A Model Of Functionality
St. Benno school in Dresden
Since the beginning of the functionalist movement, one of the major issues has been the credo that architecture should attend to utilitarian considerations in as rational a framework as possible - thus the name, functionalism. For the most part, these intentions never really materialized from the theoretical fog, and the so-called functionalistic buildings did not seem to excel others in user-friendliness, durability or even aesthetic qualities. So a gap still exists between the wild promises of the Bauhaus years and the results of what was actually built.
Among the first to try and alleviate this dilemma was Alvar Aalto, and in the postwar years, Günter Behnisch(b.1922) and Hans Scharoun became the prime exponents of adapting a modernistic praxis aimed at a more user-friendly building design. As early as 1950, Behnisch opened an office, and during more than fifty years this developed, not only to one of Germany’s leading offices, but also the most “original.” Seen from Denmark, Behnisch + Behnisch received a great deal of attention a few years ago when they won the competition for the new National Archives in the Ørestaden area of Copenhagen.
The unique aspect of Behnisch’s architectural method is their especially pragmatic modernism, where user influence is a decisive factor in the design process. For their architecture, this emphasis on user participation implies an almost manic subversion of all hints of formalism, be it “rational” building wings or architectural repetition. By emphasizing variation and change in both the use as well as the experience of a building, the sequence and form of the spaces are never allowed to repeat themselves. Via the color scheme, spatial shifts and various daylighting sources, a considerable degree of variation is achieved to the advantage of the daily users, who already from the planning phase can recognize their influence on the design of the scheme.
The above-mentioned trait is also characteristic of a building scheme like the St. Benno catholic school in Dresden (1996), where strict rational features are manifested in form by a heavy, sound dampening facade screen toward Güntzstrasse to the east, which is countered by a softening of the long west facade. By breaking the course of the building and letting it slope softly outwards, the school’s west side appears as a varied, “human” contrast to the street facade, just as it respects the housing schemes along the adjacent Pestalozzistrasse, so it is more the school than the housing that lifts the neighborhood’s built environment.
The school is in four stories with special‑subject rooms and a chapel on the ground floor. Above this there are three standard floors with classrooms and finally a drawing studio and garden on the roof. Furthest toward north, with the floor level recessed one floor below grade, is the gym (also used for parties and theater) in continuation of the dining hall - both equipped with skylights. The sunken floor implies that the otherwise large mass of the gym is prevented from dominating the form of the school when seen from the exterior. However this is not true of the 150 meter long, ultramarine facade wall toward east - and the glass roof over the stairway, which toward west links the classroom blocks.
The main entrance lies adjacent to a small grove of plane trees to the south, and via stairways clearly indicates how to approach the scheme. From the entrance stairway, a corridor sequence running toward north serves as the scheme’s spine, but as this spine is extremely long, the architect chose to interrupt the long vista with toilet boxes and light openings, so that one never has a view through the entire length of the scheme, but can still recognize its clear, primary organization. The corridors have wood strip flooring and in-situ concrete walls interrupted by areas of lightweight, colored partitions.
The diversity of form and material is one of the strongest elements in the architectural experience of this scheme: When the corridor widens or narrows, approaches darker or brighter spaces, these experiences are accented by a varied, but never aggressive, color scheme. Behnisch has always been an advocate of venturesome architecture, and her in Dresden they have managed to provoke the local citizenry so much, that they soon dubbed the school “the parrot.” This nickname was inspired by the blue, yellow and brown facades, colors that in Behnisch’s pallet stand for “heaven,” “sun” and “earth.” While the corridors and facades are primarily polychromatic, they classrooms are more conservative.
St. Benno’s architectural culmination is a cascade of glass over the stairways and lounge areas. Sloping glass facades form the connecting element, which links the otherwise unrestrained building masses and divergent building directions together in a credible whole. In terms of function, it is hard to imagine a more practical area to accent the daylighting than in the transitions. However, the collage-like character of these junctions brings to mind the building as a process: That the buildings should allow alterations or rebuilding without necessarily spoiling the architectural “whole.”
For critics who have been brought up on a more subdued building tradition like the Danish, Behnisch’s architecture can appear a little too expressive, not to mention unrestrained. On the other hand, it must be said to function completely satisfactorily with the important advantage that neither the different floors nor corridors can be confused by the daily users. The differences withing an otherwise rational building system prevent any threat of triviality
Since the 1960's, Behnisch’s architecture has varied considerably from project to project, yet has always been under constant and consequent control due to the rationality implied by the international building method.
Climatic differences and the interior microclimate are adjusted by technical resources such as awnings or high-insulated window types. It is not the technological considerations or the use of form for its own sake that make up the decisive differences, but rather the different project clients and user groups. The users are treated consequently as different individuals, so it is in consideration to them that the individual building sections are allowed to develop their special character.
By satisfying extremely divergent user-needs, Behnisch seems to have come quite far in indicating how concerned and democratic architecture can be created while still respecting the demands of modern building technology.
Flemming Skude
