You are on page 1of 32

DOUBLE, NOT DUAL

:
A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER
EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN, 1992)
by Greg Polvi (http://www.associatidesign.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)

A PROPOSITION FOR ARCHITECTURAL INTERPRETATION
"Thus, architecture is both substance and act. The sign is a record of an intervention - an event and an act
which goes beyond the presence of elements which are merely necessary conditions. Architecture can be
proposed as an ordering of conditions drawn from the universe of form together with the act of designating
conditions of geometry, use, and significance as a new class of objects."
Peter Eisenman, Maison Dom-ino and the Self-Referential Sign, 1979

"Bisexual"1 was a word used by Peter Eisenman to describe his Max Reinhardt Haus in
1992, an unbuilt architecture for the city of Berlin that can be formally read in two different
ways. The first interprets the form as being additive, two legs rising high above the Berlin
landscape and meeting at the architectural object's top. The second interprets the form as
being subtractive, a void carved out of solid mass. This idea of bisexuality is continually
addressed and re-addressed by the agility of the Max Reinhardt Haus: the project forces
Eisenman to conduct formal gymnastics around an architectural context that presents him
with a long list of twos, often contradictory. These twos, presenting both formal and
contextual obstacles to the project, are integral to understanding the outcome of the Max
Reinhardt Haus. Further, Eisenman's ability to produce a single, coherent architectural object
while maneuvering these twos is extremely commendable, the outcome being a project that
not only acted as a pioneer in the early digital period, but stills holds today as one of the
defining moments of his career.
In Peter Eisenman's definition of “architecture,” outlined in his text Maison Dom-ino
and the Self-Referential Sign (1979), an architectural act is achieved through the architect's
1 "Max Reinhardt Monument Challenges `Business As Usual'" Architectural Record Vol. 181 Issue 3 Mar. 1993: 14. Print.
DOUBLE, NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN, 1992)
Greg Polvi (http://www.associatidesign.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)

1

application of intention2. The intention to control the placement of architectural elements, to
coordinate linguistic meaning, experience, and programme, is the achievement of an
architectural building. While the lack of published documentation for the Max Reinhardt
project prevents a close reading of its individual elements, the use of an Eisenmanian
microscope is still possible when read against its high level formal considerations. The formal
rigour promoted by Eisenman's design process, and the attention to detail promoted by his
Maison Dom-ino text, opens the architect to such an analysis and validates any such critique.
As noted, there is little documentation or writing about the Max Reinhardt Haus, and a
foundational understanding does not exist in print. However, there is a plethora of written
content from critics and Peter Eisenman in the years bookending the project discussing his
more general architectural thoughts. As such, this article asserts that it is possible to
understand the Max Reinhardt Haus and the considerations that led to its design by locating
Peter Eisenman's thinking at the time of its conception. The purpose of this essay is to study
the Max Reinhardt Haus with Eisenmanian analytics, uncovering his acts of intention in
coming to an architectural solution - formally, contextually, and programmatically.

IDEA/APPROACH
"The Alteka Tower is different from Frankfurt; and Emory will be different from Alteka. I am not interested in
doing the same thing."
Peter Eisenman, Architecture D'Aujourd'hui, February 1992.

In understanding the context of design that Peter Eisenman was working within for the
Max Reinhardt Haus, it is necessary to distinguish between the idea and the approach in his
working methodologies:
"I have worked with many different ideas, trace, imprint, superpositions, scaling and now
2 Eisenman, Peter. "Maison Dom-ino and the Self-Referential Sign." Oppositions. Spring 1979: 189-98. Print.
DOUBLE, NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN, 1992)
Greg Polvi (http://www.associatidesign.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)

2

folding, but I have never stayed with any of them. I have left a trail of issues and ideas which I
never develop. I am not interested in developing a single idea."
Peter Eisenman, Architecture D'Aujourd'hui, February 1992.

The distinction between idea and approach is necessary because while Eisenman may
use design ideas from project to project, briefly utilizing them and moving on to something
else, there exist certain approaches that pervade many Eisenman projects, sustaining the
design of many architectural objects over significant periods of time. The Max Reinhardt Haus
is a culmination of Eisenman's ideas of “looking back” through de-stabilizing vision 3 and the
mobius strip; in addition, it is a representation of his approaches of “weak form,”
placelessness, and his considerations of media, the event, and an electronic paradigm within
his “double zeitgeist.”

SITE CONTEXT
There is an important distinction to draw within Peter Eisenman's consideration of the
context of the Max Reinhardt Haus. For Peter Eisenman, in Berlin in 1992, contextual
assessment involved little consideration of the size and shape of surrounding buildings. This
conclusion is possible when noting that the outcome was not formally considerate of its
neighbourhood. Had it been completed, Max Reinhardt Haus was to stand 34 stories tall at a
height of 122m4, far surpassing the height limit of 22m in its site location. A significant reason
in its ultimate failure to be built was the assessment of the building as "inhumane"5 within its
urban fabric. However, this lack of consideration for the surrounding buildings, or perhaps
what could be considered disregard, is arguable due to the situation faced by Berlin at the
time, recovering from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. As quoted by Max Reinhardt Haus
3 Eisenman, Peter. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media." Domus No. 734 Jan. 1992: 17-24. Print.
4 "Max Reinhardt Monument Challenges `Business As Usual'" Architectural Record Vol. 181 Issue 3 Mar. 1993: 14. Print.
5 "Revisiting the Reich." Architect Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.architectmagazine.com/books/peter-eisenman-review-leon-krier-revisiting-the-reich.aspx>
DOUBLE, NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN, 1992)
Greg Polvi (http://www.associatidesign.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)

3

The project exudes responsibility for both the context of Berlin and the discipline of architecture at the time.associatidesign. Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies: In the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects.” a concept to be discussed later in this analytical assessment. 7 Moneo. you are also making a symbolic gesture. Cambridge. privileging one over the other. 1992) Greg Polvi (http://www. The Friedrichstrasse glass skyscraper (1921) drawn by Mies van der Rohe was also in close proximity to the site of Max Reinhardt Haus 8. 2004. would have been a difficult and potentially questionable design decision. 'Business as usual' cannot be the pre-dominant message at this moment for Germany or for Europe. Notably. Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies: In the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects . and if realized in physical form. and Unter den Linden. Rafael.developer Dieter Bok: "Every time you construct a building. Print. Mass: MIT. it is impossible to argue that Peter Eisenman designed the Max Reinhardt Haus project without contextual consideration. DOUBLE. Although a 6 "Max Reinhardt Monument Challenges `Business As Usual'" Architectural Record Vol. traveling east-west 7. Grosses Schauspielhaus (1919). We hope to encourage people to imagine a future Germany based on the most vital part of our past. Friedrichstrasse. 2004.” or the “electronic paradigm. Cambridge. The physical location of the architecture within Berlin begins to address Eisenman's issue of “bisexuality. Eisenman considers both axes equally in his formal result. The directional influence of these two powerful axes offers an initial understanding of the form standing on two legs. Rafael. 181 Issue 3 Mar. originally stood on the site prior to being destroyed during World War II. would have acted as a keystone project for directing architecture forward within what Eisenman calls the “electronic age. designed by Hans Poelzig. The project's site falls at the intersection point of the two most significant streets in Berlin. 8 Moneo. The selection of one of these axes." 6 Despite the significant height of the building.” and the Max Reinhardt's formal representation of the concept of two. the project was to fall in close proximity to two significant buildings within the canon of architectural history. traveling north-south. Pg 80. in addition to being placed at a very significant intersection. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. 1993: 14. Print. Mass: MIT. Pg 80. emerging from the ground. Print.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) 4 .

These cities are participants in his “electronic age. Peter." To Eisenman.less significant formal force than the power of the two axes. is also shaped by it. Print. a “double zeitgeist”. Seoul. 83 No."9 Architecture. he feels. Eisenman contends that the current zeitgeist. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. features two pursuits cooperating with one another.” The second half of the “double zeitgeist” is created by information. THE CITY OF BERLIN AND A 'DOUBLE ZEITGEIST' "It is impossible to predicate the future of [Berlin] on a single esthetic. and the politically charged issues facing the city in the year 1992. 11 The first zeitgeist is traditional. DOUBLE. industry and people. 10Oct. since esthetics no longer correspond to a singular worldview. Eisenman comments: "Any future Berlin must also take into consideration its 50 years as a divided city. Eisenman's architecture once again requires the consideration of a two within the urban landscape surrounding the object.” or 9 Eisenman. a "spirit of the times. "Confronting the Double Zeitgeist. the idea of the zeitgeist was a "unitary organizational strategy". written in 1994 after the completion of the Max Reinhardt Haus. 1992) Greg Polvi (http://www.associatidesign. which serves to link technologically and culturally sophisticated centres such as Berlin. Singapore. and Tokyo. New York. yet at the same time. 1994: 51-55. culture. or more simply." Architecture (AIA) Vol. 11 Ibid. Addressing another two while maneuvering the project. with characteristics determined by land. has the power to help shape the zeitgeist.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) 5 . non-placebound heterogenous organization. and the situational context facing the Max Reinhardt Haus. These are participants within Eisenman's “mechanical paradigm. 10 In the article Confronting the Double Zeitgeist. Confronting the Double Zeitgeist. Architecture (AIA) 1994 Peter Eisenman was very contextually aware of Berlin's history. in places such as Serbia and Slovakia." Peter Eisenman. 10 Ibid. and the old must be automatically enfolded into the new.

15 Ibid. had more in common with a New Yorker. 13 Ibid. Eisenman felt. the realities of the world in 1992 forced architects to consider whether each project they designed was. nor is it the result from a homogenous political. With all of these considerations. 13 A Berliner. than a resident from a neighbouring German city 14. 14 Ibid.” Notably. Berlin did not operate according to a single principle. To Peter 12 Eisenman. Print. information-age cities such as Berlin. or creating new frameworks and systems of organization that will transform and define heterogenous. it begins to become apparent why the two-legged form of the Max Reinhardt emerges as a conceptually-rich response to the “double zeitgeist. whereas the word “double” implies a coexistence and cooperation. 1992) Greg Polvi (http://www. social and economic structure 15. Confronting the Double Zeitgeist.” THE EVENT AND THE 'ELECTRONIC AGE' "[Architects] must choose between adopting placebound schemes for Serbia. 16 Ibid.“electronic paradigm." Architecture (AIA) Vol.” the “electronic paradigm. 10Oct.12 Yet again.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) 6 . DOUBLE. 83 No. "Confronting the Double Zeitgeist. not a dual zeitgeist.” 16 or. Eisenman felt that it was impossible to look at a place such as Berlin in 1992 and consider it to be the manifestation of a single zeitgeist. 1994: 51-55. Architecture (AIA) 1994 For Peter Eisenman. Berlin and New York City are both technologically sophisticated cities based upon frameworks of information. Peter." Peter Eisenman. the design situation of the Max Reinhardt Haus requires Eisenman to synthesize a two into a single architectural outcome. 1) discursive with the placemaking approaches of traditional architecture. and the “mechanical paradigm. 2) if the architect was discursive with the “double zeitgeist.” and its resulting placelessness. he is careful to point out that it is a double zeitgeist.associatidesign. so many twos. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. the traditional notions of city and architecture are thrown into question. in that a duality implies the conflict of two oppositions." "When physical proximity is no longer a part of the zeitgeist of a place.

theatre. Peter. Print. Print. the architecture was situated in a location of Berlin that already featured a wide-range of activity possibilities. Peter Eisenman. 2004." Zone: Incorporations 6 1992: 422-27. 19 In discussing a new approach to traditional figure-ground relationships. Eisenman suggests that the once-understood interaction between void and solid is obsolete. Kulturforum.' WEAK URBANISM 17 Eisenman. 17 In Peter Eisenman's text. 23 Eisenman. and hospital) 22. office spaces. Unfolding Events. and that the existence of media confounds the issue20. 'WEAK FORM. overwhelms the physical realities of architecture – the intensity of light. "Unfolding Events. The wide-ranging programme of the Max Reinhardt Haus is illustrative of Eisenman's embrace of the idea of the event." Zone: Incorporations 6 1992: 422-27. Media. This material choice is even more logical when considering Eisenman's interest in eliminating interior-exterior boundaries and blurring the divide between private and public space. with additional buildings being newly erected in close proximity (a government complex. a condition enabled by transparency connecting the outside with the inside. Cambridge. restaurant.Eisenman. Peter. Print. theatre and film archive. it is understandable why glass was chosen to be the uniform material for the exterior of the Max Reinhardt Haus. 1994: 51-55. 10Oct. media centre. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. Pippo. Peter. 21 Moneo. 83 No. and Giorgio Ciucci. Print. health club. Eisenman argues. the new architecture of information represented an enormous conceptual shift away from the architecture of placemaking. Mass: MIT. "Unfolding Events. contributing a type of digital poché. Further. 1992) Greg Polvi (http://www.” 18 and needs to address the urgency presented by the event. Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies: In the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects . with the building boasting a vertical mall. and hotel 21.associatidesign. 22 Ciorra. Rafael. "Confronting the Double Zeitgeist. DOUBLE.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) 7 . sound. conference facilities. railway station. With Eisenman acknowledging how media and the event have the tendency to overwhelm the physical realities of architecture in a type of present-day Baroquian overflow of spatial boundaries 23. he states that architecture can no longer be bound by the “static conditions of space and place." Architecture (AIA) Vol. 19 Ibid. Milano: Electa. and other effects deny physical presence. Print. Peter Eisenman: Opere E Progetti. 1993. Pg 80. 20 Ibid. 18 Eisenman.

” in Re:Working Eisenman. this concession towards designing “weak” buildings had a profound effect upon the formal communication of the Max Reinhardt Haus in its ultimately ambiguous representation of the mobius strip. and perhaps act as reframing devices for the existing city:28 "Architecture.27 For Eisenman. with little ambiguity or question about its linguistic communication. placing value on appearance over true existence. 51-53. For Peter Eisenman. a “strong form" was a strong. Peter. 24 This issue is relevant to the form of the Max Reinhardt project as his design is an architecture of “weak” form. simple formal idea that was easily interpretable." a concept outlined in Eisenman's text. was changing. in order to be considered meaningful. Pp. 1992) Greg Polvi (http://www. Weak Form. Confronting the Double Zeitgeist. 26 Eisenman." Peter Eisenman. The "electronic age" raised questions about reality. the physical location of a building in an information centre was irrelevant because the building was in many places at once. must confront the placeless possibilities of the electronic paradigm. The Idea of the City: Architectural Associations. There is legitimacy in questioning why the architecture 24 Eisenman. 1992: 17-24. which once could declare a potent reality through "brick and mortar" and "structure and foundation" 26."Domus No. “Strong form” was no longer relevant in the context of an information centre. Weak Form (1988). Robin. Print. Media introduced fundamental ambiguities into how things are seen and what is seen." architecture.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) 8 . 27 Ibid. 734 Jan. For Eisenman. Architecture (AIA) 1994 Formally. and led Peter Eisenman to contend that the method for architectural discourse within this framework was to design “weak” buildings. Strong Form.The Max Reinhardt Haus was designed with Peter Eisenman's approach of "weak form. and challenged architecture by redefining what is in terms of media and simulation. 25 Ibid. London: Architectural Association. “Strong Form. 1996. 25 Within the "electronic age. 28 Middleton. Peter.associatidesign. DOUBLE. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. London: Academy Editions. Print. architectures that were open to an ambiguity of interpretation. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media. This ambiguity and flexibility was to act as a catalyst for awakening “repressed conditions” within the urban landscape. 1993.

structures. floor. with the mind to the eye. Architecture D'Aujourd'hui. For Peter Eisenman. 1992: 17-24. Peter. placelessness. VISION AND 'LOOKING BACK' "The only knowing that we have from architecture is when we walk into a room and what we see. and he was drawing the Max Reinhardt Haus to be a beacon for architecture within the context of media. table. 'Light. 1992) Greg Polvi (http://www. with an indisputably “strong” form. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media. like the looking back of the object environment. The Max Reinhardt Haus would be an instant-icon were it to purely represent a true mobius strip. 734 Jan. shelter. door. Peter. While the project would be a notable urban figure in both scenarios.associatidesign.lessens its formal representation of the mobius strip. 29 Since architectural space adopted the idea of perspective in the 15th century. Eisenman chooses to design a building that is far more ambiguous in its formal communication and opts for a faceted architecture of many sides and interpretations. 1992: 17-24. Perspective is even more prominent in architecture 29 Eisenman. Print. the “double zeitgeist. and digital technologies raising questions about the relevancy of physicality. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. We say. 1992 "Why has the issue of vision never been properly problematized in architecture?" asked Peter Eisenman in the years surrounding the conception of the Max Reinhardt Haus. Print. further facilitated by Filippo Brunelleschi's perspectival projection system. 30 Eisenman. Eisenman opted for a “weak” form to be the encapsulation of the ideas of the electronic age: ambiguity."Domus No. which is a functional construct. We see enclosure. refusing to create the “strong” form of a pure mobius. There is no looking back possible. 734 Jan.” and the fading relevance of “strong form” within the discipline.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) 9 . What I am suggesting is that we need to deflect this dominant relationship with vision. 30 the discipline of architecture has been dominated by the mechanics of vision. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media."Domus No. DOUBLE." Peter Eisenman. precisely because architecture has assumed that this is the only way to inscribe its being. in order to open up the eye to other things that might be possible. the future of architectural discourse was in “weak” form.' This seeing relates what we see to a construct in the mind.

with no return communication being returned by the object. Eisenman argues for returning an ambiguity to the interaction. causing the subject to sensorially comprehend that 31 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 1992) 10 Greg Polvi (http://www. by Eisenman's definition. 31 In Eisenman's view. this has created a situation whereby the act of vision has become a one-way exchange between the viewer and the architectural object. 734. light. Eisenman argues that vision has been assumed to be a natural participant in the architectural process. Domus No. architecture remains embedded within a classical and Renaissance discourse due to the limitations of anthropocentric focus. door) that are generally returned to the subject.when compared to other artistic disciplines because of the need of the viewer to orient themselves within physical space. table floor. the problem with this emerges when the eye sees something in the architectural object and associates a previously inscribed meaning to what is being seen." Peter Eisenman." Door. 1992 Under Peter Eisenman's conception of “vision.associatidesign. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. 35 Ibid. he argues that the demands of the electronic paradigm demand the concept of vision to be re-assessed and states that without doing so. 34 "Once the environment becomes affective. light. Instead. then reason becomes detached from vision.” the standard exchange is for the subject (viewer) to see the object (architectural object) and participate in a one-way exchange that organizes space. floor. the optimal path of exploration is to empower the object to interact and exchange back to the subject. 32 Ibid.35 For Eisenman. de-stabilizing the previously inscribed concepts (ie. one which is no longer translatable into the vision of the mind. linking sight with an a priori knowledge of "architecture. Further. inscribed with another logic. linking the eye to the mind. DOUBLE. 33 Ibid. Vision. 32 For Eisenman. is the process of sight attached to thinking. 33 and that it is time to question this process in an attempt to de-stabilize it.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) .

2013. one-way exchange."Domus No. Print. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. of the single boundary. 39 Ibid. DOUBLE. private and public." (Translated from German) Peter Eisenman37 The mobius strip is a surface with one side and one component of boundary.39 and this re-enforced a traditional subject->object. Peter. N. 1992) 11 Greg Polvi (http://www. 20 Nov. and thus." BERLINER ZEITUNG. Thus. unlike painting or music. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media. Eisenman felt that he could create an architecture of the single surface. 16 Feb. Print..p." Peter Eisenman. the elimination of the interior-exterior divide with a formal mobius strip would transcend vision's traditional subject->object exchange and establish a new subject<->object exchange. 36 Notably.berliner-zeitung. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media. The stylized rotation of the mobius strip expresses a constant change. This is the idea of the 'looking back' of the architectural object. 734 Jan. Web. one that 36 Eisenman. but without knowing what it is being seen.der-zukunft-leben. the clear distinction between inside and outside inherent to building is a cause of architecture being fundamentally rooted in the idea of vision.10917074. the enabling of the architectural object to complete a two-way interaction with the subject. 1992: 17-24.8808218. 1992: 17-24. 734 Jan. create an unbroken continuity between interior and exterior. required vision to conceptualize itself in this way. It shall remove the dualism of inside and outside."Domus No. 1992 "My architectural mobius strip represents the current vision. MOBIUS STRIP "It is perhaps the idea of interiority as a hierarchy between inside and outside that causes architecture to conceptualize itself ever more comfortably and conservatively in vision. this exchange is another two for consideration. Peter.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) . 37"Berlin Muß in Der Zukunft Leben.there is something to be understood. The fact that one is actually both inside and outside in architecture.38 For Peter Eisenman. displacing the human subject.html> 38 Eisenman. The interiority of architecture more than any other discourse defined a hierarchy of vision articulated by inside and outside.associatidesign. 734. <http://www. 1994. Domus No.de/newsticker/im-gespraech-mit-dem-stararchitekten-peter-eisenman-ueber-sein—max-reinhardt-haus--berlin-muss-in. nor what it is that needs to be understood. By utilizing the formal device of the mobius strip.

However.” the question needs to be asked why the mobius strip is cut at the ground level. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. and the “weak” building appealed to his conception of the electronic paradigm. so how can it possibly behave as a mobius in the manner that Eisenman intends? Eisenman attempts to destabilize the process of vision between subject and object. 1992: 17-24. however. 40 Eisenman. Peter. In the sectional drawings. considering Peter Eisenman's conviction towards the mobius strip as being a formal method of creating a new architecture within his new electronic paradigm of the “double zeitgeist. Print.associatidesign. With this. an approach Eisenman felt was no longer relevant within the electronic paradigm. and 2) in the interaction between subject and object.” Eisenman ensures that the design goals for Max Reinhardt are impossible to achieve in the totality he intends. 734 Jan.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) .allowed for an empowered “looking back” contribution from the architecture. The form is not a definitive mobius strip. As discussed previously. By insisting on the promotion of “weak form. and create a difficult catch-22 in his design process. is how Peter Eisenman's approach of “weak” urbanism and his idea of the mobius strip are in direct conflict with one another. the Max Reinhardt Haus is once more subject to interactions between twos: 1) in the negotiation between interior and exterior. 1992) 12 Greg Polvi (http://www. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media. however. Further. DOUBLE. and in the process."Domus No. Eisenman achieved a “weak” formal building with the Max Reinhardt Haus by faceting the mobius strip and reducing its “strong form” as a formal object. 40 This was an alteration to the anthropocentric approach to architecture. This faceting loosened its direct association to the image of a mobius strip. Notably. whether he succeeds or not is debatable given the Max Reinhardt's lack of direct association with a true mobius strip. Eisenman makes an indirect reference to it rather than a direct representation. by faceting his mobius strip. drastically limits his reduction of the interior and exterior divide by the simple fact of reducing the formal representation of the mobius. the strip does not continue beneath ground.

one between figure and ground yet reconstituting the nature of both. With Eisenman's previously discussed consideration of the history of Berlin." Zone: Incorporations 6 1992: 422-27. and transformative process of the building's form. DOUBLE. in which the Max Reinhardt Haus form touches a transparent ground plane. I want to argue. and thus. not a true mobius strip. it is also possible to question whether he felt that an architectural object that appeared to emerge from the ground. Eisenman argues that the fold is able to stimulate a productive blurring between the old and the new 41.associatidesign. The possibility exists that Eisenman felt the ground plane.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) . Questions need to be raised regarding the intention of this decision upon analysis of the project model displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art. Thus.This brings even greater focus to the fact that the mobius strip is incomplete. The fold. becomes the site of all the repressed immanent conditions of existing urbanism. Print. and the model acted as the true representation of Eisenman's architectural idea. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. "Unfolding Events. it becomes possible to reframe what is extant on any site.” 41 Eisenman. The possibility of this being his consideration in the Max Reinhardt project is enhanced later in the same text. Such a reframing would express that which was repressed by former systems of authority – analytical or otherwise – and transform it into potentially new interpretations of existing organizations. but the mobius strip nonetheless continues below ground. it is reasonable to question if the reduction of the form to an incomplete mobius strip was done due to structural limitations. was a stronger symbol for its context. when Eisenman discusses the possibility of the fold catalyzing a release in a condition between figure and ground: “By introducing the concept of the fold as a nondialectical third condition. stimulating an antennae for a new Europe to emerge from the old ground. acted as the catalyst for the folding. In his Unfolding Events text. Peter. unfolding. representative of the soil and history of Berlin itself. 1992) 13 Greg Polvi (http://www. as opposed to communicating itself as an autonomous object separate from its surroundings.

1992) 14 Greg Polvi (http://www. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. and in the process. offer new possibilities for the urban landscape.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) .Considering this quote.associatidesign. it is conceivable that Peter Eisenman felt that the fold could stimulate a productive release of Berlin's historical tapestry within the electronic age of the present day. DOUBLE.

2006. Web. Peter. Print. 37-39. 1996. 1992. Peter. London: Academy Editions. and Manfredo Tafuri. and Giorgio Ciucci. and Terence Riley.” in Blurred Zones: Investigations of the Interstitial. Pp.10917074. Davidson. NY: Universe Pub. Rosalind E. 83 No. ed. 2013. New York: Rizzoli. 1987. 1982. 1993. Milano: Electa. <http://www. Moneo. Pp. Peter.html> Deleuze. Nordenson. Cambridge." BERLINER ZEITUNG. Peter. "Confronting the Double Zeitgeist. Fischer. Eisenman." Architecture (AIA) Vol. London: Architectural Association. Print. 1993. Pp. Print. Eisenman. Print. “Architecture and the Problem of the Rhetorical Figure” in Re:Working Eisenman.p. Peter.. and Laurie Olin. Houses of Cards. 1993. Krauss.berlinerzeitung. Print. N. New York: Rizzoli. Print. Spring 1979: 189-98. “Architecture and the Crisis of Reality.8808218. 1994: 51-55.. 2003. Peter Eisenman. and Stan Allen. Peter.BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Ciorra. Print. 10Oct. Cynthia C. Tall Buildings. Rafael. Mass: MIT." Oppositions. Guy. 2003. Eisenman.de/newsticker/im-gespraech-mit-dem-star-architekten-peter-eisenman-ueber-sein—max-reinhardt-haus--berlin-muss-inder-zukunft-leben. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gilles. Print. Tom Conley. Peter. Volker. Frankfurt Rebstockpark: Folding in Time. The Idea of the City: Architectural Associations. DOUBLE. 1993. trans. 1992. 130-133.associatidesign. Print.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) . ARTICLES "Berlin Muß in Der Zukunft Leben. Peter. New York. 1992) 15 Greg Polvi (http://www.” in Re:Working Eisenman. Pg 80. Karina Aicher. Pippo. Print. Print. New York: Oxford UP. Robin. Albert Speer. Re-working Eisenman. MSnchen: Prestel. Cynthia Davidson. Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies: In the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects. London: Academy Editions. House X. Peter Eisenman. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. Eisenman. Print. London: Academy Editions. “Folding in Time: The Singularity of Rebstockpark. Eisenman. New York: Museum of Modern Art. 1999. "Maison Dom-ino and the Self-Referential Sign. 54-57 Eisenman. Eisenman. 16 Feb. Eisenman. New York: The Monacelli Press. Peter Eisenman: Opere E Progetti. Diagram Diaries. Eisenman. Peter. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque.. 2004. Middleton. 20 Nov. Tracing Eisenman: Peter Eisenman Complete Works. 1994.

N.” in Re:Working Eisenman. Peter.Eisenman.aspx> DOUBLE. Peter. Print. Patin." AA Files No. Pp.architectmagazine. London: Academy Editions. Weak Form.d. Thomas.” in Re:Working Eisenman. NOT DUAL: A CONTEXTUAL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF PETER EISENMAN'S MAX REINHARDT HAUS (BERLIN. Frederic. Pp. Berlin. Structuralism and Deconstruction.com/books/peter-eisenmanreview-leon-krier-revisiting-the-reich. 181 Issue 3 Mar. "Unfolding Events. London: Academy Editions. Eisenman. Print. 1993: 88-100. <http://www. the End of the End. n. “The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning. Peter. Eisenman. 1992: 98-115. 51-53. Web. 1993: 14. 1993. 25 Summer 1993: 10-13. 59-61.” in Re:Working Eisenman. Architects: Peter Eisenman. Peter. and Sanford Kwinter. Eisenman. 1992: 17-24." Zone: Incorporations 6 1992: 422-27." Architecture D'Aujourd'hui Feb. Print. 1993.. 1993. 24-33 Eisenman. "From Deep Structure To An Architecture In Suspense: Peter Eisenman. Pp. 2013. London: Academy Editions."Domus No. 41-43. 20 Nov. "Max Reinhardt Haus. "Revisiting the Reich. Print. Peter. Print. "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media. London: Academy Editions.associatidesign. "Max Reinhardt Monument Challenges `business as Usual'" Architectural Record Vol.p. Peter." Journal of Architectural Education Nov. Pp. 734 Jan. "Peter Eisenman." Architect Magazine. 1993. “Unfolding Events: Frankfurt Rebstockpark and the Possibility of a New Urbanism. Print. 1992) 16 Greg Polvi (http://www.com) Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) . Eisenman. “Text as Zero. Levrat.” in Re:Working Eisenman. “Strong Form.