Interview: Sandra Hofmeister
In 1997, you won the competition to reconstruct the Neues Museum [New Museum]; shortly after that, you opened an office in Berlin. That must have been an exciting time.
Indeed it was, particularly in terms of the new position Berlin found itself in these early years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and our own evolving position as an office. I arrived in Berlin at a very opportune and exciting moment with a very exciting project. The Neues Museum is very closely linked to the history of the city. We faced the challenge of rediscovering East and West Berlin as a united city, and Museum Island was a symbolic site for this task. On the one hand, there was the reconstruction of the building, and on the other, reassembling a cultural heritage that had been separated into different museums in both halves of the city.
Along with the architectural issues, there were infrastructural, political, and complex operational issues. Berlin had to find answers to key issues very quickly, and the results were not always positive; mistakes were also made. How do you see it?
Like many other European cities, after the Second World War, Berlin had to deal with destruction on a huge scale. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the start of a second chapter in this process. East and West Berlin had long had their own ways of dealing with the war damage. All of a sudden, it was a matter of reuniting the two halves of the city as a whole again. So in the 1990s, we were dealing with issues that had been caused in the 1940s. It was as if the curtain had been opened once again, and we now had to address post-war reconstruction from a new perspective. There were many ideologies floating around in terms of how this should be tackled. Berlin in the 1990s was a melting pot of different opinions from different sections of the community, and everyone had their own idea of what the city should become.
Which camp prevailed at that time?
I think the question of the city’s character remains open, and the struggle continues. Berlin has always been trying to invent itself from the very beginning; it is in a state of continuous reinvention. Even Berlin as we know it today is incomplete. The city will continue to develop. Architectural interventions like the Neues Museum propose a dialogue between old and new, showing the responsibility architecture has to history.
How did you deal with the destruction of the Second World War, the different ideologies on both sides of the Wall, and the architectural heritage of the 19th century? Do you have a personal compass?
Architects don’t often have a chance to work on projects that have cultural, emotional, and social significance. Our work on the Neues Museum was clearly engaged with those issues, difficult as it might have seemed at times. Personally, I can’t imagine another way to do the project than to start a dialogue with history. Our design for the Neues Museum was seen as a provocation because it insisted that history is part of the context. We had a responsibility to the existing building and the original intentions of its architecture,
which has its own qualities. But we were not trying to be didactic and teach people about history. I was not interested in treating the existing object as something negative but as a positive thing. In this respect, the building was rather like an archaeological find for us. Creating a brand-new building would not have made any sense.
Next to Museum Island is the Humboldt Forum, whose architecture reveals a very different notion of history. The German Parliament had the East German Palace of the Republic (Palast der Republik) demolished, and the even older City Palace [Stadtschloss] rebuilt in its place. They chose Disneyland over urban repair. How does that fit with the Neues Museum and the James Simon Gallery?
We were extremely privileged in the Neues Museum project. Although it had political dimensions, unlike the Humboldt Forum, it wasn’t done privately but funded entirely by the state of Berlin. That protected us from the big political discussions. In addition, Klaus-Dieter Lehmann, then president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, created an environment within which we were able to pursue an intellectual idea in dialogue with the different collaborators, such as the conservation department. I wanted a collaborative project, not an architect’s project. Of course, there were also
many emotional reactions, and I was accused of a lot of things. But overall, we were able to work under conditions that fostered collaboration between the institutions and the other stakeholders. That is why the project was not subject to the politicization issues faced by the City Palace.
You have had an office in Berlin for almost 25 years now. Have you become a “Berliner”?
My involvement in Berlin was substantial for many years. It is in my blood, and I feel very attached to this city. Over the years, I have also developed an understanding of the city. It is not the most easy to be fond of; it is easier to be fond of Paris or Madrid. Berlin is a particular taste, but I have that taste, and the time that I have spent there has shaped me. The Neues Museum taught us many things, not only about architecture but also about people and collaboration. It was a significant professional experience in my life.
Read the full version here:
Sandra Hofmeister: "In Dialogue with History. David Chipperfield on the continuous reinvention of Berlin“, in: “David Chipperfield Architects. Architektur und Baudetails / Architecture and Construction Details“ 4. extended edition, Edition Detail, Munich 2025, page 8-15.
