Culture and Theory Visual Analysis Paper Ujal Gorchu
LONG SPAN LIVE SPAN DREAM? Or
New National Gallery as the peak of Mies’ long span typology
Seagram – is probably the first word that comes to our mind when we talk about Mies van der Rohe, however, if we analyse his life as a hole neither Seagram nor skyscrapers as a typology is what he strived for throughout his life. As Mies’ right hand man Gene Summers said; “Mies loved perhaps long span buildings better than tall buildings”. We can argue whether the typology began it’s evolution from The Concert Hall Collage (1941-42) or Barcelona pavilion (1929) or even the Brick Country House (1923- 24) but it clearly reached it’s peak with the New National Gallery in Berlin (1968) and ironically it is the last building Mies saw the completion of in the city he had to flee in 1940 leaving his happiest years behind. New National Gallery being part of the Kulturforum is situated in Potsdamerplatz- a place that used to be on the edge of the West Berlin completely devastated at the time of the construction.
“Form follows the function” a famous quote from L.Sullivan that Mies deeply respected however, Mies believed that the function of the building can change over time while the form cannot, therefore, he spend last 40 years of his life perfecting a so called universal design. We can rarely trace the genesis of an idea as clearly as with Mies’s long span typology. Exploration of a free plan interior that Mies began in mid 20’s was followed by the Barcelona Pavilion that was a complete elimination of bearing walls. And finally, Mies wanted to carry this idea further moving the structural supports to the perimeter. The idea of a completely open universal space as he called it goes back to 1941 when Mies had one of his students work on collages of a space with long spans, lightweight partitions and hanging ceilings. This quickly became one of Mies’ passions.
Throughout the years Mies was impatient to find new opportunities to perfect his idea untill finally he built the New National Gallery- a seemingly floating roof plane, suspended above a single clear-span space punctuated by equidistant columns as Mies describes it. It was a long process full of controversial occasions and in order to fully understand and appreciate this evolution we should compare it to the earlier iterations on this typology. Mies started experimenting with long spans for the Counter Drive-in and oversized exposed trusses were chosen as a structural solution. Even though Mies presented those trusses as a good opportunity for advertising the counter and tried to justify it with its boldness it is clear that it didn’t quite coincide with the initial philosophy he laid out. the Concert hall (1941).
Similar situation happened with the latter projects of Mannheim National Theatre, Convention hall and even the Crown hall itself being supported by a grid of steel columns and two oversized girders fails to deliver Mies promise of the floating roof. National Gallery on the other hand was a product of meticulous analysis and polishing throughout the contemporaneous projects (Ron Bacardi building and Gerog Schaefer Museum), a girded hovering roof plane supported by two columns on each side, very close to what Mies has envisioned in his early collages for the Concert hall (1941).
The typology eventually developed in it’s final form or as Gene Summer described it – relationships between the the roof plate, column and the enclosure. This ultimately describes the Mies’s latter syntax, however, I believe that one things that Gene forgot to mention was the platform or the podium on which the buildings stood. The idea of a platform appeared in Mies’s work throughout his latter career in forms of elevation of the complete building (Fransworth house) or the ground floor (Crown hall) off the ground but the most comprehensive use of the platform came with the Ron Bacardi building which eventually found it’s realization in the New National Gallery, placing it just high enough for it to creating the desired circulation and separation from the city hustle.
The building consists of ground and basement floors ground floor being solely for temporary exhibitions. Due to the absence of structural elements within, the interior space of the ground floor is arranged solely by a pair of stairs and two cores and the roof grid. Mostly using sunlight coming from the glass envelop it used to provide views of the St. Matthaus Kirche and the devastated Potsdamerplatz along with the newly erected Berlin Wall and now serves the same purpose for Berlin’s contemporary business center.
The Basement floor being far bigger than the ground floor (10 000m2) is designed to host gallery’s permanent collection along with a library, cafÊ, shop and administration spaces. It consists of series of artificially lit longitudinal exhibition spaces eventually leading the visitors to the sculpture garden which serves as a visual connection between two levels and a retreat from the outside world.
The underlying philosophy behind the typology was hardly aesthetic or even structural even though these factors were crucial in later execution. Building up on essential modernist principals Mies was trying to create this universal space that would be capable of adapting to different necessities. However, the question whether it the typology works for all functions is an open one. As we have seen with the Farnsworth house despite the fact that it is considered to be one of the pearls of the modernist movement the idea of an open plan for a residence did not work as good for the client in terms of daily practicalities. Mies’ long span buildings have seen a lot of uses ranging from restaurants to theatre halls. Being a contemporaneous project, Ron Bacardi building shared almost exact design with New National Gallery but in fact was supposed be an office building. However, the architect always strives for buildings with “higher ethical value” as he put it which, combined with his early definition of a museum space –defining rather than confining makes the New National Gallery a perfect logical host for the given typology despite minor imperfections.
On top of the permanent collection in the basement floor the open ground floor has hosted various events ranging from Keith Sonnier’s light installation to David Chipperfield’s Sticks and Stones intervention.
Coming up with a conclusion one should be very specific, we can come to different conclusions solely by different interpretations and phrasings. Even though the Gallery was Mies’s peak it leaves us with a lot of open questions about the relationships between function, space and structure along appropriateness of an ideal universal space.“The New National Gallery joins Farnsworth house and Seagram Building as an iconic realization of Mies’s quest for abstract, idealized architectural form above all considerations – even function” this reminds one of central plan churches during Renaissance where architects strivWes for a divine geometry that was universal, however, did not always works from the liturgical point of view. This further reinforces the necessity for an objective attitude evaluating the project for what it ultimately is appreciating its beauty and while being critical about its use and further implementation.
Bibliography • Lambert, Phyllis. “Space and Structure.” Mies in America, Harry N. Abrams, 2003. • Vandenberg, Maritz, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. New National Gallery, Berlin: Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe. Phaidon Press, 1998. • Jarzombek, Mark. “Mies Van Der Rohe’s New National Gallery and the Problem of Context.” Assemblage, no. 2, 1987, p. 32.,