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.