, ,

-, .
XIX
, ,
. XIX XX
. ,
. 70 ., 110 .
, , , : , .
,
. , ( ) : XVII
3,3 ., XVIII 5,4, XIX XX (
) 5,7, 9,
( ) 50 .

( ), - , ( ).

( ) :
,
,
.
, . ,
.
, .

.


, . .

, ;
.
:
.

War is an activity, aimed at overcoming, destruction of something, it

is a continuation of politics through means of violence.
Before XX C AD wars had comparatively narrow economical base and
were usually held by few professional armies. From the beginning of XIX C
AD and particulary from XX C AD wars demand on great economical effort
and involves many millions of peolpe in prolonged conflict. Many countries
are involved in military conflicts, thus converting a war into a world war.
More than 70 million of people participated in WW1, in WW2 110 million.
Negative consequences of war are, beyond of loss of people, humanitarian disaster starvation, epidemics. Modern global wars are connected
with huge people and material loss, with unprecedented ravages and disasters. For example, in European coutries the loss of people in wars is: XVII
C 3.3 mln people, XVIII 5.4, XIX and the beginning of XX (before WW1)
5.7, in WW1 more than 9, and in WW2 more than 50 mln of people.
Positive consequenses of war: information exchange (Arabs learned
the secret of making paper due to the battle of Talas (Battle of Artlakh)),
surge of scientific and technological discoveries, and removal of contradictions (war as a dialectical moment of negation in Hegel).
Some researchers label the following factors as positive for human
society as a whole (not for a single person):
War brings back the biological selection, in which the most adaptable for survival leaves the posterity, because in common conditions of
human society the effect of biological selection is strongly weakened in the
sence of selection of a partner.

All prohibitions, put on a human in society in common time, are taken off during the hostilities. Thus war can be seen as a method and a way of
removal of psychological stress in the whole society.
The fear of alien will obtrusion, ffear in the face of danger is an exceptional incentive towards technical progress. It is no coincidence many new
products are invented and first appear for military purposes, and only then
are used in civilian life.
Improvement of international relations at the highest level and appeal to the world community values such as human life, peace and others in
the post-war period.

It seems that the whole history of mankind is a continuous war, the

world is constantly being in a state of conflict. How war is reflected in the
culture of the peoples and how it affects architecture: this issue is devoted
to the architecture of the war.

In the memory of victims of wars.

Table of contents

War and architecture
. L. Woods

#1, 2013
Languages: Russian, English.
Contacts: editorial@archmag.ru
Ads: ads@archmag.ru

archmag.ru
WAR

. K. Asse

Art and war

About War

Fortresses and castles
20
20 century

Nowadays
6

O Lord, save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance!

Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries,
and by virtue of Thy cross, preserve Thy habitation.
Troparion of the Holy Cross, Tone I
, , ,

.
, 1
, , ,
, ,
.

.

.

Architecture
is war.
War
is architecture.

.
. . , ,
,
. , , , , , ,
,
, .
,
,
, .
, , . , , ,
, ,
. .
.

Architecture and war are not incompatible. Architecture is war. War is architecture. I am at war
with my time, with history, with all authority
that resides in fixed and frightened forms. I am
one of millions who do not fit in, who have no
home, no family, no doctrine, no firm place to
call my own, no known beginning or end, no
sacred and primordial site. I declare war on all
icons and finalities, on all histories that would
chain me with my own falseness, my own pitiful
fears. I know only moments, and lifetimes that
are as moments, and forms that appear with
infinite strength, then melt into air. I am an
architect, a constructor of worlds, a sensualist
who worships the flesh, the melody, a silhouette against the darkening sky. I cannot know
your name. Nor you can know mine. Tomorrow,
we begin together the construction of a city.
Lebbeus Woods

WAR AND
ARCHITECTURE:
The Sarajevo window

Prototypical wall and window repair

for Sarajevo, Bosnia, c. 1994, view from
inside. Concept by LW, design and
construction by architect Paul Anvar.

http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/

Some twenty years go, I wrote:

whelming odds.

Architecture and war are not incompatible.

Architecture is war. War is architecture. I am at
war with my time, with history, with all authority that resides in fixed and frightened forms. I
am one of millions who do not fit in, who have
no home, no family, no doctrine, no firm place
to call my own, no known beginning or end, no
sacred and primordial site. I declare war on all
icons and finalities, on all histories that would
chain me with my own falseness, my own pitiful fears. I know only moments, and lifetimes
that are as moments, and forms that appear
with infinite strength, then melt into air. I am
an architect, a constructor of worlds, a sensualist who worships the flesh, the melody, a
silhouette against the darkening sky. I cannot
know your name. Nor you can know mine. Tomorrow, we begin together the construction of
a city.

Over the two decades since this manifesto

was written, I have had much time to consider the words I wrote and what I meant by
them.

At that time, I was responding to an urgent

situation in Sarajevo, Bosniaa city under
a sustained terrorist attack that, in the West,
was considered a siege, as though it were
part of a normal war, which it was not. Snipers had turned streets into lethal shooting
galleries and artillery gunners had turned
ordinary buildings where people worked
and lived into incendiary death traps. It
was clear that architecture was part of the
problemthe killing of thousands of innocent men, woman, and childrenand I felt
strongly that as long as the attacks continued (it turned out to be for more than three
years) architecture also had to be part of the
This manifesto was read aloud on the steps solution.
of the burned-out Olympic Museum in Sarajevo on November 26, 1993, in full view of Without the help of architects, people had
Serbian snipers and artillery gunners. Hap- built temporary walls as shields against snippily, no fire rained down on the assembled ers and thrown up all sorts of improvised
audience, of which I among many others was repairs to their homes and workplaces. I
included. Coming to the last line, one of the reasoned that these makeshift structures,
two gifted actor-readers objected, Why wait though more or less effective for their puruntil tomorrow? Typical Sarajevan humour, poses, created a degraded environment,
candour, and bravado in the face of over- which was exactly the goal of the terrorists.
10

To survive, and to frustrate the enemies of

their refined culture, people need a sense of
order in their world, one that is consciously created, or designed. Sarajevans nobly
showed this need by the way they dressed,
in spite of the lack of water, heat, or lighting,
somehow always in clean, pressed clothing,
the women elegantly coifed and made up,
incongruously strolling in the parts of the
city center that were screened from snipers
if not from mortars and cannons in the hills
above, like players from an Alain Resnais film.
Inspired by this and a dash of Michelangelos designs for the fortifications of Florence,
I set out to consider how to repair damaged
houses and offices in ways that embodied
the elan of their inhabitants, as well as kept
out the rain, snow, and cold. These were extremely modest designs, made from scavenged metal, wood, and even cardboard.

wanted this small-scale architecture to avoid

becoming junk sculpture, or a collage of
detritus. Intention is important, even at the
smallest scale, and the intention in Sarajevo
was to consciously reshape its world, turning
ruins and battered remnants into a new kind
of architecture, a uniquely Sarajevan architecture, and something of which the citys
people could be proud. The goal was also to
establish some basic rules of reconstruction,
keeping in mind the enormous task of rebuilding the damaged city that would begin
when the terrorists were defeated and people could turn their energy to building the
new city I had forecast in my manifesto, and
a new way of civic life.

One principle I adopted in the beginning

was that such found materials would be reshaped, piece by piece. More than anything, I
11

12

13

WAR AND
ARCHITECTURE:
Three Principles

The front cover of War and

Architecture, an issue in the Pamphlet
Architecture series that I took with me
to Sarajevo in late November, 1993,
when the city was under attack. I must
thank Clare Jacobson, its editor, and
Kevin Lippert, its publisher, who
worked hard to ensure that I would
have it on the date of my departure for
Sarajevo. The text is in English and
Croatian, thanks to Aleksandra
Wagner, who made the translation of
my text in English to what was then
still called Serbo-Croatian.

http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/

Note to the readers: I wish to apologize for

what must seem a blatant self-promotion in
this post, but it is not possible to separate
the personal from the conceptual, because
the two stories are here so fully intertwined.
As I said in an earlier post, the ideas developed in this work have such currency in the
present that, I believe, it is a necessary risk to
take. I can only ask for the readers generous
forbearance.
LW
I am revisiting the work I did some fifteen
years ago for an unhappy reason. Originally
intended to address the destruction of buildings in Sarajevo, Bosniawhich I and many
others hoped would prove to be an isolated
catastropheit has instead turned out to be
only the beginning of a new trend resulting
from globalization, a proliferation of regional, often insurgent-driven wars that have resulted in the piece-by-piece destruction of
cities and the killing of their inhabitants that
characterized the torturous three-year attack on Sarajevo.
In going over what I wrote about this work
at the timein 1993I find it inadequate in
its explanation of what inspired the designs,
drawings, and models and what I hoped
to achieve by making them. No wonder, I
14

say in hindsight, that they were accused of

aestheticizing violence, and merely being
exploitative of a tragic human condition. I
failed to put the work in the broader human
context that it needed to be understood as
proposals for architecture serving rational
and needed purposes. I hope to correctto
the extent I can herethis failure.
Because of my work concerned with the Sarajevo crisis long ago, people have often asked
what I was working on for Baghdad, or Kabul,
or Tripoli, or a growing list of cities that have
shared its fate. My answer is always the same:
nothing. While each is different, the destruction they have suffered is so similar to that
suffered by Sarajevo that the principles I established there apply as well to the more recent catastrophes. This is a crucial point. My
war and architecture work was not aimed
at proposing the reconstruction of particular
buildingsthat should be the work of local
architectsbut at deriving guiding principles. The specific buildings I addressed with
my designs were meant more as demonstrations of how these principles might work in
particular cases, rather than as actual building proposals. Again, I strongly believe that
reconstructions should be designed by local
architects, who understand the local conditions far, far better than I ever could. I did and
still do feel, equally strongly, that I and other

conceptualists can make a contribution to

reconstruction on the level of principle, because we can more readily have a broader
view, not having directly suffered the trauma of our citys destruction and its lingering
emotional and intellectual effects.
So, to the principles.
Before attempting to address the reconstruction prospects forced upon us by the
destruction of Sarajevo, I studied the history of modern cities attacked in the Second
World War. There is a massive literature on
this heart-wrenching but crucial moment
in human history. However, there is a small
literature on the rebuilding of the damaged
citiesmany of which were severely damagedand even less about the actual concepts that guided their reconstruction. From
my studies, I can see only two guiding principles shared by the majority of post-war reconstruction projects.
The First Principle: Restore what has been

lost to its pre-war condition. The idea is to restore normalcy, where the normal is the way
of living lost as a result of the war. The idea
considers the war as only an interruption of
an ongoing flow of the normal.
The Second Principle: Demolish the damaged and destroyed buildings and build
something entirely new. This new could be
something radically different from what existed before, or only an updated version of
the lost pre-war normal. Its application is
very expensive financially, at the least.
Both of these concepts reflect the desires
of most city inhabitants to get back to normal, and forget the trauma they suffered as
a result of the violence and destruction. Yet,
both concepts ignore the effects of the war
and destruction on the people who suffered
through them, not only the personal psychological effects, but also those forcing changes to peoples social, political, and economic
relationships. Before the war, Sarajevo was
15

the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, one

of the states in the Socialist Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia. After the war, it was the capital of an independent country and no longer
Socialist. The impact of this change alone on
peoples everyday lives has been enormous,
and particularly so in the ways they perceive
each other and themselves. In this sense, it is
not possible to get back to normal. The prewar normal no longer exists, having been irrevocably destroyed, Still, this does not mean
that manyeven mostpeople will not desire to do so. In such a society, wise leaders
are needed to persuade people that something new must be createda new normal
that modifies or in some ways replaces the
lost one, and further, that it can only be created with their consent and creative participation. In effect, a new principle of reconstruction needs to be established.
Well call it the Third Principle: The post-war
city must create the new from the damaged
old. Many of the buildings in the war-damaged city are relatively salvageable, and because the finances of individuals and remaining institutions have been depleted by war
and its privations, that salvageable building
stock must be used to build the new city.
And because the new ways of living will not
be the same as the old, the reconstruction
of old buildings must enable new ways and
ideas of living. The familiar old must be transformed, by conscious intention and design,
into the unfamiliar new.
It is worth mentioning that the most needed
buildings are the so-called ordinary ones
apartments and office buildings, primarily.
Symbolic structures, such as churches, synagogues, mosques and those buildings of
historical significance that are key to the cultural memory of the city and its people must
also be salvaged and repaired. With these
latter buildings, the First Principlerestoration to the pre-war stateis almost always
justified, whatever the cost, which is always
16

high. However, the application of this principle to ordinary buildings makes no sense,
because there is nothing especially memorable to restore. To the contrary, the apartment
and office blocks that survive destruction
must provide the day-to-day spaces for the
new ways of living to be enabled by their
radical reconstruction.
The projects for Sarajevo that demonstrate
exactly what is meant by this term, accompanied by extended captions, are presented
below. I think it is possible, and just, to project the Third Principle into the reconstruction of todays war-damaged cities.

A typical residential block, badly damaged in places, reconstructed with new types of spaces
for residents use. The principle here is that reconstruction integrates peoples experiences of the
destruction into needed social changes, as well as architectural ones.

Typical residential blocks, damaged and reconstructed as described above. It is important to

remember that most of such ordinary buildings are damaged only in part and can be salvaged
by reconstruction for the post-war city and its new ways of living.
17

The burning Electrical Management Building, and (right) the badly damaged, but salvageable
Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina:
The purpose of the New Parliament is not simply to replace the old, Socialist parliament, but
in the first placeto study and debate what a post-war Bosnian parliament should be and do.
New types of spaces woven into the surviving Cartesian structural frame, create a dialectic between timeless and timebound, a network of the unknown that inspires both dialogue and innovation:

The UNIS twin office towers, attacked in 1992, and burned. The buildings structural and floor
systems survived and were suitable for radical reconstruction. The new types of office space will
be used in ways that will be unique to the post war conditions.
18

19

Like the Sarajevo window, the scavenged construction materials are carefully reshaped and
reconfigured, then fitted together with a high level of crafta technique appropriate to the
New Parliaments methods and goals.

20

The book Radical Reconstruction, for all its textual deficiencies, does present demonstrations of
the Third Principle, stated above, in Sarajevo; Havana, Cuba; and San Francisco, USA.

21

http://archi.ru/press/russia/19546/arhitektura-i-voina-chemprosche-postroen-gorod-tem-legche-ego-vzyat

OpenSpace.ru, 01.10.2009
http://www.openspace.ru/art/projects/86/details/12561/

,
, , , . ,
, ...

, .
,
, .
, , ,
.

,
.

? , , , . ,
, .
1939 . , , , , ,
. .
,
:
, , . , -

22

.
.
,
, . ,
. , ,
,
,
.
. ,
,
.

23

http://archi.ru/press/russia/19546/arhitektura-i-voina-chemprosche-postroen-gorod-tem-legche-ego-vzyat

OpenSpace.ru, 01.10.2009
http://www.openspace.ru/art/projects/86/details/12561/

Translation by I. Matveev

Architecture and war

The simpler the city

the easier it is to capture.

Im trying to formulate my thoughts on the interconnections

of war architecture and war in the third time, or, more strictly, the military campaigns. I became interested with this
problem, when I was unofficially invited to participate in the
lately held session of The dictionary of war, which I actually
missed...

They are developed on wide territory, but in short time in

historical scale.
Successful war is seen as some kind of foundation for the
forthcoming prosperity of a faith, nation or crown, according to the motive of aggression.

Nevertheless, this theme strangely continues to haunt me,

therefore I want to write down some of my considerations
here.
How can architecture and war be lead to a common denominator? As a rule, the aim of a war is an occupation of a territory with its inhabitants and resources. In war science the best
operations are considered those, in that the aims is achieved
through minimal time and minimal victims. The occupation
of Poland in 1939 is an exemplary operation in this sense.
Thus, the best war is that, which doesnt actually have military actions, or, strictly, military clashes. This can be achieved
through careful planning and search of the best solution.
However, military planning has little depth, as far as the element of surprise is extremely important and any war plan is
a system with a huge number of variables: enemys actions,
its fighting spirit, grounding. Weather, in the end. It is impossible to take into account all of the alternatives, and the
project of the war is built and defined more exactly during
the hostilities.

24

The main purpose of architecture is creation of residence in

the broad sense. Architecture also performs expansion or
registers the fact expansion. Cities spread in breadth; buildings are erected upwards, covering more and more space.
However, architectural expansion is smaller in space, but
longer in time in comparison to war. Moreover, if hostilities tend to zero and try to become a momentary capture
of territory, architectural structures record achievements
and their existence begins from the process of construction,
while war itself is a process.
Architecture pretend to eternity. Unlike war plans, operating
with unknown circumstances forcedly, architectural planning tends to complete predetermination of the result.

Kirill Asse

25

26

, , , ,
,
.

O Lord, save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance,

Grant victory to all Orthodox Christians over their enemies,
And by virtue of Thy Cross, preserve Thy habitation.

. , 20122013.
, , . .
.

Tapestry Troparion of the Holy Cross

Triptych. Artist Olga Tolstikova, 20122013.
Wool, flax, hand weaving. The third part is in progress.
For the support of christians of Syria and against war.

- : (210250 ); , , (210250 ),
, .

From left to right: Explosion (210250 ); O Lord, save Thy people (210250 ), in the
collection of the Moscow Museum of Modern Art.
27

28

. , 1871.
, . 127197 . , .

The Apotheosis of War. Vasily Vereshchagin, 1871.

Oil on canvas. 127197 . Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

.
: ,
. ,
.

The Apotheosis of War a painting by russian artist Vasily Vasilyevich Vereshchagin. On

the frame there is an inscription: dedicated to all conquerors, past, present and to come.
The Apotheosis of War is Vereshchagins protest against wars, violence and murder.
29

 (. Guernica)
, 1937 .

. , -
, , .

( ). ,
, .
1981 , 1992

30

XX
,
.

.
26 1937 , ,
. ; ,

. .
,
. :
, ,
.
.

10-12

. ,
,
.
,
. ,
, :

31

 .
,
.
: ,
,
. o
: . ,
, .
, , :
,
. .
, , :
. ,
. ,
, .
- . :
, . ,
, -
.

.
-,
- , 3,5 7,8 .
.
, , ,
, .
- , ,
,
.

32

, , ,
.
,
,
, .
, ,
.
.
, -, ,
,
.

( ).
, ,
,
. , ,
.
, ,
.
.
, ,
, , .
, , -, .
,
.
.
(
,
, ). .

,
. ,
,
. ,
, ,
.

33

Guernica is a painting by Pablo Picasso. It was created in response to the

bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by German and Italian warplanes at the behest of the Spanish Nationalist forces on
26 April 1937 during the Spanish Civil War.
Guernica shows the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts upon individuals, particularly innocent civilians. This work has gained a monumental
status, becoming a perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war
symbol, and an embodiment of peace. Upon completion, Guernica was
displayed around the world in a brief tour, becoming famous and widely
acclaimed. This tour helped bring the Spanish Civil War to the worlds attention.
Although mention is frequently made of the paintings return to Spain,
this is not in fact correct. Guernica was painted in Paris, where it was first
exhibited, before being placed in the care of the Museum of Modern Art
(MoMA), as it was Picassos express desire that the painting should not be
delivered to Spain until liberty and democracy had been re-established in
the country.[1] On its arrival in Spain, in September 1981, it was first displayed behind bomb-and bullet-proof glass screens at the Casn del Buen
Retiro in Madrid in time to celebrate the centenary of Picassos birth, October 24. The exhibition was visited by almost a million people in the first year.
Guernica was moved to its current permanent location in a purpose-built
gallery at the Museo Reina Sofa in 1992.
Interpretations of Guernica vary widely and contradict one another. This
extends, for example, to the murals two dominant elements: the bull and
the horse. Art historian Patricia Failing said, The bull and the horse are important characters in Spanish culture. Picasso himself certainly used these
characters to play many different roles over time. This has made the task
of interpreting the specific meaning of the bull and the horse very tough.
Their relationship is a kind of ballet that was conceived in a variety of ways
throughout Picassos career.
When pressed to explain them in Guernica, Picasso said,
...this bull is a bull and this horse is a horse... If you give a meaning to certain things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to give
this meaning. What ideas and conclusions you have got I obtained too, but
instinctively, unconsciously. I make the painting for the painting. I paint the
objects for what they are.

34

In The Dream and Lie of Franco, a series of narrative sketches also created
for the Worlds Fair, Franco is depicted as a monster that first devours his
own horse and later does battle with an angry bull. Work on these illustrations began before the bombing of Guernica, and four additional panels
were added, three of which relate directly to the Guernica mural.
Picasso said as he worked on the mural: The Spanish struggle is the fight
of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist
has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and
the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in
agreement with reaction and death? ... In the panel on which I am working,
which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express
my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of
pain and death.
However, according to scholar Beverly Ray the following list of interpretations reflects the general consensus of historians:
The shape and posture of the bodies express protest.
Picasso uses black, white, and grey paint to set a somber mood and express
pain and chaos.
Flaming buildings and crumbling walls not only express the destruction of
Guernica, but reflect the destructive power of civil war.
The newspaper print used in the painting reflects how Picasso learned of
the massacre.
The light bulb in the painting represents the sun.
The broken sword near the bottom of the painting symbolizes the defeat of
the people at the hand of their tormentors. (Berger 1980; Chipp 1988)
In drawing attention to a number of preliminary studies, the so-called primary project, that show an atelier installation incorporating the central triangular shape which reappears in the final version of Guernica, Becht-Jrdens
and Wehmeier interpret the painting as a self-referential composition in the
tradition of atelier paintings such as Las Meninas by Diego Velzquez. In his
chef doeuvre, Picasso seems to be trying to define his role and his power
as an artist in the face of political power and violence. But far from being
a mere political painting, Guernica should be seen as Picassos comment
on what art can actually contribute towards the self-assertion that liberates
every human being and protects the individual against overwhelming forces such as political crime, war, and death.

35

 ? .
! , . , , ?
?.. .
, . . , , . ,
, -, , ,
, , , . , ?

Do I remember? said the colonel. Oh, I do, I do! His voice trembled as he
shut up his eyes again. Everything! Except . . .which side I fought on . . .
The color of your uniform Charlie began.
Colors begin to run on you, whispered the colonel. its gotten hazy. I see
soldiers with me, but a long time ago 1 stopped seeing color in their coats
or caps. I was born in Illinois, raised in Virginia, married in New York, built a
house in Tennessee and now, very late, here I am, good Lord, back in Green
Town. So you see why the colors run and blend . . .

, ? . ?
?

But you remember which side of hills you fought on? Charlie did not raise
his voice. Did the sun rise on your left or right? Did you march toward Canada or Mexico?

,
, - . , .
. ,
.

Seems some mornings the sun rose on my good right hand, some mornings over my left shoulder. We marched all directions. Its most seventy years
since. You forget suns and mornings that long past.

- ? - ?
, , -
. .
, . , ,
, . , ,
. , , , ,
. -, ,
, ?
,

36

The Civil War, suggested John Huff quietly. Does he remember that?

You remember winning, dont you? A battle won, somewhere?

No, said the old man, deep under. I dont remember anyone winning anywhere any time. Wars never a winning thing, Charlie. You just lose all the
time, and the one who loses last asks for terms. All I remember is a lot of losing and sadness and nothing good but the end of it. The end of it, Charles,
that was a winning all to itself, having nothing to do with guns. But I dont
suppose thats the kind of victory you boys mean for me to talk on.

Dandelion Wine, Ray Bradbury

37

 , ,
.
, - , ,
.
,
.
-, , . 10
. 7000 . . .
30 10 ,
. , 30

1950- . ,
, :
. ,
,
.

,
, .

38

.
,
XVX . . . - .
, ,
.
,
,
, .
( )
,
.
:

, .

, - .
. , , ,
, , , . ,
,
.
,
.
, , , , .

39

Wars are as old as humanity itself. There is no evidence that

there ever have been times of peace and abundance. The sad
truth is that with the emergence of civilization, mankind has
shown ingenuity in creating a feverish military equipment.
Apparently, the oldest city in the world is Jericho, situated near
the Dead Sea in Palestine. It appeared about 10 000 years ago
and had the oldest fortifications. To the 7000 year BC It had a
stone wall 30 feet thick and 10 feet high, so the enclosed area
was about some dozens of acres. In the very centre there was
a masterpiece of prehistorical constructon firmly built stone
tower with a central spiral staircase, the lower 30 feet of which
still remained at the time of the excavation of Jericho by a group
of British archaeologists in the 1950s. Kathleen Kenayn, head of
the excavation, felt awed by her discovery: The complex is a
marvellous piece of architecture. The astonishing ancientry of
these structures is emphasized by the fact that they were built
in Jericho before people there have began using pottery.
In other pre-historic cities of the Middle East pottery evolved
long before the usual urban settlements, except those cities
where defence work was carefully conducted.

Besides the huge monumental gates (the most famous are the
Lion Gate at Mycenae) fortress has had side gates, which were
easily hidden by shrubs and allowed to make sudden attacks
against enemies. Special attention was paid to water: a source
had to stay in the castle or secret tunnels had to be dug under
the walls so that people could get to the outside of groundwater resources during the siege.
There are about a hundred Mycenaean fortresses in Greece
the result of the fragmentation of society, where the city-states
fought a constant war with its neighbours. However, their defensive systems are strangely similar. Their similarity suggests
that, most likely, it was Anatolia, where, according to Greek legend, lived Cyclops. In fact, the Hittites built fortifications on the
central Anatolian plateau, strikingly similar to the fortifications
of the Mycenaeans of that time. However, if the Hittites invented the gigantic style of fortresses, the Mycenaean Greeks
brought it to perfection. Some buildings are so huge, such as
walls of Gla in Central Greece, which extends for about two
miles and a surface area of half a square mile.

During all ancient times Eastern Mediterranean continued to

be a region with strong fortifications a reflection of the bellicose nature of civilizations that flourished here.
The most impressive are the walls erected in the XV-X centuries
BC by Mycenaean warrior-kings in Greece. These monarchs of
the Bronze Age, the heroes of the epic poems of Homer, erected
elaborate wall around their palaces and cities. Huge walls were
built of rough-hewn stone blocks, the incredible dimensions of
which forced the Greeks in classical times to believe that Cyclopes have erected them, the mythical one-eyed giants.

40

41

.
.
.
-.
. ,
- , ,
,
.
-
( . .).
.
. .
.

.

. (13878 . . .)
() . : ,
.
( ).

.
, 1
5 .
17 .

42

Athena of the Parthenos Athena type.

Pentelic marble, Greek copy from the 1st century BC
after the original from the 5th century BC.
Some 17th-century restorations

43

 -,
( . .).
. .
,
, . ( ).

Baal with thunderbolt.

Limestone stele, 15th-13th century BC.
Found at the acropolis in Ras Shamra
(ancient city of Ugarit)
.
, 15-13 .

( )

.
, ,
. (
.).

, .
() , . .

.

.
() , .
, , .

() .
.

44

45

. Codex Telleriano-Remensis (16 )

Huitzilopochtli, from the Codex Telleriano-Remensis (16th century)

46

47


, , .

.
.

.
( , ) -.
-.

- ( , -) . (160
219).

.

, ,
.

.

48

49

 .
360 .
. ..
Marble statue of Mars Pyrrhus, dated at I sec. A.D.
Height cm 360.
It was found in the Nervas Forum, in Rome, and its now placed in the atrium of Capitoline
Museums in Rome

50

51


, , .

.
.

.
( , ) -.
-.

- ( , -) . (160
219).

.

, ,
.

.

52

53

<

54

XX
20

>

55


,
. ,
, ,
,
.

.
,
, .
,
.
, .

56

VIII
VII . ., .
.
, ,
(
).
.

, IX .
. , ,
,
.
, ,
.

(
), .

XII
.
, ( ) .

,
.
. ,
.
.
.

,
.
;
( , XIV
).

.
, , (),
, , , , ,
, , , ,
.
(, , . .),
. ,
, , , ,

.
.

,
(
, XVXVI ) (XVI )
XVI
.
, XVIII
.
, ,
. ,
.

57

 ,


-
XIIIXV
, ,
, , ,

58

59

 (. Alhambra, .
- ) - ,
.
(12301492),
, (
XIV ). , ,
, , , , ,
. .

(. Cit de Carcassonne,
ville fortifie de Carcassonne) , .
- .
- . , 3
. 52 . .
60

61

(. ?) ,
, .
. ,
,
().
( , 14671568).
50 , ,
, 1611 , ,
, , ,
,
.
,
(, - ).
.
. IX ,
.
(15761582)

( )

62

63


(. ,,,, , -, , )
XVIXIX . .
,
.
XIX (. ).

64

65

 (. ) (. )
, .

. 1990 . 2000 .
.

66

67

XX
68

69

(, ,

) ,
( ).

, ,
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
,
(,
, , , )

, ,
.

, ,
, .
,
. ,
70

1916 . (


- )
(
1917 .).
(Pillbox),
,

.
: 210- ,
,
.
1920-30- .
1920-
,


1929 . ,

.
.
19301940- ,

.
71

 ,

.

(. ) ,


- .

.
, .

( , 1923 .),
,
-

.
1962 , XX .
1960 1970

- .


. 1996
()
.

.

72

(
, ),
.
,
() ,

.
,

,
,

.
, , ,


, , .
,
,
.
:
:

; , ;

.
.

.

. , 155- 1 (. ),
73



(d~25 )
3,75 , 5 ~2 , . -
(. ),
.
, :

;

;



.
, :


/;
, ;
, ,
;

, -

, .

.
74

, ,
:
,
;
;
, 20- (,

-500, -13);


;
,
. ,

-

3

.

c

,

.
,
.
,

, .
75

Pillbox

Pillboxes are concrete dug-in guard posts, normally equipped

with loopholes through which to fire weapons. The originally jocular name arose from their perceived similarity to the
cylindrical and hexagonal boxes in which medical pills were
once sold. They are in effect a trench firing step hardened to
protect against small-arms fire and grenades and raised to
improve the field of fire.
The concrete nature of pillboxes means that they are a feature of prepared positions. They were probably first used
in the Hindenburg Line. This is likely to have been the time
when they acquired their incongruous English name. The
Oxford English Dictionarys earliest record of the use of the
word pillbox in connection with a defensive post is from 13
September 1917, after the German withdrawal onto the Hindenburg Line.
Pillboxes are often camouflaged in order to conceal their location and to maximize the element of surprise. They may be
part of a trench system, form an interlocking line of defence

76

with other pillboxes by providing covering fire to each other

(defence in depth), or they may be placed to guard strategic
structures such as bridges and jetties.
The French Maginot line built between the world wars consisted of a massive bunker and tunnel complex, but as most
of it was below ground little could be seen from the ground
level. The exception were the concrete blockhouses and pillboxes which were placed above ground to allow the garrison
of the Maginot line to engage an attacking enemy.
About 28,000 pillboxes and other hardened field fortifications were constructed in England in 1940 as part of the British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. About 6,500 of
these structures still survive.
Pillboxes for the Czechoslovak border fortifications were
built before the Second World War in Czechoslovakia in defence against the German invasion of Czechoslovakia. None
of these were actually used against its intended enemy, since
the German military met no resistance when invading the
country because it was effectively forced to capitulate as
a result of Allies annexing the countrys border areas and
handing them to Germany, but some were used against the
liberating Russian armies. The Japanese also made use of pillboxes in their fortifications of Iwo Jima.

77

(. blindage, . blinder
)
, ,
, .
,
.
, . ., .

1854 - 1855 .
191418 193945
,
78

.
,
, , .

,
.
.
,
,
, , , .

,
. , .

3 .

110

(. Blockhaus .
)
,

. ,
.

, ,
, . .

.
: ,

.
1778
. ,

,

, , .
, -
, ,
.
.
, 1
,
, .

( ) :
,
( ).

.
2 .

,
.
.
28- ,
2 150 . 1
, 25
. 6 .
: 5 , 2 2
19 , . 2
. .

8501000 :

. .
79


.
,
:
, ,
,
, ..
,

.

,
.
4-5 , 7
,
.

.
, ,
. .

,
.

- (: )
, , , - 4 000 . 85 . - .

. , , .

1979-1989 . . ,
400 , , , , , .
25 .
1980 .
66-
40- . 2001 .

80

81

, , , , .

,
.
45-
50250

,
,
,
.
, 1920- 1930 . 1930- 1940-
.

.
. ,
250500

( - ).
.
.
- , - . - .
.

,
-
, - , ,
. , - . , , , -
- 80 56
,
, - 155 ( ~100
.
).
, , - - ,
. .
- 50 -

82

,

.
24 (
)
1525
.
23 , 12
,
, .

, ,

1422 % (
0,05 0,3 ),

.

0,750,95 -

-,

. ,
0,75 50 2 , 100 3 , 250
5 .
,
,

.


,
20 %
,
~4045 % ,
. , ,

(. ) ,

.
83

Air-raid shelter
Air-raid shelters, also known as bomb shelters, are structures
for the protection of the civil population as well as military
personnel against enemy attacks (bombing) from the air.
They are similar to bunkers in many regards, although they
are not designed to defend against ground attack (but many
have been successfully used as defensive structures in such
situations).
Prior to World War II, in May 1924, an Air Raid Precautions
Committee was set up in the United Kingdom. For years, little progress was made with shelters because of the apparently irreconcilable conflict between the need to send the
public underground for shelter and the need to keep them
above ground for protection against gas attacks. In February
1936 the Home Secretary appointed a technical Committee
on Structural Precautions against Air Attack. By November
1937, there had only been slow progress, because of a serious lack of data on which to base any design recommendations, and the Committee proposed that the Home Office

84

should have its own department for research into structural

precautions, rather than relying on research work done by
the Bombing Test Committee to support the development
of bomb design and strategy. This proposal was eventually
implemented in January 1939.
During the Munich crisis, local authorities dug trenches
to provide shelter. After the crisis, the British Government
decided to make these a permanent feature, with a standard design of precast concrete trench lining. Unfortunately
these turned out to perform very poorly. They also decided
to issue free to poorer households the Anderson shelter (see
below), and to provide steel props to create shelters in suitable basements (Baker 1978).
Air raid shelters were built specifically to serve as protection against enemy air raids. However, pre-existing edifices designed for other functions, such as Underground stations (tube or subway stations), tunnels, cellars in houses
or basements in larger establishments, and railway arches,
above ground, were suitable for safeguarding people during air raids. A commonly used home shelter was known as
the Anderson shelter which would be built in a garden and
equipped with beds as a refuge from air raids.

85

Wehrwolf, Vinnytsia
Bundesarchiv, Frankreich,
U-Boot-Bunker
Wehrwolf, Vinnytsia

Cold War Museum, Moscow, tunnel

(. Bunker) .
, , ()
( ,
, ). , ; .
, , .
,
. ,
.
- NORAD .
.
,
. ,
.
, /
, , , , , .
(pillbox)
.

86

87

Bunker

A bunker is a defensive military fortification designed to protect the inhabitants from falling bombs or other attacks. Bunkers are mostly below ground,
compared to blockhouses which are mostly above ground. They were used
extensively in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War for weapons facilities, command and control centers, and storage facilities (for example,
in the event of nuclear war). Bunkers can also be used as protection from
tornadoes.
Trench bunkers are small concrete structures, partly dug into the ground.
Many artillery installations, especially for coastal artillery, have historically been protected by extensive bunker systems. Typical industrial bunkers
include mining sites, food storage areas, dumps for materials, data storage, and sometimes living quarters. When a house is purpose-built with a
bunker, the normal location is a reinforced below-ground bathroom with
fibre-reinforced plastic shells. Bunkers deflect the blast wave from nearby
explosions to prevent ear and internal injuries to people sheltering in the

88

bunker. Nuclear bunkers must also cope with the underpressure that lasts
for several seconds after the shock wave passes, and block radiation.
A bunkers doors must be at least as strong as the walls. In bunkers inhabited for prolonged periods, large amounts of ventilation or air conditioning
must be provided. Bunkers can be destroyed with powerful explosives and
bunkerbusting warheads. The crew of a pillbox can be killed with flamethrowers.
Bunker is a relatively recent addition to the English language to describe a
military structure. According to the Oxford English Dictionary it is a A military dug-out; a reinforced concrete shelter and its first use was 13 October
1939 A Nazi field gun hidden in a cemented bunker on the Western front
(War Pictorial). The word is German in origin and was used by the Germans
to describe bombproof shelters both above ground as in Hochbunker and
below ground as in the Fhrerbunker. All the early references to its usage in
the Oxford English Dictionary are to German fortifications. By 1947 the word
was familiar enough in English that Hugh Trevor-Roper in The Last Days of
Hitler was describing Hitlers underground complex near the Reich Chancellery as Hitlers own bunker without quotes around the word bunker.

89

90

91


(18761955)

( . ) ,
.
( : ,
22202, ).

.
, ,
1943 .
281
, 1405 ,
28 , 604 000 .

, 23,5 .
7754 .
26 000 .

(18761955),

( ).
.
,
15
1943 .
11 1941 .
(c 17 1942 )

, .
92

, ,
,
.
,
,
: - ,
. , ,

. -
Ground
Zero.
, ,
.
, . , ,
.

, : ,
,
.
,
. 40- 20 ,
,
. ,
.

93

94

95

The pentagon
The Pentagon is the headquarters of the
United States Department of Defense, located in Arlington County, Virginia. As a symbol
of the U.S. military, the Pentagon is often
used metonymically to refer to the U.S. Department of Defense rather than the building itself.
Designed by American architect George
Bergstrom (18761955), and built by general contractor John McShain of Philadelphia,
the building was dedicated on January 15,
1943, after ground was broken for construction on September 11, 1941. General Brehon
Somervell provided the major motive power behind the project; Colonel Leslie Groves
was responsible for overseeing the project
for the U.S. Army.

was hijacked by terrorists and crashed into

the western side of the Pentagon, killing 189
people (the five hijackers, 59 others aboard
the plane, and 125 in the building). It was the
first significant foreign attack on the capitals
U.S. government facilities since the Burning
of Washington by the British during the War
of 1812.
Before the Pentagon was built, the United States Department of War was headquartered in the Greggory Building, a temporary
structure erected during World War I along
Constitution Avenue on the National Mall.
The War Department, which was a civilian
agency created to administer the U.S. Army,
was spread out in additional temporary
buildings on National Mall, as well as dozens
of other buildings in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia. In the late 1930s a new
War Department Building was constructed
at 21st and C Streets in Foggy Bottom but,
upon completion, the new building did not
solve the departments space problem and
ended up being used by the Department of
State.[8] When World War II broke out in Europe, the War Department rapidly expanded
in anticipation that the United States would
be drawn into the conflict. Secretary of War
Henry L. Stimson found the situation unacceptable, with the Munitions Building overcrowded and the department spread out.

The Pentagon is a large office building,

with about 6,500,000 sq ft (600,000 m2),
of which 3,700,000 sq ft (340,000 m2) are
used as offices. Approximately 28,000 military and civilian employees and about 3,000
non-defense support personnel work in the
Pentagon. It has five sides, five floors above
ground, two basement levels, and five ring
corridors per floor with a total of 17.5 mi
(28.2 km)[5] of corridors. The Pentagon includes a five-acre (20,000 m2) central plaza,
which is shaped like a pentagon and informally known as ground zero, a nickname
originating during the Cold War and based
on the presumption that the Soviet Union
Stimson told President Franklin D. Roowould target one or more nuclear missiles at sevelt in May 1941 that the War Department
this central location in the outbreak of a nu- needed additional space. On July 17, 1941, a
clear war.
congressional hearing took place, organized
by Virginia congressman Clifton Woodrum,
On September 11, 2001, exactly sixty regarding proposals for new War Departyears after the buildings groundbreaking, a ment buildings. Woodrum pressed Brigadier
Boeing 757-223, American Airlines Flight 77, General Eugene Reybold, who was repre96

senting the War Department at the hearing,

for an overall solution to the departments
space problem rather than building yet
more temporary buildings. Reybold agreed
to report back to the congressman within five days. The War Department called
upon its construction chief, General Brehon
Somervell, to come up with a plan.
Main Navy Building (foreground) and the
Munitions Building were temporary structures built during World War I on the National Mall. The Munitions Building served as the
Department of War headquarters for several
years before moving into the Pentagon.
Southwest view of the Pentagon with the
Potomac River and Washington Monument
in background (1998)

On July 28 Congress authorized funding for a new Department of War building

in Arlington, which would house the entire
department under one roof, and President
Roosevelt officially approved of the Hoover
Airport site on September 2. While the project went through the approval process in
late July 1941, Somervell selected the contractors, including John McShain, Inc. of
Philadelphia, which had built Washington
National Airport in Arlington, the Jefferson
Memorial in Washington, and the National
Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland,
along with Wise Contracting Company, Inc.
and Doyle and Russell, both from Virginia.
[19] In addition to the Hoover Airport site and
other government-owned land, construction of the Pentagon required an additional
287 acres (1.16 km2), which were acquired
at a cost of $2.2 million. The Hells Bottom
neighborhood, a slum with numerous pawnshops, factories, approximately 150 homes,
and other buildings around Columbia Pike,
was also cleared to make way for the Pentagon. Later 300 acres (1.2 km2) of land were
transferred to Arlington National Cemetery
and to Fort Myer, leaving 280 acres (1.1 km2)
for the Pentagon.

Government officials agreed that the War

Department building should be constructed across the Potomac River, in Arlington,
Virginia. Requirements for the new building
were that it be no more than four stories tall,
and that it use a minimal amount of steel. The
requirements meant that, instead of rising
vertically, the building would be sprawling
over a large area. Possible sites for the building included the Department of Agricultures
Arlington Experimental Farm, adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery, and the obsolete
Contracts totaling $31,100,000 were finalWashington Hoover Airport site.
ized with McShain and the other contractors
on September 11, and ground was broken
The site originally chosen was Arling- for the Pentagon the same day.[22] Among
ton Farms which had a roughly pentagonal the design requirements, Somervell required
shape, so the building was planned accord- the structural design to accommodate floor
ingly as an irregular pentagon. Concerned loads of up to 150 pounds per square foot,
that the new building could obstruct the which was done in case the building became
view of Washington, D.C. from Arlington a records storage facility at some time after
Cemetery, President Roosevelt ended up se- the end of the current war. A minimal amount
lecting the Hoover Airport site instead. The of steel was used as it was in short supply
building retained its pentagonal layout be- during World War II. Instead, the Pentagon
cause a major redesign at that stage would was built as a reinforced concrete structure,
have been costly, and Roosevelt liked the using 680,000 tons of sand dredged from the
design. Freed of the constraints of the asym- Potomac River, and a lagoon was created bemetric Arlington Farms site, it was modified neath the Pentagons river entrance. To mininto a regular pentagon.
imize steel, concrete ramps were built rather
97

than installing elevators. Indiana limestone

was used for the buildings faade.
Northwest exposure of the Pentagons
construction underway, July 1, 1942

washrooms and ordered him to remove the

Whites Only signs. Until 1965 the Pentagon
was the only building in Virginia where segregation laws were not enforced.

Architectural and structural design work

for the Pentagon proceeded simultaneously
with construction, with initial drawings provided in early October 1941, and most of the
design work completed by June 1, 1942. At
times the construction work got ahead of the
design, with different materials used than
specified in the plans. Pressure to speed up
design and construction intensified after the
attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941,
with Somervell demanding that 1,000,000 sq
ft (9.3 ha) of space at the Pentagon be available for occupation by April 1, 1942.David J.
Witmer replaced Bergstrom as chief architect
on April 11 after Bergstorm resigned due to
charges, unrelated to the Pentagon project,
of improper conduct while he was president
of the American Institute of Architects.

The soil conditions of the Pentagon site,

located on the Potomac River floodplain,
presented challenges to engineers, as did
the varying elevations across the site, which
ranged from 1040 ft (3.012 m) above sea
level. Two retaining walls were built to compensate for the elevation variations, and castin-place (Franki) piles were used to deal with
the soil conditions.[31] Construction of the
Pentagon was completed in approximately
16 months at a total cost of $83 million. The
building is 77 feet (23 m) tall, and each of the
five sides of the building is 921 feet (281 m)
long.

Because of the pressing needs of the war,

people started working in the Pentagon before it was completed. The Pentagon was
built wing at a time, and after the first wing
Construction of the Pentagon was done was finished, employees started to move
during the period of racial segregation in into that wing while construction was conthe United States. This had structural conse- tinuing on the other wings.
quences to the design of the building. Under
the supervision of colonel Leslie Groves, the
decision to have separate eating and lavatory accommodations for whites and blacks
was made and carried out. The dining areas
for blacks were put in the basement and on
each floor there were double toilet facilities
separated by gender and race. These measures of segregation were said to have been
done in compliance with the state of Virginias racial laws. The Pentagon as a result has
twice the number of toilet facilities needed
for a building of its size.
President Roosevelt had made an order
ending such racial discrimination in the U.S.
military in June 1941. When the President visited the Pentagon before its dedication, he
questioned Groves regarding the number of
98

99

-
, &

100

,

-

.
, ,

,
-, .
, , -

.
185 000
. , , .

, , .
-
,
. ()
. SOM
- 2003 .

101

NATO Headquarters
International Treaty Organization Headquarters, Brussels

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill

Images courtesy: Skidmore, Owings and Merrill
Like fingers interlaced in a symbolic clasp of unity and mutual interdependence, SOMs design for the International Treaty Organization Headquarters represents the changing mission of the organization from opposition and prevention to unification and integration.
The SOM landmark design provides each member-nation with embassy-level security and
privacy while also providing shared space where national representatives can meet as partners in the pursuit of peace and comity.
Completion Year: 2012
Site Area: 100 acres
Project Area: 2,000,000 sqft
Building Height: 32 m
Number of Stories: 7

102

103

Bure Military Training Base

meier + associs architectes

104

105

Architects: meier + associs architectes

Place: Bure, Sweden
Year: 2009
With: C. Berther, L. Bertrand, T. Bolliger,
S. Braun, M. de Dompierre, I. Iussi, M. Jaques,
J. Lopez
Area: 6,765
Photoes: Yves Andr

106

107

pressed through a pure abstract volume, comprising a partially buried

reinforced concrete plinth on which
stands, in a staggered position to the
plinth, a box wrapped in perforated metal, its cantilevered overhang
forming the entrance.
On the ground floor, a large hall with
an outside view leads, on one side,
to stairs that serve the upper levels,
and on the other side, to a 200-seat
auditorium. The auditorium is designed as a simple concrete volume,
with a sheet of folded plaster that
forms, in a single movement, both
the acoustic ceiling and the projection wall. The polychromatic seating
layout was designed by artist Daniel Schlaepfer. The two upper levels
house the training rooms and offices, arranged around an internal patio
open to the sky.
The project hinges around a reinforced concrete wall structure that
retains its natural unfinished state
throughout the building. All eleThe training building at the new combat training ments added in the second stage of
centre stands at the end of a tree line, to the east of construction are permanently relatthe footpath serving the higher levels of the exist- ed to the cement surface.
ing military base. It is located on the path used by
the soldiers, and its position marks a pivotal point The design of the facade brings toon the site, a kind of landmark. The project is ex- gether the vertical elements created
by the subtly undulating perforated
aluminium sheets, and the foliage of
the surrounding trees. As the result
of a complex plan requirement that
all openings be arranged on a purely
functional basis, the aluminium skin
becomes a unifying expressive element. It also offers solar protection,
thereby further contributing to the
architectural coherence of the building.
108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

Military Base
A-lab

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

A-lab just won a competition to design a military base in Norway which will be situated
on the northern border with Russia. The design challenge was to create a cohesive complex where work and private life coexist, and
where military services meet the civil community.
More images and more about the winning
design after the break.

More secret activities are clad with

dark wooden panels, mirroring glass
in common rooms and deeply positioned windows in the remaining
rooms. This creates an anonymous
appearance in comparison to the
faade towards the courtyard, with
translucent glass and labeled doors,
where function, clarity and openness
are the keywords.

The project is comprised of a larger u-shaped

building which houses most of the functional needs, while the remaining program is
organized in smaller satellite buildings. The
main building is centered around a courtyard and the circulation on the ground floor
is located along a glass faade surrounding
it. This gives a constant visual connection
between the activities going on inside and
outside, with the opportunity to open the
faade and let some spaces to physically expand out into the courtyard.
The ground floor holds work related functions. As such, the floor has a strict, functional design to meet all the requirements for
the daily activities at a border station, such
as training, administration and emergency
call-outs. The first floor accommodates living relation functions, such as rooms and a
fitness center. All rooms have a view out to
the wild nature or the courtyard in an effort
to maintain the spirit of the courtyard as the
heart of the building.
The main building and its satellites maintain
a strong architectural coherence. Wood is
the main material used both in construction
and faades, yet used differently to reflect
the outer expression of private or public activities.
128

All images courtesy of the architects.

Location: Svanvik & Storskog, Sr-Varanger
Property developer: Forsvarsbygg
Partners: Adnan Harambasic, Geir Haaversen, Odd Klev
Design team: Adnan Harambasic, Geir Haaversen, Odd Klev, Katrine Holm, ystein
Skorstad
Gross area: 3320 m2 per station

129

130

131

132

133

Moritzburg
The ancient castle of Moritzburg in the city of Halle is a very valuable
example of Gothic military architecture, typical of Germany at the end of
the 15th century. Its turbulent history has inevitably been reflected in the
many alternations it has undergone over the years. But despite these, the
building still keeps the original structure of its main architectural features:
the surrounding wall, three of the four round towers at the corners and the
central courtyard.
Architect: Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos, S.L.P.
Location: Halle, Saale, Germany
Project Team: Fuensanta Nieto, Enrique Sobejano, Sebastian Sasse (Project
Architect), Udo Brunner, Nina Nolting, Dirk Landt, Susann Euen, Siverin Arndt
Competition Collaborators: Vanesa Manrique, Nina Nolting, Olaf Syrbe,
Miguel Ubarrechena
Site Supervision: Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos S.L.P., Fuensanta Nieto, Enrique
Sobejano, Sebastian Sasse, Johannes Stumpf, Karl Heinz Bosse
Structural Engineer: GSE, Jorg Enseleit
MEP Engineer: Rentschler y Riedesser, Jrgen Trautwein
Models: Juan de Dios Hernndez-Jess Rey
Roof Construction Company: Dornhfer GmbH
Project Year: 2008
Photographs: Roland Halbe Fotografie

134

135

Puckapunyal
Military Area
Memorial Chapel

136

137

Architects: BVN Architecture

Location: Puckapunyal, Australia
Project Year: 2011
Photographs: John Gollings
Design Statement
This chapel reinterprets the place of worship, reflecting the traditional sacred
spaces while meeting a challenging brief to accommodate multiple religious
faiths in a sympathetic, contemporary environment. The composition of each
space is carefully considered, including its use, materiality, tactility, light and
experiential quality. Three internal courtyards are integral to the interior
architecture of the building, providing contemplative or active spaces for
worshippers and the community. The chosen materials zinc, stone and
timber are appropriate to a public building and have life cycle benefits. The
projects ESD principles include a 20 percent improvement on the energy
targets outlined in the building code of Australia 2007 for non-office buildings,
equivalent to a 4.5 star ABGR rating; a 30 percent reduction in water use; and
70 percent of the projects construction and demolition waste diverted from
landfill. Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic use are electronically metered and
linked to a building management system, while rainwater is collected for toilet
flushing. The use of high-performance glazing and lighting control systems
reduces energy use.
Sustainability Advancement
This project demonstrates a coherent and exemplary approach to achieving
multiple sustainability outcomes. In particular, the integrated approach clearly
addressed all five award criteria. From considered and informed materials
through to low-impact products and efficient services, the project highlights
how sustainability can be expressed without an explicit eco aesthetic. The
projects essential purpose and function also contribute to a deeper notion of
social sustainability that is mindful of diverse cultures and beliefs.
Public Design
Achieving an interior of this type in a military area sets a new precedent for public
design. The chapel sits humbly within its site. The courtyards are exquisitely
integrated, providing tranquil spaces from which to view the surrounding
landscape. Although the spaces are interconnected, the three- dimensional
form provides intimate scale and places for private contemplation. It displays
a sensitivity to nature both human and environmental that is appropriate
for a multi-denominational chapel. References to ANZAC history are portrayed
through subtle manipulation of material and form.

138

139

 archmag.ru, 2013.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

: . . : . .
, : archmag.ru
editorial@archmag.ru
Design and layout: I. Matveev. Proofreading: N. Dolgoy.
Proposals, notes and comments: archmag.ru
and via email: editorial@archmag.ru

archmag.ru is a completely free e-zine, made by enthusiasts.

If you would like to thank us, mail us on ads@archmag.ru