Jewish Museum Berlin

Berlin, Germany

Stephen Andenmatten
Caitlin Walsh
James Wisniewski
Rensselaer Case Studies Project
Fall 2011
I did something I believed in...

CASE STUDY : JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN

designed by Daniel Libeskind
...which was to transform the entire
structure into a discourse about
German-Jewish history.
DANIEL LIBESKIND, COUNTERPOINT
Preface

Buildings embody cultural knowledge. They are testament to the will and
forces that affect their conception, realization, use and experience. They
bear cultural and professional significance and possess within them and
their constituent components important lessons for anyone wanting to
discover what a work of architecture is in its larger context, what brought it
about, and how it contributes to an ever evolving architectural and cultural
discourse. As Emeritus Professor Peter Parsons points out, their [building]
forms and spaces are invested with traces of habitation and beliefs through
the employment of materials wrought by craft and technology. They are
manifestos of habituated practice and progressive intentions, and range
in their influence from reinforcing obsolete patterns and meanings at one
extreme, to innovating and provoking yet unconsidered ones, at the other.
They are beholden to the methods of their conceiving and development,
and owe, at least in part, their aspirations to cultural preoccupations and
priorities.

The Rensselaer Case Studies project examines contemporary works

of architects in relation to what influenced them, and seeks to expose
innovations in thinking, technique and technology that contribute to
architectural knowledge, scholarship and progress in contemporary practice.
The project is designed to reveal the technological and cultural knowledge
embedded within each selected project through questioning and analysis,
probed through the dis- and re-assembly of drawings and models to uncover
the larger significance of the artifact, and how it came to be.

Mark Mistur, AIA

Associate Professor

Katelynn Russell
Assistant

Rensselaer School of Architecture

Troy, New York 2011

2011 Stephen Andenmatten, Caitlin Walsh, James Wisniewski

and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Stephen Andenmatten
Caitlin Walsh
James Wisniewski

Mark Mistur, Associate Professor

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Fall 2011

Cover Image: www.flickr.com, double exposure, by f@asp

Inside cover Image: www.designroof.org, Ricardo Chaves
Table of Contents

CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE EXTENSION

TO THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN...............................................................8

PART I: DANIEL LIBESKIND..........................................................................24

Chapter One: Early Life..................................................................26

Chapter Two: Educational Influences..........................................32

Chapter Three: Deconstructivism..................................................38

Chapter Four: The Firm + Design Process...................................52

PART II: BETWEEN THE LINES....................................................................58

Chapter Five: Iconic Formalism.....................................................60

Chapter Six: Narrative, Poetics, + Experience.............................72

BEYOND THE LINES......................................................................................92

NOTES.............................................................................................................96

FIGURES.........................................................................................................98

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................102
CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE
EXTENSION TO THE
JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN
Project Overview

The Jewish Museum Berlin [Figure

I.1], which opened to the public in
1999, exhibits the social, political
and cultural history of the Jews in
Germany from the 4th century to
the present. The museum explicitly
presents and integrates the
repercussions of the Holocaust.1

The new design, which was

conceived in 1988, a year before
the Berlin Wall came down, was
based on three conceptions
that formed the museums
foundation. First, the impossibility
of understanding the history of
Berlin without understanding the
enormous intellectual, economic
and cultural contribution made
by the Jewish citizens of Berlin.
Second, the necessity to integrate
physically and spiritually the
meaning of the Holocaust into the
consciousness and memory of
the city of Berlin. Third, that only
through the acknowledgement and
incorporation of this erasure and
void of Jewish life in Berlin, can the
history of Berlin and Europe have a
human future. 2

Figure I.1: Aerial view of Jewish Museum

10
Architect: K. Louafi Faade:
Daniel Libeskind G. Maser Werner & Sohn, Berlin

EXECUTION AND PLANNING Site Control: Installations:

Project Architects: Elmar Knippschild Klima Bau
Matthias Reese Paul Simons Frankfurt/M
Jan Dinnebier Frank Kieling Voigt Bode
Jan Wehberg Sieversdorf
Architects:
Stefan Blach From March 31, 1997, site control Electrical:
David Hunter and creative direction: Alpha, Berlin
Taria MacGabhann Mller, Knippschild,
Noel McCauley Wehberg i.L Client:
Claudia Reisenberger Land of Berlin
Eric J. Schall CONSULTANTS Senate Bureaus of Building
Solveig Scheper Structural Engineer: Residence and Transportation
Ilkka Tarkkanen GSE Tragwerkplaner, Berlin Senate Bureau of Sceince,
IGW Ingenieurgruppe Wiese, Berlin Research, and Culture
Design Phase:
Bernhard von Hammerstein Installations: STATISTICS
Jan Kleihues KST, Klima-Systemtechnik, Berlin Gross Floor Area:
Hannes Freudenreich 15,500 sq. m.
Bob Choeff Lighting: Net Area:
Lichtplanung Binnebier KG, 12,500 sq. m.
Competition Phase: Wuppertal Exhibition Space:
Donald Bates 9,500 sq. m.
Attilio Terragni COST AND SITE CONTROL Offices, Workshops, Library:
Marina Stankovic Arge Beusterien und Lubic, Berlin 2,500 sq. m.
Depots:
Civil Engineer: Chief Superviser: 2,000 sq. m.
Cziesielski + Partner, Berlin Alexander Lubic
Competition Result:
Landscape Architect: CONSTRUCTION June 1989
Mller, Knippschild, Wehberg MKW Skeleton: Ground-Breaking Ceremony:
Fischer Bau, Berlin November 1992
Pre-design, Design and Planning of Topping-Out Ceremony:
Planting and Execution: Windows: May 1995
Cornelia Mller Trube & Kings Completion:
Jan Wehberg Uersfeld/Eifel January 1999
with
Frank Kieling

11
Competition Brief
COMPETITION
Extension Berlin Museum with
Division Jewish Museum-Berlin
CLIENT
Land Berlin
JURORS
Harald Deilmann, Munster
Christoff Hackelsberger, Munchen
Heinz W. Hallmann, Berlin
Hermann Hertzberger, Amsterdam
Klaus Humpert, Freiburg
Josef Paul Kleihues, Berlin
Isaak Luxemberg, Tel-Aviv
Peter P. Schweger, Hamburg
12
JURY MEETING DATE
June 22-23, 1989
URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES
Historical ground plan
Relationship to Lindentrasse
Connection to Kollegienhaus,
Minimization of above-ground
construction volume
DESIGN TASK
The need for museum expansion is
due to a lack of functional
exhibition space, specifically for
the Jewish Museum department,
and a necessity for storage areas in
the museum as storage is currently
outsourced.
EXPANSION PROGRAM
Permanent collection showrooms
Temporary exhibition space
Public spaces
Storage areas
Administrative (offices, meeting
rooms, workshops, etc.)
Figure I.2: Site model

Figure I.3: Site plan of third place entry
Figure I.4: Site plan of second place entry
Figure I.5: Site plan of first place entry
13
THIRD PLACE
LANGE-ULLRICH + PARTNER,
KARLSRUHE
Due to the bent position of the
elongated structure, the author
attempts a pleasant spatial version
of the Park at the Berlin Museum
with a generously-sized, multi-
purpose public space at the south
end of the site.
-Competition Jury
SECOND PLACE
RAIMUND ABRAHAM,
NEW YORK
The work is characterized by a
geometric composition of plan
and structure; the concept breaks
the continuity of the city area and
enriches the Kollegienhaus through
a sophisticated, artistic dialogue.
-Competition Jury
FIRST PLACE
DANIEL LIBESKIND, MILAN
Berlin will be reconnected with
its past, which must never be
forgotten. The invisibility is made
visible...Berlins Jewish history and
its content is translated into spatial
sequences and movements. The
building shape is an analogous
expression of the inner design.
A tour through history, with its
fractures and congruences kept
flexible through linear space.
-Competition Jury
In the summer of 1989, only a few
months before the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the international jury for the
competition awarded first prize to
the design submitted by Daniel
Libeskind.3

THE OFFICIAL NAME

OF THE PROJECT IS
THE JEWISH MUSEUM,
BUT I HAVE CALLED
IT BETWEEN THE
LINES BECAUSE FOR
ME IT IS ABOUT TWO
LINES OF THINKING,
ORGANIZATION, AND
RELATIONSHIP. ONE IS
A STRAIGHT LINE, BUT
BROKEN INTO MANY
FRAGMENTS; THE
OTHER IS A TOTOROUS Figure I.6: Star matrix

LINE, BUT CONTINUING

INDEFINITELY.

Daniel Libeskind

Libeskinds Approach

Daniel Libeskind formed three

basic ideas which formed the
foundation for the Jewish Museum
design. First, the impossibility
of understanding the history of
Berlin without understanding the
enormous intellectual, economic,
and cultural contribution made by
its Jewish citizens. Second,

Figure I.7: Massing model for proposal by Daniel Libeskind

14
 the necessity to integrate
physically and spiritually the
meaning of the Holocaust into the
consciousness and memory of
the city of Berlin. Third, that only
through the acknowledgement and
incorporation of this erasure and
void of Jewish life in Berlin, can the
history of Berlin and Europe have a
human future.4
Libeskind felt the presence of an
invisible matrix connecting the
relationships between German and
Jewish figures - certain people,
workers, writers, composers,
artists, scientists, and poets - which
linked Jewish tradition and German
culture. From this connection,
Libeskind derived the first aspect of
the project by plotting an irrational
matrix that would reflect the form
of a compressed and distorted
Star of David. A second aspect
emerged through his interest in the
music of Schoenberg, particularly
the opera Moses and Aaron
composed in Berlin, which could
not be completed by the musical
score for structural reasons within
the logic of the libretto. Libeskind
sought to complete the opera
architecturally. A third aspect of the
project is his interest in the names
of the people who were departed
from Berlin during the fatal years
of the Holocaust, and the ever-
present dimension of these missing
Berliners. Finally is the influence
of an urban apocalypse depicted
in Walter Benjamins One-Way
Street.5
Figure I.8: First page of competition entry on music paper

15
Libeskinds Competition
Entry on Music Paper

16
Figure I.9: Complete entry of competition on music paper

17
Cultural Context:
Jewish History in Berlin
1300-1663
Jews first arrived in Berlin at some
point in the 13th century. Prior to
this period, German Jews had lived
primarily in southern Germany,
in communities along the Rhine.
But in the 13th century, the Jews
began to migrate to the cities of the
north, to escape the persecution
and expulsions that had become
18
common since the Crusades began
in 1096.
The Jews would not find matters
much better in Berlin. In fact, the
first time they are mentioned in any
city documents is in an ordinance
enacted in 1295, forbidding wool
merchants to sell yarn to Jews.
In the following centuries, they
continued to be the target of
oppression. In 1349, the Jews
were accused of starting the Black
Plague that was sweeping through
Europe, and were expelled but
not before many were killed, and
had their houses burned down. The
Jews were allowed back in 1354,
but were expelled once again in
1446. In 1510 and 1571, the Jews
were again expelled en masse,
after having been allowed to return
in between. The motivations behind
these expulsions varied: in 1510,
the exile followed an unfounded
accusation of host desecration;
Figure I.10: Berlin 1937
 Figure I.11: Berlin pre-World War II
in 1446 and 1571, the Jews
were simply told to leave so the
government could confiscate their
property.
Between expulsions, the Jews of
Berlin were primarily engaged in
money-lending and petty trade.
They lived in a ghetto in the
Grosser Judenhof (Jews Court)
area, and on Juddenstrasse (Jew
Street).
1663-1933
Following the expulsion in 1571,
virtually no Jews inhabited Berlin
for a century. This changed
in 1663, when the elector of
Bradenburg allowed Israel Aaron
to enter Berlin as a court Jew.
Soon afterwards, in 1671, 50
prominent Jewish Viennese
families were allowed into the city
as Schutzjuden, protected Jews
who paid for a residence permit
allowing them to engage in certain
businesses and worship in private
homes. The Jewish families were
also given a cemetery, a mikveh
(ritual bath), and a hospital. In
1714, the first synagogue, known
later as the Old Synagogue, was
established at Heidereutergasse
in Mitte.
This community grew, despite
the restrictions on residence and
family size, and, by the beginning
of the 18th century, there were
approximately 1,000 residents of
the Jewish ghetto. The community
paid a great deal of its income
in taxes: a protection tax, a
residence tax, a head tax and a
payment required to work in certain
professions were all used at one
point or another to extract money
from the community.
Nonetheless, the Jews excelled as
merchants, mainly selling precious
metals and stones, and as bankers.
Soon, they were among the richest
people in Berlin, and by the halfway
point of the 18th century, the
Jewish population totaled 2,000
people.
As the 18th century drew to a close,
19
Figure I.12: Berlin Cathedral
Berlin became the center of the
Haskalah, or Jewish enlightenment,
which came to advocate Jewish
equality and secularism. Internal
communal authority subsequently
broke down, and many Berlin
Jews moved out of the ghetto, and
became unaffiliated with traditional
Judaism. In 1815, the Jews
succeeded in attaining Prussian
citizenship; the various regulations
and taxes that had unfairly targeted
the Jews were rescinded, although
full equality came in 1850 with
Prussias updated constitution. By
this time, there were 9,500 Jews in
Berlin, mostly involved in finance,
commerce, and transportation.
As Berlins Jews continued to
infiltrate the social and economic
elite, their ranks continued to grow,
despite skyrocketing intermarriage
and apostasy. By the turn of the
century, there were more than
110,000 Jews in Berlin, comprising
more than 5% of the total
population.

Most settled in the center of the
city, but by 1900, had started
to move to the outer districts of
Spandau and Stralauer, and then to
Charlottenburg, Schoeneberg, and
Wilmersdorf.
The Weimer years (1919-1933)
were the golden age of the
German and Berlin Jewry. Plays
by Max Reinhardt took the stage,
Arnold Schoenberg and Kurt
Weill composed music, artists
Max Liebermann and Lesser
Ury created beautiful paintings,
and Otto Klemperer and Bruno
Walter conducted concerts to
20
huge audiences. Also, Vicki Baum
authored her novel Menschen im
Hotel, which was later turned into
the 1932 film Grand Hotel. The
population grew as well, and by
1933, 160,000 Jews called Berlin
home
At the same time, however, anti-
Semitism was on the rise, and, in
the years leading up to the Nazis
rise to power in 1933, attacks on
Jews increased.
1933-1945
In the years between 1933
and 1939, as Jews in Berlin
Figure I.13: Destruction of World War II
had their social and economic
rights systematically eliminated,
Jewish communal life increased
dramatically: Jews could only send
their children to Jewish schools,
and could not interact with any
citizens other than their own kind.
In June 1938, the round-up of Jews
began, as thousands were arrested
without reason. On the evenings
of the 9th and 10th of November,
now known as Kristallnacht,
Jewish synagogues and shops
were vandalized and burned down
throughout Berlin, and in the
months that followed, more and
more Jews were arrested or put to
work at forced labor camps. Nearly
12,000 Berlin Jews were sent to
the Dachau concentration camp
that night. Jewish communal life,
however, remained vibrant.
For two weeks in August 1936, the
treatment of the Jews and other
persecuted minorities in Germany
was hidden while the Summer
Olympics were held in Berlin. In an
attempt to legitimize his rule, Hitler
cleansed the city of incriminating
evidence, so that the international
community saw no sign of
wrongdoing. Of course, no German
Jews were allowed to participate
in the event, and as soon as the
Olympics ended, the mistreatment
continued, and accelerated. By
1939, the Jewish population of
Berlin had dwindled to 75,000, less
than half of what it was in 1933.
In 1941, things changed even
more dramatically. Many more
areas of the city were declared
off-limits for Jews, and laws were
enacted requiring Jews to wear the
infamous yellow badge. Between
1941 and 1943, all the citys Jews
were deported to camps throughout
Europe, and, on June 16, 1943,
Berlin was declared Judenrein,
or clean of Jews. By 1945, only
8,000 Jews remained in Berlin.
Those who survived were either in
hiding or were married to non-
Jews.
1945-PRESENT
In the aftermath of the war, some
Jews came out of hiding and others
returned to their homes. Berlin
was universally considered a
liquidation city no one expected
the Jews to have a future in Berlin,
and thus it was assumed that all the
residents would quickly emigrate.
Figure I.14: Berlin 1962
21
This assumption proved to be
partially incorrect. While East
Germany had few Jews among
its inhabitants, West Germany,
particularly the American zone,
maintained a sizable community,
bolstered by an influx of displaced
persons, mostly from Eastern
Europe, after the wars conclusion.
The Jewish communitys growth
stagnated, then declined steadily
until 1989. Then, when the Berlin
Wall fell, the Jews of East and
West Berlin were unified into one
community. They were joined by
thousands of immigrants from the
former Soviet Union, who, for the
first time since the war, reinforced
the traditional elements of the
community, settling in areas with
affordable housing like Wilmersdorf
and Steglitz. The Jewish population
of Berlin is currently estimated at
more than 20,000.
Figure I.15: Star of David patch
PRESENT TIME
Today, signs of Berlins Jewish
history are everywhere. There are
streets named after such famous
Jews as Moses Mendelsohn,
Baruch Spinoza, Rosa Luxemberg,
Heinrich Heine and Gustave
Mahler. There are numerous
Holocaust memorials throughout
the city. A total of seven
synagogues are in operation
and there are Jewish preschools
and a high school. In 2003, the
first Jewish-oriented college
was opened by New York-based
Touro College. Included in the
many Holocaust Memorials
scattered throughout Berlin are the
Missing House graphic at Grosse
Hamburger Strasse 15/16, which
22
lists the names of former residents;
a red sandstone monument at
Rosenstrasse 2/4, which pays
tribute to the protests of non-
Jewish women over the capture
of their Jewish husbands; and the
Abandoned Room at Koppenplatz,
which depicts an overturned bronze
chair to remember those Jews
taken on Kristallnacht.
Other areas of interest include
Bebelplatz, site of the May 10,
1933 book burnings; Track 17
in the Wilmsersdorf district, a
commemoration to the more than
50,000 Jews that were deported
from Grunewald Station, which
features plaques next to the
railroad tracks that list every
transport between 1941 and
1945, the number of people, and
their destination; and the Israeli
Embassy, which hosts six stone
pillars at its entrance to symbolize
the 6 million Jews that perished at
the hands of the Nazis.
Also, there exists in Germany now
more that 12,000 Stolpersteine, or
stumbling blocks, in roughly 257
cities and towns, created by artists
Gunter Demnig, which depict the
last known place of residence of
the person commemorated, and
are designed to recall the fates
of the all the victims of the Nazi
policies. The first small memorial,
embedded in the sidewalk,
appeared in Berlins Kruezberg
Figure I.16: Berlin Wall 1995
district in 1996, and there are now
more than 1,400 stumbling blocks
throughout the capital.

In what was East Berlin,

Oranienburgerstrasse is emerging
as a new center of Jewish life. The
New Synagogue which was
constructed in 1866, and left in
ruins after Kristallnacht and the
Allied bombing of Berlin has
been completely renovated. The
buildings gold dome and towers
have been restored to their pre-
war condition; rather than being
restored to its original purpose, the
huge main sanctuary now houses a
museum of Berlin Jewish history.
Figure I.17: Jewish Museum Berlin exterior

Jewish immigration to Berlin cannot immigrate to Germany also

The main center of Jewry in Berlin
increased in 2005, especially for have the option of immigration to
continues to be in the western part
Soviet Jews. In the summer of Israel. Since the establishment of
of the city. Notable synagogues
2005, the German government the State of Israel, there has always
include the Liberal congregation on
and the Central Council of Jews been a place for Jews fleeing the
Pestalozzistrasse, a Romanesque
in Germany decided to allow Jews Diaspora. Therefore, no Jew can
building restored after the war
into the country only if they will qualify as a refugee, and Germany
with stained glass and four large
be an asset to the pre-existing is not required to take them in.
alcoves. The Orthodox shul on
Jewish community. Until 2005, the
Joachimstalerstrasse, built in 1902,
German government considered RELATION TO JEWISH MUSEUM
is also known for its beauty.
an immigrant to be a Jew if at least As a Jewish Museum in the center
the immigrants father was Jewish. of Berlin, Germany, a main city of
Near the Brandenburg Gate and
Under the new restrictions, half of the Holocaust and persecution of
the new American Embassy lies
the annual amount of Soviet Jewish Jewish people, the building has a
the Memorial to the Murdered
immigrants were not welcomed into large effect on the community. Its
Jews of Europe, built by architect
Germany. context makes the building more of
Peter Eisenman, which consists
a memorial than a museum, and in
of 2,711 slabs of gray concrete,
Also, Dieter Graumann, a member fact the adding of exhibitions, the
some rising as high as 13 feet.
of the Central Council, declared purpose of a museum, detracted
Under the memorial is the Ort
that Soviet Jews will not be from the experience of the building
der Erinnerung, a small museum
considered refugees. Because of as a representation of the cultural
dedicated to the Holocaust.
Israels law of automatic citizenship struggles of the Jewish community.
for Jews, the Soviet Jews who

23
PART I : DANIEL LIBESKIND
 I DRAW FROM MY
OWN EXPERIENCE ITS
WHAT I KNOW AND IN
DOING SO, I STRIVE FOR A
UNIVERSALITY.
Daniel Libeskind
Chapter One:
Early Life
 BECAUSE OF
WHO I AM, I HAVE
THOUGHT A LOT
ABOUT MATTERS LIKE
TRAUMA AND MEMORY.
NOT THE TRAUMA
OF A SINGULAR
CATASTROPHE THAT
CAN BE OVERCOME
AND HEALED, BUT
A TRAUMA THAT
INVOLVES THE
DESTRUCTION OF
A COMMUNITY AND
ITS REAL YET ALSO
VIRTUAL PRESENCE.1

Daniel Libeskind

Figure 1.1: Libeskind as a child playing the accordion

28

Cultural Geography
Daniel Libeskind lost most of his
family in the Holocaust; both of his
parents were survivors, but they
were two in not many that did. He
was born in 1946, shortly after the
war ended in Lodz, Poland, just a
few hundred kilometers from Berlin.
Figure 1.2: Libeskinds family in 1989
His family moved to Israel when
he was eleven, in search for the
promised land to escape from the
war-torn world. At age thirteen,
his family moved to New York,
where his father fell in love with the
freedom and spirit of America.
Once in New York, the family
lived in an apartment in the
29
Amalgamated Clothing Workers
Union housing cooperative in the
Bronx. His mother, Dora, worked in
a sweatshop, dyeing fur collars and
sewing them onto coats. His father,
Nachman, worked in a print shop
blocks from the future site of the
World Trade Center.
Libeskind didnt start in architecture.
He originally was starting a career in
music,as a child prodigy playing the
accordion [Figure1.1]. He studied
music in Israel and New York on the
America-Israel Culture Foundation
Scholarship in 1960.
He left music because there
was no more technique that he
could acquire. He then took a real
interest in drawing. He went into
architecture, calling it a field whose
technique seemed so simple in
comparison to music there would
never be a problem of its ultimate
exhaustion.
His mother was a great influence
in his life, and when she saw his
interest in drawing she encouraged
him to pursue architecture, rather
than art. The reason behind it being
that architecture is an art form but
also a trade.
He describes his life as nomadic,
even later in his life. With his wife
and children, he moved fourteen
times in thirty-five years [Figure
1.2].2
Timeline of Milestones 1945

1946_Born in Poland

1950

1955

1959_Arrives in New York

1957_Moves to Israel with family 1960

1965_Leaves music to study architecture

1965_Becomes a US citizen 1965

1968_Works as an apprentice to Richard Meier

1970
1972_Recieves postgraduate degree in the history and theory of architecture from
the School of Comparitive Studies at Essex University

1972_Recieves job offer at New Yorks Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies 1975
under Peter Eisenman, quits immediately

1980

1985

1990

1973-2009_Taught at various univerities, including: Cranbrook Academy of Art, University of

Illinois, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Yale University, Kunsthochschule Berlin-Weiensee,
University of California Los Angeles, University of Pennsylvania 1995

1999_Jewish Museum Berlin opens

2000
2001_Jewish Museum Berlin opens with exhibitions3

2005
30

2010
1960_Studies music in Israel and New York on a scholarship

1970_Receives professional architectural degree from the Cooper Union

for the Advancement of Science and Art
1970_Studies under Peter Eisenman, Richard Meier, and Dean John Hejduk

1989_Wins the Jewish Museum Berlin competition

Figure 1.3: Timeline of milestones

31
 THERE ARE MANY
WORLDS IN MY HEAD, AND I
BRING ALL OF THEM TO THE
PROJECTS I WORK ON.
Daniel Libeskind
 Chapter Two:
Educational Influences
Cooper Union

Daniel Libeskind received his

Bachelors of Architecture from
Cooper Union School of Architecture
in New York City in 1970, graduating
summa cum laude.1

At Cooper Union, Libeskind was a

very good student. His background
as a great musician gave him a
strong work ethic and he had a
strong creativity and passion for
Figure 2.1: Cooper Union New Building
drawing.

He gained recognition of his great

abilities while at Cooper. In 1968,
he briefly worked as an apprentice
for Richard Meier. The Dean at the
time, John Hejduk, also took an
interest in him, and through time
always stayed in touch.2

Figure 2.2: Cooper Union Foundation Building

34

Figure 2.3: Essex University Square
Figure 2.4: Essex University Exterior
35
Essex University
Daniel Libeskind received his
Masters degree in History and
Theory of Architecture from Essex
University School of Comparative
Studies in Essex, England, in 1971.3
He attended Essex right after he
graduated from Cooper Union.
Here he studied under Joseph
Rykwert and Dalibor Vesely,
and pursued his interest in
phenomenology.
It was right after graduation that
he was hired to work at Peter
Eisenmans New York Institute for
Architecture and Urban Studies. He
quit shortly after and moved on to
teaching at many universities.4
Cranbrook
Academy of Art

Daniel Libeskind was the head

of the Architecture program at
Cranbrook Academy of Art in
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, from
1978-1985.5

He has been a professor at several

universities, but Cranbrook is
where he stayed the longest. It is
the only time he was the head of
the department. He used his time
here to think. It was here that he
did most of his theoretical drawings Figure 2.5: Cranbrook Exterior

and work.

At this point in his career he had not

yet designed a building. It wouldnt
be until 1989 when he was asked
to submit to the design competition
for the Jewish Museum Berlin that
Libeskind would open a firm and
begin bringing his theories into
realised architecture.6

Figure 2.6: Cranbrook Critique

36
Professorships
2009 Gensler Visiting Critic at
Cornell University in NY
2007 Professor at Leuphana
University in Germany
2005 Professor at University of
St.Gallen in Switzerland
2003 Frank O.Gehry Chair at
University of Toronto in Canada
19992003 Professor at Hochschule
fr Gestaltung in Germany
19992003 Paul Cret Chair of
Architecture at University of
Pennsylvania in PA
1999 First Louis Kahn Chair
Visiting Professor at Yale School of
Architecture in CT
1997 Professor at Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology in
Switzerland
19951996 Visiting Professor at
University of Technology in Austria
19941995 Professor at University
of California Los Angeles in CA
19931995 Professor at
Kunsthochschule Berlin-Weiensee
in Germany
1992 Davenport Chair Visiting
Professor at Yale University in CT
1992 Professor at Royal Academy
of Fine Arts in England
1991 Sir Bannister Fletcher
Architecture Professor at University
of London in England
19881989 Professor at Shibaura
Institute of Technology in Japan
19861989 Founder and Director
Architecture Intermundium at
Institute for Architecture & Urbanism
in Italy
19851986 Visiting Critic at
University of Houston in TX
1985 Louis Sullivan Visiting
Research Professor at University of
Illinois in IL
37
1985 Visiting Professor at Carleton
University in Canada
1985 Visiting Professor at Georgia
Institute of Technology in GA
19841985 Senior Fulbright
Professor at Helsinki Technical
University in Finland
19831984 Design Critic at Harvard
University in MA
19831984 Visiting Professor at
Hochschule fr Bildende Knste in
Germany
19801981 Visiting Critic at
University of Houston in TX
19781985 Head of the Architecture
Program at Cranbrook Academy of
Art in MI
19781985 Visiting Professor at
Leibnitz University of Hannover in
Germany
19731975 Assistant Professor at
University of Kentucky in KY7
 AN ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWING IS AS MUCH A
PROSPECTIVE UNFOLDING
OF FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
AS IT IS A RECOVERY OF
A PARTICULAR HISTORY
TO WHOSE INTENTIONS
IT TESTIFIES AND WHOSE
LIMITS IT ALWAYS
CHALLENGES.
Daniel Libeskind
 Chapter Three:
Deconstructivism
 Figure 3.1: The Burrow Laws

40

Figure 3.2: Time Sections
Figure 3.3: Dance Sounds
Figure 3.4: The Garden
41
Micromegas: The
Architecture of Endspace
[1979]
Daniel Libeskinds Micromegas,
named after a short story by
Voltaire, were a series of twelve
prints. Their extraordinary linework
was not intended purely as a
graphic device but is related to the
concept of time [Figures 3.1-3.4].1
In this work, Libeskind attempts to
denounce drawings relationship to
signage, claiming that it is more of
a form of language through which
a prospective unfolding of future
possibilities can be communicated
than merely a material carrier (or
sign). He writes, a drawing is
more than the shadow of an object,
more than a pile of lines, more
than a resignation to the inertia of
convection.
His work, he believes, attempts
to express the inadequateness
of reducing structure to signs
through conventional drawing by
attacking the heart of perception, for
which no (final) terms are provided.
It is only when forms act as
horizons in relation to time that an
exploration of the marginal allow
for an overlap between concepts
and premonitions. In his own
description of the work, Libeskind
states that these drawings and
collages develop in an area of
architectural thinking that is neither
physics nor a poetics of space.2
 Figure 3.5: III-H

Figure 3.6: IV-H

Figure 3.7: IV-V

42
 Chamber Works:
Architectural Meditations
on the Themes from
Heraclitus [1983]

Chamber Works is set of 28

drawings done by Libeskind while
he was serving as the head of
the Architecture Department at
Cranbrook Academy of Art. They
were inspired by music and the
writings of the ancient Greek
philosopher Heraclitus [Figures
3.5-3.8].3

In a lecture given in 1997, Libeskind

describes this work as a more
exposed investigation of the
ideas of architecture and music
as they intersect in the chamber
of the mind. Stemming from his
musical background, the architect
explained that he had merely left
the performance of music, but not
music in and of itself - that music
was taken through mathematics,
drawing, the arts, and eventually
into the field of architecture. These
drawings intend to further this
interdisciplinary dialogue.

An extension of Micromegas, this

work attempts to further the ability
of drawing to act as a mode for
communication rather than purely
as a set of blueprints. The drawing
style becomes much more fluid in
this set, with an emergence of a
more sketch-like quality over the
previous technical type style.4

Figure 3.8: I-V

43
 Figure 3.9: #12: Way

44
Theatrum Mundi:
Through the Green
Membranes of Space
[1985]
Theatrum Mundi is 12 abstract color
plates that present a premonition
of the future in the form of a city
besieged by an unknown infection
[Figures 3.9-3.11].5
Libeskind describes the urban
condition as a sort of impudence
that take the most biological,
private, and hidden form that is
presently possible - and thereby,
in essence, transforming this
reality into a collection fiction. The
structure of the city has become
transparent and closes the space of
the city. According to Libeskind, the
Distributor of Homelessness then
Figure 3.10: #11: Comprehend Without
takes the place of this space, and
through this condition discovers
itself as the now defunct Hotel of
Being.
In an interview with SKALA in
1987, the architects drawings are
compared to a Baroque painting in
that both of these invoke a feeling
of being trapped inside the frame.
The only difference is that in the
painting there is always a place to
go (often through a sort of oval-
shaped opening connecting the
heavens to earth), while Libeskinds
drawings tend to create cross-
shaped figures, which in effect,
hide the spaces for escape from
this frame. Libeskind describes
these crosses as colliding what
is manifested with what is not
manifested, rotating around an
45
invisible axis, which produces both
nonidentity (recessions) as well as
points (reliefs).
This sort of drawing technique has
grown into its current state through
multiple collections of drawings,
including the two previously
mentioned before this one. Again,
the architects drawing style moves
even further from a technical-type
and more into a sketch-type, and
even goes as far in these drawings
as to include closed shapes as
well as color. Libeskinds drawings
would come to define his later work
in material architecture and the
creation of buildings, as did many
of the drawings done by other
architects during the 1980s.6
Figure 3.11: #2 Prison Bound

City Edge Competition,
Berlin [1987]
This competition entry employs
an obvious Constructivist motif
by overlapping rectangular bars
in a diagonal pattern [Figures
3.12, 3.13]. The result is an
office/apartment complex that is
composed of an enormous bar that
angles up from the ground and
looks over the Berlin Wall - which,
in itself, subverts the very logic of
the wall. The bar itself is a pure
and smooth surface on the outside,
but composed of an internal chaos
featuring folded planes, counter-
reliefs, and twisted forms - all of
which relate to the disorder of
the city below. Following is the
architects competition brief for the
project, featured at MoMA:
46
Ancient vistas of cities and
buildings, like memorable places
and names, can be found on maps
- the books of the world. Each
appears in a different color on a
different background, though any
color can be exchanged for another
by a traveller whose destination is
not found on the map. A voyage
into the substance of a city and its
architecture entails a realignment
of arbitrary points, disconnected
lines, and names out of place along
the axis of Universal Hope. Very
thin paper - like that of architectural
drawings, Bibles, maps, telephone
books, money - can be easily cut,
crumpled, or folded around this
indestructible kernel. Then the
entire unwieldy construction can be
floated on water like the tattered
paper making its Odyssey on the
Figure 3.12: City Edge Section/Elevation
Liffey. Finally, the water itself can
be adhered to the mind, provided
that one does not rely on the glue.
In this way reality, as the substance
of things hoped for, becomes
a proof of invisible joys - Berlin
of open skies. In exploring the
shape of this sky, which continually
refuses to come into identity or
equivalence, one discovers that
what has been marked, fixed, and
measured nevertheless lapses
in both the dimension of the
indeterminate and the spherical.
This space of nonequilibrium - from
which freedom eternally departs
and toward which it moves without
homecoming - constitutes a place in
which architecture comes upon itself
as beginning at the end.7
 Figure 3.13: City Edge Model

47
Drawings of the 1980s
The 1980s were a difficult period
in terms of the built work being
produced within the architecture
community. That is not to say,
however, that they were devoid of
advancement within the discourse
- if anything, some of the unbuilt
work produced during that decade
was more successful in pushing
the boundaries of architecture than
any work, built or unbuilt, within the
entirety of the 20th century.
the help of John Hejduk, who
was Libeskinds dean and mentor
during his education at The Cooper
Union. Hadids The Peak Club
[Figure 3.18] would be exhibited
alongside Libeskinds City Edge
at the Museum of Modern Arts
Deconstructivist Architecture
exhibit toward the end of the
decade.
Contemporaries aside, there are
also connections that can be made
between Libeskinds emphasis
on drawing and the etchings of
Giovanni Battista Piranesi - in
particular Prisons [Figure 3.15],
which was completed in the late
18th century. Similar work is
being done today by architect
Thom Mayne in Los Angeles, who
has produced several sculptural
plates as experiments in spatial
creation [Figure 3.19], with qualities
similar to Libeskinds Out of Line
competition entry [Figure 3.14].8

Libeskind was working on

Micromegas in 1979, Chamber
Works in 1983, Theatrum
Mundi and The Machines (an
installation at the Venice Biennale)
in 1985, and the City Edge in
1987 - while acting as the head
of the Architecture Department at
Cranbrook Academy of Art from
1978 to 1985.

Libeskind was not alone in

producing a multitude of drawn
work during the 80s. Architects
like Bernard Tschumi, Neil Denari,
and Zaha Hadid were also
producing conceptual drawings
as a way to continue to push
the discourse without having to
actually physically build any of
their ideas. By looking at the work
of these contemporaries, we can
draw multiple parallels between
them. For example, Tschumis
The Manhattan Transcripts
Figure 3.15: Piranesi VI - The Smoking Fire Figure 3.16: Tschumi The Manhattan
[Figure 3.16] were produced with [1761] Transcripts [1981]

48
 Figure 3.14: Libeskind Out of Line [1991]

Figure 3.17: Denari The Artless Drawing Figure 3.18: Hadid The Peak Club [1983] Figure 3.19: Mayne Linescutbysurface
[1982] [2011]

49
MoMA: Deconstructivist
Architecture [1988]
There have been several
movements within the architecture
community that have their roots
in exhibitions held at the Museum
of Modern Art in New York City.
The movement that would come
to be known as Deconstructivism
is no different. Over the summer
of 1988, Phillip Johnson, with the
assistance of Mark Wigley and
Frederieke Taylor, held the third of
five architectural exhibitions in the
Museums Gerald D. Hines Interests
Architecture Program.
The exhibition focused on seven
different international architects
whose contemporary work was
50
deemed emergent in the creation
of a new sensibility in architecture
- seeking to address Johnsons
challenge of the pleasures of
unease. These architects notably
violate the cubes and right angles
that are common to Modernism
through the use of diagonals,
arcs, and warped planes. They
also attempt to continue the
experimentation with structure that
the Russian Constructivists had
began in the 1920s - however,
they do so in a subverted fashion
(hence the term De-constructivism).
Instead of pursuing the traditional
virtues of harmony, unity, and
clarity, the work proposed by
these seven architects make
use of disharmony, fracturing,
and mystery - undermining basic
assumptions about building.
Mark Wigley characterized the
work in a catalogue essay which
accompanied the exhibition:
Architecture has always been a
central cultural institution valued
above all for its provision of stability
and order. These qualities are seen
to arise from the geometric purity of
its formal composition...The projects
in this exhibition mark a different
sensibility, one in which the dream
of pure form has been disturbed.
Form has become contaminated.
The dream has become a kind of
nightmare.
The exhibit began with a selection
of Russian avant-garde art from
1913 to 1933, including paintings,
Figure 3.20: Gehry House

sculptures, photographs, and
books by El Lissitzky, Kasimir
Malevich, Liubov Popova, Alexander
Rodchenko, Vladimir Tatlin, among
others. The architectural drawings
and models which followed was
the product of a deconstructivist
architecture which explored the
relationship between the instability
of Russian avant-garde and the
stability of high modernism.
The contemporary architectural
work selected for this exhibition
included Coop Himmelblaus
Rooftop Remodelling (1985)
[Figure 3.21], Hamburg Skyline
(1985), and Apartment Building
(1986), Peter Eisenmans Biology
Center for the University of
Frankfurt (1987), Frank O. Gehrys
Gehry House (1977-87) [Figure
Figure 3.21: Rooftop Remodeling
3.20] and Familian Residence
(1987), Zaha Hadids The Peak
(1983), Rem Koolhaas Rotterdam
Building and Tower (1981), Daniel
Libeskinds City Edge Competition
(1987), and Bernard Tschumis
Parc de la Villette (1982) [Figure
3.22].
The work showcased in this
exhibition at the Museum of
Modern Art would produce one
of the most radical architectures
in the 20th century - if not in all
of architectural history. Phillip
Johnson himself was aware of this
as the exhibition unfolded, as he
wrote, the confluence [of these
seven architects] may indeed be
temporary; but its reality, its vitality,
its originality can hardly be denied.9
Figure 3.22: Parc de la Villette
51
 THE SPIRIT OF
ARCHITECTURE WANDERS
WHERE IT WILL.
Daniel Libeskind
 Chapter Four:
The Firm + Design Process
 Figure 4.1: Daniel Libeskind in his office

THE MAGIC OF ARCHITECTURE CANNOT BE APPROPRIATED BY

ANY SINGULAR OPERATION BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS ALREADY
FLOATING, PROGRESSING, RISING, FLYING, BREATHING.1

Daniel Libeskind

54
Design Philosophy
Studio Daniel Libeskind, as
Libeskind himself states, attempts
to break through into the
excitement, adventure, and mystery
of architecture. Daniel Libeskind
chose to go into architecture for
many reasons, but he believes
architecture differs from other
creative careers like art, music, and
language in that it shows its opening
but never knows its end, which
reveals his need for something that
cannot be solved directly.
Libeskinds profound interest in
philosophy, art, literature, and
music; these themes have a deep
influence on his architecture. His
approach to design was what he
calls unorthodox. Ideas can come
from any little thing, a piece of music
or poem, or by the way light falls on
a wall. He doesnt concentrate on
what the building looks like but what
it feels like.
When describing architecture,
Libeskind states it is constantly
progressing, and as being alive and
breathing, with a body and a soul,
that one singular operation cannot
embody all that a building is.
Libeskind believes every problem,
even seemingly impossible ones,
are worthy of pursuit, and that
architecture, no matter what
problems it may expose, is exciting
because of the intensity and
passion of it.
Libeskind believes that buildings are
created with an energy, and wants
to embody the essence of each site.
When he started his practice, he did
55
not want to work like conventional
architectural offices. Conventional
practices have a redundancy, a
routine, and a production that he
found was not for him.
The way he worked was in rough
sketches, rather than technical
drawings. This comes from his focus
on the experience instead of the
practicality of the building. These
sketches were done on whatever
was closest to him, napkins, paper
towels, and his favorite, music
paper.
He did not design an actual building
until he was 52. His first building
that he began designing was the
Jewish Museum Berlin, and it
started his built architectural career.
Figure 4.2: Daniel Libeskind

Firm Structure
Daniel Libeskind established his
firm in Berlin, Germany in 1989
after winning the competition for the
Jewish Museum in Berlin. In 2003,
Libeskind moved the headquarters
from Berlin to New York City when
he was selected as the master
planner for the World Trade Center
redevelopment.
Studio Daniel Libeskind has
designing a diverse array of urban,
cultural and commercial projects.
The buildings can be found all
over the world. Its headquarters
56
Figure 4.3: Studio Daniel Libeskind office
is currently in New York City, with After the two of them as partners,
European partner offices based in there are four principals, then eight
Zrich, Switzerland and Milan, Italy. associates. Libeskind also has a
personal assistant. In total, there
The Studio has a completed are fifteen in the firm.
buildings that include museums,
concert halls, convention centers,
university buildings, hotels,
shopping centers and residential
towers.
Daniel Libeskind is partners with
his wife, Nina, in the firm. He is
the primary design architect and
his wife is responsible for the
management, administrative, and
financial assets of the firm.
 Figure 4.4: Studio Daniel Libeskind office

DANIEL LIBESKIND, B.ARCH. M.A. BDA AIA NINA LIBESKIND

PARTNER + PRINCIPAL DESIGN ARCHITECT PARTNER + CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
Solely responsible for all design decisions. Every project is developed Responsible for the overall management, financial,
with a consistent core team, which works together throughout the design administrative and resource control of the Studio. Prior
process toward the eventual realization of the project. Within the Studio, to working with her husband at Studio Daniel
teams are set up in individual project rooms and great emphasis is placed Libeskind, she worked in the USA, Canada, and Great
on working together. Britain in the areas of management, labor negotiations,
research and politics.

CARLA SWICKERATH YAMA KARIM STEFAN BLACH ERIC SUTHERLAND

PRINCIPAL + CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Gained her MArch from the University of Michigan in
1999 and worked for Studio Libeskind in Berlin from
1999 2003 and moved with the Studio to New York in
2003. Prior to studying architecture, she received a BA
in English and a BA in the History of Art from the
University of Florida.
PRINCIPAL
Received his MArch from Columbia University in 1995
and a BA in Environmental Design from the University
of California, Berkeley in 1991. Mr. Karim worked for
Studio Daniel Libeskind - Berlin between 1996 and
1998. In 2003 he rejoined the office in New York City.
PRINCIPAL
Received his Diploma in Architecture from the
Technische Universitt Berlin in 1991. Mr. Blach
worked at Studio Daniel Libeskind in Berlin from 1992
to 2003 and moved with the Studio to New York City in
2003.
PRINCIPAL
Received his MArch from Harvard University in 1994
and and a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the
University of Michigan in 1991. Mr. Sutherland joined
the Studio in 2003.

DAVID STOCKWELL SEUNGKI MIN ARNAULT BIOU JASON JIMENEZ JOE ROM CHING-WEN LIN, AIA, LEED AP JOHAN VAN LIEROP MICHAEL ASHLEY
ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE

THIERRY DEBAILLE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO DANIEL LIBESKIND
Figure 4.5: Firm organization

57
PART II: BETWEEN THE LINES
58
59
 IT HAS BEEN
SO WIDELY ADMIRED
THAT IT HAS BEEN A
POWERFUL FORCE IN THE
TRANSFORMATION OF
BERLIN.
Daniel Libeskind
 Chapter Five:
Iconic Formalism
The Distorted Star of
David
The unique form of Libeskinds
museum extension [Figures
5.4-5.9] and its dramatic faade
are not excluded from the same
historical and poetic drivers
that determined the interior
spaces and their progression.
The architect claims that
the buildings footprint was
created through the slicing and
fragmentation of the Star of
David [Figure 5.1] overlaid on
the plan of Berlin - however, this
connection is not very evident
and difficult to back up.
It is much easier to draw
parallels to Libeskinds earlier
work - in particular, the drawings
he had produced during the 80s
- and the connection to Bernard
Tschumi and his Architecture
62
of Disjunction, or disjointed
formality.
Aside from Libeskinds own
personal preconceptions for
architecture, there are no doubt
other factors that relate to the
iconic form that was eventually
realized. One, at least on the
purely aesthetic level, project
that comes to mind is Michael
Heizers Rift [Figure 5.2], a
zigzag shaped trench dug out
in the desert at Jean Dry Lake,
Nevada in 1968.1
It is interesting to speculate
the role of Heizers project in
its relationship to the entirety
of architectural discourse
during 1968, when the roots
of so called deconstructivist
architects began to take hold
specifically regarding Bernard
Tschumi and the beginnings of
Figure 5.1: Star of David Sketch
his thesis on architecture and
disjunction.
The form of the building also
relates to the surrounding
site and its relationship to the
streets that bind the exterior
grounds. By allowing the form
to twist and fold back on itself
in plan, it is able to produce
courtyards within its own
boundaries, such as the Paul
Celan Court [Figure 5.3] - one of
two courtyards that are formed
off of the narrow space between
the Baroque building and
the museum extension. This
particular courtyard design is
based on a Berliner Hinterhof
in its height and dimensions,
resembling the typical courtyard
layout of Berlins early
apartment buildings.2
Figure 5.2: Rift, Jean Dry Lake, NV
 Figure 5.3: Paul Celen Court

63
 Figure 5.4: Underground Level

Figure 5.5: Ground Level

Figure 5.6: First Level

64
 Figure 5.7: Second Level

Figure 5.8: Third Level

Figure 5.9: Roof Level

65

The Wrapped Monolith
The museum extension is one
of a few projects that began
a new type of construction -
wrapping in reflective steel
cladding. The Jewish Museum
Berlin is clad in zinc, while
Frank O. Gehrys Guggenheim
Museum in Bilbao [Figure 5.11],
which was completed just two
years before Libeskinds, is
clad in titanium.3 Although
these two projects are naturally
compared regarding their
architectural skins, Libeskind
makes a note to distinguish
the difference between them,
stating that he never meant it
as a shiny building, like Bilbao,
but something that will recede in
66
Figure 5.10: Faade detail of violent cuts
its figure, and that the choice to
use a non-oxidized zinc coating,
rather than titanium, allows the
faade to age, change color,
and eventually accent the sliced
windows that are cut through
the buildings surface [Figures
5.10, 5.12].4
The fact that both of these
buildings were formally
designed as iconic buildings
could prove to be the underlying
reason that they are also
monoliths, as well as the fact
that both are museums, which
typically allow little to no natural
light into the interior in order
for the curators to control the
amount of light in the exhibition
spaces.
Figure 5.11: Faade detail of Guggenheim
The Faade as a Map
One of the most notable and
recognizable aspects regarding
the faade of the museum
extension are the strip windows
that slash through the zinc
panels, projecting dramatic
displays of light onto the
walls of the buildings interior
[Figure 5.13], and allowing
fleeting glimpses of the city as
one looks moves through the
exhibition spaces. The design
and placement of these slashes
appear to be random at first
glance, but as is the case with
almost everything in Libeskinds
work, their arrangement, too,
has a story to tell.
By acknowledging the
historicism that is ever present
throughout this project, the
architect decided to treat
the skin of the building as a
physical, materialized diagram
of the citys past. They are
generated by first located
the street addresses of great
figures in Berlin Jewish
history. He located the former
residences of Heinrich von
Kleist, Heinrich Heine, Mies van
der Rohe, Rahel Varnhagen,
Walter Benjamin, and Arnold
Schnberg.5
By then connecting these
addresses through lines that
bisect the site, and projecting
those lines onto the buildings
skin, the apparently arbitrary
fragmentation of the buildings
faade is, in effect, a map of
Jewish history within Berlin.
Figure 5.12: Faade detail of violent cuts Figure 5.13: Interior detail of slashes
67
 Faade Construction
The construction of the
buildings faade may be one
of the more complex faades
of its time. The zinc cladding
was cold-formed on site and
soldered in place though vertical
paneling utilizing a standing
seam joint. Rheinzink, a now
prominent faade and roof
consulting company, launched
their career from their work on
this project. In most cases, as
the faade is punctured, the
zinc panels actually stick up
past the penetrations in order
to preserve the flat and sleek
nature of the buildings exterior,
as well as to create a shadow
line and reinforce the severity of
the sliced windows.
completely encase the window
molds on the first try,6 and to
make sure that the extreme
angles produced would not
chip or crack as the forms were
removed.
There is then a mullion system
which holds the glazing that
fills the slices in place that is
sandwiched in between the
concrete and the zinc panels
[Figure 5.15]. At any point of
the faade any of these different
elements may be visible, as
the exterior of the building is in
constant flux of peeling away
and exposing its inner working
to the outer world [Figure 5.14].

The walls of the museum

structure the entire building,
eliminating the need for
columns or interior load bearing
walls and allowing for a free
museum plan. Steel reinforced
concrete was cast-in place to
create the structure. There had
to be coordination between the
slicing of the faade and the
need for structural integrity, as
the slices were actually cast as
voids in the initial pouring of the
concrete structural walls [Figure
5.16]. This also required unique
methods in pouring concrete, as
the each entire wall had to be
poured in place, as well as to
Figure 5.14: Faade delamination Figure 5.15: Faade elevation detail

68
Figure 5.16: Concrete construction around the slashes

69
Faade Distortion
One last feature of the faade
that will be discussed is the
shape of the zinc panels that
comprise the buildings skin.
Although the seams between
the panels run perfectly vertical
and parallel to one another, the
horizontal seams are skewed
[Figure 5.18]. This effect begins
to create the illusion that the
exterior wall is not actually
perpendicular to the ground,
but rather is tilted out of plane.
This illusion is especially strong
when one looks closely at the
intersection of the parallel
seam edges and the horizontal
roof edge [Figure 5.19].7 This
distortion works very similarly
to the way Libeskind disorients
the occupant of the Garden of
Exile and Emigration - through
skewed lines and the use of
optical illusions.
Figure 5.17: The faade of Lerner Hall disorients the observer
70
This sort of detail invokes a
disjunctive architecture, and
once again the work of Tschumi
finds relevance in this project.
Tschumis design for Columbia
Universitys Alfred Lerner Hall
[Figure 5.17], also completed
in 1999, uses a very similar
technique in the application
of its faade.8 Through tilting
various elements that comprise
the glass faade, Tschumi
designs an optical illusion quite
similar to the one designed
by Libeskind - where one no
longer understands what lies
parallel to the ground - but adds
the element of depth, as one
can see through the skin of the
building and into circulation
and interior spaces. Again, the
work of these two contemporary
architects appears conceptually
intertwined through ideas of
distortion and disconnection.
Figure 5.18: Corner faade condition
Figure 5.19: Diagonal pattern of zinc panels across the faade

71
 THE JEWISH
MUSEUM IS BASED ON THE
INVISIBLE FIGURES WHOSE
TRACES CONSTITUTE
THE GEOMETRY OF THE
BUILDING.
Daniel Libeskind

72
 Chapter Six:
Narrative, Poetics, + Experience

73
 Figure 6.1: Enter through the Kollegienhaus Figure 6.2: Stairs down to Underground Level

Figure 6.5: Axis of Exile / Garden of Exile + Emigration Figure 6.6: Axis of Continuity / Stair of Continuity

Figure 6.9: First Level Figure 6.10: Stairs to Ground Level

74
Figure 6.3: The Three Axes Figure 6.4: Axis of the Holocaust / Holocaust Tower

Figure 6.7: Second Level Figure 6.8: Stairs to First Level

Figure 6.11: Ground Level Figure 6.12: Interior Voids

75
The Kollegienhaus

The journey through the Jewish

Museum Berlin begins in the
Kollegienhaus [Figure 6.1],
the Baroque building next to
Libeskinds extension, and
former Prussian courthouse
designed by Philip Gerlach in
1735.1

World War II took a heavy

toll on this district of Berlin
through aerial bombing, which
destroyed many of the historical
buildings around the site. The
Kollegienhaus itself was heavily
damaged, with only the exterior
walls left standing following
the war, and was rebuilt in
the 1960s to house the Berlin
Museum, established around
that same time [Figure 6.14].2
The context of the site was very
much a part of the architects
overall design concept, as well
as the way in which it factored
into progression through the
building.

Libeskind does not connect the

courthouse to his extension -
at least visually above grade
[Figure 6.13]. The building
serves as the entrance to
the museum, as it was the
original museum before the
extension, and there is no way
to enter the museum through
Libeskinds form. The upper
floor of the Kollegienhaus is
Figure 6.13: The museum extension and the Kollegienhaus do not touch above grade

76
 home to special exhibitions
within the museum, while
general amenities - including
a restaurant, auditorium,
coat room, information desk,
and gift shop - can be found
on the ground floor near the
main entrance.3 Libeskind
also respects the height of the
Kollegienhaus, as although his
extension has more floors than
its predecessor, the overall
masses are equal in height.

Figure 6.14: The Baroque Kollegienhaus The glass courtyard on the

ground floor of the Baroque
building, also designed in part
by Studio Daniel Libeskind,
is located in between the
two wings of the U-shaped
Kollegienhaus. Completed in
2007, the courtyard expands
the lobby of the building and
provides space for museum
events, including lectures,
concerts, and dinners. Four
free-standing steel pillars
support the roof of the
courtyard, bundled together
to create an effect similar to
the branching of a tree [Figure
6.15].4

Figure 6.15: The Kollegienhaus courtyard interior columns

77
The Entrance Staircase + to attention the physical and the location of the Rafael Roth
The Three Axes psychological fates of Jewish Learning Center.7
Berliners during the Holocaust. The axes are one of the main
The docile, conservative The main, third axis, however, organizing spaces of the
relationship between the allows a point of escape, as museums extension, however,
interaction of the two buildings well as symbolizes the attempt they are kept completely
ends once one enters the for the city to move on from its invisible from the exterior of
interior of the Kollegienhaus. heinous past.6 the building. They allow for the
The entrance to the museums unfolding of Libeskinds poetic
extension is much more The program at this level is vision, as multiple routes may
intense, as a staircase violently mostly exhibition space, with be taken before one is able to
punctures the Kollegienhaus some auxiliary and circulation escape from the underworld and
interior and leads down three spaces intermixed, as well as pass into the present day.
stories underground [Figures
6.2, 6.17] to the three axes of
the extension. The contrast of
materials, form, and light are
immediately present through an
extreme physical juxtaposition
as one is led out of historical
Berlin and thrust into the dark
and uncomfortable past of
German Judaism.

The three axes [Figures 6.3,

6.16] represent the major
experiences in German
Judaism: exile, holocaust, and
continuity. The first two axes
run off of the main axis, embody
the feeling that they are closing
up as one follows them to their
respective termination points,
as the floors of these paths
are inclined with the ceilings
remaining constant, invoking
more uncomfortability still.5
Their respective dead-ends are
also burden with emotional and
philosophical references, as
the architect immediately calls
Figure 6.16: All three axes are never visible simultaneously

78
Figure 6.17: The stairs lead the visitor underground, where their journey begins

79
The Holocaust Tower
The first axis that we will
discuss is the Holocaust Axis,
which terminates at a black
door, behind which lies the
Holocaust Tower [Figures 6.4,
6.18].8
As has been discussed
throughout this book,
Libeskinds poetic concept
manifests itself throughout every
aspect and detail of his work -
extending, in this case, even to
its documentation. If one looks
closely at this photograph of
the Holocaust Tower, the faint
outlines of museum visitors
are visible a product of the
long shutter speed required
for the photographs exposure.
However, these faint outlines
are also indicative of the
ghosts of the Holocaust, the
very victims that this branch of
the museums progression is
designed to commemorate.
exception of a cleverly hidden
fire stair and a small window at
its top. A sharp beam of light
enters the space from above,
and the sounds of the city are
faintly audible as one occupies
this physical dead-end space.9
Minimal connection to the
outside world is available from
here, and one is left to retrace
their steps back to the three
underground axes from which
they came. The black door also
acts as a foreshadowing device
for the experience it guards
- allowing neither visual nor
physical continuity to the space
which exists behind it.

This void is a free-standing

bare concrete structure that
is set apart from the rest of
Libeskinds extension.

The tower is representative

of the exterminated victims
of the Holocaust, and is
several storeys tall, forming
a pentagonal plan, which
is enclosed, unheated, and
entirely empty, with the

80
 Figure 6.18: The Holocaust Tower is a solemn space

81
The Hoffmann Garden of
Exile and Emigration

The second of the two dead-end

axes is the Axis of Exile, which
terminates at a glass door,
behind which lies the Garden
of Exile and Emigration [Figure
6.5].

This termination point is

representative of Jews who fled
Germany, and the false sense
freedom they experienced.
The garden is comprised of
forty-nine concrete pillars
[Figure 6.19] arranged in a 7 x
7 grid. Forty-eight of the pillars
represent the birth of Israel in
the year 1948, and is filled with
the soil of Berlin. The central
forty-ninth pillar is filled with the
soil of Israel, and represents the
Berlin itself. An underground
irrigation system allows for
willow oak trees to grow from
the columns and intertwine
above the garden [Figure
6.20].10

The square that these pillars

are located on is tilted in two
directions to create a double
ten degree slope, so that the
viewer is always off balance.11
The garden is surrounded by
rose arbor, the only plants
permitted in ancient Jerusalem,
which symbolize life and have
the ability to both injure and
reconcile. The spiny locusts
Figure 6.19: The garden is filled with forty-nine concrete pillars

82
 within the garden represent
the paradisal garden of Eden
through a modern lens.

This garden, however, although

open to the surrounding city
visually, is, like the Holocaust
Tower, a termination point.
Although one feels freed from
the roots of the underground
axes of the museum, they
are not free to go, and
need to return back into the
uncomfortable spaces from
which they came [Figure 6.21].

There is an egress ramp

that leads out of the garden;
however, it is visually
disconnected from the gardens
underground entrance, as well
Figure 6.20: Trees growing out of the pillars
as from the street, in order
to preserve the experience
designed for that of a physical
dead-end. The detailing and
design of this egress route, like
the fire-stair in the Holocaust
Tower, are examples of how
conceptual designs can be
preserved in the face of building
codes and other political
limitations.

As with the black door leading

into the Holocaust Tower, the
threshold from the axes to the
garden is also indicative of the
experience that lies beyond it,
as the glass door allows a visual
connectivity to the outside city,
but not a physical one.
Figure 6.21: The garden appears to be inaccessible except from the underground axes

83
The Stair of Continuity
There is only one axis that leads
to the museum and escapes
from the harsh, dark,
uncomfortable space of the
three axes: the Axis of
Continuity, which leads to the
grand Stair of Continuity [Figure
6.6].
The movement up into the
museum extension is a classic
play of scale and light, moving
the subject from a dark and
tightly enclosed space into
a large, naturally lit one -
signifying the subjects escape
from the underground, and the
continuation of Berlins history
from the dark, and murky
depths of its past.12
and the way they appear to
be crumbling - as if the space
is collapsing upon the subject
as they escape into the light
above.13
Unlike the previous two axes
- both of which terminate
behind a door in some symbolic
space - there is no barrier
between the Axis of Continuity
and the grand stair that leads
into the museum - this path is
connected both visually and
physically to the outside city. As
one ascends these stairs and
up from underground, they are
able to view the city through
the dramatic sliced windows
of the extensions faade, and
continue through the museums
permanent collections.

The staircase appears very

modest from the axes [Figure
6.22], but that perspective
changes once the subject
begins to ascend them. The
brightly lit vertical space that
the stairs open into runs the
entire height of the structure,
producing a space unlike any
other in the building. The large,
concrete structural members
which span the triple-high space
are viewable one by one as
the subject ascends the stairs.
However, when looking back
down at the path one had taken
[Figure 6.23], one is able to
see all of the structure at once,
Figure 6.22: Looking up the Stair of Continuity

84
 Figure 6.23: Looking down the Stair of Continuity

85
Museum Progression +
Program
One takes the Stair of
Continuity from the three
underground axes up to the
second level [Figure 6.7], which
is purely made up of exhibition
and circulation spaces, and is
the beginning of the permanent
exhibition.14 One then moves
throughout the exhibits to the
opposite end of the zigzag
plan of the extension, where a
smaller circulation stair [Figures
6.8, 6.27] leads one down a
level to the first level [Figure
6.9]. The first level has an
identical programmatic layout to
the second level, and acts as a
continuation of the permanent
exhibition.
exhibitions to the public since
Libeskinds extension [Figures
6.25, 6.28]. The public is only
able to access the ground,
first, and second levels of the
extension, with the third level
being restricted to museum
personnel. This level is home
to mostly administration offices,
as well as a library - the content
of which is able to be accessed
electronically.
This upper level is also the
only place where the faade
is indicative of the interior
program of the building. Due
to the need for large quantities
of natural lighting in the offices
of the museum, there are
large windows at the top of
the building [Figure 6.29] to
accommodate the employees
in a functional way, where the
thin strip windows throughout
the rest of the faade serve
the larger, poetic design of the
building.15 Since the museum
collections are less about
artwork in the traditional sense
and more about the overall
history of Judaism in Germany,
the dramatic play of light
created by these strip windows
is acceptable.

After the exhibits on the first

level have been viewed, one
then descends down the Stair
of Continuity once again [Figure
6.10] to the ground level of the
extension [Figure 6.11]. The
majority of the ground floor is
exhibition space, with a small
amount of auxiliary spaces and
circulation spaces.

The museum opened to the

public in 1999 with no exhibits
[Figure 6.24]; the architecture
was on display for two years
before anything filled the new
spaces. In September of 2001,
the museum opened its first
Figure 6.24: The museum was open for two years without any exhibits

86
 Figure 6.25: Exhibits now fill the museum and blocking windows Figure 6.26: Black walls mark the interior voids

Figure 6.27: Stair between 2nd and 1st Levels Figure 6.28: The original white walls are now painted for various exhibits

Figure 6.29: Windows on the Third Level allow more natural light for administrative offices

87
The Interior Voids
The last of the formal moves
that Libeskind makes to
be discussed are the six
interior voids that run linearly
throughout the building [Figure
6.12], lit only from skylights at
the roof level [Figure 6.31].
The first two of these voids
physically connect the roof to
the exhibition spaces located
underground in the space
created by the intersection of
the three axes - further adding
to the torturous feeling of
entrapment beneath the earth,
as one is able to physically
occupy these spaces and look
upward to the light above, but
not physically escape through
these vertical piercings.16
When looking at the buildings
ground level plan, one can tell
that the first interior void shares
the same pentagonal plan as
Figure 6.30: Shalechet installation in the Memory Void
88
the Holocaust Tower, while the
second interior void has a plan
synonymous with the plan of
the tower that houses the stairs
connecting the Kollegienhaus
to Libeskinds extension, which
itself pierces the Baroque
structure up to the roof level.
The Holocaust Tower and stair
tower appear as outposts to
the museums extension, as
one is free-standing within the
outer world (present day Berlin)
and the other is enveloped
in Germanic history (the late
Baroque courthouse).
The only other void which is
able to be physically occupied
is the sixth, which is called
the Memory Void. Within it is
the Shalechet installation by
Menashe Kadishman [Figure
6.30].17 The installation is
comprised of thousands of clay
faces covering the floor, and
one is forced to pass through
the void and to walk on the
faces, causing them to clink
and echo throughout the void -
creating a truly eerie sensation.
The other three voids are not
able to be occupied, but they
can be looked into from the
upper levels of the museum
from bridges that pass by the
voids, or through windows
resembling gun slits [Figure
6.32] - again, another extremely
overwhelming formal and
psychological move created by
the architect.
The six voids are also denoted
through their materials - clad
in bare and dimly lit concrete
in a fashion very similar to
that of the Holocaust Tower.
Interior walls of the exhibition
spaces that are shared with
the voids are painted black
[Figure 6.26], another way to
read the physical intertwining
of forms and narrative within
the architecture through
materiality.18
Figure 6.31: Skylights run between the voids
Figure 6.32: Bridges and gun slits allow visitors to look into the interior voids that cannot be physically occupied

89
Circulation
Program Arrangement the progression through the
CIRCULATION
building is easily viewable when
As indicated throughout this studying these graphics.
Exhibition
EXHIBITION Space
chapter, the layout of the
Void
VOID
buildings spaces [Figures The relationship between the
6.33-6.37] are organized circulation, exhibition, and
Administrative
ADMINISTRATIVE Space primarily on the overall poetic interior void conditions is a
and narrative-based design continual play of Libeskinds
Library
LIBRARY
created by the architect. The overall mission for the museum
circulation throughout these - an intertwining of historical and
Mechanical Space spaces are shown in red in the progressive Germany through
AUXILIARY
accompanying diagrams, and narrative and form.

Figure 6.33: Underground Level program layout

Figure 6.34: First Level program layout

90
 Figure 6.35: First Level program layout

Figure 6.36: Second Level program layout

Figure 6.37: Third Level program layout

91
BEYOND THE LINES
Jewish Museum
Launches Career of
Daniel Libeskind

The Jewish Museum in Berlin,

completed in 1999, jump-started
the career of Daniel Libeskind.
With this project he conceived a
conceptual and physical Daniel
Libeskind style; a new brand of
architecture. All of his successive
works carry the same architectural
strands of distorted iconic form,
sliced linear windows, and the
poetic narrative of experience,
through a conceptual framework
based on the line. The most
notable projects are the Ground
Zero Master Plan in New York
(2003), the Extension to the Denver
Art Museum (2006), the Royal
Ontario Museum (2007), and the
Contemporary Jewish Museum in
San Francisco (2008). Libeskind
has established himself within a
niche of architecture that holds
strong cultural and emotional
influences. The buildings are
memorials which transcend their
programmatic functional value.
His poetic metaphors conceive
architectural iconic form that is a
conduit for meaningful experiences.

GROUND ZERO MASTER PLAN

I SHAPED GROUND ZERO WITH
A MASTER PLAN THAT IS BASED
ON MEMORY AND IMBUED WITH
THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY.
Daniel Libeskind

Figure A.1: Royal Ontario Museum

94
 EXTENSION TO THE DENVER
ART MUSEUM
I SAW TWO LINES GOING FOR
A WALK IN DENVER, THE LINE
OF THE ROCKIES AND THE LINE
OF CULTURE. THEY MEET AND
FORM THE MUSEUM ITSELF.
Daniel Libeskind

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

I WANTED TO BUILD DYNAMIC
SPACES THAT INVITE THE
VISITOR EVEN BEFORE
ENTERING.
Daniel Libeskind

CONTEMPORARY JEWISH
MUSEUM
Figure A.2: Extension to the Denver Art Museum
THE MUSEUM EXPRESSES
THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING
IDENTITY AMID THE DIVERSITY
OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. IT
CELEBRATES COMPLEXITY.
Daniel Libeskind

Figure A.3: Contemporary Jewish Museum Figure A.4 Ground Zero Master Plan

95
CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE EXTENSION TO THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN
1. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
2. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
3. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
4. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
5. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind

PART I: DANIEL LIBESKIND

Chapter One: Early Life
1. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind
2. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind

Chapter Two: Educational Influences

1. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
2. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind
3. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
4. An Introduction to Architectural Theory: 1968 to the Present by Harry Francis Mallgrave by David Goodman
5. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
6. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind
7. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)

Chapter Three: Deconstructivism

1. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
2. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
3. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
4. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
5. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)
6. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
7. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
8. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
9. Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind

Chapter Four: The Firm + Design Process

1. Interview with Daniel Libeskind in Architectural Design
2. Breaking Ground by Daniel Libeskind
3. Studio Daniel Libeskind (daniel-libeskind.com)

PART II: BETWEEN THE LINES

Chapter Five: Iconic Formalism
1. www.archidose.blogspot.com

NOTES
2.Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind.
3. www.guggenheim-bilbao.es
4. www.youtube.com
5. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
6. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
7. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
8. www.tschumi.com

Chapter Six: Narrative, Poetics, + Experience

1. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind
2. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
3. www.inspirationish.com
4. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind
5. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
6. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
7. www.inspirationish.com
8. www.youtube.com
9. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
10. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
11. www.youtube.com
12. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind
13. www.youtube.com
14. www.inspirationish.com
15. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
16. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
17. Counterpoint by Daniel Libeskind
18. www.youtube.com

BEYOND THE LINES

1. Between the Lines by Daniel Libeskind
2. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
3. The Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
Cover Image http://www.flickr.com/photos/fasp1nos/4503769418/in/photostream/
Inside Cover Image http://www.designroof.org/?p=179 , Ricardo Chaves

CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE EXTENSION TO THE JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN

I.0 Title Image http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/jewish-museum-berlin/images
I.1 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/jewish-museum-berlin/images
I.2, I.3, I.4, I.5, I.7 Erweiterung Berlin Museum mit Abteilung Jdisches Museum, Berlin. Architektur +
Wettbewerbe, no. 143 (1990): 54-62
I.6 The Jewish Extension to the German Museum in Berlin. Architectural design 60, no. o.3-4 (1990): 62-62-77.
I.8, I.9 Krell, David Farrell. Between the Lines: Extension to the Berlin Museum, with the Jewish Museum.
Assemblage, no. [19]-51 (1990): [19]-[19]-51.
I.10 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=369452
I.11 http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/bloodhounds.htm
I.12 http://www.geolocation.ws/v/P/35111558/synagoge-orangienburgstrasse-berlijn/en
I.13 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18333/18333-h/18333-h.htm
I.14 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/places/berlin_wall
I.15 http://kosherdelight.com/Holocaust_Yellow_Star.shtml
I.16 http://www.photoeverywhere.co.uk/west/berlin/slides/berlinwall0970_ jpg_orig.htm
I.17 http://archimetes.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/img_0073.jpg

PART I: DANIEL LIBESKIND

Title Image http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/line/

Chapter One: Early Life

1.0 Title Image, 1.1, 1.2: Libeskind, D., and S. Crichton. Breaking Ground: An Immigrants Journey from Poland to
Ground Zero. Penguin Group, 2004.
1.3 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski

Chapter Two: Educational Influences

2.0 Title Image http://macrojack.blogspot.com/2010/07/chapter-4-between-lines.html
2.1 http://cooper.edu/about/mission-vision
2.2 http://christienealhogue.wordpress.com
Logo Cooper Union
2.3 http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1470344&page=7
2.4 http://libcom.org/news/unrest-over-academies-expansion-24112008
Logo Essex University
2.5 http://library.byways.org/assets/70316
2.6 http://www.cranbrookart.edu/Pages/StudentLife.html
Logo Cranbrook Academy of Art

Chapter Three: Deconstructivism

FIGURES
3.0 Title Image http://www.ahrachodesign.com/moma.html
3.1 http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/line/
3.2, 3.3, 3.4 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/micromegas/images
3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/chamber-works/drawings
3.9, 3.10, 3.11 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/theatrum-mundi/images
3.12, 3.13, 3.14 Space of Encounter by Daniel Libeskind
3.15 http://popartmachine.com/item/pop_art/FASF-FASF.56918/GIOVANNI-BATTISTA-PIRANESI-THE-SMOk
ING-FIRE,-PL-VI-FROM-THE-SERIES-CARCERI
3.16 http://art3idea.psu.edu/boundaries/related/hopscotch.html
3.17 http://www.laforum.org/content/news/neil-denari-the-artless-drawing
3.18 http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/the-peak-leisure-club/
3.19 http://pablogilcornaro.blogspot.com/2010/12/thom-maynes-mind.html
3.20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gehry_House_-_Image01.jpg
3.21 http://openbuildings.com/buildings/falkestrasse-rooftop-profile-41925
3.22 James Wisniewski

Chapter Four: The Firm + Design Process

4.0 Title Image http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/architects/daniel_libeskind_sdl301008_cmkp.jpg
4.1 http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0901/gallery.offices.fortune/5.html
4.2 http://njjewishnews.com/article/6556/famed-architects-vision-links-sept.-11-and-the-shoa#.TugToCNWrvM
4.3 http://web.me.com/broadsheet/Broadsheet/Home/Entries/2010/9/10_FridaySeptember_10,_2010.html
4.4 http://daniel-libeskind.com/studio
4.5 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski

PART II: BETWEEN THE LINES

Title Image http://arch-pubs.usc.edu/uscBCN/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Jewish-Museum.jpg

Chapter Five: Iconic Formalism

5.0 Title Image http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/jewish-museum-berlin/images
5.1 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/jewish-museum-berlin/images
5.2 http://www.life.com/celebrity-pictures/118118331/heizers-rift-1
5.3 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/jewish-museum-berlin/images
5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 Schneider, Bernhard, and Daniel Libeskind. Daniel Libeskind : Jewish Museum Berlin :
Between the Lines. Munich ; New York: Prestel, 1999.
5.10 http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32355&sid=4f49d83f03f08c524735e0acb96d4b9c
5.11 http://www.flickr.com/photos/darrellg/1479122547/in/faves-jandirkx/
5.12 http://www.flickr.com/photos/67385262@N00/page10/
5.13 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ms_abitibi/1763984069/
5.14 http://www.panoramio.com/photo/24612427
5.15, 5.16 Libeskind, D., R.C. Levene, and F.M. Cecilia. Daniel Libeskind, 1987-1996. El Croquis, 1996.
5.17 http://www.tschumi.com/projects/13/
5.18 http://www.flickr.com/photos/marzellluz/4029984256/sizes/z/in/photostream/
5.19 http://archimetes.wordpress.com/category/berlin/

Chapter Six: Narrative, Poetics, + Experience

6.0 Title Image http://www.flickr.com/photos/brancolina/6021269441/
6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski
6.13 http://www.flickr.com/photos/_spoutnik/5159648000/
6.14 http://www.flickr.com/photos/benittes/4505804727/
6.15 http://www.flickr.com/photos/lshu/2071936651/
6.16 http://www.jewishjournal.com/community/article/holocaust_museums_la_and_the_rest_of_the_
world_20101006/
6.17 http://www.flickr.com/photos/piposieske/424012969/
6.18 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/jewish-museum-berlin/images
6.19 http://www.flickr.com/photos/drazr/5623072036/
6.20 http://mimoa.eu/projects/Germany/Berlin/Jewish%20Museum%20Berlin
6.21 http://blog.adamlee.com.au/2011_02_01_archive.html
6.22 http://magdalenamolinari.blogspot.com/
6.23 http://infocast.nl/blog/tag/berlin
6.24 http://cosker.wordpress.com/
6.25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Exhibit-view-Jewish-_Museum-Berlin.JPG
6.26 http://www.flickr.com/photos/klaasfotocollectie/4884439007/
6.27 http://europein90.wordpress.com/author/europeandanielle/
6.28 http://www.flickr.com/photos/aabinsay/2769859066/
6.29 http://www.flickr.com/photos/26513945@N02/4804236609/
6.30 http://wikidi.com/view/jewish-museum-berlin
6.31 http://www.flickr.com/photos/55009213@N00/13776819/
6.32 http://www.flickr.com/photos/brancolina/6016745139/in/faves-livinginacity/
6.33, 6.34, 6.35, 6.36, 6.37 Andenmatten, Walsh, Wisniewski

BEYOND THE LINES

A.0 Title Image http://openbuildings.com/buildings/royal-ontario-museum-profile-9971/media?group=image
A.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_Bloor_Street_reflected_in_Royal_Ontario_Museum.jpg
A.2 http://www.architizer.com/en_us/projects/pictures/denver-art-museum/13412/102168/
A.3 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/contemporary-jewish-museum/images
A.4 http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects/ground-zero-master-plan/images

FIGURES cont.
Architectures [videorecording] = Architekturen / [a collection presented by Richard Copans and Stan Neumann].
DVD. Directed by Richard Copans. Paris: Arte Vido : Facets Video : Runion des Muses
Nationaux, 2001.

Avidar, Pnina, and Marc Schoonderbeek. De Leegte Van Herinnering En Hoop: Joods Museum Van Daniel Li
kind = the Void of Memory and Hope: [Jewish Museum, Berlin]. Architect 30, no. [3] (1999): 48-48-55.

Berlino, Il Museo Ebraico = Berlin, the Jewish Museum. Architettura 45, no. 522 (1999): 247-47.

Berlins Jewish Museum [videorecording] : a personal tour with Daniel Libeskind. VHS. Directed by Michael
Blackwood. Northvale, NJ: Audio Plus Video, 2000.

Betsky, Aaron. Berlins New Cutting Edge: Architect Daniel Libeskinds Jewish Museum Rediscovers the Citys
Lost Soul. Metropolitan home 22, no. o.12 (1990): 60-60,[62].

Betsky, Aaron. Het Bouwen Van Afwezigheid: De Joodse Samenzwering in De Architectuur = Building Absence:
The Jewish Conspiracy in Architecture. Archis, no. 7 (1998): 40-40-47.

Between the Lines: Daniel Libeskind Om Sit Projekt for Det Jdiske Museum I Berlin = between the Lines: The
Extension of the Berlin Museum with the Jewish Museum Department. Skala, no. 23 (1990): 18-18-23.

Chametzky, Peter. Rebuilding the Nation: Norman Fosters Reichstag Renovation and Daniel Libeskinds Jewish
Museum Berlin. Centropa 1, no. 3 (2001): 245-45-63.

Clewing, Ulrich. Besucheransturm macht in Berlin Umbauten notwendig: Dicke Luft im Judischen Museum [A rush
of visitors makes alterations necessary in Berlin: a bad atmosphere in the Jewish Museum]. ART: das
Kunstmagazin 1 (2000): 1.

Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ6SPYaiST8

Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OYlkSukgKI&feature=related

Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2fKtlQ05A0&feature=related

Daniel Libeskind: Berlin Museum with the Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany. GA document,
no. 59 (1999): [66]-[66]-83.

Daniel Libeskind: Between the Lines - the Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany 1998. Chien chu = Dialogue:
architecture + design + culture, no. 28 (1999): 48-48-57.

Daniel Libeskind: Museo Ebraico, Berlino = Jewish Museum, Berlin. Domus, no. 820 (1999): 32-32-[41].

Daniel Libeskind: The Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany 1989-1998. A + U: architecture and urbanism,
no. 12(339) (1998): 102-02-21.

Daniel Libeskind [videorecording] : welcome to the 21st century. DVD. Directed by Downes Mary. Princeton, NJ:
Films for the Humanites & Sciences, 2004.

Davey, Peter. A tale of two museums. Architectural Review 205, no. 1226 (1999): 38-39.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dawson, Layla. Daniel Libeskind, Master of Memorials, on the Healing Power of Architecture [Interview].
Architectural review 227, no. 1359 (2010): 32-32-33.

Dawson, Layla. Heart of Glass: Daniel Libeskind Returns to Berlin to Add a Final Coda to His Jewish Museum.
Architectural review 222, no. 1329 (2007): 26-26-27.

El Parque De Cristal = the Glass Park. AV monografas = AV monographs, no. 93-94 (2002): 158-58-61.

Entre Les Lignes: Jdisches Museum, Berlin. Architecture intrieure cr, no. 272 (1996): [100-[00-07].

Erweiterung Berlin Museum mit Abteilung Jdisches Museum, Berlin. Architektur + Wettbewerbe, no. 143
(1990): 54-62

Fischer, Jan Otakar. Libeskinds Jewish Museum in Berlin Finally Opens with Installations. Architectural record
189, no. 10 (2001): [47]-[47].

Gubitosi, Alessandro. Il Progetto Invisible: Libeskind in Berlin. Arca, no. 65 (1992): 66-66-71.

Gullbring, Leo. Revealing the lost soul of Berlin. Frame 3, no. 7 (1999): 25-31.

Haslam, Michael. Berlin: Daniel Libeskinds Jewish Museum Lives up to Its Promise. Architecture today, no. 84
(1998): 6-6-7,9.

Herrmann, Klaus J. German Museum. Chicago Tribune, September 28, 1991.

Heuberger, Georg, and Johannes Wachten. Jewish Museum Frankfurt Am Main. Prestel Museum Guide. Munich;
New York: Prestel, 2002.

Il Museo Ebraico a Berlino = the Jewish Museum in Berlin. Industria delle costruzioni 32, no. 324 (1998):
36-36-51.

Jewish Museum Berlin. Stiftung Jdisches Museum Berlin, http://www.jmberlin.de/main/EN/homepage-EN.php.

Jewish Museum with the Berlin Museum. Kenchiku bunka 50, no. 590 (1995): [45]-[45]-65.

Kiddell-King, Jane. A place to muse. The Spectator (London), February 13, 1999.

Krell, David Farrell. Between the Lines: Extension to the Berlin Museum, with the Jewish Museum. Assemblage,
no. [19]-51 (1990): [19]-[19]-51.

Libeskind, D. Daniel Libeskind: Countersign. Academy Editions, 1991.

Libeskind, D. Daniel Libeskind: The Space of Encounter. Universe, 2001.

Libeskind, D., and A.P.A. Belloli. Daniel Libeskind, Radix-Matrix: Architecture and Writings. Prestel, 1997.

Libeskind, D., and H. Binet. Jewish Museum, Berlin. G + B Arts International, 1999.

Libeskind, D., H. Binet, and R. Bunschoten. A Passage through Silence and Light. Black Dog Pub., 1997.
Libeskind, D., and S. Crichton. Breaking Ground: An Immigrants Journey from Poland to Ground Zero. Penguin
Group, 2004.

Libeskind, D., and P. Goldberger. Counterpoint: Daniel Libeskind in Conversation with Paul Goldberger. Monacelli
Press, 2008.

Libeskind, D., C. Kugelmann, and J. Bitter. Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin: Museum Building Guides.
Distributed Art Pub Inc, 2011.

Libeskind, D., R.C. Levene, and F.M. Cecilia. Daniel Libeskind, 1987-1996. El Croquis, 1996.

Libeskind, D., C. Wolf, M. Schwarzer, J.E. Young, and Contemporary Jewish Museum. Daniel Libeskind and the
Contemporary Jewish Museum: New Jewish Architecture from Berlin to San Francisco. Contemporary
Jewish Museum, 2008.

Libeskind, Daniel. Studio Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin. http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/.

Libeskindbau Leads Where Other Museums Should Follow. Architects journal 209, no. 4 (1999): 24-24.

Lucas, Ryan. Bold new look for Warsaw Top architects help reshape city, mired for years in socialist gray. St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, June 13, 2008.

Marotta, Antonello. Il Museo Giudaico a Berlino, Oltre Le Coordinate Cartesiane = the Jewish Museum in Berlin:
Beyond Cartesian Coordinates. Architettura 47, no. 552 (2001): 608-08-09.

Michellis, Marco De. Daniel Libeskind: Museo Ebraico, Berlino. The Jewish Museum, Berlin. Domus 820 (1999):
32-41.

Muntoni, Alessandra. Larma Del Ricordo: Il Museo Ebraico Di Daniel Libeskind a Berlino = the Power of
Memory: The Jewish Museum of Daniel Libeskind at Berlin. Metamorfosi, no. 39 (1999): [7]-[7]-14.

Newhouse, Victoria. Daniel Libeskinds Jewish Museum in Berlin Speaks to a History That Is Both Rich and
Tragic. Architectural record [187], no. 1 (1999): [76]-[76]-91.

Nobel, Philip. The mystic of Lindenstrasse. Metropolis 18, no. 5 (1999): 74-93.

Patterson, Richard. The Void That Is Subject: Libeskinds Jewish Museum, Berlin. Architectural design 70, no. 5
(2000): [66]-[66]-75.

Rodermond, Janny. Verleden Geen Perspectief Voor De Toekomst = Past Offers No Perspective for Future
[Berlin, Germany]. Architect 30, no. [3] (1999): 32-32-33.

Rogoff, Irit. Hit and run--museums and cultural difference. Art Journal 61, no. 3 (2002): 63-73.

Saatchi, Doris Lockhart. The Best and the Wurst [Berlin]. Blueprint (London, England), no. 162 (1999): 18-18.

Schneider, Bernhard, and Daniel Libeskind. Daniel Libeskind : Jewish Museum Berlin : Between the Lines.
Munich ; New York: Prestel, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY cont.
Smith, Terry. Daniel among the Philosophers: The Jewish Museum, Berlin, and Architecture after Auschwitz.
Architectural theory review: journal of the Department of Architecture, the University of Sydney 10, no. 1
(2005): 105-05-24.

Spens, Michael Patrick. Berlin Phoenix: Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany. Architectural review 205, no. 1226
(1999): 40-40-47.

Strau, Josef. Berliner Geschichten: ein Gang durch das Judische Museum [Berlin stories: a walk through the
Judisches Museum]. Texte Zur Kunst 9 (1999): 146-53.

Thea, Carolee. The Void: Daniel Libeskinds Jewish Museum as a Counter-Monument. Sculpture 19 (2000):
38-45.

The Jewish Extension to the German Museum in Berlin. Architectural design 60, no. o.3-4 (1990): 62-62-77.

Traces of the Unborn. Kenchiku bunka 50, no. 590 (1995): 22-22-44.

Young, James E. Daniel Libeskind and the Contemporary Jewish Museum: New Jewish Architecture from Berlin to
San Francisco. New York: Skira / Rizzoli, 2008.
Daniel Libeskinds 1999
ground-breaking design for
The Jewish Museum in Berlin
steps outside traditional and
contemporary architectural
canon with a complex
narrative. Its form and spatial
construct represents the past
and present, and displays
the consequences of the
+RORFDXVW IRU WKH UVW WLPH
in postwar Germany. The
building itself tells a narrative
of the social, political, and
cultural history of the Jewish
population in Berlin, and
integrates this narrative into
the experience of a poetic
architecture.

106