SCHLOSSPLATZ
MICHAEL MAGINNESS 240 865 ‘SCHLOSSPLATZ’ - SELF DIRECTED DESIGN THESIS DESIGN THESIS ABPL90169 SUPERVISOR: ANNMARIE BRENNAN COORDINATOR: PHILIP GOAD THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE MELBOURNE SCHOOL OF DESIGN SEMESTER 2, 2012
SCHLOSSPLATZ AN URBAN HISTORY IN CENTRAL BERLIN MICHAEL MAGINNESS
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SCHLOSSPLATS, BERLIN POLITICS & MEMORY PROGRAM I PALIMPSESTS SCENOGRAPHY PROGRAM II
17 43 57 75 91 121 141
6 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
“THERE IS PERHAPS NO OTHER MAJOR WESTERN CITY THAT BEARS THE MARKS OF TWENTIETH CENTURY HISTORY AS INTENSELY AND SELFCONSCIOUSLY AS BERLIN. THIS CITY TEXT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, ERASED AND REWRITTEN THROUGHOUT THAT VIOLENT CENTURY, AND ITS LEGIBILITY RELIES AS MUCH ON VISIBLE MARKERS OF BUILT SPACE AS ON IMAGES AND MEMORIES REPRESSED AND RUPTURED BY TRAUMATIC EVENTS.” -ANDREAS HUYSSEN
7
8 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1930
9
10 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1973
11
12 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1987
13
14 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
2010
15
16 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
INTRODUCTION What was once the historic heart of Berlin is today an urban void. However, it is a void whose physical emptiness masks the myriad of memories, histories and emotions that populate it. Early in 2009, the final pieces of the East German modernist Palace of the Republic were removed from Schlossplatz, the historic site of the Berlin Royal Palace or Berliner Schloss.1 Up until its destruction in 1950 by the communist regime of the young German Democratic Republic, The Schloss had been a grand baroque centrepiece to the city. It housed the Hehenzollern dynasty of Prussian Kings from 1701, and was, by extension, the seat of the German Emperor from 1871 until the collapse of the monarchy following the First World War. It was not until 1976 that the Schloss was replaced by the Palace of the Republic, which partially filled the empty post-war scar that still extends from the River Spree to Alexanderplatz, covering what had been the centre of the city since the middle ages. In 2003, the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) decreed the demolition of the communist structure and its replacement with a replica of the baroque Schloss. Almost four years after the demolition of the Palace of the Republic, this central site in Berlin’s urban fabric remains a void, awaiting construction the Humboldt Forum museum complex, which will replicate the baroque facades of the Schloss and architecturally eradicate forty years of German history.
Introduction | 17
CENTRAL BERLIN
18 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 19
URBAN CONTEXT
20 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 21
CITY CENTRES & COLD WAR DIVISION
22 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 23
HISTORIC AXES
24 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 25
SITE CONTEXT
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
BODE MUSEUM, 1904 PERGAMON MUSEUM, 1930 NEUES MUSEUM, 1855/2010 ALTE NATIONALGALERIE, 1861 ALTES MUSEUM, 1830 BERLIN CATHEDRAL, 1905
26 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
LUSTGARTEN ZEUGHAUS, 1730 NEUE WACHE, 1816 HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY BERLIN STATE OPERA, 1742 ST HEDWIG’S CATHEDRAL, 1773
13. FRIEDRICHSWERDER CHURCH, 1831 14. MOCK-UP OF FORMER BAUAKADEMIE 15. FORMER REICHSBANK BUILDING, 1938 16. FORMER GDR STATE COUNCIL BUILDING, 1964
17. NEUER MARSTALL (FORMER ROYAL STABLES), 1901 18. NIKOLAIKIRCHE, 1230/1981 19 ROTES RATHAUS, 1869 20. MARIENKIRCHE, c.1292 21. FERNSEHTURM (TV TOWER), 1969
Introduction | 27
SITE PLAN BERLINER STADTSCHLOSS C.1443-1950
PALAST DER REPUBLIK 1976-2006
28 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 29
SCHLOSS HISTORY c. 14TH CENTURY 1443 1540 1579 1585 1590 1593 1650-1679 1681 1699 1701 1706 1713 1845 1895
30 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 31
32 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
EAST FROM SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 33
34 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
WEST FROM SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 35
36 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
NORTH FROM SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 37
38 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
SOUTH FROM SCHLOSSPLATZ
Introduction | 39
UNTER DEN LINDEN, 1924
42 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
SCHLOSSPLATZ, BERLIN Little remains of Berlin’s medieval centre, which lies directly to the south and east of Schlossplatz, though this is as much the result of turn-of-the-century speculation and redevelopment as it is the result of World War II destruction and communist planning.1 Founded sometime in the twelfth century, medieval Berlin consisted of the relatively insignificant twin cities of Berlin and Cölln; Berlin a trading town on the Spree’s east bank and Cölln a fishing village on the southern tip of the Spree island. In this way, Berlin was ironically divided between east and west from its foundation.2 The Schloss was established in the mid fifteenth century, when the Holy Roman Emperor granted the territory of Brandenburg to the Burgrave Freiderich of the Hehenzollern family. In 1442 the new Elector of Brandenburg compelled the formerly free city of Cölln to surrender the northern half of the Spree island for the establishment of a royal residence.3 In this way, the Schloss can be read as a symbol of subjugation from its establishment.
1701-1950: The Baroque Schloss The Schloss was to gain particular significance in 1701, when Friederich III, through his acquisition of Prussian territory and complex diplomatic manoeuvring, was able to swap his title of ‘Elector’ for that of ‘King’. As the
Schlossplatz, Berlin | 43
SOUTH FACADE OF THE SCHLOSS ANDREAS SCHLÜTER, 1699
seat of the King in Prussia, Berlin became a royal capital and its Schloss a royal palace.4 Freiderich expanded the modest Renaissance palace westward across the entire island according to the Baroque design of architect and sculptor Andreas Schlüter. By 1720, architect Johann Fredrich Eosander van Göthe completed the extension of Schlüter’s ornate sculptural façades in the same style. In the mid-nineteenth century, the exterior of the Schloss took its final form with the addition of a neo-classical dome designed by August Stüler. With Schlüter and van Göthe’s façades reaching heights of over 30 metres, and Stüler’s dome peaking at just over 70 metres,5 the Schloss was to dominate the skyline of Berlin until its destruction and was an emblem of central Berlin.6 After the collapse of the monarchy in 1918, following Germany’s defeat in the second World War, the Schloss was largely ignored. The new parliamentary democracy of the Weimar Republic did not reappropriated the symbolic space for a high-profile political use, but symbolically neutralised it through transformation into a museum. This approach was continued under the National Socialist regime following their rise to absolute power in 1933. Though the Lustgarten park, overshadowed by the Schloss’s northen façade, became one of Berlin’s principle Nazi rally grounds.
44 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
BERLINER SCHLOSS, 1950
1950-1973: Marx-Engels-Platz Following the Second World War, the Communist German Democratic Republic was founded in East Germany, consisting of what had been the Soviet controlled sector during the allied occupation. Under the new Communist regime, the Schloss was identified with feudalism, Prussian militarism and German imperialism.7 When the Communist regime demolished the Schloss in 1950, the official reason was that the extensive damage it had sustained during the war was irreparable. However, the heavy damage to the building was probably not terminal. It was able to hold several exhibitions immediately after the war, including an exhibition of post-war urban planning possibilities in 1946, and a major exhibition of Modern French painting in the same year.8 However, despite protests from art historians and others in both the East and the West, Communist Party leader Walter Ulbricht gave the final order for its demolition. The official Communist Party paper bid it farewell without regret, proclaiming, “may it no longer remind us of an inglorious past.�9 The resultant void became Marx-Engels-Platz, a space for mass displays of proletariat power, to be observed by party leaders from a grandstand on the site. While elaborate state buildings had been planned for the site throughout the fifties and sixties, economic shortage meant the site remained a void.10 In
Schlossplatz, Berlin | 45
VOLKSAMMER
particular, the GDR’s resources were especially drained from 1961, when it begun its most famous and elaborate construction project, the Berlin Wall. By the early 1970s, the void in the centre of the city was principally used as a car park, a major embarrassment to the GDR regime as divided Berlin increasingly became the stage set for the competition of Cold War ideologies.11
1973-2009: The Palace of the Republic In 1973 work was finally to begin on the Palace of the Republic. Its completion three years later saw it become one of the “greatest multifunctional buildings
46 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
of the twentieth century,� and has since been compared to the Centre Pompidou in Paris.12 Designed by an architectural collective under Heinz Graffunder, it was a unique public building that contained an unusual mix of architectural programs. A modernist cube of extravagant marble white concrete and shining bronze glazing, the palace housed restaurants, a bowling alley, art galleries and a flexible auditorium which could be configured as a conference space, ballroom, theatre or concert hall.13 The glitzy Palace was a central part of daily life for East Berliners. It was especially popular as its luxurious setting allowed them to temporarily escape the drudgery of everyday life and material shortage under socialism; its restaurants and bars provided food and drink at moderate prices and in quantities unheard of anywhere else in the country.14 Perhaps most surprisingly, this public volkshaus (house of the people) innovatively combined its public institutional and entertainment roles with that of government, by housing the Volksammer, the Parliament of the Republic. For most of the GDR’s history this body possessed no significant political role; it was nominally subordinate to the State Council and the Communist state held no free elections. However in 1990, the Palace of the Republic held the first and only democratically elected Parliament of the GDR, which subsequently voted to join the West German Federal Republic.15 Therefore the Palace can be regarded as the initiating site of de jure reunification. Shortly after the political decision towards reunification was made, the Palace was declared to be dangerously riddled with asbestos and was promptly sealed for decontamination. However, asbestos contamination is generally seen as a pragmatic pretext for the building’s closure, masking the genuine ideological motives of the reunified democratic Government. This seems especially likely when it is considered that a similar 1970s convention building in the West, the Internationale Congress Centrum, of equally dubious aesthetic quality, was to remain open despite its own asbestos.16 By the mid-2000s, the palace was being intermittently reopened to the public, however it now stood as a ruin, completely stripped of its interior finishes. In characteristic Berlin fashion, artists and radical architects appropriated its empty shell for installations and
Schlossplatz, Berlin | 47
happenings. With the closing of the Palace in 1990, a campaign, originating in West Germany, called for its demolition and advocated its replacement with a replica Schloss. The debate raged for over a decade, becoming a dominant feature of discussions over Berlin’s urban renewal, until the Bundestag decision of 2003. Despite opposition by former East Berliners and supporters of the building’s historic value, the demolition of the Palace of the Republic begun in 2006. The demolition process which was to take almost three years, as it was painstakingly pulled apart in the reverse order of its building, to avoid being compared to the hasty communist destruction of the Schloss.
2008 to The Present: The Schlossplatz Void and the Humboldt Forum The architectural competition for its replacement, the Humboldt Forum, was held in 2008 and won by Franco Stella. The Humboldt Forum is to function as a museum and publically accessible cultural centre. Following the 2003 Bundestag resolution, the competition brief dictated that the external volume of the Humboldt forum was to be a replica of the Schloss, with three of its baroque façades and its monumental dome reconstructed. However, its internal volume is to be an entirely new and modern building housing the non-European art collections of the Berlin state museums, the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation and various departments of the Humboldt University and the Central Regional
48 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
PALACE OF THE REPUBLIC, CONSTRUCTION, 1974
PALACE OF THE REPUBLIC, DEMOLITION, 2008
Schlossplatz, Berlin | 49
Library of Berlin. Construction is estimated to cost upward of 670 million Euros, which will be sourced from a combination of public funds, commercial investment and private donations.17 Given its complex history and controversial future, the hollow space that now stands at Schlossplatz, constitutes a laboratory for the role of the built environment in cultivating the complex politics of collective memory in a reunified Germany and a new Europe.
50 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
THE HUMBOLDT FORUM
Schlossplatz, Berlin | 51
SCHLOSSPLATZ, 2008
“THE GDR NEVER EXISTED”
56 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
POLITICS AND MEMORY Etched in the urban fabric of Berlin is the historical text of twentieth century trauma; “empire, war and revolution, democracy, fascism, Stalinism, and the Cold War all were played out here.”1 Physically and socially scarred by this history, Berlin’s urban fabric is “saturated with memories”.2 With reunification came frenzied debates over the city’s conflicting futures and how these might negotiate the memories and physical remnants of Nazi and Communist pasts.3 However, the desire to heal historical scars has often manifested itself as a tendency towards forced forgetting. The Palace of the Republic represented an uncomfortable reminder of the historical rift between East and West Germans and its replacement with a replica of the Schloss is essentially a hubristic attempt to ‘correct’ history by creating a myth of national unity centred on an idealised pre-1914 Berlin.4 Reunification highlighted the dilemma of German national identity, already fraught with anxieties generated by the horror of the National Socialist past, which rendered patriotism of any kind suspect. Rather than aiding the generation of a shared identity, reunification often magnified the confrontation between fractured multiple understandings of Berlin as urban object, producing a set of “rival nostalgias.”5 Many West Germans, especially the politically conservative, increasingly
Politics and Memory | 57
looked back with nostalgia to the splendour of turn of the century monarchical Berlin, prior to the bad memories and anxieties produced by the profound trauma of Germany’s twentieth century history. In 2000 the Federal Chancellery announced that the Schloss was a necessary “historical identification point” and a symbol of national unity.6 In doing so it nostalgically called the remote past into the present, by implying the importance of Germany’s nineteenth century unification under Prussian royal leadership to the identity of a unified Germany after the Cold War. Meanwhile, some East Germans were concerned by the possibility that this approach might deprive them of their identity and deny their experiences over the past forty years any part in a post-reunification German identity. In the midst of reunification’s tensions and uneasiness, many East Berliners remembered fondly time spent socialising, drinking and bowling at the Palace of the Republic, one of the few spaces in the GDR where material shortage and the drudgery of socialist life could be escaped.7 A survey conducted in 1992, shortly after reunification, revealed that ninety eight per cent of former East Berliners favoured the preservation of the Palace of the Republic.8 The most significant urban changes following reunification affected East Berliners. The demolition of monuments and the changing of communist era street became increasingly disorientating in the East. Having been known as Marx-EngelsPlatz since 1950, Schlossplatz took its current name in 1993, well before the Palace of the Republic was demolished and any plans to rebuild the Schloss were finalised. Prior to 1993, the name Schlossplatz had never been applied to the site as a whole, historically it only referred to the square at the southern façade of the Schloss. Andreas Huyssen has explained the attempt to manipulate the built environment of Berlin, in order to create a unified national identity, as an act of forced forgetting that represents a final burst of western Cold War ideology. It is a wilful act of power and humiliation that deprives the EastGerman population of the memory and significance of four decades of their history.9 Following reunification, the new government pursued a complete
58 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
reorientation of the urban environment in Mitte (Central Berlin), focused on densification and a reestablishment of a pre-war urban condition. In 1993 the Federal Government sponsored an international design competition for the area around what was then known as Marx-Engels-Platz. The brief did not specify to entrants what was to be done with communist era buildings, including the Palace of the Republic, but it did encourage the restoration of the pre-war street pattern.10 The winning entry, by West Berlin architect Bernd Niebuhr, did propose the demolition of the GDR era buildings in the area, and their replacement with a conference centre that echoed the mass and footprint of the Schloss. While the dire economic situation of the early 1990s mean the project would never be realised, many Berlin architects were outraged by the competition and its results, comparing the actions of the Federal Government to the GDR regime’s demolition of the Schloss. In 1993 Cornelius Hertling, president of the Berlin Chamber of Architects, reacted to the competition, stating; “We find it unacceptable that buildings that have become a part of urban history are being erased from memory precisely because they are historically burdened … History and identity are thereby being eradicated.”11 If the establishment of the Schloss in the fifteenth century marked the beginning of Feudal control over the free cities of Cölln and Berlin, and its demolition represented the assertion of ideological victory by Communism, its reconstruction as the Humboldt Forum can be read as a symbol of the triumph of Western capitalism in the Cold War. In fact, immediately after reunification, many western arguments calling for the demolition of the Palace of the Republic and the reconstruction of the Schloss were quite explicit in their motivation by cold-war ideology. Brian Ladd has explained how these arguments were characterised by “a thirst for justice (or vengeance)” and were justified as undoing the historical wrongs of the Communism.12 He quotes journalist Joachim Fest, who advocating the destruction of the Palace of the Republic argued; “If the destruction of the palace was supposed to be a symbol of [communism’s] victory, reconstruction would be the symbol of its failure.”13 However, Ladd wonders whether the proper response to the act of communist destruction to physically undo it, or avoid doing it again.14
Politics and Memory | 59
In these triumphant expressions of Western victory, East Germans were presumably also expected to see themselves as victors over the oppression of communism. While many may have been willing to do so, the sudden sundering of everyday life in the East coupled with rapid ideological and political change was understandably confusing.15 As the urban landscape increasingly became the medium for the expression of cold-war victory, political fallout in the east was inevitable, resulting in a strengthening communist nostalgia and increased support for the recently overhauled communist party.16 For Germans in both the East and West, cold-war political division, physically manifested in the Berlin Wall, provided them with basis on which to build a post-war identity. The Wall signified a “clear enemy, a clear image of what they were not” and its fall was often met with ambivalence and anxiety. The end of Germany’s political division was not to immediately matched with an end to its psychological and socio-cultural division. Dirk Verheyen recalls the blunt assertion of a snack bar worker in the eastern district of Prenzlauer Berg; “I want the Wall back, and twice as high.”17 During the demolition of the GDR Foreign Ministry in 1995, the Federal Government, conscious of its delicate political implications, referred to the process by a contorted neologism Rückbau, translated as “reverse building”, rather than Abriß, meaning demolition.18 Ironically, Rückbau actually reveals the approach to history the process itself represents. It is essentially an attempt to ‘reverse’ history; to turn back time in to order erase undesirable periods of history and establish a direct relationship between the present and a mythical Prussian past. The delusion of this ideological urban design posturing was poignantly revealed by graffiti adjacent to the empty void left behind by the demolition of the Palace of the Republic in 2008, which sarcastically proclaimed, “die DDR hat’s nie gegeben” – “the GDR never existed.”
Identity, Aesthetics and the Image of the City Though the motives for the demolition of the Palace of the Republic and the reconstruction of the Schloss are essentially socio-political, it has generally
60 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
PALACE OF THE REPUBLIC, 1976
been justified by aesthetics. Proponents of the reconstructed Schloss argue that the Palace of the Republic disrupted the visual coherence and urban harmony of Berlin’s historic centre, and that they can only be re-established by restoring the Schloss. In an influential essay of 1993, publisher Wolf Jobst Seidler argued for the reconstruction of the Schloss on the grounds that the original Schloss was older than Berlin itself and that the city had grown up around its royal palace, a point made by the title of his essay; “The Schloss did not lie in Berlin, Berlin was the Schloss.”19 To some extend this is true, the majority of the remaining
Politics and Memory | 61
“I WANT THE WALL BACK, AND TWICE AS HIGH”
pre-war buildings around Schlossplatz date to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Berlin increased in importance as the Royal Prussian capital. As such, the site became Berlin’s traditional centre of state, and many of Berlin’s important state institutions are located near the site of the Schloss. These include the State Opera, State Library, Humboldt University, the Berlin Cathedral, the Reichsbank and a disproportionate number of Museums, in the area north of Schlossplatz today known as Museum Island. The historical and urban importance of the site is indisputable. It marks the pivotal point at the terminus of the Unter den Linden, the city’s traditional urban axis, which was established with reference to the Schloss as the city expanded westward. As such it also marks the point where the grid of early Modern Berlin, known as Friedrichsadt, melds with medieval Berlin-Cölln.20 Seidler explains, “as one came from the Tiergarten through the Brandenburg Gate, its dark mass loomed in the distance, giving the ‘Linden’ a footing,” and asks rhetorically, “why does the “Linden” run so remarkably diagonal eastward and ends in nothing?” He states that from the form of the “misaligned” Palace of the Republic and the void of Marx-Engels-Plats “one can conclude that something must have once been here.”21 This argument is characteristic of the idea that the volume of the historic castle and its baroque façade is necessary to hold together the eclectic amalgamation of building volumes and architectural styles that characterise the point where the Unter den Linden crosses the Spree Island.22 In the eighteenth and nineteenth century the Schloss’ physical presence defined the city centre and architects of all new buildings had to take account of it; it determined the position and form of buildings in the area and dictated the orientation of urban development.23 This is especially true of Karl Freiderich Schinkel’s masterwork, the Altes Museum,24 which stood across the Lustgarten from the Schloss, on axis with the main portal of its obliquely tilted northern façade. “The Berliner palace,” Seidler explains, “was not only – perhaps even not once – primarily important for its own sake, but because the other buildings have now lost their significance without it.”25
64 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
The historic and urban significance of the site will no doubt be important in determining the future of Schlossplatz. However, the idea that these considerations render the reconstruction of the Schloss the only viable solution for the site betrays an understanding of the city that is reliant on a visual culture with roots in the nineteenth century obsession with photographs of stereotypical cityscapes. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, knowledge of architecture was increasingly disseminated through photography and became increasingly understood as an image.26 Didem Ekici, following Christine Boyer, explains how the popularity of photographic images of cityscapes during the nineteenth century produced picturesque stereotypical urban scenes which have conditioned the way cities are looked at.27 The post-modern return to history in architecture embraced this photographic understanding of the city, with historical styles emulated and historic urban centres reconstituted on the basis of old photographs. In this way, the post-modern obsession with the historic image represents an attempt to “regain the centred world lost with modernism’s rejection of tradition and the stability of history.”28 The reconstruction of the Schloss is representative of the desperate post-modern reliance on the image. The attempt to develop a stable socio-political identity is conflated with attempt to develop a coherent visual identity for the city. It suggests that Berlin’s visual identity and urban ‘image’ were lost with the destruction and urban transformations of war and communism. During the 1990s, books which collected photographs, drawings, postcards of old Berlin became increasingly popular, popularising the image of pre-WWI monarchical Berlin as the city at its greatest beauty.29 In 2000, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, indebted to the logic of Seidler, advocated the reconstruction of the Schloss, on the basis that it would present “a nice view”.30 Berlin’s urban fabric comes to be understood with reference to a pre-war sceneography of static photographic images. The reconstruction of the Schloss is based on a logic which seeks to repress the reality of Berlin’s twentieth century trauma and replace it with a nostalgic ‘image’ of monarchical Berlin, which apparently embodies the city’s ‘authentic’
Politics and Memory | 65
BERLIN SKYLINE, FEATURING THE SCHLOSS, 1865
unified architectural identity.31 This process of selective memory attempts to create a bridge between the present and a distant, mythical past. As such, the ideological nature of the plan to reconstruct the Schloss is illuminated by Walter Benjamin’s famous critique of historicism from his Theses on the Philosophy of History: To historians who wish to relive an era, Fustel de Coulanges recommends that they blot out everything they know about the later course of history … It is a process of empathy whose origin is the indolence of the heart … Among medieval theologians
66 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
it was regarded as the root cause of sadness.32
Reconstruction of the Schloss reveals an anxiety over the trauma of modernity and the fractured multiple layers it has produced in Berlin’s urban fabric. Essentially, it represents and an earnest attempt to formulate a visually coherent and historically ‘authentic’ image of the city on which to built a stable, if not sterile, unified social identity.
Authenticity The question of architectural and urban authenticity is central in the analysis of Schlossplatz. The construction of the Humboldt Forum as a replica Schloss will apparently restore the visual harmony of the site as an authentic image of historical Berlin. However, the structure’s very status as a replica fundamentally questions the very nature of architectural authenticity. Proponents of Schloss reconstruction have often justified the project by arguing against the existence of architectural authenticity. They have insisted that the ‘essence’ of architecture lies in plans and drawings, which allow the project to be reproduced ad infinitum; like a musical score allowing multiple performances.33 This negation of the existence of an ‘aura’ of the authentic original, as theorised by Benjamin, coupled with the simultaneous desiring of an authentic historic urban landscape, belies the fundamental contradiction in the arguments for reconstruction. This method of theorising the replica Schloss creates an ambiguity in the separation between the architectural object and its representation. This ambiguity prompts a reading of the project framed by the concept of the simulacrum as proposed by Jean Baudrillard. As the architectural object is configured as an infinitely reproducible ‘image’ it also becomes a saleable commodity, taking its place in the ‘hyperculture’ which confers cultural legitimacy onto commodities and erases the differences between the represented and the representation.34 Since reunification Museuminsel (Museum Island) on which Schlossplatz is located has become one of Berlin’s central
Politics and Memory | 67
commodities offered to the twenty-first century industry of cultural tourism. The Humboldt Forum will complete the island’s transformation into a Disney style theme park of the Prussian enlightenment; the replica Schloss crowning the Unter den Linden with an image acceptable to the photography of the tourist gaze.
Resisting Selective Memory at Schlossplatz The plan to reconstruct the Schloss is based in an anxiety over the cultural meaning of Berlin’s fractured urban landscape. However, while the city’s landscape is dominated by the physical manifestation of traumatic memories as voids and ruins, this very quality has served to generate an unexpected dynamism, characterised by the creative reconfiguration of troubled historic buildings. The installations and events held in the ruined shell of the Palace of the Republic throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s provide an ideal example of this. After the Second World War, the Schloss also possessed an aspect of this quality, as its ruined remains optimistically housed exhibitions exploring the urban condition of a post-war future. It is precisely the dynamism inherent in this creative amalgamation of unexpected architectural forms, programs and historic places that is contemporary Berlin’s most attractive characteristic. Lamenting the demolition of the Palace, Michael Kimmelman of the New York Times eloquently described this quality; “Clubs in former Nazi bunkers, bars in Communist-era high rises, theaters in disused factories, art galleries in empty tenements – like the by gone Palace of the Republic they are what has attracted young people since the wall fell to a city that, historically, has kept failing to become the metropolis it aspired to be, and instead always became something more interesting.”35 This creative dynamism is a product of the conflict between competing histories, which play out as unexpected relationships between architectural programs and historic form. A reconstructed Schloss aims to replace this conflict with a coherent, yet sterile, urban identity based on a mythic past. However, it is the generative potential of this conflict that contains the possibility of a positive
68 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
identity for Berlin in the present, one which is inclusive of its multiple historic memories. The aim of the collection of images and diagrams that constitute this thesis, is to critically analyse the urban context in the immediate vicinity of Schlossplatz, in relation to the themes of politics, memory and architecture outlined above. As such, these diagrams illustrate the conditions on the site throughout its history, and critique the deployment of architecture as a tool for generating a selective historical memory that cultivates an idealised and commodifiable ‘image’ of the city. The first section analyses the programmatic condition of the site over the past one hundred years, attempting to remedy the focus on architectural style that has dominated the Schloss debate. The next section represents physical change at Schlossplatz since the eighteenth century, illustrating the layers of memory that have accumulated at the site as a series of voids and palimpsests. The penultimate section represents a scenographic investigation of the site and attempts to rehabilitate the photographic image as a means for understanding changes in urban space over time. While the final section revisits the concept of architectural program, to develop an architectural strategy that can utilise the dynamism of Berlin’s unexpected combinations of architectural forms, programs and historic places. If the physical emptiness of the void at Schlossplatz is in fact full of memory, the diagrams presented here render visible the historical, political and urban context that has produced this memory. In doing so, they act as a critique of the naivety of the historical approach inherent in the Bundestag’s 2003 decision to rebuild the Schloss, the subsequent 2008 competition for the Humboldt Forum and its winning entry by Franco Stella. However, it is also hoped that they will act as operative images, providing the basis for an alternative architectural response to the site. This thesis is an architectural guidebook for Schlossplatz which rejects the selective memory of the Humboldt Forum’s emphasis on stylistic historicism and provides the basis for architecture generated by the creative potential of Berlin’s conflicting and contradictory histories.
Politics and Memory | 69
THE PALACE OF THE REPUBLIC
BRANDENBURG GATE, 1989
“ON NOVEMBER 9TH THE WALL STILL CUT THROUGH THE HEART OF BERLIN, A JAGGED WOUND IN THE CENTER OF A METROPOLIS... BUT ON NOVEMBER 10TH IT WAS A DANCEFLOOR, A PICTURE GALLERY, A BLACKBOARD, A CINEMA SCREEN, A VIDEO CASSETTE, A MUSEUM...” -ROBERT DARNTON
74 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
PROGRAM I Arguments in favour of Schloss reconstruction rely on a visual interpretation of the history of Schlossplatz, which privileges architectural form and style over programmatic concerns. The decision to demolish the Palace of the Republic and reconstruct the Schloss was made well before it was determined what the replica Schloss might house. However, use and function are critical elements of architectural authenticity.1 The meaning of historic buildings cannot be deduced simply from style, form and the urban ‘image’ they produce. Rather, architectural meaning also relies on a consideration the programs a building has contained throughout its lifetime, which shift in accordance with its the socio-political context. Lutz Koepnick reminds us that “we should not forget that memory does not reside in certain buildings themselves, but in how given groups of people at given moments in time perceive and make use of them.”2 The diagrams that follow present the programmatic context of the area around Schlossplatz as a chronological continuum that reveal the rich variety of programmes that have existed in the area over the last hundred years. In particular, they provide a counterbalance to the romantic conception of the area as the institutional and political centre of Prussian Berlin by highlighting the reality of domestic and commercial functions that have historically dominated the south and east of the study area.
Program I | 75
PROGRAMMATIC CHANGE 1900-2010
1 BODES MUSEUM
GREEN SPACE
2 BERLIN CATHEDRAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES/ADMIN
3 STADTSCHLOSS
GOVERNMENT
4 LUSTGARTEN
ROYAL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
5 FISCHERINSEL 6 PALAST DER REPUBLIK 7 NIKOLAIKIRCHE 8 NEUES MUSEUM
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/TRADE MUSEUM CULTURAL EDUCATION/RESEARCH/ LIBRARY RELIGIOUS MILITARY PARKING
76 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1
2 4
3
1905
Program I | 77
GREEN SPACE
ROYAL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES/ADMIN
RESIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT
COMMERCIAL
4
1940
78 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
MUSEUM
RELIGIOUS
CULTURAL
MILITARY
EDUCATION/RESEARCH
PARKING
3
1950
Program I | 79
GREEN SPACE
ROYAL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES/ADMIN
RESIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT
COMMERCIAL
6
7
5
1989
80 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
MUSEUM
RELIGIOUS
CULTURAL
MILITARY
EDUCATION/RESEARCH
PARKING
8
4
2010
Program I | 81
GREEN SPACE
ROYAL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES/ADMIN
RESIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT
COMMERCIAL
1905
82 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1940
MUSEUM
RELIGIOUS
CULTURAL
MILITARY
EDUCATION/RESEARCH
PARKING
1950
1989
12010
Program I | 83
84 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Program I | 85
TEMPORARY FAIR GROUND AT MARX-ENGELS FORUM, 2008
DEMOLITION OF THE PALACE OF THE REPUBLIC, 2008
“WILLED FORGETFULNESS IS UNFORGIVABLE HERE, OF ALL PLACES” -MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
90 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
PALIMPSESTS Huyssen instructively describes Berlin’s urban fabric as a palimpsest; a layering of memory which gives the surface of the city a historical thickness. In this way, Berlin is “a disparate city-text that is being rewritten while previous text is preserved, traces are restored, erasures documented, all of it resulting in a complex web of historical markers that point to the continuing heterogeneous life of a vital city…”1 Similarly, this dynamic landscape of layered memory has been described as “topography of traces,” as historical environments are no longer perceived simply as “accretions of monuments, ruins, and reconstructions but broadly defined as landscapes, whose historical meanings [are] richer and more differentiated than previously thought.”2 The diagrams here are interpretative images that recognise the urban surface of Schlossplatz and its immediate context as a layering of historical memory. While they present the accrual of these layers as a process which is essentially chronological, they attempt to reveal the nature of the accumulation as a complex and constant process which results in a urban an urban palimpsest that cannot be easily dissected. In this way they challenge the idea that the urban surface can be reconstructed to as a replica of a distant historical past.
Palimpsests | 91
92 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Palimpsests | 93
URBAN CONTEXT 1723-2012
94 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1723
Palimpsests | 95
96 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1811
Palimpsests | 97
98 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1871
Palimpsests | 99
100 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1931
Palimpsests | 101
102 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1955
Palimpsests | 103
104 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
1989
Palimpsests | 105
106 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
2012
Palimpsests | 107
SECTION A
2010
1989
1950
1940
SECTION B
2010
1989
1950
1940
URBAN FORM & HISTORICAL LAYERS CONTINUITIES ADDITIONS RECONSTRUCTION AXIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Planned Reconstruction of Schloss and Schinkel’s Bauakademie
2012
Demolition of Palast (2006) and GDR Foreign Ministry (1996) disrupt the late GDR era axis. New foreign ministry completed (1999). Neues Museum reconstruction completed (2010).
1989
Reconstruction of Nikolai Quarter completed (1987). Palast der Republik (1976), GDR Foreign Ministry (1967) and Fernsehturm (1969) form east-west axis. GDR State Council Building completed (1964).
1950
War damage obliterates much of central Berlin. Traditional medieval centres are destroyed. Demolition of the Schloss distrupts north-south axis through Lustgarten unbalances west-east axis of Unter den Linden.
1940
Dom Expansion completed (1905). Bodes Museum opens (1904). Pergamonn Museum opens (1930). New Reichbank building completed (1938). Unter den Linden is extend eastward beyond the Schloss as Kaiser Wilhelm Strasse, 1880s)
1871
Canal at north of Spreeinsel filled for Schinkel’s Altes Museum (1830). The Altes museum creates a clear axis with the Schloss across the Lustgarten. Freidrichswerder Church completed (1831). Rotes Rathaus completed (1869). Neues Museum completed (1855)
1811
New Dom is constructed in the Lustgarten (1747), creating an axis across the Lustgarten, perpendicular to Orangerie-Schloss axis.The city walls are demolished (1730s), but their legacy remains in the street pattern. State Opera (1742) and University (1810) completed.
1721
Urban centres have been established around Nikolaikirche, Petrikirch, Schlossplatz and Marienkirche. The city walls (constructed 1658-85) form a western boundary and dictate the street pattern west of the Spree.
WAR, DESTRUCTION & URBAN VOIDS
REMAINING POSTWAR BUILDING STOCK
POST-WAR DEMOLITION
DESTRUCTION BY WAR DAMAGE
REMAINING VOIDS (2012)
POST-WAR DEVELOPMENT
RESULTANT POSTWAR VOIDS
TOTAL POST-WAR DESTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
114 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Palimpsests | 115
“ALL ART HAS BEEN CONTEMPORARY” - MAURIZIO NANNUCI AT THE THE ALTES MUSEUM
M, 2008
MARX AND ENGELS TURN THEIR BACK TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE PALACE OF THE REPUBLIC, 2008
“WHERE WE PERCEIVE A CHAIN OF EVENTS, HE SEES ONE SINGLE CATASTROPHE WHICH KEEPS PILING WRECKAGE UPON WRECKAGE AND HURLS IT AT HIS FEET” -WALTER BENJAMIN
120 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
SCENOGRAPHY The reconstruction of the Schloss is motivated by the nostalgic notion that Berlin’s ‘authentic’ urban identity is located in its pre-war form. This nostalgia is based on a resurgence in the popularity of picturesque photographs of turn of the century streetscapes. The collection of historic images presented here is intended to act as a détournement of this nostalgic scenographic method of viewing the city. While they continue to present the site as a series of scenographic images, they undermine the authority of any single historical period by simultaneously presenting the same urban scene at different points throughout history. By locating the viewpoint on a plan, the photographic scenes come to be read as both documents of urban space and historical time. Conflicting spatial and historic identities are presented simultaneously and unmediated. Just like the historicist described by Walter Benjamin, proponents of Schloss reconstruction “blot out everything they know about the later course of history,” with their reliance on photographic scenes of pre-war Berlin.1 In contrast, the images here attempt to provide a vision of the site as might be experienced by Benjamin’s ‘angel of history’; “His face is turned towards the past. Where we perceived a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet.”2
Scenography | 121
122 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Scenography | 123
1 PANORAMA - BERLINER DOM & SCHLOSS/MARX-ENGELS-PLATZ
2012
1976
1850
1950
1690
1905
2012
2004
1913
2
1690
SCHLOSS/MARX-ENGELS-PLATZ FROM LUSTGARTEN
2012
1950
1939
1690
3
LUSTGARTEN FROM SCHLOSS/MARX-ENGELS-PLATZ
2012 NAZI RALLY
1933 HOMAGE TO KING FREIDRICH WILHELM IV
4
1844
WEST FROM THE LUSTGARTEN TOWARDS UNTER DEN LINDEN
1987 GDR PARADE ALONG UNTER DEN LINDEN
2010
2008
1979
5
1905
FROM EAST BANK OF SPREE RIVER
2008
1988
1917
1786
6
SOUTH OF SCHLOSS, EAST TOWARDS RATHAUSSTRASSE
7 FROM ROTES RATHAUS (RED TOWN HALL)
1987
1905 Scenography | 133
8 SCHLOSS DURING DEMOLITION
1950
1905
PALAST DER REPUBLIK - FOYER
1976 SCHLÜTERHOF (SCHLÜTER COURTYARD)
1874 PALACE COURTYARD
9
1690
SCHLOSS/PALACE OF THE REPUBLIC - INTERIOR SPACES
2008
1917
1786
10
FROM WEST BANK OF SPREE RIVER
SQUATTERS BEHIND KUNSTHAUS TACHELLES, PRENZLAUER BERG, 2012
“FOREVER TO BECOME AND NEVER TO BE” -KARL SCHEFFLER
140 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
PROGRAM II As early as 1910, Karl Scheffler lamented that Berlin’s tragedy was “forever to become and never to be.”1 Pessimism of this kind is also inherent in the earnest desire to reconstruct the Schloss. Just as Scheffler’s comments derided the dynamism and creative energy of turn-of-the-century Berlin, so the Humboldt Forum project denies the creative energy of ‘constant becoming’ that characterises contemporary Berlin. Like Scheffler, the Humboldt Forum represents a longing for an urban identity centred on a grand, linear historical narrative. This longing reveals an anxiety that Berlin’s fractured twentieth century history will prevent it from taking “its rightful place as European capital next to its more glamorous competitors.”2 Kimmelman cites Berlin architectural critic Niklas Maak, in describing how “Berlin’s urban bureaucrats envision the city as a kind of ‘hand-me-down Paris’ … a stage set of an old capital, with phony manufactured charm, erasing traces of the bad years of the 20th century.” However, Berlin is not London, Paris or Rome, and it is precisely its twentieth century history that imbues it with a unique urban character and, as Kimmelman notes, a “dissonance that, to younger Berliners, is a civic virtue.”3 It is this dissonance that represents the reality of Berlin’s contemporary identity and provides the possibility for an architectural response at Schlossplatz
Program II | 141
RAUMLABOR AND VOLKSPALAST, DER BERG, 2005
which provides vision for the future while being inclusive of Berlin’s multiple histories. Berlin’s creative energy is a direct result of the impact of its discontinuous twentieth century history on its physical urban fabric. It occurs as sociopolitical upheaval severs the traditional or intended links between architectural objects and the programs that inhabit them. This dynamism is the “clubs in former Nazi bunkers”, and “bars in Communist-era high rises,” described by Kimmelman.4 It is the opportunistic rehabilitation of architectural objects with
142 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
troubled histories; a rehabilitation that provides them with a positive role in the city’s future development without denying them their traumatic memories of the past. Koepinik instructively explains that architectural form is devoid of any inherent and autonomous symbolic meaning; architectural form alone cannot determine how people recall certain pasts and “evaluate the place of history in the present.” He suggests that “instead of reading architectural designs like works of art, we should focus on how different people inhabit certain structures.”5 As such, the place of architectural program should be a vital consideration in discussions of Berlin’s urban futures and its architectural identity. However it has generally been regarded as an afterthought in the stylistically dominated arguments for Schloss reconstruction. The Bundestag decreed the reconstruction of the Schloss purely on the grounds of a perceived relationship between architectural style and national identity. As such a program had to be fabricated to fill this new Schloss. The result was the “invention of the vague but magical idea of a Humboldt Forum.”6 Like the form of the Schloss, it provides a sanitised version of the Prussian enlightenment as the basis of a unified German identity. The new Schloss will not be associated with the military rulers of the Hohenzollern dynasty who its forebear housed for over five hundred and fifty years. Rather, it will be a museum dedicated to the intellectual spirit of Wilhelm and Alexander Humboldt, leading enlightenment thinkers of the sciences and humanities during the nineteenth century. As such it attempts to avoid the association of a new Schloss with the military imperialism which characterised the Prussian State, a nationalistic quality often considered an ideological ancestor of National Socialism.7 Instead, the new Schloss will house an under developed architectural program, invented simply to compliment its urban ‘image’. In doing so it contributes to the transformation of the Eastern end of the Unter den Linden into a touristic theme park of the Prussian enlightenment. The Palace of the Republic was rarely defended on the grounds of architectural aesthetics. However, by combing restaurants, theatres, galleries, conference centres and other forms of public entertainments with the
Program II | 143
UNEXPECTED RELATIONSHIPS OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM AND PROGRAM
Parliament of the GDR, it has been praised for its innovative approach to architectural program. Combining a set of disparate public and institutional functions into a multifunctional volkshaus or ‘house of the people.’8 It is easy to dismiss its socialist democratic ideals in the face of the political reality of GDR totalitarianism, but democracy under free market capitalism has rarely been able to comprehend, let alone produce, such an innovatively democratic combination of programs. As Ladd has pointed out, perhaps “nowhere else in the world did a parliament share quarters with a bowling alley.”9 However, it was following reunification, as an empty ruined shell, that the Palace came to symbolise the creative dynamism of contemporary Berlin. During the 1990s, its concrete exterior became a haven for skateboarders while its enormous car park regularly became the site for amusement parks.10 In 2004, a collective of artists calling themselves, Volkspalast (People’s Palace) in collaboration with Berlin architects Raumlabor, flooded the Palace of the Republic. The result was a dreamlike environment in which visitors travelled through its ruined halls in gondolas, between theatrical islands of facades, referencing the debate over the future of Schlossplatz. A year later, Volkspalast and Raumlabor returned to the Palace, to build a giant glowing crystalline mountain of scaffolding that grew over the Palace’s “rusty iron core.” The structure, named Der Berg (The Mountain), became the site for what the group called “eventology”, a series of kitschy art installations and happenings.11 Berlin’s creative dynamism relies on the opportunistic relationship between architectural form and program; a dynamic and ever changing relationships that is heavily influenced by socio-political context. This opportunistic relationship is a direct result of the dissonance that exists between the multiple histories of Berlin and their physical presence in the urban environment. The Humboldt Forum seeks to eliminate this dissonance in favour of a visually coherent and socially unified urban identity based on a mythic Prussian past. However, an architectural vision for Berlin that refuses to rely on selective historical memory will find the basis of Berlin’s contemporary urban identity in the dynamism of this dissonance itself; a process of creative dynamism and
146 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
constant self-revolution that provides possibilities for a positive urban future while remaining inclusive of multiple urban pasts.
Program II | 147
WIM WENDERS AT SCHLOSSPLATZ, 2008
150 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
REFERENCES Introduction 1. Throughout this thesis, the German Schloss (castle, palace or stately home) will be used to indicate the Royal Palace, which stood on the site from the fifteenth century until 1950. Alternatively, the Palast der Republik, which stood on the site from 1976 until 2008, will be referred to by its English translation, yhe Palace of the Republic. Schlossplatz, Berlin 1. Brian Ladd, The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1997), 43. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid., 48. 4. Ibid., 50. 5. Brian Ladd, The Ghosts of Berlin, 52. 6. Wolf Jobst Siedler, ‘‘Das Schloss lag nicht in Berlin,’’ in Förderverein Berliner Stadtschloss, ed., Das Schloss? Eine Ausstellung über die Mitte Berlins (Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1993) 7. Adrian, Von Buttlar, “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace: A Proper Past for Germany’s Future?” Future Anterior 4 (2007): 20.
151
8. Alexander Holland, Marc Schnurbus and K. Marie Walter. Das Berliner Schloss: The History of the Berlin Palace (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag , 2004), 24. 9. Michael Wise, Capital Dilemma: Germany’s Search for a New Architecture of Democracy. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998), 43. 10. Wise, Capital Dilemma, 46. 11. Ibid., 45, 46. 12. Von Buttlar, “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace”, 14. 13. Ibid., 15-16. 14. Wise, Capital Dilemma, 51-52. 15. Von Buttlar, “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace”, 15. 16. Wise, Capital Dilemma,114 17. Didem Ekici, “The Surfaces of Memory in Berlin: Rebuilding the Schloß” Journal of Architectural Education 61 (2007): 25. Politics and Memory 1. Andreas Huyssen, Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 51-53. 2. Ibid., 53. 3. Ibid. 4. Ekici, “The Surfaces of Memory”, 27. 5. Wise, Capital Dilemma, 118. 6. Ekici, “The Surfaces of Memory”, 28. 7. Ladd, Ghosts of Berlin, 62; Wise, Capital Dilemma, 118. 8. Ekici, “The Surfaces of Memory”, 27. 9. Huyssen, Present Pasts, 53-54. 10. Wise, Capital Dilemma, 111. 11. Ibid. 12. Ladd, Ghosts of Berlin, 61. 13. cited in Ladd, Ghosts of Berlin, 61. 14. Ibid., 67 15. Ibid., 62
152 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
16. Huyssen, Present Pasts, 54. 17. Dirk Verheyen, United City, Divided Memories?: Cold War Legacies in Contemporary Berlin (Lanham: Lexington, 2008), 206. 18. Wise, Capital Dilemma, 113. 19. Siedler, “Das Schloss lag nicht in Berlin”, in referring to Siedler’s essay, I have relied heavily on a translation generously provided by Damian Lentini. All quotes refer to Dr. Lentini’s translation. 20. Ladd, Ghosts of Berlin, 63. 21. Siedler, “Das Schloss lag nicht in Berlin”. 22. Ekici, “Surfaces of Memory”, 27, 29. 23. Ladd, Ghosts of Berlin, 52, Wise, Capital Dilemma, 117. 24. See Siedler, “Das Schloss lag nicht in Berlin”. 25. Siedler, “Das Schloss lag nicht in Berlin”. 26. Ekici, “Surfaces of Memory”, 26, 27. Ekici, “Surfaces of Memory”, 28. 28. M. Christine Boyer, The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994), p. 6, cited in Ekici, “Surfaces of Memory”, 28. 29. Wise, Capital Dilemma, 114. 30. Von Buttlar, “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace”, 22. 31. Ibid., 28-29. 32. Walter Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History” in Hannah Arendt (ed.) Illuminations (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 256. 33. Von Buttlar, “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace”, 24-25. 34. Ekici, “Surfaces of Memory”, 32. 35. Michael Kimmelmann, “Rebuilding a Palace May Become a Grand Blunder,” New York Times, December 31, 2008, accessed July 27 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/arts/design/01abroad.html?_ r=1&pagewanted=all.
153
Program I 1. Von Buttlar, “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace”, 23. 2. Lutz Koepnick, “Forget Berlin.” The German Quarterly 74 (2001): 347. Palimpsests 1. Huyssen, Present Pasts, 81. 2. Rudy Koshar, From Monuments to Traces: Artifacts of German Memory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), p. 253, cited in Ekici, “Surfaces of Memory”, 33. Scenography 1. Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History”, 256. 2. Ibid., 257. Program II 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Huyssen, Present Pasts, 54. Ibid., 51. Kimmelmann, “Rebuilding a Palace”. Kimmelmann, “Rebuilding a Palace”. Koepnick, “Forget Berlin”, 351-352. Von Buttlar, “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace”, 23. Ibid. Susanne Ledanff, “The Palace of the Republic versus the Stadtschloss: The Dilemmas of Planning in the Heart of Berlin.” German Politics and Society 21 (2003): 46. 9. Ladd, Ghosts of Berlin, 59. 10. Wise, Capital Dilemma, 114. 11. Rodney La Tourelle, “Der Berg and Project for the Demonstration of Archive.” Border Crossings 24 (2005). Title Page Quotes p. 7 Andreas Huyssen, Present Pasts, 54. p. 63 cited in Dirk Verheyen, United City, Divided Memories?, 206.
154 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
p. 73 Robert Darnton, cited in Dirk Verheyen, United City, Divided Memories?, 216. p.89 Kimmelman, ‘Rebuilding a Palace’ p.89 Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History”, 257. p. 139 Karl Scheffler, cited in Huyssen, Present Pasts, 54
BIBLIOGRAPHY Balfour, Alan. Berlin. London: Academy Editions, 1995. Baudrillard, Jean. Simulations. Translated by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip Beitchmann. New York: Semiotext(e), 1983. Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” In Illuminations, edited by Hannah Arendt, translated by Harry Zohn. New York: Harcout Brace and World, 1968. Benjamin, Walter. “Theses on the Philosophy of History.” In Illuminations, edited by Hannah Arendt, 253-267. New York: Schocken Books, 1968. Bodenschatz, Harald. Berlin Urban Design: A Brief History. Translated by Sasha Disko. Berlin: Dom Publishers, 2010. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung, “Reconstruction of the Berlin Castle/Construction of the Humboldt-Forum on the site of the Berlin Castle: Competition Brief.” Feb 2008. Ekici, Didem. “The Surfaces of Memory in Berlin: Rebuilding the Schloß” Journal of Architectural Education 61 (2007): 25-34. Flierl, Thomas & Hermann Parzinger. Humboldt-Forum Berlin: Das Projekt/ The Project. Berlin: Theater Der Zeit, 2009. Holland, Alexander, Marc Schnurbus, and K. Marie Walter. Das Berliner
155
Schloss: The History of the Berlin Palace. Berlin: Gebr Mann, 2004. Huyssen, Andreas. Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003. Kimmelmann, Michael “Rebuilding a Palace May Become a Grand Blunder,” New York Times, December 31, 2008, accessed July 27 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/arts/design/01abroad.html?_ r=1&pagewanted=all. Koepnick, Lutz. “Forget Berlin.” The German Quarterly 74 (2001): 343-354. Ladd, Brian. The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1997. La Tourelle, Rodney. “Der Berg and Project for the Demonstration of Archive.” Border Crossings 24 (2005): 103-107. Ledanff, Susanne. “The Palace of the Republic versus the Stadtschloss: The Dilemmas of Planning in the Heart of Berlin.” German Politics and Society 21 (2003): 30-73. Meuser, Philipp. Schlossplatz Eins: European School of Management and Technology. Berlin: DOM Publishers, 2009. Peschken, Goerd et. al., Das Berliner Schloss: Das Klassische Berlin. Frankfurt am Main: Propyläen, 1991 Siedler, Wolf Jobst, ‘‘Das Schloss lag nicht in Berlin,’’ in Förderverein Berliner Stadtschloss, ed., Das Schloss? Eine Ausstellung über die Mitte Berlins. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1993. Sylvia Martin Herausgeber, Allora & Calzadilla. Nürnberg: Verlag für mordrne Kunst, 2004. Taylor, Ronald. Berlin and Its Culture: A Historical Portrait. New Haven: Yale, 1997. Verheyen, Dirk. United City, Divided Memories?: Cold War Legacies in
156 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Contemporary Berlin. Lanham: Lexington, 2008. Von Buttlar, Adrian. “Berlin’s Castle versus Palace: A Proper Past for Germany’s Future?” Future Anterior 4 (2007): 13-29. Wise, Michael. Capital Dilemma: Germany’s Search for a New Architecture of Democracy. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.
157
158 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
IMAGE CREDITS All images are the author’s own, unless stated below. pp. 6-7 Ugo Proiett, 1940/41, Bundesarchiv, Bild 212-004 pp .8-9 Philipp Meuser, Schlossplatz Eins: European School of Management and Technology (Berlin: DOM Publishers, 2009), 26 pp. 9-10 Philipp Meuser, Schlossplatz Eins, 27 pp. 11-12 ‘Martin’, http://piratenmartin.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/back-in-berlin/ pp. 12-13 Jesololido, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0% BB:FlaechePalastderRepublik.JPG pp. 18-19 Google Maps, 2012 pp. 20-21 Based on Nolli Plan from Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt
159
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtmodelle/de/ innenstadtplaene/sp/index.shtml p.27 Google Maps, 2012 pp. 32-33 http://voices-of-wedding.tonspur.at/?p=809 pp. 36-37 CruiseTommy, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Altes_ Museum_%26_Lustgarten.jpg pp. 40-41 Georg Pahl, Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-00609 p. 44 Goerd Peschken et. al., Das Berliner Schloss: Das Klassische Berlin (Frankfurt am Main: Propyläen, 1991), 52. p.45 www.infocenters.co.il/gfh/multimedia/Photos/Idea/37504.jpg p. 46 Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-1986-0417-414 p. 49, from top to bottom: Rainer Mittelstadt, 1974, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-N0321-017 Unknown online source p. 51 FÜrderverein Berliner Schloss e.V., http://der-neunte-raum.ejs-training.de/ wp-content/uploads/2011/09/berliner_schloss_I.jpg pp. 52-53 Hubert Link, 1976, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R0422-422 pp. 54-55 Arwed Messmer et al., Anonymous Heart Berlin http://www.anonyme-mitte-berlin.de/english.html
160 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
p. 61 Hubert Link, 1976, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R0422-405 p. 62-63 Burkhard Maus and Philipp J. Bösel, 1984, Bundesarchiv, Bild 210-0236 p. 66 Zettler & Mauter, Das Berliner Schloss, 49. pp. 70-71 Sylvia Martin Herausgeber, Allora & Calzadilla (Nürnberg: Verlag für mordrne Kunst, 2004), 74. pp. 72-73 http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/berlin89.jpg pp. 88-89 Dorett, http://www.fotos.sc/PHPSESSID=51c/nav+2/popi+1068437/ mediafile.html pp. 92 - 117 Historical maps sourced from: hypercities.ats.ucla.edu Nolli Diagrams by the author pp. 118-119 unknown online source p. 124, from top to bottom: F R A N K, http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/26819117 http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/wolke/deu/Themen/041/ Flierl/flierl.htm Horst Sturm, 1951, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-10154-0001 http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/wolke/deu/Themen/041/ Flierl/flierl.htm p. 125, from top to bottom: Leopold Ahrendts, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ahrendts_ Berlin_Alter_Dom.jpg
161
Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 42. Max Skladanowsky, 1903/1904, Bundesarchiv, N 1435 Bild-164-006 p. 126, from top to bottom: Jwaller, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LustgartenHumboldtbox. JPG Achim Raschka, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lustgarten_3.JPG Waldemar Titzenthaler, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Lustgarten,_1913.jpg Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 45. p. 127, from top to bottom: Carl030nl, http://www.geolocation.ws/v/P/38813693/ck-altes-museumvom-schlossplatz-berlin-/en Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-09890-0002 Bundesarchiv, B 145, Bild-P022065 Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 44. p. 128, from top to bottom: Author’s own image Georg Pahl, 1933, Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-03197 Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 102. p. 129 Peter Zimmermann, 1987, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-1987-0704-068 p. 130, from top to bottom: http://tonari.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/schlossplatz-und-berliner-dom. jpg Michael Gebert, https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/NsfClqUEDfIo_ UwCzZyohA Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 135. Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 135. p. 131, from top to bottom:
162 |
SCHLOSSPLATZ
Google Street View, 2008 Mark S. Lovmo, http://dokdo-research.com/ostdeutschland.html http://images.zeno.org/Ansichtskarten/I/big/AK01566a.jpg Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 52. pp. 132, from top to bottom: Hubert Link, 1987, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-1987-0527-010 http://www.kunstkopie.at/kunst/akg/pics//akg5-b1-c1905-2.jpg p. 134 Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-07964-0001 p.135 Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss p. 136, from top to bottom: Hubert Link, 1976, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R1001-048 Zettler & Mauter, Das Berliner Schloss, 49. Peschken, Das Berliner Schloss, 41. p. 137, from top to bottom: Arwed Messmer et al., Anonymous Heart Berlin http://www.anonyme-mitte-berlin.de/english.html Zettler & Mauter, Das Berliner Schloss, 101. p. 142 Raumlabor, www.raumlabor.net p. 148-149 Wim Wenders, Carl Zeiss Kalender 2009, http://www.zeiss.de/ C1256A770030BCE0/framed?ReadForm&PRID=8B7D2537B85FE596C125 750C002E748A
163