Hey everyone,
For my research project, I’ve decided to work on Albert Speer’s planned global capital city, which he later dubbed Welthauptstadt Germania, which was to be situated in the area of Berlin. The idea was that if the Nazi’s had won the war, this new city on Berlin would have served as the world capital, but, as it turned out, they did not win and very little of the proposed city was ever realized. I found this topic interesting as it was supposed to be this great super-city, though it would have been heavily modeled after Roman architecture, not unlike Washington DC. Unlike the architecture of Washington, the structures of Welthauptstadt Germania would have completely dwarfed their inspirations. Just as an example of how huge these structures would have been, one of these proposed buildings, called the Große Halle, would have been a domed structure similar to the Pantheon, but would have been capable of being occupied by as many as 180,000 people.
Although this is just a little bit about the city itself, I’ve found Speer, the man behind the city, to be quite an interesting figure, despite his involvement in the Nazi war effort. One of Speer’s first state buildings was the Zeppelinfeld, which was featured in Leni Riefenstahl’s iconic propaganda film “Triumph des Willens,” or Triumph of the Will. In the construction of the Zeppelinfeld, Speer, with Hitler’s approval, did not use any modern ”anonymous” materials such as steel girders or ferroconcrete, as these materials would not have created aesthetically appealing ruins, like those of the Roman Empire. The reason for this was because Hitler saw himself in the same light as a Roman Emperor and wanted his time of rule to be emblazoned right onto the city, for centuries to come. The idea for using these materials came about because even after thousands of years, had they existed, their ruins would still display the majesty of the time. This was called Speer’s Theory of Ruin Value. I find this concept interesting, and a classic sign of a cult of personality. I have yet to read any of Speer’s autobiographies, (or any biographies for that matter), but when I do, I will most likely further explore this topic for my term paper. Despite the passage of roughly 75 years (a far cry from the imagined 1000’s of years) we can already see some of the decaying ruins of what was to be Welthaupstadt Germania.
Just wanted to reiterate my comment from class. I think it’s interesting how Speers and Hitler were aware that their buildings and cities would fall into disrepair and become ruins. Most theorists and builders we have looked at refuse to acknowledge the eventual demise of their plans, and that Speer’s and Hitler planned specifically for that event is important for the way they wanted to plan and build. Cool beans.
The idea that planners might reflect on the long-term decline of their vision is an interesting one, Andrew. Some planners might say that they don’t have the leisure to do this, because they need to focus on meeting the needs of the present. In response to this, we might raise the issue of sustainability – is it ethical to build without concern for the future? This problem has come up, for example, with sky-scrapers. What happens, say, in 100 years, when they become obsolete? How do you remove a sky-scraper?
Historically, planners eventually began to think of planning not as making a blue-print, but as a process of constant revisions; we’ll see this in a couple of classes…
Hey Darren,
After reading your reflection I was asking myself what would Berlin be like had Hitler won the war and Speer’s city planning, such as the Grobe Hall had been built? I’m sure you’ve done a bit more research into your topic, so i’m wondering if you could tell me some of the shortcomings, or problems that Speers plans would have ran into.
Thanks!
Hey Kory,
While Speer’s plans seem to have been somewhat viable, the greatest concern was whether or not the soil of Berlin could support such heavy structures. One of the planned structures would have been similar to Paris’ Arc de Triomphe, only the Berlin arc would have completely dwarfed Paris’. Speer created some extremely heavy blocks of concrete on some of the sites selected for particularly heavy structures in order to determine the stability of the soil, and many of them sank substantially, as Berlin is largely built on marshland. Another problem that Speer later thought, during his imprisonment follow the war, was how a structure as large as the Große Halle’s dome would handle the amount of humidity created by the 180,000 people’s bodies and breath. It was a genuine concern that this much humidity could cause clouds within the dome.
I find it a little outrageous that a planner would create a city knowing full-well that it would collapse into aesthetically pleasing ruins. Could you imagine if more planners thought this way, and there were just pockets of ruined cities around the world that travelers would have to navigate around to get to a functional city? The amount of resources that would have gone into the building of that city alone would be a reason to stop building. What would be the reasoning behind purposefully wanting to do this? Is it just a romanticized egotistical fantasy to remain an icon and have something left behind that is likely to stay there for eternity? If that’s the case, it’s a little ironic, because it would LITERALLY be a representation of their failure.
I think that’s a really good point, Kelsey… It’s one thing to realize the impermanence of your plans, and then create flexible plans that can accomodate change (as we discussed today), and another altogether to conceive of yourself basically like the ancient Romans and Egyptians; and fantasize about how future generations will admire your ruins…