K. F. Schinkel's Environmental Planning of Central Berlin ... - ADIP

K. F. Schinkel's Environmental Planning of Central Berlin
Author(s): Hermann G. Pundt
Source: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1967), pp.
114-130
Published by: Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/988416
Accessed: 09/12/2008 11:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sah.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Society of Architectural Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

K. F. Schinkel's Environmental Planning of Central Berlin
THE architecture of Karl Friedrich Schinkel is well known.
Modern professional architects, such as Ludwig Mies van
der Rohe, Philip Johnson and Paul Rudolph, have studied
and praised it.1 Renowned historians and critics, such as
Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Sigfried Giedion and Nikolaus
Pevsner, have analyzed and acclaimed it.2 And, finally, the
i. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's indebtedness to Schinkel is most
eminently reflected in several well-known projects, e.g., Hugo Perls
House, Berlin-Zehlendorf, I9I ; Seagram Building, New York,
1958; Museum of Twentieth Century Art, Berlin, 1965. About the
last, Mies has been quoted as saying, "The placement of the new
museum on a terrace . . . permitted a design of a clear and strong
building in the tradition of Schinkel's Berlin." "New Work of Mies
van der Rohe," Architectural Forum, Sept. I963, 87.
Philip Johnson summarized his recognition of Schinkel's ability as
follows: "... his greatness, however, lay in his unique sense of proportion,
which transformed whichever style he used." Mies van der
Rohe, 2nd ed., New York, 1953, p. I4. In a more personal statement,
Johnson refers to himself: ".. . dass ich mich als den vielleicht letzten
lebenden Schiiler Schinkels fiihle." "Karl Friedrich Schinkel im
zwanzigstenJahrhundert," Festvortrag, Schriftenreihe des Architektenund
Ingenieur-Vereins zu Berlin, 13 Marz 1961, p. 24. The entire article,
translated into English and published as "Schinkel and Mies,"
Program, Columbia University, School of Architecture, Spring 1962,
pp. 14-34, ranks among the best interpretive writings on Schinkel
and is by far the finest tribute paid by a modem architect to a past
master.
Paul Rudolph has personally stated to me his favorable impression
of Schinkel's architecture, which Johnson had urged him to see
during a trip to Berlin in 1964.
2. Henry-Russell Hitchcock summarizes his impressions of Schinkel
in Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Baltimore,
1958, pp. 28-36. In my opinion, he overemphasizes Schinkel's relationship
to J. N. L. Durand.
Sigfried Giedion, Spdtbarocker und romantischer Klassizismus, Miinchen,
1922, p. 4, remarks: "Fast geniigte es, allein Schinkels Werk
aufzunehmen. So viel man auch vergleichen mag, immer wieder
erscheinen seine Lisungen-sehen wir von der Intensitit des nicht
zu voller Entwicklung gelangten F. Gilly ab-am freiesten von
riickschauenden Kompromissen, instinksicherer und baulich von
hoherer Vollendung, als die anderer."
Nikolaus Pevsner, in the only existing summary of Schinkel's total
achievement in English, refers to him as the "... best architect of his
generation in Europe." "Schinkel," Journal of the Royal Institute of
II4
HERMANN G. PUNDT University of Illinois
late scholar, Ortwin Paul Rave, has documented and published
it.3 Therefore, it appears that Schinkel's creative contribution
as the designer of Berlin's best-known neo-Classical
buildings has received its due. Primarily on the basis of
individual buildings, Schinkel has been cited as a spokesman
of "proto-modern" practicality and as an architect who
ranks high among pioneering contributors to the "functionalist"
theories of his age.4 However valid this summary
of Schinkel's appraisal may appear, it must be realized that,
among the extensive corpus of Schinkel literature, there
exist only a few critical works, and that hardly any studies
of his achievement concern themselves with the particularly
timely aspect of environmental design.5
British Architects, 59, Jan. 1952, p. 95. Pevsner elsewhere states: "On
the classical side, I82o-40 is characterized by the most correct neo-
Greek ... The results are competent and, in the hands of the best
architects, of a noble dignity... Carl Friedrich Schinkel (I78I-I84I),
Gilly's pupil, is the greatest, most sensitive, and most original representative
on the continent." An Outline of European Architecture, 7th
ed., Baltimore, 1963, pp. 379-380.
3. Rave's writings on Schinkel and his position as editor of
numerous additional Schinkel studies made this scholar the foremost
authority on the subject. During a personal interview in Nov. 1960,
he referred to the following publications as his major contributions
in this area. It should be mentioned that few of these works are
critical and that the exact subject of this essay was not treated in
Rave's extensive ceuvre. For general reference, biography and bibliography,
see "Schinkel, Karl Friedrich," Allgemeines Lexicon der
bildenden Kunstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Hans Vollmer,
Leipzig, I936, xxx, pp. 77-83. For the most comprehensive coverage
of Schinkel's life and work, see Schinkel Lebenswerk, 11 vols. (to
date), Berlin-Miinchen, 1939-1961.
4. Schinkel is presented as the "pioneering functionalist" by
Walter Curt Behrendt, in: Modern Building, Its Nature, Problems, and
Forms, New York, 1937, pp. 38-49. Cf. also Edward R. de Zurko,
Origins of Functionalist Theory, New York, 1957, pp. I97-I98.
5. For the best contemporary analyses, see Gustav Friedrich
Waagen, "Karl Friedrich Schinkel als Mensch und Kiinstler," Berliner
Kalender auf das Schaltjahr 1844, Berlin, 1843, pp. 308-428; and
Franz Kugler, Karl Friedrich Schinkel, eine Charakteristik seiner kunstlerischen
Wirksamkeit, Berlin, 1842.

Consequently, this essay will not attempt to reiterate past
analyses of Schinkel as an architect of individual buildings.
Rather, it will focus on that aspect of his achievement which
the "functionalist generation" overlooked, namely, his
concepts of environmental planning-his contribution to
the development of a total urban design.
Schinkel's evolution as an architect and city planner began
during the opening years of the nineteenth century. In
I800 he concluded a two-year apprenticeship under David
and Friedrich Gilly.6 From I800 to I8I5 circumstances prevented
him from practising his chosen profession. As an
ardent student of the arts and of history, he travelled in
Austria, Italy, and France from I803 to I805, returning to
Prussia only to find Berlin in political chaos after military
defeat. Not one architectural commission of consequence
was to come his way until after Napoleon's defeat at
Waterloo in I8i5.7 Consequently, Schinkel became a
painter.8 Utilizing the lessons of rendering, perspective, and
optics learned from the Gillys, Karl G. Langhans and Heinrich
Gentz at the recently established Prussian Bauaka-
demie,9 he quickly emerged as one of the most competent
painters of panorama and stage design in Berlin. His pano-
ramas depicted contemporary scenes, such as the fire of
Moscow in 1812. His theatrical settings were admired by
the nobility and the promoters and connoisseurs of art.10
Much like Inigo Jones inJacobean London, young Schinkel
The most recent studies on Schinkel which suggest his importance
as a planner are Johnson, "Schinkel im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert,"
pp. 16-18; and Goerd Peschken, "Eine Stadtplanung Schinkels,"
Archaologischer Anzeiger, Berlin, 1962, pp. 862-875. A non-critical
but invaluable reference work concerning Schinkel's planning is
Paul Ortwin Rave, Schinkel Lebenswerk: Berlin, Stadtbaupldne,
Briicken, Strassen, Tore, Pldtze, Berlin, 1948.
6. See Friedrich Adler, "Friedrich Gilly, Schinkels Lehrer,"
Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung, I, Jg., I88I, pp. 8, I7, 22. For Schinkel's
personal account of these years and his reverence for Friedrich
Gilly, see Alfred Freiherr von Wolzogen (ed.), Aus Schinkels Nach-
lass. Reisetagebiicher, Briefe und Aphorismen, Berlin, I862-I864, I,
pp. 172-175.
7. Schinkel's own letters and diaries of the period 800- 815 serve
as the principal source for his activities during this interim; see
Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels Nachlass, I, pp. 1-177; m, pp. 151-I65. Cf.
August Grisebach, Carl Friedrich Schinkel, Leipzig, 1924, chap. "Interregnum,"
pp. 33-66; and Waagen, "Schinkel," pp. 330-335.
8. A complete published study of Schinkel's career as a painter
does not exist. For references, see Grisebach, Schinkel, pp. 36-58,
especially notes I92-I93. Cf. also Ernst Riehn, Schinkel als Maler
(unpub. diss. Universitat G6ttingen, I940).
9. Rave notes in "Schinkel," Allgemeines Lexicon xxx, p. 77: "Der
von Friedrich Gilly in der Akademischen Kunstausstellung 1796
gezeigte Entwurf fur ein Denkmal Friedrich des Grossen fiihrte als
starkster kiinstlerischer Eindruck Schinkel seinem Berufzu. Er lernte
in der Werkstatt Gillys . . . [und steht in 800o] an der Spitze der
besten 18 Eleven der 1799 begriindeten Bauakademie."
Io. Kugler, Schinkel, p. 5o.
II5
furnished the stages of Romanticist Berlin with designs of
artistic fantasy and of strikingly "modem" architectural
content.11
However, if one looks at Schinkel as the future planner of
urban sites, such as the Gendarmenmarkt and the Lustgarten
of Berlin, another aspect of the artistic activity of these
interim years appears significant. This concerns his interest
in landscape painting.12
Perhaps the best known of his architectural landscapes is
his Mittelalterliche Stadt am Wasser of I813 (Fig. I).13 In this
work, he shows the same degree of technical competence
which is generally associated with the northern Romantics.
He focuses on drama through the use of clashing contrasts
of lights and darks in order to evoke an emotional response.
However, instead of the melancholic ruins which haunt the
canvases of Caspar David Friedrich or the frightening
drama of nature which is depicted in the works of Philip
Otto Runge, Schinkel creates a highly evocative, idyllic
world where imaginative structures remain complete and
function convincingly within their visionary setting. He
conceives the scene as an architect; he delineates rather than
paints. As the most architectonic among landscape painters,
he excelled in rendering "living" architectural themes.14
His Gothic cathedral is transformed into an almost ironlike
fantasy, its towers faintly reminiscent of Fonthill Abbey,
its flying bridges and exposed stairways defying the
technology of the day.15 On the opposite bank, a group of
less majestic architectural forms is presented-a northern
step-gabled facade, an eighteenth-century residence and, at
the water's edge, a small neo-Classical temple, placed there
as if in homage to Poussin. The complexity of contemporary
architectural modes is represented, but the treatment
indicates Schinkel's own philosophical struggles.16 The
juxtaposition of the idealized forms of Classicism with the
national expression of Gothic creates a tension which is only
ii. For Schinkel's work as a stage designer, see his Dekorationen
auf den koniglichen Hoftheatern zu Berlin, 32 Tafeln in 5 Heften, Berlin,
I8I9-ca.I825, containing valuable aquatint engravings. Cf. Paul
Mahlberg, Schinkels Theater-Dekorationen, Greifswalder Dissertation,
Diisseldorf, 1916, esp. pp. 50-65; and Alfred Freiherr von Wolzogen,
"Karl Friedrich Schinkel und der Theater-Bau," Bayreuther
Bldtter, Io,Jg., 1887, pp. 65-90.
12. The best available study of Schinkel as a landscape painter is
Eckhardt von Sydow, "Schinkel als Landschaftsmaler," Monatshefte
uir Kunstwissenschaft, 14, Jg., 1921, pp. 239ff.
I3. Oil on canvas, 94.4 x 126.6 cm.
I4. Kugler, Schinkel, pp. 121-123.
15. PhilipJohnson, in discussing this painting, states that Schinkel's
imagination was thoroughly "modem" (i.e., Romantic), as indicated
by his unbuildable Gothic structure; see "Schinkel im zwanzigsten
Jahrhundert," p. 7.
I6. For Schinkel's own writings on the problem of Gothic vs.
classical, see Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels Nachlass, m, pp. 151-162.

Fig. I. Schinkel, Mittelalterliche Stadt am Wasser, Miinchen, Neue Pinakothek (photo: Neue Pinakothek).
prevented from becoming an outright conflict by the modern
bridge connecting the two worlds. Somehow modern
man must learn to live in and be able to coordinate the
different elements which make up the new environment.
Thus, Schinkel's vision transcends the depiction of individual
forms. Indeed, in a sense, it enters the conceptual
phase of realistic environmental planning. He shows here,
in a graphic representation, embryonic concepts of site
utilization and spatial definition. He presents a scheme
which is dependent upon limited vistas. The great, dark
mass of the church rises to the left of center, acting as a
visual barrier to any distant view. Its massive form is balanced
on the right by smaller, cubic structures perched on
the steep, rocky bank and warmly illuminated by the setting
sun. The bridge, which spans the space between these
two major elements, screens the view; but through its tall
arches one glimpses the continuation of the curving spatial
path of the river leading to bright, open spaces beyond. The
vaguely defined buildings to the left of the church lead one
back by gradual steps to the landing in the foreground,
which not only acts as a foil, but, with its animated display
of human activity, furnishes the vantage point for the consciously
intended view of nonaxial, restricted vistas. The
free-flowing spatial definition conceived by Schinkel, the
Romantic painter, will find its echo in the volumetric and
spatial arrangements of urban sites by Schinkel, the neo-
Classical architect.
In 18I6, three years after the completion of Mittelalterliche
Stadt am Wasser, he began work on the designs for his
first architectural commission. This was a new Royal Guard
House for the city of Berlin.17 The location chosen for this
building was neither a picturesque cliff, nor the rocky bank
of a broad stream. The site was a narrowly confined city lot
located between the Baroque armory or Zeughaus (I696-
I706) by Arnold Nering and Andreas Schliiter, and the
17. Referred to in German as Das Neue Wacht-Gebdude or Konigliche
Wache. Schinkel's analysis of the building program and style of
the new Royal Guard House is to be found in Samrmltng architektonischer
Entwilrfe, Berlin, 1866, I, p. I.

,
r
.
1--1 ~ --1- 1-1-X, ---r
7f3 e - ..- e .. -i- .-...
^^ n *
Packhof =
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
CENTRAL BERLIN
1816-1841
Karl Friedrich Schinkel - Architect
I - - - Y r
Fig. 2. Central Berlin (M. Plautz after Schinkel).
;
L l l
Palladian palace of Prince Heinrich (1748-1766; the Humboldt
University since 1945) after plans by G. W. von
Knobelsdorff (Fig. 2). Moreover, the area was obstructed
by a narrow canal which crossed the plot in a north-south
direction. Immediately to the north stood a small grove of
chestnut trees, which was not to be disturbed. The southern
boundary was defined by Berlin's famous Unter den Linden
avenue.18 In short, Schinkel was compelled to work within
an extremely significant, yet severely restricted, building
site. Consequently, the ultimate value of the final design
must be seen in terms of its total context, rather than in
terms dealing only with the building itself. The fact that
Schinkel's preliminary design could impress Henry-Russell
Hitchcock with its almost "Ledolcian" severity of blocklike
forms does not suffice in assessing the total success of the
Royal Guard House.19
I8. The first record of the future Unter den Linden avenue can be
found in Caspar Merian's engraving of Berlin, ca. I65o. An extension
of the original section was projected in 1674 under Friedrich
Wilhelm, "The Great Elector" (1640-1688) after completion of the
fortifications; see Goerd Peschken, "Die Stadte-Bauliche Einordnung
des Berliner Schlosses zur Zeit des Preussischen Absolutismus,"
Gedenkschrift Ernst Gall, Berlin, 1965, pp. 357-359.
I9. Hitchcock, Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, pp.
29-30.
/ /i
7
' ~: '7 / 7
/
/. %~/.
I .
L
- T- Lt- - _
Lustgarten
MJuseut
/7t~ _-Opera2
eae
1- / z^ F
U Schinkel
II7
i\ Major Existg
A brief resume of the architectural composition of the
building proper will serve here only as a preface to an
ultimate examination of the structure as an integral part of
its total physical and civic environment. The several sheets
of sketches which preceded the final design illustrate
Schinkel's preliminary testing of various components and
their interrelationships, and show that the evolution of both
plan and faCade was a complex process emanating from a
creative mind. The result was a fully matured composition,
which may have incorporated certain traditional elements,
but which subjects all the components to a compact, harmonious
totality (Fig. 3).20
In selecting a cubic shape as the main element of the
building, Schinkel may have been influenced by a recently
completed design by Heinrich Gentz for the Mausoleum of
20. Traditional elements, such as the so-called "castrum plan," are
discussed by Schinkel, Sammlung, I, p. I: "Der Plan dieses, ringsum
ganz freiliegenden Gebludes ist einem r6mischen Castrum ungefihr
nachgeformt, deshalb die vier festeren Ecktiirme und der innere
Hof. Letzerer ist niitzlich, um die Okonomie gegen den ringsum
laufenden Platz zu verbergen, auch nimmt er den Abfall samtlicher
Bedachungen auf, und fiihrt das Regenwasser von den Dichern
unmittelbar in den, unter dem Gebaude fortlaufenden, iiberwolbten
Kanal."

II8
Fig. 3. Royal Guard House, perspective view (from Schinkel, Sammlung).
Queen Louise of Prussia. This suggestion is well supported
by the fact that Schinkel himself had been an unsuccessful
competitor for this commission in I8Io.21 However, in
contrast to Gentz, Schinkel's design for the guardhouse is
less dependent upon correctness of classical motifs and bears
the stamp of a more individualistic approach.22
In addition, one must refer to the well-known design for
a monumental gateway of I798 by Friedrich Gilly, which
Schinkel must have known from his days of apprenticeship
(Fig. 4). In contrast to Schinkel's balanced articulation of
simple and detailed components, Gilly's gateway speaks a
rhetoric of crude austerity. In their handling of form and
proportion, one could almost compare the two projects to
archaic Etruscan and classical Greek themes. While Gilly
relied on the massing of bold, geometric forms such as the
Tuscan Doric order, reminiscent of Jacques-Louis David's
paintings, Schinkel enhanced his Grecian composition by
the use of subtle refinements expressed in the variety of
sizes and textures of individual components. His drawing
21. For Schinkel's design and extensive specifications, see Wolzogen,
Aus Schinkels Nachlass, III, pp. 15I-i62. The best available study
of Heinrich Gentz's project is Adolph D6bber, "Zur Baugeschichte
des Charlottenburger Mausoleums," Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung,
32,Jg., 1912, pp. I37-I39.
22. Objective scholarship has verified Schinkel's approach and
attitude toward historical and contemporary sources; see Benjamin
Rowland, The Classical Tradition in Western Art, Cambridge, 1963,
p. 303: "Certain architects of genius, like Schinkel, were able to raise
the classic idiom to a functional, rather than to an archaeological
level."
of the guardhouse reinforced the qualities of totality and
repose, which could hardly be confused with Gilly's starkly
portrayed chiselled boulders. Indeed, the austerity of Gilly's
cold setting for his gateway makes one realize that the
addition of natural growth surrounding the building in
Schinkel's drawing is a necessary element in his conception
of the structure within a particular environment. He contrasted
the abstracted form of the man-made structure with
the natural irregularities of the trees beside it.
In his rendering, the main cube of the building is shown
to its best advantage. He emphasized the simple planes of
his structure and the concise lines of the parapet above and
of the projecting ashlar base-course below. The drawing is
also very successful in relating the masterful manner in
which he achieved the difficult juxtaposition of the solid
main block and the open freestanding portico. In his final
design, he had dismissed the bold piers of the preliminary
sketches and had refined the entrance by a unique fusion of
Doric and Ionic features. Small-scale winged victories by
Gottfried Schadow took the place of traditional triglyphs
and metopes on the frieze above the Attic Doric columns.23
Such deliberate modifications of classical prototypes will be
found in all Schinkel's designs. His rejection of an archaeo-
logical approach and of unrestricted dependence upon cur-
23. Hitchcock (op. cit. 29-30), in illustrating one of Schinkel's
more advanced studies for the facade, states that the Pergamene
heads on the frieze were retained in the final, executed version; but
they were, in fact, replaced by the figures of winged victories.

ent publications, such as Durand or Stuart and Revett,
distinguish him from less imaginative neo-Classical architects.24
The appreciation of the Royal Guard House should,
however, be expanded beyond the narrow boundaries of
stylistic inventiveness and proportional excellence. Indeed,
a study of this work must focus upon its success as part of
its total planning context.
It appears that it had been Schinkel's intention from the
very outset to consider his new building as part of a total
urban setting. The cubic shape of the Royal Guard House
relates directly in basic outline to Nering's armory block
toward the east, and the portico of Schinkel's building repeats
a similar feature on G. W. von Knobelsdorff's Palladian
opera house (1741-1743) across the avenue. But most
importantly, the new guardhouse takes command of its site
because of its carefully balanced placement within the
limited confines of its location and because of its harmonious
spatial disposition in relation to the neighboring
buildings.
In one of his final planning schemes, Schinkel had provided
a definite set-back which created a plaza in front of
his structure. This arrangement would have given additional
depth to his spatial composition. It was noted by
Schinkel that the king himself rejected this scheme in favor
of a location somewhat closer to the avenue. His disappointment
at this change can be read from his own notes written
on the site plan.25 One is somewhat reminded of Robert
Mills' Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., which was
located at its present site by a spontaneous decision of
President Andrew Jackson.
24. For Schinkel's attitude toward the monuments of Greece and
Rome and contemporary literature on classical architecture, see
Kugler, Schinkel, pp. 22-28.
25. For a published version of Schinkel's notes, see Rave, Schinkel
Lebenswerk: Berlin, III, pp. 153-I54.
Fg4 NaPb. \k
Fig. 4. F. GiUy, Project for a gateway (from Beenken).
To increase the effect of coordination between the new
Royal Guard House and its surroundings, Schinkel had
also planned a small park opposite the building at the south
side of the Unter den Linden-a project which was never
realized. Despite these curtailments in the overall dispositioning
of the building, it is possible even today to sense
Schinkel's concern for, and partial success in, creating a
meaningful environmental scheme.
A sequence of recent photographs shows the Royal
Guard House in its formal and spatial relationships to its
surroundings (Fig. 5). As one approaches the building
from the southeast, only the portico appears between the
facades of the palatial Baroque armory and one wing of the
palace toward the west. As one advances closer, the two
bulky structures on either side fade into the periphery of
vision and the guardhouse, like a precious gem, is progressively
revealed in its totality. Once it is comprehended as an
isolated form, it appears to be a self-contained, self-sufficient
entity, like a cubic version of the Roman Pantheon. Despite
its relatively small size, the principal design effects now
merge into a single, monumental statement.
In this context, it is not surprising that this structure,
originally designed to house the Royal Prussian Guard,
would eventually arouse the admiration of Russia's Marshal
Georgi K. Zhukov, who is reported to have suggested
the restoration of the badly damaged building after the
Battle of Berlin in 1945.26 Unfortunately for the overall
effect of Schinkel's scheme, the two freestanding monuments
to Generals Scharnhorst and Biilow (1822) by
Christian Rauch were not replaced. These two statues had
originally played an important role in the spatial definition
of the open plaza (Fig. 3). Their presence facilitated the
transition between the open spaces toward the avenue and
the building proper behind. Yet, despite their loss today
and the somewhat machinelike precision of the restored
columns of the portico, the Royal Guard House has continued
to command its site. Since its conception in I816,
this building has remained a permanent and significant part
of its total physical environment. During the lifetime of
Schinkel and in subsequent decades it was considered a
masterpiece in its own right.27 However, in a broader context,
one can add that this building and its placement marked
Schinkel's first attempt to create an urban environment.
In view of Schinkel's successful execution of his first commission
as a state architect,28 it is not surprising that he was
26. This statement is based on a private interview with Prof. Rave
on I6 Nov. 1960.
27. For a typical interpretation, see Grisebach, Schinkel, pp. 68-69.
28. For data relating to Schinkel's career as official Prussian architect
(Ober-Baurat, I815 to Ober-Landes-Bau-Director, 1838), see
Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels Nachlass, II, pp. 224-225.
II9

120
Fig. 5. Three views of the Royal Guard House from the southeast
(photos: author).
called upon in 1818 to design a replacement for the recently
gutted theater at the Gendarmenmarkt (Fig. 6). This city
plaza was located southwest of the center of Berlin. The old
theater of I80o-I802 (Fig. 7) had been the work of Karl
Gotthard Langhans, Berlin's first neo-Classicist and designer
of the famous Brandenburg Gate (1788-1791). In comparison
to this well-known civic monument, the old theater
was carried out in a somewhat nondescript manner, which
quickly earned it the sobriquet, "coffin," among the critics
of Berlin. If it is compared to Friedrich Gilly's competition
entry for the same project (Fig. Io), Langhans's contribution
appears even more mundane.29
Although this uninspired structure was now gutted, the
program for the new theater required the utilization of the
still-existing foundations-a significant limitation placed
upon the creative imagination of the new architect.30
Schinkel also had to furnish a considerable number of new
interior spaces. Besides the theater proper, there was to be
included a large concert hall, a spacious royal reception
lounge and several rehearsal rooms of various sizes. In order
to solve this problem, Schinkel reserved the central portion
of the plan for stage, orchestra, and auditorium and arranged
the additional rooms in two lower wings on either
side. On the exterior of the building, the major elements,
i.e., the auditorium and stage, are marked by the elevated
central block, while the symmetrically placed lateral wings
housed the concert hall and rehearsal sections. Because of
this involved program and the specific requirements and
restrictions imposed upon the architect, the space given to
the theater proper was reduced to about one-third of the
total area. "The Schauspielhaus is magnificent," remarked
the crown prince pointedly, "... and if one searches long
enough, one may even find a theater inside."31 While this
remark by a young prince and architectural entrepreneur32
may have been spoken in jest, it could be understood as a
compliment to Schinkel's planning ingenuity.
And yet, as one looks at this structure today (the interior
gutted since 1945), neither the prince's comment nor the
favorable opinion of Quatremere de Quincy33 touch upon
the most important aspect of the theater. As in the foregoing
discussion of the Royal Guard House, so the Schauspiel-
29. For Langhans's theater (800o, destroyed I817) and Schinkel's
plans to remodel it in I813, see Rave, Schinkel Lebenswerk: Berlin,
I, pp. 79-87.
30. See Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels Nachlass, III, chap. "Uber den
Bau des neuen Schauspielhauses in Berlin," pp. I70-I87. Cf.
Schinkel, Sammlung, I, pp. I-2 (7 cols.).
3I. See Rave, Schinkel Lebensverk: Berlin, I, p. 122.
32. See August Stiiler, "Uber die Wirksamkeit Friedrich Wilhelms
IV in dem Gebiete der bildenden Kiinste," Zeitscllriftfiir
Bauwesen, II,Jg., I86I, esp. pp. 520-525.
33. Antoine Quatremere de Quincy (1755-I849), the most influential
French architectural critic of the time, acclaimed Schinkel's
Schauspielhaus in Berlin as follows: "Cet edifice l'emporte incon-
testablement sous le rapport de l'architecture, de la conception de
l'ensemble et de la belle execution tout ce qu'on peut voir ailleurs."
Quoted from Giedion, Spdtbarocker, p. 142. For Schinkel's personal
comments relative to his meeting with Hittorf and Quatremere de
Quincy in Paris, 1826, see Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels Nacllass, II, pp.
13, 23, 30.

Fig. 6. Theater (Schauspielhaus), perspective view (from Schinkel, Sammlung).
haus must be studied as part of its total urban scene. Only in
this context will it be possible to judge and to appreciate the
architect's achievement and to understand his most important
legacy to our own ideas about planning.
Seen within its urban setting, Schinkel's new theater
formed the focal point at the west side of a major city plaza
(Fig. 8).34 To the north and south, it was flanked by two
almost identical churches of an earlier period (finished
I780-I786) by Gontard (Fig. 9).35 Carefully balancing the
scale, mass, and proportion of his addition to the panoramla
of the urban plaza, Schinkel succeeded in complementing
the already existing framework of buildings in a variety of
ways.
34. It is interesting to note that both Gilly and Schinkel illustrate
their respective designs at an angle to the right. This is conditioned
by the nonaxial approach to the site. The major entrance to the
square was at the northeast corner.
35. The flanking churches are: north, Franzosischer Dom (see Fig.
9), I701-I705, finished by Quesnay after plans by Cayart, cupola
executed by Unger after plans by Gontard, I78I-I785; south,
Deutscher Dom (Neue Kirche), I70I-1708, finished by Simonetta
after plans by Griinberg, cupola executed by Unger after plans by
Gontard, 1781-1785. Senator fur Bau-und Wohnungswesen, Abt.
Landes-und Stadtplanung Berlin, Berlin Planutngsgrundlagcn fiir den
stddtebaulichen Ideenwettbewerb "Hauptstadt Berlin," Bonn-Berlin,
1957, items 19-22, photo section.
121
Most obviously, the new building was similar to its
neighbors in fundamental stylistic appearance. In its exterior
design Schinkel employed the time-honored principles
of Classicism, although his distinctly neo-Grecian Classicism
could hardly be confused with Gontard's Anglo-
Palladian motifs.36 In addition, Schinkel attempted to create
a harmony between the theater and the existing churches
by echoing their centralized scheme. However, he emphasized
the central section of his new civic building with a
dominant clerestory and a large sculptural group crowning
the pediment, in contrast to the religious structures, which
are terminated by domes on high drums. A colossal Ionic
entrance portico, with a formal flight of steps, completed
the frontal faCade.
In regard to the design of the theater proper, the portico,
with its grand approach, strikes a note of accentuated elegance
in contrast to the blocklike character of the rest of the
36. A certain tendency toward Anglo-Palladianism is noticeable in
the official Prussian architecture built by Gontard and von Knobelsdorff
under the auspices of Frederick II (I740-1786). In the case of
the churches at the Gendarmenmrarkt, a certain resemblance to the
domes of the Greenwich Naval Hospital has been suggested by Paul
Ortwin Rave, Berlin in der Gescllichte seiner Baliten, Miinchen-Berlin,
1960, p. 30.

122
Fig. 7. Drawing of Langhans's theater by Schinkel (from Rave,
Schinkel Lebenswerk).
building.37 At the same time, however, the architect used
major features of this portico as coordinating elements in
the horizontal articulation of the entire structure. For instance,
he carried the ashlar base to the top level of the
frontal stairs and their two flanking spur walls. He continued
the entablature of the Ionic frontispiece as a strong
horizontal band, tying the lateral wings and the portico to
the central block. In regard to the formal articulation of the
city plaza, Schinkel's portico facade played yet another
highly important role: it served to echo the similarly em-
phatic freestanding porticos of the adjacent churches. Consequently,
it is this particular motif which established a
formal continuity between his new structure and the existing
ones.
At this point, it is necessary to compare Schinkel's theater
and the relation to its site of the previous efforts of Langhans
and Gilly. Such comparisons will vividly demonstrate to
what degree Schinkel, the younger master, differed from
his teachers; moreover, we shall see how the attitude toward
overall planning of urban spaces had changed in the
short interval of some twenty years.
37. Schinkel explains the reason for raising the portico and ultimately
the entire building in his report to the king, dated 27 April
I818. "Die Magazine fur Decorationen sind sammtlich in dem
Unterbau des Gebiudes, damit die grosse Gefahr vermieden wird,
welche bei dem alten Hause durch die Aufhaufung der Lasten iiber
den K6pfen der Zuschauer auf einem nur durch Hangewerke
getragenen Boden entstand und zu oftmaligen dringenden Erinnerungen
Behufs deren Abstellung Anlass gab.... Der fur die
Decorationsmagazine nothwendige Unterbau tragt zugleich vorziiglich
viel zum edlen Styl des Gebiudes bei, indem die Architektur
dadurch iiber die gew6hnlichen Stadtgebaude hinausgehoben wird.
"Die sechs noch brauchbaren alten Saulen, welche beim Neubau
wieder angewendet werden, sind wiirdiger aufdiesen Unterbau mit
einer sch6nen Treppe zu bringen, und werden so eine gr6ssere, dem
6ffentlichen Gebaude entsprechende Wirkung machen. Zugleich
wird hierdurch die bequeme Unterfahrt gewonnen." Wolzogen,
Aus Schinkels Nachlass, In, pp. I78-I79.
For an illustration for the porte cochere below the portico, see
Rave, Schinkel Lebenswerk: Berlin, I, p. I2I.
TOWARDS
UNTER DEN LINDEN I
FRANZOSISCHE - STRASSE
JAEGER -
TAUBEN -
SCHAUSPIEL
HAUS
I NEUE KIRCHE
MOHREN -
01 I
I0 20 [0
100 0 100 200 300
tlll,i,,1i 1 I i
I I El ] I E lI I I
I
w
c,
z
UL
I

Fig. Io. F. Gilly, Project for a theater at the Gendarmenmarkt
(from Rietdorf).
Langhans's theater of 800o, as mentioned above, was a
building devoid of exterior distinction. Even its portico,
which faced onto the square, could hardly have qualified as
an element coordinating the three major buildings at the
Gendarmenmarkt; it merely emphasized the entrance to the
theater itself.
Gilly's project, on the other hand, was drastically different
(Fig. io). In the competition for the original theater, he
had presented a structure which was inspired, in plan, by
contemporary French theaters (such as the Theatre-Francais
in Paris) and in exterior articulation by the geometric
abstractions of recent projects by Boullee and Ledoux.38
Judged by his own rendering, it was to be built of smooth,
unadorned stone from base to cornice-a material and texture
which would have reinforced the boldness of its major
components: a massive cube in the center, flanked by two
half-cylinders, and a highly abstracted entrance portico.
Like Schinkel some twenty years later, Gilly had planned to
unify the exterior composition with two dominant horizontal
bands, one continuing the top level of the lateral
arcades, the other, converted into a frieze of low-relief
sculpture, encircling the cube and the half-cylinders at their
cornice level. Unlike Schinkel, however, Gilly concen-
trated exclusively on his own building. In the tradition of
French, so-called "revolutionary," Classicism, he not only
worked with the severest of geometric forms, the plainest
38. For the particular place of Gilly's project in the context of late
eighteenth-century architecture, see Hermann Beenken, Schopferische
Bauideen der deutschen Romantik, Mainz, 1952, pp. 6Iff. Cf. Alste
Oncken, Friedrich Gilly (1772-1800), Berlin, I936, esp. pp. I-Io, 42,
63-77. Despite its occasional political overtones, this work remains
the only recent comprehensive scholarly publication on F. Gilly. Its
publication date corresponds with the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin,
when a portrait bust of Gilly by Gottfried Schadow was exhibited at
the stadium. Cf. the text of Alfred Rietdorf, Gilly, Wiedergeburt der
Architektur, Berlin, I940-I943, which contains good illustrations.
of surfaces, and the most concise of framing contours, but,
in addition, he conceived of architecture as the art of building
majestically isolated monuments.39 In his drawing, he
accentuated, one may even say dramatized, his structure's
heroic scale by presenting it in a sharply foreshortened
Umriss perspective. Finally, he did not hesitate to literally
erase the domes of the nearby churches. In so doing, he
created a misleading, yet highly individualistic, image of
the setting. Consequently, his building was conceived, and
would have been executed, as a totally isolated entity with
no formal or spatial reference to its environment.
On the other hand, Schinkel, the Romanticist of the
younger generation, considered his building to be an addition
to the total environmental scheme. He underscored his
own conscious endeavor to think in terms of totality by
providing an especially enlightening document of his intentions.
For the opening of his new theater in 1821, he designed
and executed a panoramic backdrop depicting the
new architectural setting of the Gendarmenmarkt (Fig. I ).
The audience, arriving for the opening-night performance
of Goethe's Iphigenie auf Taurus, was confronted with a
visual recording by Schinkel the painter of the results of
urban planning by Schinkel the architect. They were made
aware, in a most dramatic fashion, of the total urban setting
of the theater in which they were seated-their vision expanded
to include a distant horizon as well as the immediate
spatial and formal relationships of the monuments framing
the Gendarmenmarkt. Could they have left the theater,
gone out into the square, untouched by what they had seen
-by what the architect had forced them to visualize?40
Just as Gilly's theater project had been a testimony to the
principles of the Age of Reason, Schinkel's vision of a unified
and comprehensible totality emerged as a tribute to the
Age of Idealism, the age of Goethe.41
The planning concepts first realized at the Gendarmenmarkt
were to be carried even further in Schinkel's next
commission: the total redevelopment of the Lustgarten
area, Berlin's civic and cultural nucleus. The program would
ultimately consist of the functional and aesthetic coordination
between several existing structures and a series of new
buildings, as well as the extensive replanning of canals,
streets and public spaces. On either side of the eastern ter-
39. This argument stands in sharp contrast to that of Rietdorf,
Gilly, p. 118, who reproduces a night-view sketch of the area by
Gilly (Illus. 108) and insists on Gilly's conscious attempt to unify his
project with the existing structures into a total setting.
40. Characteristically, Schinkel included this view in his Sammnlung,
I, pl. 14.
4I. This opinion differs from that of Pevsner, Outline of European
Architecture, p. 375, who writes: "... Gilly's National Theater for
Berlin [was] clearly a conception of the Goethe age."
I23

124
Fig. I . Stage design for the Schauspielhaus (from Schinkel, Sammlung).
minus of the Unter den Linden avenue, from the tip of the
Museum-Island on the north to the Werderscher-Markt on
the south, stretched an extensive area which would feel the
impact of Schinkel's genius as an architect and environmental
planner (Fig. 2).
An analysis of a project which is as extensive as the Lust-
garten calls for an approach which exceeds the investigation,
description, and criticism of individual buildings. It is
especially necessary to treat the project as a total achievement
since some of the most sensitive students and historians
of Schinkel's work have failed to comprehend it as
originally a composition of totality.42 Philip Johnson, for
42. My view stands in exact opposition to Giedion's analysis of
Schinkel's Lustgarten project, Spdtbarocker, p. 125: "Der Platz des
'Lustgartens' . . . beim Berliner Schloss zeigt wieder drei unverbundene
Bauten. Den Riickhalt, den die weite Flache am Schliiterschen
Schloss findet, lasst sie, die fast doppelt so gross als der Miinchener
Konigsplatz ist, doch nicht zerfliessen. Es ist Schinkels Verdienst,
dass er das Alte Museum I823, unter grossen Miihen in weitmiglichste
Entfernung riickte, denn die Schliitersche Wand konnte
niemals ein Gegeniiber in der Saulenstellung Schinkels finden. Auf
instance, has spoken eloquently of the museum alone (Fig.
12); but because of the radical changes which have occurred
since I894, he was impressed only by the building's subtle
proportions, its simple monumentality, and the clarity and
restraint of its details.43 The younger generation of architects,
however, may profitably expand their view and
study Schinkel's total program: the redevelopment of an
entire major sector of Berlin, a project which is comparable
in scope and in consequence to many present-day efforts.
The Lustgarten redevelopment and expansion program
occupied Schinkel throughout the decade of the I820s.
Indeed, his new museum (now known as the Alte Museum)
diese Weise bedriickt nicht eine Gestaltung die andere und jeder
Bau kann Individuum in seinem Reich bleiben. Ausserdem wird
durch die grosse Entfernung ein Platz in romantischem Sinn ge-
schaffen und eine eigentliche Raumbildung verhindert. Dass es
Schinkel gar nicht um einen einheitlichen Platzraum zu tun war,
kann man auch aus den spateren Entwiirfen fur das Friedrichsdenk-
mal, 1829, ersehen..."
43 Johnson, "Schinkel im zwanzigstenJahrhundert," op. cit., p. I I.

was only completed by 1830,44 while the custom warehouses
(Packhof) and the new building for the Bauakademie
were to occupy him until I835.
Even though the renowned landscape architect Peter
Joseph Lenne45 was present in Berlin, it was Schinkel who
was approached by the court in 1822 to design the new
borderlines of the Lustgarten (which had served as a military
parade ground) and to give thought to designs for a
permanent building for public exhibition of the royal art
collection. Schinkel seized the opportunity and expanded
the original hesitant program into a vast redevelopment
scheme. His new bridge already linked the island with the
Unter den Linden. He now proposed a museum which was
to be, not an afterthought, but a monumental addition to
the new Lustgarten as he conceived it. His ability as a planner
must have already been recognized by the crown and
his scheme appears to have met with the approval of
Friedrich Wilhelm III (I797-I840).46
Outlining his specifications in a letter to the king,
Schinkel emphasized that a total replanning of the entire
Lustgarten section of Berlin would ultimately result in
several significant "advantages." A translation of this communique
seems appropriate since it does touch upon the
essence of Schinkel's thinking, namely, to evoke the idea of
a coherent environment, instead of a series of isolated
projects. In part, he wrote:
Berlin, 23 January I823
... Your Majesty commissioned me last summer to prepare a plan
for the redevelopment of the orchards and borderlines of the
Lustgarten. The design for this project has already been submitted,
consisting in part of a plan and especially of a perspective drawing
which projects the entire [area]. The most interesting aspect (the
total area), occupied me for a long time afterwards, and I came to
the conclusion that this [landscaping] project could be combined
with the construction of the new museum and several related
buildings . .. offering in such a comprehensive scheme [the following]
decisive advantages: the reduction of building costs over
the last plan; the perfection and beauty of the [museum] building;
the embellishment of the entire Lustgarten; and, finally, those with
regard to the usefulness ofthe custom warehouses, river navigation,
communication and convenience near the new Schlossbriicke.
I felt it to be my responsibility to prepare promptly an extensive
planning scheme in order to submit the same for Your Majesty's
study and evaluation. Five drawings and explanatory specifications
44. For the best analysis of the museum's design and construction,
see Sabine Spiero, "Schinkels Altes Museum in Berlin,"Jallrbuch der
preussischen Kunstsamnilungen, 55, 1934, Beiheft, pp. 41-86. For the
architect's own analysis of the museum, see Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels
Nachlass, III, pp. 217-266.
45. P. J. Lenne (1789-1866), Director-General of the Royal
Gardens in Berlin, enlarged the Tiergarten from 1833 to 1839, thus
creating one of the first major public city parks in Europe.
46. Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels Nachlass, III, p. 217.
illustrate the project clearly and point out all advantages of such a
scheme . . 47
It appears that the royal architect and planner had his
way. For once in his entire career, he was able to overcome
curtailing financial limitations, frustrating criticisms and
practical restrictions in order finally to achieve the realization
of his plans.48
Schinkel's museum was constructed at the north side of
the Lustgarten plaza. Designed in 1822 and executed from
1823 to I830, this building became one of Europe's first
public museums. It has repeatedly been cited as one of the
most successful designs of its type. Critics have commented
favorably on its adaptable exhibition spaces as late
as the mid-twentieth century.49
In addition to the economy and practicality of the general
layout, the exterior composition of the museum was
conceived as basically complementary in geometric form to
the palace at the opposite side of the square and also to the
armory across the Kupfergraben toward the southwest
(Fig. 2).50 The general formal definition of the museum repeated
the basic horizontal treatment of the existing struc-
tures, their cornice levels all being of approximately the
same height.
The one existing building which was quite different in
character was the old Domkirche (I747-I750) by Johann
Boumann the Elder located on the eastern edge of the Lust-
garten. The more compact, vertically emphasized religious
structure acted as a foil for the lower, broader buildings
surrounding it. When, in 1819, Schinkel had been called
upon to remodel the entrance facade of the church, he had
employed one of his favorite architectural forms, an Ionic
portico.51 Characteristically, he then insisted on using this
same classical order in the colonnade of his adjacent museum.
Despite unfavorable criticism, he defended his choice
47. Ibid., pp. 217-221.
48. Wolzogen, in Aus Schinkels Nachlass, m, p. 218, adds the following
important note concerning the principal condition under
which Schinkel's plans could be realized: "Schinkels Plan wurde,
trotz einiger Widerspriiche des Hofraths Hirt, der mit zur Commission
gehirte, lebhaft befiirwortet und durch Kabinetsordre vom 24.
April 1823 (s. G.) genehmigt, unter der Bedingung, dass der ganze
Bau mit einer Summe von siebenhunderttausend Thalern ausgefiihrt
werde."
49. Hitchcock, Architecture: Nineteenth & Twentieth Centuries, p. 3 I.
50. "Schon bei der Wahl des Platzes, wobei er im Auge hatte,
eine in der Nahe der schinsten Gebaude Berlins gelegene, sehr
unscheinbare Gegend durch einen stattlichen Bau zu verschonen und
ihn als bedeutendes Glied mit obigen Gebauden in Beziehung zu
setzen, zeigt sich der zugleich mit seinen Gebauden grissere,
malerische Wirkungen bezweckende Architekt." Waagen, op. cit.,
P. 370.
5I. For Schinkel's remodeling of the old Domkirche, see Carl
Schniewind, Der Dom zu Berlin, Berlin, 1905, pp. 31-33, 7o-8I.
I25

I26
Fig. 12. Museum at the Lustgarten, seen from the southwest (from Schinkel, Sammlung).
of colossal Ionic columns as absolutely necessary for the
creation of a sense of continuity between the portico of the
church and the facade of his new building.52 In fact, he designed
the columns of the museum at approximately the
same height as those of the church entrance. Concluding
his clearly outlined argument for continuity in design, he
rejected the criticism of his museum facade with the comment
that simplicity, monumentality, and overall unity
were of foremost importance and that the totality of his
scheme must not be affected by financial restrictions, nor by
lack of appreciative response. Consequently, it is an established
fact that Schinkel's museum facade was designed in
accordance with one of his major principles, namely, that
architecture must be created in terms of the integral coordination
between units of a given area or site.
And yet, Schinkel's museum differed from the neighboring
buildings in at least one important respect. It was raised
on a high substructure or podium. The architect himself
explained the function of this podium as twofold. It was
designed first as a masonry vapor barrier and a fireproof
shell for the heating equipment of the museum. Secondly,
it would furnish rental and storage spaces.53 However, it
appears to me that, in addition to Schinkel's consistent pre-
dilection for "purpose" (one of his favorite terms), this
substructure served yet another function. It is clear from a
study of his perspective drawing of the entire Lustgarten as
52. Wolzogen, Aus Schinkels Nachlass, mII, pp. 244-249, "Schinkels
Votum vom 5. Februar 1823 zu dem Gutachten des Hofraths Hirt."
53. Ibid., pp. 231, 247.
seen from the palace bridge (Fig. I3), that the podium of
the museum also served a decidedly visual purpose. Only
by elevating the Ionic colonnade well above ground level
was it possible to view this major exterior feature in its
entirety from a distant observation point. At the same
time, a comprehensive view of the building, including the
complete frame of the giant columned screen, could effect
an impression of total unity-a concept foremost in the
mind of any classical architect.
It is interesting to speculate on the source of Schinkel's
podium concept. Its origin for northern neo-Classicism
may well be traced to Friedrich Gilly's famous project for a
monument to Frederick the Great (1797), the very design
which had inspired Schinkel to become an architect and to
seek out Gilly as his master.54 The conjecture that Gilly's
design did indeed influence Schinkel's own use of a massive
substructure is further substantiated by the fact that Schinkel
had designed a museum in 800o which included a
podium as an important, though nonfunctional, element.
Thus, while both Gilly's projected design, and Schinkel's
early museum, feature the podium as a reflection of the
Renaissance concern for monumental form and, perhaps,
the neo-Classical ideal of a manl-made "acropolis," Schin-
kel's mature work clearly combines traditional visual emphasis
with modern functional considerations.
Besides the formal relationships among the various build-
54. Ibid., i, pp. 172-176; cf. Waagen, op. cit., pp. 317-320. A
secondary inspiration could have been G. W. von Knobelsdorff's
Opera, 1741-1743.

"IBBC-T
1
?'? 1*SY:I
M
5"; 1"::%
t:id:
Fig. I3. View of the Lustgarten from Unter den Linden (from Rave, Schinkel Lebenswerk).
ings surrounding the Lustgarten, we must also consider the
spatial relationships, which were an integral part of the
planning of so large a complex. In the presentation of one
of his early schemes for the Lustgarten in I824 (Fig. 14),
Schinkel was fully aware of the fact that all of the monumental
buildings at the plaza demanded a large open space,
which would form the Lustgarten itself and at the same time
also act as the unifying spatial element of the entire area. Since
he wished his museum to be a large, dramatic addition to the
site, it would have been impossible to squeeze it into any of
the available spaces. Consequently, he chose to make the
extraordinary effort of diverting the flow of river traffic.
By broadening the Kupfergraben and filling in an old canal
(the Pomeranzengraben), which had cut the island in two
at the northern edge of the plaza, he was able to place his
new building on the recovered ground.55 Thus, the desired
physical distance from the long, impressive facade of the
palace could be maintained. Considering Schinkel's repeated
and emphatic statements concerning economy, one
can only conclude that the decision to remove the canal
was influenced by his overriding desire to procure the exact
site he felt his building required and the overall scheme
demanded.
In considering the placement of the museum at the
northern flank of the square, Schinkel wanted to take into
account the fact that the facades of the Domkirche to the
55. For Schinkel's extensive explanations concerning the validity
of the site he selected and the reasons for closing the canal, see
Schinkel, Sammlung, I, p. 4v.
I27
east and the palace to the south were not perpendicular.
Consequently, a strictly rectangular enframement of the
plaza was precluded. He intended, however, to place the
museum facade parallel to that of the palace and to create a
"third facade" along the eastern edge of the square by
means of a long row of trees. Composed of the irregular
forms of nature, yet regimented into a dense screen, the
trees effectively mask the awkward buildings to the east of
the plaza, as well as the wings of the church, and act as a
natural foil for the solid, man-made facades to the north
and south. Their role as a "third facade" is obviously intended
by Schinkel, who designates them on the plan as "a
wall of tall lime trees." In front of this "wall" were to be
placed monuments on high pedestals, emphasizing the barrier-like
character of the row of trees and relating this distant
panorama with the statues of the palace bridge, as seen
from the ideal point of view (Fig. I3).
Schinkel's early scheme did not remain intact. From a
handwritten note on the plan we learn that the king insisted
the museum be shifted slightly, so that it was no longer
parallel to the palace. It was not a drastic change, but one
which did loosen the formal composition somewhat. The
final placement of the museum can be seen on Schinkel's
presentation plan for the landscaping of the Lustgarten
(Fig. 15). Perhaps as a reaction to the shifting of the building,
Schinkel now proposes to obscure oblique views of the
museum by adding a thick row of chestnuts along the
water's edge and replacing the wall of linden trees with
chestnuts as well. A break in the western screen of trees still
allows a view onto the portico of the Domkirche and, in

128
4 - I .,, "I 1, I I .11 "I I., -, , , - I -11,
"
i 4 1
I I ', ,
-j
A"&& Am
1, -a 1 ka
i I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11
I it p. "
JV,.l . ~
~t
5'.. 9 :
_
Fig. I4. Schinkel's plan for the Lustgarten, 1824 (from Rave, Schinkel Lebenswerk).
a A
,
;
a
- *,
u ' ' ^ i
::\~ :: :s
'H'e
rfact, emphasizes the role of the high-domed church as the
j ,., L. ....... .
tfocal point of / the vista from the Unter den Linden. An
-,-' "in l
Lwlsitttirrl |^ ti ~!fsrt1- *
X^" arrow on the plan and the inscription, Durchsicht nach dem
Portal des Doms, indicates Schinkel's intention that the
' . ........ .. Js E ...
..'.
' ; .. . ' '..'' : a A ^
:"
; : :" | ;.......:
;
< * :.H.. 'i _ ... ......
w l?\ ,j i _ ffi
trttJ sThis, .
;'-"4: t^ -. . .
transverse axis of the plaza should visually span the river.
of course, had been his conception of the site from the
very beginning, as is attested by his perspective view of
i 823.
The line of this view from the west is echoed in the con-
'..^ A. * -
' :'
-^ ?| :::z;: "
figuration of planting in the center of the plaza. Another
2>1>zw--.'.~ .. . ..' "3.,, ,^ ,t,
i ::. :::::'. promenade relates the entrance of the museum to one of the
?* :-. ,* jl |l :: .. , i ^ '^ : ,%:.:-,
^
Lustgarten entrances of the palace. The low, formal plant-
-^.. ^;: 7- t:.*t,Z !
m- L t
, ing of the Lustgarten contrasts with the more picturesque
'
,,t9--'::",,,,:'.__:'
_ . -
'
'4
..
cnrate tne ; s netue, character of the looser clumps of chestnut trees, strategically
'' 4" r ::
,~:.i.: -'.::7' .;: '-
. . . , . .
PIC
placed to mask or accent parts of buildings or awkward
_"_,7':7,,, ::777L:';7;57,':
. ._ _ 7 .'Z. :-.''_"
'
,r ...........U;' 1 * .:...---- _ *- 7,.'
.......;
r...spaces.
The whole Lustgarten area thus becomes a con-
Fig. i5. Schinkel's plan for the Lustgarten, I828 (from Grisebach,
Schinkel).
trolled visual experience, with nature playing a decisive
role in relating both the masses of solid structure to one

Fig. I6. View from the upper vestibule of the museum (from Schinkel, Sammlung).
another and the open or confined spaces to the whole.
The museum, long acclaimed as Schinkel's masterwork,
can now be understood not solely in terms of its merits as an
architectural landmark, but also as a unit within a larger,
more comprehensive scheme of environmental planning.
While Schinkel's plans and drawing of the Lustgarten teach
us to look at the building from a distance and see it within
a larger context, another significant presentation shows us
the opposite point of view: the surrounding environment
from within the museum itself (Fig. I6). His rendering of
the semienclosed vestibule on the second floor emphasizes
once again that Schinkel never concentrated solely on the
form of individual buildings. Through the double screen of
columns one sees, carefully delineated, an oblique view of
the palace, the newly landscaped Lustgarten and, to the
right, the distant towers of his own Werdersche church of
1824. The choice of vista is intentional-not an axial view
to the palace across the square, but an oblique angle of
vision showing the larger city environment of which the
museum is only a part.56
Thus, although Schinkel used some traditional methods
in composing his spaces, his vision was not solely dependent
upon traditional axial relationships. Right angles and axial
56. Schinkel's intentions are also explicitly expressed in his writings:
"Der doppelte Aufgang der Haupttreppen ist so angeordnet,
dass man im Hinaufsteigen und aufdem oberen Ruheplatz, der einen
Altan in der Halle bildet, die Aussicht durch die Saulenhalle auf den
Platz behalt . . ." From the 6th installment of Sammlung, I825,
I29
alignments were simply means to organize what might
otherwise become disparate elements haphazardly grouped
together. Yet, he realized that relationships existed among
these elements, which were independent of the imposed
rational order. These were the visual relationships which
the architect had to consider when placing his new building
on the site. These were the panoramic relationships which
the painter of architectural landscapes could envisage and
control.
Upon its completion in 1830, the Lustgarten became an
organized civic space, taking its place in the long development
of city plazas beginning in sixteenth-century Italy.57
Indeed, it was one of the last great urban plazas and one of
the most significant examples executed in Germany in the
nineteenth century. In comparison to Leo von Klenze's
contemporary work in Munich or Friedrich Weinbrenner's
plans for Karlsruhe, Schinkel's planning of the Lustgarten
quoted from Rave, Schinkel Lebenswerk: Berlin, I, p. 42. See also,
Schinkel's letter to Christian Rauch, dated 8 January 1823, reproduced
in Hans Mackowsky, Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Briefe, Tagebucher,
Gedanken, Berlin, I922, p. 9I, which reads in part: "Die
Front gegen den Lustgarten hin hat eine so ausgezeichnete Lage, man
konnte sagen die schinste in Berlin, dass dafiir auch etwas ganz
Besonderes getan werden miisste. Eine einfache Saulenhalle in einem
grossartigen Stil und mit dem bedeutenden Platze im Verhaltnis
stehend wird dem Gebiude am sichersten Charakter und schine
Wirkung geben."
57. It is interesting to note that one finds numerous views of
Italian city plazas in the portfolios of Schinkel's first visit to Rome in
1803-1804, among them an exquisite drawing of the Campidoglio.

I30
Fig. I7. View of the custom warehouses and museum from the palace bridge (from Schinkel, Sammlung).
appears less static and monumental, his site more picturesque
or nialerisch, to use his own term. His ability to coordinate
the various elements, both old and new, into a
single unity of formal, spatial, and visual relationships may
have been the result of his earlier activity as a painter of
architectural landscapes. Moreover, as his own rendering of
the Lustgarten (Fig. 13) shows, he was extremely sensitive
to the panoramic effect of the total site. Contemporary
painters in Berlin, among them Eduard Gartner and Franz
Kriiger, recognized this quality of the urban spaces Schinkel
had created. Their canvases of the Lustgarten and the
Opernplatz testify to his success as an environmental planner,
and capture in lively, scenic effects the visual dominance
of his new buildings within their total setting.
For several years following the completion of the Lustgarten,
Schinkel, now Prussia's first state architect, enjoyed
a fine view onto the splendid urban scene he had created. A
drawing of 1835 illustrates, with very close approximation,
the view from his office window in the new Bauakademie
(I832-1835), which he himself had designed (Fig. I7).
From this vantage point, he could see his palace bridge, his
new museum, and the blocks of his recently finished custom
warehouses (a group of buildings long since replaced by
Adolf Messel's Pergamon Museum). In one glance he was
able to encompass an entire panorama of urban spaces, of
harmonious yet varied building forms, of tree-lined streets
and quays and lively waterways. In the context of Schinkel's
career, the Lustgarten had become a personal triumph,
a culmination of his lifelong concern, as painter and architect,
for the total environment of man's creations.
Before the destruction which occurred during World
War II, the central area of the Lustgarten retained some of
its original character. But already by I894 Schinkel's con-
tinuity of scale had been disrupted. In that year, Julius
Raschdorff replaced the old church. His new Domkirche, a
neo-Baroque giant, outraged in height and fancy all subtlety
of scale and simplicity of form that had once united the
total architectural scene. Subsequently, during the Nazi
regime, the Lustgarten was reduced to a grid of stonesurfacing
for political rallies and parades.58
Today, some twenty years after the holocaust of 1945,
Schinkel's recently restored museum is the lonely survivor
of a once splendid urban area.59 Gone are the Royal Palace
and the Bauakademie.60 The museum has irrevocably lost
its communication with the spatial and physical context
which originally formed a comprehensive, organized,
urban environment. As a result, Schinkel's major achievement
as an architect and planner has been effectively
destroyed, while his imaginative ideas and solutions live on
only in his drawings and writings.
In conclusion, it appears that, despite interest in Schinkel's
architecture, one of the key aspects of his achievement has
been largely overlooked. His schemes for extensive urban
projects and civic centers stand out as significant contribu-
tions to the history of environmental planning. It is hoped
that this essay has demonstrated Schinkel's effectiveness in
this field and that his vision, rather than his faCades and
floor plans, may become a source and stimulation for
further research into the art of building cities.
58. For a summary of the changing character of the Lustgarten,
its buildings and spaces, see Hans Miither, "Schinkels Museum in
Berlin," Berliner Heimat, Zeitschriftfur die Geschichte Berlins, 2, 1959,
pp. 72-82.
59. Restoration of the badly damaged museum was completed in
1966 and it is once again open to the public.
60. The ruins of the Royal Palace were razed in I950, those of the
Bauakademie in 1964.