The Surfaces of Memory in Berlin: Rebuilding the Schloß Author(S): Didem Ekici Source: Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Surfaces of Memory in Berlin: Rebuilding the Schloß Author(s): Didem Ekici Source: Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 61, No. 2, Engaging the Recent Past (Nov., 2007), pp. 25-34 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40480756 Accessed: 23-01-2020 10:28 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40480756?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) This content downloaded from 195.113.6.100 on Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:28:38 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms DIDEM EKICI The Surfaces of Memory in University of Michigan Berlin Rebuilding the Schloß1 This article uses the demolition of the Palace of the Republic, razed in order to reconstruct the Hohenzollern City Palace, as a lens to view the complex relations between the urban manifesta- tions of collective memory and the contemporary architecture in Berlin. Berlin's search for a histori- cal identity is manifested in contradictory ways; while the concern for architecture shrinks to surfaces as representations of "traditional" images, the surface of the city expands, transforming Berlin into an archaeological site, unearthing historical layers beneath it. The site of the Palace of the Republic constitutes a micro model, representing these facets of urban transformation. Introduction Following the fall of the monarchy in 1918, it was government. The young socialist regime's desire to In November 2003, after a long debate, the German partly used as a museum, but it remained almost distance itself from Prussian imperialism played an parliament finally decided to demolish the Palace of entirely empty. After its destruction during World important role in its demolition. the Republic, which between 1976 and 1990 had War II (WWII), in 1950 the Schloß was completely The empty site served as a major parking lot held the People's Chamber (Volkskammer), as well razed by the German Democratic Republic (GDR) until 1973. Between 1973 and 1976, the GDR as two large auditoriums, conference halls, restau- rants, art galleries, and a bowling alley (Figure 1); The intent was to replace it with a park until the authorities were able to raise the estimated 670 million Euros needed to reconstruct the Hohen- zollern City Palace, referred to often as the Berlin castle, or the Schloß. The foundations of a palace were first laid in 1443 on the site of the Palace of the Republic, which is an island in the Spree River at the heart of Berlin. Throughout its nearly five hundred years of existence, the palace was rebuilt and revised several times. Andreas Schlüter was the most well-known architect to have worked on the design at the turn of the eighteenth century. Schlüters Baroque design shaped the exterior of the Schloß, which had come close to its final form by the mid-eighteenth century. It was a massive landmark with its two large courtyards in a rectan- gle 192 m long and 116 m wide. As the principal residence of the Kings of Prussia after 1701 and of the German Emperors after 1871, its monumen- tally was a fitting emblem of the Hohenzollern monarchy's centrality in Berlin's history (Figure 2). 1 . The Palace of the Republic (2005). (Photo by the author.) 25 EKICI Journal of Architectural Education, pp. 25-34 © 2007 ACSA This content downloaded from 195.113.6.100 on Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:28:38 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 2. The Schloß (1913). (Courtesy of Landesarchiv Berlin.) 3. The eastern facade of the Palace of the Republic facing the Spree River (2002). (Photo by the author.) regime built the Palace of the Republic on the eastern end of the site of the destroyed Schloß. Building a palace dedicated to the people on the former site of the imperial palace was a highly symbolic gesture for the CDR regime; it was a vast modern building, with a facade of more than 180 m long, which was originally clad in white marble and bronze-colored glass panels. The last CDR govern- ment closed the building to the public due to asbestos contamination in September 1990, six weeks before the reunification. The asbestos of a unique work of art. He argued that the forms of sentation of the original. In this light, the proposed temoval, which lasted from 1997 until 2002, left the mechanical reproduction such as photography replica would be a representation of the destroyed Schloß since the partial reconstruction of its historic building an empty shell2 (Figure 3). Between 2004 undermine an artwork's "presence in time and facades will cover a modern building with a program and 2006, after the final decision to demolish it was space, its unique existence at the place where it taken, the building was used for cultural events happens to be."4 Photography not only reproduced totally different from the original, incorporating under the name of Volkspalast. It housed art copies of authentic works of art but also defined a museum complex, libraries, restaurants, etc. One installations, exhibitions, and concerts that them in terms of their surface appearance. As question that emerges in this context is how the attracted thousands of visitors. The demolition a result, architecture was increasingly "known historicist reconstructions might undermine the started in February 2006 and will last through 2008. through photography, and photography construed collective memory of urban space, not only through Cranes are dismantling the Palace of the Republic in architecture as image";5 the contemporary under- distorting the original meanings associated with the the reverse order in which it was built. The gov- standing of architecture as image thus entails the reconstructed buildings but also by creating an illusion of continuity between the present and ernment, trying to represent the demolition as idea that a building can be reproduced as a repre- a process sensitive to urban and environmental concerns, is manipulating how it is perceived: bill- boards surrounding the site as well as the Web site of the Senate for Urban Development proclaim, "Dismantling, not demolishing: good for the envi- ronment and city-friendly" (Figure 4). Government officials claim that the "intricate dismantling pro- cess" allows Berlin's sensitive inner city area to be spared air and sound pollution to the greatest extent possible, while the materials removed from the building can be used, recycled, or disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner.3 The government's representation aims to render the demolition, which has been a controversial issue, less violent. Given the fact that the original Schloß was destroyed half a century ago, building a replica has been justified through a negation of the original's aura. In other words, supporters of rebuilding the Schloß argue against authenticity in architecture. Walter Benjamin, writing in 1936, defined aura as the distinct sensation experienced in the presence The Surfaces of Memory in Berlin: Rebuilding the Schloß 26 This content downloaded from 195.113.6.100 on Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:28:38 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 4. A billboard bearing the slogan, "Dismantling, not demolishing," on the site of the Palace of the Republic (2006). (Photo by the author.) a selected past- in this case a Prussian past- thus reducing the multiple layers of urban space to a linear narrative. Longing for a Shared German Past For Germans today, the Palace of the Republic, like other East German architectural landmarks, sym- bolizes a recent thus, insecure past: as the symbol of the socialist regime, it is a constant reminder of the post-WWII division of the country, which lasted until the reunification. Although ninety-eight per- cent of former East Berlin residents favored its preservation according to a survey conducted in 1 992, the building's political meaning as the seat of Jakubeit was not alone. The proponents of Brandenburg Gate to the former site of the Schloß, the GDR parliament aroused antipathy toward its rebuilding the Schloß claimed that urban harmony where the Palace of the Republic is being demol- preservation among former West Germans.6 The in the historic center of Berlin could only be re- ished. Dating from the sixteenth century, the street debate over its demolition, even though sometimes stored by reconstructing the Schloß. The publisher includes many important Prussian monuments and held under the guise of purely aesthetic or urban Wolf Jobst Siedler wrote in 1993: museums such as the Berlin State Library, the Berlin concerns, was highly politicized at a time when State Opera, Humboldt University, Cathedral of St. The question of a reconstruction of the Schloß a reunified Germany was trying to establish a new Hedwig, the Kronprinzenpalais (former palace of is not so much about the Schloß itself, but the crown princes), the Neue Wache war memorial, national identity; it represented a historical fault about the classical center of Berlin.