Hejduk – Upshots and Asides
Due to a savage workload and a beastly cold, or a beastly workload and a savage cold, I’ve fallen way behind in the coverage of the Hejduk saga. Suffice to say, much has happened, and much has been achieved. I’ll keep the documentation of events to a minimum, since Jim has already done such a good job over at Architecture in Berlin.
On Monday 19th April a senate organised “Baukollegium” was held, where Robert Slinger, Florian Kohl and Matthias Reese presented the case for Hejduk’s “Tower With Wings” to Senate Building Director, Regula Lüscher and others. At this meeting they gave a general presentation about the history of the building, and the context in which it was built. They also read out a letter penned by Renata Hejduk, who had intended to come to Berlin, but had been held back by recent volcanic activity, and delivered the petition. Present too, was the building’s new owner.
The 3000 signatures gathered in support of the buidling, were literally a weighty indicator to the Kollegium and its panel of experts that informed opinion held the changes for a defacement of Berlin’s cultural heritage. In short, the petition helped to turn around a situation in which Mr Prajs wasn’t actaully legally required to seek anyone’s approval.
Results of the meeting were announced in the Berliner Morgenpost on the 24th April in the form of an interview with Frau Lüscher: the building is to be restored to its original design, including the colour scheme – which of course means that the removed balconies will need to be rebuilt.
As if this weren’t good enough by itself – and this is where the story takes a really unexpected twist – two pavillions designed by Hejduk could now end up being built on the scrappy bit of land in front of the building, thus “completing” the ensemble. Robert Slinger of Kapok proposed the idea in a mail written to Hejduk three weeks ago. Although he seemd to think the idea was a bit of a pipe dream, it was clear that realising these structures would make perfect sense in the context of a public park. Funding might well also be secured out of a pot set aside for urban parks and public spaces.
The two pavillions, “Studio for the painter”, and “Studio for the musician” were both exhibited as centerpieces in 1987 IBA exhibition held at the Martin Gropius Building in Berlin. Why they never made it from the museum to the street isn’t clear, but I can well imagine that they probably just looked too damned scary. Robert Slinger offered a more practical reason when we chatted last weekend: if built at the scale suggested by Hejduk, the pavillions would have to confirm to all the regulations to which a ‘normal’ building must abide. Fire safety and questions of maintenance, ownership and access all come to mind. Shrink the pavillions to the size of sculptures though, and the idea dies.
I’d like to quickly go back to the Baukollegium. One salacious detail about the meeting is that the tower’s new owner, Mr Sruel Prajs, turned up with absolutely no defence prepared for the changes made to the building. He simply didn’t know what he’d aquired, which seems a little odd. Is a passing knowledge of architecture not required of property dealers, in the same way that, say, a fishmonger knows a thing or two about fish? No wonder they talk about ‘objects’.
Admittedly, defending one’s own ignorance is a hard thing to do, but an honest answer would have had some dignity. If I might be allowed to speculate for a moment, it’s worth noting that the Berlinhaus’s offices are located in a building next to Hejduk’s tower. It’s a detail I hadn’t noticed whilst the campaign was hotting up, but maybe the reason for the white paint job and pink balconies was to pretty-up the view from Prajs’ office window. A bone-headed whim. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, this sounds like a case of “a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
Just out of interest, I dropped by BerlinHaus’ office building the other week. I’m not sure why. Probably a bit like when Columbo makes a false exit, then comes back to his suspect and says “just one more thing …” Maybe I was childishly looking for a detail which would smugly confirm my worst suspicions about a property dealer. But a quick look at the company’s sign made details irrelevant:
Chasing down evidence to support your own grim world-view can fill you with a great sense of purpose. But having all your darkest prejudices confirmed so swiftly is thoroughly deflating. I mean: thirty-six companies? Alright: it doesn’t have to mean there’s something dubious going on. But there’ll be a benefit to it which far outweighs the disadvantages of a complicated tax-return.
Nice article. Wish I was as innocent as the writer in his wonder at the 36 companies listed. This is standard practice for developers and property traders. Tax rules allow “stamp duty free” transfer of property ownership to I think around 95% (with the rest transferable in I think 3 yrs) which means the fund instigator (in this case Herr Prajs) would still retain an interest for a number of yrs after acquiring the property “held” by a company that consists only of property (/-ies) and often the new owners are merely investors with nothing to do with the day-to-day so management stays with the instigator so the cumulative effect of several deals (and in this case also with partners like N. Drimmer and Herr or Frau Pielen) is a long list of companies managed from one address. Of course in this case they may still hold 100% of all co’s listed.
Thanks, Ian and fergus_b. Another outgrowth of the amazingly convoluted German tax system. I like the anecdote that the German tax code printed on A4 paper would still be bigger than the tax codes of all other countries combined printed in the same manner. I had to read that comment several times before it clicked, but appreciate it even more so. There is no simple way to talk about stuff like this. I fail at explaining things like Gewerbesteuersätze (business tax rates?), even though it occupies an important place in my life as it significantly reduces what I earn. So we either end up muttering incomprehensible things in a language that mimics the complexity of the tax code or we just don’t talk about it, except with the accountants, or when we talk to ourselves in dark chambers filled with Leitz ordners trying to externalize what’s causing the brain jam. I think it’s nuts. Of course, who benefits from this is once more the Steuerberater that gets to do 36 company tax returns for Mr.Prajs, for which he might not even take legal responsibility, since he is acting merely as a consultant. I feel like an idiot for not becoming one myself, a Steuerberater.
Looking again at the list am particularly intrigued by the possibilities suggested in “GbR Augment GmbH, Prajs und Drimmer I, II and III”. A GbR is a partnership for a particular purpose, where the profit or loss is simply divided according to an agreed key at the end of the financial year. I’d always thought it had to be of “real people”. GmbHs can act like “real people”, I knew that, but I didn’t know that they coud be in GbRs. So the GbR partners could own stakes in the GmbH or other GmbHs could own stakes in Augment GmbH or as the Germans say “und, und, und”. My mind boggles. At least Dr Evil’s plans have a clear purpose.
And 10 points to anyone who can come up with three possible “purposes” for GbRs I, II and III.
That’s correct: a GmbH is a “juristic person”, so they can be a partner in a GbR. So this looks like a GbR between Prajs, Drimmer and Augmented Immobilien GmbH. Looks like it was such a good idea that they repeated it twice.