REPRESENTING THE NETHERLANDS OR REPRESENTING REM ...

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

REPRESENTING THE NETHERLANDS OR REPRESENTING REM KOOLHAAS: THE DUTCH EMBASSY IN BERLIN OZAN AVCI Address:Istanbul Technical University Faculty of Architecture Department of Architecture Taskisla, Taksim/ISTANBUL e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Berlin is one of the most glamorous capital cities in Europe. The architectural production of a capital city is very important in consequence of political and representational architecture. In this context, embassy buildings act a significant role like representing a nation in an other country especially in this modern world where we can hardly talk about “national architecture”. The Embassy of the Netherlands in Berlin is a considerable example for political architecture and representation. Not only its architectural qualities and denotation as an office building, but also its language and connotation as representing the Netherlands make it a significant example in the context of semiotics in architecture. It is always claimed that architecture and urban design have an important role in national representation. Capital cities and governmental buildings would seem to serve and symbolize a nation or state as a whole, but on the other hand, they are chosen by the leadership rather than by the populace and also they are designed by an architect, so the final product does not have a real national identity. Architecture together with urban planning often amplify national identity, but some important parts of this concept is always missing. The decision maker of creating and constituting a new capital or a governmental building is not the nation itself but the regime and the designer whose own sense of identity is projected onto that of the nation they seek to build. In this semiotic context, an embassy building can be discussed as a problematique, thus the connotation of the building becomes more than one. The Dutch Embassy in Berlin represents not only the Netherlands but also Germany and Rem Koolhaas himself. In this paper, The Dutch Embassy in Berlin will be discussed with its denotation and connotations in the context of semiotic and political architecture. The national images of Germany, which is reunified and struggling with its sad past that can be felt in the urban pattern, and the Netherlands, which is characterized by the ideas like clarity, modernity and transparency, will be problematized within the design process of the building by a star architect, Rem Koolhaas. The historical background of Berlin as the making of a capital and the Dutch presence in Germany will be expressed and the Dutch Embassy building will be examined critically as part of semiotics in architecture.

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

INTRODUCTION Berlin is one of the most glamorous capital cities in Europe. Even though it includes all the bureaucratical staff like governmental and embassy buildings, it is not a static city, it is dynamic. The architectural production of a capital city is very important in consequence of political and representational architecture. In this context, embassy buildings act a significant role like representing a nation in another country especially in this modern world where we can hardly talk about “national architecture”. Umberto Eco signifies that people usually experience architecture as communication (Eco, 1986, 58). For him, a sign is a culturally codified signification and this signification has two layers: “A denotative signification, the “primary function”, which refers to the function of these objects, and the connotative signification, the “secondary function”, which is of a symbolic nature.” (Eco, 1986, 56) The Dutch Embassy in Berlin is a considerable example for political architecture and representation. Not only its architectural qualities and denotation as an office building, but also its language and connotation as representing the Netherlands, Germany and the architect, Rem Koolhaas, make it a considerable example of political architecture. Thus, the Dutch Embassy in Berlin becomes a problematique with its multi-layered character in the context of semiotics in architecture.

BERLIN AS THE CAPITAL OF GERMANY In 1991, although Bonn was presented as a successful democratic city while Berlin was thought like the capital of a monarchy, an abortive democracy and two dictatorships, Berlin won the elections and became the new capital of Germany with its diverse and cosmopolitan character (Ladd, 1997, 225). After that, the reproduction of Berlin has been started and a lot of architects, urban planners came to Berlin to realize their projects.

Figure 01: (left)“Who is Who” East-Side Gallery, Berlin (photograph by Ozan Avci, 2007) Figure 02: (right) Alexanderplatz, Berlin (http://www.architekten24.de/projekt/galeria-kaufhofberlin/uebersicht/index.html)

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

Berlin, which formed the great city, the großstadt, was one of the nicest civilizations of Europe and after 1989 it wanted to create a homogeneous cityscape, without any gaps or any rest spaces of no man’s land (Chaslin, 2004, 28). In order to fill these gaps and rebuild the new capital of Germany, a rapid period of production has been started. This process constituted a new question: “Who is Who?” (Figure 01). All of the representatives of minimalism, decontructivism, postmodernism, expressionism and rationalism came to Berlin with all the techniques like hyperbolic paraboloids, the architectonic or brutalist concrete, the metal skeletons, the facades in coloured plastic or stone, with curtain walls or asbestos cement, gilt aluminium or glued glass and this is resulted as a collection of architectural examples (Chaslin, 2004, 30-31). The variety of construction techniques and the huge volume of building made Berlin attractive for architects who would have the chance to take part in the design process of a European metropolis (Imhof & Krempel, 2006, 11). During this period of reproduction, a new concept called ostalgia, which is the combination of the German words Ost (east) and Nostalgie (nostalgia), appeared in East Berlin. After the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989 and German reunification in the following year, the old socialist regime reminders were swept away and all GDR (German Democratic Republic) brands of products disappeared from the stores and were replaced by western products and after that some East Germans began to feel nostalgia for certain aspects of their lives and culture in the former GDR, which disappeared after reunification1. Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen define the contemporary Berlin as a porous landscape which is breathing silence. The experience of the city includes breaks, voids, sudden changes and inconsistencies. The image of the city is torn by historical forces and the experience of the city consists of a horizon of icons. Berlin exposes a non-hierarchical and spread-out landscape through these experiences and can be shown as a fragmented urban landscape of past and present ideologies. What makes Berlin different than any other European cities is its relation with the history, because all of the visions, dreams and actual forces, which have tried to arrange and structure it, run through the axes of history and have always been connected to ideological issues (Cupers & Miesses, 2002, 54-55). Rem Koolhaas says that: ”Urbanism does not really exist, it is only an ideology in Marx’s sense of the world. Architecture does exist, like Coca-Cola: Though coated with ideology, it is a real production, falsely satisfying a falsified need. Urbanism is comparable to advertising propagated around Coca-Cola – pure spectacular ideology (…)(Koolhaas, 2000, 99).” In this sense, Berlin is both an exception and an excellent example, because urbanism and ideology are intertwined in Berlin where past and present ideologies superimposed on the urban landscape. The built environment in Berlin shape the city’s history and identity by deciphering its past (Cupers & Miesses, 2002, 58).

1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgia

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

EAST BERLIN AND ALEXANDERPLATZ After the reunification, although the German government had made a significant effort to integrate the west and the east part of the city, they still have different cityscapes and visual aspects. Alexanderplatz (Figure 02) was considered as the city center of the East Berlin and hosts the Fernsehturm (TV Tower) which was used as a symbol of Berlin by the GDR administration (Figure 03)). The Rotes Rathaus (Red City Hall) and Palast Der Republik, that is demolished now, are also located around Alexanderplatz which show the governmental characteristics of this area (Figure 04, 05). Some Embassy buildings are also located here like the Embassy of the Netherlands which has taken up this many-sided character of the area and the city in a successful way.

Figure 03: (left) Fernsehturm, Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm) Figure 04: (middle) Rotes Rathaus, Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotes_Rathaus) Figure 05: (right) Palast der Republik, Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palast_der_Republik)

Alexanderplatz was considered as the embodiment of modern socialist imaginations of “the city”, social life, trade and communication center and its urban design was very important for GDR planners, but today, its socialist-modernist design does not match planners’ visions. “Alexanderplatz has become a waste of valuable inner city land and a break with Berlin’s historical structures. The former socialist exemplar now appears anachronistic; its temporal certainties have been displaced by a sense ambiguity (Weszkalnys, 2010, 11-12).”

DUTCH PRESENCE IN BERLIN After the reunification and the selection of Berlin as the capital, the German federal government moved to Berlin in 1990 and the idea of building a new Dutch Embassy in the new capital city appeared. Before 1920, the Dutch delegation was located in a building, which was torn down in 1930 to make room for Hitler’s Chancellery, at Number 16 Voßstraße in Berlin and after that, the embassy was situated on Rauchstraße in a number of buildings, that were purchased and redecorated, until World War II, because those buildings were destroyed by bombardments and in 1973, Netherlands sold them to a private buyer (Chaslin, 2004, 127). In 1999, the embassy left Bonn and temporary accommodations were found in the Internationales Handels Zentrum (IHZ) building. Even though the Netherlands did not have a tradition of constructing buildings abroad or owning them, at the end of

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

the twentieth century, The Netherlands wanted more recognition on the international scene (Chaslin, 2004, 127). That’s why, they decided to organize a competition for the design of the new embassy building of the Netherlands which will be located on Klosterstraße, near to Alexanderplatz in the Mitte borough of Berlin. The selections took place in 1996 and the committee wanted the participants to consider these qualities: -

The Netherlands should distinguish itself. The new location should not only be functional, but also representational. The building should reflect the hospitality and openness of the Netherlands as well as its cultural standards (Chaslin, 2004, 129).

These specific ideas can be read as a decleration of principles and a quote from the program of requirements shows how the Netherlands want to represent itself: “The obligation to ‘just act normal’ is the greatest scourge of Dutch culture; Dutch complacency has resulted in modernism turning into a style purely of reflex. At this very moment, on this spot, the in-depth exploration and reconsideration of a number of technical questions could have a regenerative effect, and create a distinct profile for the Netherlands in relation to the rest of Europe as well – less rhetoric and more action.” (Chaslin, 2004, 130). The selection committee was impressed by Rem Koolhaas’s and his team’s vision and proposal. They pointed out that the design of OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture) completely has the representative qualities specified and denotes both the Netherlands’ vision on architecture, urban design, interior architecture, industrial design and art, and their capacity of conceiving and outlining beautiful plans with the Dutch quality of successfully seeing things through (Chaslin, 2004, 131).

REPRESENTING THE NETHERLANDS IN GERMANY It is always claimed that architecture and urban design have an important role in national representation. Capital cities and governmental buildings would seem to serve and symbolize a nation or state as a whole, but on the other hand, they are chosen by the leadership rather than by the populace, so the final product does not have a real national identity (Vale, 1992, 48). Architecture together with urban planning often amplify national identity, but some important parts of this concept is always missing. The decision maker of creating and constituting a new capital or a governmental building is not the nation itself but the regime and the designer whose own sense of identity is projected onto that of the nation they seek to build (Vale, 1992, 51-52). So, it is quite difficult to talk about a concept like “national architecture”, thus today’s contemporary, modern architecture is stateless, it is global. If we think about representing a nation in an other nation, like representing the Netherlands in Germany, we should think about two different national images. On one hand we have Germany which is reunified and struggling with its sad past that can be felt in the urban pattern, in its empty spaces, ruins and uncompleted areas, in its physical marks and in its architectural types, styles and ambience which exist at the same time with each other and which are incredibly foreign to each other; and

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

on the other hand we have the Netherlands which is characterized by the ideas like clarity, modernity and transparency (Chaslin, 2004, 27). The Netherlands wanted a self-contained, singular, plainly decipherable embassy building and if feasible they wanted to create an event (Chaslin, 2004, 28). On the other hand, German authorities wanted it to be designed like a traditional Berlin block according to the Planwerk Innenstadt (Chaslin, 2004, 35). In order to practise this concept, Rem Koolhaas used a trick with a narrow block containing the apartments of the people who work in the embassy on merely one side of the corridor, the glass cube with sides of 27 meters just touches its neighbors, but on the water side a raised garden is left free (Meyer, 1999, 114). OMA proposed a combination of a block and an independent building. By this way, it fills the city block but also creates an autonomous embassy building.

THE EMBASSY OF THE NETHERLANDS IN BERLIN BY REM KOOLHAAS According to Rem Koolhaas, the new urbanism should be the staging of uncertainty and should not be based on the fantasies of absolute power and order. It should deal with “the irrigation of territories with potential” rather than “the arrangement of more or less permanent objects”. For him, new urban design should deny boundaries and expand notions by discovering “unnameable hybrids”. He defines urbanism as a way of thinking to imagine a “new newness” (Koolhaas, 1995, 969971). In 2001, before starting to design The Dutch Embassy project in Berlin, Rem Koolhaas defines the city like: “The beauty of Berlin – its opacity, complexity, its heaviness, the richness of its ghosts. The abundance of good intentions that somehow went wrong. The pressure of shame imposed by more and more monuments. The obligation to remember, combined with surprising amnesia (where did the wall go?). How far it is removed from everything. How refreshingly German it remains. Its gray. Its stubbornness. Its lack of doubt. The meticulous mediocrity of its new substance. How old what was modern looks. How fresh what is ancient. How good what was communist. How Chinese what is new (Koolhaas, 2004, 361).” Koolhaas sees Berlin as a dichotomy, with its diversity and complexity in the urban context, and reflects his ideas into his project, the Dutch Embassy in Berlin. He reflects his ideas about urbanism into his project in the context of uncertainty, complexity and hybridity, thus the building redefines the boundaries of a traditional building and creates a hybrid trajectory. About the Dutch Embassy in Berlin, François Chaslin says that: “A virtuoso spatial fantasie articulated within a limited, strictly cubic space, where it continually twists and turns upon itself. This playful and rather capricious exploration of the pleasures of complexity is an exacerbation of

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

the theme of the architectural promenade; it constructs a controlled and joyful chaos. Several of the topological games which had already been developed by Rem Koolhaas and his followers are concentrated here, along a zigzag trajectory that folds back on itself several times within a perfectly modest-looking glass block measuring 27 metres square.” (Chaslin, 2004, 27). Rem Koolhaas explains that he explored to actualize a building with an introductory path which underlines various aspects, architectures and atmospheres of Berlin and would provide people to comprehend this city better behind a guise of Dutch humanism and openness (Chaslin, 2004, 27) and expresses his ideas about the building like: “The project carves the single structure implied by Berlin’s regulations in two parts – a wall and a cube. The carving continues inside the building, creating an erratic path from bottom to top, surrounded by regular office accommodation. The trajectory captures salient elements of Berlin’s architectures outside – 19th century, Nazi, communist… (Koolhaas, 2004, 370)” There is a real contrast between the internal vitality of the building and the tranquil expression of its façade (Figure 06,07,08).

Figure 06, 07, 08: Sketch and study models of the Dutch embassy building in Berlin by OMA (http://bln.niederlandeweb.de/de/content/Berlin/Neubau/Studien/start_html)

The embassy consists of an L-shaped building and a cube which were combined on a pedestal like piano nobile. The L-shaped building is there to ensure the transition. It contains five apartments for the embassy personnel in this narrow block and is entirely sheathed in a grillwork of perforated aluminium plates which makes it a little abstract and its transparency plays with the light. The cube is surrounded by a dynamic void which serves as an automobile access ramp from the Klosterstraße and this empty space makes the building independent (Figure 09,10,11,12,13). The void enters the building at the first floor in the form of interior “trajectory” from the embassy reception hall to the roof and measures over 200 meters (Chaslin, 2004, 35). The cube contains 8 storeys and inside of it there are 24 different levels which were all connected to each other by the trajectory.

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

Figure 09, 10, 11, 12, 13: Exterior photographs of the Dutch embassy building in Berlin by Christian Richters (http://bln.niederlandeweb.de/de/content/Berlin/Neubau/Fotos/start_html)

If someone enters the embassy, first he/she will see the consulate, which is considered as the most public place in the building, like a vitrine located on the ground floor, parallel to the Klosterstraße. The interior is designed with translucent materials in a lime green or linden colour. The aluminium gridding can be seen both on the floor and the ceiling and this tells that the trajectory has begun. There are two narrow stair cases on the first floor which is the real reception level and at the right there is a terrific, diagonal window through which the Fernsehturm that was considered as the emblem of communist Berlin can be seen. In the upper room of the reception hall, the furnitures of Marcel Wanders, who is a Dutch industrial designer, are located. When you come into the multipurpose room you will see the huge window which opens up full South and decorated with Jacquard curtain which bears a botanic motif and on the mezzanine there is the internet space with oblique views (Chaslin, 2004, 38). All these interior design with industrial design products and works of art want to show the Netherlands’ success not only in architecture but also in these fields of design (Figure 14,15,16,17,18,19).

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

Figure 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: Interior photographs of the Dutch embassy building by Christian Richters (http://bln.niederlandeweb.de/de/content/Berlin/Neubau/Fotos/start_html)

The structure of the building is empirical, random and quite difficult to describe, not so easy to imagine and can be considered as a baroque organism of reinforced concrete, slabs, girders, walls, cantilevers and boxes (Chaslin, 2004, 38). Although it is difficult to talk about national architecture in this modern era, we can talk about some general characteristics of modern Dutch architecture and all these structural features of the embassy quite fits with these characteristics like using different materials, huge windows, cantilevers and plugin boxes (Figure 20,21,22).

Figure 20: (left) WOZOKO, Amsterdam, 1997 by MVRDV (http://www.cse.polyu.edu.hk/~cecspoon/lwbt/Case_Studies/Wozoco/Wozoco.htm) Figure 21: (middle) NMR Facility, Utrecht, 1997 by UN Studio (http://blog.livedoor.jp/modernarchitecture/archives/2005-11.html) Figure 22: (right) House with Studio, Rotterdam, 1990 by Mecanoo (http://www.mecanoo.com/)

The trajectory cleaves its pathway and combines meeting rooms, multipurpose room, internet space and widens between sixth and seventh floors where there are post office and archiving rooms. Then you come to the Ambassador’s Office which has a cantilevered black box that serves as a meeting room for 10 people at the eight level above the void. Thereafter you see the news and relaxation room and also a series of offices with a fitness club. On the last landing, there is the entry to the canteen and the terrace. The entire building can be figured like a “promenade architecturale”. Chaslin says that: “You enter: the architectural spectacle appears immediately to the gaze; you follow an itinerary and the perspectives unfold with great variety; you play with the flux of light illuminating the walls or casting zones of penumbra.” (Chaslin, 2004, 42). This Project of the Embassy Building in Berlin by OMA won the “Mies Van Der Rohe Award for Europian Architecture” in 2005 and the jury, chaired by Zaha Hadid,

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

pointed out that the concept of trajectory which creates a great complexity with new potentials and the quality of urban reflection were very successful2. The embassy building was opened in March 2004 and costed 34 million Euros ( Simon, 2005, 112).

CONCLUSION Although the Embassy of the Netherlands in Berlin is a good example of political architecture, it is quite different than the other embassy buildings in Berlin, because it is designed by Rem Koolhaas who is a star architect. At this point, the connotation of the building becomes more than one. This building represents not only the Netherlands but also Rem Koolhaas himself. If the design principles of the building are analyzed, it can be realized that this design parameters are not unique for the embassy building. There are a lot of similarities between this building and the two libraries project in Jussieu which is designed by Rem Koolhaas for a competition in 1992 but couldn’t be realized (Figure 23,24,25). Making a new organisation of stories and designing a path inside the building can be considered as the main concept of these two projects. Besides, if the Educatorium Project in Utrecht which was designed by Rem Koolhaas in 1997 is examined (Figure 26,27,28), the use of materials and the visible path structure are also similar with the embassy building in Berlin. These similarities are normal because it is Rem Koolhaas’ style. Even though the embassy building is designed for representing a nation, it also represents the architect.

Figure 23, 24, 25: Study models of the two libraries project in Jussieu by OMA (http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=91&Itemid=10)

Figure 26, 27, 28: Educatorium, Utrecht by OMA (http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=73&Itemid=10)

2

www.miesbcn.com

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

Another media where you can see the different character of this building is its’ web site3. Normally, the web sites of the embassies does not include a lot of architectural details like plans, sections and photographs, but the web site of the Netherlands Embassy in Berlin includes a virtual tour where you can see every architectural detail and space organisation both by plans and photographs (Figure 29). Embassy web sites do not comprise these kind of informations because of security problems, but if the building is designed by a star architect like Rem Koolhaas, than the denotation and the connotation of the web site also changes.

Figure 29: The web site of the embassy of the Netherlands in Berlin (http://bln.niederlandeweb.de/de/content/Berlin/Neubau/rundgang/)

All of these features of the Dutch Embassy in Berlin makes it a problematique as an example of political architecture in the context of representing the Netherlands in Germany. Its relations with the history of Germany and Berlin, its location in Berlin, its Dutch character and Rem Koolhaas’ way of designing create a multi-layered building with its denotation and connotations. Thus it becomes a significant example so as to discuss political architecture in the context of semiotics in architecture.

REFERENCES Chaslin, François (2004): The Dutch Embassy in Berlin by OMA / Rem Koolhaas, NAi Publishers, Rotterdam Cupers, Kenny; Miessen, Markus (2002): Spaces of Uncertainty, Verlag Müller + Busmann KG, Wuppertal Eco, Umberto (1986): Function and Sign: Semiotics in Architecture, in: Gottdiener, M., Lagopoulos, A. (ed.): The City and The Sign, p. 55-86, Columbia University Press, New York

3

www.niederlandeweb.de

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

Imhof, Michael; Krempel, Leon (2006): Berlin. New Architecture. A Guide to the new Buildings from 1989 to today, Michael Imhof Verlag, Petersberg Koolhaas, Rem (2004): Dutch Embassy in Content, Taschen Gmbh, Köln Koolhaas, Rem (2000): Sinning, in: Sinning, H., More is More – OMA/Rem Koolhaas, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Tübingen Koolhaas, Rem (1995): “What Ever Happened to Urbanism? S,M,L,XL, New York / Rotterdam, p. 958-971 Ladd, Brian (1997): The Ghosts of Berlin, The University of Chicago Press, London Meyer, Ulf (1999): Bundeshauptstadt Berlin, Jovis, Berlin Simon, Christian (2005): Hauptstadtbauten in Berlin, Christian Simon Verlag, Berlin Vale, Lawrence J. (1992): Architecture, Power and National Identity, Yale University Press, London Weszkalnys, Gisa (2010): Berlin, Alexanderplatz. Transfroming Place in a Unified Germany, Berghahn Books, US http://www.architekten24.de/projekt/galeria-kaufhofberlin/uebersicht/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotes_Rathaus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palast_der_Republik http://bln.niederlandeweb.de/de/content/Berlin/Neubau/Studien/start_html http://bln.niederlandeweb.de/de/content/Berlin/Neubau/Fotos/start_html http://www.miesbcn.com/recursos/documentos/PRESS%20RELEASE%20ENGLISH.pdf http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=91&Itemid=10 http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=73&Itemid=10 http://bln.niederlandeweb.de/de/content/Berlin/Neubau/rundgang/ http://www.cse.polyu.edu.hk/~cecspoon/lwbt/Case_Studies/Wozoco/Wozoco.htm http://blog.livedoor.jp/modernarchitecture/archives/2005-11.html http://www.mecanoo.com/