|
|
|
|
The Competition and its Results, mid-1956 to mid-1958
|
 |
|
|
|
On July 25, 1956 the Knesset Presidium announced, in association with the
Association of Engineers and Architects in Israel, a public competition among
the state's architects, for the planning of a permanent residence for the
Knesset. Since at this stage there was as yet no source of funding for the
construction, and since the architects felt that the competition was a barren
competition, most of the renown architects in the country refrained from
participating in it. Only nine days before the publication of the results of
the competition, did it become known that the James de-Rothschild, who had died
a short while previously, had left in his will a sum of £1.25 million - six
million Israeli Pounds - for the construction of the Knesset.29
The results of the competition were published on July 24, 1957. The jury
announced that it had been unanimously decided to grant the first prize to the
architect Joseph Klarwein.30 The
members of the jury - among whom were Uriel Schiller, Genia Averbuch, David
Anatol Brutzkus, Nahum Zelkind, Max Lev and Hanan Pavel31
- explained their decision in that Klarwein's building "well expresses and
serves its special designation by positioning it on a level the dimensions of
which are not exaggerated… and by means of the noble appearance of the body of
the building on all sides… The use of classical insinuations in the
architectural composition bestows on the building the attribute of inspiring
awe in those approaching it".32 The
members of the jury also decided not to give a second prize, since they did not
find a plan that was worthy, in their opinion, of receiving this prize.
 |
The model for the Knesset building submitted by
Klarwein to the competition, 1957
|
On the eve of the inauguration of the Knesset building in August 1966, Yehuda
Ha`ezrahi described Klarwein's original plan in the following words:
According to this plan, the building should have been constructed in the shape
of a single rectangle… surrounded by a vestibule of columns in front. The
columns were higher on the Southern side, on the slope of the mountain, and
lower on the Northern side, at its incline. This plan is generally
characterized by its simplicity, but its ornamentation is condensed into the
appearance of the columns. On its basis, the Knesset walls were to have been
constructed 'in depth', protected by an extending ceiling and an overhang,
consequently being immersed in shade, almost hidden, while the columns stood
out to their full height, visible - constituting the front of the building. 33
An additional characteristic of the plan was the location of the plenary hall
in the center of the building, with an inner court on either side - a basic
layout that reminded many of the Altes Museum, constructed by Friedrich
Schinkel in Berlin in the 1820s. (See below)
Soon after the results of the competition for the Knesset building were known,
Uri Avnery published an article in Ha'olam Hazeh, with the title "The
Scandal in the Knesset Building", in which he argued that in the results of the
competition "there is suspicion of 'favoritism', suspicion of poor judgement,
echoes of horse-trading, and manifestations of malignant sect-rule". Klarwein
himself was described as a man from the establishment, favored by the
establishment. Avnery presented all the arguments against the choice of
Klarwein's plan, which had been voiced at the meeting of the "Union of
Architects". These included that the planned building was not modern, that it
was not Israeli, that the uniformity of its form was boring, that it was
neo-classical (see below), and that it did not blend into its surroundings.34
At the end of the meeting, mentioned by Avnery, an unprecedented resolution was
adopted, which was to try and thwart the construction of the Knesset building
on the basis of the plan that won first prize.
 |
| “The Scandal in the Knesset Building”, a caption in Olam
Hazeh on August 7, 1957. The article portrayed several of the models
presented in the competition.
|
Finally, this resolution was revoked. After the storm and prolonged debates,
the National Committee of the "Union of Architects" and the Central Committee
of the "Association of Engineers and Architects" agreed that the original
reaction had been exaggerated, and on September 10, 1957, a letter was sent to
the Knesset Presidium, in which the Central Committee announced that the
National Committee withdrew its demand. Inter alia the letter stated:
2. The Association, with all its institutions, including the Union of
Architects, is united in its opinion that the competition and the judgement for
the Knesset building, were run in accordance with all the rules of custom,
deduced from the rules of procedure for competitions of the Association, and in
full accordance with professional ethics.
3. The Central Committee points out that in accordance with the general
regulations for competitions, and in accordance with the conditions of the
competition for the Knesset building, upon the conclusion of the judgement, and
the publication of the results of the competition, the activity of the jury
ended, and from now on the direct sides to the association for the construction
of the building are the customer who made the order, and the person who
received the first prize. Nevertheless, the Central Committee takes special
note of the decision of the jury members to appoint a construction committee,
and the Central Committee will propose to the Knesset Presidium, in view of the
special value of the Knesset building, that the number of members in the
Committee be increased to five, and that they be given much broader powers.
4. At the same time, the Central Committee cannot ignore the deep unrest that
was created within the public of architects against the implementation of the
plan, which won for its author the first prize. The Central Committee states,
that according to the regulations of the competition, there is no place for a
revision of the decision of the jury. Nevertheless - considering the great
importance of the building - the Central Committee feels obliged to bring to
the attention of the Knesset Presidium that such unrest exists, and to
recommend to it that the extended Committee, as proposed, should first of all
concentrate on studying the plan and the criticism of it, to determine the
position of the Committee regarding the demands for revision. 35
Even though the "Association of Engineers and Architects" withdrew its original
demands, the Speaker of the Knesset, Joseph Sprinzak approached the Israeli
Ambassador to the United States, Abba Eban, in a letter on November 12, 1957:
The jury, that was appointed in complete accordance with the proposal of the
Association of Engineers and Architects reached a unanimous decision that the
first prize be given to the architect Klarwein. On the basis of the existing
contract and regulations, we are bound to construct the Knesset building by
Klarwein, in accordance with his own plan. It should be noted, that within the
public there is sympathy for this plan - the first prize. Contrary to the
decision of the jury… and the sympathy for the plan in the public, a deadly
storm broke out against the plan among the architects in Israel. One might say
that a public of hundreds of architects in the country almost unanimously
rejects Klarwein's plan. This manifests itself in different ways, in writing
and orally - some in an unworthy and vulgar manner, and some in a polite but
totally negative manner, supported by objective proof regarding the essence of
the building, which should be worthy of being a national building - the Knesset
of Israel. Of course, one may also be suspicious of the sources of the
objection by the architects of Israel to Klarwein's plan, but the fact is that
the objection is total and very harsh. We are, thus, in a state of great
embarrassment. 36
Sprinzak asked Eban to help find candidates to serve on a small team of
architectural experts, to decide between the position of the competition jury,
and the total objection of the architects. And indeed, finally a committee of
experts was set up, that included the architects Max Abramovitz from New York,
Sir Howard Morley Robertson from London, and Professor Leo Arie Meir - a
Professor for Near East Archeology and Art from Jerusalem. In April 1958 the
Committee decided:
The concept of the winner of the prize, Mr. Klarwein, who proposed a building
that excels in its simplicity and unity of image, which stands on an elevated
site that expresses movement, and is located within a scenery of existing
buildings with different silhouettes - is very worthy of being accepted. It can
lead to an excellent strongly expressed solution, by emphasizing the contrast
with the background, and to have a sublime position, that contains the
possibility of being the outstanding point within the area. 37
29 The background to the generous contribution was Rothschild's decision, on the eve of his death, to stop the work of the Jewish Colonization Association (originally known as PICA), to transfer all of PICA's lands to the State of Israel, and to continue to make contributions to the State (announcement of Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, The
Knesset Record, Volume 22, p. 2475, July 22, 1957). A second contribution, to the sum of 1.17 million Israeli pounds, was transferred by Rothschild's widow, Dorothy de Rothschild, in February 1962 (announcement of the Knesset Speaker, Kadish Luz, The Knesset Record, Volume 33, p. 1211, February 12, 1962). A third contribution, to the sum of 3 million Israeli pounds, was transferred by Dorothy de Rothschild in October 1964 (announcement of the Knesset Speaker, Kadish Luz, The Knesset Record, Volume 41, p. 125, October 26, 1964). Towards the completion of the construction of the building, Dorothy contributed a fourth sum, that was designated for the purchase of works of art. See below.
30 Joseph Kalrwein (1893-1971), was born in Poland, studied architecture and art in Germany, and started his professional career there. He completed his education in the technological Institute in Munich, but did not receive a formal degree in architecture. He studied in the Master Class of Prof. Vollzig in Berlin. In Hamburg he worked with Prof. Fritz Hogger. Klarwein immigrated to Palestine from Germany in 1933, and started working in Haifa. During the Second World War he moved to Jerusalem and worked in the Public Works Department of the Mandatory Administration. Inter alia, he designed "beit hakranot" on Herzl Street in Haifa , and planned the exterior of the "Dagon" silos in that city. In 1959 he was elected to the French Academy of Architecture. See, Macabee Dean, "Fighting Architect", The
Jerusalem Post, April 8, 1960.
31 The Central Competitions Committee of the Association of Engineers and Architects in Israel, proposed that they be appointed as members of the jury, after most of the architects whose names were originally proposed - Prof. Yohanan Ratner, Al Mansfield, Arie Sharon, Avraham Yasky, Richard Kaufmann and Uriel Schiller - preferred not to sit in the jury, in order to preserve the option of participating in the competition themselves. See the letters of the Association of Engineers and Architects in Israel, the Central Competitions Committee, to Mr. Shlomo Arazi, of August 18, 1955, and to Lieutenant Colonel Yona Hazor, of October 24, 1955, the Knesset Archive, File 2181, Box 9.
32 Decision of the jury, July 24, 1957, the Knesset Archive, file 2183a2, box 3.
33 Yehuda Ha`ezrahi, "Arba’im Amudei Haknesset” (The Forty Knesset Columns), Ma'ariv, August 26, 1966.
34 Ha'olam Hazeh, August 7, 1957.
35 Bulletin of the Association of Engineers and Architects in Israel, The Central Committee, 57 (October 1, 1957), kept in the Central Zionist Archive, A455/9.
36 Knesset Archive, file 2183c, box 3.
37 Minutes of the concluding meeting of the Special Committee for the Examination of the Knesset Building Plan, held on April 13, 1958, ibid.
Continued...
© Copyright 2006,
The State of Israel. All Rights Reserved.
We welcome your Suggestions and Comments. Email:
feedback@knesset.gov.il
|
|
|
