Communal Living for Single Women in 1920s Finland: Housing Company Eureka
Since March is the month when we have the International Women’s Day and, in Finland, Minna Canth’s Day, the Day of Equality (the 19th of March) and since it is also Women’s History Month, I thought the most appropriate way to start this blog about the history housing and everyday life in Finland would be to write about single women’s housing. More specifically, I want to focus on a building called Eureka – an apartment block with a central kitchen built in 1922 in Helsinki by single women for single women.
Problems with single women’s housing
Even though most housing discussions and planning was focused on families in early 20th century Finland, the poor living conditions of single (or lonely as they were then called) middle- and upper-class women also became a cause for concern.
Changes in the marriage market and a surplus of unmarried women due to migration patterns had led to an increasing number of women in cities remaining unmarried. As a result of urbanization, women’s movements as well as new educational and employment opportunities, staying unmarried had become a more viable alternative for women who either did not want to find or had not succeeded in finding a husband. At the same time, however, as household units became more nuclear family focused, many single women were no longer able to keep on living with relatives. The new opportunities for single life were not complemented by new forms of housing.
According to contemporary commentators the main issues in regard to single women’s housing were that rents were too high considering the low salaries of these women, the quality of the available rooms was low and that single women did not have the possibility of having a home of their own. Having a proper home would have meant living in an apartment that was purposefully planned and decorated according to the tastes of the inhabitant. In a home, a woman could be in peace and she could arrange her domestic life freely without needing the approval of her landlord or -lady. A home was presented as the prerequisite for the wellbeing of these women, which made their housing situation an important social issue.
Housing company Eureka
Such issues inspired three women, Dagmar Neovius (1867–1939, unmarried), Fanny Hult (1861–1945, divorced in 1899) and Berta Tabelle, to lead the project to build an apartment block specifically aimed for single women. All three were active in different women’s organisations, and Neovius was one of the first female members of parliament.
At least Neovius and Hult were active in the Martha organisation (Marttaliitto) which promoted the role and education of housewives. This is noteworthy because the Marthas were otherwise against the central kitchen system because home cooking was presented as essential for the homeliness of a (nuclear family) home. In the case single women, however, the system was believed to provide these women with domestic comforts that otherwise would have been beyond their means.
During the early decades of the 20th century communal housing for both working- and middle-class single women had been built in Austria, Denmark, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the US – many of these projects were presented in Finnish magazines in the 1920s. The clearest international inspiration and model for the building of Eureka seems to have been Clara Raphaels hus which was built in Copenhagen in 1920.
The Finnish Eureka, opened in 1922, had altogether 51 apartments: 16 one-room, 21 two-room, nine three-room and five four-room apartments. All the apartments had a small hallway, a bathroom and a small kitchen corner equipped with an electric cooker. On the basement floor was an apartment for the porter, the central kitchen, serving rooms, a dining hall, storage rooms, a washing-up room, firewood storage, a scullery and a laundry room. On the ground floor there was a baking room as well as rooms and other facilities for members of staff. In the 1920s, the staff included a female manager and 4–6 servants.
During the 1920s, the majority of the inhabitants were unmarried or widowed women, but there were also some married couples, families with children and men living with their widowed mothers among the residents. The single women lived either by themselves or shared an apartment with a female relative or colleague. Nurse was the most common profession among the inhabitants and there were also a lot of widows, office workers and teachers living in the building.
Providing safety and possibilities for communality
Eureka was one of about thirty central kitchen buildings that were built in Finland during the 1910s and 1920s. One of the main ways in which Eureka differed from the central kitchen buildings was the fact that a porter controlled access to the building. The purpose of the porter was to increase safety by preventing unknown and potentially dangerous persons from entering the building. Yet, at the same time, the porter also acted as the protector of the female residents’ morality. The porter was able to keep an eye on which of the inhabitants were home and the types of visitors they received.
At that time, the social position of single women was drastically different from single men. Single women were expected to behave in a certain way and they faced limitations on what they were allowed to do. Women could, for example, not dine in a restaurant without the company of a man. Contemporaries believed that single women needed to be protected from different types of vices, indecencies and the men who pursued such vices. Women needed to be offered a way to safeguard their virtuousness and innocence.
Even though the porter can partly be seen as a patronising element, it is important to remember that at the turn of the 20th century single women who had been used to a more communal way of life did not necessarily long for aloneness or single living as they considered being alone as unsafe.
The developers of the building had not necessarily aimed at promoting communality among its residents but, compared to other Finnish central kitchen buildings, Eureka’s facilities offered more possibilities for it. In addition to the shared dining hall, plans included a terrace in the inner courtyard and, during the summer, setting up a place for drinking coffee in one of the bigger balconies.
Considering how the safety and family-like atmosphere offered by the building was presented as one of the advantages of the building, Eureka’s residents might have been interested in interacting with each other more than in the other central kitchen buildings. In addition, resident’s shared professional backgrounds and connections to the same women’s organisations might have fostered cooperation and socializing.
At the same time, it was important that the domestic freedoms of these women were not limited. In comparison to living in a regular rented room and having most of one’s meals out, for example, in a diner, the freedom to choose between eating in the dining hall or having their meal delivered to their own apartment by a food lift was one of the factors that made Eureka a home for its residents. The fact that the central kitchen served breakfast at two different settings and that dinner included different options also increased the flexibility of the system. Getting rid of the need to leave one’s home in order to have a meal, was presented as leading to single women eating more regularly and therefore healthier. Middle- and upper-class women were not expected to cook for themselves.
Eureka’s central kitchen was in use at least until the end of the 1960s.
 |
| The building was designed by architect Armas Lindgren and is located in an area of Helsinki called Taka-Töölö. Photo: Våra Kvinnor 3/1922. |
Problems with single women’s housing
Even though most housing discussions and planning was focused on families in early 20th century Finland, the poor living conditions of single (or lonely as they were then called) middle- and upper-class women also became a cause for concern.
Changes in the marriage market and a surplus of unmarried women due to migration patterns had led to an increasing number of women in cities remaining unmarried. As a result of urbanization, women’s movements as well as new educational and employment opportunities, staying unmarried had become a more viable alternative for women who either did not want to find or had not succeeded in finding a husband. At the same time, however, as household units became more nuclear family focused, many single women were no longer able to keep on living with relatives. The new opportunities for single life were not complemented by new forms of housing.
According to contemporary commentators the main issues in regard to single women’s housing were that rents were too high considering the low salaries of these women, the quality of the available rooms was low and that single women did not have the possibility of having a home of their own. Having a proper home would have meant living in an apartment that was purposefully planned and decorated according to the tastes of the inhabitant. In a home, a woman could be in peace and she could arrange her domestic life freely without needing the approval of her landlord or -lady. A home was presented as the prerequisite for the wellbeing of these women, which made their housing situation an important social issue.
Housing company Eureka
Such issues inspired three women, Dagmar Neovius (1867–1939, unmarried), Fanny Hult (1861–1945, divorced in 1899) and Berta Tabelle, to lead the project to build an apartment block specifically aimed for single women. All three were active in different women’s organisations, and Neovius was one of the first female members of parliament.
At least Neovius and Hult were active in the Martha organisation (Marttaliitto) which promoted the role and education of housewives. This is noteworthy because the Marthas were otherwise against the central kitchen system because home cooking was presented as essential for the homeliness of a (nuclear family) home. In the case single women, however, the system was believed to provide these women with domestic comforts that otherwise would have been beyond their means.
 |
| One of the apartments in Eureka. Photo: Astra 16/1922. |
During the early decades of the 20th century communal housing for both working- and middle-class single women had been built in Austria, Denmark, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the US – many of these projects were presented in Finnish magazines in the 1920s. The clearest international inspiration and model for the building of Eureka seems to have been Clara Raphaels hus which was built in Copenhagen in 1920.
The Finnish Eureka, opened in 1922, had altogether 51 apartments: 16 one-room, 21 two-room, nine three-room and five four-room apartments. All the apartments had a small hallway, a bathroom and a small kitchen corner equipped with an electric cooker. On the basement floor was an apartment for the porter, the central kitchen, serving rooms, a dining hall, storage rooms, a washing-up room, firewood storage, a scullery and a laundry room. On the ground floor there was a baking room as well as rooms and other facilities for members of staff. In the 1920s, the staff included a female manager and 4–6 servants.
During the 1920s, the majority of the inhabitants were unmarried or widowed women, but there were also some married couples, families with children and men living with their widowed mothers among the residents. The single women lived either by themselves or shared an apartment with a female relative or colleague. Nurse was the most common profession among the inhabitants and there were also a lot of widows, office workers and teachers living in the building.
Providing safety and possibilities for communality
Eureka was one of about thirty central kitchen buildings that were built in Finland during the 1910s and 1920s. One of the main ways in which Eureka differed from the central kitchen buildings was the fact that a porter controlled access to the building. The purpose of the porter was to increase safety by preventing unknown and potentially dangerous persons from entering the building. Yet, at the same time, the porter also acted as the protector of the female residents’ morality. The porter was able to keep an eye on which of the inhabitants were home and the types of visitors they received.
At that time, the social position of single women was drastically different from single men. Single women were expected to behave in a certain way and they faced limitations on what they were allowed to do. Women could, for example, not dine in a restaurant without the company of a man. Contemporaries believed that single women needed to be protected from different types of vices, indecencies and the men who pursued such vices. Women needed to be offered a way to safeguard their virtuousness and innocence.
 |
| Teacher Helmi Kapari's home. Photo: Astra 16/1922. |
Even though the porter can partly be seen as a patronising element, it is important to remember that at the turn of the 20th century single women who had been used to a more communal way of life did not necessarily long for aloneness or single living as they considered being alone as unsafe.
The developers of the building had not necessarily aimed at promoting communality among its residents but, compared to other Finnish central kitchen buildings, Eureka’s facilities offered more possibilities for it. In addition to the shared dining hall, plans included a terrace in the inner courtyard and, during the summer, setting up a place for drinking coffee in one of the bigger balconies.
Considering how the safety and family-like atmosphere offered by the building was presented as one of the advantages of the building, Eureka’s residents might have been interested in interacting with each other more than in the other central kitchen buildings. In addition, resident’s shared professional backgrounds and connections to the same women’s organisations might have fostered cooperation and socializing.
At the same time, it was important that the domestic freedoms of these women were not limited. In comparison to living in a regular rented room and having most of one’s meals out, for example, in a diner, the freedom to choose between eating in the dining hall or having their meal delivered to their own apartment by a food lift was one of the factors that made Eureka a home for its residents. The fact that the central kitchen served breakfast at two different settings and that dinner included different options also increased the flexibility of the system. Getting rid of the need to leave one’s home in order to have a meal, was presented as leading to single women eating more regularly and therefore healthier. Middle- and upper-class women were not expected to cook for themselves.
Eureka’s central kitchen was in use at least until the end of the 1960s.
Comments
Post a Comment