Walls of Democracy : The Political Power of Buildings.

 by Elen Jones

The reassuring permanence of a building in times of uncertainty cannot be overestimated.

It helps us to restore control, knowing that at least our walls will remain constant. To justify this, the seven wonders of the world are architectural as opposed to natural, likely due to their ability to inflict current world views on human consciousness.

Events witnessed by a building - hopes in both present and past - can be remembered, commemorated, admired or attemptedly altered or erased. The thoughts and actions that make and inhabit them will affect the perception of a beholder and can sometimes restore order - it is true that hope in a building project remains a common solution to  complex problems - eg. Trump’s wall cannot solve America’s immigration problem any more than the high speed rail link will narrow the north-south divide here in the UK. And even on an individual basis - self builds on Channel 4’s Grand Designs, with pitiful budgets and torrential rain - remind us of this. In both architecture and politics there is a shared inherent optimism but both are never content to work in the present or in strict unison.

I was first aware of the connection between politics and architecture in year 10, while on a school trip to Berlin. There are many examples but the poignancy of my experience was most felt at the Olympiastadion. Located in the Charlottenburg district, it is a half an hour S-Bahn ride from Alexanderplatz, (a fairly short walk from the Berliner Dom) - also accessible via the U-Bahn on the U2 line.  A short walk from the station leads you to the entrance gates of the stadium. Constructed for the 1936 Olympics, the stadium was a product of the Third Reich and designed by Werner March and Albert Speer - who became the lead architect in the Nazi government soon after.  From an architectural perspective this period of Nazi power is intended to inspire the “Resurrection” of Germany.

After being crippled by the Treaty of Versailles, the First World War and the economic crash, Nazi power and influence grew to prove that Germany was the most powerful nation, as it provided a sense of optimism and a better future for Germany. The 3 main architectural styles prevalent in the era were Neoclassicism, an Alpine/Vernacular style and a certain utilitarianism. Knowing this, as you observe the Neoclassic stadium, with the harsh strong lines of granite and a lack of decor, the Reich projects the impression of “simplicity, uniformity, monumentality, solidity and eternity.” -  exactly how the Nazis wanted to appear.

Whilst I was standing in the huge space, it was hard to describe how I felt about the place: the stadium’s roof curves upwards at the edges, leading out endlessly onto the Olympic park, the Sun at a slight westerly angle, casting a watery, transcendental beam down onto the grass. The Nazis had wanted the Reich to seem an Aryan utopia, and it is certain that this stadium, like other Nazi architecture, has the power to leave a strong impression on the individual. However, the connotations that are attached to the building were unshakable and so whilst observing the structure an eerie sense of stillness descended - (amplified by the fact that the place was virtually deserted.) Berlin is careful to make sure this part of its history cannot be glorified whilst in the building.

Reflecting on my experience in Berlin, seeing the scenes unfold in Washington  earlier this month, I was once again reminded how politics and architecture are intimately related. The Capitol building is among the most architecturally impressive and symbolically important in the world. Also an example of Neoclassical architecture, its design, derived from Ancient Greece and Rome, evokes the ideals that guided the nation’s founders - those of liberty, respect and harmony. The original building was completed in 1800, with George Washington having ceremoniously laid the first sandstone at the south east corner in 1793. The building has endured damage, renovation and expansion, and so due to this there was no specific architect but rather a group working together to repair but never to detract from the original design. it was important to make all changes seamless. This joint effort resulted in the design of the building today, quite fitting as the building itself, like a democracy, is a product of collaboration.

The Capitol is certainly a more imperious edifice than the stadium, partly due to its intrinsic value to American culture and careful restoration, but also due to the fact that the Americans had more money and material to invest in the building, and were less worried about appearing frivolous or regal. It stands as a monument not only to its builders but to the revered governmental systems and the American people as a whole.

Each year it is visited by an estimated 3-5 million people ( US passport holders only), all of whom observe the place within its historical context: urged by guidebooks on how they are supposed to feel - impressed by the paintings, in awe of its sheer size.. etc. Now the effects of recent events will have shaken this reputation and will continue to influence how the building can be interpreted for the rest of its history - perhaps no longer the untouchable beacon of democracy, rather the symbol of a divided nation. Without a resounding voice of guidance, questioning its national identity, the US seems paradoxically on the verge of both hope and hopelessness - in need of ‘change’.

Those images of the Capitol building cannot be erased but mark a flashpoint in the building’s story. The edifice remains untarnished and as mathematically perfect as before - so maybe through the architecture  we can begin to restore faith in politics  and in our society.