Urban housing built between 1949 and the commercialization of the housing market in the 1980s in China has gained increasing attention from architectural historians and conservationists. Once colloquially dismissed as ‘old, dilapidated, and small’ during China’s rapid urban renewal, these housing projects are now being reconsidered for their heritage values amid growing criticism of large-scale demolitions. However, the preservation of these buildings faces significant challenges due to their outdated floor plans, concerns over structural stability, limited research, and the absence of a shared framework for value assessment. This paper traces the historical evolution of urban housing construction in China from the 1950s to the 1980s, drawing on a range of sources, including academic journal articles, as well as official guidelines and reports. It argues that, while early housing planning in the 1950s was heavily influenced by the Soviet system that emphasized standardized design and industrialized construction, Chinese housing practices made ongoing, incremental adaptations to address technological constraints, material shortages, and regional differences. As a result, instead of aiming for a perfect solution to modern living, designers worked with imperfect solutions using available resources during a time of scarcity. Unlike the ideology-driven, standardized mass housing often associated with Soviet-influenced countries, China’s housing projects from the 1950s to the 1980s exhibit a more localized, organic response to both social and material conditions. The paper contends that this adaptive approach to housing design during this period is essential for understanding the challenges in evaluating these housing legacies today.

The global dissemination of modernist architecture reflects an intricate interplay between universal principles of design and regional adaptations, often shaped by sociopolitical ideologies and local traditions. Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, serves as a compelling example of this phenomenon, illustrating the fusion of global and socialist modernist ideals with Central Asian heritage. This paper explores the emergence of Tashkent’s modernist architecture, focusing on its transformation in the 20th century through three interconnected dimensions: a brief theoretical framework focusing on the global origins and regional responses of Modernism, its reinterpretation in Tashkent’s Soviet-era urban development, and the localized adaptations that integrate regional decorative and architectural elements, climate-responsive features, and cultural narratives. The study traces Modernism’s journey from its European roots to its adoption in socialist and postcolonial contexts, emphasizing how, in the second half of the 20th century, Tashkent became a laboratory for architectural innovation. Through the analysis of emblematic buildings, the paper highlights how modernist principles were reimagined to address regional conditions and to integrate Eastern ornamentation and traditional spatial practices. Despite the rich cultural synthesis achieved in Tashkent’s modernist heritage, these buildings face challenges in preservation due to post-Soviet identity shifts and rapid urban development. Thus, the paper concludes by examining emerging conservation efforts, highlighting the importance of these architectural achievements in advancing a deeper understanding of the dynamic interaction between global modernism and local influences. Tashkent’s 20th-century architectural legacy not only represents a significant chapter in the history of modernist architecture but also serves as a unique lens through which to reconsider the complexities of cultural identity, globalization, and architectural preservation.

Yaşamak Yolu [A Way of Living], the journal of the Istanbul Tuberculosis Association, played a pedagogical and propagandistic role in building a healthy nation after the establishment of the Turkish state. The journal is a valuable archive incorporating the spaces of tuberculosis combat during the 20th century, encompassing social, cultural, and political information. It reveals how tuberculosis was a crisis that influenced Turkey’s Modern Movement in architecture and modern interiors. The discourse on the contagious nature of tuberculosis and the healthy way of living in Yaşamak Yolu impacted ideas about modern interior design in different building typologies. After scanning the 1929-1972 Yaşamak Yolu issues from the Izmir National Library’s archives, this study categorized, analyzed, and evaluated the data at the intersection of tuberculosis and modern interiors, focusing on national and international sanatoria, housing, alternative interiors, and everyday items. Despite the journal’s broad coverage of architectural typologies, this study, among others, focused on the 20th-century Turkish sanatoria as conventional interiors. The notion that the sanatorium movement shaped the Modern Movement in architecture served as the foundation for this study. To reveal the journal’s vast breadth from urban to industrial scale, portable structures, everyday objects, and/or tuberculosis paraphernalia covered in the journal were evaluated as alternate treatment interiors, furniture, and objects. The extensive content and contextual information, along with the publication’s span from 1929 to 1972, made the analysis challenging. Therefore, and to overcome the constraints in selecting specific built environment typologies, this study set the framework to include the timeframe from the journal’s inaugural issue to the point at which the journal’s published doctors/authors recognized the effectiveness of Streptomycin. This marked a turning point in the spatiality of tuberculosis and thus limited the scope of this study to the years 1929-1950. Due to its focus on the interiors of tuberculosis combat facilities, this study revealed that the journal proved to be a significant archive for the field of architectural historiography and design.

The Great Fire of Izmir in 1922 caused a great loss of life and property, and the historic city center was destroyed in a few days. However, this tragedy led to the realization of one of the most important modernization projects of the Early Republican Period in Turkey. The modern city plan for the burned area was prepared between 1924 and 1925 by Réné and Raymond Dangér under the consultancy of Henri Prost. It was as a typical example of the French urbanism school and, together with the buildings designed in the style of the modern Turkish architecture movement, ensured the production of spaces that would support the new lifestyle of modern society. One of the achievements of this plan was that Izmir Culturepark strengthened the image of the contemporary city with the green areas in the city center. Moreover, the International Izmir Fair, held in Culturepark every year starting in 1936, was also an important event in the socio-cultural and economic life of the city.Some of the most attractive structures of the International Izmir Fair were pavilions built for the new institutions and provinces of the Republic of Turkey, foreign countries, and local and foreign companies. They have become exhibition objects as well as the promotion of commercial products, provinces, or countries. The pavilions carried symbolic significance for various reasons, including the presentation of innovations and advancements in building materials and technologies and the reflection of evolving architectural paradigms over time. They have also contributed to the development of the interior architecture profession as well as collaborations between other art disciplines.This paper focuses on the interior designs of the pavilions designed and built for the International Izmir Fair between 1936 and 1970, despite the constraints faced by both the country and the city of Izmir following the 1922 fire. The scope of the study documents the existing data about the pavilions and evaluates them in terms of modern interior design history in Turkey.

The boundaries between the private, shared, and public spheres are challenged in completely new ways in times of pandemics, and we need new strategies to redefine them. During pandemics, prevailing requests for physical distancing in the urban space eliminated the programs from everyday lives that all have included social interaction, exchange, and connectedness. So, the request for physical distance caused actual social distance, which further brought new problems of solitude and isolation to the individual in the urban environment. How can architecture and design help to provide physical distance while maintaining social closeness, empathy, and solidarity in cities?Modern Movement heritage, especially in the countries that were under socialist political regimes, teaches us that shared spaces, collective spaces as part of public spaces, are places in which community is being formed and strengthened, where new forms of affiliation and belonging arise. The socialist paradigm emphasizes the importance of open public spaces within the residential zone as places for maintaining physical activity and health, as well as social interaction. By examining the modernist development of New Belgrade through a comparative analysis of two case studies focusing on the same area—specifically, the blocks known as Blok 22—we can reinvigorate the concept of the connection between the interior and shared spaces.The specific values of open spaces within the residential modernist block have proven to be particularly important during times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, especially regarding the degree of connectedness or separation between private and public spaces. During the pandemic, a student workshop was organized, resulting in projects that offered new architectural scenarios and models for using shared spaces in a residential block. These models allowed for the preservation of physical distance among individuals while enabling social interactions and even the emergence of new programs as an extension of housing. The workshop highlighted the importance of this concept not only during crises but also in contemporary living conditions in large cities, which struggle with issues of alienation and loneliness.

In 1952, both the French magazine L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui and the Italian magazine Domus published a small house built by an American architect on the outskirts of Paris for his personal use. The outsider they highlighted to was Peter G. Harnden, the architect who directed the American propaganda campaigns in Europe in the postwar period.This was not a new project but a renovation. A single house with the characteristics of the traditional houses was not sufficient for the model of domesticity practiced by the architect. Moreover, Harnden needed the house as soon as possible. Therefore, the operation consisted of joining two small vernacular buildings in the small French village of Orgeval: a house and a barn. The strategy was completed with a garden that resulted from the demolition of four other buildings.Inside, the architect exhibits an interest in objects of everyday life and authorized designs that extend throughout the spaces of the house. Furniture from the Eames, Prouvé, or the Viennese school is mixed with African rugs, mats, wicker plates, German porcelain, and different versions of vernacular stools. This studied and photogenic accumulation of pieces and ornaments supposedly made the house a more comfortable, fun, and pleasurable experience. It was a fundamental characteristic of the American Way of Life launched to the world by the United States of America, of which Harnden was a loudspeaker in Europe for more than a decade.Consequently, in this work, the American architect would interweave architecture and domesticity in postwar Europe through the combination of respect for a well-understood tradition and the materialistic world typical of his place of origin. This, in part, helps to understand the exoticism with which the magazines mentioned this project. The study and analysis of this hardly known case include its deliberate diffusion and propagandistic impact, in which the design of the interior space is crucial in a context of crisis and emergency in devastated Europe.

The idea for this special issue stemmed from a time of crisis in the world, aiming to search for lessons from related modern interiors to shed light on the future. Crises vary in scale and dimension, and the realization that the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022 was not a contained crisis but one of many that bound the past, present, and future led to the broadened framework for the call for papers in April 2023.There were many submissions from around the world, and the aim regarding paper selection was to ensure a varied outlook on the topic, focusing strictly on the modern interior while practicing a generous definition of what constitutes a crisis. The papers included in this special issue encapsulate these aspects as well as an emphasis on the spatial composition, the relationship between inside and outside, furniture, art, and the processes by which these features define the interior.

This exhibition review, in the format of a visual essay, presents a selection of projects shown in the exhibition Retrotopia. Design for Socialist Spaces. Initiated and organized by the Berlin Kunstgewerbemuseum in 2023, Retrotopia was a comprehensive, cooperative project focusing on the role and impact of design in the countries belonging to the former Eastern Bloc and ex-Yugoslavia. Never before have these countries been represented together in one exhibition with their attendant material that helps to outline and raise awareness and understanding of the region’s design activities between the 1950s and the 1980s. Eleven design capsules were created, each highlighting two projects: one representing the public space and one the private sphere and the interior. The spectrum of interior projects and objects on display ranged from experimental housing exhibitions and cybernetic living machines to new furniture concepts, modular kitchen furniture, tableware, household tools, and toys for children.

In the second half of the 20th century, significant modern residential buildings were built in several Brazilian cities. However, regarding the middle-class examples, the layout of most of these apartments was very similar to the 19th-century bourgeois houses. Furthermore, despite using a reinforced concrete structure—always hidden—there was no greater spatial or visual integration. This collection of buildings, neglected by the real estate market in the 1980s, was rediscovered in the early 2000s by new buyers. The former owners gave way to people who admired the qualities of modern architecture, even though they knew they would probably face several difficulties arising from significant renovation. The most common adaptations made in the second occupation included modifying layouts and modernizing facilities and finishes. Besides, the internal spaces became more fluid and integrated than the original version, encouraging conviviality. The number of internal partitions decreased, as did the decorative elements and furniture. More recently, it was possible to recognize a third episode in this history. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when entire families were locked in their homes in a forced and unprecedented coexistence, there was a need for yet another adaptation process. This time, the actions aimed to recover private environments that better support life in confinement, where different non-domestic activities started to happen inside the homes. A process of ‘demodernization’ seems to have taken place, rehearsing a return to pre-modern layouts of compartmentalized spaces. Through the observation and analysis of the changes in three study cases in the city of São Paulo, this work aims to reflect more broadly on the transformations in the way of living in modern apartments. In addition to bibliographical research and analysis of the projects’ graphic material, this research included reports from residents and access to their personal files.