by Architect David Kroyanker
Architect David Kroyanker, architecture historian and critic, has written a number of books documenting and analyzing architectural styles and planning and building processes in Jerusalem. He has also written the textbook: Jerusalem Architecture, published by Keter Publishing in collaboration with The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, between 1981-96.
Reproduced with permission from Archicture of Israel - Architecture and Interior Design Quarterly, No. 33, Spring 1998.
Jerusalem - a physical reflection of the cultures and architectural styles of the periods, religions and nations that governed it over the centuries. In the city's 3,000 year history, the fifty years since the founding of the State of Israel, the "Israeli period", is a brief moment - but one responsible for an unprecedented drive to construction.
During this period, Israeli architecture has undergone changes and developments, and is in large part an architecture of transitions. From an architecture of impoverished slums and cheap housing projects, to one of prosperity in the suburban neighborhoods and prestigious high-rise condominiums; from standardization and conformity, to uniqueness and originality; from a conservative, restrained and humble approach to a style that often borders on vanity, vulgarism, and alienation.
Jerusalem is unique in its stone buildings, difficult topography and sensitive and charged history. The latter aspect brings up problems of rehabilitation and conservation of neighborhoods, individual buildings and open valleys, as well as the city's traditional skyline. Two events had the strongest impact on the city's development: the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967. The first period was characterized by a sense of redemption, of a generation coming home from exile to build its capital after millennia of dispersion. During the previous periods, builders had been constrained by a foreign ruler. Once independent, they focused on being "stately".
In the 1950's, Jerusalem's architecture met the functional and representational needs of the newly established state. As Israel became a sovereign state, its capital was accorded a unique status. The government-education-cultural heart of the city was focused upon the Knesset and Government Compound on Givat Ram, Binyenei Ha'uma (Jerusalem Congress Center), the Hebrew University Campus, and the Israel Museum. Mount Herzl was designated as the national memorial site. The Presidents' Residence was built later in the Talbiyeh neighborhood.
The significance, symbolism and status of these buildings was clear, but their architecture was the subject of much debate on issues such as monumentality, civil dignity, representativeness, and festivity. The sharp debates about the design of the Knesset building, and later the Presidents' Residence, actually addressed the relations between the democratic nature of the Jewish state and the shape of the buildings. Expressions such as "Greek temple", "Fascist building" and "correspondence with the nature of the state" were used in the debate. They addressed the difficulties in creating civilian dignity and modesty when dealing with such loaded and sensitive issues as the Holocaust (Yad Vashem), Zionism, Herzl's tomb, the military cemetery (on Mount. Herzl), contacts with the Diaspora (Binyenei Ha'uma), fallen IDF soldiers (Yad Labanim), the Ammunition Hill site, as well as the close relations with the United States (the Kennedy Memorial). Another important characteristic of the 1950's was the transition from temporary solutions of the initial inceptive period to "fixed" solutions representing stability and permanence.
FROM UNITY TO DIVERSITY: The story of Jerusalem's physical-geographical expansion, in terms of territory and volume of construction, is primarily the story of the state-built housing projects and neighborhoods. The temporary Talpiyot Ma'abara (shanty-town) of the 1950's was replaced by the standardized neighborhood of "projects" such as the giant "bridge buildings" of the 1960's on Ulswanger and Brazil Streets in Kiryat Hayovel, the cluster of buildings with a backyard in the Gilo neighborhood and the Casbah-like buildings (1970's), and the traditional street on Pisgat Ze'ev (1980's).The shift from the housing projects of the divided city to those built after 1967 corresponded with the statewide change of standards - from unified to location oriented. A significant change took place when planning patterns were beginning to form. The construction of housing projects was beginning to address the needs of consumers whose standard of living was rising, while learning from the lessons of the past.
Under the British mandate, all residential construction was in the hands of private contractors and entrepreneurs. After the State of Israel was founded, the Ministry of Housing & Construction did more than half the work in this area. Buildings constructed during the British rule, being site-specific and gradual, eventually created an urban fabric. But since 1948, public construction has created masses.
Entire neighborhoods - the Katamons, Kiryat Hayovel, Ramot, and Gilo - went up in one go, planned and built within a short period as a single entity. Such construction had an impact beyond its size, mainly due to its dominance of land allocation, housing policies, planning, subsidization and inhabitation. Over the years, these aspects have changed significantly, in terms of the nature of planning, neighborhood location, building placement, architectural shape, reference to open spaces, parking solutions and investment in public building.
During the years in which Jerusalem was a divided city, the political and security situation led to the development of the western and southwestern quarters, which were almost entirely filled with housing projects in the 50's and the 60's. The neighborhoods of Katamon 9 and Shmuel Hanavi were facing the Jordanian border. The reunification in 1967 led to a government policy designed to prevent the city from ever being divided again by the quick establishment of "facts on the ground". The construction of satellite neighborhoods surrounding the inner city drastically changed the city's shape. Most cities grow through the gradual expansion of their built areas; here, several neighborhoods were built simultaneously at a distance from the center. Among other things, this created transportation problems, solved by the introduction of an expensive municipal infrastructure into otherwise open spaces.
Because they were remote, neighbor- hoods such as Gilo were built like suburbs, with low houses spread over vast territories, open spaces, broad streets and vast parking lots. However, it is important to point out that the planing and construction efforts invested in the peripheries since 1967 has changed the shape of the city and of Jerusalem's visual, environmental and architectural nature. Some of the planning and building principles used in these neighborhoods were applied to the promotion of a
new, stylistic planning of the entire urban spectrum. They had an impact on both the architecture of private housing and of the commercial sector.
ARCHITECTURE OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS AND PRIVATE BUILDING: The transition from the two-family houses of 35 sq.m. per family such as those of the Ir Ganim neighborhood in the 1960's, to the large, well-kept villas of the Build Your Own Home project in Ramot in the 70's and 80's expresses the shift from lack to plenty, the rising standard of living and the change in consumer habits. Changes in architectural style followed, going from the International "box" to the semi-oriental structures of the '70s, with their many arches and retractions. This was an attempt to escape anonymity and to create an original and local architecture that would match the unique nature of Jerusalem and organically continue its structural heritage.
In Israel as a whole, and particularly in Jerusalem, housing projects are laboratory experiments. Planners will try anything - from special standards for neighborhoods, to houses designed for the ultra-Orthodox, to the details of the building. At the same time, role of the planning authority has changed and the Ministry of Housing & Construction has evolved from a maker of policies to a super-contractor that actually builds.
And while the ministry was undergoing strategic changes, turning into an entrepreneur, the housing projects of the 1950's also changed. Originally built as small houses on large plots, the neighborhoods of Katamon and Ir Ganim have undergone gentrification. Rotting slums and rundown little houses have been transformed into multi-level three-storey buildings, complete with the architectural characteristics of the middle-class Build Your Own Home project. Other neighborhoods, however, have been badly diminished and have deteriorated after years of inhabitation by large, low-income families.
CHANGES IN STANDARDS AND SHAPES: One of the most outstanding features of the fifty years of Israeli public architecture is the transition from the anonymous and monotonous to the unique and individual. This may be seen everywhere, from government sponsored public buildings to privately built condominiums. The main change was from the stone box on concrete pillars of standard two - to three-bedroom apartments, to a variety of penthouses, multi-level flats and studios. Houses were designed to spread as rows of adjacent cottages or built one on top of another with masses of roof tiles, extra floors, retracting balconies and a multitude of stonecutting techniques and styles.
The great difference between the 1960's and the 1980's is evidenced in the difference between Tchernihowsky Street, on the north-western outskirts of the Katamon neighborhood, and the streets of Leib Yaffe, Revadim and Bet Ha'arava in the Arnona neighborhood in southern Jerusalem. The shift from standard to unique can also be observed in industrial construction. from the multi-purpose modular buildings, as built on Givat Shaul in the '50's, to the "industrial villas" since the 1980's on Har Hotzvim which architecturally radiate economic and technological power, progress and originality.
Hotels in pre-67 Jerusalem - the Kings, the Diplomat, the President in the west, and the Intercontinental, the Astoria, Mt. Scopus, and St. George in the east - were designed along routine and banal lines: a central corridor with identical rooms on both sides, with the inevitable balcony. After the city was reunited, the hotels built - the Laromme, Hilton and Hyatt - were attempts to avoid the monotony of hundreds of identical rooms. Similar efforts have been made in the area of office buildings, though with less success. Jerusalem's rather scanty business sector is reflected in multi-story office buildings erected in the city center. Projects such as the Clal Center, City Tower, Bank Hapoalim and the Rassco Building are local, yet impoverished versions of the "cathedrals of wealth" - the prestigious office buildings in the West.
FROM MINIMALISM TO STRUCTURAL PLURALISM: Another aspect of the transition from anonymity to identity was the shift from minimalist aesthetics to structural extravagance. When the city was divided, the majority of its buildings reflected lean and rational efficiency, expressed through modest design. The architecture of the 1970's and 80's reflects through sensual and blunt shapes the economic boom, as well as extravagance (such as seen in the Build Your Own Home projects or the university campus on Mt. Scopus). Some view the Neo-Oriental and Brutalist architecture of Jerusalem as nervous, belligerent and macho, demanding attention through the use of fashionable and varied shapes and types, at the expense of the overall urban fabric. Jerusalem architecture has been accused of lacking the urban awareness that views the individual building as part of a coherent whole.
CHANGES IN CONSUMPTION PATTERNS SINCE THE 1970'S: The gradual rise in the standard of living led to an increased demand for new structures. Newly introduced concepts such as the cottage, basement, pergola, pedestrian mall and attractive sidewalks, reflect a fresh trend in residential architecture. The rehabilitation and preservation of the old neighborhoods south and west of the city center (Yemin Moshe, Bak'a, Talbiyeh and Katamon) reflect the improved economic status of the educated middle-class, as well as the growing awareness of preservation.
ARAB BUILDING: Unlike those in the Jewish quarters, almost all building in the Arab sector was by private people for private consumption. Clan or family homes were designed in a variety of shapes, from the simple one- or two-storey stone house to splendid villas with multi-angled tiled roofs and stylistic stonecutting. This structural change reflects the architectural metamorphosis from rural to urban/suburban, greatly influenced by Jewish architecture of the same period.
THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR: Jerusalem's religious and ultra-Orthodox populations have increased significantly since the British mandate to reach some 30% of the present Jewish population. This, coupled with the expansion and strengthening of new currents in Judaism, has led to a rising demand for places of worship and a need to change planning concepts. The old single buildings that housed yeshivot (religious schools) during the Mandate have been replaced by complexes for the ultra-Orthodox, which include synagogues, yeshivot and dormitories (e.g., the Or Baruch Yeshiva in Bayit Vagan and the Pahad Yitzhak Yeshiva in Har Nof). The religious liberalism of the Reformists was architecturally expressed through the Hebrew Union College, modeled on US community centers. In the 1980's, synagogues built around Jerusalem displayed a variety of influences, ranging from the the biblical "Meeting Tent" to European synagogues destroyed during the Holocaust.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS: The rise in culture consumerism is reflected in the Jerusalem Theater, the adjacent concert hall and in the reconstruction of buildings of historic and architectural value, most of which are located on the "culture promenade" of the National Park arch, between Jaffa Gate and the Bell Garden. These buildings include the Music Center, the Sultan's Pool, the Cinemateque, Confederation House and the Khan. The small hotels and guesthouses of the British period, which catered to the small groups and individuals who then visited the city, were no longer sufficient and the demand for appropriate hotel and tourism facilities led to the construction of the large hotels, yet another characteristic of the post-'67 era.
A growing demand for housing for the elderly led to the construction of sheltered housing and modern senior citizen homes, also reflecting a growing awareness of the needs of the aging population. The simple and modest community homes for the elderly are gradually disappearing, replaced by buildings that follow the model of luxury hotels.
The neighborhood groceries are being replaced by the spacious supermarkets of Givat Shaul and Talpiyot. And the conventional commercial activity at the heart of the downtown triangle of Ben Yehuda, King George and Jaffa Streets, is being replaced or complemented by the large shopping malls and the industrial building converted into shopping areas, such as the one in the Talpiyot Industrial Zone.
The newly-built recreational complexes, community and sports centers in the neighborhoods of Ramot, Gilo and Talpiyot East, and the Tennis Center in Katamon, and the growing demand for country clubs reflect the changes in leisure habits. The "free time" culture arising from the move to a five-day work week, also created a demand for public open spaces.
Promenades and observation sites, such as the Haas and Sherover, have become urban points of attraction. Open-air sculptures such as the "Monster" in Kiryat Hayovel present yet another aspect of consumer habits and a growing environmental awareness.
ARCHITECTURE UNDER THE IMPACT OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY: The new architecture of rectangular buildings, such as those built for the phone company's advanced switchboards in Kiryat Hayovel, Hebron Road and the Golomb Junction, has been incorporated into the urban landscape following the incredible development of communication technology and the rise in the standard of living. That rise is also expressed in the ever-increasing vehicular traffic, which has led to a rise in the number of gas stations in Jerusalem. During the British Mandate, Jerusalem had but a few gas stations, which were located inside ordinary buildings. The rapid increase in the number of cars and the competition between the gas companies are reflected in the dozens of newly-built gas stations, some of which are designed as concrete mushrooms and located on major intersections in the city.
Expanding motorization also called for the construction of new and wider roads and streets. Additional parking solutions had to be found. As a result, the city issued a building regulation that each housing unit must have a single parking space on the premises, which impaired the quality of the residential environment. Thus Rehavia, built during the low-traffic years of the 1920's and 30's, still enjoys greenery, stone fences and pretty metal gates, while the houses on Tchernihowsky Street, surrounded by black parking spaces, appear unkempt and alienated.
CONTINUITY: Jerusalem, a changing city, has maintained its architectural continuity. The Israeli planners have preserved the basic design principles devised by the British during the initial period of their rule. The Jordanians, in their time, also observed the principle of building on ridge tops, not in the valleys. Until this day, all governments have carefully preserved the Old City and its environs, making sure that new houses are built almost exclusively of stone. To a certain extent, state-sponsored buildings in the 1950's continued the "pre-state" architectural trends. National institutions, the Hebrew University campus and the Hadassah Medical Center followed the old trends, as did the sectarian residential neighborhoods built by the Histadrut Labor Union and others.
FROM INTERNATIONAL TO LOCAL ORIGINAL: An analysis of styles used in the city since 1948 shows a process of dramatic development, change and transition. While still a divided city, its architecture in large part borrowed from foreign styles and the architecture of the Israeli coastal plains. They were adapted in shape and mainly in material, to the needs and guidelines of Jerusalemite construction. Jerusalem's International Style is "International" first and "Jerusalemite" second. The Hebrew University campus on Givat Ram, built between the mid-50's and the mid-60's, constitutes a large museum of the International Style with its various shades. The long buildings in the housing projects of the 1960's - the most dominant element of public state-built architecture in Jerusalem - reflect the style of Tel Aviv. They were covered with stone, as the city regulations stipulated, but this did not significantly change the dominance of their International identity. After 1967, a clear effort was made to avoid the International Style and its stigma of monotony. Architects drew on oriental forms and images, providing a variety of forms, some doing better than others.
QUOTATIONS AND INFLUENCES: The local-original style of Jerusalem in the 1970's can be seen as a local version of International Post-Modernism, merely quoting from or insinuating at the local typology and morphology. In the early years, reference to the oriental style was mainly imitation and copying. Since the early 1980's, however, it has been more subtle and implied. Jerusalem is largely a conservative city, dominated by stone houses; a city which carries an historical load. Architects have shrunk from applying the lighter, humorous aspects of International Post-Modernism, which create a modern interpretation of Neo-Classic styles by combining large glass walls with colorful metal constructions. At the same time, the city provided its own version of Post-Modernism whose sources of inspiration and quotes are not part of the oriental forms or the local morphology, but draw on other sources - landmarks of world architecture, major events in the history of the People of Israel (the Holocaust, Israel's wars), historical symbolism and more.
FORMS AND SCHOOLS: The architects who have worked in Jerusalem since 1948, creating in a variety of styles, belong to different generations and schools. Some started under British rule and continued after the state was founded; some belonged to the Modern Conservative school, while others followed the International Style of the 1930's, and adapted to changes in
it. The young architects of the 1950's have changed their styles over the years, going from the "straight angle and line" of the International Style during the first decade of Israel's existence, to a local-original style after 1967, using Jerusalem's traditional shapes and forms. Most of the prominent architects of the 1980's were born at the end of or after World War Two. Much of their work tries to combine past and future styles; their approach is more abstract and suggestive, and clearly less blunt than the architects of the previous decade. Some architects still tend to introduce certain elements of the Post-Modernist world of colors and shapes. Since 1967, many significant projects have been works of preservation and reconstruction, as well as additions to existing sites; a group of specialist architects has been active in this area inside and around the Old City.
LESSONS LEARNED: During the period since 1967, many lessons have been learned. With the planning of new neighborhoods and the use of building techniques. In the 1980's, the planning of clusters of buildings with courtyards in the Ramot neighborhood followed the lessons learned from building similar houses-with-yards in Gilo. The return to the traditional city street at Pisgat Ze'ev in the 80's came about after drawbacks were discovered in the broad streets and clusters of buildings in Gilo. Similarly, the prefabricated construction of the late 1980's was more water-resistant and far superior to that of previous years.
The traditional architecture of Jerusalem - expressed in the 1970's in hyper-Oriental form, packed with arches, arcades and retracted roofs - was toned down in the 80's. The nostalgic-romantic enthusiasm has calmed down and clean shapes, simple lines and straight angles have gradually regained their previous status. At the same time, the Ministry of Housing & Construction has tempered its extra-liberal policy of the 1970's which allowed avant-garde architectural experiments, most of which have proven unworthy. This, probably, was the inevitable price Israeli society had to pay in those days for its attempt to improve planning methods and construction technologies, hoping for a better future.
THE FUTURE: Numerous construction projects are currently underway in Jerusalem. When they are completed, the shape of the city will be significantly altered. The most dramatic changes, it seems, will take place in the Jerusalem skyline. New twenty - and thirty-storey buildings, so far considered "impossible" to build in Jerusalem, will appear. Glass walls - as opposed to stone - will become more frequent. The neglected city center will change beyond recognition once the Mamilla project, facing Jaffa Gate, is completed. If the plans to introduce a light train should ever materialize, significant parts of the presently neglected Jaffa Road would be revived. Controversy will continue regarding plans for the expansion of existing buildings, such as that of US architect James Fried to expand the Israel Museum on Givat Ram and architect Moshe Safdie's plan for Yad Vashem on Mt. Herzl.
Once completed, Menahem Begin Avenue (Road No. 4) will cut through the city's western outskirts, from the Ramot neighborhood in the north to Teddy Stadium and Malha in the south. The road, to be inaugurated in June 1999, will accelerate construction of the fourteen large projects planned, including a congress center, multipurpose sports facility, offices, residential buildings, hi-tech industry and several parks. It is reasonable to assume that design patterns and stylistic tradition of the immediate past will remain, with some modifications of the traditional forms. The general trend will lean towards simpler and more modest forms, with qualified influence of Israeli and international architecture. Clearly, however, there will be public debate regarding the construction of high-rises, the exclusive use of stone, the practice of building on ridges while keeping the valleys open, and on reconstruction and restoration, as opposed to demolition and starting anew.