Monument preservation vs. climate protection?

Building design
In Munich, there was a dispute about how to green Max-Joseph-Platz. Photo: xiquinhosilva, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

In Munich, there was a dispute about how to green Max-Joseph-Platz.
Photo: xiquinhosilva, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

How similar the debates surrounding Munich’s Max-Joseph-Platz and Vienna’s Michaelerplatz are: The central and listed squares are to be redesigned to make them climate-friendly. Some call it an important contribution to climate protection, others fear that it will be too intrusive and destroy the appearance of the respective ensemble.

Cities such as Munich and Vienna groan under hot temperatures in summer, and so do their residents. It is clear to everyone that things cannot go on like this! An effective way to reduce the heat in cities is to unseal them – in other words, gray stones should give way to green plants. To gain more green spaces, squares are welcome areas in cities, as they are usually large and often at least traffic-calmed. At the same time, green squares can not only have a positive effect on the urban climate, but also offer a space for spending time outdoors – increased quality of stay is the popular keyword here. Everyone agrees that such squares are needed. However, the choice of squares sometimes meets with resistance – as is the case in Munich and Vienna. Experts in both cities criticize the fact that monument protection cuts corners when it comes to measures to improve climate protection. Both city councils have improved their plans as a result, but the squares are still being changed.

Max-Joseph-Platz in Munich is located at the end of Maximilianstraße and was designed by court architect Leo von Klenze (1784-1864). Klenze based his design on the Capitol Square in Rome. The square is surrounded by important buildings. In 1811, the National Theater was built here by Karl von Fischer (1782-1820), modeled on the Odeon in Paris. Between 1825 and 1842, during the reign of King Ludwig I (1786-1868), the royal residence was built on the north side of the square. The architect responsible was Leo von Klenze, who designed the building in the classicist style based on the models of the Florentine palaces Palazzo Pitti and Palazzo Rucellai, which still characterize Max-Joseph-Platz today. Opposite the Königsbau is the Palais Toerring-Jettenbach, which was built between 1747 and 1754 in the Rococo style by Ignaz Anton Gunetzrhainer (1698-1764). Klenze adapted the building and thus integrated it into the overall ensemble, using the Ospedale degli Innocenti in Florence as a model.
The center of the square is dominated by a monument to Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria (1756-1825). The Max Joseph monument, which shows the king in a seated position, was created by the sculptor Christian Daniel Rauch (1777-1857) in collaboration with Leo von Klenze and the ore caster Johann Baptist Stiglmaier (1791-1844) between 1826 and 1835. The monument is surrounded by a paving consisting of coarse Isar stones. The square is to be redesigned to provide Munich residents with a replacement for the green space at Marienhof, which will not be there for several years due to the expansion of the second S-Bahn main line. This ground covering was originally to be replaced by shrubs, grasses and wildflowers. Following the rejection of the design by the State Monuments Office, the plan was changed. Matthias Pfeil, the head of the Bavarian Monument Preservation Office, criticized the plans in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung. His main criticism was that the plans were too simple and made no reference to the history of Max-Jospeh-Platz. The square deserved an effort, he said. At the same time, however, he also showed understanding for the approach of wanting to change the square and described it as “misused” by simply using it as a traffic area. Another detriment to the square is an underground car park that was built on the site in the 1960s.
Following criticism from the Office for the Preservation of Historical Monuments, the plans were adapted. They were based on plans from 1825, which were found in the main state archive. Now a grassy roundel, interspersed with gravel paths, is to surround the monument and green Max-Joseph-Platz. The paths are to run towards the monument in a star-like and strictly geometric pattern. The square will also be flanked by shrubs planted in planters. According to the Monument Preservation Office, however, this is to be an interim solution. According to reports in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, it is also planned that the entrance to the underground car park will be narrower towards Maximilianstrasse. If the conservationists have their way, the underground car park will also be removed in future.

The greening of Michaelerplatz in Vienna is not planned as an interim project like Max-Joseph-Platz. The square, which is surrounded by the Hofburg Palace, St. Michael’s Church and the Looshaus, is also to be made more attractive with greenery, according to the City of Vienna. Conservationists and art historians from Austria and abroad have criticized this plan in an open letter. In the letter, which can be read on the website of the Austrian Society for Architecture, you can read, among other things, that nobody would think of planting trees in the Piazza Navon in Rome, the Grand-Place in Brussels or the Domplatz in Salzburg. The authors of the letter emphasize that on Michaelerplatz you could experience the most important phases of Vienna’s history, from antiquity, through the Middle Ages and Baroque to modern times. The square is also home to icons of architectural history: in addition to the building by Adolf Loos (1870-1933), there is also the Michaelertrakt, designed by Joseph Emanuel Fischer von Erlach (1693-1742). The overall design of the square goes back to Hans Hollein (1934-2014), dates from the 1990s and is also a listed building. In addition, the square in its current design is also part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site.
The first draft envisaged raised beds, trees and water features. The plans also included removing the paving stones. Cyclists in particular welcomed this. The Federal Office for the Preservation of Monuments initially approved the plans, but there was also criticism within its own ranks. The Austrian Advisory Council on Monuments also expressed reservations about the plans. The idea of planting bluebell trees met with particular criticism. These fast-growing trees have an aggressive root system, which would particularly endanger the historical excavations located on the site, which can also be visited there. However, it is still uncertain whether those responsible will nevertheless have this type of tree planted or whether other trees will be chosen. The politicians have already made improvements in some areas. The raised beds have been replaced by flat beds and the planned water features in front of the Loos House have apparently been completely removed. The signatories of the open letter expressly emphasize that they welcome the City of Vienna’s efforts to adapt to climate change, but they also stress that the “effect of the historic ensemble” is being destroyed at this point. They also suggest that a final sealing of Heldenplatz or the greening of city districts, which would benefit the residents, would be a better solution.
In general, one can also ask whether greening Michaelerplatz is necessary at all. After all, both the Burggarten and the Volksgarten are just a five-minute walk from the square. This question is also justified in Munich. After all, the Hofgarten is only a stone’s throw away from Max-Joseph-Platz. The English Garden can also be reached quickly from there.

You can read more about this topic in an interview with General Conservator Mathias Pfeil from the Bavarian State Office for the Preservation of Monuments in the next Restauro.

POTREBBE INTERESSARTI ANCHE
Wartburg Castle has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1999. Photo: A.Savin - Own work, FAL, via: Wikimedia Commons

Wartburg Castle has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1999.
Photo: A.Savin - Own work, FAL, via: Wikimedia Commons

Rising high above the Thuringian countryside, Wartburg Castle is one of the most representative cultural monuments in Central Europe. Since its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List, it has been one of the most outstanding testimonies to European history. Architecture, political events and literary tradition intertwine here to create a multi-layered cultural narrative.

The history of Wartburg Castle begins in the 11th century, when it was founded as the residence of the Ludovingian landgraves and from then on shaped the political power in the region. Even in the High Middle Ages, the palace, enthroned on a steep limestone cliff, was considered a masterpiece of late Romanesque architecture, whose design and ornamentation make it one of the most important secular buildings north of the Alps. This architectural heritage is evidence of the feudal character of Central Europe and forms one of the foundations for the later recognition as a World Heritage Site.
Wartburg Castle’s role as a center of courtly culture and memory grows through literary traditions such as the so-called Singers’ War, which was passed down in Middle High German poetry. At the same time, historical figures such as St. Elisabeth of Thuringia, whose life and work are closely linked to the castle, are becoming firmly established in the culture of remembrance. Even if some legends were mythically exaggerated, they still reflect the early symbolic value of the place in the cultural imagination.

The architectural appearance of Wartburg Castle is the result of a long development that underwent a profound transformation, particularly in the 19th century. After centuries of changing use and partial decay, the emerging Romantic period initiated a comprehensive restoration that was based less on a historically accurate reconstruction than on an idealized image of the Middle Ages. Under this premise, the Elisabeth Bower and richly decorated interiors were created, which today form an integral part of the complex.
From an art historical perspective, this combination of original 12th century parts and historicist additions is ambivalent: on the one hand, the preserved Romanesque building elements document the civil architecture of its time; on the other hand, the 19th century additions reflect the monument preservation and historical myths of the time. It was precisely this mixture of archaeological and symbolic authenticity that was taken into account in the UNESCO nomination, with the term “authenticity” not only referring to material originality, but also including the ideas and meanings anchored in the collective consciousness.

Wartburg Castle is more than just a stone relic – it is a place of profound cultural connections. Martin Luther’s stay here during his exile from 1521 to 1522, when he wrote the German translation of the New Testament from Greek in the so-called “Junker Jörg” room, was particularly influential. This achievement in the history of language had far-reaching consequences for theology, education and the German literary language as a whole and had a lasting impact on the cultural significance of the castle.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Wartburg Castle also became a symbol of national identity and political integration. Events such as the Wartburg celebrations of the German student movement became part of the collective memory, as did literary and musical adaptations in works by Richard Wagner, which romanticized the image of the medieval castle courtyard. Wartburg Castle also remains a living point of reference in cultural memory as an inspirational place for artistic debate.
In 1999, the site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List on the basis of two criteria: Firstly, as an “outstanding monument of the era of feudalism in Central Europe” (criterion (iii)) and secondly, as a site “rich in cultural references”, particularly emphasizing its connection to the history of the Reformation and the German unification movement (criterion (vi)). These criteria reflect the exceptional universal value that Wartburg Castle has beyond the borders of Thuringia. The castle not only documents the architecture and living environment of high medieval feudalism, but also exemplifies the profound influence of historical events and cultural upheavals on European civilization. The UNESCO designation therefore not only recognizes the material substance of the complex, but above all its role as a place of remembrance that inspires generations of visitors to reflect and research. The integrative perception of architecture, history and cultural impact makes Wartburg Castle a unique medium for communicating the past and present.
At a time when cultural heritage is increasingly being discussed in a global context, Wartburg Castle highlights the importance of historical sites as mediators of identity, memory and transnational understanding. Its place on the World Heritage List helps to secure this significance in the long term and make it tangible for future generations.

Safety – The Baumeister in April 2025 is here!

Building design

Will this makeshift barrier around the bronze statue actually help at night? Not sure ... Cover photo: Rona Bar & Ofen Avshalom / Connected Archives

“Security” in architecture means more than just barriers and alarm systems – there is much more to it than that. This issue sheds light on how buildings can provide protection – be it against the forces of nature, theft or social conflict. Your planners do not see security as a restriction, but as a design potential. In order to avoid repellent gestures, they often find security-relevant solutions in the building form. […]

“Security” in architecture means more than just barriers and alarm systems – there is much more to it than that. This issue sheds light on how buildings can provide protection – be it against the forces of nature, theft or social conflict. Your planners do not see security as a restriction, but as a design potential. To avoid repellent gestures, they often find security-related solutions in the building design.

Security – a word that is supposed to reassure and yet often has the opposite effect. We all long for it, but we also know that there is no such thing as absolute security. A building can protect against rain and cold, a city can be well planned – but can architecture really guarantee that we feel safe? Or does it only create an illusion? And in the end, isn’t the feeling of safety just as important as the safety itself?

The last year alone has shown us once again how fragile our built and lived environment is. Collapsing bridges, poorly maintained high-rise buildings and natural disasters that destroy entire neighborhoods. At the same time, fear of attacks in public spaces is growing, and in many cities measures are being taken to turn urban squares and buildings into high-security zones. But do we really need to turn our built reality into bastions of concrete and cameras in order to feel safe? Or is there a more intelligent answer to the question of protection?

Architecture cannot guarantee absolute security, but it can create trust. It can shape spaces that convey a sense of security without restricting freedom. Architecture has the unique potential to master precisely this balancing act. From fire and earthquake-proof school buildings to carefully considered designs for public spaces: Security architecture must not rely solely on control and barriers, but must enable trust and freedom. A clever choice of materials, for example, can preserve a feeling of openness without sacrificing protection. Ultimately, it must not be about sealing things off, but about proactive design.

Security must not become an aesthetic of mistrust. Walls, bars, barriers and confined spaces may minimize risks, but they also separate us from each other. All too often, they stifle life. The most popular place, both inside and out, is often where people meet, where light and transparency dominate, where architecture acts as a social bond and thus serves a greater purpose.

This issue is an invitation to rethink security. We show projects that prove that protection does not have to mean control, but trust. That architecture not only erects walls, but also builds bridges – between security and freedom, between control and openness. Because true security is not created by fear, but by clever (re)planning, by courageous design and by a society that does not close itself off, but proactively takes the helm. Enjoy reading!

Yours sincerely,
Tobias Hager

Editor-in-Chief
t.hager@georg-media.de

The magazine is available here in the store!

In March, our Baumeister issue was all about building on existing buildings and conversion. Read more about it here!