Kultur Büro Elisabeth in Berlin – Churches To Let
Marta Alina Rusnak
marta.rusnak@pwr.edu.plDepartment of History of Architecture, Art and Technique; Wroclaw University of Technology; (Poland)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5639-5326
Abstract
After the end of World War II, Berlin – just like other parts of Germany and Europe – witnessed the phenomenon of growing secularization of society. In many regions the extent of this trend resulted in a dire need of ideas that would not only solve the problem of the shrinking budgets of religious communities, but also revive those buildings in possession of the Church that had become less and less often used. Forsaken temples equaled a decline in the town’s coherence, since a part of what had been lost were the once significant social bonds that religious meetings had long helped keep alive. In Berlin, and in the Mitte district in particular, the issue of economic exploitation of religious objects gradually gained importance and the various ideas of what use to make of those buildings evolved over the course of nearly 50 years. Kultur Büro Elisabeth was formed in 2014 as a result of many transformations. It has been brought to life not only to save the world-class historical monument by K.F.Schinkel but also to restore past spatial and social relations. A dialogue that had carried out for years between the religious authorities, various experts, entrepreneurs and simple city dwellers made it possible to begin a multifaceted process thanks to which all the buildings of the Protestant Church in that part of Berlin are now given a new life – in terms of both their looks and use. Moreover, the buildings take part in creating modern cultural values, which contributes to the revival and/or reinterpretation of their past character. What is important, Kultur Büro Elisabeth has operated as a non-profit institution without funding from the authorities since 2014. This suggests that a model of operation has been worked out that is satisfactory from the economic perspective, too. Therefore it appears beneficial to take a closer look at the mechanism applied in Berlin and consider its possible adaptation in Poland.
Keywords:
churches, revitalization, cultural adaptation, ruin, monument management, BerlinReferences
http://sjp.pwn.pl/sjp/synergizm;2576856.htm dostęp 20.03.2016.
[2] Krzemiński A. Czy Ratzinger przyspieszył laicyzację?, 5 marca 2013, Polityka Cyfrowa,
[on line] http://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/swiat/1536855,1,czy-ratzinger-przyspieszyl-laicyzacje.read, (dostęp 21 stycznia 2016).
[3] Abrams D.M, Yaple H.A., Wiener R.J. A mathematical model of social group competition with application to the growth of religious non-affiliation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 088701 (2011), [on line] http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1375v1, dostęp 10.02.2016.
[4] Raschke T. Die Sophienkirche in Berlin. s. 28.
[5] Szambien W. Vorstadtkirchen. Karl Fridrich Shinkel, Basel, Boston, Berlin 1990, s.62.
[6] Franz-Duhme H.N., Röper U. Shinkel Vorstadtkirchen. Kirchbau Und Gemeidegründung unter Fridrich Wilhelm III in Berlin. 1991 Berlin.
[7] Steffens M., Schinkel K.F. An architekt In the service of beauty. Köln 2003, s. 69-71
[8] von Lorck C., Schinkel K.F. Berlin 1939. s.72-73.
[9] Architekturmuseum der TU Berlin, Sammlung Architektonischer Entrüfe, Elisabethkirche vor dem Rosenthaler Tor und Johanniskirche, Schinkel, Karl Friedrich; 1832, Inv: SAE:1858,137.
[10] Ort A., Zinons-Kirche in Berlin. w: Zeitschrift für Bauwesen, Berlin 1873, s.106-110.
[11] Architekturmuseum der TU Berlin, Max Spitta, St. Johannes-Evagelist-Kirche, Inv. Nr. 16769, Inv. Nr. 16771.
[12] N.N. Die Golgatha-Kirche in Berlin Berliner Architekturwelt 3 1901, s.349.
[13] Architekturmuseum der TU Berlin, Max Spitta: Evangelische Golgathakirche, Berlin-Mitte, inv.nr. 16862.2., Inv.Nr.16863: Inv.Nr 16864.
[14] udostępnione przez Kultur Büro Elisabeth, 03.09.2015.
[15] Ausstellungstafel 175 Jahre St Elisabeth (Tafel 1) (Tafel 2), [on line] http://www.elisabeth.berlin/kulturorte/st-elisabeth, dostęp 15 luty 2016.
[16] Hundert Jahre St Elisabeth-Berlin: 1835-1935 ; Bilder aus d. Wachsen u. Werden e. evang. Kirchengemeinde d. Großstadt / Eugen Bethke. Hrsg. vom Gemeindekirchenrat v. St. Elisabeth, Berlin 1935.
[17] Architekturmuseum der TU Berlin, Sammlung Architektonischer Entwürfe, Knoblauch, Carl Heinrich Eduard, Neue Synagogue, Inv. Nr. F 6897, Inv. Nr. F 6898, Inv. Nr. F 6900, Inv. Nr. EK 503,025, Inv. Nr. EK 503,0256, Inv. Nr. EK 503,037-043.
[18] Simon H., Die Neue Synagoge, Berlin. Vergangenheit – Gegenwart – Zukunft. Berlin 1999.
[19] Tołłoczko Z. „Sen architekta” czyli O historii i historyzmie architektury XIX i XX wieku. Kraków 2015, s.296.
[20] Ausstellungstafel 175 Jahre St Elisabeth (Tafel 3) [online] http://www.elisabeth.berlin/kulturorte/st-elisabeth, dostęp 15.02.2016.
[21] Obirek S., Pamięć Zagłady – brzemię i szansa. w: Obóz-muzeum, trauma we współczesnym wystawiennictwie, Kraków 2013, s13-30.
[22] Wolf-Powęska A. Pamięć – brzemię i uwolnienie. Niemcy wobec nazistowskiej przeszłości (1945-2010). Poznań 2010.
[23] Barełkowski R. Funkcja jako nośnik continuum w zabytku architektury. w: Wartość Funkcji w obiektach zabytkowych, Warszawa 2014, s.58-59.
[24] Kb, Zamieszkać w domu Bożym, [online] <http://bryla.gazetadom.pl/bryla/1,85298,7493386, Zamieszkac_w_domu_Bozym.html>, dostęp 2010.02.08.
[25] Kuśnierz-Krupa D., Krupa M. Nowe życie w średniowiecznych kościołach w Maastricht. Wiadomości Konserwatorskie, 24/2008, s.103-106.
[26] Rusnak M. Transformation of religious buildings into museums in Poland: history and scale of the phenomenon. w: Architectus, 2015, nr 3, s. 75-88.
[27] Kodeks prawa kanonicznego, Księga IV Uświęcone zadania Kościoła, Tytuł II Kościoły, kanon 1222, § 1.
[28] Kościół w Niemczech, dlaczego jest tak źle? [online] http://www.pch24.pl/kosciol-w-niemczech--dlaczego-jest-tak-zle-,16727,i.html, dostęp 18.12.2016.
[29] Aarticle 2, Definitions, Basic text of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Curtural Heritage, UNESCO 2014 s.5 i ICOM (21 zgromadzenie Ogólne ICOM, Seul 2004.
[30] Kowalczyk M., Desakralizacja kościołów. Rytuał sacrum czy profanum? w: Nurt SVD 2 (2011), rocznik 45, t. 130, Warszawa (Verbinum) 2011, s. 207-227.
[31] Rouba B.J, Autentycznść i integralność zabytków. Ochrona zabytków, 4/2008, s.39.
[32] pdf -Annahme von Kulturprojekten lub Selection of Cultural Projects, [online] http://www.elisabeth.berlin/kulturbuero/kultur-raum-geben (dostęp 3marca2016),
[33] [online] http://www.klausblock.de/.
[34] Rozmówy z Teklą Wolf i Isabel Schubert – Gdańsk, 12-13 września 2014 oraz rozmową z Theklą Wolf– Berlin, 02-03.09.2015.
[35] Riceur P. Pamięć, historia, zapomnienie. Kraków 2000, 195-196, za Grażyna Gajewska, Niewidzialne miasto-przypadek Gniezna, w: Muzeum XXI wieku. Teoria i praxis. Gniezno 2010, s.137-142 ,
[36] Wywiady z najemcami (osobiste i mailowe) prowadzone od 06 do 10. 2015 r.
Authors
Marta Alina Rusnakmarta.rusnak@pwr.edu.pl
Department of History of Architecture, Art and Technique; Wroclaw University of Technology; Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5639-5326
Statistics
Abstract views: 261PDF downloads: 158
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Budownictwo i Architektura supports the open science program. The journal enables Open Access to their publications. Everyone can view, download and forward articles, provided that the terms of the license are respected.
Publishing of articles is possible after submitting a signed statement on the transfer of a license to the Journal.
