The Stadtschloss Controversy - your thoughts

[mthq]

To keep it simple, the Berliner Stadtschloss was a Prussian era building that was heavily damaged in WWII and outright demolished by the communist GDR so it can be replaced by the Palast Der Republik. A few years ago the German Bundestag along with the city of Berlin gave the green light for the demolition of the Palast Der Republic so that it can be replaced once again with a completely rebuilt Stadtschloss.

The new Schloss is said to combine old and new by having a new interior as well as the back facade of the building facing the Spree dedicated to whatever the architect of the rebuilt palace wished to add. Many people support the rebuilding of the Schloss, but there's also many who think the idea is a disgrace to the city and its history. So what do ya'll think?

From what I know of, this hasn't been covered on SSP, but SSC does have a lengthy discussion on this here.

Berliner Stadtschloss:


source


source

remains of the Stadtschloss in 1967:

source

Palast der Republik:


source


source

Dismantling of the Palast in summer 2008. As of December 2008, the lot has been cleared.

mthq

The new Stadtschloss:


source


source

Before


After

sources

BTW interesting tidbit: a lot of the steel dismantled from the Republik Palace was shipped to Dubai to be used in construction for Burj Dubai.

[jetsetter]

Rebuild it but don't include the ugly modernist additions that they are proposing.

[TANGELD_SLC]

I agree. If they are doing classical revival then they need to do it all the way. not this half-assed crap.

[Nowhereman1280]

Wow this is a real shame. The Palast was much much better than that crappy old domed thing. Now they are going to get stuck with an overly expensive, probably poorly constructed, less detailed version of the long gone Stadtschloss. Talk about a society that can't just make up its mind. I'm sure they'll tear the new one down in the future when they decide that Democracy or Capitalism is outdated.

The Palast was way better than a rebuilt version of the Stadtschloss. I highly doubt the new version will have half the detailing and quality of the original.

[mthq]

the modern fourth facade as planned:




sources


Henry Kissinger attends a benefit dinner raising awareness and support for the rebuilt Schloss:
• Video Link

party people getting down to disco at the Palast der Republik! (1979)
• Video Link

[olga]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Wow this is a real shame. The Palast was much much better than that crappy old domed thing. Now they are going to get stuck with an overly expensive, probably poorly constructed, less detailed version of the long gone Stadtschloss. Talk about a society that can't just make up its mind. I'm sure they'll tear the new one down in the future when they decide that Democracy or Capitalism is outdated.

I second that.

[Samthelima]

Rebuild it, the Palast pales by comparison.

[KevinFromTexas]

Oh god yes, rebuild it. Get rid of that ugo. I just hope they don't skimp on the quality and detail.

[CGII]

This doesn't look ridiculous to anybody else? Don't get me wrong, I love old European palaces as much as the next guy, but I'm trying hard not to laugh looking at this one. I mean, it's a Roman triumphal arch flanked on both sides by italianate tenement looking wings and right on top in the middle is this spectacular dome.

This is really very hard for me to say something to. On one hand, I want to say, 'build something new! Rejoice in the possibilites that today offers.' And on the other I want to praise the people of Berlin for respecting their past and reconstructing something lost in a darker time. But even thinking of that I find it somewhat troubling as such an admiration of this prewar period can be rather ignorant of its own troubled times. I mean, it's a rather ugly building, but if it survived it would have been beautiful because of its age. Reconstructing it is bringing back the ugly without the added sagacity of its original counterpart.

[DecoJim]

I agree with CGII. Even when the original was new it was a pastiche of older styles ranging from ancient Rome to the Renaissance. I advocate preservation of significant original buildings but new structures should be built in modern styles. I often hate seeing recreations of older styles because they usually lack either the exquisite detail of the originals or the quality of materials and craftsmanship or both.

[jetsetter]

but new structures should be built in modern styles

Architecture is an art and because of that a styles age is irrelevant. If one paints a masterpiece in a style invented centuries ago does it make it less of a masterpiece? No, it does not.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Architecture is an art

Architecture is not an art. Architects need to design their buildings to be buildings before they are aesthetic masterpieces. Almost surely the programmatic needs of the new building will be incompatible with this centuries old design. The architects should be looking to build a functional building before they build a pretty one.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

I agree. If they are doing classical revival then they need to do it all the way. not this half-assed crap.

There is a difference between "classical revival" and faithful restoration/reconstruction of a classical building. The latter has been done all over Europe since WW II with results that are gratifying (not "inferior" in detailing or any other way)--and it is continuing in countries other than Germany as well. Too much of Europe's grand architectural heritage was bombed to oblivion to just say "que sera, sera" and move on.

So I'm all for rebuilding the Stadtschloss--faithfully, not with the modernist 4th side or any other departure from the original in order to accomplish what? Show how cool modern Germans are?

The other question not broached here is what goes inside. An article I read suggested they are ginning up some kind of museum just to have something to put in there. Again, that seems stupid to me. This is not just any building--and so should not be viewed merely as a bit of architecture, whether you consider it good or bad, IMHO. It was the principle residence of the Prussian (and then German) royal (imperial) family from 1701 until 1918 (per Wikepedia): That's over 200 years for the mathematically challenged and those were were the glory years of the rise of Prussia and imperial Germany. It seems to me that should qualify as something worth seeing and treasuring itself if faithfully recreated (a lot more so than the subsequent HQ of East Germany's dubious "democracy"). I'm sure the Brits wouldn't want to lose Buckingham Palace or the French Versailles or the Tuileries, or the US, the White House, for that matter.

[jetsetter]

Architecture is not an art.

Of course it is an art and because of that styles are timeless. The proposed function could be accomplished just as well if they rebuilt the whole structure as it was originally. The modernist additions add nothing and subtract much from what was a beautiful building.

[vid]

Architects are artisans, they design functional art.

Now that CGII has pointed it out it does look very awkward. The Stadtschloss is like sticking one of Picasso's characters into a Rembrandt.

Typically, art, a form of expression, mirrors the era that created it. (Germans call that zeitgeist.) If they built it in a post-modernist revival style it clearly shows that they are displeased with the present and long for the past.

I'd much rather have something original, like the Palast der Republik. Not like it in that it would be exactly the same, but like it in that it would be of it's time, not of the time of the 1800s. (Which were trying to be like the 1500s which was trying to be like the Roman era.)

But if Germans want a half-assed recreation of their past, so be it. You can hope they won't skimp on the detail but they will.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by vid

if Germans want a half-assed recreation of their past, so be it. You can hope they won't skimp on the detail but they will.

People here keep saying that and it is demonstrably false. Here is Dresden's Frauenkirche in 1991, still a ruin from WW II:



Here it is today:

Exterior


Interior

All images from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Frauenkirche

Anyone who has toured Europe has seen many reconstructed buildings that look to most of us like they are hundreds of years old.

The palace of the Hohenzollerns is an important piece of history and since places like Dresden show what could be done. I think it deserves to the same effort as the Frauenkirche.

[pyropius]

Too bad... I kind of dug the Palast.

[TANGELD_SLC]

WOW The Frauenkirche is GORGEOUS! IMO, they did an excellent job of reconstruction it.

[RLS_rls]

Now that CGII mentioned it that entrance does look a bit tacked on...but really most prewar structures have that appearance. Excluding the most famous and beloved of neo-classical structures, most of them look very hodge-podge. This very well could have been the Eisenman of it's time.

I didn't mind the Palast. It was recognizable, and judging by what I could find on google it had a stellar modernist interior. Dig the lights in the main lobby.

I suppose if it's a %100 accurate reconstruction (without that 4th wing) then it wouldn't be that offensive.

[mthq]

Another case of a rebuilt building -

Cathedral of Christ the Saviour
The Catherdral was demolished in the 1930s to make way for the never built Palace of the Soviets (which kinda went the way of the Chicago Spire with only a hole left in the ground). The rebuilt Cathedral opened in August 2000.


source

As for original neoclassical design, there's the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville which was completed in 2006:


source

interior shot:

source