Germany’s Fourth Post-War Competition for a...

081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 26

2015 Competitions Annual126

ermany is not about to let the world artscommunity forget about the unique roleGplayed by the Bauhaus movement in the

evolution of modern art and architecture. Thereis already a Bauhaus Archive in Berlin, movedthere from Darmstadt in 1971, and the buildingit now resides in was completed in 1979. It ishardly recognizable from Walter Gropius origi-nal 1964 intended design, except for the shedroofs. Since the Berlin Archive can only accommo-

date 35% of the institution’s holdings, a com-petition was staged there in 2005 to expand thesite’s capacity. The invited architects for thatcompetition were Diener & Diener (Basel),Nageli Architekten (Berlin), SANAA (Tokyo),Sauerbruch & Hutton (Berlin) UN Studio(Amsterdam), and Volker Staab (Berlin). SANAAwas chosen as the winner, but the City with-drew its support from that project in the wakeof the world economic crisis in 2009. Morerecently, a second 2015 competition for thesame project resulted in Volker Staab as thewinner, having more luck the second timearound (See page 1).In 2012 a Bauhaus Museum competition took

place in Weimar, where the Bauhaus was origi-nally founded under Gropius in 1919. That com-petition was won by the Berlin architect, HeikeHanada, with Benedict Tonon. The new building,

More Variations on a Theme in Dessau?Germany’s Fourth Post-War Competition for a Bauhaus Museum

which will replace the existing BauhausMuseum in Weimar, is to be completed by2018. After the Bauhaus moved from Weimar to

Dessau, where the Bauhaus resided until the1930s when the Nazis came to power andwhere the main building by Walter Gropius hasachieved iconic status, a recent internationalcompetition for its own Bauhaus Museum tookplace. Although one may assume a lot of over-lap between these three museums as toexhibits, the plan for the new museum inDessau could be deemed somewhat of a logicalmove, as the present school is still locatedthere, setting the tone for the ‘internationalstyle’ we now are so familiar with.The Dessau CompetitionContrary to what one might have anticipated,

the Dessau competition did not choose a sitefor the new museum near the present school,but instead envisioned a downtown locationfor it in a park-like setting. This was an open,international competition, and the organizerswere not disappointed with the interest it gen-erated. What was surprising, was that the topfour premiated entries were all from abroad,with the two first place winners from Barcelonaand New York. Not surprisingly, with the excep-tion of the one first place winner from the U.S.,all of the others were variations on easily

First Place(Shared)

Young & Ayata withMisako MurataNew York, NY

ABOVE

View to entrance

OPPOSITE PAGE

Aerial view of model

2015 Competitions Annual Final_Layout 1 16-6-29 ��2:18 Page 126

德国包豪斯德绍博物馆新馆国际竞赛包豪斯德绍博物馆变奏曲

德国战后第四次包豪斯博物馆设计竞赛

081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 127

2015 Competitions Annual 127

recognizable themes out of the Bauhaus annals.Since the Bauhaus was not only about architec-

ture, but also art, one might understand the jury’sindecision in picking two contrasting choices forthe top award. Their architectural expression rep-resented both disciplines—one having very func-tional, straightforward lines, the other morewhimsical in the manner of an organic biologicalcreation. Jurying a competition with this challenging

subject matter could hardly have been easy. Theexpert, jury was made up of:• Barbara Holzer (Zürich / Berlin)• Jürgen Mayer. (Berlin)• Regine Leibinger (Berlin)• Wolfgang Lorch (Darmstadt)• Ralf Niebergall (Magdeburg) • Matthias Vollmer (German Ministry of Building& Construction) • Guido Hager (Zürich)After two stages, the jury finally reached the con-

clusion that two first places should be awarded:• Gonzalez Hinz Zabala with Roser Vives de Delás (Barcelona)• Young & Ayata with Misako Murata (New York)Third Place• Berrel Berrel Kräutler AG with ASP (Zürich)Fourth Place• Ja Architecture Studio, (Toronto)Honorable Mentions• Raummanufaktur (Edin Saronjic, Alexander Scholtysek),(Darmstadt, Germany)• Nussmüller Architekten ZT with Robert Kutscha (Graz, Austria)• Steiner, Weißenberger Architekten with Jens Henningsen (Berlin)One might anticipate that the Bauhaus-like design by the

Gonzalez Hinz Zabala team would be the final choice of the clientfor realization, if for no other reason than budget. Still, theYoung & Ayata entry did raise the question as to whether archi-tects such as Frank Gehry do owe something to the Bauhaus—iffor no other reason than in the theoretical evolution of the pro-fession to where we are today. Here, the jury evidently wanted toindicate that they were not focusing solely on derivative solutionsharking back to Mies or Gropius, but were casting a wider net.

Since the Bauhaus was notonly about architecture, butalso art, one might under-stand the jury’s indecisionin picking two contrastingchoices for the top award.Their architectural expres-sion represented both disci-plines—one having veryfunctional, straightforwardlines, the other more whim-sical in the manner of anorganic biological creation.


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 128

128

Dessau Ba

uhau

s Bu

seum

2015 Competitions Annual

First Place(Shared)


ABOVE

Elevation LEFT

Fabrication concept

OPPOSITE PAGE

Floor plan

The design adopts an organic, sculptural approach.It takes the form of an open collection of structures,avoiding the impression of one isolated building. It issuccessfully integrated into the Park, making variousreferences to the surrounding city. It is an independ-ent structure that becomes a new reference point ina disparate urban environment. The design approachhas a certain suggestive force, radiates warmth andis highly distinctive, exerting an inviting fascination.References to various Bauhaus concepts are success-fully combined to create a new, contemporary gen-eral approach. The hybrid character combiningnature and culture extends the landscape into athree-dimensional figure.The layout consists of individual modules which

can be connected together in various shapes. Thisflexibility allows further modifications in the subse-quent planning of the building. Later extensions areeasily imaginable, as are further developments andrefinements in the realization process. The lighting isa decisive element in the creation of space and thefeel proposed for the interior spaces. The representa-tion of the exhibition concept is successful. Theexterior design is continued inside in the foyer andcafe areas. The area- and volume data seem to be inan economical ratio; thus it must be proven how farthe construction costs will be feasible within thebudget.This well-thought-out design works with repeated

motifs using contemporary technological solutionsand production approaches. The use of recycledmaterials and the approach to sustainability areinnovative. The wooden construction stands on anelevated concrete slab. The outer skin is made of sin-tered glass mosaics depicting a variety of digitallygenerated patterns. As a result, 100 years down theline the building offers a forceful, bold and ground-breaking architectural testimonial to the 21st centu-ry that not only holds its own in the global competi-tion but clearly leaves it own mark.-Jury Comments


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 129


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 130

130

Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 131


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum

First Place(Shared)


LEFT, ABOVEPark viewLEFT, MIDDLEExploded concept LEFT, BELOWSection

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVE, LEFTPermanent galleryOPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVE, FIGHTEntrance lobbyOPPOSITE PAGE, MIDDLE, FIGHTTemporary galleryOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWSection detail


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 132


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 133


Dessau Bauhaus M

useumFirst Place(Shared)


LEFT, ABOVEView from cornerLEFT, MIDDLEInterior perspectiveLEFT, BELOWStructural support detailBOTTOM

Concepts

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVECafeteriaOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWSite plan


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 134


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 135


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum

First Place(Shared)

Gonzalez Hinz Zabala withRoser Vives de DelásBarcelona, SpainLEFT, ABOVEAerial view of modelLEFT, BELOWGallery view

OPPOSITE PAGE

View to entrance

The new Bauhaus Museum—an elongated bar running parallel toKavalierstrasse—can be seen as an iconographic legacy—“less is more”.The glazed foyer level provides a link between urban city life and theCity Park, inviting visitors into the museum. Its specific setting withinthe city space continues inside: an easy-to-read, floating, black exhibi-tion space, the definition of the black box.The glass envelope cloaking the building defines both the reception

area with its visitor services and temporary exhibition space and pro-vides maximum curatorial freedom in terms of flexibility of use. It drawson the Bauhaus’s desire to be an “open school”. The design sees itself asa new form of Bauhaus stage for the public with all age groups beinginvited to take part in the life of the museum. It is possible to reach theoutside from the museum’s educational facility and visitors to the caféalso have direct access to the green space.Visitors reach the upper floor via two stairway areas. They are very

compact in design and the interplay between the spaciousness of thefoyer and the intimacy of the stairways creates a tension which height-ens curiosity about the collection display. The flexibility of the first floorprovides a genuinely multi-use exhibition space—from traditional cabi-nets to large-scale installations and projections.The logistics and administrative areas are logically sited in the north-

ern part of the ground floor and on the mezzanine. A convenient deliv-ery route is provided from Friedrichstrasse. This design is an excellententry in terms of both the functionality and flexibility of the space, cre-ating a museum building that is a tool for the expression of activity andproductivity, creativity and social interaction. It remains to be seen howthe desired openness of design on the ground floor can be reconciledwith the need to set boundaries and create space in the temporary exhi-bition area. As the exhibition space on the upper floor is a little small, aslight increase in depth would be an option. The facade illustrated is notadvantageous in energy terms and a successful overall climatic design isrequired.Despite the slight vertical exaggeration of the enclosed space, the

design would appear to be feasible within the specified budget. But withthe suggested design, higher operating costs can be expected. Thedesign makes a successful contribution to the question of the exhibitionmachine and the museum as a place of learning.-Jury Comments


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 136


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 137


First Place(Shared)

Gonzalez Hinz Zabala withRoser Vives de DelásBarcelona, Spain

ABOVE

View from parkLEFT, MIDDLEInterior roomLEFT, BELOWLight and water retention

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVELobby viewLEFT, BELOWAxonometric view


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 8


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m

First Place(Shared)

Gonzalez Hinz Zabala withRoser Vives de DelásBarcelona, Spain

ABOVE

Approach perspectiveLEFT

Ste plan

OPPOSITE PAGE TOP

Longitudinal sectionOPPOSITE PAGE MIDDLE, ABOVELatitudinal sectionOPPOSITE PAGE, MIDDLE, BELOWGround level planOPPOSITE, BOTTOMSecond level plan


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 139


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 140


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 141

Third Place

Berrel Berrel Kräutler AG withASPZürich, Switzerland

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEView from parkOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWAerial view of model

THIS PAGE, LEFTExploded diagramTHIS PAGE, RIGHTFloor plates

The new Bauhaus Museum is consciously set back from the disparate roadbuilding lines of the adjacent built-up area and designed as a pavilion in thepark.Rather than seeking to engage with the scale of the built-up area opposite it,the building is developed out of and around the existing trees. There is somedebate as to whether the existing trees and suggested replacement planting aresufficiently powerful to create the impression given in the visuals.The polygonal, two-storey building is open on all sides, creating exciting and

multifaceted references between interior and exterior and redefining theentrance to the City Park. It creates a delicate appearance hat blends well intothe surrounding green space and is perceived not as a stand-out “museum tem-ple” but rather as the open hand of cultural encounter and exchange, mirroringthe Bauhaus’s conception of itself.This concept is reinforced by the folded chrome steel plate on the upper storeyfacades. The transformation of the existing park runs counter to a planningapproach which seeks to integrate the building into its surroundings. Extensiveencroachment into the existing vegetation is suggested with largescale pavedareas which appear disproportionately large. The crossing that forms an exten-sion of Ratsgasse is attractively proportioned, creating an inviting entrance fromvarious different directions. The foyer, shop, café and lecture theatre all presentopen facades to the park. The service area, just a short distance fromFriedrichstraße, also includes well-sited administrative and staff areas.The position of all the exhibition spaces on one level on the upper floor is wel-comed. The cluster-like arrangement of the polygonal exhibition rooms allowsvisitors to move through the space in many different directions; there is no spe-cific dictated sequence. The room proportions match the varying sizes of theexhibits and their dimensions allow a range of different exhibition types. Theformal character of the exhibition spaces draws on well-known elements but amore innovative design would have been more appropriate to the brief. Viewsof the park are visible between the exhibition spaces, facilitating orientation.The vertical access integrated into the structure is hard to fi nd and rather nar-row. In addition, the separation of the escape routes is difficult to understand.The design, which comprises a load-bearing concrete skeleton and suspendedroom modules, makes sense in general terms. It remains to be seen in the courseof further development whether the orthogonal ceiling structure would notbetter follow the polygonal geometry. The required surface areas are providedand the surface ratios and gross volumes are at the lower end of the scale, mak-ing economical construction and operation appear achievable. The suggestedproposal shows a good urban design with a very functional exhibition concept,but it is missing an innovative design-approach related to the Bauhaus themes.-Jury Comments



081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:22 Page 142


Third Place

Berrel Berrel Kräutler AG withASPZürich, Switzerland

THIS PAGE, LEFT, ABOVEPerspectiveTHIS PAGE, MIDDLEGalleryTHIS PAGE, BELOWSection

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVE LEFTGrade level diagramOPPOSITE PAGE, AOBVE RIGHUpper level diagramOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWStreet view


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 143


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 144


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m

Fourth Place

Ja Architecture StudioToronto

THIS PAGE, LEFT, ABOVEView from parkTHIS PAGE, MIDDLELobbyTHIS PAGE, BELOWCafe

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEView from cornerOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWAerial view of model


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 145



081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 146

146

Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m

Fourth Place

Ja Architecture StudioToronto, Canada

THIS PAGE, LEFT, ABOVEView to interiorTHIS PAGE, BELOWStudio/gallery views

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEGallery perspectiveOPPOSITE PAGE, MIDDLESectionOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWElevation

The design is characterized first and foremost by its self-con-tained, polygonal structure that offers a sensitive response tothe surrounding built environment. It is demarcated by a clearedge on Kavalierstrasse, while an obliquely angled sectionoffers a clean-cut transition to Friedrichstrasse. Overall, thedesign works well thanks to a sculptural approach that repre-sents a clear acknowledgement of the museum’s position asan urban building, a notion reinforced by the form of theraised roof areas.The building opens out onto the surrounding park largely

through non-openable windows, a factor that reduces thescope for variable temporary exhibitions, especially on theground floor. The location of the main entrance on Friedrich-strasse is logical in planning and design terms, while a sec-ondary entrance on the park side creates additional access andconnections. Whereas the external design marries successfullywith the surrounding urban setting, the interior configurationand layout—despite a high degree of adaptability and strongspatial qualities – reveal a number of unresolved linking andtransition issues.The ramp, set at an oblique angle, projects awkwardly into thefoyer, creating a confused spatial arrangement, particularly inthe area giving onto the garden. The dominant form of thealternative access route, via a spiral staircase, from the tem-porary exhibition space on the first floor to the collection exhi-bition space on the second floor lacks both consistency andlogic.The strong lines of the ceiling in the main exhibition space

on the second floor, which reflect the external roof shapeinside the building, are fascinating. At the same time, however,the excessive height of this space will make displaying thesmaller pieces in the collection particularly complicated. Thelocation of the office space in a windowless area on the mez-zanine above the main entrance is in breach of building regu-lations. The gross volumes are above average, thetraffic area ratio is quite high. But in turn the compact build-ing structure seems to make economical construction andoperation appear achievable. Overall, though realizing a com-plex concept, the design fails to successfully answer thebrief in a number of respects.-Jury Comments

2015 Competitions Annual


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 147


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 148


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

mHonorable Mention

Steiner, WeißenbergerArchitekten with Jens HenningsenBerlin, Germany

THIS PAGE, LEFTView from FriedrichstrasseTHIS PAGE, MIDDLELobby viewTHIS PAGE, BOTTOMNorth elevation

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEModel viewOPPOSITE PAGE, MIDDLE AND BELOW

East and west elevations


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 149


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum


081-150.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��4:23 Page 150


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m

Honorable Mention

Steiner, Weißenberger Architekten with Jens Henningsen Berlin, Germany

THIS PAGE, RIGHT, ABOVEFround floor planTHIS PAGE, BELOWSecond story plan

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEGallery perspectiveOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWSite plan

The compact, cubic sculptural structure follows the line ofRathausgasse into the City Park. The logic of this entirelyunderstandable location is, however, contradicted by thedesign of the open areas, for the elaborately designed court-yard in front of the museum lies to the north, facingFriedrichstraße. This courtyard is too vaguely defined in designand planning terms and insufficiently married with the publicfunctions of the museums to allow it to be perceived as a live-ly city space.Three deeply cut-in access points lead to the central foyer

where the building really unfolds its spatial force. Carefullyplaced atria create the link to the upper floor, simultaneouslyproviding sophisticated lighting. The temporary exhibitionspace and public facilities are clearly grouped around this cen-tral reception area. The administrative area, on the other hand,is accessible only from outside the building. The lift for visitorsis a little hidden in the temporary exhibition space.The upper floor offers four well-proportioned exhibition

spaces that dovetail neatly together. The terraces and glazedpassageways running between them create views of the out-side, making it possible to experience the sculptural nature ofthe building while visiting the museum.The logistics area to the south is significantly under-dimen-

sioned. Despite the many and varied recesses and cut-ins, theabstract structure of largely closed concrete cubes gives thebuilding a very inward-looking appearance, an impression dis-pelled only by the cleverly placed openings and elegant spacecontinuum which become evident on entering the building.Volume and surface area data lie safely in the middle range.The supporting structure—simple to construct despite thecomplex shape—and the use of durable materials and tech-niques mean that the construction and operation of the build-ing meet the design brief in terms of cost effectiveness.The work delivers an exciting contemporary interpretation of

Bauhaus design principles and spatial design. However, it failseither to create a welcoming and lively destination for muse-um visitors and city residents or to integrate the museum suc-cessfully into the urban space in design and planning terms.-Jury Comments


151-200.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��5:26 Page 151

151

Dessau Bauhaus M

useum


151-200.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��5:26 Page 152


Dessau Ba

uhau

s Museu

m


151-200.qxp_Layout 1 16-6-28 ��5:26 Page 153


Dessau Bauhaus M

useum

Honorable Mention

RaummanufakturEdin Saronjic, Alexander ScholtysekDarmstadt, Germany

THIS PAGE

Interior view to entrance

OPPOSITE PAGE, ABOVEView from parkOPPOSITE PAGE, BELOWModel

The designer proposes a four-storey, quadratic cube. The buildingis sited in the north-eastern corner of the City Park, a logicalposition in design and planning terms. It follows the edges ofFriedrichstrasse and Kavalierstrasse so that encroachment intothe City Park is small. Entrances to the building are located bothon the northern and the southern sides, with the delivery areconveniently sited on Friedrichstrasse on the western side of thebuilding. The basic idea behind the building is that of a core areacontaining the main functional parts of the museum. The spatialenvelope that encases it accommodates ancillary functions andaccess areas while the ground floor houses the foyer, the muse-um’s educational facilities and the cafeteria.The building can be opened out onto the park to the west and

the south, a factor which is seen as positive. The accessibility andorganisation of the foyer, however, are not particularly successful.One essential feature of the building is the staircase which runsaround the central core area and via which visitors reach thevarious exhibition levels. Airspaces in the staircase connect thefloors and allow glimpses of the access area from the exhibitionspaces. This compromises the functionality of the exhibitionspaces to some extent.The facade is designed in horizontal fairfaced concrete panels,

a number of different-sized openings breaking up the surface andcreating a harmonious and balanced overall look. The glass open-ings are transparent in some areas and opaque in others, afford-ing visitors different views over the surrounding area from thestaircase. The design of the open areas is restrained and in keep-ing; the courtyard paving reinforces a link to Ratsgasse viaKavalierstrasse. The usable area clearly exceeds the specified lim-its and the area devoted to public thoroughfares is also high.However, the compact configuration of the building and itssimple construction suggest that it could be built within thebudget.Overall, this entry offers a number of qualities in terms of

design and planning, interior space and functionality and the fewsmall negative points not detract from this overall assessment.The cost effectiveness of the design should also be emphasized.However, whether or not the building succeeds in delivering theexpressive and impressive qualities set out in the brief was hotlydebated by the competition panel.-Jury Comments


Germany’s Fourth Post-War Competition for a...

Documents

Transcript of Germany’s Fourth Post-War Competition for a...