ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF POWER IN FOSTER AND ISOZAKI

The topic of this essay is a comparison of two major architectural feats; the Reichstag in Berlin and the Caixaforum in Barcelona. To be able to compare these projects a brief historical overview is necessary. Both are (re)conversions of old buildings, which needed to be reintegrated in the local environment.

The Reichstag is the housing of the German parliament and is situated in the capital of Germany Berlin. It dates back to 1871 and has always had the same function. In the text below its history and function and importance will be analyzed.

The Reichstag is situated in Berlin and was constructed after the unification of Germany in 1871. It was built to house the parliament. Before this, the parliament used several different buildings. It took a series of contests (the choosing and acquiring of the site caused some delay and rethinking), to commission the design to an architect. The final competition in 1882 was won by Paul Wallot. His neo-baroque design wasn't finished before 1894, and in that period there were several changes in power. This had an impact on the design of the building. Wallot used an eclectic style, which in short means a mixture of styles (in this case combining renaissance and baroque elements), with masonry walls, giant columns, corner towers, and a glass cupola. Every façade differs from the other. In this way, it was more a representation of the division rather than unity in the German Empire. Nevertheless, the building was decorated with the symbolic inscription above the entrance "To the German People" ("Dem Deutschen Volke"). But although it housed the parliament, at the time the nation was not very united, and the democracy more a thought than a reality.

Wallot was born on 26 June 1841, in Germany. He studied in his country of birth but made some influencing travels to both Great Britain and Italy. His real breakthrough was the commission of the Reichstag in 1882. During its build, the power changed several times, which led to changes in the design. It was the reason for a disturbed relation with Willem II, causing him to miss out on several recommendations and awards.

For a long period of time, the Reichstag was used by parliament, all the way through World War I, up to the Nazi period. As everybody knows this episode in history started in 1933. This is the year that the Reichstag was set on fire, and severely damaged. Not so well known to everybody this incident was very effectively used for political gains; the Reichstag Fire Decree was announced. The fire was probably initiated by the Nazi party themselves. The decree suspended many human rights and started the rise of Hitler. During his 12 year period the Reichstag was not used, first of all, because it was damaged, but mostly symbolically. It was even further damaged under the bombardments of World War II. After the ending of the war, it was taken by the USSR.

After the war, the government was moved to Bonn, and the Reichstag left the ruin it was until 1956. The building was sort of restored, although not functionally. Due to political agreements, Berlin was not be used as capital.

Officially Germany was reunited in 1990, which was symbolically announced from the Reichstag. Not long after they decided to move the government back to Berlin, and the obvious choice for the housing was the Reichstag. It was however not suited for the parliament, which led to yet another architectural competition. This was won by Foster. He gutted the entire building including the rebuild details form the post-war period.

The relocation of the German government and the reinstitution of the Reichstag were important decisions, with many political motivations. Mostly to create the feeling of a reunited Germany, with democratic leadership. Transparent and changed from the Germany known for its recent history. The unity of the different groups within German society, like jews, gypsies, gay or non-white played and will play a role in the way Germany is seen as a united community. In the opinion of the historian Charles Maier and others, the German concept of mastering the past is in fact unmasterable.

Winston Churchill said it well; "we shape our buildings, and afterward our buildings shape us." The Reichstag is no exception, it plays an important role in the way enactment of democracy. The fact that the formidable task of designing a building with such a great symbolic value was assigned to a foreign architect shows how much the Germans want to move on and away from the past. However the chosen design then again shows that they realize that they cannot forget the past. I believe that in this way they succeeded to deflect criticism of nationalism, and earned the respect of the international community they were aiming for.

The rebuilding of the Reichstag was not the only commission that struggled with this back thought. The extension of the Jewish History Museum by Libeskind and the Holocaust Memorial by Eisenman are good examples of other projects with great political importance.

In my opinion, Foster has really integrated the old Reichstag originating from before 1900 with the high-tech, environmentally friendly, and modern efficient architecture. Thereby still managing to give it its grandiosity it needs to represent the nation, and showcasing the historical aspects to ensure the memories of the past.

Not only the outside of the building influences the mind, thought, and feelings imposed on its visitors. Reason for the architects to integrate an extensive art program with contemporary works. By doing so, the danger of walking through a historic site is avoided. The structure may be, at least partially, reminiscent of the past, the use and interpretation are not. The dome is airy and accessible to the public. There is no entrance fee and virtually no restriction in access; it stimulates the feeling of democracy. It imposes no restrictions, thought flow freely and speech is not prohibited by rules or atmosphere. An interesting fact is that the competition for the commission was changed after the realization of the costs. Foster did not adjust his design, but started over again, presenting a set of possible schemes with different budgets. Every aspect of the design had a more or less political significance and became the subject of debate. Most prominently the dome, as Foster not even planned to rebuild the dome. Also, the reason for him calling the final design a cupola rather than a dome.

The dome which back in the days was seen as a representation of democracy by its transparency and visual construction (originally Wallot planned a masonry dome). Although Foster did not include a dome in his original plans in 1993, it now forms a central eye-catching element. His final plan links in this way with Wallot's dome. Also, his dome is constructed of glass and steel. In the center, a cone has been placed, composed of 360 mirrors; reflecting the sunlight into the building and symbolizing the transparency to the German people. Even more it places the people above their representatives. The dome serves at the same time as a ventilation unit; symbolizing the heated discussions from inside to the air above the building and city. In a way, it reminds of Taut's pavilion for the 1914 Exhibition in Cologne. It resembles the city crown which according to Taut is necessary for the identity of a city.

Although a prominent aspect of the building Foster designed more significant details. One of them is the preservation of the Russian graffiti dating from the end of World War II, the other the renewal of the original inscription above the entrance "To the German People" ("Dem Deutschen Volke").

Foster was born on 1 June 1935 in England. Both parents were hardworking but pour. After joining the army, he took odd jobs before he enrolled in the study of Architecture. He won a fellowship at Yale, where he met his business partner Richard Rogers. At the beginning of his career, he formed Team4, which specialized in industrial designs. Later on, he started Foster Associates and went on to design beautiful buildings all over the world, winning several awards and titles.

The Caixaforum is an art gallery situated in Montjuïc, Barcelona. It dates back to the early 1900s when it was a textile factory. In the text below its history and function and importance will be analyzed.

The build was commissioned by Casimir Casaramona i Puigcercós, designed by the famous Catalan architect Josep Puig i Cadafalch. The factory was called after its owner; the "Casaramona factory". The factory was a replacement for the old one, which was destroyed in a fire. It was appointed the City Council's award for the best industrial building in the year 1912, the year after it was finished.

Being an industrial building is was designed to facilitate horizontal movement, a series of single-storied buildings with internal streets. There were two towers which interrupted this; big water reservoirs as fire prevention. A reaction to the destroying fire. The factory was built in bricks, as was the tradition in Catalunya at that time (also called època rosa). There were very limited ornaments, not more than some ceramics and mosaics. The beauty lies in the undulating brick constructions and shapes. Large windows provided light and air for the working force. The windows show the influence of his teachers, Lluís Domènech i Montaner en van Josep Vilaseca i Casanovas. In 1976 its status changed to that of a monument, one of the most beautiful examples of the Industrial Art Nouveau.

Ramona died shortly after in 1913. Soon after the completion, caused by the after the 1919 'General Strike' the business collapsed and it closed down. It stood abandoned for a long time. 1940 the Spanish National Police Force moved in.

In 1963 La Caixa acquired the building. La Caixa is a large banking foundation, with a portfolio of industrial holdings. The company decided to convert the building into a forum, to give back to the community.

Being one of the most important architects in Barcelona in the Art Nouveau period, Josep Puig i Cadafalch had a major impact on the development of the city. After getting his degrees in architecture and mathematical physics, he became Municipal Architect. He went on to become a teacher and later on the president of the Mancomunitat de Catalunya.

This foundation is a result of the merger of a pension fund from Catalunya and a bank from Barcelona in 1990. The group was restructured in 2011, resulting amongst others in a separate foundation. The property was left abandoned for a long time until they eventually decided to give back to the community by conversing the old factory into an art gallery.

As described the original build was already of beautiful design. The conversion had to be carefully designed as to not clash with this monumental structure.

Isozaki respected much of the old building. The main hall has been transformed into an exposition hall. To preserve the main façade a new entrance was created below street level, adjoining a new vestibule, auditorium, and media library. To transfer from the new entrance to the level of the main vestibule Isozaki designed a clean and modern flight of stairs, an escalator, and an elevator. The built is fully accessible to the physically impaired.

By using materials like glass, steel, and pale marble in combination with clean geometrics Isozaki successfully succeeded in combing the old and new architecture. The entrance is designed to resemble a tree "Tetsuju" (iron tree) of glass and steel, welcoming the public into the art gallery. This structure covers the entrance facilities.

Although the exterior of the original building has been preserved, the inside has been stripped and redesigned to fit the new requirements of expositions and exhibitions.

Isozaki was born on 23 July 1931 in Japan. He took his education in Japan, in Engineering and Architecture. In 1963 he started his own firm. Later on developed a modernistic style, like the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, finished in 1986. His firm expanded into an Italian branch in 2005. He refuses to restrict himself to only one style, but rather sees "how each of his designs is a specific solution born out of the project's context." In 2019 he was awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize.

The above-described projects illustrate an important aspect of city planning, but also architects, archeologists, sociologists, and others recognize this complexity. The role of cultural aspects in the revival of abandoned sites of a city was studied well by Xavier Greffe and Sylvie Pflieger. In their publication "La culture et le développement local" from 2005, they studied several big cities that invested heavily in culture, intending to keep their strength, significance, and attractiveness. Mostly the projects are "industrial brownfields", meaning deserted areas, which were previously used. Maybe better described or defined by Chiriţă and Puşcaş as "any declining activity leaving behind non-functional areas". Sometimes these areas are reconverted into other functions or revitalized into the same function, but adjusted to modern standards.

Because this is a common challenge, there are several examples where the (re)conversion is successfully executed. Delia A Mirea describes in her study the conversion of the Venetian Arsenal into an art gallery, and the Fiat Lingotto into an entertainment complex, as well as the Central Plant of San Just Desvern into a workshop in Spain as the most mentionable ones. But there are others, like the Domino Glucose Factory conversion into an office building.

Most of the time the reconversion of such brown spots contributes strongly to the revitalization of the local environment, both cultural, leisure, and commercially. It, however, does not represent a quick turn-over and is not easily copied from one site to another. Important things to consider are the history, and identity of the locality.

Most cities nowadays show a low level of urbanization and have only a relatively few areas with cultural designation. In these circumstances often alternatives are created, like museums, libraries, or concert halls. In central Bucharest Alchemia (three enthusiastic and competent youths) organized in a villa a "creative" place, originally designed and well received. Such local initiatives allow more free interpretation than communally planned projects.

Both projects in this assignment are situational solutions, but should also be seen in the greater scheme of things. There has been much discussion lately about so-called masterplans for cities. Worldwide Rem Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid are well-known for their work. In Barcelona geographer Francesc Muñoz has questioned the Bohigas model, for not incorporating the "multiplied city model" as he calls it. With this, he means multiple concentrations of spaces for consumption. His criticism is not widely supported. But the point he makes is in my opinion well put into words by Hadid, who warns for uncontrolled sprawl, cities will develop in "nothing more or less than the coexistence of a number of apparently unconnected buildings".

The projects of the Reichstag and the Caixaforum fit the profile of the above-discussed city development by (re)conversion. Both contain similar elements, but at the same time differ substantially from each other.

The most prominent differences are the functionality and the symbolic value. The Reichstag is converted/reactivated into the same function as before. The project had a major political and symbolic importance, due to its coinciding with the reunification of Germany. But of course the reinstatement of the Reichstag has not been a coincident. It was a deliberate choice. The Caixaforum was more of a "clean" reconversion of an unused industrial site into an art Gallery. Little or no political importance at all, but more a revitalization of the neighborhood. The first initiated by the forces at power, the latter by a private initiative. Finally the two projects are designed by architects coming from diametrically other parts of the world. They are trained in different cultures and although they now work all over the world, this still colors their designs. Foster used highly technical solutions for energy management incorporated in the dome of the Reichstag, and kept graffiti from the Russian soldiers. Isozaki build a secret garden and simulated a bonsai tree at the entrance of the Caixaforum.

Although the incentive for the projects differs substantially, there are clear similarities. Both are executed with great respect to the archeological and historical value of the original buildings. Both left much of the exterior untouched, while stripping the interiors. The usable space was enlarged considerately, and designed in a very modern way. Both buildings show a great contrast in the redesign, and both show great respect for the original designs, and its architects. When inside these buildings, one senses the archeological value and old culture. Foster and Isozaki added prominent eye-catching details, like the entrance of the Caixaforum and the dome of the Reichstag. Both constructed of glass and steel, allowing the old structures to be seen through the new created ones. Both architects succeeded in creating the feeling of “being from the people and for the people”. The constructions allow much light and air.

As shown above, these two are not the only projects of reconversion. In a way, the success of the more prominent projects accelerates the trend of building and planning cities around the world in this way.

The brown spots of the cities all over the world are not easy to (re)converse. It demands careful consideration of the different aspects, ranging from political, cultural, anthropological, sociological, historical to archeological, and architectural. All of these can vary from city and neighborhood; there is no "one fits all" recipe. It has become apparent that preservation without reusing is socially unsustainable. Both discussed projects, the Reichstag and the Caixaforum in Barcelona are beautiful examples of successful conversions. Both were designed by outstanding architects, they delivered an exceptional feat. Both are well integrated and well-functioning in their own rights. Important is not to forget that projects like this must be part of a bigger plan; increasing the scale will not only allow for recovery of an isolated architectural element but also lead to a revitalization of abandoned parts of the city.

Thinking Barcelona: Ideologies of a Global City by Edgar Illas

Chametzky, Peter. “Rebuilding the nation: Norman Foster's Reichstag renovation and Daniel Libenskind's Jewish Museum Berlin.” Centropa, 2001, 1.3: 245-264.

Schulz Bernhard: The Reichstag. The Parliament Building by Norman Foster. Prestel, Munich, 2000.

“Arata Isozaki.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arata_Isozaki.

“Arsenal of Venice between History and Contemporary Architecture.” OFFICINE DASA, 19 July 2018, www.officinedasa.it/en/arsenal-of-venice/.

“Caixaforum Barcelona (Architect: Arata Isozaki).” Inexhibit, www.inexhibit.com/mymuseum/caixaforum-barcelona-isozaki/.

Catalunya.com. Catalunya.com, www.catalunya.com/fabrica-casaramona-17-16003-293?language=en.

“Dem Deutschen Volke.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Apr. 2020, de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dem_deutschen_Volke.

Hilburg, Jonathan. “PAU Reinvents the Center of a Complex Postindustrial Waterfront.” Archpaper.com, 25 July 2019, archpaper.com/2019/07/pau-reinvents-complex-post-industrial-domino-sugar-factory/.

“Josep Puig i Cadafalch.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Jan. 2020, nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josep_Puig_i_Cadafalch.

Lover, Art Nouveau. “Josep Puig i Cadafalch – Casaramona Factory (Caixa Forum).” GaudiAllGaudi.com, 22 Apr. 2020, www.gaudiallgaudi.com/AA210.htm.

“Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster,_Baron_Foster_of_Thames_Bank.

“Paul Wallot.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Mar. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wallot. “Reichstag Building.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Feb. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_building.

“Reichstag Building.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Feb. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_building.

Samaniego, Fernando, and Cristina Carrillo de Albornoz. “Una Cúpula En Disputa.” EL PAÍS, 22 Oct. 1994, elpais.com/diario/1994/10/23/cultura/782866805_850215.html.

Stephenburkedesigns. “ARCHITECTURE: CENTRO CULTURAL CAIXAFORUM FORMERLY LA FÁBRICA CASARAMONA.” Stephenburkedesigns, 14 Aug. 2017, stephenburkedesigns.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/architecture-centro-cultural-caixaforum-formerly-la-fabrica-casaramona/.

Ugc. “An Architect's Castle-Like Studio in an Abandoned Cement Factory.” Atlas Obscura, Atlas Obscura, 11 Apr. 2017, www.atlasobscura.com/places/la-fabrica-the-factory.

Ugc. “Fiat Lingotto Factory.” Atlas Obscura, Atlas Obscura, 27 Dec. 2013, www.atlasobscura.com/places/fiat-lingotto-factory.