Text vorlesen lassen
Instead of an architectural history of the building ...
The general plan created around 1920 gives an idea of the two central challenges that the structural planning for the roof structures of the Pergamonmuseum had to overcome - on the one hand, the sheer size of the roof landscape to be planned and, on the other, the sometimes impressive dimensions of the exhibition halls to be roofed without columns.
The construction history of the roofs cannot and should not be traced in its entirety here. It is too complex to fit into this framework and has already been covered in detail in the excellent monograph by Christiane Oehmig, Volker Hübner and Bettina Häfner ("Pergamonmuseum. Historische Baukonstruktionen", 2016).
The following comments on the "history" are therefore limited to one of the few parts of the building whose historical roof construction is currently still largely undisturbed - the head building of the south wing, which is located directly on the Spree canal.
Instead of an architectural history of the building ...
The general plan created around 1920 gives an idea of the two central challenges that the structural planning for the roof structures of the Pergamonmuseum had to overcome - on the one hand, the sheer size of the roof landscape to be planned and, on the other, the sometimes impressive dimensions of the exhibition halls to be roofed without columns.
The construction history of the roofs cannot and should not be traced in its entirety here. It is too complex to fit into this framework and has already been covered in detail in the excellent monograph by Christiane Oehmig, Volker Hübner and Bettina Häfner ("Pergamonmuseum. Historische Baukonstruktionen", 2016).
The following comments on the "history" are therefore limited to one of the few parts of the building whose historical roof construction is currently still largely undisturbed - the head building of the south wing, which is located directly on the Spree canal.
The roof over the head building of the south wing
The roof space of the south wing shows characteristics that are equally characteristic of almost all roof areas of the Pergamonmuseum - largely glazed roof surfaces, expansive skylight ceilings, and the whole supported by mighty steel structures that inevitably evoke associations with steel bridge construction. Unlike in any other building on the Museum Island, the exhibition halls of the Pergamonmuseum thrive on the extensive lighting provided by skylight ceilings suspended from the roof.
The south head building’s roof is also characteristic in that the four construction phases typical of many roof and ceiling areas can be seen: The construction period (here only around 1920), conversions due to changes in the exhibition concept (here around 1929), the repair of war damage (after 1945) and the current basic refurbishment (from 2013).
Reason enough to select it. And yet the most important argument was the one mentioned at the beginning: It is one of the last in the museum's vast roof landscape where the historic construction has not yet been touched, supplemented or even replaced as part of the ongoing measures.
The roof over the head building of the south wing
The roof space of the south wing shows characteristics that are equally characteristic of almost all roof areas of the Pergamonmuseum - largely glazed roof surfaces, expansive skylight ceilings, and the whole supported by mighty steel structures that inevitably evoke associations with steel bridge construction. Unlike in any other building on the Museum Island, the exhibition halls of the Pergamonmuseum thrive on the extensive lighting provided by skylight ceilings suspended from the roof.
The south head building’s roof is also characteristic in that the four construction phases typical of many roof and ceiling areas can be seen: The construction period (here only around 1920), conversions due to changes in the exhibition concept (here around 1929), the repair of war damage (after 1945) and the current basic refurbishment (from 2013).
Reason enough to select it. And yet the most important argument was the one mentioned at the beginning: It is one of the last in the museum's vast roof landscape where the historic construction has not yet been touched, supplemented or even replaced as part of the ongoing measures.
Text vorlesen lassen
Phase 1, around 1920: Strong purlins
Although the foundation of the south wing was completed at the end of 1913, it was to take until the end of 1922 before all areas and thus probably also the head building were under roof.
Typologically, its roof structure can be classified as a purlin roof. The rafters rest on several purlins arranged at right angles to the roof pitch. At first glance, the extraordinarily strong construction of these purlins, which span around 20 m, appears strange as heavy trusses. This can be explained on the one hand by the relatively large loads they have to “collect”, but above all by the fact that the beams of the ceiling below are suspended from the roof as intermediate supports in the absence of a wall - a circumstance that is explained in more detail in the Goovie for the hidden structure.
Phase 1, around 1920: Strong purlins
Although the foundation of the south wing was completed at the end of 1913, it was to take until the end of 1922 before all areas and thus probably also the head building were under roof.
Typologically, its roof structure can be classified as a purlin roof. The rafters rest on several purlins arranged at right angles to the roof pitch. At first glance, the extraordinarily strong construction of these purlins, which span around 20 m, appears strange as heavy trusses. This can be explained on the one hand by the relatively large loads they have to “collect”, but above all by the fact that the beams of the ceiling below are suspended from the roof as intermediate supports in the absence of a wall - a circumstance that is explained in more detail in the Goovie for the hidden structure.
The mature design language of steel construction in the 1920s
The excerpt from the shop drawing for the truss purlins impressively demonstrates the extraordinary maturity that steel construction and its construction language achieved in the 1920s: A sheet, according to fixed rules of arrangement densely peppered with information hidden in codified characters, drawn with millimeter precision in pen and ink.
"The language of the engineer is the drawing": this quote, often used as an explanation for the often lamented speechlessness of the engineer, finds its eloquent expression here.
The mature design language of steel construction in the 1920s
The excerpt from the shop drawing for the truss purlins impressively demonstrates the extraordinary maturity that steel construction and its construction language achieved in the 1920s: A sheet, according to fixed rules of arrangement densely peppered with information hidden in codified characters, drawn with millimeter precision in pen and ink.
"The language of the engineer is the drawing": this quote, often used as an explanation for the often lamented speechlessness of the engineer, finds its eloquent expression here.
Phase 2, from 1929: A heavyweight must be moved to the upper floor
In the course of the long-lasting internal disputes about the exhibition concept, the decision was made in 1929 to place the Mshatta Façade, one of the jewels of the Islamic Department, on the upper floor of the southern front building.
From a structural point of view, this was a poor choice, as the heavy exhibit now found its place in the ceiling area suspended from the roof. Of course, the southern head building is thus also exemplary for exemplary for comparable change specifications in other areas of the building, which confront the structural engineers with ever new challenges.
In the southern head building, the new layout entailed a whole series of interventions. It seems almost absurd that four additional steel supports disguised as columns were installed not far from the axes of the four suspensions, which now transfer the loads, at least of the exhibit, downwards.
Phase 2, from 1929: A heavyweight must be moved to the upper floor
In the course of the long-lasting internal disputes about the exhibition concept, the decision was made in 1929 to place the Mshatta Façade, one of the jewels of the Islamic Department, on the upper floor of the southern front building.
From a structural point of view, this was a poor choice, as the heavy exhibit now found its place in the ceiling area suspended from the roof. Of course, the southern head building is thus also exemplary for exemplary for comparable change specifications in other areas of the building, which confront the structural engineers with ever new challenges.
In the southern head building, the new layout entailed a whole series of interventions. It seems almost absurd that four additional steel supports disguised as columns were installed not far from the axes of the four suspensions, which now transfer the loads, at least of the exhibit, downwards.
Phase 3, 1946-50: Repairs
The head building of the south wing was one of the areas of the museum most severely damaged during the Second World War. The repairs carried out in the second half of the 1940s can be seen as a third construction phase.
It was accompanied by extensive photographic documentation. As painful as the damage and losses recorded in it were at the time, from today's perspective, its documentation provides unique insights into the hidden structures of the museum building.
The condition captured in the photograph shown here reveals all of the supporting elements characteristic of this area - the ceiling suspension, the ceiling girder designed as a "Gerber girder", the support below it, which was added in 1929/30 for the Mschatta façade, and at the top of the picture, albeit faintly, the principal trusses of the roof structure.
Phase 3, 1946-50: Repairs
The head building of the south wing was one of the areas of the museum most severely damaged during the Second World War. The repairs carried out in the second half of the 1940s can be seen as a third construction phase.
It was accompanied by extensive photographic documentation. As painful as the damage and losses recorded in it were at the time, from today's perspective, its documentation provides unique insights into the hidden structures of the museum building.
The condition captured in the photograph shown here reveals all of the supporting elements characteristic of this area - the ceiling suspension, the ceiling girder designed as a "Gerber girder", the support below it, which was added in 1929/30 for the Mschatta façade, and at the top of the picture, albeit faintly, the principal trusses of the roof structure.
The beauty of the steel structure from the 1920s
The roof structure of the south wing has not become subject to the pending basic restoration yet. The "untouched" structure still shows its very own austere beauty, its very own aesthetics that have grown out of the codified construction language.
The beauty of the steel structure from the 1920s
The roof structure of the south wing has not become subject to the pending basic restoration yet. The "untouched" structure still shows its very own austere beauty, its very own aesthetics that have grown out of the codified construction language.
The beauty of the steel structure ...
The impressive clarity of the historic structure continues undisturbed in the adjoining longitudinal building of the south wing.
The beauty of the steel structure ...
The impressive clarity of the historic structure continues undisturbed in the adjoining longitudinal building of the south wing.
Phase 4, since 2013: depressing prospects
The future of the roof space above the southern head building, however, is foreshadowed by a look at its counterpart in the north wing, the basic restoration of which has already been completed. The "renovated" roof space is exemplary of a widespread practice today of dealing with the supporting structures in listed buildings that are hidden behind the roof ceilings and have been preserved from the construction period. In contrast to a few decades ago, their value as historic monuments is recognized and their preservation is demanded. Nevertheless, they are burdened with new requirements that they cannot cope with. Examples of this include thermally improved and therefore heavier glazing, as well as the new air-conditioning units or lighting units that are only too readily accommodated in the roof spaces.
As a result, the historic structures are either upgraded by means of interventions, or they are provided with additional supporting structures that convey one thing above all: The old is no longer as good as it used to be. And, of course, it is accepted that they are literally pushed into a corner and robbed of their space-creating quality by everything that is now to be accommodated in the roof.
Phase 4, since 2013: depressing prospects
The future of the roof space above the southern head building, however, is foreshadowed by a look at its counterpart in the north wing, the basic restoration of which has already been completed. The "renovated" roof space is exemplary of a widespread practice today of dealing with the supporting structures in listed buildings that are hidden behind the roof ceilings and have been preserved from the construction period. In contrast to a few decades ago, their value as historic monuments is recognized and their preservation is demanded. Nevertheless, they are burdened with new requirements that they cannot cope with. Examples of this include thermally improved and therefore heavier glazing, as well as the new air-conditioning units or lighting units that are only too readily accommodated in the roof spaces.
As a result, the historic structures are either upgraded by means of interventions, or they are provided with additional supporting structures that convey one thing above all: The old is no longer as good as it used to be. And, of course, it is accepted that they are literally pushed into a corner and robbed of their space-creating quality by everything that is now to be accommodated in the roof.
Substance preserved, spatial effect lost
The enormous roof space above the Pergamon Hall with spans of around 30 m is a prime example of this practice. You can literally see the principles of monument conservation that were followed here: Not only the material substance, but also the structure has been preserved, the additive supporting structure has been constructed as unobtrusively as possible and is also explicitly marked as an ingredient by the color scheme.
And yet - the space once defined by the historical structure has lost its face and its dignity.
Substance preserved, spatial effect lost
The enormous roof space above the Pergamon Hall with spans of around 30 m is a prime example of this practice. You can literally see the principles of monument conservation that were followed here: Not only the material substance, but also the structure has been preserved, the additive supporting structure has been constructed as unobtrusively as possible and is also explicitly marked as an ingredient by the color scheme.
And yet - the space once defined by the historical structure has lost its face and its dignity.
About the structural engineers
Unlike the foundation planning, the design and dimensioning of the Pergamonmuseum's large-scale yet finely differentiated roofscape can be attributed solely to the engineer Otto Leitholf (1860-1939).
Born near Erfurt, he studied mechanical and civil engineering at the newly established Technische Hochschule Berlin (now: University of Technology Berlin) from 1877 to 1881. After a few years of training, he set up his own business in Berlin in 1890. He soon became one of the most respected structural engineers in the city. The spectrum of his buildings, mainly made of steel, is impressive. It ranges from engineering structures such as the elevated railway station Schlesisches Tor (1899-1901) or the revolving airship hangar in Berlin-Biesdorf (1907-09) to cultural and social buildings such as the Deutsche Oper in Charlottenburg and Haus Vaterland on Potsdamer Platz (both 1911/12).
Wilhelm Wille consulted him for the first time in 1910/11. Otto Leitholf was to remain the structural engineer of the building until its completion. In the absence of a portrait, the illustration shows a support for the roof structure above the Pergamon Hall, for which he was responsible.
About the structural engineers
Unlike the foundation planning, the design and dimensioning of the Pergamonmuseum's large-scale yet finely differentiated roofscape can be attributed solely to the engineer Otto Leitholf (1860-1939).
Born near Erfurt, he studied mechanical and civil engineering at the newly established Technische Hochschule Berlin (now: University of Technology Berlin) from 1877 to 1881. After a few years of training, he set up his own business in Berlin in 1890. He soon became one of the most respected structural engineers in the city. The spectrum of his buildings, mainly made of steel, is impressive. It ranges from engineering structures such as the elevated railway station Schlesisches Tor (1899-1901) or the revolving airship hangar in Berlin-Biesdorf (1907-09) to cultural and social buildings such as the Deutsche Oper in Charlottenburg and Haus Vaterland on Potsdamer Platz (both 1911/12).
Wilhelm Wille consulted him for the first time in 1910/11. Otto Leitholf was to remain the structural engineer of the building until its completion. In the absence of a portrait, the illustration shows a support for the roof structure above the Pergamon Hall, for which he was responsible.
Key data
Location: Bodestraße 1–3, 10178 Berlin-Mitte
Construction period: 1910–1936, opening bevore 1930
Structural planning of the roof: Otto Leitholf
Overall planning: Alfred Messel and Ludwig Hoffmann with Wilhelm von Bode
Execution of construction work: Various construction companies
The author would like to thank Volker Hübner and Christiane Oehmig for generously providing the results of their many years of building research at the Pergamonmuseum and for the intensive and pleasant discussions about it.
Key data
Location: Bodestraße 1–3, 10178 Berlin-Mitte
Construction period: 1910–1936, opening bevore 1930
Structural planning of the roof: Otto Leitholf
Overall planning: Alfred Messel and Ludwig Hoffmann with Wilhelm von Bode
Execution of construction work: Various construction companies
The author would like to thank Volker Hübner and Christiane Oehmig for generously providing the results of their many years of building research at the Pergamonmuseum and for the intensive and pleasant discussions about it.
