Issuu on Google+

Jewish Museum Berlin Berlin, Germany

Stephen Andenmatten Caitlin Walsh James Wisniewski Rensselaer Case Studies Project Fall 2011

“I did something I believed in...

CASE STUDY : JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN designed by Daniel Libeskind

...which was to transform the entire structure into a discourse about German-Jewish history.� DANIEL LIBESKIND, COUNTERPOINT

Preface Buildings embody cultural knowledge. They are testament to the will and forces that affect their conception, realization, use and experience. They bear cultural and professional significance and possess within them and their constituent components important lessons for anyone wanting to discover what a work of architecture is in its larger context, what brought it about, and how it contributes to an ever evolving architectural and cultural discourse. As Emeritus Professor Peter Parsons points out, “their [building]

forms and spaces are invested with traces of habitation and beliefs through the employment of materials wrought by craft and technology.� They are manifestos of habituated practice and progressive intentions, and range in their influence from reinforcing obsolete patterns and meanings at one extreme, to innovating and provoking yet unconsidered ones, at the other. They are beholden to the methods of their conceiving and development, and owe, at least in part, their aspirations to cultural preoccupations and priorities. The Rensselaer Case Studies project examines contemporary works of architects in relation to what influenced them, and seeks to expose innovations in thinking, technique and technology that contribute to architectural knowledge, scholarship and progress in contemporary practice. The project is designed to reveal the technological and cultural knowledge embedded within each selected project through questioning and analysis, probed through the dis- and re-assembly of drawings and models to uncover the larger significance of the artifact, and how it came to be.

Mark Mistur, AIA Associate Professor Katelynn Russell Assistant Rensselaer School of Architecture Troy, New York 2011 Š 2011 Stephen Andenmatten, Caitlin Walsh, James Wisniewski and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Stephen Andenmatten Caitlin Walsh James Wisniewski Mark Mistur, Associate Professor Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Fall 2011 Cover Image:, double exposure, by f@asp Inside cover Image:, Ricardo Chaves

Table of Contents CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE EXTENSION TO THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN...............................................................8

PART I: DANIEL LIBESKIND..........................................................................24 Chapter One: Early Life..................................................................26 Chapter Two: Educational Influences..........................................32 Chapter Three: Deconstructivism..................................................38 Chapter Four: The Firm + Design Process...................................52

PART II: BETWEEN THE LINES....................................................................58 Chapter Five: Iconic Formalism.....................................................60 Chapter Six: Narrative, Poetics, + Experience.............................72

BEYOND THE LINES......................................................................................92





Project Overview The Jewish Museum Berlin [Figure I.1], which opened to the public in 1999, exhibits the social, political and cultural history of the Jews in Germany from the 4th century to the present. The museum explicitly presents and integrates the repercussions of the Holocaust.1 The new design, which was conceived in 1988, a year before the Berlin Wall came down, was based on three conceptions that formed the museum’s foundation. First, the impossibility of understanding the history of Berlin without understanding the enormous intellectual, economic and cultural contribution made by the Jewish citizens of Berlin. Second, the necessity to integrate physically and spiritually the meaning of the Holocaust into the consciousness and memory of the city of Berlin. Third, that only through the acknowledgement and incorporation of this erasure and void of Jewish life in Berlin, can the history of Berlin and Europe have a human future. 2

Figure I.1: Aerial view of Jewish Museum


Architect: Daniel Libeskind EXECUTION AND PLANNING Project Architects: Matthias Reese Jan Dinnebier Architects: Stefan Blach David Hunter Taria MacGabhann Noel McCauley Claudia Reisenberger Eric J. Schall Solveig Scheper Ilkka Tarkkanen Design Phase: Bernhard von Hammerstein Jan Kleihues Hannes Freudenreich Bob Choeff Competition Phase: Donald Bates Attilio Terragni Marina Stankovic

Site Control: Elmar Knippschild Paul Simons Frank Kießling Jan Wehberg

Installations: Klima Bau Frankfurt/M Voigt Bode Sieversdorf

From March 31, 1997, site control and creative direction: Müller, Knippschild, Wehberg i.L

Electrical: Alpha, Berlin Client: Land of Berlin Senate Bureaus of Building Residence and Transportation Senate Bureau of Sceince, Research, and Culture

CONSULTANTS Structural Engineer: GSE Tragwerkplaner, Berlin IGW Ingenieurgruppe Wiese, Berlin Installations: KST, Klima-Systemtechnik, Berlin

STATISTICS Gross Floor Area: 15,500 sq. m. Net Area: 12,500 sq. m. Exhibition Space: 9,500 sq. m. Offices, Workshops, Library: 2,500 sq. m. Depots: 2,000 sq. m.

Lighting: Lichtplanung Binnebier KG, Wuppertal COST AND SITE CONTROL Arge Beusterien und Lubic, Berlin

Civil Engineer: Cziesielski + Partner, Berlin

Chief Superviser: Alexander Lubic

Landscape Architect: Müller, Knippschild, Wehberg MKW

CONSTRUCTION Skeleton: Fischer Bau, Berlin

Pre-design, Design and Planning of Planting and Execution: Cornelia Müller Jan Wehberg with Frank Kießling

Façade: Werner & Sohn, Berlin

K. Louafi G. Maser

Competition Result: June 1989 Ground-Breaking Ceremony: November 1992 Topping-Out Ceremony: May 1995

Windows: Trube & Kings Uersfeld/Eifel

Completion: January 1999


Competition Brief COMPETITION Extension Berlin Museum with Division Jewish Museum-Berlin CLIENT Land Berlin JURORS Harald Deilmann, Munster Christoff Hackelsberger, Munchen Heinz W. Hallmann, Berlin Hermann Hertzberger, Amsterdam Klaus Humpert, Freiburg Josef Paul Kleihues, Berlin Isaak Luxemberg, Tel-Aviv Peter P. Schweger, Hamburg

JURY MEETING DATE June 22-23, 1989

the museum as storage is currently outsourced.

URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES Historical ground plan Relationship to LindenĂ&#x;trasse Connection to Kollegienhaus, Minimization of above-ground construction volume

EXPANSION PROGRAM Permanent collection showrooms Temporary exhibition space Public spaces Storage areas Administrative (offices, meeting rooms, workshops, etc.)

DESIGN TASK The need for museum expansion is due to a lack of functional exhibition space, specifically for the Jewish Museum department, and a necessity for storage areas in

Figure I.2: Site model


THIRD PLACE LANGE-ULLRICH + PARTNER, KARLSRUHE “Due to the bent position of the elongated structure, the author attempts a pleasant spatial version of the Park at the Berlin Museum with a generously-sized, multipurpose public space at the south end of the site.” -Competition Jury SECOND PLACE RAIMUND ABRAHAM, NEW YORK “The work is characterized by a geometric composition of plan and structure; the concept breaks the continuity of the city area and enriches the Kollegienhaus through a sophisticated, artistic dialogue.” -Competition Jury

Figure I.3: Site plan of third place entry

FIRST PLACE DANIEL LIBESKIND, MILAN “Berlin will be reconnected with its past, ‘which must never be forgotten.’ The invisibility is made visible...Berlin’s Jewish history and its content is translated into spatial sequences and movements. The building shape is an analogous expression of the inner design. A tour through history, with its fractures and congruences kept flexible through linear space. ” -Competition Jury

Figure I.4: Site plan of second place entry

Figure I.5: Site plan of first place entry


In the summer of 1989, only a few months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the international jury for the competition awarded first prize to the design submitted by Daniel Libeskind.3


Figure I.6: Star matrix

Daniel Libeskind Libeskind’s Approach Daniel Libeskind formed three basic ideas which formed the foundation for the Jewish Museum design. “First, the impossibility of understanding the history of Berlin without understanding the enormous intellectual, economic, and cultural contribution made by its Jewish citizens. Second, Figure I.7: Massing model for proposal by Daniel Libeskind


the necessity to integrate physically and spiritually the meaning of the Holocaust into the consciousness and memory of the city of Berlin. Third, that only through the acknowledgement and incorporation of this erasure and void of Jewish life in Berlin, can the history of Berlin and Europe have a human future.�4 Libeskind felt the presence of an invisible matrix connecting the relationships between German and Jewish figures - certain people, workers, writers, composers, artists, scientists, and poets - which linked Jewish tradition and German culture. From this connection, Libeskind derived the first aspect of the project by plotting an irrational matrix that would reflect the form of a compressed and distorted Star of David. A second aspect emerged through his interest in the music of Schoenberg, particularly the opera Moses and Aaron composed in Berlin, which could not be completed by the musical score for structural reasons within the logic of the libretto. Libeskind sought to complete the opera architecturally. A third aspect of the project is his interest in the names of the people who were departed from Berlin during the fatal years of the Holocaust, and the everpresent dimension of these missing Berliners. Finally is the influence of an urban apocalypse depicted in Walter Benjamin’s One-Way Street.5 Figure I.8: First page of competition entry on music paper


Libeskind’s Competition Entry on Music Paper


Figure I.9: Complete entry of competition on music paper


Cultural Context: Jewish History in Berlin

common since the Crusades began in 1096.

1300-1663 Jews first arrived in Berlin at some point in the 13th century. Prior to this period, German Jews had lived primarily in southern Germany, in communities along the Rhine. But in the 13th century, the Jews began to migrate to the cities of the north, to escape the persecution and expulsions that had become

The Jews would not find matters much better in Berlin. In fact, the first time they are mentioned in any city documents is in an ordinance enacted in 1295, forbidding wool merchants to sell yarn to Jews. In the following centuries, they continued to be the target of oppression. In 1349, the Jews were accused of starting the Black

Plague that was sweeping through Europe, and were expelled – but not before many were killed, and had their houses burned down. The Jews were allowed back in 1354, but were expelled once again in 1446. In 1510 and 1571, the Jews were again expelled en masse, after having been allowed to return in between. The motivations behind these expulsions varied: in 1510, the exile followed an unfounded accusation of host desecration;

Figure I.10: Berlin 1937


Figure I.11: Berlin pre-World War II

in 1446 and 1571, the Jews were simply told to leave so the government could confiscate their property. Between expulsions, the Jews of Berlin were primarily engaged in money-lending and petty trade. They lived in a ghetto in the Grosser Judenhof (“Jew’s Court”) area, and on Juddenstrasse (“Jew Street”). 1663-1933 Following the expulsion in 1571, virtually no Jews inhabited Berlin for a century. This changed in 1663, when the elector of Bradenburg allowed Israel Aaron to enter Berlin as a court Jew. Soon afterwards, in 1671, 50 prominent Jewish Viennese families were allowed into the city as Schutzjuden, protected Jews who paid for a residence permit allowing them to engage in certain businesses and worship in private homes. The Jewish families were also given a cemetery, a mikveh (ritual bath), and a hospital. In

Figure I.12: Berlin Cathedral

1714, the first synagogue, known later as the Old Synagogue, was established at Heidereutergasse in Mitte.

Berlin became the center of the Haskalah, or Jewish enlightenment, which came to advocate Jewish equality and secularism. Internal communal authority subsequently broke down, and many Berlin Jews moved out of the ghetto, and became unaffiliated with traditional Judaism. In 1815, the Jews succeeded in attaining Prussian citizenship; the various regulations and taxes that had unfairly targeted the Jews were rescinded, although full equality came in 1850 with Prussia’s updated constitution. By this time, there were 9,500 Jews in Berlin, mostly involved in finance, commerce, and transportation.

This community grew, despite the restrictions on residence and family size, and, by the beginning of the 18th century, there were approximately 1,000 residents of the Jewish ghetto. The community paid a great deal of its income in taxes: a protection tax, a residence tax, a head tax and a payment required to work in certain professions were all used at one point or another to extract money from the community. Nonetheless, the Jews excelled as merchants, mainly selling precious metals and stones, and as bankers. Soon, they were among the richest people in Berlin, and by the halfway point of the 18th century, the Jewish population totaled 2,000 people.

As Berlin’s Jews continued to infiltrate the social and economic elite, their ranks continued to grow, despite skyrocketing intermarriage and apostasy. By the turn of the century, there were more than 110,000 Jews in Berlin, comprising more than 5% of the total population.

As the 18th century drew to a close,


Figure I.13: Destruction of World War II

Most settled in the center of the city, but by 1900, had started to move to the outer districts of Spandau and Stralauer, and then to Charlottenburg, Schoeneberg, and Wilmersdorf.

huge audiences. Also, Vicki Baum authored her novel Menschen im Hotel, which was later turned into the 1932 film Grand Hotel. The population grew as well, and by 1933, 160,000 Jews called Berlin home

The Weimer years (1919-1933) were the golden age of the German and Berlin Jewry. Plays by Max Reinhardt took the stage, Arnold Schoenberg and Kurt Weill composed music, artists Max Liebermann and Lesser Ury created beautiful paintings, and Otto Klemperer and Bruno Walter conducted concerts to

At the same time, however, antiSemitism was on the rise, and, in the years leading up to the Nazi’s rise to power in 1933, attacks on Jews increased. 1933-1945 In the years between 1933 and 1939, as Jews in Berlin


had their social and economic rights systematically eliminated, Jewish communal life increased dramatically: Jews could only send their children to Jewish schools, and could not interact with any citizens other than their own kind. In June 1938, the round-up of Jews began, as thousands were arrested without reason. On the evenings of the 9th and 10th of November, now known as Kristallnacht, Jewish synagogues and shops were vandalized and burned down throughout Berlin, and in the months that followed, more and more Jews were arrested or put to

work at forced labor camps. Nearly 12,000 Berlin Jews were sent to the Dachau concentration camp that night. Jewish communal life, however, remained vibrant. For two weeks in August 1936, the treatment of the Jews and other persecuted minorities in Germany was hidden while the Summer Olympics were held in Berlin. In an attempt to legitimize his rule, Hitler cleansed the city of incriminating evidence, so that the international community saw no sign of wrongdoing. Of course, no German Jews were allowed to participate in the event, and as soon as the Olympics ended, the mistreatment continued, and accelerated. By 1939, the Jewish population of Berlin had dwindled to 75,000, less than half of what it was in 1933.

This assumption proved to be partially incorrect. While East Germany had few Jews among its inhabitants, West Germany, particularly the American zone, maintained a sizable community, bolstered by an influx of displaced persons, mostly from Eastern Europe, after the war’s conclusion. The Jewish community’s growth stagnated, then declined steadily until 1989. Then, when the Berlin Wall fell, the Jews of East and West Berlin were unified into one community. They were joined by thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who, for the first time since the war, reinforced the traditional elements of the community, settling in areas with affordable housing like Wilmersdorf and Steglitz. The Jewish population of Berlin is currently estimated at more than 20,000.

more dramatically. Many more areas of the city were declared off-limits for Jews, and laws were enacted requiring Jews to wear the infamous yellow badge. Between 1941 and 1943, all the city’s Jews were deported to camps throughout Europe, and, on June 16, 1943, Berlin was declared Judenrein, or “clean of Jews”. By 1945, only 8,000 Jews remained in Berlin. Those who survived were either in hiding or were married to nonJews. 1945-PRESENT In the aftermath of the war, some Jews came out of hiding and others returned to their homes. Berlin was universally considered a “liquidation city” – no one expected the Jews to have a future in Berlin, and thus it was assumed that all the residents would quickly emigrate.

In 1941, things changed even

Figure I.14: Berlin 1962

Figure I.15: Star of David patch


PRESENT TIME Today, signs of Berlin’s Jewish history are everywhere. There are streets named after such famous Jews as Moses Mendelsohn, Baruch Spinoza, Rosa Luxemberg, Heinrich Heine and Gustave Mahler. There are numerous Holocaust memorials throughout the city. A total of seven synagogues are in operation and there are Jewish preschools and a high school. In 2003, the first Jewish-oriented college was opened by New York-based Touro College. Included in the many Holocaust Memorials scattered throughout Berlin are the Missing House graphic at Grosse Hamburger Strasse 15/16, which

lists the names of former residents; a red sandstone monument at Rosenstrasse 2/4, which pays tribute to the protests of nonJewish women over the capture of their Jewish husbands; and the Abandoned Room at Koppenplatz, which depicts an overturned bronze chair to remember those Jews taken on Kristallnacht. Other areas of interest include Bebelplatz, site of the May 10, 1933 book burnings; Track 17 in the Wilmsersdorf district, a commemoration to the more than 50,000 Jews that were deported from Grunewald Station, which features plaques next to the railroad tracks that list every

transport between 1941 and 1945, the number of people, and their destination; and the Israeli Embassy, which hosts six stone pillars at its entrance to symbolize the 6 million Jews that perished at the hands of the Nazis. Also, there exists in Germany now more that 12,000 Stolpersteine, or stumbling blocks, in roughly 257 cities and towns, created by artists Gunter Demnig, which depict the last known place of residence of the person commemorated, and are designed to recall the fates of the all the victims of the Nazi policies. The first small memorial, embedded in the sidewalk, appeared in Berlin’s Kruezberg

Figure I.16: Berlin Wall 1995


district in 1996, and there are now more than 1,400 stumbling blocks throughout the capital. In what was East Berlin, Oranienburgerstrasse is emerging as a new center of Jewish life. The “New Synagogue” – which was constructed in 1866, and left in ruins after Kristallnacht and the Allied bombing of Berlin – has been completely renovated. The building’s gold dome and towers have been restored to their prewar condition; rather than being restored to its original purpose, the huge main sanctuary now houses a museum of Berlin Jewish history. Figure I.17: Jewish Museum Berlin exterior

The main center of Jewry in Berlin continues to be in the western part of the city. Notable synagogues include the Liberal congregation on Pestalozzistrasse, a Romanesque building restored after the war with stained glass and four large alcoves. The Orthodox shul on Joachimstalerstrasse, built in 1902, is also known for its beauty. Near the Brandenburg Gate and the new American Embassy lies the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, built by architect Peter Eisenman, which consists of 2,711 slabs of gray concrete, some rising as high as 13 feet. Under the memorial is the “Ort der Erinnerung,” a small museum dedicated to the Holocaust.

Jewish immigration to Berlin increased in 2005, especially for Soviet Jews. In the summer of 2005, the German government and the Central Council of Jews in Germany decided to allow Jews into the country only if they will be an asset to the pre-existing Jewish community. Until 2005, the German government considered an immigrant to be a Jew if at least the immigrant’s father was Jewish. Under the new restrictions, half of the annual amount of Soviet Jewish immigrants were not welcomed into Germany.

cannot immigrate to Germany also have the option of immigration to Israel. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, there has always been a place for Jews fleeing the Diaspora. Therefore, no Jew can qualify as a refugee, and Germany is not required to take them in. RELATION TO JEWISH MUSEUM As a Jewish Museum in the center of Berlin, Germany, a main city of the Holocaust and persecution of Jewish people, the building has a large effect on the community. It’s context makes the building more of a memorial than a museum, and in fact the adding of exhibitions, the purpose of a museum, detracted from the experience of the building as a representation of the cultural struggles of the Jewish community.

Also, Dieter Graumann, a member of the Central Council, declared that Soviet Jews will not be considered “refugees.” Because of Israel’s law of automatic citizenship for Jews, the Soviet Jews who




Chapter One: Early Life


Figure 1.1: Libeskind as a child playing the accordion


Amalgamated Clothing Worker’s Union housing cooperative in the Bronx. His mother, Dora, worked in a sweatshop, dyeing fur collars and sewing them onto coats. His father, Nachman, worked in a print shop blocks from the future site of the World Trade Center. Libeskind didn’t start in architecture. He originally was starting a career in music,as a child prodigy playing the accordion [Figure1.1]. He studied music in Israel and New York on the America-Israel Culture Foundation Scholarship in 1960. He left music because there was no more ‘technique’ that he could acquire. He then took a real interest in drawing. He went into architecture, calling it “a field whose ‘technique’ seemed so simple in comparison to music there would never be a problem of its ultimate exhaustion.” His mother was a great influence in his life, and when she saw his interest in drawing she encouraged him to pursue architecture, rather than art. The reason behind it being that architecture is an art form but also a trade.

Figure 1.2: Libeskind’s family in 1989

Cultural Geography Daniel Libeskind lost most of his family in the Holocaust; both of his parents were survivors, but they were two in not many that did. He was born in 1946, shortly after the war ended in Lodz, Poland, just a few hundred kilometers from Berlin.

His family moved to Israel when he was eleven, in search for the promised land to escape from the war-torn world. At age thirteen, his family moved to New York, where his father fell in love with the freedom and spirit of America.

He describes his life as nomadic, even later in his life. With his wife and children, he moved fourteen times in thirty-five years [Figure 1.2].2

Once in New York, the family lived in an apartment in the


Timeline of Milestones


1946_Born in Poland 1950


1959_Arrives in New York 1960

1957_Moves to Israel with family 1965_Leaves music to study architecture 1965_Becomes a US citizen


1968_Works as an apprentice to Richard Meier 1970 1972_Recieves postgraduate degree in the history and theory of architecture from the School of Comparitive Studies at Essex University 1972_Recieves job offer at New York’s Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies under Peter Eisenman, quits immediately




1990 1973-2009_Taught at various univerities, including: Cranbrook Academy of Art, University of Illinois, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Yale University, Kunsthochschule Berlin-WeiĂ&#x;ensee, University of California Los Angeles, University of Pennsylvania

1999_Jewish Museum Berlin opens



2001_Jewish Museum Berlin opens with exhibitions3

2005 30


1960_Studies music in Israel and New York on a scholarship

1970_Receives professional architectural degree from the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art 1970_Studies under Peter Eisenman, Richard Meier, and Dean John Hejduk

1989_Wins the Jewish Museum Berlin competition

Figure 1.3: Timeline of milestones



Chapter Two: Educational Influences

Cooper Union Daniel Libeskind received his Bachelors of Architecture from Cooper Union School of Architecture in New York City in 1970, graduating summa cum laude.1 At Cooper Union, Libeskind was a very good student. His background as a great musician gave him a strong work ethic and he had a strong creativity and passion for drawing.

Figure 2.1: Cooper Union New Building

He gained recognition of his great abilities while at Cooper. In 1968, he briefly worked as an apprentice for Richard Meier. The Dean at the time, John Hejduk, also took an interest in him, and through time always stayed in touch.2

Figure 2.2: Cooper Union Foundation Building


Essex University Daniel Libeskind received his Masters degree in History and Theory of Architecture from Essex University School of Comparative Studies in Essex, England, in 1971.3 He attended Essex right after he graduated from Cooper Union. Here he studied under Joseph Rykwert and Dalibor Vesely, and pursued his interest in phenomenology. It was right after graduation that he was hired to work at Peter Eisenman’s New York Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies. He quit shortly after and moved on to teaching at many universities.4

Figure 2.3: Essex University Square

Figure 2.4: Essex University Exterior


Cranbrook Academy of Art Daniel Libeskind was the head of the Architecture program at Cranbrook Academy of Art in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, from 1978-1985.5 He has been a professor at several universities, but Cranbrook is where he stayed the longest. It is the only time he was the head of the department. He used his time here to think. It was here that he did most of his theoretical drawings and work.

Figure 2.5: Cranbrook Exterior

At this point in his career he had not yet designed a building. It wouldn’t be until 1989 when he was asked to submit to the design competition for the Jewish Museum Berlin that Libeskind would open a firm and begin bringing his theories into realised architecture.6

Figure 2.6: Cranbrook Critique


Professorships 2009 Gensler Visiting Critic at Cornell University in NY 2007 Professor at Leuphana University in Germany 2005 Professor at University of St.Gallen in Switzerland 2003 Frank O.Gehry Chair at University of Toronto in Canada 1999–2003 Professor at Hochschule für Gestaltung in Germany 1999–2003 Paul Cret Chair of Architecture at University of Pennsylvania in PA 1999 First Louis Kahn Chair Visiting Professor at Yale School of Architecture in CT 1997 Professor at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland 1995–1996 Visiting Professor at University of Technology in Austria

1994–1995 Professor at University of California Los Angeles in CA

1985 Visiting Professor at Carleton University in Canada

1993–1995 Professor at Kunsthochschule Berlin-Weißensee in Germany

1985 Visiting Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology in GA

1992 Davenport Chair Visiting Professor at Yale University in CT

1984–1985 Senior Fulbright Professor at Helsinki Technical University in Finland

1992 Professor at Royal Academy of Fine Arts in England

1983–1984 Design Critic at Harvard University in MA

1991 Sir Bannister Fletcher Architecture Professor at University of London in England

1983–1984 Visiting Professor at Hochschule für Bildende Künste in Germany

1988–1989 Professor at Shibaura Institute of Technology in Japan

1980–1981 Visiting Critic at University of Houston in TX

1986–1989 Founder and Director Architecture Intermundium at Institute for Architecture & Urbanism in Italy

1978–1985 Head of the Architecture Program at Cranbrook Academy of Art in MI 1978–1985 Visiting Professor at Leibnitz University of Hannover in Germany

1985–1986 Visiting Critic at University of Houston in TX 1985 Louis Sullivan Visiting Research Professor at University of Illinois in IL

1973–1975 Assistant Professor at University of Kentucky in KY7








CHALLENGES.” Daniel Libeskind


Chapter Three: Deconstructivism

Figure 3.1: The Burrow Laws


Micromegas: The Architecture of Endspace [1979] Daniel Libeskind’s “Micromegas,” named after a short story by Voltaire, were a series of twelve prints. Their extraordinary linework was not intended purely as a graphic device but is related to the concept of time [Figures 3.1-3.4].1 In this work, Libeskind attempts to denounce drawing’s relationship to signage, claiming that it is more of a form of language through which a prospective unfolding of future possibilities can be communicated than merely a material carrier (or sign). He writes, “a drawing is more than the shadow of an object, more than a pile of lines, more than a resignation to the inertia of convection.”

Figure 3.2: Time Sections

His work, he believes, attempts to express the inadequateness of reducing structure to “signs” through conventional drawing by attacking the heart of perception, for which no (final) terms are provided. It is only when forms act as horizons in relation to time that an exploration of the “marginal” allow for an overlap between concepts and premonitions. In his own description of the work, Libeskind states that “these drawings and collages develop in an area of architectural thinking that is neither physics nor a poetics of space.”2

Figure 3.3: Dance Sounds

Figure 3.4: The Garden


Figure 3.5: III-H

Figure 3.6: IV-H

Figure 3.7: IV-V


Chamber Works: Architectural Meditations on the Themes from Heraclitus [1983] “Chamber Works” is set of 28 drawings done by Libeskind while he was serving as the head of the Architecture Department at Cranbrook Academy of Art. They were inspired by music and the writings of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus [Figures 3.5-3.8].3 In a lecture given in 1997, Libeskind describes this work as “a more exposed investigation of the ideas of architecture and music as they intersect in the chamber of the mind.” Stemming from his musical background, the architect explained that he had merely left the performance of music, but not music in and of itself - that music was taken through mathematics, drawing, the arts, and eventually into the field of architecture. These drawings intend to further this interdisciplinary dialogue. An extension of “Micromegas,” this work attempts to further the ability of drawing to act as a mode for communication rather than purely as a set of blueprints. The drawing style becomes much more fluid in this set, with an emergence of a more sketch-like quality over the previous technical type style.4 Figure 3.8: I-V


Figure 3.9: #12: Way


Theatrum Mundi: Through the Green Membranes of Space [1985]

takes the place of this space, and through this condition “discovers itself as the now defunct Hotel of Being.”

Theatrum Mundi is 12 abstract color plates that present a premonition of the future in the form of a city besieged by an unknown infection [Figures 3.9-3.11].5

In an interview with SKALA in 1987, the architect’s drawings are compared to a Baroque painting in that both of these invoke a feeling of being trapped inside the “frame.” The only difference is that in the painting there is always a place to go (often through a sort of ovalshaped opening connecting the heavens to earth), while Libeskind’s drawings tend to create crossshaped figures, which in effect, hide the spaces for escape from this “frame.” Libeskind describes these crosses as colliding what is manifested with what is not manifested, rotating around an

Libeskind describes the urban condition as a sort of impudence that take the most biological, private, and hidden form that is presently possible - and thereby, in essence, transforming this reality into a collection fiction. The structure of the city has become transparent and closes the space of the city. According to Libeskind, the “Distributor of Homelessness” then

invisible axis, which produces both nonidentity (recessions) as well as points (reliefs). This sort of drawing technique has grown into its current state through multiple collections of drawings, including the two previously mentioned before this one. Again, the architect’s drawing style moves even further from a technical-type and more into a sketch-type, and even goes as far in these drawings as to include closed shapes as well as color. Libeskind’s drawings would come to define his later work in material architecture and the creation of buildings, as did many of the drawings done by other architects during the 1980s.6

Figure 3.10: #11: Comprehend Without

Figure 3.11: #2 Prison Bound


Figure 3.12: City Edge Section/Elevation

City Edge Competition, Berlin [1987]

“Ancient vistas of cities and buildings, like memorable places and names, can be found on maps - the books of the world. Each appears in a different color on a different background, though any color can be exchanged for another by a traveller whose destination is not found on the map. A voyage into the substance of a city and its architecture entails a realignment of arbitrary points, disconnected lines, and names out of place along the axis of Universal Hope. Very thin paper - like that of architectural drawings, Bibles, maps, telephone books, money - can be easily cut, crumpled, or folded around this indestructible kernel. Then the entire unwieldy construction can be floated on water like the tattered paper making its Odyssey on the

This competition entry employs an obvious Constructivist motif by overlapping rectangular bars in a diagonal pattern [Figures 3.12, 3.13]. The result is an office/apartment complex that is composed of an enormous bar that angles up from the ground and looks over the Berlin Wall - which, in itself, subverts the very logic of the wall. The bar itself is a “pure” and smooth surface on the outside, but composed of an internal chaos featuring folded planes, counterreliefs, and twisted forms - all of which relate to the disorder of the city below. Following is the architect’s competition brief for the project, featured at MoMA:


Liffey. Finally, the water itself can be adhered to the mind, provided that one does not rely on the glue. In this way reality, as the substance of things hoped for, becomes a proof of invisible joys - Berlin of open skies. In exploring the shape of this sky, which continually refuses to come into identity or equivalence, one discovers that what has been marked, fixed, and measured nevertheless lapses in both the dimension of the indeterminate and the spherical. This space of nonequilibrium - from which freedom eternally departs and toward which it moves without homecoming - constitutes a place in which architecture comes upon itself as beginning at the end.”7

Figure 3.13: City Edge Model


Drawings of the 1980s

the help of John Hejduk, who was Libeskind’s dean and mentor during his education at The Cooper Union. Hadid’s “The Peak Club” [Figure 3.18] would be exhibited alongside Libeskind’s “City Edge” at the Museum of Modern Art’s “Deconstructivist Architecture” exhibit toward the end of the decade.

The 1980s were a difficult period in terms of the built work being produced within the architecture community. That is not to say, however, that they were devoid of advancement within the discourse - if anything, some of the unbuilt work produced during that decade was more successful in pushing the boundaries of architecture than any work, built or unbuilt, within the entirety of the 20th century.

Contemporaries aside, there are also connections that can be made

between Libeskind’s emphasis on drawing and the etchings of Giovanni Battista Piranesi - in particular “Prisons” [Figure 3.15], which was completed in the late 18th century. Similar work is being done today by architect Thom Mayne in Los Angeles, who has produced several sculptural plates as experiments in spatial creation [Figure 3.19], with qualities similar to Libeskind’s “Out of Line” competition entry [Figure 3.14].8

Libeskind was working on “Micromegas” in 1979, “Chamber Works” in 1983, “Theatrum Mundi” and “The Machines” (an installation at the Venice Biennale) in 1985, and the “City Edge” in 1987 - while acting as the head of the Architecture Department at Cranbrook Academy of Art from 1978 to 1985. Libeskind was not alone in producing a multitude of drawn work during the 80s. Architects like Bernard Tschumi, Neil Denari, and Zaha Hadid were also producing conceptual drawings as a way to continue to push the discourse without having to actually physically build any of their ideas. By looking at the work of these contemporaries, we can draw multiple parallels between them. For example, Tschumi’s “The Manhattan Transcripts” [Figure 3.16] were produced with

Figure 3.15: Piranesi VI - The Smoking Fire [1761]


Figure 3.16: Tschumi The Manhattan Transcripts [1981]

Figure 3.14: Libeskind Out of Line [1991]

Figure 3.17: Denari The Artless Drawing [1982]

Figure 3.18: Hadid The Peak Club [1983]

Figure 3.19: Mayne Linescutbysurface [2011]


MoMA: Deconstructivist Architecture [1988]

deemed emergent in the creation of a new sensibility in architecture - seeking to address Johnson’s challenge of the “pleasures of unease.” These architects notably violate the cubes and right angles that are common to Modernism through the use of diagonals, arcs, and warped planes. They also attempt to continue the experimentation with structure that the Russian Constructivists had began in the 1920s - however, they do so in a subverted fashion (hence the term De-constructivism). Instead of pursuing the traditional virtues of harmony, unity, and clarity, the work proposed by these seven architects make use of disharmony, fracturing, and mystery - undermining basic

There have been several movements within the architecture community that have their roots in exhibitions held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. The movement that would come to be known as Deconstructivism is no different. Over the summer of 1988, Phillip Johnson, with the assistance of Mark Wigley and Frederieke Taylor, held the third of five architectural exhibitions in the Museum’s Gerald D. Hines Interests Architecture Program. The exhibition focused on seven different international architects whose contemporary work was

assumptions about building. Mark Wigley characterized the work in a catalogue essay which accompanied the exhibition: “Architecture has always been a central cultural institution valued above all for its provision of stability and order. These qualities are seen to arise from the geometric purity of its formal composition...The projects in this exhibition mark a different sensibility, one in which the dream of pure form has been disturbed. Form has become contaminated. The dream has become a kind of nightmare.” The exhibit began with a selection of Russian avant-garde art from 1913 to 1933, including paintings,

Figure 3.20: Gehry House


Figure 3.21: Rooftop Remodeling

sculptures, photographs, and books by El Lissitzky, Kasimir Malevich, Liubov Popova, Alexander Rodchenko, Vladimir Tatlin, among others. The architectural drawings and models which followed was the product of a deconstructivist architecture which explored the relationship between the instability of Russian avant-garde and the stability of high modernism. The contemporary architectural work selected for this exhibition included Coop Himmelblau’s “Rooftop Remodelling” (1985) [Figure 3.21], “Hamburg Skyline” (1985), and “Apartment Building” (1986), Peter Eisenman’s “Biology Center for the University of Frankfurt” (1987), Frank O. Gehry’s “Gehry House” (1977-87) [Figure

3.20] and “Familian Residence” (1987), Zaha Hadid’s “The Peak” (1983), Rem Koolhaas’ “Rotterdam Building and Tower” (1981), Daniel Libeskind’s “City Edge Competition” (1987), and Bernard Tschumi’s “Parc de la Villette” (1982) [Figure 3.22]. The work showcased in this exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art would produce one of the most radical architectures in the 20th century - if not in all of architectural history. Phillip Johnson himself was aware of this as the exhibition unfolded, as he wrote, “the confluence [of these seven architects] may indeed be temporary; but its reality, its vitality, its originality can hardly be denied.”9 Figure 3.22: Parc de la Villette



Chapter Four: The Firm + Design Process

Figure 4.1: Daniel Libeskind in his office



Design Philosophy Studio Daniel Libeskind, as Libeskind himself states, attempts to “break through into the excitement, adventure, and mystery of architecture.” Daniel Libeskind chose to go into architecture for many reasons, but he believes architecture differs from other creative careers like art, music, and language in that it shows its opening but never knows its end, which reveals his need for something that cannot be solved directly. Libeskind’s profound interest in philosophy, art, literature, and music; these themes have a deep influence on his architecture. His approach to design was what he calls unorthodox. Ideas can come from any little thing, a piece of music

not want to work like conventional architectural offices. Conventional practices have a redundancy, a routine, and a production that he found was not for him.

or poem, or by the way light falls on a wall. He doesn’t concentrate on what the building looks like but what it feels like. When describing architecture, Libeskind states it is constantly progressing, and as being alive and breathing, with a body and a soul, that one singular operation cannot embody all that a building is. Libeskind believes every problem, even seemingly impossible ones, are worthy of pursuit, and that architecture, no matter what problems it may expose, is exciting because of the intensity and passion of it.

The way he worked was in rough sketches, rather than technical drawings. This comes from his focus on the experience instead of the practicality of the building. These sketches were done on whatever was closest to him, napkins, paper towels, and his favorite, music paper. He did not design an actual building until he was 52. His first building that he began designing was the Jewish Museum Berlin, and it started his built architectural career.

Libeskind believes that buildings are created with an energy, and wants to embody the essence of each site. When he started his practice, he did

Figure 4.2: Daniel Libeskind


Figure 4.3: Studio Daniel Libeskind office

Firm Structure

is currently in New York City, with European partner offices based in Z端rich, Switzerland and Milan, Italy.

Daniel Libeskind established his firm in Berlin, Germany in 1989 after winning the competition for the Jewish Museum in Berlin. In 2003, Libeskind moved the headquarters from Berlin to New York City when he was selected as the master planner for the World Trade Center redevelopment.

The Studio has a completed buildings that include museums, concert halls, convention centers, university buildings, hotels, shopping centers and residential towers. Daniel Libeskind is partners with his wife, Nina, in the firm. He is the primary design architect and his wife is responsible for the management, administrative, and financial assets of the firm.

Studio Daniel Libeskind has designing a diverse array of urban, cultural and commercial projects. The buildings can be found all over the world. Its headquarters


After the two of them as partners, there are four principals, then eight associates. Libeskind also has a personal assistant. In total, there are fifteen in the firm.

Figure 4.4: Studio Daniel Libeskind office





Responsible for the overall management, financial, administrative and resource control of the Studio. Prior to working with her husband at Studio Daniel Libeskind, she worked in the USA, Canada, and Great Britain in the areas of management, labor negotiations, research and politics.

Solely responsible for all design decisions. Every project is developed with a consistent core team, which works together throughout the design process toward the eventual realization of the project. Within the Studio, teams are set up in individual project rooms and great emphasis is placed on working together.





Gained her MArch from the University of Michigan in 1999 and worked for Studio Libeskind in Berlin from 1999 – 2003 and moved with the Studio to New York in 2003. Prior to studying architecture, she received a BA in English and a BA in the History of Art from the University of Florida.

Received his MArch from Columbia University in 1995 and a BA in Environmental Design from the University of California, Berkeley in 1991. Mr. Karim worked for Studio Daniel Libeskind - Berlin between 1996 and 1998. In 2003 he rejoined the office in New York City.

Received his Diploma in Architecture from the Technische Universität Berlin in 1991. Mr. Blach worked at Studio Daniel Libeskind in Berlin from 1992 to 2003 and moved with the Studio to New York City in 2003.

Received his MArch from Harvard University in 1994 and and a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of Michigan in 1991. Mr. Sutherland joined the Studio in 2003.















Figure 4.5: Firm organization












Chapter Five: Iconic Formalism

The Distorted Star of David

of Disjunction,” or disjointed formality.

his thesis on “architecture and disjunction.”

The unique form of Libeskind’s museum extension [Figures 5.4-5.9] and its dramatic façade are not excluded from the same historical and poetic drivers that determined the interior spaces and their progression. The architect claims that the building’s footprint was created through the slicing and fragmentation of the Star of David [Figure 5.1] overlaid on the plan of Berlin - however, this connection is not very evident and difficult to back up.

Aside from Libeskind’s own personal preconceptions for architecture, there are no doubt other factors that relate to the iconic form that was eventually realized. One, at least on the purely aesthetic level, project that comes to mind is Michael Heizer’s Rift [Figure 5.2], a zigzag shaped trench dug out in the desert at Jean Dry Lake, Nevada in 1968.1

The form of the building also relates to the surrounding site and its relationship to the streets that bind the exterior grounds. By allowing the form to twist and fold back on itself in plan, it is able to produce courtyards within its own boundaries, such as the Paul Celan Court [Figure 5.3] - one of two courtyards that are formed off of the narrow space between the Baroque building and the museum extension. This particular courtyard design is based on a Berliner “Hinterhof” in its height and dimensions, resembling the typical courtyard layout of Berlin’s early apartment buildings.2

It is interesting to speculate the role of Heizer’s project in its relationship to the entirety of architectural discourse during 1968, when the roots of so called “deconstructivist” architects began to take hold – specifically regarding Bernard Tschumi and the beginnings of

It is much easier to draw parallels to Libeskind’s earlier work - in particular, the drawings he had produced during the 80s - and the connection to Bernard Tschumi and his “Architecture

Figure 5.1: Star of David Sketch


Figure 5.2: Rift, Jean Dry Lake, NV

Figure 5.3: Paul Celen Court


Figure 5.4: Underground Level

Figure 5.5: Ground Level

Figure 5.6: First Level


Figure 5.7: Second Level

Figure 5.8: Third Level

Figure 5.9: Roof Level


Figure 5.10: Façade detail of violent cuts

The Wrapped Monolith

its figure,” and that the choice to use a non-oxidized zinc coating, rather than titanium, allows the façade to age, change color, and eventually accent the sliced windows that are cut through the building’s surface [Figures 5.10, 5.12].4

The museum extension is one of a few projects that began a new type of construction wrapping in reflective steel cladding. The Jewish Museum Berlin is clad in zinc, while Frank O. Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao [Figure 5.11], which was completed just two years before Libeskind’s, is clad in titanium.3 Although these two projects are naturally compared regarding their architectural skins, Libeskind makes a note to distinguish the difference between them, stating that he “never meant it as a shiny building, like Bilbao, but something that will recede in

The fact that both of these buildings were formally designed as iconic buildings could prove to be the underlying reason that they are also monoliths, as well as the fact that both are museums, which typically allow little to no natural light into the interior in order for the curators to control the amount of light in the exhibition spaces.


Figure 5.11: Façade detail of Guggenheim

The Façade as a Map One of the most notable and recognizable aspects regarding the façade of the museum extension are the strip windows that slash through the zinc panels, projecting dramatic displays of light onto the walls of the building’s interior [Figure 5.13], and allowing fleeting glimpses of the city as one looks moves through the exhibition spaces. The design and placement of these slashes appear to be random at first glance, but as is the case with almost everything in Libeskind’s work, their arrangement, too, has a story to tell. By acknowledging the historicism that is ever present

throughout this project, the architect decided to treat the skin of the building as a physical, materialized diagram of the city’s past. They are generated by first located the street addresses of great figures in Berlin Jewish history. He located the former residences of Heinrich von Kleist, Heinrich Heine, Mies van der Rohe, Rahel Varnhagen, Walter Benjamin, and Arnold Schönberg.5 By then connecting these addresses through lines that bisect the site, and projecting those lines onto the building’s skin, the apparently arbitrary fragmentation of the building’s façade is, in effect, a map of Jewish history within Berlin.

Figure 5.12: Façade detail of violent cuts

Figure 5.13: Interior detail of slashes


Façade Construction The construction of the building’s faćade may be one of the more complex faćades of its time. The zinc cladding was cold-formed on site and soldered in place though vertical paneling utilizing a standing seam joint. Rheinzink, a now prominent faćade and roof consulting company, launched their career from their work on this project. In most cases, as the faćade is punctured, the zinc panels actually stick up past the penetrations in order to preserve the flat and sleek nature of the building’s exterior, as well as to create a shadow line and reinforce the severity of the sliced windows.

completely encase the window molds on the first try,6 and to make sure that the extreme angles produced would not chip or crack as the forms were removed. There is then a mullion system which holds the glazing that fills the slices in place that is sandwiched in between the concrete and the zinc panels [Figure 5.15]. At any point of the faćade any of these different elements may be visible, as the exterior of the building is in constant flux of peeling away and exposing its inner working to the outer world [Figure 5.14].

The walls of the museum structure the entire building, eliminating the need for columns or interior load bearing walls and allowing for a free museum plan. Steel reinforced concrete was cast-in place to create the structure. There had to be coordination between the slicing of the faćade and the need for structural integrity, as the slices were actually cast as voids in the initial pouring of the concrete structural walls [Figure 5.16]. This also required unique methods in pouring concrete, as the each entire wall had to be poured in place, as well as to Figure 5.14: Façade delamination

Figure 5.15: Façade elevation detail


Figure 5.16: Concrete construction around the slashes


Façade Distortion

This sort of detail invokes a “disjunctive architecture,” and once again the work of Tschumi finds relevance in this project. Tschumi’s design for Columbia University’s Alfred Lerner Hall [Figure 5.17], also completed in 1999, uses a very similar technique in the application of its façade.8 Through tilting various elements that comprise the glass façade, Tschumi designs an optical illusion quite similar to the one designed by Libeskind - where one no longer understands what lies parallel to the ground - but adds the element of depth, as one can see through the skin of the building and into circulation and interior spaces. Again, the work of these two contemporary architects appears conceptually intertwined through ideas of distortion and disconnection.

One last feature of the façade that will be discussed is the shape of the zinc panels that comprise the building’s skin. Although the seams between the panels run perfectly vertical and parallel to one another, the horizontal seams are skewed [Figure 5.18]. This effect begins to create the illusion that the exterior wall is not actually perpendicular to the ground, but rather is tilted out of plane. This illusion is especially strong when one looks closely at the intersection of the parallel seam edges and the horizontal roof edge [Figure 5.19].7 This distortion works very similarly to the way Libeskind disorients the occupant of the Garden of Exile and Emigration - through skewed lines and the use of optical illusions.

Figure 5.17: The façade of Lerner Hall disorients the observer


Figure 5.18: Corner façade condition

Figure 5.19: Diagonal pattern of zinc panels across the faรงade








Chapter Six: Narrative, Poetics, + Experience


Figure 6.1: Enter through the Kollegienhaus

Figure 6.2: Stairs down to Underground Level

Figure 6.5: Axis of Exile / Garden of Exile + Emigration

Figure 6.6: Axis of Continuity / Stair of Continuity

Figure 6.9: First Level

Figure 6.10: Stairs to Ground Level


Figure 6.3: The Three Axes

Figure 6.4: Axis of the Holocaust / Holocaust Tower

Figure 6.7: Second Level

Figure 6.8: Stairs to First Level

Figure 6.11: Ground Level

Figure 6.12: Interior Voids


The Kollegienhaus The journey through the Jewish Museum Berlin begins in the Kollegienhaus [Figure 6.1], the Baroque building next to Libeskind’s extension, and former Prussian courthouse designed by Philip Gerlach in 1735.1 World War II took a heavy toll on this district of Berlin through aerial bombing, which destroyed many of the historical buildings around the site. The Kollegienhaus itself was heavily damaged, with only the exterior walls left standing following the war, and was rebuilt in the 1960s to house the Berlin Museum, established around that same time [Figure 6.14].2 The context of the site was very much a part of the architect’s overall design concept, as well as the way in which it factored into progression through the building. Libeskind does not connect the courthouse to his extension at least visually above grade [Figure 6.13]. The building serves as the entrance to the museum, as it was the original museum before the extension, and there is no way to enter the museum through Libeskind’s form. The upper floor of the Kollegienhaus is Figure 6.13: The museum extension and the Kollegienhaus do not touch above grade


home to special exhibitions within the museum, while general amenities - including a restaurant, auditorium, coat room, information desk, and gift shop - can be found on the ground floor near the main entrance.3 Libeskind also respects the height of the Kollegienhaus, as although his extension has more floors than its predecessor, the overall masses are equal in height. The glass courtyard on the ground floor of the Baroque building, also designed in part by Studio Daniel Libeskind, is located in between the two wings of the U-shaped Kollegienhaus. Completed in 2007, the courtyard expands the lobby of the building and provides space for museum events, including lectures, concerts, and dinners. Four free-standing steel pillars support the roof of the courtyard, bundled together to create an effect similar to the branching of a tree [Figure 6.15].4

Figure 6.14: The Baroque Kollegienhaus

Figure 6.15: The Kollegienhaus courtyard interior columns


The Entrance Staircase + The Three Axes

to attention the physical and psychological fates of Jewish Berliners during the Holocaust. The main, third axis, however, allows a point of escape, as well as symbolizes the attempt for the city to move on from its heinous past.6

The docile, conservative relationship between the interaction of the two buildings ends once one enters the interior of the Kollegienhaus. The entrance to the museum’s extension is much more intense, as a staircase violently punctures the Kollegienhaus’ interior and leads down three stories underground [Figures 6.2, 6.17] to the three axes of the extension. The contrast of materials, form, and light are immediately present through an extreme physical juxtaposition as one is led out of historical Berlin and thrust into the dark and uncomfortable past of German Judaism.

The program at this level is mostly exhibition space, with some auxiliary and circulation spaces intermixed, as well as

the location of the Rafael Roth Learning Center.7 The axes are one of the main organizing spaces of the museum’s extension, however, they are kept completely invisible from the exterior of the building. They allow for the unfolding of Libeskind’s poetic vision, as multiple routes may be taken before one is able to escape from the underworld and pass into the present day.

The three axes [Figures 6.3, 6.16] represent the major experiences in German Judaism: exile, holocaust, and continuity. The first two axes run off of the main axis, embody the feeling that they are closing up as one follows them to their respective termination points, as the floors of these paths are inclined with the ceilings remaining constant, invoking more uncomfortability still.5 Their respective dead-ends are also burden with emotional and philosophical references, as the architect immediately calls Figure 6.16: All three axes are never visible simultaneously


Figure 6.17: The stairs lead the visitor underground, where their journey begins


The Holocaust Tower

exception of a cleverly hidden fire stair and a small window at its top. A sharp beam of light enters the space from above, and the sounds of the city are faintly audible as one occupies this physical dead-end space.9

The first axis that we will discuss is the Holocaust Axis, which terminates at a black door, behind which lies the Holocaust Tower [Figures 6.4, 6.18].8

Minimal connection to the outside world is available from here, and one is left to retrace their steps back to the three underground axes from which they came. The black door also acts as a foreshadowing device for the experience it guards - allowing neither visual nor physical continuity to the space which exists behind it.

As has been discussed throughout this book, Libeskind’s poetic concept manifests itself throughout every aspect and detail of his work extending, in this case, even to its documentation. If one looks closely at this photograph of the Holocaust Tower, the faint outlines of museum visitors are visible – a product of the long shutter speed required for the photograph’s exposure. However, these faint outlines are also indicative of the ghosts of the Holocaust, the very victims that this branch of the museum’s progression is designed to commemorate. This void is a free-standing bare concrete structure that is set apart from the rest of Libeskind’s extension. The tower is representative of the exterminated victims of the Holocaust, and is several storeys tall, forming a pentagonal plan, which is enclosed, unheated, and entirely empty, with the


Figure 6.18: The Holocaust Tower is a solemn space


The Hoffmann Garden of Exile and Emigration The second of the two dead-end axes is the Axis of Exile, which terminates at a glass door, behind which lies the Garden of Exile and Emigration [Figure 6.5]. This termination point is representative of Jews who fled Germany, and the false sense freedom they experienced. The garden is comprised of forty-nine concrete pillars [Figure 6.19] arranged in a 7 x 7 grid. Forty-eight of the pillars represent the birth of Israel in the year 1948, and is filled with the soil of Berlin. The central forty-ninth pillar is filled with the soil of Israel, and represents the Berlin itself. An underground irrigation system allows for willow oak trees to grow from the columns and intertwine above the garden [Figure 6.20].10 The square that these pillars are located on is tilted in two directions to create a double ten degree slope, so that the viewer is always off balance.11 The garden is surrounded by rose arbor, the only plants permitted in ancient Jerusalem, which symbolize life and have the ability to both injure and reconcile. The spiny locusts Figure 6.19: The garden is filled with forty-nine concrete pillars


within the garden represent the paradisal garden of Eden through a modern lens. This garden, however, although open to the surrounding city visually, is, like the Holocaust Tower, a termination point. Although one feels freed from the roots of the underground axes of the museum, they are not free to go, and need to return back into the uncomfortable spaces from which they came [Figure 6.21]. There is an egress ramp that leads out of the garden; however, it is visually disconnected from the garden’s underground entrance, as well as from the street, in order to preserve the experience designed for – that of a physical dead-end. The detailing and design of this egress route, like the fire-stair in the Holocaust Tower, are examples of how conceptual designs can be preserved in the face of building codes and other political limitations.

Figure 6.20: Trees growing out of the pillars

As with the black door leading into the Holocaust Tower, the threshold from the axes to the garden is also indicative of the experience that lies beyond it, as the glass door allows a visual connectivity to the outside city, but not a physical one. Figure 6.21: The garden appears to be inaccessible except from the underground axes


The Stair of Continuity

and the way they appear to be crumbling - as if the space is collapsing upon the subject as they escape into the light above.13

There is only one axis that leads to the museum and escapes from the harsh, dark, uncomfortable space of the three axes: the Axis of Continuity, which leads to the grand Stair of Continuity [Figure 6.6].

Unlike the previous two axes - both of which terminate behind a door in some symbolic space - there is no barrier between the Axis of Continuity and the grand stair that leads into the museum - this path is connected both visually and physically to the outside city. As one ascends these stairs and up from underground, they are able to view the city through the dramatic sliced windows of the extension’s façade, and continue through the museum’s permanent collections.

The movement up into the museum extension is a classic play of scale and light, moving the subject from a dark and tightly enclosed space into a large, naturally lit one signifying the subjects’ escape from the underground, and the continuation of Berlin’s history from the dark, and murky depths of its past.12 The staircase appears very modest from the axes [Figure 6.22], but that perspective changes once the subject begins to ascend them. The brightly lit vertical space that the stairs open into runs the entire height of the structure, producing a space unlike any other in the building. The large, concrete structural members which span the triple-high space are viewable one by one as the subject ascends the stairs. However, when looking back down at the path one had taken [Figure 6.23], one is able to see all of the structure at once,

Figure 6.22: Looking up the Stair of Continuity


Figure 6.23: Looking down the Stair of Continuity


Museum Progression + Program

exhibitions to the public since Libeskind’s extension [Figures 6.25, 6.28]. The public is only able to access the ground, first, and second levels of the extension, with the third level being restricted to museum personnel. This level is home to mostly administration offices, as well as a library - the content of which is able to be accessed electronically.

One takes the Stair of Continuity from the three underground axes up to the second level [Figure 6.7], which is purely made up of exhibition and circulation spaces, and is the beginning of the permanent exhibition.14 One then moves throughout the exhibits to the opposite end of the zigzag plan of the extension, where a smaller circulation stair [Figures 6.8, 6.27] leads one down a level to the first level [Figure 6.9]. The first level has an identical programmatic layout to the second level, and acts as a continuation of the permanent exhibition.

This upper level is also the only place where the façade is indicative of the interior program of the building. Due to the need for large quantities

of natural lighting in the offices of the museum, there are large windows at the top of the building [Figure 6.29] to accommodate the employees in a functional way, where the thin strip windows throughout the rest of the façade serve the larger, poetic design of the building.15 Since the museum collections are less about artwork in the traditional sense and more about the overall history of Judaism in Germany, the dramatic play of light created by these strip windows is acceptable.

After the exhibits on the first level have been viewed, one then descends down the Stair of Continuity once again [Figure 6.10] to the ground level of the extension [Figure 6.11]. The majority of the ground floor is exhibition space, with a small amount of auxiliary spaces and circulation spaces. The museum opened to the public in 1999 with no exhibits [Figure 6.24]; the architecture was on display for two years before anything filled the new spaces. In September of 2001, the museum opened its first Figure 6.24: The museum was open for two years without any exhibits


Figure 6.25: Exhibits now fill the museum and blocking windows

Figure 6.27: Stair between 2nd and 1st Levels

Figure 6.26: Black walls mark the interior voids

Figure 6.28: The original white walls are now painted for various exhibits

Figure 6.29: Windows on the Third Level allow more natural light for administrative offices


The Interior Voids

the Holocaust Tower, while the second interior void has a plan synonymous with the plan of the tower that houses the stairs connecting the Kollegienhaus to Libeskind’s extension, which itself pierces the Baroque structure up to the roof level. The Holocaust Tower and stair tower appear as outposts to the museum’s extension, as one is free-standing within the outer world (present day Berlin) and the other is enveloped in Germanic history (the late Baroque courthouse).

The last of the formal moves that Libeskind makes to be discussed are the six interior voids that run linearly throughout the building [Figure 6.12], lit only from skylights at the roof level [Figure 6.31]. The first two of these voids physically connect the roof to the exhibition spaces located underground in the space created by the intersection of the three axes - further adding to the torturous feeling of entrapment beneath the earth, as one is able to physically occupy these spaces and look upward to the light above, but not physically escape through these vertical piercings.16

The only other void which is able to be physically occupied is the sixth, which is called the Memory Void. Within it is the Shalechet installation by Menashe Kadishman [Figure 6.30].17 The installation is comprised of thousands of clay faces covering the floor, and one is forced to pass through the void and to walk on the

When looking at the building’s ground level plan, one can tell that the first interior void shares the same pentagonal plan as

Figure 6.30: Shalechet installation in the Memory Void


faces, causing them to clink and echo throughout the void creating a truly eerie sensation. The other three voids are not able to be occupied, but they can be looked into from the upper levels of the museum from bridges that pass by the voids, or through windows resembling gun slits [Figure 6.32] - again, another extremely overwhelming formal and psychological move created by the architect. The six voids are also denoted through their materials - clad in bare and dimly lit concrete in a fashion very similar to that of the Holocaust Tower. Interior walls of the exhibition spaces that are shared with the voids are painted black [Figure 6.26], another way to read the physical intertwining of forms and narrative within the architecture through materiality.18

Figure 6.31: Skylights run between the voids

Figure 6.32: Bridges and “gun slits� allow visitors to look into the interior voids that cannot be physically occupied


Program Arrangement


As indicated throughout this chapter, the layout of the building’s spaces [Figures 6.33-6.37] are organized primarily on the overall poetic and narrative-based design created by the architect. The circulation throughout these spaces are shown in red in the accompanying diagrams, and

Exhibition Space EXHIBITION


Administrative Space ADMINISTRATIVE


Mechanical Space AUXILIARY

the progression through the building is easily viewable when studying these graphics. The relationship between the circulation, exhibition, and interior void conditions is a continual play of Libeskind’s overall mission for the museum - an intertwining of historical and progressive Germany through narrative and form.

Figure 6.33: Underground Level program layout

Figure 6.34: First Level program layout


Figure 6.35: First Level program layout

Figure 6.36: Second Level program layout

Figure 6.37: Third Level program layout



Jewish Museum Launches Career of Daniel Libeskind The Jewish Museum in Berlin, completed in 1999, jump-started the career of Daniel Libeskind. With this project he conceived a conceptual and physical “Daniel Libeskind” style; a new brand of architecture. All of his successive works carry the same architectural strands of distorted iconic form, sliced linear windows, and the poetic narrative of experience, through a conceptual framework based on the “line.” The most notable projects are the Ground Zero Master Plan in New York (2003), the Extension to the Denver Art Museum (2006), the Royal Ontario Museum (2007), and the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco (2008). Libeskind has established himself within a niche of architecture that holds strong cultural and emotional influences. The buildings are memorials which transcend their programmatic functional value. His poetic metaphors conceive architectural iconic form that is a conduit for meaningful experiences. GROUND ZERO MASTER PLAN “I SHAPED GROUND ZERO WITH A MASTER PLAN THAT IS BASED ON MEMORY AND IMBUED WITH THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY.” Daniel Libeskind Figure A.1: Royal Ontario Museum



Figure A.2: Extension to the Denver Art Museum

Figure A.3: Contemporary Jewish Museum

Figure A.4 Ground Zero Master Plan


CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE EXTENSION TO THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN 1. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 2. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 3. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 4. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 5. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind PART I: DANIEL LIBESKIND Chapter One: Early Life 1. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind 2. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind Chapter Two: Educational Influences 1. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 2. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind 3. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 4. An Introduction to Architectural Theory: 1968 to the Present by Harry Francis Mallgrave by David Goodman 5. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 6. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind 7. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( Chapter Three: Deconstructivism 1. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 2. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 3. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 4. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 5. Studio Daniel Libeskind ( 6. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 7. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 8. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 9. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind Chapter Four: The Firm + Design Process 1. Interview with Daniel Libeskind in Architectural Design 2. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind 3. Studio Daniel Libeskind (

PART II: BETWEEN THE LINES Chapter Five: Iconic Formalism 1.


2.Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind. 3. 4. 5. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 6. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 7. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 8. Chapter Six: Narrative, Poetics, + Experience 1. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind 2. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 3. 4. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind 5. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 6. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 7. 8. 9. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 10. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 11. 12. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind 13. 14. 15. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 16. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 17. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind 18.

BEYOND THE LINES 1. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind 2. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 3. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind

Cover Image Inside Cover Image , Ricardo Chaves CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE EXTENSION TO THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN I.0 Title Image I.1 I.2, I.3, I.4, I.5, I.7 “Erweiterung Berlin Museum mit Abteilung Jüdisches Museum, Berlin.” Architektur + Wettbewerbe, no. 143 (1990): 54-62 I.6 “The Jewish Extension to the German Museum in Berlin.” Architectural design 60, no. o.3-4 (1990): 62-62-77. I.8, I.9 Krell, David Farrell. “Between the Lines: Extension to the Berlin Museum, with the Jewish Museum.” Assemblage, no. [19]-51 (1990): [19]-[19]-51. I.10 I.11 I.12 I.13 I.14 I.15 I.16 jpg_orig.htm I.17

PART I: DANIEL LIBESKIND Title Image Chapter One: Early Life 1.0 Title Image, 1.1, 1.2: Libeskind, D., and S. Crichton. Breaking Ground: An Immigrant’s Journey from Poland to Ground Zero. Penguin Group, 2004. 1.3 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski Chapter Two: Educational Influences 2.0 Title Image 2.1 2.2 Logo Cooper Union 2.3 2.4 Logo Essex University 2.5 2.6 Logo Cranbrook Academy of Art Chapter Three: Deconstructivism


3.0 Title Image 3.1 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind 3.15 ING-FIRE,-PL-VI-FROM-THE-SERIES-CARCERI 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 James Wisniewski Chapter Four: The Firm + Design Process 4.0 Title Image 4.1 4.2 4.3,_2010.html 4.4 4.5 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski

PART II: BETWEEN THE LINES Title Image Chapter Five: Iconic Formalism 5.0 Title Image 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 Schneider, Bernhard, and Daniel Libeskind. Daniel Libeskind : Jewish Museum Berlin : Between the Lines. Munich ; New York: Prestel, 1999. 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14

5.15, 5.16 Libeskind, D., R.C. Levene, and F.M. Cecilia. Daniel Libeskind, 1987-1996. El Croquis, 1996. 5.17 5.18 5.19 Chapter Six: Narrative, Poetics, + Experience 6.0 Title Image 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 world_20101006/ 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33, 6.34, 6.35, 6.36, 6.37 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski

BEYOND THE LINES A.0 Title Image A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4


Architectures [videorecording] = Architekturen / [a collection presented by Richard Copans and Stan Neumann]. DVD. Directed by Richard Copans. Paris: Arte Vidéo : Facets Video : Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2001. Avidar, Pnina, and Marc Schoonderbeek. “De Leegte Van Herinnering En Hoop: Joods Museum Van Daniel Li kind = the Void of Memory and Hope: [Jewish Museum, Berlin].” Architect 30, no. [3] (1999): 48-48-55. “Berlino, Il Museo Ebraico = Berlin, the Jewish Museum.” Architettura 45, no. 522 (1999): 247-47. Berlin’s Jewish Museum [videorecording] : a personal tour with Daniel Libeskind. VHS. Directed by Michael Blackwood. Northvale, NJ: Audio Plus Video, 2000. Betsky, Aaron. “Berlin’s New Cutting Edge: Architect Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum Rediscovers the City’s Lost Soul.” Metropolitan home 22, no. o.12 (1990): 60-60,[62]. Betsky, Aaron. “Het Bouwen Van Afwezigheid: De Joodse Samenzwering in De Architectuur = Building Absence: The Jewish Conspiracy in Architecture.” Archis, no. 7 (1998): 40-40-47. “Between the Lines: Daniel Libeskind Om Sit Projekt for Det Jødiske Museum I Berlin = between the Lines: The Extension of the Berlin Museum with the Jewish Museum Department.” Skala, no. 23 (1990): 18-18-23. Chametzky, Peter. “Rebuilding the Nation: Norman Foster’s “Reichstag” Renovation and Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum Berlin.” Centropa 1, no. 3 (2001): 245-45-63. Clewing, Ulrich. “Besucheransturm macht in Berlin Umbauten notwendig: Dicke Luft im Judischen Museum [A rush of visitors makes alterations necessary in Berlin: a bad atmosphere in the Jewish Museum].” ART: das Kunstmagazin 1 (2000): 1. “Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum 1.” “Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum 2.” “Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum 3.” “Daniel Libeskind: Berlin Museum with the Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany.” GA document, no. 59 (1999): [66]-[66]-83. “Daniel Libeskind: Between the Lines - the Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany 1998.” Chien chu = Dialogue: architecture + design + culture, no. 28 (1999): 48-48-57. “Daniel Libeskind: Museo Ebraico, Berlino = Jewish Museum, Berlin.” Domus, no. 820 (1999): 32-32-[41]. “Daniel Libeskind: The Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany 1989-1998.” A + U: architecture and urbanism, no. 12(339) (1998): 102-02-21. Daniel Libeskind [videorecording] : welcome to the 21st century. DVD. Directed by Downes Mary. Princeton, NJ: Films for the Humanites & Sciences, 2004. Davey, Peter. “A tale of two museums.” Architectural Review 205, no. 1226 (1999): 38-39.


Dawson, Layla. “Daniel Libeskind, Master of Memorials, on the Healing Power of Architecture [Interview].” Architectural review 227, no. 1359 (2010): 32-32-33. Dawson, Layla. “Heart of Glass: Daniel Libeskind Returns to Berlin to Add a Final Coda to His Jewish Museum.” Architectural review 222, no. 1329 (2007): 26-26-27. “El Parque De Cristal = the Glass Park.” AV monografías = AV monographs, no. 93-94 (2002): 158-58-61. “Entre Les Lignes: Jüdisches Museum, Berlin.” Architecture intérieure créé, no. 272 (1996): [100-[00-07]. “Erweiterung Berlin Museum mit Abteilung Jüdisches Museum, Berlin.” Architektur + Wettbewerbe, no. 143 (1990): 54-62 Fischer, Jan Otakar. “Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin Finally Opens with Installations.” Architectural record 189, no. 10 (2001): [47]-[47]. Gubitosi, Alessandro. “Il Progetto Invisible: Libeskind in Berlin.” Arca, no. 65 (1992): 66-66-71. Gullbring, Leo. “Revealing the lost soul of Berlin.” Frame 3, no. 7 (1999): 25-31. Haslam, Michael. “Berlin: Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum Lives up to Its Promise.” Architecture today, no. 84 (1998): 6-6-7,9. Herrmann, Klaus J. “German Museum.” Chicago Tribune, September 28, 1991. Heuberger, Georg, and Johannes Wachten. Jewish Museum Frankfurt Am Main. Prestel Museum Guide. Munich; New York: Prestel, 2002. “Il Museo Ebraico a Berlino = the Jewish Museum in Berlin.” Industria delle costruzioni 32, no. 324 (1998): 36-36-51. “Jewish Museum Berlin.” Stiftung Jüdisches Museum Berlin, “Jewish Museum with the Berlin Museum.” Kenchiku bunka 50, no. 590 (1995): [45]-[45]-65. Kiddell-King, Jane. “A place to muse.” The Spectator (London), February 13, 1999. Krell, David Farrell. “Between the Lines: Extension to the Berlin Museum, with the Jewish Museum.” Assemblage, no. [19]-51 (1990): [19]-[19]-51. Libeskind, D. Daniel Libeskind: Countersign. Academy Editions, 1991. Libeskind, D. Daniel Libeskind: The Space of Encounter. Universe, 2001. Libeskind, D., and A.P.A. Belloli. Daniel Libeskind, Radix-Matrix: Architecture and Writings. Prestel, 1997. Libeskind, D., and H. Binet. Jewish Museum, Berlin. G + B Arts International, 1999. Libeskind, D., H. Binet, and R. Bunschoten. A Passage through Silence and Light. Black Dog Pub., 1997.

Libeskind, D., and S. Crichton. Breaking Ground: An Immigrant’s Journey from Poland to Ground Zero. Penguin Group, 2004. Libeskind, D., and P. Goldberger. Counterpoint: Daniel Libeskind in Conversation with Paul Goldberger. Monacelli Press, 2008. Libeskind, D., C. Kugelmann, and J. Bitter. Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin: Museum Building Guides. Distributed Art Pub Inc, 2011. Libeskind, D., R.C. Levene, and F.M. Cecilia. Daniel Libeskind, 1987-1996. El Croquis, 1996. Libeskind, D., C. Wolf, M. Schwarzer, J.E. Young, and Contemporary Jewish Museum. Daniel Libeskind and the Contemporary Jewish Museum: New Jewish Architecture from Berlin to San Francisco. Contemporary Jewish Museum, 2008. Libeskind, Daniel. “Studio Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin.” “Libeskindbau Leads Where Other Museums Should Follow.” Architects’ journal 209, no. 4 (1999): 24-24. Lucas, Ryan. “Bold new look for Warsaw Top architects help reshape city, mired for years in socialist gray.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 13, 2008. Marotta, Antonello. “Il Museo Giudaico a Berlino, Oltre Le Coordinate Cartesiane = the Jewish Museum in Berlin: Beyond Cartesian Coordinates.” Architettura 47, no. 552 (2001): 608-08-09. Michellis, Marco De. “Daniel Libeskind: Museo Ebraico, Berlino. The Jewish Museum, Berlin.” Domus 820 (1999): 32-41. Muntoni, Alessandra. “L’arma Del Ricordo: Il “Museo Ebraico” Di Daniel Libeskind a Berlino = the Power of Memory: The Jewish Museum of Daniel Libeskind at Berlin.” Metamorfosi, no. 39 (1999): [7]-[7]-14. Newhouse, Victoria. “Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin Speaks to a History That Is Both Rich and Tragic.” Architectural record [187], no. 1 (1999): [76]-[76]-91. Nobel, Philip. “The mystic of Lindenstrasse.” Metropolis 18, no. 5 (1999): 74-93. Patterson, Richard. “The Void That Is Subject: Libeskind’s Jewish Museum, Berlin.” Architectural design 70, no. 5 (2000): [66]-[66]-75. Rodermond, Janny. “Verleden Geen Perspectief Voor De Toekomst = Past Offers No Perspective for Future [Berlin, Germany].” Architect 30, no. [3] (1999): 32-32-33. Rogoff, Irit. “Hit and run--museums and cultural difference.” Art Journal 61, no. 3 (2002): 63-73. Saatchi, Doris Lockhart. “The Best and the Wurst [Berlin].” Blueprint (London, England), no. 162 (1999): 18-18. Schneider, Bernhard, and Daniel Libeskind. Daniel Libeskind : Jewish Museum Berlin : Between the Lines. Munich ; New York: Prestel, 1999.


Smith, Terry. “Daniel among the Philosophers: The Jewish Museum, Berlin, and Architecture after Auschwitz.” Architectural theory review: journal of the Department of Architecture, the University of Sydney 10, no. 1 (2005): 105-05-24. Spens, Michael Patrick. “Berlin Phoenix: Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany.” Architectural review 205, no. 1226 (1999): 40-40-47. Strau, Josef. “Berliner Geschichten: ein Gang durch das Judische Museum [Berlin stories: a walk through the Judisches Museum].” Texte Zur Kunst 9 (1999): 146-53. Thea, Carolee. “The Void: Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum as a Counter-Monument.” Sculpture 19 (2000): 38-45. “The Jewish Extension to the German Museum in Berlin.” Architectural design 60, no. o.3-4 (1990): 62-62-77. “”Traces of the Unborn”.” Kenchiku bunka 50, no. 590 (1995): 22-22-44. Young, James E. Daniel Libeskind and the Contemporary Jewish Museum: New Jewish Architecture from Berlin to San Francisco. New York: Skira / Rizzoli, 2008.

Daniel Libeskind’s 1999 ground-breaking design for The Jewish Museum in Berlin steps outside traditional and contemporary architectural canon with a complex narrative. Its form and spatial construct represents the past and present, and displays the consequences of the +RORFDXVW IRU WKH ¿UVW WLPH in postwar Germany. The building itself tells a narrative of the social, political, and cultural history of the Jewish population in Berlin, and integrates this narrative into the experience of a poetic architecture.


Case Study - Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind