Sensibility for restoration

Last year in december I went to Berlin with my classmates, we filled our three days with the most interesting architectural examples of the city. The Neues Museum was the most impressive for me, being inside it was worth many lessons of restoration.


The Neues Museum was built between 1843 and 1855 according to plans by Friedrich August Stüler. It got heavily damaged  because of the Berlin bombings during World War II. In 1997, David Chipperfield started reconstruction and restoration works for this museum. There were entire missing sections to complete and heavily damaged parts to restore.


The restoration was made with great respect on different states of preservation, missing parts were recostructed as continuity of the original building ,not like an imitation of the historical but "reminding" it with its modern design. "The new reflects the lost without imitating it". Each room is worth photographing, you can find many details, layers of restoration to observe. My favourite room of the museum is South Dome which was built with recycled handmade bricks. It looks simlply elegant with marble sculptures.


Chipperfield’s approach to design is minimalist but frankly minimalist, far from the restoration Tadao Ando did in Palazzo Grassi.  You can make a virtual tour in the museum in the official site here

Palazzo Grassi

"Palazzo Grassi was the last private residence to be built on the Grand Canal before the fall of the Venetian Republic in 1797. Tadao Ando has worked on the restoration of the building with a project that is of minimalist understatement. The colour range in the interiors is dominated by whites and greys, creating within each room the calm necessary for contemplation of works of art; from above, the ceiling ‘velarium’ casts a clear and even light that embraces the interior below. Each aspect of the restoration fully respects the history of the palazzo at the same time as reflecting the needs of the twenty-first century."  says the official page of Palazzo Grassi. 

Really?  I hardly noticed the historical building! I think most of readers will agree with me looking at the photos even if you haven't visited Palazzo Grassi yet. They covered the original walls of the palace with plaster walls. Luckily they thought of letting us see at least the ceilings in some rooms! Many of the rooms are just white, covered with plaster all around.  

I like the idea of contemporary art in this building, I enjoy the mix of modern and historical.  I like the respectful modern touch in the court of the building but the rest disappoints me.

Turning a historical building into a museum is a hard work but  historical building has to lose importance next to exhibited objects?  Why can't I enjoy being inside a 18th century venetian building while observing the exhibition?  In Neues Museum, David Chipperfield succeeded this amazingly. We easily see the respect he showed to the building, he created two layers, he exhibits the building and the objects of the museum at the same time with similar importance. I would expect the same sensibility also from Tadao Ando. I always appreciated his designs but restoration isn't his strong point, I guess it was his first restoration work ever, probably the last one. 

Function or Aesthetics?

When I was an architecture student, I used to admire Santiago Calatrava. I used to find his works fascinating, very artistic, sculptural. He gets inspired from natural forms like Gaudi used to do and he turns these forms into engineering wonders.

Since he projected more than 40 beautiful bridges, he is famous with this and when a city wants a bridge which will bring a certain fame, the name of Calatrava comes to mind immediately. That's what happened in Venice.

The bridge Calatrava projected for Venice is situated on a strategical point, between the train station and Piazzale Roma where there is bus terminal. These two places are the only connection of Venezia with outside world (except Cruise Ships). Someone can enter Venice either from train station or from Piazzale Roma. Considering that Venice receives 50.000 tourists a day, you can imagine the crowd of tourists with trolleys and suitcases crossing the bridge.

Last year when I was a student in Venice, I lived in Mestre (it's a city in the mainland of Venice) and I used to come to Venice every morning for school by train. I had to cross the Calatrava's bridge to reach my university. Almost every single day of the year, in every meteorological condition, I crossed that bridge seeing how many people slipped and fell on the ground with their suitcases, how many people stumbled, how many old people or disabled called for assistance to cross it. The bridge has received many criticism because Calatrava didn't consider access for disabled people, they had to project a mobility lift system incurring large costs which was supposed to be installed in 2010 but still no progress.  

Well...not only disabled or elderly people but Calatrava didn't consider anyone who would cross this bridge, he didn't consider the weather conditions of Venice, he didn't consider the correct length and width of the steps...This bridge is a DISASTER!

There are many steps embedded in the pavement so it's a continuous climb, some steps are large some are narrow. Narrow steps are too large for a single pace ; if you walk with a natural pace length, you risk to fall down so you need to walk with very large paces opening your legs good with a lot of attention. Larger steps instead are too short for two paces...and the length of the steps changes often, when you organise your paces according to single steps, suddenly they become double , then single again. Since it's all the same material it cheats you optically, all the steps look the same. You always have to watch out on the bridge.

Then the glass material he used...Venice is humid and cold in winter, especially in the morning most of the times there's ice on the ground. Calatrava's bridge is slippery even without ice though. All winter they put salt on it!

Calatrava, as an experienced architect, how could he do these simple mistakes? Did he become the victim of his fame? Beauty is important but function is A LOT MORE important, especially on a bridge. He defend himself like this : "My work is limited to the aesthetic,I had no influence in the selection of the contracting company that built the structure. A lot of things have happened that are out of my hands." He chose the materials, he drew the bridge...How can the work of an architect be limited only to the aesthetics?