Defacing Hejduk
Hejduk's Kreuzberg complex in happier days. (Courtesy architectureinberlin)
The late John Hejduk, dean of Cooper Union, a member of the Texas Rangers, and an influential member of the New York Five, built very few buildings, preferring to leave architectural ideas on paper. But he did build several housing projects in Berlin as part of the influential IBA program, and now one of his finest projects, the Kreuzberg Tower from 1988, is being defaced by its new owners in the name of “improvement.” Kazys Varnelis sends word that a petition is being created to protest this destruction. The effort is being led in part by Hejduk’s daughter Renata, an architectural historian who urged the new owners to halt the work, but apparently received a rude response. According to architectureinberlin, Renata explained: “I tried everything I could to get them to stop and at least consult with the Estate and other architects who were interested in helping to preserve them. They were completely uninterested and felt their facade changes would be much better than the original.” Help save the tower by spreading the word, signing the petition, and putting pressure on the new owners to reconsider their actions. You can see the terrible plans after the jump.
Despicable. (Courtesy Slab Mag)
65 Responses to “Defacing Hejduk”
Post new comment
Advertise on The Architect's Newspaper.
Archives
Categories
Architecture
Design
East Coast
Midwest
National
Planning
Shft+Alt+Del
Sustainability
Transportation
West Coast
[...] Also some more blog coverage at The Architect’s Newspaper Blog. [...]
Renata’s motives are selfish rather than architectural. As the photos and drawings show, this was not a very sophisticated design to begin with. In my opinion, it is not a candidate for preservation.
My motives are not selfish and Renata’s comments are right on target. The Kreuzberg complex as designed by John Hejduk should be retained as originally designed. Having done one of the villas in the Tegel basin along with John, the remodeling on Kreuzberg is proposterous. The original should be retained at all costs.
It’s minimally less cold, drab and lifeless than most Eastern European slum tower projects. Beyond that I am at loss to find anything more charitable to say about this. – Sorry to be blunt, but when you compare this drab effort with, say Place des Vosges, or even any non-name-brand Victorian worker’s housing project in London, you do have to ask what’s all the contrived fuss about here.
Hedjuk (and Eisenmam, Libeskind, et al), represented the highly visible but utterly pretentious end of a quasi-intellectual derriere garde that infiltrated and debased serious architectural education with nonsensical posturing wrapped up in obscurantist prose. Their joyless architecture (of which this is a particularly uninspiring example), is a memory I want to forget. I say knock it down. The sooner the better.
It’s such a sweet sensitive personal building I can’t believe some people
find it cold, drab and utterly pretentious. I would love to walk down the street
and be confronted by this face and beautifully scaled tower.
Let’s stop kidding around and acting like this is serious architecture. While it’s hardly offensive, it’s not exactly inspiring either. At best, it’s a humorous diagram clothed in cheap stucco. Take away Hejduk’s name and I’d bet that nearly everyone – architecture students included – would walk right by it without a second glance.
If we start wasting energy on this, next thing you know, people will be campaigning to save work from that embarassing period known as Postmodernism.
A beautiful and rare example of Hejduk’s work that should be preserved, appreciated and studied.
It’s indicative of how bad most modern and contemporary architecture really is, that some people feel this mediocre building is worth saving.
Personally I’d lay down in front of any bulldozer threatening a work by, say, Cass Gilbert or McKim Mead & White. But if I was to see a bulldozer heading for this, I’d wish the driver God Speed and encourage him to take a few more adjacent buildings dowm with it.
It’s worth preserving as an example of the relatively low standard that was deemed salvageable from the architectural mess that was the last 75 years of the 20th Century. But let’s not kid ourselves that future generations of camera-toting cultural tourists will be trekking over to the Kreuzberg Tower the way they do today to admire past masterpieces like Borromini’s ‘Quattro Fontane” or Brunelleschi’s Dome. It just doesn’t have that much to offer. Really.
I lived in the tower for 8 years. The flats have unique plans and very special qualities.
The building has been appallingly maintained since its construction, both the buildings and the landscaping, and the complex has really suffered from this
It is of course an example of the austere aesthetics of Hejduk’s work.
But anybody who simply dismisses this as low-quality, mediocre or unworthy of attention has either never been, or most certnly, never been inside.
Robert,
What are its “special qualities?”
I wonder whether it was “appallingly maintained” (as one writer observed), or just so appallingly detailed that it deteriorated rapidly to the detriment of its appearance.
It is no secret that academics who have never interned in a professional office have limited construction knowledge as evidenced by a terrible history of construction failures in many of their works. Currently, Daniel Libeskind (an ego-tripping clown who bragged about his refusal to intern for any other architect as a young graduate), has given us such gems as the Denver Museum which leaked for three years, and Toronto’s ROM which has been labeled “The Worst Building of the Decade”.
I for one, refuse to support a history of bad architecture by unproven academics who are responsible for “educating” many of the incompetents in the workforce today. Let’s get rid of this and move on creating to some real architecture we can be proud of.
the anti-intellectual strains in some of these comments are as repugnant as they are shallow.
The mindless, uncritical hero worship by lightweight quasi-intellectuals is as alarming as it is embarrassing and pathetic.
Between all the blogs and campaigning it is surprising (or maybe not so ….), that no one has been able to come up with a decent photo of the project illustrating the former glory that is intended to be preserved. If I was a preservation organization unfamiliar with the supposed merits of this building, right now I’d be wondering what all the fuss was about.
Maybe commenter Austin would like to sponsor a petition to restore the Nunotani Building, the intellectual masterwork of the great academic, Peter Eisenman. That might be something worthwhile he could do. It was so sad to see this work of genius so underappreciated in architectural discourse.
Traditional architectural models, evolved over centuries, always developed and used forms, decorative treatments and details that acknowledged and accommodated the inevitable wear that comes with age, use, weathering and a host of similar scourges. Indeed this responsive approach to design usually resulted in a patina which enhanced rather than diminished the architecture.
Barely two decades old, this featureless abstraction of a building already looks battered and miserable, a fact that cannot entirely be blamed on poor maintenance. To a large degree it is a victim of its own misguided efforts to achieve a long-term minimalist crispness in a world where dirt and abuse should have been expected and catered for by the architect.
The simple truth (one which blind modernists still refuse to learn from), is that this type of featureless cardboard architecture does not ,and will not age well. It dis-improves with age. The best service one could do to Hejduk’s reputation would be to demolish it now before it manages to look even worse than it does today. As the building continues to deteriorate, so too does the reputation of its creator. And speaking for myself, I won’t miss it anyway.
[...] The Architect’s Newspaper [...]
Hard to believe an architect was involved in this. Looks like the work of a speculative developer with a sense of humor.
I do believe that the current owners proposed changes are an improvement. Some colorful striped awnings over the balconies would be a nice touch, and would add some dignity to this otherwise drab pile.
The Kreuzberg Tower is not exactly vulgar, but it is hardly distinguished either. Unless diagrammatic and simplistic buildings are to be a new paradigm for the design professional, there’s nothing worth saving here. The building lacks the both the insight and the craftsmanship that comes with the mature development of the practicing professional. Rather oddly, it manages to be both witless and cartoonish at the same time. The only thing more amusing is the rather desperate attempt to pretend it is something more than it really is.
Yes. A masterwork of architectural mediocrity. Let’s preserve a few Burger Kings while we’re at it.
The detailing and scale (the tower) of the building are admirable and worth preserving…it is not “architecture by unproven academics who are responsible for “educating” many of the incompetents in the workforce today.” Its hard to fathom the vituperative nature of many of the comments here when the world is full of aggressively awful commercial buildings that surround it…
Let’s get rid of this and move on creating to some real architecture we can be proud of.
This building is grotesque as are the ideas of these uncivilized charlatans such as Hejduk who pose as legitimate Architects.
Renata is selfish to the core. If she weren’t she’d have mercy on the rest of humanity and help with the demolition post haste.
Hey, It should be preserved and the units rented to architecture students who read books only. We can’t have low-class, blue-collar, TV-watching people cluttering up this building with their satellite dishes and overalls drying on the balconies. Better yet, kick everyone out so it can be preserved in its purest form so students can see the full thrust of Hejduk’s vision. And we’d be striking a blow against capitalist developer owner scum as well!
I wouldn’t preserve the paper it was drawn on.
Can we see what is being put up first … before you tear down something.
Save the Tower, save the Poet…
[...] home.) One of the only buildings New York Five member and influential Cooper Union Dean John Hejduk ever built is under fire by “improvement”-minded owners in Berlin. On a macro scale, funding for [...]
Was it art is long life is short or was it, as Corbu was reported to have said “art is wrong, life is right”? Or something like that.
Attack what is filled with life, spirit and poetry because it reminds you that you have none.
1. I amazed at the crassness of the comments.
2. Quite a few people thought the old Penn Station (in NYC) was ugly, too. Now it’s gone.
3. Still amazed at the comments…is unite d’habitation next? I’m sure quite a few people find that ugly as well…maybe we should destroy guernica, it’s pretty drab — and so depressing, too!
I am shocked at the venom in some of the posts. Are these some disgruntled former students of John Hejduk, who are now “getting back” at John, or are they some dispirited architects, who aren’t able to get any of their designs built. By the rashness and severity of their judgments I am even more convinced that the buildings should remain. It pleases me that John can, even after his death, whip up so much passion and hopefully these “nihilists” will be able to create something out of this passion. I say: Cheers to John Hejduk!
Jiri Boudnik,
If you knew The Cooper Union, I don’t think that you would suggest that “the crass comments are coming from former students of Hejduk.” Hejduk inspired generations of students who feel compelled to pass on the gift
These comments are coming from people who never felt anything and are angry because of it.
Not sure why some bloggers feel Renata Hejduk is “selfish to the core” as
if its all that hard to understand why a daughter wants to preserve her father’s legacy. In this case the legacy is definitely worth preserving if only because her
father was one of the most important educators and deep thinkers about the value
of architectural culture. It is one of the few buildings that work out the meaning of his influential drawings in an urban context. I second the “Cheers” to John Hejduk.
who are these people?
who has time to write these terrible things?
if you have a building you love which is in peril, please turn your energy towards saving that! There is certainly room for a wide variety of lovingly conceived buildings to be brought to our attention and maintenance.
I am very glad of this campaign, and hope that it has a good outcome.
With a triangle and a square, Hejduk can reach down into the soul.
Is it so hard to see that this is a unique work of architecture, a unique place for the human body to dwell?
I think that the Kreuzberg Tower is undoubtedly hostile to certain ways of living and thinking. Maybe public housing isn’t the right program for this building. Some things need to be sought out to be appreciated. Some things, you need to be ready for.
Wow! All those positive comments coming in a few minutes apart! Someone’s been busy shilling for this project this afternoon!
To DL (your real initials?) …… The comparison between potential loss of this pedestrian building, and the actual loss of the truly great Penn Station stretches the bounds of credibility.
To BT (your real initials?) …… Did you really say “Maybe public housing isn’t the right program for this building.”? – What? I’m dumbfounded! Do you really think the architect’s role is to come up with a building form and then allow the owner test it out with a few different programs until something seems to work? – You my friend need to go back to architecture school and then train in a decent architectural office to see how the responsive role of design really works. Until then, you are just making a fool of yourself.
If the owners want for the building to look different they should build a new one. If they do not have enough money to do so right now, that is what these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggy_bank) are for. When you contract certain architects to build something, preservation is what you sign up for.
One of the joy of looking at this building is seeing how the residents personalize their space. They add new meanings to Hejduk’s architecture. As we debate the merits and demerits of Hejduk’s work, what do the residents think?
[...] home.) One of the only buildings New York Five member and influential Cooper Union Dean John Hejduk ever built is under fire by “improvement”-minded owners in Berlin. On a macro scale, funding for [...]
i think that we can all agree that the late John Hejduk will be remembered in the annals of architectural history. whether we personally find this work exemplary of Hejduk’s ability to subordinate his unarguably vast creative powers and imagination in the service of a low budget housing programme or find this project abominable, is it right that future architectural historians, students and researchers be denied the opportunity to study these buildings in as close to their original form as is possible just because some people don’t ‘like’ it or its architect? if there were many built works by Hejduk perhaps the issue would be less critical but since there aren’t it seems selfish to deny scholarly opportunities to others who may see more in these apparently simple buildings than some people do today. i have been to these buildings and the surrounding neighbourhood and i felt their presence – their apparent simplicity is deceptive. Does a stonemason in dusty overalls have less integrity than a wall street exec in a crisp italian suit? why should we appoint ourselves judges of its inner worth based on a superficial reading? i’m no intellectual and i don’t think it is the intellect that is needed to sense what is being said by this work. it’s already being cited in scholarly articles – see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10683781314260080968&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
Unfortunately, those who release their rage through these posts rarely stick around to read others’ feedback.
I would simply like to mention that contrary to the trend today – architecture is not known/ valued/ or defined, by its image. For all those who say this building ‘Looks bad’, then pause, find the plan, and read it, in order to understand the life within (and see Robert Slinger comment above about living there), then comment.
People like to empower themselves by bashing architecture and architects, in the most simplistic, personal and superficial ways possible, because it is an easy target. Like judging a book by its cover. What makes this project exceptional in the context of the communist housing blocks in Europe is that it is resoundingly personified/ personal the FACE on the facade and the balcony ‘features’, (places for the body) make one whole: a mutual individual and collective assemblage.
This personalization is an important historical act within the context of German GDR. And its resonance with the architectural plan is what makes this building’s Exterior an important work of architecture, because it expresses a Social Vision that is developed in the plan. This facade is more than a cover. It has more depth than that, and should not be judged as such. The facade is an abstraction of the Social Vision made manifest within the architectural plan: Socialism with a Human Face. <–Get it?
This building's 'special qualities' is that it constructs a bridge between the Regime of the late 20th century, to the hope of a post-regime era. It made (and represents) a human dimension, and a humane historical progression.
To what extent the developer (in the free market) has its own agenda for Society, we shall see . . . All I can add as a word of hope is that if the text/plan WITHIN the Kreuzberg tower does not change, at least for a few families, the inner spirit and way of life constructed by the visionary architect, will survive the rapid and simplified commercialization of culture in Berlin.
This issue raises the truly horrific spectre of a future in which some misguided people may want to preserve Daniel Libeskind buildings! … Oh the horror …. the HORROR!
Hejduk reminded us of the essentially humanitarian nature of architecture through his words and his work. He was fond of reminding us that “architecture is the most social of the arts,” But words can never substitute for the work. This is not the first time that planned changes to a building has sparked a heated debate, nor will it be the last. Even after editing out the senseless emotional outbursts, the core question remains: what justifies separating out a building for special treatment? Alois Reigl’s 1903 “The Modern Cult of Monuments” (_Oppositions_ 25, 21-51) offers what remains perhaps the best guide to navigating these issues by identifying the distinct sources of value and meaning in a given work.
By this test, the Kreuzberg Tower deserves to be maintained and occupied at the highest possible standards. At the time of its construction it challenged the easy dismissal of Hejduk’s work as “mere” poetry or “architecture of the boudoir” (after Tafuri). Significant alteration of the tower risks depriving future generations from the fuller opportunity to understand, experience, and debate the larger meaning of Hejduk’s profound contributions to architecture in the late 20th century.
Thank you to ‘elan’ for that informative post. How foolish of me to judge this building on an experiential basis. Very bourgeois indeed. What was I thinking!
And how novel of Hejduk to redefine the balcony typology as a “place for the body”! Who would have thought …! Yes of course it is a manifestation of Socialism with Human Face. (Obama, take note!)
And of course I was absolutely delighted to learn that – for some – the building is not really so bad as it actually looks.
I’m sure that once the other similarly uneducated residents of the neighborhood are provided with a pamphlet explaining how to read buildings as critical social texts rather than mere physical artifacts of their environment, their lives will be measurably brightened. Bravo!
but the building looks beautiful. and i am not judging by photographs; i am speaking from having seen it in person and having studied it. why is your subjective opinion more weighty than my subjective opinion? because you’re angrier? and we’ve already heard from commenters who have actually lived there, some who loved the building and some who have not.
so if we can agree that an architectural discussion based on whether or not a building looks good or bad is at best pedestrian, and at worst indicative of a devolution of discourse, why NOT discuss the building for more than its first impressions? since when did architects, traditionally some of a society’s most public intellectuals, begin to eschew scholarship? since when did we, the builders, become advocates for demolition and defacement?
I don’t know which is sillier, the building itself or the contrived justification that the building represents “… the face of Socialism”.
This is the sort of pretentious jargon that so-called theoretical architects engage in as a way to bolster their self image in a world where the profession has become increasingly more marginalized and irrelevant. Rather than engage the non-professional public, architects resort to progressively higher levels on verbal nonsense, which only alienate the public more. It’s a vicious circle, a vortex of pretension whose increasing centrifugal force only results in causing those particular architects to get sucked up their own assholes.
@ Robert Cowherd
I’m not being facetious here, but what, in your opinion, are “Hejduk’s profound contributions to architecture in the late 20th century.” I’m not personally aware of any extended influence he may have had as a result of his highly personal musings and drawings.