K. F.

Schinkel's Environmental Planning of Central Berlin

Author(s): Hermann G. Pundt
Source: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1967), pp.
114-130
Published by: Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/988416
Accessed: 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 support@jstor.org.
Society of Architectural Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.
http://www.jstor.org
K. F. Schinkel's Environmental Planning of Central Berlin
HERMANN G. PUNDT
University
of Illinois
THE architecture of Karl Friedrich Schinkel is 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-Russell
Hitchcock,
Sigfried
Giedion and Nikolaus
Pevsner,
have
analyzed
and acclaimed it.2
And,
finally,
the
i.
Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe's indebtedness to Schinkel is most
eminently
reflected in several well-known
projects, e.g., Hugo
Perls
House, Berlin-Zehlendorf, I9I ;
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
in the tradition of Schinkel's Berlin." "New Work of Mies
van der
Rohe,"
Architectural
Forum, Sept. I963, 87.
Philip Johnson
summarized his
recognition
of Schinkel's
ability
as
follows: "... his
greatness, however, lay
in his
unique
sense of
pro-
portion,
which transformed whichever
style
he used." Mies van der
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 Schinkels fiihle." "Karl Friedrich Schinkel im
zwanzigstenJahrhundert," Festvortrag, Schriftenreihe
des Architekten-
und
Ingenieur-Vereins
zu
Berlin, 13
Marz
1961, p. 24.
The entire arti-
cle,
translated into
English
and
published
as "Schinkel and
Mies,"
Program,
Columbia
University,
School of
Architecture,
Spring 1962,
pp. 14-34,
ranks
among
the best
interpretive writings
on Schinkel
and is
by
far the finest tribute
paid by
a modem architect to a
past
master.
Paul
Rudolph
has
personally
stated to me his favorable
impression
of Schinkel's
architecture,
which
Johnson
had
urged
him to see
during
a
trip
to Berlin in
1964.
2.
Henry-Russell
Hitchcock summarizes his
impressions
of Schin-
kel in Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries, Baltimore,
1958, pp. 28-36.
In
my opinion,
he
overemphasizes
Schinkel's rela-
tionship
to
J.
N. L. Durand.
Sigfried Giedion, Spdtbarocker
und romantischer
Klassizismus,
Miin-
chen, 1922, p. 4,
remarks: "Fast
geniigte es,
allein Schinkels Werk
aufzunehmen. So viel man auch
vergleichen mag,
immer wieder
erscheinen seine
Lisungen-sehen
wir von der Intensitit des nicht
zu voller
Entwicklung gelangten
F.
Gilly
ab-am freiesten von
riickschauenden
Kompromissen,
instinksicherer und baulich von
hoherer
Vollendung,
als die anderer."
Nikolaus
Pevsner,
in the
only existing summary
of Schinkel's total
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 it.3
Therefore,
it
appears
that Schinkel's creative con-
tribution as the
designer
of Berlin's best-known neo-Classi-
cal
buildings
has received its due.
Primarily
on the basis of
individual
buildings,
Schinkel has been cited as a
spokesman
of
"proto-modern" practicality
and as an architect who
ranks
high among pioneering
contributors to the "func-
tionalist" theories of his
age.4
However valid this
summary
of Schinkel's
appraisal may appear,
it must be realized
that,
among
the extensive
corpus
of Schinkel
literature, there
exist
only
a few critical
works, and that
hardly any
studies
of his achievement concern themselves with the
particularly
timely aspect
of environmental
design.5
British
Architects, 59, Jan. 1952, p. 95.
Pevsner elsewhere states: "On
the classical side, I82o-40
is characterized
by
the most correct neo-
Greek ... The results are
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
original repre-
sentative on the continent." An Outline
of European Architecture, 7th
ed., Baltimore, 1963,
pp.
379-380.
3. Rave's
writings
on Schinkel and his
position
as editor of
numerous additional Schinkel studies made this scholar the foremost
authority
on the
subject. During
a
personal
interview in Nov.
1960,
he referred to the
following publications
as 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 in
Rave's extensive ceuvre. For
general reference, biography
and bibli-
ography,
see
"Schinkel,
Karl
Friedrich," Allgemeines
Lexicon der
bildenden Kunstler von der Antike bis zur
Gegenwart,
ed. Hans
Vollmer,
Leipzig, I936, xxx, pp. 77-83.
For the most
comprehensive coverage
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 Friedrich Schinkel als Mensch und
Kiinstler,"
Ber-
liner Kalender
auf das
Schaltjahr 1844, Berlin, 1843, pp. 308-428;
and
Franz
Kugler,
Karl Friedrich
Schinkel,
eine Charakteristik seiner kunst-
lerischen
Wirksamkeit, Berlin, 1842.
Consequently,
this
essay
will not
attempt
to reiterate
past
analyses
of Schinkel as an architect of individual
buildings.
Rather,
it 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's evolution as an architect and
city planner
be-
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 from
I803
to
I805,
returning
to
Prussia
only
to find Berlin in
political
chaos after
military
defeat. Not one architectural commission of
consequence
was to come his
way
until after
Napoleon's
defeat at
Waterloo in
I8i5.7
Consequently,
Schinkel became a
painter.8 Utilizing
the lessons of
rendering, perspective,
and
optics
learned from 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 recent studies on Schinkel which
suggest
his
importance
as a
planner
are
Johnson, "Schinkel im
zwanzigsten Jahrhundert,"
pp. 16-18;
and Goerd
Peschken, "Eine
Stadtplanung Schinkels,"
Archaologischer Anzeiger, Berlin, 1962, pp. 862-875.
A non-critical
but invaluable reference work
concerning
Schinkel's
planning
is
Paul Ortwin
Rave,
Schinkel Lebenswerk:
Berlin, Stadtbaupldne,
Briicken, Strassen, Tore, Pldtze, Berlin, 1948.
6. See Friedrich
Adler,
"Friedrich
Gilly,
Schinkels
Lehrer,"
Zentralblatt der
Bauverwaltung,
I,
Jg., I88I, pp. 8, I7,
22. For Schin-
kel's
personal
account of these
years
and his reverence for Friedrich
Gilly,
see Alfred Freiherr von
Wolzogen (ed.),
Aus Schinkels Nach-
lass.
Reisetagebiicher, Briefe
und
Aphorismen, Berlin, 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
Schinkel, 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,
see
Grisebach, Schinkel, pp. 36-58,
especially
notes
I92-I93. Cf. also Ernst
Riehn, Schinkel als Maler
(unpub.
diss. Universitat
G6ttingen, I940).
9.
Rave notes in
"Schinkel," Allgemeines
Lexicon
xxx, p. 77:
"Der
von Friedrich
Gilly
in der Akademischen
Kunstausstellung 1796
gezeigte
Entwurf fur ein Denkmal Friedrich des Grossen fiihrte als
starkster kiinstlerischer Eindruck Schinkel seinem Berufzu. Er lernte
in der Werkstatt
Gillys
. . . [und steht in
800o]
an der
Spitze
der
besten 18 Eleven der
1799 begriindeten
Bauakademie."
Io.
Kugler, Schinkel, p.
5o.
II5
furnished the
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 and the
Lustgarten
of
Berlin, another
aspect
of the artistic
activity
of these
interim
years appears significant.
This concerns his interest
in
landscape painting.12
Perhaps
the best known of his architectural
landscapes
is
his Mittelalterliche Stadt am Wasser of
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 in order to evoke an emotional
response.
However,
instead of 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 than
paints.
As the most architectonic
among landscape painters,
he excelled in
rendering "living"
architectural themes.14
His Gothic cathedral is transformed into an almost iron-
like
fantasy,
its towers
faintly
reminiscent of 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 forms is
presented-a
northern
step-gabled
facade,
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,
but the treatment
indicates Schinkel's own
philosophical struggles.16
The
juxtaposition
of the idealized forms of Classicism with the
national
expression
of Gothic creates a tension which is
only
ii. For Schinkel's work as a
stage designer,
see his Dekorationen
auf den
koniglichen Hoftheatern
zu
Berlin, 32
Tafeln in
5 Heften,
Ber-
lin, I8I9-ca.I825, containing
valuable
aquatint engravings.
Cf. Paul
Mahlberg,
Schinkels
Theater-Dekorationen, Greifswalder
Dissertation,
Diisseldorf, 1916, esp. pp. 50-65;
and Alfred Freiherr von Wolzo-
gen,
"Karl Friedrich Schinkel und der
Theater-Bau," Bayreuther
Bldtter, Io,Jg., 1887, pp. 65-90.
12. The best available
study
of Schinkel as a
landscape painter
is
Eckhardt von
Sydow,
"Schinkel als
Landschaftsmaler," Monatshefte
uir Kunstwissenschaft, 14, Jg., 1921, pp. 239ff.
I3.
Oil on
canvas, 94.4
x 126.6 cm.
I4. Kugler, Schinkel, pp. 121-123.
15. PhilipJohnson,
in
discussing
this
painting,
states that Schinkel's
imagination
was
thoroughly
"modem"
(i.e., Romantic),
as indi-
cated
by
his unbuildable Gothic
structure;
see "Schinkel im zwan-
zigsten Jahrhundert," p. 7.
I6. For Schinkel's own
writings
on the
problem of Gothic vs.
classical, see
Wolzogen,
Aus Schinkels
Nachlass, m, pp. 151-162.
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
different elements which make
up
the new environment.
Thus,
Schinkel's vision transcends the
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 to
any
distant view. Its massive form 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 the
view;
but
through
its tall
arches one
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 lead 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 the
vantage point
for the con-
sciously
intended view of
nonaxial,
restricted vistas. 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-
Classical architect.
In 18I6, three
years
after the
completion
of Mittelalter-
liche Stadt am
Wasser,
he
began
work on the
designs
for his
first architectural commission. This was a new
Royal
Guard
House for the
city
of Berlin.17 The location chosen for this
building
was neither a
picturesque
cliff,
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. Referred to in German as Das Neue Wacht-Gebdude or
Konig-
liche Wache. Schinkel's
analysis
of the
building program
and
style
of
the new
Royal
Guard House is to be found in
Samrmltng
architek-
tonischer
Entwilrfe, Berlin, 1866, I, p.
I.
,
.
r ~
1--1
--1- 1-1-X,
---r
;
L l l
7f3 e - ..- e -i- .-...
L
..
^^
n
*
Packhof =
- T- Lt- - _
Lustgarten
MJuseut
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
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
to the north stood a small
grove
of
chestnut
trees,
which was not to be disturbed. The southern
boundary
was defined
by
Berlin's famous Unter den Linden
avenue.18 In
short,
Schinkel was
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
preliminary design
could
impress Henry-Russell
Hitchcock with its almost "Ledolcian"
severity
of blocklike
forms does not suffice in
assessing
the 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
Ernst 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 examination of the structure as an
integral part
of
its total
physical
and civic environment. The several sheets
of sketches which
preceded
the final
design
illustrate
Schinkel's
preliminary testing
of various
components
and
their
interrelationships,
and show that the evolution of both
plan
and
faCade
was a
complex process emanating
from a
creative mind. The result was a
fully
matured
composition,
which
may
have
incorporated
certain traditional
elements,
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, I, 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 .
II8
Fig. 3. Royal
Guard
House, perspective
view
(from Schinkel, Sammlung).
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
is
less
dependent upon
correctness of classical motifs and bears
the
stamp
of a more individualistic
approach.22
In
addition,
one must refer to the well-known
design
for
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 articulation of
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 classical Greek themes. While
Gilly
relied on the
massing
of
bold,
geometric
forms such as the
Tuscan Doric
order,
reminiscent of
Jacques-Louis
David's
paintings,
Schinkel enhanced his Grecian
composition by
the use of subtle refinements
expressed
in the
variety
of
sizes and textures of individual
components.
His
drawing
21. For Schinkel's
design
and extensive
specifications,
see Wolzo-
gen,
Aus Schinkels Nachlass, III, pp. 15I-i62.
The best available
study
of Heinrich Gentz's
project
is
Adolph D6bber,
"Zur
Baugeschichte
des
Charlottenburger Mausoleums,"
Zentralblatt der
Bauverwaltung,
32,Jg., 1912, pp. I37-I39.
22.
Objective scholarship
has verified Schinkel's approach and
attitude toward historical and
contemporary sources; see
Benjamin
Rowland,
The Classical Tradition in Western Art,
Cambridge, 1963,
p. 303:
"Certain architects of
genius,
like
Schinkel,
were able to raise
the classic idiom to a
functional,
rather than to an
archaeological
level."
of the
guardhouse
reinforced the
qualities
of
totality
and
repose,
which could
hardly
be confused with
Gilly's starkly
portrayed
chiselled boulders.
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 structure within a
particular
environment. He con-
trasted the abstracted form of the man-made structure with
the natural
irregularities
of 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 freestanding portico.
In his final
design,
he had dismissed the bold
piers
of the
preliminary
sketches and had refined the entrance
by
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 modifications of 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 in the
final,
executed version;
but
they were,
in
fact, replaced by
the
figures
of
winged
victories.
rent
publications,
such as Durand or Stuart and
Revett,
distinguish
him from less
imaginative
neo-Classical archi-
tects.24
The
appreciation
of the
Royal
Guard House
should,
however,
be
expanded beyond
the narrow boundaries of
stylistic
inventiveness and
proportional
excellence.
Indeed,
a
study
of this work must focus
upon
its success as
part
of
its total
planning
context.
It
appears
that it had been Schinkel's intention 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 feature on G. W. von Knobelsdorff's Palla-
dian
opera
house
(1741-1743)
across the avenue. But most
importantly,
the new
guardhouse
takes command of its site
because of its
carefully
balanced
placement
within the
limited confines of its location and because of 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
this scheme in favor
of a location somewhat closer to 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
for a
gateway (from Beenken).
II9
To increase the 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 in the overall
disposi-
tioning
of the
building,
it is
possible
even
today
to sense
Schinkel's concern
for,
and
partial
success
in,
creating
a
meaningful
environmental scheme.
A
sequence
of recent
photographs
shows the
Royal
Guard House in its formal and
spatial relationships
to 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,
like a
precious gem,
is
progres-
sively
revealed in its
totality.
Once it is
comprehended
as an
isolated form, it
appears
to be a
self-contained, self-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
to 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
toward 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 remained a
permanent
and
significant part
of its total
physical
environment.
During
the lifetime of
Schinkel and in
subsequent
decades it was considered a
masterpiece
in its own
right.27
However,
in a broader con-
text,
one can add that this
building
and its
placement
marked
Schinkel's first
attempt
to create an urban environment.
In view of Schinkel's successful execution of his first com-
mission as a state
architect,28
it is not
surprising
that 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.
120
Fig. 5.
Three views of the
Royal
Guard House from the southeast
(photos: author).
called
upon
in 1818 to
design
a
replacement
for 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 first neo-Classicist and
design-
er of the famous
Brandenburg
Gate
(1788-1791).
In com-
parison
to this well-known civic
monument,
the old theater
was carried out in a somewhat
nondescript
manner,
which
quickly
earned it the
sobriquet,
"coffin,"
among
the critics
of Berlin. If it is
compared
to Friedrich
Gilly's competition
entry
for the same
project (Fig. Io), Langhans's
contribu-
tion
appears
even more mundane.29
Although
this
uninspired
structure was now
gutted,
the
program
for the new theater
required
the utilization of the
still-existing
foundations-a
significant
limitation
placed
upon
the creative
imagination
of the new architect.30
Schinkel also had to furnish a 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 rooms of various sizes. In order
to solve this
problem,
Schinkel reserved the central
portion
of the
plan
for
stage,
orchestra,
and auditorium and ar-
ranged
the additional rooms in two lower
wings
on either
side. On the exterior of the
building,
the
major
elements,
i.e.,
the auditorium and
stage,
are marked
by
the elevated
central
block,
while the
symmetrically placed
lateral
wings
housed the concert hall and rehearsal sections. Because of
this involved
program
and the
specific requirements
and
restrictions
imposed upon
the
architect,
the
space given
to
the theater
proper
was reduced to about one-third of the
total area. "The
Schauspielhaus
is
magnificent,"
remarked
the crown
prince pointedly,
"... and if one searches
long
enough,
one
may
even find a theater inside."31 While this
remark
by
a
young prince
and architectural
entrepreneur32
may
have been
spoken
in
jest,
it could be understood as a
compliment
to Schinkel's
planning ingenuity.
And
yet,
as one looks at this structure
today (the
interior
gutted
since
1945),
neither the
prince's
comment nor the
favorable
opinion
of
Quatremere
de
Quincy33
touch
upon
the most
important aspect
of the theater. As in the
forego-
ing
discussion of 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: Berlin,
I, pp. 79-87.
30.
See
Wolzogen,
Aus Schinkels
Nachlass, III, 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 Wirksamkeit Friedrich 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, p. 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.
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
the
architect's achievement and to understand his 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 fiir
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.
In its exte-
rior
design
Schinkel
employed
the time-honored
principles
of
Classicism,
although
his
distinctly
neo-Grecian Classi-
cism could
hardly
be confused with Gontard's
Anglo-
Palladian motifs.36 In
addition,
Schinkel
attempted
to create
a
harmony
between the theater and the
existing
churches
by echoing
their centralized scheme.
However,
he
empha-
sized the central section of his new civic
building
with a
dominant
clerestory
and a
large sculptural group crowning
the
pediment,
in contrast to the
religious
structures,
which
are terminated
by
domes on
high
drums. A colossal Ionic
entrance
portico,
with a formal
flight
of
steps, completed
the frontal
faCade.
In
regard
to the
design
of the theater
proper,
the
portico,
with its
grand approach,
strikes a note of accentuated ele-
gance
in contrast to the blocklike character of 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 seiner
Baliten, Miinchen-Berlin,
1960, p. 30.
122
TOWARDS
UNTER DEN LINDEN I
FRANZOSISCHE - STRASSE
w
c,
Fig. 7. Drawing
of
Langhans's
theater
by
Schinkel
(from Rave,
Schinkel
Lebenswerk).
building.37
At the same
time, however,
the architect used
major
features of this
portico
as
coordinating
elements in
the horizontal articulation of the entire structure. For in-
stance,
he carried the ashlar base to the
top
level of the
frontal stairs and their two
flanking spur
walls. He con-
tinued the entablature of the Ionic
frontispiece
as a
strong
horizontal
band,
tying
the lateral
wings
and the
portico
to
the central block. In
regard
to the formal articulation of the
city
plaza,
Schinkel's
portico
facade
played yet
another
highly important
role: it served to echo the
similarly
em-
phatic freestanding porticos
of the
adjacent
churches. Con-
sequently,
it is this
particular
motif which established a
formal
continuity
between his new structure and the exist-
ing
ones.
At this
point,
it is
necessary
to
compare
Schinkel's theater
and the relation to its site of the
previous
efforts of
Langhans
and
Gilly.
Such
comparisons
will
vividly
demonstrate to
what
degree
Schinkel,
the
younger
master,
differed from
his
teachers; moreover,
we shall see how the attitude to-
ward overall
planning
of urban
spaces
had
changed
in the
short interval of 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
I NEUE KIRCHE
MOHREN
-
01 I
I0 20 [0
100 0 100 200 300
tlll,i,,1i
1
I
i I
STRASSE
z
UL
I
<,
r
STRASSE
400 500 600 700
i i l
i
Fig.
8.
Gendarmenmarkt,
site
plan (after city map,
ca.
I870).
u rg C~~ r*n~~~~~rrr
~
Fig. 9. Gendarmenmarkt, looking north,
with
Schauspielhaus
and
Franz6sischer Dom
(photo: Eschen-Bavaria).
I I El ] I E lI II
Fig.
Io. F.
Gilly, Project
for a theater at the Gendarmenmarkt
(from Rietdorf).
Langhans's
theater of
800o,
as 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;
it
merely emphasized
the entrance to the
theater itself.
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,
in
plan, by
contemporary
French theaters
(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,
it was to be built of
smooth,
unadorned stone from base to cornice-a material and tex-
ture which would have reinforced the boldness of its
major
components:
a massive cube in the
center,
flanked
by
two
half-cylinders,
and a
highly
abstracted entrance
portico.
Like Schinkel some
twenty years
later,
Gilly
had
planned
to
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, encircling
the cube and the
half-cylinders
at 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
der
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
isolated monuments.39 In 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,
image
of
the
setting. Consequently,
his
building
was
conceived,
and
would have been
executed,
as a
totally
isolated
entity
with
no formal or
spatial
reference to 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 scheme. He underscored his
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 in
1821,
he de-
signed
and executed a
panoramic backdrop depicting
the
new architectural
setting
of the Gendarmenmarkt
(Fig.
I
).
The
audience,
arriving
for the
opening-night performance
of Goethe's
Iphigenie auf
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,
in a most dramatic
fashion,
of the total urban
setting
of the theater in which
they
were seated-their vision ex-
panded
to include a distant horizon as well as the immediate
spatial
and formal
relationships
of 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 totality emerged
as a tribute to 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 aesthetic coordina-
tion between several
existing
structures and a series of new
buildings,
as well as the extensive
replanning
of
canals,
streets and
public spaces.
On either side of the eastern ter-
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."
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 on
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 sensitive students and 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 in exact
opposition
to Giedion's
analysis
of
Schinkel's
Lustgarten project, Spdtbarocker, p. 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,
its
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
to
many present-day
efforts.
The
Lustgarten redevelopment
and
expansion program
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 in seinem Reich bleiben. Ausserdem wird
durch die
grosse Entfernung
ein Platz in romantischem Sinn
ge-
schaffen und eine
eigentliche Raumbildung
verhindert. Dass es
Schinkel
gar
nicht um einen einheitlichen Platzraum zu tun
war,
kann man auch aus den
spateren
Entwiirfen fur das Friedrichsdenk-
mal, 1829,
ersehen..."
43 Johnson,
"Schinkel im
zwanzigstenJahrhundert,"
op. cit., p. I I.
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
in
Berlin,
it was Schinkel who
was
approached by
the court in
1822
to
design
the new
borderlines of 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
linked 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
as 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
Friedrich Wilhelm 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.
In
part,
he wrote:
Berlin, 23 January I823
... Your
Majesty
commissioned me last summer to
prepare
a
plan
for the
redevelopment
of the orchards and borderlines of the
Lustgarten.
The
design
for this
project
has
already
been
submitted,
consisting
in
part
of a
plan
and
especially
of a
perspective drawing
which
projects
the entire
[area].
The most
interesting aspect (the
total
area), occupied
me for a
long
time
afterwards,
and I came to
the conclusion that this
[landscaping] project
could be combined
with the construction of the new museum and several related
buildings
. ..
offering
in such a
comprehensive
scheme
[the
fol-
lowing]
decisive
advantages:
the reduction of building costs over
the last
plan;
the
perfection
and
beauty
of the
[museum] building;
the embellishment of the entire
Lustgarten;
and, finally,
those with
regard
to the usefulness ofthe custom
warehouses,
river
navigation,
communication and convenience near the new Schlossbriicke.
I felt it to be
my responsibility
to
prepare promptly
an extensive
planning
scheme in order to submit the same for Your
Majesty's
study
and evaluation. Five
drawings
and
explanatory specifications
44.
For the best
analysis
of the museum's
design
and
construction,
see Sabine
Spiero,
"Schinkels Altes Museum in
Berlin,"Jallrbuch
der
preussischen Kunstsamnilungen, 55, 1934, Beiheft, pp. 41-86.
For the
architect's own
analysis
of the
museum,
see
Wolzogen,
Aus Schinkels
Nachlass, III, pp. 217-266.
45.
P.
J.
Lenne
(1789-1866),
Director-General of the
Royal
Gardens in
Berlin, enlarged
the
Tiergarten
from
1833
to
1839,
thus
creating
one of the first
major public city parks
in
Europe.
46. Wolzogen,
Aus Schinkels
Nachlass, III, p.
217.
I25
illustrate the
project clearly
and
point
out all
advantages
of such a
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 in order
finally
to achieve the realiza-
tion of his
plans.48
Schinkel's museum was constructed at 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
in
geometric
form to
the
palace
at the
opposite
side of the
square
and 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 in
character was the old Domkirche
(I747-I750) by
Johann
Boumann the Elder located 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
it.
When,
in
1819,
Schinkel had been called
upon
to remodel the entrance facade of the
church,
he had
employed
one of his favorite architectural
forms,
an Ionic
portico.51 Characteristically,
he then insisted on
using
this
same classical order in the colonnade of his
adjacent
mu-
seum.
Despite
unfavorable
criticism,
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,
trotz
einiger Widerspriiche
des Hofraths
Hirt,
der mit zur Commis-
sion
gehirte,
lebhaft befiirwortet und durch Kabinetsordre vom
24.
April 1823 (s. G.) genehmigt,
unter der
Bedingung,
dass der
ganze
Bau mit einer Summe von siebenhunderttausend Thalern
ausgefiihrt
werde."
49. Hitchcock,
Architecture: Nineteenth & 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
Gegend
durch einen stattlichen Bau zu verschonen und
ihn als bedeutendes Glied mit
obigen
Gebauden in
Beziehung
zu
setzen, zeigt
sich der
zugleich
mit seinen Gebauden
grissere,
malerische
Wirkungen
bezweckende Architekt."
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.
I26
Fig.
12. Museum at the
Lustgarten,
seen 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
In
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
appreciative response. Consequently,
it is an estab-
lished fact that Schinkel's museum facade was
designed
in
accordance with one of his
major principles, namely,
that
architecture must be created in terms of the
integral
coordi-
nation between units of a
given
area or site.
And
yet,
Schinkel's museum differed from 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
to me
that,
in addition to Schinkel's consistent
pre-
dilection for
"purpose" (one
of his favorite
terms),
this
substructure served
yet
another function. It is clear from a
study
of his
perspective drawing
of the entire
Lustgarten
as
52. Wolzogen,
Aus Schinkels Nachlass, mII, pp. 244-249,
"Schinkels
Votum vom
5.
Februar
1823
zu dem Gutachten des Hofraths Hirt."
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 traced to Friedrich
Gilly's
famous
project
for a
monument to Frederick the Great
(1797),
the
very design
which had
inspired
Schinkel to become an architect and to
seek out
Gilly
as his master.54 The
conjecture
that
Gilly's
design
did indeed influence Schinkel's own use of a massive
substructure is 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 ideal of a
manl-made
"acropolis,"
Schin-
kel's mature work
clearly
combines traditional visual em-
phasis
with modern functional considerations.
Besides the formal
relationships among
the various build-
54. Ibid., i, pp. 172-176;
cf.
Waagen, op. cit., pp. 317-320.
A
secondary inspiration
could have been G. W. von Knobelsdorff's
Opera, 1741-1743.
I27
Fig. I3.
View of the
Lustgarten
from Unter den Linden
(from Rave,
Schinkel
Lebenswerk).
ings surrounding
the
Lustgarten,
we must also consider the
spatial relationships,
which were an
integral part
of the
planning
of so
large
a
complex.
In the
presentation
of one
of his
early
schemes for the
Lustgarten
in
I824
(Fig. 14),
Schinkel was
fully
aware of the fact that all of the monu-
mental
buildings
at the
plaza
demanded a
large open space,
which would form the
Lustgarten
itself and at the same time
also act as the
unifying spatial
element of the entire area. Since
he wished his museum to be a
large,
dramatic addition to the
site,
it would have been
impossible
to
squeeze
it into
any
of
the available
spaces. Consequently,
he chose to make the
extraordinary
effort of
diverting
the flow of river traffic.
By broadening
the
Kupfergraben
and
filling
in an old canal
(the Pomeranzengraben),
which had cut the island in two
at the northern
edge
of the
plaza,
he was able to
place
his
new
building
on the recovered
ground.55
Thus,
the desired
physical
distance from the
long, impressive
facade of the
palace
could be maintained.
Considering
Schinkel's re-
peated
and
emphatic
statements
concerning economy,
one
can
only
conclude that the decision to remove the canal
was influenced
by
his
overriding
desire to
procure
the exact
site he felt his
building required
and the overall scheme
demanded.
In
considering
the
placement
of the museum at the
northern flank of the
square,
Schinkel wanted to take into
account the fact that the facades of the Domkirche to the
55.
For Schinkel's extensive
explanations concerning
the
validity
of the site he selected and the reasons for
closing
the
canal,
see
Schinkel, Sammlung, I, p. 4v.
east and the
palace
to the south were not
perpendicular.
Consequently,
a
strictly rectangular
enframement of the
plaza
was
precluded.
He
intended, however,
to
place
the
museum facade
parallel
to that of the
palace
and to create a
"third facade"
along
the eastern
edge
of the
square by
means of a
long
row of trees.
Composed
of the
irregular
forms of
nature,
yet regimented
into a dense
screen,
the
trees
effectively
mask the awkward
buildings
to the east of
the
plaza,
as well as the
wings
of the
church,
and act as a
natural foil for the
solid,
man-made facades to the north
and south. Their role as a "third facade" is
obviously
in-
tended
by
Schinkel,
who
designates
them on the
plan
as "a
wall of tall lime trees." In front of this "wall" were to be
placed
monuments on
high pedestals, emphasizing
the bar-
rier-like character of the row of trees and
relating
this dis-
tant
panorama
with the statues of the
palace
bridge,
as seen
from the ideal
point
of view
(Fig. I3).
Schinkel's
early
scheme did not remain intact. From a
handwritten note on the
plan
we learn that the
king
insisted
the museum be shifted
slightly,
so that it was no
longer
parallel
to the
palace.
It was not a drastic
change,
but one
which did loosen the formal
composition
somewhat. The
final
placement
of the museum can be seen on Schinkel's
presentation plan
for the
landscaping
of the
Lustgarten
(Fig. 15). Perhaps
as a reaction to the
shifting
of the build-
ing,
Schinkel now
proposes
to obscure
oblique
views of the
museum
by adding
a thick row of chestnuts
along
the
water's
edge
and
replacing
the wall of linden trees with
chestnuts as well. A break in the western screen of trees still
allows a view onto the
portico
of the Domkirche
and,
in
5"; 1"::%
"IBBC-T
1
t:id:
?'? 1*SY:I
M
128
~t :
5'.. _ 9
u
' '
^ i
Fig. I4.
Schinkel's
plan
for the
Lustgarten, 1824 (from Rave,
Schinkel
Lebenswerk).
::\~
:: :s rfact,
emphasizes
the role of the high-domed church as the
'H'e
j
/ tfocal
point
of the vista from the Unter den Linden. An
,.,
L. ....... . -,-' "in
Lwlsitttirrl
~!fsrt1- *
|^ ti
X^"
arrow on the
plan
and the
inscription,
Durchsicht nach dem
Portal des
Doms,
indicates Schinkel's intention that the
. .. E ...
........
l
Js *
'i :.H..
; transverse axis of the
plaza
should
visually span
the river.
'
..'.
;
'
' ' ' . .. '..'' :
a
^
A < _
...
......
w
,j
i
trttJ
l?\
.
_ ffi
sThis,
of
course,
had been his
conception
of the site from the
:"
;
: :" |
;.......:
. .
-. ;'-"4: t^ very beginning,
as is attested
by
his
perspective
view of
i
823.
The line of this view from the west is echoed in the con-
'..^ A. *
-
' :'
:::z;:
-^ ?|
"
figuration
of
planting
in the center of the
plaza.
Another
2>1>zw--.'.~ .
.. ..' "3.,, ,t,
,^
i
::.
:::::'.
promenade
relates the entrance of the museum to one of the
?*
:-. ,* jl |l ::
..
i ^
,
'^
:
,%:.:-,
^
Lustgarten
entrances of the
palace.
The
low,
formal
plant-
-^.. !
7- ^;: t:.*t,Z
t L
m-
, ing
of the
Lustgarten
contrasts with the more
picturesque
,,t9--'::",,,,:'.__:'
-
_ .
'
..
'
'4
cnrate tne
;
netue, s
character of the looser
clumps
of chestnut
trees,
strategically
4" ''
,~:.i.:
::
r
-'.::7' .;:
'-
,
PIC
. . . . .
placed
to mask or accent
parts
of
buildings
or awkward
_"_,7':7,,, ::777L:';7;57,':
7
.'Z. .
:-.''_"
._ _
'
,r ...........U;'
7,.'
1 * *-
.......;
.:...---- _
r...spaces.
The whole
Lustgarten
area thus becomes a con-
Fig. i5.
Schinkel's
plan
for the
Lustgarten,
I828
(from Grisebach,
trolled visual
experience,
with
nature playing
a decisive
Schinkel).
role in
relating
both the masses of solid structure to one
A"&& Am
1, 1 -a ka
a
A
;
,
a
i
I
11 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
it
p. " . ~ JV,.l
-
*,
4 - I .,, "I I., 1, I I .11 "I -, "
4 1
- -11,
i
, , I I I ', ,
-j
I29
Fig.
I6. View from the
upper
vestibule of the museum
(from Schinkel, Sammlung).
another and the
open
or confined
spaces
to the whole.
The
museum,
long
acclaimed as Schinkel's
masterwork,
can now be understood not
solely
in terms of its merits as an
architectural
landmark,
but also as a unit within a
larger,
more
comprehensive
scheme of environmental
planning.
While Schinkel's
plans
and
drawing
of the
Lustgarten
teach
us to look at the
building
from a distance and see it within
a
larger
context,
another
significant presentation
shows us
the
opposite point
of view: the
surrounding
environment
from within the museum itself
(Fig. I6).
His
rendering
of
the semienclosed vestibule on the second floor
emphasizes
once
again
that Schinkel never concentrated
solely
on the
form of individual
buildings. Through
the double screen of
columns one
sees,
carefully
delineated,
an
oblique
view of
the
palace,
the
newly landscaped Lustgarten
and,
to the
right,
the distant towers of his own Werdersche church of
1824.
The choice of vista is intentional-not an axial view
to the
palace
across the
square,
but an
oblique angle
of
vision
showing
the
larger city
environment of which the
museum is
only
a
part.56
Thus,
although
Schinkel used some traditional methods
in
composing
his
spaces,
his vision was not
solely dependent
upon
traditional axial
relationships. Right angles
and axial
56.
Schinkel's intentions are also
explicitly expressed
in his writ-
ings:
"Der
doppelte Aufgang
der
Haupttreppen
ist so
angeordnet,
dass man im
Hinaufsteigen
und aufdem oberen
Ruheplatz,
der einen
Altan in der Halle
bildet,
die Aussicht durch die Saulenhalle auf den
Platz behalt . . ." From the 6th installment of
Sammlung, I825,
alignments
were
simply
means to
organize
what
might
otherwise become
disparate
elements
haphazardly grouped
together.
Yet,
he realized that
relationships
existed
among
these
elements,
which were
independent
of the
imposed
rational order. These were the visual
relationships
which
the architect had to consider when
placing
his new
building
on the site. These were the
panoramic relationships
which
the
painter
of architectural
landscapes
could
envisage
and
control.
Upon
its
completion
in
1830,
the
Lustgarten
became an
organized
civic
space, taking
its
place
in the
long develop-
ment of
city plazas beginning
in
sixteenth-century Italy.57
Indeed,
it was one of the last
great
urban
plazas
and one of
the most
significant examples
executed in
Germany
in the
nineteenth
century.
In
comparison
to Leo von Klenze's
contemporary
work in Munich or Friedrich Weinbrenner's
plans
for
Karlsruhe,
Schinkel's
planning
of the
Lustgarten
quoted
from
Rave,
Schinkel Lebenswerk: Berlin, I, p. 42.
See
also,
Schinkel's letter to Christian
Rauch,
dated 8
January 1823, repro-
duced in Hans
Mackowsky,
Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Briefe, Tage-
bucher, Gedanken, Berlin, I922, p. 9I,
which reads in
part:
"Die
Front
gegen
den
Lustgarten
hin hat eine so
ausgezeichnete Lage,
man
konnte
sagen
die schinste in
Berlin,
dass dafiir auch etwas
ganz
Besonderes
getan
werden miisste. Eine einfache Saulenhalle in einem
grossartigen
Stil und mit dem bedeutenden Platze im Verhaltnis
stehend wird dem Gebiude am sichersten Charakter und schine
Wirkung geben."
57.
It is
interesting
to note that one finds numerous views of
Italian
city plazas
in the
portfolios
of Schinkel's first visit to Rome in
1803-1804, among
them an
exquisite drawing
of the
Campidoglio.
I30
Fig.
I7. View of the custom warehouses and museum from the
palace bridge (from Schinkel, Sammlung).
appears
less static and
monumental,
his site more
pictur-
esque
or
nialerisch,
to use his own term. His
ability
to co-
ordinate the various
elements,
both old and
new,
into a
single unity
of
formal,
spatial,
and visual
relationships may
have been the result of his earlier
activity
as a
painter
of
architectural
landscapes.
Moreover,
as his own
rendering
of
the
Lustgarten (Fig. 13)
shows,
he was
extremely
sensitive
to the
panoramic
effect of the total site.
Contemporary
painters
in
Berlin,
among
them Eduard Gartner and Franz
Kriiger, recognized
this
quality
of the urban
spaces
Schinkel
had created. Their canvases of the
Lustgarten
and the
Opernplatz testify
to his success as an environmental
plan-
ner,
and
capture
in
lively,
scenic effects the visual domi-
nance of his new
buildings
within their total
setting.
For several
years following
the
completion
of the Lust-
garten,
Schinkel,
now Prussia's first state
architect,
enjoyed
a fine view onto the
splendid
urban scene he had created. A
drawing
of
1835 illustrates,
with
very
close
approximation,
the view from his office window in the new Bauakademie
(I832-1835),
which he himself had
designed (Fig. I7).
From this
vantage point,
he could see his
palace bridge,
his
new
museum,
and the blocks of his
recently
finished custom
warehouses
(a group
of
buildings long
since
replaced by
Adolf Messel's
Pergamon Museum).
In one
glance
he was
able to
encompass
an entire
panorama
of urban
spaces,
of
harmonious
yet
varied
building
forms,
of tree-lined streets
and
quays
and
lively waterways.
In the context of Schin-
kel's
career,
the
Lustgarten
had become a
personal triumph,
a culmination of his
lifelong
concern,
as
painter
and archi-
tect,
for the total environment of man's creations.
Before the destruction which occurred
during
World
War
II,
the central area of the
Lustgarten
retained some of
its
original
character. But
already by I894
Schinkel's con-
tinuity
of scale had been
disrupted.
In that
year, Julius
Raschdorff
replaced
the old church. His new
Domkirche,
a
neo-Baroque giant, outraged
in
height
and
fancy
all subtle-
ty
of scale and
simplicity
of form that had once united the
total architectural scene.
Subsequently, during
the Nazi
regime,
the
Lustgarten
was reduced to a
grid
of stone-
surfacing
for
political
rallies and
parades.58
Today,
some
twenty years
after the holocaust of
1945,
Schinkel's
recently
restored museum is the
lonely
survivor
of a once
splendid
urban area.59 Gone are the
Royal
Palace
and the Bauakademie.60 The museum has
irrevocably
lost
its communication with the
spatial
and
physical
context
which
originally
formed a
comprehensive, organized,
urban environment. As a
result,
Schinkel's
major
achieve-
ment as an architect and
planner
has been
effectively
destroyed,
while his
imaginative
ideas and solutions live on
only
in his
drawings
and
writings.
In
conclusion,
it
appears
that,
despite
interest in Schinkel's
architecture,
one of the
key aspects
of his achievement has
been
largely
overlooked. His schemes for extensive urban
projects
and civic centers stand out as
significant
contribu-
tions to the
history
of environmental
planning.
It is
hoped
that this
essay
has demonstrated Schinkel's effectiveness in
this field and that his
vision,
rather than his
faCades
and
floor
plans, may
become a source and stimulation for
further research into the art of
building
cities.
58.
For a
summary
of the
changing
character of the
Lustgarten,
its
buildings
and
spaces,
see Hans Miither,
"Schinkels Museum in
Berlin,"
Berliner
Heimat, Zeitschriftfur
die
Geschichte Berlins, 2, 1959,
pp. 72-82.
59.
Restoration of the
badly damaged
museum was
completed
in
1966
and it is once
again open
to the
public.
60. The ruins of the
Royal
Palace were razed in
I950,
those of the
Bauakademie in
1964.