
houses, little influence of contemporary or historical precedents can be found in
his work other than the effect Loos had had on Kulka’s thinking.
The extent to which Loos’ students contributed to his designs and to the
development of the Raumplan is difficult to ascertain. The 1931 monograph
acknowledges several of Loos’ former students as collaborators and Kulka is
named as collaborator on the Country House Khuner.63 It is unclear if the title
“collaborator” meant that the student had a degree of freedom to make design
decisions independently from Loos or if this naming of students was a means
with which to alert readers of the book to architects educated by Loos.64
According to Burkhardt Rukschcio and Roland Schachel, Kulka’s role as
collaborator at the Country House Khuner was that of a construction manager.
During the build, Loos and Kulka reviewed even small details, such as the
stone cladding of the mantelpiece in the hall. It is therefore unlikely that the
design of this building was based upon design decisions made by Kulka
independently.
Kulka’s designs neither displayed full independence from Loos nor did he
merely copy Loos’ designs. His contribution to Loos’ Raumplan can be found in
his ability to implement, adapt and enhance it at a time when Loos’ idea of the
Raumplan influenced architects to a lesser degree than his article “Ornament and
Crime” and when Loos’ spatial thinking did not contribute to his reputation as one
of the pioneers of the modern movement as much as his rejection of ornament.
Kulka’s proficient knowledge of Loos’ design methods, published and demon-
strated prior to Loos’ spatial design being acknowledged within architectural
historiography, are testimony to Kulka’s understanding of principles he not only
was taught when working in Loos’ architectural practice, but which he further
pursued independently.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
In order to write this paper I conducted research in archives in Germany and Austria. These
travels were made possible due to funds of the 2011 David Saunders Founder’s Grant. I would
like to thank SAHANZ for entrusting me with these funds, which enabled this research project to
be realised.
I would also like to thank Lisa Airy, and Donal Raethel at Archives New Zealand Te Rua
Mahara o te Kāwanatanga, Michael Faustka at Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv, Vienna, Regı́na
Fučı́ková at Jablonecké kulturnı́ a informačnı́ centrum, Jablonec nad Nisou, Barbara Halder, at
Brenner-Archives, Universität Innsbruck, Callum Holgate, Belfast, Iris Meder, Stuttgart, Juliane
Mikoletzky at Universitätsarchiv, Technische Universität Vienna, Roman Musil at Západočeská
Galerie, Plzeň, Bernhard Neidiger at LHS Stadtarchiv, Stuttgart, Radek Pokorný and Jan Košek,
Archivists at SOKA Hradec Králové, Gary Quigg Photography, Belfast, Kerstin Renz at Institut für
Architekturgeschichte, Architektur und Stadtplanung, Universität Stuttgart, Burkhardt Ruksch-
cio, Vienna, Martina Vrbová, at Foibos Books, Prague and Peter Walker, at Belfast School of
Architecture.
NOTES
1. Adolf Loos: Das Werk des Architekten, ed. Heinrich Kulka (Vienna: Schroll Verlag, 1931).
Apart from the monograph, Kulka published several articles on Loos: Heinrich Kulka, “Adolf
Loos: Das Werk des Architekten,” Das Kawafag Eigenheim 1 (1931): 16; Heinrich Kulka, “Adolf
Loos,” Österreichische Kunst 1, no. 1 (1931): 17 – 18, Henry Kulka, “Adolf Loos: 1870 – 1933,”
Architect’s Yearbook 9 (1960): 7– 29; Heinrich Kulka “Bekenntnis zu Adolf Loos,” Alte und
moderne Kunst 15, no. 113 (1970): 24– 26. Kulka used his Czech first name “Jindrich”, as well as
the anglicised version “Henry” in New Zealand.
2. Yehuda Safran, “Loos, Adolf.” Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press.
Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/art/
T051860.
3. A biography, work catalogue and bibliography on Kulka was compiled by Dagmar Herzner-
Kaiser for the Architekturzentrum in Vienna and is accessible online: http://www.azw.at/page.
php?node_id¼84. It was a helpful tool for the preparation of this paper. Kulka also provided a
Curriculum Vitae upon immigrating to New Zealand: “Curriculum Vitae Heinrich Kulka,” [AAAC
489, Box: 239, Record AL21954] Archives New Zealand The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari
Taiwhenua. Kulka’s estate is held at the Albertina in Vienna and the author has studied it.
Unfortunately the material is not available for scrutiny any longer and rights to publish material
from the estate could not be obtained.
4. “Ich muß dieser Tage oft an einen der letzten Sätze des Lehrers denken (sic) die er vor seiner
Todeskrankeit zu mir sprach: “Frag’ nicht wohin Du gehst, so wirst Du am Weitesten kommen!”
Arbeitend ging ich in seiner Richtung. Ich habe den Trost dies zu spüren und den Willen, so
weiter zu gehen. Gott wird bestimmen wohin.” Heinrich Kulka, “Letter to Ludwig von Ficker,
Hradec Králové, 25.6.1939,” Brenner Archiv No. 041-026-036-011. If not indicated otherwise
translations are the author’s own.
5. “Meine lange Erfahrung als Architekt in fremden Ländern hat mich progressiv davon
überzegt, daß man auch heute auf Loos zurückgehen muß, um festen Grund unter den Füßen zu
haben . . . Auf den Kreuzwegen meiner Arbeit haben mir seine Lehren immer den rechten Weg
gewiesen, so daß ich sinngemäß weiterschaffen konnte.” Kulka, “Bekenntnis zu Adolf Loos”, 21
and 24.
6. “eine direkte Fortsetzung der Villen- und Landhausbauten von Loos Ende der zwanziger
Jahre bis in die Details der Baukörpergliederung und der Innenraumbildung darstellen.”
Dietrich Worbs, “Die Loos-Schule,” Bauforum 16 (1983): 32.
7. Peter Plaisier, De leerlingen van Adolf Loos (Delft: Delftse Universitaire Pers, 1987), 75– 76.
8. Vera J. Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-Forschung,” Bauforum 7, no. 43 (1974): 22– 33.
9. Jan Sapák, “Heinrich Kulka: Villa Kantor a Jablonec, 1933 – 34,” Domus 726 (April 1991):
106– 107. See also Friedrich Achleitner, “Schüler, Mitarbeiter, Chronist: Zum Tod des Loos-
Freundes Heinrich Kulka,” Die Presse, June 28, 1971, 5.
10. Ludwig Münz and Gustav Künstler, Der Architekt Adolf Loos (Vienna: Schroll, 1964),
Burkhardt Rukschcio and Roland Schachel, Adolf Loos: Leben und Werk (Wien: Residenz Verlag,
1987), 239; Raumplan versus Plan Libre: Adolf Loos Le Corbusier, ed. Max Risselada (Rotterdam:
010 Publishers, 2008); Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity, Modern Architecture as Mass
Media (Cambridge, London: MIT Press, 1996); Hilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity.
A Critique (Cambridge, London: MIT Press, 1999).
11. This “school” had already been run before World War I from 1912 to 1915, where it had been
attended by some of Loos’ best-known pupils such as Richard Neutra and Rudolf Schindler.
Loos re-opened it from 1919 to 1921 and again students of the Technische Hochschule as well as
the Akademie der Künste in Vienna frequented his course. Worbs, “Die Loos-Schule,” 27 – 32.
Much of the information on the curriculum is based on memories of former students so that
knowledge of the activities of the school is fragmented and contradictory. Loos also engaged
students in his private practice and later in his activities of the “Bauamt” (Building authority) so
that the margins between teaching and practice were blurred. Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf
Loos, 239.
12. Technische Universität Wien, “Technische Universität Wien, Universitätsarchiv, Hauptka-
talog der Studierenden 1918 – 19, Matr. Nr. 178.” Heinrich Kulka, “Adolf Loos: 1870 – 1933,”
Architect’s Yearbook 9 (1960): 8– 11; Anonymous, “Heinrich Kulka,” Alte und moderne Kunst 15,
no. 113 (1970): 21. Although not mentioned as author, it is likely that Heinrich Kulka was the
author of this short biographical text; Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-Forschung,” 22; Adolf
Loos, “Meine Bauschule (1913),” in Trotzdem: 1900 – 1930, ed. Adolf Opel (Wien: Georg Prachner
Verlag, 1982): 65. In the book the date of this text is erroneously documented as having been
published in 1907 instead of in 1913.
13. Kulka also worked on the edition of Loos’ book Ins Leere gesprochen (1921). Rukschcio and
Schachel, Adolf Loos, 255 and 263; Anonymous, “Heinrich Kulka,” 21.
14. In 1924/25 his enrolment was annulled due to a failure to pay fees. In the winter semester of
1937/38 Kulka took the subject “Verfassungsrecht” as außerordentlicher Hörer with Kamillo
Politzky. Juliane Mikoletzky at the University archive of the TU Vienna assumes that Kulka took
this subject as a requirement for the accreditation as a civic engineer, which he didn’t achieve as
he left Vienna in 1938. Technische Universität Wien, Universitätsarchiv, Nationale für
außerordentliche Hörer, 1924/25, Heinrich Kulka, Matr. Nr. 232.
15. Loos described in a 1927 letter of recommendation Kulka’s role as technical manager for his
commissions in Vienna. Adolf Loos, “Letter of recommendation, Paris, 1. 2. 1927” in
Anonymous, “Heinrich Kulka,” 21.
16. E. Otto Oßwald, Letter of Recommendation for Heinrich Kulka, 2.2.1928. Here, Kulka gained
experience of the functionalist esthetic of the Neue Sachlichkeit which Oßwald had adapted
during the late 1920s. Kulka would in all probability also have visited the Weißenhof Siedlung
organized by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe on behalf of the Deutscher Werkbund, which
opened to the public in July 1927. Whether Kulka came in contact with the architects at
Weißenhof could not be determined.
17. Kulka worked on the Paris branch for the gentlemen’s outfitter Kniže (1927 – 1928) and the
project for a house for the dancer Josephine Baker (1928). Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf Loos,
337.
18. Other projects at that time were Zelanka business in Kärtnerstraße, Vienna, the interior for
the Frank apartment, and the alterations of House Brumel in Plzeň. Rukschcio and Schachel,
Adolf Loos, 339.
19. Adolf Loos, ed. Kulka, 42. See also: Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf Loos, 356 and 366;
Heinrich Kulka, “Letter to W. Dreibholz Auckland 5.8.1969” in W. Dreibholz, Die Internationale
Werkbundsiedlung Wien 1932 (Technical University Graz, PhD Thesis, 1977), Appendix.
20. The name Weißmann is occasionally spelled Weiszmann or Weissmann as “sz” and “ss”
can be a substitute for the German letter “ß.” Since Weißmann appears in records this spelling
was adopted here. Bauarchiv Wien, Archive No.: E.Z.994/Lainz.
21. Kulka also erected the Kawafag-Weekendhaus. Heinrich Kulka, “Das Kawafag-Week-
endhaus, Type Hygiene-Dresden 1930 – 31,” Das Kawafag Eigenheim 3 (1931): 42– 43.
Kawafag (Klosterneuburger Wagenfabrik) was a well-known and pioneering enterprise in
Klosterneuburg near Vienna that manufactured since 1924 standardised and pre-fabricated
dwellings. The “Weekendhaus” was originally designed on the occasion of the International
Hygiene exhibition that took place in 1930 in Dresden. Iris Meder, “Offene Welten: Die Wiener
Schule im Einfamilienhausbau 1910 – 1938,” PhD diss., Universität Stuttgart, 2004, 291– 292.
Thomas Prlič, “Die Klosterneuburger Wagenfabrik,” in Caroline Jäger-Klein, Sabine Plakolm-
Forsthuber, Thomas Prlič, eds., Klosterneuburg. Geschichte und Kultur. Sonderband 2. Die
Architektur der Klosterneuburger Standbäder und Wochenendkolonien , eds. Caroline Jäger-
Klein, Sabine Plakolm-Forsthuber,Thomas Prlič (Klosterneuburg: Stadtgemeinde
Klosterneuburg, 2007), 147.
22. Report of Alien Authority at Auckland (F.I.C. west), “Heinrich Kulka – Alien cert. no. 21954
and Hilda Kulka (his wife) – Alien cert. no 21955,” [AAAC 489, Box 239, Record AL 21954]
Archives New Zealand The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua.
23. Kulka’s 1937 project, Villa Holzner (Address: Jirı́ho z Poděbrad čp. 22, Hronov.), for the
textile manufacturer Rudolf Holzner and his wife Ilza in Hronov 1, was also based on an almost
cubic layout. Its exterior rendering also shows similarities to his previous houses in, for
example, the ways in which the terrace recedes back into the house. The glazed areas of Villa
Holzner are on the other hand more extensive than in Kulka’s other projects and the flat roof is
exchanged for a low pyramid roof and protruding pyramid roofed attic.
The slightly sloping site allowed the placement of the main entrance on a lower level than the
main living floor so that an entry arrangement similar to the Weißmann and Kantor Houses
was created. Here the main living room and adjoining terrace open into the dining area, kitchen
and study. The core of the room arrangement is the mantle-piece in the living room and its
mirrored nook. AS, “Vila Rudolfa a Ilzy Holznerových,” Slavné stavby. Accessed September 10,
2014.
http://www.slavnevily.cz/vily/kralovehradecky/vila-rudolfa-a-ilzy-holznerovych
24. From 1940 to 1960 Kulka worked for Fletcher Construction in Auckland but also worked as an
independent architect from 1945. From 1960 he ran his own architectural office. “Report of Alien
Authority”, Archives New Zealand, The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua.
25. Kulka’s article, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz”, paraphrases paragraphs from the monograph
and in his exchange of letters with Vera Behalova Kulka again described his own work with the
help of his analysis of Loos. Heinrich Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” Forum. Zeitschrift für
Architektur, freie und angewandte Kunst, 7 (1937): 104. Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-
Forschung,” 22– 27.
26. Rob Gregory also mentions that it was Kulka who coined the term “Raumplan” in the
1931 monograph on Loos, so that he and Zlatko Neumann formed the theoretical basis for
our understanding of it. Rob Gregory, “Home Truths,” Architectural Review 225, no. 1343
(2009): 28.

27. Risselada cites the few occasions where Loos refers to this way of arranging interior space
(Raumplan versus Plan Libre, ed. Risselada, 96– 97;) For a critique of Kulka’s description of
Raumplan see: Johan van de Beek, “Adolf Loos – Patterns of Town Houses” in Raumplan
versus Plan Libre, ed. Risselada, 122ff; Sexuality and Space, ed. Beatriz Colomina (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 74ff.
28. Kulka, “Adolf Loos: 1870 –1933,” 10.
29. Münz and Künstler, Der Architekt Adolf Loos. A historiography on the publications on Loos
is outlined in Colomina, Privacy and Publicity, 3.
30. An exchange of letters between Vera Behalova and Kulka demonstrates this further.
Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-Forschung,” 22 – 27.
31. With its display of slightly classicist vocabulary, the Rufer House, with its relief of motifs
from the Parthenon, and the cornice adumbrated below the slightly overhanging pyramid roof,
is an exception.
32. Die Projekte mußten von innen nach außen gestaltet werden, Fußboden und Decke ( . . . )
waren das Primäre, die Fassade das Sekundäre. Auf genaue Achsen-Austeilung, auf die richtige
Möblierung, wurde das größte Gewicht gelegt. Auf diese Weise brachte ich meine Schüler dazu,
dreidimensional, im Kubus zu denken.” Loos, “Meine Bauschule,” 66.
33. “Loos erweckt die klarste Form, den Würfel, . . . , zum Leben.” Kulka, ed. Adolf Loos, 14– 15.
34. The text also correlates with a letter that Vera Behalova cites in her 1974 article on Kulka.
Compare: Heinrich Kulka, “Letter to Vera Behalova, 16.04.1971,” in Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer
Kulka-Forschung,” 22– 23 and Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” 104.
35. “dass ein geschlossener Hauskubus entsteht.” Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” 104.
36. Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” 104.
37. Risselada, Raumplan versus Plan Libre, 97.
38. Address: Wien 13, Küniglberggasse 55. Meder, “Offene Welten”, 292– 93; Behalova,
“Beitrag zu einer Kulka-Forschung,” 24. The house was based upon a design from a
competition that Loos had initiated among the students of his Bauschule in 1920/21. As Loos’
curriculum had been conceived to incorporate practice, students worked with Loos on his
projects. In 1920/21 the overall theme for the year had been Siedlungswesen (Settlements),
which reflected Loos’ engagement with the Siedlungsamt (Department of Settlements) in
Vienna at that time. Kulka won the competition by designing a house where one room was
placed between the living room on the first floor and the bedrooms on the second floor, while
at the same time adhering to an allocated volume. A version of this design, named “Dice
House” in Max Risselada’s 2008 edition of Raumplan versus Plan Libre, was exhibited in 1930
at the Triennale di Milano where Loos also showed his House Moissi. The 1920/21 plans for
the student competition seem to have been lost and only photographs of a model show the
design of the 1930 exhibit. Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-Forschung,” 23 and Risselada,
Raumplan versus Plan Libre, 114– 115. See also: Robert Hlawatsch, “Erinnerungen an Adolf
Loos und an die Loos-Schule,” Bauwelt 72, no. 42 (1981): 1893; Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf
Loos, 250– 251; Worbs, “Die Loos-Schule,” 27– 32. On Loos involvement in the Siedlungsamt
consult Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf Loos, 237ff. Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-
Forschung,” 22, Rukschcio, and Schachel, Adolf Loos, 579– 581. In 1936 Kulka published
plans, photographs and a short description of the Weißmann House in The Architect &
Building News. “A Small House in Vienna. Architect: Heinrich Kulka,” The Architect &
Building News 145 (1936): 396 – 397.
39. Loos’ country house Khuner can be regarded as an exception as here large windows allow
for views onto the surrounding landscape. Loos’ urban villas and houses nevertheless – to the
knowledge of the author – don’t allow vistas onto the entrance from a room dedicated for the
use of one of the homeowners only.
40. Sexuality and Space, ed. Colomina, 74. Kulka followed this pattern for most of his living
spaces where focal points in the interior such as aquariums (Kantor) or sunken and enclosed
seating areas (Weißmann, Semler, Kantor) guide the view inwards and away from windows.
Critics have nevertheless observed, that his use of horizontal and larger windows provide with
more light as well as with light from several directions. Meder, “Offene Welten,” 295 – 96 and
Sapák, “Heinrich Kulka: Villa Kantor a Jablonec,” 100– 107. The use of horizontal windows in
particular might have been a concession toward the functionalist architecture of the Neues
Bauen which had become increasingly popular in the Czech Republic since the 1932 Baba
settlement. Stephan Templ, Baba. Die Werkbundsiedlung Prag (Basel, Boston, Berlin:
Birkhäuser, 1999), 16ff.
41. Address: U Prehrady 2, Jablonec nad Nisou.

42. As with the Weißmann House the front facade appeared reserved but the garden facade
stepped back to make space for a roof terrace on the third floor and stepped forward to provide a
space for the caretaker in the ground floor and a terrace as an extension of the living spaces on
the first floor.
43. Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” 105. Dr Kantor would enter the consultation room via a
small corridor that led to a private lift and he would leave via a corridor and the garage.
A small stair led to his first floor study above the entrance and away from the living and dining
spaces so that a compact sequence of spaces for his professional needs was created.
Patients would enter through the main entrance and an anteroom from where they would
proceed to the right into the waiting room and from here to the consultation and dressing
rooms; they would exit through a corridor behind the dressing room. The family and their
visitors, finally, would enter via the main entrance but go left into the elevated vestibule and via
the main stair to the first floor. The first floor consisted of a succession of representational
living and dining rooms – a seating area with inbuilt aquarium, reception room, and elevated
dining room that could be separated from the living room with a sliding door. A private
veranda was situated next to the stairs to the kitchen and to the second floor where bedrooms,
bathroom and WC were situated.
44. Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” 105.
45. Heynen, Architecture and Modernity, 81. Kulka, “Ein Arzthaus in Gablonz,” 104.
46. Kulka, “Adolf Loos: 1870 –1933,” 7 & 15.
47. Kulka, “Adolf Loos: 1870 –1933,” 13.
48. Heynen, Architecture and Modernity, 95.
50. “Die Vorräume waren niedrig, er veranlaßte den Eintretenden, Wendungen zu machen, um,
wie er sagte, “das Überraschungsmoment beim Anblick der Wohnräume zu steigern.” Er
nannte diese Anordung die “Introduktion” in das Haus. Nach dem Durchschreiten der niedrigen
Vorräume erschien die nomale Höhe der Wohnräume imposanter.” Kulka “Bekenntnis zu Adolf
Loos,” 25.
51. Heinrich Kulka, “Letter to Vera Behalova, 16.04.1971” in: Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-
Forschung,” 22– 23.
52. Address: Klatovska trida 110, Plzeň. The contact between Kulka and Semler might have
originated via a project for a house-extension with which Semler had commissioned Loos in
1932. Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf Loos, 646.
53. Villa Khuner and the houses for the Werkbund Settlement in Vienna were the most
important collaborative commissions. Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-Forschung,” 26– 27,
Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf Loos, 342 & 617.
54. “Im Geiste Adolf Loos’ arbeitet sein Schüler Heinrich Kulka,” Die Bühne, no. 395 (1935): 38– 39.
55. Plans of Apartment Semler were published in Behalova, “Beitrag zu einer Kulka-
Forschung,” 26.
56. The corridor and credenza, connecting the dining room and kitchen separated not only
representational spaces from utility rooms but also the public spaces from service facilities.
These stairs also led to the bedrooms on the floor above as well as to a lady’s room situated
above the entrance and vestibule.
57. Das Theater hat übereinander geschichtete stockwerkshohe Galerien oder Annexe (Logen),
die im offenen Zusammenhange mit einem durch mehrere Stockwerke gehenden Hauptraum
sind. Loos erkannte, daß man die Enge der Loge nicht ertragen könnte, schaute man nicht in den
großen Hauptraum, daß man also durch Verbindung eines höheren Hauptraumes mit einem
niedrigeren Annex Raum sparen kann, und er verwendete diese Erkenntnis beim Wohnhaus-
bau. Adolf Loos, Kulka, ed. Kulka, 13– 14.
58. “Der moderne intelligente Mensch muss für die Menschen eine Maske haben. . . .
Individuelle Kleider haben nur geistig beschränkte. Diese haben das Bedürfnis, in alle Welt
hinauszuschreien, was sie sind und wie sie eigentlich sind.” Adolf Loos, Die Potemkinsche
Stadt (Vienna: Prachner, 1983), 206. Translated in: Heynen, Architecture and Modernity,
238– 239.
59. Ákos Moravánsky, Die Erneuerung der Baukunst: Wege zur Moderne in Mitteleuropa 1900 –
1940 (Vienna: Residenz Verlag, 1988), 66.
60. Moravánsky, Die Erneuerung der Baukunst, 66.

61. Moravánsky, Die Erneuerung der Baukunst, 67.
63. Jacques Groag is mentioned as collaborator for the Moller House, Karel Lhota as
collaborator for Müller House and Heinrich Kulka as collaborator at the Country House Khuner.
Adolf Loos, ed. Kulka, 41– 43.
64. Rukschcio and Schachel, Adolf Loos, 617.

Tanja Poppelreuter - Raumplan After Loos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanja Poppelreuter - Raumplan After Loos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fabrications

ISSN: 1033-1867 (Print) 2164-4756 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfab20

Raumplan after Loos

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10331867.2015.1006761

Published online: 28 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 136

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

I was able to continue working in this manner.5

Figure 2: Kulka, Weißmann House, Vienna, 1930 –1933. Floor plans.

Raumplan after Loos

Figure 3: Kulka, Villa Kantor, Jablonec, 1933 – 34. Garden facade.

Figure 4: Kulka, Villa Kantor, Jablonec, 1933 – 34. Street facade.

As Loos’ agent, Kulka’s words in the monograph – such as the term

Figure 5: Kulka, Villa Holzner, Hronov, 1937. Garden facade.

This corresponds with Heynen’s explanations, whereby she suggests that

In referring to theatre architecture, the function of the hall is viewed as a stage

100 FABRICATIONS – JSAHANZ

TANJA POPPELREUTER 101

102 FABRICATIONS – JSAHANZ

TANJA POPPELREUTER 103

You might also like