Monday, September 5, 2016

The Architectural Politics of Rebuilding Berlin



Berlin, the capital of Nazi Germany, was subjected to one of the longest bombing campaigns in history. From 1940 through 1945, 363 air raids by the British RAF and the American Air Force devastated the city and its inhabitants. The death toll lay between 20,000 and 50,000, probably more than were killed in the fire-bombing of Dresden. Much of the city was reduced to rubble.

As in other European cities where wartime destruction was nearly total, some people suggested in 1945 that Berlin be abandoned. Behind that idea lay a particular architectural and political ideology: old buildings and old cityscapes were outdated and should be replaced with modern architecture and more efficient urban designs.Those who valued locality, who connected their identity with built history, favored recovery of the old. No former cities were abandoned, but the modernizers and the reconstructionists argued for decades, both influencing the eventual rebuilding of European cities.

Discussions about demolition and reconstruction inevitably touched political ideologies of all kinds. Two Berlin sites, one east and one west, show the variety of architectural politics which determined the process of rebuilding.

The City Palace,built in the 15th century, rebuilt and expanded many times for the rulers of Prussia, became the home of the German Emperors after 1871. In February 1945, Allied bombers damaged the walls and burned out the whole interior. When Berlin was divided, the site ended up in the Russian zone, then in East Germany.

Although the Stadtschloss could have been saved, the East German government declared that the building represented hated values of Prussian militarism and monarchical rule, and decided in 1950 to get rid of it. 19 tons of dynamite leveled the walls and created an open space named Marx-Engels-Platz. During the 1970s, the Palace of the Republic was erected in its place, a new modernist building with bronze-mirrored windows, which served as the seat of the East German parliament, but also contained a bowling alley, a discotheque, and 13 restaurants, symbolic of the alleged connection between citizens and their government.

One of the final acts of the East German government after the fall of the Berlin Wall was the closing of the building to the public because of asbestos contamination. Removing the asbestos took more than decade. By that time, a new debate had broken out about whether this symbol of communism should be replaced by a rebuilt Stadtschloss.

Both sides argued that history should not be erased, but disagreed about which history ought to be respected: the more recent and still existing Palace of the Republic or the more distant and now only imaginary City Palace. In 2003, the German parliament decided to tear down the Palace of the Republic and rebuild the outer walls of the City Palace to house a new cultural center. Today construction is underway.

A different kind of symbolism is attached to a church in the center of former West Berlin. The Kaiser-Wilhelm-Kirche was built in the 1890s by Emperor Wilhelm II in honor of his grandfather, Wilhelm I, the first emperor of the newly united Germany.

Gerhard Justus Eduard Jacobi, who had earned two Iron Crosses in World War I and spent a year as a prisoner of war, became the Lutheran pastor of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Kirche in 1930. He gathered a circle of young pastors around him, which after 1933 became a center of opposition to the Nazi efforts to assert control over the German church and to propagate their racist ideology. Jacobi became the Berlin leader of the newly founded Confessing Church, working closely with Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller. He was beaten up and hounded by the Nazis, but continued his opposition.

On November 23, 1943, the church was badly damaged during a British air raid, and further devastated by raids in 1945. After the war’s end, little was done to keep the ruins from further collapse. The church represented to some the German nationalism which had ended so badly in the 20th century. The modernist architect Egon Eiermann won the competition to rebuild a church on the site, and decided to tear the remains down and start again. That plan sparked public outrage, which resulted in a compromise: the ruins would remain as a monument for peace, and Eiermann would build the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church next to them.

The very modern Gedächtniskirche was consecrated the same day as the rebuilt Coventry Cathedral, which had been burned out in the German air raid of November 14, 1940. Coventry Cathedral is also a combination of a destroyed and a new building. Three medieval nails from the ruins, fashioned into a cross, have become an international symbol of peace and reconciliation, which is prominently displayed at the Gedächtniskirche. Its prewar and postwar pastor Jacobi was discussed as a candidate for President of West Germany, but declined.

The Gedächtniskirche is an emotionally powerful reminder of the senseless material destruction caused by war. Its pastor Jacobi personifies courageous opposition to evil authority.The Stadtschloss is a monumental reminder of the historic power of German monarchs. These contrasting symbols coexist in modern rebuilt Berlin, representations of its complicated history and its potential lessons.

Steve Hochstadt
Berlin, Germany
Published in the Jacksonville Journal-Courier, September 6, 2016

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

The Destruction and Rebuilding of Warsaw


I have spent the past three weeks in three cities which were destroyed during World War II and then rebuilt: Warsaw, St. Petersburg, and Berlin. Warsaw’s experiences tell us much about what cities and history mean to people. Warsaw, the capital of Poland since 1596, was completely leveled by the German Army. It is hard to picture what those words mean.

Even before the Germans attacked Poland, architects developed a plan to obliterate the city and its 1.3 million people, and then rebuild a model provincial German city one-tenth that size. During the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the Luftwaffe made the largest air raid in history up to that time on Warsaw, a terror attack with incendiary bombs meant to demoralize the Polish people. Thousands of civilians were killed and buildings ruined.

A few years later, after the uprising of the last few thousand Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in April 1943, that portion of the central city was entirely razed to the ground by the Wehrmacht, by bombing and bulldozers, following an order from Heinrich Himmler.

In August 1944, a second uprising in Warsaw began. As the Soviet Army approached from the east, Polish underground forces attacked the German occupiers, hoping to liberate the city themselves. The Soviets halted their advance, allowing the German Army to overwhelm the rebels and then use a special Annihilation and Incineration Detachment to methodically destroy the whole city, burning libraries and blowing up churches. Hitler’s order was clear: “Warsaw has to be pacified, that is, razed to the ground.”

By the end of the war, about 90% of Warsaw’s buildings had been demolished and most of its population murdered, significantly greater destruction than was caused by the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Already during the German occupation, Polish architects and city planners risked their lives to document existing historic structures and to plan for rebuilding. After the war’s end, the new Communist leaders of Poland considered moving the capital to another city. No modern city had ever been rebuilt after such complete demolition. Polish patriots who had fought in the resistance argued that the historical architectural substance of Warsaw represented the Polish nation and should be rebuilt.

Over the next 7 years, a replica of old Warsaw was constructed. The destruction of the city center was so complete that 22 paintings of city streets done in the 1770s by the Venetian painter Bernardo Bellotto were used to recreate historic buildings. Bricks from the rubble and fragments of architectural details were reused. Warsaw’s citizens returned by the thousands to help in the reconstruction, following the motto, “The entire nation builds its capital.” Unlike the rebuilding of German cities, no foreign funds were available for Warsaw. The entire reconstruction was paid for by popular donations to the Social Fund for the Rebuilding of the Capital.

Is Warsaw now an architectural Disneyland of fake “old” buildings? No, it is a reborn place of remembrance, a monument to the importance of the past for the present. Warsaw’s tragic history is displayed everywhere in monuments, plaques, sculptures and signs that remind residents and visitors of the two uprisings in 1943 and 1944, of the responsibility of Germans and Russians for the city’s historical agonies, and of the pride of the Polish people in their resurrected capital.

Public historical reminders, as in every country, tell only a partial story. As national politics shift, so does the narrative told by a community’s memorials, usually with a long delay. In June 2016, the Polish government decided to remove 229 monuments across the country to the Soviet “liberation” of Poland. The demoted memorials will be gathered in an open air museum at a former Soviet army base outside of Warsaw. The education director of the Institute of National Remembrance explained that these monuments propagate “what we consider as untruth: gratitude for having given Poland independence.”

The conflicted national Polish reaction to their Jewish fellow citizens, which occasionally included massacres of Jews during and after the German occupation, is not addressed in public monuments. That difficult story is still politically controversial and may require more time to become part of accepted Polish history.

The fateful decision to recover a nation’s history by rebuilding Warsaw, to undo the destruction of war and racism, has implications beyond Poland. The destruction of cities in the Middle East in the Syrian civil war or by the terrorists of ISIS raises similar questions about what will happen in the future – rebuilding the old or constructing the new. On a smaller scale, American towns like Jacksonville have faced similar decisions. The urban renewal craze of the 1960s and 1970s often led to the replacement of historic buildings by ugly new construction, as in Jacksonville’s central square. More recently, considerable funds have been used to remove those architectural mistakes and to invest in the recovery of unique local architectural history. As in Poland and elsewhere, reconstruction of local history means the recovery of local pride. The past lives on in old buildings, physical reminders of the accomplishments of our predecessors.

Steve Hochstadt
Berlin, Germany
Published in the Jacksonville Journal-Courier, August 30, 2016

Monday, August 22, 2016

Of Palaces and Peasants



St. Petersburg is a city of palaces. The biggest are world famous tourist attractions. Long lines of visitors pay $30 to see Peter the Great’s palace on the outskirts of the city at Peterhof, and the Winter Palace in the center of the city, now part of the Hermitage, one of the largest art museums in the world. Both were damaged during the three-year German siege of Leningrad, and have been carefully and expensively restored.

These gigantic homes of the Russian emperors rival the most elaborate palaces of European royalty. Enormous rooms covered in gold paint, acres of inlaid wood floors, furniture created by the most famous craftsmen, chandeliers, paintings, stucco work, ceiling frescos, carved doors, marble staircases wide enough for a herd of horses.

Peterhof was a country retreat for Peter, who had St. Petersburg built to create a northern port for his Empire, so it was a moderately sized palace, about 30 rooms, stretching the length of three football fields. The throne room is 25 feet high and covers 3500 sq. ft. A special canal was built to bring visitors’ boats from the Gulf of Finland. Tsar Peter was fascinated by water, and he helped design a spectacular complex of hundreds of fountains whose water is brought by a specially built canal from springs 12 miles away. A dozen smaller palaces are scattered among acres of formal gardens.

The Winter Palace is one of the largest buildings I have ever seen. It covers 650,000 sq. ft., nearly as large as Louis XIV’s Versailles and English royalty’s Buckingham Palace. Today it houses the Hermitage museum, but the palace rooms themselves push the art objects into the background.

These two are merely the most impressive of Petersburg’s palaces. The banks of the Neva River and the smaller canals that cross St. Petersburg are lined with the gigantic constructions of the Russian nobility. Families that owned tens of thousands of acres of land and thousands of peasant serfs competed to build private homes of incredible size and opulence.

America has no such palaces. The largest homes in the United States were built by the Vanderbilt family, based on the fortune in shipping and railroads amassed by Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794-1877). The largest is the Biltmore House in North Carolina with 250 rooms covering 180,000 sq. ft. The fabled “summer cottages” of Newport, RI, are much smaller. The largest house ever built in Chicago, Potter Palmer’s home facing Lake Michigan, would rank with the outbuildings at Peterhof.

There are no American political equivalents to the palaces of European royalty. The White House extends over 55,000 sq. ft. George Washington’s Mount Vernon (21 rooms) and Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello (43 rooms) are only about 10,000 sq. ft. When the leaders of the new United States decided to create a democracy, they legislated the end of palaces and the other trappings of European royalty in favor of legal equality (for white men, at least).

The fascination of St. Petersburg’s palaces for the visitor lies in their uniqueness, their impossible magnificence, their foreign gigantism. American tourists, myself included, enjoy marveling at the exuberant ostentation of European palaces like Peterhof, partly because we can find nothing like it at home.

Palaces require much more than personal wealth. Russian emperors used funds they collected from millions of Russian peasants to construct homes that spoke of their unearthly power. Most peasants were barely able to subsist on small plots of land, but they supported the faraway royal family and the local nobles who dominated their every aspect of their lives. These wonders of human creation were built on the exploitation of the many for the few, on the assumption that some people were better than most and deserved to spend as much as they liked to demonstrate and maintain their superiority.

St. Petersburg, city of palaces, is also a city of revolution. The Romanov royal family’s exploitation of Russian peasants and workers was overthrown in 1917. The small palace of Nicholas II’s mistress, the ballerina Kshesinskaya, now houses a fine museum of the modern political history of Russia. During the revolutionary months of 1917, the Bolshevik Party took over the building and Lenin used one room as his office. After the Bolsheviks took power, most of giant homes of the Russian nobility were divided into small apartments for average citizens.

Of the largest houses in the US, more than half were built between 1882 and 1929, during the so-called Gilded Age, when giant fortunes were made, but poverty was widespread. The richest 1% owned half of the property in America. Most of the remaining enormous American homes have been constructed in the last 15 years, another period when the very rich got even richer and economic inequality has increased to levels not seen since before the Great Depression.

Palaces are impressive human creations, employing the most skilled artists to create lasting works of cultural significance. But they are also symbols of economic exploitation, as the very rich flaunt their wealth before the masses in needless but conspicuous extravagance. The very few at the top can build what they want, but they cannot control how the rest think about their greed and their ostentation.

Steve Hochstadt
Berlin, Germany
Published in the Jacksonville Journal-Courier, August 23, 2016

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Tell Your Kids Why You Like Donald



People everywhere want to treat their political leaders as ideal citizens and great people, models of personality and leadership. Character is one of the most important traits that voters look for in a candidate. Many parents are Trump supporters. Imagine telling a child about Donald Trump, as a man and as a candidate.

American presidents represent for children an image of manly achievement (thus far anyway), a dream of greatness: “One day you could be President.” When I grew up, kids learned about the President from portraits in our classrooms, surrounded by the patriotic enthusiasm of public school curricula. President and flag were one. We were sheltered from any flaws in Presidential character, lest they distract from the lesson that America was wonderful and its leaders extraordinary.

Nowadays anyone with a phone can find out the latest political news. The facts of Trump are out in the cloud for everyone, even toddlers, to see. When parents decide to support Trump, what do they say to their kids?

Parents used to teach children to be polite to others, sometimes invoking the Golden Rule. But times have changed. Now Trump parents can explain why it’s best to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Call people you don’t like liar, loser, fool, lightweight, dishonest, stupid, hypocrite, dummy, a total joke. Those are just the insults he’s thrown at leaders of his own Party.

Modesty is usually a virtue to instill in the younger generation. Not any more. Bragging is the new humility. Trump has made talking about Trump into an art form. Tell your kids: it’s all about you, every day, every way.

Bragging brings us to lying, because for Trump they’re the same. Much of what he repeatedly praises about himself is not true: that he graduated first at Wharton, that he is worth $10 billion, that he met Putin. “They love me” is one of his favorite refrains, especially about groups of people who actually dislike him.

Explain how lying can be a useful life strategy. No matter how big the lie, some people will believe it. The lesson for kids is how to use lying to win.

The most important values to pass on are family values, meaning “traditional” marriage for Republicans. Trump multiplies that lesson: many marriages are better. Marry Ivana when she’s 28, start an affair with Marla when she’s in her late 20's, marry her, then have an affair with Melania at age 28. Boys, keep looking for those 10's.

In particular, Trump moms will need to explain to their daughters why women’s bodies are their most important attributes. When considering running for President in 2000, he said, “I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful.” While he was married to Ivana, but dating Marla, he said, “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write, as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” That phrase about women is one of Trump’s favorites.

Boys and girls, here’s the scoop on fatherhood. “I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them. I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park.”

One constant in American politics is respect for military service. Our children are constantly given messages, in school and out, that military service represents the highest form of patriotism and that veterans are heroes. Now Trump parents will need to explain that being captured and tortured, as Senator John McCain was, doesn’t make you a hero. It’s better for kids to get real military experience without risking their lives, like Trump, who went to an expensive military-themed prep school, where he got “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.” He compared avoiding a sexually transmitted disease during his “dangerous” life as a single man to serving in Vietnam: “It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.”

Donald Trump thinks his privileged civilian life is just like military service. That’s why he believes, “I’ll be so good at the military, it will make your head spin.” Trump parents now have an easier time counseling their children on how to be brave soldiers: you can either join the military or fool around at home.

That’s the lesson for the kids: a life of wealth is as hard as it gets. So get rich, really rich, by saying anything that helps you, ignore all the inferior people who don’t “love you”, hit back harder, cruder, meaner when anyone points that out, tell everyone at every opportunity how great you are. It’s a tough life, but that’s the way to be.

If Trump parents help their children see what life is really all about, we might look forward to a generation Trump. So go ahead, Trump fans, put a sign in your yard that proclaims your allegiance to this man. Then start working on those explanations for your children.

Steve Hochstadt
Springbrook WI
Published in the Jacksonville Journal-Courier, August 9, 2016