The evolution of Swiss orphanages

In 1946, Pestalozzi Children’s Village was established in Trogen, Appenzell – a notable example of an age-old type of building that scarcely receives mention in the canon of built heritage. To mark the anniversary of the European Architectural Heritage Year in 1975, the National Library is taking a closer look at the “heritage of marginalised groups, minorities and people without political representation”.

By Kathrin Gurtner

The Pestalozzi Children’s Village, featuring Appenzell-style houses and a Swiss flag flying in the foreground. — The Pestalozzi Children’s Village in Trogen, 1947 (Photo: Photoglob AG)

In 1972, the Council of Europe launched a campaign entitled “European Architectural Heritage Year 1975”. With the motto “A Future For Our Past”, the groundwork was laid to facilitate the protection of built cultural heritage and to foster the public’s appreciation for the multifaceted value of historic buildings and townscapes.

Fifty years later, the question takes on new relevance in an increasingly diverse society: "A future for whose past? The heritage of minorities, fringe groups and people without a lobby." This intentionally revised motto shines a spotlight on past buildings and structures that have thus far not received much commemorative attention. Although society's collective responsibility for protecting the heritage of minorities is enshrined in conservation guidelines from 2007, this is only partially reflected in the existing Swiss heritage register. This is confirmed by research in the Federal Archives of Historic Monuments: While impressive churches, government buildings and archaeological excavations are well documented, there are barely any references to children's homes and other buildings for people lacking a political voice. However, orphanages and similar structures have been part of an extensive social welfare system for centuries, with their architectural features exerting a powerful influence on the children they housed.

Children’s homes reflect society’s convictions

Etching of an orphange in Zurich, with occupants from 1771 on, with the Limmat River in the foreground plus the Oetenbach Convent. — Zurich, etching of a new orphanage on the Limmat River, east view, with the Oetenbach Convent (anonymous, after 1771).

The earliest children's homes or orphanages in the 17th and 18th centuries are large, impressive buildings placed in prominent locations in towns and villages. Stylistically similar palace-like buildings in baroque forms can be found in Bern, Zurich and St Gallen, for example. They housed both orphaned children as well as those who were destitute or involved in criminal activities. Little attention was paid to the needs and proportions of children in the design; rather, the focus was on displaying authority and power.

View of the Freienstein rescue institution, located in an agricultural building. Hilltop ruins of a fortress in the background, people in the foreground. Outline etching c. 1845. — "View of Freienstein, near Rorbas, rescue institution for destitute children. Published for the benefit of the same" (outline etching by Heinrich Zollinge, c. 1845).

During the 19th century, there was a veritable boom of new institutions being established, mostly with charitable or religious motivations. The preferred location shifted from urban areas out towards the countryside. Alongside orphanages and poorhouses, “rescue” institutions were established, the purpose of which was to educate and saved “neglected” children. Where possible, these rescue institutions rented existing buildings such as farmhouses and monasteries, which they converted according to their needs. If new structures were erected, their architecture reflected the pedogogical concepts of discipline and order.

From impersonal institutions to welcoming homes

Outside view of the Belmunt children’s home in St Moritz, with children playing in front of the building. Photo by the Wehrli brothers, 1912. — The Belmunt children's home in St Moritz, built in the traditional Graubünden style, featuring a playground (Photo: Wehrli brothers, 1912).

In the early 20th century, the progressive educational movement brought about a shift towards child-friendly architecture. Buildings were made to feel more inviting even when retaining their imposing dimensions. Smaller units were introduced, with children now housed according to age and sex. These institutions often ran agricultural operations that made use of child labour.

Starting in the 1920s, there was increasing criticism of the living conditions that children faced in many institutions, but new ideals only started to prevail after the Second World War. According to the new paradigm, children’s institutions were no longer to be places of confinement but should feel more like a home – dwellings where children can be comfortable. Smaller, friendlier buildings were preferred to large anonymous structures, with emphasis on light, colour and cosiness and outside areas where children could play.

Pestalozzi Children’s Village

A prime example of child-friendly construction is Pestalozzi Children's Village in Trogen, founded in 1946 for children across Europe who had been traumatised by the war. The architect Hans Fischli (1909-1989) employed regional rural architecture for the children's village, even though he had previously made a name for himself with cubist Bauhaus-style buildings. The residences blend harmoniously into the landscape, creating an atmosphere of security and normalcy.

Each house was home to children and their caregivers from the same country, living together in family-like structures. The structures blended seamlessly into the Appenzell landscape. He hoped to create this same sort of protective, homey atmosphere for children from all over the world. Fischli paid attention to child-friendly architecture down to the last detail, taking children’s proportions into account from the room plan to the furnishings. He wanted to create structures with the character of a normal residential home and aimed to completely avoid any association with institutions and orphanages.“I love my fresh Appenzell houses,” he noted with satisfaction after construction was finished. His enthusiasm for the Children’s Village is widely shared to this day. Fischli’s village is exemplary from an architectural, pedagogical and social perspective and regarded as a trailblazing project in terms of promoting peaceful co-existence.

The “European Architectural Heritage Year 1975” campaign was driven mainly by the Internal Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) starting in 1972. Leading the charge was Alfred A. Schmid (1920-2004), a Swiss professor of art history in Fribourg and long-serving president of the Federal Commission for Monument Preservation EKD and member of the ICOMOS executive committee.

His extensive archive, as well as the archive on the European Heritage Year, is housed in the Federal Archive for Historic Monuments at the Swiss National Library.