baltic cultural and tourism route fortresses 2005_2007-1

7/23/2019 Baltic Cultural and Tourism Route Fortresses 2005_2007-1

1/146

Monuments for Peace, Culture and Tourism

Baltic Cultural andTourism Route Fortresses

Germany Poland Lithuania Russia

Saving of the European Cultural Heritage Fortresses

This project is part-nanced by the European Union(European Regional Development Fund)within the Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B programme

Results of trans-national cooperation in INTERREG-III-B project20052007

APPROPRIATE MONUMENTAL USE

OF FORTRESSESDocumentation and recommended proceeding


2/146

This project is par t-nanced by the European Union

(European Regional Development Fund)

within the Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B programme

Published under the responsibility of

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER)

Chair of Monument Preservation

Master program European Cultural Heritage

at the Collegium Polonicum, Subice

Edited by Hans-Rudolf Neumann and Ramona Simone Dornbusch

With the assistance from Project- and external Partners and a contribution by Uta Hengelhaupt.

in cooperation with

Humboldt-Universityat Berlin

Dr. F. Riesbeck

www.agrar.hu-berlin.de

Immanuel Kant StateUniversity of Russia

Dr. E. Kropinova

www.albertina.ru

Vytautas MagnusUniversity Kaunas

Dr. V. Rakutis

www.vdu.lt

Kaunas University ofTechnology, Institute of

Architecture and Construction

Dr. K. Zaleckis

www.asi.lt


3/146

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................5

Uses and Usefulness: Aspects of the utilisation of historic fortresses...................................6

Subject-matter of the documentation ...........................................................................................................11

What kinds of fortification are there andwhere do the problems with their use arise? ..........................................................................................14

Basic and essential factors of importance in solving the problems of Fortress use ... 21

Research and documentation area within the bfr framework .................................................... 27

1 Description o the recorded ortresses................................................................................................................. 27

2 Problems with the use o recorded ortresses ...................................................................................................... 50

3 Attempted solutions towards potential uses......................................................................................................... 66

4 BFR Pilot and Demonstration project: Kaunas Fort V...................................................................................... 85

Specimen cases outside the research area ............................................................................................ 88

1 Major ortress installations ...................................................................................................................................... 88

2 Individual ortresses ................................................................................................................................................ 102

3 Individual Fortress and Garrison buildings: the example o Ingolstadt, Germany..................................110

Recommended action ............................................................................................................................................116

Political will .....................................................................................................................................................................116

Implementation o political will .................................................................................................................................117

Dealing with fortifications as historic monument ............................................................................. 124

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 129

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................ 131

Picture credits ........................................................................................................................................................... 143


4/146

Result of trans-national cooperation in project Baltic Fort Route

4

It is a wonderul time, where what has divided in the past, nowunifies. For centuries, ortresses were turned against their neighbor-ing states, per se. Te maintenance and extension o ortresses was an acto virtual aggression against the outside world. Tus tensions were gen-

erated, even at peaceul times, which then unleashed in acts o war.

oday, the maintenance o ortifications can bring people together. As culturaland historic monuments, they remind o a changeul and complicated historyo towns and regions. It is through the understanding o the multiarious past,that a dangerous conception o a single state or nation creates a monolith oculture, history, and interests. Te diversification o the understanding o his-tory overlaps, thus creating common fields or people and national structures.

Te research on ortresses as cultural objects broadens the new under-

standing o history. Entanglements in acts o war, represent only a smallragment in the history o a ortress. However, the remaining lie was ul-filled with peaceul and humanely matter: the daily work o solders andcivilians, commercial activities and private lie. An objective representa-tion o ortress history, revalues everyday lie and denotes fighting.

Te concepts o new orms o utilization o ortresses (tourism, cultural site,historic exhibit, and entertainment site respectively) are nowadays a criterionto what extend a city or region can create impulses or its own development.Whoever can accomplish to turn the ruins o a ortress into an attractive as-set, will be able to do the same with a actory, a biotope, or a landscape.

All these aspects coalesce in the project Baltic Fort Route, whichhas been coordinated by Mrs Ramona Simone Dornbusch, in theyears rom 2005 through 2007. As the Director o this institute, whichhas been engaged significantly, I would like to congratulate all par-ticipants on their idea and result o the work. May the ortificationsbloom an flourish. In their contemporary meaning, o course.

Dr. Krzyszto WojciechowskiDirector o the Collegium Polonicum

A joint institution o the European University Viadrina Frankurt (Oder)and the Adam-Mickiewicz University Poznan.


5/146


5

Introduction and Acknowledgements

Te EU-INEREG-III-B-Project Baltic Culture andourism Route Fortresses (BFR) is allowing docu-mentation to be prepared in connection with WorkPackage III Utilisation and Management Methods

that discusses the problems o use o the partner or-tresses represented in the project and, moreover, o-ers an opportunity or drawing comparisons withother European ortresses.

Te present paper, which originated during the pro-ject period, is a first step in this area. Comparableresearch o greater extent has not so ar been under-taken. Consequently, the study is thereore also inthe nature o a model.

Te documentation is based on the project docu-ments o the project partner BFR hitherto existing inthe ransnational Inormation System (IS) and onknowledge acquired in all workshops and networkmeetings o the BFR Project. A BFR seminar inspring 2006 in the Fortress o Knigstein in Saxonyand the BFR expert discussion in June 2007 in theCitadel o Spandau in Berlin, but also the interna-tional scientific conerence in March 2007 at Kaunasoffered an opportunity, internally and externally, orpublic discussion o the problems o ortress use andor urther consideration o the problems and poten-tial solutions. Many o the participants attendingand also the project partners had already participat-ed in the two international conerences in 2001 inBerlin and 2005 in Magdeburg on the subject oMaintenance and use o historic citadels and majorortresses and were thereore ully amiliar with theproblems.

Not least, the creation o the documentation is dueto the experiences o the compiler and all those who

contributed by making their works available. Tescientific guideline is based on the specialist biblio-graphy listed in the Annex.

Te European University Viadrina Frankurt (Oder)has assumed responsibility or preparing the presentdocumentation. Its thanks are due especially to allproject and external contributors who have providedadditional work on the ollowing ortresses in writ-ten orm:

Mr Zdzislaw Balewskior Fortress Wislamouthin Gdansk / Danzig

Ms Karolina Bilskaor Kolobrzeg / Kolberg

Mr Pawel Cieszynskior Kostrzyn / Kstrin

Mr Manred Khneor Spandau Citadel in Berlin

Mr Christoph Malcherowitzor the Malzhausbastion in Peitz

Mr Frank Riesbeckand Mr Gunar Ibrcker,Humboldt-University at Berlin or Forts V inKaliningrad and Kaunas

Mr Jzse Pohlmllneror Komrom

Mr Hartmut Rder/ GKU, Berlin or Kostrzyn /Kstrin and Fort Gorgast

Mr Jrgen Scharnweberor the citadel at Dmitz

Mr Piotr Stoppa or Fort Grodzisko/ Hagelsbergin Gdansk / Danzig

Mr Rimvydas Strazdasor themajor ortress o Kaunas

Ms Angelika aubeor Fortress Knigstein

Ms Andrea Teissenor the Citadel and FortHahneberg in Berlin-Spandau

Particular thanks are due to Mr Hans Smith in Lon-don or ongoing translation work and to Ms EmiliaRieger / GKU Berlin or the preparation and data

transormation o numerous pictorial documents.

With the presentation o this document, the com-pilers express the hope that the project will becontinued and additional ortifications aroundthe Baltic rom Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Finland,Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany canalso be included in the area o research. It wouldalso be desirable or the study to be evaluatedand supplemented at a later date, and extendedwith regard to the need or political action.

For the Europen University Viadrina

Ramona Simone DornbuschChair o Monument PreservationEuropean Cultural Heritage

For the Baltic Culture and ourism RouteFortresses Project

Hans-Rudol NeumannSc. Coordinator BFR


6/146


6

Hardly a subject seems more suitable or compre-hensively reflecting the international and inter-disciplinary aspects o conservation, and its tasks

and developments, in a variety that only ew cate-gories o European architectural history achieve.

Already in antiquity, cities, centres o political con-trol and military encampments were protected bywalls, palisades, towers, gates, walls and ditches(1). Even in the medieval world, cast les, sae housesand ortified settlements shaped the day-to-day pic-ture o landscapes and cities. Starting with the ringcastles, walled enclosures o the Slavic and Viking

times (2), the imposing castles and ortifications othe late Middle Ages that have survived throughoutEurope (3) to the numerous city surrounded by tow-ers, walls and ditches even today (4) reflect not onlyorigins and consolidation o European cities ac-companied by wars, alarums and conquest, but alsothe daily experience o lie and the environment oa large part o the civil population. With the rise oartillery, the ortress developed as an architecturalnecessary into ever more complex and demandingsystems o bastions, citadels, casemates, orts and

outer works, their integrated whole cities and land-scapes into a complicated network o sophisticatedmilitary deence lines (5). Since the Renaissance andthe age o the Baroque, engineering and militaryarchitecture were amongst the chie concerns o thearchitects, who, like Claude Perrault or BalthasarNeumann, oen began their careers in military ser-

vice. Te numerous tractates surviving o militarybuilding art urther, even today, provide evidenceo the lasting influence o this approach on the gen-eral development o architecture. With the develop-ment o modern war technology, these deences losttheir strategic importance in the twentieth century.Nonetheless, the remains o such installations as theMaginot Line and the Atlantic Wall or East Wallmust in the broadest sense be included amongstthe deensive structures o the modern age (6).

Tis brie and superficial overview o ortressesand ortifications as architectural phenomenaalready clearly shows that most o them consist o

extensive spatial acilities and requently also oworks with a marked local character. When clas-

siying properties o this kind or conservationpurposes, not only the various types and categorieso monument are intended (structural acilities

as individual or multiple properties, ensembles,conservation areas or parts o these, horticulturaland green monuments, protected land, and pos-sibly urban monuments), but their conservation-ist care, maintenance and development urtherrequently depends also on the responsibilitieso various authorities or different specialist bod-ies, cooperation between whom requires overlap-ping conceptual outline planning. Tis applies themore so since the uture use o historic ortified

works is now commonly undertaken within theramework o tourist objectives and product strate-gies with a marked event culture, which rom timeto time run counter to conservationist interests.

Nonetheless, the pronounced monumental charactero historic ortresses and ortifications does not con-flict with the idea in principle o economic use, pro-

vided this does not reduce or worse still eliminatethe monumental value o the work. Consequently, inGermany and in other European countries, the law

and conservation practice share the view that themaintenance and care o listed buildings can be en-sured in the long term only through use. Unusedlisted buildings are ar more oen exposed todegradation than those whose use is in an economi-cally sensible relationship to the cost incurredthrough maintaining them. It is true that the main-tenance and repair duties derived rom the Germanconservation laws make only limited requirementsas to suitability or use (7). However, changes o useare predominantly enshrined in the official approvalprocedures and consequently always require a deci-sion to be taken in the light o the individual prem-ises. Finally, the direct environment o a monumentis subject to a restriction on use insoar as the abricor appearance o the property is jeopardised.

Cultural monuments oen also underwent changesor extensions o use in the past, and have requentlysurvived to the present day only in consequence. Aprominent example o the retention o a historic

ortification through reuse is the Marienburg inthe ormer Province o East Prussia, which ell to

Uses and Usefulness:Aspects of the utilisation of historic fortresses


7/146


7

Prussia during the Polish partitions. Since the royalPrussian financial administration considered retain-ing this massive stronghold and many other ortifi-cations o the period o the German Knights as toocostly in the absence o suitable use, Fredrick II hadcost-benefit plans drawn up in each case that com-

pared the expenditure on potential demolition withthe cost o converting the works. In the case o theMarienburg, the State authorities decided on con-

version to a barracks with orage store, so that thebuilding was in act badly mutilated in the subse-quent period. In many urther cases, buildings thatcould not be put to suitable use were in act totallydemolished (8). Te lessons rom this historic ex-ample are maniold. First o all, it is clear that mean-ingul use is oen appreciably cheaper than drastic

measures or even demolition. Moreover, the Castleo Malbork, is now, as an outstanding witness o itsturbulent history, an incomparable tourist magnetendowing the entire region with an economic uture.

Major conserved properties are not only a recogn-ised token o a region in view o their oen varie-gated links with its history but also rom a purelyphysical-optical aspect are a landscape actor with ahigh image value because o their dominant picto-rial effect and striking appearance. Having regard

to use in the ortress conservation category, thisoen presents the authorities with the task in prac-tice o establishing innovative strategic concepts andorward-looking monument management, withinthe context o conservation, urban and regional de-

velopment and theme-related location marketing, inorder to make best use o the multiple opportunitiesor social, cultural and economic synergies available.Tey include to an undeniably great extent also aneffort to promote awareness o these monumentswith their special history, oen also associated withproblems in the public mind, and their local andregional environment, and to introduce consider-ations as to their use actively into public discussion.

In this context, the concept o valorisation alreadyestablished in the area o town planning and cultur-al landscape and ecological development, has beenadopted. Strategies or the valorisation o major orlarge scale properties presuppose recognition otheir specific value, an effort to maintain this value

(9) and to revive and experience it, and through spe-cific measures are aimed at gaining benefit and im-

age. Te concept developed by the Rhineland-Pala-tinate castle management o Castles, Stately homesand Antiquities o Rhineland Palatinate (B.S.A.)and other partners or the ortress o Ehrenbreitsteinnear Coblence is exemplary o such compilation ouse and useulness. Te ortress, built between 1817

and 1828 to secure the Rhine-Main-Moselle area,now acts as an intensively used cultural centre orthe region, visited by an average o 400,000 visitorsin the so-called ortress season between March andNovember and provides work or some 100 staff.Amongst other things, parts o the ortress are usedas a youth hostel and restaurant and various stores.Te cultural history effect o the location as a actorestablishing identity and crystallising regional his-tory is underlined and utilised by means o a quality

museum-archaeological presentation o the historyo the Fortress itsel and additional museum exhibi-tions in conjunction with the Department o Ar-chaeological Conservation o Rhineland-Palatinateand the Land echnical Museum o Coblence. Inaddition, the Fortress ditch and appurtenances o-er a unique, imposing stage or mounting culturalevents. An inormation, guidance and orientationsystem or visitors already distinguished with thedesign prize rom the Land o Rhineland-Palatinate,contributes towards authentically imparting an un-

mistakable identity or the location and at the sametime imposing the character o the monument onthe necessary inrastructural acilities. Altogether,the unmistakable aura o the place has thereby beensuccessully emphasised, by stressing the inimitableaura o the site with a multiplicity o measures, andthereby putting it to a high degree o both touristand economic use without reducing its authenticity.

Tis example, o which there are many, shows towhat extent conservation aspects can be useullyintegrated into complex management. In addi-tion, as the historic process o the Marienburg inEast Prussia shows, this can be extended rom thepresent profitable purely financially oriented as-sessment to a conservation benefits analysis (10) theobject o which is to examine complex alternativeaction against the preerences o a defined targetsystem. Here, less attention is paid to the efficiencyo the project than to its effectiveness, i.e. its overallcontribution towards the material (conservation-

ist) and economic maintenance o a monumenthaving regard to its stated objective. Te overall


8/146


8

benefit or total contribution is the result o thesum o individual contributions. Te concept o abenefits analysis doing justice to the monument isbased on the introduction o a hierarchical systemo objectives, at the top o which stands conserva-tion as the ultimate aim in line with the modern

economic and ecological objectives o sustainability.Te total contribution can be broken down in toindividual parts according to objective, the contri-bution o which to the overall goals can thereorebe assessed. Te basic logic o the valuation ap-proach lies in making the complex area o assess-ment or decisions structurable through qualifiedindividual-contributions and operational accordingto established criteria, which in turn are consistentlyaligned on cultural, social or even ecological aspects.

In addition, such actors as conormity to location,the cultural historical aspects o a region, its cultur-al coding in terms o creating pictures and mythsor even the stage managing o places are o deci-sive importance and may advantageously iron outpossible economic disadvantages with the necessaryexpenditure on maintenance. A large scale planningapproach o this kind aligned on the saekeeping ocultural resources has long been adopted in France,and, since 2003, also in Poland under the motto o

Economic investment through investment in con-servation. Both countries have opted or a model orthe large scale demarcation o protected areas (11)applicable not only to conservation but also to eco-logical objectives, based on suggestions taken rome.g. the Granada Charter or protecting architectur-al heritage, but especially rom the uturistic ormu-lation o new guidelines within the EUREK Europe-an Physical Planning Concept (12) or circumspecthandling o the cultural and natural heritage oregions. Te core o these concepts is an integratedapproach with different specialist policies expressedwithin the ramework o a Round able conceptor common objectives in the protection o culturaland natural resources, to which other goals o townplanning and location development are subordi-nated. In addition, it is the jointly declared intentiono all actors concerned to establish a comprehensiveset o rules to strengthen regional identity as solocation actors and at the same time to re-establishthe value o peripheral areas (13). Interestingly, orti-

fications o minor or major extent in both countriesnow belong amongst the preerred properties or the

demarcation o cultural history-oriented protectedareas o this kind (14). In addition, the general con-servationist interests are accompanied beyond thecomplex planning approach especially by an extend-ed cultural historic regional association between the

various locations, which opens up urther roads to

providing inormation and revalorisation. In parti-cular, the French system displays a consistent inter-est in involving the public. Tis also includes coop-eration with the Association des Centres Culturelset de Rencontre (ACCR), which aims to record andimpart the requently existing knowledge concern-ing monuments and their regional history. A urthereconomic advantage o unds invested in the valo-risation o protected areas and their listed buildingslies in their planned inclusion in national tourism

advertising, with specific marketing structures (15).

Te valorisation, tourist development and economicuse o ortifications on conservation principles isa management task o a complex order. Concernsregarding the maintenance and requirements as tothe use o a resource must not be orgotten, but mustbe supplemented by a concept aligned on the estab-lished ultimate goals. Te topical property o a ar-chitectural monument and, in this case, the specialgroup o ortresses even more so, not only needs

special technical competence in approach but, more-over, an high degree o creativity in development,inormation providing and public relations. None-theless, many positive examples show that preciselythe topic o ortresses or in an extended sense

military history offers a perect platorm or mak-ing use o the increasing interest in the historical as-pects o regions and corresponds to an increased de-sire or identification and local orientation. Based ona broad ocus o cultural specimen codings, ortress-es should not only be thematically developed indi-

vidually but also appear particularly suited to beingincluded in integrated cultural landscape develop-ment concepts, marketing approaches and identityplans. In addition, there should be a prospectivetargeting in the simultaneous activation o the pub-lic to gain innovative skills in developing researchand knowledge and in imparting sustained demandor quality cultural and structural acilities (16).Te valorisation o ortresses rom conservationaspects thereore appears as a cross-sectional task

beyond the resources o any one department, andrequiring particular management skills. It requires a


9/146


9

high degree o knowledge, competence and creativ-ity rom those concerned and the continued will-ingness to communicate and make compromises,which can be verified against quality managementaligned on the objectives o conservation o monu-ments. Ultimately in its objective predominantly

dependent on public acceptance and demand, thetheme property o ortress is above all designed

Notes:

(1) Implicitly inormative but also superficially still preserved in striking buildings are, or example, inGermany, the ortifications o the Roman military camps in Regensburg, Cologne, Xanten and rier.

(2) For example, Gross-Raden in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Raddusch in Brandenburg and Fyrkat inJutland.

(3) In view o their multiplicity, it is almost unnecessary to mention examples here, such as the powerulcastles o the Normans in Britain, France and Italy, the ortifications o the crusaders in theMediterranean area and o the German Knights in Northern Europe, the baronies and castles o theRhineland and the ortifications or the time o the urkish wars in South-Eastern Europe

(4) Here, too, just some examples rom the many are Carcassonne in France, San Geminiano in Italy,Hermannstadt / Sibiu or Schssburg / Sighisoara in ransalvania, Dubrovnik in Croatia or alsoOchsenurt and Rothenburg ob der auber in Franconia.

(5) Apart rom the imposing early new-period citadel o Siena, the Order o St John in Rhodes, etc,reerence may also be made here to the Dutch deensive concept o the Waterline and the retained ringo extant orts round Amsterdam.

(6) In public thinking on this subject, there is, at least in Germany, some widely shared echo with regard toworks o the First and Second World War, which nevertheless does not stand in the way o theessentially monumental character o these buildings. In addition, both the orms o deliberate neglectand also, sometimes, an occasional unreflecting military tourism draw critical comment. Te survivingprotective works and Marshall Zhukovs command post on the Seelow Heights have recently undergoneprotective conservationist maintenance under museum management. Te Seelow Heights Museumprovides a balanced didactic account or this.

or a plethora o uses within the ramework ocultural tourism concepts and can especially con-tribute towards qualiying areas o experiencelinked to the townscape and cultural landscape.In the consistent evaluation o their location anduser potential and their physical structural sur-

roundings, the particular importance and qualityo this species o monument becomes maniest.

Proessor Uta Hengelhaupt

Leader o Master Program Monument Preservation

Europe-University Viadrina Frankurt (Oder)


10/146


10

(7) Article 5 o the Bavarian Monuments Act, which states that listed buildings should preerably be usedor their original purpose, goes urthest here. Where that is not possible, as similar a use must be aimedor that permanently guarantees the retention o the monumental abric (c. U. Hengelhaupt, Article onUse and Restrictions on Use, Proper use o listing buildings in: Manual o Monument Protection andConservation, published by D. Martin and M. Krautzberger, (2nd edition) Munich 2006, pp. 221 et seq.

(8) On the history o the Marienburg, see amongst others Bookmann, Hartmut, Die Marienburg im 19.

Jahrhundert, Berlin 1982.

(9) Tomas Metz, In Wert setzen, Status Report on work on castles, stately homes and antiquities inRhineland-Palatinate, in Wirtschasgut Denkmal? Conservation series, published by Erhaltenhistorischer Bauwerke e.V. pp. 4355.

(10) Te model or useul value analysis is attributed to Christo Zangemeister, Nutzwertanalyse und System-technik; Eine Methodik zur multidimensionalen Bewertung und Auswahl von Projektalternativen,Munich 1976.

(11) ZPPAUP and culture parks

(12) Offprint o the EUREK-ext: European Community Official Publications Office, Luxembourg.

(13) In preparation o a target definition, comprehensive scientific-conservationist documentation o the areais prepared with regard to its cultural, ethnological, typological and topological eatures. Tis selectivecompilation o regional identity creates a definition o revalorisation projects (mise en valeur), explic-itly concentrating on maintaining the defined eatures and potential value o the region. Te process isthereby characterised not in that the resources are made suitable or profitable stage management but orrehabilitation, use and marketing oriented on the needs and sensitivities o the potential.

Characteristic o the French approach is that the criteria o area protection to be defined vary rom onearea to another and can be ascertained only in the round table discussion process. A process o partici-pation and comprehension is thereore aimed or, with positive effects on acceptance o the measure as awhole.

(14) For example ZPPAUPs in the Region Haute Rhin und Alsace. Mention may be made o amongst othersites Fort Hagelsberg / Grodzisko near Danzig (Park Kulturowy Fortyfikacji Miejskich wierdzaGdask) in Poland.

(15) Source: Ministre de la culture et de la communication en France. Te State ourism agencies promotethe labels reserved exclusively or the designated protection areas: Te fine city o art and history and

Small cities o character

(16) See inter alia Ul Matthiesen and Manred Khn, in: Matthiessen, Stadtregion und Wissen, Wiesbaden2004; and: Au dem Weg der Regionalen Kulturpolitik in der Kulturregion Mnsterland Dra Guide presentation and Profile, Dusseldor 1998


11/146


11

Subject-matter of the documentation

1 What is it about?

Te present work is concerned with the problemso empty ortress and garrison buildings that nolonger serve any urther purpose now that theiroriginal, military unction has been relinquished.Tese buildings are or the most part acilities andstructural shells o the 19thand early 20thcenturiesthat up to the outbreak o the First World War weredesigned to secure cities and parts o the countryand generally accommodated military personnel.Te acilities consist mainly o casemated walls sur-

rounding a city in the orm o a deensive wall orassume protective unctions as isolated orts wellbeyond the city (Kaunas, Kaliningrad, Modlin,Kostrzyn). Shell buildings contained barracks orother garrison quarters including such utilities asmilitary railway stations, bakeries, abattoirs, storesor airship sheds buildings serving the inrastruc-tural support o a ortress and military garrison.

Many o these ortifications and buildings contin-ued to be used aer the First World War, except

where individual parts were sold off to the citiesand municipalities concerned. With the depar-ture o the Soviet orces aer perestroika in thenineties o the previous century, many o theseacilities and buildings suddenly stood empty inthe countries o Eastern Europe and began to de-cay. Ownership and responsibilities or buildingmaintenance were in many places unclear and nourther use could generally be ound, not even inthe military sector, since the need o the nationalorces concerned or personnel and technical sup-port was similarly reduced as a result o disarma-ment and there was thereore no need or recourseto existing structural acilities. However, in manyplaces, ortifications and representative militarybuildings were recognised as cultural architecturalassets o historic importance, which were initiallyplaced under ancient monument protection with-out any clear idea initially as to uture opportuni-ties or improved use, let alone in general terms.

Tese shortcomings led many cities and mu-nicipalities to become partners in the INER-

REG-III-B European projects CONVERNEand BFR, using the opportunities offeredhere or opinion-orming and an exchange oexperience, and in order to look or solutionsor tackling the problem described above.

2 Background to the documentation

Te background to the present work is ormedby the terms o reerence or the INERREG-III-B project Baltic Culture and ourism RouteFortresses in Work Package 3: Development oheritage compatible and economic utilisation oortresses. Potential uses to which vacant struc-tures and sites can be put will be identified in aseminar and in local meetings with EU Projectpartners over a processing period o 2 years.

However, we shall not only be looking at the present

situation with the Project Partners ortified sites.Te subject had already been aired beore the EU ap-proved the outline project in 2004/2005. Te topicwas a problem rom the start: wherever a site wasabandoned and began to stand empty, people beganto think whether existing shells might not be urtherused or reused or deployed or a similar but otherpurpose. Tese considerations have been voiced Eu-rope-wide, whether in Italy, France, the Netherlands

traditional countries with an insurmountablenumber o historic ortifications, in Germany, whichaer the Versaille reaty o 1919 had to decommis-sion a vast number o its ortifications and none-theless still to this day has to look aer a wealth osplendid ortified sites and garrison buildings, andnow also in Eastern Europe ollowing the departureo the Soviet troops: countries such as the Baltic andassociate Project Partner states, but also White Rus-sia, the Ukraine, Hungary, the Czech Republic andSlovakia. Various meetings and conerences have


12/146


12

been held on this subject o re-employment in West-ern Europe in the past, a series o annual meetingso the Deutsche Gesellscha r Festungsorschunge.V. [German Fortress Research Society] havingbeen held in Germany since 1980, two interna-tional meetings in 2001 at Berlin-Spandau entitled

Maintenance and Use o historic Citadels and in2005 in Magdeburg, entitled Maintenance andUse o Major Historic Fortresses. Te meeting on

Military Buildings and Conservation organised atMhlheim an der Ruhr by the Rheinische Landes-amt r Denkmalpflege [Rhenish Land Office orConservation]. A meeting in Lille, France, alreadydiscussed the same problem in December 1992under the title o Quel avenir pour le patrimoineortifi? (What uture or ortified heritage?).

Tis is now all the more worthwhile since ollowingthe departure o the ormer occupying orces virtu-ally no interim use has taken place, so that the struc-tural deterioration through standing empty is stillslight and is thereore every prospect o retainingthe architectural substance in the long term at rela-tively low expense and contributing to its rehabilita-tion through tourism or some other appropriate use.

3 Partners in the documentation(within and outside the project)

Te partners cooperating with the present docu-mentation are firstly the project partners them-selves. Tey are the Europe University Viadrinaat Frankurt/Oder, the German Fort Hahnebergat Berlin-Spandau, the two Polish cities o Kolo-brzeg (Kolberg) and Kostrzyn nad Odra (Kstrin),the Museum Park in Gdansk (Danzig) and theassociated Russian partners at the Spatial Plan-ning Institute in Kaliningrad. Guest partnerswithin the Project are also the Polish city oNowy Dwor Mazowiecki with its Fortress Mod-lin. Others rom outside the project includeFortress Knigstein in Saxony (Germany).

As a Partner in the so-called brain-pooling or theProject, the Europe University o Viadrina offersthe best opportunities or implementing the present

documentation. Its scientific competence throughits Chair in Monument Study ensures by means

o masters degree course in European CulturalHeritage, Protection o European Cultural Heritagethat the basis and prerequisites o conservation areappropriately taken into account and appreciatedwhen dealing with historic ortification architecture.

Fort Hahneberg was built in 1881 and until 1945served the most varied military purposes. Becauseo its position within the inner German bound-ary, the ort lay in so-called No mans land untilReunification in 1989 and was thereore largelyspared structural encroachment. Immediatelyollowing Reunification, the citizens o the sur-rounding municipalities began to use the Fort as aquarry to repair their own homes. Tis was quitesoon stopped by placing it under protection as an

ancient monument and orming an association.Te Fort is now in a cross-fire between conserva-tion and ecology and is closed or the present.

Te Polish city o Kolobrzeg (the ormer Kolberg)still possesses some remarkable Prussian ortress ar-chitecture o the 18thcentury within its city area anda number o properties at the citys edge that are stillin military use. Proposed uses are at present limitedto the historic brick buildings o the Old City. Eventhough only partly used, improvements should be

aimed at, to improve them as a tourist attraction.

Te question as to uture use o historic ortressstructures in Kostrzyn nad Odra (Kstrin) is alto-gether more difficult. Te completely destroyed OldCity still exists, situated directly by the River Oderwhich also orms the city boundary, with its orti-fied walls surviving rom the 16th/17thcenturies.Gradual renovation o these ortifications, includingthe Berlin Gate, and the reconstruction o the OldCity in modern architecture are planned. In addi-tion to the Old City, the Old and New Cities weresurrounded with a girdle o orts in the 19 thcentury,o which Fort Gorgast is located on the Germanside and the three Forts o Sarbinowo (Zorndor),Czarnw (schernow) and abice (Spzig) on theright hand, Polish side o the Oder. Fort Gorgastis maintained by an association and is also in ulluse. Te orts on the right bank o the Oder arepartly or wholly demolished but orm striking andattractive eatures in the landscape through their

ruinous architecture or topographical location.


13/146


13

O the Museum Park in Gdansk (Danzig), the oldPrussian Fort Grodzisko (Hagelsberg), situated in adominant position in the City above the central sta-tion, has been maintained. Te Forts structural con-dition, with its high walls and masonry casemates,can be described as good even though thee is a

clear need or ongoing maintenance work. However,large parts o the Fort are not or only inadequatelyused. Tis also applies to the internal buildings.

Kaliningrad, the ormer German city o Knigsbergin East Prussia, was not only surrounded with abrick-built and embanked enceinte but also with agirdle o outlying Forts at a distance o several kilo-metres rom the city centre. Various city gates in theenceinte are in use as museums, such as the Dohna

ower, as amber museum, the Friedberger Gate, ashistorical museum, and the Knigstor, as a smallcity museum, reshly restored in 2006 or the 750thanniversary estival. Te ortress system with its 15orts and intermediate works is largely unrecorded.Fort 1 (Fort Stein) is privately maintained and in-habited, the external works o Fort 5 serve as mili-tary memorial. Considerable importance is being at-tached to the Prussian ortifications as part o theCitys uture development and consequently also asan enhancement to its tourist attractions, in connec-

tion with the initial considerations or a replanned(?) reconstruction o the Dominsel (CathedralIsland) and Inner City.

Modlin was ormerly a 19thcentury Russian re-trenched camp, with its origin reaching back to the18thcentury. Te Soviet troops who occupied theortification until recently le on their departurea broad, allow exemplar o European ortifica-tion art. Mention may be made o the citadel anda girdle o external orts, some o which are still inuse by the Polish army. Modlin is now part o theCity o Nowy Dwor Mazowiecki, to the north oWarsaw at the confluence o the Vistula and Narev.Te German ortress o Knigstein in the Federalstate o Saxony is a mountain astness that alreadyserved as a ortified stronghold in medieval timesand can display all development levels o the mod-ern art o ortification. Following German reunifica-tion, substantial securing, repair and improvementworks were undertaken. Te introduction o a new

management model will attract a very large numbero visitors in the tourist sector in cooperation with

the attractive and comprehensively used structuresand ortress eatures and additionally guarantees anongoing audience or its attractive calendar oevents.Additional examples have moreover been selectedrom Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania and Hun-

gary, who are not partners in the BFR Project (seebelow), but where urther development work is nec-essary.

4 Purpose o the documentation

A properly used historic structure (every one othem essential) prevents decay and requires little ex-

penditure to maintain its abric. Tis is a recognisedprinciple not only in the case o conservation but al-so in the property world generally. Te present doc-umentation thereore initially serves to provide goodexamples o how suitable uses can be created inorder thereby to put ortified sites and garrison buil-dings threatened with neglect back into use and soobviate long-term decay. Te present survey is alsointended to show why only certain uses lend them-selves to buildings o this kind and why other, oendesirable uses are impractical by their very nature.

Putting to use to prevent structural decay is oneaspect. Putting to attractive use is another. Tis re-quires special attention over and beyond actual use,since through attractive employment, additional e-ects can be expected or the site or the building, orthe most part connected and interlinked with tour-ism. Achievable usage to boost attractiveness createsa basis or organising special events. Tese shouldin turn be seen with a view to growth and an ongo-ing flow o visitors and tourists. And so the circle isclosed: a properly used, maintained and cared orbuilding not only orms a structural centrepointor its environment but is also an attraction to visi-tors and tourists who bring in money and leavemoney behind. Tis in turn benefits the building.

Te present documentation is thereore also intend-ed to propose recommended action, to be derivedrom good examples and illustrating the manyacets to be taken into account when dealing with

the problem o an empty or poorly maintainedarchitectural work.


14/146


14

What kinds of fortification are there and where do the problems with their use arise?

Fortresses and ortifications are as old as the historyo mankind itsel. From time immemorial, man hassought to protect his amily, his possessions and hisproperty. Te simplest means o doing so in ancient

times were the ditch and rampart. Fortress wallshave been known since Jericho, even through theoutcome o the bastion can already be ound inAncient Egypt.

Te history o new-period ortification begins withthe invention and use o black powder in Europeduring the 15thcentury. Black powder offers the at-tacker new opportunities to improve his artillery;cities are orced to find a response to the new threat.

European cities in search o protection have sincethe 15thcentury been surrounded with walledramparts ronted by ditches. Te basic orm o therampart varies and depends on the offensive tacticsadopted by a possible besieging army. Examplescan be ound in the Mediterranean area, not leastalso amongst the ortifications o Constantinople;the greater the advance is in ortress architec-ture, the lower the once high surrounding wallsbecame. Te bastion became the predominant

element in the Italian, Dutch and French mannero ortification; past masters o this ortificationart are Francessco Marchi, Menno van Coehoornand Sbastien le Prestre de Vauban. Architectso the Old German ortification manner includeDrer, Georg Rimpler and Daniel Specklin. Tecities girdered with bastioned ortification ringsin the 17thand 18thcenturies resulted in city or-tifications, with an all-round embracing rampartthat substantially prevented their expansion.

At the turn o the 19thcentury, this method o or-tification was also already superseded by later de-

velopments. Te system o large ortresses emerged,which gradually developed rom the polygonal tothe ring ort system. A characteristic eature othe major ortress are its outlying orts: individual,sel-contained ortified works whose task it was asar as possible to prevent an attacking enemy romfiring directly into the inner city. At the end o themajor ortress period, these orts were in some

cases removed rom the centre o the inner city byas much as 15 kilometres. Teir construction in-

volved tremendous inrastructural acilities suchas barracks, streets, railways and supply organisa-tions that not inrequently structurally changeda city into a large, properly unctioning military

camp and consequently substantially influencedthe social ramework o the citys population.

What is a ortress? A ortress consists o many partsand must always be understood and seen as a whole.Individual ortifications were intended not only asa structural shell or one or other unction but alsoas State buildings maniesting the ull power o theState and Nation. Tis is an aspect that must betaken into account in all matters o urther employ-

ment or reuse, i justice is to be done to the impor-tance o these structures as valued monuments.

o briefly summarise the most important orms othe new-period ortress as they emerged rom histo-ry in the course o their development, we have theollowing characteristics:

Individual ortifications: Fortified individual workssuch as e.g. a mount astness, citadel or ort

City ortifications: Ramparts (enceinte) in theorm o bastion-orts, round bastions, artillerybastions, possibly in conjunction with a citadel

Major ortifications: Fortified complexes consist-ing o a number o works, city walls in a polygonalline, ramparts with orts, ramparts with orts andbarracks, and military inrastructural acilities.

Research into historic new-period ortifications isstill at an early stage. A number o countries such ase.g. France, Te Netherlands, Germany, Poland andRussia are only just beginning to work up the his-tory o their ortifications and in doing so providea typological overview. Tis research area was de-

veloped only in the eighties o the past century buton account o its importance to conservation, cityplanning and European history, is altogether a ac-tor no longer to be ignored in the European culturaland research landscape. Having regard to thesefindings and in view o the pragmatic events in their

slow but progresssive conversion into the ormerortifications in military use, the need has neces-


15/146


15

sarily arisen time and again to accept these culturalassets as well and to look or compatible, new uses.

By reerence to the area o research it will be clearthat every period and every orm in the above over-

view can still be ound extant.

Individual ortifications include such works asthe citadel in Dmitz, Fort Weichselmnde nearDanzig, or the Boyen ortified complex in Ltzen.We find the remains o city ortification in theMalzhaus Bastion in Peitz, in the citadel in Span-dau, in the Old City in Kstrin, in the numerousrelicts o the 18thcentury in Kolberg, and in theimpressive remains o the ramparts in Danzig.

Major ortresses and military works o the 19

th

century include Fort Hahneberg in Spandau, theoutlaying orts in Kstrin, the Batteries at Swine-mnde, Fort Hagelsberg in Danzig, and thering orts in Modlin, Knigsberg and Kaunas.

Consequently, the question How should which ortbe used? is a complex one and already shows romthe start that no general solution can exist, but thateach ortress must be examined on its merits. None-

theless, there are generally applicable questions suchas those regarding access or traffic acilities, whichmust be answered independently o the relevantproblem o use, i a user concept is ultimately tounction.

Te problem o use

Using a building means maintaining a unction inthe building. Tis unction can be an active one:people spend time in the building and live and workthere or come and go occasionally as visitors, orexhibitions and or demonstrations. Dead, or toput it more precisely deerred use can lend a unc-

tion to a building: whether as warehouse, storeor a prepared space awaiting an active unction.

Reerred to ortifications, this means that all theseunctions are easible. Proper use is the result oa viable unction. Where, now, do problems ousing ortifications generally lie and in militarybuildings in particular? Here, there are three es-sential areas that give rise to complications.

Fig. 1:Distribution o BFR ortresses


16/146


16

A major problem in dealing with ortresses andmilitary works is the history and attitude o the lo-cal population. Local people have always regardedortresses as military premises, always occupiedby soldiers in uniorm, and in the past less as a po-tential deterrent against an external enemy than,

more oen than not, as a threat to the individual.Following the partition o Poland, the new Rus-sian ortified camps were undoubtedly initiallybuilt to secure the new Russian western rontierand were also regarded as deensive bulworks ina strategic deensive context or the Russian em-pire. However, the local Polish population regardedthese devices as an instrument o oppression andrepression and the later history o the 19thcenturyproved them right. Te Polish rebels captured ol-

lowing the events o 1863 languished in the case-mates o Fortress Kiev. So, as ormerly the Bastillein France, the concept o the ortress became asymbol o sovereign violence against the subject.

Mentalities o this kind are invasive, since the peri-od o dismantling was initially also superficially oneo relaxation. Te immediate threat disappearedinsoar as ortifications had also to be demolishedin Germany ollowing the First World War, underthe reaty o Versailles. Local people did little to

retain these buildings as historic monuments; rather,it was the politicians who, on utilitarian groundscampaigned or the retaining o many ortifica-tions: they offered a potential or uture use onaccount o the enormous available space. In othercountries where demolition was not imposed bylaw, ortress buildings continued in uninterruptedmilitary use so that the mentality was different here.

Dismantlement gave rise to new problems. Fortifi-cations could never be removed like a tree with itsroots, but generally only demolished down to thesurace level o the ditch, or thereabouts, unlessnew building also required the parts below groundlevel to be removed. Contemporary photos by thedismantling authorities show that demolition o theramparts generally simply meant filling the ditches.Te rising ditch walls or the most part remainedintact and many ortified cities have today to copewith the archaeological phenomenon where newbuildings repeatedly encroach on the oundations o

ormer ortifications and their ootings. Numerousexamples o recent times show this. In Mainz, the

complete remains o a rising Fortress gate were dugout again a ew years ago on the site o a new radiostation. A quite different user problem arises here:an archaeological one, taking us into the Buildinginto the Stock area, which we will not, however,discuss urther in the present documentation.

All these events o historic origin have led and stilllead to a certain reticence in approaching or evenaccepting these relicts without some prejudice, ascompared with e.g. churches, castles, palaces, statelyhomes, the homes o the amous, and the like. Tisincludes above all developing awareness or think-ing up other uses or still extant ortresses andmilitary installations than the purely military. Canthe populations lack o interest or even that o the

institutions and authorities responsible or themnot be influenced accordingly and will there notalways be a certain ear when it comets to invest-ing in such structures or generally accepting theseproblems and dealing with them in a positive light.

Te second area in dealing with problems oortress use lies in the buildings themselves.

As ormer State property, ortresses are generallypowerul, spacious works. Even individual ortresses

o manageable proportions are complex engineer-ing structures. Seen rom the air, the generallygeometrical outlines o many ortresses come asa surprise. Even the major ortresses o the 19thcentury are striking through the generally radiallayout o their outer orts, where they do not haveto take account o some special topography, asdoes the geometrically polygonal city circumval-lation. On the ground itsel, the context cannot becomprehended: anyone who has ever investigatedthe apparent conusion o ramparts, ditches, or-ward sconces and lunettes quickly loses an overall

view and can generally determine the direction orhis whereabouts only by means o a site plan. Tata well considered, mathematically established ar-rangement o spatial and visual relationships ex-ists here, with it layout originally dictated by theneeds o artillery, will not be implicitly evident tothe observer on the ground. Casemated bomb-proo buildings, as customary in the 19thcentury,are imposing through their strength and almost

endless rows o casemates and vaulted rooms, theso-called casemate corpus. Here, too, a sense o di-


17/146


17

rection is quickly lost due to the apparently unend-ing monotony, occasionally relieved only by gate ordoor openings, passageways in yards or deliberate,purpose-built architectural eatures. Te buildingswere created to ulfil a unction that at the time theywere erected was imperative and necessary; when

built, especially in the 19thcentury, the need ormultiunctionality was undoubtedly observed inorder to save on costs; however, there was no needduring their construction to consider what wouldbecome o installations thus laid out a century later.

However, the size o the premises also present prob-lems with use.

Te dimensions o garrison buildings such as bar-

racks have always been based on certain standardsor rooms and space set out in military civil en-gineering manuals. More oen than not, wholeassemblies o military troops such as companiesor battalions had to be housed, so that barrackbuildings included a hotel structure with all thenecessary acilities such as washrooms, showers,service rooms, and the like. Te actual ortifica-tions were more complex in their structure. Here,the casemates above all created the necessary roomunits. Casemates were specially designed and had

to take account o technical and in particular, artil-lery interests as immediate battle structures. None-theless, they were generally multi-unctional indesign, since they were rarely called upon to ulfiltheir special warlike purpose; they already had di-erent tasks in peacetime, such as space or storingtechnical equipment or or accommodating soldiers.Tese premises, too, could not exceed a certain size.Teir dimensions depended on the topographicalposition in which they were incorporated, on thespace taken by technical fixtures (guns, utilities)or the troop units to be housed, who could ormpart either o the ortress troops or o the garrison.

Further difficulties in dealing with subsequent usesare due to the condition o the building or ortifica-tions.

Since ortresses and garrison buildings are in eachcase State property, the State had an interest romthe start in its buildings being economically de-

signed but o the best quality. With deensive workslike ortresses, their having to withstand a possible

siege, even direct bombardments by a potentialenemys artillery, was an added actor. Particularattention was thereore always paid to the qualityaspect, as well, when erecting the structure and amass o inherited technical instructions and regula-tions still testiy today how seriously the engineer

officers o the time regarded their duties. Empha-sis was placed in this case on the stability o eachstructure and on good dryness and ventilation, asit was well known that humidity and damp coulddamage a structure and in the long run result init destruction. Te act that humidity urther im-paired the health and consequently the morale othe men o the garrison was realised only in the18thto 19thcenturies, when the permanent gar-risoning o major bodies o troops was the rule

and the associated hygienic risks could seriouslythreaten the potential deployment o ortress troops.

However, returning the structure simply to goodcondition was by no means all. On their comple-tion, regular maintenance also began. Barrackssuch as ortress buildings have to be maintained,i.e. structurally looked aer. Tere were plenty oreasons or their structural impairment: especiallythe effects o the weather, degradation o the ma-terial, impairment through ongoing use such as

wear and tear and the like. In particular, damagethrough water seepage had to be avoided, as couldhappen e.g. through rain penetrating untight roos,blocked or even burst water mains and drains, andthe like. Ongoing maintenance o the structurewas thereore particularly important or all mili-tary buildings i they were to be kept in serviceablecondition. Te powder magazines, especially, wereunder permanent observation and inspection:they had to be dry and protected against lightning.Nonetheless, major accidents were not uncom-mon: exploding powder stores could destroy wholeparts o a city quarter even in peacetime. Perhapsthis was also one o the reasons why powder maga-zines were generally pulled down as quickly aspossible aer their military properties had beenabandoned, since it was rom these buildings thatthe greatest risk emanated; only rarely do we stillfind remains o this typical ortress acility today.

Neglected, inadequate or even absent o building

maintenance very quickly resulted in incipientsigns o neglect. Te reasons or aulty or inad-


18/146


18

equate building maintenance could requentlybe: lack o specialist personnel, insufficient undsor necessary expenditure, departure o troopunits, or sale o a building to the city or to pri-

vate persons who intended them or other usesand le the premises standing empty or lengthy

periods. Standing empty always harboured therisk o outsiders taking up temporary residenceand thereby contributing their bit to the struc-tural neglect o buildings and other space.

Buildings entirely abandoned by the military andfinding no subsequent user ran the greatest risk oslowly but surely becoming ruinous. While initiallyit may only have been the weather that began to soakthe buildings into the abric, it was generally then

unauthorised outsiders who began to carve up thebuilding or useable materials. Te building becamemore and more dilapidated, being soon reduced on-ly to the bearing structures, and these were oen al-so victim to ongoing destruction by the weather and

vandalism. Te more that destruction progressed,the less were the chances o ever using the buildingagain. Te cost o basic repair and reinstatementor serviceable use rose all the more the longer thebuilding was neglected. Tis process was all theworse or the actual ortifications, since precisely

these parts were the most difficult to put to any sub-sequent use. As soon as ortifications were deprivedo military maintenance, there was nothing urtherto stop their gradual deterioration. Unless they weretaken over by a new owner and could be put to someuse, they stood empty and were exposed to dilapida-tion and destruction. Once they had become a ruin,they very soon presented a problem to the environ-ment and society, since ruins harbour substantialrisks to man and these risks had to be eliminatedi people were not to be exposed to lasting damageto lie and limb, not least through accidents suchas e.g. death through alling into black holes.

Particular importance attaches to the developmento a ortress installation or a garrison building orongoing or subsequent use. At the time the build-ing was erected, the question o development hada simply answer: all buildings had by the mosteconomic means to be as comortable as possibleand not visible or accessible to the enemy. Tis ap-

plied especially to ortifications and to orts lyingoutside the city; the individual parts had to be so

accessible that its deence was still ensured evenwhen under fire rom a hostile army. It had to bepossible to move reserves, ammunition and equip-ment orward to the individual positions as rapidlyand easily as possible. Communications systems hadto be maintained. Many roads that today still mark

the cityscape were already built or this purposewhen the ortification originated. Tese include theso-called military ring roads that connected theindividual ortifications with each other. raceswere also prepared at many points or narrow-gaugerailways and tracks placed in store to enable a pro-

visional rai lway network to be assembled at shortnotice during a siege to transport heavy weaponsand their ammunition. Tese traces can today stillbe seen all over the landscape and to what extent

they could be used or development work must beconsidered as part o the reinstatement and mea-sures or urther use. Te development o garrisonbuildings within the ortified city depended aboveall on the construction site that was available. Aboveall, the water supply to the building and its drainagewere also decisive or continuous, satisactory main-tenance. Even today, we find that the garrison build-ings generally occupied the best positions withinthe city ramework. Garrison buildings, too, hadto be easily reached and transportation o men and

equipment had to be ideally guaranteed at all times.

Access roads to the outlying orts consisted generallyo field tracks, more or less laid down with hardcore,in view o their length. It also had to be possible tomove guns during wet weather. Access roads usuallydisappeared when the work was abandoned, un-less they were passed on to the appropriate orestryor agricultural authorities, who have maintainedthem. Even today, access to outlying orts standingempty outside the dry summer months is difficultwithout an off-road vehicle. Consequently, restric-tions in developing such works may be substan-tial in view o inadequate or even absent accessroads and many a rehabilitation project eventuallyailed not least because the cost o repairing orreinstating access to the work could not be met.

Development includes not only traffic connectionsbut also the provision o utilities. Utilities meanthe provision o drinking water, power, gas, and

electricity and communications lines, and ulti-mately also drainage and the disposal o industrial


19/146


19

water. Attention was paid to this aspect when gar-rison buildings were erected in accordance with thestate o the art and social development. Tis was allthe less problematical i the building lay within acity structure and recourse could be made to exist-ing supply inrastructures. Tis was more difficult

with actual ortress works that could no longer belinked to an existing utility main. Tis was thecase above all with the outlying orts, which wereerected and fitted out as sel-contained buildingsas ar as supply was concerned. Not inrequently,wells had to be dug or resh water; arrangementswere made to dispose o wastewater in line with thetopographical position. In the 19thcentury age oindustrialisation, the city quite oen erected tele-graph poles and electricity pylons to the outer ort in

order to make use o progress in technology in thisarea o scientific development as well. Consequently,when rehabilitating a ortress building that hasbeen standing empty, a check should always first bemade to what extent the structural prerequisites orutilities had then already been created and whethersuch special structures such as e.g. sewers mightnot again be made useul fit to receive technology.

Te third major area in dealing with utilisationproblems is maintenance and the operation o or-

tress structures and ormer garrison buildings.

As already explained above, building mainte-nance is an important actor when consideringthe satisactory saekeeping and use o ortifiedworks and garrison buildings. Whatever use abuilding shell is put to, everything ultimatelydepends on how well the building is maintainedand protected to survive the times. However,the ollowing must be taken into account.

Tere is generally a number o reasons whythese works have stood empty ollowing theirabandonment by the military, mostly or alength o time. What are these reasons pre-

venting maintenance and operation?

Firstly, there is the lack o any concept o use. Muchreuse or new use already ails through inabilityto imagine what can be done with the existing sothat in the problem is pushed out o mind. Here,

imagination above all is necessary, however Uto-pian only ideas provide the necessary impetus

or developing viable alternatives and comparingthem with each other. Ideas and concepts oenemerge as o their own accord: young people havealready been using the empty casemates o a ort asa meeting place or various leisure activities. Emptycasemates serve as dry space or flea markets. As-

sembly rooms or sheds offer accommodation oralternative concert events. Whenever premises standempty but, on the other hand, there is demand orempty space, subsequent uses usually develop quitequickly. Te position is different in areas whereproperties stand on attractive sites or in a valuableenvironment and where the owner wishes to investmoney to make the premises profitable, i.e. wheremarketing takes place in the economic sense. Here,

planned ideas will be up or discussion and many

o the proposed uses then prove incompatible withthe opportunities that the premises themselves offer.An example o this was the planning process in theeighties o the previous century: a national militarymuseum was to be set up in a well-known Rhineortress and also house aircra. In the planning eu-phoria, it was orgotten that aircra fly only becausetheir wings have a considerable span and exhibitingthem in the casemates o this ortress would havemeant either robbing the aircra o their wingsor removing the bearing walls o the casemates in

order to create sufficient space or the museum ex-hibits. However, removing the bearing walls wouldalso have resulted in simultaneous destruction othe casemates and consequently o the ortress, sothat this idea as to its planning and utilisation wasquickly abandoned. Tis example clearly showsthat a historic ortress cannot, and should not, beput to every conceivableor inconceivableuse atany price. Te requirement that utilisation shouldwhere possible be consistent with the original workis no longer based on the maxims o conservationbut is logical, since only the original appearance othe ortress endows the site concerned with an un-mistakable identity and consequently makes a realcontribution towards boosting the attractiveness othe area. Tis is an important prerequisite or poten-tial marketing o a ormer military property as well.

Lack o investors or investments are urther ob-stacles to rescuing abandoned or empty or unusedortress installations and military buildings or the

uture. Large parts o the polygonal ramparts, gen-erally situated within the city, are lying allow. In


20/146


20

the past, this land could be used or building citymotorways or tracks or the railway. Te railwayauthorities generally took over the casemates aswelcome storage rooms or support points or opera-tional equipment or working units. Ramparts wereparcelled out as garden plots or allotments. Restruc-

turing and savings generally resulted in these instal-lations also being abandoned. Enormous potentiallay allow here, which at one time or another wasalso threatened with demolition, unless way couldbe ound in good time by thinking up uture useor investors and consequently or financial invest-ment. Many o these installations are owned by thelocal authorities. All too oen, the need or financerom the public households gives town councilsand city administrations ood or thought, with a

view to selling these properties to an investor inorder, on the one hand, to get rid o the problemo maintenance and security and, on the other, toobtain cash or their own budgets. Te act thatproblems were thereby simply shied rom one levelto another is generally overlooked: or the most part,the new owner realises that he has not just takenup land at a prime city location but also that thereis inherited property on it, the costs o removingwhichi it is not under monument protection ori this has been suspendedwill alone amount to

more than the entire investment. However, goodsolutions can be ound with the good will o allconcerned, such as citizen initiatives (i existing),conservation, city administration, owners and/orinvestors, together with the city planners and ar-chitects, that allow the old to be combined with thenew and thereby bring new unctions to lie againstthe odds. Tis is extremely difficult but usuallyproduces excellent results (see also urther below).

It may be perectly possible or a building to be rein-stated and made operative. Former barracks can beconverted to new shops and dwellings. Nonetheless,it may happen that the shops can no longer be usedto capacity or the dwellings can no longer be let orone or other reason, or the turnover is too great.

Tere is a risk here o plans not being investigatedin good time to discover knock-on effects or beingimplemented without an eye to the market. As aworse case, demolition threatens, but no such casesare known in practice, since it is in the interestso urban developers as o the property market torefinance investments as rapidly as possible so thatways and means are generally ound to combat this.

Te greatest risk to works standing empty is due

to the act that no potential user/operator canbe ound, nor can the necessary cash, in orderto invest in the first place and consequently totake the first steps towards new use, reuse or re-habilitation. Te absence o subsidies or thispurpose must also be added to the operationand maintenance required aer repairs and re-instatement have been undertaken, in order tokeep the buildings unctional in the long term.

Summarising, it may be said that there are a series

o actors that oppose the reuse or new use o ormerand now empty ortress works and garrison build-ings. Reuse and new use are processes o rehabilita-tion that can be promoted by various partners de-pending on the type o building and the size o thesite. Tese rehabilitation plans begin with ideas thatare converted to preliminary and development plans.Step by step, the actors that obstruct rehabilitationare eliminated. Tis is a laborious, tiresome process,the successul completion o which is not alwaysguaranteed. Te military relics still to be ound to-day in many ormer ortress cities are proo o this.


21/146


21

Basic and essential factors of importance in solving the problems of Fortress use

While the previous chapter entered urtherinto the problems o using ortifications andmilitary buildings, we shall now attempt to high-light some basic and essential actors that have

a bearing on a solution to these problems.

1 opography: Te position o the building andortification

For good, lasting use, where the building or theindividual parts o the ortification lie will alwaysbe important. Good, rapid accessibility increase

their attractiveness and offer good prospects ormultiple uses. Buildings and other works lyingar rom the city centre are difficult to reach withpublic transport or by car. Te time travellingto and rom the buildings or the works adds tothe actual time spent there. Te longer the traveltime there and back, the less potential visitorswill want to visit these sites, unless outstandingattractions are available there. However, appropri-ate use o the individual ortresses or orts willalso depend on this potential visitor fluctuation.

Considerations as to sustained use are also deter-mined by whether the building/ortress lies near wa-ter, on level ground or at a major elevation. Worksnear flowing water can expect flooding. Annuallyrepeated or irregular floods may substantially limitthe uses to which they can be put. Even i the origi-nal architects also took this aspect into accountwhen building the work and made due provision,this may nonetheless have changed or been modifiedin the course o time and the absence o buildingmaintenance may have caused destruction whichwill impair or have entirely destroyed the flood pro-tection. Damp in the oundations and oundationwalls, which cannot be effectively combated, willmake the building unusable in due course. I ris-ing damp can be stopped in the long term or eveninhibited, the floors and storeys above will be ser-

viceable provided that good ventilation is ensuredand the damp cannot encroach on the room climateand comort on continuous use. Wet rooms cannot

be used at all, unless the damp atmosphere is usedto grow mushrooms or the like. On the other hand,

buildings and works located near water can throughtheir natural position offer good value and use, pro-

vided the surrounding nature is not affected andthe buildings and natural structures are in balance.

Works and buildings located at a height may haveto battle with geological problems or erosion, un-less due account was taken o these problems whenthey were erected. Not inrequently, whole parts oa building have collapsed because the oundationshave soened the soil ollowing long wet spellsand caused subsidence, shiing or earth slip. Anadded actor are difficulties with transportationan elevated ortress is more laborious and difficult

to supply than one on the level. Tis is also trueo use in the present time. ourist developmentand use o a mountain astness requires differentand more comprehensive development measureswhich may even include the installation o lis(e.g. the two lis at Fortress Knigstein, Saxony).Tis may also result in higher operating costs.

Also decisive as to the position is whether the worksare located in an area affected by earthquake orother underground influences (mining, geologi-

cal peculiarities). Seismological vibration, howeverslight and unremarkable, results in the course otime in slow but steady dissolution o the struc-tural bonding in brickwork and vaulting (KaiserFranz ortification complex in Coblence). Here, too,use is very difficult because it is impossible to saywhether such movement will stop at some point orwhether its destructive orce will continue to be elt.

A urther influencing actor as ar as position isconcerned, is whether the building or works adjoinrailway installations or roads. Many ortificationsand barracks were and today still are located atbusy railway installations. Te railway traces havehardly changed over the years and 19thcenturyortifications in particular must also be consideredin conjunction with the railways. Te present useo military installations, lying close to busy rail-ways or roads is virtually prevented by continuoustraffic: the noise, especially at night, is enormousand can generally not be eliminated, even with

noise prevention measures, on account o the ex-tent and cost. Fortifications were also requently


22/146


22

intersected by railways or road systems so thatthe site is portioned off and large-scale solutionssuch as e.g. reallocation as recreational or leisurespace are no longer possible. Te introduction othese later inrastructures disrupts the originaloverall, unctional picture as a whole, which also

permanently affects and influences their value othe site as experienced today. However, roads canalso have a positive effect on development. Conse-quently, with regard to potential use, the questionalso arises as to how the sites have developed. Gen-erally speaking, they have developed because theywere already once put into use. New developmentscan thereore generally build on the previous. Teextent o present-day traffic is not the same as inthe 19thcentury. Te car is a universal means o

transport and carriage so that more oen than notthe development aspects will depend on the layingdown, extension and fitting out o appropriatelydimensioned car parks. Tese must be so plannedthat neither the external appearance o the installa-tion (generally under conservationist protection) (apoor example: Querurt in Saxony-Anhalt) nor theproposed use are detrimentally affected. Further-more, all utilities such as resh water, wastewater,gas, power and communications must be examined.

2 Nature and ecology

It has already been mentioned that a group o build-ings in harmony with nature can perectly enhancethe value and attractiveness o their environment,provided the building is technically sound andthe surrounding nature has not been disturbed.Ecological components can result in prohibitionsand instructions regarding use. For example, batshave settled in the casemates o a citadel which,because they are protected as a species, may not bedisturbed during the winter months. Tis meansthat that part o these casemates, where the batshave taken up residence, may not be entered andthey are not thereore available or different kindso use. Te same applies to a standing ort: aunaand flora include rare plants and protected spe-cies. Tis can restrict use or channel it into a differ-ent direction. However, nature and ecology must

also be nurtured like the building itsel i cultureand cultivation are to coexist or the duration.

3 Damaging effects

Te most important actor influencing a solution toproblems o ortification use is man himsel. Futureuse is determined not only by how a person actstowards a ortress. Does he walk past it unmind-

ul, regarding it as an old bit o wall? Does theortress engage his attention? What does attract hisattention? Once his attention is aroused, does hestart taking an interest in the work? Does he beginto ask questionsquestions as to its history, theconstruction process, ormer uses, the people whobuilt it and used it? Depending on how ar and in-tensively his attention is caught, his general curiositywill soon result in a more ar-reaching questioningo the work itsel, which may eventually raise the

question: can we not do something with it, can weuse this building urther, depending on its condi-tion, put it to new uses, even earn money rom it? Itthereore ultimately depends on the person himselwhether these works can be useully saved in theuture, or whether, in act, his inattention or, rather,indifference, will result in the structure alling intoslow neglect and thereore oblivion. Man himselcan have a damaging effect on the urther develop-ment o a ortification. o counter this, people canbe inormed, told o its history and importance,

and the value and opportunities inherent in such astructure. Tis applies less to the individual than tothe broad mass o the population. Such clarification,not to say education, already starts at schoolinteaching local history, general history or geography.A positive attitude on the part o population gener-ally also results in a positive attitude by authoritiesand government, but also amongst politicians andpolitical parties. Knowledge o ones own history,o the history o the construction o such worksusually orms a basis on which urther consider-ations can ruitully flourish as to: what should wedo and how can this kind o building be used?

Tere are many examples in Europe that demon-strate this. It is worth noting here that even politicalindoctrination has been unable to inhibit or evensuppress the curiosity o the individual as to hishistory and that o his homeland. Tere are manyexamples in Eastern Europe where attempts to makepeople orget their own past have proved unsuc-

cessul. What is more, major ortresses o the 19th

century in Poland, which as we know where never


23/146


23

built under a Polish leadership, are again acceptedby the Polish people as part o their own history,because the Poles participated in their construc-tion whether under the Russians, Prussians orAustrians, and they now even revere these works asnational monuments and are starting to put them

in order and give them new uses and tasks. Even the18thcentury Fortress Silberberg, built under Frede-ric the Great, is on the list o Polish national monu-ments and has been under repair or two years now.

We can thereore say in principle that peoples in-ability or unwillingness to recognise the structural,cultural, social or historical value o a ortificationis still the most important influential actor whendealing with problems o unction or use. However,

the individual will be able to do little by himselwhen it comes to implementing solutions. Manyhands are required or this work, starting with theowner and uture users through the architects tothe planning, building and approving authorities.

Initial decisions as to what can be done withabandoned ortifications are already taken dur-ing the planning consent process, but all the moreso, however, under town maps o ormer ortifiedcities. Depending on the extent to which ortified

space can be identified in the uture use o spaceby a local authority or city, planning statements, inthe Federal republic o Germany, or example, areincorporated into the town plan. Tis shows theintended urban development, which it turn portraysthe method o land use or the municipality or cityarea as a whole. Its particular importance as part ourban development lies in a citys or local author-itys essential decision as to how and or what useulpurpose (development, traffic, agriculture, orestry,recreation, major protection, etc) the existing spacecan be and should be sensibly and expediently used.Te town plan, the draing and implementationo which are a legal process in which individualcitizens should participate, is thereore the mostimportant instrument with regard to uture ideasas to the use and unctioning o ortified space orortress and garrison buildings. Should a ormeror still existing ortified space be released or newbuilding or development, this can already be shownin the town plan. A town plan, which in any event

requires constant revising in order to take accounto the latest socio-demographic or economic devel-

opments, may include survey maps and detail plans.Te town plan o the Land Capital o Magdeburg o2000, or example, includes a survey plan o FormerFortifications and Military Installations. Tis issupplemented by a monuments care plan provid-ing inormation on the cultural validity o ortress

buildings. Te target and implementation plansindicate how the works are to be dealt with in thecourse o uture urban development. Selected speci-men works may be stressed and proposals made asto their repair or structural enhancement (Buildingup the Stock) and their opening to the public. Atown plan that leaves ortified assets out o accountis a result o a lack o awareness amongst special-ists or the public, or the disregard or rejection othese buildings altogether. Te reasons or this have

already been explained above. Te same applies tothe provisions o a local plan that ail to take ac-count o ortified space. Te local plan is developedas a subsequent planning tool rom the town plan,which contrary to the summary nature o a townplan, allows detailed presentations to be made.Essential basic influencing actors can thereorealready be created in and with the various planningprocedures o a local authority or city, which willaccordingly contribute to the positive or also nega-

tive solution o problems o using ormer ortifica-tions. However, these plans orm a legal basis onwhich the urther ate o the buildings is decided.In a system governed by the rule o law, a utureuser will always have to rely on the provisions o alegally established planning document i he wantsto invest profitably in his property in the long term.

Examples that may produce negative solutions toproblems o using ortified space are roads andbridges that ail to take account o existing struc-tures. In the mid-eighties o the previous century,the gorge tower o Fort Grorst Konstantin inCoblence was at risk o being completely demolishedas a result o the piered extension o Federal High-way 9, squeezed between the tracks o the adjoiningCentral Station and the glacis o the ort. Demo-lition could be prevented. Te gorge tower nowhouses the first Carnival Museum along the CentralRhine. Rough archaeological treatment o disman-tled ortifications has also generally produced major

problems. Since they are embedded in the groundand are consequently out o sight, these structures

baltic cultural and tourism route fortresses 2005_2007-1

Documents