A 19. század folyamán a Habsburg Birodalom, illetve az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia magyar lakta városaiban nagyszabású színházépítés folyt. A színház a nemzeti identitás megerősítésére és a magyar nyelv általános használatának szorgalmazására szolgált. A színházépületek stílusát nem elsősorban építészeti és esztétikai szempontok, hanem politikai indokok határozták meg, a színház a városok fejlődése, s egyben a polgárosodás bizonyításának egyik fontos eszköze volt, olyan középületet jelentett, amely a várossá válás egyik meghatározó elemévé vált. A színházépítők elsősorban fővárosi építészek voltak, akik Bécsben, Berlinben és Münchenben végezték a tanulmányaikat, ahol a 19. század közepére Európában általánosan elfogadottá és a városi paloták, illetve a városi középületek esetében divattá vált neoreneszánsz stílusban tervezték meg színházépületeiket. A magyar építészek az Európában látott stílusmintát követve alkották meg színházépületeiket, amelyek elsősorban a városi palota jellegét mutatják külső megformálásukban (Szkalnitzky Pesti Nemzeti Színház, 1871–1874; Arad, 1871–1874; Fellner & Helmer Temesvár, 1871–1875; Halmay Andor Békéscsaba, 1884–1885; Hauszmann Alajos Szombathely, 1880), belsejükben, a nézőtér-játszótér viszonylatában pedig a 17–18. században kialakult és kanonizálódott „itáliai–francia színház” tipológiáját mutatják. A magyar és az európai építészetnek is remekműve Ybl Miklós alkotása, a Magyar Királyi Operaház (1874–1884), amely Budapesten a Sugár út első traktusában épült fel az egész utat átfogó urbanisztikai koncepció jegyében alkalmazott neoreneszánsz stílusban.
Besides a great number of public and private buildings in cities, in the course of his long career Ybl designed several country houses. Their number is ten, but the authorship of many more structures of this kind were traditionally attributed to him. In this article attempt has been made to establish the substantiated attributions. Ybl designed country houses mostly at the beginning of his career, and primarily for a group of patriotic-liberal aristocrats. These patrons and the location of their houses are the following: Count Lajos Batthyány, Ikervár; Count Pál Zichy, Nagyhörcsök; Count Ede Károlyi, Füzérradvány; Count Béla Wenckheim, Fás; Count János Waldstein, Várpalota; Baron József Csekonics, Zsombolya; Count Ödön Lónyay, Bodrogolaszi; István Bittó, Drávafok; Count Frigyes Wenckheim, Szabadkígyós; Count Gyula Károlyi, Parádsasvár. In this field Ybl resorted to styles that he otherwise seldom cultivated, such as Neo-Gothic and German Neo-Renaissance, and for the shape of the buildings, he preferred the elongated oblong.
A cikk a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Széchenyi István téri székháza ünnepélyes átadásának másfélszáz éves évfordulója alkalmából bemutatja a várostörténeti szempontból is kiemelkedő jelentőségű középület építése során alkalmazott kőanyagokat. Levéltári források és kordokumentumok alapján ismerteti az építkezés legfontosabb eseményeit, az építő- és díszítőkövek beszerzésének, felhasználásának körülményeit, az ehhez kapcsolódó költségeket, majd ezt követően a kőzetek típusait, származási helyét veszi sorra. A székház kőzeteinek kiválasztása a neoreneszánsz ízlés- és formavilágát tükrözi: az épület homlokzata uralkodóan Budapest környéki porózus mészkövekből, forrásvízi mészkőből, lábazata pedig gerecsei vörös mészkőből áll, belsejében a Habsburg Monarchia területéről származó csiszolható mészkövek és márványok láthatók.
The architectural heritage and the mode of its analysis and interpretation, specially in the perspective of national and regional question, can and often becomes the issue prone to manipulation. The attempts to define national and regional identity by means of cultural legacy have been accompanying the research into art and also the creation of modern architecture in the spirit of national Historicism already since the 19th century. The architecture of Gdansk has for years been the subject of a heated debate of both German and Polish architects, historians of architecture, and conservators. In the recent years also politicians have joined in the debate, and so have writers. The paper analyses the issue of the relation of architectural forms and rhetorical formulas, namely the combination of architecture and specific contents treated as signs of local identity, as well as changeability and interpretational flexibility of those issues with regard to the needs of political circumstances (idioms versus interpretational variants, stereotypes, research myths, likings versus scholarly idiosyncrasies). Special attention will be paid to the Gdansk architecture of the 2nd half of the 19th century and its contemporary and later interpretations in the perspective of regional and national identification.
2014 was declared Memorial Ybl Year in honour of the outstanding 19th century architect of Hungary, Miklós Ybl for the bicentenary of his birth. From among the related scientific programs the below paper summarizes the conference entitled “His Life-style: Architect”, introduces a small exhibition of Ybl plans connected to the buildings of the Academy and preserved in the Art Collection of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as well as his oeuvre exhibition. It also reports on the restoration of the Castle Garden Bazaar, a row of edifices along the Danube at the foot of the Royal Castle. Following this account, Acta Historiae Artium carries the texts of five presentations at the conference.
Az MTA Kiskonferenciáján elhangzott előadás számos érdekességet mutatott be a székházépület műemléki jelentőségéről és műemléki kezelésének múltjáról. Az MTA székház sokak szerint hazánk második legjelentősebb középülete. Budapest első neoreneszánsz épülete a historizmus jegyében valósult meg, mely irányzat a mai napig döntően meghatározza a város képét (pl. Halászbástya, budai Várpalota). A historizmus Magyarországon a klasszicizmust követően — a romantikus építészettel párhuzamosan —, az 1860-as évek elején jelentkezett: elsőként a neoreneszánsz jegyeivel, amely mellé aztán felzárkóztak a neogótikus, neoromán és neobarokk építészet művelői is.
Az előadás e mű kapcsán érintette a magyar műemléki törvények forrásait, elemezte a műemléki épület funkcióit. Az épület történeti helyként, művészeti emlékként is jelentős szereppel bír. A palota térvilága, gazdag képzőművészeti anyaga, valamint az épületet meghatározó stílusjegyek mellett a II. világháború által okozott károk helyreállításának folyamata is ismertetésre került.
In the city of Pest, outside of the City near to the just before planted City Wood on both sides of a large walking street 59 parcels were measured in 1800. In the deep and exiguous parcels were planted gardens and in their interior were later built buildings of different size. So the first summer district, the region of Villas in Pest, the Stadtwäldchen Allee originated. Only 13 buildings of the first decades (1800–1837) are documented. After the flood which destroyed the inner City of Pest in 1837, 19 buildings in the 12 years between 1838–1860 and 25 in the next 13 years between 1860–1873 were built. After the 1867 Compromise between Austria and Hungary, due to the economic prosperity already more important buildings were built and the rather modest Villas in Neoclassic style which dominated the area before 1860 were replaced by architectures of Neo-Renaissance Historicism. They have foreshadowed the permanently habited Urban Villas of the nearby new avenue (Radialstrasse, later Andrássy út), which was opened in 1870.
Two centrally symmetrical squares, Octogon and Rondeau divide into three sections the representative avenue of Budapest, Andrássy út, lined mostly with neo-renaissance buildings. The two sections closer to the city centre are built up in a closed line with the building height decreasing towards the City Park while the section ending in the park comprises detached villas. There is a short connecting section between the Rondeau and the villas, which is also closed but the buildings with front gardens are on a smaller scale. No public buildings were erected here; all is residential housing, some being palaces of single families, the rest rental housing. One of them is discussed in this paper, joined into a visual unity with its larger and more richly decorated neighbours.
The rusticated façade of the three-storied neo-renaissance residential building has eight evenly spaced out axes; what alone upsets the perfect symmetry of the apertures is the entrance in the first axis on the left. The broad cornice running along the entire façade and the identical windows by stories make the front look strongly horizontal. The plastic aediculae of the second storey suggest that it is the principal storey, but unusually the piano nobile is the mezzanine. The courtyard facades of the L-shaped building with a single courtyard wing are more massively articulated. To the court side of the street wing a single-storey high central addition and a tower-like elevator-shaft are added. On the courtyard face of the court wing a glazed balcony runs along the whole length to the cylindrical tower with a pointed steeple in the northern corner of the courtyard also attached to the courtyard wing of the rear neighbor, no. 59 Aradi utca. In the western corner there is a similar staircase tower belonging to the next rear neighbor at the end of the other courtyard wing of the Aradi street building.
The barrel-vaulted doorway is divided into sections by 5 pairs of Corinthian pilasters and the archivolts. Both the archivolts and the vault sections are coffered. Restorers have found that the coffers had decorative painting and the pilaster capitals were gilded. The staircase opens from the doorway on the right. The staircase of a square plan has wrought iron railing with an ornate candelabrum at the start. The bottom of the landing on each floor is decorated with plasterwork geometric motifs and rosettes originally gilded. The ground-plans of the mezzanine and the storey above it are identical. Next to the staircase there is a narrow anteroom with its axis perpendicularly to the main walls. It has a small extension projecting into the courtyard. Next to it, in the middle of the courtyard front, there is an oblong room also extended into the courtyard in the middle.
There are twice four rooms in the street tract. The most richly decorated space in the piano nobile and the entire building is the reception room in the courtyard tract of the mezzanine. Up to half the length of the side walls and the entire ceiling is paneled. The doors leading to the anteroom and street tract are highly embellished, lined with pilasters but the aperture heads they used to hold are missing. The courtyard projection looks like a bay window from the inside; wall investigation has exposed ornamental painting on a gilded ground on the walls. The anteroom and two outer (single-window) rooms have stucco ceilings. None of the original interior decoration of the two inner rooms (with two and three windows) survives, and little of the second-storey interior is original, too.
The plot was purchased by Theodor Herzl and his wife Sarolta Herzog in 1881. He is only a namesake of the founder of Zionism also born in Budapest. This Herzl was born in 1830, nearly 30 years before his world-famous namesake. His career was connected to one of the most successful families of merchants and haute bouregoises rising into the ranks of the aristocracy by the turn of a century, the Herzogs, who had a real palace built for themselves along Andrássy út, right across from the Herzl house. Herzl contracted Adolf Feszty (1846–1900) who had 11 buildings erected along the Avenue. All are in the closed-row sections in neo-renaissance style, none being villas or public buildings. The majority is four-storied rental buildings, and only two three-storied building were private palaces. The one in question was built in 1881–83; the original plans are lost. In this phase of construction, the entire street wing and a short courtyard section attached to the street wing were built. There is no information on the original furnishings. Since the ornaments possibly date from the subsequent reconstruction, it is presumed that there were higher middle-class apartments (one per storey) in the building of decent quality but reserved interior decoration, which is more in line with the facade of a residential rather than palatial appearance.
Herzl and his wife bought the Aradi utca plot behind no. 96, Andrássy út in two installments. In 1890 they applied for permission to unite the two plots and enlarge the building towards Aradi street. The new building section was planned by Swiss-born Lajos Ray Rezső (1845–1899), a fashionable architect of his age, the planner of the Herzog palace. A greater part of the extension fell on the Aradi utca plot; Ray actually added a separate tenement building to the Herzl palace with an atelier on the fourth floor. The character of the property was modified by this enlargement, a rental building being added to a palace. As a result, a typical Budapest complex of mixed palatial and rental housing emerged. The combination of the two building types of different functions was required by economy, by the aim to recover the building costs. In terms of architecture, there were several variants. There could be rented apartments within a palace (in a separate wing or storey – as it was here at the beginning), in a separate building of rented apartments next to the palace (behind a common façade or also separated on the front), or (like in this case) behind the palace. The point was that the two should constitute a cadastral or architectural unity. The discussed variant is unique in that the rental building was erected a decade or so later and occupied a part of the palatial plot as well. The visual unity of the two courtyards, the palace yard not being separated, is unusual. It is also peculiar that the architectural design of the courtyards is predominated by the rental building. The decoration of the reception room in the original building probably also dates from the time of reconstruction (it has only written accounts now).
Theodor Herzl had two sons schooled by the father abroad. At the turn of the century they adopted the Hungarian name Hernádi and both made a considerable career in their respective professions. The better known was Kornél, the younger one, who studied painting with Sándor Liezen-Mayer and Gyula Benczúr in Munich and Jules Lefebrve and Francois Flameng in Paris where he eventually settled. He usually returned to Hungary for exhibitions. He was a master of conservative genre-painting of peasant and soldier's scenes. His best-known work shows E. A. Poe with the raven. He has a single painting – Women cleaning fish – in the Hungarian National Gallery. The elder son, Mór, was a literary historian. He studied at several German universities and later presumably also in France. He was an expert of medieval Provencal and Catalonian literature. In the History of universal literature published in 1905 he wrote the sections on these themes. After their father's death in 1902 they inherited the Andrássy út property. Mór Hernádi died in 1907, Kornél in 1910.
In 1911 Philip, prince of Saxon-Coburg-Gotha, a well-known aristocrat at the turn of the century, became the owner of the building. He was the scion of the Hungarian line of the family whose members ruled several countries from Belgium to Bulgaria. Prince Philip moved to Budapest in 1875 and had a former apartment building on the Danube bank converted into a palace by the leading conservative architect of the age, Alajos Hauszmann. It was replaced by the headquarters of one of the largest banks in the early 20th century, and Philip the landowner, famous traveler, hunter and medal collector moved to the former Herzl-Hernádi palace. In 1912 he had minor redecorations carried out by the son of the former planner, Vilmos Rezső Ray (1876–1938).
Prince Philip died in 1921 but no new owner can be documented before 1936 when Mrs József Bún, widow of a well-known banker bought it. She ordered no change on the building but through her the Andrássy út palace assumed political significance after World War II. Mrs Bún's nephew who adopted the Hungarian name Csornoky in 1945 married the daughter of one of the best-known Hungarian politicians, Zoltán Tildy. He thus became the son-in-law of the first (and last) freely elected president of the second Hungarian Republic proclaimed in 1946. Not much later Csornoky was accused of spying on trumped-up charges, sentenced to death and executed by the Hungarian Stalinists. Tildy lived in this building already in 1945, thus in 1946 it became the temporary presidential residence. It had this function until the completion of the conversion of the former Esterházy palace in the so-called aristocratic district behind the National Museum. When the Andrássy út palace was the president's residence, it was still owned by Mrs. Bún who applied for permission to divide the unified plot again into an Aradi street and an Andrássy út property in June 1949. The authorities complied and the plot demarcation defined in 1949 and left unchanged by the nationalization is still in effect. The building is again privately owned but in bad state of repair and its prospected function is unknown.
In the 1860s a new generation of architects appeared in Hungary, or more precisely, in Pest. Unlike earlier, they were no longer trained as master builders but studied at technical universities abroad. They included Antal Szkalnitzky (1836–1878), Ferenc Schultz (1838–1873), Imre Steindl (1839–1902), Ferenc Kolbenheyer (1841–1881), Frigyes Schulek (1841–1919), Gyula Pártos (1845–1916), Ödön Lechner (1845–1914), Vilmos Freund (1846–1922), Albert Schickedanz (1846–1915) and Alajos Hauszmann (1848–1926). Some of them became the most prominent architects of the end of the century, while others fell into oblivion, owing to their untimely death. These well trained architects became the decisive actors of the great building boom and the ensuing modernization starting in the 1870s. Ferenc Kolbenheyer was born in Eperjes (today Prešov, Slovakia) on 13 February 1841 (the data in the Thieme–Becker lexicon are incorrect). His father Moritz Kolbenheyer (1810–1884) was a Lutheran minister in Eperjes from 1836 to 1846 and in Sopron from 1846 until his death. He was an eminent translator of literature. He translated some of his contemporaries including János Arany and Sándor Petőfi into German. His correspondence about this theme with Friedrich Hebbel is also important. Ferenc Kolbenheyer began his architectural studies at the Technische Hochschule Wien in 1859–61. Parallel with that, he studied philosophy at the university of Vienna in 1860–61. His studies in Vienna are documented, while his subsequent studies in Berlin and Zurich are only indirectly alluded to by contemporaries, without concrete evidence. (The personal documents of the Berlin-Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule for the years before 1868 are no longer to be found, they probably perished; in the register of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich Kolberheyer's name is not included.)After his studies abroad he probably returned home to take part in the competition for the planning of a Casino in Sopron. Though he won the contest, it was not he who was contracted for the execution, and his plans got lost. From 1869 he was active in Pest (from 1873, when Buda and Pest were unified, in Budapest). At first he worked with his brother-in-law Károly Benkó, a master builder. Three buildings executed by the Benkó & Kolbenheyer Company are known: the Exchange building on the Danube bank (1869–72, destroyed in WWII), the headquarters of the Kassa–Oderberg Railways Company also on the Danube bank (1871, extant, corner of Széchenyi quay and Széchenyi street) and the villa at 123 Andrássy út (1872, extant). At the competition called for the planning of the central post office in 1870 they received a price and a joint plan for a villa is also known dated 1871. Another joint undertaking was the cement factory of Nyergesújfalu (Sattelneudorfer Cementfabrik Karl Benkó & Comp.) During the economic recession of 1873 the partnership went bankrupt and it was liquidated. In 1874 Ferenc Kolbenheyer was engaged by the Ministry of Religion and Education, so he became “ministerial architect”. It was probably the renown of his great professional competence and his father's good personal contacts that brought him this excellent post. The cultural minister from 1872, Ágoston Trefort plunged with great zeal into the modernization of the educational system including the foundation of several new institutions. He ensured budgetary support for his plans. The architect employed by the ministry had thus enormous possibilities and enormous tasks. During his six years as the employee of the ministry, Kolbenheyer planned a secondary school, two high schools and three clinical buildings for the medical university. It was also his assignment to design a glass-painting workshop, while his church engaged him to build a Protestant orphanage. The building of the Markó street secondary school (1874–76) is a close but more modest kin of the technical university of Zurich (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule) planned by Gottfried Semper. Historicism liked to apply a central projecting part that rises higher than the lateral wings to interrupt the monotony of long stretching buildings. Semper elevated the central pavilion of the three-storied university by planning there the ceremonial hall of a greater ceiling height. Adopting Semper's solution, Kolbenheyer also designed a higher ceremonial room, thus adding a vertical accent to the central projecting part. The building of the college of rabbinical studies (1875–77) diverted from Kolbenheyer's preferred neo-renaissance style predominating the constructions in Budapest in the period. Its style is a blend of Mauresque and Romanesque elements, which characterize the synagogues built in Central Europe in the previous years. If we subscribe to the prevalent view that Kolbenheyer's activity was tied to the neo-renaissance as filtered through Berlin, this building might also be compared with one in Berlin, Knoblauch's synagogue in Oranienburg-strasse (1859–66), although it displays undeniable connections with the Dohány street synagogue in Budapest (Ludwig Förster, 1854–58). He had a partner for planning the rabbinical institute: Vilmos Freund did the interiors because the clients thought a Jew might have a better insight into the ritual requirements. Kolbenheyer also planned the building of the School of Design (University of Fine Arts, 1875–76) with a partner. The teaching staff of the already working institution put down their claim that the architect-professor of the school, Lajos Rauscher from Stuttgart, should plan the building. Rauscher's role was probably more extensive than just formulating the plans in fine drawings, but Kolbenheyer was the technical designer of the architecture. The sgraffito adorning the Andrássy út façade of the building is Rauscher's work, as Rauscher was chiefly credited with sgraffito design, several specimens being executed in Budapest (today in Kodály körönd [rondeau]). The school with several studios had to be fitted into the line of palatial buildings being built at that time. The required light was ensured by the enlargement and density of the windows. Rauscher's sgraffiti adorn the spaces between the main façade windows. The greatest assignment as an architect was given to Kolbenheyer to build the clinical block in Üllői út. (Regrettably it was only partially realized.) The Ministry of Religion and Education purchased a site of 6000 square fathoms for the institution belonging under its authority at that time. An up-to-date institution of Hungarian medical training had to be developed on it. Under that-time principles the special clinics were to be housed in separate buildings, but Kolbenheyer's complex did not coincide perfectly with the model, Hôpital Lariboisière in Paris because on the Üllői út front the clinics of surgery and internal medicine flanking the central unit with several smaller clinics in it at the time appeared as a single though loosely connected building for the sake of the monumental impression. The composition received a special flavor from the semi-cylindrical amphitheatre-like auditoria at the corners with large windows. (During WWII and the 1956 fighting they were destroyed and never reconstructed.) The anatomical institute inside the compound has preserved its original shape with the half cylinder of the auditorium, but the third storey was extended. The surgery clinic had enormous wards illumined from two sides (1 per floor). The clinic of internal medicine has a different layout with smaller wards, though the requirement of symmetry curbed invention. Before starting the planning, the architect and the professors of the clinics went on a several weeks’ tour of the most up-to-date recently built clinics in West Europe. Among the buildings of the clinical precincts, Kolbenheyer planned the surgery clinic (1874–77), the first internal clinic (1878–80), the anatomical institute (1876–78) and the servicing institutions (1877–78). He could only work out the basic plans of the central building and the second internal clinic, which had to be completed by his successor Antal Weber. Upon the ministry's commission he designed an institute of glass-painting for glass painter Ede Kratzmann. Beside the necessary workshops and furnaces the building included an exhibition room. Probably for the high ranking clientele of the latter, the institute was planned in an elegant villa format. The Protestant orphanage ordered by the church had a plain and ordinary appearance. Kolbenheyer also entered for three competitions to plan public hospitals. His three plans all received prizes (a first, a second and a shared prize, but the plans are not known). Kolbenheyer's career spanned a mere decade. His realized buildings show him as a competent architect whose original language had not (yet?) evolved but who used the current formal solutions with a sure hand. He worked at an incredible pace; during the seven years between 1874 and 1880 he planned six large and three smaller public buildings, began planning another three and successfully entered for competitions. He was well on the way to earn a name as a specialist in hospital design. He died of a heart attack during an official trip to Buziás (Buziaş, Romania) on 11 January 1881, before his 40th birthday, leaving two little orphans behind. The elder child, then hardly two years old – Ervin Guido Kolbenheyer (1878–1962) – became a noted German writer. His historical plays were received well in his age, but his biologist world view brought him close to racism and after World War II he was sentenced to silence as the supporter of the Nazi ideology in West Germany.