City analysis: social committment or cold professionalism?

The case of Hungary

András Ferkai

Published in: Atlas Of The Functional City - Ciam 4 And Comparative Urban Analysis,
(edited by Evelien van Es, Gregor Harbusch, Bruno Maurer, Muriel Perez, Kees Somer,
Daniel Weiss) Bussum - Zürich, Thoth Verlag/gta, 2014. pp. 222-233.

The participation of the Hungarian CIAM group at the 4th congress is controversial. After a
very active presence at the Frankfort, Brussels and Berlin congresses, they could not take part
in the next congress personally. They sent, however, what they could complete of the task.
Though the unfinished material was not discussed on the congress, the endeavour was not
vain: it forged the core of the group and provided them with sufficient insight to tackle with
the complexity of urban problems. Their interest in urban and regional planning was revived
in the middle of the 1930s when the Hungarian group united in a collective work again for the
5th congress.

The Hungarian CIAM group

Hungarians participated in the work of CIAM on a regular basis between 1929 and 1938.
József Fischer tried to found the group in 1947 anew but Hungarians only could take part in
the Bridgwater congress. From 1948 onwards and throughout the whole 1950s, contacts were
hindered by the communist regime. In this period, Fischer’s name figures in the documents as
an individual member of CIAM. During the ten years of its existence, the membership of the
Hungarian CIAM-group continually changed in size and composition. From the three names
Marcel Breuer designated at the Basel meeting of the delegates in 1929, the number of
members amounted to 10-14 at the heydays of the group.1 In the year of the 4th congress
members were István Bakos, György Dóczi, József Fischer, István Juhász, József Körner, Pál
Ligeti, József Molnár, Gábor Preisich, György Rácz, Zoltán Révész and Gyula Szentkirályi.2
The leader of the Hungarian section was Farkas (Wolfgang) Molnár, while the second
delegate in 1929-30 was György Masirevich, a classmate of Molnár at the Budapest Technical

1
The names are as follows: Marcel Breuer, Berlin, Pál Forgó (born: Fröhlich), and Farkas Molnár, both
Budapest. Letter of Breuer to S. Giedion, 21. 01. 1929, CIAM-Archives, Zürich. See András Ferkai, „A CIAM
és Közép-Kelet-Európa kapcsolata” (Contacts between CIAM and East-Central Europe), in A. F., Űr vagy
megélt tér? Építészettörténeti tanulmányok (Void or experienced space? Studies in architectural history)
Budapest, 2003, pp. 74.
2
Farkas Molnár’s letter to Sigfried Giedion January 3, 1933. CIAM Archives, gta-ETHZ, Zürich.
University (Magyar Királyi József nádor Műegyetem) and a devoted follower of modern
architecture. After his resignation, József Fischer acted as the second delegate.

The first members in 1929 mostly were recruited from around the Bauhaus.3 Molnár and
Breuer were students of the Weimar Bauhaus (Breuer later a young master in Dessau), while
Pál Forgó enrolled for the summer 1928 term. Tibor Weiner, who participated in the Frankfort
congress, studied in Dessau in 1929-30 under Hannes Meyer’s guidance. Stefan Sebők was an
employee of Gropius’ private office in Dessau and Berlin and collaborator in several theatre
projects.4 Most of their names disappear from the membership lists of 1929-30 for the same
reason: Forgó, Sebők5 and Weiner6 left for the Soviet-Union. The emigrated members were
soon replaced by young Hungarian graduates of the Budapest Technical University as well as
architects, photographers and graphic designers associated with the Socialist Munka-kör
(Work Circle) founded in 1928 by the poet and painter Lajos Kassák. This young company of
a definitely leftist stance met regularly from the late 1920s in the studio of an elder and
respected architect-theorist, Pál Ligeti,7 employer of several CIAM members.8 To sum up, the
core of the Hungarian group between 1929 and 1938 consisted of Farkas Molnár, József
Fischer, György Rácz, Gábor Preisich, Zoltán Révész, Máté Major, József Körner, István
Bakos and György Dóczi9. Their average age was around or even fewer than thirty which
means that the majority were not established professionals. Almost all of them practiced as a
free-lance architect, and they were far from being overwhelmed with commissions in the
years of the Great Depression.

In this situation, the collective work of the CIAM group was very important for the members.
Not only assignments for the congresses promoted teamwork but local exhibitions, press
campaigns and special issues of the progressive magazine Tér és forma (Space and Form)

3
Members in October 1929 are György Masirevich, György Rácz, Farkas Molnár, József Fischer, Zoltán Engel,
Pál Forgó,, Stefan Sebők. Marcel Breuer’s letter to S. Giedion, October 5, 1929. CIAM Archives, gta-ETHZ,
Zürich.
4
See Centropa Vol. 3. Nr. 1. (January 2003) pp. 13-25.
5 Lilly Dubrowitz, “The Russian Projects of Stefan (Istvan) Sebok: a Forgotten Bauhaus Architect”, Centropa

Vol. 10. Nr. 1. (January 2010) pp. 46-54.

6 See: Daniel Talesnik’s lecture at the 2012 EAHN conference in Brussels on “Tibor Weiner after the Red

Bauhaus Brigade; Timely and Untimely Aspects of a Remigration”.

7
See Rajesh Heynickx, “Obscure(d) Modernism: The Aesthetics of the Architect Pal Ligeti”, Modernist
Cultures. Volume 3, Issue 2. (Summer 2008) Page 139-153. http://www.js-
modcult.bham.ac.uk/fetch.asp?article=issue6_heynickx.pdf
8
Farkas Molnár, György Masirevich and György Rácz were employed one after the other by Pál Ligeti.
9
From 1929 to 1938, there are at least seven different membership lists. The nine listed persons here were the
most permanent participants.
devoted to the work of the Hungarian section.10 The group appeared in the publicity as a real
avant-garde corps and this might be very queer in the highly conservative political and
cultural climate of Hungary in the 1920s. As a reaction to the revolutions of 1918/19, the
autocratic government aimed at maintaining order and repressing every social and cultural
tendency that would call into question the Establishment. The reign of conservative spirit was
broken by the Great Depression which destabilized the political system. The years between
1929 and 1932 brought a revolutionary period when a wide range of ideas about the future
faced one another. In these years, many architects strove for the improvement of Budapest’s
regulation plan and the building code. In contrast to the pragmatic and professional approach
of many Hungarian architects, manifestations of the CIAM group were saturated by a political
radicalism and utopia.

The group organized three exhibitions in 1931/32. The first and the third were hosted by the
Budapest Autumn Fair (Őszi lakberendezési és háztartási vásár), a popular show for interiors,
furniture and handicraft where the exhibits got great publicity. The second show in an art
gallery was smaller but nonetheless instrumental in developing a method.11 Under the banner
«For the New Building» («Az új építésért»), the group exhibited statistics, photos and
photomontages about housing shortage, poor living and health conditions, compared living
quarters for the rich and the poor, and presented the shortcomings of 19th century urbanism.
The graphic and photographic part was largely realized by Lajos Lengyel and Ferenc Haár,
members of the social photography section of Kassák’s Munka-group.12 Molnár and Fischer
prepared a critical map of Budapest which looked like a poster with collage technique where
contrasted data of density, living conditions stressed social injustices and tragic consequences
of the traditional way of building. They set their own rational plans and housing projects
against the obsolete official ones.

Indeed, the political engagement played a significant role in the formation of the group. A
great part of the members maintained close contacts with parties of the left. Fischer was a
Social Democrat, Rácz, Révész, Dóczi, and Major actively participated in the work of the
10
The special CIAM issues of the magazine ’Tér és forma’ are No. 12 1932, No. 1. 1934, No. 1. 1935, No. 1.
1936, No. 1 and No. 12 1937.
11
About the exhibitions see Eszter Gábor, A CIAM magyar csoportja 1928-1938 (The Hungarian Group of
CIAM 1928-1938), Budapest, 1972. pp.8-17.
12
Circular letter of the Hungarian CIAM group, (no date). Fischer-bequest, MDK-C-I-16/562.1-3. For the social
photography movement see Béla Albertini, A magyar szociofotó története a kezdetektől a második világháború
végéig (The History of Hungarian Social Photography from the Beginnings to the End of the Second World
War), Budapest, 1997.
illegal communist party. Molnár worked for avant-garde magazines that were the legal forum
of the same party. Their first exhibition in September 1931 entitled «Collective City -
Collective House» (Kolváros - kolház) apparently drew inspiration from contemporary Soviet
architecture and planning, as well as the Proletarische Bauausstellung in Berlin that was
visited by several Hungarian members on the occasion of the CIAM extraordinary congress,
June 1931. The attitude of making the design activity dependent on changes in the
organization of society related the Hungarian group to the circle of the Swiss ABC magazine
and the Czech CIAM-section but also divided the membership. The second delegate
Masirevich, who had taken the floor at both the Frankfurt and Brussels congresses, left the
group just because of this political devotion. He was the only member of the section with
some expertise in urban planning and, unlike Molnár and Fischer who rather strove for
confrontation, he would prefer to cooperate with the authorities and the State.13 The émigré
Alfréd Forbát, after having read the 1930 Hungarian national report, warned Giedion that the
too sharp considerations may discredit the congresses.14

The third exhibition in September 1932 entitled «Build for your children!» (Épitsetek a
gyermekeitekért!) became a scandal. The police confiscated thirty posters with statistics that
compared Hungarian conditions with the Soviet ones and criticized social conditions, and
therefore prosecuted the organizers for political provocation. The legal process started in
April 1933 and went on through the whole autumn. Seven members of the group became
sentenced for one month of prison, suspended for a three years probe. Their passports were
taken away and therefore they could not take part in congresses and delegates’ meetings until
1936. This is the reason why Hungarians could not take part in the 4th congress and the work
remained unfinished.

The Hungarian group temporarily became enhanced by two important personalities: Alfréd
(Fred) Forbát in 1933 and Marcel Breuer in 1934. Forbát, a former employee of Gropius’
private office in Weimar (1921/22), joined the group when he returned to his homeland after
having worked in Berlin, in the Soviet-Union and in Athens. He remained a member until his
emigration to Sweden in 1938. Breuer, whose name figured on the first membership list of the
Hungarian group, rather chose the German group in Berlin when problems aroused on behalf

13
Masirevich worked in 1929-31 for the urban planning department of FKT (Metropolitan Board of Works) in
Budapest, in a period when the institution tried to modernize the regulation plan of the capital city and improve
the building regulations.
14
Fred Forbat’s letter to S. Giedion, January 11, 1932. CIAM Archives, gta-ETHZ, Zürich.
of the Hungarian Association.15 After Hitler came to power, he left Germany and stopped his
membership in the German group. During his short stay in Hungary in 1934/35, when he
worked in partnership with Farkas Molnár and József Fischer, he was considered to be a
member of the Hungarian national group. Forbát and Breuer figured with projects and
realized buildings in the publications of the group but did not participate in its work for the
CIAM congresses.

City Analysis
In the case of Hungary, it was quite natural to choose the capital city for the analysis, since
Budapest was the only metropolis the population of which neared in 1920 and surpassed in
1930 the one million. Hungary lacked even before the Great War large cities but, with the
peace treaties of 1920, she lost the two-third of her medium-size towns. Seven of ten former
regional centres fell beyond the new borders, only Szeged, Debrecen and Pécs remained in the
confines of the new state. These regional centres were not able to counterbalance the
hypertrophy of Budapest. The second greatest town (Debrecen) did not reach in population
the one tenth of the capital city. Beyond the national administration, most of the industrial,
commercial and financial activities of the country were concentrated there in an unhealthy
way. The housing shortage was great and living conditions poor. Facing with these problems,
the Hungarian CIAM members opted for Budapest, the city they knew well since most of
them were born and lived there. As a real metropolis that matched in size its European
counterparts it was presented at the Congress in the same category as Paris, London, Berlin
and Warsaw.

The Hungarian members of the CIAM were not assisted in their urban analysis by the relevant
authorities. In the case of Budapest, Fővárosi Közmunkák Tanácsa (the Metropolitan Board of
Public Works, founded in 1870) was responsible for the long-term development and
regulation plans in cooperation with Főváros Városrendezési és Magánépítési Ügyosztálya
(the Town Planning and Private Building Department of the Municipality).16 The
development of the city was regulated by the 1872 extension plan that obviously became
obsolete by the end of the 19th century. Despite the continuous criticism of town planning
experts, the Board did not pay attention to this problem until 1932, when a committee was

15
The Association of Hungarian Architects and Engineers objected Breuer’s nomination since he was not a
member of the Budapest Engineers’ Chamber.
16
See Gábor Preisich, Budapest városépítésének története 3. kötet (The History of Budapest’s Urban
Development, Volume 3.) p.35 and p. 13-14 in the English summary.
formed under the leadership of Ferenc Harrer to prepare the way to the new general city plan
via a general city program.17 This process coincided with the analysis of the CIAM group and
yet the committee does not appear to have realized the importance of this work. We only
guess the reasons. It is possible that they were not aware of this undertaking at all, since the
group did not publish anything of the 4th CIAM congress program.18 The members were not
considered to be an expert in urbanism, and their known radicalism also could play a part in
their neglect. Finally, the Harrer-program took shape very slowly; it was officially accepted as
late as 1940. So the group had to collect data and draw the maps without any official funds.19

The first mention of the city analysis work is made in an internal circular letter of the
Hungarian group, dated November 3, 1932.20 Another internal message stressed that “the task
of the 4th CIAM congress cannot be implemented without the common work of every
member. The city analysis needs such a big and objective work that can be done only
collectively”.21 Later in the same message we read that “the material requested under the
points 1-7 overlap chapters of our planned book entitled «House-City-Society» (Ház - város -
társadalom)”. The idea of the book arose just after the case of the notorious third exhibition
and indeed was based on the material of the three exhibitions. The planned table of content
reveals those issues that could easily be used for the congress work. Molnár would have
written on urban development, circulation, housing estates, low and high-rise buildings,
Fischer about social aspects of building, urban density, and social housing, Ligeti about
building regulation and the nature of private investment, while the other members partitioned
the various building types.22 Though the book was eventually not published, it played a
favourable role in canalizing the energy of the group into the congress work. Some parts of
the manuscript could be used in the written material of the city analysis.

17
Ferenc Harrer (1874-1969) jurist, notary of the city council in Budapest, and head of the Town-Planning
Department of the Municipality from 1911; member of the FKT (Municipal Board of Public Works) between
1925 and 1942. He was the first protagonist of the Great-Budapest concept and a coherent city development
program.
18
Do not forget that the planned venue of the congress was Moscow until April 1933 and the Soviet-Union was
a fearful enemy for the conservative Hungary.
19
The group received only a support of 200 Pengő “for its theoretical work” they spent on the purchase of maps
See the circular letter of November 29, 1932, Fischer-bequest, MDK-C-I-16/66.2
20
Fischer-bequest in the Archives of the Art History Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
MDK-C-I-16/63
21
Circular letter November 29, 1932, Fischer-bequest, MDK-C-I-16/66
22
Circular letter of September 30, 1932, Fischer-bequest, MDK-C-I-16/58
Who did the analyses? The only record of the persons involved in this work is a follow-up
letter of the group.23 The letter tells us that the participants divided the map into smaller areas
and designated them to various persons who became responsible for collecting the necessary
data. The list of participants contains eight names: the interior designer István Bakos, György
Dóczi (who was that time a graduating architecture student), and the architects József Fischer,
Farkas Molnár, József Molnár, Gábor Preisich, Zoltán Révész, and Gyula Szentkirályi. Where
did the data come from? No direct mention is made for that. Regarding the sociological
posters of the 1932 autumn exhibition of the group, Molnár writes to Giedion that “all our
data are true, namely, they are from the bulletins of the Statistical Office”.24 It may be right to
suppose that they used the same sources for the city analysis. A Föváros Statisztikai Hivatala
(the Municipal Statistical Office) regularly published yearbooks and highly professional
thematic volumes in their series of bulletins. Data of the 1930 census of Budapest began to be
published from 1932, so the group could also make use of them.25

The huge work apparently surpassed the capacity of the group. In his letter of January 3,
1933, Molnár promised Giedion to send Map I and II by February 1, and Map III by February
15. A letter of Van Eesteren attests that the Hungarian group did not send the maps by the
deadline promised.26 We learn from Molnár’s letter to Giedion that the maps were actually
sent to Amsterdam, while the photos would be addressed to Zurich. Molnár also promised a
country report that someone could deliver at the congress. He made clear that no one of the
Hungarian group was able to participate in the congress, partly for financial reasons partly for
lack of passport.27

The Hungarian city analysis thus remained unfinished. The four-part map I and map II were
complete but map III has never been started. The country report was likely to be remained a
promise until quite recently when the four-page document has been discovered in an unsorted
fond of the CIAM Archives.28 The analysis was not presented at the congress. Later in the
year, Molnár asked Hubacher for sending back the unfinished maps so they could make them

23
Fischer-bequest, MDK-C-I-16/69
24
Letter of Farkas Molnár to Sigfried Giedion, September 3, 1932. CIAM Archives, gta-ETHZ, Zürich.
25
Az 1930. évi népszámlálások eredményei Budapesten. (Results of the 1930 year census in Budapest). First
volume about building conditions, second volume about apartment conditions. Budapest, 1932.
26
Van Eesteren’s letter to Farkas Molnár, July 3, 1933. Van Eesteren Archives, NAI. Rotterdam.
27
Farkas Molnár’s letter to S. Giedion, July 13, 1933. CIAM Archives, gta ETHZ, Zürich.
28 A letter by Molnar to Giedion dated 14 August 1933 was attached to the four-page type-written report. I am

grateful to Gregor Harbusch for making me available these documents.

complete. Hubacher sent his request to Eesteren and the latter replied in a positive way half a
year later.29 The two maps, however, did not seem to be sent back to Hungary.

What make the fragmentary work of the Hungarian CIAM group even though fascinating are
the parallels between their city analysis and the exhibitions they organized in Budapest after
the assignment and guidelines were launched at the 1931 Berlin congress. In view of the
politically engaged propaganda character of the three exhibitions, the cold objectivity of the
Budapest analysis is really striking. The visual symbols standardized by the organizers for
every national group did not allow them to present the city’s problems in a dramatic way. It
was not the charts and statistics that made the 1931/32 exhibitions of the Hungarian group so
shocking but contrasting photographs, surprising photomontages and all the expressive way
the posters were designed and exhibits arranged – as Molnár explained to Giedion.30 The
initial idea of the group was to add a plan to the three maps for the transformation of
Budapest, starting from the proposition of two young architects, György Dóczi and Zoltán
Révész.31 Unfortunately, they had no time to work out this plan and there is no record and
hardly any reference to the nature of this transformation. In the report, Molnár and Fischer
proposed the regulation of the chaotic outer city area by turning it into a system of
Trabantenstädte (satellite towns) but there is no evidence that the plan would have
concentrated exclusively to this element of the whole city.

Consequences of CIAM 4
As an aftermath of CIAM 4, the Hungarian group envisaged the preparation of three plans for
CIAM 5: the regional plan of Budapest and its agglomeration (led by Farkas Molnár), the
reconstruction of the Óbuda riverbank (Róbert Földes)32 and that of a dense quarter on the
Pest side (Pál Déman).33 Molnár changed his mind very soon and rather adapted the French
and Spanish proposals for the fifth CIAM congress to local conditions. In January 1936 he
wrote to Giedion: “We should deal with the subject ‘Land im Weltmaßstab’ in cooperation
with the neighbouring countries. It is important to make contacts with these countries and
prepare a plan together for the Danube states. Unfortunately there is no Austrian and
29
Hubacher’s letter to Van Eesteren, December 23, 1933. Van Eesteren Archives, NAI. Rotterdam; Van
Eesteren’s letter to Farkas Molnár, May 8, 1934. Van Eesteren Archives, NAI. Rotterdam.
30
Letter of Farkas Molnár to S. Giedion, September 3, 1932. CIAM Archives, gta ETHZ, Zürich.
31
Follow-up letter of the Hungarian CIAM group, December 12, 1932. Fischer-bequest MKD-C-I-16/69.
32
The last mentioned two projects are the diploma projects of the graduating students Róbert Földes and Pál
Déman. See Virgil Bierbauer, “A legfiatalabb kor építészete (The architecture of the youngest age)”, Tér és
forma 1935. 4. pp. 93-96.
33
Farkas Molnár’s letter to S. Giedion, April 22, 1935. CIAM Archives, gta ETHZ, Zürich.
Rumanian group and no news about Weissmann either. It is crucial to enlarge our scope in
these directions. It would be good, therefore, if you could organize a meeting of the delegates
at least in our region”.34 As far as I know, the idea of a regional cooperation was raised first
here and was further discussed later that year at the CIRPAC meeting in La Sarraz with the
Czech František Kalivoda. Out of these discussions was to evolve CIAM-Ost next year.35
CIAM-Ost was officially founded at the Budapest meeting of January 29 – February 3, 1937
where Czechs, Poles, one Austrian, one Croate and Giedion were present. Though a
Hungarian proposal (from outside the CIAM group) stressed the importance of agriculture
and villages in this part of Europe, most participants insisted on the original idea, that is, a
systematic planning from the country scale via regions down to the smaller settlements and
districts. For the Paris congress, the Hungarian group decided to prepare an analysis in which
the method of CIAM 4 was adapted to the scale of the whole country. Molnár involved Béla
Halmos, an architect interested in geography and mapping as well as Péter Elek, an expert in
economic geography. Halmos wrote to Molnár: “When I started to think over our task, I
realized how vital and organic an idea was to form a separate Central-European group within
CIAM. In this grouping, the geographic unity of the region, that does not stop at the borders,
is well reflected”.36 The second CIAM-Ost meeting in Brno and Zlin in May 1937 convinced
them of the validity of regional planning. Molnár ardently propagated in the press planning
methods he got to know at the regional research and planning institutes in Brno and Zlin.37 To
prove the viability of the complex method, the Hungarian group worked out the detailed
reorganization plan of an agrarian region in South-Hungary.38 Unfortunately, their plans and
proposals did not affect the authorities at all, thus remained on paper.

Publication and reaction

The Hungarian group widely and enthusiastically published on the Frankfort and Brussels
congresses both in the professional press and the daily papers but nothing about the 4th
congress. After 1936, when the three years of their suspended punishment was over, they

34
Farkas Molnár’s letter to S. Giedion, January 16, 1936. CIAM Archives, gta ETHZ, Zürich. The Croate Ernest
Weissmann from Zagreb acted formerly as the leader of the Yugoslav CIAM group.
35
See András Ferkai, „A CIAM és Közép-Kelet-Európa kapcsolata” (Contacts between CIAM and East-Central
Europe), in A. F., Űr vagy megélt tér? Építészettörténeti tanulmányok (Void or experienced space? Studies in
architectural history) Budapest, 2003, pp. 73-76.
36
Béla Halmos’ letter to F Molnár March 1, 1937. Halmos-bequest at his family.
37
Regional planning was based on the national plan of Bohuslav Fuchs and Jindrich Kumpost financed by Bat’a
Works.
38
Farkas Molnár, “Új építés nagyobb léptékben” (New building on a larger scale). Tér és forma 1937. 12. pp.
351-355.
reported again upon the themes of the Paris congress and their own regional and country-scale
plans.

Source materials
The most important, so far the only comprehensive publication on the Hungarian CIAM
group is: Eszter Gábor, A CIAM magyar csoportja 1928-1938 (The Hungarian Group of
CIAM 1928-1938), Budapest, 1972 (in Hungarian language).39 A short presentation of the
group in English is to be found in the all embracing history book: Dora Wiebenson and József
Sisa (Ed), The Architecture of Historic Hungary, Cambridge-London, 1998, pp. 253-257.
Another article dealing with contacts between CIAM and Eastern Europe (with data on the
foundation of the Hungarian group and CIAM-Ost respectively) was originally commissioned
by the editors of the exhibition catalogue Shaping the Great City: Modern Architecture in
Central Europe, 1890-1937 in 1999 but was not published; instead, several paragraphs of the
text were literally incorporated in Monika Platzer’s essay. The original article was eventually
published in full length in Hungarian as: András Ferkai, „A CIAM és Közép-Kelet-Európa
kapcsolata” (Contacts between CIAM and East-Central Europe), in A. F., Űr vagy megélt tér?
Építészettörténeti tanulmányok (Void or experienced space? Studies in architectural history)
Budapest, 2003, pp. 73-76. Biographies of the members who had been associated with the
Bauhaus are to be found in the thematic issue of Centropa magazine (Volume 3, Nr. 1.
January 2003, pp. 13-25)

Three monographs have been so far devoted to Farkas Molnár. The first (Ottó Mezei, Molnár
Farkas, Budapest, 1987) is in Hungarian, the second is bilingual (Hungarian-English): Éva
Bajkay (Ed), Molnár Farkas 1897-1945, Pécs, 2010. The third (András Ferkai, Molnár
Farkas, Budapest, 2011) is a large volume on the whole oeuvre (only in Hungarian). On
György Masirevich there are two articles. The first contains a concise biography: A. Ferkai,
„Budapest, szalagváros. Acsay László és Masirevich György I. díjas terve Budapest
újjáépítésére 1945-ben“ (Budapest – linear city. First prize awarded plan of László Acsay and
György Masirevich for the reconstruction of Budapest in 1945) Budapesti Negyed No. 18-19
(Winter 1997 – Spring 1998), pp. 143-152. The other is A. Ferkai, „A jövő nemzedék
egészsége fontosabb minden stíluskérdésnél“. Építészek a falukutatásban és a népi

39
The title is misleading for it gives 1928 as the foundation year of the group. The group has taken shape in the
course of 1929 and only a presentation in November 1928 by Molnár and Fischer at the Architects’ Association
may explain the earlier date.
szociográfiában a két háború között („Health of the future generations is more important than
issues of style“. Architects in the investigation of the village and sociography between the
world wars, Kommentár No. 1. 2009. pp. 21-35. The above article contains a chapter on Béla
Halmos as well.

On Forbát see Zsuzsanna Mendöl, Forbát Alfréd (1897-1972,) Pécs, 2008, and on Hungarian
relations of Breuer see Gyula Ernyey (Ed.), Marcel Breuer, Pécs, 2008. The memoirs of
József Fischer is published only in Hungarian: Lapis Angularis. Sources from the collection of
the Hungarian Museum of Architecture, Budapest, 1995, pp. 327-343. A small book with the
memoirs of the architect was published on Preisich (Iván András Bojár Ed., Preisich Gábor,
Budapest, 1999) and the memoirs of György Rácz is in preparation.

Remnants of Farkas Molnár’s correspondence (especially with Walter Gropius) are in the
collection of the Hungarian Museum of Architecture. The greatest collection of documents
about the Hungarian CIAM group from the early 1930s to the 1950s survives in the József
Fischer-bequest at the Art History Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Biographies

Farkas Molnár
Hungarian architect (Pécs 1897 – 1945 Budapest), delegate of the Hungarian CIAM group.
Studied architecture in Budapest then enrolled the Weimar Bauhaus where came into contact
with the European avant-garde. Returned to Hungary in 1925 and resumed his studies in
architecture at the Budapest Technical University. Widely propagated modern architecture
and urbanism, published his modern projects and realized the first modern buildings in
Hungary with his employer, Pál Ligeti in 1928-29. Opened his private office in 1931 and
produced two dozen buildings of smaller scale until his untimely death. Had a short
partnership with József Fischer (1933-34) and with Marcel Breuer (1934-35). Organized four
exhibitions of the Hungarian CIAM group in Budapest with sociological analyses of the living
and housing conditions, as well as their proposals and projects to solve these problems. His
minimum-dwelling projects and urban schemes remained on paper but a great variety of
innovative flexible spaces were realized in villas and apartment houses. At the end of the
1930s, he strove for a balance between tradition and innovation.
György Masirevich Jr.
Hungarian-born architect (Budapest 1905 – 1989 Los Angeles), second delegate of Hungarian
CIAM 1929-32. Studied at the Budapest Technical University. Came to know Molnár as the
organizer of a students’ exhibition in 1927, and became follower of modern architecture.
Worked for the planning department of FKT (Municipal Board of Public Works) 1929-31.
Participated at the Frankfort and Brussels congresses and largely propagated modern
principles in the press. At some points disagreed with the Brussels resolutions and
disapproved the political radicalization of the group which led soon to his renouncement and
leaving. He built mostly modern buildings but not as radical ones as Molnár and Fischer; tried
to consider local conditions and traditions. His interest in urbanism survived in competition
and ideal projects (reconstruction of the Pest riverside promenade). His proposals for
Budapest’s future (1937) were further developed in the reconstruction plan of the city (prize-
winner project with László Acsay in 1945). They proposed to modify the concentric-radial
structure into a linear city with functional zones parallel to the Danube. Emigrated to the USA
in 1948 for political reasons.

József Fischer
Hungarian architect (Budapest 1901 – 1995 Budapest). Studied in the Higher Building Craft
School of Budapest and became architect without a university diploma. Lajos Kassák, leader
of the Hungarian avant-garde drew his attention to modern architecture and invited him to
review new tendencies in his art magazine Munka (Work). He knew Molnár in 1927, became
friends and combatants for the new architecture. They organized together lectures, discussions
and four exhibitions of the Hungarian CIAM group the second delegate of which Fischer was
to become in 1932. His realized buildings are primarily private houses and apartment blocks
but, thanks to his Social Democrat contacts, he could build a workers’ hostel (with Molnár)
and an innovative housing complex consisting of parallel slabs (1933-35). He remained a
devoted functionalist all over his life. Between 1943-48, he edited Tér és Forma (Space and
Form) magazine and, after the war, he was nominated for Secretary of Reconstruction and
president of FKT (Municipal Board of Public Works). Tried to revive the CIAM group,
attended the Bridgwater congress but the Stalinist turn prevented him from keeping Western
contacts.
Marcel Breuer
Hungarian-born architect, furniture designer (Pécs 1902 – 1981 New York). Student of the
Weimar Bauhaus (1920-24), became a young-master of the furniture workshop in Dessau
(1925-28). Worked as interior designer and private architect in Berlin (1928-33) then shared
his time between Paris, Zürich and Budapest. Formed a partnership with Molnár and Fischer
in Budapest (1934). Since the Budapest Engineers’ Chamber refused his application, could
not practice as a licensed architect in Hungary. Worked in partnership with F.R.S. Yorke in
London (1935-36) and with Gropius in Cambridge, Mass., USA (1937-41), then opened his
office in New York and, over the following decades, built his oeuvre (mostly private houses
and public buildings) that made his name world-wide known. Had contacts with the CIAM
from 1929 but not so much as an active member of the German or the Hungarian group rather
as an individual who, being present at the meetings and in correspondence with the leading
persons, could help the work with his ideas and advices. The idea of organizing CIAM 4 on
the board of Patris II. came from him.

Alfréd Forbát
Hungarian-born architect, urbanist (Pécs 1897 – 1972 Vällingby, Sweden). Studied at the
Budapest and the Munich Technical Universities. Worked for Walter Gropius’ private office
and the Bauhaus Siedlung Gmbh (1922), his contribution to the early Bauhaus architecture
was important. Later he became chief architect of the Sommefeld concern in Berlin, then
opened his private office and realized important works (apartment blocks at housing estates:
Siemensstadt, Haselhorst). Gropius invited him to the German CIAM-group (1930) that he
left for the Hungarian group in 1933 when he moved back to his homeland. In 1932-33 Forbát
worked in Moscow with Ernst May on urban plans and housing projects for the new industrial
cities of Magnitogorsk and Karaganda. He helped to form the Greek CIAM-group and
attended the Athens congress. Between 1933-38, he worked in Pécs and realized many
smaller buildings in Hungary. Participated in the work of the Hungarian group for CIAM 5.
From 1938 to his death, he lived in Sweden where he became a respectful town planner and
professor of urbanism at the Stockholm Technical University.