柏林洪堡論壇：有爭議的記憶
——柏林宮局部重建

克里斯蒂安·根斯希特

1 從鄉間小路看重建的巴洛克建筑The reconstructed baroque volume, seen from the Kupfergraben

錯過了一個不可復制的機會

1970 年代末起，柏林一直是以“歐洲城市批判性重建”為主題的有趣的城市復興實驗室。這一理論首先由作為柏林國際建筑展（1984-1987）的負責人何塞普·保羅·克萊休斯提出，直到現在還被視作柏林城市規劃的官方意識形態。1989 年柏林墻倒塌，1991 年柏林恢復了首都地位，但從這一刻起，政治權力表現出與歷史記憶的曖昧。洪堡論壇近期的開放，代表了復雜的長達30 年的對城堡“非批判性重建”的結論。1976 年建成、曾為德意志民主共和國議會的共和國宮被夷為平地，并被柏林宮的“歷史贗品”取而代之。克里斯蒂安·蓋恩施特在文中精準描繪出其政治決策背后的矛盾與模棱兩可：可以將這最終結果解釋為一種“帶裝飾的棚子”，“現代”內部與“歷史”外墻嚴重脫節，不幸的是，其夸張的紀念性缺乏文丘里的諷刺和批判維度。

克萊爾·科隆布恰當地描述道：“柏林一直是個自我毀滅的地方，歷屆政權都試圖抹去過去政權的建筑符號，在新的意識形態嵌入城市結構前創造一個白板。”[1]新組建的東德政權在1950 年摧毀了城堡，視其為過去的負面象征，而2006 年，在完全不同的歷史條件下，將過去政治痕跡抹去的理由已不再具有如此強的說服力。知識分子、歷史學家和建筑師，以及東柏林的市民提出了抗議，批評德國在統一時將僅有14 年歷史的建筑抹去。這不僅是捍衛歷史記憶重要性的問題，而且最重要的是，當代建筑文化早已將可持續性問題——寧可改造再利用，也不要拆除重建——以及城市場所的身份認知，作為了一切的前提。2003 年，在排除、清理了石棉隱患后，這座建筑曾臨時向公眾開放，并舉辦了豐富的文化活動1）。準確地說，正因為被還原為一個純粹的結構骨架，去除了裝飾，建筑展現出未被發掘的內在美，重新激發了關于未來可能用途的討論。

除了對弗朗哥·斯特拉強烈的紀念性與懷舊性建筑方案提出嚴厲批評之外，我們深感遺憾的是，這個重要的柏林市中心地帶錯過了一個不可復制的機會，本可以采用不那么簡單的設計工具和策略，在歷史記憶與新插入的建筑物之間創造出真實的批判性張力。最好的德國建筑師在戰后曾以這種方式工作過，我們僅需想想漢斯·多爾加斯特在慕尼黑重建的利奧·馮·克倫茨美術館（1952-1957）和埃貢·艾爾曼在柏林紀念堂（1959-1963）的代表性設計干預，近年來，一些最好的歐洲建筑師也采用過類似的表達方式，尤以戴衛·奇普菲爾德和拉斐爾·莫內歐為代表。他們中沒有任何一位參加2008 年競賽并非巧合。競賽大綱嚴格地限定了唯一一種詮釋方式。事實上，競賽真正的主題應是部分地重新利用共和國宮的構架將其納入能夠保留歷史記憶復雜性的新的混合結構中。《紐約時報》的評論家邁克爾·基梅爾曼2008 年論述了這一建議：“為什么節儉的德國人從未考慮過簡單地邀請建筑師重新利用已有的框架，并用更大的建筑來填補柏林宮曾經占據的空白。這是一個謎。好的設計師可能會將之視為一種挑戰。”[2]（皮埃爾·阿蘭-克羅塞特 文）

Missing an Unrepeatable Opportunity

Since the end of the 1970s, the city of Berlin has been an interesting laboratory of urban regeneration on the theme of the "critical reconstruction of the European city", a theory developed firstly by Josep Paul Kleihues as director of the International Architecture Exhibition (IBA Berlin, 1984-1987), later and until now recognised as the official ideology of urban planning in Berlin. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the city has returned in 1991 to its former status as the capital of reunified Germany, but from this moment on, political power demonstrated an ambiguous relationship with historical memory. The recent opening of the Humboldt-Forum represents the conclusion of a complex, almost 30-yearlong process of an "uncritical reconstruction" of the former Castle. In this essay, Christian G?nshirt accurately describes the contradictions and ambiguities behind the political decision to raze the Palace of the Republic building, completed in 1976 as the Parliament of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), and to replace it with a "historical fake": we can interpret the final result as a kind of "decorated shed" with a "modern" interior strongly disconnected from the "historical" fa?ades, but unfortunately with a heavily monumental architecture lacking Robert Venturi's irony and critical dimension.

Claire Colomb has very aptly described how "Berlin has always been a self-destructive place in which successive regimes have attempted to wipe out the built symbols of past regimes to create a tabula rasa before embedding their new ideology into the urban fabric". [1] The newly founded East Germany had destroyed the castle in 1950, which was considered as a negative symbol of the past, while in 2006 under totally different historical conditions there were no such strong reasons to justify a tabula rasa of the past again. Many protests were made by intellectuals, historians and architects, as well as ordinary citizens of East Berlin, criticising the erasure of a building only fourteen years old at the time of German reunification. It was not only a matter of defending the importance of historical memory, but also, and above all, of considering how contemporary architectural culture had long since put the issues of sustainability-better to recycle and modify instead of demolish and rebuild-and the identity of urban places as a palimpsest at the forefront. In 2003, the building, cleared of asbestos, was temporarily opened to the public with a rich programme of cultural activities2). Precisely because it had been reduced to a pure structural skeleton, emptied of its decorations, the building revealed its unsuspected inner beauty, reactivating the debate on possible future uses.

Beyond the obvious criticisms that we can make of Franco Stella's heavily monumental and nostalgic architecture,regrets remain for having missed an unrepeatable opportunity to act on this very important central Berlin site with less simplistic design tools and strategies, so as to create an authentic critical tension between historical memory and new inserts. The best German architects had worked in this way in the post-war period, we need only recall the exemplary interventions of Hans D?llgast for the reconstruction of Leo von Klenze's Alte Pinakothek in Munich (1952-1957), and of Egon Eiermann for the Memorial Church in Berlin (1959-1963), and so in recent years have some of the best European architects, in particular David Chipperfield and Rafael Moneo. It is therefore no coincidence that none of them participated in the 2008 competition that so severely limited any alternative interpretation. The real theme of the competition should have been to partially reuse the skeleton of the Palace of the Republic, and to incorporate it into a new hybrid structure capable of maintaining the complexity of historical memory.The New York Timescritic Michael Kimmelman concluded with this proposal in 2008: "It's a mystery why thrifty Germans never considered simply inviting architects to reuse the frame while filling out the empty space that the old Schloss once occupied with a larger building. Good designers might have considered it a challenge". [2] (Text by Pierre Alain Croset)

In July 2021, after three decades of sometimes heated discussions and several delays, the Humboldt-Forum in Berlin opened to the public. Constructed on the site and roughly within the volume of the former Royal Palace, the project was highly controversial from the beginning, and continues to be so2). The building shows baroque stone fa?ades, meticulously reconstructed from scratch, on three of its outsides and on three sides in its larger courtyard. Some of the visitors are disappointed that, instead of luxuriously decorated baroque interiors, they find inside a contemporary, rather conventional museum building, dedicated to ethnographic, historic, scientific and art exhibitions3).

It's with huge resentments, I must admit, that I started visiting the building. Not only did I hate the fact that another structure of historic value, the Palace of the Republic, had been destroyed to build it4)[3]. I had always disliked the conservative Neorationalist style displayed by the new parts of the building, and was highly suspicious of the revisionist intentions behind this reconstruction.Particularly, I dislike, and continue to do so, the exterior appearance of the urban block; the recreated,but rather boring baroque fa?ades, and even more the repulsive monumentality of the new east fa?ade,composed of massive concrete blocks, and reminiscent, above all, of fascist Italian architecture5). Only after several days of visits, examining the building in all angles and from the basement to the rooftop, I realised, almost against my will, that I somehow had started to enjoy my visits.

For visitors unfamiliar with European history, the political significance of this project is not easy to apprehend. Located on an island in the Spree River, the building had been started in 1443 as a fortress to dominate the city. Since then, the Berliner Schloss had been the seat of the Hohenzollern,the family first ruling Brandenburg, then Prussia, and later Germany. Enlarged and transformed by generations of architects, it had been growing over the centuries. Most of its final shape was defined by its transformation into a baroque palace by Andreas Schlüter, who modelled its fa?ades after the one of Palazzo Madama in Rome, and his successor, Swedish architect Johann Friedrich Eosander, from 1689 to 1713. The latest addition was the cupola on top of the main portal, which was inaugurated in 1854.

2 洪堡論壇的首層平面，建筑設計：弗朗哥·斯特拉Ground floor plan of the HumboldtForum, Architect: Franco Stella

3 洪堡論壇的縱剖面，建筑設計：弗朗哥·斯特拉Longitudinal section of the HumboldtForum, Architect: Franco Stella

4 皇宮的首層平面，1900Ground floor plan of the Royal Palace, c.1900

2021 年7 月，在經歷過大約30 年的激烈討論與數次推遲后，柏林洪堡論壇向公眾開放。該項目從一開始就備受爭議，甚至至今如此，它建于原址之上，大致與原皇家宮殿的體量一致2）。這座建筑的3 面外墻和內院的3 個側面展現了巴洛克石材立面，基本是從頭開始精心重建的。令一些游客感到失望的是，他們發現在一個當代的相當傳統的博物館建筑中，并沒有裝飾奢華的巴洛克式內飾，而是專用于民族學、歷史學、科學和藝術的展覽3）。

我必須承認我是帶著巨大的怨恨開始參觀這座建筑的。我不僅討厭另一個具有歷史價值的建筑——共和國宮——為了建造它遭到破壞4）[3]，也始終不喜歡該建筑加建部分所表現出的保守的新理性主義風格，并對這次重建背后的修正主義意圖深表懷疑。我尤其不喜歡、到現在依然也不喜歡的是其處于城市街區的外貌；重建但相當無聊的巴洛克式外立面，以及更甚的新東立面令人厭惡的紀念性——它由巨大的混凝土塊組成，總讓人很快聯想到法西斯意大利建筑5）。幾天參觀下來，在從建筑的各個角落上上下下地審視過這座建筑后，我意識到，幾乎與我的意愿相違背的，我不知不覺開始享受這次旅程。

對于那些對歐洲歷史并不熟悉的游客，并不容易理解該項目的政治重要性。它是一座主宰城市的堡壘，坐落在施普雷河的一個小島上，興建于1443 年。從那時起，柏林宮一直是霍亨索倫家族的所在地。這個家族首先統治了布蘭登堡，而后是普魯士王國，再后來是德國。幾個世紀以來，經過幾代建筑師的擴建和改造，柏林宮一直在擴張。它的最終形態的大部分是由安德烈亞斯·施呂特——在學習羅馬的瑪達瑪宮立面后，以及他的繼任者，瑞典建筑師約翰·弗里德里希·歐桑德在1689-1713 年期間將之改造成巴洛克風格的宮殿而確定。此外，新增的是在1854 年落成的主門頂上的沖天爐。

在霍亨索倫家族的領導下，德國從拿破侖手中解放出來，并于1871 年統一許多小王國，成為德意志聯邦，以柏林為首都。這些事件，加上第二次工業革命，使這座城市在幾十年內成為德國規模最大且實力最雄厚的大都市。與這座如今居住著德意志帝國政治領導人的宮殿有關的歷史事件，其價值各不相同。1848 年的民主革命發生在其南側的廣場上，并遭到暴力鎮壓，造成了多人死亡與難民潮。柏林宮也是德國帝國主義的中心，威廉二世在它的陽臺上發表了兩次演講，隨后德國發動了第一次世界大戰。戰爭結束時，威廉二世被迫退位，宮殿被洗劫一空。幾周后，德國軍隊對該建筑進行了清理，又屠殺了許多人。在接下來的30 年內，它的一部分變成了博物館，另一部分則供一系列文化和學術機構使用，從學生食堂到柏林愛樂樂團的露天音樂會，以及作為政府官員的住所[4]。

1950 年9 月，一個陰雨連綿的周四，沉重的爆炸聲撼動了柏林宮的醫療翼。該建筑開始拆除，耗時數月。在第二次世界大戰結束時，該宮殿遭到了嚴重破壞——雖然還沒有到無法修復的地步。然而，當時成立不久的東德聯邦政府決定在1950 年——他們開始執政的第一年——不顧許多人的抗議拆除剩余部分，借此消解這座城市最重要的歷史見證之一6）。改名為馬克思-恩格斯廣場以后，這個地方空置20 年，主要用于停車和閱兵。它的東半部分后來被共和國宮占據，這是一個代表東德的大型建筑，建于1973-1976 年。

在東西德統一后不久，關于重建柏林宮的公開辯論就開始了。為促進重建工作還成立了私人協會7）。1993 年6 月-1994 年9 月，在私人捐助者的資助下，現場安裝了由一群法國藝術家繪制在塑料布上的兩個外立面的等大效果圖8）。1994 年舉行的城市設計競賽的結果是采納了原樣恢復宮殿體量并拆除共和國宮的建議。經過大量的公開辯論和專家委員會的提議9），2002 年聯邦議會高票通過了重建方案10），這被認為是柏林歷史中心重建的一部分工程。根據專家委員會的提議，該建筑將由名為洪堡論壇的新機構使用，并與現有的各種博物館、文化機構合作11）。巴洛克的外立面重建完全由私人捐助者出資，花費約1 億歐元，建筑本身由德意志聯邦政府出資，約5 億歐元。

5 面向施普雷河畔的新東立面，與柏林大教堂遙相呼應The new east fa?ade facing the Spreeriverside, with Berlin Cathedral

6 重建5號門的施呂特霍夫Schlüterhof with reconstructed Portal 5

7 重建外立面細部Detail of the reconstructed fa?ade

8 連接重建的2號門和4號門的通道Passage connecting the reconstructedPortals 2 and 4

It was under the leadership of the Hohenzollern family that Germany liberated itself from Napoleon,and in 1871 united its many small kingdoms into the German state, with Berlin as its capital. These events, plus the Second Industrial Revolution, turned the city, within a few decades, into the largest and most powerful metropolis in Germany. The historical events involving the palace, now housing the political leaders of the German empire, were of mixed value though. The democratic revolution of 1848,which begun on the plaza on its south side, was violently suppressed, causing many fatalities and a wave of refugees. It was also the centre of German imperialism, and with two speeches delivered by Emperor William II, held from one of its balconies, the country started the First World War. At the end of the war,William II was forced to abdicate and the palace was looted. Weeks later, the German army cleared the building, again killing many. For the next three decades, parts of the huge structure were turned into a museum, whilst others were used by a range of cultural and academic institutions, from student canteens to open-air concerts by the Berlin Philharmonic, as well as for housing officials[4].

On a rainy Thursday in September 1950, heavy detonations shook the palace's Pharmacy Wing.The building's demolition had started, and was going to take several months. Towards the end of the Second World War, the palace had been heavily damaged, albeit not beyond repair. However, the government of the newly founded communist East German state decided in 1950 - in its first year of existence and despite the protests of many - to demolish the remaining parts, thus eliminating one of the most important historic witnesses in the city6). Renamed Marx-Engels-Platz, the site stayed empty for two decades and was mainly used as a parking lot and parade ground. Its eastern half was later occupied by the Palace of the Republic, a large structure representing the East German state,constructed in 1973-1976.

The public debate about the reconstruction of the Berlin Palace started soon after the German reunification. Private associations were formed to promote the reconstruction7). From June 1993 until September 1994, a full-scale mockup of two fa?ades, painted on plastic sheeting by a group of French artists, was installed on site, financed by private donors8). An urban design competition held in 1994 resulted in the proposal to reconstruct the volume of the palace, and to demolish the Palace of the Republic. After much public debate and a proposal made by a committee of experts9), in 2002 the Federal Parliament decided with great majority in favour of the reconstruction10), understood as part of the reconstruction of the historic centre of Berlin. As proposed by the committee, the building was to be used by a new institution named Humboldt-Forum, in collaboration with various existing museums and cultural institutions11). The reconstruction of the baroque fa?ades was entirely to be funded, with about 100 million Euros, by private donors, the building itself with about 500 million Euros by the German Federal State.

9 中庭和重建3號門的夜景Atrium with reconstructed Portal 3,night view

10 地窖入口處有發掘的木質地基樁Cellar entrance with excavated wooden foundation piles

11 通往展覽區域的主要樓梯Main staircase leading to the exhibition areas

Financed by the F?rderverein, Berlin architects Rupert und York Stuhlemmer accurately recreated detailed drawings of the baroque fa?ades, including all decorations and sculptures, from historic photographs, rediscovered drawings and measurements. They became part of the documents for the architectural competition held in 2007/2008[5]. To the surprise of many, the competition was won by Franco Stella, until then a rather unknown architect from Vicenza, Italy12)[6]. To mark the distinction, the jury, headed by Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, decided not to award any second prize13). Stella's proposal followed the requirements given by the competition brief, to reconstruct the volume of the historic palace, and the baroque sections of the historic fa?ades, including the gates and the fa?ades in the eastern courtyard. Stella scaled down the western courtyard to a passage connecting two reconstructed gates, thus gaining space to create a large indoor lobby space. It came as no surprise though, that for the new parts of the building he proposed the abstract and repetitive Neorationalist architecture style Berlin's city government had preferred since the 1990s14).

在協會的資助下，柏林建筑師魯伯特和約克·斯圖萊默根據歷史照片、重新發現的圖紙和實地測量結果，準確地重現了巴洛克風格外立面的詳細圖紙，包括所有的裝飾和雕塑。它們成為2007-2008 年舉辦的建筑競賽文件的一部分[5]。令人感到驚訝的是，弗朗哥·斯特拉在競賽中勝出，在此之前，他不過是來自意大利維琴察一位名不見經傳的建筑師12）[6]。為紀念這一殊榮，由維托里奧·馬格納戈·蘭普格納尼主持的評審會決定不頒發任何的二等獎13）。斯特拉的方案遵循了競賽大綱的要求，按原有規模重建了宮殿以及巴洛克風格外立面的部分，包括大門和東院的外立面。斯特拉將西院縮減為連接兩個重建大門的通道，從而得到了一個室內大廳空間。不過對于建筑新增的部分，他提出的抽象、重復的新理性主義建筑風格并不令人意外，畢竟柏林市政府自1990 年代以來一直喜歡這種風格14）。

如今，復建最令人印象深刻的效果是改變了周圍地區的尺度和氛圍。在第一次世界大戰之前，這里曾經是柏林政治、文化和行政中心。代表東德的兩座大型現代主義建筑——外交部和共和國宮以前在該地區占主導地位，現在已被拆除，以復現的巴洛克風格建筑取而代之。這使得開放空間的規模縮小，更接近19 世紀末期的狀態，并重新與臨近的歷史建筑建立視覺聯系，例如軍械庫、申克爾的舊愽物館、國家美術館。沒有太多直接面向游客的紀念物，大的開放空間與相對小體量的建筑之間產生了一種令人驚訝的開敞與慷慨但又毫不跳脫的城市空間狀態。

然而，這種明顯的放松是有代價的。在城市和建筑層面，弗朗哥·斯特拉的選擇性重建并不利于理解歷史在這部分城市留下的許多層次。它不僅掩蓋了20 世紀沉重的歷史痕跡，以及最重要的共和國宮——它本身就是一個重要的歷史文物，而且它還忽略了所有可能追溯到巴洛克時代前的組成部分。

盡管在形式和材料上都非常謹慎地進行了復原，但除了一些被納入考慮的原始片段之外，這些巴洛克式的立面看起來是全新的。可能由于機械化的生產過程，這些表面對于那個時期的建筑來說顯得過于完美。隨著時間的推移，這種情況會有所改變。尷尬的伸縮縫告訴我們，我們看到的并非原先整體磚砌的建筑，而是一座標準的混凝土結構、巴洛克外表皮的建筑15）。

對多重歷史層次的忽視在東立面變成了最大的問題。在那里，斯特拉用巨大的混凝土塊組成新的、令人難以置信的木訥且尺度夸張的結構，取代了原先多樣的小尺度的、甚至有些斑駁的陳舊的部分。原本老宮殿最普通、部分甚至被藤蔓覆蓋的一面，現在毫無必要地變成了最有紀念性的一面，從根本上改變了它的面貌。

盡管如此，令人放松的進入方式、熱情的工作人員、慷慨的空間以及它更容易容納多個大型展覽及多重附加功能的特性，仍然使參觀過程令人愉悅。盡管斯特拉的建筑和復建的部分之間并不那么協調，但由此產生的不和諧似乎是可控的，而且對結果有利。從窗戶看出去的景色，從屋頂露臺看出去的景色，都十分美妙。□

12 通往展覽區域的主要扶梯Main escalators leading to the exhibition areas

Today, the most impressive effect of the reconstructed volume is the change in scale and atmosphere of the surrounding area, which, until the end of the First World War, used to be the political, cultural, and administrative centre of the city. The two large-scale modernist buildings representing the East German state, the Foreign Ministry and the Palace of the Republic previously dominating the area, have been demolished and replaced by the reconstructed baroque volume. This brings the scale of the open spaces down, close to the situation at the end of the 19th century, and re-establishes the visual correspondence with neighbouring historic buildings such as the Zeughaus,Schinkel's Altes Museum, and the Alte Nationalgalerie. Without too much monumentality directly confronting the viewer, the large open spaces with those relatively low volumes produce a surprisingly open and generous, yet unassuming urban situation.

Nevertheless, this apparent ease comes with a price. On the urban and architectural level, the selective reconstruction by Franco Stella doesn't allow to comprehend the many layers history had left in this part of the city. Not only obscures the heavy traces of the 20th century, but most importantly the Palace of the Republic, which is itself an important historical document. It also ignores all the components dating back to the pre-baroque times15).

Even though great care has been taken to meticulously rebuild them in both form and materials,the baroque fa?ades look, except for a few original fragments which have been included, brand new.Probably due to the mechanised production process, the surfaces appear way too perfect for a building of that period. With time, this will change. Awkward dilatation joints inform us that we are not looking at the original monolithic brick building, but a standard concrete structure with the baroque fa?ades added as an outer layer.

Ignoring the multiple historic layers has become most problematic on the east fa?ade, where Stella replaced the diverse small scale and even a little messy older part of the building with a new,incredibly rigid and large-scale structure composed by huge concrete blocks. What used to be the most domestic, partly even vine-covered facet of the old palace now turned, without necessity, into its most monumental one, altering its appearance fundamentally.

Nevertheless, what makes visiting the building enjoyable is the ease of access and the welcoming staff, the generosity of the spaces, and its apparent ease in accommodating multiple large exhibitions and broad range of supplementary functions. Even though Stella's architecture and the reconstructed parts often don't go very well together, the resulting disharmonies seem controlled, and play in favour of the result. The views from the windows, and even more from the rooftop terrace, are fabulous.□

注釋

Notes

1） 特別是在2004年，雷姆·庫哈斯發表了關于遺產在當代建筑中的重要性的演講，柏林在同年還舉辦了秦始皇兵馬俑的大型巡回展。Notably in 2004 a lecture by Rem Koolhaas on the importance of heritage in contemporary buildings, and Piacentini于1932-1940年建造。the Berlin venue of the major travelling exhibition on Emperor Qin's Terra Cotta Army.

2） 2008年以來的辯論全情，詳見：http://schlossdebatte.de For an overview of the debate since 2008: http://schlossdebatte.de

3） 洪堡官方網站，詳見：https://www.humboldtforum.org For the official website: https://www.humboldtforum.org

4） 2005年我們與波爾圖的ANC建筑事務所合作，提議將共和國宮的殘余部分與柏林宮的長期局部重建相結合，詳見參考文獻[3]。In cooperation with ANC Arquitectos, Porto, in 2005 we proposed to integrate the remnants of the Palace of the Republic with a slow, partial reconstruction of the Berlin Palace, see Reference[3].

5） 更確切地說，是米蘭的朱斯蒂齊亞宮，由Marcello More precisely the Palazzo di Giustizia in Milan, built 1932-1940 by Marcello Piacentini.

6） 唯一保存下來的是四號門，1918年，德國共產黨領袖卡爾·李撲克內西在這里宣布成立社會主義德意志共和國，但沒有任何后續。它被移到新建成的國務委員會大樓主入口，今天它仍在那里。The only part conserved was Portal IV, from which in 1918 Karl Liebknecht, leader of the German communists,had proclaimed a Socialist German Republic, but without any consequences. It was translocated to become the main entrance of the newly erected Council of State building (Staatsratsgeb?ude), where it still exists today.

7） 協會注冊于1992年8月，詳見： https://berliner-schloss.de F?rderverein Berliner Schloss e.V., registered since August 1992, see: https://berliner-schloss.de

8） https://berliner-schloss.de/das-historische-schloss/die-schloss-simulation-1993-1994/

9） 完整報告，詳見：http://schlossdebatte.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/1_expertenkommission_bericht_2002.pdf (text in German)For the full report see: http://schlossdebatte.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/1_expertenkommission_bericht_2002.pdf (text in German)

10） 討論的速記報告，詳見：https://dserver.bundestag.de/btp/14/14248.pdf (text in German).For the stenographic report of the debate see: https://dserver.bundestag.de/btp/14/14248.pdf (text in German)

11） 即民族學博物館和亞洲藝術博物館的普魯士文化遺產基金會、柏林洪堡大學和柏林市立博物館基金會。Namely the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz for the Ethnological Museum and the Museum of Asian Art,the Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin, and the Stiftung Stadtmusem Berlin.

12） 斯特拉很快得到當地建筑公司Hilmer、Sattler與Albrecht的支持，以及一家建筑管理公司的支持。Stella was soon to be supported by local architecture firm Hilmer & Sattler und Albrecht, and a building management firm, see: https://www.francostella.eu/berliner-schloss-humboldt-forum-58.html

13） 將一等獎授予弗朗哥·斯特拉的決定遭到了漢斯·科爾霍夫的質疑，他是獲得三等獎的建筑師之一，因為斯特拉的建筑事務所規模并沒有達到競賽組委會的要求，科爾霍夫在一審中贏得了訴訟，但二審敗訴而歸。The decision of awarding the first prize to Franco Stella was challenged by Hans Kollhoff, who had been awarded one of the third prizes, because Stella's architecture office didn't have the size required by the competition brief. Kollhoff won the lawsuit in the first instance, but lost in the second.

14） 整套建筑圖紙及更多的照片，詳見：https://www.humboldtforum. org/de/presse/medien/humboldtforum-im-berliner-schloss-2/For a complete set of architecture drawings, and many photographs, please see: https://www.humboldtforum.org/de/presse/medien/humboldt-forum-im-berlinerschloss-2/

15） 只有一個例外，那就是在地下發現的：在對場地西南角的考古發掘中，揭示了這里不僅有宮殿本身的地窖，還有多米尼加修士13世紀末以來在這里建造的修道院的遺跡，現已對公眾開放。With one exception, to be found underground:Archeological excavations in the South-Western corner of the site,now open for visit, revealed remnants of the cellars not only of the Palace itself, but of a monastery that Dominican friars had built here since the late thirteenth century.