Architecture and Urban Planning in East Prussia from 1933–1945
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
kunsttexte.de/ostblick 3/2019 - 1 Jan Salm Architecture and Urban Planning in East Prussia from 1933–1945 Defining Characteristics, Major Research Needs, and Research Themes By definition, this article is different from other papers ture in the interwar years that !ould account for its published in this book. y focus is on an area that different forms, most notably the elements that shape !as not incorporated into "oland until 1945, !hich is rural landscapes and to!nscapes in the re*ion, e.g. also the case for Lo!er &ilesia or 'estern "omerania. public buildings such as offices and schools, residen- Ho!ever, it also differs from the other t!o historic re- tial housing such as housing estates and rural and *ions in that it is no! partially in "oland and partially suburban settlements, and finally sacred buildings, in +ussia’s Kaliningrad .blast. Naturally, any elabora- !hich may be fe! but still prominent. So far, only pre- tion on East "russia has to account for those areas in liminary studies or su**estions for future research the re*ion that are outside of "oland and compare have been offered.# and contrast buildings and building complexes 1survi- East "russia is an intriguing research topic also as ving or not2 from the Kaliningrad .blast !ith those lo- an exclave of the Third +eich. One persistent ;uestion cated in Poland’s Warmia and Ma3ury Province. is this: did these peculiar *eopolitical circumstances 4o date, no separate study has been offered on the shape a distinct building style in the re*ion? .r, de- final years of East "russia that !ould describe the re- spite being an exclave, !as East "russia able to ad- *ion as a distinct yet thoroughly 5erman area, to- opt the styles typical of the rest of Germany? *ether !ith its architecture and urban planning. &pe- &o far, only fe! buildings that are representative of cialist researchers are yet to provide more compre- the time have been described in detail. 4he 4o!n Hall hensive elaborations on the interwar years in East in today’s &3c3ytno >.rtelsburg? and its ornaments "russia, let alone its architecture and urban planning. 1described by 7anusz @obesz in :rchitectus2 are a 4hat said, several intriguin* accounts have been offe- case in point.$ 1Aig. 1) 4he +ailway &tation in today’s red on the complex history of the re*ion.1 &urely, the- .lsztynek >(ohenstein?, the 4hingstBtte >an open-air se studies are pioneering in that they try to be imparti- theatre? in today’s &ovetsk >4ilsit?, and several other al and avoid political propa*anda. 4hey may be ad- buildings are also described in the journal.D 7ürgen dressing a !hole range of topics; ho!ever, they make 4iet3 offers an exhaustive account of the 4annenberg only fe! references to art and architecture. &adly, in emorial, !hich !as a unique structure in its o!n his monumental multi-)olume publication on the his- ri*ht, and the transformation it underwent under Na3i F tory of "omerania, &almono!ic3 is yet to address rule. .ther, rather rare, depictions of buildings in East East "russia in the interwar period. 7ud*ing by pre- "russia under Na3i rule are interspersed throu*hout vious volumes, ho!ever, East "russia’s architecture various publications !hich are often extremely valua- and urban planning in the years 1918–1945 1including ble yet fra*mentary and unable to paint a broader the 4hird +eich) !ill be described as thorou*hly as panorama.8 4his is very little *iven the scope and ef- that of other periods.2 fect of the modernizing processes carried out as part 4he fact remains that a comprehensive account of of the East "russia "lan.9 4he processes mainly affec- the architecture of East "russia in the interwar years ted rural areas, !hich sa! the development of mo- is yet to be published. 4o date, the issue has been dern infrastructure as !ell as land reclamation and ri- addressed by Nils Aschenback’s pamphlet and my ar- ver re*ulation projects, !hich improved the availability ticle. Both texts, ho!ever, are preliminary investigati- of arable land in the re*ion. &tate aid also included ons rather than complete mono*raphs.3 4here have preferential loans and incentives for businesses. been virtually no depictions of East Prussia’s architec- East Prussia’s architecture, too, was transformed by a 7an &alm :rchitecture and Grban "lanning in 0ast "russia from 1933–1945 kunsttexte.de/ostblick 3/2019 - 2 probably much larger in scale, !hich is best evi- denced by residential complexes in *arrison to!ns such as today’s Bartoszyce >Bartenstein?, Branie!o >Braunsberg?, Jła!a >@eutsch-Eylau?, and amono)o >Helligenbeil?2. Based on cursory field studies and surveys of spe- cialist publications and various archive sources, the follo!ing conclusion can be made< throu*hout the Na3i period 11933-1945), a large number of buildings !ere developed in East "russia, each of !hich follo- !ing a different variant of the same official style. :t the same time, some of the solutions continued the trends that had proliferated in 5erman architecture in the first decades of the t!entieth century. "ublic buildings follo!ed the style that !as promo- ted after 1933 1or even earlier) across the 4hird +eich. ost of the time, they combined Modernism with sim- plified Neoclassical forms.12 4his is particularly rele- vant for monumental architecture. ost of these buil- dings !ere erected in -Inigsberg, e.g. the Luftkreis- kommando building, !hich !as designed by Ernst &a*ebiel.13 Ai*. 1 4o!n hall in &3c3ytno by -. Arick 11937-38), "hoto< 2005 :nother prime example of this kind is Erich Koch number of carefully planned projects 1e.g. housing &;uare >Erich-9-och "lat3? in -Ini*sberg. Lompleted pro*rammes providing settlements and residential in 1938, it featured a monumental stand and a pylon estates in the suburbs and rural areas). 4his is best mounted !ith a sculpted ea*le. 4he square is no! exemplified by the designs for the development of part of the *rounds of AL Baltika Kaliningrad.1# -I- housing complexes in today’s Elblą* >Elbing?10 and ni*sberg’s fortified Haberberg-+avelin >&chla*eter- extremely daring visions for the development of to- strasse / today’s Kalinin "rospect? in turn sa! the de- day’s Kaliningrad [-Inigsberg?.11 velopment of a Hitlerjugend hostel. :ustere and devo- "ost-1933 housing projects !ere a continuation of id of any elevation details, the building !as probably previous activities !hich sa! the rise of building as- completed from 1935–1940. 4he designers of these sociations that developed residential estates in to!ns construction projects are yet to be found. such as today’s rą*o!o >&ensburg?. 4hese associa- onumental architecture, too, !ould sometimes tions included East "russian Home >.stpreussische dra! upon local tradition. Jn so doing, it deployed HeimstBtte6 .stpreussisches Heim? and East "russian particular forms rather than particular details or Building and (ousing :ssociation >.stpreussische materials. 4his approach is best exemplified by the Bau- und &iedlungsgesellschaft?. 4he actual scale of 4o!n Hall in today’s &3c3ytno >.rtelsburg?. @esigned these activities is yet to be described. (o!ever, !ith by Kurt Arick in 1936/1937, the building has a much certainty, suburban housing estates featured composition similar to that of rectangular conventual prominently in the urban plans developed in the 4eutonic castles !ith a Bergfried.1$ 4he elevation fa- 1930s. 4heir spatial ;ualities also mattered. :t the cing the square !as provided !ith a peculiar balcony same time, preliminary studies sug*est that the ;uali- that served as a lectern. @esigned by the -Inigs- ty of architecture and composition in post-1933 hou- berg-based architect Heinz 1=2 5. Berndt in 1938, a sing estates !as lo!er than that of pre-1933 building Na3i party complex in today’s rą*o!o >&ensburg? projects. 4hat said, post-1933 housing projects !ere 1ne)er completed2 dre! upon the le*acy of monumental 7an &alm :rchitecture and Grban "lanning in 0ast "russia from 1933–1945 kunsttexte.de/ostblick 3/2019 - 3 Ai*. 2 /&@:" (ead;uarter in MrH*o!o 1unrealised proCect2 by (.5. Berndt 11937), sketch made by author on the basis of the ori*inal document from collection of Longress %ibrary 'ashington Classicism as !ell as that of the iddle :*es. 1Aig. 2) saving societies, e.g. Kreissparkasse in today’s "o- 1D 4he Na3i "arty Lommunity House >5emeinschafts- lessk >Labiau?, designed in 1936/1937 by Kurt Arick. haus der /&@:"? in today’s Neman >+a*nit? is com- :t times, their re*ular and axially designed elevations pletely different than other ideolo*y-driven constructi- !ould feature details such as *ables at the entrance on projects. 'hile the building follo!ed the style of axis, stone portals, bossa*es at the corners, buttres- early mediaeval models, its stone faMade featured a ses or plinths made of erratic rocks, and sometimes monumental hammered metalwork depiction of an ea- also decorative lattice!ork. 4his approach is best re- *le carrying a swastika-embla3oned !reath in its presented by the former municipality building in to- cla!s. Both the designer and the construction date day’s 5iżycko >%It3en? 1no! the "olice Head;uarters are yet to be established. in ulica 1 Maja2. :nother solution !as that of simple and odernist :t times, elevations that !ere covered !ith bright forms, !hich !ere virtually devoid of any ornaments. and lumpy plaster !alls (brick elevations used only ra- 4hese are best represented by the former Courthouse rely) !ould feature architectural sculptures, e.g. the >Kreishaus?, in today’s "isz >7ohannisburg?, !hich !as saving society building in Ulmenplat3 in today’s probably developed in 1937 1the building no! houses Chernyakhovsk >Jnsterburg? 1ca.