Neues Museum, Berlin: A Model Study

MATTHEW MCCALLUM 16015811

NEUES MUSEUM BERLIN A model study of David Chipperfield Architect’s interventions removable from the palimpsest of the ruin

Bachelor of Architecture with Honours Mackintosh School of Architecture Glasgow School of Art Word count: 5000

1

4

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DECLARATION

Undertaking this work has afforded the opportunity for reflection on a number of my architectural preoccupations and design ethos. The choice to explore and analyze the ruin has allowed me to carry my findings into my design theses and approaches to achieving an evocative architecture founded in memory. The experience of research is often exhausting yet always rewarding. I would like to express my gratitude to Ian Alexander whose supervision and guidance aided me in discovering the direction of this research. Thanks also to Stephen Tierney

for his professional guidance in working with the existing and for the gift Palimpsest.

Above all, thanks to my parents and my sisters without whom I would not have the fortunate opportunity or support to pursue my passions in architecture.

I, Matthew McCallum, hereby certify that I am the author of this research project; that this project has been composed, written, and produced by me; that all references cited have been consulted by me and that the work undertaking to produce this body of explorative analysis has been carried out by me.

6

Abstract

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Ruins

Decay

Neues Museum

2. Interventions

A Model Study

Greek Courtyard

Stair Hall

Egyptian Courtyard

9

11

23

3. Conclusion

41

4. Bibliography

47

5. Appendix

51

Photographs

DCA Drawings

3D Printing Support Structure

7

0.3. Three interventions exploded from the ruin, 2017, by author.

8

ABSTRACT

This dissertation focuses on the architectural interventions within the ruins of the Neues Museum, Berlin implemented by David Chipperfield Architects in collaboration with conservation consultant Julian Harrap.

The primary method of inquiry is a visual exploration through a series of three models which compare David Chipperfield Architects’ interventions with and without the contextual influence of the ruin.

Researching decay and ruins helps one understand the place of architecture and the collective memory of the existing and so simultaneously, analytic and theoretical citations are used to explore concepts of decay, ruin, fragmentation and order. The examination into David Chipperfield’s work and other commentators on Chipperfield’s work aids the inquiry of this research.

The analysis of these models view the interventions removed and isolated from their immediate context, discussing whether or not they are shown as derivative of, or independent of said context. As the ruin of the Neues Museum lay in disrepair since suffering bomb damage during the Second World War, these interventions have never stood unsupported by the context of the ruin. This approach allows the focus to analyze the architecture of each intervention as standalone structures and consider their individual architectural merit and position in time.

9

1.

RUINS Decay Neues Museum

1.1. Rear elevation of Rathcoffey Castle, Co. Kildare, Ireland.

12

DECAY

The architecture of ruin has fascinated artists and architects, from the works of Turner and Piranesi to Soane and Scarpa. Ever since Italian Renaissance writers fantasised about recreating the architectural greatness of ancient Rome, ruins have been the focus of intense research and creative inspiration.

where each object contains a personal material history. Cracked and torn Leather upholstery hint at the repeated use of a chair while old cigar cases bearing heartfelt engravings provide a glimpse into memories held by the original owner.

These views on memory and history place ourselves within the mind set of questioning our own position in a continuum of decay.

Stepping into a ruin provides a similar authenticity where nature displays to you layers built fabric never intended to be seen by visitors, creating a voyeuristic lesson on construction. Ruins decline until they

Ruined buildings lay everywhere; moss, lichens, ivy, trees, abandoned gardens, grew prodigiously; all man-made things were to a degree absorbed; when

become archaeology, a romantic vision of human effort incomplete. Sometimes this decay is what it takes to broach a Modernist architect into connecting with the historic fabric. Architects view the remains analytically as a puzzle of archaeology, often finally ending at a romantic proposal.

It is however, important to distinguish the difference between results of decay.

they go out of use, their outline becomes blurred before disappearing.

Niall McCullough, Palimpsest, 20141

As McCullough explains, the poetry of the ruin exists between completion and nonexistence whilst continuing to ponder that the origin of fascination over construction and building are because of witnessing ruination in reverse.

A word close to ‘ruin’ is ‘derelict’, yet these two terms prompt opposite reactions – a ruin inspiring poetry, the other calling for demolition.

Relating the ruin to material memory, exploring a ruin can be compared to the exploration through an antique shop.

As various eras and classes of society are mixed and displayed in objects that display varying degrees of human touch

Gilda Williams, Ruins, 20112

1. Niall McCullough, Palimpsest: Intervention and Change in Irish Architecture, Dublin: Anne Street Press, 2014, pg 11

2. Gilda Williams, It Was What It Was: Modern Ruins, edited by Brian Dillon, Ruins, London: Whitechapel art Gallery, 2011, pg 94

13

1.2. Xavier Delory depicts Villa Savoye as vadalised.

14

Williams explains in her essay It Was What It Was, the romantic fascination for ruins becomes in itself a paradox as often ruins are found to be more loaded with meaning as fragments than as perfect wholes. When it comes to dereliction and ruin, the simplest dividing factor between the two involves whether the inhabitants chose to the leave because of the decay or were forced out due to the decay. A ruin, whether created by tragedy, accident or other means, forces the inhabitants to leave as the building when it is no longer safe or fit to accommodate. Dereliction,

history through the palimpsest.

is where the conditions or squalor are so unfit the inhabitants vacate voluntarily.

Williams argues that Villa Savoye fell into dereliction due to its poor construction.

The inhabitants of Villa Savoye found the building no longer fit to live in after leaks, unfit insulation and draughts posed dangers to Madame Savoye’s frail son and his pneumonic condition.3 After being abandoned in the 1940’s and ultimately ignored until 1963, Le Corbusier insisted that efforts were made to preserve his architectural masterpiece.4 Villa Savoye became derelict because of its own faults whereas Pompeii is ruinous due to the catastrophe of volcanic eruption or Mackintosh’s Glasgow School of Art after the fire in 2014. Ruins for this reason contain a certain nostalgia of a visible 3. Ibid. pg 98 4. Ibid

15

1.3. Neues Museum as a ruin post war.

16

NEUES MUSEUM

Friedrick August Stüler’s 1859 Neues Museum was originally constructed as an extension to the Altes Museum as part of a master planning concept for the entirety of Spree Island.5 As King of Prussia; Friedrich Wilhelm IV prompted the overall scheme on Spree Island intending to form a series of museums centres around art and archaeology.6 The Neues museum – meaning New Musuem – was designed to exist as a dialogue with Karl Friedrich Schinkel’s Altes museum – Old Museum – which held the Prussian royal family’s art collection. Through the formation of these

now Museum Island, was utilised as a final German fortification against the approaching Red Army,10 visible in the bullet holes in stonework and columns around the exterior of the museum. In the aftermath of the Second World War, emergency roofing was constructed in parts of the building as it became a storage facility for German Democratic Republic state museums.11 The building was left to lay in ruin for 60 years due to difficult ground conditions and instability12 whilst the Altes Museum and Bode Museum were repaired in the post war period. In 1997,

museums, Wilhelm IV hoped to promote an appreciation for antiquity.7 First hit by RAF fire bombs in 1943, the central grand staircase was destroyed as was most of the roof structure. The heat of the flames also destroyed Wilhelm Von Kaulbach’s series of frescoes The History of Mankind just below the roof.8 In 1945, bombs later destroyed the North West wing, the southern dome and the bridge leading to the Altes Museum.9 These volumes were later refilled in Chipperfield’s designs.

the Neues Museum, considered as one of the most valued buildings of the Prussian era, was the only of four museums on the island in a ruinous state.13 Virtually untouched, it was not until the 1980’s when emergency conservation work first began14 on the Neues museum and after the fall of the Berlin wall, David Chipperfield Architects won the international competition in 1997, alongside restoration consultant Julian Harrap, to restore the Neues museum and develop a masterplan for Spree Island, now referred to as Museum Island. As a structure still ruined from the war, the Neues museum displayed a contrast of decay and compelling monumental

In the final days of the war, Spree Island, 5. Tomas Weaver, David Chipperfield Architectural Works 1990 – 2002, Barcelona: Ediciones Polígrafa, 2003, pg 172 6. David Chipperfield, David Chipperfield Architects, London: Thames & Hudson, 2013, pg 198 7. Tomas Weaver, David Chipperfield Architectural Works 1990 – 2002, Barcelona: Ediciones Polígrafa, 2003, pg 172 8. David Chipperfield, David Chipperfield Architects, London: Thames & Hudson, 2013, pg 200 9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

17

1.4. Neues Museum as a ruin post war.

18

ideas of history. Some interiors survived almost completely whereas the finishes and frescos in other spaces displayed a greater degree of destruction. The power of the exposed brickwork shell and the vast enclosed voids evoked senses of space closer to a picturesque classical ruin than the antiquities it held previously.

This made the designers choose a path of conservation rather than reconstruction.

The structures of the bombed south east bay and northwest wing were rebuilt to complete the original volume of the building. The courtyards and stair hall were then design to maintain the buildings own decay whilst returning uses to the spaces. The two courtyards and stair hall arguably contain more Chipperfield than the original urban fabric due to the insertions within these spaces yet all gaps in existing structure were implemented without competing with the original structure. Caused by the aging of war, murals and columns now display like more

The designs only imply enough of the original context to provide legibility to the museum. This approach is benefited by the 60 years in which the building lay neglected

authentic relics of antiquity than neoclassical copies, making some spaces feel older than 19th century. The building has become stabilised and frozen in time, displaying its scars rather than attempting to tell its history as one unified continuity.

However, due to the careful restoration of the building as a ruin, the Neues Museum now lacks the decay present in untreated ruins or derelict buildings.

as a ruin, to apply this design post war “would have been unimaginable in the immediate aftermath of destruction.”15 To reopen the Neues Museum as a ruin in the 1950’s would have been a sore memory of Germany’s position in the war. Whilst Chipperfield might have been accused of monumentalising destruction or being obsessive over the physical damage that war has inflicted on the building,16 one could also understand that the Neues museum has become the curation a ruin.

The museum, at one point or another, displays every stage of its structure.

Decoration and surface finishes range from completely intact to fragmented and ruined throughout the building.

In all the variety, a full conspectus of the stages of decay, one phase is entirely missing: actual decrepitude and squalor. Wonderful care has been taken over all kinds of traces of the past and everything has come out looking in some way pristine.

15. Robert Harbison, Ruins and Fragments: Tales of Loss and Rediscovery, London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 2015, pg 87 16. Ibid.

19

1.5. Repairing the ruin.

Robert Harbison, Ruins and Fragments, 201517 It is hard to understand whether the ruin lust that Turner and Piranesi, Soane and Scarpa would include fascination for the Neues museum in its current state. The modern interventions of Chipperfield and Harrap have changed the nature of the building so that it is no longer a ruin.

It is safe, stable and inhabitable. Unlike Villa Savoye in its dereclition, the Neues museum is not forcing its inhabitants to leave, but rather than opening its doors to the public to share the history of Germany and its treasures from Egyptian explorations. Unlike Pompeii or the Glasgow School of Art, which currently sit as ruins, the traces of history and decay are visible but the Neues museum places them now in the background of a fully functional architecture.

17. Ibid.

21

2.

INTERVENTIONS A Model Study Greek Courtyard Egyptian Courtyard Stair Hall

2.1. Three interventions within enclosure, 2017, by author.

24

A MODEL STUDY

After conducting a trip to Berlin, Venice, Verona and Milan to visit the works of Chipperfield, Scarpa and the installations at the Venice Biennale, the focus of this dissertation directed itself towards ruin and intervention. As a student of architecture, the ruin and the existing urban fabric generate fascination as they do and have done for many artists and architects. This trip was vital to experience the palimpsest and collective memories of these European cities in the culture and urban fabric from architectural sites such as Castelvecchio to the Neues

transparent acrylic was chosen as the enclosures to reflect the surroundings in which the interventions are constructed, providing views of the interventions without the distraction of showing the ruination and intrigue in the architecture of the existing Neues Museum. This was achieved by tracing plans found in publications of David Chipperfield Architects’ work to 1:500 scale and layering the laser cut 2mm pieces to create the void spaces of the courtyard with colourless acrylic.

From the drawings found in publications, 3D digital models were made of the new

Museum to the Prada Fondazione in Milan. Within the proximity of former East Berlin, in search of a contemporary approach to intervention within the ruin, David Chipperfield Architects and Julian Harrap with the Neues museum have contributed one of the most compelling proposals to displaying fragmentation and order. The most apparent juxtapositions of contemporary architecture interacting with the historic fabric of the building are visible within the courtyards and stair hall. The three models undertaken are of the Greek courtyard, the Stair Hall and the Egyptian courtyard. The models made of these spaces depict the architectural space in an abstracted form that provide diagrammatic understanding to the surroundings and Chipperfield’s insertions.

When

making

these

models,

interventions and converted to .STL format. The Greek Courtyard was then printed with an Ultimaker 2+ 3D printer hosted by Sorenzo Props, Glasgow. Black PLA plastic - Polylactic Acid - was chosen as the material for this model due to its ease of prototyping, colour and ability to provide detail of up to 0.25mm. The Grand Stair and the insertion within the Egyptian courtyard were printed with a Formlabs Form 2 3D printer hosted by Lightning Lab, Stirling. Black Formlabs standard resin was chosen as the material for this model due to its strength, colour and the high resolution prints possible. Through Lightning Lab, the models have the ability to provide detail of up to 0.025mm - 25 microns – which was vital to display the treads and risers of the stairs at 1:500.

The black models contrast with the acrylic within the void and are removable

the

25

2.2. Three interventions removed from the ruin, 2017, by author.

26

to allow the viewer to both consider the architecture of the intervention as a whole but also as singular pieces. 12mm Birch veneered plywood was chosen to provide a simple display casing plinth for the acrylic enclosure.

27

2.3. View into the Greek Courtyard from the Apse, 2016, by author.

28

GREEK COURTYARD

The first intervention considered within the museum occurs in the Greek Courtyard. This courtyard, compared to the Egyptian Courtyard, consists of a minimal intervention at low level, leaving the entirety of the space open to natural light from above as visitors inhabit the ground plane and artefacts are displayed on concrete plinths uniform with the intervention. Windows on upper levels overlook the courtyard with the only intrusion into the space being the Apse, rebuilt as a continuation of the concrete intervention and recycled brick.18 From

intervention isolated from context. The entrances into the space are generous and inviting, whilst the Apse provides an elevated view of the space from another gallery.

The intervention as an object relates a human scale to the void. Visitors inhabit the low level to view large-scale Egyptian architectural fragments or assemble as audiences in temporary seating. The design acts as a reflection of the void where the original structure is emphasised in its importance. The new components that Chipperfield has implemented do

the model, one can witness the reflections of the existing whilst focusing on the low level intervention. The intervention is separate to the existing void of brick and visually expresses the lowering of the original ground level of the courtyard with the new dado of concrete.19 The concrete intervention is single storey in height, with an overall projecting depth of 600mm from the existing brick wall. The floor, wall and plinth surfaces are read as part of the same mass made from smooth precast concrete consisting of white cement and Saxonian marble chips as aggregate.20 The rebuilt Apse provides a central axis to the space as visible when viewing the

not compete or imitate the old, choosing to create a distinction in brightness and surface when choosing to express the modern addition. It is powerful to witness objects on display that demonstrate time’s passing whilst in a space that openly reveals its own changes throughout time, a thought echoed by Robert Harbison referring to the intervention to the ruins at Astley Castle, Warwickshire: What else can living in a ruin mean? What is the point if it does not put you in touch with the idea of universal decay and make you more aware of your own place in this continuum?

18. Isabelle Lomholt, Neues Museum Rebuilding on Berlin’s Museum Island, ‘E-Architect’, accessed 29th April 2017, http://www.e-architect. co.uk/berlin/neues-museum-building 19. David Chipperfield, David Chipperfield Architects. London: Thames & Hudson, 2013, pg 219 20. Ibid. pg 198

Robert Harbison, Ruins and Fragments, 201521

21. Robert Harbison, Ruins and Fragments: Tales

29

2.4. Large scale architectural fragments displayed within the low level intervention.

30

To view the insertion as an artefact on its own, isolated from the context of the ruin, brings a timeline to the object.

The insertion becomes, like any other artefact in the museum, a piece of its time.

Through comparison and understanding of the intervention, and the juxtaposition with the Egyptian architectural fragments it houses, the model study allows a view of the object quality of the new addition Just as the artefacts curated and exhibited are now fragments, ruins of time now held in spaces far from their time or geographic origin, one wonders if similar treatment could be inflicted upon Chipperfield’s contemporary intervention at the Neues museum in the future. Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs in the relief art of broken sandstone place the artefacts into a historic period whereas the smooth surfaces of concrete do not try to reflect any particular story or history, leaving a mute and subtle background to the exhibit.

The Egyptian collection offer glimpses into ancient civilisations whilst the modernity of Chipperfield’s insertion will represent architectural modernity at the turn of the 21st century. It may take decades or centuries, but eventually there will be a time where to a visitor, the 21st century intervention does not contrast so clearly against the existing brick of the 19th century.22 of Loss and Rediscovery, London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 2015, pg 91 22. Ibid. pg 87

31

2.5. Ascending into the Stair Hall, 2016, by author.

32

STAIR HALL

The second intervention considered as part of these model studies within the Neues Musuem occurs within the grand stair hall. As one of the vital circulation spaces of the museum, the stair hall at the epicentre of the building once contained Wilhelm von Kaulbach’s illustrative murals on the History of Mankind upon the walls.

The space has now been enclosed by a new roof assembled by a series of dark stained timber trusses. The object itself in its design as a mix of prefabricated polished and sandblasted concrete is undeniably a 21st century design. David

form.

Ellis Woodman, David Chipperfield Architects’ Neues Museum, Berlin, BD Online, 200923

The new stair that Chipperfield has implemented does not compete with the ruin or try to restore the original but repeats the composition of the original stair leading visitors from the entrance on a central axis to the epicentre of the museum and leading visitors to other exhibits and floors. The stair is generous

and grand in nature due to its purpose and surrounding. The access to the second floor offers visitors to the museum a choice in how to ascend, placing you close to the ruined brickwork, or originally bringing you closer to Kaulbach’s murals.

Chipperfield Architects, after many proposals and revisions, eventually reinstated the staircase reflecting the original design by Stüler. The principle volume of the original stair case and new roof designed is echoed in Chipperfield’s proposal however their material, geometry and weight develop a relationship between the new and the existing fabric:

The composition of the hall and stair should be credited to Stüler with Chipperfield paraphrasing the original in a contemporary architectural language.

The stair case is read as part of the same mass of concrete and understood as a contemporary architect’s placement within the museum due to surface and material choice whilst still referencing the past.

The insertion within the Greek Courtyard

Chipperfield’s worked for over a year to develop alternatives, only to conclude that the manner in which the original configuration interacted with the still extant window openings made its reinstatement irresistible.

What the practice has put back, however, is not a copy but rather a ghost of the lost

23. Ellis Woodman. David Chipperfield Architects’ Neues Museum, Berlin. Building Design Online, 2009. Last Accessed 30th April 2017. http:// www.bdonline.co.uk/david-chipperfield-architects-neues-museum-berlin/3135293.article

33

2.6. Juxtaposition of historic fabric and frescos with the contemporary intervention.

34

references the contextual history of the building in a less immediate fashion by rebuilding the apse and lowering the space by one storey whereas the new intervention within the stair hall sits as a sculptural object within the void of the ruin. It is difficult to isolate the ruin from the intervention because of the synthesis in which the intervention was designed.

The stair hall now holds surviving plaster cast friezes in their original placements on either side of the staircase, re-establishing the memory of the existing.

the Greek courtyard intervention, David Chipperfield Architects’ addition to the stair hall positions visitors to the museum within a timeline. Each concrete insertion represents modernity without deafening contrast. The mute expression of the form and reflection of the past empowers the palimpsest and collective memory of the ruined fabric surrounding the piece. The ruin and the intervention are difficult to separate as they now both require each other to function. The monumentality of the intervention is used to revive the void space and the museum but the

To draw analysis from the model and

intervention would not exist without the ruin. The intervention provides a purpose to the space similar to the collections and artefacts from Egypt that are displayed throughout the building. The function of the architecture is to house these artefacts but can and has lived on as a ruin without them or without intervention. The artefacts which are fragments removed from their origins in Egyptian tombs and religious sites by German explorers throughout the 1800’s are in themselves ruins, their narrative disjointed by removal and replacement. The intervention within the stair hall, as much as one studies it as an object isolated from the ruin, is not a ruin.

It lies within its original placement and functions as desired, it can be compared to a sculptural piece like many of the exhibits however its architectural language is bespoke.

view the insertion as an artefact on its own, isolated from the context of the ruin, one can examine the architectural deliberations of the intervention. The first floor acts as the ground plane of the hall as you ascend along a central axis. The visitor is then given the choice to explore the first floor exhibition spaces through pathways to their front, left and right. If one were to turn, there are further methods of circulation to either other galleries on the first floor walking past the void of the lower stair or to ascend further on the left or right stair case to the second floor. The final destination of the stair case joins at the third floor and provides an elevated view of the ruined void whilst overlooking the original stair case from the entrance foyer of the museum. Visitors traveling to the first floor are unaware of their visibility as they first arrive into the hall. As an object, like

35

2.7. Within the void of the Egyptian Courtyard, 2016, by author.

36

EGYPTIAN COURTYARD

The final intervention considered within the museum occurs within the Egyptian Courtyard. This courtyard, previously discussed in comparison with the Greek Courtyard, inhabits the void on more than just the lowest level yet still leaves the space open to natural light from above as visitors inhabit the internal courtyard on three levels of the intervention.

Sarcophaguses and other cumbersome artefacts are displayed on the lowest level, with entrances leading off to vaulted brick spaces displaying other Egyptian exhibits.

A circulation space exists on the middle

The intervention as an object, unlike the previous two model studies, feels the strongest as a standalone architectural statement. One can imagine the independence of this insertion as a pavilion removed from context whilst understanding its placement within the ruin. Its interaction with the ruin is minimal and generates inhabitable space with or without the surrounding ruin. However, similar to Chipperfield’s reflection of Stüler’s staircase, the insertion within the Egyptian courtyard, and importantly the column placement, reference the Egyptian

level of the intervention providing an aspect of overlooking the sarcophaguses below.

Some top light manages to diffuse into the lower level but creates a much more intimate and enclosed feeling suitable to the lower floor of the museum whilst the middle and top floor of the intervention is flooded by the sky light. The top floor of the intervention, provides a table top-like platform for the display of Egyptian busts.

Presented within glass enclosures, the gallery space of this intervention is itself enclosed in sandblasted glass, focussing the visitor to the artefacts sitting at eye level. The ceiling structure is expresses as a continuation of the prefabricated concrete columns that rise from the ground floor to supporting the upper floors and finally glazed roof of the courtyard before meeting the recycled brick of the internal courtyard walls.

styled composition of Stüler’s original courtyard design for the Neues Museum.

The construction revolution of the twentieth century has allowed us to conceive and to build anything.

Consideration and discipline must therefore be imposed in conception.

David Chipperfield, Theoretical Practice, 199424

The architectural language of the original courtyard has been abstracted by modernity in the design of the intervention.

Chipperfield hits the same notes: the rhythm of the columns respect the history of the space yet display the differences between the technology in its material, form 24. David Chipperfield, Theoretical Practice, London: Artemis, 1994, pg 38

37

2.8. Egyptian courtyard within the Neues Museum, Berlin. Reidel, 1862

38

and surface as a contemporary addition.

Reidel’s 1862 painting depicts the ornate Egyptian stone columns whilst the model study of the insertion demonstrates the strength of contemporary materials and the changes that this allows to generating the spatial arrangement. The prefabricated concrete columns are slender compared to the original stone columns. Whilst also expressing a thinner construction, the insertion demonstrates the improved strength of the construction by rising to the entire height of the courtyard whilst supporting an extra platform display space for exhibits.

39

3.

CONCLUSION

3.1. Model Studies, 2017, by author.

42

CONCLUSION

Co-ordinating these models has provided an informative analysis into the intervention and the ruin. By presenting the contemporary interventions of the Neues Museum as abstracted artefacts isolated from the context of the ruin, the synthesis to each design can be understood.

Examining each intervention as an object of its own importance emphasises the design moves reflecting the historic forms and volumes that Friedrick Stüler originally implemented within the Neues Museum. It is difficult to remove these interventions completely from the ruin due

understanding of how we view history through material memory is well explained in Pierre Nora’s essay Realms of Memory: True, in order for a sense of ‘pastness’ to exist, a thin wedge had to be inserted between yesterday and today, opening up a ‘before’ and ‘after’. This distance was not seen as implying a radical difference, however; it was rather a gap, a hiatus, and as such called for a restoration of continuity.

to how connected they have been during the design process. By doing so, it is clear that Chipperfield took a considered and calculated approach to understanding the fabric of the ruin and in how best to relay the history of the spaces without distracting or intruding with contemporary elements. The models have demonstrated the light touch that each intervention has and the differences in structural strength of the old and new. The abstraction of detail and the definitive yet mute contrast between the smooth precast concrete and the ruined volumes is clear in photographs and from the models. The architectural approach captures the lust for ruins that many long for whilst also staying true to modernity and representing the advances in technology, political and social history whilst leaving space for the memory of Stüler’s Neues Museum to exist. The

Pierre Nora, Memory, 201225 Whilst studying commentary on Chipperfield, from himself or from other sources has been insightful, the research into ruins and decay has also provided a better understanding for the architectural moves made within the museum and the visitors’ relation to history whilst experiencing the ruined spaces. Nora’s insight into history and memory also complements the advantage of a contemporary intervention after over 60 years of neglect and decay. It is difficult to imagine a modern architect succeeding in a convincing attempt to respect the history and story of the space whilst restoring 25. Pierre Nora, Realms of Memory, edited by Brian Dillon, Memory, London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, 2012, pg 65

43

44

the building to its function with modern additions directly after the war.

To conclude, the Neues Museum and David Chipperfield Architects have provided a strong interpretation of ruin and intervention. By following this path of insight through model through photography, researching ruins and decay, visiting Chipperfield’s work and other examples of ruins and intervention, the analysis has allowed a unique and engaging experience that will benefit my future architectural exploration within the existing urban fabric.

45

4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Texts Images

TEXTS

Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space: The classic look at how we experience intimate places. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994

Reaktion Books Ltd, 2015 Hatherly, Owen. A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain. London: Verso, 2011 Jones, Jonathon. So much architecture is monstrous – that’s why we like to see it demolished. The Guardian, 2014. Last accessed 30th March 2017. https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/ jul/28/architecture-blown-up-three-cooling-towers-demolished-didcot

Chipperfield, David. David Chipperfield Architects. London: Thames & Hudson, 2013 Chipperfield, David. Neues Museum Berlin: By David Chipperfield Architects in collaboration with Julian Harrap. Köln : Walther König, 2009.

Kipins, Jeffrey. A Question of Qaulities: Essays in Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013

Chipperfield, David. Neues Museum, Museum Island Berlin, 1997 – 2009.

David Chipperfield Architects. 2009. Last Accessed 30th March 2017. https://davidchipperfield.com/project/neues_museum

Lichtenstein, Claude & Schregenberger, Thomas. As Found: The Discovery of the Ordinary. Baden: Lars Muller Publishing

Chipperfield, David. Theoretical Practice.

London: Artemis London Limited, 1994

Lomholt, Isabelle. Neues Museum Rebuilding on Berlin’s Museum Island. E-Architect, 2009. Last accessed 30th March 2017. http://www.e-architect.co.uk/berlin/ neues-museum-building

Dillon, Brian. Ruins. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, 2011 Dillon, Brian. Ruin Lust: Artist’s fascination with ruins, from Turner to the present day. London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2014

Moore, Rowan. Neues Museum by David Chipperfield Architects, Berlin, Germany. Architectural Review, 2009.

Last accessed 30th March 2017. https:// www.architectural-review.com/today/ neues-museum-by-david-chipperfield-architects-berlin-germany/8601182.article

Farr, Ian. Memory. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, 2012 Groom, Amelia. Time. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, 2013

McCullough, Niall. Palimpsest: Intervention and Change in Irish Architecture.

Dublin: Anne Street Press, 2014

Harbison, Robert. Ruins and Fragments: Tales of loss and rediscovery. London:

48

McCullough, Niall and Mulvin, Valerie. A Lost Tradition: The Nature of Architecture in Ireland. Dublin: Gandon Editions, 1989.

Murphy, Richard. Carlo Scarpa. London: Butterworth Architecture, 1990 Pearson, Joseph. A New Museum.

The Needle, 2010. Last accessed 30th March 2017. http://needleberlin. com/2010/04/20/a-new-museum/ Staaliche Museen zu Berlin. Neues Museum: About Us. Finnanzgruppe: Staaliche Museen zu Berlin, 2017. Last accessed 30th March 2017. http://www.

smb.museum/en/museums-institutions/ neues-museum/about-us/profile.html Vidler, Anthony. The Architectural Uncanny. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992 Weaver, Tomas. David Chipperfield Architectural Works 1990 – 2002. Barcelona: Ediciones Polígrafa, 2003 Woodman, Ellis. David Chipperfield Architects’ Neues Museum, Berlin. Building Design Online, 2009. Last Accessed 30th March 2017. http://www.bdonline.co.uk/ david-chipperfield-architects-neues-museum-berlin/3135293.article

49

IMAGES

0.1.

Matthew McCallum, Photographs, 2017

Model

2.1.

Matthew McCallum, Three interventions within enclosure, 2017

0.2.

Matthew McCallum, Photographs, 2017

Model

2.2.

Matthew McCallum, Three interventions removed from the ruin, 2017

0.3.

Matthew McCallum, Three interventions exploded from the ruin, 2017

2.3. Matthew McCallum, View into the Greek Courtyard from the Apse, 2016

1.1. McCullough, Niall. Palimpsest: Intervention and Change in Irish Architecture, Dublin: Anne Street Press, 2014, pg 124 - 125

2.4. Chipperfield, David. Neues Museum, Museum Island Berlin, 1997 – 2009.

David Chipperfield Architects. 2009.

Last Accessed 30th March 2017. https:// davidchipperfield.com/project/neues_ museum

1.2. Artemel, A.J.P. Modernism in Ruins: Artist “Vandalizes” a Le Corbusier Masterpiece, Metropolis, 2014, Last

2.5. Matthew McCallum, Ascending into

accessed 5th April 2017. http://www. metropolismag.com/architecture/ modernism-in-ruins-artist-vandalizes-ale-corbusier-masterpiece/

the Stair Hall, 2016

2.6. Chipperfield, David. Neues Museum, Museum Island Berlin, 1997 – 2009.

David Chipperfield Architects. 2009.

Last Accessed 30th March 2017. https:// davidchipperfield.com/project/neues_ museum

1.3.

Chipperfield, David.

David Chipperfield Architects, London: Thames & Hudson, 2013, pg 200 1.4. Staaliche Museen zu Berlin. Neues Museum: About Us. Finnanzgruppe: Staaliche Museen zu Berlin, 2017. Last accessed 30th March 2017. http://www. smb.museum/en/museums-institutions/ neues-museum/about-us/profile.html

2.7. Matthew McCallum, Within the void of the Egyptian Courtyard, 2016.

2.8. Staaliche Museen zu Berlin. Neues Museum: About Us. Finnanzgruppe: Staaliche Museen zu Berlin, 2017. Last accessed 30th March 2017. http://www. smb.museum/en/museums-institutions/ neues-museum/about-us/profile.html

1.5. Chipperfield, David. Neues Museum, Museum Island Berlin, 1997 – 2009.

David Chipperfield Architects. 2009.

Last Accessed 30th March 2017. https:// davidchipperfield.com/project/neues_ museum

3.1. Matthew McCallum, Model Studies, 2017

50

5.

APPENDIX Photographs David Chipperfield Architects’ Drawings 3D Printing Support Structure

PHOTOGRAPHS

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

ƒ DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ARCHITECTS’ DRAWINGS

Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Site plan (original scale 1:6000) Filename 346_06_D_SP_6000 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

64 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Floor plan level 0 (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_PLG_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

8

6

East Wing

Treasure Chamber

Room underneath the Vestibule

6

East Wing 7

7

Egyptian Courtyard

1

2

4

Greek Courtyard

West Wing

5

West Wing

South Wing

3

6

Key 1 2 3

Connection to the Pergamon Museum Connection to the New Entrance Building Connection to the Altes Museum

4 5 6

7 8

Education Apse Storage

65 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

Technical Area Mechanical Equipment Room

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Floor plan level 1 with section lines (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_PG_S_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

66 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Floor plan level 1 (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_PG_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

1

8 Vestibule

Mythological Room

Tomb Room

Fatherland Room

South Vestibule 9 2

Gallery

2

Hypostyle

2

Void above Egyptian Courtyard

3

Gallery

4

Historical Room

Void above Greek Courtyard

7

Flat Dome Room

Ethnographical Room

5

6

Key 1 2 3 4

Main Entrance Technical Area Cloakroom Information

5 6 7 8

9 Employees‘ Entrance 10 Café

Museum Shop West Entrance Apse Security

67 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

10

10

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Floor plan level 2 (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_P1_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

North Dome Room

Bacchus Room

Room of the Niobids

Roman Room 3

South Dome Room

3

Apollo Room

Platform above Egyptian Courtyard

3

3

Void above Greek Courtyard

1

Mediaeval Room

Staircase Hall Greek Room

Modern Room

Key 1 2 3

Apse Bernward Room Technical Area

68 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

2

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Floor plan level 3 (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_P2_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

Void above North Dome Room

Red Room

Eastern Art Chamber 2

Void above South Dome Room

2 Green Room

Void above Egyptian Courtyard

1

Blue Room

Void above Greek Courtyard

Western Art Chamber

Key 1 2

Education Technical Area

69 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

Majolika Room

Star Room

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Floor plan level 4 (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_P3_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

3 3

1

2

5

4

4

4

Key 1 2 3 4 5

Administration Personnel Maintenance Room Technical Area Storage

70 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Section AA through the Staircase Hall (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_SAA_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

71 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Section CC through the Greek Courtyard (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_SCC_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

72 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Section DD through the Egyptian Courtyard (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_SDD_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

73 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Section GG through the West Wing (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_SGG_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

74 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Section HH through the Courtyards (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_SHH_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

75 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information Section II through the East Wing (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_SII_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

76 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information East elevation (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_EE_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

77 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information South elevation (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_ES_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

78 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information West elevation (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_EW_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

79 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

ƒ Gesellschaft von Architekten mbH, Joachimstraße 11, 10119 Berlin

Neues Museum Museum Island, Berlin, Germany Drawing information North elevation (original scale 1:500) Filename 346_06_D_EN_500 All drawings are provided for single use and are to be credited © David Chipperfield Architects

80 T + 49 30 280 170 0 F + 49 30 280 170 15

www.davidchipperfield.com

Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Harald Müller, Mark Randel, Eva Schad, Alexander Schwarz Handelsregister Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 68004 Direktoren: Martin Reichert, Christoph Felger

3D PRINTING SUPPORT STRUCTURE

81

82

83