During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of factors contributed to the growth of Berlin. By developing the characteristics of a metropolis, Berlin became influential. The city’s growth was aided by its industrial importance; it had the crossroads used by railways for domestic navigation. Additionally, Berlin had a vital business center and the only important cultural and intellectual institutions in Germany. These factors contributed to its growth in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The poor renters supplemented their income by subleasing apartments and subletting rooms to non-family associates. This was in an attempt to keep up with the challenges that the economy posed them since the cost of rent was too high for them to afford. However, this practice had both positive and negative consequences; they could now afford the rent. The act had health complications due to the reduced access to air, enhancing the spread of diseases, such as typhus.
Käthe Kollwitz explains the difficulties women continued to undergo in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle for their children. Her children were born healthy, but out of nine, three had died. Despite the mother being poor, she still uses the few marks she has to maintain her children’s strong health. Käthe Kollwitz describes the children as healthy and strong, except for one, Lotte, with rickets for having been underfed by her mother and one older one who is intellectually weak. Maintaining the health of the children is a way to express the love mothers have for their children. Even though the mother’s life is not good, she tries all the best for her children to be healthy. The description reveals the poverty in which the family lived. The mother is malnourished, and most of the children are dead because she cannot breastfeed them. She did heavy work to earn a living, which forced her to lose her milk, and she still could not afford to take care of herself. The earning cannot sustain the family requirements, revealing that it was a typical low-income family.
In The Working-Class Tenement Block in Berlin, Theodor Goecke discusses the working-class housing location as affected by the tenement rental buildings. The workers lived in either inner suburbs or outlying areas linked to Berlin and never out of the state. They are not to live in closer cities to the country even though their daily tasks revolve there. Even if they decide to stay away, the property developers will still demand rent, never caring about how they earn their money. The worker feels at home just chilling in the busy urban places, especially when shopping for their needs. The worker is forced to move away from the city as the expansion continues and rents rise. The building organizations and cooperatives scare the workers away as they cannot afford their expensive houses. Some workers also prefer a distant and agreeable place to live in, planting their own crops and living in their compounds.
It is crucial to think of the deplorable working and living conditions for Berlin workers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Due to their occupation and nature of work, most of the workers are tied to the city. They are permanently available in the city with no choice of where to live; usually, the tenement blocks, as Theodor Goecke states, “the worker prefers to spend his time in the busy urban setting” (507). The worker, just like other tenants, has the right on whether to stay or live the block. Nevertheless, the behavior is recognized to be economically wasteful, and a better-settled habit should be used. The primary consideration is the struggle the working class undergoes to live in the cities. It is a struggle considering the high rents and the economic lifestyles.
Work Cited
Goecke, Theodor. “The Working-Class Tenement Block in Berlin.” Germany Construction Newspaper, vol. 24, 1890, pp. 501-523.