DIE ZEIT: Mr. Hofmann, you are largely responsible for the construction of the new State Opera House in Hamburg's HafenCity on behalf of the Kühne Foundation. Mr. Dräger, as managing partner of the foundation, you led the negotiations with the city. The architectural competition is now underway, and of course we are wondering: What will the new opera house look like?
Jörg Dräger: We'll know more in mid-November. That's when the five invited architects will present their designs and the jury will make a decision.
ZEIT: Are you saying that you don't even know what the submitted designs look like?
Stefan Hofmann: I am familiar with the designs—not only because I am organizing the competition, but also because I am one of the experts who will be reviewing the designs before the jury meeting to ensure that all the requirements of the very detailed specifications have been met.
ZEIT: What do you see when you look at these designs?
Hofmann: We have five completely different proposals – in terms of their architectural style, their integration into the landscape, and their openness to HafenCity.
Dräger: What we are striving for is an outstanding opera house. A building that not only blends into the urban space in terms of design, but also makes its location—a peninsula in the Elbe—accessible and tangible for citizens. The architecture must look good from all sides, because the property has no rear side. And the building should not compete architecturally with the Elbphilharmonie and the Elbtower, but rather be more understated. And, of course, the interior of the building must meet the requirements of a modern opera house – with enough space for side stages, rehearsal stages, an orchestra pit, and outstanding acoustics. The new building must be 100 years ahead of the old one in every respect.
Hofmann: Incidentally, we are not only building a building, but also a park – the extension of Lohsepark. And all five offices interpreted this in completely different ways. Some separated the park and the building, while others intertwined, superimposed, or juxtaposed the two.
ZEIT: One of the main problems with the existing opera house, it is said, is the lack of space behind the stage – a problem that cannot be solved by enlarging the building because all the adjacent plots are already built up. Is a new building on an island, which is also limited in size, the best solution?
Dräger: At the beginning of our deliberations, we projected the Sydney Opera House onto the Baakenhöft, and it would easily fit there. That gave us the courage to continue thinking about the project at all.
ZEIT: Senator for Culture Carsten Brosda emphasized that the aim was to reinvent the opera to a certain extent on the Baakenhöft. Can that be achieved?
Dräger: We held around ten workshops with the State Opera team to better understand the requirements for an opera of the future. But simply replicating and optimizing what already exists is a challenge in itself. We need a stage for opera and ballet, with longer run-up distances for dancers than before, a larger orchestra pit, and more space for the choir. The State Opera wants to continue performing its existing repertoire – with stage sets that were designed for the previous stage, have specific dimensions, and require specific sightlines. At the same time, we need flexibility for the unexpected.
Hofmann: But it was very clear from the outset that we would not be building a laboratory for the opera of the future, but rather wanted to continue the history of the house as a repertoire opera. The basic spatial structure – auditorium, stage, orchestra pit – is not up for discussion.
ZEIT: You don't want to make a decision on whether or not to build the opera house until 2027 or 2028, after all the planning has been completed and the total costs have been determined. Is it even possible to say no at that point?
Dräger: Possible, yes, but not desirable. We wouldn't be investing so much energy and money now if we didn't all believe it could be done. But one key factor, among many others, is commercial sense. Ultimately, we have to consider: What will the building look like, what should it be capable of, and what will it cost? If these three points are in good balance, we will say yes, but only then.
ZEIT: Let's take a few steps back. Why does Klaus-Michael Kühne want to give the city of Hamburg this new opera house in the first place?
Dräger: One of the goals of the Kühne Foundation is to enable excellence in classical music. That's why we support famous festivals such as Lucerne and Salzburg and institutions such as the Zurich Opera and the Elbphilharmonie. Another concern of the founder is to support the Hamburg Opera on its path to excellence. In discussions with those involved, the question arose: Is this even possible in the current building, in its current shell? And the answer was: only to a very limited extent. We want to help create the necessary conditions. And after the city of Hamburg brought the property in HafenCity into the discussion, we also recognized an opportunity for the project there. Hamburg is our founder's hometown, so there is a lot of emotion involved for him.
ZEIT: Klaus-Michael Kühne only wants to build a monument to himself with this project, according to one of the reservations repeatedly voiced by the people of Hamburg.
Dräger: That is not the reason behind this donation. That is also why we deliberately waived naming rights to the opera house—it will continue to be called the Hamburg State Opera in the future.
ZEIT: You have been negotiating for more than three years, and concrete planning has been underway for six months now. What is your impression: Do the people of Hamburg even want this new opera house as a gift?
Dräger: Yes – but of course we are still in the early stages. When the opera house in Oslo was built, only a third of the population was in favor of it at first, but today it is an overwhelming majority. At the moment, the new State Opera only exists in a complex contract structure of several hundred pages – and how am I supposed to get anyone excited about such a contract?
Hofmann: I also believe that when we can show the first pictures of the winning design in mid-November, the project will get a huge boost.
ZEIT: The reluctance of the people of Hamburg is not entirely incomprehensible. The public learned about the idea of building an opera house from an interview in Der Spiegel. The subsequent negotiations took place behind closed doors for three years. Looking back, would you say it was a mistake not to involve the people of Hamburg earlier on?
Dräger: This isn't the first time I've heard this question. But you can only present mature ideas to the public and to parliament – which is why, looking back, I see no alternative to first thinking things through thoroughly and negotiating. And if that takes longer, then so be it. The task was anything but easy—the city made it very clear that, in light of the construction of the Elbphilharmonie, it did not want to take on the commercial risk of such a large-scale project.
Hofmann: Once the jury has selected the winning design, we will involve the public here too. We will then draw up the plans in consultation with the authorities. At the same time, we will draw up the development plan – and then every citizen will be able to go to the office, look at everything and make comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvement. "The opera house will not be imposed on anyone."
ZEIT: Most of the reservations concern the project itself rather than the procedure. To put it bluntly, many Hamburg residents do not want a billionaire who does not live in Hamburg and pays his taxes in Switzerland to build a building in front of their noses that they do not believe they need.
Dräger: If I may start with the last point, there is an important question here. Could the opera house be saved at its current location and made fit for the future? According to a new expert opinion, renovation would cost the city over a billion euros... that is a lot of money.
Hofmann: But even if this sum were invested, no spatial expansion would be possible.
Dräger: And, to be perfectly clear: the project is a joint venture – it's not as if a foundation or a donor alone can decide what will and will not be built. We have to come to a mutually agreeable solution. The opera house is not being imposed on anyone, but is something created jointly – on the initiative of a native of Hamburg who, five decades ago, decided to build his company in a place where internationalization worked better than in Hamburg at the time. His success proves him right.
ZEIT: There is another reservation associated with this company, the freight forwarder Kühne+Nagel: many people in Hamburg believe that the city should not accept money from an entrepreneur whose company worked closely with the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s and who does not want to come to terms with this chapter of history today. What is your opinion on this?
Dräger: Mr. Kühne was seven years old when the war ended. At that time, the company he later took over was largely destroyed; it was probably worth even less than before the war. The fact that the Kühne Foundation is now able to engage in patronage activities on this scale is solely thanks to Klaus-Michael Kühne.
ZEIT: Nevertheless, the demand for a scientific reappraisal of the company's history is understandable. Or is it not?
Dräger: As Mr. Kühne has repeatedly emphasized, the company archives were destroyed during World War II. Regardless of this, Kühne+Nagel acknowledged the shameful acts committed during World War II in its 2015 company chronicle and in a corresponding press release.
ZEIT: Let's return to the new opera house. In the contract you signed with the city of Hamburg, you agree to bear all future cost increases that are not yet foreseeable today. You would hardly have agreed to this without something in return from the city, would you?
Dräger: The consideration consists, first of all, of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg covering the costs incurred due to the special nature of the location – for flood protection, the raised floor, infrastructure development, and outdoor facilities. In addition, when we make the implementation decision in two years, there will be a "freeze" on requirements. Any change requests made by the city after that – another elevator here, another toilet there, another row of seats here – will then be paid for by the city. In other projects, it is precisely these additional costs that really drive up the price.
ZEIT: Of course, there remains a residual risk for the city of experiencing a second Elbphilharmonie fiasco.
Dräger: No. What's more, we are not repeating the mistakes of the past by starting construction before we have really finished planning. And we also have a very entrepreneurial-minded donor who has the ambition to realize such a project as a private builder within the agreed framework.
ZEIT: Will the other Hamburg institutions supported by your foundation, such as the Elbphilharmonie, the UKE, or Kühne Logistics University, have to prepare for cutbacks in view of the opera investment?
Dräger: No. The funds for the opera house will be provided in addition to the foundation's normal work.
ZEIT: Back to the Elbphilharmonie – in order to reverse the project's miserable image before it opened, the city invested ten million euros in an image campaign. Will you do the same?
Dräger: Serious project management means taking one step at a time. First of all, we need a good architect; we'll have more than enough time for everything else afterwards. Nevertheless, we as a foundation have decided to provide additional support for opera operations in the current building and to sponsor the production of Il barbiere di Siviglia this season. Our goal is to gradually make Hamburg an exciting place for opera again.
ZEIT: The jury also includes the new artistic director Tobias Kratzer as the sole representative of the State Opera. Isn't it unusual to let him have a say in the decision?
Hofmann: I was very cautious at first when I heard that we were to involve the new artistic director in our processes, because we had no idea whether he would even agree with our ideas. That's why I went into the workshops feeling somewhat nervous. So I was all the more impressed when Tobias Kratzer jumped right in and became a driving force.
Dräger: He found a clever way to get involved with the new building without making himself dependent on it – and without badmouthing the existing building. His message is: We can also show what is possible at Dammtorstraße, but it will be even better in the new building.
Hofmann: And who knows if he will still be artistic director when the new opera house opens. But this question doesn't seem to bother him at all – you can sense how fascinated he is by the idea and the opportunity to actively shape this project.
ZEIT: One last question about the site – climate researchers predict that sea levels will rise significantly in the coming decades, which will also have an impact on Hamburg. Is an island in the Elbe really the best possible location for a new opera house?
Hofmann: Like all buildings in HafenCity, the opera house will also have a raised ground floor to ensure adequate protection from the water. On the windward side, where the water surges particularly high during storm surges, the flood protection is calculated to be one meter higher. That will keep us safe for the next 50 to 100 years. Nevertheless, we strongly recommended that the participants place the stage on top of the raised ground floor to ensure that, in the worst case scenario—don't trust any waterproofing!—the stage does not flood.
Dräger: The location is challenging, that's for sure. But I still hope that humanity will come to its senses and find solutions – both in the fight against climate change and in adapting to the inevitable.