Building Dissection by Filip Fichtel
College of Art & Architecture Architectual Programming 450 Building Dissection by Filip Fichtel
Table of Content
Introduction......
........4-5
Tracing a history of ideas.......
........6-11
Concepts of Olympia Park & Olympia Stadium... The Horse`s Mouth...... Conclusion...... Appendix...............
.....12-19 ...........20-23 .......24-25 ......26-28
Introduction “When I entered it, and even more when I wandered about on its highest rim, I had the peculiar feeling that, grand as it was, I was looking at nothing. It ought not to be seen empty but packed with human beings [...]. But only in ancient times, when a people were more of people than today, can it have made its full effect. Such an amphitheatre, in fact, is properly designed to impress the people with itself, to make them feel at their best. When something worth seeing is taking place on level ground and everybody crowds forward to look, those in the rear find various ways of raising themselves to see over the heads of those in front: some occupy a neighboring hill. In this way in no time they form a crater. [...]. To satisfy this universal need is the architect’s task. By this art he creates as plain a crater as possible and the public itself supplies its decoration. [...] The simplicity of the oval is felt by everyone to be the most pleasing shape to the eye, and each head
serves as a measure for the scale of the whole.” This is how Johann Wolfgang Goethe described the coherencies between sport and architecture after his visit to the roman amphitheater in Verona, Italy. Also these days you cannot describe it more to the point than this. The main function of a sport complex back then as it is these days is offering as many people a good view at the competitions. Architecturally ideally a design was build around a shared middle (field/court) with symmetric stands around it. Indeed it is the visitor vitalizes the stadium. In German when you talk about loud emotion at sport events you refer to it as a witch’s cauldron, similar to Goethe who referred to this as the visitor creating a crater. Along with that since the ancient times people have been trying to manipulate the masses. Gladiator fights and chariot
racing follow the principal of “bred and circuses� (lat. panem at circenses). During the time of the National Socialism the sport has been misused politically, mainly during the Olympic Games of 1936. Architect Werner March’s Olympic stadium was able to activate national emotions of 150 000 people, and demonstrate politic and economic strength of the third Reich. At the same time the military efficiency was prepared and the beginning military build-up was veiled. The close coherencies between National Socialism, military and sport complexes were very obvious in this case. But also these days, sport complexes serve the amusement of the masses. Commerce, event addiction and metallization are still linked to building sport stadiums. Nevertheless are these phenomena are mirrors of the example of a modern society just like in the ancient times. Figure 01
tracing a history of ideas “Games in the green, happy games, and games of human scale” That was the motto of the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. The West German Government was anxious to take the opportunity of the Munich Olympics to present a new, democratic and optimistic Germany to the world, as shown by the Games’ official motto, “the Happy Games.” This credo was later also influence for the architectural concept of the Olympic stadium. But mainly the social development, which started in the late 60s, found its expression in these words. Willy Brandt said in its government declaration on October 21st 1969: “We want to dare more democracy!” By saying that he officially said what the student movement demanded loudly on the streets. Also in most parts of the population, the majority was ready for reformation and innovations.
Major Events of the 60s Construction of the Berlin Wall started in 1961. East German construction workers building the Berlin Wall, 20 November 1961. Figure 02
The May 1968 student and worker uprisings in France. May 1968 slogan. Paris. “It is forbidden to forbid.” Figure 03
The Vietnam War (1959–1975) UH-1D helicopter climbs skyward after discharging a load of infantrymen on a search and destroy mission. Figure 04
The Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union dominated the 1960s The Apollo 11 mission landed the first humans on the Moon in July 1969. Figure 05
Electronics and communications Examples of 1960s technology, including two rotary-dial telephones and a Kodak camera. Figure 06
Figure 07
Che Guevara
By the late 1960s, revolutionary Che Guevara’s famous image had become a popular symbol of rebellion for many youth.
It was the first Olympics in Germany since the Games of 1936 that took place under the swastika and the Nazi dictatorship. By getting the Games 30 years later, the planners saw an act of faith and a change to overcome Germanys dark past. If nothing else the rapid technological progress, which peaked in the US-moon landing in 1969, marked the signs of the starting point of this generation. On the other hand you have in this open and future oriented atmosphere the arms race of the USA and the UdSSR. Also Germany was still separated. For the first time two German nations competed in these 20th Olympic games, the BRD and the DDR. For the sport facilities that meant a significant increase in prestige; because with that background sport facilities became a site where nations compete against each other. That is why the political and economical subsidized construction of sport facilities has been pushed hard from both sides. And like that architecture becomes an experi-
Important Figures Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. 1963 closeup view of vocalists Joan Baez and Bob Dylan.
Figure 08
British Invasion: The Beatles arrive at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 7 February 1964
Figure 09
The Jimi Hendrix Experience performs for Dutch television show Fenklup in 1967
Figure 10
Johnny Cash, in front of his home in Hendersonville, Tennessee, 1965
Günter Behnisch was a German architect, born in Lockwitz, near Dresden. During the Second World War he became one of Germany’s youngest submarine commanders
Figure 11
Alfred Hitchcock important filmmaker of the 60s
Figure 15
Bernhard Scharoun was a German architect best known for designing the Berlin Philharmonic concert hall. He was an important exponent of organic and expressionist architecture
Figure 12
Drowning Girl by Roy Lichtenstein, 1963. he used the splash page of a romance story in DC Comics’ Secret Hearts #83 (November 1962) Figure 13
Figure 15
It was during the 1960s that Warhol began to make paintings of iconic American objects Figure 14 Figure 16
Shigeru Ban is an accomplished Japanese architect, most famous for his innovative work with paper, particularly recycled cardboard paper tubes used to quickly and efficiently house disaster victims
mental field for new spectacular constructions. The tent-structure of the Olympic stadium in Munich is the perfect prove for this. At the same time the West Germany had to deal with a terrorism wave, that has been started by the RAF. This organization was more and more dangerous for the parametric democracy. As part of this terrorism wave a terrible terrorism act overshadowed the Olympics on the 11th day.11 members of the Israeli Olympic team, who were taken hostage and eventually killed, along with a German police officer, by the Palestinian group “Black September”. Shortly after the crisis began, they demanded the release of 234 prisoners held in Israeli jails, and the release of the founders (Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof) of the German Red Army Faction, who were held in German prisons. But “The Games must go on.”, the IOCChef Avery Brundage decided, and set an example for the resistance against terrorism.
Important Architecture
Figure 17
Hans Scharoun, 1956 Berlin Germany
“A typical product of the Expressionist movement and of organic architecture, this concert hall in which the audience is seated around the orchestra was worked out in accordance with the laws of acoustics.” “Philharmonie, Berlin, Hans Scharoun’s most finished work, rejects both rectangular organization and symmetry. Its curved roofs and ceilings are reminiscent of some vast nomad tent. External appearance has here been subordinated to the requirements of the interior.”
Gottfried Böhm, 1962 Neviges Germany Frei Otto, 1967 Montreal Canada
Figure 18
His own guiding principle—which can be summarized in the term ‘creating connections’ —forms an unfailing part of his work, from the very beginning to today. What is implied here is the complex interplay of material and immaterial components of a building within its own natural and cultural context. ‘I believe,’ he once said, ‘that the future for architects does not lie so much in continuing to consume ever more areas of open countryside with building, but in mending and restoring order to existing towns and villages by creating links between functions, structures, materials and so on.’ “The church in Neviges is situated on a slope, which, in conjunction with a flanking development, we turned into a great processional way for pilgrims. “This route leads to and open forecourt in front of the church and continues into the space within, the altar area representing the culmination of this path.”
Figure 19
“Frei Otto and Rolf Gutbrod attempted, with this competition-winning project, to create a man-made landscape. The cavernous interior contained modular steel platforms arranged at different levels. The entire area was covered by a single membrane of irregular plan and varying heights. Its contours were determined by the high points of the masts and the low points where the membrane was drawn, funnellike, down to the ground. Eye loops filled with clear plastic material accentuated these points and the saddle surfaces they created. The prestressed membrane consisted of a translucent skin hung from a steel wire net, which, by eye, ridge, and edge ropes, was connected with the mast heads and anchor blocks.”
CONCEPT
of olympia park & olympic stadium
Olympic Park The architects had to design a facility of “human scale”, where competition sites, practice fields, traffic-facilities and connections and the Olympic village would need to fit in. The main goal of the design was to create a terrain that represents the “cheerful” games and the happy atmosphere; a design that people should not just feel during the games, but also for future times. The facility should become more and more important from cultural and urban design standpoint for the people, especially the citizens of Munich, just like the city park and the English garden already did. That is why the planers developed a modeled terrain. A flat site, the “Oberwiesenfeld”, was changed into a graceful landscape. It was very important that nothing was meant to look monumental or heavy, like it used to be for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, with the neoclassical
designs of Werner March. The whole Olympic Park should become a total work of art, everything was designed to look light and curved. The axial route guidance that Werner March pushed to create a military like deployment of the nations athletes, were replaced by flowing shapes in the Olympic park in Munich. The widths of the walkways were up to 40 meters to enable a smooth flow of the visitor stream. At the same time the wide walkways offered enough space for casual movements of the visitor from different nations. By strongly incorporating landscape elements like water (artificial lake), hills, grass and trees, the building architects were repressed to a limited space. Fritz Auer told us in a ZDF-Documentation about the Olympic buildings: “we had to design from an opposite standpoint, we had to design a not-architecture…”
Connection with Site
Figure 20
The stadium is set into the ground; if it had been a building construction that was sticking out of the ground it would have been a very dominant feature of the Olympic park, that is why the architects decided to go with a more organic procedure and decided to form the stadium out of the landscape.
Circulation The widths of the walkways were up to 40 meters to enable a smooth flow of the visitor stream. At the same time the wide walkways offered enough space for casual movements of the visitor from diferent nations. By strongly incorporating landscape elements like water (artificial lake), hills, grass and trees, the building architects were repressed to a limited space.
Figure 21
Olympic stadium The stadium is set into the ground; if it had been a building construction that was sticking out of the ground it would have been a very dominant feature of the Olympic park, that is why the architects decided to go with a more organic procedure and decided to form the stadium out of the landscape. Although mainly steel and concrete was used for the base of the stadium, similarly to the Olympic stadium in Berlin, but it did not result in a “monumental structure�, but in a very dynamic design. This dynamic was reinforced by the spectacular roof structure.
Figure 22
Comfort The main function of a sport complex back then as it is these days is offering as many people a good view at the competitions. Architecturally ideally a design was build around a shared middle (field/court) with symmetric stands around it. Indeed it is the visitor vitalizes the stadium.
Figure 23
Economy The main goal of the design was to create a terrain that represents the “cheerful� games and the happy atmosphere; a design that people should not just feel during the games, but also for future times. The facility should become more and more important from cultural and urban design standpoint for the people, especially the citizens of Munich, just like the city park and the English garden already did.
Olympic roof structure One question in the planning phase of the Olympic stadium remained unsolved. By the time architects just knew about single canopy designs, so structures, that are referred to buildings. Architects were afraid that the continuity of the modeled landscape was in danger of getting destroyed by the massive canopy design of the single arenas. The mobile architecture is a well-known design (tents of the natives, the military of the Romans e.g.) and also the sail structure of the Colloseum is a masterpiece of engineering, but the lightweight construction could never overcome the massive constructions of the modern era. The solution: The bold architecture of the young Frei Otto. In 1957 he founded in Berlin the development site for lightweight constructions and is considered pioneer when it comes to lightweight design. Otto already designed the german pavilion for the universal exhibition in Montreal 1967. His tent structures based on biological and pneumatic principals belong to the early examples of biomorphic architecture. His experience in lightweight design, tensile structure
and other tensile load construction make him up to this date to one of the most important architects and theoretician of architecture of the 20th century. With a free floating roof structure Benisch and Partner saw a chance to link the landscape elements and the sport facilities without creating a spatial separation. The plan was to cover 74 800 m2 (805 140 ft2). Frei Otto was not trying to exhaust the edges of structure and see what is possible, but to provide the big spatial volume with lightness and transparency. Many politic-, economic- and architecture groups were arguing heavily against the bold and groundbreaking design, nut just because of the expected horrendous funding. Also the Olympic organization committee thought the plan was not realizable and utopistic. But Egon Eierman, German architect and designer, builder of the Berlin Gedächniskirche, has as member of the jury okayed a different opinion: “I swear to you on my soul, this architecture is realizable!” According to his consideration it represents the new Germany perfectly. He defended the avant-grade architecture in front of the president Willi Daume and politicians HansJochen Vogel and Franz Joseph Strauß.
Mood/Ambience
Technology
With a free floating roof structure Benisch and Partner saw a chance to link the landscape elements and the sport facilities without creating a spatial separation.
Frei Otto’s tent structures based on biological and pneumatic principals belong to the early examples of biomorphic architecture. His experience in lightweight design, tensile structure and other tensile load construction make him up to this date to one of the most important architects and theoretician of architecture of the 20th century.
Figure 25
Figure 24
Figure 26
In 1967 the final decision about the roof structure was made and the committee approved the utopia design. Although the architects finally got the approval, a free floating roof structure in these dimensions was still a novelty. Security restrictions of the German authorities drove the costs dramatically up. Besides the design was a big challenge for constructers, structural designers and craftsman. Techniques, materials and tools had to be specially developed. Main design feature of the tent structure were steel ropes. Overall 1171 km steel ropes were used, that equals a stretch from Munich to London. The steel ropes are divided in two different categories, carrying ropes and tensile ropes. The carrying ropes sag with the gravity; the tensile ropes arch upward. This forms a very organic and loose shape, that adds to the lightness and floating design. At the same time the design becomes dimensionally stable, because the weight of the roof skin, the dead load and the influences of the weather (mainly wind and snow) are forwarded to the edge ropes. To forward the enormous forces into the ground, huge foundations were use. The dimensions
are almost as big as a single-family home with 11x30x12 meters. That’s why in the colloquial language in Munich; people call the stadium roof sometimes “leadfooted ballerina�. Openness and lightness were achieved by using 3x3m Plexiglas to cover the stadium. The decision of using glass for the roof instead of metal was also preferable for the media, who were afraid of solid shadows that would have been created by a solid roof structure. This is a perfect example where a decision that was made for economical reasons later turns out to be a good decision also for other reasons (light weight, easy to clean, works with the design idea). This translucent roof created a new introspection. Other than in other arenas, those are oriented inward, but had a distinct boundary toward the outside. The special feature of having the roof translucent created a distinct, open construction form. Because of this an equal proportion of inside and outside emerged. The complex coherences of this worldwide unique roof structure are until these days hard to put in terms or formulas.
Image The idea was to imitate the Alps and to set a counterpart to the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, held during the Nazi regime. The sweeping and transparent canopy was to symbolize the new, democratic and optimistic Germany. This is reflected in the official motto: “The Happy Games”
Figure 27
Legibility The architects had to design a facility of “human scale”, where competition sites, practice fields, traffic-facilities and connections and the Olympic village would need to fit in. The whole Olympic Park is a total work of art, everything was designed to look light, curved. Figure 28
The Horse's Mouth In an interview one of the architects said: “we had to design from an opposite standpoint, we had to design a not-architecture…” This statement is very vague phrased, what exactly is meant by ”non-architecture”? I do not agree with this approach to their design, because of course they did built something, they created something, and they should, since that is what they are paid to do. We can argue about what “architecture” is and vice versa what “non-architecture”. Since the result of the architects work was not an empty meadow where the Olympics were held with sticks and stones, but a beautiful floating tent structure, I hereby disagree and say that their design was an architectural one, a gorgeous mix of landscape architecture and engineering architecture.
Figure 29
Günter Behnisch: “Frei Otto was not trying to exhaust the edges of structure and see what is possible, but to provide the big spatial volume with lightness and transparency.”
Figure 30
The statement that Frei Otto was not trying to exhaust the edges of what is possible structurally is not appropriate; the roof structure realized an entirely new scale for this type of structure and led to pioneering of purely mathematical computerbased procedures for determing their shape and behaviour. Of course the various ‘tent’ and ‘umbrella’ roof erected at Munich were the culmination of Otto’s many years’ experience. Earlier examples he had had indicated the potential of such temporary but economical large-span structures. But at Munich the scale was just tremendous, involving the erection and linking of varied amoeba-shaped tents: the major areas covered included the main stadium, on one side only, linked to the arena and the swimming area, both wholly covered. The roof covering the main stadium consisted of a PVC-coated polyester fabric suspended on hangers independent of the cable net. The supporting masts held the main cables in tension, thus providing the necessary support for hanging roof areas. So the statement that he “just wanted to create a light and transparent structure” is a little bit understating the case, it was a utopia, a Hercules task, and no wonder that many political-, economical- and architectural groups were arguing heavily against the bold and groundbreaking design, nut just because of the expected horrendous funding. Also the Olympic organization committee thought the plan was not realizable and utopistic. gineering architecture.
Günter Behnisch: “With the free floating roof structure we linked the landscape elements and the sport facilities without creating a spatial separation.” The roof structure certainly linked the landscape elements with the sport facilities, but it still created spatial separation, maybe not in such a distinct way like conventional stadiums used to. In this case there was a flow that was moving throughout the Olympic site, the tent structure was still defining spaces, such as inside and outside, covered and open air; the translucent tent-structure is actually creating something way more interesting, it creates a surreal scale-play. The same roof where you can walk along between the sport facilities becomes the massive tall roof-structure that covers the track and field facilities. The continuous tensile surface that bridges all of the main buildings of the Olympic Games is subject to a hierarchical structural system that creates a series of volumes across the site. The canopies membrane is suspended from a multitude of vertical masts that allow for the dramatic draping curves of the surface to flow dynamically across the site changing form, scale, and sectional characteristics. And as already mentioned these changing forms, scale, and section characteristics do create spaces, in a comfortable and pleasant way.
Figure 31
Figure 32
Conclusion The Olympic stadium can be described as a Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art) according to a human scale. Down to present day the successful embedding of the Olympic Stadium into the Olympic Park creates a diversified sport- and recreation landscape instead of monumental sport architecture. Lightness, openness, transparency and straightforwardness were created and sport complexes that were sunk into the ground were connected with other with a single continuous roof structure. All those architectural features added to the fact that a crater (like Johan Wolfgang von Goethe described it) could not even emerge. Of course here also the visitors vitalize the stadium, but the spatial separation between inside and outside is almost gone. Whereas modern, compact stadiums have almost completely enclosed stands (some stadiums can even close their roofs) and the space of the visitors is limited, the Olympic Stadium in Munich has a tension structure between visitors, the vastness of nature and the sky. Behnisch even suggested to have no entry security checkpoints; he saw free access for
everyone as a sign of a democratic society. Because of the strict safety instructions, especially after the terroristic attacks, the ideal conception could not be realized. Nevertheless everyone could see on the example of the Olympic Stadium in Munich in comparison to the Stadium in Berlin, how Germany’s national identity was able to change. The young federal republic was able to present itself as a cosmopolitan, happy and democratic nation. Also these days the Olympic stadium in Munich has not lost its meaning. Although there are new decrepitude, the discussion of renovations and the spectacular new constructions of the Allianz Arena, the Olympic Stadium stayed attractive and even was nominated heritage building of the 20th century. In times on globalization architects built stadiums according to the trademark principal. Capitalistic commercial concerns become sponsor and name giver. Best example the new Allianz Arena. The Olympic stadium did not have these problems of the massive commercialization of society and sport. That is why it is and always will be a symbol of democratic architecture
Figure 33
Imige Bibliography Cover: Own Sketchbook Figure 01: “Architechnophilia.” : July 2012. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://architechnophilia.blogspot. com/2012_07_01_archive.html>. Figure 02: “Waybackmachine”: March 2011N.p.n.d </http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/bcphotox.htm> Figure 03: “File:Situationist.jpg.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Figure 04: “Combat Operations.” N.p., Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2007/02/07/2533/> Figure 05: “Space Landing”: <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg> Web. 10 April Figure 06: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 07: “EnergyCity - Munich.” EnergyCity - Munich. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.energycity2013.eu/ pages/results/knowledge-and-information-base-repository/description-test-areas/munich.php>. Figure 08: “Munich Airport.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Munich_Airport>. Figure 09: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 10: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 11: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 12: Own work (sketchbook) Figure 13: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 14: Goggler, Karg, Kreilkamp, Preissler, Vogler-Ludwig, Zängler / Technical University of Munich, Economix, bpu; Telearbeit und Verkehr im Wirtschaftsraum München (teleworking and traffi c in the economic region of Munich). Study on behalf of the City of Munich,2003 Figure 15: “Munich’s New Town Hall - Munich Marienplatz Photos.” About.com Student Travel. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http:// studenttravel.about.com/od/eftoursphotos/ig/Munch-s-Marienplatz-Photos.--69/Town-Hall--Munich. htm>. Figure 16: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 17: “Olympiapark MÕ••nchen :: Home :: Konzerte in MÕ••nchen, Veranstaltungen MÕ••nchen, Ausstellung MÕ••nchen, Freizeit MÕ••nchen, Konzert Tickets MÕ••nchen, Veranstaltungskalender MÕ••nchen, Konzertkarten MÕ••nchen, Freizeit Sport MÕ••nchen, Unterhaltung MÕ••nchen.” Olympiapark MÕ••nchen. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.olympiapark.de/>. Figure 18: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942).
Figure 19: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942). Figure 20: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942). Figure 21: “Nazi Culture: Intelectual, Cultural, and Social Life in the Third Reich, by George L. Mosse.” Nazi Culture: Intelectual, Cul¬tural, and Social Life in the Third Reich, by George L. Mosse. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.americanbuddha.com/nazi. naziculturemosse.12.htm>. Figure 22: Own work (own photograph) Figure 23: “Wohnanlage Parkstadt Bogenhausen.” Wohnanlage Parkstadt Bogenhausen. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www. nordostkultur-muenchen.de/architektur/parkstadt_bogenhausen.htm>. Figure 24: “Statistisches Amt Der Landeshauptstadt MÕ••nchen.” Statistisches Amt Der Landeshauptstadt MÕ••nchen. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.mobile-firmenfitness.de/statistisches-amt-der-landeshauptstadt-münchen>. Figure 25: “GrÕ••Ãü Gott Bei Der MÕ••nchner Stadtverwaltung.” Landeshauptstadt MÕ••nchen. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/home.html>. Figure 26: “Raumlabor Berlin » Blog Archiv » Urban Strategy / Rahmenplanung / Munich / MÕ••nchen / Dachauer Str.” Raumla¬bor Berlin » Blog Archiv » Urban Strategy / Rahmenplanung / Munich / MÕ••nchen / Dachauer Str. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.raumlabor.net/?p=2643>. Figure 27: “Architechnophilia.” : July 2012. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://architechnophilia.blogspot. com/2012_07_01_archive.html>. Figure 28: “Waybackmachine”: March 2011N.p.n.d </http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/bcphotox.htm> Figure 29: “File:Situationist.jpg.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Figure 30: “Combat Operations.” N.p., Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2007/02/07/2533/> Figure 05: “Space Landing”: <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg> Web. 10 April Figure 31: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942). Figure 32: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942). Figure 33: “Nazi Culture: Intelectual, Cultural, and Social Life in the Third Reich, by George L. Mosse.” Nazi Culture: Intelectual, Cul¬tural, and Social Life in the Third Reich, by George L. Mosse. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.americanbuddha.com/nazi. naziculturemosse.12.htm>.
Bibliography Otto, Frei, Bodo Rasch, and Sabine Schanz. Frei Otto, Bodo Rasch: Finding Form : Towards an Architecture of the Minimal : The Werkbund Shows Frei Otto, Frei Otto Shows Bodo Rasch : Exhibition in the Villa Stuck, Munich, on the Occasion of the Award of the 1992 Deutscher Werkbund Bayern Prize to Frei Otto and Bodo Rasch. [Stuttgart?]: Axel Menges, 2006. Print. “ARCHITECTURE | Icons of 20th-Century Architecture :: Buildings That Sparked My Childhood Imagination.” DesignKULTUR. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://designkultur.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/architecture-icons-of-20th-century-architecture-buildings-that-sparkedmy-childhood-imagination/>. Thiel-Siling, Sabine, and Wolfgang Bachmann. Icons of Architecture: The 20th Century. Munich: Prestel, 1998. Print. Stürzebecher, Peter, and Sigrid Ulrich. Architecture for Sport: New Concepts and International Projects for Sport and Leisure. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Academy, 2002. Print. Blundell-Jones, Peter. Günter Behnisch. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser, 2000. Print. Braunholz, Steffen : Glasfassaden und ihre Tragkonstruktionen. Das Olympiastadion München http://www.stbr.net/content/arbeiten/schreiben/muenchen/ olympiastadion_muenchen-web. pdf Cramer, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Johannes (verantw.), TU Berlin, Institut für Architektur, FG Bau- und Stadtbaugeschichte: Lernhilfe Bau-und Stadtbaugeschichte, Erdstadion, http:// baugeschichte.a.tu-berlin.de/owl/Lexikon.htm Haeming, Anne: „Die Spiele müssen weitergehen.Die Olympischen Spiele waren schon immer politisch“, in: fluter. Magazin der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung Nr. 71 (2008), http:// www.fluter.de/de/71/thema/6946/?tpl=87