The case of the Nuremberg opera house interim will at some point be a matter for city historians and then chroniclers in the case of the head of the Greens in the city council, Achim Mletzko, will stumble upon a strange thing. Historians work with sources, preferably with written sources, and Mletzko delivered an unambiguous one on November 26, 2021. A civil society debate is needed as to whether the opera house should “actually” be renovated, he said. And one may have to turn to “the vision of a structurally and culturally unique new building on Richard-Wagner-Platz that has emerged from a global architecture competition”. A new building that Mletzko imagined “transparent, with the most modern, highly functional architecture, inviting, barrier-free”. In short: “a great success”.
14 days later, Mletzko made another statement that historians will come across a written source there, too, namely the joint paper that the CSU, SPD and Greens presented on December 10th. A central point: the location on Wagner-Platz will be retained and the opera house will be renovated. Now chroniclers could get the idea that this is something diametrically different – and doubt the authenticity of the source. But it is real. Mletzko also does not deny having made a U-turn on a fundamental question by what felt like 167 degrees within two weeks. But that’s exactly how it is in Nuremberg: The subject is big, as big as the gigantic building on the former Nazi party rally grounds suggests, which is to house functional rooms for the opera interim in the future. And it is whirling Nuremberg’s parties upside down like hardly anything before.
How can you explain Mletzko’s U-Turn? He once stuck his head out the window, he says. But I got “clear feedback” for it. New construction instead of renovation of a listed building with a silhouette that shapes the cityscape? In Nuremberg, which was badly damaged by the Second World War – where there are no longer many buildings of this type – Mletzko’s proposal, which could hardly be interpreted as a demolition of a dresser, was not a bestseller. Behind the scenes, so it can be heard, the parliamentary group leader is said to have enjoyed “clear feedback” from his own party members. So radical change, even if observers could get dizzy given the speed.
Others are annoyed by the “misgivings”
The party that has shaped the history of the city like no other is also being mixed up: the SPD. There are currently three attitudes: Some can fundamentally not imagine an opera on the former Nazi area, neither in the inner courtyard of Hitler’s hall torso nor outside – they preferred another location, the Schöller area or the fair. Others are annoyed by the “misgivings”, they plead for a new, offensive form of culture of remembrance, also with operas in the NS torso courtyard. A majority can make friends with an interim visit to Hitler’s ruins, but do not want to see the performance location – like the historians from the Documentation Center – in the aforementioned inner courtyard. The SPD has specially convened a party committee, including a resolution. “We didn’t make it easy for ourselves,” says party leader Nasser Ahmed.
In fact, the SPD demonstrates a culture of debate – and yet there remains a mark of beauty. Why did the group leaders announce the compromise between the CSU, SPD and the Greens a week before the vote in a relaxed chat on local radio? Many consider this to be a democratic-theoretical joke – especially since many had argued that we should allow more time for discussion. Instead: Announcement of an epoch-making decision – the interim will be on the former Nazi campus – on “Radio F”, seven days before the city council debate this Wednesday. “Weird,” thinks someone from the party leadership, struggling for words. The parliamentary group and party are sparking, to say the least, not exactly identical waves in Nuremberg’s SPD.
It’s most harmonious in the CSU. She is currently ostentatiously praising the SPD parliamentary group leader Thorsten Brehm, which not everyone in the SPD acknowledges without suspicion. Especially since the ultimate test between the town hall partners CSU and SPD is just ahead. In 2022 it will be decided where exactly on the ex-NS area the interim should go. The CSU is clearly in favor of the inside of the NS horseshoe, the majority of the SPD vehemently in favor of a structure in front of the torso. A compromise? Difficult to imagine.