Nazi Architecture madness

[Cook]

I suppose the Pyramids must also be put in the megalomaniac's wet dream bracket!!!

I’d class them as brilliant long term strategic thinking; they’ve been a profitable tourist attraction for some 4000 years now.

It’s been observed before that Speer’s dream Berlin would only have looked impressive after a thousand years or so when most of it was in ruins.

 

[Mirza Khan]

Even though I hate the Nazis as much as anyone, their architectural plans are simply awe-inspiring.

Umm, no, they were f**ing hideous monstrosities.

Seriously, that giant dome (Volkshalle?) looks about as fugly as I can imagine a building looking-no decoration, no originality, no artistry. Its entire purpose would have been its sheer, enourmas size. If you think about it, its the perfect representation of Nazism-no craftsmanship, no attempt to woo its onlookers with skillful design or beautiful adornment. It has all the subtlety of a ten-foot battleaxe.

Its too big to put into this post, but here's a picture of the Palace of the People in Bucharest, probably the closest thing to Nazi "monumental" architecture ever to have been actually built. Here are a couple more views.

Other than its sheer bigness, is anything about that building really memorable?

 

[Cook]

The Hiroshima Peace Park, for example, or the Stalingrad Memorial:

Don’t the statues of children dancing date back to before World War Two?

This is the Stalin’s effort at Stalingrad (Volgograd):

 

[Workable Goblin]

Umm, no, they were f**ing hideous monstrosities.

Seriously, that giant dome (Volkshalle?) looks about as fugly as I can imagine a building looking-no decoration, no originality, no artistry. Its entire purpose would have been its sheer, enourmas size. If you think about it, its the perfect representation of Nazism-no craftsmanship, no attempt to woo its onlookers with skillful design or beautiful adornment. It has all the subtlety of a ten-foot battleaxe.

Its too big to put into this post, but here's a picture of the Palace of the People in Bucharest, probably the closest thing to Nazi "monumental" architecture ever to have been actually built. Here are a couple more views.

Other than its sheer bigness, is anything about that building really memorable?

Well, it seems like a nice enough building, to be perfectly honest. I'd say it looks rococo, or maybe Baroque, and there are plenty of perfectly nice buildings that are rococo or Baroque (admittedly, built before the 20th century. But that shouldn't really matter, should it? If it works it, well, works. Doesn't matter if it's the 15th century or the 22nd) And maybe it shouldn't be particularly memorable or original or (especially) artistic? These days, that seems to lead to buildings that are basically giant works of art but aren't really buildings--things like the Guggenheim in Bilbao, or the infamous Stata Center at MIT. Or, for that matter, some of the abortions mentioned earlier in the thread (skyscrapers, mostly) It seems like it's more worthwhile to avoid that sort of thing than avoiding building perfectly nice but not particularly original buildings.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'd say it looks rococo, or maybe Baroque

It's not. Speer had a talent for taking classical architecture and making it even more hideous.

EDIT: sorry, I thought you were talking about the Volkshalle. The main problem with Bucharest's palace is that Ceaucescu destroyed half of bucarest's old town including dozens of actual baroque buildings to build his fake monstrosity, so there's a very special place reserved for him in architects' hell.

We have many beautifull war memorials,for exemple this; the Korean war memorial:

I am fairly sure you can tell the difference between a war and the Holocaust. The holocaust was something so fucked up and unique that, tbh, making a monument to commemorate its victims and considering its beauty or lack thereof is obscene and fucked up. Nothing related to it should be beautiful or even vaguely related to aesthetic considerations. The architect (who happens to be jewish) has said that he wanted it to be horrible, sinister and oppressive, to have the visitors have a bad time while visiting it.

 

[Workable Goblin]

If a traveler from past or distant future see the Korean war memorial (or similiar monuments) understand immediatly the message.

Even the Vietnam memorial works quite well, although admittedly that has a lot to do with the names (which as Paladin says would probably greatly increase the effectiveness of the Holocaust memorial).

@Dr. Strangelove: The Bucharest Palace of the People was not built by M. Speer, you know...

 

[Cook]

If you think about it, its the perfect representation of Nazism-no craftsmanship, no attempt to woo its onlookers with skillful design or beautiful adornment. It has all the subtlety of a ten-foot battleaxe.

Yes. The Nazi’s didn’t do subtle. All of their imagery screamed ‘overcompensating’.

 

[lounge60]

It's not. Speer had a talent for taking classical architecture and making it even more hideous.

In 60s Speer said that the scale was completly wrong,and the large streets would remain without life...a sad, monumental,cemetery.
Another reason for HATE nazism is that have discretited the classical architecture and art for generations.
Before the war classical buildings and figurative art was widespread worldwide; thinks to Jefferson memorial in Washington,inaugurated in 1943.

I am fairly sure you can tell the difference between a war and the Holocaust. The holocaust was something so fucked up and unique that, tbh, making a monument to commemorate its victims and considering its beauty or lack thereof is obscene and fucked up. Nothing related to it should be beautiful or even vaguely related to aesthetic considerations. The architect (who happens to be jewish) has said that he wanted it to be horrible, sinister and oppressive, to have the visitors have a bad time while visiting it.

Well in my opinion is not a good service for the Holocaust victims.
I have fear that the majority of them would find the monument "ugly".

 

[Roslin's Wig]

I am fairly sure you can tell the difference between a war and the Holocaust. The holocaust was something so fucked up and unique that, tbh, making a monument to commemorate its victims and considering its beauty or lack thereof is obscene and fucked up. Nothing related to it should be beautiful or even vaguely related to aesthetic considerations.

If the victims of the Holocaust were alive today, I'm sure most of them would also stare at it and go "What the fuck is that?"

The architect (who happens to be jewish) has said that he wanted it to be horrible, sinister and oppressive, to have the visitors have a bad time while visiting it.

Why, though? Did he want to retro-actively punish the Germans by putting that ugly thing in the middle of their city?

And there's nothing sinister or oppressive about it either. Just mind-bogglingly ugly.

 

[Paladin]

I am fairly sure you can tell the difference between a war and the Holocaust. The holocaust was something so fucked up and unique that, tbh, making a monument to commemorate its victims and considering its beauty or lack thereof is obscene and fucked up. Nothing related to it should be beautiful or even vaguely related to aesthetic considerations. The architect (who happens to be jewish) has said that he wanted it to be horrible, sinister and oppressive, to have the visitors have a bad time while visiting it.

But then why would anyone bother going there? Memorials don't do any good if no one ever visits them, they just sit and decay.

 

[Roslin's Wig]

All this grandiose architecture certainly says something about Speer's penis size.

 

[lounge60]

All this grandiose architecture certainly says something about Speer's penis size.

Nazi's penis size.
This is for sure!

 

[Michel Van]

Nazi's penis size.
This is for sure!

Nein Nein Nein
that something to do with Hitler penis size !
there rumors, he hab vestigially genitalia

is that not odd ?
the NAZI declared them self to Masterrace Aryan
but there leaders were: cripples, obesity , drug addicts and lunatics....

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

If the victims of the Holocaust were alive today, I'm sure most of them would also stare at it and go "What the fuck is that?"

Architects deal with enough shit by designing for alive people, I don't think they care much about the opinions of dead people.

This is an argument I've heard quite often that doesn't make any sense. Those people are dead. They don't care about monuments.

But then why would anyone bother going there?

Turns out, people actually go there.

 

[Max Sinister]

If the victims of the Holocaust were alive today, I'm sure most of them would also stare at it and go "What the fuck is that?"

Well, there are still some witnesses of the Holocaust around, aren't they? Certainly they will have an opinion about it (if they know about it), though sadly I can't tell at the moment. (WP also doesn't know.)

 

[Workable Goblin]

EDIT: sorry, I thought you were talking about the Volkshalle. The main problem with Bucharest's palace is that Ceaucescu destroyed half of bucarest's old town including dozens of actual baroque buildings to build his fake monstrosity, so there's a very special place reserved for him in architects' hell.

Ah, well, that's a problem. But that has nothing to do with the building itself, anymore than Fanta is irredeemably tainted by the fact that it was developed because Germany was at war with the US. The fact that Ceaucescu destroyed a large chunk of Bucharest and was spending large amounts of money on the building despite ruling a poor country is certainly a good reason to deplore him and wonder why the building was built; but once it is built...

And I wonder why you qualify your description with "fake". What makes something architecturally "fake" in your view?

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Ah, well, that's a problem. But that has nothing to do with the building itself, anymore than Fanta is irredeemably tainted by the fact that it was developed because Germany was at war with the US. The fact that Ceaucescu destroyed a large chunk of Bucharest and was spending large amounts of money on the building despite ruling a poor country is certainly a good reason to deplore him and wonder why the building was built; but once it is built...

Buildings do not exist in a void like works of art. They respond to a demand by society, and are usually built in an existing environment. A building like this, that was built because a dictator wanted to enlarge his penis, and that damaged its environment beyond repair, is horrible architecture, regardless of what you think about its esthetics -that I find abhorrent too, but that's up to each one's taste.

And I wonder why you qualify your description with "fake". What makes something architecturally "fake" in your view?

A building that attempts to be something it is not. We are not romans, so it's stupid and wasteful to erect a building that pretends to be roman.

 

[Michel Van]

Next to Hitler also the SS had also big building Plans.
Himmler wandet something very big for his Organization HQ: Wewelsburg aka "Vatican of the SS"

This old Renaissance castle build 1609 (Himmler believed it was build by Medieval Staufer in 10 century.)
was chosen to it proximity of the site of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest and several ancient Germanic cult site.
in Final plans it had to be center of giant castle of 1 kilometer diameter !
Surrounded by ss-buildings and village of Wewelsburg in 1.5 kilometer radius of castle

the little triangle in middle of the circle is original Wewelsburg.

Foto of original model

 

[Dustin]

First of all, i think the designs for Berlin were epic. Maybe make the some and arch one third of their proposed sizes though. I really wish that this has been built during the war, as it would have made it end sooner once the nazis ran out of money from the construction, which would also mean that less German cities get destroyed. I like old German cities.

 

[The Red]

Giant Lenin sees your Nazi architecture, before destroying it with his laser eyes.