AC 5007 - Batch 2 - Zehra Faraz by NUS Department of Architecture

Altering the Built Fabric of Historic Buildings: Intervening Sustainable Interventions

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Architecture in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of:

Master of Arts in Architectural Conservation BY ZEHRA FARAZ A0229991M

National University of Singapore 2021-2022

ABSTRACT The question of whether to sanctify heritage and freeze it in its state or to alter it being indifferent of its significance and its value is of fundamental concern. Whether to crystallize the built fabric or to modify it, what would constitute as a good way forward? Often during extension, retrofitting, refurbishment, repair, or restoration of damage, buildings are subjected to "change''. This dissertation seeks to justify contemporary interventions that alter, change, modify, and intervene with the built fabric of historic buildings and their precincts. Furthermore, the undertaking attempts to understand the right way for its implementation. For successfully intervening interventions, it needs to be considered whether these alterations are harmonious with the context or uncalled for; if they integrate with the original character or detract from the main building (Venice Charter); whether or not they are in line with the traditional setting, is balanced in composition, acknowledges the attributes and surroundings of the heritage precinct, and uses appropriate materials. Through research, different kinds of alterations that have been meted out to historic buildings will be analysed to formulate and suggest meaningful public policies that facilitate alteration for social good while preventing those that are inconsiderate. This will safeguard their integrity for future generations. Interventions, if intervened insensitively, hamper the entire context and significance associated with a historic building, often even resulting in a false and gentrified picture that is untrue and may be misleading. The dissertation focuses on isolated buildings of cultural importance and their immediate precincts, considering them as basic building blocks of cities, responsible for guarantying safe, resilient, and sustainable human settlements and cities as the sustainable development goal. Alterations are not encouraged or suggested in all cases through this dissertation. It does not behove built fabric of historic buildings in all cases to undergo change. Historic buildings should not be sanctified and preserved but instead conserved and altered wisely in response to contemporary needs that cater to the community while keeping safe from ahistorical, insensitive approaches that tarnish its integrity. Word Count: 10,630 Words Keywords: Alteration, Historic Buildings, Built Fabric, Interventions Dissertation Supervisor: Dr. Nikhil Joshi Title: Senior Lecturer

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to extend my gratitude to everyone who has seen potential in historic buildings and not considered them as hindrance. Thanks to them for investing their energy and conscience while altering them. I would also like to express gratitude to my dissertation supervisor, Professor Nikhil Joshi who was patient and encouraging throughout. His suggestions and comments played a significant role in this project. Thanks to Syed Qaim for helping me with calculations of survey results and to my mother for boosting me throughout. It is with their constant support that I could complete this dissertation.

LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1: Physical Compatibility- Stadel Museum.................................................................. 41 Chart 2: Physical Compatibility- Moritzburg Museum .......................................................... 42 Chart 3: Physical Compatibility- Jewish Museum Berlin ....................................................... 43 Chart 4: Ecological Compatibility - Stadel Museum .............................................................. 44 Chart 5: Ecological Compatibility - Moritzburg Museum ...................................................... 45 Chart 6: Ecological Compatibility - Jewish Museum Berlin ................................................... 46 Chart 7: Evaluation of All Interventions to Built Fabric of Historic Museums........................ 47 Chart 8: Evaluation of Sustainability of Each Intervention.................................................... 48

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 : Map of Germany showing the locations of 3 case studies spread out across three cities Frankfurt, Halle, and Berlin......................................................................................... 20 Figure 2 : Stadel Museum, Frakfurt, Germany Site Plan ....................................................... 21 Figure 3 : Städel Museum (Frankfurt, 1878) | Structurae..................................................... 22 Figure 4 : Garden Wing (Rear Side of the Stadel Museum) Schneider + Schumacher · Extension of the Städel Museum · Divisare .......................................................................... 23 Figure 5 : Sketch of the West Wing by Gustav Peichl ........................................................... 23 Figure 6 : The West Wing of the Stadel Museum ................................................................. 24 Figure 7 : Garden Halls ........................................................................................................ 25 Figure 8 : Plan of the Stadel Museum .................................................................................. 26 Figure 9 : Sectional View of the Stadel Museum .................................................................. 26 Figure 10 : Moritzburg Museum, Halle, Germany Site Plan .................................................. 27 Figure 11 : The Moritzburg Castle before being Destroyed in the Thirty Years’ War in 1600 28 Figure 12 : Talamt Replica Kulturstiftung Sachsen-Anhalt – Kunstmuseum Moritzburg Halle (Saale), archive .................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 13 : Construction of Battlements on the Eastern Wing of the Castle, 1912 photo: Kulturstiftung Sachsen-Anhalt – Kunstmuseum Moritzburg Halle (Saale), archive ............... 29 Figure 14 : South-Eastearn Tower’s Dome ........................................................................... 30 Figure 15 : Photograph of the West Wing in 1950 ............................................................... 31 Figure 16 : West Wing after the Fourth Intervention ........................................................... 31 Figure 17 : View of the Moritzburg Museum after the Fourth Intervention ......................... 31 Figure 18 : View after the Fourth Intervention from inside the Courtyard ........................... 32 Figure 19 : Angular Metallic Tower at the South Western Corner of the Museum ............... 33 Figure 20 : Jewish Museum Berlin, Germany- Site Plan........................................................ 34 Figure 21 : The Baroque Old Building | Jewish Museum Berlin ............................................ 35 Figure 22 : AD Classics: Jewish Museum, Berlin / Studio Libeskind....................................... 36 Figure 23 : Glass Courtyard, Jewish Museum Berlin - Libeskind ........................................... 37 Figure 24 : Daniel Libeskind's Academy of the Jewish Museum Berlin Opens Today ............ 38

CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgement................................................................................................................. 3 List of Charts ......................................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 5 1

Introduction................................................................................................................... 8 1.1

Understanding Terms........................................................................................... 10

Analyzing Alterations in Context- Historic Buildings and Imposed Sanctity ................... 11 2.1

Obsolescence and Obscurity ................................................................................ 11

2.2

Priorities in Heritage Conservation and How Alterations May Address Them ....... 11

2.3

Historical Review- Developments Overtime ......................................................... 12

Revisiting Theories pertaining Interventions- Determining Sustainable Intervention .... 15

Analyzing Additions in Practice .................................................................................... 18

4.1

Methodology and the Selection of Case Studies................................................... 18

4.2

Case Studies......................................................................................................... 21

4.3

Comparative Analysis: .......................................................................................... 39

4.4

Responses and Perception ................................................................................... 41

4.5

Sustainable Interventions .................................................................................... 48

Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................... 50 5.1

Recommendations ............................................................................................... 52

Appendix- Survey ................................................................................................................. 53 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 68

“A good city is a delicate balance between hope and memory. It must provide reassurance that a better world is possible in the future, while simultaneously respecting everything from the past that nourishes our roots and our identity. Therefore, it must change, and it must remain the same”, wrote the architect and journalist Robert Campbell, in the Boston Globe.

1 INTRODUCTION Historic buildings that are regarded for one or more attributes such as aesthetic values, architectural values, historical context, cultural, environmental, or religious aspects, comes to being recognized as significant buildings. Their attributes are exhibited and conveyed locally, nationally, and even internationally as significant cultural/natural heritage values. They are considered for preservation and conservation to retain, secure, and pass it down in a safeguarded state to future generations. Conservation of these historic buildings is a creative and complex approach of altering structures to adapt them to present day expectations, modern and contemporary needs. Historic buildings should not be sanctified and preserved but instead conserved and altered wisely in response to contemporary needs that cater to the community while keeping safe from ahistorical, insensitive approaches that tarnish its integrity. With the fast paced changing world, situations arise which render them in obligation of alteration. This necessitation can reinforce historic buildings’ significance to ensure their benefit is imparted to future generations. There has always been an issue surrounding alterations- about the proper way to approach historic buildings. Often during extension, retrofitting, refurbishment, repair, or restoration of damage, buildings are subjected to "change''. This dissertation seeks to justify contemporary interventions that alter, change, modify, and intervene with the built fabric of historic buildings and their precincts. Furthermore, the undertaking attempts to understand the right way for its implementation. For successfully intervening interventions, it needs to be considered whether these alterations are harmonious with the context or uncalled for; if they integrate with the original character or detract from the main building (Venice Charter); whether or not they are in line with the traditional setting, is balanced in composition, acknowledge the attributes and surroundings of the heritage precinct, and uses appropriate materials. Through research, different kinds of alterations that have been meted out to historic buildings will be analysed to formulate and suggest meaningful public policies that facilitate alteration for social good while preventing those that are inconsiderate. This will safeguard their integrity for future generations. Interventions, if intervened insensitively, hamper the entire context and significance associated with a historic building, often even resulting in a false and gentrified picture that is untrue and may be misleading. The dissertation focuses on isolated buildings of cultural importance and their immediate precincts, considering them as basic building blocks of cities, responsible for guarantying safe, resilient, and sustainable human settlements and cities as the sustainable development goal. Modifications carried out to meet community needs or add value to lifeless buildings in cases of neglect/obsolescence make heritage pliable for continuance, whereas tampering it insensitively in ignorance or for localized benefits, power, politics makes us lose it forever. The main research questions that this dissertation seeks to address is why should alterations in the built fabric of historic structures be acceptable? What are current priorities 8

in heritage conservation and how alterations may address them? Do the international charters and guidelines justify alterations in historic buildings? After establishing why alterations are necessary and how they are justified, the study would proceed to further delve into the right way of implementing interventions and the factors that govern it. What are suitable interventions in a building? What factors come into play while deciding the compatibility of historic buildings? How do interventions affect sustainability? Methodology: The dissertation will progress through undertaking qualitative research to gain an understanding of alterations. Firstly, the question of feasibility of alterations in historic buildings will be undertaken by a study of the charters and guidelines of conservation; the validation of which will be backed by historical research overviewing notable examples from the past. Furthermore, several case studies of similar contexts will be studied and analyzed where contemporary interventions are intervened in the recent past. A comparative analysis will follow after a survey of the cases to build up on the theory of contemporary interventions. The perceptions and responses of the surveyed individuals combined with the literature studies on alterations will determine compatibility of interventions and discern between right and wrong practices so that we can safeguard heritage from bad interventions while readily accept those interventions that are aimed for its protection and continuance for future. The dissertation will conclude to what extent the executed practices have been sustainable and determine the validity of interventions to perceive and thus formulate a framework for future projects suggested for changes. Case studies will reckon sustainable practices of interventions meted out to the built fabric of historic buildings. Limitations: Due to the word limit, this vast topic on alterations to the built fabric of historic buildings has been narrowed. Alterations encompass a wide range of actions that can be meted out to historic buildings. Yet the study, after justifying alterations- narrows its scope to further research in detail about contemporary refurbishment and additions in particular. These alterations have been referred to as ‘interventions’ throughout the dissertation. The essential aspect of this dissertation-compatibility of interventions determined through case study analysis and survey analysis are focused on one typology of building, situated in proximity to one another for the sake of better understanding and efficient liketo-like comparison. The scope of the study only addresses significant historic buildings, and does not specifically address modern heritage.

1.1 UNDERSTANDING TERMS Alteration ‘Alteration’ is referred in this dissertation to define all types of enforced changes to buildings by humans, rather than those caused by natural events like weathering. The word ‘alteration’ is used in this dissertation as a broad term that extends out to mean a lot of things. Alteration includes a change in the building, its use, demolition of part or entire structure, alteration of its part or in entirety, refurbishment, restoration, intervention of additional elements. Historic Buildings The term ‘Historic Buildings’ in this dissertation pertains to those buildings that are old and bear value due to their historic, architectural, social, significance. It is difficult to attach an age bar on buildings that reckons them permissible to be called old since some cultures and places may regard 100-year-old buildings as historic whereas others may consider even 60-year-old ones historic. Thus, the age of buildings combined with their significance classify them as historic buildings in this dissertation. Built Fabric ‘Built Fabric’ in this dissertation refers to the tangible components of the historic buildings. It is used to refer to the evident and visible components that if altered, could change the appearance of the historic buildings. Interventions ‘Interventions’ in the dissertation refer to the conscious act of intercession of visible and notable alterations in buildings, that is meted out as a result of human efforts. The term covers additions as well as refurbishment

2 ANALYZING ALTERATIONS IN CONTEXT- HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND IMPOSED SANCTITY Historic buildings are ascribed sanctity and there is an associated stigma to not alter them. Certain historic theories also support this idea that it be passed onto the future generations with complete authenticity. (The Venice Charter 1964). The charter’s preamble states that it is the common responsibility of all people to safeguard the historic edifices for future generations. The view regarding conservation of historic buildings and the legislation associated with it also aims for permanence and eternity. In Temporary City, 2012, Bishop and Williams highlight this as an issue that conservation of historic buildings and precincts is treated like a ‘sacred cow’, which is not allowed to prosper or develop. An artificially imposed permanence looms over them. The long term impacts of non-progress of ‘conservation theories’ with criticism or review are warned about. The imposed sanctity shove these historic buildings to a time vault with no realisation or actualisation of its potential. (Bishop and Williams, 2012)

2.1

OBSOLESCENCE AND OBSCURITY

More often than not, even significant historic buildings fall prey to obsolescence. Buildings lose their value and utility or may even get obscured as a result of new ones coming up. In the book ‘Obsolescence: An Architectural History’, author Daniel Abramson talks about the expendability of old buildings and an idea of the new outperforming the historic is established. Many architects in the 1960s, accepted that in this fast-changing world, obsolescence cannot be gotten away with. The coming up of new structures and the placement of functions in those, helps people to come into terms with modernity. It makes them accept the effect of capitalism’s fast paced change. While one group of architects believed in obsolescence and rejected convention and tradition to such an extent that they perceived short-lived, expendable buildings of value and utility because of their ability to entail human liberty and freedom. The other group of architects who do not envision this idea as right, condemned it on account of its transience and unsustainability. It is their resistance that has laid the ground for a sustainable vision- of conservation instead of disposal of resources. (Abramson 2021)

2.2

PRIORITIES IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND HOW ALTERATIONS MAY ADDRESS THEM

According to the English Heritage (2007), change in historic buildings is inevitable; it could be due to usage, environmental effects, or in response to the economic and technical advances of the world we live in. Alterations are a way of conserving the significant buildings. They protect it from falling into obsolescence and also make sure it is under use by enhancing the usability and livability of historic buildings. Moreover, change in any building signifies growth. Alteration in historic buildings is an indication that it is still alive and is adapting to the changing world. It means that it is adapting itself to serve contemporary needs of the people.

English Heritage also suggests that the best way to protect a building is by keeping it occupied (English Heritage, 2011). Alterations thus provide numerous benefits in the conservation and maintenance, thus of historic buildings, including obscurity. This topic was even discussed in the Architectural Review, 1991 that as we rewrite history, we must re-approach it. Every generation must reinterpret the historic buildings as per their needs and in accordance with the changing world. The new generation must ascribe them new uses and endow them with a renewed spirit. They must also make the best interventions that the contemporary time is capable of accrediting. The Athens conference, 1931 recommended that occupation of historic buildings should be maintained for continuity of their life, but they should be employed in uses that complement their historic or artistic character. It was also established in the Congress of the European Architectural Heritage, 1975 that historical continuity must be preserved to maintain or create surroundings in the environment to which individuals identify and feel secure amidst other changes. This points to the fact that alterations in historic buildings must be approached with the aim of historical continuance. Alterations must be sensitive to the historical context where they are executed and must ensure place identity. Change in the building, its use, demolition of part or entire structure, alteration of its part or in entirety, refurbishment, restoration, or intervention of additional elements should be intervened as and when required, to cater to the needs of the community. Another benefit that alterations to the built fabric of historic buildings entail is that they make maximum use of the available resources. The economic costs of demolition of a building and construction costs of erecting a new one is tremendous. Demolition and construction is also accompanied by a lot of pollution. To tackle this, slight alterations in old buildings can make them pliable for continuance economically, and at the same time- effectively manage wastes and pollution generated. This thus economizes resources and contributes to the environment.

2.3

HISTORICAL REVIEW- DEVELOPMENTS OVERTIME

Osmund Overby, in his book Old and New Architecture: A History, mentions that before consciousness of architectural conservation took over the world, the preservation work on old buildings was mostly executed in new styles, but was grounded on the historical and architectural understanding of the old structure, and was wary of its context. Later, in the 19th century, there was a realization of historic heritage and an awakening in the masses pertaining to historic structures. There was a consciousness about conservation of old buildings and their associated significance. Interventions to historic buildings were meted out with caution, in consideration of the historical context. Different approaches and guidelines are being developed since, to address this issue. The very firsts of instances of intervening additions to historic buildings can be seen in the works of the French architect Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc. He is associated with the restoration 12

and preservation of many monumental historic buildings- most notably the Notre Dame of Paris in 1844 and the walls of the city of Carcassonne. Whereby he considerably altered the original building, to achieve a perfect style. His upgrading works included the modification of structural systems and the addition of embellishing elements like spires, roofs, towers and other details. His ideology was centered around executing interventions to buildings so as to restore them to the best possible state that may or may not have any relation with its original state. Conservation for him was to restore a building to a state of completeness that may never have even existed before. Alongside was the ideology of John Ruskin, another pioneer in the field of architectural conservation. Although a contemporary of Viollet Le Duc, his theory severely contrasted with that of Le Duc’s. John Ruskin was sensitive about the original character and state of the building and believed in regular maintenance of the material fabric. In his book, ‘The Seven Lamps of Architecture’ (1949), he clearly expressed his views against restoration stating that it is as impossible as to raise the dead. He also said that preservation of historic buildings is not about expediency or choice, and that nobody has the right to touch them as they belong partly to those who built them and partly to all the generations of mankind that are to follow. According to him, except for making basic repairs, no one should be Intervening with the fabric of a historic building. He believed that the natural process of decay must not be tampered with as intervention is the destruction of history, truth and life. To tamper an old building means destruction and generating a false description of a building which otherwise was bequeathed to as guardians to be safeguarded for future generations with complete authenticity and integrity. John Ruskin also said that a building must be allowed to evolve on its own with the passage of time as a continuous process and should not be modified radically through a proper undertaking. He posits that a building’s evolution must be visible through its patina, with its function and repairs adding a tangent to it and contributing to its development over time- as is the case with books. In 1877, William Morris and Philip Webb along with other members, founded SPABSociety for the Protection of Ancient Buildings to deal with the conservation issues. Its manifesto encompasses all types and styles of buildings. It replaces the notion of restoration with ‘protection’ and decay with daily maintenance, to do the bear minimum required for support or cover. It discourages in any case, any alteration of the fabric or ornament of the building. In the case of the Albans Cathedral, William Morris spoke up against the rash, destructive and dangerous addition of a high-pitched roof on the ancient building of great significance. Lewis Mumford in his book, titled ‘The South in Architecture’, 1941, encourages architects to deal with the present world challenges in a creative spirit. He exhorts them to chase new directions rather than dwell in the past. According to him, “architecture can be surveyed not as technical and aesthetic alone, but as a manifestation of the language of the

spirit and an aspect of self-awareness and critical understanding of the things we are living for.” These ideologies pertain to general conservation principles of buildings but can be extrapolated for the intervention of additions to historic structures. These diverse and contrasting opinions of architects, architectural critics, architectural conservationist, philosophers display the wide array of theories on the topic. However, this debatable topic is leveled with the stand point of lead organizations in this matter. These international organizations welcome compatible additions till the point they do not affect the character defining features of the old building, if they entail benefit for the community at large and facilitate the building’s continued use. As discussed earlier, these organizations are sympathetic to the intervention of contemporary additions on historic buildings as they safeguard the historic fabric of the building and are aimed at facilitating extended use.

3 REVISITING THEORIES PERTAINING INTERVENTIONS- DETERMINING SUSTAINABLE INTERVENTION Interventions: This dissertation is focused on interventions intervened in the built fabric of historic buildings. They are usually intervened when a space crunch arises in a historic building. So, to accommodate the need, the building is expanded. They may be meted out to existing buildings in order to extend its life for continued use and longevity. They may also be done for contemporising or updating as per new technology and era. They may also need to be carried out when a new function is to be introduced and requires a different setting or placement. Moreover, it is also intervened even when the building needs to be revamped and spaced out to better deliver its services. As mentioned earlier, ‘Interventions’ in this dissertation refer to modifications and additions to the built fabric. The dissertation particularly seeks to analyse the sustainable way it can be meted out to buildings, in different styles and different contexts. Sustainable development was defined by Bruntland Commission Report of 1987 as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Society, culture, environment and economy are the four-fundamental dimensions to sustainable development. It is important to note that these dimensions cannot be approached with solid boundaries but are intertwined with each other. Sustainable development is way a of thinking that is primarily focused on improving quality of life while considering the impact of those developmental practices on the environment and economies of future societies. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015. These goals aim for sustainable, universal and ambitious development by 2030. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), an international organization was created by the United Nations in 1945 to promote education, scientific development, and culture across the world. Despite the UNESCO not being a specific organisation to advocate conservation of historic resources- it promotes conservation of tangible and intangible heritage as significant aspects of all cultures. In the four drivers of sustainability that UNESCO defined- society, economy, environment and culture, an understanding should be formed about the cultural aspect. The cultural aspect- The determination of cultural needs is done by evaluating the intervention in terms of its contemporary needs that reject pseudo-historical interventions.

How do contemporary needs make up for the cultural aspect of sustainability? Different approaches have come up in the fiend of conservation to ensure proper implementation of interventions to historic buildings. One popular approach, also advocated by Viollet-le-Duc was to employ the same style interventions to historic buildings as their original style. This strategy was adopted to avoid any obviously visible physical intervention for making the intervention complete coalesce with the style of the historic building as if it is one structure. However, this strategy is not the best and comes with its own set of complexities. (Ray, 1980). It entails total and detailed understanding of the original architecture, making sure it coalesces with it completely. In most cases it would fail to be up to the mark and would result in a ‘pseudo-historic’ design which is abhorred in Article 21 of the Vienna Memorandum, 2003. It can project misrepresentation of the history. It also meddles with the interpretation between the authentic features and the latter intervention. A second approach known as ‘abstraction’ also came into use. This strategy makes use of a similar yet different style while intervening interventions. The essence of the historical building is translated into a new yet corresponding style. Translating characteristic feature and recreating the essence of a historic building avoids misrepresentation because of the new acquired style yet is a difficult undertaking that jeopardizes the physical integrity of the historic building. A third approach that caters to contemporary needs and makes up for the cultural aspect of sustainability is the use contemporary styles while intervening interventions to historic buildings. This approach is known as contrasting as is the most recommended practice. Contemporary interventions speak for the present. They also elicit a non-deliberate comparison between the original structure and the altered appearance. This position is acknowledged by other treaties as well who address its adoption to appease current concerns. Some of them even provide a detailed specification with regards to the intervention to historic buildings. This can be seen in the Resolutions of the Symposium on the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings, whereby ICOMOS appreciates the value of incorporating historic monuments into present day life, especially the importance of harmony. The deductions were established in below four points that provides a guiding light as to how to go about intervening such interventions: 1. A practical way of introducing contemporary architecture within an ancient group of buildings is to make sure that the existing fabric is respected and there is a framework for its future evolution 2. Contemporary architecture modelled and built using modern day material and techniques should not degrade the aesthetic and structural qualities of the ancient setting where it is trying to fit itself in. To achieve this consideration for proper use of mass, scale and appearance

3. The primary standard should be to ensure that the authenticity of the historical buildings and monuments should not be devalued and that preservation of their historical and artistic value should be of utmost concern 4. Due allowance for the revitalization of monuments and historical buildings should be given to find new uses, only if these modifications, either externally or internally does not alter the structure or character as an individual entity. ICOMOS’s position on alterations to historical buildings is summarized on the four points above. It does acknowledge the need for modifications to these structures so as to facilitate the adaptation to current times as development of societies that are accepting of alterations to historical buildings. The organization is more open to additions as compared in the past, however the focus on ensuring that the original structure and character of the building remains the same. The renowned French architect, Jean Nouvel said that “Each new situation requires a new architecture”. In this fast-changing world, the contemporary interventions provide better and unique solutions in complex cases of historic buildings. High pollution levels are causing changes in the climatic conditions of the world. There is a surge in global warming- a constant rise of sea level and scarcity of land. Amidst all this, contemporary materials need to be adopted for construction activities that aid in reducing the carbon footprint of the building. Renewable energy must be tapped on through contemporary materials and technologies in construction that require less energy. Interventions that cater to contemporary needs, appease the concerns of authenticity and integrity. They help from lashes of insincerity, morality and honesty. But can still be criticized because of the use of a disparate style that hampers the context of the structure. It is also reinforced in the Article 13 of the Venice Charter, where it is officially stated that: “Additions (to historic monuments) cannot be allowed except in so far as they do not detract from the interesting parts of the building, its traditional setting, the balance of its composition and its relation with its surroundings.” This further advocates about the physical aspects that need to be adopted for determining physical compatibility of the interventions. These physical aspects stated in the Venice Charter, together with ecological aspects like social contribution, economic contribution, environmental contribution and compliance with contemporary needs (cultural contribution) determine holistic sustainable interventions. Therefore, ensuring both development and conservation.

4 ANALYZING ADDITIONS IN PRACTICE Apart from the literature studies, views about contemporary additions can be gauged by reflecting profoundly the practice and implementation of conservation to historic buildings. Through reflecting upon the past theories pertaining heritage and also the guidelines laid down by international organizations, it was reckoned that the interventions must be both physically compatible according to the historical context, and contemporary in nature. They must to be good for safeguarding the environment, boosting the economy and needs of the community. Along with acceding to contemporary needs, the intervention should not detract from the characteristic features of the historic building. It should be balanced in composition (in terms of shape, orientation, proportions, height and must regard the contextual setting. It must also be vary of its visual impact to the historic structure and its physical impact to the historic structure. The plausibility of the intervention is determined upon sensitive interventions and the design’s adherence to standard guidelines. Despite recommendations for the interventions being laid down, all cases are not successful. As far as the general appearance of the altered building is concerned, it is sure to be subjective as it is based on individual preference and likeness. The study will progress through examining examples of interventions and the adaptation of significant historic buildings to highlight the change they have undergone along with their underlying contexts. To proceed this research about the intervening sustainable interventions to historic buildings, it is imperative to investigate their compatibility with the original building and its precinct for evaluating right and wrong practices.

4.1

METHODOLOGY AND THE SELECTION OF CASE STUDIES

Historic buildings in urban areas, the built fabric of which had underwent interventions were the primary focus while selecting case studies. The following points were regarded while selecting case studies. 1. Incorporation of historic buildings of heritage value. Every example of interventions chosen as a case study is implemented in a building that is identified with historical and heritage significance. 2. It is ensured in the selection that the selected examples should be of similar typology for efficient comparison, serve the same function, and are located not very far from each other, to have a common context and to ensure they are governed with not much differentiation. It was also important to demonstrate different types of additions, so the buildings chosen represent disparate ways, intervention can be meted out.

Choosing buildings of the same typology that have undergone contemporary additions, and are located in the same state was a difficult pursuit. 3. Realisation of the intervention and accessibility of information For appropriate reflection and study, it was necessary that the selected buildings had already undergone the complete aimed intervention. Information regarding them, connections to locals for responses, surveys were also considered. The rules and guidelines concerning these building’s interventions, their owners are beyond the scope of the research. Their legal protection bodies and the rules laid by them are not included so as to assess them in terms of international standards provided by UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICCROM, discussed in the first chapter. Based on this criteria, three art museums were selected in Germany to assess the intervention to historic buildings. Museums play a vital role in recognising and exhibiting theories, challenging historic perspectives, and representing them. They provide opportunities to deeply understand cultural heritage.

Why Art museums? A few variables helped me choose museums to study architectural interventions on built heritage. The first variable was that it should be a public building. Museums always carry a symbolic importance to the societies they are built in. They are public spaces, very much visible and available for people’s opinion. It is a building typology, the architecture of which represents its public image. The intervention would affect people from all over the world. Art Museums are places that attract all cultural tourists (Stylianou-Lambert 2011). Art Museums are great examples to study intervention; intervention being an art- the compatibility of which is analysed in this dissertation. Thus the manifestation of this art can be seen in best form in Art Museums. They represent heritage and legacy- entailing the past, present and the future, making it interesting to analyse compatibility of their interventions. Why Germany? Germany is a place where many famous art museums are located. It has a rich museum culture. World famous Museum Island which is a UNESCO world heritage site is also located it Germany. It is a historical place and a lot of museums that have undergone interventions in their built fabric are located in Germany.

Map showing the geographical spread of the three museums in question:

FIGURE 1 : MAP OF GERMANY SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF CASE STUDIES SPREAD OUT ACROSS THREE CITIES- FRANKFURT, HALLE, AND BERLIN SOURCE: AUTHOR

To alter a historical museum, is a complex undertaking as it deals with the associations people and places have with it. It involves intervening with the representation of the local community, as it is its face. Thus it symbolises its customs, mores, and values. The implicit social and cultural norms are exhibited through the take on important structures such as museums that convey fathomless knowledge. It also jeopardises its future footfall. People who otherwise had held high regard for it but later feel put off for the tampered context. They feel the lack of originality and authenticity because of which they wanted to visit in the first place. Conversely, it may garner more visitors because of the new addition. People’s fascination with the previous works of the architect working on it and the new look that the building may be subjected to may attract more people towards it. The excitement of something new, the facelift may also be a factor pulling them toward it

4.2

CASE STUDIES

Case 1: Building Name: Stadel Museum, Frankfurt Located in Schaumainkai 63, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Source of information: History of the Museum | Städel Museum, Städel Museum / Schneider + Schumacher | ArchDaily

FIGURE 2 : STADEL MUSEUM, FRAKFURT, GERMANY SITE PLAN SOURCE: AUTHOR

Original Building. 1878 First Intervention, 1921 Second Intervention, 1990 Third Intervention, 2012

Stadel is the oldest museum in Germany, founded in 1817, as one of the oldest museums in Frankfurt’s museum embankment upon the will of Johann Friedrich Städel. Its enormous collection includes 700 years of European art with 3100 paintings, 660 sculptures, a large number of photographs, and around 100,000 drawings and prints. The main building that we see today was constructed in 1878 at the Schaumainkai in Grunderzeit style. It was designed by Oskar Sommer, planned around a central axis.

FIGURE 3 : STÄDEL MUSEUM (FRANKFURT, 1878) | STRUCTURAE SOURCE: STÄDEL MUSEUM (FRANKFURT, 1878) | STRUCTURAE

The founder had wished the Stadel’s collection be increased and perfected every year. Hence, to make room for its ever growing collection- it has continually been expanded. Despite the future additions, Oskar Sommer’s historic building is still in use as the “Main Wing”. It inhabits the library, the bookshop on the ground floor and the Department of Prints and Drawings on the lower floor whereas the collection of Old Master paintings on the upper floor. The damage incurred on the building in the second world war, was restored in 1945. The First Intervention: The two Garden Wings were intervened to the historic building between 1915 and 1921 by Hermann Van Hoven & Franz Heberer. The central part of the historic building which housed the conference rooms and administrative offices was extended through the central axis. The symmetry was maintained to continue Oskar Sommer’s concept. It was built with contemporary materials.

FIGURE 4 : GARDEN WING (REAR SIDE OF THE STADEL MUSEUM) SOURCE: FOTO: NORBERT MIGULETZ © STÄDEL MUSEUM, FRANKFURT AM MAIN- SCHNEIDER + SCHUMACHER · EXTENSION OF THE STÄDEL MUSEUM · DIVISARE

Need of the Intervention: To house and expand the art collection. Analysis in Terms of Massing: The addition is harmonious with the old building in materials, scale, shape, proportions. It seems to be a congruent extension to the main structure. The Second Intervention: The West Wing on the Holbeinstrasse side, was designed by Gustav Peichl. This addition to the historic museum was the second intervention that was completed in 1990. It has two blocks spaced with a slant gap that are of concrete. It currently houses the auditorium, administration and the library.

FIGURE 5 : SKETCH OF THE WEST WING BY GUSTAV PEICHL SOURCE: HTTPS://WWW.ARTIC.EDU/ARTWORKS/242967/STADEL-MUSEUM-ADDITION-AND-STADEL-SCHULE-FRANKFURT-GERMANYDESIGN-STUDY

FIGURE 6 : THE WEST WING OF THE STADEL MUSEUM SOURCE: HISTORY OF THE MUSEUM | STÄDEL MUSEUM

Need of the Intervention: To expand the museum space for exhibiting the art of the latter half of the twentieth century. Analysis in Terms of Massing: The west wing is not placed along the symmetrical axis of the main building. It is offset on the west from the rear side of the original complex. In terms of proportion and scale, its massing is similar to the old building. The Third Intervention: The third intervention to the museum, “Garden Halls” in 2012 is placed below the museum’s garden. It is a green building, equipped with energy efficient facilities. Initiatives for the largest expansion of the Stadel Museum began in 2007 through an invited competition. The architectural firm Schneider + Schumacher was selected for the it. The intervention comprised an additional area of 4151 sqm, concealed underground on the rear side. (Fig 7) It was intervened in a way that it maintains the spatial arrangement of the historic building, accessed through a staircase from the old foyer. The central axis around which the historic building of the museum sits, was extended. This new exhibition space’s addition, like the Garden Wings, maintained Oskar Sommer’s concept of the axis. The daylight passing through the underground extended area below can be regulated by a doubly covered slab consisting of 195 roof lights, termed as the “eyes for art”. This seamless fusion of light and landscape was conceptualised with energy optimization incorporating heating, cooling and ventilation. At night, these circular lights illuminate the garden.

As part of this intervention, steel and concrete boxes was used at the

FIGURE 7 : GARDEN HALLS SOURCE: SCHNEIDER + SCHUMACHER · EXTENSION OF THE STÄDEL MUSEUM · DIVISARE

Need of the Intervention: To expand the display area of the museum and increase the collection. Analysis in Terms of Massing: It complements the previous two alterations despite being placed underground, in contrast to them. It is visibly a subtle addition on the ground level denoted by a bulge and circular lights, not intervening with the massing of the old fabric or obscuring it. It is a contemporary intervention of a single storeyed volume that connects with the garden wings symmetrically, and abutting the right wing of the museum at a right angle.

FIGURE 8 : PLAN OF THE STADEL MUSEUM SOURCE: SCHNEIDER + SCHUMACHER · EXTENSION OF THE STÄDEL MUSEUM·DIVISARE

FIGURE 9 : SECTIONAL VIEW OF THE STADEL MUSEUM SOURCE: FRANKFURT | STÄDEL ART MUSEUM EXPANSION | INEXHIBIT

Case 2: Moritzburg Museum, Halle, Germany Friedemann-Bach-Platz 5, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany Source of information: Das Kunstmuseum Moritzburg Halle (Saale) - Kulturstiftung SachsenAnhalt

FIGURE 10 : MORITZBURG MUSEUM, HALLE, GERMANY SITE PLANS SOURCE: AUTHOR

Solid colour represents complete addition, whereas faded colour represents additions to a part or parts of the structure but not complete addition.

First Intervention, 1904 Second Intervention, 1913 Third Intervention, 1917 Fourth Intervention, 2008

Previously a late medieval fortress, the Moritzburg in halle was built between 1484 and 1503 to serve as a residence for bishops. The structure spans four connected wings, enclosing a courtyard within. It was refurbished once in the 16th century but suffered destruction in The Thirty Years’ War. It was finally revived in the early twentieth century to be used as an art museum since 1904 with the museum having its 3 (out of 4) round towers, its original columns, floor, courtyard, and its surrounding wall intact. After its designation as a museum, it underwent many extensions and alterations as its used ruins were refurbished and put into use for art.

FIGURE 11 : THE MORITZBURG CASTLE BEFORE BEING DESTROYED IN THE THIRTY YEARS’ WAR IN 1600 SOURCE: MORITZBURG CASTLE - MUSEUM & EXHIBITIONS - KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT

The First Intervention: The intervention started in around 1900 with a part of the dilapidated historic castle being restored. The headquarters of an old open-pan salt manufacturing place- Pfänner and Halloren works used to be situated close to the Moritzburg Castle till it was pulled down in 1882. Two historic rooms of the historic castle- the courtroom and the banqueting hall were thus modelled in traditional style as a replica of the residence of Halle’s salt work managers. Completed in 1904, the replica, known as the ‘Talamt’, houses applied art pieces that belong to the municipal Museum of Arts and Crafts.

FIGURE 12 : TALAMT REPLICA KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT – KUNSTMUSEUM MORITZBURG HALLE (SAALE), ARCHIVE SOURCE: MORITZBURG CASTLE - MUSEUM & EXHIBITIONS - KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT

Need of the intervention: To use the Moritzburg Castle as a museum, display the applied art collection and preserve the original fittings of the salt-works headquarters in the replica. Analysis in Terms of Massing: The addition of the ‘Talamt’ in proportion with the rest of the structure. It harmoniously blends with the rest of the wings of the complex.

The Second Intervention: The second intervention to the ruins on the historic castle happened on its eastern wing in 1913. Stuccoed ceilings were also added to it along with a contemporary battlement walk.

FIGURE 13 : CONSTRUCTION OF BATTLEMENTS ON THE EASTERN WING OF THE CASTLE, 1912 SOURCE: KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT – KUNSTMUSEUM MORITZBURG HALLE (SAALE), ARCHIVE MORITZBURG CASTLE - MUSEUM & EXHIBITIONS - KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT

Need of the addition: For extension of the museum. Analysis in Terms of Massing: The intervention is harmonious with the built fabric of the historic castle. It is also appropriate in scale and proportion. The Third Intervention: There was an addition made to the historic building’s south eastern tower by the construction of a domed roof in 1917. This intervention was done based on inspiration from the Pantheon in Rome yet in a different style. The original roof was high pitched. It was of a greater height than the 1917 addition. Contemporary materials were used for it.

FIGURE 14 : SOUTH-EASTEARN TOWER’S DOME SOURCE: Moritzburg Castle - Museum & Exhibitions - Kulturstiftung Sachsen-Anhalt

Need of the addition: For improvisation of the hall in the south-eastern tower and extension of the museum. Analysis in Terms of Massing: The addition was harmonious with the built fabric of the historic structure. The added domed roof is similar to the one that was originally built at the towers but not exactly the same, thus has a contemporary dimension to it. The Fourth Intervention: The current state owes its existence to when several additions were intervened between 2005 and 2008 by refurbishing the north and the west wings. It was designed by Spanish architects Fuensanta Nieto and Enrique Sobejano. The design was an integration of contemporary style with the historic building. Contemporary materials like glass and aluminium panels were used for the addition. 30

FIGURE 15 : PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WEST WING IN 1950 SOURCE: KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN ANHALT – KUNSTMUSEUM MORITZBURG HALLE (SAALE), ARCHIVE MORITZBURG CASTLE - MUSEUM & EXHIBITIONS - KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT

FIGURE 16 : WEST WING AFTER THE FOURTH INTERVENTION SOURCE: FALK WENZEL MORITZBURG CASTLE - MUSEUM & EXHIBITIONS - KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT

FIGURE 17 : VIEW OF THE MORITZBURG MUSEUM AFTER THE FOURTH INTERVENTION SOURCE: MARCUS-ANDREAS MOHR MORITZBURG CASTLE - MUSEUM & EXHIBITIONS - KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT

FIGURE 18 : VIEW AFTER THE FOURTH INTERVENTION FROM INSIDE THE COURTYARD SOURCE: FALK WENZEL MORITZBURG CASTLE - MUSEUM & EXHIBITIONS - KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT

A new roof was added for extension complying to the contemporary style. The folded plate roof spanning over the west and the north wings, clad by aluminium has jutting angular extrusions on several places (Fig 17). . This roof took its shape rising and falling lopsidedly defining the inside volume of the museum. The intervention was also done on the top part of the facade by addition of glass windows. For accessing upper floors, vertical transport was facilitated through the North Wing and also the addition of a new tower (Fig 16 & Fig 19) of an angular form.

FIGURE 19 : ANGULAR METALLIC TOWER AT THE SOUTH WESTERN CORNER OF THE MUSEUM SOURCE: A NEW ROOF BY NIETO SOBEJANO ARQUITECTOS TURNED THIS ANCIENT GERMAN CASTLE INTO AN ENLARGED EXHIBITION SPACE | ARCHDAILY

Need of the addition: This was done as the old rooms of the structure were not in good condition to serve as exhibits for art and to provide more space for the accommodation of a new art collection. Analysis in Terms of Massing: The alteration is chiefly limited to refurbishment of the west and north wings without addition of a new unit except for the new tower on the south western side. This fourth intervention is in accordance with the scale and proportion of the rest of the historic castle yet the roof extrusions and the south western tower is asymmetric, disturbing the congruity.

Case 3: Building Name: Jewish Museum, Berlin Located in Lindenstraße 9-14, 10969 Berlin, Germany

Source of Information: Architecture & Buildings | Jewish Museum Berlin

FIGURE 20 : JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN, GERMANY- SITE PLAN SOURCE: AUTHOR

Original Baroque Building. 1969 First Intervention, 1999 Second Intervention, 2007 Third Intervention, 2012

FIGURE 21 : THE BAROQUE OLD BUILDING | JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN SOURCE: ARCHITECTURE & BUILDINGS | JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN

The foremost building of the Jewish Museum was a baroque structure built in 1735. This historic building, Collegienhaus, served as the Supreme Court since 1735, was designed by architect Philipp Gerlach (Fig 21). In 1933, it moved to a larger building, at Kleistpark. The Collegienhaus thus underwent an intervention in the nineteenth century and was later used as a Protestant Consistory. Destroyed during the second world war, the building was rebuilt 1963-1969 by architect Günter Hönow to be finally used as the Berlin Museum. At present, it houses the ticket counter, information desk, cloakroom, shop, cafe and hosts special exhibitions of the museum.

The First Intervention: After its designation as a museum, The first intervention started in the year 1993, by Architect Daniel Libeskind. It was the addition of a zigzag structure, the entrance to which is from the historic building (Fig 22). The new deconstructivist structure garnered more praise than criticism from scholars and people. (Chametzky 2008) Named “Between the lines”, the building features underground axes, angled walls and bare concrete voids conveying emotions of absence, invisibility, emptiness , reminiscing the disappearance of the Jewish culture created during the second world war. With this design, a narrative was produced that established and secured a Jewish identity through giving visitors a glimpse of the Jewish suffering. It is built of concrete and has a titanium zinc cladding on the façade. The addition does away with the traditional materials of the original building and makes use of contemporary materials and style.

FIGURE 22 : LIBESKIND’S JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN SOURCE: DENIS ESAKOV- GALLERY OF AD CLASSICS: JEWISH MUSEUM, BERLIN / STUDIO LIBESKIND - 1

The five voids cut through the vertical axis of the building while the three axes crossing on the lower level of the structure are representative of the three historical developments of the Jewish community in Germany, the axes of- exile, holocaust and continuity. Completed in 1999, the entrance to this addition of the Jewish museum is only through the historic baroque building. Need of the Intervention: It was an addition to the former museum complex- an expansion of the artistic and historical discourse of the museum. It is an experiential museum that inspires awe and horror. Analysis in Terms of Massing: The new addition was not incongruent with the old building in terms of both material shape or volume. It also stands detached from the historic building and exhibits no connection with it from the outside. The proportion is also distinct, the surface articulations also bearing no similarity with the Collegienhaus.

The Second Intervention: The second intervention was a glass courtyard in the year 2007, also by Architect Daniel Libeskind, which was incorporated inside the historical baroque building. It is an allegory of the Jewish Feast of Booths or Tabernacles., an attempt to reminisce the huts the Israelites lived in as they wandered across Egypt, away from clutches of slavery. The glass roof is supported by free standing steel pillars, an imitation of branches of a tree. Modern and contemporary materials like glass and steel were used for the construction of this attractive courtyard, in contrast with the traditional materials of the historic baroque structure.

FIGURE 23 : GLASS COURTYARD, JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN – LIBESKIND SOURCE: GLASS COURTYARD, JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN - LIBESKIND

Need of the Intervention: To expand the functions of the museum for capacitating educational workshops, cultural programs, concerts, receptions, educational events and conferences. Analysis in Terms of Massing: It is an unconventional intervention in terms of form, employing the use of unconventional materials. It is well integrated in the historic building conforming to proportion yet distinguishes itself from it by using contemporary materials and design. Perched inside, it exhibits a juxtaposition with the baroque building whilst pointing forward towards the deconstructivist structure of the museum.

The Third Intervention:

The W. Michael Blumenthal Academy at Fromet-und-Moses-Mendelssohn-Platz is the third addition by the same architect to the Jewish museum completed in the year 2012. This 25000 sq. ft. design known as “In Between Spaces” sits on the site of a former wholesale flower market which was refurbished to form three tilted cubes, that bear semblance with Libeskind’s design of the rest of the museum. It houses the library, a public reading room, the archive, and other spaces for holding education programs for people like auditorium, workshop rooms and seminar rooms. Its form is a variation of the concept with which the Garden of Exile and the Glass Courtyard were conceived. The Blumenthal Academy is connected in form and in context with the first addition of 1999. The exterior of the Academy is wood panelled. A combination of contemporary and traditional materials is put to use in this intervention.

FIGURE 24 : DANIEL LIBESKIND'S ACADEMY OF THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN OPENS TODAY SOURCE: DANIEL LIBESKIND'S ACADEMY OF THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN OPENS TODAY | ARCHDAILY

Need of the Intervention: Not a direct intervention to the fabric of the building, this addition of the museum complex- was needed to incorporate new educational functions like a library, auditorium, etc. Analysis in Terms of Massing: This addition is isolated from the main museum and lies across the road. It does not really count as an addition to the rather as a separate function related to the. Its volume, massing or character does not significantly impact the old structures or their function.

4.3

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

The three cases present different ways of altering the built fabric of historic art museums by intervening contemporary interventions. Analysis of disparate methodologies that can be adopted for intervention in a historical building. Case 1: This example presents different ways of how separate units can be intervened to a historic structure. In the case of the Stadel Museum, none of the extensions tampered with the built fabric of the historic 1878 building. The first intervention of the Garden Wings impacted the visual integrity of the old structure but respected its axis and maintained its symmetry. It also blended well with the historic structure. The second intervention did not impact the visual integrity of the historic structure but did not maintain its central axis or symmetry. Its architectural style and materials were also not congruent with the historic structure. The third and the last contemporary intervention did not tamper the visual integrity of the historic structure, nor the axis of symmetry. The intervention was of a contrasting style which was meted out underground with a visible mound hinting it above the ground in the center. Case 2: This example presents how interventions can be integrated directly into the built fabric of a historic structure In the case of the Moritzburg Museum, the interventions were meted out directly to the built fabric of the historic castle rather than as separate units. The interventions were done to improvise the historic building for making it suitable to be used as a museum. Only the fourth intervention included the addition of a new tower. The fourth and last intervention was meted out with modern materials as an addition of contrast which make it stand out amidst other interventions. All other interventions were done in styles similar to that of the historic building using conventional materials that do not create a bold contrast. Case 3: This is an example of how a combination of separate units and directly integrated interventions are coalesced to a historic structure. In the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin, the extensions are not directly tampering the built fabric of the historic building. Yet, the second intervention of the Glass Courtyard has a bearing on the old baroque structure of the museum as it is integrated within its complex. Interventions are not directly woven to the old building in the first and the third extension. However, in all the cases they were impacting the visual integrity of the historic structure and the site of the Jewish Museum Berlin. The first two interventions were of contemporary nature that contrasted with the historic building; the third of a historic nature- hinting Jewish history.

Evaluation: Determination of evaluation criteriaThe discussions in the previous chapters, the literature study and historical overview about altering the built fabric of historic buildings has established factors against which the interventions intervened must be evaluated. The compatibility of the interventions with the international standards, guidelines and charters can been assessed by evaluating the interventions against the established principles. The factors determined from them are physical compatibility and the ecological compatibility. The physical compatibility is reckoned on the basis of aspects like the integration of the intervention with the historic building, the congruence of the intervention with the historical context, the harmony of the intervention with regards to the immediate surroundings, the aptness of materials- their texture and color, and the compatibility of the intervention with respect to its shape, orientation, location, composition and height. The ecological compatibility is reckoned on the basis of the social contribution of the intervention, environmental contribution of the intervention, economic contribution of the intervention, and contribution with respect to contemporary needs (as required by international charters and explained in chapter 1). Together these factors are a way of evaluating whether the interventions have been right or not. 20 people from Germany, of ages between 20 and 40 were surveyed. Most were recent post graduates of architecture from Städelschule, Frankfurt which is located just behind the Stadel Museum, 7 people were non-architects. The participants had to score each intervention in terms of their physical aspects and ecological aspects out of 5. For rating extremely strong, the score ascribed was 5, for fairly strong, the score was 4, for attributing a neutral rating, it was 3, for a weak rating, it was 2, for an extremely weak rating, score was 1. The analysis of the survey will reveal what type of interventions can be deemed as sustainable/ successful and be applied in future cases. The tables below show the response of people:

4.4

RESPONSES AND PERCEPTION Physical Compatibility:

CHART 1: PHYSICAL COMPATIBILITY- STADEL MUSEUM

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Integration with Original Building

Congruence with Historical Context

Harmony with Immediate Surroundings i

Aptness of Materials, Compatibility wrt Texture and Colour Shape, Orientation, Location, Composition, Height

iii

Stadel Museum The compatibility of the Stadel Museum, with respect to physical and structural attributes of interventions is found to be very strong in the case of first and third interventions. The Second intervention is not much liked by people, although it is found to be apt in terms of its materials, texture and color. It is not perceived to be in harmony with its immediate surroundings. The third intervention of the underground Garden Hall is perceived as the most apt addition in terms of its location, orientation, composition, and height.

CHART 2: PHYSICAL COMPATIBILITY- MORITZBURG MUSEUM

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Integration with Original Building

Congruence with Historical Context

Harmony with Immediate Surroundings i

iii

Aptness of Materials, Compatibility wrt Texture and Colour Shape, Orientation, Location, Composition, Height

Moritzburg Museum: The compatibility of the Moritzburg Museum, with respect to physical and structural attributes of interventions is found to be likable by the people as none of the bars drop below the 70% mark. The second intervention of the battlements in the eastern wing is strongly liked by all people and is known to integrate well with the historical building. Participants of the survey feel that the fourth addition is incongruent with the historical context. The third addition of the domed roof on the south eastern tower is felt to be the most congruent of all intervention according to the historical context and the immediate surroundings.

CHART 3: PHYSICAL COMPATIBILITY- JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Integration with Original Building

Congruence with Historical Context

Harmony with Immediate Surroundings i

Aptness of Materials, Compatibility wrt Texture and Colour Shape, Orientation, Location, Composition, Height

iii

Jewish Museum Berlin: The first intervention of the deconstructivist building is With respect to physical and structural attributes of interventions, the compatibility of the second intervention- the Glass Courtyard is found to be the strongest in terms of integration with the historic building, congruence with the historical context, harmony of the intervention with regards to the immediate surroundings, aptness of the used materials- their texture and color, and the compatibility of the intervention with respect to its shape, orientation, location, composition and height. However, the participants feel that the third addition of the Academy does not integrate with the original building and is also incongruent with the historical context.

Ecological Compatibility: CHART 4: ECOLOGICAL COMPATIBILITY - STADEL MUSEUM

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Accedes to Contemporary Needs

Accedes to Community’s Needs i

Contribution to Environment

Contribution to Economy

iii

Stadel Museum All instances of intervention to the Stadel Museum are believed to be meted out for community’s needs and for contribution towards the economy. The third intervention in the Stadel Museum is perceived to be the most successful because of its highest contribution to the economy and even to the environment. In addition to that, it also keeps up with the contemporary needs perhaps because of the use of contemporary technologies and contemporary materials.

CHART 5: ECOLOGICAL COMPATIBILITY - MORITZBURG MUSEUM

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Accedes to Contemporary Needs

Accedes to Community’s Needs i

Contribution to Environment iii

Contribution to Economy

Moritzburg Museum In the Moritzburg Museum, all interventions make up for contemporary needs, signifying that participants acknowledge the contemporary nature of the intervention that were up to date when meted out. While the fourth intervention is specifically known to be strongly acceding to the community’s needs, none of the interventions have any significant contribution to the environment. The fourth intervention and the first are believed to abundantly contribute to the economy; The fourth one- probably because of the new art collection it boasts and visitors the newly remodeled castle attract and the first interventionprobably because of the imitation of the popular salt manufacturing headquarters ‘Talamt’ in its vicinity together with two historical rooms of the castle.

CHART 6: ECOLOGICAL COMPATIBILITY - JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Accedes to Contemporary Needs

Accedes to Community’s Needs i

Contribution to Environment

Contribution to Economy

iii

Jewish Museum Berlin In the Jewish Museum Berlin, the participants feel that the first and second interventions suffice contemporary needs extremely well, while the third intervention does not. For community needs, all three interventions are scored well. The interventions are ranked low for their contribution to the environment, whereas they achieve a degree of success in their contribution to the economy, especially in the first intervention.

Contribution to Sustainability: CHART 7: EVALUATION OF ALL INTERVENTIONS TO BUILT FABRIC OF HISTORIC MUSEUMS

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Stadel Museum

Moritzburg Museum Physical Compatibility

Jewish Museum Berlin

Ecological Compatibility

Together the physical compatibility and the ecological compatibility define and evaluate the sustainability contribution of the three museums. The Moritzburg Museum is given the highest ranking in terms of the physical compatibility of its interventions with the historic context but has been ranked the lowest in its ecology quotient as compared to the other two museums. While the Jewish Museum Berlin is claimed to be an outstanding project, it has been scored the lowest in terms of the physical quotient. Well- renowned for its experiential insights and exhibitions-nevertheless, it has ahistorical and insensitive aspects that do not contribute to physical compatibility with respect to its historic context, despite its popularity. Nevertheless, it makes up for it through its contribution to ecology as the interventions cater to community needs, contemporary needs and the economy. The Stadel Museum has fared well in this undertaking which seeks to evaluate the intervention to the built fabric of the museum as it has the highest ecology quotient and strong physical compatibility with the historic context.

4.5

SUSTAINABLE INTERVENTIONS

Based on observation of results obtained from the survey, many interventions were examined through the case studies. Three instances of intervention were meted out on the Stadel Museum, four were meted out on the Moritzburg Museum, and three on the Jewish Museum Berlin. Together these instances discuss ten diverse contexts, situations and examples whereby intervention was carried out. The survey conducted, can be used to assess the physical & ecological compatibility of these interventions and thus their contribution to sustainability. This can be taken a step further for establishment of a register of sustainable (successful) / unsustainable (unsuccessful) practices. Sustainability of each intervention is calculated by evaluating all factors of each intervention. The register thus prepared can be added onto by successive case study analyses and can be referred to for future alteration projects. CHART 8: EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABILITY OF EACH INTERVENTION

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Stadel Museum

Moritzburg Museum i

iii

Jewish Museum Berlin

The top two and bottom two interventions out of a total of 10 interventions are determined for the register of successful (sustainable) and unsuccessful (unsustainable) practices table above.

Interventions that Received the Highest Score

Interventions that Received the Lowest Score

Stadel Museum- Third Intervention

Jewish Museum Berlin- Third Intervention

Moritzburg Museum- First Intervention

Stadel Museum- Second Intervention

Possible reasons for their low/ high scores: Although the participants were not questioned about the reasons for their ranking on the survey, the reasons can be inferenced through the contexts and analyses discussed earlier in the chapter. This would reckon practices that should be followed and those that should be refrained from, to ensure successful and sustainable intervention in historic buildings.

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In order to endow the past with the capacity of enriching present reality, it behoves heritage to bend to contemporary needs. Hence, this dissertation, titled “Altering the Built Fabric of Historical Buildings: Intervening Sustainable Interventions” justifies alterations. It discusses the need of altering the built fabric of historical buildings. As ideologies, technologies, and uses change, built heritage for continuance must also undergo change- to not accentuate degradation of the built fabric from stasis, to keep it updated with the new customs and lifestyle of people, to make it adaptable with the modern day’s functions, needs of space, and to bring back life, vibrancy, and revival. Alterations are needed at the tangible level so that built heritage adapts to the present day requirements of the structure, and to facilitate accommodation of new customs and functions at the intangible level. They carry the potential to ensure that the historic building’s resources and values are maximized. Razing a historic building for new developments leads to demolition wastes, pollution, and may also affect people’s identity of that place. Along with inscribing and subverting the conventions of a once dominant style, alterations are an affirmation of the plurality of the present day. Intervening right alterations is a challenging task as there is a possibility for it to result into an incompatible and unsustainable intervention. Historic buildings are socio-cultural bulwarks; which if tampered unnecessarily, without actual need can create a disbalance in the ecosystem. These wrong alterations can escalate to a level of urban decline and become drivers of wars, unrest, conflict. (al-Sabouni 2016). Therefore, to ensure sustainable cities and communities (SDGs), there is a dire need to put a check on them. According to the Historic Urban Landscape approach, contemporary developments should allow people to continue the original activities. While altering the built fabric of historic buildings, if we are able to maintain a connection with the past, and accede to contemporary, social, environmental needs and those of the economy- then the act of intervention is sustainable or successful. The study reckoned factors that determine good interventions and evaluated three case studies on its basis. Examining interventions through actual examples provided a clear understanding of interventions discussed in theory. The survey responses were further used to establish a register of good and bad interventions, out of the ones studied. These analyses and comparisons can be utilized as a point of reference for future practices. It can provide standard checks that need to be performed before altering the built fabric of historic buildings. A similar assessment of interventions must be undertaken for determining sustainability (by assessing ecological and physical compatibility) of the project before carrying out proposed interventions. Moreover, these evaluation criteria and factors will need to be updated and molded as per new guidelines by international organizations or local regulations. The weightage of each factor assessed may vary in each case when comparing different cases of interventions through these factors. The evaluation cannot be done effectively considering the measure of

all the factors to be of equal weightage for different cases. It is a subjective matter and should be reckoned by weighing the factors according to their respective historical, architectural, cultural contexts. The three case studies analyzed in this dissertation were selected to be of similar values thus could be compared without ascribing them the due weightage of each of their significant aspects. While comparing interventions in two historic buildings that are valued differently in terms of their architecture, more bearing should be ascribed to physical components of the intervention on buildings with higher architectural significance. Likewise, great significance of a historic building in terms of its historic context would imply a greater bearing of any intervention on the historic context for assessment. Flexibility in the evaluation system can appease these concerns. A jury of specialists consisting of historians, architects, urban designers, conservation specialists, sociologists, archaeologists and anthropologists should be established for assessment and consultation regarding proposed alterations. This will facilitate better judgement of different contexts, values, and aspects. A design review should also be undertaken to assess the proposed alteration by the jury. This will aid specialists and local people in controlling the alterations. These factors are not just limited to assessing interventions after they are proposed or after they are executed, rather they pave a clear way of approaching interventions right from the start by architects.

5.1

RECOMMENDATIONS

The engagement of the local community should be undertaken actively while setting out on the challenging expedition of altering built heritage. This not only makes adoption and selection of the right interventions easy, but also harbors in the community a sense of ownership and belonging with regard to their surroundings. It will also help to inculcates within them a sense of place identity and foster cultural cognizance. Administrative and legislative measures must be strengthened and be implemented effectively. Local authorities responsible for conservation should be set up in cities where they are not established. They should assist authorities of other cities by exchanging ideas and information. (Congress on the European Architectural Heritage, 1975). The continuity of the existing social and historical realities must be regarded of great priority by them so as to not lose the past for the sake of development. Economic incentives can be introduced to ensure good practices through awards, and grants. The historic buildings who have maintained the required integrity and despite alterations and development works must be rewarded for their sensitive approach. Nonetheless, the survival of historic buildings and precincts is heavily dependent on its acknowledgement and appreciation by people- especially the youth. To facilitate this, the outreach of historical and cultural education must be ensured through educational programs. The society needs to change the perception with respect to historic buildings. These buildings need to be eyed with comprehension of their potential rather than as obstacles in path of development. The significance of tangible alterations to historic buildings and justification for intervening them in the best way possible is now clearly elaborated. By sustaining historical continuity in our surroundings, we will be able to preserve surroundings that enable individuals to find their identity and feel secure despite abrupt social, economic, environmental and physical changes around. Although, there seems to be a clear justification for intervening interventions to historical buildings, they must be placed on compatible and ecological foundations to make them holistically sustainable.

APPENDIX- SURVEY Sustainable Interventions on Museums: Discerning between Right and Wrong Practices Please take a look at the case studies elaborated in the next pages and score the Museum Interventions according to their compatibility: Extremely Strong- 5 Fairly Strong- 4 Neutral- 3 Weak- 2 Extremely Weak- 1

• • • • •

Jewish Aspects

Stadel

Moritzburg

Museum

Berlin

Instances of Interventions SN

iii

Physical Compatibility 1

Integration with Original Building

Congruence with Historical Context

Harmony with Immediate Surroundings

Aptness of Materials, Texture and Colour

Compatibility wrt Shape, Orientation, Location, Composition, Height Ecological Compatibility

Accedes to Contemporary Needs

Accedes to Community’s Needs

Contribution to Environment

Case 1: Building Name: Stadel Museum, Frankfurt Located in Schaumainkai 63, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

FIG 1 : STADEL MUSEUM, FRAKFURT, GERMANY SITE PLAN

Original Building. 1878 First Intervention, 1921 Second Intervention, 1990 Third Intervention, 2012 Stadel is the oldest museum in Germany, founded in 1817, as one of the oldest museums in Frankfurt’s museum embankment upon the will of Johann Friedrich Städel. Its enormous collection includes 700 years of European art with 3100 paintings, 660 sculptures, a large number of photographs, and around 100,000 drawings and prints. The main building that we see today was constructed in 1878 at the Schaumainkai in Grunderzeit style. It was designed by Oskar Sommer, planned around a central axis.

FIG 2 : STÄDEL MUSEUM (FRANKFURT, 1878) | STRUCTURAE

FIG 3 : GARDEN WING (REAR SIDE OF THE STADEL MUSEUM)

The Second Intervention:

The West Wing on the Holbeinstrasse side, was designed by Gustav Peichl. This addition to the historic museum was the second intervention that was completed in 1990. It has two blocks spaced with a slant gap that are of concrete. It currently houses the auditorium, administration and the library.

FIG 4 : SKETCH OF THE WEST WING BY GUSTAV PEICHL

FIG 5 : THE WEST WING OF THE STADEL MUSEUM

The Third Intervention: The third intervention to the museum, “Garden Halls” in 2012 is placed below the museum’s garden. It is a green building, equipped with energy efficient facilities. Initiatives for the largest expansion of the Stadel Museum began in 2007 through an invited competition. The architectural firm Schneider + Schumacher was selected for the it. The intervention comprised an additional area of 4151 sqm, concealed underground on the rear side. (Fig 6) It was intervened in a way that it maintains the spatial arrangement of the historic building, accessed through a staircase from the old foyer. The central axis around which the historic building of the museum sits, was extended. This new exhibition space’s addition, like the Garden Wings, maintained Oskar Sommer’s concept of the axis. The daylight passing through the underground extended area below can be regulated by a doubly covered slab consisting of 195 roof lights, termed as the “eyes for art”. This seamless fusion of light and landscape was conceptualised with energy optimization incorporating heating, cooling and ventilation. At night, these circular lights illuminate the garden.

As part of this intervention, steel and concrete boxes was used at the

FIG 6 : GARDEN HALLS

FIG 7 : PLAN OF THE STADEL MUSEUM

FIG 8 : SECTIONAL VIEW OF THE STADEL MUSEUM

Case 2: Moritzburg Museum, Halle, Germany Friedemann-Bach-Platz 5, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany

FIG 9 : MORITZBURG MUSEUM, HALLE, GERMANY SITE PLAN

Solid colour represents complete addition, whereas faded colour represents additions to a part or parts of the structure but not complete addition.

First Intervention, 1904 Second Intervention, 1913 Third Intervention, 1917 Fourth Intervention, 2008

FIG 10 : THE MORITZBURG CASTLE BEFORE BEING DESTROYED IN THE THIRTY YEARS’ WAR IN 1600

The First Intervention:

The intervention started in around 1900 with a part of the dilapidated historic castle being restored. The headquarters of an old open-pan salt manufacturing place- Pfänner and Halloren works used to be situated close to the Moritzburg Castle till it was pulled down in 1882. Two historic rooms of the historic castle- the courtroom and the banqueting hall were thus modelled in traditional style as a replica of the residence of Halle’s salt work managers. Completed in 1904, the replica, known as the ‘Talamt’, houses applied art pieces that belong to the municipal Museum of Arts and Crafts.

FIG 11 : TALAMT REPLICA KULTURSTIFTUNG SACHSEN-ANHALT – KUNSTMUSEUM MORITZBURG HALLE (SAALE), ARCHIVE

FIG 12 : CONSTRUCTION OF BATTLEMENTS ON THE EASTERN WING OF THE CASTLE, 1912

The Third Intervention: There was an addition made to the historic building’s south eastern tower by the construction of a domed roof in 1917. This intervention was done based on inspiration from the Pantheon in Rome yet in a different style. The original roof was high pitched. It was of a greater height than the 1917 addition. Contemporary materials were used for it. 60

FIG 13 : SOUTH-EASTEARN TOWER’S DOME

The Fourth Intervention: The current state owes its existence to when several additions were intervened between 2005 and 2008 by refurbishing the north and the west wings. It was designed by Spanish architects Fuensanta Nieto and Enrique Sobejano. The design was an integration of contemporary style with the historic building. Contemporary materials like glass and aluminium panels were used for the addition.

FIG 14 : PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WEST WING IN 1950

FIG 15 : WEST WING AFTER THE FOURTH INTERVENTION

FIG 16 : VIEW OF THE MORITZBURG MUSEUM AFTER THE FOURTH INTERVENTION

FIG 17: VIEW AFTER THE FOURTH INTERVENTION FROM INSIDE THE COURTYAR

A new roof was added for extension complying to the contemporary style. The folded plate roof spanning over the west and the north wings, clad by aluminium has jutting angular extrusions on several places (Fig 16). . This roof took its shape rising and falling lopsidedly defining the inside volume of the museum. The intervention was also done on the top part of the facade by addition of glass windows. For accessing upper floors, vertical transport was facilitated through the North Wing and also the addition of a new tower (Fig 15 & Fig 18) of an angular form.

FIG 18 : ANGULAR METALLIC TOWER AT THE SOUTH WESTERN CORNER OF THE MUSEUM

Case 3: Building Name: Jewish Museum, Berlin Located in Lindenstraße 9-14, 10969 Berlin, Germany

FIG 19 : JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN, GERMANY- SITE PLAN

Original Baroque Building. 1969 First Intervention, 1999 Second Intervention, 2007 Third Intervention, 2012

FIG 20 : THE BAROQUE OLD BUILDING | JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN

The foremost building of the Jewish Museum was a baroque structure built in 1735. This historic building, Collegienhaus, served as the Supreme Court since 1735, was designed by architect Philipp Gerlach (Fig 20). In 1933, it moved to a larger building, at Kleistpark. The Collegienhaus thus underwent an intervention in the nineteenth century and was later used as a Protestant Consistory. Destroyed during the second world war, the building was rebuilt 1963-1969 by architect Günter Hönow to be finally used as the Berlin Museum. At present, it houses the ticket counter, information desk, cloakroom, shop, cafe and hosts special exhibitions of the museum.

The First Intervention: After its designation as a museum, The first intervention started in the year 1993, by Architect Daniel Libeskind. It was the addition of a zigzag structure, the entrance to which is from the historic building (Fig 21). The new deconstructivist structure garnered more praise than criticism from scholars and people. (Chametzky 2008) Named “Between the lines”, the building features underground axes, angled walls and bare concrete voids conveying emotions of absence, invisibility, emptiness , reminiscing the disappearance of the Jewish culture created during the second world war. With this design, a narrative was produced that established and secured a Jewish identity through giving visitors a glimpse of the Jewish suffering. It is built of concrete and has a titanium zinc cladding on the façade. The addition does away with the traditional materials of the original building and makes use of contemporary materials and style. The five voids cut through the vertical axis of the building while the three axes crossing on the lower level of the structure are representative of the three historical developments of the Jewish community in Germany, the axes of- exile, holocaust and continuity. Completed in 1999, the entrance to this addition of the Jewish museum is only through the historic baroque building.

FIG 21 : AD CLASSICS: JEWISH MUSEUM, BERLIN / STUDIO LIBESKIND

FIG 22 : GLASS COURTYARD, JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN - LIBESKIND

The Third Intervention:

FIG 23 : DANIEL LIBESKIND'S ACADEMY OF THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN OPENS TODAY

BIBLIOGRAPHY • • •

•

• • • •

• •

• • • •

• •

Abramson, Daniel. 2021. Obsolescence : An Architectural History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. “Architecture & Buildings.” n.d. Jewish Museum Berlin. Accessed April 25, 2022. https://www.jmberlin.de/en/architecture-buildings. Chametzky, Peter. 2008. “Not What We Expected: The Jewish Museum Berlin in Practice.” Psu.Edu. 2008. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.9720&rep=rep1&type=pdf. “Charters and Other Standards - International Council on Monuments and Sites.” 1975. Icomos.Org. 1975. https://www.icomos.org/en/about-the-centre/publicationsdoc/179-articlesen-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards?Start=16&start=12. English Heritage. 2007. English Heritage Annual Report and Accounts 2006/07. Norwich, England: Stationery Office Books. Gaete, Javier. 2012. “Städel Museum / Schneider + Schumacher.” ArchDaily. August 29, 2012. https://www.archdaily.com/266833/stodel-museum-schneider-schumacher. Grasskamp, Walter. 2016. Das Kunstmuseum: Eine erfolgreiche Fehlkonstruktion. 1st ed. Munich, Germany: C.H. Beck. Henry, Christopher. 2011. “Moritzburg Museum Extension / Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos.” ArchDaily. May 5, 2011. https://www.archdaily.com/132838/moritzburg-museum-extensionnieto-sobejano-arquitectos. “History of the Museum.” n.d. Städel Museum. Accessed April 25, 2022. https://www.staedelmuseum.de/en/history-museum. “How Museums Shape Meaning.” n.d. Khan Academy. Accessed March 18, 2022. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/approaches-to-art-history/tools-for-understandingmuseums/museums-in-history/a/tissot-london-visitors. “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter 1964).” 1964. Icomos.Org. 1964. https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf. Kunstinstitut, Städelsches, and Städtische Galerie. n.d. “Seite 1 / 5.” Schneider-Schumacher.Com. Accessed April 20, 2022. https://www.schneider-schumacher.com/wp-content/uploads/2012-0228_Press_Release_Staedel_Extension_Opening_Architecture_Staedel_Museum.pdf. “Moritzburg Castle.” 2017. Stiftung Händel-Haus Halle. November 20, 2017. https://haendelhaus.de/en/hfs/moritzburg-castle. “Moritzburg Castle.” n.d. Kunstmuseum-Moritzburg.De. Accessed April 20, 2022. https://www.kunstmuseum-moritzburg.de/en/museum-exhibitions/moritzburg-castle/. Morris, William. 1878. “Unpublished Letter to the Times.” Morrissociety.Org. 1878. http://www.morrissociety.org/morris/SPAB/SPABwritingsarchitecture.html. Peichl, Gustav. n.d. “Städel Museum Addition and Städel Schule, Frankfurt, Germany, Design Study.” The Art Institute of Chicago. Accessed April 17, 2022. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/242967/stadel-museum-addition-and-stadel-schule-frankfurtgermany-design-study. Peter, and Lesley Williams. 2012. The Temporary City. London, England: Routledge. P.D. The Architectural Review, Dec 1991. New Into Old.

• •

•

• •

• • •

•

• •

Ray, Keith. 1980. “Contextual Architecture : Responding to Existing Style.” Internet Archive. 1980. https://archive.org/details/contextualarchit00rayk. “Resolutions of the Symposium on the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings, at the 3rd ICOMOS General Assembly (1972).” n.d. Icomos.Org. Accessed April 25, 2022. https://www.icomos.org/en/resources/charters-and-texts/180-articles-enfrancais/chartes-et-normes/383-resolutions-of-the-symposium-on-the-introduction-ofcontemporary-architecture-into-ancient-groups-of-buildings-at-the-3rd-icomos-generalassembly. Rosenfield, Karissa. 2012. “Daniel Libeskind’s Academy of the Jewish Museum Berlin Opens Today.” ArchDaily. November 17, 2012. https://www.archdaily.com/294685/daniel-libeskindsacademy-of-the-jewish-museum-berlin-opens-today. Ruskin, John. 1849. “THE SEVEN LAMPS OF ARCHITECTURE.” Lancaster.Ac.Uk. 1849. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/contentassets/documents/ruskin/8SevenLampsofArchitecture.pdf. Scarre, G., and R. Coningham. 2012. Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. “Schneider + Schumacher · Extension of the Städel Museum.” n.d. Divisare. Accessed April 25, 2022. https://divisare.com/projects/211176-schneider-schumacher-extension-of-the-stadelmuseum. Sirefman, Susanna. 1999. “Formed and Forming: Contemporary Museum Architecture.” Daedalus 128 (3): 297–320. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027576. Stylianou-Lambert, Theopisti. 2011. “Gazing from Home: Cultural Tourism and Art Museums.” Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2): 403–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.09.001. “The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments - 1931.” 1931. Icomos.Org. 1931. https://www.icomos.org/en/167-the-athens-charter-for-the-restoration-of-historic-monuments. “The Baroque Old Building.” n.d. Jewish Museum Berlin. Accessed March 21, 2022. https://www.jmberlin.de/en/baroque-old-building. “The Historical Rooms in the Talamt Building.” n.d. Kunstmuseum-Moritzburg.De. Accessed April 18, 2022. https://www.kunstmuseum-moritzburg.de/en/museum-exhibitions/exhibitions-fromthe-collection/the-historical-rooms-in-the-talamt-building/. Uffer, Sabina. 2013. “The Temporary City,by Peter Bishop and Lesley Williams, Oxon, Routledge, 2012, 248 Pp., 155.00, ISBN 9780415670555 (Hardback), 47.95, ISBN 9780415670562 (Paperback).” Urban Research & Practice 6 (1): 120–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2012.762228. William Morris, Philip Webb. 2018. “The SPAB Manifesto.” Spab.Org.Uk. January 30, 2018. https://www.spab.org.uk/about-us/spab-manifesto. Worthing, Derek, and Stephen Bond. 2008. Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Significance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://books.google.at/books?id=0EYtJ2AlIroC.