Deutsche Architektur im Ausland: der Fondaco dei Tedeschi in Gefahr

Obwohl die Architektur eines neuen Deutschland mit einer weltweiten Ausstrahlung ein zentraler Bestandteil des nationalsozialistischen Programms war, wurden zwischen 1933 und 1945 kaum nennenswerte Bauten von deutschen Architekten im Ausland ausgeführt worden. Für mehr als Botschaften und die Weltausstellung in Paris 1937 hat die Zeit nicht gereicht. Nur nach der Emigration der Bauhaus-Architekten aus Deutschland wurde international der Bauhaus-Stil eine der einflußreichsten Strömungen in der modernen Architektur. Die Resonanz des Bauhauses hält bis heute noch an und prägt wesentlich das Bild deutscher Entwürfe im Ausland. Aktuelle deutsche Architektur ist im Ausland wieder unterwegs (http://www.dabonline.de/2010-12/globaler-blumenstraus/). Fragt man nach deutscher Architektur in früheren Zeiten kommt man zuerst auf die koloniale Architektur deutscher Siedler und Siedlungen, nicht nur in Afrika, vor allem in Namibia, sondern auch in Nord- und Südamerika, Australien und so gar in China. Wenn der Dom von Mailand weitgehend das Werk von deutschen Baumeistern ist, sind andere vorkoloniale Beispiele von solchen tedeschi all’estero eher selten. Der große Fondaco der Deutschen in Venedig ist in dieser Hinsicht in der Renaissance in Italien fast ein Unikum. Erwähnt schon 1228 als „Fonticum comunis Veneciarum ubi Teutonici hospitantur“ und schnell neugebaut nach dem großen Brand des Jahres 1505 zwischen 1505-1507, verkörpert das Gebäude mehr als ein halbes Millennium deutscher Geschichte – erst 1806 wurde die Deutsche Nation aufgefordert, das Haus zu verlassen (vgl. Henry Simonsfeld, Der Fondaco die Tedeschi in Venedig und die deutsch-venetianischen Handelsbeziehungen, Stuttgart 1887: http://www.archive.org/stream/derfondacodeited02simouoft/derfondacodeited02simouoft_djvu.txt ).

Man kann darüber streiten, inwiefern es in Venedig ein deutsches sei. Aber wie kaum ein anderes Gebäude in Venedig um 1500 sieht der Fondaco aus. Die mutmaßlichen venezianischen Eigenschaften des Baues sind nicht sonderlich auffallend (vgl. vielleicht vor allem die etwas späteren Procuratie Vecchie). Der Innenhof mit seinen vier Stockwerken, die sich alle in Rundbögen in Reihen übereinander öffnen und den rechteckigen Raum umschließen, ist völlig anders als alle andere Höfe in Venedig. Er erinnert an Beispiele von Renaissance-Architektur in Deutschland, in einer Tradition, die noch in der jetzigen Alten Münze in München vertreten ist. Manche sehen den entwerfenden Baumeister in einem mysteriösen, wenn auch nicht ganz fiktiven „Gerolamo tedesco“, dessen Modell für das Gebäude am 9. Juni 1505 vom Bauherrn, dem venezianischen Staat, auch mit starker Unterstützung der deutschen Kaufleute, angenommen wurde. Es scheint, als ob Dürer in seinem Rosenkranzfest von 1506, ursprünglich in der Kirche von S. Bartolomeo unweit des Fondacos, den Augsburger (?) Baumeister Hieronymus unter den Assistenzfiguren porträtiert habe. Andere wollen als Basis der Planung einen Entwurf von Fra’ Giovanni Giocondo sehen. Der Fondaco war allerdings pflichtmäßig Geschäfts- und Wohnsitz der „Nazione Alemana“. GERMANICIS DEDICATUM ist bis heute an der Fassade zum Canale Grande in einer zentralen Inschrift als Bestimmung des Gebäudes eingemeißelt.

Jetzt ist das riesige Gebäude ins Licht der Scheinwerfer geraten. In Venedig besteht die weltweit agierende Modefirma Benetton – sie hat den Fondaco 2008 für 53 Millionen Euros erworben – fest auf ihren Plänen, das Gebäude in ein Megastore umzuwandeln.

Zuerst kam eine große Debatte und dann verwandelt sich die Kontroverse in einen Streit. Auf der einen Seite: Benetton und der Bürgermeister Venedigs, seit 2010 Giorgio Orsoni, Gewerkschaften und andere. Auf der anderen Seite zählen zahlreiche Vertreter der unterschiedlichen Gruppen des „Neins“, die sich vor kurzem zum Schutz Venedigs gebildet haben. Dazu kommen Denkmalschützer wie vor allem Italia Nostra (die Sezione Veneziana und der Presidente Nazionale dieses Denkmalschutzverein), und außerdem Architekten und Architekturhistoriker sowie andere Vertreter des öffentlichen Lebens und des Mondo della Cultura. Die Resonanz in der Presse Italiens ist groß gewesen und hat auch ein Echo im Ausland gefunden, besonders in Großbritannien, aber auch in Österreich und Deutschland.

Hauptstreitpunkt ist das Projekt des niederländischen Stararchitekten Rem Koolhaas, das Gebäude zu einem mondänen Einkaufszentrum, von La Rinascente geleitet, umzubauen, ohne sich streng an die engen Grenzen des Denkmalschutzes zu halten und die Absichten Benettons durchzusetzen. Lange Zeit war es sehr schwierig, Klarheit über die Pläne sowie über die Lage im allgemeinen zu erlangen. Aber die Stadt hat sich inzwischen scheinbar für Benetton entschieden und der Denkmalschutz wird sich bald äußern müssen. Im Vorfeld dieser Entscheidung ist von großem Interesse ein kürzlich erschienener Beitrag, der am 25.02.2012 in der venezianischen Zeitung La Nuova erschienen ist.

Der Verfasser, Mario Piana, hat seit 1979 zahlreiche Restaurierungskampagnen als Mitarbeiter der Soprintendenza ai Beni Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia geplant und geleitet, unter anderen: die Scala Contarini del Bovolo, der Palazzo Grimani a Santa Maria Formosa, der Convento della Carità, der Convento dei Frari, die Gaggiandre all’Arsenale, der Lazzaretto Nuovo, die Kirchen von Santa Maria Mater Domini, San Michele in Isola, Santa Maria Assunta di Torcello, San Giorgio Maggiore, San Marco und Santa Maria dei Miracoli. Er ist seit mehreren Jahren Professor an der Università IUAV di Venezia wo er Restauro architettonico und Caratteri costruttivi dell’edilizia storica unterrichtet. Sein Artikel in La Nuova bietet einen klaren Überblick über das Problem und bildet einen wichtigen Beitrag zur zukünftigen Diskussion.

Der Artikel befindet sich inzwischen mehrmals im Internet (z.B.:

http://www.patrimoniosos.it/rsol.php?op=getarticle&id=93701

und als PDF über: http://www.press-service.it/newsletter/html/ffbc2f30-6a6d-477d-aeb5-52647e2a0bc3_20120225.html

Eine Übersetzung ins Englische folgt:

NOT ONLY THE FONDACO, VENICE CANNOT BE CHANGED
Mario Piana

La Nuova di Venezia e Mestre, Venezia 25/2/2012

With respect to the controversy surrounding the Fondaco dei Tedeschi, one reads that Edizione S.r.l., the financial holding of the Benetton Group, ” has instructed its attorneys to determine if initiatives, declarations, and statements“ (…) „may be deemed prejudicial to its reputation and image, as well as the causes of damages in connection with the ongoing negations with the other partners in the business venture that we intend to realise with this project.“

If the quotation of the passage quoted in the press is verbatim – and no repudiation of it has thus far appeared – this communication of the owners of the property constitutes an attempt to intimidate anyone who might dare to advance any criticism whatsoever of Benetton’s project for the Fondaco, with the ill-concealed intention to „sopire, troncare … troncare, sopire“ (“appease, cut off … cut off, appease“) the debate in progress, following in the path of Manzoni’s Promessi sposi.  However, it is both correct and legitimate – as well as, at this point, obligatory – to express opinions and criticisms about a proposed hypothetical project for the Fondaco, which – although it can be evaluated only on the basis of the very little concrete information and the scant graphic material to be found in the Internet and in the press – presents a critical situation of drastic urgency. Parenthetically, with regard to this matter, our first citizen [Venice’s mayor, Giorgio Orsini] is not completely wrong when he complains that often the matter has been spoken about without any real knowledge of the circumstances. This situation would, however, be easy to remedy. A few hours of work by a municipal employee should be sufficient to scan and publish on the website of the city a dossier relevant to the question, one which, obviously, would not have to be complete. It would suffice to have the reports describing the projects and the drawings describing the present state of the building and the project drawings, even if not detailed drawings to scale, but accompanied by corresponding drawings of the planned demolitions, and planned new construction, and these together with the agreements and opinions concerning these changes issued by the communal administration and by the office responsible for the protection and conservation of the monument (ufficio di tutela).

The acutely critical character of the project, which is in direct conflict with current laws and regulations on construction – is patently evident: the demolition of an entire stretch of the roof in order to make a terrace facing onto the Grand Canal, for instance, and this accompanied by the raising of the central roof – of metal and glass, and made in the nineteenth century – several metres, and also the sloping roof tops facing the courtyard, transformed into flat surfaces (perhaps to obtain a further large area accessible to spectators, looking out over the city?). Or the placement of [giant] scale mobili (escalators) inside in the courtyard, structures which would violate and distort the spatiality and the formal values of this extraordinary architecture, and they would, in addition, lead to the demolition of sixteenth-century brick membering and stone benches filled with – did the designers of this project even notice it? – historical graffiti: names, initials, distinctive mercantile signs, religious symbols, checkerboards for playing impromptu games, etc., all incised in the course of the centuries by the merchants of the German nation. Or, further, there is the question of the skylight of the courtyard, a veil of glass destined to be substituted by a new [crystal] floor, passable for public use, which would result in an increase in the static load borne by the structure, a static burden which would surely produce dislocations in the slender membering of the superimposed loggias, and, without doubt, these changes portend – and here it easy to play the prophet – works to reinforce the foundations, operations that will be as expansive as they are invasive. All these intrusions (and perhaps still others, but we are left to await fuller knowledge of the project of renovation) would lead to alterations and transformations inacceptable in one of the most important and significant works of architecture of the Venetian Renaissance, which was erected with the projectural contribution of the great writer of treatises and architect Fra’ Giocondo.

The ‘reductive’ variant of Benetton’s project that seems to have been presented in recent days for examination by the responsible authorities does not even minimally mitigate these critical issues: the reduction in size of the roof terrace, with the installation of a mobile roof (offset, on the other hand, by the sudden appearance of a pontile, or floating dock, of vast dimensions on the waters of the Grand Canal before the Fondaco and destined to accommodate the little tables of a bar) would, in any event, be terribly distorting, and making one of the escalators raisable would not even minimally diminish their impact upon the courtyard. And all the rest?

Instead the owners (Benetton) have stated to the press: ”We maintain that the project can not be further modified. You can not turn the plan of the architect Rem Koolhas upside down; it should instead be appreciated and only improved.” Perhaps they are shooting for one hundred percent in order to get fifty percent (or, better ninety-nine)? But we aren’t convinced: that would be a stance more in line with the style of a Levantine textile peddlar than with a grand industrial group that until now has been distinguished by its praiseworthy cultural ventures and promotions.

Fortunately, and it is appropriate to say it, there is the ‘Soprintendenza ai Beni Ambientali e Architettonici’. This agency for tutelage will certainly not be able to authorise measures that conflict in the first place with the dictates of the Carta del Restauro di Venezia (Charter of the Restoration of Venice), which may perhaps be ignored by the patrons and planners of the project of renovation, but which were, at the time of their adoption, made as binding prescriptions for the functionaries of the administration of beni culturali (the cultural patrimony).

In this Charter, article 6 reads: „la conservazione dei monumenti è sempre favorita dalla loro utilizzazione in funzioni utili alla società: una tale destinazione è augurabile, ma non deve alterare la distribuzione e l’aspetto dell’edificio. Gli adattamenti pretesi dalla evoluzione degli usi e costumi devono dunque essere contenuti entro questi limiti” (“the conservation of monuments is always facilitated by their use as useful functions in society: Such use is desirable, but should not affect the distribution and appearance of the building. The modifications demanded by the evolution of customs and traditions must therefore be contained within these limits.”). And article 13 records that, „la conservazione dei monumenti è sempre favorita dalla loro utilizzazione in funzioni utili alla società: una tale destinazione è augurabile, ma non deve alterare la distribuzione e l’aspetto dell’edificio.” (“the additions can not be tolerated unless they comply with all the interesting parts of the building, its traditional setting, the balance of the whole and the relationship with the surrounding environment.”). These works, on top of everything else, are in conflict with – and it is a national law that must apply also to the local administration – with the dispositions of the Legge Speciale per Venezia (Special Law for Venice), which, in its decree of implementation No. 791 of 1973, article 2, establishes that restoration operations must guarantee „la conservazione della totalità degli assetti costruttivi tipologici e formali“ (“the preservation of the entire structure in terms of its construction, typology, and form”) of the buildings, and assure the conservation “delle coperture a tetto ed a terrazza che debbono restare alla stessa quota” (“of the roof and the roof terrace which must remain at the same level”), and that these restorations must be also directed toward the reclamation of the “sistema degli spazi liberi esterni ed interni che formano parte integrante dell’edificio” (“system of external and internal spaces that form an integral part of the building”). No one, we believe, is proposing to free the courtyard of the Fondaco of its present glass skylight to return it to its original open state, but it is difficult to recognize in the proposed new floor on the top an even tenuous adherence to the regulations in force.

Such rules may, in any event, not be waived in exchange for public benefits that might be obtained if the project were realized. Dubious benefits, for the rest, if what has been reported by the press is true. Such advantages can only be considered laughable, if they are posed in terms of guaranteeing access for the public to the spaces of the Fondaco (given that this is an obvious presupposition for any commercial use of the building). And they are of minimal utility, if understood as the possibility of an occasional concession of spaces in the Fondaco to the city of Venice for staging their own events or initiatives (since for such activities is no dearth of other such places available in Venice; and then, one asks, which spaces, and for how many days?), and also rather depressing, if one notes that they consist in the use of a few toilets, even by those who don’t buy anything. And finally humiliating, if they consist in a sum of money, whatever the amount, which in any case would be collected by the municipality as a result of the change of the authorised use of the building.

Increases in the usable surface area of the building, escalators, panoramic terraces overlooking the roofs and waters of Venice: these are all facilities that certainly would produce not negligible advantages for a shopping centre in the heart of a city such as Venice, but just as certainly they are ones disruptive of the architecture of the Fondaco, and they will not be able to be realized. The owners and the planer should see reason: the law does not permit it.

Tags: Fondaco dei Tedeschi, Venedig