Connecting Past and Present Germany; Spreebogenpark

SPREEBOGEN PARK 

*Axel Schultes*

Jennifer Lenn

After the second World War much was done to restore Germany, and even more so after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. Not only was the country's infrastructure destroyed but the government had been substantially set back as well. Crucial ties between East and West Germany had been broken during the war and the government had severely crippled the trust of its citizens, therefore calling for a massive restoration and renovation of an entire nation and its government. It had been agreed upon, with little or no rebuttal, that the center for the most important parliamentary and government buildings should lie in Spreebogen, Berlin on the Spree River.  Master planning for the new Federal Government began in 1991 with a two-part international competition that was announced the following year. The first part would select a master spatial plan while the second called for the architectural designs. By 1996 another competition was announced for the design of a park which would exist in front of the German Chancellery building and the Paul-Lobe-Haus on the southern banks of the Spree River. The significance and symbolism of the location is, emphatically, just as important as the winning design itself by Axel Schultes. 

Coinciding with the German Government's goal, Schultes submitted a design unifying the major government buildings, improving circulation around the river, providing leisurely space for the public and ultimately he designed a perfect display of the Nation's new identity. The layout of the park symbolizes the connection between East and West Germany that had just recently been restored. This is clearly defined by the central concept in their plan; the "Band des Bundes". The "Band des Bundes" is a board of government buildings that extends from the north part of Friedrich Wilhelm-Stadt to Moabit and crosses the Spree river two times. On the North end of the park are the legislative buildings of parliament and on the other are their executive counterpart, the chancellery. Connecting the two major sectors is the "citizen's forum", or the park itself which is rich in open green spaces dedicated to the people.

The open spaces in the inner parts of Spreebogen park were left as open as possible because Schultes felt it was important to leave plenty of spaces to the people of Germany. Not only does the park make a bold statement to the public but is also full of symbolism in order to remember German history. There are two major meadows which slope to follow the radius of the Spree river. The western meadow is made up of condensed boxwood beds (or Buxus Sempervirens) in the front yards of Grunderzeit Alsenviertels. The symbolism of this meadow acknowledges the agreement upon one location for the site of all diplomatic missions and the replacement of the wet meadows that had previously existed in Spreebogenpark. The east meadow of Spreebogenpark is full of tall, rich, and colorful grasses and plants which become visually contradictory to the western garden and in doing so also commemorates the division of Germany. The wall area of the meadow signifies the Berlin wall but the harmony in which the two meadows exist links the east and west gardens. This is only one of the many ways by which Spreebogenpark attempts to reveal the Government's new identity. 

The newly found unity of the German Government and its people was celebrated from the early stages of this project beginning with the master planning of the site. Before master planning even began a common location was agreed upon for the central government structure. The Spree river united the plan all together in providing a perfect site for a new government and plenty of space to provide for the public. Once the main buildings were set in place and the architecture of the site had been developed, Schultes tied it all together with his landscape plan which has become known today as Spreebogenpark. His plan is developed around two major axis which link all of the major places of the city of Berlin. The axis are delineated by the healthy flow of circulation around the Spree River and by the self defining meadows throughout the park. The symbiotic relationship between the circulation, the government buildings and the luscious meadows form a strong and bold statement which defines the new identity of the German Government.  

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreebogenpark

http://www.economypoint.org/s/spreebogenpark.html

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/hauptstadt/dokumentation/en/wettbewerbe/ spreebogen_staedtebau.shtml

http://history1900s.about.com/od/coldwa1/a/berlinwall.htm

The Struggle Against the Emotionless: A Contemporary Germany

The Struggle Against the Emotionless: A Contemporary Germany
by Joel Pominville

A question that came to my mind during the lecture addresses a connection between war times in Germany and in the state it is in currently. More specifically, a connection between what was described as Nazi architecture and contemporary architecture we see evidence of in Berlin today. Given the history of Germany and the powerful, massive, and monumental architecture produced during World War 2, is it possible for contemporary architects to produce similar pieces of work (in mass, strength, and volume) without a direct correlation made between their work and the Nazi architecture, designed mainly by Albert Speer?

            The first thing to analyze in this situation is the work of Albert Speer, serving as Adolf Hitler’s “right hand” designer during the years of Hitler’s power (~1933-1945). One of his most recognizable pieces is the Zeppelin Field near Nuremberg, Germany. As one can see, the design has several features that promote the mentality of authority and power. It is very massive, volumetric, and it references classical architecture that also served as buildings of power, government, and authority. The material choice and lack of ornamentation also allude to a very cold, emotionless sense of the building… which may not have been too far off the truth.

            I’ve chosen to compare this building to a building designed by contemporary architect, Axel Schultes. Axel Schultes uses many of the same materials as may have been seen on Speer’s designs; materials like stone, concrete, and brick. Many of his works are very massive, and seemingly just as volumetric as Speer’s designs. This is where the question needs to be asked: how can Schultes design in a similar fashion as Speer, without directly referencing architecture that was brought about during the menacing era of war in Germany? If one takes a look at the Federal Chancellery in Berlin designed by Schultes, one can notice several similarities between it and Speer’s Zeppelin Field. The chancellery is very massive, and the form is just as, if not more, volumetric and heavy as the Zeppelin Field. However, Schultes lightened the design by cutting into the façade to allow light in, and to lift the heaviness off the building. So, in form, the two buildings are very similar. Schultes’ design also has a similar feel of authority and power in how massive it is. However, by allowing light into the interior, and opening up the heavy facades, Schultes managed to avoid the cold, emotionless feelings associated with Speer’s design, and the war as a whole.

            Two other buildings, one of the Nazi period and one contemporary, can be compared in a similar manner as the two just described: a Flak tower of Berlin, and Main Plaza by Hans Kollhoff. The similarities to be made between these two are quite similar to those above. Both buildings use heavy masonry, are very powerful in their stature, and very volumetric. And again the Flak tower has a sense of lacking emotion with the harsh concrete completely separating the interior from the exterior. Kollhoff, like Schultes, manages to create a powerful and authoritative piece of architecture without seeming cold and emotionless. Again, Kollhoff uses light to take away from the heaviness of the building. In turn, he manages to create a building of much more strength and volume, without running the risk of completely revisiting the cold, harsh emotions of Nazi architecture. The answer to the original question seems to be light. Both Schultes and Kollhoff cut into the massive masonry of their designs, therefore avoiding the feeling experienced by viewers of Nazi work like Speer’s Zeppelin Field and the Flak tower of Berlin.

References

          Zeppelin http://www.srcs.nctu.edu.tw/joyceliu/mworks/mw-onlinecourse/paranoia_se/ThirtReichArtIndex/ThirtReichArt1.html

          Chancellory http://www.flickr.com/photos/20963604@N08/5176854802/

          Flak Tower http://www.kuriositas.com/2012/04/flak-towers-legacy-of-luftwaffe.html

          Main Plaza http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Main_Plaza_-_Frankfurt_Main_-_Germany_-_07.jpg

Architects' Websites

          Axel Schultes http://www.schultesfrankarchitekten.de/

          Hans Kollhoff http://www.kollhoff.de/