Modern Ruins -Restoration, Reappropriation and Reference

Modern Ruins -Restoration, Reappropriation and Reference: Considering Erich Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory and the effect of war on historical value

“We are nostalgic for the ruins of modernity because they still seem to hold a promise that has vanished from our own age: the promise of an alternative future.”1

- Huyssen, 2006

Erich Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory is not neglected. Neither is it celebrated. Instead, it sits in a state of indifferent equilibrium. It serves not only as an example of early modern industrial architecture, but also of the dilemma of how we approach a modern ruin with a complex national history.

In mind, the term ruination invariably calls up images of vernacular buildings that have been reduced by the ravages of time to mere traces of what they were. Benjamin2 saw in ruins “allegories of thinking itself”. Encountering such ruins shake us from our own temporal state and provoke contemplation; a past that could have been, a divergent present, and futures that have not been met. Piranesi illustrated ruination as a means to construct and project glimpses of alternative modernities and to challenge the latent Vitruvian ideals into the Enlightenment. The ruination of modern architecture has become more prominent as buildings lose their function and meaning in the present3 ; they have been surpassed by increasing population, social, or technological demands. Yet the protection of these modern buildings is a paradox in itself. The rhetoric of the modern movement had little place for the concept of conservation, still less for the decrepitude of its own inherent philosophies4 . Yet many modern ruins are already fragments of the moment they come into being5 . These fragments represent moments of technological advancement, reflection of social change that preceded the devastation of World War II, or even a sense that someone had an idea which was fought to be realised. It is these qualities that saves them from destruction, and may even evoke a sense of nostalgia.

Twentieth century history lends the ruins of modern buildings to a significance that goes beyond the architectural, particularly those buildings constructed during wartime Germany. They have been appropriated for, or affected by the ravages of both time and war do not necessarily evoke nostalgia but 1

A. Huyssen, "Nostalgia for Ruins," Grey Room 23, no. 1 (2006).

Walter Benjamin et al., The Arcades Project(Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1999).

3 S. Boym, "Ruins of the Avant-Garde," in Ruins of Modernity, ed. J. Hell, & Scholne, A.(London, United Kingdom: Duke University Press, 2010).

4 K. Powell, "Conserving the Revolution," in Ruins of Modernity : Erich Mendelsohn's Hat Factory in Luckenwalde, ed. Frank Barkow and Architectural Association (Great Britain)(London: Architectural Association, 1998).

5 Michael S. Roth et al., Irresistible Decay : Ruins Reclaimed, Bibliographies & Dossiers (Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1997).

2

instead temporal or national memories 6. When considering how to respond to these modern ruins, we are faced with the question of what should be handed down to posterity – memory, building intent, or the damage incurred? Erich Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory in Luckenwalde, Germany, currently sits dormant in a scarred landscape. All aspects of nearly a century’s worth of political and cultural shifts have made their mark on the building; tangling thoughts about valuation, maintenance and treatment. Prospective thoughts as to building’s future challenge us to consider the appropriateness of different responses to modern ruination; restoration, reappropriation or reference.

The small hat factory located in the town of Luckenwalde, Germany, is a little known manifestation of a transitional moment in the works of Erich Mendelsohn. Not as fluid as its expressionist predecessor of the Einstein Tower, nor as idealistic as it successor at the De La Warr Pavilion, Bexhill, it is though to show in a single leap Mendelsohn’s movement from the expressionist, to rational form. Architectural Historian, Julius Posener, perhaps explained the shift most eloquently. Posener described Mendelsohn’s architectural style as possessing an inflective dynamism that surpassed the functional or decorative avantgarde modernism of Le Corbusier, Mies or Gropius7 . Instead Mendelsohn’s early works were more sympathetic to the organic expressionism of his national predecessor, Joseph Olbrich. But where Olbrich had been one of the leaders of the Art Nouveau movement in Europe, Mendelsohn took the German Jugendstil influence and used it as a point of departure into uncharted architectural territory – industrial architecture.

In the early 20th century the town of Luckenwalde, Germany had established a reputation as a key manufacturer of hats. With the merger of the two largest hat-making ateliers, Hermann and Steinberg, it was fitting that a new industrial factory be established. Given the seeming success of the recently completed Einstein Tower, and the visionary war-time sketches from which it was assumed to have been based, Mendelsohn was given the opportunity to devise an appropriately imaginative and functional form to this very specific manufacturing process8. The nature of dying and fabrication meant that the factory had to be centrally located and provide electricity and steam to assist forming and shaping of the felts.

Figure 1 Historical and Political timeline of Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory 6

K. Barndt, "Memory Traces and Abandoned Set of Futures: Indiustrial Ruins in the Postmoder Landscapes of Germany," in Ruins of Modernity, ed. J. &Scholne Hell, A(London, United Kingdom: Dune University Press, 2006).

7 J. Posener, "Erich Mendelsohn"In: Vorlesungen Zur Geschichte Der Neuen Architektur," ARCH+ 48, no. Dec (1997).

8 Frank Barkow and Architectural Association (Great Britain), Ruins of Modernity : Erich Mendelsohn's Hat Factory in Luckenwalde, Aa Documents (London: Architectural Association, 1998).

Being composed of a reinforced concrete post and beam construction, the internal structure of the factories were not particularly novel of the time, however the ingenuity is more apparent in the functional details of the program9. The angular profile of the roof of the dye works, that have become iconic of the building, were highly functional, as to draw off the noxious gasses produced as a result of the dying process that would have otherwise compromised the health of the workers10. In this way, Mendelsohn incorporated real improvements in labour conditions to speculation about the role architecture may contribute the social revolution occurring concurrently in history. The novel building that resulted was quickly adopted to represent the Expressionist approach to materials and form, in which the function was exaggeratedly detailed11.

Figure 22 Hat Factory.

Luckenwalde, 1921-1923 Dyeworks and factory hall 1920s Photograph

Owing to its strategic location on aptly named Industrial Road, and the racial identity of its owners, the history of the Hat Factory is reflective of the social and political undercurrents of the time. Opening for production in 1924 the factory was used for its intended purpose for only eleven years before it was forcibly sold under the Nuremberg Laws, prohibiting its Jewish ownership. In 1936, only a year later, it was sold again to the North German Maschinenbau AG, and

Figure 3 18 Framents of Metropolis Luckenwalde, 2014 Old Dyeworks and Factory Hall

appropriated by air force and army ministries for the production of weapons and ammunition12. Then, after a short reprieve from its involvement in World War II, it again functioned from 1945 to 1956 as a machine shop for the Soviet Army, whom also took the liberty of wounding the surrounding landscape with tank maneuvers. From thereon until its closure in 1991 the factory functioned as host to FAG Kugelfischer, an East German manufacturer of ball bearings. Finally, having found its most recent holder in 2001, Mendelsohn’s hat factory was bought by the entrepreneurial Ayad family. It current acts as an occasional host of exhibitions or openings, however these appear sparse at best 13. Partnering with the German Foundation for Monument Protection, much speculation has gone into if and how the site should

9

Gillian Darley, Factory, Objekt (London: Reaktion, 2003), 149; ibid.

Barkow and Architectural Association (Great Britain), Ruins of Modernity : Erich Mendelsohn's Hat Factory in Luckenwalde.10 Ibid., 15.

11 Peter G©œssel and Gabriele Leuth©Þuser, Architecture in the Twentieth Century, 2 vols.(Koln ; London: Taschen, 2005).

12 Barkow and Architectural Association (Great Britain), Ruins of Modernity : Erich Mendelsohn's Hat Factory in Luckenwalde.

13 B. Schwimmer, "Excursion to the Hat Factory of Erich Mendelsohn in Luckenwalde."

be treated. All aspects of nearly a century’s worth of political and cultural shifts have made their mark on the building, tangling thoughts about valuation, maintenance and treatment.

The Hat Factory currently appears as a historical moment, fixed in a decaying frame. These images contrast starkly to the orthogonally composed photographs that were used for its initial documentation.

The cycles of damage that the building has endured exist as a natural process of age, changing occupation and systematic procedures such as the removal of the original ventilation Tower to make the building less visible to allied bombers14. However, under these multiple layers of amendment, the authentic substance of the building may prove difficult to trace.

The Hat Factory brings to our attention another dilemma, in regard to what Reigl has termed the agevalue (Alteswert) and historical-value of a ruined monument15. In assessing the value of the Hat Factory, and considering strategies for reuse or adaptation, both must be taken into consideration. Reigl posits that age-value is indicated by an artifact’s dated appearance, its patina, which embraces the indication of decay and destruction to express the passage of time. In this manner, the age-value of Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory relates to the picturesque, manifesting itself though visual perception to appeal directly to our emotions. Historical geographer David Lowenthal offers a caveat that refines Reigl’s broad statements of age-value. Where porous or organic construction elements lend themselves to obvious external decay or, according to Reigl, temporal improvement by patina, the capacity of material such as concrete and steel to carry age-value came under question16. Lowenthal suggests that the age-value of an structure is closely related to it’s aesthetic value. Whether we perceive decay as patina or blemish is dependent not only on the type of object it is affecting, but whether it affects a component used for utility, or for ornament . He proposed that, with architecture, patina improves the ruin. Thus, the Hat Factory’s age-value, as with many modernist archetypes is self-limited in its construction. As an example of early modern industrial architecture, the construction of the building is characterised by reinforced concrete and steel. In a study of Concrete and Culture, Adrian Forty notes that both materials conceal signs of decay until the point of failure and thus both refuse to

14

… There is not necessarily a conflict between age value and historical value, but the possibility remains, especially when the viewer is equally struck by both.

The interests of one are conservative, and the other radical. Historical value is conservative and seeks to preserve everything in its current condition. On the other hand, the advantage of age value lies in the fact that it is easier to achieve – strictly speaking, it is the only viable strategy. Permanent preservation is not possible because natural forces are ultimately more powerful than all the wit of man, and man himself is destined to inevitable decay” 9

Barkow and Architectural Association (Great Britain), Ruins of Modernity : Erich Mendelsohn's Hat Factory in Luckenwalde.

A. Riegl, The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin. , trans. K. W. & Ghirardo Forster, D.(1982).

16 David Lowenthal, The Past Is a Foreign Country(Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

15

offer a legible patina, or adhere to age-value while still in a structurally recognisable state17 .1819 Alternatively, Reigl suggests that historical-value accrues by virtue of a monument’s significance. Its significance lies in its relationship to a specific historical event or movement to which it is both linked and bears witness to 20. In this manner, the value of the Hat Factory exists in its status not only as an early work of Mendelsohn, but moreover as a canonical example of early industrial expressionist architecture.

When considering a strategy for the reuse or restoration of the building, this poses a significant challenge.

It would suggest a revival of the original condition of the building to an idealised condition – an impossible task considering its estrangement from both the original function and patronage. Also, with such a complex nationalistic past, the Hat Factory has gradually distanced itself from its original function.

The building does not succinctly derive its value from its patina or age-value. However, given its divergence with its original function, neither can it be coherently restored to its original condition to revive its historical-value. The challenge therefore, of the buildings future is to determine which response to this modern ruin is most appropriate.

The modern ruin is a paradox within itself. The rhetoric of the modern movement had little tolerance for the concept of conservation, particularly those whose function had been deemed obsolete 21. How are we to consider then, the modern industrial ruin? In a contemporary Germany, where many sites of craft and labour have been ousted by a globally driven community of information technology, the original factory sites are superfluous to their intended function22. They have become now-hollow places of capitalism.

According to their own modern virtue, the sites should no longer exist, yet we baulk at the suggestion of their demolition. How then should we proceed? By restoring what was once lost? By reappropriation and transformation? Or by introducing a new program, but referencing the old?

The function and appropriation of Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory has historically had a close relationship with the national political current. The reinterpretation of this history should, in effect, have implications for the way in which the building could be restored. However, if strictly adhering to Reigl’s concept of agevalue, the Hat Factory should be restored to its original appearance. Undoubtedly this would give the clearest idea of the Mendelsohn’s intent, and also reflects the values of the era and circumstances in which it was built. For some buildings such as Mendelsohn’s De La Warr Pavilion at Bexhill (1935), this may be the most appropriate response. At the time of its construction Mendelsohn and Serge

17

Adrian Forty, Concrete and Culture : A Material History(2013).

E. Rawn, Fragments of Metropolis: An Exploration of Berlin's Expressionist History, 2014. Photograph. Arch Daily.–– 19 Riegl, Oppositions.

20 Ibid.

21 Powell, "Conserving the Revolution."

22 Stephen Cairns and Jane M. Jacobs, Buildings Must Die : A Perverse View of Architecture, 72-73.

18

Chermayeff’s De Lar Warr Pavillion was the archetype of a public international style building23. The construction and funding of the public pavilion was championed by social aristocrat, the 9th Earl De La Warr, who also happened to be the mayor at the time. This public seaside insertion acts not only as a record of an early international style building, but also an eloquent record of English social history.

Although the building assumed a military role during the Second World War, it has since been used for public functions and the 2007 restoration and refurbishment of the building returned it almost to its original state24. As such its function, and its historical-value have remained relatively constant and its restoration by John McAslan only enhanced the eloquence of the building. In this example, both lived history and architecture coincide across two temporalities. If Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory had experienced a less intense national history, this may have also been the case. The building clearly has historical value as both a record of early industrial expressionist architecture but also, and

‘Every attempt to find the

more controversially, as a record of the forced transfer of ownership and

true history of a building

subsequent appropriation in the context of war. If the building were to be

and

restored to its original function, it would be effectively but contentiously

excavate

obliterate the scars from its involvement in the war. Further to this, in each

only enhance the likelihood

manipulation or adaptation that the Hat Factory underwent, it gradually

of more conflicts about its

distanced itself from its original inception, to the point where it’s function

every

attempt

real

to

memories

real history’.26

is rendered artifact and the industrial significance is partially negated25.

Thus the fate of the modern ruin is in some measure dependent on its ability to be restored to its original function. The function of Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory has become superfluous, and although restoration may succeed in becoming a beautiful trace of its original function, it would not retain its historical-value.

26

Architects and developers alike have recognised the inevitability of addressing sites such as Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory and have turned to techniques of appropriation and transformation.

23 Figure 4 M. Cannata, "The Repair and Alterations of the De La Warr Pavilion," Intervening in History 12, no. 2 (2014).

24 Hat Factory Ibid.

25 Luckenwalde, 1921-3Buildings Must Die : A Perverse View of Architecture, 167.

Cairns and Jacobs, 26 1920s Photograph "Building Memory: Architecture, Network and Users," Memory Studies 2, no. 1 (2009): 49.

M. Guggenheim, Originally enclosed by a masonry wall, the hat factory is a composition of adjoining elements organised symmetrically along a central north-south axis. The main volumes correspond the to the stages of the manufacturing process: a central factory hall oriented to the east-west end, and opposing each other across the crinoline roofs of the factory hall, two higher volumes – the dyeworks to the south, and the boiler house to the north. The rotational expression of the boiler house is in sharp contrast to the angled massing of the manufacturing sections.

Recognising that the restoration of a building will never exactly replicate the original, they instead decide to effectively cleanup and selectively edit the old, but not return it to its original state. Carlo Scapa exemplified this with the adaptation of Museo Civico di Castelvecchio, Verona. Scarpa seemingly weaved together different eras of history with the careful detailing and articulation of joins and connections. As a result, the created spaces are unique and a poetic unity exists between the ancient 14th century structure and the contemporary 19th century addition. Where the architect adjoins the old to a representation of its many-layered history, the site becomes a palimpsest27. It reveals signs of temporality, with the select components of history allowed to remain. In this manner there is some tolerance for the selective manipulation and removal of historical details. However this is not intended to devalue the old for the new, but rather celebrate the harmonious junctions between the two to create a grander whole.

While successfully implemented at Museo Civico di Castelvecchio, the charged nature of the wartime history of the Hat Factory does not lend itself to referencing one history over the other, nor does the site it lend itself to become an experiment of architectural postulation. With such a complicated past it would be near impossible to untangle the Hat Factory’s dual histories and represent them appropriately without appearing to preference one over the other. In this way any intentional appropriation of the building would likely not celebrate harmonious junctions, but instead emphasise apparent discords.

Finally, we are charged with considering the option of fusing the old and the new into a single old-new identity. In such a scenario one element is not dominant over the other. Further to this, although there may be multiple historical readings to a site, the new creation becomes a composite experience of them all, of which the past is only one particular reading28. This is aptly illustrated in a local example at Sydney’s Cockatoo Island. Historically, the island had possessed multiple functions that combine to create a rich cultural landscape. The island has been home to convict, institutional, penal, ship building and engineering activities. As such, its function has been variable and there are many contextual readings to the site overlaid upon one another. The intangible aspects of the site’s heritage: its previous uses, meanings and associations find expression not in one static reading at a particular point in time, but instead can be read in the attributes of the whole site29. For example, the sandstone in the convict-built buildings are not only examples of materiality and construction types within Sydney Harbour, but also references to forced penal labour. The diversity of function is reflected in the different scale, materials and articulation of each the buildings and the necessary infrastructure such as rails or slipways that has been implemented around each. Although the site is divided into different precincts there is no particular effort to delineate old and new and the site had been adapted with reference, not to the concept of historical accuracy where latent meanings can enrich its new purpose. In 2007 the Mould Loft on the 27

K. L Tran, "Architecture as Palimpsest : A Strategy of Intermediacy" (Ryerson University, 2011).

A Moshaver, "Re Architecture: Old and New in Adaptive Reuse of Modern Idustrial Heritage" (Ryerson University, 2011).

29 Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, "Management Plan - Cockatoo Island,"(Sydney: Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, 2010), 56-57.

28

island’s Plateau underwent necessary transformation. Previously unutilized and decaying it was revived

by Allen Jack and Cottier Architects and transformed into a popular events space. While the mechanical elements of the building were updated, the elements required to still show the transition of time were maintained30. The redevelopment protected the loft’s floor which offers a physical record and displays incision of ships being built on the island. Visible scars on the exterior of the building, that could have easily been replaced and refurbished, have been maintained to preserve and reflect the site’s rich history.

Regardless, the site carries a strong sense of time and transformation. The buildings are not forcibly altered to something that they are not, nor are they refurbished and redecorated to become a trace of their original function. Each of the buildings maintain their own integrity without compromise, the only point of difference is that they become flexible enough to play host to a new function; adding just another layer of historical richness to the site.

Each response to Erich Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory is unique to the history of the building, yet all aim to evoke a response preceded by the same historical military event. It is clear that the extent of damage and the historical load a building carries affects its interpretation with regard to value. The process of reverential restoration is lost to the Hat Factory as it becomes superfluous and outdated by its own modern condition. Although in some respects the site could be appropriated this process would pose the great challenge of selecting which layers of discordant history should be maintained. The Luckenwalde hat factory is reflective of a labyrinth of historical events, each too significant their own right to take preference over the other. As such it is the perfect opportunity to create an old-new fusion comparable to that carried out at Cockatoo Island. In this way, both lived and architectural histories, both the damage and vestige of the Hat Factory could be present in the building, even if it were not completely replicable to the original sculptural form. Mendelsohn’s Hat factory is an example of an industrial expressionist modern ruin with a complex national history. It challenges the user to analyse the past to help derive a new meaning for the future. In this way, Piranesi’s legacy is not lost after all.

30

Allen Jack + Cottier, "Mould Loft (Building 6)," http://architectsajc.com/mould-loft-building-6/.

Bibliography Barkow, Frank, and Architectural Association (Great Britain). Ruins of Modernity : Erich Mendelsohn's Hat Factory in Luckenwalde. Aa Documents. London: Architectural Association, 1998.

Barndt, K. "Memory Traces and Abandoned Set of Futures: Indiustrial Ruins in the Postmoder Landscapes of Germany."

Chap. 16 In Ruins of Modernity, edited by J. &Scholne Hell, A, 270-93. London, United Kingdom: Dune University Press, 2006.

Benjamin, Walter, Rolf Tiedemann, Howard Eiland, and Kevin McLaughlin. The Arcades Project [in Translated from the German.]. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1999.

Boym, S. "Ruins of the Avant-Garde." Chap. 4 In Ruins of Modernity, edited by J. Hell, & Scholne, A., 58-85. London, United Kingdom: Duke University Press, 2010.

Cairns, Stephen, and Jane M. Jacobs. Buildings Must Die : A Perverse View of Architecture.

Cannata, M. "The Repair and Alterations of the De La Warr Pavilion." Intervening in History 12, no. 2 (2014): 81-94.

Cottier, Allen Jack +. "Mould Loft (Building 6)." http://architectsajc.com/mould-loft-building-6/.

Darley, Gillian. Factory. Objekt. London: Reaktion, 2003.

Forty, Adrian. Concrete and Culture : A Material History. 2013.

G©œssel, Peter, and Gabriele Leuth©Þuser. Architecture in the Twentieth Century [in Translated from the German by Judith Vachon...et al.]. 2 vols Koln ; London: Taschen, 2005.

Guggenheim, M. "Building Memory: Architecture, Network and Users." Memory Studies 2, no. 1 (2009): 39-53.

Huyssen, A. "Nostalgia for Ruins." Grey Room 23, no. 1 (2006): 6-21.

Lowenthal, David. The Past Is a Foreign Country. Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Moshaver, A. "Re Architecture: Old and New in Adaptive Reuse of Modern Idustrial Heritage." Ryerson University, 2011.

Posener, J. . "Erich Mendelsohn"In: Vorlesungen Zur Geschichte Der Neuen Architektur." ARCH+ 48, no. Dec (1997): 8-13.

Powell, K. "Conserving the Revolution." Chap. 4 In Ruins of Modernity : Erich Mendelsohn's Hat Factory in Luckenwalde, edited by Frank Barkow and Architectural Association (Great Britain), 71 p. London: Architectural Association, 1998.

Rawn, E. "Fragments of Metropolis: An Exploration of Berlin's Expressionist History." Photograph: Arch Daily, 2014.

Riegl, A. The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin. . Translated by K. W. & Ghirardo Forster, D. 1982.

Roth, Michael S., Charles Merewether, Claire L. Lyons, and Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities. Irresistible Decay : Ruins Reclaimed. Bibliographies & Dossiers. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1997.

Schwimmer, B. "Excursion to the Hat Factory of Erich Mendelsohn in Luckenwalde."

Tran, K. L. "Architecture as Palimpsest : A Strategy of Intermediacy." Ryerson University, 2011.

Trust, Sydney Harbour Federation. "Management Plan - Cockatoo Island." 51. Sydney: Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, 2010.