On the Domberg there is a large gap next to the former prince-bishop’s residence. The extension to the Kardinal-Döpfner-Haus has been largely demolished – and now it is finally clear what is to be built there instead: a slightly set back, modern, five-story seminar building that does not steal the show from the historic old building. A loggia forms the bracket to the residence. Architect Piero Bruno from the Berlin office Bruno, Fioretti, Marquez presented the first plans on Monday in the Luitpoldhalle.
In an all-day colloquium, the city’s design advisory board dealt with the project of the archdiocese and the exposed location on the Domberg. The ensemble can be seen from afar, from the south as well as from the north, which is why the new structure is of particular importance. The previous Haindl building from the 1960s was too bulky and setting the tone, the speakers agreed on that. Piero Bruno’s proposals for a redesign convinced both the experts to a large extent and the city councilors present.
This is how the new building of the seminar house could look, with a loggia it should be connected to the old residence.
(Photo: Office Bruno Fioretti Marquez)
Right at the beginning of his remarks, Bruno made it clear that it is not the architect’s job to “mourn over what has been lost,” it is more about understanding the architectural potential of the place. But that can be a veritable minefield in Freising – perhaps also because many a jewel on the Domberg has disappeared over the years.
The demolition of the octagon at the Diocesan Museum caused a lot of excitement in the city. Many Freisingers had also campaigned for the preservation of the Seidlturm at the Kardinal-Döpfner-Haus. Its reconstruction is not planned, it makes no sense in the new building, said Bruno. However, the architect proposes a higher tower on the north side, at the Martinskapelle. Because the silhouette of the Toompea has always been characterized by several towers, also at this point.
Nobody sheds a tear after the demolished Haindl building
Apparently nobody sheds a tear for the now demolished Haindl building. It adjoins the residence at the same level, only a small gap separates the very different buildings. This made it look very monolithic. The side building is to be significantly lower in the future and remain below the eaves of the old residence. Due to the double staggering to the rear, the new building is somewhat reserved, especially when viewed from a distance. Piero Bruno spoke of an “urban repair”. The planned buildings would have a “clear presence, from far and near, without calling into question the importance of the residence”. The low, inward-sloping roof shape of the seminar building was somewhat controversial in the preliminary design plans. Bruno also proposes a special detail for the historic building. There, the Steinerne Saal could be reflected again in the facade design in the future.
According to the first plans, the seminar rooms in the new building are friendly but kept simple, with a bedroom, living room, small bathroom and balcony. Only a third of the number of rooms in the original design is planned. For cost reasons, the archdiocese had refrained from realizing this. Since July 2019, planning has continued with a new concept and a significantly reduced scope. The current cost estimate is also tough, according to Vicar General Christoph Klingan it is more than 80 million euros. The aim of the archdiocese is to advance the planning in cooperation with the city of Freising by the end of the year so that the building application can be submitted. The design advisory board will meet for a second session in May.
The rooms of the education center should be simple but friendly.
(Photo: Office Bruno Fioretti Marquez)
There was a lot of praise for Piero Bruno’s designs during the discussion. Landscape architect Cordula Loidl-Reisch found that a couple of things had been “enchantingly solved”, for example that there was more free space for terraces on the south side. Architect Moritz Auer, also a member of the design advisory board, said that Bruno dealt with the topic “very analytically and at the same time sensitively”. Bruno’s remarks met with a positive response not only from the experts. Councilor Robert Weller (FW) admitted that his opinion had “turned”. He actually sees himself more “as a keeper”, which is why he has so far spoken out in favor of preserving the Seidlturm. But now it is clear to him: “The journey has to go into the 21st century.” He wished that the façade would also be carefully planned from the Domberg-Anger, so that one would not only look at the window, as was previously the case.
Charlotte Reitsam (Greens) said the tower was “awesome” and that there would still be a lot of discussion about the proposal. It is important to her that this will be open to the public to demonstrate openness.
The new extension and the loggia are to be set back a little so that the historic building comes into its own.
(Photo: Office Bruno Fioretti Marquez)
At the end of the colloquium, moderator Ludwig Wappner summed up that Piero Bruno had “given many answers”. These are the building blocks with which one can now continue to work. For him, the new building is not an extension, but “a new house”. He asked, however, whether this should not be a little lower. Bruno replied that there would not be enough rooms in the training center.
The Domberg in Freising also has a special meaning for the archdiocese. There is no other place in the Archdiocese “that can look back on such a long, unbroken continuity in the interaction of society, culture and religion,” said Vicar General Klingan. Here it is important to continue writing history “not only in the sense of conservation and restoration, but also of departure and innovation”. As “ecclesia semper reformanda”, as his contribution was entitled, as a church to be constantly renewed, the church must face the questions of the future: “What is to be preserved, what is to be restored, what needs to be rethought, which ways are valid looking ahead? Only those who ask themselves these questions can bring the past, present and future into a productive exchange and shape the necessary renewal.”