国会最初是为了容纳德意志帝国的议会而建造的，它在开始建设之前就引起了争议。1871年，当设计这座建筑的竞赛宣布时，柏林选定的场地已经被普鲁士伯爵拉钦斯基伯爵的宫殿占据，没有人想过要把这些计划通知他。[2]拉钦斯基一生中拒绝出售他的土地，以及在设计竞赛中挑选一名半俄罗斯建筑师的争议，推迟了进展。直到保罗·沃尔洛(Paul Wallot)赢得了第二次设计竞赛(仅限于讲德语的建筑师)之后，才于1884年开始建造。[3]沃尔洛的新古典主义设计受到了许多修改，往往是在1894年沃尔洛的设计最终完工之前，三位凯泽尔(Kaisers)随心所欲地进行了修改。[4]沃洛设计中最受认可的元素之一，这座建筑的主要雏形上刻着“德意志伏尔克”(DEM Deutsche Volke)字样，最初被皇帝视为令人厌恶的民粹主义者，直到1916年才作为第一次世界大战期间的爱国象征而增加。

Originally built to house the parliament of the German Empire, the Reichstag was controversial before it even began construction. When the competition to design the building was announced in 1871, the chosen site in Berlin was already occupied by Prussian Count Raczynski’s palace, and no one had thought to inform him of the plans.[2] Raczynski’s refusal to sell his land during his lifetime, and controversy over the selection of a half-Russian architect in the design competition, delayed progress. It was only after a second design competition–limited to German-speaking architects–won by Paul Wallot, that construction finally began in 1884.[3] Wallot’s neoclassical design was subject to many revisions, often at the whim of the three successive Kaisers who reigned before the building was finally completed in 1894.[4] One of the most recognizable elements of Wallot’s design, the inscription “Dem Deutsche Volke” (“To the German People”) on the main pediment of the building, was originally viewed as distastefully populist by the Kaiser, and it was only added in 1916 as a patriotic symbol during World War I.[5]

Originally built to house the parliament of the German Empire, the Reichstag was controversial before it even began construction. When the competition to design the building was announced in 1871, the chosen site in Berlin was already occupied by Prussian Count Raczynski’s palace, and no one had thought to inform him of the plans.[2] Raczynski’s refusal to sell his land during his lifetime, and controversy over the selection of a half-Russian architect in the design competition, delayed progress. It was only after a second design competition–limited to German-speaking architects–won by Paul Wallot, that construction finally began in 1884.[3] Wallot’s neoclassical design was subject to many revisions, often at the whim of the three successive Kaisers who reigned before the building was finally completed in 1894.[4] One of the most recognizable elements of Wallot’s design, the inscription “Dem Deutsche Volke” (“To the German People”) on the main pediment of the building, was originally viewed as distastefully populist by the Kaiser, and it was only added in 1916 as a patriotic symbol during World War I.[5]

 The original Reichstag building. Image © Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-13744, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons

原来的Reichstag大楼。图像C.BunderArchiver，BILD102-13744，在CCBY-SA3.0下通过公用程序许可

自建成以来，这座建筑在世界历史上扮演了许多辅助角色，从1933年的那场大火开始，据称这起火灾是由一名荷兰共产主义者造成的，这场大火让希特勒得以夺取政权。随着第二次世界大战在欧洲的结束，苏联人利用遭到严重破坏的国会大厦作为宣传照片的背景，重现他们对这座城市的占领。重建工作在战后缓慢进行，因为这座建筑坐落在冷战的前线，就在柏林墙的西侧。重建大楼供议会最终使用的计划在1971年被搁置，当时西德政府同意不在国会举行任何联邦议院会议，以换取东德放宽对西柏林的访问。[6]在1995年福斯特合作伙伴翻修工程开始之前，这是历史的最后一次转折。整个建筑被艺术家克里斯托和让·克劳德用巨大的织物包裹在艺术作品中。

Since its completion, the building has played many supporting roles in world history, starting with the fire in 1933, allegedly set by a Dutch Communist, that allowed Hitler to seize power. And as World War II came to a close in Europe, the Soviets used the heavily-damaged Reichstag as a setting for propaganda photos re-enacting their capture of the city. Restoration efforts carried on slowly after the war, as the building sat on the front lines of the Cold War, just on the Western side of the Berlin Wall. Plans to restore the building for eventual parliamentary use were stalled in 1971 when the West German government agreed not to hold any Bundestag sessions at the Reichstag in exchange for East Germany easing access to West Berlin.[6] In one final twist of history, prior to the beginning of construction on Foster + Partners renovation in 1995, the entire building was wrapped in enormous strips of fabric in art piece by the artists Christo and Jean-Claude.

Since its completion, the building has played many supporting roles in world history, starting with the fire in 1933, allegedly set by a Dutch Communist, that allowed Hitler to seize power. And as World War II came to a close in Europe, the Soviets used the heavily-damaged Reichstag as a setting for propaganda photos re-enacting their capture of the city. Restoration efforts carried on slowly after the war, as the building sat on the front lines of the Cold War, just on the Western side of the Berlin Wall. Plans to restore the building for eventual parliamentary use were stalled in 1971 when the West German government agreed not to hold any Bundestag sessions at the Reichstag in exchange for East Germany easing access to West Berlin.[6] In one final twist of history, prior to the beginning of construction on Foster + Partners renovation in 1995, the entire building was wrapped in enormous strips of fabric in art piece by the artists Christo and Jean-Claude.

 Wrapped Reichstag by Christo and Jean-Claude. Image © flickr user txmx-2, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

由克里斯托和让-克劳德包装的国会大厦。图像(Flickr用户txmx-2)，由-NC-ND2.0在CC下授权

在德国统一之后，议会中的两个密切投票证实了首都柏林的重新定位，德国议会、德国联邦议院的议会也证实了这一点。1992年，FosterPartners是14个非德国公司之一，邀请他们参加设计比赛，以修复Reichstag大楼以及80名德国建筑师。福斯特知道这是个邀请他不能拒绝的邀请，但也怀疑一个非德国建筑师能赢得这场比赛。最后，比赛中的三名决赛选手是所有非德国人：Foster、SantiagoCalatrava和PideBruijn。福斯特的原始比赛设计要求钢和玻璃舱盖覆盖原始结构，并伸展北方与狂欢河相连。正如DEYANSudjic描述的那样，“类似于坐在议会顶部的巨型桌子，它将完全改变其意义，使项目成为过去的纪念，同时表明新的议会大厦标志着历史的偏离。”[7]

Following German reunification, two close votes in parliament confirmed the relocation of the capital to Berlin, and the Reichstag as the home of the German parliament, or Bundestag. In 1992 Foster + Partners was one of fourteen non-German firms invited to participate in a design competition for rehabilitating the Reichstag building, along with 80 German architects. Foster knew this was an invitation he could not refuse, but was also skeptical that a non-German architect could win the competition. In the end, the three finalists in the competition were all non-Germans: Foster, Santiago Calatrava, and Pi de Bruijn. Foster’s original competition design called for a steel and glass canopy covering the original structure, and stretching north to connect with the Spree River. As Deyan Sudjic described, “Resembling a giant table sitting on top of the parliament, it would have entirely transformed its meaning, rendering the project a memorial to the past, while at the same time demonstrating that the new parliament building signified a departure from history.”[7]

Following German reunification, two close votes in parliament confirmed the relocation of the capital to Berlin, and the Reichstag as the home of the German parliament, or Bundestag. In 1992 Foster + Partners was one of fourteen non-German firms invited to participate in a design competition for rehabilitating the Reichstag building, along with 80 German architects. Foster knew this was an invitation he could not refuse, but was also skeptical that a non-German architect could win the competition. In the end, the three finalists in the competition were all non-Germans: Foster, Santiago Calatrava, and Pi de Bruijn. Foster’s original competition design called for a steel and glass canopy covering the original structure, and stretching north to connect with the Spree River. As Deyan Sudjic described, “Resembling a giant table sitting on top of the parliament, it would have entirely transformed its meaning, rendering the project a memorial to the past, while at the same time demonstrating that the new parliament building signified a departure from history.”[7]

但是，随着实现统一的兴奋，重建国家基础设施的金融现实开始建立起来，三名决赛选手被要求在第二轮比赛中降低他们的提议的成本。尽管有这种要求，但竞争委员会拒绝为拟议的建筑提供预算，而不是对其最初的设计作调整，因为他的竞争对手是，福斯特开始从头开始，提出了四种可能的方案，其中“一系列估计，说明如何在建筑物上进行更多或更少的工作。”[8]是最终选择用于建造的这些方案之一，但与最初的19世纪的结构一样，竞争的结束并没有标志着设计工作的结束。

But as the excitement of the reunification waned, the financial realities of rebuilding national infrastructure began to set in, and the three finalists were asked to reduce the costs of their proposals in the second round of the competition. Despite this request, the competition committee refused to supply a budget for the proposed building, so rather than making adjustments to his original design, as his competitors did, Foster started from scratch, proposing four possible schemes with “a range of estimates to show how more or less work could be carried out on the building.”[8] It was one of these schemes that was ultimately selected for construction, but much like the process for the original 19th century structure, the end of the competition did not mark the end of the design work.

But as the excitement of the reunification waned, the financial realities of rebuilding national infrastructure began to set in, and the three finalists were asked to reduce the costs of their proposals in the second round of the competition. Despite this request, the competition committee refused to supply a budget for the proposed building, so rather than making adjustments to his original design, as his competitors did, Foster started from scratch, proposing four possible schemes with “a range of estimates to show how more or less work could be carried out on the building.”[8] It was one of these schemes that was ultimately selected for construction, but much like the process for the original 19th century structure, the end of the competition did not mark the end of the design work.

 © Harshiitart, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

(C)Harshiitart，在CC by-SA 4.0下通过维基共享获得许可

作为德国议会的所在地，几乎每一个设计决策，从主要到细节，都具有政治意义。在穹顶，这一点再明显不过了。福斯特的获奖设计不包括圆顶，但比赛结束后，一些国会议员开始要求重建原来的穹顶。如Sudjic所述：

As the home of the German parliament, nearly every design decision, from the major to the minutiae, took on a political significance. Nowhere is this more evident than in the dome. Foster’s winning design did not include a dome, but almost immediately after the competition was concluded, some members of parliament (MPs) began demanding a reconstruction of the original dome. As Sudjic recounts:

As the home of the German parliament, nearly every design decision, from the major to the minutiae, took on a political significance. Nowhere is this more evident than in the dome. Foster’s winning design did not include a dome, but almost immediately after the competition was concluded, some members of parliament (MPs) began demanding a reconstruction of the original dome. As Sudjic recounts:

“原始穹顶的每一个痕迹都被战争、火灾、忽视和战后重建所摧毁。要对它曾经的样子进行一次字面上的重建，就违背了福斯特所信奉的所有建筑原则。然而，对于在德国国内声势浩大且有影响力的少数人来说，在没有穹顶的情况下建立一个新的议会是不可想象的。“

“Every trace of that original dome had been destroyed by a combination of war, fire, neglect, and post-war rebuilding. To make a literal reconstruction of how it had once looked went counter to all the architectural principles that Foster had come to believe in. Yet to a vocal and influential minority within Germany, it would be unthinkable to build a new parliament without a dome.”[9]

“Every trace of that original dome had been destroyed by a combination of war, fire, neglect, and post-war rebuilding. To make a literal reconstruction of how it had once looked went counter to all the architectural principles that Foster had come to believe in. Yet to a vocal and influential minority within Germany, it would be unthinkable to build a new parliament without a dome.”[9]

尽管福斯特最初拒绝考虑增加一个圆顶，但一位德国建筑师提出的另一项提议，即对历史上的穹顶进行重建，威胁到福斯特对这栋建筑内部空间的设想，他开始探索所谓的“冲天炉”的想法。[10]而且，不只是穹顶受到政客们的影响。当时的总理赫尔穆特·科尔(Helmut Kohl)坚持要用比福斯特最初提议的白色和灰色的中性调色板更明亮的颜色方案-即使是议会会议厅里的鹰雕塑也引起了相当大的争论。

Although he initially refused to consider adding a dome, a separate proposal from a German architect to add a reconstruction of the historic dome threatened Foster's vision for the building's interior spaces, and he began exploring ideas for what he came to call the “cupola.”[10] And it was not just the dome that was subject to the whims of the politicians. Then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl insisted on a brighter color scheme for the interiors than the neutral palette of whites and greys that Foster had originally proposed–even the sculpture of the eagle in the parliamentary chamber was the subject of considerable debate.[11]

Although he initially refused to consider adding a dome, a separate proposal from a German architect to add a reconstruction of the historic dome threatened Foster's vision for the building's interior spaces, and he began exploring ideas for what he came to call the “cupola.”[10] And it was not just the dome that was subject to the whims of the politicians. Then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl insisted on a brighter color scheme for the interiors than the neutral palette of whites and greys that Foster had originally proposed–even the sculpture of the eagle in the parliamentary chamber was the subject of considerable debate.[11]

查看图片\gettyImages.com

View image | gettyimages.com

View image | gettyimages.com

事实上，正是这个有争议的圆顶-或者说冲天炉-最充分地体现了福斯特对这个项目的理想。冲天炉是建筑物最容易进入的部分；它提供了与下面议会厅工作的视觉联系，是建筑物可持续性战略的一个功能组成部分，尽管福斯特最初犹豫不决，但它还是作为建筑物历史的参考。冲天炉也是福斯特干预历史建筑最明显的表现。虽然这是对这座建筑历史的认可，但它的形式却是全新的。在透明玻璃覆盖，螺旋坡道沿空间的边缘帮助确定穹顶形状的体积，并导致一个观察甲板，为游客提供一个有利的点，以俯瞰周围的柏林城市景观。同时，冲天炉底部的天窗打开，进入下面的辩论室，为工作中的政府提供了一种视觉联系。圆顶中央的倒转锥形镜面反射日光进入辩论室，还支持建筑物的通风，通过冲天炉顶部排出热风。

In fact, it is that contentious dome–or cupola–that most fully captures Foster’s ideals for the project. The cupola is the most publicly accessible portion of the building; it provides a visual connection to the work in the parliamentary chamber below, it is a functional component of the building’s sustainability strategy, and, despite Foster’s initial hesitation, it serves as a reference to the history of the building. The cupola is also the most obvious demonstration of Foster’s intervention in the historic building. Although it is a nod to the building’s history, the form is entirely new. Clad in clear glass, the helical ramp along the outer edges of the space helps define the dome-shaped volume, and leads to an observation deck that provides a vantage point for visitors to look out on the surrounding Berlin cityscape. At the same time, skylights at the base of the cupola open into the debating chamber below, providing a visual connection to the government at work. An inverted cone of mirrored panels in the center of the dome reflects daylight down into the debating chamber, and also supports ventilation in the building, exhausting hot air through the top of the cupola.

In fact, it is that contentious dome–or cupola–that most fully captures Foster’s ideals for the project. The cupola is the most publicly accessible portion of the building; it provides a visual connection to the work in the parliamentary chamber below, it is a functional component of the building’s sustainability strategy, and, despite Foster’s initial hesitation, it serves as a reference to the history of the building. The cupola is also the most obvious demonstration of Foster’s intervention in the historic building. Although it is a nod to the building’s history, the form is entirely new. Clad in clear glass, the helical ramp along the outer edges of the space helps define the dome-shaped volume, and leads to an observation deck that provides a vantage point for visitors to look out on the surrounding Berlin cityscape. At the same time, skylights at the base of the cupola open into the debating chamber below, providing a visual connection to the government at work. An inverted cone of mirrored panels in the center of the dome reflects daylight down into the debating chamber, and also supports ventilation in the building, exhausting hot air through the top of the cupola.

 © flickr user oh-berlin, licensed under CC BY 2.0

c Flickr用户噢-柏林，在CC by 2.0的许可下

虽然不像冲天炉那么引人注目，但福斯特在这座建筑中的其他干预措施也同样重要。这一设计能够将议会的功能空间重新整合到一座建筑中，其中最值得注意的是国会议员的“派系会议室”，在那里，政党核心小组聚集讨论政策。[12]福斯特还打算保留这栋建筑中的许多历史遗留物，最值得注意的是，二战结束时，苏军士兵在石墙上涂鸦。福斯特经常注意到，公众和政治家从同一入口进入建筑物的重要象征意义，刻在“献给德国人民”的古典式山墙下。

Though less conspicuous than the cupola, Foster’s other interventions in the building were no less significant. The design was able to consolidate the functional spaces of the parliament back into a single building, including, most notably for the MPs, the “faction rooms” where party caucuses gather to discuss policy.[12] Foster was also intent on preserving remnants of the many layers of history in the building, most notably the cyrillic graffiti Soviet soldiers scribbled on the stone walls at the end of World War II. And Foster frequently notes the important symbolism of the public and the politicians entering the building through the same entrance, under the classical pediment inscribed, “To the German People.”[13]

Though less conspicuous than the cupola, Foster’s other interventions in the building were no less significant. The design was able to consolidate the functional spaces of the parliament back into a single building, including, most notably for the MPs, the “faction rooms” where party caucuses gather to discuss policy.[12] Foster was also intent on preserving remnants of the many layers of history in the building, most notably the cyrillic graffiti Soviet soldiers scribbled on the stone walls at the end of World War II. And Foster frequently notes the important symbolism of the public and the politicians entering the building through the same entrance, under the classical pediment inscribed, “To the German People.”[13]

 © Barry Plane, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

(C)巴里飞机，通过维基共享获得CC by-SA 3.0许可。

最终，国会的成功在于福斯特能够与一群要求苛刻、往往相互矛盾的客户达成妥协。尽管有这些妥协，福斯特还是对结果感到非常自豪。正如Sudjic所描述的那样，“福斯特对建筑的象征性有敏锐的感觉，超越了预期它所扮演的明显的功能角色。问问他觉得最成功的建筑是哪一座，他毫不犹豫地要命名新的国会大厦。“

In the end, the success of the Reichstag is in Foster’s ability to find compromise with a demanding, and often contradictory, set of clients. Despite those compromises, Foster takes great pride in the outcome. As Sudjic describes, “Foster has an acute sense for the symbolic qualities of architecture, beyond the overt functional role that it is expected to play. Ask him which of his buildings he feels is most successful, and unhesitatingly he will name the new Reichstag.”[14]

In the end, the success of the Reichstag is in Foster’s ability to find compromise with a demanding, and often contradictory, set of clients. Despite those compromises, Foster takes great pride in the outcome. As Sudjic describes, “Foster has an acute sense for the symbolic qualities of architecture, beyond the overt functional role that it is expected to play. Ask him which of his buildings he feels is most successful, and unhesitatingly he will name the new Reichstag.”[14]

 Courtesy of Foster + Partners

福斯特合伙人的礼遇

[1]福斯特，诺曼。福斯特40：项目。慕尼黑：Prestel，2007年。148.

[1] Foster, Norman. Foster 40: Projects. Munich: Prestel, 2007. 148.

[1] Foster, Norman. Foster 40: Projects. Munich: Prestel, 2007. 148.

[2]Pawley，Martin。“国会的兴衰”重建国会大厦。伍德斯托克，纽约：俯瞰出版社，2000年。38.

[2] Pawley, Martin. “The Rise and Fall of the Reichstag.” Rebuilding the Reichstag. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press, 2000. 38.

[2] Pawley, Martin. “The Rise and Fall of the Reichstag.” Rebuilding the Reichstag. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press, 2000. 38.

[3] [人名] [英格兰人姓氏] 波利诺曼底住所名称，来源于法国罗马人名Pavilius+地点后缀acum, 39.

[3] Pawley, 39.

[3] Pawley, 39.

[4] [人名] [英格兰人姓氏] 波利诺曼底住所名称，来源于法国罗马人名Pavilius+地点后缀acum, 39.

[4] Pawley, 39.

[4] Pawley, 39.

[5] Pawley, 40.

[5] Pawley, 40.

[5] Pawley, 40.

[6] [人名] [英格兰人姓氏] 波利诺曼底住所名称，来源于法国罗马人名Pavilius+地点后缀acum, 56.

[6] Pawley, 56.

[6] Pawley, 56.

[7]Sudjic，Deyan。诺曼·福斯特：建筑生活。纽约：“俯瞰出版社”，2010年。201.

[7] Sudjic, Deyan. Norman Foster: a life in architecture. New York: The Overlook Press, 2010. 201.

[7] Sudjic, Deyan. Norman Foster: a life in architecture. New York: The Overlook Press, 2010. 201.

[8]Quantrill,Malcolm.诺曼·福斯特工作室：通过多样性的一致性。伦敦和纽约：E

[8] Quantrill, Malcolm. The Norman Foster Studio: Consistency through diversity. London and New York: E & FN Spon, an imprint of Routledge, 1999. 172.

[8] Quantrill, Malcolm. The Norman Foster Studio: Consistency through diversity. London and New York: E & FN Spon, an imprint of Routledge, 1999. 172.

[9] Sudjic, 202.

[9] Sudjic, 202.

[9] Sudjic, 202.

[10] Sudjic, 203.

[10] Sudjic, 203.

[10] Sudjic, 203.

[11] Sudjic, 207-210.

[11] Sudjic, 207-210.

[11] Sudjic, 207-210.

[12] [人名] [英格兰人姓氏] 匡特里尔绰号，时髦的或优雅的人，来源于中世纪英语、古法语，含义是“有技巧的，引人注目的”(skilled,attractive), 172.

[12] Quantrill, 172.

[12] Quantrill, 172.

[13]福斯特和合作伙伴。福斯特：2001年目录。慕尼黑：Prestel，2001年。133.

[13] Foster and Partners. Foster: Catalogue 2001. Munich: Prestel, 2001. 133.

[13] Foster and Partners. Foster: Catalogue 2001. Munich: Prestel, 2001. 133.

[14] Sudjic, 197.

[14] Sudjic, 197.

[14] Sudjic, 197.

建筑师福斯特合作伙伴位置国会大厦，普拉茨德尔共和国1，11011柏林，德国项目1999年项目年图片德国德德102-13744，许可通过CC by-SA 3.0通过公域，Harshiitart，在CC by-SA 4.0通过维基共享许可，Flickr用户哦-柏林，在CC by 2.0下许可，Michael Rose，许可在CC by-SA 3.0下通过共用，Flickr用户txmx-2，在CC下由-NC-ND 2.0，巴里飞机许可，在CC by-SA 3.0下许可通过维基共享类别可持续性制造商加载.

Architects Foster + Partners Location Reichstag Building, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, Germany Project Year 1999 Photographs Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-13744, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons, Harshiitart, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons, flickr user oh-berlin, licensed under CC BY 2.0, Michael Rose, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons, flickr user txmx-2, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, Barry Plane, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons Category Sustainability Manufacturers Loading...

Architects Foster + Partners Location Reichstag Building, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, Germany Project Year 1999 Photographs Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-13744, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons, Harshiitart, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons, flickr user oh-berlin, licensed under CC BY 2.0, Michael Rose, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons, flickr user txmx-2, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, Barry Plane, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons Category Sustainability Manufacturers Loading...