publication of Ferdinand Lundberg’ s influential study America’s 60
American social scientists and historians who have explored social and
cultural philanthropy have repeatedly discussed the question of how much
power philanthropists and social reformers receive from their engagement in
the “betterment of society.”
Although Lundberg’s thesis that America’s wealthiest families successfully
employed philanthropy to gain dominance over society has been refuted by
many historians, it cannot be doubted that philanthropic engagement accords
its instigators some influence and power.
The cultural historian Neil Harris, for instance suggested that museums were
an element of social policy.
Museum makers, curators, donors and organizers of exhibitions decided which
art and artifacts were put on display. They were, for instance, in a
position to make public their wish for which artistic tradition was supposed
to be revered by an audience. Museums, from their inception, shared the
social mission of schools, libraries, and universities, but as Harris
reminds us, the later ones “were, in a sense, far less authoritarian.”
While one could argue in a class room if one disagreed with the professor’s
opinion and while one was free in the selection of books to choose from the
library, “the ordinary museum-goer was hostage, in a sense, to the taste,
standards, and goals of the specialists organizing the display.”
Based on their extensive studies of Boston and Chicago’s philanthropic
traditions, Robert Dalzell and Kathleen McCarthy noted that philanthropy
offered an alternative way of exercising power. While Dalzell carefully
suggests that control over philanthropic institutions gave the upper classes
“the power to set standards,”
McCarthy goes even further and argues with regards to female involvement in
philanthropy that museum and charity boards represented a counter-government
that empowered women long before they received the right to vote.
The distance of the state on the local and regional level in
nineteenth-century German, Canadian, and American society allowed
philanthropists – male and female – to occupy important places in the public
sphere of urban societies and to define these spaces according to their own
views. Philanthropists decided which museums to build, and what would be put
on display in these museums. They, further, decided the architectural
structures of social housing projects and, thus, had their hands in the
definition of what constituted family.
While museums and art galleries allowed philanthropists to impose their
artistic taste on larger segments of the urban populations, social housing
enterprises accorded philanthropists even greater power. They found
themselves in a position to define social structures such as the family.
Guided by the belief that the family is at the very heart of society and
that a stabilization of society cannot succeed without a stabilization of
its very basis – the family – German and North American philanthropists who
engaged in social housing projects alone or in the company of fellow
philanthropists dedicated much time to the planning of apartment buildings.
The idea of a closed and separate tenement dominated the nineteenth-century
discourse on social housing on both sides of the Atlantic. In these debates,
philanthropists advocated the creation of a self-contained apartment that
included a kitchen, several bedrooms and a hallway. Only washrooms and
lavatories were, because of hygienic standards and architectural-technical
difficulties, in some cases removed from the apartment and placed in
communally used staircases or hallways. Max Pommer, the architect of the
Meyersche Foundation in Leipzig, one of Germany’s largest social housing
trusts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, further demanded that not
more than two apartments should have access from the staircase at the same
floor, thus further isolating the families living inside these apartments.
Social reformers and philanthropists invested much time and money in the
planning and construction of such apartment buildings because they believed
that intermixing of different neighbors in an apartment building caused a
breakdown of social rules and standards and was to blame for the outbreak of
infectious diseases. These philanthropists considered the open structure of
families and flats as a threat to the state. “We have learned by
experience,” stated the Third Annual Report of the Boston Co-operative
Building Company, “that such tenements as this which has common
corridors, common water rooms, and, above all, common privies, are a
disgrace to modern civilization, and public nuisances, inasmuch as they
encroach upon the family relations, tend to make them impure, and thereby
sap the very foundations of the State.”
For urban middle-class observers in London, the intermixing of family
members with neighbors and friends led inevitably to the corruption of the
city youth. Living in overcrowded tenements, young women and men were early
in their life exposed to sexual promiscuity and subsequently succumbed to
crime and poverty.
For contemporary housing reformers and philanthropists, there were basically
only two ways to intervene: (1) social supervision and control or (2)
separation of the families in independent apartment units. The decision to
build apartment buildings with isolated units resulted from the recognition
that social control of working-class families in houses with communal
facilities proved to be ineffective.
Therefore, philanthropists, guided by the concept of the nuclear family,
began in the second half of the nineteenth century to produce apartment
buildings with clearly defined private and public spaces. The apartment was
to be closed with a locked entrance door. Only those individuals who
possessed a key handed out by the housing authorities were allowed to enter
the apartment. The hallway prevented the outside visitor, who would knock on
the entrance door from looking directly into any of the rooms. Entrance and
hallway, thus, provided a much higher degree of often “unwanted” privacy.
The attempts at housing reform as well as the discussion about the
appropriate family size and structure were not limited to the national level
but had clearly a transnational and even transatlantic dimension. The
transatlantic discourse on apartment and family structure is reflected in
the annual reports of various social housing companies in German and
American cities during the nineteenth century as well as in scholarly works
as for instance Elgin R. L. influential treatment The Housing of the
Working People (1895), which presented his American audience with an
exhaustive study of social housing in European and American cities.
Gould’s study, which was based mostly on his own observations of social
housing enterprises in Europe, was soon regarded as the American standard
work on the subject of housing reform.
Inspired by the desire that this investigation would “stimulate undertakings
in the direction of improving the dwellings of the people,”
Gould dedicated two chapters (roughly two thirds of the book) to an in-depth
analysis of housing companies in the United States, Great Britain, France,
Germany, Holland, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark. Chapter nine of this
investigation was dedicated to model block buildings in Great Britain (60
pages), the United States (37 pages), Germany (30 pages), France (9 pages),
Sweden (3 pages) and the Netherlands (2 pages).
For Gould, the apartment structure and the relations between the
families living in these apartment buildings were a major point of interest.
His chapter on urban multi-storey apartment-building complexes (see table
below) included a description of Germany’s oldest social housing trust, the
Berlin Mutual Building Company, which had been founded by Victor Huber in
1849; Frankfurt’s Tenement Dwellings Company, which played a pioneering role
in the use of the Erbpacht; and a short introduction to the Hanover
Savings and Building Society, which was to revolutionize the production of
social housing by employing the cooperative model.
Gould was interested in the economic, architectural, and city-planning
aspects of these enterprises as well as the social structure of renters and
the consequences of the architectural design for the formation and
definition of family.
of pages in Gould’s study
Frankfurt am Main
Dwellings Company (Aktienbaugesellschaft für kleine Wohnungen)
pages including 3 pages of tables (Occupations, Earnings, and
present and former rents of tenants) and 1 picture and 1 plan of the
Building Company (Berliner Gemeinnützige Baugesellschaft
Society for the
Improvement of Tenements (Verein zur Verbesserung der kleinen
including 1 picture
pages including 1 map, 2 pictures and 1 plan of the apartment
buildings and 1 table (Occupation and Earnings of Heads of Families
in Meyer’s Model Tenement Buildings)
pages including 1 map and 1 plan of the apartment building
Salomon Fund (Salomon Stiftung
pages including extensive pictorial documentation covering 4,5 pages
(pictures of the facades, plans of the buildings
Cooperative Building Association (Gemeinnütziger Bauverein)
pages including 1 picture and 2 plans of the apartment buildings
John’s Society (Johannes Verein)
pages including 1 picture and 1 plan of the apartment buildings
Savings and Building Society
pages including 2 plans of the apartment buildings
on the Saale
Loest’s Court (Loest’s Hof)
pages including 1 picture and 3 plans of the apartment building
Looking at these various housing enterprises, Gould judged their quality by
their architectural “protection of the family.” Although Gould lauded the
economic set up of the Aktienbaugesellschaft für kleine Wohnungen in
Frankfurt am Main, he did not appreciate the architectural design of their
apartment buildings since there were “no special arrangements to prevent
promiscuous mingling of occupants upon stairways and landings, except to
prohibit it in a general regulation.”
This architectural design was not, to Gould regret, unique to this
Frankfurt’s housing company. When he visited Hanover, he found a very
similar architecture in the buildings of the Bau- und Sparverein. As
in Frankfurt, Gould remarked, “there are no special regulations with a view
of preventing the promiscuous mingling of occupants in hallways or
However, in the buildings of both companies, the Aktienbaugesellschaft
für kleine Wohnungen in Frankfurt am Main and the Bau- und Sparverein
in Hanover, apartments were closed to the staircase and contained a private
hallway within the tenement. This private hallway preserved, according to
Gould, the “independence and isolation of the individual family.”
In the case of the apartment buildings in Frankfurt, Gould even observed
that the “tenements are self-contained in every aspect, the water-closets
being reached by another private hallway at the rear, which opens to the
bedroom and to the kitchen.”
While Gould voiced some criticism towards the apartment building structure
of the Frankfurt and Hanover companies, he admired the social housing
projects of Leipzig (Meyer’s model tenements and Salomon Fund) and Dresden
(Cooperative Building Association) since they seemed to offer, at least in
their architectural design, the perfect solution to the housing problem of
the working classes. Meyer’s model tenements occupy an eminent place in
Gould’s investigation of German social housing companies. Herrmann Julius
Meyer (1826-1909), the owner of one of Germany’s most important publishing
houses, the Bibliographisches Institut,
decided in 1886 to engage in social reform. With the help of the Leipzig
architect Max Pommer,
Meyer bought land in Lindenau, a suburb to the west of Leipzig, with the
goal of erecting apartment buildings for working-class families. Two years
later, the construction of the first buildings began under the supervision
of Pommer, who became the leading architect of the Meyersche Stiftung and a
member of the board of this housing foundation. Between 1888 and 1937,
Meyer’s housing trust built four large settlement projects in various parts
of Leipzig at a total cost of 18,837,294 marks.
Meyer’s contribution to this amount between 1888 and his death in 1909 has
been estimated at about seven million marks.
Part of Leipzig
Time of Construction
Number of buildings and apartments
Construction Costs in marks (including money for the acquisition of the
apartment buildings with 501 apartments (plus 1 daycare center, 1
washing facility, 202 garden plots)
apartment buildings with 344 apartments (plus 1 daycare center and I
apartment buildings with 447 apartments
apartment buildings with 1404 apartments (plus communal facilities)
In 1888 Meyer had founded the Verein zur Erbauung billiger Wohnungen
(Association for the Construction of Affordable Apartments) as the legal
owner of these housing projects, which was transformed into a housing trust
named the Stiftung für Erbauung billiger Wohnungen in Leipzig
(Foundation for the Construction of Affordable Apartments in Leipzig) in
Gould very much liked the architectural design of Meyer’s first settlement
complex in Lindenau. Writing about this complex,
Gould praised Meyer since he subscribed to the concept of closed apartments,
which provided individual families with apartments (including, kitchen,
living room and hallway) that were separated from each other. “Each of the
tenements … has a private hallway adjoining the main corridor and staircase.
One door from a tenement opens directly to the corridor and stairway.
Corridors are too small to allow promiscuous mingling. The private hallway
of each tenement is considered another means of preserving the independence
and isolation of the individual family.”
The second largest housing trust in Leipzig, the Salomon Fund, also
attracted Gould’s attention.
Founded by Hedwig von Holstein, this housing trust was built between 1891
and 1900 in Reudnitz, a suburb to the east of Leipzig. Leipzig’s famous
architect Arved Rossbach was in charge of building five buildings (three
apartment buildings, one chapel, and one laundry building) around an open
green space in the center of the settlement that was to give a focal point
to the foundation. Each building was to be built five storeys high and
contain four apartments on each level. The apartments consisted of one
hallway, one kitchen and two rooms.
Full of admiration for the construction principle, Gould provided his
American readers with a very detailed description of its housing structure:
“One door from every family lodging opens directly to the stairway or
hallway. There are no special regulations designed to prevent promiscuous
mingling of occupants in the corridors and on the landings. It must be
remembered that each family has its own private hallway, one door of which
opens to the staircase, one to the kitchen, and one to the other rooms.
Every room communicates directly, either by doors or windows, with the open
This discussion of architectural ways to reach a self-contained family unit
and thus the stabilization and isolation of the nuclear family was part of a
larger public transatlantic discourse among housing reformers who considered
the nuclear family the basic element of society.
For them housing reform was more than just the provision of affordable
housing; it was the attempt to create, following bourgeois standards,
“domesticity, or the family’s awareness of itself as a precious emotional
unit that must be protected with privacy and isolation from outside
These bourgeois reformers hoped to transform working-class families
according to moral standards of the bourgeoisie. By creating apartment
buildings, which limited the contact between its inhabitants by providing
that only a small number of apartments shared a common staircase and inside
plumbing facilities as well as the concept of separate and closed-off
hallways for each apartment, architects and social reformers basically
constructed a shell for the nuclear family.
This apartment space offered sufficient room for parents and their children
only. In addition, friendly female rent collectors (Octavia Hill’s house
management concept) offered advice in social behavior and had the power to
remove renters from their apartments in case they did not follow such
The intention of social reformers and philanthropists was not to encourage
inhabitants of their housing projects to form deep social bonds, but to
accept the separation of their familial spaces. The apartment structure,
thus, helped to seal off families from their “traditional interaction with
the surrounding world.”
Fathers and mothers were to spend more time at home and to create a culture
of domesticity and solidarity with the other members of the family. Fathers,
mothers, sons and daughters were expected to develop a higher degree of
mutual understanding and companionship for each other than for members of
their own age and sex peer groups.
By providing a building structure that allowed for the isolation of nuclear
families from each other and the outside world, nineteenth-century
architects and housing reformers believed that they had achieved a healthy
social basis for society. Housing reform thus became societal reform.
By making decisions about the architectural structure of apartment
buildings, philanthropists and their architects were in a position to define
the concept of “family.” Social housing enterprises offered apartments with
a specific number of rooms, thus determining how many members a family
occupying such an apartment was allowed to have. Herrmann Julius Meyer, for
instance, insisted that his housing foundation should provide apartments
only for families with three to five members.
Therese Rossbach, a fellow Leipzig housing reformer, was certainly the
exception among nineteenth-century philanthropists, for allowing families
with up to ten children in the apartment buildings of the Verein Ostheim.
As a rule, nineteenth-century philanthropists sought to encourage families
to produce not more than two to three children. By providing a certain
architectural structure, these philanthropists hoped to influence the social
relations between their tenants. Separate apartments, so it was hoped, would
infuse families with a heightened sense of privacy and isolation from their
neighbors. By limiting the number of adjacent apartments on one floor to two
or three, the possibilities of meeting other people during the evening and
over the weekend were already limited. To make sure that the tenants
understood the expectations of their landlords, management systems such as
Octavia Hill’s system of friendly visiting brought middle-class ladies into
the apartments in order to supervise and instruct the tenants. Published
regulations reminded the renters that they were not supposed to spend too
much time in the hallways but that their place was at “home” in the circle
of their family.
In the case of the Meyersche Foundation in Leipzig, women who were reported
chatting extensively with neighbors outside their apartments were
reprimanded and in rare cases even dismissed form the apartments.
The architectural structure of apartment buildings built by social housing
enterprises and housing trusts reveal the thinking of its creators with
regards to their concepts of social organization. Compared to the influence
and power philanthropists exercised in museums and art galleries,
philanthropists who created social housing projects were much more
effective. While museums, art galleries, and even libraries can suggest a
certain artistic standard or a specific literary taste, social housing
projects are the places where the museum-goers have to live after they
return from the museum. Although it was still left to the individuals living
in these apartments to change the structures according to their own
intentions, walls and entrance doors set definitive limits. And even if
entrance doors were left open social housing projects, such as the Peabody
buildings in London and the Meyer’s model tenements in Leipzig were “gated
communities” with walls and gates surrounding the settlements and thus
keeping outsiders out.
Every night, at 11 pm the gas light would be turned off and the entrance
gate to the building complex of the Peabody Trust closed. Tenants possessed
their own house keys but they had to enter the building through one main
entrance and thus were spotted, controlled and noted by the doorman. Showing
up drunk after 11 pm during the week and even on weekends resulted in
immediate cancellation of the rental contract.
Ferdinand Lundberg, America’s 60 Families (New York: The
Citadel Press, 1938).
For a historiographical overview for this discussion see: David
Hammack, “Patronage and the Greta Institutions of the Cities of the
United States: Questions and Evidence, 1800-2000,” in: Thomas Adam
(ed.), Philanthropy, Patronage, and Civil Society: Experiences
from Germany, Great Britain, and North America (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 2004), pp. 79-100.
See for this interpretation: Thomas Adam, “Buying Respectability:
Philanthropy and Cultural Dominance in 19th-century
Boston,” in: Traverse 2006/1, pp. 29-46.
Neil Harris, Cultural Excursions: Marketing appetites and
cultural tastes in Modern America (Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 85.
Robert F. Dalzell, Jr., Enterprising Elite: The Boston Associates
and the World They Made (Cambridge, Mass and London, Engl.:
Harvard University Press, 1987), p. 160.
Kathleen McCarthy, “Women and Political Culture”, in: Lawrence J.
Friedman and Mark D. McGravie (eds.), Charity, Philanthropy, and
Civility in American History (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003), p. 190.
Edward Shorter, The Making of the Modern Family (New York:
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1977), p. 227.
 Archive of
the Meyersche Stiftung, Verein für Erbauung billiger Wohnungen in
Leipzig-Lindenau, Generalbericht April 1891 bis Juli 1895, p. 5.
architectural structure of the apartment buildings of the Meyersche
Foundations see: Thomas Adam, Die Anfänge industriellen Bauens in
Sachsen (Leipzig: Quadrat Verlag, 1998), pp. 18-28.
Third Annual Report of the Boston Co-operative Building Company
(Boston, 1874), pp. 14-15.
Sharon Marcus, Apartment Stories: City and Home in
Nineteenth-Century Paris and London (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 105-106.
 Eduard Führ
and Daniel Stemmrich, ‘Nach gethaner Arbeit verbleibt im Kreise
der Eurigen’: Bürgerliche Wohnrezepte für Arbeiter zur individuellen
und sozialen Formierung im 19.
(Wuppertal: Peter Hammer Verlag, 1985), p. 118.
E. R. L. Gould, The Housing of the Working People (Eighth
Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor) (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1895).
Jacob A. Riis, The Battle with the Slum (New York/London:
Macmillan & Co., 1902), p. 129.
Gould, The Housing of the Working People, p. 13.
Kramer, „Die Anfänge des sozialen Wohnungsbaus in Frankfurt am Main
1860-1914“, in: Archiv für Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst
1978, pp. 148-158; Ernst Cahn unter Mitwirkung von Frank Wetzlar,
Die Gemeinnützige Bautätigkeit in Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt
am Main: Verlag des Vereins für Förderung des Arbeiterwohnungswesens
und verwandte Bestrebungen, 1915), pp. 25-28, 47-53; Wilhelm
Ruprecht, Die Erbpacht: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Reform
derselben insbesondere in Deutschland (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1882); Johann Heinrich Andreas Hermann Albrecht Graf von
Bernstorff, Social Reforms in Germany (n. p., 1910), p.
18-19. (Dartmouth College Storage Library); Wilhelm Ruprecht,
„Gesunde Wohnungen“, in: Göttinger Arbeiterbibliothek vol. 1,
No. 6, pp. 81-96; F. Bork, „Der Spar- und Bauverein, E.G.m.beschr.
Haftpflicht in Hannover“, in: Die Spar- und Bau-Vereine in
Hannover, Göttingen und Berlin. Eine Anleitung zur praktischen
Betätigung auf dem Gebiete der Wohnungsfrage (Schriften der
Centralststelle für Arbeiter-Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen Nr. 3) (Berlin:
Carl Heymann Verlag, 1893), pp. 1-93; Thomas Adam, 125 Jahre
Wohnreform in Sachsen: Zur Geschichte der sächsischen
Baugenossenschaften (1873-1998) (Leipzig: Antonym, 1999), pp.
Gould, The Housing of the Working People, p. 287.
Gould, The Housing of the Working People, p. 306-307.
For the history of the Bibliographisches Institut see: Johannes
Hohlfeld, Das Bibliographische Institut.
Festschrift zu seiner
(Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut,1926); Carl Joseph Meyer und
das Bibliographische Institut von Hildburghausen-Leipzig. Eine
kulturhistorische Skizze von Arnim Human (Hildburghausen, 1896);
Karl Heinz Kalhöfer, „125 Jahre Meyers Lexikon,“ in: Zentralblatt
für Bibliothekswesen 78 (1964), pp. 459-471.
 For a
biography of Pommer see: Thomas Adam, Die Anfänge industriellen
Bauens in Sachsen (Leipzig: Quadrat Verlag, 1998), Adam, „Max
Pommer (1847-1915),“ in: Sächsische Heimatblätter vol. 44 no.
2 1998, pp. 84-94.
 Archive of
the Meyersche Foundation: Exchange of letters between Herrmann
Julius Meyer and Max Pommer, letters dated September 22, 1886 and
February 12, 1887; Verein für Erbauung billiger Wohnungen in
Leipzig-Lindenau, Generalbericht April 1891 bis Juli 1895; Leipzig
und seine Bauten (Leipzig: J. M. Gebhardt’s Verlag, 1892), pp.
450-455; Leipziger Zeitung October 1, 1895, p. 3940;
Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung 1890, No. 19, pp. 184-185 and
1900, No. 43, pp. 262-263; Leipziger Tageblatt November 1,
1898, p. 8162; Max Pommer, „Praktische Lösungen der Wohnungsfrage,“
in: Leipziger Kalender 1904, pp. 79-84.
The information in
following table derives from the annual reports of the Meyersche
Foundation and the collection of newspaper articles in the archive
of the Meyersche Foundation as well as from: Marta Doehler and Iris
Reuther, Die Meyer’schen Häuser in Leipzig: Bezahlbares Wohnen
(Leipzig: Stiftung Meyer’sche Häuser, 1995). In addition two
unpublished studies were helpful for this discussion.
Kunibert Jung, “Die Meyer’schen
Häuser in die sie prägenden Zusammenhänge gestellt” (Freie
Studienarbeit am Fachbereich Architektur der Universität Hannover,
Institut für Bau- und Kunstgeschichte) and „Baugeschichtliche
Dokumentation und denkmalpflegerische Zielsetzung für die ehemaligen
Verlags- und Druckereibetriebe Bibliographisches Institut und
Notendruckerei C. G. Röder“ (Pro Leipzig). See also: Adam, Die
Anfänge industriellen Bauens in Sachsen (Leipzig: Quadrat
Verlag, 1998), pp. 18-28; Adam, „Meyersche Stiftung – ‚Es hat
keinerlei Unternehmergewinn zu erfolgen,’“ in; Leipziger Kalender
1997, pp. 135-154.
This number is based on information from the annual reports of the
Meyersche Foundation and from archival material of the foundation.
Gould, The Housing of the Working People, pp. 292-295.
Leipzig, Amt für Bauordnung und Denkmalpflege, Bauakten-Archiv,
Acten des Rathes der Stadt Leipzig in Baupolizeisachen über das
Grundstück No. 51-53 an der Oststrasse und No. 21 an der
Eilenburger Strasse (Salomonstift) (letter of Arwed Rossbach to the
city council of Leipzig dated March 6, 1890); Bibliothek der
Hochschule für Musik und Theater „Felix Mendelsohn Bartholdy“
Leipzig, I 2.5.1., 2.5.3/2., 2.5.4/2 (Holsteinstift); Leipzig
und seine Bauten (Leipzig 1892), pp. 459-460; Bernard Riedel,
„Gruppenbauten in und um Leipzig“, in Leipziger Kalender 9
(1912), pp. 173-183; Robert Bruck, Arwed Rossbach und seine
Bauten (Berlin 1904), p. 71.
Gould, The Housing of the Working People, p. 297.
For the historiography on the topic of family and the nuclear family
see: Tamara K. Hareven, “The History of the Family and the
Complexity of Social Change”, in: The American Historical Review
96 (Feb. 1991), pp. 95-124 and Katherine A. Lynch, “The Family and
the History of Public Life”, in: Journal of Interdisciplinary
History 24 (Spring 1994), pp. 665-684.
Shorter, The Making of the Modern Family, p. 227.
See for instance for Meyer’s housing foundation: Archive of the
Meyersche Foundation, Verein für Erbauung billiger Wohnungen in
Leipzig-Lindenau, Generalbericht April 1891 bis Juli 1895, p. 5.
Hill, Aus der Londoner Armenpflege (Wiesbaden, 1878); Gustav
de Liagre, „Ein Versuch zur Beschaffung guter Wohnungen für Arme in
Leipzig“, in: Ernst Hasse, Die Wohnungsverhältnisse der ärmeren
Volksklassen in Leipzig (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1886), p.
95; Thomas Adam, Die Anfänge industriellen Bauens in Sachsen
(Leipzig: Quadrat Verlag, 1998), pp. 27-28.
Shorter, The Making of the Modern Family, p. 228.
 Archive of
the Meyersche Stiftung, Stiftung für Erbauung billiger Wohnungen in
Leipzig, Siebenter Bericht März 1902, p. 2.
 City Archive
Leipzig Kap. 35 Nr. 748, Geschäftsbericht des Vereins Ostheim
Leipzig für das Jahr 1905 (Leipzig 1906), p. 8, 11; State Archive of
Lower Saxony in Bückeburg, Dep. 47, No. 1027, Rossbach, “Meine
Lebensarbeit”, p. 2. See also: Thomas Adam, „Das soziale Engagement
Leipziger Unternehmer – die Tradition der Wohnstiftungen,“ in:
Ulrich Heß, Michael Schäfer, Werner Bramke, and Petra Listwenik (eds.),
Unternehmer in Sachsen: Aufstieg – Krise – Untergang – Neubeginn
(Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 1998), p. 115.
‘Nach gethaner Arbeit verbleibt im Kreise der Eurigen’, pp.
114-130; Peter R. Gleichmann, „Wandlungen in wohnwirtschaftlichen
Machtdifferentialen und im Modellieren der Mieterbeziehungen,“ in:
AIAS. Informationen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für interdisziplinäre
angewandte Sozialforschung 1977, pp. 137-147; Peter R.
Gleichmann, „Wandlungen im Verwalten von Wohnhäusern,“ in: Lutz
Niethammer (ed.), Wohnen im Wandel: Beiträge zur Geschichte des
Alltags in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (Wuppertal: Hammer,
1979), pp. 65-88.
 Archive of
the Meyersche Stiftung, Jahresbericht der Stiftung für Erbauung
billiger Wohnungen in Leipzig für das Jahr 1908.
 Thomas Adam,
”Meyersche Stiftung – ‘Es hat keinerlei Unternehmergewinn zu
erfolgen,’” in: Leipziger Kalender 1997 (Leipzig: Leipziger
Universitätsverlag, 1997), pp. 149-152; John Nelson Tarn, Five
Per Cent Philanthropy: An account of housing in urban areas between
1840 and 1914 (Cambridge at the University Press, 1973), pp.
 Paul Felix
Aschrott, “Die Arbeiterwohnungsfrage in England”, in: Die
Wohnungsnoth der ärmeren Klassen in deutschen Großstädten und
Vorschläge zu deren Abhülfe. Gutachten und Berichte herausgegeben
vom Verein für Socialpolitik (Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker &
Humblot, 1886), pp. 130-132.