1967 pundt k. f. schinkels environmental planning of central berlin 1

8/11/2019 1967 PUNDT K. F. Schinkels Environmental Planning of Central Berlin 1

1/18

K. F. Schinkel's Environmental Planning of Central BerlinAuthor(s): Hermann G. PundtSource: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1967), pp.114-130Published by: Society of Architectural Historians

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/988416Accessed: 09/12/2008 11:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sah.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society of Architectural Historiansis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/988416?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sahhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sahhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/988416?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/18

K.

F.

Schinkel's Environmental

Planning

of Central

Berlin

HERMANN G. PUNDT

University

of

Illinois

THE architecture f Karl Friedrich

Schinkel s well

known.

Modern

professional

architects,

such

as

Ludwig

Mies

van

der

Rohe,

Philip

Johnson

and Paul

Rudolph,

have

studied

and

praised

it.1

Renowned historians and

critics,

such

as

Henry-RussellHitchcock, Sigfried

Giedion and

Nikolaus

Pevsner,

have

analyzed

and acclaimed t.2

And,

finally,

the

i.

Ludwig

Mies van der

Rohe's ndebtedness

o Schinkel

s

most

eminently

reflected

n

severalwell-known

projects, .g.,

Hugo

Perls

House, Berlin-Zehlendorf,

9I

;

Seagram

Building,

New

York,

1958;

Museum of

Twentieth

Century

Art,

Berlin,

1965.

About

the

last,

Mies

has been

quoted

as

saying,

"The

placement

of

the

new

museum on

a terrace . . .

permitted

a

design

of a

clear

and

strong

building

n

the tradition

of

Schinkel's

Berlin.""New

Work of

Mies

van

der

Rohe,"

Architectural

orum,

Sept.

I963, 87.

Philip

Johnson

summarized is

recognition

of

Schinkel's

ability

as

follows: "...

his

greatness,

owever,

lay

in

his

unique

sense

of

pro-

portion, which transformedwhicheverstylehe used."Miesvander

Rohe,

2nd

ed.,

New

York,

1953,

p.

I4.

In a

more

personal

statement,

Johnson

refers to himself:

"..

.

dass ich

mich als

den

vielleicht

letzten

lebenden Schiiler Schinkelsfiihle."

"Karl

Friedrich

Schinkel im

zwanzigstenJahrhundert,"

Festvortrag, Schriftenreihe

es

Architekten-

und

Ingenieur-Vereins

u

Berlin,

13

Marz

1961,

p.

24.

The

entire

arti-

cle,

translated nto

English

and

published

as

"Schinkel

and

Mies,"

Program,

olumbia

University,

School of

Architecture,

pring

1962,

pp.

14-34,

ranks

among

the best

interpretive

writings

on

Schinkel

and is

by

far

the finest

tribute

paid

by

a

modem

architect

o

a

past

master.

Paul

Rudolph

has

personally

tated o

me his

favorable

mpression

of

Schinkel's

architecture,

which

Johnson

had

urged

him

to

see

during

a

trip

to Berlin in

1964.

2.

Henry-Russell

Hitchcock

summarizes

is

impressions

f

Schin-

kel in Architecture:Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,Baltimore,

1958,

pp.

28-36.

In

my

opinion,

he

overemphasizes

chinkel's

ela-

tionship

to

J.

N. L.

Durand.

Sigfried

Giedion,

Spdtbarocker

nd

romantischer

Klassizismus,

Miin-

chen,

1922,

p.

4,

remarks:

"Fast

geniigte

es,

allein

Schinkels

Werk

aufzunehmen.So

viel man

auch

vergleichen

mag,

immer

wieder

erscheinen eine

Lisungen-sehen

wir

von

der

Intensitit

des

nicht

zu

voller

Entwicklung

gelangten

F.

Gilly

ab-am

freiesten

von

riickschauenden

Kompromissen,

nstinksicherer

nd

baulich

von

hoherer

Vollendung,

als

die anderer."

Nikolaus

Pevsner,

n

the

only

existing

summary

of

Schinkel'sotal

achievement in

English,

refers

to him as the

"... best

architect

of

his

generation

in

Europe."

"Schinkel,"

Journal

of

the

Royal

Institute

of

II4

late

scholar,

Ortwin

Paul

Rave,

has

documented and

pub-

lished t.3

Therefore,

t

appears

hat Schinkel'screative

con-

tributionas

the

designer

of

Berlin's

best-known

neo-Classi-

cal

buildings

has

received its due.

Primarily

on the basis

of

individual

buildings,

Schinkelhas

been cited asa spokesman

of

"proto-modern"

practicality

and

as an architect

who

ranks

high

among pioneering

contributors

to the

"func-

tionalist"

heoriesof

his

age.4

However valid this

summary

of

Schinkel's

appraisalmay

appear,

t must be realized

hat,

among

the

extensive

corpus

of

Schinkel

literature,

there

exist

only

a

few

critical

works,

and that

hardly any

studies

of his achievement

concern

themselveswith

the

particularly

timely

aspect

of environmental

design.5

BritishArchitects,59,Jan. 1952, p. 95. Pevsner elsewhere states: "On

the

classical

ide,

I82o-40

is

characterized

y

the most correct

neo-

Greek

.. The

resultsare

competent

and,

in the hands

of the

best

architects,

of a noble

dignity...

Carl Friedrich Schinkel

(I78I-I84I),

Gilly's

pupil,

is

the

greatest,

most

sensitive,

and most

originalrepre-

sentative

on the

continent."

An Outline

of

European

Architecture,

th

ed.,

Baltimore,

1963,

pp.

379-380.

3.

Rave's

writings

on Schinkel

and his

position

as editor

of

numerousadditional

Schinkel tudies

madethis

scholar he

foremost

authority

on

the

subject.

During

a

personal

nterview

n

Nov.

1960,

he

referred o the

following publications

s his

major

contributions

in this

area.It should

be mentioned that few of

these

works

are

critical and

that the

exact

subject

of

this

essay

was not treated n

Rave'sextensive

ceuvre. or

general

reference,

biography

and

bibli-

ography,

see

"Schinkel,

Karl

Friedrich,"

Allgemeines

exicon

der

bildendenKunstlervon derAntike biszur

Gegenwart,

ed. Hans Vollmer,

Leipzig,

I936,

xxx, pp.

77-83.

For

themost

comprehensive

overage

of Schinkel's

life

and

work,

see

Schinkel

Lebenswerk,

11

vols.

(to

date),

Berlin-Miinchen,

1939-1961.

4.

Schinkel is

presented

as the

"pioneering

functionalist"

by

Walter Curt

Behrendt,

in:

Modern

Building,

Its

Nature,

Problems,

and

Forms,

New

York,

1937,

pp.

38-49.

Cf.

also

Edward

R.

de

Zurko,

Origins of

Functionalist

Theory,

New

York,

1957,

pp.

I97-I98.

5.

For

the

best

contemporary analyses,

see Gustav Friedrich

Waagen,

"Karl

FriedrichSchinkelals

Mensch und

Kiinstler,"

Ber-

liner

Kalender

auf

das

Schaltjahr

1844,

Berlin,

1843,

pp.

308-428;

and

Franz

Kugler,

Karl

Friedrich

Schinkel,

eine

Charakteristik einer kunst-

lerischen

Wirksamkeit,

Berlin,

1842.


3/18

Consequently,

this

essay

will

not

attempt

to reiterate

past

analyses

of

Schinkel as an architectof individual

buildings.

Rather,

t will focus on

that

aspect

of his achievement

which

the "functionalist

generation"

overlooked,

namely,

his

concepts

of environmental

planning-his

contribution

to

the

development

of a total urban

design.

Schinkel'sevolution as an architectand city plannerbe-

gan during

the

opening

years

of

the

nineteenth

century.

In

I800 he concluded

a

two-year

apprenticeship

under

David

and

Friedrich

Gilly.6

From

I800

to

I8I5

circumstances

pre-

vented him from

practising

his chosen

profession.

As

an

ardent student of the arts and

of

history,

he travelled

in

Austria,

Italy,

and

France rom

I803

to

I805,

returning

to

Prussia

only

to find Berlin in

political

chaos after

military

defeat.

Not

one architectural

ommission of

consequence

was

to

come his

way

until

after

Napoleon's

defeat at

Waterloo

in

I8i5.7

Consequently,

Schinkel

became a

painter.8Utilizing the lessonsof rendering,perspective,and

optics

learned

rom

the

Gillys,

Karl

G.

Langhans

and

Hein-

rich

Gentz

at the

recently

established Prussian

Bauaka-

demie,9

he

quickly

emerged

as one

of

the most

competent

painters

of

panorama

and

stage

design

in

Berlin. His

pano-

ramas

depicted contemporary

scenes,

such as the

fire of

Moscow

in

1812. His theatrical

settings

were admired

by

the

nobility

and the

promoters

and

connoisseurs

of

art.10

Much like

Inigo

Jones

inJacobean

London,

young

Schinkel

The most recentstudieson Schinkelwhich

suggest

his

importance

as a

planner

are

Johnson,

"Schinkel

m

zwanzigsten

ahrhundert,"

pp.

16-18;

and

Goerd

Peschken,

"Eine

Stadtplanung

Schinkels,"

Archaologischernzeiger,

Berlin, 1962,

pp.

862-875.

A

non-critical

but invaluable referencework

concerning

Schinkel's

planning

is

Paul Ortwin

Rave,

Schinkel

Lebenswerk:

Berlin,

Stadtbaupldne,

Briicken,

trassen,Tore,

Pldtze,

Berlin,

1948.

6. See Friedrich

Adler,

"Friedrich

Gilly,

Schinkels

Lehrer,"

Zentralblatt

er

Bauverwaltung,

,

Jg.,

I88I,

pp.

8, I7,

22. For

Schin-

kel's

personal

accountof

these

years

and his reverence or

Friedrich

Gilly,

see

AlfredFreiherr on

Wolzogen

(ed.),

Aus Schinkels

Nach-

lass.

Reisetagebiicher,riefe

und

Aphorismen,

erlin,

I862-I864,

I,

pp.

172-175.

7.

Schinkel's

own

letters and

diaries

of

the

period

800-

815

serve

as the

principal

source for

his

activities

during

this

interim; see

Wolzogen,

Aus Schinkels

Nachlass, I,

pp.

1-177;

m,

pp.

151-I65.

Cf.

August

Grisebach,

Carl

Friedrich

chinkel,

Leipzig,

1924,

chap.

"In-

terregnum,"

pp. 33-66;

and

Waagen,

"Schinkel,"

pp.

330-335.

8.

A

complete

published

study

of

Schinkel's

career

as a

painter

does not exist. For

references,

ee

Grisebach,

Schinkel,

pp.

36-58,

especially

notes

I92-I93.

Cf.

also

Ernst

Riehn,

Schinkelals

Maler

(unpub.

diss.

Universitat

G6ttingen,

I940).

9.

Rave notes n

"Schinkel,"

Allgemeines

exicon

xx,

p.

77:

"Der

von Friedrich

Gilly

in

der

Akademischen

Kunstausstellung

796

gezeigte

Entwurf

fur

ein Denkmal

Friedrich

des

Grossen

iihrte als

starkster

iinstlerischer

indruck

Schinkel einem

Berufzu.

Er

ernte

in der

Werkstatt

Gillys

.

.

.

[und

steht in

800o]

n

der

Spitze

der

besten 18

Eleven der

1799

begriindeten

Bauakademie."

Io.

Kugler,

Schinkel,

p.

5o.

II5

furnishedthe

stages

of

Romanticist

Berlin with

designs

of

artistic

fantasy

and of

strikingly

"modem"

architectural

content.11

However,

if one

looks

at

Schinkel

as the

future

planner

of

urban

sites,

such as

the

Gendarmenmarkt nd

the

Lustgarten

of

Berlin,

another

aspect

of

the artistic

activity

of these

interimyearsappears

ignificant.

This concernshis interest

in

landscape

painting.12

Perhaps

he best

known

of his architectural

landscapes

s

his

Mittelalterlichetadt

am Wasser f

I813

(Fig. I).13

In

this

work,

he

shows the

same

degree

of

technical

competence

which is

generally

associated

with

the northern

Romantics.

He

focuses

on

drama

through

the

use of

clashing

contrasts

of

lights

and

darks n order to

evoke an

emotional

response.

However,

insteadof

the melancholic

ruins

which

haunt

the

canvases

of

Caspar

David Friedrich

or the

frightening

drama

of

nature

which is

depicted

in the

works of

Philip

Otto Runge, Schinkel creates a highly evocative, idyllic

world

where

imaginative

structures

remain

complete

and

function

convincingly

within their

visionary

setting.

He

conceives the

scene

as an

architect;

he

delineates

rather

han

paints.

As the

most architectonic

among

landscape

painters,

he excelled

in

rendering

"living"

architectural

hemes.14

His

Gothic

cathedral s

transformed

nto

an

almost iron-

like

fantasy,

its towers

faintly

reminiscentof

Fonthill

Ab-

bey,

its

flying

bridges

and

exposed

stairways

defying

the

technology

of

the

day.15

On the

opposite

bank,

a

group

of

less

majestic

architectural

orms

is

presented-a

northern

step-gabled

acade,

an

eighteenth-century

residence

and,

at

the

water's

edge,

a small

neo-Classical

temple, placed

there

as if

in

homage

to

Poussin.

The

complexity

of

contem-

porary

architectural

modes is

represented,

ut

the

treatment

indicates

Schinkel's own

philosophical

struggles.16

The

juxtaposition

of the

idealized

forms of

Classicism

with

the

national

expression

of

Gothic

createsa

tension

which

is

only

ii. For

Schinkel'swork

as a

stage

designer,

see his

Dekorationen

auf

den

koniglichen oftheatern

u

Berlin,

32

Tafeln n

5 Heften,

Ber-

lin,

I8I9-ca.I825,

containing

valuable

aquatint

engravings.

Cf.

Paul

Mahlberg,Schinkels heater-Dekorationen,reifswalder issertation,

Diisseldorf,

1916,

esp.

pp.

50-65;

and

Alfred

Freiherr

on

Wolzo-

gen,

"Karl

Friedrich

Schinkel

und

der

Theater-Bau,"

Bayreuther

Bldtter,

o,Jg.,

1887,

pp.

65-90.

12.

The

bestavailable

study

of

Schinkel

as a

landscapepainter

s

Eckhardt on

Sydow,

"Schinkel

als

Landschaftsmaler,"

onatshefte

uir

Kunstwissenschaft,

4,

Jg.,

1921,

pp.

239ff.

I3.

Oil on

canvas,

94.4

x

126.6 cm.

I4.

Kugler,

Schinkel,

pp.

121-123.

15.

PhilipJohnson,

n

discussing

his

painting,

tates hat Schinkel's

imagination

was

thoroughly

"modem"

(i.e.,

Romantic),

as

indi-

cated

by

his

unbuildable

Gothic

structure;

ee

"Schinkel m

zwan-

zigsten

Jahrhundert,"

.

7.

I6.

For

Schinkel's

own

writings

on

the

problem

of Gothic

vs.

classical,

ee

Wolzogen,

Aus

Schinkels

achlass,

m,

pp.

151-162.


4/18

Fig.

I.

Schinkel,

Mittelalterliche

Stadt

am

Wasser,

Miinchen,

Neue Pinakothek

(photo:

Neue

Pinakothek).

prevented

from

becoming

an

outright

conflict

by

the

mod-

ern

bridge

connecting

the two worlds. Somehow modern

man must learn to live

in and be able to coordinate the

differentelementswhich

make

up

the

new environment.

Thus,

Schinkel's vision transcends

he

depiction

of in-

dividual

forms.

Indeed,

in

a

sense,

it enters

the

conceptual

phase

of

realistic

environmental

planning.

He shows

here,

in

a

graphic

representation,

embryonic concepts

of

site

utilization

and

spatial

definition.

He

presents

a scheme

which

is

dependent upon

limited

vistas. The

great,

dark

mass of

the church rises

to

the

left

of

center,

acting

as a

visual barrier o

any

distant

view. Its

massiveform is

bal-

anced on the

right

by

smaller,

cubic structures

perched

on

the

steep,

rocky

bank

and

warmly

illuminated

by

the set-

ting

sun. The

bridge,

which

spans

the

space

between

these

two

major

elements,

screens he

view;

but

through

its tall

archesone

glimpses

the

continuation

of

the

curving spatial

path

of

the river

leading

to

bright, open

spaces

beyond.

The

vaguely

defined

buildings

to the left

of the church

ead

one

back

by gradual steps

to the

landing

in

the

foreground,

which not

only

acts as

a

foil, but,

with its

animated

display

of human

activity,

furnishes

he

vantage point

for the

con-

sciously

intended

view

of

nonaxial,

restrictedvistas.

The

free-flowing spatial

definition

conceived

by

Schinkel,

the

Romantic

painter,

will

find its echo

in

the

volumetric

and

spatial

arrangements

of urban

sites

by

Schinkel,

the neo-

Classicalarchitect.

In

18I6,

three

years

after the

completion

of

Mittelalter-

licheStadt

am

Wasser,

e

began

work

on

the

designs

for his

first

architectural

ommission.

This was a

new

Royal

Guard

House

for

the

city

of Berlin.17

The location

chosen

for

this

building

was

neither

a

picturesque

liff,

nor the

rocky

bank

of

a

broad stream.

The site was a

narrowly

confined

city

lot

located between

the

Baroque

armory

or

Zeughaus

(I696-

I706) by

Arnold

Nering

and Andreas

Schliiter,

and

the

17.

Referredo

in

German

sDasNeue

Wacht-Gebdude

r

Konig-

liche

Wache.chinkel's

nalysis

f

the

building rogram

nd

tyle

of

the

new

Royal

Guard

House

s to

be

found

n

Samrmltng

rchitek-

tonischer

ntwilrfe,

erlin,

1866,I,

p.

I.


5/18

,

.

r

~

--1

-1-

1-1-X,

--r

;

l l

7f3 e ..- -i--...

L

..

^^

n

*

Packhof

=

- T-

Lt-

-

_

Lustgarten

MJuseut

ENVIRONMENTAL

LANNING

CENTRAL

BERLIN

1816-1841

Karl

Friedrich

Schinkel

-

Architect

I

-

-

-

Y

r

Fig.

2.

Central

Berlin

(M.

Plautz

after

Schinkel).

Palladian

palace

of

Prince

Heinrich

(1748-1766;

the Hum-

boldt University since 1945) after plans by G. W. von

Knobelsdorff

(Fig. 2).

Moreover,

the area was

obstructed

by

a narrow canal which crossed

the

plot

in

a

north-south

direction.

Immediately

o the

north stood a

small

grove

of

chestnut

rees,

which was not to be

disturbed.The southern

boundary

was defined

by

Berlin's

amous Unter

den Linden

avenue.18

n

short,

Schinkelwas

compelled

to work

within

an

extremely

significant,

yet

severely

restricted,

building

site.

Consequently,

the ultimate

value

of

the

final

design

must

be

seen

in

terms

of its total

context,

rather than

in

terms

dealing

only

with

the

building

itself. The

fact

that

Schinkel's

preliminarydesign

could

impressHenry-Russell

Hitchcockwith its almost "Ledolcian"

severity

of blocklike

forms does

not suffice

n

assessing

he total success

of the

Royal

Guard

House.19

I8.

The

first

record

of the future Unter den

Linden

avenue

can be

found

in

Caspar

Merian's

engraving

of

Berlin,

ca.

I65o.

An

exten-

sion of the

original

section was

projected

in

1674

under Friedrich

Wilhelm,

"The Great

Elector"

(1640-1688)

after

completion

of the

fortifications;

see

Goerd

Peschken,

"Die

Stadte-Bauliche

Einord-

nung

des Berliner Schlosses

zur

Zeit

des Preussischen Absolu-

tismus,"

Gedenkschrift

rnst

Gall, Berlin,

1965,

pp.

357-359.

I9.

Hitchcock,

Architecture:Nineteenth

and

Twentieth

Centuries,

pp.

29-30.

eae

7t~

_-Opera2

U

Schinkel

i\

Major

Existg

A

brief resume of

the

architectural

composition

of

the

building proper will serve here only as a preface to an

ultimate examinationof the structure

as

an

integralpart

of

its

total

physical

and civic

environment. The

severalsheets

of sketches which

preceded

the

final

design

illustrate

Schinkel's

preliminary

esting

of

various

components

and

their

interrelationships,

nd show that

the evolution

of both

plan

and

faCade

was

a

complex

process

emanating

from

a

creative

mind.

The

resultwas a

fully

matured

composition,

which

may

have

incorporated

ertain

raditional

lements,

but

which

subjects

all the

components

to

a

compact,

har-

monious

totality

(Fig.

3).20

In

selecting

a cubic

shape

as the

main element

of the

building,

Schinkel

may

have

been influenced

by

a

recently

completed

design

by

Heinrich

Gentz

for the

Mausoleum

of

20.

Traditional

elements,

such

as the

so-called

"castrum

plan,"

are

discussed

by

Schinkel,

Sammlung,

,

p.

I: "Der

Plan

dieses,

ringsum

ganz

freiliegenden

Gebludes ist

einem

r6mischen

Castrum

ungefihr

nachgeformt,

deshalb die vier

festeren

Ecktiirme

und

der

innere

Hof. Letzerer ist

niitzlich,

um

die

Okonomie

gegen

den

ringsum

laufenden

Platz zu

verbergen,

auch nimmt

er den

Abfall samtlicher

Bedachungen

auf,

und fiihrt das

Regenwasser

von den

Dichern

unmittelbar

in

den,

unter

dem Gebaude

fortlaufenden,

iiberwolbten

Kanal."

II7

z^

1- /

F

'

~: '7 / 7

/

/i

7

/.

/

%~/.

I .


6/18

II8

Fig.

3.

Royal

Guard

House,

perspective

iew

(from

Schinkel,

ammlung).

Queen

Louise of

Prussia.

This

suggestion

is well

supported

by

the fact that Schinkel himself

had been an unsuccessful

competitor

for this commission in

I8Io.21

However,

in

contrast to

Gentz,

Schinkel's

design

for

the

guardhouse

s

less

dependent

upon

correctness

of

classicalmotifs and bears

the

stamp

of

a more individualistic

approach.22

In addition,one must refer to the well-known designfor

a

monumental

gateway

of

I798

by

Friedrich

Gilly,

which

Schinkel

must have known from his

days

of

apprenticeship

(Fig.

4).

In contrast to Schinkel's balanced articulationof

simple

and

detailed

components,

Gilly's

gateway speaks

a

rhetoric

of

crude

austerity.

In

their

handling

of

form

and

proportion,

one

could

almost

compare

the

two

projects

to

archaic

Etruscan

and

classicalGreek themes.

While

Gilly

relied

on the

massing

of

bold,

geometric

forms

such as

the

Tuscan Doric

order,

reminiscentof

Jacques-Louis

David's

paintings,

Schinkel enhanced his

Grecian

composition

by

the use of subtle refinementsexpressedin the variety of

sizes

and

textures

of

individual

components.

His

drawing

21. For Schinkel's

design

and extensive

specifications,

ee

Wolzo-

gen,

Aus Schinkels

Nachlass,

III,

pp.

15I-i62.

The best

available

study

of Heinrich

Gentz's

project

s

Adolph

D6bber,

"Zur

Baugeschichte

des

Charlottenburger

Mausoleums,"

Zentralblatter

Bauverwaltung,

32,Jg.,

1912,

pp.

I37-I39.

22.

Objective

scholarship

has

verified

Schinkel's

approach

and

attitude

toward

historicaland

contemporary

ources;

ee

Benjamin

Rowland,

The ClassicalTraditionn Western

Art,

Cambridge,

1963,

p.

303:

"Certainarchitects

f

genius,

ike

Schinkel,

were ableto

raise

the classic diom to

a

functional,

rather

han to an

archaeological

level."

of

the

guardhouse

reinforced

the

qualities

of

totality

and

repose,

which

could

hardly

be confusedwith

Gilly's starkly

portrayed

chiselledboulders.

Indeed,

the

austerity

of

Gilly's

cold

setting

for

his

gateway

makes one realize

that the

addition

of

natural

growth

surrounding

the

building

in

Schinkel's

drawing

is

a

necessary

element

in

his

conception

of the structurewithin a particular nvironment. He con-

trasted

he abstracted

orm of

the man-madestructurewith

the

natural

irregularities

f

the trees beside it.

In

his

rendering,

the

main cube

of

the

building

is shown

to

its

best

advantage.

He

emphasized

the

simple planes

of

his structure

and

the

concise

lines of the

parapet

above

and

of

the

projecting

ashlar

base-course

below.

The

drawing

is

also

very

successful

in

relating

the masterful

manner

in

which he achieved the difficult

juxtaposition

of

the solid

main block and the

open freestandingportico.

In

his

final

design,

he had dismissedthe

bold

piers

of the

preliminary

sketches

and had

refined

the

entranceby

a

unique

fusion of

Doric

and Ionic

features.

Small-scale

winged

victories

by

Gottfried Schadow

took the

place

of traditional

triglyphs

and

metopes

on the frieze

above the Attic Doric

columns.23

Such deliberate

modificationsof classical

prototypes

will be

found

in

all Schinkel's

designs.

His

rejection

of an

archaeo-

logical

approach

and of unrestricted

dependence

upon

cur-

23.

Hitchcock

(op.

cit.

29-30),

in

illustrating

one of Schinkel's

more

advanced studies for the

facade,

states that

the

Pergamene

heads

on the frieze

were retained

n the

final,

executed

version;

but

they

were,

in

fact,

replacedby

the

figures

of

winged

victories.


7/18

rent

publications,

such as Durand

or Stuart and

Revett,

distinguish

him from

less

imaginative

neo-Classicalarchi-

tects.24

The

appreciation

of

the

Royal

Guard

House

should,

however,

be

expanded

beyond

the

narrow

boundaries

of

stylistic

inventivenessand

proportional

excellence.

Indeed,

a study of this work must focus upon its successas partof

its total

planning

context.

It

appears

hat it

had

been Schinkel's

ntention from

the

very

outset

to consider his new

building

as

part

of

a total

urban

setting.

The

cubic

shape

of

the

Royal

Guard

House

relates

directly

in

basic outline to

Nering's

armory

block

toward the

east,

and the

portico

of Schinkel's

building

re-

peats

a similar

eature

on

G.

W. von Knobelsdorff's

Palla-

dian

opera

house

(1741-1743)

across he

avenue. But

most

importantly,

the new

guardhouse

akescommand

of

its site

because

of its

carefully

balanced

placement

within

the

limited confinesof its location and becauseof its harmoni-

ous

spatial

disposition

in

relation to

the

neighboring

buildings.

In one

of his final

planning

schemes,

Schinkel had

pro-

vided a definite

set-back which created

a

plaza

in

front of

his structure.

This

arrangement

would have

given

addi-

tional

depth

to his

spatial composition.

It was noted

by

Schinkel

that

the

king

himself

rejected

his

scheme

n

favor

of a

location

somewhat closer o the avenue.His

disappoint-

ment

at this

change

can be read

from his

own notes written

on the site

plan.25

One is somewhat reminded of Robert

Mills'

Treasury

Building

in

Washington,

D.C.,

which was

located at

its

present

site

by

a

spontaneous

decision

of

President

Andrew

Jackson.

24.

For Schinkel's

attitude toward the monuments

of Greece and

Rome

and

contemporary

literature

on

classical

architecture,

see

Kugler,

Schinkel,

pp.

22-28.

25.

For a

published

version of Schinkel's

notes,

see

Rave,

Schinkel

Lebenswerk:

Berlin,

III,

pp.

153-I54.

Fg4

NaPb.

\k

Fig.

4.

F.

GiUy,Project

or a

gateway

(from Beenken).

II9

To increase he effect

of coordination

between

the

new

Royal

Guard House

and

its

surroundings,

Schinkel

had

also

planned

a small

park

opposite

the

building

at

the

south

side

of the Unter den Linden-a

project

which was

never

realized.

Despite

these curtailments

n

the

overall

disposi-

tioning

of the

building,

it

is

possible

even

today

to

sense

Schinkel'sconcern for, and partial successin, creating a

meaningful

environmental

scheme.

A

sequence

of recent

photographs

shows

the

Royal

Guard

House

in

its

formal and

spatial

relationships

o

its

surroundings (Fig.

5).

As

one

approaches

the

building

from

the

southeast,

only

the

portico appears

between

the

facades

of

the

palatial

Baroque

armory

and

one

wing

of

the

palace

toward the west. As

one advances

closer,

the two

bulky

structures

on

either side

fade

into

the

periphery

of

vision

and

the

guardhouse,

ike a

preciousgem,

is

progres-

sively

revealed

n

its

totality.

Once it is

comprehended

as an

isolated orm, it appearso be aself-contained, elf-sufficient

entity,

like a cubic version

of

the

Roman

Pantheon.

Despite

its

relatively

small

size,

the

principal

design

effects

now

merge

into a

single,

monumental statement.

In this

context,

it is not

surprising

that this

structure,

originally

designed

to house the

Royal

Prussian

Guard,

would

eventually

arouse the

admiration

of

Russia's

Mar-

shal

Georgi

K.

Zhukov,

who

is

reported

o have

suggested

the

restoration

of

the

badly damaged

building

after

the

Battle

of Berlin in

1945.26

Unfortunately

for the

overall

effect of Schinkel's

scheme,

the two

freestanding

monu-

ments to Generals Scharnhorst

and

Biilow

(1822)

by

Christian

Rauch were not

replaced.

These two

statues

had

originally

played

an

important

role

in

the

spatial

definition

of

the

open

plaza (Fig.

3).

Their

presence

facilitated

the

transition

between the

open spaces

oward the

avenue

and

the

building proper

behind.

Yet,

despite

their loss

today

and

the

somewhat machinelike

precision

of

the restored

columns

of the

portico,

the

Royal

Guard House has con-

tinued

to

command its site. Since

its

conception

in

I816,

this

building

has remaineda

permanent

and

significant

part

of its

total

physical

environment.

During

the lifetime of

Schinkel

and in

subsequent

decades

it was considered a

masterpiecen its own right.27However, in a broadercon-

text,

one can

add

thatthis

building

and ts

placement

marked

Schinkel's

irst

attempt

to create

an urban environment.

In view

of

Schinkel's

uccessful xecution

of

his first

com-

mission

as

a

state

architect,28

t

is

not

surprising

hat he

was

26.

This statement

is

based on a

private

interview with

Prof.

Rave

on I6

Nov.

1960.

27.

For

a

typical

interpretation,

see

Grisebach, Schinkel,

pp.

68-69.

28.

For data

relating

to

Schinkel's

career

as official

Prussian

archi-

tect

(Ober-Baurat,

I815

to

Ober-Landes-Bau-Director, 1838),

see

Wolzogen,

Aus Schinkels

Nachlass, II,

pp.

224-225.


8/18

120

Fig.

5.

Three views

of

the

Royal

Guard

House

from

the

southeast

(photos:

author).

called

upon

in 1818 to

design

a

replacement

or

the

recently

gutted

theater at the Gendarmenmarkt

(Fig.

6).

This

city

plaza

was located southwest

of

the

center

of

Berlin. The

old

theater

of

I80o-I802

(Fig. 7)

had

been the

work of Karl

Gotthard

Langhans,

Berlin's

irst

neo-Classicist

and

design-

er

of

the famous

Brandenburg

Gate

(1788-1791).

In

com-

parison

o this well-known civic

monument,

the old

theater

was carriedout

in

a

somewhat

nondescript

manner,

which

quickly

earned t the

sobriquet,

"coffin,"

among

the

critics

of Berlin.

If it is

compared

o

Friedrich

Gilly's

competition

entry

for

the same

project (Fig.

Io),

Langhans's

ontribu-

tion

appears

even more mundane.29

Although

this

uninspired

tructurewas

now

gutted,

the

programfor the new theaterrequired he utilizationof the

still-existing

foundations-a

significant

limitation

placed

upon

the creative

imagination

of

the new

architect.30

Schinkel

also had to furnisha

considerable

number of

new

interior

spaces.

Besides the theater

proper,

there was

to

be

included

a

large

concert

hall,

a

spacious

royal

reception

lounge

and

several

rehearsal

ooms of

varioussizes.

In

order

to solve this

problem,

Schinkel

reserved he central

portion

of the

plan

for

stage,

orchestra,

and

auditorium and

ar-

ranged

the additionalrooms

in

two lower

wings

on

either

side.

On the exterior

of

the

building,

the

major

elements,

i.e.,

the

auditoriumand

stage,

are

marked

by

the elevated

central

block,

while the

symmetrically

placed

lateral

wings

housed the concert

hall

and rehearsal ections.

Because

of

this involved

program

and

the

specific requirements

and

restrictions

imposed upon

the

architect,

he

space

given

to

the theater

proper

was reduced to about one-third of

the

total

area.

"The

Schauspielhaus

s

magnificent,"

remarked

the

crown

prince pointedly,

"...

and if

one

searches

long

enough,

one

may

even

find

a

theater nside."31While this

remark

by

a

young prince

and

architectural

entrepreneur32

may

have been

spoken

in

jest,

it

could be

understoodas a

compliment

to Schinkel's

planning ngenuity.

And yet, as one looks at this structuretoday (theinterior

gutted

since

1945),

neither the

prince's

comment nor the

favorable

opinion

of

Quatremere

de

Quincy33

ouch

upon

the most

importantaspect

of

the theater.

As in the

forego-

ing

discussionof the

Royal

Guard

House,

so the

Schauspiel-

29.

For

Langhans's

theater

(800o,

destroyed

I817)

and Schinkel's

plans

to remodel it

in

I813,

see

Rave,

Schinkel

Lebenswerk:

erlin,

I,

pp.

79-87.

30.

See

Wolzogen,

Aus Schinkels

Nachlass, II,

chap.

"Uber

den

Bau des neuen

Schauspielhauses

in

Berlin,"

pp.

I70-I87.

Cf.

Schinkel,

Sammlung,

I,

pp.

I-2

(7 cols.).

3I.

See

Rave,

Schinkel

Lebensverk:

Berlin,

I,

p.

122.

32.

See

August

Stiiler,

"Uber

die WirksamkeitFriedrich

Wil-

helms IV in dem Gebiete

der

bildenden

Kiinste,"

Zeitscllriftfiir

Bauwesen,

II,Jg.,

I86I,

esp. pp.

520-525.

33.

Antoine

Quatremere

de

Quincy

(1755-I849),

the most

influ-

ential French architectural

critic

of

the

time,

acclaimed

Schinkel's

Schauspielhaus

in Berlin as follows: "Cet

edifice

l'emporte

incon-

testablement sous le

rapport

de

l'architecture,

de

la

conception

de

l'ensemble et de la

belle execution

tout ce

qu'on

peut

voir ailleurs."

Quoted

from

Giedion, Spdtbarocker,

.

142.

For

Schinkel's

personal

comments

relative to

his

meeting

with

Hittorf

and

Quatremere

de

Quincy

in

Paris,

1826,

see

Wolzogen,

Aus Schinkels

Nacllass,

II,

pp.

13, 23,

30.


9/18

121

Fig.

6.

Theater

(Schauspielhaus),

perspective

view

(from

Schinkel,

Sammlung).

haus must

be studied

as

part

of

its total urban

scene.

Only

in

this

context will it

be

possible

to

judge

and

to

appreciate

he

architect'sachievement and to understandhis most impor-

tant

legacy

to

our own

ideas

about

planning.

Seen within

its

urban

setting,

Schinkel's new theater

formed

the

focal

point

at

the west side

of

a

major

city

plaza

(Fig. 8).34

To

the north and

south,

it was flanked

by

two

almost identical

churches

of

an earlier

period (finished

I780-I786) by

Gontard

(Fig. 9).35 Carefully

balancing

the

scale, mass,

and

proportion

of his

addition to the

panoramla

of

the urban

plaza,

Schinkel succeeded

in

complementing

the

already

existing

framework of

buildings

in a

variety

of

ways.

34.

It is

interesting

to note

that

both

Gilly

and Schinkel illustrate

their

respective

designs

at an

angle

to the

right.

This

is

conditioned

by

the

nonaxial

approach

to the

site.

The

major

entrance to the

square

was at

the northeast

corner.

35.

The

flanking

churches are:

north,

Franzosischer

Dom

(see

Fig.

9),

I701-I705,

finished

by Quesnay

after

plans by Cayart, cupola

executed

by

Unger

after

plans by

Gontard,

I78I-I785;

south,

Deutscher Dom

(Neue

Kirche),

I70I-1708,

finished

by

Simonetta

after

plans by

Griinberg, cupola

executed

by

Unger

after

plans

by

Gontard,

1781-1785.

Senator fur Bau-und

Wohnungswesen,

Abt.

Landes-und

Stadtplanung

Berlin,

Berlin

Planutngsgrundlagcn

iir

den

stddtebaulichen

Ideenwettbewerb

"Hauptstadt Berlin," Bonn-Berlin,

1957,

items

19-22,

photo

section.

Most

obviously,

the

new

building

was similar to

its

neighbors

in

fundamental

stylistic

appearance.

n

its exte-

riordesign Schinkelemployed the time-honoredprinciples

of

Classicism,

although

his

distinctly

neo-Grecian Classi-

cism could

hardly

be confused with

Gontard's

Anglo-

Palladianmotifs.36

n

addition,

Schinkel

attempted

o create

a

harmony

between the

theater and the

existing

churches

by

echoing

their

centralized cheme.

However,

he

empha-

sized the central section of his new civic

building

with

a

dominant

clerestory

and

a

large

sculpturalgroup crowning

the

pediment,

in contrastto the

religious

structures,

which

are

terminated

by

domes

on

high

drums. A colossal Ionic

entrance

portico,

with a

formal

flight

of

steps, completed

the frontalfaCade.

In

regard

o the

design

of

the

theater

proper,

the

portico,

with

its

grand approach,

strikesa

note

of

accentuatedele-

gance

in

contrast o the blocklike

character

f

the rest

of

the

36.

A

certain

tendency

toward

Anglo-Palladianism

is noticeable

in

the official Prussian architecture built

by

Gontard

and von

Knobels-

dorff

under

the

auspices

of Frederick

II

(I740-1786).

In

the case of

the churches

at the

Gendarmenmrarkt,

a certain

resemblance

to the

domes of the Greenwich Naval

Hospital

has been

suggested

by

Paul

Ortwin

Rave,

Berlin in der

Gescllichte

einer

Baliten,Miinchen-Berlin,

1960,

p.

30.


10/18

122

TOWARDS

UNTER

DENLINDEN

I

FRANZOSISCHE

STRASSE

w

c,

Fig.

7.

Drawing

of

Langhans's

theater

by

Schinkel

(from

Rave,

Schinkel

Lebenswerk).

building.37

t the same

ime, however,

he

architect

sed

major

eatures

f

this

portico

as

coordinating

lementsn

the

horizontal rticulationf

the

entire

tructure.

or

n-

stance,he carriedhe ashlarbaseto the top level of the

frontal

tairsand

theirtwo

flanking pur

walls.

He

con-

tinued he

entablature

f

the Ionic

frontispiece

s a

strong

horizontal

and,

ying

the lateral

wings

and

he

portico

o

the

central

lock.

n

regard

o the

formal

rticulation

fthe

city

plaza,

Schinkel's

portico

facade

played

yet

another

highly mportant

ole: t served o echo

the

similarly

m-

phatic reestandingorticos

f

the

adjacent

hurches. on-

sequently,

t

is

this

particular

motif

which established

formal

continuity

etweenhis

new

structure

nd

he exist-

ing

ones.

At this

point,

t

is

necessary

o

compare

chinkel'sheater

and herelationo itssiteof

the

previous

fforts f

Langhans

and

Gilly.

Such

comparisons

ill

vividly

demonstrate

o

what

degree

Schinkel,

he

younger

master,

differed rom

his

teachers;moreover,

we shall

see how the attitude o-

wardoverall

planning

f

urban

spaces

ad

changed

n

the

short nterval

f

some

twenty

years.

37.

Schinkel

explains

the

reason

for

raising

the

portico

and

ulti-

mately

the entire

building

in his

report

to

the

king,

dated

27

April

I818. "Die

Magazine

fur Decorationen

sind

sammtlich

in dem

Unterbau des

Gebiudes,

damit die

grosse

Gefahr vermieden

wird,

welche bei dem alten Hause

durch die

Aufhaufung

der Lasten iiber

den

K6pfen

der Zuschauer auf einem nur durch

Hangewerke

getragenen

Boden

entstand

und zu

oftmaligen dringenden

Erin-

nerungen

Behufs

deren

Abstellung

Anlass

gab....

Der fur

die

Decorationsmagazine

nothwendige

Unterbau

tragt zugleich

vor-

ziiglich

viel

zum

edlen

Styl

des

Gebiudes

bei,

indem die

Architektur

dadurch

iiber die

gew6hnlichen

Stadtgebaude hinausgehoben

wird.

"Die

sechs noch

brauchbaren

alten

Saulen,

welche

beim

Neubau

wieder

angewendet

werden,

sind

wiirdiger

aufdiesen Unterbau

mit

einer sch6nen

Treppe

zu

bringen,

und

werden so eine

gr6ssere,

dem

6ffentlichen

Gebaude

entsprechende

Wirkung

machen.

Zugleich

wird hierdurch die

bequeme

Unterfahrt

gewonnen." Wolzogen,

Aus

Schinkels

Nachlass,

In,

pp. I78-I79.

For

an illustration

for the

porte

cochere

below the

portico,

see

Rave,

Schinkel

Lebenswerk:

Berlin, I,

p.

I2I.

JAEGER

-

TAUBEN

-

STRASSE

SCHAUSPIEL

HAUS

NEUE

KIRCHE

MOHREN

01

I

I0

20

[0

100 0 100 200 300

tlll,i,,1i

1

I

i

I

STRASSE

z

UL

I


11/18

Fig.

Io. F.

Gilly, Project

for a

theater

at

the Gendarmenmarkt

(from Rietdorf).

Langhans's

heater

of

800o,

s mentioned

above,

was a

building devoid of exterior distinction. Even its portico,

which faced

onto

the

square,

could

hardly

have

qualified

as

an element

coordinating

the three

major

buildings

at the

Gendarmenmarkt;

t

merely

emphasized

he entrance o the

theater tself.

Gilly's

project,

on

the other

hand,

was

drastically

differ-

ent

(Fig.

io).

In

the

competition

for

the

original

theater,

he

had

presented

a structure

which

was

inspired,

n

plan, by

contemporary

French heaters

(such

as the

Theatre-Francais

in

Paris)

and in exterior articulation

by

the

geometric

abstractions

of recent

projects by

Boullee and

Ledoux.38

Judged

by

his own

rendering,

t was

to

be built

of

smooth,

unadorned

tone from base to cornice-a materialand tex-

ture which

would have reinforced he boldness

of its

major

components:

a massive cube

in

the

center,

flanked

by

two

half-cylinders,

and a

highly

abstractedentrance

portico.

Like Schinkel

some

twenty years

ater,

Gilly

had

planned

o

unify

the

exterior

composition

with

two dominant hori-

zontal

bands,

one

continuing

the

top

level

of

the lateral

arcades,

the

other,

converted into a frieze of low-relief

sculpture,

ncircling

he cube and the

half-cylinders

t their

cornice

level.

Unlike

Schinkel,

however,

Gilly

concen-

trated

exclusively

on his own

building.

In

the tradition

of

French,so-called"revolutionary,"Classicism,he not only

worked

with

the

severest

of

geometric

forms,

the

plainest

38.

For

the

particular

place

of

Gilly's project

in the

context

of

late

eighteenth-century

architecture,

see

Hermann

Beenken,

Schopfer-

ische

Bauideen

der

deutschen

Romantik,Mainz,

1952,

pp.

6Iff.

Cf.

Alste

Oncken,

Friedrich

Gilly

(1772-1800),

Berlin,

I936,

esp. pp.

I-Io,

42,

63-77.

Despite

its

occasional

political

overtones,

this

work remains

the

only

recent

comprehensive

scholarly publication

on

F.

Gilly.

Its

publication

date

corresponds

with the

1936

Olympic

games

in

Berlin,

when a

portrait

bust of

Gilly by

Gottfried Schadow was

exhibited at

the stadium. Cf. the text

of Alfred

Rietdorf,

Gilly,

Wiedergeburt

er

Architektur,

Berlin,

I940-I943,

which contains

good

illustrations.

I23

of

surfaces,

and

the

most

concise

of

framing

contours,

but,

in

addition,

he

conceived

of architecture

as the

art

of

build-

ing majestically

solated

monuments.39

n his

drawing,

he

accentuated,

one

may

even

say

dramatized,

his

structure's

heroic

scale

by

presenting

it

in a

sharply

foreshortened

Umriss

perspective.

Finally,

he did

not

hesitate to

literally

erase the domes of the nearby churches.In so

doing,

he

created

a

misleading,

yet

highly

individualistic,

mage

of

the

setting.

Consequently,

his

building

was

conceived,

and

would

have

been

executed,

as

a

totally

isolated

entity

with

no

formal

or

spatial

reference o its

environment.

On

the other

hand,

Schinkel,

the Romanticist

of the

younger

generation,

considered

his

building

to

be an

addi-

tion to

the

total

environmental

cheme. He underscored

is

own conscious

endeavor

to think

in terms

of

totality by

providing

an

especially

enlightening

document

of his

inten-

tions.

For the

opening

of

his

new

theater

n

1821,

he de-

signed and executed a panoramicbackdropdepictingthe

new architectural

setting

of the

Gendarmenmarkt

(Fig.

I

).

The

audience,

arriving

or

the

opening-night performance

of

Goethe's

Iphigenieauf

Taurus,

was confronted with a

visual

recording

by

Schinkel the

painter

of

the results of

urban

planning

by

Schinkel

the

architect.

They

were made

aware,

n

a

most dramatic

ashion,

of

the total

urban

setting

of

the

theater

n

which

they

were

seated-their

vision

ex-

panded

o include

a

distant

horizon

as

well as the immediate

spatial

and

formal

relationships

f

the

monuments

framing

the

Gendarmenmarkt.

Could

they

have left

the

theater,

gone

out into

the

square,

untouched

by

what

they

had

seen

-by

what the architect

had forced them to visualize?40

Just

as

Gilly's

theater

project

had

been

a

testimony

to

the

principles

of the

Age

of

Reason,

Schinkel's

vision of

a

uni-

fied and

comprehensible

otality

emerged

as

a tribute

o

the

Age

of

Idealism,

the

age

of Goethe.41

The

planning

concepts

first

realized

at

the Gendarmen-

markt were to be carried

even further

in

Schinkel's

next

commission:

the

total

redevelopment

of the

Lustgarten

area,

Berlin's

civic and cultural

nucleus.

The

program

would

ultimately

consist

of

the

functional

and aestheticcoordina-

tion between several

existing

structures

nd

a

series

of new

buildings, as well as the extensive replanningof canals,

streets

and

public spaces.

On

either

side

of

the eastern

er-

39.

This

argument

stands

in

sharp

contrast to that of

Rietdorf,

Gilly,

p.

118,

who

reproduces

a

night-view

sketch

of the area

by

Gilly

(Illus.

108)

and insists on

Gilly's

conscious

attempt

to

unify

his

project

with the

existing

structures into

a total

setting.

40.

Characteristically,

Schinkel

included this

view in

his

Sammn-

lung,

I,

pl.

14.

4I.

This

opinion

differs

from that

of

Pevsner,

Outline

of

European

Architecture,

p.

375,

who

writes: "...

Gilly's

National

Theater

for

Berlin

[was]

clearly

a

conception

of the Goethe

age."


12/18

124

Fig.

I

. Stage design for the Schauspielhaus (from Schinkel, Sammlung).

minus of the Unter den Linden

avenue,

from

the

tip

of

the

Museum-Island

on the north to the Werderscher-Markt

n

the

south,

stretched

an extensive

area which would feel the

impact

of

Schinkel's

genius

as an

architect and environ-

mental

planner

(Fig. 2).

An

analysis

of a

project

which

is as

extensive

as

the

Lust-

garten

calls for

an

approach

which

exceeds

the

investiga-

tion,

description,

and

criticism

of

individual

buildings.

It

is

especially

necessary

to

treat the

project

as a total achieve-

ment since some of the most sensitivestudentsand histori-

ans of Schinkel's

work have failed

to

comprehend

it as

originally

a

composition

of

totality.42

Philip Johnson,

for

42.

My

view stands

n

exact

opposition

to Giedion's

analysis

of

Schinkel's

Lustgarten

project,

Spdtbarocker,

.

125:

"Der Platz des

'Lustgartens'

. . . beim Berliner Schloss

zeigt

wieder

drei unverbun-

dene Bauten. Den

Riickhalt,

den

die weite

Flache

am

Schliiterschen

Schloss

findet,

lasst

sie,

die fast

doppelt

so

gross

als der Miinchener

Konigsplatz

ist,

doch nicht zerfliessen.

Es

ist

Schinkels

Verdienst,

dass er das Alte Museum

I823,

unter

grossen

Miihen

in

weitmig-

lichste

Entfernung

riickte,

denn

die

Schliitersche Wand

konnte

niemals ein

Gegeniiber

in der

Saulenstellung

Schinkels

finden. Auf

instance,

has

spoken

eloquently

of

the museum

alone

(Fig.

12);

but because

of

the

radical

changes

which have

occurred

since

I894,

he was

impressed

only by

the

building's

subtle

proportions,

ts

simple

monumentality,

and the

clarity

and

restraint

of

its

details.43

The

younger generation

of

archi-

tects, however,

may profitably

expand

their

view

and

study

Schinkel's

total

program:

the

redevelopment

of an

entire

major

sector

of

Berlin,

a

project

which is

comparable

in

scope

and

in

consequence

o

many present-day

efforts.

The Lustgartenredevelopmentand expansionprogram

occupied

Schinkel

throughout

the decade

of the I820s.

Indeed,

his

new

museum

(now

known

as

the Alte

Museum)

diese

Weise bedriickt

nicht eine

Gestaltung

die andere

und

jeder

Bau

kann Individuum

n

seinem

Reich bleiben.

Ausserdem

wird

durch die

grosse

Entfernung

ein

Platz

in romantischem

Sinn

ge-

schaffenund eine

eigentliche

Raumbildung

verhindert.

Dass es

Schinkel

gar

nicht um

einen einheitlichen

Platzraum

zu tun

war,

kann

man

auch

aus

den

spateren

Entwiirfen

ur das

Friedrichsdenk-

mal,

1829,

ersehen..."

43

Johnson,

"Schinkel

im

zwanzigstenJahrhundert,"

op.

cit.,

p.

I I.


13/18

was

only completed

by

1830,44

while

the custom ware-

houses

(Packhof)

and the new

building

for the Bauaka-

demie

were

to

occupy

him until

I835.

Even

though

the

renowned

landscape

architect Peter

Joseph

Lenne45

was

present

n

Berlin,

it was

Schinkel

who

was

approached

by

the court

in

1822

to

design

the new

borderlinesof the

Lustgarten

which

had served as a mili-

tary parade ground)

and to

give

thought

to

designs

for

a

permanent

building

for

public

exhibition of

the

royal

art

collection.

Schinkel

seized the

opportunity

and

expanded

the

original

hesitant

program

into a vast

redevelopment

scheme.

His new

bridge

already

inked the island with the

Unter den

Linden.He now

proposed

a museum

which was

to

be,

not

an

afterthought,

but a monumental addition to

the new

Lustgarten

s

he conceived it.

His

ability

as

a

plan-

ner

must have

already

been

recognized

by

the crown and

his scheme

appears

to have

met with the

approval

of

FriedrichWilhelm III (I797-I840).46

Outlining

his

specifications

in a

letter to

the

king,

Schinkel

emphasized

that

a total

replanning

of

the

entire

Lustgarten

section

of

Berlin would

ultimately

result

in

several

significant

"advantages."

A

translation

of

this com-

munique

seems

appropriate

since it does touch

upon

the

essence

of

Schinkel's

thinking, namely,

to evoke

the idea

of

a

coherent

environment,

instead

of

a

series

of

isolated

projects.

n

part,

he wrote:

Berlin,

23

January

I823

...

Your

Majesty

commissioned

me

last

summer

to

prepare

a

plan

for the

redevelopment

f

the

orchards nd

borderlines

f

the

Lustgarten.

he

design

orthis

project

as

already

een

ubmitted,

consisting

n

part

of

a

plan

and

especially

f

a

perspective

rawing

which

projects

he entire

area].

The

most

interesting spect the

total

area), ccupied

me for a

long

time

afterwards,

nd

I

came o

the conclusion

hat

his

[landscaping]

roject

ould

be

combined

with the construction

f the new museum

and several

elated

buildings

..

offering

n

such

a

comprehensive

cheme

[the

fol-

lowing]

decisive

advantages:

he

reduction

f

building

ostsover

the

ast

plan;

he

perfection

nd

beauty

f the

[museum]

uilding;

the

embellishment

f

the

entire

Lustgarten;

nd,

inally,

hosewith

regard

o the

usefulness

fthe

custom

warehouses,

iver

navigation,

communication

nd convenience

ear

the

new

Schlossbriicke.

I

felt t

to be

my

responsibility

o

prepare

romptly

n

extensive

planning

chemen order o submithe same orYour

Majesty's

study

andevaluation.

ive

drawings

nd

explanatory

pecifications

44.

For hebest

analysis

f

themuseum's

esign

nd

construction,

see

Sabine

piero,

Schinkels ltesMuseumn

Berlin,"Jallrbuch

er

preussischen

unstsamnilungen,

5, 1934,

Beiheft,

pp.

41-86.

For the

architect's

wn

analysis

f the

museum,

ee

Wolzogen,

Aus

Schinkels

Nachlass,

III,

pp.

217-266.

45.

P.

J.

Lenne

(1789-1866),

Director-Generalof

the

Royal

Gardens

n

Berlin,

enlarged

he

Tiergarten

rom

1833

to

1839,

thus

creating

one

of

the

first

majorpublic city parks

n

Europe.

46.

Wolzogen,

Aus

Schinkels

Nachlass,

III,

p.

217.

I25

illustratehe

project

learly

nd

point

out

all

advantages

f

sucha

scheme .

.

47

It

appears

that the

royal

architect

and

planner

had

his

way.

For once

in

his entire

career,

he was able to

overcome

curtailing

financial

limitations,

frustrating

criticisms and

practical

restrictions

n

order

finally

to

achieve

the

realiza-

tion of his

plans.48

Schinkel'smuseum

was

constructedat the north

side of

the

Lustgarten

plaza.

Designed

in 1822

and

executed

from

1823

to

I830,

this

building

became

one

of

Europe's

first

public

museums. It

has

repeatedly

been

cited

as one of

the

most successful

designs

of

its

type.

Critics have

com-

mented

favorably

on its

adaptable

exhibition

spaces

as

late

as the mid-twentieth

century.49

In

addition to the

economy

and

practicality

of

the

gen-

eral

layout,

the

exterior

composition

of

the

museum was

conceived

as

basically

complementary

n

geometric

form

to

the palaceat the oppositeside of the squareand also to the

armory

across the

Kupfergraben

toward

the

southwest

(Fig.

2).50

The

general

formal definition

of

the

museum re-

peated

the

basic horizontal treatment

of

the

existing

struc-

tures,

their cornice levels all

being

of

approximately

the

same

height.

The one

existing building

which

was

quite

different

n

character

was

the

old

Domkirche

(I747-I750)

by

Johann

Boumann the Elder ocated

on

the

eastern

edge

of

the Lust-

garten.

The

more

compact, vertically

emphasized

religious

structure

acted as a

foil

for the

lower,

broader

buildings

surrounding t. When, in 1819, Schinkel had been called

upon

to remodel the entrance

acade

of

the

church,

he had

employed

one of his

favorite

architectural

orms,

an

Ionic

portico.51

Characteristically,

e then

insisted

on

using

this

same classical

order in

the

colonnade

of

his

adjacent

mu-

seum.

Despite

unfavorable

riticism,

he

defended

his

choice

47.

Ibid.,

pp.

217-221.

48.

Wolzogen,

in Aus Schinkels

Nachlass, m,

p.

218,

adds the

fol-

lowing important

note

concerning

the

principal

condition

under

which Schinkel's

plans

could be

realized:"Schinkels

Plan

wurde,

trotzeinigerWiderspriiche esHofrathsHirt,dermit zurCommis-

sion

gehirte,

lebhaft

befiirwortetund durch

Kabinetsordre

om

24.

April

1823

(s.

G.)

genehmigt,

unter

der

Bedingung,

dassder

ganze

Bau

mit einerSummevon

siebenhunderttausendhalern

ausgefiihrt

werde."

49.

Hitchcock,

Architecture: ineteenth

&

Twentieth

Centuries,

p.

3

I.

50.

"Schon bei der Wahl des

Platzes,

wobei er im

Auge

hatte,

eine

in der

Nahe der

schinsten

Gebaude Berlins

gelegene,

sehr

unscheinbare

egend

durcheinen

stattlichenBau zuverschonen nd

ihn

als

bedeutendesGlied

mit

obigen

Gebauden

n

Beziehung

zu

setzen,

zeigt

sich der

zugleich

mit seinen Gebauden

grissere,

malerische

Wirkungen

bezweckendeArchitekt."

Waagen,

op.

cit.,

P.

370.

5I.

For

Schinkel's

remodeling

of the old

Domkirche,

see Carl

Schniewind,

Der

Dom

zu

Berlin,

Berlin,

1905,

pp.

31-33,

7o-8I.


14/18

I26

Fig.

12.

Museum at the

Lustgarten,

een from

the southwest

(from

Schinkel,

Sammlung).

of colossal Ionic columns

as

absolutely

necessary

for

the

creation

of a

sense

of

continuity

between

the

portico

of

the

church

and

the

facade

of

his

new

building.52

n

fact,

he de-

signed

the

columns

of

the museum

at

approximately

the

same

height

as those

of

the

church

entrance.

Concluding

his

clearly

outlined

argument

for

continuity

in

design,

he

rejected

the criticism of his

museum

facade with the

com-

ment that simplicity, monumentality, and overall unity

were

of

foremost

importance

and

that the

totality

of

his

scheme must not

be

affected

by

financial

restrictions,

nor

by

lack

of

appreciativeresponse. Consequently,

it is

an

estab-

lished fact that

Schinkel's

museum

facade was

designed

in

accordance

with one

of

his

major

principles, namely,

that

architecturemust be created

n

terms of the

integral

coordi-

nation between

units of

a

given

area or site.

And

yet,

Schinkel'smuseum

differed

rom

the

neighbor-

ing

buildings

in

at least one

important

respect.

It

was

raised

on a

high

substructure

or

podium.

The

architect himself

explained

the function of

this

podium

as

twofold.

It

was

designed

first as a

masonry

vapor

barrier

and

a

fireproof

shell

for

the

heating equipment

of the

museum.

Secondly,

it would

furnish rental

and

storage spaces.53

However,

it

appears

o

me

that,

in addition to

Schinkel's

consistent

pre-

dilection

for

"purpose" (one

of

his favorite

terms),

this

substructure erved

yet

another function. It is clear from

a

study

of

his

perspective

drawing

of

the entire

Lustgarten

as

52.

Wolzogen,

Aus Schinkels

Nachlass,

mII,

p.

244-249,

"Schinkels

Votum vom

5.

Februar

823

zu dem Gutachtendes HofrathsHirt."

53. Ibid.,

pp.

231,

247.

seen

from

the

palace

bridge

(Fig.

I3),

that the

podium

of

the

museum also

served a

decidedly

visual

purpose.

Only

by

elevating

the Ionic

colonnade well above

ground

level

was it

possible

to view this

major

exterior feature in

its

entirety

from a

distant observation

point.

At the same

time,

a

comprehensive

view of

the

building, including

the

complete

frame of

the

giant

columned

screen,

could effect

an impression of total unity-a concept foremost in the

mind of

any

classical

architect.

It

is

interesting

to

speculate

on

the source of

Schinkel's

podium

concept.

Its

origin

for northern

neo-Classicism

may

well be tracedto Friedrich

Gilly's

famous

project

for

a

monument to Frederick he Great

(1797),

the

very design

which had

inspired

Schinkel to

become

an

architect

and

to

seek

out

Gilly

as his master.54The

conjecture

that

Gilly's

design

did indeed

influence Schinkel'sown use

of

a massive

substructure s further substantiated

by

the fact

that Schin-

kel

had

designed

a museum in

800o

which

included

a

podium

as

an

important, though nonfunctional,

element.

Thus,

while both

Gilly's

projected design,

and

Schinkel's

early

museum,

feature the

podium

as a reflection of

the

Renaissance

concern for

monumental

form

and,

perhaps,

the

neo-Classical deal of a

manl-made

"acropolis,"

Schin-

kel's

mature

work

clearly

combines traditionalvisual em-

phasis

with modern functional considerations.

Besidesthe

formal

1967 pundt k. f. schinkels environmental planning of central berlin 1

Documents