Abstract
Drawing on the experience of Czechoslovak representation at the 3rd congress of CIAM in Brussels in 1930, Teige called for application of the principles of Marxist ideas on contemporary architecture. Even though Czechoslovak architects ignored the invitations for the first two CIAM Congresses, Teige proudly presented the newly established Czechoslovak CIAM group in 1930 as the most radical left wing within the international organization CIRPAC.
Czechoslovak projects presented in Brussels had shown belief in the overall solution of housing crisis through the new type of housing: the collective house. Thanks to the application of scientific analysis of peoples domestic life and human needs, the living in cellular residential units and a maximum of common functions and areas seemed to be the best solution of the constantly searched "Existenzminimum".
None of the interwar projects of collective housing presented in Bruxelles in 1930 has been put into practice. Among a few constructed examples of collective housing in Czechoslovakia, the Pension Arosa built in 1931 by Karel Hannauer drew on Teige's ideas.
Yet it was only made possible because of the architect's family wealth. The structure represents an excellent exemple of modern architecture which has been published in architectural reviews worldwide.
Nonetheless it remained an experiment in developping new architectural forms, financed out of private sources. Where is the distinction between leftist ideas and the ability to apply these ideas within ideological regime? To what extent has been the concept of architecture as a science applicable in practice? What is the difference in being left before and after the World War II.? Drawing on a case study of Pension Arosa I present the differences of "being left" before and after the World War II., raise the question of the faillure of the concept of collective housing and explore why the real "solution of housing crisis" ended up with panel houses in Czechoslovakia.