HISTORY Hans Doligast: the old, the new and the inventive A distinctively modern 1m the restoration of historic monuments, exponents ofthe later approach (adopt approach tothe wo boa approaches can be observed, sale by such feet gen an Calo restoration of historic One approach is to attempt a facsimile Scarpa at the Castelveechio and Foster at : copy of what has been lost, to make the the Royal Academy) was Hans Dallgast buildings wes forged Sreinal andthe new as indistinguishable (1891-1074). Hiaerto Hise known out fn the ruins of post 45 possible. The other ~ architecturally side Germany, but now the subject of a war Munich, Says much more interesting ~ approach is to major exhibition at the Architecture Bernhard Blauel, make bold yet sensitive interventions Foundation in London, Dallgast rained which show their respect for the original in Munich in the years before the first by not attempting to mimic it world war and worked with Richard One of the first and most important Riemerschmid and Peter Behrens. in Vienna, Berlin and Frankfurt before seuling again in Munich, where he accepted a professorship just before the outbreak of the second world war, Faced with the largescale destruction of some of their most valtable monuments during the second world war, the ad and people of Munich had to de the future of their built e the ensuing fight over the question of restoration or reconstruction, Dallgast emerged as the advocate of a clearcut strategy that not only affected the face of the city but has also affected archit working in the city up to the present day. OF Munich buildings damaged during the war none was more important than the Alte Pinakothek. One of the leading museums in Europe, the Pinatkothek was created by Ludwig I of Bavaria and housed in a major building, constructed in 182636 to the design of Leo von Klenze. Klenze was the neoclassical archi- tect chosen by Ludwig to realise his dream of turning Munich into the Athens of the north, and at Ludwig's behest Klenze put an indelible mark on many of the city's most important buildings and public spaces. The Pinakothek is regard- From his window at the university Dallgast could look across the large open square on which the Pinakothek stood. The sandstone walls were damaged a number of times by shrapnel but one night a bomb tore a large erater into the Jong flank of the building, The green space around the Pinakothek had been used by his students to practice with s but now Déllgast took them vey the remains of the still ing ruin, Soon he had taken theod smoutl‘Above from top Ruin of the Pinakothee in 1956; Klenze's erignal rs floorplan of 1826; Déligast’s 1952 design (lst and {ground fee pans). Dolgast pre ‘posed to move the staircase and ‘ot rebuild the masonry facade. ‘Above right. Dolgast's 1952 desig, perspective of new stor. cose from fst oor. Opposite Detail of south facade showing breok between Daligast ‘and Klenze; interior of Délgsts new staircase (photos: W Wang). stock of the parts which were still able to perform structurally. The paintings had been removed to the countryside during hostilities and as soon as the war was over the museum director wanted them returned: the question was whether to house them in a new building or whether the old one should be rebuilt. Although funding was limited museum experts wanted a new building which would fulfil the latest technical requirements. Doligast avoided taking sides. Without being approached and without a commis. sion he worked on a solution for the pro- tection of the building that he valued so much. He is said to have told the director ata crucial meeting, ‘Herr Direktor, Tam not interested in the Pinakothek, what interests me is the building of Klenze’ Déligast did not mince words. It was not diplomacy which in the end won him the respect of the impatient director but rather his concrete proposals to open the collection to the public in the shortest time and with a minimum of funds. The fight over the future of the Pinakothek was taken into parliament. As the members of the house filed into the hall they were met by Dallgast’s students handing out leaflets with a complete cost breakdown of proposals for the protection of the building. Economics determined the fate of Klenze’s building: Déllgast's proposal undercut the cost estimates of any expert. Itwas decided to take immedi ate measures to stop further decay of the building on the basis of a limited budge and Déllgast was commissioned to exe ‘cute any necessary works without prejudi ing a facsimile restoration of the building at some future date. jince the bomb fell on the building and made a gaping hole in its middle, Déllgast had worked intensely on the task of find- ing a lasting repair to the building. The repair which he was commissioned to carry out was only a pretext for him to get involved with the more challenging task of restoration. But nothing would have been more alien to his understanding than a religious copying and remodelling of the details designed by Klenze. To him the uilding had a history and the sar it received from the bomb was part of that‘Top Stee columns on the south: em facade take up the rythm of the orginal posters, while the new bik wal protect the exhib- tion space. Above Dalgost, perspective of reconstructed Pinakothek 1952 (courtesy Archiv der Architektur. sammlang er Technischen Univers, Munich) Above right Dallgast’s 1954 storcate (demolished 1956), history. To hide it seemed to him absurd. The bluntness with which Déllgast pur- sued these ideas almost brought his com- a premature end. The investigation of the structure revealed some sections which had survived the blast. The experts from the conservation department asked for a design for the reinstatement of all destroyed sections Déllgast produced a piece which bore the slightest resemblance to the original The outraged director reported to the ‘commission that Déllgast about the unauthentic design, he was given the answer: ‘Since the time Klenze built, technology has moved on. My sections are better than those of 100 years ago. We have tried to copy them but they turned out to be awful. Honestly, we don’t have the heart to do it Only to the untrained eye Déllgast’s proposals appear to be mere intermediary work intended only to pre- vent further decay to the structure. A clos- er look revealed a kind of stitching pattern not seen before. To the question of largescale restoration raised by the war mission to when he questioned could Déligast responded with wit and invention, He tackled all requirements thrown at him = not just structure but also access and cir- culation, lighting and hanging facilities for paintings — proving that the substance of the building could be saved and modern requirements satisfied at the same time. The outcome was an exciting sequence of newly created spaces and an inge reorganisation of the layout. The 45 metre gap made by the bomb in was left open, with steel columns 19 metres tall and only 250mm in diameter placed on south facade the foundation of the old wall = the first time such slender columns had been used at this length. The columns took up the rhythm of the original pilasters and car ried the load of the monopitched roof The inner wall was rebuilt with salvaged bricks of nearby ruins of similar age. ‘Openings newly cut into the brick wall no longer followed the original rhythm but gave light to the rooms behind when requ left open giving a view of the timber rafters and the slender double U-section steel sd. The underside of the roof was plates, The upper side was finished inaluminium sheet, with the gutters mount. ed on the outside, rather than behind the parapet. Downpipes were taken out of their recesses to echo the newly created vertical lines of the thin steel columns. The staircase had disappeared from its original location in the east wing. Dallgast placed itin the centre alongside the south. facade (the loggia in Klenze’s design) where it almost followed the slope of the bomb crater. In addition fire regulations forced Déllgast to introduce another stair in the opposite direction. Although he never admitted that this was the intention, this created a circulation which permitted around tour, allowing the visitor to mean- der into and out of rooms at choice. The narrow stairs rose to the first landing and further to the first floor, allowing a view of the tall buttresses and piers of the old log- gia up to the exposed underside of the roof. Unwanted light from the south was thus screened and additional hanging space for paintings created in the central Rubens Hall on the first floor: ‘The most daring of all his proposals Déligast saved until the end, The last step in the programme to fully weather the envelope was to close the elegant steel south colonnade with a glass skin. But by then the imagination of the bureaucrats the commission was exhausted, Not only was Dollgast forced to draw up plans for a new and ‘safer’ staircase but also work out proposals for a more conven- tional facade closure. Thanks to Déllgast it. was not completely conventional, Walking up and down the now wider stai flights still gives the feeling of floating without gravity. The building stil allows you to read its history, and the attentive Visitor is still invited to investigate the secrets of the structure as unveiled by Doligast ‘raha Bla! in th ei Uniseiy im Munich ‘an te Ara! sition and nw rat i Laon. ana Dogan 1991-1974 ithe Arcisectare Foundation (Te Economia Bldg, 9 Bary Stet, Leadon SW) ftom Ocaber 150 November 10 Admin 2 (merry te dens ree) Toeny-Aiday 12pm, Saae Sty 2pm (deals 71880980) Ti are based "Hans Doge 19011974 (BDA/Callwey 1989), Tass Soto Fran Reng, Hein Ge, Wild Wang, Esch ‘Mhcahoeter FredrichRurren and Wied Nerdnge. ‘Top Dilgas’s unerecuted 1953 proposal to close the gop caused by bomb damage in the south facade with a glass screen, Below The staircase as fraly executed, 1957, Hans Dollgast orm in Bergheim {in 1891, Dolgast grew up in "Neuburg-Donau where his fother was a teacher. He studied architec: lure ot the Technische Hochschule in Munich ond wos opprenie to ‘Michael Kur in Augsburg. He won the school prize in 1917 for his re ‘onstruction of Pliny’ Vila. Aer rational service he worked inthe offices of Professor Frane Zell, Richard Riemershmid and Peter ‘Behrens before joining in practice with Michael Kurz with whem he ‘undertook many commissions and competitions. Dollgast began teaching atthe Technische Hochschule in 1929, becoming professor ten yer later: n the ities he lo taught in Venn, Aachen and istanbul. He completed more than 70 buildings ‘and restorations, mosty forthe Church, and mostly in Bavaria. He hed in 1974,