the complex heritage of Tempelhof Central Airport - WWW

Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus
Faculty of Architecture, Civil Engineering and
Urban Planning
A multifaceted monument - the complex heritage of
Tempelhof Central Airport
Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in World Heritage Studies
Submitted in July 2007 by
Christine Heeb
Matriculation No. 2407085
Supervisors
Prof. Dr. phil. Dr. Ing. Eduard Führ
Prof. Dr. phil. Günter Bayerl
Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus
Faculty of Architecture, Civil Engineering and
Urban Planning
A multifaceted monument - the complex heritage of
Tempelhof Central Airport
Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in World Heritage Studies
Submitted in July 2007 by
Christine Heeb
Matriculation No. 2407085
Supervisors
Prof. Dr. phil. Dr. Ing. Eduard Führ
Prof. Dr. phil. Günter Bayerl
Table of Contents
List of figures ………………………………………………………………………….iv
List of tables ……………………………………………………………………………v
List of abbreviations …………………………………………………………………..v
Preface ……………………………………………………………………………...…vi
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………..vi
1
2
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Intention of the author ................................................................................... 1
1.2
Methodology ................................................................................................. 2
Heritage-relevant “layers” ................................................................................... 6
2.1
Pre-airport times ........................................................................................... 6
2.1.1
Early history of the location “Tempelhofer Feld” ...................................... 6
2.1.2
Tempelhofer Feld and the start of aviation .............................................. 8
2.2
The first Tempelhof Airport (TCA I) ............................................................. 10
2.2.1
The start-up in Weimar times ................................................................ 10
2.2.2
The construction of the first Tempelhof airport (TCA I) .......................... 17
2.3
The new Tempelhof Airport (TCA II) ........................................................... 21
2.3.1
The building process in the Third Reich ................................................ 21
2.3.1.1 The initiation ……………………………………………………………. 21
2.3.1.2 Description of the new airport building complex ……………………. 23
2.3.1.3 The building process, and use until the end of the war ……………. 30
2.3.2
TCA II in its function as airport .............................................................. 32
2.3.2.1 After World War II – the beginnings of the Cold War ………………. 32
2.3.2.2 The Berlin Airlift and its impacts on TCA II …………………………. 35
2.3.2.3 The further development of TCA II during the Cold War ………….. 41
2.4
2.4.1
Military parades..................................................................................... 45
2.4.2
Leisure and political activities................................................................ 46
2.4.3
Flight shows .......................................................................................... 46
2.4.4
Political demonstrations ........................................................................ 47
2.4.5
The open house events of the US Air Force.......................................... 48
2.5
3
The use of Tempelhofer Feld for special events and leisure ....................... 45
Tempelhof Airport as recognised heritage .................................................. 49
2.5.1
Historical monument status ................................................................... 49
2.5.2
European heritage ................................................................................ 50
Significance of the site...................................................................................... 50
3.1
TCA II as architectural design ..................................................................... 51
ii
4
5
6
3.2
TCA II as example for the Nazis’ use of architecture................................... 51
3.3
TCA II as a symbol for friendship ................................................................ 53
3.4
TCA II as a gateway to freedom during the Cold war .................................. 54
3.5
Other significant aspects............................................................................. 55
Problems of preserving and conveying historical events and their values ......... 56
4.1
Preservation of material values ................................................................... 56
4.2
Preservation of non-material values............................................................ 56
Heritage in the context of the World Heritage Convention ................................ 58
5.1
Definition of the heritage of TCA II .............................................................. 58
5.2
Analysis of the values ................................................................................. 59
5.3
Classification of the terminology “tangible” and “intangible” ........................ 61
TCA II in the perception of local people ............................................................ 62
6.1
6.1.1
The questionnaire ................................................................................. 63
6.1.2
Evaluation ............................................................................................. 65
6.2
7
8
The survey.................................................................................................. 62
Results ....................................................................................................... 67
6.2.1
Intangible aspects of the heritage of TCA II........................................... 68
6.2.2
Tangible aspects: TCA II as architectural monument ............................ 70
6.2.3
TCA II as part of everyday life ............................................................... 71
Summary and conclusions................................................................................ 72
7.1
Summary .................................................................................................... 72
7.2
Conclusions ................................................................................................ 74
References ....................................................................................................... 94
8.1
Document references ................................................................................. 94
8.2
Internet references...................................................................................... 96
Annexes
Annex A:
Development of air traffic in West Berlin …………………………..……. 76
Annex B:
Questionnaires ………………………………………………………….…. 78
Annex C:
Maps ………………………………………………………………….…….. 89
Annex D:
Aerial photos ………………………………………………………………. 92
iii
List of figures
Fig. 1: Map of Tempelhofer Feld in 1895 (Conin 1974, pp. 10/11) ………............. 7
Fig. 2: Zeppelin (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 25) ………...……………………. 7
Fig. 3: Flughafen Tempelhof, Orville Wright’s Aeroplan im Fluge auf dem
Tempelhofer Feld. (T3_1636 © Museen Tempelhof-Schöneberg/Archiv) .. 9
Fig. 4: The first temporary wooden buildings: two Hangars and the terminal
building (left), (Conin 1974, p. 64) ………………………………………..…. 12
Fig. 5: Masterplan for the Tempelhof airport, published in 1925
(Conin 1974, p. 73, Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 38) ……………….….. 14
Fig. 6: Airport building June 1930 (private collection Stefan Lehmann) ……….... 18
Fig. 7: Airport underground railway station (Bohle-Heintzenberg 1980, p. 172)... 19
Fig. 8: Aerial photo viewing east from about 1932, Neu-Tempelhof
(T3_1586 © Museen Tempelhof-Schöneberg/Archiv) ………………..…... 19
Fig. 9: Model of the north-south axis (Dittrich 2005a, p. 7) ………………………. 22
Fig. 10: Perspective of the planned airport (Dittrich 2005a, backpage) ………….. 24
Fig. 11: Masterplan of the airport TCA II 1936
(Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 81) ……………………………………..…. 25
Fig. 12: Structural cross-section of the boarding area (Hecker 2000, p. 96) ….…. 26
Fig. 13: Boarding area (Hecker 2000, p. 97) ………………………………………… 26
Fig: 14: Wire model of the new airport on top of the first airport
(Dittrich 2005a, p. 6) ………………………………………………………….. 28
Fig. 15: Production of war planes Ju 87 in hangar 4 (Wenz 2000, p. 58) ………… 31
Fig. 16: Damaged departure hall (Conin 1974, p. 217) …………………………….. 33
Fig. 17: Berlin Air corridors (Jackson 1988, p. 8) ……………………...……………. 37
Fig. 18: Cross-sectional view of airlift flight scheme September 1948
(http://www.century-of-flight.freeola.com/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/
The%20Berlin%20Airlift.htm, 29/06/2007) ………………………...……….. 38
Fig. 19: Summer 1948, airlift planes at TCA in a queue to be unloaded
(Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 92) …………………………………..……. 40
Fig. 20: Flughafen Tempelhof / Mitropa Flughafen Restaurant, 20/06/1933,
(T3/1621 © Museen Tempelhof- Schöneberg/Archiv) .............................. 47
Fig. 21: Flughafen Tempelhof “Tag der offenen Tür” 1970
(T24_06) (© USA AirForce) ………………………………………………….. 49
Front cover photographs by the author, 20/04/2007
iv
List of tables
Table 1 Overview of the heritage relevant stages of TCA ………………………… 5
Table 2 History of Tempelhofer Feld as location ……………………………………16
Table 3 Summary of the results of the questionnaire ………………………………64
List of abbreviations
AF
AOA
BAA
BEA
BFG (BAA)
BVG
GAGFAH
GDR
GmbH
ICAT
LOT
PSP
RAF
RLM
TCA
TCA I
TCA II
UNESCO
USAF
WHC
Air France
American Overseas Airlines
Berlin Airport Agency
British European Airways
Berliner Flughafengesellschaft (Berlin Airport Agency)
Berliner Verkehrsgesellschaft (Berlin Public Transport
Agency)
Gemeinnützige Aktiengesellschaft für AngestelltenHeimstätten (Non profit housing organisation for employees)
German Democratic Republic (East Germany)
Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (limited company)
Interessengemeinschaft City-Airport Tempelhof e.V
(Community of interest City-Airport Tempelhof - a non profit
organisation)
Polish National Airline
Pierced Steel Plank
Royal Air Force (UK)
Reichsluftfahrtministerium (Ministry of Aviation)
Tempelhof Central Airport (Zentralflughafen Tempelhof)
Tempelhof Central Airport first permanent terminal complex
Tempelhof Central Airport second terminal complex desgined
by Sagebiel
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation
United States Air Force (Luftwaffe der Vereinigten Staaten von
Amerika)
World Heritage Convention
Landesdenkmalamt (Heritage department )
v
Preface
As I sit on the balcony of my flat in Neu-Tempelhof (situated in TempelhofSchöneberg, one of the twelve boroughs of the city of Berlin), to write a first outline
of this thesis about Tempelhof Central Airport, I can hear and see the airplanes
taking off from nearby Tempelhof airport.
When I first came to Berlin in 1974 I landed at TCA (the official abbreviation of the
US Airforce) which at that time still was the main airport of West Berlin. Since 1981 I
have been living in Neu-Tempelhof - with the noise of airplanes and the smell of
kerosene as an underlying perception of my everyday life.
During the last few years I have experienced the comfort of flying from THF (the
abbreviation used today internationally) on some occasions – to get to the terminal I
could take the number 184 bus from outside my flat and be at the airport within 10
minutes. Then there was the sensation of take-off and landing with the fascinating
view of the curved, classical modern façade facing the airfield, and from further
away, the overview of the impressive airport building complex embedded in the
urban texture of the city of Berlin, a site easily distinguished from the air.
To combine these personal experiences and perceptions of Tempelhof Airport, as a
resident of Neu-Tempelhof, and as a passenger, with my professional interest in
heritage sites was my motivation to choose this topic.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful for the support of the following institutions in making
documents available:
-
Untere Denkmalbehörde Tempelhof-Schöneberg
-
Archiv des Heimatmuseums Tempelhof-Schöneberg
My special thanks to those residents who were willing to give me their time and part
of their memories related to the airport, as well as lend me photos, postcards, books
and magazines from their personal collections.
vi
1
Introduction
1.1
Intention of the author
The aim of this thesis is to analyse the complex heritage of Tempelhof Central
Airport as a whole. The buildings, and their architecture and construction
techniques, have already been described and analysed in numerous publications. I
will therefore give a summary of the historical context and the main facts only as far
as they are relevant for the significance of the site from my broader point of view.
The heritage of Tempelhof Central Airport consists of several “dimensions” or
“layers” of which the tangible appearance of the buildings is only one. My intention is
to identify the different dimensions which are of significance to the airport’s heritage
through a more holistic approach to value the site in its own right, and thereby to
achieve a better understanding of what defines the heritage of this site, and of
heritage in general.
The Tempelhof Central Airport building complex was designed by the German
architect Ernst Sagebiel in 1935. Construction work started immediately in 1935 but
was not finished due to the Second World War. The building opened for civil aviation
in 1951, and was listed as a monument in 1994. The building is very well known in
Berlin, throughout Germany, and also world-wide because of its history: it forms part
of the oldest inner city airport in the world that is still in use, and is still one of the
biggest buildings (by volume) worldwide.
But “Tempelhofer Feld”, the area where the airport is situated, has a history of its
own - related to military use and early aviation - which prepared the ground for the
initiation of the first Tempelhof Airport, the predecessor of the current airport
complex. For the purpose of this thesis the abbreviation TCA I is used for the first
Tempelhof airport from 1923, TCA II for the new airport designed by Sagebiel in
1935.
People’s perceptions can be seen as an indicator for the significance and
importance of a heritage site. In the case of Tempelhof airport only the perception of
the current building (TCA II) will be analysed as TCA I was destroyed in the Second
World War. Over the time since the planning of TCA II started, four main
5
perceptions related to the building as such and to its function as airport can be
identified:
•
Tempelhof Central Airport (the building) as example of “state of the art” airport
design in the 1930s
•
Tempelhof Central Airport (the building) as an example for the Nazis’ use of
architecture
•
Tempelhof Central Airport (the building in its function as part of an airport) as a
“gateway to freedom” during the Cold War 1946 - 1989
•
Tempelhof Central Airport (the building in its function as part of an airport) as a
symbol of friendship and support during the Berlin Airlift 1948/49.
The perception of a monument or heritage site is connected, inter alia, to the
experiences, opinions and personal memories of local people. They own part of the
knowledge of the site, a vulnerable knowledge, in danger of being lost if it is not
written down or otherwise recorded. To record and analyse this “living memory” of a
small number of those residents who have personally witnessed this monument
from its construction to its current state (it is probably soon to be closed as an
airport) forms an integral part of this thesis.
1.2
Methodology
Within this thesis I will use the definition of “cultural heritage” given in the UNESCO
World Heritage Convention, as a guideline to identify the heritage of Tempelhof
Central Airport. The definitions of the Convention have been drawn up by a long and
thorough process, and have currently been accepted by 184 states parties, which is
an indicator of their wide general acceptance1. In this context it is not relevant
whether or not Tempelhof Central Airport might be considered as of outstanding
universal value, but rather, which criteria qualify and characterise cultural heritage
according to the Convention.
Furthermore, the definition of heritage in the Convention has been reflected in
national laws in general, including in the Laws of the Federal States of Germany for
the Protection of Historic Properties. The criteria for properties to be listed as
monuments are defined, for example according to the Bavarian Law2 for the
Protection of Historic Properties (Bayerisches Denkmalschutzgesetz) article 1,
1
http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/, Cited 17/06/2007
The federal structure of Germany means that each Federal State (e.g. Bavaria,
Brandenburg, etc) has their own heritage law – Bavaria is a particularly good example.
2
2
paragraph 1 3, a property should have historical, artistic, urban or scientific values.
This corresponds with the definition in article 1 of the Convention, given below.
Therefore the application of the definition of the World Heritage Convention for a
national monument is clearly justified.
The Convention differentiates between cultural and natural heritage. For the
purpose of this thesis only cultural heritage is relevant. In article 1 of the Convention
cultural heritage is defined as “monuments: architectural works […] which are of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science.”
According to article 4 the main aim is the “identification, protection, conservation,
presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural […] heritage” 4.
As criteria for the assessment of outstanding universal value, the Operational
Guidelines list inter alia “exhibit an important interchange of human values over a
span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture
or technology […] (paragraph 77, (ii))”; “outstanding example of a type of building,
architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant
stage(s) in human history (paragraph 77, (iv))”; and “directly or tangibly associated
with events or living traditions […] (paragraph 77, (vi))”.
In paragraph 78 further conditions authenticity and integrity are mentioned.
Authenticity can be expressed by a variety of attributes including: “form and design,
materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and
settings, spirit and feeling” – the later insofar as they can be “important indicators of
character and sense of place” (paragraph 83). Information sources, which make it
possible to know the nature, specificities, meaning, and history of the cultural
heritage, include all physical, written, oral, and figurative sources in paragraph 84
(UNESCO WHC (2005)). Integrity is defined in paragraph 88 as “a measure of the
wholeness and intactness of the […] cultural heritage and its attributes”.
The proposed methodology for analysing the heritage of Tempelhof Central Airport
was:
(a) To identify the different heritage-relevant “layers” of the airport.
3
4
http://www.blfd.bayern.de/blfd/index.php?id=1065114, Cited 26/06/2007
http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/, Cited 16/06/2007
3
(b) To use Tempelhof Central Airport as an example, in order to discuss the
problems of preserving and conveying historical events and their values in an
authentic way.
(c) To identify a number of local Neu-Tempelhof residents who have lived through
the different historical phases of the airport and interview them, using a
focussed questionnaire, to seek out and record specific information, including:
(i)
Their first encounter with the Airport, the event this was connected with, the
feelings the encounter evoked.
(ii) Their present perception of the airport.
(iii) If, how and why the perception has changed over time.
The results of the interviews will be used to compare the significant aspects of
the heritage from the first part of the methodology - section (a) above - with the
interviewed residents’ perceptions.
(d) To discuss the previously identified aspects of heritage on the basis of the
definition of heritage in the World Heritage Convention and the results of
Tempelhof Central Airport.
(e) To draw conclusions regarding the role Neu-Tempelhof residents play in the
intangible aspects of heritage of Tempelhof Central Airport
Table 1 gives an overview of how the thesis is structured with references to the
chapters where the related topics are covered.
4
Table 1: Overview of the heritage relevant stages of Tempelhof Central Airport (chapters given in brackets)
Timeline
18th century
Prussia/German Empire (2.1)
1923
Weimar Republic (2.2)
1938
1945 1947-48
Cold War (2.3)
Third Reich (2.3)
Airlift
-1989 1994
Heritage (2.5)
Living memory of Neu-Tempelhof residents (5)
Tempelhofer Feld (the area)
(2.1)
as open space
Heritage relevant aspects:
History of aeronautics/aviation
Military history (Prussia and German
Empire)
Leisure
(2.4) Events
No events
Events
TCA I
airport buildings with the airfield (occupies part of the area)
Heritage relevant aspects:
Airport buildings
Airfield
Function as airport
Urban green/sports/allotments
TCA II
airport buildings with the airfield
Heritage relevant aspects:
Airport buildings
Airfield
Function as airport
Function as military airport
(2.2)
(2.3)
Remains
no remains left
some ruins of the buildings and
part of the old airfield, small parts building and airfield still in use as airport
of sports area and allotments
Tangible /intangible aspects
intangible
Information sources
intangible as mostly destroyed
tangible for the building
intangible for the events
history books, photos, paintings, newspapers, movies, recorded memories of contemporary witnesses
5
2
Heritage-relevant “layers”
2.1
Pre-airport times
2.1.1
Early history of the location “Tempelhofer Feld”
Tempelhof Central Airport is situated at “Tempelhofer Feld”, an area located about
five kilometres south of the centre of the modern city at Brandenburger Tor
(Brandenburg Gate). The name “Tempelhof” derives from the ancient “Tempelhove”
or “court of the Templar”. The military knights’ order of the Templar founded
Tempelhove in 1247 as a “Komturhof” or “commander’s court,” the smallest holding
entity of their order5. The airport is situated at the northern boundaries of the former
Templars’ estate and today belongs to Tempelhof-Schöneberg, one of the twelve
boroughs of Berlin.
From the middle of the 18th century the area of Tempelhofer Feld was used for
military exercise and public parades first by the Prussian kings and later by the
German emperors. The estate was at that time owned by local farmers. The
conflicts between the farmers and the military administration about the times of
usage and compensation for damage (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 13) ended
only in 1826-27 when the Prussian military administration bought the land. In 1873
this area was transferred to the military administration of the German Reich.
From the end of the 19th century onwards, Tempelhofer Feld became the stage for
another attraction: aeronautics. The age-old dream of flying started to become true
with the first successful attempts at ballooning during the 18th century in France. As
the techniques and the equipment developed further they also attracted the
attention of the military.
In 1886 an aeronautic section of the Prussian military was founded. It was stationed
in one of the military barracks that had been erected in the western section of
“Tempelhofer Feld,” where the soldiers carried out various tests for ballooning
(Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 16 – 17).
5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempelhof, Cited 02/05/2007
6
Fig. 1: Map of Tempelhofer Feld in 1895 (Conin 1974, pp. 10/11)
In 1887 Hermann Wölfert – a publisher and pioneer of aviation – obtained
permission and financial support from the Prussian aeronautics military section to
carry out some experiments with his construction of a motor driven balloon that
could be navigated. On the 12th of June of that year he took off in his balloon from
Tempelhofer Feld, but his experiment failed and he and his assistant died in a
spectacular crash within sight of the spectators.
Fig. 2: Zeppelin (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 25)
7
Another attempt to develop a motor driven airship, started in 1898, was more
successful. The famous Zeppelin – named after its inventor and constructor, Graf
Zeppelin - was also supported financially by the Prussian aeronautics section. But it
took another 11 years before the first Zeppelin landed at Tempelhofer Feld on the
29th August 1909. About 300,000 spectators, including the German Emperor
Wilhelm II, watched this memorable event.
2.1.2
Tempelhofer Feld and the start of aviation
A different approach to realising the dream of flying was taken by the German
engineer Otto Lilienthal 6. He analysed the flight of birds and in 1889 published in
Berlin the results of his research in a book with the title: “Der Vogelflug als
Grundlage der Fliegekunst” (“Bird flight as the basis of aviation”, English translation
in 1911). From 1867 onwards he also experimented with the construction of flying
machines to test his findings in practice. Lilienthal died during one of his glider
flights in 18967. In the long run his approach of heavier than air flying machines
turned out to be more successful than airships, and it was one of the starting points
of aviation.
The brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright
8
from Dayton, Ohio, United States of
America, developed Lilienthal’s ideas further, experimented with mechanical
navigation and then started to combine their gliding machines with motors. As part
of a promotion campaign for their new motor driven airplane, Orville Wright came to
Berlin in 1909 where he wanted to demonstrate flight. This event was sponsored by
a local newspaper and took place at Tempelhofer Feld on the 4th of September in
front of an audience of about 150,000 spectators. During the following days Orville
Wright demonstrated the possibilities of his plane and his aviation skills, and set
several new records in altitude and duration of flights. Wright used his popularity to
found a firm in Germany for the construction of airplanes, “Flugmaschine Wright
GmbH,” financed inter alia by the German industrial giants Borsig, Krupp and AE. At
start-up it had orders for 20 planes.
6
Otto Lilienthal, * 23/05/1848 in Anklam, † 10/08/1896 in Berlin, mechanical engineer and
“first successful aviator in the history of mankind” (http://www.lilienthal-museum.de/olma
/ehome.htm, Cited 27/05/2007)
7
http://www.lilienthal-museum.de/olma/ehome.htm, Cited 27/05/2007
8
Wilbur Wright, * 16/05/1867 in Millville, Indiana USA, † 30/05/1912 in Dayton, Ohio USA,
and Orville Wright, * 19/08/1871, † 30/01/1948 in Dayton, Ohio USA, inventors of the motor
powered airplane.
8
Fig. 3: Flughafen Tempelhof, Orville Wright’s Aeroplan im Fluge auf dem Tempelhofer Feld.
(T3_1636 © Museen Tempelhof-Schöneberg/Archiv)
Another event that influenced the further development of aviation in Germany was a
national appeal to donate money for this purpose in 1912. It resulted in a sum of 7.5
million Goldmarks9 (national German currency) which was used for training pilots at
no charge, for financial support to the aviation industry, and to set up an award
system for good aviation performance (Conin 1974, p. 43). The new transportation
system had started to develop quickly in Germany, and the military also profited
from this development, as it now had access to a number of well-trained pilots.
The first purpose-built airfield in Berlin was constructed in Johannisthal in 1908 as
Tempelhofer Feld was still owned and used by the military at that time. From 1910
until 1914 Johannisthal was completed and extended and became the centre of
aviation in Berlin, where aviation construction firms such as the Wrights’ company
were based, where flying schools were opened and new technology was tested at
the research institute for aviation. For events like flight competitions or national flight
shows the airfield was equipped with stands for spectators.
9
Goldmark, currency of the German Empire from 1871 until 1923; after 1914 the expression
Goldmark was used to distinguish it from the paper money of the inflation.
9
After the start of the First World War the military demand for aviation absorbed all
available capacity10. The output of the aviation construction industry rapidly
multiplied with respect to number of aircraft, number of different types, range and
loading capacity (Conin 1974, p. 47).
With Germany defeated at the end of the First World War this rapid development
came to a standstill in the country. According to the Treaty of Versailles, from 1919
the construction or importation of planes or their parts was forbidden in Germany,
and all planes, parts and equipment, including the production sites, were to be
demolished (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 33). From 1922 onwards Germany was
again allowed to produce planes for civil use, and in 1923 it regained the
sovereignty over its airspace, but the production of military aircraft was still
prohibited. 11
2.2
The first Tempelhof Airport (TCA I)
2.2.1
The start-up in Weimar times
In 1910 the military administration had already sold one part of the area of the
Tempelhofer Feld to the municipality of Tempelhof, which at that time did not belong
to the city of Berlin but to the town of Teltow. This section - situated to the west of
the road to Dresden that was built between 1836 and 1838 – was designed as a
Garden City in 1914, but due to the war it was not built until the 1920s. The section
to the east of the road to Dresden, the “Berliner Straße,” was still in military
possession after 1910.
In 1920 the independent villages and towns that surrounded the city of Berlin,
including Tempelhof, were integrated into the urban area of “Groß Berlin” (Greater
Berlin). With the creation of this new agglomeration, eight towns, 59 rural towns and
27 “rural entities” (Gutsbezirke) with their different regulations, tariffs, transport
10
In WWI the principal use of planes was for reconnaissance and observation. Secondary
use was as fighter aircraft armed with machine guns; only a few bombers were built and
deployed. (http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/summary.htm, Cited 10/06/07)
11
To circumvent this restriction a Junkers factory to produce military prototypes was
installed near Moscow (USSR) in 1923 and from 1925 until 1933 the German military in
cooperation with the Russian Red Army operated a flying school and testing ground in the
town of Lipezk in the Soviet Union.
(http://www.bundesarchiv.de/aktuelles/aus_dem_archiv/galerie/00163/index.html, Cited
10/06/07)
10
systems, etc, were unified under one political administration system. This new
structure was a precondition for the further urban development of Berlin in order to
be able to plan for the whole city on a larger scale and to reserve and distribute
areas for the construction of housing, industries and transport infrastructure.
Municipality-owned companies provided water, gas, electricity and public transport.
The city of Berlin acted as a public entrepreneur itself and also provided the
preconditions for the development and success of Berlin’s economy (Rytlewski
2002, p. 10 – 18). The start-up of Tempelhof airport is an example of this approach.
For the expanding amount of airmail and freight, as well as the increasing number of
flight passengers, quick and easy access to the airport was becoming an important
factor. The pre- First World War times of Johannisthal, and the true pioneer days of
aviation with flight shows and competitions, where “daredevil pilots” established new
records, had gone. The war times with their military use of aviation and the
restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles had put an end to this. Aviation had become a
business.
By the 1920s, aviation as a means of transport had not only been established, but
was expanding rapidly and needed a new operating environment with a modern city
airport. Business people used the flights, as well as the city council and the
government, who for a time met in Weimar. Johannisthal was too far away from the
centre of Berlin and was not well connected by public transport. Therefore the main
airlines, as well as the German National Mail Company and the Ministry of
Transport, were interested in a site with easy access.
The man responsible for public transport in the municipalities of Groß Berlin was Dr.
Leonhard Adler, 12 in his function as head of the department for transport (“Stadtrat
für Verkehrswesen”). He recognised the development potential of aviation, and of
Tempelhofer Feld as site for a future inner city airport, and in the end succeeded in
convincing the municipality to buy the area from the military for this purpose.
12
Leonhard Maria Adler, * 04/08/ 1882 in Wien, Austria; † 16/12/1965 in Milan, Italy,
Austrian–German engineer, politician and after his retirement in 1952 catholic priest
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Adler, Cited 20/04/2007). Chairman of the supervisory
board of the Berlin Airport Agency from 1924 until 1933, one of the founders of BVG
(Berliner Verkehrsgesellschaft), he went into exile to Italy in 1936 because of the Nazi
Regime. From 1948 on he was head of department for transport in Milan (http://www.exilarchiv.de/html/biografien/adler.l.html, Cited 07/07/2007)
11
In October 1923 the two main German Airlines, Junkers and Aero-Lloyd, which in
1926 were to be united to form Lufthansa (still today the German national airline),
received a preliminary concession from the Ministry of Transport (Bezirksamt
Tempelhof 1998, p. 64) to open a new airport at Tempelhofer Feld.
Fig. 4: The first temporary wooden buildings:
two Hangars and the terminal building (above),
the very first building on the site, from 1923 (left)
(Conin 1974, p. 63, 64),
The first buildings erected at the northern edge of the area were temporary wooden
constructions. One building served for the administration, passenger handling,
rooms for staff and the weather station. Two wooden sheds were built as hangars
for the planes. During this first year (from October until the end of December) of its
existence the new airport had 100 take-offs and landings, where 150 passengers
and 1,300 kg of freight (luggage, airmail, newspapers and other freight) were
transported (Conin 1974, p. 69).
In May 1924 the Municipality of Greater Berlin founded the “Berlin Airport Agency”
(Berliner Flughafengesellschaft BFG) with the sum of 500,000 Goldmarks as seed
capital (Grosch 1984, p. 276), which in the same year was increased to 1.2 million
and in 1925 to 2.0 million Goldmarks by shareholdings from the German Reich.
12
Later, the State of Prussia joined in and increased the capital to 4.0 million
Goldmarks, and the shares were divided as followed: 52% held by the municipality
of Greater Berlin, 24% by the German Reich and 24% by the free state of Prussia
(Conin 1974, p. 72, Rytlewski 2002, p. 18).
This financial support demonstrates the importance that the municipality attached to
the development of this new traffic and transportation system. Their view was
proved to be right, as the traffic figures for these years show. The passenger
numbers, for example, increased to more than 20,000 in 1925, over 40,000 in 1927
and reached nearly 54,000 in 1932, the last year of the Weimar republic (for further
information see Annex A: Development of passenger numbers, take offs/landings
and tonnage of air-freight of Tempelhof airport between 1923 and 1973).
Later in the year 1924, the German Government and the Municipality of Greater
Berlin drew up a plan (see Fig. 5) for the development of the airport and authorised
the newly founded Berlin Airport Agency under the chairman of the supervisory
board Dr. Leonhard Adler to carry out the plan.
This masterplan shows the integration of the airport into the whole urban context –
including integration with the transport infrastructure and the need for public greenspace which Tempelhofer Feld also provided (see table 2). In the German context,
this degree of integrated urban planning was quite new.
In 1921, empowered by the new administrative structure (described above) the
Mayor of Berlin, Gustav Böß, decided to adopt an emergency programme for the
employment of people without work. This plan, which had a value of 45 million
Reichsmarks, 13 was financed by the municipality of Berlin, the State of Prussia and
the German Government. The first programme lasted until 1923, and was then
prolonged until 1927 and funded with another 35 million Reichsmarks. The money
was mainly spent on the creation of public green spaces and playgrounds, thus
preparing for, and already partly anticipating, the “Generalfreiflächenplan” (master
plan for the distribution of urban green space for Greater Berlin) of 1929
14
. One of
the projects funded by the programme was the “Volkspark Tempelhoferfeld” with a
13
German currency from 1924 until 1948, replaced the Goldmark at a rate of 1 to 1
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/geschichte/de/stadtgruen/
1920_1948/index.shtml, Cited 21/04/2007
14
13
Fig. 5: Masterplan for the Tempelhof airport, published in 1925 (Conin 1974, p. 73,
Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 38)
joint “Sportpark Tempelhoferfeld”, both designed by Erwin Barth
15
. The Volkspark
was situated north of hangars 1 to 3 and the Sportpark, east of the airport as a kind
of buffer zone separating the nearby tenements of “Oder Straße.” These parks were
planned and built between 1921 and 1927.
15
Erwin Barth, * 28/11/1880 in Lübeck, † 10/07/1933, first director of the department for
public green spaces and parks (Stadtgartendirektor) of the city of Berlin, designed amongst
other Volksparks: Jungfernheide, Rehberge, Mariendorf. He came into conflict with the new
Nazi government and commited suicide
(http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/125jahre/festschrift/bart.htm, Cited 21/04/2007).
14
As long as the area was used as military exercise field (see Fig. 1 and map from
1906 in Annex C) it was a large undeveloped open space used by the military and
for aeronautics, as well as for leisure and sports activities. It was accessible from
three sides and had paths going through.
With the transfer of the area from the military to the municipality, this space became
a multifunctional area arranged in zones for:
•
organised sports (stadium for the Preussen footballclub, multipurpose
sportsfields of the Sportpark),
•
organised recreation (allotments and gardens between the airfield and the
railway tracks and between “Flughafenstraße”, “Berliner Straße”,
“Schwiebusser Straße” and Volkspark),
•
public urban green space (Volkspark with an open air arena),
•
airport with buildings and landing area,
•
the rest was open space (between Flughafenstraße, the railway tracks, airport
and Berliner Straße)
The new road, Flughafenstraße, interlinked the city districts of Neukölln and NeuTempelhof to the north of the airport, and another road “Grüner Weg”, which
probably was a dirt road or path, connected the two districts south of the airport.
From the district of Kreuzberg, “Friesenstraße” led to Flughafenstraße. The
Volkspark was accessible from all three districts.
Table 2 (below) gives an overview of the changes the location of Tempelhofer Feld
underwent from the beginning of the 20th century until today, the maps in the table
are downsized from the map extracts in Annexes C and D.
15
Table 2
History of Tempelhofer Feld as location (document sources given in Annexes C and D)
Location at the edge of Berlin
Map from
1906
status
until
1923
Undeveloped multipurpose open
space:
- military
- aeronautics
- leisure/recreation
- special events
access from 3 directions
Map from
1926
status
1923-38
TCA I
Location within the city of GroßBerlin.
Zoned space:
- sports (organised activities)
- gardens and allotments
- public urban green space
- airport / airfield
- undeveloped open space
- special events
access from 3 directions, new roads
going through
Location within the city of Berlin
Map from
1948
status
1945-54
TCA II
Aerial
Photo
status
2006
Mostly single purpose space:
- airport with landing strip
- remainder mostly allotments
- sportsfields at the eastern border
- special events
no public access, no ways through
Location in the city center of “GroßBerlin”
Mostly single purpose space:
- airport with runways and apron
- remainder mostly allotments
- reduced sportsfields at the
eastern border (due to
lengthened runways)
- special events
no access, no ways through
16
2.2.2
The construction of the first Tempelhof airport (TCA I)
The task of constructing the airport was huge. First, the area, which was uneven and
sandy, had to be levelled. Up to four metres of soil had to be taken off at some points
and distributed evenly to achieve a level surface. Soil from the nearby construction site
of the new underground railway line was used as landfill, and later when all this material
proved to be not enough, waste from urban rubbish collection was used as filler
material. A topping of suitable soil, with tons of grass seeds and fertiliser, was put over
this to finish the task of producing an even grassy surface for the landing strip. A flock of
sheep was brought in as “lawn mowers” and to produce natural fertiliser.
The implementation of the airport development plan had started with the construction of
permanent buildings at the end of 1924, to replace the temporary wooden ones. This
was carried out in two phases. Section one included: hangars 1, 2, and 3 (dimensions
64 by 25 metres, each with two doors of 30 by 6 metres), offices, workshops and
laboratories, which were all designed by architects Paul Mahlberg and Heinrich Kosina,
and a radio station which was designed by Fritz Bräuning, the architect of the garden
city of Neu-Tempelhof. Phase two comprised: hangars 4 and 5, also designed by
Mahlberg and Kosina, which had bigger dimensions (80 by 30 metres, each with two
doors of 40 by 8 metres) than the earlier hangars due to the growing demand for space.
The hangars were equipped with a patented system of motor driven foldable sliding
doors used for the first time (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 46).
The airfield comprised of an omni-directional grass field with a diameter of about 1,000
metres – which was usual at that time – with a concrete apron in front of the hangars
and terminal building of about 100,000 square metres, and a concrete taxiway in a semi
circle around the grass field (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 43). To assist identification
from the air the name Berlin in big white letters was inserted in the concrete (see Fig. 6).
The airfield was illuminated to permit night flights.
A competition was held in 1925 for the design of the main administration building
including the departure hall, passenger lounge and other facilities (such as a restaurant,
hotel, and a ball room). The design of the winning architects, Paul and Klaus Engler,
had to be modified to bring it in line with the traffic access concept of the development
plan of the airport (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 43). The construction work was to be
carried out in three sections without stopping the ongoing operation of the airport. The
first section started in July 1926 and comprised of a core building in the centre, the
17
second section followed in 1928 enlarging the core building at three sides. They were
both handed over in 1929. The third section was to extend the building at both ends.
This was the first known airport terminal which included design for future expansion
(Voigt 2005, p. 15).
Fig. 6: Airport building June 1930 (private collection Stefan Lehmann)
In 1926 – as part of the development plan for the airport - construction was started of a
new east-west road, Flughafenstraße, in order to improve access to the airport. It
connected the airport with the big north-south avenue Berliner Straße (today
“Tempelhofer Damm”) on the west and “Hermannstraße” in Neukölln on the east.
Also in the same year the new underground station “Flughafen” (today “Paradestraße”)
of the extended underground railway line C “Nordsüdbahn” was opened (BohleHeintzenberg 1980, pp. 161). The new station, designed by the architect Alfred
Grenander16, was situated where Flughafenstaße joined Berliner Straße. The main
entrance hall of this underground station was in line with Flughafenstraße and spacious
enough to hold the large numbers of spectators arriving and departing from the flight
shows. A foot passenger tunnel was planned to connect the station directly to the
airport building but was not built.
16
Alfred Frederik Elias Grenander (* 26/06/1863 in Skövde, Sweden; † 14/07/1931 in Berlin)
Swedish architect, who designed the majority of the Berlin underground and elevated railway
stations.
18
Fig. 7: Airport underground railway station (Bohle-Heintzenberg 1980, p. 172)
Fig. 8: Aerial photo viewing east from about 1932, Neu-Tempelhof in the foreground,
Flughafenstraße and airport buildings in the background (T3_1586 © Museen
Tempelhof-Schöneberg/Archiv)
19
Other public transport routes which could be used to get to the airport were tramline
99 which already existed, and ran along Berliner Straße
17
, and a new tramline
running from Berliner Straße along Flughafenstraße with its final stop in front of the
airport
18
. Lufthansa, the newly founded German national airline, also set up a free
shuttle bus service between Berlin city centre and Tempelhof Airport (Conin 1974, p.
101).
The approach to the layout of TCA I indicates the importance the municipality
placed on this project and is an example of the efficiency of the new administrative
structures. A masterplan provided for the necessary infrastructure and the location
of the airfield and the buildings within the urban context. This was very different from
the way the early airfields like Johannisthal were arranged – with a cluster of
buildings somehow at the edge of the landing area. The Tempelhof buildings were
aligned along the new access road Flughafenstraße. The technical buildings like
hangars and radio station were erected first. The competition held for the terminal
building shows the growing importance of passengers and visitors – a building with
representative but as well functional architecture was required.
Voigt commented about the airport in the 1920s:
“The terminal was now beginning to evolve as a distinctive architectural
ensemble, in the history of European airports. The buildings, almost always
placed at the field’s periphery, are not simply lined up, but rather arranged to a
recognisable plan.”
(Voigt 2005, p. 14)
When the terminal building was opened in 1929 it comprised only one seventh of
the planned final size (Dittrich 2002, p. 17). However, it had already become
obvious that the planning of the airport complex could not keep pace with the actual
development of aviation at Tempelhof airport. The layout of the whole airport – the
functional concept as it had been planned in 1926 - would not be able to cope with
the rapidly growing volume of air traffic. From 1926 to 1929 the number of
passengers increased by about 30%, and the weight of freight more than doubled
(see Annex A, table: Development of air traffic in Berlin). In the 1930s TCA I
17
http://www.berliner-verkehr.de/trbilder/netz_bsg_1923.jpg, Cited 09/04/2007
18
http://www.berliner-verkehr.de/trbilder/netz_bvg_1930_west.jpg, Cited 09/04/2007
20
became the leading European airport in terms of the volume of air traffic
(Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 44).
Another problem for the development of Tempelhof airport was the shortage of
money caused by the world economic crisis from 1929 onwards, which affected
investments in the public sector. As a result, further construction work after the
second phase of the new terminal building was not carried out.
2.3
The new Tempelhof Airport (TCA II)
2.3.1
The building process in the Third Reich
2.3.1.1
The initiation
The Nazi government came into power in Germany in January 1933. Adolf Hitler,
the Chancellor of the new government, had already developed plans for the design
of the future capital of Germany, “Germania,” which he presented to the municipality
of Berlin in September 1933 (Dittrich 2002, p. 19). The main idea of his concept was
the creation of a huge north-south axis in addition to the already existing east-west
axis of “Unter den Linden” and “Charlottenburger Chaussee”. The new north-south
axis started in the south with a large new railway station from where a wide
boulevard ran north, culminating in a giant hall with a dome. Tempelhof Airport as a
site was connected to this boulevard.
The Berlin Airport Agency responded to this master plan by instructing the architect
of the hangars of TCA I, Heinrich Kosina, to start work on the design of new airport
buildings which would meet the future aviation requirements of the capital. These
were to be located on the north-west edge of the existing site, close to Berliner
Straße, with a connection to the boulevard of Hitler’s Germania concept. Kosina’s
plans were presented to Hitler in 1934. Hitler wanted the project to be started
quickly, and he formulated the demand that it should be the largest and most
beautiful airport of the world and announced financial support from the state for the
project.
The “Reichsluftfahrtministerium” (Ministry of Aviation), as representative of the
government, was already part of the supervisory board of Berlin Airport Agency, and
was informed about the plans. When the Agency had problems in 1935 with the
21
Fig. 9:
Model of the north-south axis (Dittrich 2005a, p. 7).
Curved edge of Tempelhof airport building visible on extreme right of photograph.
financing for such a big project, which were likely to delay the start, Hitler promised
to provide the initial 5 million Reichsmarks necessary to start the work from the
budget of the Ministry of Aviation.
22
This was a turning point for the project. Berlin Airport Agency and the municipality,
as main shareholders, were no longer able to act independently. The Ministry of
Aviation took over responsibility for the project from the Berlin Airport Agency and
transferred the planning of the new Tempelhof airport to its own architect Ernst
Sagebiel19. Sagebiel had started to work for the ministry in 1933, and since 1934 he
had been head of the building department for special tasks (Dittrich 2005a, p. 32).
Apart from other smaller projects like barracks and schools for air force pilots, he
had designed and carried out the construction of the Ministry of Aviation building
(Wilhelmstr. 97, today the headquarters of the Ministry of Finance).
Sagebiel and the staff of his department (about 150 architects, engineers and office
staff, Dittrich 2005b, p. 164) took over work on the design and were able to present
the plans for the first time to Hitler in November 1935. In March 1936 Hitler gave his
approval to the final version. At that time preparatory earthworks along Berliner
Straße had already started. Sagebiel’s final design was influenced by Albert Speer
in small details (Dittrich 2005a, p. 16) as the plans were already advanced when
Speer
came
into
power
as
“Generalbauinspektor”
(General
inspector
of
construction) of the Third Reich at the beginning of 1937.
2.3.1.2
Description of the new airport building complex
The main characteristics of the new building complex were the following:
Integration into the urban context
The plans showed a strictly symmetrical design along a main axis leading southeast to north-west, aligned with Schinkel’s cast-iron landmark on the “Kreuzberg” hill
(erected in 1821 in remembrance of the liberation wars). A big circle (250 metres in
diameter, Conin 1974, p. 185) marked the area where the wide boulevard of Berliner
Straße met “Belle Alliance Straße” and “Immelmannstraße” (today “Dudenstraße”).
The road to Neukölln (“Columbiadamm” the continuation of Immelmannstraße) did
not yet exist. Through Immelmannstraße the future airport was to be linked to the
North-south axis of Hitler’s new capital, Germania.
From the landmark on the Kreuzberg hill a large promenade with a water basin was
to lead in big step-like sections down to the circle, where the start of a basin was
19
Ernst Sagebiel, (* 02/10/1892 in Braunschweig, † 05/03/1970 in Starnberg), architect,
from 1933 on working for the Nazi government’s ministry of aviation, main buildings:
headquarters of the Ministry of Aviation, Tempelhof Central Airport, Airport München-Riem
23
marked with two obelisks. This part made up about one quarter of the planned
circle. This is clearly shown in the photograph of the drawing, figure 10, below.
Fig. 10: Perspective of the planned airport building (Dittrich 2005a, backpage)
The other three quarters of the circular building complex were aligned with buildings
designed in the same uniform style, of the same height and with the same façades.
In the quarter opposite the water basin the buildings opened up to give way for the
big square (90 by 80 metres, Conin 1974, p. 185) bordered on the long sides with
lower buildings with colonnades. On the narrower side - as a counterbalance to the
procession-like way up to the landmark - the main terminal building closes the
square. This building is two storeys higher than the others and has a differently
arranged façade, underlining its importance. On the top of the building a huge iron
eagle (4 metres high), designed by Sagebiel, marked the centre of the building
complex emphasising its symmetrical character.
The terminal building is accessible through the entrance hall (measurements: 80 by
10 m, height 15 m) which opens to the departure hall situated five metres lower
(measurements: 50 by 100 m, height 19 m). The front wall of the departure hall was
to be glazed to enable passengers and visitors to view the airfield. To the right and
left of the departure hall, adjacent parts of the building complex are arranged around
separate courtyards, for freight and postal services. Through the departure hall
passengers can reach the departure gates from where stairs lead down to the
boarding area (see Figures 12 and 13). This 380-metre-long boarding area forms
the middle part of an arched lintel with a total length of about 1230 metres. The
hangars are connected to the right and to the left of the departure gate and follow
the bow shape.
24
Legend:
1 Building complex TCA II
2 Apron
3 Parking place for anchoring
4 Taxiway
5 Start stumps
6 Road
7 Grass strip for spectators
8 Railway tracks
9 Works yard
10 TCA I
Fig. 11: Masterplan of the airport TCA II 1936 (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 81)
The design of the airfield was a compromise between the grass fields of the first
generation of commercial airports like TCA I, and concrete runways which had been
developed in different patterns to meet the requirements of the increasing air traffic
and bigger and heavier airplanes. Hard runways were already in use in other
European countries and the United States (Voigt 2005, p. 17). Tempelhof airfield
was oval shaped and still used a grass surface, but was surrounded by a concrete
taxiway which had three semicircular ‘start stumps’ where aircraft waited for take off
(see Fig. 11, and aerial photo in Annex D, where two of the start stumps can still be
seen).
25
Fig. 12: Structural cross-section of the boarding area (Hecker 2000, p. 96)
Cantilever construction of the 40-metre overhang of the canopy by A. Schleusner
Fig. 13: Boarding area (Hecker 2000, p. 97)
26
The functional concept
The concept is characterised by vertical separation of visitor- and passenger flows
and transportation systems, an idea which had first been carried out at Hamburg’s
Fuhlsbüttel airport in 1929 (Voigt 2005, p. 15). Visitors have access to the
balustrades of the departure hall via staircases from where they can watch the
proceedings in the hall. Passengers stay on the level of the departure hall and
departure gates from where they go down the stairs to the covered boarding area.
“For the first time, an airport terminal aligns numerous gates – twenty in all –
corresponding with parking spaces for several waiting aircraft and enabling
large numbers of passengers to embark or disembark simultaneously.”
(Voigt 2005, p.20)
Baggage handling takes place in the level directly below the departure hall. This
level is connected with the postal and the freight areas through a ramp and from
there as well with the railway tunnel which is situated one level deeper, at the same
level as the courtyards of the freight and postal areas. The railway tracks run along
the town side of the arched lintel (at the lower level of the courtyards) and cross
underneath the terminal building in a tunnel. The two courtyards for freight and
postal services also have access to Berliner Straße (now Tempelhofer Damm) and
Columbiadamm. With this system of vertical separation, road traffic, railway and air
traffic are interlinked with freight and mail.
Impact on the urban surroundings of the airport
To accommodate the design for the new Tempelhof airport, the whole area south of
Schwiebusser Straße which had been used for pleasure grounds, sports fields and
small gardens and allotments, as well as for the public park (Volkspark), was
cleared. Columbia House, which was located opposite the police barracks – a
former military prison which served as one of the first concentration camps in Berlin
from 1933 onwards – was also demolished in March 1938. The small gardens and
allotments north of the railway (Ringbahn) up to Grüner Weg were mostly cleared.
The model below in Fig. 13 gives an impression of how much space was cleared to
give way to the airfield of the new airport.
27
Fig: 14: Wire model of the new airport on top of the first airport (Dittrich 2005a, p. 6)
With the new airport, TCA II, the area underwent a second transformation: originally
multipurpose the area had changed to zoned and now became a single function
space which was nearly completely occupied by the airport buildings, landing area
and outfield (see Table 1). Only one small area of allotments was left close to
Tempelhof station at Berliner Straße. All the former roads and paths were closed
and removed.
28
Key points regarding the concept and building process
Ernst Sagebiel, as head of the planning department of the ministry of aviation was
equipped with (a) the financial means, (b) sufficient staff to finish the planning in an
impressively short time, (c) authorisation from Hitler and the ministry so that there
was no interference or delay caused by the planning authorities of the municipality
and (d) until the beginning of the Second World War, with a large enough labour
force to carry out the construction.
Provided with all these favourable circumstances he designed a building complex
that still impresses today with its architecture, including its setting in the urban
context, proportions, use of different styles and materials, functional concept and
construction techniques.
The architect fulfilled the Nazi government’s requirements to build the largest
building in the world (if the goal of the absolute largest was not met the Airport
building was certainly amongst the largest). He used appropriate architectural
methods and styles, available at that time, to create a most impressive building.
Furthermore, he met the objective of providing a building complex which should not
only serve as an airport but also as an air stadium for the masses and a place of
mass recreation and entertainment.
The functional concept was at the leading edge of airport planning in Europe, if not
in the entire world, the construction techniques were partly developed for the project
and used for the first time in this building, the whole construction system was
described at length and published in the leading German architectural and
construction engineering professional journals. It can be said that the functional
concept and the construction techniques were truly groundbreaking in the 1930s.
29
2.3.1.3
The building process, and use until the end of the war
“The rapid construction of the ensemble demonstrates the mastery of civil
engineers of the second half of the 1930s in the realm of high quality reinforced
concrete buildings. Work started on the terminal in 1935 and by December
1937 the basic structure had already been completed. Construction slowed
down considerably, however, following the outbreak of the Second World War
in the autumn of 1939. Hitler lost interest in the airport’s role as a manifestation
of the international prestige of his regime.”
(Hecker 2005, p. 93)
In the middle of 1938 Lufthansa moved into the already completed building sections
Columbiadamm/Platz der Luftbrücke (aisle buildings east of the courtyard). Berlin
Airport Agency followed in 1939 (aisle buildings west of the courtyard) (Dittrich
2005b, p. 173). Due to rationing of building materials and a lack of labour force the
construction process slowed down and the building could not be completed
according to plan in 1939.
After the beginning of the war in September 1939 the building sections that had
been completed were used for military purposes. The construction work on those
building sections that were meant for military use, were carried on, the work for the
civil airport came to a standstill in 1942.
From 1940 onwards the buildings of TCA I and TCA II were used by Weser
Flugzeugbau GmbH20. As their main production site in Lemwerder near Bremen was
too exposed to allied bombing, the “Reichsluftfahrtministerium” (RLM) decided to
relocate a part of the production facilities to Tempelhof airport. This included
retrofitting of civil aircraft for military purposes and the assembly of new warplanes,
mainly Ju 87 and Fw 190. In total, 1,960 Ju 87 aircraft were assembled and checked
at Tempelhof airport between 1941 and 1944 when production of this model ceased
(Wenz 2000, p. 120) in favour of the Fw 190. The parts for aircraft manufacture
were delivered by train to TCA II.
The production occupied five of the seven hangars and the departure area of TCA II
(51,673 square metres) and most of two of the five hangars of TCA I (10,090 square
20
Weser Flugzeugbau GmbH, aircraft production company founded in 1934 as limited
company in Bremen, the fourth biggest producer of aircraft in Germany during the Second
World War (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weser-Flugzeugbau_GmbH, 18.06.2007).
30
metres) (Wenz 2000, p. 114). In 1944 – at the peak of employment - 4,151 persons
worked for Weser Flugzeugbau GmbH at Tempelhof airport, of whom more than
50% were foreign forced labourers – either prisoners of war, mostly from France,
Poland or Russia, or civilians from occupied countries like Belgium, the Netherlands,
and Czechoslovakia (Wenz 2000, p. 134-135). For the forced labourers of the
eastern countries a camp of barracks had been erected on site close to hangar 1 at
Columbiadamm. For the forced labourers of the western countries accommodation
had been rented in the district of Berlin-Schmargendorf (about 6 km west of the
airport). For about 500 employees/staff of Weser Flugzeugwerke GmbH who had
moved to Berlin, flats had been provided in blocks which had already been emptied
to be demolished for the new airport buildings west of Berliner Straße (Wenz 2000,
p. 115).
Fig. 15: Production of war planes Ju 87 in hangar 4 (Wenz 2000, p. 58).
The old airport buildings (TCA I) - with an interlude of September 1939 until March
1940 (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 86), when the airport was transferred to
Rangsdorf south of Berlin due to the beginning of the war – served as Berlin’s
airport until April 1945. Between 1929 - when the new main departure hall had been
opened - and 1938 (the peak of air traffic at TCA I) the passenger numbers had
multiplied by six (see table in Annex A). The buildings of the first Tempelhof Central
31
Airport suffered from heavy bombing during the war and were nearly completely
destroyed.
Sagebiel’s new airport building complex was not completed according to the original
design of the architect partly due to shortages caused by the war and also due to a
change in the urban development concept; Speer had now planned three to four
new airports at the outskirts of Berlin (Dittrich 2005b, p. 174). The buildings west of
Tempelhofer Damm (former Berliner Straße) and the connection to the Schinkel
monument were not constructed. The principal axis therefore cannot be identified in
practice today. The big iron eagle crowning the top of the entrance building and
marking the centre was taken down in the 1960s to make way for the antenna of a
radar system. The trees growing in front of the wing buildings along the square of
“Platz der Luftbrücke” as well as the vegetation growing in the square itself further
lessen the symmetrical image. Therefore the design and the arrangement of the
whole complex can today be perceived in the intended grand-scale monumental
way only with difficulty.
2.3.2
TCA II in its function as airport
2.3.2.1
After World War II – the beginnings of the Cold War
21
21
The term “Cold War” was introduced in 1947 by two Americans: Bernard Baruch a
financier and presidential advisor, and Walter Lippmann a writer, journalist and political
commentator. It describes
“the period of conflict, tension and competition between the United States and the Soviet
Union and their allies from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s. Throughout the period, the
rivalry between the two superpowers was played out in multiple arenas: military
coalitions; ideology, psychology, and espionage; military, industrial, and technological
developments, including the space race; costly defense spending; a massive
conventional and nuclear arms race; and many proxy wars. ”
(hppt://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War, Cited 21.04.07)
The only place where representatives of the two powers had direct contact was the divided
city of Berlin.
The Truman Library (part of the national archives of the USA) gives the following explanation
for the start of the Cold War:
“Historians have argued long about when the "Cold War" between the United States and the
Soviet Union began. Some cite Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri in March
1946. Others cite the decision by the United States to offer "mutual assistance" to Greece
and Turkey in 1947 to combat Communist guerrilla forces, while others would state it was
the recognition by US policy officials that Communist stated goals had not changed since
1918, only their tactics. Regardless of exactly when the "Cold War" began, in about 1947 the
US policy with regards to the Soviet Union changed from cooperation or, at least, attempting
to get along with Soviet Communism, to a policy of "containment."
(http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/BERLIN_A/BOC.HTM, Cited 04/07/2007)
32
After their victory in 1945, the Allies had divided Germany into four military
occupation zones – France in the southwest, Britain in the northwest, United States
in the south, and the Soviet Union in the east. The former capital Berlin, which was
situated in the Soviet zone, had a special status. It was divided into four military
occupation zones as well. The occupied zones were controlled by the Allied Control
Council based in Berlin Schöneberg which was responsible for the central
administration of Germany, and for guaranteeing that this administration was carried
out in a uniform way in all the zones.
The state of the airport
The capitulation of Berlin was signed on the 2nd of May 1945 in Neu-Tempelhof,
Schulenburgring 2. Russian soldiers had taken the airport in the last days of April
but later had to hand it over to the US Air Force on the 4th of July as the area
belonged to the American Sector according to the Yalta Conference which had been
held in February of the same year.
The buildings of the old airport TCA I were almost completely destroyed during the
war. The new buildings - though being clearly visible from the air - suffered little
damage. This has been attributed to their solid construction (as mentioned in Wenz,
2000, p. 130, Conin, 1974, p. 205), but might also be due to be the allies’ intention
to use these buildings in the future for their own purposes.
Fig. 16: Damaged departure hall of TCA II (Conin 1974, p. 217)
33
Nevertheless some of the large steel beams of the main construction of the
departure area and the hangars were deformed by fire and had to be replaced. The
departure hall had partly collapsed. (See footnote below for further historical detail
about the airport director and the terminal building22). Several parts of the building
had suffered damage from local fires. It is not clear who caused the fires – some
happened after the Red Army had taken the airport.
The well-secured bunkers were set on fire by the Red Army when they tried to enter
them and in doing so forced the steel doors open with explosives. The contents of
these secret chambers is unclear, it seems that they contained paper documents
and film material. The contents burnt for several days due to the good ventilation
system of the bunkers.
The start of TCA II as a military and civil airport
The new airport buildings which had been designed and constructed under the Nazi
Government to demonstrate Germany’s superiority, but had not yet been used as an
airport, were put into operation by the United States Air Force (USAF). The USAF
confiscated the whole area of the airport and started immediately to clear up what
had been left by Weser Werke and the Russian Army. This unfortunately included
22
The mystery about the last director’s death
Rudolph Böttger had been director of the Berlin Airport Agency since 1926. He died in the
last days before the airport was conquered by the Russian Red Army. The circumstances of
his death are unclear. Some sources say Rudolf Böttger had been given the order by the Nazi
government to destroy the airport to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy.
There exist several versions of the circumstances of his death.
The most frequently published version is that he committed suicide because he did not want
to destroy the building (Conin 1974, p. 207, Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 86).
Another source cites the report of a contemporary witness from July 1945 (an employee of
Weser Werke, which produced war planes in the new airport building, who stayed at the
airport until the 24th of April) who says that Böttger had tried to be neutral and had forbidden
staff to defend the airport. The witness then heard from SS members at the airport that they
had shot Böttger and his assistant as the two men tried to take away important secret
documents (Wenz 2000, p. 144).
A third version is described at the website of ICAT (Interessengemeinschaft City-Airport
Tempelhof e.V, an association for the preservation of Tempelhof Airport) which goes back
to the first director and initiator of Tempelhof Airport, Dr. Leonhard Adler, whose son
reported the circumstances as he had heard them from his father. Böttger had only tried to
detonate the ceiling of the departure hall but not the whole building and therefore had been
shot by an SS officer. The third version would explain why the floor of the departure hall
had collapsed into the storey below (see Fig. 17). (http://www.flughafen-berlintempelhof.de/Leonhard_Adler.html, 10/04/2007)
34
most of the documents and records concerning the construction of the new airport
buildings (Conin 1974, p. 209, Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 137).
The US Air Force started to repair the damage with a requisitioned civilian German
labour force, and finished those parts of the buildings they needed to operate the
airport. The Municipality of Berlin named a former member of the airport
administration as German counterpart for these operations, due to his experience.
From the 1st September 1945, Tempelhof Airport was operated as a military airport
(Freundt 2001, p. 10). From the 18th May 1946 (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 90)
the American Overseas Airlines (AOA) started the civil air traffic with a weekly flight
to Frankfurt am Main.
Until the end of the war Tempelhof airport had grass runways which were no longer
considered as “state of the art”. The US Air Force built a provisional running strip
with pierced steel planking (PSP)23 placed on top of the grass field to enable their
heavier planes to land.
2.3.2.2
The Berlin Airlift and its impacts on TCA II
From the beginning of 1947 the political situation in Germany, and especially Berlin,
started to become more and more difficult. The Four Powers, with the three western
allies on one side and the Soviet Union on the other side, had diametrically opposed
opinions about the future development of Germany and Europe. As they were not
able to reach any agreement, the US and the British created a so called “bizone”
merging their occupation zones as part of preparations for currency reform, the first
step towards installing an independent West German State. The Soviets understood
this as a violation of the Potsdam Agreement of 2nd August 1945 where the tasks of
the Allied Control Council had been put into writing, and left the Council in protest on
the 20th of March 1948, which from then on ceased to function.
After the French, who had hesitated to join the currency reform, finally agreed to do
so on June 17, 1948, the currency conversion in the Western Zones of Germany
was officially announced on June18, by the Military Governors of the US, British and
23
Pierced Steel Plank (PSP) is a military solution for rapidly providing temporary roadways
and runways using interlocking steel sheets which are “pierced“ with large, flanged, holes to
reduce weight and increase stiffness.
35
French Zones
24
. On June 24, the day when the new West German currency, the D-
Mark, was distributed in West Berlin, the Soviets blocked all land and water based
access to the three western sectors of Berlin and stopped electricity supplies. This
blockade lasted until May 11, 1949.
For air traffic to Berlin, the Four Powers had already agreed on three air corridors in
November 1945, and had set up the Berlin Air Safety Centre in February 1946. This
was situated in the Allied Control Council building and functioned until the fall of the
Berlin wall in 1989.
On June 25 1948, the commander of the American occupation zone in Germany,
General Lucius D. Clay, in agreement with the British and French Allies, gave orders
to start an airlift with military and civil aircraft. The operation started on June 26,
1948 and lasted until September 30, 1949.
The Berlin Airlift was carried out by the US Air Force under the name “Operation
Vittles”, by the British Royal Air Force under the name “Operation Plainfare” and by
British civilian aircraft on contract. The aim was to sustain the 2.1 million inhabitants
of West Berlin and their own staff. The total delivery to Berlin added up to 2,325,510
tons of cargo of which US Air Force contributed 76.7%, Royal Air Force 17% and
British civilians 6,3%. The total number of flights amounted to 277,569 (Miller 1998,
p. 108 – 109). To support the economy, goods produced in West Berlin (in total
21,000 tons) left the city with outgoing aircraft – stamped “Made in Blockaded
Berlin” (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 108).
The whole operation of the airlift was a masterpiece of logistics and operational
skills. To provide the population of West Berlin with only the basic subsistence for
one day a minimum of 2,000 tons had to be delivered. The US Air Force’s largest
available transport plane was the Douglas DC-54 Skymaster (loading capacity 10
tons) but in Europe they had only the much smaller DC-47 (loading capacity 3 tons).
One of the first tasks therefore was to organise the transfer of DC-54 planes from
the United States which completely replaced the DC-47 from October 1948 on
(Freundt 2001, p. 13). The planes used the northern and southern air corridor (see
Fig. 18) for the incoming flights and the middle corridor for the outgoing flights.
24
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/BERLIN_A/PAGE_3.HTM, 04/07/2007
36
Fig. 17: Berlin Air corridors (Jackson 1988, p. 8)
At the beginning of the airlift only two airports with one runway each were available,
Gatow in the British sector at the western edge of West Berlin and Tempelhof. In
response to the emergency - as a combined action of the US Air Force and the
Berlin population - a new airport was constructed within three months, at a former
German military training area in the French sector, and put into operation on
37
November 5, 1948. The river Havel and the Wannsee served as landing places for
seaplanes. Among other supplies they brought bulk salt (Jackson 1988, p. 55) for
the chemical industry in Berlin, as they were made of “Dural” which was not affected
by the salt, unlike the aluminium of other planes.
The availability of Tempelhof airport with its large partly-roofed apron for unloading,
and the infrastructure of buildings and transport links to the city to store and
distribute goods, as well as its central location, enabled a very rapid start to the airlift
– and crucial support for the continued high volumes for over a year. The allies’
ability to start bringing in and distributing large quantities of supplies within a few
days of the start of the blockade was only possible because of the availability of
TCA.
From August 1948 on General William Tunner was in charge of the “Operation
Vittles”. He set up new flying rules with standardised processes to increase
efficiency and safety. Planes took off every three minutes day and night, constantly
keeping at this interval, speed and height throughout the whole flight (see Fig. 18).
Fig. 18: Cross-sectional view of airlift flight scheme September 1948 (http://www.centuryof-flight.freeola.com/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/The%20Berlin%20Airlift.htm,
Cited 29/06/2007)
On arrival, pilots had just one attempt to land and if that failed for whatever reason
they had to fly back with their load so as not to hinder the next planes in the queue.
On the ground the flying crew stayed on board, was provided with food and the
weather forecast for the flight back, while German workers unloaded the planes and
a team of mechanics did field maintenance (Miller 1998, p. 74); then they took off
again. At their arrival back in West Germany the ground crews had one hour and 40
minutes time to refuel, reload and prepare the plane – including maintenance - for
the next flight into Berlin.
38
For Tempelhof Central Airport the Airlift was an endurance test. As the largest of the
allied airports, and also the one with the best connections to the city, including the
railway, Tempelhof airport was the most important landing port for the incoming
goods. Of the total sum of about 2.3 million tons of freight 1.7 million tons came in
through Tempelhof. Of this, 67% was coal, 24% food and 9% medication,
newspapers and raw materials
25
. Most of the coal was for the power plants to
produce electricity, only a small amount was used for heating.
Tempelhof airport’s one runway was not strong enough for the heavy planes and not
durable enough for the large number of landings and take offs. Therefore from July
1948 until the end of November (Miller 1998, p. 59 – 60) two more runways north
and south, parallel to the first one, were built, this time on a more solid base of
rubble from bombed buildings. But the PSP still broke and had to be repaired inbetween the take offs and landings. Gradually, it was improved by adding an asphalt
layer on top (Conin 1974, p. 221). Apart from the rubble, all other materials had to
be flown in. A German labour force under guidance of US engineers carried out the
work in daily shifts between 7 am and 11 pm.
The organisation of the unloading and further distribution of the goods was the next
challenge. Employment centres provided the necessary people which was not such
a problem – a lot of people were unemployed and happy to work for a daily wage of
1.31 Marks (about the same as an industrial worker). Another welcome privilege
was to get a meal at the airport canteen for 50 Pfennig (0.50 Mark). Apart from the
civilian workers, former soldiers who had been American and British prisoners of
war were required, amongst others, because of their language skills (Bezirksamt
Tempelhof 1998, p. 93).
From the planes the goods were unloaded onto military trucks (see Fig. 20),
transported to a ramp at the edge of the airport area near Tempelhofer Damm and
then reloaded onto private trucks for further distribution. The district of Tempelhof
with its harbour at “Teltow Kanal” (situated about 4 km south of the airport following
Tempelhofer Damm), its many industrial buildings and railway tracks connecting the
airport to the railway system of Berlin provided favourable conditions for the
distribution. The big storehouses at the harbour were the first destination for storage
25
(http://semmer.de/airlift/, Cited 19/04/2007)
39
and further distribution but as the amount of goods grew larger other industrial
storehouses in the surroundings were used as well.
Fig. 19: Summer 1948, airlift planes at TCA II in a queue to be unloaded (Bezirksamt
Tempelhof 1998, p. 92)
For the unloading of coal onto railway wagons another ramp was built and from
August, 30 1948 on a shuttle service of 22 wagons drawn by a steam engine
(Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 98 – 99) transported the coal to the Teltow Kanal
for further transport by steam boats to the power plants. Coal turned out to be a
tricky item to handle. In the beginning coal was transported in coffee sacks which
were not suitable for this purpose. They wore out quickly and let the coal dust
through which damaged cables and electrical connections and caused breathing
problems for the flight crews. The use of army duffel bags somewhat improved this
situation but was too expensive. The problem was solved with the introduction of
single-use multi-layer paper sacks manufactured specifically for the airlift (Miller
1998, p. 86).
In the course of the airlift the daily capacity of flights and freight increased due to
improvements in the organisation, loading techniques and equipment. At Tempelhof
airport, the monthly delivered tonnage increased from 36,000 in July 1948 to 90,000
in April 1949 with a peak of 1,000 landings and take-offs a day in that month
(Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 105). This figure was never again achieved.
40
Less well known than the import of supplies to Berlin in the airlift, is that “Displaced
Persons” were transported from Berlin to Frankfurt in the empty airlift planes. In one
week, between the 23rd of July and the 1st of August 1948, 5536 persons from the
two Displaced Persons camps in the American Sector (Königseder 2002, pp. 40,
Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 95) left Berlin via Tempelhof Central Airport. They
were principally Jewish people who had taken refuge in Berlin because of antiSemitic excesses after the end of the war in the Soviet Union and Poland. They
were only a small part of the approximately 32,000 Jewish refugees from the
eastern countries who passed through Berlin from autumn 1945 onwards, in search
for a new country to live in. Soon afterwards the two camps were closed down.
For the Berlin population the blockade was a real threat and the quick reaction of
the western allies, led by the USA, was warmly welcomed and started to transform
their relationship with the German people from occupying, to protecting, powers.
The experience of the blockade also had some impacts on the behaviour of the
population of West Berlin
26
as well as on politics of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning precautionary measures
2.3.2.3
27
.
The further development of TCA II during the Cold War
Return to partly civil use
After the end of the airlift, which had provided TCA II with two new hard surface
permanent runways, the everyday life of the military airport returned to normal. Even
throughout the airlift the passenger service of the civil airline AOA had continued
operations and had transported approximately 30,000 people (Treibel 1992, p. 67).
26
As a side effect of the blockade the Berlin population started to developed a so called
“Inselmentalität” (insular mentality) the feeling of living on an island surrounded by an enemy
which was enhanced by the construction of the Berlin Wall. As a consequence some
residents of West Berlin who could afford it, bought property in West Germany close to the
German/German border and on Friday afternoons left Berlin to spend the weekend at their
properties in West Germany.
27
Another more practical result of the blockade was the storage of staple foods and other
goods (so called “Senatsreserve”) and the production of local gas to make the city
independent of external energy supply. In order to be prepared for a future blockade, the
local government of Berlin put into storage enough supplies of food, medication, fuel, coal
and raw materials for local industry to guarantee the survival of the Berlin population for six
months. These goods (with a total value of about two billion German Marks) were stored in
about 700 - mostly secret - places and had to be rotated according to their expiry dates. This
whole procedure including the value of the goods cost about 200 million German Marks per
year and was financed by the Federal Government of Germany. It lasted until the fall of the
Berlin Wall in 1989.
41
In 1950 the municipality of West Berlin received the right to operate a part of the
airport buildings for civil transportation (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 138) as a
precondition to starting the civil use of the airport. The departure hall was still partly
demolished from the war (see Fig. 16). As the US Air Force was using the hangars
on the eastern side of the hall the Berlin Airport Agency was permitted to build a
small annex to the section next to the southern hangars, to serve as departure hall,
which was officially opened at the 9th of July 1952. This part could be accessed from
Tempelhofer Damm and there was enough space outside this part to serve as a car
parking area.
According to the Four Power Status agreement only civilian airlines of the three
allied powers (USA, Britain, France) were allowed to use the air corridors to Berlin.
Therefore only Pan American World Airways (PanAm), which had taken over
American Overseas Airlines (AOA) in 1950, British European Airways (BEA) and Air
France (AF) provided flights from and to Berlin. All three airlines used Tempelhof
Central Airport, BEA from 1951 and the others from 1950 (Przychowski 1996, p. 28).
Between 1953 and 1957 a remarkable campaign to help poor children, either of
East German (GDR) refugees or of West Berlin residents, to spend holidays with
German and American guest families in the Federal Republic of Germany was
carried out with the help of the US Air Force. This campaign called
“Kinderluftbrücke” was initiated by the German radio station “Nordwestdeutscher
Rundfunk” and organised in cooperation of the foundation “Hilfswerk Berlin”, the
Senate of Berlin and the German Red Cross. The US Air Force provided the planes,
the crew were volunteers from the US Army. Within five years about 10,000 children
were flown out from and back to the military section of Tempelhof Central Airport
(Freundt 2001, p. 29).
The development of civil air traffic grew rapidly in West Berlin. Between 1951 and
1961 the number of passengers travelling to or from Tempelhof airport increased
five fold (see Annex A: development of air traffic). The small departure hall (260
square metres) from the beginning of the 1950s, which was not as well connected to
the ground services as the original departure hall (5,000 square metres) with its
location in the centre, reached the limits of its capacity. In 1959 the Senate of West
Berlin received permission to restore the still-damaged original departure hall. It took
another three years before the departure hall could be put into operation for the first
time on July 2, 1962 (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 139).
42
The reconstruction changed the original design in a number of ways. The entrance
hall was divided into two separate storeys by a new ceiling, and equipped with a
porch. In the departure hall a new false ceiling was put in 4 metres below the
original stucco one and a heating system of ceiling mounted hot water radiators
installed (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 284; respondent Eberhard table 3 and
questionnaire 6, Annex B). The ceiling was a similar detached rectangular grid-roof
as before but without the decorative elements. Instead the single “waffle slabs” were
equipped with indirect illumination. The floor of the departure hall, which originally
had been designed in a pattern with four different colours as is still to be seen in the
entrance hall (see photo on front cover: first row right), received a simpler beige
design. The glazed view onto the apron and the airfield was blocked by the new
airport restaurant, with access from the visitor galleries on the first floor of the hall.
After the construction of the Berlin Wall in August 1961, the number of passengers
dropped, reducing by 18% from then until November 1961. In response, the
government of the Federal Republic of Germany decided to subsidise Berlin flights
from March 1962 onwards (Przychowski 1996, p. 44) and the numbers went up
again and reached their highest number ever with 6,121,406 passengers in 1971
(see Annex A). The capacity of the terminal had been planned for 4 million
passengers per year (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 139). The growing air traffic
increased the exposure of local residents to the noise of the planes, and this was
made worse as maintenance ground checks with running engines were done during
the night. To compensate, the houses along Tempelhofer Damm and nearby streets
were equipped with sound protecting windows.
In the middle of the 1960s another limiting factor became evident. The newly
developed jet airplanes required longer runways which Tempelhof airport, because
of its restricted inner city location, could not provide. After an evaluation of the
different airports in the city, the Berlin Airport Agency decided to develop Tegel as
new main airport of West Berlin. The construction works began in spring 1969.
“Ostpolitik”, a series of political developments from the end of the 1960s
adoption of the “Transit Agreement”
29
28
led to the
in May 1972. This agreement greatly
28
Known as “Ostpolitik” and strongly connected with the former chancellor of the Federal
Republic of Germany, Willy Brandt, is characterised by the principle “Change through
Rapprochement” and improved east-west relations in the divided Germany.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostpolitik, Cited 08/07/2007)
43
influenced air traffic to and from West Berlin as it guaranteed surface transport
access to West Berlin. Trains or road vehicles travelling between West Germany
and West Berlin could now travel with fewer official restrictions. In the following
years this led to a decrease in air passenger numbers as road and rail travel was
cheaper, usually required less advanced planning, and permitted more luggage.
Between 1971 and 1974, which was the last year before Tempelhof Central Airport
stopped operating as civil airport (until 1982) passenger numbers dropped by 30%
while the number of passengers travelling with cars in the same time increased by
about 25% (Treibel 1992, p. 70).
The offer of cheap charter flights for holidaymakers leaving from West Berlin started
in 1966, and from 1967 onwards all the charter flights were operated from the old
Tegel airport. This was the start of the move of air services from TCA II to Tegel.
The new Tegel airport was inaugurated in October 1974, and from June 1, 1975 all
the civil air traffic of West Berlin was carried out from the new Tegel airport (Treibel
1992, p. 69). Tempelhof airport was closed as civil airport and returned to being
exclusively a US military airbase.
In 1981, civil air services were re-started from Tempelhof airport with air taxi flights
and from 1985 on the airport was opened again for reduced numbers civil flights, in
the first years only for regional connections mainly to southern Germany but later to
other European cities as well. After the reunification of Germany in 1990, the
passenger numbers increased from 151,000 in 1991 to a peak of 1,124,000 in 1993.
From then on they dropped again due to the uncertain future of the airport’s legal
status, dropping 635,000 in 2006 (data source Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher
Verkehrsflughäfen, http://www.adv-net.org/de/gfx/index.php, Cited 12/07/2007)
TCA II as a gate to freedom
Before the construction of the Berlin Wall in August 1961, refugees from East
Germany (GDR) who had crossed the still open border to West Berlin were usually
flown out of Tempelhof Central Airport. In times of political crises in the Eastern
European (Warsaw Pact) states, such as the uprising of 17th June 1953, a protest by
29
“The Transit Agreement of May 1972 guaranteed access to and from West Berlin from
West Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)), secured the right of West
Berliners to visit East Berlin and East Germany (the German Democratic Republic (GDR))
and also secured the rights of FRG citizens to visit the GDR, but only in cases of family
emergency.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Agreement_%281972%29, Cited
08/07/2007)
44
East German workers against the increase of work quotas for industrial production
by 10%, or the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, the number of refugees increased
noticeably and this influenced the passenger numbers at TCA II (Demps 1998, p.
110).
Because of factors such as its proximity to Poland (about 70 km) and its easily
visible and identifiable features from the air, Tempelhof Central Airport became a
target for Polish refugees hijacking planes. Between 1978 and 1982 eight planes of
the Polish National Airline, LOT, were hijacked and forced to land at TCA II
30
. In
addition, eight small private planes from aeronautical clubs in Poland succeeded in
flying out of Poland and landing at TCA II between 1982 and 1987 (Freundt 2001, p.
152 – 153, Demps 1998, p. 117).
For those refugees who had succeeded in crossing the Berlin Wall from the east to
the west and wanted to leave the city, as well as for spies who had been exchanged
between the east and the west, TCA II was the gate to freedom.
The official end of the Cold War for TCA II
With the official reunification of Germany on the 3rd of October 1990 the nominal
military occupation of Berlin ended. The final peace treaty - signed at the 12th of
September 1990 by the four wartime powers and the two German governments –
had restored Germany’s sovereignty including its sovereignty over its airspace. The
days of the air corridors were over, and with them the restriction whereby only civil
aircraft of the three Allied powers were allowed to fly to the West Berlin airports. In
July 1993 the US Air Force officially handed over the former military part of
Tempelhof airport to the German authorities.
2.4
The use of Tempelhofer Feld for special events and leisure
2.4.1
Military parades
In the 18th and 19th centuries Tempelhofer Feld was the location for large parades in
the presence of German and foreign rulers – events that attracted a lot of spectators
from the nearby town of Berlin and the surrounding villages. The last parade at
Tempelhofer Feld took place in 1914 (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 13) in the
30
The abbreviation of LOT was “translated” into “Landed on Tempelhof” by the US
Americans or to “Landed ooch Tempelhof” in Berlin slang.
45
presence of the German emperor Wilhelm II. Military exercises continued to be held
there until 1918.
2.4.2
Leisure and political activities
Apart from these military events, the area of Tempelhofer Feld was used by people
from the densely populated nearby neighbourhoods, and from other parts of Berlin,
for weekend leisure activities such as picnics and games, to fly kites (Bezirksamt
Tempelhof 1998, p. 17), and for sports like cricket, football and tennis in summer
and ice-skating in winter (Jedelsky 1995, chapter 2.1). The nearby breweries, beer
gardens and restaurants offered food and drinks and other amusements like dance
floors with live music. The 1895 map of Tempelhofer Feld (Figure 1), as well as the
street plans from 1906 and 1926 (Annex C), show the locations of these activities in
the surroundings of Tempelhofer Feld.
Tempelhofer Feld was also used for political demonstrations like the annual 1st of
May demonstrations.
“From the end of the 19th century onwards, the field also served as a
multipurpose open space for sports contests, workers’ demonstrations and
Sunday leisure activities.”
(Drieschner 2005, p. 100)
2.4.3
Flight shows
From the beginning of aeronautics, flight experiments and shows attracted a lot of
spectators. Airport companies used the marketing of this entertainment factor as an
additional source of income. They provided stands and facilities for spectators at
special events, and also for visitors to see the regular air traffic.
“During the 1920s and 1930s, airports attracted far more spectators than actual
air travellers, still a glamorous and wealthy elite. All were designed to integrate
viewing platforms for these massed spectators, for ‘aeronautical propaganda’ or
for nurturing ‘civic air-mindedness’ as the speeches and competition briefs put
it.”
(Hawkins / Lechner / Smith 2005, p. 2)
The Berlin Airport Agency organised flight shows at Tempelhof airport from 1924
onwards. Already in 1925 the events attracted up to 500,000 spectators (Bezirksamt
Tempelhof 1998, p. 48). The first main airport building included the Mitropa
46
restaurant, an elegantly decorated location with a big roof terrace from where
visitors could overlook the airfield, and also areas equipped as beer gardens next to
the main building where people could sit outside in summer and watch the shows or
the scheduled take-off and landing of planes.
Fig. 20: Flughafen Tempelhof / Mitropa Flughafen Restaurant, Aufn. 20/06/1933,
(T3/1621 © Museen Tempelhof- Schöneberg/Archiv)
The flight shows included artistic flight performances by famous pilots, formation
flights, entertainment for children, flight competitions, presentations of famous
aircraft or of the latest models, flight competitions and other activities. The flight
show events were continued when the Nazi government came into power but used
for propaganda purposes as well as to demonstrate the power of the new
government and the strength and abilities of the new German Air Force. For
example, at a flight show in June 1934 the attendance of the Minister for Aviation,
Hermann Göring, was announced at the adverts (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p.
51).
2.4.4
Political demonstrations
The airfield of Tempelhof Central Airport was also used by the Nazi government for
political demonstrations like their First of May parades. The Nazi’s successful use of
perfectly arranged and staged mass events for propaganda purposes is notorious.
To meet the demand for this important aspect of the use of the airport, the design of
the new airport included space for 65,000 spectators on the roof. Thirteen massive
stair towers continued upwards from the second floor for the specific purpose of
47
giving access to the roof. Together with the stands to be provided at the edge of the
airfield this “air stadium” would have been able to hold up to one million spectators
(Drieschner 2005, p. 104; Jockeit / Wendt 2005, p. 161).
2.4.5
The open house events of the US Air Force
From 1948 until 1992 (Bezirksamt Tempelhof 1998, p. 134, Freundt 2001, p. 143)
the US Air Force organised annual Open House events at Tempelhof Central
Airport; in the beginning these were only for a selected group of people but from
1952 on were open to the general public. For thousands of Berliners, including
many Neu-Tempelhof residents (see Table 2: summary and questionnaires Annex
B), the open house events at TCA II were exciting and interesting. For the technical
and military enthusiasts it offered an opportunity to have a look at the latest
technology or the biggest airplanes of the time. For families it provided a spectacular
event with parades, fly-pasts by the planes, shows, exhibitions, movies, music and
American food such as ice cream and popcorn. It was a performance of the
“American Way of Life”.
In 1973 – the 25th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift – a veteran plane from the Airlift (a
C-54-Skymaster) was flown to TCA II, and in a ceremony was named
“Rosinenbomber” (raisin bomber), the name given by Berliners to the planes of the
airlift. It was left on display at the airfield near Columbiadamm as a monument. In
1974 the event included the space vehicles Mercury and Apollo, and the Skylab
space station, and attracted more than 320,000 spectators (Bezirksamt Tempelhof
1998, p. 135).
48
Fig. 21: Flughafen Tempelhof “Tag der offenen Tür” Aufn. 1970 (T24_06) (© USA AirForce)
After the reunification of Germany, the German Air Force also participated in the
open house events and at the last open house in 1992 a delegation of the Russian
Army visited the event with a helicopter (Freundt 2001, p. 141). This was another
link in the long the tradition of Tempelhofer Feld since the 18th century: military
parades attended by representatives of foreign powers, a site for attractions and
events like flight shows and spectacles.
2.5
Tempelhof Airport as recognised heritage
2.5.1
Historical monument status
Since 1994 Tempelhof Airport has been listed as a monument according to the Law
for the Protection of Historic Properties in Berlin. As a consequence, a survey and
inventory report of Tempelhof airport was commissioned by the Berlin Senate for
urban development, and carried out by consultants Handrack/Jockeit Office for
Architecture and Urban History, in 1995.
Based on this report, the Berlin Airport Agency, as representative of the owners, in
1988 commissioned from the same consultants a maintenance plan, in accordance
with the historic properties law paragraph 8, section 3. According to the law this plan
can be legally binding:
49
“Within reason, historic properties are to be preserved and cared for in accordance
with these historic property maintenance plans.” (Law for the Protection of Historic
Properties in Berlin, § 8, (3) sentence 2, Berlin 1999, official English version of the
law).
2.5.2
European heritage
In 1999 a cultural project entitled “L’Europe de l’Air”, was initiated by the French
Ministry of Culture. This was a cooperative project between the French Ministry,
English Heritage (a government department) and the heritage department of the city
of Berlin, and was supported and partly financed by the European Commission’s
Raphael programme.
“The aim of this project, launched in 1999, is to create an international network
of specialists concerned with the study and preservation of historic airports,
some of the most significant and emblematic places of Europe’s twentiethcentury heritage.31”
The project organised international workshops in Liverpool (1999), Berlin (2000) and
Paris (2001), the locations of the three reference airports Speke, Tempelhof and Le
Bourget, and in 2005 published a book with its findings which has been used as a
reference for this thesis (Hawkins / Lechner / Smith 2005).
With this nomination as part of the cultural project “L’Europe de l’Air,” Tempelhof
Airport has been recognised as part of the cultural heritage of Europe even though
there exists no formal procedure for this recognition. The initial work that was done
to develop the conservation plan has been praised as an example for a good
approach to protect and maintain the heritage, but this valuable documentation
appears to have been left unused. The conservation plan is stored at the archives of
the Heritage Department of Berlin.
3
Significance of the site
“The whole is more than the sum of the parts”.
To define the heritage of Tempelhof Airport, it is necessary to distinguish between
characteristics that are related to the building and its architecture, and
31
www.euonair.european-heritage.net/uk/acc2.htm, Cited 22/05/2007
50
characteristics of the site as such. Tempelhof Central Airport (TCA II) consists of the
buildings and the airfield, both designed by Sagebiel. Those are the components of
the site visible today. To be able to identify and value the significance of the site as
a whole it is necessary to analyse the different layers of perception connected to
TCA II. Four different general perceptions of Sagebiel’s Tempelhof Airport complex
can be identified.
3.1
TCA II as architectural design
In the 1930s the rapid development of air traffic throughout Europe and in the United
States of America, and the problems this caused at existing airports, led to a
discussion about a better airport design and to specialisation in this field.
“The manifest complexity of the airport as a system encouraged the
development of specialised architectural firms: Norman and Dawbarn in
Britain, Ernst Sagebiel in Germany or Delano and Aldrich in the United
States.”
(Voigt 2005, p. 17)
With the design of TCA II, Sagebiel further developed the functional concept of
airport buildings by separating the different functions on different levels, and this
additionally permitted the provision of boarding for passengers under a protective
roof. The whole organisation scheme of the airport, including the linkage with the
ground transportation systems, became more efficient and in a way more
industrialised. The architecture of the building in general with the impressive
cantilever construction of the canopy - which in itself is a masterpiece of engineering
- is a fine example of innovative new airport design in the 1930s.
3.2
TCA II as example for the Nazis’ use of architecture
The building itself, because of its size and architectural style, its strongly
geometrical axis-symmetrical design, and its place in the overall planning for the
new German capital Germania, can be understood and interpreted as an example of
the Nazis’ use of architecture to demonstrate their demand for power. The Nazis, for
political reasons, intended to build the biggest, most beautiful and most important
airport of the world.
“The Nazis, with the laying of the foundation stone, already celebrated the
building complex as the future aviation hub of Europe, underlining the fact that it
51
was to be the largest airport on the continent. Within the Nazis’ way of
reasoning, the issue of the size of a site and its ability to withstand any
comparison, suggested their strength and showed their use of architecture as a
way to demonstrate their demand for power.”
(Schäche 1996, p. 11932, translation by the author)
The “command based” hierarchical (even totalitarian) approach to planning and
building, by over-ruling or ignoring existing democratic structures such as the
municipality and the Berlin Airport Agency, was one of the characteristics of the Nazi
government (Schäche / Reichhardt 1985, p. 23). The mixture of architectural styles,
with very regular and symmetrical stone covered façades facing the city on the
public side of the building and an airfield façade in a Bauhaus-like technical design
with steel framed doors and windows, is typical of the Nazis’ use of architecture.
After the Second World War, the events and memories of the Nazis were blocked
out and repressed in Germany. In the context of architecture – even though the
official buildings designed for the Nazi government were present in the main cities –
there was little or no research done in this field. The later publications about
architecture in the Third Reich either simply described the buildings without analysis
of the political context (Schäche / Reichhardt 1998, p. 10), or the subject as such
was regarded as “Nazi architecture” in general and therefore to be disqualified and
not be written about. An example of the latter is the attitude of the well-known
historian of architecture Sir Nicolaus Pevsner
33
who chose to not write about the
topic.
However, according to more recent research the Nazis used different architectural
styles according to the purpose of the buildings (Schäche / Reichhardt 1985, p. 11 –
12). A classical style was used for their official buildings (for example Reichskanzlei,
Reichsluftfahrtministerium in Berlin), a modern Bauhaus like style for industrial
buildings (for example the Heinkel Werke Oranienburg by Herbert Rimpl), and a
32
„ Die Nazis feierten die Anlage bei ihrer Grundsteinlegung bereits als das zukünftige
„Flugkreuz Europas“ und hoben die Tatsache hervor, daß es sich hierbei um den größten
Flughafen des Kontinents handelte. Die Frage der Größe einer Anlage und der
Vergleichbarkeit waren in der Argumentation stets Suggestion der eigenen Stärke und
machten somit die Indienstnahme der Architektur als Materialisierung des Machtanspruchs
deutlich.“
33
Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, (* 30/01/1902 in Leipzig –† 18/08/1983 in London), German-born
British historian of art and architecture, in his book „Europäische Architektur“ commented on
Nazi architecture: “Was die nationalsozialistische Architektur in Deutschland angeht, so ist
jedes Wort über sie zuviel.” (Schäche / Reichhardt 1998, p. 9)
52
more modest and old fashioned style for their settlements. This old fashioned style
used small windows, steep pitched roofs, plastered façades, rural ornamentation
and local construction methods and materials following the ideas of the so called
Heimatstil. Examples include the settlements along Grazer Damm in Berlin
Schöneberg designed by Speer’s architectural office, and Waldsiedlung Krumme
Lanke (former “Kameradschaftssiedlung SS”) in Berlin Zehlendorf, designed by the
planning department of the non-profit housing association for employees “GAGFAH”
(Gemeinnützige Aktiengesellschaft für Angestellten-Heimstätten).
This implementation of different styles according to purpose – as explained above –
is underlined by the same architects designing in different styles for different
purposes. Examples include Albert Speer with his monumental Germania buildings
on the one hand and the Heimatstil settlement on the other hand, and Herbert Rimpl
with the industrial buildings for Heinkel (German airplane producer) and the
settlement of Leegebruch for the employees of the Heinkel factory in Oranienburg
near Berlin. Tempelhof Central Airport itself unites two different styles – the
monumental and the industrial – in one building.
3.3
TCA II as a symbol for friendship
The Berlin Airlift was one of the most important events for the divided city of Berlin
as the blockade, and the political situation that led to it, endangered the very
existence of West Berlin and threatened the citizens who had only recently survived
the bombing and the battle for Berlin in the last days of the Second World War.
When the blockade started it was not at all obvious to the inhabitants of West Berlin
what the outcome was going to be. The feeling of being defeated was prevalent.
How the western Allied powers, until recently enemies of Germany, would respond
to this challenge was not generally known.
In the event, the three western Allied Powers decided quickly. In a combined military
and civilian effort, they started the Airlift, using to their advantage the functional
building complex at Tempelhof airport, to support the West Berlin population and
provide them with food and other essential supplies. The reasons for this decision
were political. The western powers wanted to implement their ideas for post war
development in Europe and to strongly resist the perceived threat of Communism.
53
Therefore the Airlift was a demonstration of the power and determination of the
Allied Forces and their political leadership.
Apart from these political reasons there was also the humanitarian aspect, which in
the long term seems to be the dominant one in the perception of the public. For
example, Gail Halvorsen, one of the US Air Force pilots taking part in the airlift and
later, in the 1970s, commander of Tempelhof airbase, related in his autobiographical
book “The Berlin Candy Bomber” that this was not an easy task for him as a soldier,
and he did not know beforehand how he would feel about helping former enemies.
But when he saw the misery of the people in Berlin he no longer perceived them as
enemies and, according to his account, the same was true for most of his fellow
soldiers and airmen as well.
The dramatic events and direct support of the Berlin Airlift were important in the
transformation of the feelings and perceptions of the people of West Berlin from
being defeated to being protected, and their view of the three western allies from
being their enemies to being friends.
As the US Air Force contributed the major part of the flights (see chapter 2.3.2.2)
and Tempelhof Central Airport was their air base and main airport for the Airlift, the
name of the airport is permanently connected with this event and is often associated
in public opinion with friendship and support.
3.4
TCA II as a gateway to freedom during the Cold war
For thousands of refugees who came from the Eastern bloc states to West Berlin
before the construction of the Berlin Wall, as well as for those who managed to
cross the Wall after it was built in 1961, Tempelhof Central Airport was their
gateway to freedom. The Soviet Union respected the agreement about the air
corridors. Therefore, as soon as the refugees had reached West Berlin they could
be sure that they were safe and could travel onwards to their final destination via
TCA II (until the new Tegel airport opened 1975). This positive image of the airport
was enhanced by fact that until 1975 TCA II was the main airport of West Berlin
where all politicians and VIPs landed and thereby avoided having to pass through
the GDR border controls.
54
3.5
Other significant aspects
Apart from perceptions directly related to the building complex itself (discussed
above), the following aspects also form an integral part of the heritage and add to its
significance. The location of Tempelhofer Feld has a century old tradition of use as
military exercise place (see chapter 2.1) and leisure ground, sometimes the two
purposes were combined in military parades, intended as an opportunity to show off
and impress, which were public events where people used to go with their families.
At times the parades were attended by foreign dignitaries which increased the
attraction for the local population of Berlin and the surrounding villages.
Tempelhofer Feld also has a history of use for out door leisure activities. People
from the nearby city districts used to go to Tempelhofer Feld on Sundays with their
families to have a picnic at the then outskirts of the town, and to play games.
Another aspect of the site of Tempelhofer Feld was its use as aviation field for
experiments and testing, again in combination of military and civil use, and as a
location for flight shows and other spectacular aviation events like the touch-down of
Zeppelin airships or the arrival of the first German pilots who flew across the Atlantic
ocean. This tradition was revived again from the 1950s on when the US Air Force
started with the organisation of Open House events.
In addition to its use for both military and leisure purposes, Tempelhofer Feld was a
stage for political demonstrations of workers, which the Nazi government took over
in 1933 and organised as their 1st of May Parade at Tempelhofer Feld (Bezirksamt
Tempelhof 1998, p. 51).
These popular and military traditions and functions are connected to the site itself
and not to the building complex or airfield of Sagebiel.
55
4
Problems of preserving and conveying historical
events and their values
4.1
Preservation of material values
In chapter three, the values that characterise the significance of the heritage site of
Tempelhof Airport have been identified. For the material items that are connected
with a building, its architecture and construction, there now exist detailed methods to
describe and preserve them as soon as they are under protection. In case of
Tempelhof Central Airport a thorough inventory - which is one of the prerequisites of
preservation - has already been carried out, along with detailed mapping, to
document the state of the building. This includes identifying which parts are original
and which parts have been changed over time by the different users
34
.
The “Law of the Protection of Historic Properties in Berlin” in its second paragraph
“General Preservation Regulations” § 8 (3) also provides measures as to how to
maintain protected buildings and suggests the creation of a maintenance plan if
required by the Historic Property Authority. The same office which carried out the
inventory of TCA II was commissioned with drawing up a maintenance and
conservation plan (see section 2.5.1). The authors of the plan, Jockeit/Wendt,
summarised it for the international workshop of the cultural project “L’Europe de
l’Air” (see 2.5.2).
4.2
Preservation of non-material values
Perhaps a more challenging question than the preservation of material items, is how
to preserve non-material values: which methods are available to convey significant
historical events connected to a building or site in an authentic way?
Erecting a monument is a long-practised and common method to achieve the aims
of recording historical events and attracting people’s attention to them. However
monuments are not context-neutral and often use symbols and have particular
connotations which strongly relate to the time and the prevailing cultural background
34
„Flughafen Berlin-Tempelhof, Erfassung und Bestandsaufnahme der Denkmalsubstanz
Band I und II” on behalf of Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umweltschutz,
Landesdenkmalamt
56
of when they were built. Over time they can lose their symbolical value, or the
symbolism can be differently interpreted, or not be understood any more. For
example the abstract concrete memorial to the Berlin airlift even now – only some
60 years after the event – may well puzzle some people, especially if they are not
residents of the former West Berlin, instead of reminding them of the Airlift and
those who made sacrifices to ensure that West Berlin was supplied.
Another way to preserve non-material values is to describe and illustrate events with
the help of artefacts of the time and statements of contemporary witnesses
(interviews, letters, books) and other contemporary sources such as newspapers,
radio, TV or film records of the event. For obvious reasons the further events lie in
the past the more difficult it is, in general, to provide these means.
The feeling of authenticity will usually be enhanced if any artefacts and documents
can be presented at the original site. The presence of a building or site where
historical events took place can trigger the imagination of people, give first-hand
experience of some parts of the physical context, and enable visitors to understand
better the historical and emotional context.
A further issue of interest is, if - and how - the presentation of historical heritage
sites is influenced by intentions and perception of the institutions which are
responsible. Recent research on American National Monuments (Schindler 2003)
includes evidence that the presentation at three important USA historical sites has
undergone quite important changes during recent years, and investigates the
reasons for this. The way visitors were addressed, and which members of American
society of the historic time of the monument were presented as being of interest to
visitors, had changed. The monuments represent important events in American
history but initially focussed only on some parts of American society and neglected
the contribution of other parts of society. The research showed that the focus had
broadened and become more inclusive over time
In the case of Tempelhof Central Airport a full and balanced presentation of the
history of the Airlift and the Cold War would probably need to include the
perspective of the residents of East Berlin and the Soviet Union on these events as
well as West Berlin and the Allies.
57
5
Heritage in the context of the World Heritage
Convention
5.1
Definition of the heritage of TCA II
To achieve a better understanding of the heritage of TCA II, different aspects
concerning Sagebiel’s airport (building complex and airfield) have been described
and analysed in the previous chapters according to their significance for heritage:
the history of the location Tempelhofer Feld, the initiation of the first airport which
prepared the ground for TCA II in Weimar times, the concept and construction of the
building as well as the historical events connected to it. To complete the view a
small number of local residents were interviewed as witnesses about their
experience with and their perception of the airport.
In accordance with the World Heritage Convention (see chapter 1.2) a viable
definition applicable to the heritage of Tempelhof Central Airport which covers the
different aspects as mentioned above could be:
Architectural work with historical and artistic value, example of a type of architectural
and technological ensemble which illustrates a significant stage in human history,
directly or tangibly associated with events.
From the list of attributes for the authenticity of a cultural heritage site mentioned in
the Convention the following would be applicable to TCA:
Form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and
techniques, location and settings and as well spirit and feeling as indicators for the
character and sense of place.
The Convention recommends the following information sources to find out about the
nature, specificities, meaning, and history of the cultural heritage: all physical,
written, oral, and figurative sources.
For the purpose of this thesis only those values and their attributes applicable to
TCA II will be further analysed - the case of this heritage site has been presented
and will be used as example.
58
5.2
Analysis of the values
The values mentioned above can be categorised in the following way:
-
Values related to the physical appearance – the architecture of a building in its
location and setting.
These values can be experienced visually through direct perception: a building
with its dimensions, form, style, construction, materials and substance, situated
at a certain place. The significance of such a building as heritage implies a
ranking in comparison with other buildings of the same type, architectural style
etc . In this case physical or tangible attributes in combination with knowledge as ranking requires knowledge- determine the estimation.
Example: TCA is still one of the biggest buildings worldwide.
-
Values related to the historical context of a building or a site:
If a building or a site has been involved in important historical events or a
significant period in human history the factor or factors relevant for heritage
value is not necessarily the architecture of the building but the connection with
the historical event or time – transferred through the memory of people during
their lifetime or through knowledge about the history by later generations. The
perception and the estimation of the building therefore are affected by
immaterial or intangible attributes (memories and/or knowledge).
Example: the location of Tempelhofer Feld was an important stage for the early
attempts of aviation, TCA II was the main airport of the airlift and until 1975 the main
airport of West Berlin.
-
Values related to the use and function of a building or a site:
The purpose of a building, if it was, or still is, used for example for cultural or
technical functions (a church, station, airport, factory etc.) is another intangible
criterion that influences a building’s perceived value in connection with
knowledge and ranking.
Example: TCA II is the oldest inner city airport still in operation, it illustrates the
development of functional concepts of European airports in the 1930s.
-
Values related to the character and sense of place of a building or a site:
Character and sense of place of a building are probably the most difficult and
contradictory issues as they depend on feeling and spirit, ideas which are
subjective and might be perceived according to individual taste or changing
59
societal values. However, feelings connected to a building or a site are
influenced as well by personal experiences and knowledge about the history of
the building and events that took place there. Architecture and style can evoke
or enhance feelings in the viewer.
Example: TCA II for some architectural critics has been so strongly related to Nazi
Germany that they - in an emotional reaction - did not want to treat it as an
architectural work. TCA II was designed to demonstrate Nazi Germany’s superiority
by impressing people with its architecture. And even though the Nazis’ assertion has
been proved wrong very quickly in the course of history, the building complex still
impresses people.
A closer look at the values analysed above shows that they all have material and
non-material components. The estimation of the heritage is based on tangible and
intangible aspects which depend on each other and can barely be separated.
Without knowledge about the historical background in general and the special
history of art, architecture and technology – depending on the type and function of a
building or site – estimation of heritage value is difficult if not imposible. In the World
Heritage Convention a variety of sources, including oral sources, are recommended
to achieve this knowledge to illustrate and explain the special character of a cultural
heritage site. These oral sources are the living memory of people who experienced
and witnessed the development of the building and the historical events connected
to it. They will be lost if they are not recorded or passed on as part of an oral
tradition, within the lifetime of the witnesses.
60
5.3
Classification of the terminology “tangible” and “intangible”
As the term “intangible heritage” has become quite a keyword during the last years,
a short explanation will be given to distinguish between the intangible aspects of a
heritage site according to the World Heritage Convention (adopted in 1972) and the
intangible cultural heritage of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage (adopted in 2003).
The term “intangible cultural heritage” was first mentioned in the Mondiacult World
Conference on Cultural Policies 1982 in Mexico City. During the following years it
became evident that there was a growing need to protect “Non physical heritage” or
“Traditional Culture and Folklore”. In article 2 of the Convention for the Safeguarding
of Intangible Cultural Heritage the “intangible cultural heritage” is defined as:
“ the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the
instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that
communities, groups [...] recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This
intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is
constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their
environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them
with a sense of identity and continuity.35
The Intangible Cultural Heritage is manifested inter alia in the following domains:
oral traditions and expressions including language; performing arts; social practices,
rituals and festive events. In this case the heritage itself is intangible even though it
can be practiced with the help of material objects like artefacts. It is performed in a
group of people and transmitted from generation to generation as part of their
cultural identity.
The cultural heritage as defined in the World Heritage Convention is always a
material object: a building, piece of art, etc, whose significance as heritage arises
from values which are defined by both tangible and intangible aspects.
35
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00006, Cited 19/06/2007
61
6
TCA II in the perception of local people
6.1
The survey
To investigate how the significant values of Tempelhof Central Airport, identified in
chapter three, have been perceived by local people and how these perceptions
have altered over the course of time, a small survey was undertaken. Interviews
were carried out with long-term residents of Neu-Tempelhof who had been firsthand witnesses to the construction and evolution of TCA II and who had also lived
through the airlift and the times of the Cold War. Chapter four has already
introduced the concept that statements of contemporary witnesses can be used to
describe historical events in an authentic way. In chapter five the importance of
tangible and intangible
aspects
for
the
estimation
of
heritage
and the
interdependency of these aspects has been analysed. The research based on the
interviews was intended to provide information about whether and how, tangible and
intangible aspects, influenced local residents’ perception of TCA II.
As the author had been living in Neu-Tempelhof since the beginning of the 1980s
she was able to identify a number of elderly residents of the district who had either
been born in this part of the city, or had spent a significant span of their lives in the
area, so that they had considerable experience of living next to, or near to, the
airport. The range of interviewees intentionally did not include people who moved in
to the area after Tempelhof Airport had been largely closed down for regular air
services in 1975, in order to avoid biasing the results.
Another precondition was the age of respondents. As it was important to go back to
the times of the Third Reich (the time of the construction of the airport) to receive
first-hand information, it was necessary to find residents born well before 1935 so
that it was possible that they would have some memories of that time.
In the end 11 residents answering the above criteria were identified who were willing
to be interviewed. All but one (due to time constraints) were questioned in their own
houses or flats. All of them gave their consent to publish their full names. Some
respondents provided the author with books, magazines and other documentary
items like postcards relevant to the topic to assist with the process of understanding
their perceptions of the airport. The process of interviewing all eleven volunteers
was completed in six weeks.
62
During the course of the interviews the respondents related many interesting stories
and first hand anecdotes, however, the focus of the interviews was specific
information gathering on the topic of the study. The interested reader is referred to
Annex B where brief details of some of the anecdotes are given in the interview
language, German.
6.1.1
The questionnaire
The interview to answer the questionnaire was carried out in German. The complete
set of the original data can be found in the Annex B. An English summary is
presented in table 3 (see next page). In this table the airport is referred to generally
as TCA. This covers TCA I and TCA II because the memories of some of the
respondents go back to the first airport TCA I.
The questionnaire is divided into five major sections of which each contains a set of
questions. The first set of questions asks for information about the interviewee, his
or her name, year of birth, since when they have been resident in Neu-Tempelhof,
and if he/she has been a user of the airport.
The second part is about his or her personal experience of Tempelhof Central
Airport, first memories and impressions and further encounters, subdivided into
different categories, including: experience as a flight passenger, as a visitor and of
special events which were identified.
The third part asks questions about the respondents’ attitudes towards the airport, if
they are enthusiastic about flying, interested in aeronautics and aviation technology,
if they feel disturbed by the noise of the air traffic and/or emissions, or if they are just
not affected or are indifferent towards the airport. The questionnaire asks about any
specific changes in their perception and - if there have been changes – the causes
for the change.
The fourth set of questions aims to find out about the respondents’ ideas and
perceptions regarding Tempelhof Central Airport, for example whether they see it as
a Nazi building, or mainly connected to the Airlift, as a technical or architectural
monument, or just as a functional traffic building.
The fifth part deals with the respondents’ view on heritage connected to Tempelhof
Central Airport and their ideas and suggestions for a future use of the site.
63
Table 3: Summary of the results of the questionnaire (translation by the author)
Name
1
Sex Year of Resident in Flights
birth
Neufrom
Tempelhof TCA
First memories
connected to TCA
2
Further encounters with TCA
3
Attitute towards TCA
enthusiastic about flying, not
molested by air traffic noise, impressive because of its
but sympathetic with people size
who are effected
positive attitude towards the
imposing building
airport (husband was a pilot)
Erika
f
1920
since 1964
yes
no specifiic memory
regular visits to the airport with family fo watch air traffic
and VIPs; open house events; user of airport facilities:
post office, hair dresser; watch memorial events from
her flat (overlooks the square and park in front of the
airport)
Hilde
f
1924
since 1957
yes
no specifiic memory
regular visits on Sundays with family; open house
events; to meet visitors
yes
in the 1930s H.-J. watched flight shows with Udet and
as a boy of 12, special event:
Fieseler (famous German pilots), in 1936 during the
H.-J. collected falling plane
Olympic Games Zeppelins; during his training as a pilot
window, was rewarded with
he had an emergency landing at Tempelhof airport;
round trip by plane
open house events
HansJoachim
m
1924
since 1925
4
Perception of TCA
trade fairs and
auctions, park
yes / only inner city
airport
no
charter and
business flights
yes / inner city airport,
functionality of the
building
no
private and
business flights
in the 1930s to flight shows, in 1948 with RAF: Kinder
airlift to holidays outside Berlin, in the 1950s on official
enthusiastic about flying and technical and architectural
flights with US Airforce to Frankfurt/Main; open house
aeronautics
monument
events; usual go for a walk with his dog along the
airport till today
yes / ageless architecture
no
Air force
museum
in the 1950s to class meetings at the airport restaurant; sees Tempelhof Central
to open house events; guided tour; in 2006 to the Red Airport as part of the
Bull Race in her wheel chair
neighbourhood
yes / national importance
no
as it is now
yes
no
as it is now
aeronautic enthusiast, no
longer molested by the noise
technical monument
since sound proof windows
were installed in the 1960s
m
1930
since 1930
yes
Charlotte
f
1934
since 1934
no
visit with father before the
war
indifferent, molested by the
smell of kerosene, airfield
necessary for local climate
enthusiastic about flying, but first of all as architectural
also environmentally
monument, but as well
conscious
connected to nazi-Germany
Eberhard
m
1940
since 1940
yes
as a boy of 9, special event:
1961 during an internship working at the heating
Airlift, plane crashed, E. took
system of the airport; go for walks with his grandson;
milk powder, got caught by
wife to open house event because of the icecream
MP
Barbara
f
1941
since 1972
yes
in the 1970s, husband
(chinese) prefered to fly to
avoid GDR border control
Thea
f
1947
since early
1960s
yes
holiday flights to Bavaria as a
girl, to avoid GDR border
none
control
m
1948
since 1976
Bärbel
f
1952
since 1953
yes (1x)
Stefan
m
1959
1959 - 1996
yes
ideas for future
use of the site
yes
Kurt
Michael
5
future of the
airport: close
airport
yes / impressive size
as a boy of 7, visit of the
construction site of the new
airport with father
as a boy of 7/8, special
event: test of courage to
yes (1x)
climb the barbed wire fence
of airport
Heritage / reasons
to meet visitors; with family to watch the air traffic;
watch memorial events from her flat (overlooks the
square and park in front of the airport)
architectural monument
technical and architectural
monument and airlift
building as equal
components
positive attitude as a child,
since her student days more architectural monument
environmentally conscious
to meet visitors; once to the open house event in 1977
indifferent
because of raisin bomber
traffic building
to meet visitors; when US president Kennedy arrived in since the birth of her children
as a girl with parents to meet
connected to the Airlift and
Berlin in 1963; once to the open house event in 1977 more environmentally
visitors
the Cold War
because of raisin bomber
conscious
sees Tempelhof Central
as a boy in the 1960s at open as passenger, as regular visitor; to open house events
Airport as part of the
an house event
and flight shows
neighbourhood
technical and architectural
monument
yes / architectural
monument
rather yes, for
environmental
damage and
dangers
museum, park
yes / architecture and
historical importance as
inner city airport
yes
sports and
leisure area,
natural park
yes / political history and
architecture
yes
ministry of
defence
yes / history and
architecture
yes
museum, park
yes / national and
international importance
no
museum for
technology,
flying school
64
6.1.2
Evaluation
Questions section 1:
The composition of the respondents (see table 3) was as follows: six persons out of
the eleven are female, five male. The range for the year of birth lies between 1920
and 1959. Five of the respondents were born before 1935, four in the 1940s and two
in the 1950s. Ten of the eleven persons currently live in Neu-Tempelhof, all
respondents had lived at least 20 years in the area, and one of them as many as 80
years. None of the persons questioned lived directly under the flight path, but nine
out of the eleven lived less than one kilometre distance from the Airport perimeter
(see aerial photo, Annex D). Only one out of eleven persons had never flown to or
from Tempelhof Central Airport.
Questions section 2:
Interviewees were asked about their first memories related to special events at TCA:
this issue for nine of the residents is clearly combined with childhood memories,
only two of the interviewees did not have specific first memories and both of these
had moved to Neu-Tempelhof as adults. Within the nine interviewees boys tended
to remember specific instances of special events while girls remembered more
general events. This may be partly, or entirely, due to gender issues. At that time
(between the 1930s and the 1960s) it was more likely for boys to be interested in
aeronautics and planes and military equipment than for girls to be interested in
these. Therefore they were probably more eager to visit the special events at the
airport 36.
36
One example of a special event as first memory of TCA was related by Hans Joachim. It
dates from when TCA I was still in use and considerately influenced his life. In the 1930s at
the age of about 12, with a group of other boys he watched a plane landing and noticed that
something fell from the plane. So they all went to look at what it was and found a cockpit
window in a tree. He climbed the tree, picked up the window and carried it home as a trophy.
Later in the day the air police from TCA I arrived at his home and took him and the window
to the airport. There he was introduced to the flying crew of the plane and questioned about
the incident. The crew were all glad to get back their window and he was offered the chance
to choose a reward. So he asked for a trip in the plane, something he was keen on but
couldn’t afford to pay for, as it cost 5 Marks (as he still clearly remembers). This was in a
way the start of his career as a pilot; as a young man he was trained as a fighter pilot for the
German Air Force. (for further information see Annex B, Fragebogen 3).
65
Interviewees identified three main purposes for their further encounters with the
airport: the first one was to meet visitors, the second to go regularly to the airport
with the family to watch the scheduled air traffic from the terminal building, the third
to go for special events like flight shows in the 1930s and open house events from
the 1950s until the early 1990s. The latest event recalled was the Red Bull Air Race
in 2006. Only one out of the eleven respondents did not mention any further visits to
the airport after their initial contact. The first two issues (mentioned by eight
respondents each) are related to the usual function of the airport, the third
(mentioned by nine respondents) to special events.
Questions section 3:
Asked about their general attitude towards Tempelhof Central Airport two of the
eleven interviewees – both men - characterised their feelings as indifferent, all the
others described their attitude as positive or enthusiastic. Out of the people with a
positive or enthusiastic attitude, three people – all women – had undergone some
change in their attitude as they started to be more aware and critical on
environmental impacts of air traffic. These changes were most likely influenced by
the start of the ecological movement in Germany in the 1980s. One of the women
told that she started to become more environmentally conscious when she was a
student, for another women the crucial event that changed her attitude was the birth
of her sons.
Questions section 4:
This part deals with the respondents’ perceptions of Tempelhof Central Airport. Six
out of the eleven respondents named just one key word to characterise their
perception, four persons mentioned two and one person three key words. The top
key word to characterise their perception was architectural monument (six times)
followed by technical monument (four times), impressive building (twice), airlift
(twice), cold war (once) and Nazi Germany (once).
For the respondents, the main aspect of their perception of the site was the visual
experience of the building complex. A significant majority of the mentions of key
words (12 out of 16 times) were for the three terms architectural monument,
technical monument and impressive building. Far less frequently mentioned (4 out
of 16 times) was the understanding of the site as connected to historical events with
keywords: airlift, cold war and Nazi Germany. Therefore the conclusion of the author
66
is that the direct experience of the building - the tangible aspect according to the
analysis in chapter 5 - is so impressive that it dominates most people’s perception of
the airport. One explanation for this phenomenon could be that most of the
respondents had their first contact with Tempelhof Central Airport as children when
the perception of dimensions and size of a large building is likely to be strongest.
One of the respondents described her feelings when she first (at the age of twelve)
got on board a plane at TCA. She was overwhelmed by the size and height of the
overhanging roof and the impression made by the way that she could just go out of
the departure gate and the plane was waiting right there under the roof and she was
able to climb the gangway and get on board.
Questions section 5:
All the interviewees agreed with TCA having been listed as protected historic
property. The reasons they gave as justification for the listing – this time without
provided key words – range from architectural and historical values to national and
international importance in connection with important historical events. That
Tempelhof is currently the oldest still functioning inner city airport, was mentioned as
well.
When asked about the future of the airport, six out of the eleven respondents
wanted to keep the airport open, four preferred to close it and one respondent was
undecided. When asked for ideas for a future use of the site four residents wanted
to keep it as it is now and one resident wanted to open a flying school. Four
residents suggested using the site as museum such as an Air Force museum or
museum of technology. Creating a park or recreational area was mentioned four
times; holding trade fairs and auctions in the building complex, and using it as an
office building for the Ministry of Defence were each mentioned once.
6.2
Results
The questionnaire gives clues about the perception of local residents of NeuTempelhof even though the study cannot be considered as representative due to
the limited number of participants. The findings represent specific, well detailed,
anecdotal examples. The composition of the sample according to age, gender and
background was varied and their perceptions and ideas differed. Nonetheless, some
67
useful conclusions can be drawn up about how local people have perceived
Tempelhof Central Airport (TCA II) since it was built, and in particular about the
difference in difficulty of capturing tangible and intangible aspects of heritage.
6.2.1
Intangible aspects of the heritage of TCA II
The intangible aspects of the heritage of TCA II, the connection of the airport to
events – either historical events like the Berlin Airlift or entertainment events like the
flight shows and open house events - were still present in the memory of the
respondents but in differing degrees of intensity.
A connection to Nazi politics and ideas – which has been established in architectural
and historical publications recently - was only mentioned by one respondent who
moved to Neu-Tempelhof in the early 1970s. The Cold War and the Airlift were
mentioned by one and two interviewees respectively. The sample of available
interviewees with possible associations with the Nazi era is particularly small and it
is difficult to draw conclusions: of the five respondents who, due to their age could
have had first hand experience of the construction of the new airport, two came to
live in Neu-Tempelhof after the war leaving only three respondents with direct
childhood memories of the earliest years of the airport.
Possible reasons to explain why the airport complex as a Nazi prestige issue is not
important for the perception of residents may include the following:
The new airport building was never officially inaugurated by the Nazi government
nor even completed in that era. The old airport buildings from Weimar times were
still functioning as the terminal until the end of the war. Parts of the new building
complex were used as offices by the ministry of aviation, some areas were used to
assemble and maintain war planes. Therefore, access to the building was subject to
restrictions since it was no longer in the interest of the government to draw the
attention of the public to this building37.
37
One indicator for this assumption is that even though the change of the transport
connection to the airport (a new access road “Neue Flughafenstraße”) and the change and
renaming of the underground railway stations (Flughafen became Paradestraße and
Kreuzberg became Flughafen) are documented in the street plans of the publisher Pharus
Plan of 1936 and 1944 (see maps Annex C), the new airport building does not appear at all
on these maps.
68
The second reason is perhaps due to a change in propaganda topics according to
the political situation. As soon as the war started the priorities of Nazi politics were
focused on the management of the war - prestige projects like “Reichshauptstadt
Germania” and the new airport received less attention and financial support than
before. Some sources even say that Speer as the architect responsible for the
development of the Reichshauptstadt had already abandoned the idea of an inner
city airport - in accordance with Hitler’s wishes- as not being functional and efficient,
and had expressed the idea of planning one or more big airports at the edge of
Berlin. He proposed that Tempelhof Central Airport should be transformed into a
leisure park for the Nazi workers’ association (Dittrich 2005a, p. 28; Hecker 2005, p.
93, Drieschner 2005, p. 104).
A third reason is possibly the lack of research about the Nazis’ use of architecture, a
topic which has only started to receive attention since the 1980s.
The perception of Tempelhof Central Airport as a symbol for the Airlift was only third
in the ranking out of five for the interviewees, a result which was unexpected. The
experience of the airlift with hunger and cold and other deprivations shortly after
losing a major war was potentially life-threatening for the West Berlin population.
The memory of this event has been kept alive in West Berlin with annual memorial
events at “Platz der Luftbrücke”, exhibitions, numerous publications and special
events like the 50th anniversary of the airlift in 1998. Of the seven respondents, who
due to their age experienced the Airlift, four lived in Neu-Tempelhof during that time.
Of these four only one named the airport as a symbol for the Airlift. He had a
threatening experience with the American military police (MP) as a boy when after a
plane crash he took some milk powder from the plane, got caught by US MPs and
was forced to give it back. His perception is connected to his personal experience.
The second respondent who named the airlift as connected to the airport was born
after the airlift.
The Cold War seems to not have created a link to the airport in the memory of the
interviewees. It was mentioned only once and in combination with the airlift even
though two of the respondents mentioned flying out to avoid GDR border controls
and seven out of the eleven went to open house events of the US Air Force. There
appears to be clear dissociation of the memory of events with the interviewees’
stated perceptions. One explanation could be that for Berlin residents the Berlin
69
Wall as the visible borderline is the obvious and most dominant symbol for the Cold
War which leaves little room for another symbol. Another reason might be that the
Cold War lasted more than four decades and Tempelhof airport was not the location
for spectacular Cold War incidents but part of the Cold War routine which offered
access to West Berlin without passing through the GDR on surface transport.
Whatever the cause, this clearly demonstrates that even events which are dramatic
at the time, and which form part of the intangible aspects of heritage, may not
always be easy to discover or document even sixty years later, and that perceptions
of first-hand observers may change over a relatively short space of time.
Quite unexpectedly for the author, the research on what factors influenced the
perception of local residents showed very clearly that the intangible aspects of the
site, the function as airport and the connection to national and world events, played
very much a secondary role. From the perspective of a site, such as Tempelhof
Airport, as heritage (in the sense of the World Heritage Convention) this
demonstrates a very clear need to use resources to ensure that intangible aspects
are not lost, and subsequent generations have only the tangible aspects available.
Within a very few years no witnesses of the early days of TCA II will be left.
6.2.2
Tangible aspects: TCA II as architectural monument
For the group of respondents the architectural impression was clearly the most
dominant aspect of their perception. As noted in chapter 6.1.2, most of the
interviewees had their first encounter with the airport as children which would tend
to enhance the impression of the size and dimensions of the building. The visual
sense is a powerful one.
The design of the building of TCA II has recognised architectural qualities; values
which people, even if they are not experts in the field, are likely to notice. This
building was deliberately designed to impress people and used a variety of means
to achieve this aim in an expert way. Even though the design of the whole building
complex with its axial reference to the Schinkel monument on the Kreuzberg hill was
not completed according to the original plan (see chapter 2.4.2) the monumental
character of the part that was finished can still be experienced by a visitor.
70
The strong reaction of the interviewees to his airport building demonstrates that the
architect Ernst Sagebiel has succeeded in impressing visitors to the airport with his
design. The tangible aspects of the building have turned out to be the most
important values for the heritage of TCA II for the interviewed residents.
6.2.3
TCA II as part of everyday life
From the author’s personal observations during the interviews, a further aspect
turned out to be important. This had not been included in the questionnaire design,
but it was mentioned in one way or another by eight of the eleven respondents.
Tempelhof Central Airport was, and for some interviewees still is, part of their
everyday life.
Different issues were mentioned to describe this influence. The negative impacts
were the noise of the air traffic and the smell of kerosene. Not all the respondents
are affected equally by this pollution. Only two out of the eleven felt troubled by the
noise or smell of aircraft The noise at the end of the 1960s, when the annual
passenger number exceeded 5 million and early jet passenger aircraft were far
more noisy than they are today, must have been really a dominant element in the
everyday life of residents and severely intrusive. At that time there were nearly 200
take-offs and landings every day.
But even the noise became part of a daily routine for some of those interviewed.
One of the respondents remembers that her sons, because they used to play in the
garden behind her house, could distinguish between the different aircraft from their
noise and got exited when the more unusual sound of a helicopter was heard. Some
respondents remembered the last flight in the evening – a post flight that took off
around 11 pm – or the earliest flight in the morning at about 6 am which could
clearly be distinguished as the rush hour had not yet started.
For some respondents the airport in the 1960s and 1970s was a regular destination
for a Sunday walk with the family, or to visit the airport restaurant for special events.
Apart from that the airport provided shops – particularly mentioned were a photo
shop and a hairdresser - and a late night post office which residents used as well.
One interviewee related that she used to go just to watch the arrival and departure
activities in the terminal hall to spot VIPs. Her husband sometimes went to the bar
71
on the ground floor of the building where they lived, to talk with or listen to the pilots
and other airport staff who used to go there after work.
Tempelhof Central Airport - as long as it was the only airport in West Berlin connected the city to the world. It created a certain feeling of importance and status,
and local people living next door to the airport, by using the facilities the airport
offered, by watching the daily airport operation or by attending special events,
participated in and identified with this importance. Tempelhof Central Airport
became part of their local identity.
Even though the importance of Tempelhof Central Airport for the air traffic of Berlin
has diminished, it is still present in the memories of local residents connected
through the feelings they had when it was in its prime and served as “gateway to the
world from the 1950s until the 1970s.”
The research through interviews clearly showed that this perception of the airport as
part of everyday life combines the tangible aspects of the airport building with the
intangible aspects of the memory of TCA II in a more balanced and holistic way,
than the memory of dramatic events does.
7
Summary and conclusions
7.1
Summary
The definition of the multifaceted heritage of Tempelhof Central Airport requires a
holistic approach taking into account the history of the location Tempelhofer Feld
and of the first airport TCA I, the planning and building process, architecture and
construction, function and use of TCA II, the events that occurred on site and the
perception of local people as contemporary witnesses as far back as their memory
goes. In consideration of the definition of cultural heritage from the World Heritage
Convention the heritage related values have been analysed with respect to their
tangible and intangible aspects. The result is that the majority of the values are
defined by a combination of tangible and intangible aspects which cannot be fully
separated. For the estimation of the heritage value of a site, knowledge of both
tangible and intangible aspects is essential. Knowledge about the history and
circumstances of the site will be made more tangible once it is properly and
rigorously documented. This documentary report of the intangible aspects can be
72
passed on to following generations, making the purely “intangible” into a more mixed
and more “tangible” aspect.
The following facets of Tempelhof Central Airport compose the heritage of the site:
History of aviation
The area of Tempelhofer Feld is strongly connected to the beginnings of aviation in
Europe. It was the stage for flight experiments, spectacular crashes, flight
competitions, and Zeppelin airships; it was an arena for German and international
flight pioneers, attended by hundreds of thousands of spectators.
Urban planning in Weimar times
In the context of the urban development of “Groß Berlin” and its transportation
system the history of the planning and implementation of the inner city airport of
Tempelhofer Feld TCA I is an example of the innovative and farsighted urban
planning measures provided by the Weimar government and put into practice by the
municipality of Berlin.
History of airport design/architecture
TCA I was an airport of the generation of first terminal buildings. TCA II is an
example of the following generation of airports with a functional concept
characterised by vertical separation of visitor- and passenger flows, the linkage of
different transportation systems and “dry boarding”. For the lay out of the airfield
TCA II is an example for an intermediate solution with concrete aprons and taxi
ways bordering an oval airfield with grass runways. Dimensions and size, building
materials and building techniques in combination with functional concept were state
of the art of the time.
Development of the use of green space
In the context of traditions of public use of green space and the development of
planning and implementation of urban parks in Berlin the area of Tempelhofer Feld
is one example with a long and variable history.
Example for the Nazi’s use of architecture
The building complex was designed as part of the Nazi government’s capital
Germania to be the most spacious and beautiful airport in the world as a
demonstration for Nazi superiority. The airport building appears to be a unique
example for the use of two different styles according to function in one building:
73
monumental classical style for the representative town facing façade in combination
with industrial style for the airfield facing façade.
History of the Airlift
Tempelhof Central Airport became the main setting for a spectacular event of the
post-war era. The Airlift was – apart from the practical purpose to guarantee the
survival of the West Berlin population – a demonstration of power of the Allied
Forces. Therefore the character of the heritage connected to this historical phase is
twofold: a demonstration of the Allies’ power and a symbol for friendship and
cooperation between the besieged population of West Berlin and their former
occupiers.
History of the Cold War
For the first three decades of the Cold War Tempelhof Central Airport was the main
airport of West Berlin and the gate to freedom for refugees from the Eastern bloc
states.
Location for special events
The area of Tempelhofer Feld and later the airfield of Tempelhof Central Airport
provided a stage for all kinds of special events: military parades, flight shows,
political demonstrations, open house events and even the Red Bull Air Race of
2006.
7.2
Conclusions
The impressive architecture of Sagabiel’s building complex, embedded in the urban
context, reinforced by the many important historical events that have taken place at
the site, mean that Tempelhof Central Airport can be considered as an important
heritage site of the 20th Century.
A survey of local people who had witnessed the construction and evolution of the
current airport, clearly showed that the architectural values make the most important
contribution to their perception of heritage. The building and not the associated
events dominated the respondents’ perception of Tempelhof Central Airport. As
these values are tangible and the building is already protected by legislation, it will
most probably survive and the values will be preserved.
74
However, the architecture – in this case the visible elements of the building as they
are perceived - is only one part of a more complex heritage which will be incomplete
without knowledge about the historical context of the site and the circumstances of
its building process and subsequent use.
The strongest element of the intangible heritage reported in the interviews was,
unexpectedly, the role of the airport in the everyday life of nearby residents. Despite
noise and other pollution, the overall perceptions of the airport were neutral or
positive.
The preservation of Tempelhof Central Airport as heritage is not only the
maintenance of the building in its tangible aspects but as well the collection and
documentation of the intangible aspects. This thesis aims to contribute to this
process of recording the intangible aspects.
The main conclusion of this thesis - underlined by the findings of the questionnaire –
is, that the intangible aspects of the heritage of Tempelhof Central Airport require
greater attention than the tangible ones if they are not to be lost. If this is also the
case with other heritage sites, it would suggest the need for continued careful
attention to the relative effort being made to preserve the different aspects of
heritage.
In the specific case of TCA II, the experience of historical events and of the
everyday routine connected to the airport is to be found not only in contemporary
sources but also in the memories of local residents and other witnesses who are
now reaching the end of their lives. These memories are a particularly valuable
source which will not be available in the future. It is therefore important to act now
collect and document this intangible knowledge to transfer it into a more tangible
form.
75
Annex A:
Development of air traffic in West Berlin
Development of air traffic in Berlin (Conin 1974, p. 350-351)
Data until 1959 for TCA only, from 1960 on together with Tegel
year
passengers
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
150
1.706
20.428
32.757
40.302
41.214
42.440
48.731
48.448
53.612
81.335
122.814
173.587
216.673
217.368
247.453
154.675
96.343
take offs/landings
freight in t
100
20
952
400
9.484
500
12.090
900
16.925
20.799
21.658
29.986
1.200
28.837
32.506
40.202
59.198
2.300
61.369
3.400
60.311
4.600
56.266
5.300
63.571
7.700
42.407
3.200
16.762
3.200
97.046
80.000
20.557
20.000
3.500
300
21.556
41.253
110.886
320.176
483.315
833.718
671.680
834.349
979.945
1.002.510
1.127.235
1.264.809
1.532.035
1.593.887
1.957.491
2.395.640
2.718.189
3.158.914
3.351.969
3.554.192
4.128.743
4.921.814
5.549.298
6.121.406
5.521.803
4.778.411
1.098
2.340
3.943
17.624
25.982
42.791
29.840
28.859
30.492
29.613
30.163
32.081
36.354
40.561
42.068
52.106
63.755
71.009
71.475
72.237
72.903
73.703
78.417
89.625
84.794
76.753
3.200
500
3.700
21.300
33.200
53.600
41.800
36.600
29.200
20.500
11.000
12.600
14.000
16.700
17.400
18.400
19.500
22.500
25.300
27.400
29.700
33.200
37.300
36.500
33.000
30.700
76
77
Annex B: Questionnaires
78
79
80
81
82
83
Fragebogen 7
Masterarbeit: Ein facettenreiches Denkmal - das vielschichtige Erbe des Zentralflughafens Tempelhof
Fragen
Antworten
Name
Barbara Wang
Geburtsjahr
1941
Seit wann in Neutempelhof
1972
Anmerkungen
Verbindung mit Flughafen
Nutzer ja
Anwohner ja
Erste Erinnerung an Flughafen
ca. wann, in welchem Alter 70ziger
in welchem Zusammenhang abholen des Ehemanns, musste nach Westdeutschland fliegen
kaum konkrete Erinnerungen, Procedere mit Pass für Ehemann
Eindrücke/Gefühle umständlich
Ehemann Chinese, Reise mit der Bahn durch DDR zu
umständlich
Weitere Begegnungen mit dem Flughafen
Fluggast ja
ja, zum Abholen und mit Sohn und Mann zum Beobachten des
Besucher Flugbetriebes
Zuschauer von der Wohnung aus bei Gedenkveranstaltung zur
welche Veranstaltungen Luftbrücke
Wohnung hat Fenster und Balkon zum Eingangsbereich
des Flughafens
andere
Einstellung zum Flughafen
flugbegeistert ja, aber auch umweltbewusst, keine innerdeutschen Flüge
technikbegeistert
lärmgeschädigt nicht betroffen, aber Verständnis für betroffene Anwohner
indifferent
andere
Änderung der Einstellung?
wenn ja, warum?
welcher Eindruck steht im Vordergrund
Wahrnehmung des Flughafens
Nazi-Gebäude Gebäude wird auch damit in Verbindung gebracht
Bauzeit ist B. bekannt, sieht Ähnlichkeiten mit anderen
Bauten aus der gleichen Zeit
Luftbrückengebäude
Technikdenkmal
Architekturdenkmal Gebäude wird in erster Linie als Architekturdenkmal gesehen
Verkehrsgebäude
andere
Flughafen als Erbe?
Flughafen ist seit 1994 denkmalgeschützt
wenn ja, warum
Flughafen als Architekturdenkmal
wenn nein, warum
Zukunft des Flughafens
stilllegen
im Prinzip ja, wegen Umweltschäden und Gefahrenpotential, vor
allem keine Flugschauen mehr
weiterbetreiben/mit welchem Zweck
höchstens mit wenig Flugverkehr
Nutzung der Gebäude
als Museum
Nutzung des Geländes
als Parkanlage
84
Fragebogen 8
Masterarbeit: Ein facettenreiches Denkmal - das vielschichtige Erbe des Zentralflughafens Tempelhof
Fragen
Antworten
Name
Thea Amling
Geburtsjahr
1947
Seit wann in Neutempelhof
Anfang der 60ziger Jahre
Anmerkungen
Schulenburgring
ab Ende der 60ziger Manfred v. Richthofenstr.
Verbindung mit Flughafen
Nutzer ja, als Kind für Ferienreisen nach Bayern
Eltern hatten kein Auto, keine lästigen Grenzkontr.
Anwohner ja
Erste Erinnerung an Flughafen
ca. wann, in welchem Alter 12 Jahre
in welchem Zusammenhang Flüge nach München
Eindrücke/Gefühle spannend, toll, übers Flugfeld direkt zum Flugzeug zu laufen
unmittelbares Erleben
Weitere Begegnungen mit dem Flughafen
Fluggast als Erwachsene nicht
Besucher nein
welche Veranstaltungen
andere
Einstellung zum Flughafen
flugbegeistert positive Einstellung als Kind
technikbegeistert
lärmgeschädigt ja, täglicher Weg zum U-Bahnhof Tempelhof
indifferent
andere
Änderung der Einstellung? ja
wachsendes Bewustsein für Umweltbelastung durch den Flughafen lebte als Studentin in WG im Haus in d.
wenn ja, warum? in der Studentenzeit
Richthofenstr.
welcher Eindruck steht im Vordergrund
Wahrnehmung des Flughafens
Nazi-Gebäude
Luftbrückengebäude
Technikdenkmal
Architekturdenkmal ja
Verkehrsgebäude
andere
Flughafen als Erbe?
wenn ja, warum
Flughafen ist seit 1994 denkmalgeschützt
wegen der Architektur und der historischen Bedeutung als
innerstädtischer Flughafen
wenn nein, warum
Zukunft des Flughafens
stilllegen
ja
weiterbetreiben/mit welchem Zweck
Nutzung der Gebäude
Sportanlage, Jugendfreizeiteinrichtungen
Nutzung des Geländes
Freizeitpark, Naturgelände
85
86
87
88
Annex C:
-
Maps
(Historical street plans of Berlin by Pharus, reprints)
Street plan from 1906, extract of the area of Tempelhofer Feld
89
-
Street plan from 1926, extract of the area of Tempelhofer Feld
-
Street plan from 1930, extract of the area of Tempelhofer Feld
90
-
Street plan from 1936, extract of the area of Tempelhofer Feld
-
Street plan from 1944, extract of the area of Tempelhofer Feld
91
-
Street plan from 1948, extract of the area of Tempelhofer Feld
Annex D:
-
Aerial photos (Google earth from 20/04/2007)
Extract of the area Tempelhofer Feld
92
-
Extract of the area building complex airport/Kreuzberg landmark
Kreuzberg landmark
Symmetrical axis
93
8
References
8.1
Document references
Bezirksamt Tempelhof (ed.) (1998):
Landing on Tempelhof. 75 Jahre Zentralflughafen, 50 Jahre Luftbrücke, Berlin
Bohle-Heintzenberg, Sabine (1980):
Architektur der Berliner Hoch- und Untergrundbahn. Planungen Entwürfe Bauten
bis 1930, Berlin
Conin, Helmut (1974):
Gelandet in Berlin. Zur Geschichte der Berliner Flughäfen, Köln.
Demps, Laurenz (1998):
Flughafen Tempelhof: Geschichte einer Legende, Berlin
Dittrich, Elke (2002):
Der Flughafen Tempelhof – ein nationalsozialistisches Großprojekt, in: Heisig,
Matthias / Walleczek, Sylvia (Hg.) : Tempelhofer Einblicke, Berlin, p. 17 -37
Dittrich, Elke (2005a):
Der Flughafen Tempelhof in Entwurfszeichnungen und Modellen 1935 – 1944,
Berlin
Dittrich, Elke (2005b):
Ernst Sagebiel. Leben und Werk 1892 – 1970, Berlin
Drieschner, Axel (2005):
Ernst Sagebiel’s Tempelhof airport: typology, iconography and politics, in:
Hawkins, Bob / Lechner, Gabriele / Smith, Paul: Historic Airports. Proceedings of
the International ‘L’Europe de l’Air’ Conferences on Aviation Architecture.
Liverpool (1999) Berlin (2000) Paris (2001), London, p. 100 – 111
Freundt, Lutz (2001):
Mauerflieger. Berlin – Luftkorridore Flughafen Tempelhof. Chronik und
Bilddokumente 1945 – 1990, Diepholz
Grosch, Ernst (1984):
Luftverkehr. Flughafen Tempelhof, in: Architekten- und Ingenieur-Verein Berlin
(ed.): Berlin und seine Bauten, Teil X, Bd. B, Anlagen und Bauten für den
Verkehr. (2) Fernverkehr, Berlin, p. 275 - 284
Halverson, Gail S. (2005)
Kaugummi und Schokolade. Die Erinnerungen des Berliner Candy Bombers,
Berlin
Hawkins, Bob / Lechner, Gabriele / Smith, Paul (2005):
Historic Airports. Proceedings of the International ‘L’Europe de l’Air’ Conferences
on Aviation Architecture. Liverpool (1999) Berlin (2000) Paris (2001), London
Hecker, Manfred (2005):
Berlin-Tempelhof: a city-airport of the 1930s, in: Hawkins, Bob / Lechner,
Gabriele / Smith, Paul: Historic Airports. Proceedings of the International
‘L’Europe de l’Air’ Conferences on Aviation Architecture. Liverpool (1999) Berlin
(2000) Paris (2001), London, p. 92 – 99)
94
Jackson, Robert (1988):
The Berlin Airlift, Wellingborough
Jedelsky, Meinrad (1995):
Zurück in die Zukunft. Städtebauliche Neuordnung des Tempelhofer Feldes mit
musealer und flugtechnischer Nutzung. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Berlin,
http://www.jedelsky.de/flughafen_tempelhof/text_00.html
Jockeit, Werner / Wendt, Cornelia (2005):
Approaching the built heritage: the conservation plan for Berlin-Tempelhof, in:
Hawkins, Bob / Lechner, Gabriele / Smith, Paul: Historic Airports. Proceedings of
the International ‘L’Europe de l’Air’ Conferences on Aviation Architecture.
Liverpool (1999) Berlin (2000) Paris (2001), London, p. 158 – 175)
Königseder, Angelika (2002):
Das Lager für “Displaced Persons” in Mariendorf, in: Heisig, Matthias /
Walleczek, Sylvia (Hg.): Tempelhofer Einblicke, Berlin, p. 39 - 57
Miller, Roger G. (1998):
To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift, 1948 – 1949, US Government Printing Office
Przychowski, Hans v. (1996):
Luftbrücken nach Berlin. Der alliierte Flugverkehr 1945 – 1990, Berlin
Rytlewsky, Ralf (2002):
Berliner Grenzfälle. Städtischer Neubeginn 1920 und 1990
Abschiedsvorlesung an der Freien Universität Berlin, im Internet veröffentlicht
unter: www. Osi-club.de/dokumente/abschiedsvorlesung-rytlewski.pdf
Schäche, Wolfgang (1997):
Der Zentralflughafen Tempelhof in Berlin, in: Berlin in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, Jahrbuch des Landesarchivs Berlin 1996, Berlin
Schäche, Wolfgang / Reichhardt, Hans J. (1985)
Von Berlin nach Germania. Über die Zerstörung der Reichshauptstadt durch
Albert Speers Neugestaltungsplanung, 3rd edition Berlin,
Schäche, Wolfgang / Reichhardt, Hans J. (1998)
Von Berlin nach Germania. Über die Zerstörung der Reichshauptstadt durch
Albert Speers Neugestaltungsplanung, completely revised new edition Berlin,
Schindler, Sabine (2003):
Authentizität und Inszenierung. Die Vermittlung von Geschichte in
amerikanischen historic sites, Heidelberg
Schwipps, Werner (1998):
Die Brüder Wright und ihre Flugzeuge in Deutschland. Der Sieg Wrights ist auch
der Sieg der Schule Lilienthals, Schwerin
Treibel, Werner (1992):
Geschichte der deutschen Verkehrsflughäfen. Eine Dokumentation von 1909 bis
1989, Bonn
Voigt, Wolfgang (2005):
The birth of the terminal: some typological remarks on early airport architecture in
Europe, in: Hawkins, Bob / Lechner, Gabriele / Smith, Paul: Historic Airports.
Proceedings of the International ‘L’Europe de l’Air’ Conferences on Aviation
Architecture. Liverpool (1999) Berlin (2000) Paris (2001), London, p. 158 – 175)
95
Wenz, F.-Herbert (2000):
Flughafen Tempelhof. Einrichtung eines Flugzeugwerkes, Lemwerder
UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2005)
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,
Paris
8.2
Internet references
http://earth.google.de/index.html, 20/04/2007
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Adler, 20/04/2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War, 21/04/2007
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderluftbr%C3%BCcke, 11/06/2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostpolitik, Cited 08/07/2007)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatsreserve, 21/04/2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempelhof, 02/05/2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Agreement_%281972%29, Cited 08/07/2007
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weser-Flugzeugbau_GmbH, 18/06/2007
http://semmer.de/airlift/, 19/04/2007
http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/, 16/05/2007
http://www.adv-net.org/de/gfx/index.php, 12/07/2007
http://www.berliner-verkehr.de/trbilder/netz_bsg_1923.jpg, 09/04/2007
http://www.berliner-verkehr.de/trbilder/netz_bvg_1930_west.jpg, 09/04/2007
http://www.bundesarchiv.de/aktuelles/aus_dem_archiv/galerie/00163/index.html,
10/06/07
http://www.century-offlight.freeola.com/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/
The%20Berlin %20Airlift.htm, 29/06/2007
http://www.euonair.european-heritage.net/uk/acc2.htm, 22/05/2007
http://www.european-heritage.net/sdx/herein/national_heritage/
voir.xsp?id=4.2.1_DE_en, 24/05/2007
http://www.exil-archiv.de/html/biografien/adler.l.html, 07/07/2007
http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/summary.htm, 10/06/07
http://www.flughafen-berlin-tempelhof.de/Leonhard_Adler.html, 10/04/2007
http://www.lilienthal-museum.de/olma/ehome.htm, 27/05/2007
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/geschichte/de/stadtgruen/
1920_1948/index.shtml, 21/04/2007
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/BERLIN_A/BOC.HTM, 04/07/2007
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/BERLIN_A/PAGE_3.HTM, 04/07/2007
http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/125jahre/festschrift/bart.htm, 21/04/2007
96
Declaration
This thesis, and the research work it contains, are exclusively the work of the
author. All the quotations and references are clearly identified. This work follows the
guidelines for the World Heritage Studies Programme at BTU Cottbus. It has not
been submitted to any other examination body and is currently unpublished.
Berlin, 25 July 2007
Christine Heeb, Dipl. Ing.
97