Reinventing the “” of – Monuments as crystallization points for post-war Reconstruction Carmen Maria Enss

1. Introduction

Immediately after the end of World War II, the German city government of Munich had agreed that the heavily damaged (Old Town) should be rebuilt to resemble the former city center1.

The inner parts of Munich had experienced a period of urban restructuring since the end of the 19th century, while the outer parts underwent a rapid expansion. During this process, the municipality had managed urban redevelopment both by planning functional improvements and intervening in large-scale changes that affected the cityscape.

Architects and monument preservationists involved in post-war reconstruction made use of this long-term strategy and re-adapted existing drafts of urban planning very quickly to a restoration concept. This is why Munich’s responsible officials implemented their agenda for the rebuilding of the city center as early as 1946. At this time, the municipality started its campaign for the clearance of rubble. While large parts of the buildings had to be removed, most representative monuments were intended to be reconstructed and precious façades protected from further decay. These fragments of the ensemble of the historic center were supposed to lead the way to re-producing the physical appearance of the streets and squares.

City planners had to accept that the number of construction workers and supplies of building materials and machinery were not sufficient to save all parts of the ruins from further deterioration. They developed both criteria for the selection of the essential heritage of the Altstadt and restorative principles for the reconstruction of monuments2.

This paper will answer two main questions: What were the theoretical guidelines for the rebuilding process as far as it is related to creating continuity of appearance and the structure of the Altstadt? How was the concept implemented during the first years of reconstruction?

1 Aufbauzeit. Planen und Bauen, München 1045-1950, hrsg. von W. Nerdinger, Beck, München 1984, in part. H. Himen, Die Erhaltung der stadtebaulichen̈ Physiognomie als Prinzip des Wiederaufbaus in Munchen̈ , p. 19–29. 2 C. Enss, Fassaden sichern für den Wiederaufbau. Selektion bei der Trümmerräumung für die neue Münchner Altstadt, in Stadtplanung nach 1945. Zerstörung und Wiederaufbau, hrsg. von B. Franz, H.-R. Meier, Mitzkat, Holzminden 2011, pp. 96-103.

To answer these questions, I will first introduce the main actors involved, then present the system for clearing away of rubble and the priorities set for the rebuilding process, and finally provide three examples for the completion of the structural intact parts of historic buildings with new architecture.

2. The Protagonists of Munich reconstruction and their field of action

The historic center of Munich before World War II Munich’s post-war urban planners defined Altstadt as the part of the city within the second city wall3 (that is approximately equivalent to the area within the Altstadtring shown in fig. 1). They claimed that the main character of the Altstadt was determined by the proportion of the streets and by monumental medieval structures.

The examples given below are located in the northwestern part of the Altstadt that is called Kreuzviertel. Whereas the outline of the streets had outlasted the centuries, the built structures within these streets had changed since the Middle Ages. Renaissance dukes had introduced two large building complexes into the quarter’s fabric – the monumental St. Michael’s Church with its cloister (fig. 1, B) and a second duke’s palace, the Herzog-Maxburg (fig. 1, C). During the following centuries a number of Baroque and Rococo noble palaces took the place of former farmyards4. After the beginning of the 19th century, the city extended to the northwest and the city fortification there was turned into a series of classicistic streets and squares, predominantly planned by the king’s architect Leo von Klenze.

Beginning with Theodor Fischer, the first official municipal town planner in Munich from 1893, urban designers were looking for a way to protect the city center from large-scale modernization, especially from the straightening of the streets. However by the end of the 19th century, most of the medieval buildings had been replaced, yet leaving unchanged most of the historic monuments and the structure of the medieval city plan5. An influential circle of Munich’s high officials and architects around Theodor Fischer founded the Bayerischer Heimatschutz in 1902, an association for the conservation of historic monuments and the protection of traditional customs. Over the following decades Heimatschutz architects and urban planners implemented design principles to foster “Old Munich’s” construction style. They fell back on the pre- industrial architecture of the early 19th century6.

3 K. Meitinger, Das neue München. Vorschläge zum Wiederaufbau, Münchner Graph. Kunstanstalten, München 1946, p.17. 4 B. Huber, Klöster, Banken und Paläste. Zur Geschichte des Kreuzviertels, in Münchens neue Altstadt, hrsg. von Chr. Hölz, HypoVereinsbank, München 2003, pp. 49–64. 5 U. Walter, “Altstadt” oder “City”? Stadtumbau um 1900, in München – Musenstadt mit Hinterhöfen, hrsg. von F. Prinz, M. Krauss, Beck, München 1988, pp. 98–106. 6 H. Roth, Die Stellung der Denkmalpflege in der Heimatschutzbewegung am Beispiel Bayern, in

Fig. 1 – Sketch of the city plan with the “Altstadt” of Munich, surrounded by the projected “Altstadtring”. Mapped buildings: Frauenkirche (A); St. Michael’s Church with the cloister (B); Herzog-Maxburg (C); Preysing-Palais (D); Building Maximiliansplatz 18 (E); Tower of the Herzog-Maxburg, integrated in the “Neue Maxburg” building complex (F) (Plan: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 8. Oct. 1946).

The ideas of Heimatschutz were passed on within the Stadtbauamt, Munich’s urban planning office. During the years of National Socialist rule in Munich, Karl Meitinger, head of the Stadtbauamt, focused on the Altstadt as an urban renovation area to be redeveloped as an ensemble and to be cleared of dense blocks. He designed a traffic belt around the city center, the so-called Altstadtring. Adolph Hitler decided to bring in his personal architect, Munich’s new general building inspector Generalbaurat Hermann

Monumental, hrsg. von S. Böning-Weis, M. Petzet, Lipp, München 1998, pp. 791–795. Giesler, in 1938, who effectively held all power7. Giesler initialized a complete reorganization of the city and its surroundings that was frozen due to the war.

Three pioneers and decision makers for the rebuilding in Munich The most important people behind the reconstruction campaign had been involved in the city development during the Republic (1918-1933). Planners aimed to improve both traffic circulation around the Altstadt and living and working conditions within it, using a regional building style within the Altstadt.

The architect Karl Meitinger had been a member of the municipal administration since 1910. He focused on urban redevelopment using a creative approach. He was elected to Stadtbaurat in 1939. When the Generalbaurat Giesler left the city after the war, the power reverted to Meitinger as head of the Stadtbauamt. He wrote a pamphlet on the reconstruction of Munich, which served as the theoretical guidelines for the initial phase of reconstruction. His concept for the reconstruction of the old town involved continuity in the outline of the streets and squares while redeveloping the city blocks within the existing construction lines8.

Georg Lill was an art historian and Generalkonservator, the highest curator of monuments in Bavaria, from 1929. His office, the Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (Bavarian State Office for Monument Conservation), made suggestions on the rebuilding of the Altstadt of Munich in July 19449. That paper emphasized the significance of the main streets as urban spaces that should be maintained as fixed reference points for reconstruction after the end of war. Lill remained Generalkonservator after the war. He continued to conceptualize theoretical positions concerning the preservation of monuments damaged in war, publishing articles until his death in 1951.

Karl-Sebastian Preis had been municipal department of housing leader between 1926 and 1933, during which he initiated and oversaw a program for creating new housing. Due to his social democratic sympathies, the Nazis removed him from his post. In 1945, Karl Scharnagl, the mayor, appointed him as Wiederaufbaureferent, the head of the reconstruction department. Preis organized the municipal campaign for the clearing of rubble and the allocation of building materials for the repairs of individual buildings and reconstruction projects.

Lill and Preis agreed with Meitinger that reconstruction of the historic city center should include urban renewal. Meitinger and Lill produced a list of the most

7 M. Früchtel, Der Architekt Hermann Giesler. Leben und Werk (1898 - 1987), Edition Altavilla, Tübingen 2008, p. 155. 8 K. Meitinger, Das neue München. … cit. p. 2. 9 G. Lill, J. Schmuderer, J. Ritz, Die denkmalpflegerischen Belange beim Wiederaufbau von München, München 6. Juli 1944, Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Registratur München, OA München, Wiederaufbau u. a. Schutträumung 1944-1950. representative buildings and façades in need of repair. The municipality strived to maintain these parts of the ensemble for reconstruction. Preis preserved the remains of the selected buildings – and some façades – from total removal.

3. The Socio-Political background for the reconstruction and the clearing away of the rubble

Post-war conditions left little scope for the city government to shape the social, economic and cultural life. A huge number of so-called Displaced Persons (such as forced laborers, liberated political prisoners, prisoners of war) as well as German refugees from eastern countries, headed for the city to find housing. Thousands of Munich’s citizens returned to the city finding their houses and workplaces destroyed or occupied. Scharnagl attracted major enterprises like Siemens to Munich to create jobs. The reconstruction of the Altstadt seamed economically reasonable regarding the tourist sector, but was not the highest priority in the immediate post-war period. Considering the circumstances, the primary task of building policy in post-war Munich was to provide housing and jobs, not preserve monuments10.

Rubble clearance as an approach to preserving buildings and to recover building materials In 1978 the architect Erwin Schleich argued that the rubble clearance initiated a “second destruction of Munich11”. Contemporary documents from the first post-war period though show that the clearing campaign was not primarily intended by objectives of change, but by a consolidation of the integrity of the remaining buildings.

During summer and fall of 1945 Preis designed a municipal rebuilding program. His book “The first step to rebuilding our city” initiated a sweeping and financially risky campaign of rubble clearance in November 194512. For security reasons, rubble clearance was an urgent necessity (fig. 2). Preis’ main arguments for the campaign related, on the one hand, to the amount of intact structures and commodities that were to be recovered from the ruins and, on the other hand, to the necessity to stimulate the building sector.

10 Ruinen-Jahre. Bilder aus dem zerstörten München 1945-1949, hrsg. von R. Bauer, Hugendubel, München 1983. 11 E. Schleich, Die zweite Zerstörung Münchens, Steinkopf Verl., Stuttgart 1978. 12 K.S. Preis, Der erste Schritt zum Wiederaufbau unserer Stadt. Eine amtliche Denkschrift des Referenten für den Wiederaufbau…, München 1946 (extremely rare).

Fig. 2 – War damage to Munich buildings in %, statistics and graphics by Munich Reconstruction Department. (Source: Stadtarchiv München).

The monument preservationist Lill wrote in a programmatic essay: “The task has to be to preserve small quarters from the rubble, like islands for the renewal around a church, a town hall, a marketplace, around groups of relatively intact buildings, to renew their life and then to fill the gaps between these points of crystallization in a way that new parts go with the old ones respecting the scale, the authenticity of its material, by craftsmanship and design competence, not on the surface but in the essential spirit13.”

Both Preis and Lill wanted a maximum of the fabric of the buildings to be maintained through the clearance of the rubble. However, not only did they “talk” about preserving but contemporary documents, found in the municipal archives, show that many buildings and historic elements could be preserved.

13 G. Lill, Um Bayerns Kulturbauten. Zerstörung und Wiederaufbau, Drei-Fichten-Verlag, München 1946, pp. 29-30. The clearing campaign Beginning with the city center, lot after lot was cleared from rubble and heavily damaged structures from 1946. Two years later, nearly the whole area of the Altstadt was cleared of instable buildings14. Due to the lack of fuel, the rubbish was removed by a hauling track. Several rubbish dumps were located in the middle of the city, one of them within the remains of a Renaissance palace, the so-called Herzog-Maxburg (fig 3 and fig. 1, C).

Fig. 3 – Munich, area of the former Herzog-Max-Burg (Maxburg Palace) from the northwest, used as rubbish dump in 1946/47. In the foreground a hauling track for the rubbish transport. Background: towers of the Frauenkirche (Church of our Dear Lady). (Source: Stadtarchiv München).

The Rebuilding Department recruited an expert committee to decide on the demolitions of the remains on every single site. Members of the Stadtbauamt and of the Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege as well as the owners of the buildings were among the members of this committee 15. In most cases the committee reached a consensus.

While damaged house fronts, that endangered the lives of people, were demolished by the authorities using hand pulley blocks, house owners had to repair their damaged buildings, mostly at their own expense. The lack of building material necessitated additional sacrifices to the fabric of the Altstadt. Nevertheless, a big part of semi- damaged house fronts could be excluded from removal and saved for reconstruction.

14 Map entitled Schutträumung der Altstadt (16th January 1948), Stadtarchiv München, Plansammlung Wiederaufbaureferat. 15 Stadtarchiv München, Baureferat Wohnungswesen 78/16a.

Fig. 4 – Munich, demolition specialists demolish the upper levels of the Renaissance façade that are in danger of collapsing at the Jesuit College building next to St. Michaels Church. (Source: Stadtarchiv München).

4. Theoretical discussion on the essential elements of the Altstadt

According to the expert opinion from July 1944, given by the Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, all main streets and public spaces were supposed to be rebuilt, respecting historic dimensions and the architectural style of the surrounding walls16. To define the constituent parts for historic Munich, the experts identified for the Kreuzviertel a number of buildings that either were artistically unique or represented Munich’s particular construction tradition.

Georg Lill declared his general principles for the reconstruction of historic architecture in a 1947 lecture: «There is no doubt», he said, «that we can complete a great deal so perfectly, that after some years there will be no visible difference, if only the craftsman’s technique is executed accurately. I think of plaster, of perfectly joined ashlars, of wall structures and of details of cornice profiles.» However, Lill differentiated between the craftsman’s technique of the built structure and the artistic

16 G. Lill, J. Schmuderer, J. Ritz, Die denkmalpflegerischen Belange … cit. p. #. achievements of architectural decoration, like architectural sculpture and handcrafted stucco-work. Heavily damaged artistic work, in his opinion, was irretrievably lost and could not be restored in an adequate way merely using photographs or drawings. Therefore, he argued in many cases in favor of reconstructing a clearly structured façade and the supporting walls while arguing against an exact replication of the original sumptuous interior17.

Meitinger adopted these preservation guidelines in his city planning. He emphasized the importance of certain elements of the remaining Altstadt, such as the Roccoco façades. His planning office mapped out the historical monuments and drew a detailed plan of the conservation status of every building in the Altstadt, which differentiated between façades and other parts of the building18.

The Stadtbaurat Hermann Leitenstorfer, who came into office as Meitinger’s successor, explained his efforts to protect these invaluable artistic achievements: «As to our workmanship we are, for example, much closer to a medieval building like the cathedral [author’s note: Frauenkirche, fig. 3] than to a Baroque façade. I am willing to sacrifice an old brick building, in whole or in part, for the benefit of an object that was created by a time and a spirit that is lost forever19.»

As a result of this policy on monuments, the abovementioned expert committee preserved a number of façades dating from the period before circa 1820 from total removal (e. g. Preysing-Palais, fig. 5). They were integrated later in new buildings and nowadays give an impression of the rich cultural heritage of pre-war Munich.

5. Examples of different kinds of preservation

The Preysing-Palais at Residenzstraße The heavily damaged Preysing-Palais, situated at the northern end of the Altstadt, was included as a constituent part of the ensemble in 1945 (fig. 1, D). The abovementioned architect Schleich, rebuilder of the Palais in 1958, reconstructed the remaining façades, restoring and recreating the ornamentation in painstaking detail20. The Preysing-Palais demonstrates a characteristic approach to combining fragments of historic buildings with a contemporary inner structure that was often employed in Munich.

17 G. Lill, Uber̈ die Problematik der Wiederherstellung historischer Bauten, in Deutscher Baukalender. Ratgeber fur̈ alle Gebiete des Baufaches, hrsg. von E. Fabricius, W. Weißwange, Dt. Fachzeitschr. u. Fachbuch- Verl., Minden i. Westfalen 1949, pp. 15-27, in part. pp. 23-24. 18 Schadenspläne Innenstadt, Stadtarchiv München, Plansammlung Stadtplanung, 126. 19 K. Köbelin, Die Reste des alten Münchens. Abbruch oder Aufbau, in «Süddeutsche Zeitung», (7th August 1948 issue), p. 6. 20 E. Schleich, Der Wiederaufbau des Preysing-Palais in München, in G. Vits, Das Preysing Palais. Joseph Effners spätbarockes Meisterwerk in München, Prestel, München 1998, p. 157–166. The Preysing-Palais was built between 1723 and 1728 in Regency style. Fig. 5 shows the heavily damaged edifice in January 1945. Officials in charge decided to destroy certain parts of the façade for safety reasons after the end of the war. A building contractor then stabilized the eastern façade as well as parts of the southern façade and the staircase as a donation to the municipality21.

Fig. 5 – Munich, Preysing-Palais Residenzstraße 27 in January 1945, view from the east. (Source: Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Foto: Lis Römmelt).

Schleich’s reconstruction combined an exact copy of some lost elements of the façades with a newly-added interior structure using pseudo-historical elements for a pedestrian passage way. By integrating the remaining fragments into a new building, the architect restored, on the one hand, the physical appearance of the building while, on the other hand, abandoning the original structural concept of the Palais (fig. 6). As a result of this reconstruction at least parts of the façades have been maintained as an authentic example of a particular architectural style. In fact the building again plays a predominant role in the Altstadt cityscape.

21 Es wird gebaut, in «Süddeutsche Zeitung», (26th November 1946 issue), p. 6. Fendt, Minenräumer für den Kulturbaufonds. Spenden für die Landeshauptstadt, «Süddeutsche Zeitung», (17th September 1946 issue), p. 4.

Fig. 6 – Munich, Preysing-Palais Residenzstraße 27, reconstruction plan, section of the main staircase, view to the west, design by Erwin Schleich (taken from G. Vits, Das Preising Palais, Prestel, München 1998).

Apartment and office building at Maximiliansplatz 18 The reconstruction of the building at Maximiliansplatz 18 illustrates the intention of urban designers to create an approximate appearance of the streets and squares like that at the beginning of the 19th century. This practice often led to the decision not to rebuild late 19th century buildings of a modern metropolitan character.

Fig. 7 – Munich, Maximiliansplatz 18, on the left the design for the façade by Franz Rank (taken from «Deutsche Bauzeitung», XXXII (10. Dez. 1898), p. 637; on the right the building today, Foto: Carmen Enss.

The Maximiliansplatz (Maximilian Square), together with most of the surrounding buildings, was designed by Nicolaus Schedel von Greifenstein around 1804 and is adjacent to the Altstadt. The building at Maximiliansplatz 18 was situated along the former city wall and represented the urban entrance to the inner city, accentuating the geometrical axis of the square (fig. 1, E). In 1898 a new structure (fig. 7 on the left) replaced the classicist building22. Its design reinterpreted the urban entrance in contemporary architectural form. Air raids in the Second World War heavily damaged the upper levels of this building. The reconstructing architect Walter Krebs decided not to restore the decorative ornaments but to align the façade to the square’s previous classicist architecture (fig. 7 on the right). Krebs followed Stadtbaurat Leitenstorfer’s objective to regain the square’s homogeneous character. Leitenstorfer stressed the «superior culture of the original creation» of Maximiliansplatz in 194623.

The Neue Maxburg The complex of office buildings, called Neue Maxburg (new Maxburg), was erected between 1954 and 1957 on the premises of the former Renaissance palace Herzog- Maxburg. Official urban planners collaborated with the commissioned architects Sepp Ruf and Theo Pabst in developing a «new Munich style of architecture» for this part of the Altstadt24. The Neue Maxburg is the most significant example of a design that freely adapted the physical appearance of the historic building to modern style, using fragments of the original structure as a reference point.

The character of the urban design of the Neue Maxburg was meant to evolve from its built environment using historical references for urban and architectural design. The planners grouped relatively flat buildings around a series of courtyards. These open spaces and passages allowed for views of the neighboring churches.

In 1945, Lill had designated some remaining façades of the Maxburg palace to be reconstructed in historic detail. However, during the following years the whole area was covered by a rubbish dump, leaving the remaining structure saturated with moisture (fig. 3). The architects singled out the Renaissance tower, previously embedded into an exterior wall, as an evidence of history and placed the new building directly behind the solitary structure. They used the composition of the Renaissance façade to create the design of the building’s contemporary curtain wall (fig. 8 and 1,F).

22 H. Habel, J. Hallinger, T. Weski, Landeshauptstadt München, Mitte. Die Bezirke Altstadt und Lehel, Maxvorstadt sowie der Englische Garten, Lipp, München 2009, p. 599-600. 23 H. Leitenstorfer, Die Stadt München. Ihr Werden und Wiedererstehen, in «Geistige Welt» 1 (1946), 4, pp. 27-36, in part. p. 29. 24 H. Fischer, München 1953. Leistungen und Probleme einer Stadt als Großbaustelle, München 1953, p. 2. For Maxburg reconstruction see: U. Walter, Die “Maxburg” in München als Paradigma des modernen Wiederaufbaus nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, in Monumental, hrsg. von S. Böning-Weis, M. Petzet, Lipp, München 1998, pp. 863-868.

Fig. 8 – Munich, Neue Maxburg, Pacellistraße 5, Foto: Carmen Enss.

6. Conclusions

According to the documents found in the municipal archives, the expert commission charged with the clearance of rubble in the Altstadt prioritized the rebuilding of representative structures during the municipal campaign of rubble clearance of 1946- 1948. This operation intended no willful damage but a necessary consolidation during a state of emergency. There was a desperate lack of construction workers, building material and machinery. Delays in restoration were too long to preserve a major number of buildings for future generations.

As a result of the early post-war period, the outline and the physical appearance of the streets of the Altstadt have been restored, though often in simplified form. Proportions of urban spaces have been re-established; historic façades as well as ‘monumental‘ churches and public buildings enrich today’s cityscape.

The concept of urban planning for the Altstadt allowed architects to supplement pre- war façades with post-war architecture using individual approaches. Yet the city’s building authorities examined the blueprints for projects carefully to maintain certain characteristics of the local architectural style. Along with handing down the most valuable buildings and façades to later generations, this led to an artistic concept of an overall picture of the Altstadt. Munich’s Altstadt today expresses building ideals of the 1940s and 1950s both in the newly built parts of the urban fabric as well as in the selection, preservation and re-integration of the historic elements.