Hitler vs. Schumacher
In this paper I aim to illustrate the different
planning undergone by Fritz Schumacher followed by the planning done through
Adolf Hitler. Then I will compare both
men’s planning methodology and evaluate which method holds greater resonance in
today’s age.
Fritz Schumacher was born in 1869 in Bremen,
Germany however, spent his childhood in Bogota, Columbia before moving to New
York, USA. He returned to Germany to study and eventually became an architect,
urban designer and planner. He had a
high focus on creating cities with a new awareness of tradition and landscape (Colquhoun 2002). Thus he designs depicted not singly the aesthetic properties but
also included other disciplines into his plans such as topography,
demographics, social trends, transportation, industry and trade. By doing this
resulted in a greater blend of urban form with the surrounding landscape, thus resulting
in designs catering for a greater audience. Venturi, Brown and Izenour (1972) refer to the ability to learn from a landscape as being
revolutionary of an architect in 1970, emphasizing Schumacher’s innovation at
the time. Additionally, Schumacher had a great interest in the blend of nature
and urban form and he believed that nature should flourish within the city. The
garden city movement adopted by Germany in the beginning of the 20th
century from Great Britain stoked his interest of nature within cities. This is
illustrated in his plans for Cologne in 1923 where he introduced green belts
amongst the urban form (Diefendorf 1993). Today these belts still
exist and are a legacy of what he created (refer to fig. 1).
Figure 1 Schumacher's Green Belt Legacy
Further, presenting Schumacher’s brilliance was his ability to plan for future needs. Diefendorf (1993) illustrates this, highlighting how Schumacher anticipated the population growth of Stubben, Germany and aimed this growth to be located around the radial arms of the transportation network. Today in Melbourne, there is this aim of guiding development around public transport (Victorian Government 2014), highlighting how innovative Schumacher was. Overall, we can evaluate Schumacher’s urban planning, design and architecture style as innovative and ahead of his time.
Adolf Hitler was born in 1889 in Braunau am Inn, Austria but moved to Germany at a young age. At
an early age Hitler gained an interest in fine arts, which grew to his interest
in architecture, and in particular the baroque architectural style in which he
favored. This was seen with his love of
Berlin Cathedral a grand baroque style architected building. Another influence
that shaped the architecture and urban planning throughout Hitler’s period of
power was his German nationalist mindset. This mindset was prevalent throughout
most of his life however; it grew more radical and bias as he aged.
Throughout Hitler’s period of power he
dictated that the cities of Germany all required certain traits in each highlighting,
his want for uniformity (Diefendorf 1993). In particular, he demanded
buildings of monumental scale across the cities to express the German power
over the world illustrating his radical German nationalist mindset. His designs were often created to be the
biggest in the world; some of these designs were Munich train station, Berlin
Hall and Hamburg skyscraper. Hitler aimed these structures to rival and outdo
their precedents from other nations to reinforce the power of the Third Reich
(refer to fig 2 & 3).
Figure 2 St Peter's, Italy (Trinity 2014)
Figure 3 Berlin's planned domed assembly hall (Pergher 2007)
Often smaller traditional homes and
business were being destroyed to make way for these monumental buildings. Not
only was his aim to be express the Third Reich power but also aimed to make
building confronting and intimidating to foreign visitors.
Hitler himself did not design a great
number of buildings however, he had a great influence over what was built. For
example, Hitler had final say in the in which architectural design would be
used for his buildings. Always the
architectural plan that won were designs that foster his ideas of German power,
usually through monumental size, whilst also fostering his passion for baroque
style buildings. Albert Speer designs
frequently won these competitions as he designs meticulously followed Hitler
ideals. Overall, what is identifiable is
the unorthodox planning done by Hitler. Less did he focus on the needs of the
people instead rather focusing on reinforcing his radical notion and ideals.
Hitler and Schumacher were eminently
different, which can be express through the different plans and development controlled
by each. Schumacher had a large focus of blending landscape with urban form
whereas Hitler, with his aim to express German Power, created monumental
buildings that protruded out of the landscape, often replacing the previous
landscape. Hence, it is shown as Schumacher having a more contemporary style of
planning whilst Hitler having a similar opinion to Le Corbusier who said “tear
down Paris and start again”, which holds as ill practice in contemporary age.
Further difference can be identified through
the different use of precedents for each of the men’s designs. The British Garden City movement influenced
many of Schumacher’s designs. He aimed to learn from Garden Cities and
implement aspect into his designs. He did this with the aim to improve urban
form and urban life within German cities. In contrast to Hitler, who used
precedents from other countries to create urban form in Germany that are more
impressive and monumental to illustrate his idea of German dominance over the
world. Here instead of learning from the precedent he aimed to create something
that dominated it and make it regarded as inferior to his designs. Kenny and Brophy (2011) suggest that precedents can be used to create a correct idea of
what is good for the environment. This notion is similar to what Schumacher did
with the precedent of Garden cities and how he applied it to Cologne
illustrating innovative methodology. However, nowhere in contemporary design
guidelines is using precedents as structures to make inferior with your design,
emphasizing Hitler’s unorthodox designs plans.
Overall, what are prevalent are the
innovative ideas and designs that Schumacher did. This compared to Hitler was
vastly different with Hitler having less focus on surrounding environment and
instead only the building in design.
This meant that designs by Schumacher accommodated more people’s needs and
the surrounding environment whereas Hitler designs only catered for the notion
of German prowess over the world. I
believe planners can learn from Schumacher as his ideas are innovative and many
still feature in plan for cities today even in plan Melbourne. In addition,
much can be learnt from the planning during Hitler Third Reich period however,
Hitler ideas often teach us what not to do rather than applying his ideas into
todays planning.
Reference List:
Colquhoun, A 2002, Modern
architecture, Oxford University Press.
Diefendorf,
JM 1993, In the wake of war: the
reconstruction of German cities after World War II, Oxford University
Press.
Kenny, P
& Brophy, V 2011, 'A Methodology to Develop Judgment Skills in Sustainable
Architectural Education', in World
Sustainable Building Conference, 18-21 October, 2011 Helsinki, Finland.
Pergher,
R 2007, Order from Stone, Sitemaker,
viewed 24 April 2015, <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/artunderfascism/architecture%3E.
Trinity,
IBIasdH 2014, St Peters Basilica,
Wordpress, viewed 24 April 2015, <http://italianoht.global2.vic.edu.au/famous-italians/st-peters-basilica/%3E.
Venturi,
R, Brown, DS & Izenour, S 1972, Learning
from Las Vegas, vol. 102, MIT press Cambridge, MA.
Department
of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure 2014, Plan Melbourne, by Victorian Government, Victorian Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment