|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 REBUILDING A NEW EUROPEAN CAPITAL: AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF BERLINS PLANWERK INNENSTADT ON INNER CITY DEVELOPMENT By ALEXANDRA CRISTINA MONTEALEGRE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008
2 2008 Alexandra Cristina Montealegre
3 To Mimi and the Palast.
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are numerous people I ow e a debt of gratitude, as this project has been in the works for over four years. I would like to give a sp ecial thanks to Dr. David Griffiths, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who advised me to pick up Ghosts of Berlin thus beginning this journey. Dr. Karin Crawford, former ly at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, initially exposed me to German criti cal theory and aesthetic s, arming me with the theoretical toolbox necessary for th is research. Thanks go to the planning officials and others who agreed to be interviewed for this paper. I also extend my gratitude to Regina Poly, Hans Brenner, and Ulrich Giersch for granting their pe rmission to include their maps and drawings in my report. The financial assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the University of Floridas Center for European Studies, and the College of Design, Construction, and Planning enabled me to travel to gather research in Berlin. I also wish to thank my thesis committee chair, Dr. Chris Silver, and cochair, Dr. Richard Schneider, for their patience in reviewing my drafts. None of this would have been possible without the help, incessant encouragement, and tireless support of Ian Goldfarb, who has walked through KarlMarx-Allee with me in freez ing rain in order to get a feeling for the place.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................... 10 CHRONOLOGY............................................................................................................................12 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................14 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................16 2 AN OVERVIEW OF URBAN PLANNING IN BERLIN..................................................... 24 Berlin before November 9, 1989............................................................................................24 The Political and Economic Context of Urban Development after 1989............................... 27 Political Life....................................................................................................................27 German federal system............................................................................................. 27 Local government within the federal system........................................................... 29 Berlins Bezirke and urban developm ent................................................................. 30 Centralized City Planning................................................................................................ 31 Post-Socialist Planning....................................................................................................35 Administrative restructuring.................................................................................... 35 Privatizing the economy the Treuhandanstalt ......................................................37 Restitution................................................................................................................ 38 Economic and Fiscal Crisis............................................................................................. 40 Economic restructuring since unification................................................................. 41 Fiscal crisis............................................................................................................... 41 Additional Actors and Their Roles......................................................................................... 43 Real Estate Development................................................................................................ 43 Public policy and demand........................................................................................ 44 Developers and the state........................................................................................... 44 Experts, Architects, and the Built Environment.............................................................. 45 The architects debate............................................................................................... 45 Competitions............................................................................................................47 Urban Planning, Memory, and Cultural Inclusion.................................................................. 48 Cultural Identity.............................................................................................................. .48 Politics of Space..............................................................................................................49 Historic preservation................................................................................................ 49 Cultural inclusion in the planning process............................................................... 52
6 Memory...........................................................................................................................56 Summary.................................................................................................................................57 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................ 63 Characteristics.........................................................................................................................63 Methodology...........................................................................................................................65 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........67 Summary.................................................................................................................................67 4 FINDINGS: THE POWER OF THE CENTER AND THE PLANWERK INNENSTADT .......................................................................................................................69 An Introduction to the Planwerk Innenstadt........................................................................... 70 Housing: Space for New Ideas............................................................................................... 73 The Mietskaserne .............................................................................................................74 Postwar High-Rise Development....................................................................................75 Housing in the Planwerk Innenstadt................................................................................79 Community Development: The Social City........................................................................ 83 Education.........................................................................................................................84 Preventative Healthcare...................................................................................................86 Public Safety....................................................................................................................87 Transportation Networks: The Mobile City........................................................................88 Sustainability: The Green City............................................................................................92 Local Agenda 21..............................................................................................................93 Climate Change and Energy Production......................................................................... 94 Sustainable Mobility........................................................................................................ 97 Summary.................................................................................................................................98 5 CONCLUSION: A EUROPEAN METROPOLIS............................................................... 109 Measuring Up to the Definiti on of a European Capital ........................................................ 109 The Unified City: From Modern to Post-Modern.................................................................111 The Influence of the Past......................................................................................................112 Beyond Berlin: Opportunities for Further Research ............................................................. 113 APPENDIX HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN.................................................. 115 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................123
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1. Inventory of housing typologies. [Gathered with data from the Berlin Senate Departm ent for Urban Development. 2008.].....................................................................99 4-2. Effectiveness of the Planwerk Innenstadts ten objectives. .................................................. 100
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. Berlin in Europe. [Courtesy of Google Earth. 2008].............................................................21 1-2. Map of Mitte within the Berlin metropo litan area. [Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 2008]..................................................................................................................................22 1-3. An aerial view of Berlins Mitte district. [Courtesy of Google Earth. 2008]. ........................ 23 2-1. The Berlin Walls place in Berlin. [R eprinted with perm ission from Palgrave Macmillan. 2008]............................................................................................................... 58 2-2. High rises near the Wall. Bottom photograp h is of a GDR m odel currently housed at the Senate for Urban Development. [Photographs taken by author. 2007.]...................... 59 2-3. Marx-Engels Forum, East Berlins Centra l Governm ent District. Top: Position within the city; Middle: GDR model looking west ward from Alexanderplatz; Bottom: Marx-Engels Forum in 2007. [Photographs taken by author. 2007.]................................60 2-4. Drawings of future plan for Alexanderpla tz. [Reprinted with perm ission from Regina Poly. 2008.]........................................................................................................................61 2-5. The evolution of Berlin District Mitte (Overlay of m aps from1658-1700, 1915, and 2000). [Reprinted with permission from th e Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008]........................................................................................................... 62 3-1. Figure-ground maps: Berlin in the 20th century. Top: Berlin, circa 1943; Bottom: Berlin, circa 1984. [Reprinted with perm ission from Palgrave Macmillan. 2008]............ 68 4-1. The Planwerk Innenstadt Berlin, 2002 upda te. [Reprinted with perm ission from the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008.]............................................ 101 4-2. 3-D models of the Planwerk Innenstadt Berlin. The wooden structures represent post1989 construction [Photographs taken by author. 2007.]. ............................................... 102 4-3. Examples of rehabilitated Plattenbauten. [Photographs taken by author.]. ........................ 103 4-4. Examples of contemporary high-densi ty urban developm ent [Photographs taken by author.].............................................................................................................................104 4-6. Transportation corridors in central Mitte..............................................................................105 4-7. Public transportation connectivity in Mitte.......................................................................... 106 4-8. Railway stations. Top: Ostbahnhof; Mi ddle: Hauptbahnhof; Bottom: Unter den Linden. [Photographs taken by author]. ........................................................................................107
9 4-9. An example of a green artery running th rough Mitte. [Reprinted w ith permission from the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008.]....................................... 108 5-1. Projected view of Mitte by 2010. [Reprint ed with perm ission from Palgrave Macmillan. 2008]................................................................................................................................114
10 LIST OF ABBREVIATI ONS AND DEFINITIONS East Germ any: Common name for the German Democratic Republic (GDR), established in 1949 in the Soviet zone of Allied occupation. After reunification, this area is referred to as eastern Germany. West Germany: Common name for the Federa l Republic of Gemany (FRG), established in 1949 in the French, British, and American zones of Allied occupation. Between 1949-1991, West Germanys cap ital is located in Bonn. East Berlin: The Eastern part of the German capital city of Berlin. East Berlin fell within the Soviet section of the Berlin after World War II. In united Germany, this area is refe rred to as eastern Berlin. West Berlin: The Western part of the German capital city of Berlin; the West Berlin was the aggregate of the American, Br itish, and French sections of the city. After reunification, this area is referred to as western Berlin. Mitte: Translates as Middle. Berlins hi storic city center dating to the early 13th century. It fell on the western edge of East Berlin during the Cold War, surrounded by the Wall on two and a half sides. SPD: The German initials of the Social Democratic Party, which headed the Weimar Republic. After World War II, th e Party was reformed in the West and remains one of Germanys major parties. NSDAP: The German initials of the Na tional Socialist German Workers Party; commonly known as the National Social ist or Nazi Party. NSDAP ruled Germany from 1933-1945 under the lead ership of Adolf Hitler. SED: The German initials of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. Formed in 1946, the Party ruled East Germany for 40 years. For PDS: The initials of the Party of Demo cratic Socialism, the successor of the SED in post-unification German politics. Plattenbau : High-rise buildings made of prefab ricated concrete slabs. Plural is Plattenbauten. Bezirk : The German word for district. The plural is Bezirke Communism: The popular term for the politic al and economic system employed by the Soviet Union and its satellite states between 1917-1989. Ostalgie: A combination of the German word for east, Ost and nostalgia. Translates to nostalgia for the East, i.e. the GDR.
11 S-Bahn Abbrevation for Stadtschnellbahn (translation: fast city train). Berlins circular light-rail system serving me tropolitan and regional populations; opened in 1924. U-Bahn Abbreviation for Untergrundbahn (translation: underground train). Berlins underground subway system opened in 1902. Currency Note: All currencies are expressed in U. S. dollars at the curr ent exchange rate as of November 2007. Eastern marks have not been converted because there is no existing equivalent valu e for this defunct currency.
12 CHRONOLOGY 1237 First documents mentioning Clln. 1244 Earliest documents mentioning Berlin. 1307 Berlin and Clln consolidate, forming a joint government under Berlin. 1442 The first Hohenzollern palace is built for Elector Friedrich I of Brandenburg. 1538-40 A new expanded Palace is built for Elector Johann. 1647 Friedrich Wilhelm (Friedrich the Great) establishes Unter den Linden, linking the Palace to the Tiergarten. 1871 Consolidation of the German Empi re under Kaiser Wilhelm I; Berlin becomes the Imperial capital. 1918 World War I ends. German Commun ist Party founded; Weimar Republic founded. 1933 NSDAP comes to power, led by Adolf Hitler. 1936 Olympic Games held in Berlin; Hitler has a stadium built especially for the Games. 1938 Hitlers state architect, Albert Speer, develops a transformative master plan for Berlin, entitled Germania, inspired by Classic architecture. 1939 Germany attacks Poland, igniting World War II. 1940-45 British and American bombing campa igns destroy most of the city. 1945 End of World War II. 1948 Westmark introduced into the three Western sectors of Berlin; Berlin airlift. 1949 Western region becomes the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and West Berlin, respecti vely; they establish Bonn as their capital. Eastern region becomes German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and East Berlin. Blockade and airlift ends. East Germany declares Berlin its capital. 1950 Ruins of the former Hohenzollern Palace in East Berlin are demolished. 1953 GDR workers revolt while buildi ng housing units on Stalinallee, demanding political and economic reforms.
13 1955 Hallstein Doctrine introduced by West Germany. 1958 Khrushchev and the Free City; Western powers reject idea. 1961 East Germany begins building the Berlin Wall. 1971 The Palace of the Republic, the East German parliament building, is built on the land formerly occupied by the Hohenzollern Palace. 1974 Willy Brandt ends Hallstein Doctrine. 1989 Fall of the Berlin Wall. 1990 First East German democrat ic election; reunification. 1991 The Bundestag moves Germanys capital from Bonn to Berlin. 1996 Beginning of Critical Reconstruction period; first drafts of the Planwerk Innenstadt presented to the public. 1999 The Planwerk Innenstadt is passed by the Senate and City Parliament. 2007 Demolition work on the Palace of the Republic begins.
14 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning REBUILDING A NEW EUROPEAN CAPITAL: AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF BERLINS PLANWERK INNENSTADT ON INNER CITY DEVELOPMENT By Alexandra Cristina Montealegre May 2008 Chair: Christopher Silver Cochair: Richard Schneider Major: Urban and Regional Planning Since the end of World War II, Berlins ur ban development has been characterized by exceptional political circumstances resulting fr om the citys Four-P ower status and its subsequent division, the construc tion of the Wall, and reunification. Almost two decades after the fall of the Wall, city offici als, planners, and residents remain charged with the task of positioning Berlin in relation to other major European metropolises. This paper examines the effectiveness of Berlins Planwerk Innenstadt in reshaping the c ity in order to create a modern, dynamic iconic European capital. This is done by analyzing four elements of the plan: housing, community development, transportation, and sustainability. The case study of Mitte in Berlin, Germany, provides a context to examine post-co nflict urban development in divided cities by looking at the discrepancies between the city plans and their execution resulting from existing tensions. Located in the center of Berli n, the historic Mitte district has been indelibly shaped by past planning effortsincluding Frederick the Greats cosmopolitan capital, modernist planning during the Bauhaus era, Adolf Hitlers plans for a massive neo-Classical capital city, and forty years of division. The paradigm of critical reconstruction prov ides a theoretical tool for
15 analyzing how to deal with the multiple layers of history present in the inner-city area. A methodology was formulated to rate the current pl ans success in creating a cohesive European capital city based on how well it co nforms to basic patterns present in other historic cities, such as London, Paris, Rome, and Prague. The Planwerk Innenstadt rated exceptionall y well in transportati on and sustainability measures, areas where Berlin is seen as an in ternational leader. Vari ous programs to improve energy production and consumption, as well vehicu lar traffic reduction, have all contributed to the amelioration of living standards in the inner city. Some of Berlins sustainability initiatives are in fact used as models in other Central a nd Eastern European countries. Unfortunately, due to Berlins lackluster economy, housi ng presents a peculiar situati on, where there is significantly more supply than demand. This housing surplus is correlated to the preser vation of historical housing typologies; in fact, historic buildings are more likely to be at full capacity. Overall, these findings demonstrate that the Planwe rk Innenstadt has been an effec tive tool in uniting the city in its future-oriented endeavors. While the Planwerk Innenstadts principles have thus far been useful and successful in creating a cohesive plan for a modern European capital, its success and strength are heavily dependent on civic participation, communicativ e planning, and most importantly, access to sufficient funding. By making community partic ipation a requirement throughout the planning process, the Planwerk is allowing for intra-dist rict diversitya major characteristic of other historic areas. Although Berlins plans have been infamously overwritten and forgotten, the Planwerk has innumerable future potential: in a little over a decade, it has already become a prototype for the modern, future-oriented European city.
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Berlins centre is condemned to always becoming and never to be (Scheffler, 1989, p. 219) A citys built environment and urban fabric matters. As Brian Ladd (1997) eloquently explains, Buildings matter. So do statutes, ruin s, and even stretches of vacant land. Buildings provide shelter for human activities, but it is the activities, not the shelter, that make structures and spa ces important to human beings trying to define their place on this earth. Buildi ngs and monuments are also the visible remnants of the past: they often outlast the human beings who created them. How these structures are seen, treated, an d remembered sheds light on a collective identity that is more felt than articulated. (p. 2) What kind of development properly acknowledges a nd respects tradition? Whose tradition is it acknowledging and respecting? This paper argues that the urban planning m easures to recreate Berlin as a modern European capital have resulted in a myriad of conflicting issues. Consequently, these issues have put the city plan at risk of obsolescence. How can, for example, the city government encourage developers investments when many of thei r buildings remain unoccupied? Many of the historical buildings and urba n patterns preserved by the GDR are being surveyed for revitalization by the city government, in an at tempt to capture Berlins European character by looking to the past. Furthermore, the comprehensiv e plan proposes the pr ivatization of publiclyheld land for housing, as planners believe that this will encourage people to move back into the city center. Eastern residents have met this plan with signifi cant opposition. By using Berlin and several elements of the Planwerk Innenstadt as case studies of a fragmented urban space struggling with a new comprehensive plan, After Unification in 1989, Ber lins planners set out to repair the urban fabrics fragmentation by issuing strict guid elines for the historical city center (Mitte) intended to restore
17 the density and diversity that World War II and the Cold War de stroyed. Their efforts coincided with the Eastern Berliner Ostalgie (nostalgia for the East) movement. This embracing of GDR planning and architecture by East Germans (and some West Germans too) may be seen as indicative of greater problems th at have arisen from integratio n and Western planning schemes. There is a sense of alienation for Easterners, however, resulting from reunification. The designs of iconic structures like the Palast der Republik and the Plattenbauten fostered a sense of community and togetherness post-1989; this feeling was spurred because of the lack of economic growth and opportunities in the East. The Berlin Wall left many scars, transcending politics, economics, and culture. As Joseph Rykwert (2000) explains, The c ity was so shaken, its institutions so transformed, that it was unable to reshape itself for some time, while a mistrust of planning, perhaps all too understandable given the megalomania of the past, has meant that its government was not able to promulgate, much less embody, a plan for reconfigur ing all Berlin (p. 240). Until very recently, Rykwerts assessment of urban planning in Berlin was indeed accurate. In the past decade, city officials have made monumental progress in creating a unified city plan, the Planwerk Innenstadt, based on the principl es of smart growth and comm unicative planning. Furthermore, traditional elements of the European capital city are being summoned as guides pointing to what Berlin once was, as well as what it should be in the future. Figure 1 illustrates Berlins central position not only in Germany, but also within greater Europe (See Figure 1). The Planwerk Innenstadt, produced by the Be rlin Ministry of Urban Development and Environmental Protection, proposes to use design to suture together both parts of the previously divided city through the invocation of a histor y common to both west and east (Neill, 2000, p. 12). Specifically, the Planwerk references city plans from 1916 as their base templates. This has
18 created significant opposition, particularly in east Berlin, as this calls for a redesign of existing streets, city blocks, and build ings. The Ministry of Urban Development and Environmental Protection, however, regards the plan as an oppor tunity for the German capital in urban design terms, [to] return to the archit ectural principles and urban ground plan of Berlin as a European city in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Neill, 2000, p. 12). Subsequently, this is the underlying philosophy associated with Critical Reconstruction. Though people may be exaggerating when referring to the new Plan as a declaration of war, this statement offers valid and relevant insight into how the ci ty administrators and planners have provoked internal conflicts between East and West Berliners. While developers and those interested in economic development in the historic center prom ote initiatives like the privatizing of public lands a nd introducing other commercial initiatives, they are often overlooking the infrastructure a nd architecture already in place and often well-suited for the jobin those areas. Furthermore, the professiona l prejudice and conflicts between West and East Berlin planners further a ggravates the situation. In order to go beyond Berlin as the city at the edge of the Iron Curtain, planners must, ironically, be willing to accept the fact that division still exists, and it is not wrong to acknowledge or even celebrate this separation, al l the while looking to the future. City image becomes an important facet to keep in mind, as it has the potential to stimulate the economy by bringing in tourists. By preservi ng various physical elements of Berlins extensive history, the city stops being the nucleus of the Cold War, and can instead become a multi-dimensional urban area. As Bernard Schneider ( 2001) explains, Berlin has a second chance. World-renown architects have discovered this and built projects in major plazas; it is time that residents and planners realize the same, and look to the future while still remembering the past.
19 Western planners presume that they can de molish important structures and engage in Critical Reconstruction in order to restore the lost character of Berlins urban environment.1 But who gets to decide what this character is? Fo r many East Berliners, no matter how economically or aesthetically prudent these rev italization initiatives are, they also convey a belief the GDRs history is erasable. Thus, Germany now finds its elf at a crossroads; it ca n destroy this history, or find something else to do with it. Some criti cs, like architect Daniel Libeskind and Dolores Hayden, believe that these forms are the texture of living memory. As Gyrgy Konrd (2000) writes, socially speaking, the historical city seemed to be much more dynamic than the new, outlying distri cts even though the latte r were the product of conscious, meticulous planning (p 39). Mitte was chosen as this projects study area because of its dynamic and historically layered location within the city (See Figure 1-2, Figure 1-3). Following the opening of the Berlin Wall, one of the most interesting shifts in thinking was the rediscovery of the huge creative po tential of the historical cit y, what for forty years was a veritable no mans land (Konrd, 2000, p. 39). This paper examines the multiple claims competing for the city center, Mitte. Chapter 2 reviews the literature on the context of Berlins political and economic urban development after 1989. To better understand all of the forces at work in building the new city, this chapter gives an overview of the German federal system, various models of city planning employed between 1945-1996, and real estate development. Finally, th e chapter closes with a discussion on the relationships between urban plannin g, memory, and cultural inclusion. 1 Western planners are defined as urban or city planners that received their pl anning education and training in any country in the Western bloc during the Cold War (i.e. West Germany, Great Britain, the United States, etc.).
20 Chapter 3 provides information on the materi als and methodology used in this project. The reasoning for focus area is discussed, as ar e the paradigms and criteria employed to guide this study. Furthermore, research limitations are enumerated. There has been considerable difficulty pursuing a project whos e real-life situation is contin uously in flux. However, the criteria and focus areas offer somewhat stable glimpses in post-conflict planning in Berlin. In chapter 4, I present my findings and an alyses of four elements of the Planwerk Innenstadt: housing, community development, tr ansportation, and sustainability. The paper concludes in Chapter 5, with a brief discussion on the ephemeral quality of city planning in Berlin, as well as the present disconnect between planning and pr ocess in Berlin.
21 Figure 1-1. Berlin in Europe [Courtesy of Google Earth. 2008].
22 Figure 1-2. Map of Mitte within the Berl in metropolitan area. [Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 2008].
23 Figure 1-3. An aerial view of Berlins Mitte district. [Courtesy of Google Earth. 2008].
24 CHAPTER 2 AN OVERVIEW OF URBAN PLANNING IN BERLIN That we use transparent building materials does not necessarily mean that we have a transparent open democracy. That depends on the people. Barbara Jakubeit, Berlin Building Director, 1995 (as quoted in Neill, 2000, p. 4) To understand how East and West Berlin cam e to be and remain different from one another, one must understand the roots and fall of the GDR. Furthermore, it is any discussion on urban plannings role throughout the course of Berlins development re quires background on the relevant issues and stakeholders Berlin before November 9, 1989 The earliest docum ents mentioning Berlin date b ack to the early thirteenth century, and in fact, refer to two smaller towns. Clln and Berlin were two adjacent towns, granted charters in the late twelfth century by the Holy Roman Emperor. Divided by the River Spree, Clln was the island on the river, while Berlin inhabited the mainland to the East. The two towns remained allied throughout the thir teenth century, and eventu ally Berlin, the name of the larger town, came to represent both. As the Prussia and House of Hohenzollern grew more powerful, Berlin expanded in its role as capital. When the Hohenzollern s built their castle on the citys western edge, it was done as a symbol of their interest in strategically expanding th e city, both physically and politically. Scholars have argue d that it was precisely this western interest that influenced Berlins development from then on (Zappe, 2002). For example, the succeeding line of Hohenzollern rulers mandated that their citizens settle west of the castle. This development pattern led to neglect of the olde st medieval parts of the city, as expansion was focused towards the west in a symbolic political maneuver. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Berlin underwent one of its most important expansions, represented by the Friedr ichstadt plan. This plan first introduced the strict pattern of
25 blocks and streets still present in Mitte. As Prussia accumulated power during the nineteenth century, the citys form took on grander and more militaristic qualities. Berlin became Germanys capital in 1871 as a result of the Second German Empires consolidation under Prussian rule. As Zaffe (2002) explains, during this period the emperors remained where the kings and the Elector already resided, but the re presentatives of the people moved westwards to the outskirts in front of the c ity gate, the Brandenburg Gate ( p. 171). Consequently, the German Empires Parliament building, the Reichstag, was built one block west of the Brandenburg Gate, on the northern edge of the Tierga rten, the rulers hunting grounds. At this time, the Tiergarten lay at the citys western borders; state representatives, then, began to move away from the city center, creating neighborhoods adjacent to the Reichstag and Tiergarten. The democratic Weimar Republic was establis hed after World War I. Because of the problems affecting German poli tics and economics as a result of the First World War, the Weimar period did little to furt her affect urban form or planning. It is impo rtant to note, however, that it was under this era that the renowned Bauhaus architecture school explored the concept of the modern city, in attempt to appl y new ideas to a devastated Europe. The Weimar Republic ruled from the Reichstag until 1933, when Adolf Hitlers Third Reich assumed power. Adolf Hitler wanted to completely change the city, as he demanded for Berlin to be second to no other city in Europe. A ccording to Hitlers plans, Unter den Linden the historic east-west axis connecting the Palace to the Reichstag needed a comple mentary north-south axis. This north-south axis was to be five times wider than the east-west axis (Zappe, 2002). Along with architect Albert Speer, Hitler designed Germania a plan that called for the demolition of much of Berlins center, replacing it with a monumental Classica l city. By 1942, when the Allied
26 bombing campaigns began, the National Socialists had already begun demolishing parts of the city to make way for the north-sou th axis and the new chancellery. The bombing campaigns did indeed clear significant sections of the city. By the end of the Second World War, about 2 million tons of bom bs dropped by the British and US Air Forces had hit their targets; Berlin was attacked 29 times (Schildt, 2002, p. 141). Aerial maps as late as 1953, show a myriad of empty lots. Topographical ma ps from the same era offer a glimpse into the unbelievable level of destruction; Berlin now had hills where none had previously existed, as mountains of rubble were simply covered with land. In the 1950s and 1960s, the city remained a veritable no mans land on both administrative si des, with few rebuilding or construction projects. The East German and West Berlin governme nts established their administrative centers early in the citys post-war di vision. The German Democratic Republic (GDR) established their city center on Berlins original medieval site ; their parliamentary build ing was constructed on the site of the Hohenzollern Palace. Since West Berl in did not serve as the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), it had no need to establish a strong administrative district. The most historic areas of the city fell w ithin the GDRs jurisdiction (See Figure 2-1). While many of the buildings irreparably destroyed during th e War were demolished, several cultural buildings (e.g. the muse ums on Museuminsel (formerly C lln), the State Opera House, and the Rat Haus) were saved. In keeping with a socialist planning trad ition, large areas for public rallies were created, particularly near th e Lustgarten. Much of the surviving baroque and classical architecture between the Palace and th e Tiergarten was neglected, as this became a buffer zone between East and West. Similarly, on the Western half, Potsdamer Platzpreviously one of the most vibrant parts of the city, became a no mans land; it experienced the double
27 misfortune of having been leveled during the War, and standing on West Berlins eastern edge after the War. In 1961, the GDR erected the Wall to serve as an antifascist protective rampart against the West (Ladd, 1997, p. 19). The Wall ran through the city, becoming the physical symbol (the Iron Curtain) of the omnipresent East-West divide during the Cold War and the consequence of a countrys blind faith in their supposed historical dest iny. The Reichstag lay on the West Berlins Eastern peri phery, with the Wall running be hind it, perhaps symbolically keeping with the Prussian vision of a western-looking state. The Political and Economic Context of Urban Development after 1989 Political Life Creating an d enacting policies, including urban planning and development policies, necessarily involve going through a political pro cess. This sections goal is to provide an overview of the political system, parties, and in stitutional structures unde r which urban planning decisions are made in Germany, but more specifically in Berlin. German federal system In 1989, two options were presented during unification discussions. Germ an unification could be enacted based on either Article 146 or Article 23 of the West German Basic Law (Kocka, 1994, p. 175). Article 146 called for the creat ion of a new constitution, to be negotiated and voted on by all Germans. Article 23, on th e other hand, allowed the accession of the GDR to the Federal Republic, whose constitution woul d remain unchanged, and therefore applied to Germany as a whole (Kocka, 1994, p. 175). In ot her words, Article 146 would have led to drawn-out negotiations and dialogue s as to what the new Germany should be and look like, whereas Article 23s implementation was a quick wa y to unite the country, despite its colonialist undertones. East Germany was therefore comple tely assimilated by West Germany and in
28 return not only received the Deutschmark but also a fine-meshed network of rules and regulations (Venhuizen, 2004, p. 92). Along with general unification, the federal gove rnment had to incorporate the new Lander into the existing intergovernmental system, including the city-state of Berlin. As Elizabeth Strom (2001) explains, in this system, th e state government is, in principl e, the most important level of government for making and implementing domes tic policy (p. 19). While the federal government is responsible for foreign affairs, currency, trade, and de fense, it is the state government that is in charge of everyday serv ices, ranging from education, police, and cultural affairs to health. Moreover, the state gove rnments are responsible for urban economic development, including infrastructure and municipal services. The city of Berlin falls within the jurisdiction of the stat e of Berlin, which includes smaller cities like Potsdam and Oranienburg. Intergovernmental cooperation can be traced ba ck to a series of constitutional amendments (Paragraphs 91a and b, Paragraph 104a) passed in 1969 which outlined the scope of intergovernmental responsibilities ( Gemeinschaftsaufgaben ) (Strom, 2001). With unification, the new east German states were structured as to be included in the Gemeinschaftsaufgaben Although certain tasks are officially delegated to the state governments, these amendments made all major policy initiatives (transportation, regional development, planning, agri culture, etc.) joint tasks; local governments were responsible for planning and execution, with both the state and federal government sharing funding respons ibilities. Furthermore, intergovernmental cooperation is perennially pres ent due to voluntary cooperation between state governments to establish some sort of unif orm policies (Strom, 2001). This cooperation to ensure policy uniformity is not required by law, leading social scientist Peter Katzenstein to proclaim that Germany has a dencentralized state, [and] centralized society (Katzenstein, 1987, p. 15).
29 Although the federal government is not dir ectly responsible for urban planning and development qua urban planning, they can opt to pass le gislation to equalize living conditions throughout the country. Article 72 of the Basic Law (1949) states that, The Federation shall have the right to legislate on these matters if and to the extent that the establishment of equal living conditions through out the federal territory or the maintenance of legal or economic unity renders federal re gulation necessary in th e national interest. Because of this requirement, the federal governme nt issued a spatial development law to create equal living conditions. Although th ese laws of course apply equally throughout the country, their intent is to decrease physical inequalitie s (as well as social and economic inequalities) between west and east Germany. Pa ragraph 1 of the federal spatia l development law states that the total area of the Federal Republic of Germa ny has to be develope d, organized, or secured according to special regional development polic ies or plans and through the coordination of every plan or development which has a spat ial impact (Eltges and Strubelt, 2007, p. 60). According to the spatial development law, regi onal planning policy has the duty to create and formulate physical planning goals as the basis for other policies. In Berlins case, it is the citystates duty to design and carry out such plans accordingly. Local government within the federal system Unlike Am erican and British cities, Article 28 of the Basic Law grants German cities and municipalities local autonomy; that is, the citi es are allowed to undert ake any activities not regulated elsewhere. After reunif ication, Eastern states were pair ed up with a Western sister state and adopted their governme ntal model (e.g. strong mayoral sy stem or strong city council) (Strom, 2001). The three eastern city-states, Berlin, Bremen, and Hamburg, however, did not follow this model. The governmental structures of the three city-s tates have more in co mmon with other state governments than with city governments. They ar e run by a parliament and a series of cabinets
30 (called Senats ), which are coordinated by a mayor whose power often derives more from his position as head of the ruling party than as f irst among equals on the Senat (Strom, 2001, p. 21). The city-states are then divided into districts ( Bezirke). In 1920, Berlin was divided into twenty districts; the districts boundaries remained almost iden tical to the original ones until 2001, when the Senat reduced the number of districts to twelve. After World War II, the four main Allied powers maintained the district boundari es, apportioning districts based on prescribed military occupation zones. The Soviets got eight di stricts, the Americans six, the British received four, and the French two; this distribution would mirror the physical distribution of districts that would lie on either side of th e Wall during the Cold War. Alt hough the historical center, Mitte, lay in the Soviet sector, after 1961, it bordered the Wall on its southern, western, and most of its northern side (Ladd, 1997, p. 13). The districts carry out local functionssuch as planningusually reserved for municipal governments. As the districts are not granted au tonomy, they principall y act as commanded by the city government. Berlins Bezirke and urban development As noted above, the low est laye r of city government is the Bezirk, or district. With the reduced number of districts, the city is e xpected to annually save approximately $80 million (Strom, 2001, p. 31). Although the individual distri cts do not have any significant autonomy, they have been granted the authority to make their own spending deci sions (Jetzt, 1994). Berlins Constitution gives the central administration power over affairs affecting more than one district or requiring unifo rm administration; all other local decision-making is left up to the Bezirk (Strom, 2001). The district, then, is responsible for decisions regarding street names, administering homeless shelters, day care facilities, and senior citi zens centers; most importantly, though, the Bezirk is responsible for activel y participating in the po licy area of urban planning.
31 District officials act as the official representatives of local interests, a concept that has significance given the quasi-corpor atist nature of certain polic y-making processes (Strom, 2001, p. 31). The approval of city plans or amendments to existing plans require consultation with the district officials as representa tives of local public interests, even though the officials are not actually responsible. Local Bezirk officials are equally involved as jurists in architectural competitions. This cooperative system, however, has created some problems with new developments, particularly in the eastern districts. Because of the grassroots power exercised in the districts, Berlins eastern districts (particularly the focus of this study, Mitte, the site of intense development pressures), have become prolific players in unification politics and planning. Since unification, Mittes Bezirk has been led by individuals with strong feelings about preserving facets of GDR architecture and planningor at least not neglecting their value. In the early 1990s, Mittes first elected building director, Dorothee Dubrau, attempted to block se veral development projects, claiming that she was simply asserting her constitu ents interests in the face of cap italist investment, development, and planners (Strom, 2001). Her successor, Karin Baumert, attempted to prevent the inauguration of a building in Leipziger Platz, as the develope r had built a structure with three more storeys than permitted; the building was to be American Jewish Congress, and any opposition would be questionable, at best (Strom, 2001, p. 33). The Bezirk will play a pivotal role in this examinati on of Berlins newest city plan in Mitte. Emotions and beliefs about acknowledging, if not preserving, East Germanys legacy are still strong in many east Berliners. The Bezirk is the place where they let their voices be heard. Centralized City Planning Berlin s urban landscape is uniquely politicized because of the numerous layers of history present in the city. It is a diffi cult task for academics, let alone city planners, to decide what the
32 German Stunde Null (zero hour), where the present break s from the past, is. The question of the Stunde Null became extremely relevant during dialogues on how to plan the city after the fall of the Wall; what plan or era shoul d present day planners look to as the last true city plan from which to build upon? In the twenti eth century, one could look at the citys form before World War I, after the establishment of the Weimar Republic, during the National Socialist regime, during the forty years of division, or after the reunification of th e 1990s; each of these offers a different urban form. It is post-unification planners job to treat the citys streets, buildings, and real estate in a way that is not only respectful, but cognizant of the needs of a growing, vibrant city. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the old city center was ex pected to return to its role within the urban landscape. The main problem, though, is that much of that center had either become a no-mans land, or had been destroyed during the War and rebui lt according to socialist planning principles. This section looks at some issues present in Berlins contemporary city planning. Rather than discussing problems arising from the immediate post-war years (1945-49), this paper concentrates on the post-1949 era. Cold War City Planning On May 19, 1945, eleven days after Germany s surrender, architect Hans Scharoun was named head of the (still-unite d) citys Housing and Construction Division by the Soviet occupation forces, and given the task of creati ng a new city plan. Berlin had not yet been decisively partitioned, nor had its future as a capital city been decided. The Allied bombing campaigns had destroyed much of the city, though not all. Scharoun and his design team, however, saw this opportunity to treat the city as a tabula rasa (blank slate). The resulting Collective Plan was that of a prototypical modernist city, with glass skyscrapers, wide plazas,
33 and long stretches of highway (Berlin Minist ry of Urban Development, 1994). Scharouns Collective Plan was never realized due to the citys division in 1949. Throughout the late 1940s, newly appointed building and planning officials found themselves entrenched in bureaucracy and discu ssions about the citys future form. Meanwhile, the renowned Trmmerfrauen (rubble women) worked endl essly to clear rubble and war debris. In essence, it was these women that adopted the supposed role s of the planning and construction divisions: to clean up and rebuild as soon as possible. After the War, the historic city center lay within East Berlin, making the GDRs capital physically easier to establish. In 1950, the SED leadership develope d the Sixteen Principles of City Building, in response to need for reconstr uction, especially in the housing sector (German Institute for Economic Research, 1989). The documen t stressed the city as the economically and culturally richest settlement form for the collective existence of men, and prescribed polycentric, multifunctional city centers as the best strategy to create meeting places for citizens throughout the urban landscape (Flierl, 1991, p. 51). Traditional suburbs and garden cities were all but prohibited, as leading Soviet architects and planners thought th at these would subvert mans role as a worker and political entity. Throughout most of the GDRs existence, East Berlins built environment, as a socialist capital, was dedicated to being on the frontline ag ainst the capitalist west. Consequently, the city built massive high-rise buildings on the edges, near the Wall (See Figure 2-2); these structures were meant to symbolically further insulate the East from any Western decadence or influence. Furthermore, the GDR erected a giant television towe r at Alexanderplatz that could be seen from anywhere in the cityEast or West.
34 Keeping with socialist planning and design, Ea st Berlin has wide boulevards and plazas that served as stages for political ceremonies The most important two were the Marx-Engels Platz across from the Palace of the Republic, the Lustgarten space in front of the Altesmuseum. This area effectively became the citys gove rnmental center (See Figure 2-3). Since the Reichstag did not fall within the GDR, administ rative and parliamentary functions had to be moved further east. The GDRs new parliament ary building, the Palace of the Republic, was built on the land previously occupied by the Hohenz ollern Palace. Further discussion about this actions symbolism and ramifications will be discussed below. Unlike East Berlin, West Berlin did not inhere nt an obvious city center. The Tiergarten and the Reichstag belonged to West Berlin, albeit on its Eastern edge. The government, however, did not want to build a new city cent er further west because they sa w this as a suggestion that the citys division would be permanent. To solve th is problem, Western city planners continued the tradition begun by the House of Hohenzollern centuries before: orie nt the city towards the west, without abandoning the East. The area around the Tiergartens western edge, Zoologische Ga rtenthe same area government representatives migrated to duri ng the early years of the Second Empirebecame West Berlins downtown. In the 1980s, as pere stroika and glasnost gained momentum, planning officials began to reconsider revitalizing the Re ichstag and surrounding areas. The last attempt at rebuilding this area took place in 1957-58 durin g a Senate-sponsored architectural competition entitled Capital City Be rlin (Strom, 2001). The overall goal of this competition was to rebuild the city center in such a way that could be amen able to a greater Ber lin come reunification. The competition did not result in an effective plan for the city center. Instead, Hans Scharoun, formerly the East Berlins Housing a nd Construction Division Director, designed what
35 would be known as the Kulturforum a district of cultural faci lities along the Spree, to the southwest of Potsdamer Platz. Still following a modernist aesthetic, Scharoun designed a series of massive, disconnected buildings to house the new national gallery and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. This cu ltural district is arguably th e Wests most enduring planning legacy from the Cold War period. Post-Socialist Planning The initial b reaching of the Berlin Wall may be regarded as fairly anti-climactic considering the monumental consequences of the event. Within a year of the initial breach, November 9, 1989, East Germans had voted in favor of accession. By July 1, 1990, the Ostmark was replaced by West German currency; on Oc tober 1, 1990, the Federal Republics Basic Law became the official legal document a reunited Germany. Although East Germanys political and economic legacy could be preliminarily evaluated in the months following reunification, it would prove much harder to determine the effects that the socialist morphology imposed upon the city and its historic center would have on unification planning. Furthermore, the events of 1990 quickly thrust East German citizens into new political and economic systems. Along with GDRs political and economic transformation into the FRG, Berliners on both sides were forced to consider what to do with the restructuring not only of the historical landmarks, but of the city as a whole. Administrative restructuring Massive unemploym ent was but one adverse effect fe lt by Easterners following unification. The Federal Republics government could not accommodate the over two million people (approximately 12 percent of a total popul ation of 17 million) employed by the German Democratic Republic (Strom, 2001; German Institu te for Economic Research, 1989). One of the most important tasks, then, became weeding out those who held government positions in the
36 GDR due to Party allegiance rather than technical expertise, or those who were unwilling to learn the laws of the new political system. Unlike other Eastern districts, East Berlin experienced relatively little administrative upheaval, as it was incorporated into West Berlin s existing government structure. As Elizabeth Strom (2001) explains, there was no movement to draw up a new state constitution, establishing a new government apparatus, or even build new party organizations; those of West Berlin simply became all-inclusive (p. 58). Indeed some fo rmer GDR employees found positions in the new government; others were purged due to lack of skill or imprudent political allegiance. Many more, still, were forced to retire. The local Bezirke served as positive career options fo r many east Berliners, possibly to the chagrin of western planning officials. The Bezirke served an important purpose in the early years of unification. Since Berlins Bezirke maintained virtually the sa me boundaries they had during the citys division, disenfranchised easterners became involved in something that seemed familiar amidst all the West German novelty (B erlin Ministry of Urban Development, 1994). Despite renewed involvement in the Bezirke, Bezirk administration was having a difficult time finding qualified personnel, particularly in Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg, where property values increased most rapidl y, district planning officials were inundated with building applications, creating pressures th at would be daunting to even th e most experienced bureaucrat (Strom, 2001, p. 60). In these districts it was par ticularly difficult to fi nd administrative workers with sufficient familiarity with the new laws and the private real estate market system. As late as 1997, only two building department administrato rs processed over 2,500 building approvals in Mitte (Strom, 2001, p. 60).
37 Such adjustment problems yielded problems for Mittes Bezirk. Berlins construction Senator tried to gain some control over the Bezirk, claiming that they lacked efficiency and an adequate level of expertise to deal with some of the most desired real estate in the city. Furthermore, by gaining control over the Bezirk, the construction Senator would be able to dilute some of the development obstacles pose d by local citizen groups active in the Bezirk. In the spirit of allowing Bezirke to remain autonomous, the city refuse d the Senators proposals. The city believed that the best way to indeed develop Mi tte was to engage residents, addressing their concerns before pursuing any further development projects.1 Privatizing the economy the Treuhandanstalt The introduction of a free m arket economy with a common currency was one of most dramatic changes experienced by East Germans. Privatization in united Germany occurred much faster than in other post-socialist countries, due to its incorporation of the existing Federal system, rather than having to start anew. The Treuhandanstalt (THA), a public, government controlled, but highly autonomous and controve rsial corporation, was founded in March 1990 with the purpose of taking over and privatizing state-owned and co llectivized enterprises of the GDR (Kocka, 1994, p. 178). By 1993, the Treuhand had sold about 78 percent and liquidated 17 percent of approximately sixteen thousand property units, encompassing a total of 8,500 businesses employing 4.1 million pe ople (Kocka, 1994; Strom, 2001). The majority of these properties were sold or taken over by West Ge rman investors, entrepreneurs, and managers. Arguably, the most controversial aspect of the THA was the fact that public money was used by investors to restructure the newly acquired properties. 1 Von Lojewski, J. (2007). Berlin Ministry of Urban Development. Personal Interview. 10 September 2007.
38 By 1994, the THA had succeeded in privatiz ing fourteen thousand businesses, while preserving only about a quarter of the original workforce (Strom, 2001). In East Berlin, the greatest effects were felt in indus trial sector jobs. The enormous industrial infrastructure only became evident after unification; it was the THA s job to dismantle it, as most was obsolete compared to the same industries in the west. Those companies that were not closed were instead restructured, retaining only about half of the original workforce (Strom, 2001). Because the THAs principal objective was to sell unneeded state-owned property to bring in capital needed to reinvest in ameliorating c onditions in the east, some of the real property holdings were sold at significantly reduced rates. The THA quickly realized that selling all the surplus real estate at once w ould result in depressed property markets and provide incentive to speculate (Strom, 2001, p. 63). To solve this pr oblem, in 1991, the THA created a real estate subsidiary organization, the Treuhand Liegenschaftsgesellschaft (TLG). The TLG acted as a brokerage company for land and property held by the THA (Kocka, 1994). Furthermore, the senate and Bezirk officials created the Berliner Modell (Berlin Model), where they would meet monthly to determine what properties should be offered for sale and when (Strom, 2001). This administrative structure gave affected locals in creased input as to the fate their neighborhoods character. Despite the Berliner Modell however, much of the available property in Mitte has been sold without significant Bezirk consultation; real estate transactions around Alexanderplatz are but one example. Restitution In Germ any, and specifically in Berlin, property restitution ha s become a complicated legal process with a wide array of actor s. On the eve of unification, a majority of real property in East Germany was publically owned (German Institute fo r Public Research, 1989). This is not to say that private ownership did not exist. Individuals owned homes and multi-family apartment
39 buildings; a select few even had commercial holding, although it was disc ouraged. Most property came under state ownership during the 1940s, when the Soviet authorities confiscated property belonging to Nazis and War Crim inals; later on, the state seized properties abandoned by families fleeing to the West, as well as properties which owners were unable to maintain (Strom, 2001, p. 64). As it would be impractical for the GD Rs government to administer all of these properties, this duty was delegated to the state or local government. The 1990 Unification Contract granted former owners of property in GDR restitution rights, arguing for compensation only in cases where restitution was impossible (Strom, 2001). This proved to be more complicated than anyone could have predicted, and is filled with exceptions to the rule. First, unified German government agreed that property confiscated by Soviet authorities during 1945-49, before the creation of the GDR would be ineligible for restitution. Second, with the declaration that form er owners of East German property would be allowed restitution, many residents living in possibly contested properties quickly bought their property, in order to obtain d eeds supporting their ownership. Th is was made possible because the FRG would uphold the owners property rights if the transaction was legally completed before formal unification. Previous owners, then would only be allowed compensation in these instances (Kocka, 1994, p. 178). Berlins Landesamt zur Regelung offener Vermgensfragen (LAROV, the State Office for the Resolution of Open Property), maintains that of the 70,000 East Berlin residents who have claimed to be legal owners of their homes, only two hundred had been shown to have acquired title under su spicious circumstances (Strom, 2001, p. 66). Property restitution and compensation become s more complicated, as West German law allows for claims dating back to property held in 1933 (with the aforemen tioned exception of the period of Soviet occupation). Although anyone w ith legitimate property claims dating to 1933
40 can file, this law is primarily for former Jewi sh owners. Commonly, heirs living abroad or the Jewish Claims Conference (for Holocaust victims without heirs) file a pr operty claim, with the implicit knowledge that they will receive compen sation (Berlin Ministry of Urban Development, 1994). The Jewish Claims Conference contributes whatever property compensation they receive towards a fund to help Holocaust survivors. In some cases, however, owners/heirs are granted restitution. Elizabeth Strom (2001) e xplains that restored Jewish property has thus been part of the first wave of privatized commercial and resi dential buildings sold to property developers and is therefore at the vanguar d of postunification property speculation (p. 66). Property rights issues are centr al to development in Berlin, pa rticularly in Mitte. Berlin has seen approximately 300,000 applications for re stitution; 170,000 applications were for real estate, with 30,000 applications for property expr opriated during the National Socialist regime. In Mitte, percent of all property is s ubject to property claims not many claimants, however, actually get their properties back (Strom, 2001, p. 67). As of 2001, out of 17,460 property claims in Mitte, only 3,300 were deemed legitimate; out of those, 1,100 received compensation instead of restitution (Strom, 2001). Economic and Fiscal Crisis The City of Berlin is presently bankrupt.2 Integrating the Eastern half of the city has come at a great cost, including little growth and high unemployment rates. This section will look at Berlins economic and fiscal s ituation since unifica tion, and the ramifications it has for urban development. 2 As of late 2007, all data demonstrates that the city of Berlin is running a deficit.
41 Economic restructuring since unification Although th e German economy immediat ely benefitted from unification, by 1993 economic growth had become stagnant and unemp loyment had risen (Eltges and Strubelt, 2007). By 1997, Berlins unemployment rate was over 17 percent (Strom, 2001, p. 83). These dramatic job losses were directly related to the citys deindustrialization programs, specifically those administered by the THA. Further restructuring in the manufacturing sector leading to job losses is forecast up to 2010 (Eltges and Strubelt, 2007). The fact that the reduction in industry and manufacturing has transpired in a matter of years rather than decad es has made it difficult for the economy to adapt. The city is also lacking long-term economi c stability due to its lack of company headquarters. Many larger companies retained their headquarters elsewh ere, providing Berlin with only a satellite office. By not hosting corp orate headquarters, there are less employment opportunities for high-skilled profes sionals often sought to work in higher levels (e.g. legal, accounting, and consulti ng specialists). To offset this problem, the city government hoped to capitalize on its geography and on the citys new capital role. Berlin was once considered to be the bridge betw een Eastern and Western Europe. Technological improvements and globa lization, however, have made it so that companies situated in Paris, London, or Frankfurt have little cause or incentive to move their main operations to Berlin. If the city relies too heavily on strategi c positioning to attract business, then little growth can be expected. Economic leaders, though, maintain that geography will be a major draw in the futu re (Eltges and Strubelt, 2007). Fiscal crisis The deterioration of Berlins econom ic well-being is linked to the citys fiscal problems. In 2004, the European Union (EU), along with interg overnmental cooperation with federal and state
42 governments, allocated Germany billion in European structural funds aimed at reducing disparities between levels of development w ithin various regions and the backwardness of disadvantaged regions or islands, including ru ral areas (European Co mmission, 2004). Berlin has received funding based on objective 2 of pa ragraph 158 of the European Union Contract.3 The purpose of these funds is to help create equa l living conditions between the two halves of the country (and in turn, the city ), both of which are plagued by unemployment and high rents (Eltges and Strubelt, 2007, p. 70). The roots of Berlins fiscal problems lie in the Germanys national recession in the mid 1990s and in the reduction of fede ral subsidies which had supported West Berlin during the Cold War, soon after unification. The latt ers has arguably been the larg est contributor to the citys fiscal problems. During the Cold War, federal su bsidies had underwritten a large portion of West Berlins budget. Between 1993 and 1994, Berlins subsidies were abruptly reduced by 30 percent, a cut from which the city has still not ye t recovered (Eltges and Strubelt, 2007). Although the city still re ceives some support, it is nowhere near pre-unification levels; in 1998, federal subsidies and inter-state transfer pa yments account[ed] for 30 percent of the citys income (Strom, 2001, p. 87). The citys expenses, however, have been hard to control, as they have increased much faster than revenues. Consequently, the city runs extremely large deficits. The majority of government spending here goes to the large num ber of public employees. The city employs 90.6 civil servants for every 1,000 residents, sign ificantly more than the average 23.3 per 1,000 residents for other German territorial states, including 66.8 for Hamburg (Strom, 2001, p. 87). Furthermore, Berlin has to deal with unique ope rating and maintenance costs, as they have two 3 Objective 2 offers Support for those regions which have economic and social problems, e.g. old industrial or rural areas, problematic urban areas and coastal regions (European Commission, 2004).
43 opera houses, two state libraries, and three public univers ities, all a result of the citys division. Finally, the citys budget is furt her strained by the demands of fixing neglected infrastructure inherited from the eastern sector. The remaining federal subsidies and EU structural funds are barely able to keep up with th e citys expenditures for basic op erations and maintenance. This has led to Berlins essentially being bankrupt. Additional Actors and Their Roles There are a wide array o f actors within Berlin s urban planning and development network. In addition to actors in th e federal, city-state and Bezirke levels, this section briefly describes the role of real estate developers and architects in the reunified city. Real Estate Development As discussed above, real estate developm ent in Berlin can be a complicated task because of issues surrounding property rights. The introduction of a global re al estate market immediately after unification helped the city s economy and global profile. Although Berlins real estate market is currently oversaturated due to the large number of projec ts completed in the late 1990s, the city still attracts investors. These investors, in tu rn, create much needed employment opportunities. Although the city no longer offers the generous s ubsidy packages of the early 1990s, development and redevelopment projects are still predicted to c ontinue, most notably Hans Kollhoffs redevelopment of Alexanderplatz (See Figure 2-4). This project will create a series of high-rises near the historic center that will re define the citys skyline. Although Berlin has downtown outflow patterns sim ilar to those found in the Unite d States, much of this new development is aimed at drawing families in from the suburbs. As long as developable lots exist throughout the city, real estate development will remain a ubiquit ous actor in Berlins urban planning discussions.
44 Public policy and demand In Berlin, as in the United States, public po licy decisions and real estate markets are inherently intertwined. Soon after uni fication, in an attempt to increa se investment in East Berlin, the federal government began offering generous subsidies to real estate investors. The most significant subsidy called for a 50 percent tax write-off over five years for investment costs on any commercial or residential development (S trom, 2001, p. 121). As a result of this subsidy, approximately $9.5 billion worth of real esta te development took place throughout Eastern Germany between 1992 and 1994 (Eltg es and Strubelt, 2007). This building boom led to the construction of a myriad of new pr ojects in Berlin in anticipation of the move of the government from Bonn; early estimates expected the creation of approximately 100,000 new office jobs (Strom, 2001). This figure, though, was severely inflated, as the move only created 36,000 new office jobs. As a result, Berlin now has significantly more office space than it can fill; many of the buildings in Potsdamer Platz, for example, are largely vacant. Although the government helped subsidize the building projects, so far it has done little to ensure that the buildings do indeed have occupants. Developers and the state A citys econom ic developmentregardless of locationis intrinsically tied to real estate. After unification, interna tional developers flocked to Berlin where they saw amble opportunities for significant development projects. These newcomers were unfamiliar with the traditional public-private partnerships fostered during the early reunification years, li ke the importance of a developers relationship with a Bezrike In the historic city center, however, the dizzying pace of development followed traditional real estate l ogic (Eltges and Strubelt 2007). As Strom (2001) explains, here,
45 the pace and scale of building have been set by property developers from around the world, eager to gain access to a hot, new lo cation. These international players have bid up the price for certain cent ral locations, and in the process produced more office space than the city can really use for the next decade or longer. (p. 131) International advertisements for these projects ar e not based on just selling a building. Instead, they focus on selling culturally significant imag es. It is no surprise then, that many office projects have been developed proximate to old east-west border cr ossings, most notably Checkpoint Charlie. Others are de veloped on strips of land previously occupied by the Berlin Wall. Although many buildings have been erected on these plots, many of them remain partially vacant. As discussed above, companies have li ttle incentive to move operations to Berlin. Situating ones development hist orically significant land alone is seldom sufficient allure for prospective investors. Experts, Architects, an d the Built Environment The task of reuniting two halves of a city has at tra cted armies of social scientists, critics, developers, planners, and architec ts, each of whom claims to have the ultimate solution. But as Ladd (1997) notes, in Berlin they cannot avoid the simultaneous iden tity crises of architecture, cities, and the nation. Amid the citys fragile and contested urban traditions the prospect of so much that is new raises fear of losing whatever historical identity remains (p. 226). In the wake of unification, east Berlins center (i.e. Alexa nderplatz and surrounding areas) needs to undergo major renovations. Instead of working with a tabu la rasa, however, arch itects and planners are faced with complicated laws and regulations. The city has found that the simplest way to solve this quagmire is to go back an age-old architectural tradition: competitive charrettes. The architects debate Architectural historian Dieter Hof fmann-Axthelm, writes that in spite of all destruction Berlin is an extant city, shaped by history. We do not need to inve nt a new city, certainly not the
46 metropolis of the third millennium (in Ladd, 1997, p. 231). The challenge presented to those interested in the built en vironment, then, lies in understandin g and physically restoring Berlins identity, and in finding its essence amid st a century of war and division. While working on the design for Potsdamer Platz, British architect Richard Rogers noted that Berlins planning and design process was much too bound to th e past; the past in this case, refers to the period 1900-1910 (in Ladd, 1997, p. 233). This period is regarded as a dynamic and modern period in the citys history, before Wo rld War I, Weimar, and the National Socialists. Between these years, architects were transformi ng the city from a Wilhelmine capital to sleek and streamlined modern one. Furthermore, this earl y modern era is regarded as the last time that a common, pure German tradition was being pursued in the built environment. Consequently, conceptual inspiration for the latest city plan, the Planwerk Innenstadt, draws heavily from the citys morphology during this pe riod (See Figure 2-5). Architect s attempt to incorporate the corresponding early modern style to their proj ects in homage to archite cture lost during the National Socialist regime and the Second World War. Consequently, Richard Rogers suggests that a break similar to the one cited in the Stunde Null be applied to ar chitecture and urban development; the city should separate itself from its past and start anew (Ladd, 1997). Some architects, like Rogers, believe that Ber lins preoccupation with the past prohibits it from moving forward. Vittorio Magnago Lampugna ni, director of the German Architecture Museum in Frankfurt believes that the fear of the past has co ndemned German architecture to disorder by banishing all convention and trad ition (in Ladd, 1997, p. 234). His belief stems from the taboo of preserving or incorporating fascist architectural elements into contemporary projects. But like many Germans, Lampugnani believes in acknowledging and accepting the past, for better or worse. A city is made up of what Dolores Hayden (1995) calls layers of
47 history. Even if one chooses to ignore the layers they are still present throughout the city, from the streets to the buildings, to the trees. Arch itects who believe in ac knowledging and accepting the past attempt to preserve existing build ings, despite what period they come from. Furthermore, these architects and planners ofte n incorporate historical detailing into their projects, in a post-modern homage to Be rlins organic architecture. Competitions Berlins architecture competitions have attrac ted so-called superstar architects like Frank Gehry, Renzo Piano, Hans Hollein, and Hans Kollhoff. These architects projects have revitalized interest in rebuildi ng the capital city. Before any major development project is begun, it must go through an architectural competition; most recently, Hans Kollhoff was granted the commission for the redevelopment of Alexanderplatz and in 2008, a competition will be held to determine the future design of the Humboldt Center. The tradition of competitive design goes b ack to the Internationale Bauaustellung (International Building Exhibition, or IBA), held in West Germany. The IBA changed urban development policies in the districts adjacent to the Wall. A heavily subsidized, multi-year urban redevelopment project, the IBA co mpetitions brought prominent ar chitects to Berlin to design new apartment buildings that complemented their nineteenth century neighborhoods; Frank Gehry, for example, built a high-rise apartm ent building through the IBA (Ladd, 1997, p. 228). The IBA helped city planners and architects rediscover how to understand and preserve an existing and functioning city. One of the most im portant contributions that the IBA had towards urban planning was shifting the focus from modern car-oriented developmen t patterns to mixeduse forms, inspired by traditional nine teenth century German neighborhoods.
48 These competitions followed precedent establishe d in the early in the century. As Rykwert (2000) explains, previous effort s at rebuildingtwo exhibitions, which were in fact largescale construction programsharnessed public en terprise to private investments (p. 239). Urban Planning, Memory, a nd Cultural Inclusion Cultural Identity Culture is an ever-present force, influenc ing mostif not allpla nning decisions. It is important to consider cultural identity when discussing post-unification development in Berlin, as it is a reoccurring point of contention. Willia m J.V. Neill (2000) warns against using the term cultural identity because of the difficulty in de fining culture. The issue of presenting individual versus collective identity also l ooms large. According to Castells (1997), individual identity is a customized college of collectiv e identifications (p. 6-7). Coll ective identities, on the other hand, are constructed within the c ontext of power relationships, us[ing] building material from history, from geography, from biology, from pr oductive and reproductive institutions, from collective memory and from personal fantasies, from power apparatuses and religious revelations (Castells, 1997, p. 7) Cultural identities, then, ca n be seen as particularly meaningful collective identitie s of overarching common signi ficance to people who may be otherwise socially divers ified in terms of expe rience (Neill, 2000, p. 5). When studying urban planning in Berlin afte r 1989, it is important to note the cultural identities that resulted from the citys division. Although East and West Berliners have had over 15 years to forge new identities as simply Berline rs, it is not uncommon to see allegiances to one part of the city. Forty years of living unde r competing systemswith all that entailshas left an indelible mark on the citys residents. This idea is reinforced by the German word for being alive, Dasein which literally translates to b eing there. As Neill (2000) explains, identity has always been related to a physical space experience, being there in the city,
49 provides many opportunities and spaces for indi vidual and collective identity formation and affirmation (p. 6). Therefore, it is far more common to see long-time city residents as vocal community activists, based on l ong-term formed identities. Politics of Space During the Cold W ar, official Eastern parlan ce knew no East Berlin, only a remote and infrequently mentioned Westberlin, which appe ared as a blank space on the GDRs city maps. On Western maps, by contrast, it was the Wall th at was often inconspicuous, indicated only by a stripe barely distinguishable from those dividing the districts with in East or West Berlin (Ladd, 1997, p. 28). Since unification transpir ed under the stipulations written in Article 23 of the Basic Law, West Germany can be seen as the ultimate political winners. This dichotomy of winners and losers is still present in the minds of Berliners; nowhere does it become more evident than in discussions on the urban environment a nd how to rearrange the cityscape. Historic preservation The f all of the Wall restored Berlin as a politi cal and cultural capital. The historical center, however, remained void of shops, homes, and corpor ate headquarters, as this was the area most directly affected by the Wall. This physical void had to be filled. Citizens and the government looked to common points of orientation to create a sense of fraternity a nd wholeness. Few people anticipated the problems that would arise throughout discussions of common points and historicized places.4 The last time the city had been one was under the National Socialist regime. Since both sides regarded themselves as the sole legitimate anti-fascist government, it was all but impossible (and undesirable) to seek commonalities rooted in the National Socialist period. The search for shared experiences and identities would have to look fart her into the past. 4 Historicized places are historic valuable places/structures, with contentious histories. Their worth is derived from their role in a particular era, or what they have come to symbolize in the aftermath.
50 The Nikolai Quarter is the best preserved me dieval district in Berlin. Named after St. Nikolai, citys oldest medieval church, it was the center of medieval Berlin, after unification with Clln. Here, tourists and locals find caf es and shops typical of a German Altstadt, or old city center. During the Cold War, the Nikolai Quar ter lay in East Berlin; West Berlin had no comparable Altstadt with the exception of a distant suburb, Spandau (Ladd, 1997, p. 44). The most interesting fact about the Nikolai Quarter, though, is that it is almost entirely brand new, as it was rebuilt by the GDR using hi storic plans and drawings. In 1979, all that stood in the Ni kolai Quarter was rubble, ruins of the St. Nikolai Church, and some scattered buildings. East German planne rs authorized a plan by architect Gnter Strahn to rebuild the neighborhood; this included rebuilding the church a nd carefully recreating rows of houses that had previously lined the narrow streets (Ladd, 1997, p. 45) Most of the housing structures, however, were not medieval; they were instead typical merchant homes dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1987, after meticulous restorative design and construction, the historically accurate Nikolai Quarter was completed, in time for Berlins 750th anniversary. Towing a Party line, any GDR-sponsored proj ect, the Nikolai Quar ter restoration was officially regarded as commemorating a neighbor hood of merchants, i.e. the proletarian. Ladd (1997) explains that the merchants that lived in the homes in the Quarter, testified to the vigor of the new middle class at the end of the Middle Ages, rising to power in a feudal society and thus illustrating (in the most basic Marxist theory) the bourgeois revolution that was the prerequisite for th e proletarian revoluti on that the Red Army brought to Germany in 1945. (p. 46) The GDR did not mean for the Nikolai Quar ter restoration to only commemorate the International Workers struggle (May Day); they did it to also revi talize the derelict inner city. In addition to serving as a tourist destination for the citys visitors and residents, the Nikolai
51 Quarters new buildings provided housing for over two thousand reside nts in a previously uninhabitable area of the city (Ladd, 1997). Thes e buildings, unlike the Easts iconic prefabricated high-rises, maintained a medieval scale, with mass and form oriented towards the street. The architects attention to detail makes the buildings i ndistinguishable from authentic structures to all but the most astute architectural historian. Why, then, did this small district receive cr iticism after re unification? Although it gave West Berliners a long awaited Altstadt many saw it as inauthentic kitsch.5 The use of concrete was regarded as tasteless, and the re-creatio ns were thought to be offensive to so-called authentic historic preservation (Ladd, 1997). The di strict became even more politicized in the mid-1990s, as the government attempted to deal with restitutions and other property claims. Furthermore, business privatization and the setting of rent prices led to some conflict between business owners and residents. Many intellectuals regard this Altstadt like others created out of war rubble, as inauthentic and kitschy; tour guides explain that Berliners avoid the Nikolai Quarter whenever they can, as only tourists go there. Despite the wide array of criticisms, the Nikolai Quarter has become one of the most vibrant areas in Mitte. Although its authenticity is sometimes challenged, medieval Germany is far enough in the past to not be hotly debated. Indeed, of all the GDRs urban projects, the Quarter had experienced one of the smoothest transitions into the capitalist system. Furthermore, unlike the majority of GDR urban proj ects, the Nikolai Quarter will be indefinitely preserved, as it is seen to honor a distant past. 5 Altstadt translates to Old City.
52 Cultural inclusion in the planning process After Unification in 1989, Ber lin s planners set out to repair the urban fabrics fragmentation by issuing strict gu idelines for Mitte intended to restore the density and diversity destroyed by World War II and the Cold War. Thei r efforts coincided with the Eastern Berliner Ostalgie (nostalgia for the East) movement. This embracing of GDR planning and architecture by East Germans (and some West Germans too) is reflective of the aforementioned greater problems that have arisen from integration and Western planning schemes. There is a sense of alienation for Easterners resulting from reunification because of the difficulty some have faced in integrating into the free-market economy. The desi gns of iconic structures like the Palace of the Republic and the Plattenbauten fostered a sens e of community and toge therness post-1989; this feeling was spurred because of the lack of economic growth a nd opportunities in the East. Urban planners are confronted with issues of cultural exclusion ev ery day in Berlin. In formulating a comprehensive plan for the reunifi ed capital, the government has been loyal to what Iris Marion Young (2003) refers to as an outdated ideal of comm unity: the ideal of community exemplifies the logic of identityThi s ideal expresses a desire for the fusion of subjects with one another which in practice ope rates to exclude those with whom the group does not identify (p. 337). In Ber lin, Youngs statement can appl y to planners planning for reunification, but alienating minority populations. The Planwerk Inne nstadt, for all its pretenses at community building, has in fact galvanized city residents (most of whom are living in Berlins eastern and central historic neighborhoods) (Schting and Weiss, 2001). Moreover, though public forums intended to boost civi c participation were introduced early in the planning process, these exercises in communicative planning left many eastern and Muslim Berlin residents dissatisfied with planners future visions for the city.
53 While Simone Hain (2001) may be exaggera ting when referring to the new Plan as a declaration of war, she offers valid and relevant insight into how the city administrators and planners have provoked internal conflicts betw een East and West Berliners (p. 69). While developers and those interested in economic development in the historic center promote initiatives like the privatizing of public lands and in troducing other commercial initiatives, they are often overlooking the infrastructure and ar chitecture already in pl aceand often well-suited for the jobin those areas. Furthermore, the pr ofessional prejudice and conflicts between West and East Berlin planners further aggravates the situation. Berlins Building Director, Hans Stimmann, believes that urban planning and archit ecture should wait a generation before finding talented professionals from the East, as t here is no longer anyone who understands what commissioning a building means (as cited in Hain, 2001, p. 77). Accordingly, during the Planwerk Innenstadts creation, no planners or architects from Ea st Berlin were included, only those from the West. Both government officials and planners must realize th at the first step in creating a wholly inclusive urban plan necessitates the inclusion of professionals from all sides which one is bringing together. Until officials in Berlin understand this, it will be impossible to begin an effective physical and economic reunifi cation; until then, it will just be what Hain (2001) calls a colonization by new settlers (p. 72). In order to go beyond Berlin as the city at the edge of the Iron Curtain, planners must be willing to accept the fact that division still exists, and it is not wrong to acknowledge this separation, all the while looking to the future. City image becomes an important facet to keep in mind, as it has the potential to stimulate the economy by bringing in tourists. By preserving various physical elements of Ber lins extensive history, the city stops being the nucleus of the Cold War, and can instead become a multi-dimens ional urban area. As Bernard Schneider (2001)
54 explains, Berlin has a second chance (p. 165). Worl d-renown architects have discovered this and built projects in major plazas; it is time that resi dents and planners realize the same, and look to the future while still remembering the past. Western planners presume that they can de molish important structures and engage in Critical Reconstruction in order to restore the lost character of Berlins urban environment. Who decides what this character is? For many Ea st Berliners, no matter how economically or aesthetically prudent thes e revitalization initiatives are, they also convey a belief the GDRs history is erasable. Thus, Germany now finds its elf at a crossroads; it ca n destroy this history, or find something else to do with it. One of the most politicized and polarizing pl ots of land in the city lies on Museuminsel, in the area previously known as Clln. After th e Second World War, much of the Hohenzollern Palace had been reduced to rubble; unlike ma ny surrounding buildings, its foundation and first two storeys remained mostly in tact. The East German government in attempt to realize Karl Marxs stages of history, destroyed the Palaces remains, replacing them with the Palace of the Republic, East Germanys parliamentary building.6 The Palace of the Republic was commissioned to architects Heinz Graffunder and KarlErnst Swora by the Honecker-led GDR government in 1973. The main goal of the Palace was to build an environment that would bring together Volk and Regierung The Palace was meant as a peoples house, rather than an official government house, important prin ciples in the social democratic tradition. 6 Karl Marx outlines the stages of history in The German Ideology They are primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, and communism. In The State and Revolution Vladimir Lenin divided the last stage into socialism and communism; communism is the final stage, when the last vestiges of capitalism have disappeared.
55 The site the leaders of the GDR had chosen for the Palace is arguably one of the most historically important locations in Berlin (Ladd, 2002, p. 92). A ccording to Ladd, It was above all their desire to create a vast square for mass demonstrations that prompted them to demolish the badly damaged palace [Stadtschloss] in 1950 (Ladd, 2002, p. 92). In the years following the demolition, plans were made for a central gove rnment Stalinist skyscraper. In 1953, as Khrushchev denounced Stalin, new plans were made for a modernist building made of glass and marble to occupy the space. The Palace embodies its political context as a peoples palace. As Ladd explains, it was only secondarily a government building. It housed the insignificant national parliament as well as official gatherings such as party congresses, but mainly it was used for popular entertainment: concerts in its main hall, pl us a theatre, bowling alley and se veral restaurants and bars, all accordable and open to the public (Ladd, 2002, p.93) The incorporation of such recreational spaces also went along with Erich Honeckers new perception of the citizen as consumer. The Palace was built using a special type of construc tion that allowed the alteration of its form, function, and aesthetics by pressing a few buttons (Palast, 2006, p.1). This allowed for a dynamic space that could be used for a myriad of functions, political or otherwise. What had once been Berlins historic focal point became home to the GDRs most popular attraction. The attraction was repl ete with political symbolism at work here; the masses were being drawn into the supposed hub of East Germ any. A testament to the effectiveness of the design of the Palace can be seen with the preserva tion movement rooted in what was East Berlin. East Berliners hold fond memories of the Palace as a public and recreation space, rather than the seat of government. As such, orders from the current government to demolish the Palace passed
56 in 2002 have remained largely ignored; it was no t until February 2006, amid various protests and petitions that cranes began to dismantle the Palace. Memory In the late 1 9th century, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsch e wrote about his fellow Germans overdeveloped sense and feverish consumption of history. According to Nietzsche (1983), A man who wanted to feel hi storically through and through w ould be like one forcibly deprived of sleep, or an anim al that had to live only by rumination and ever repeated rumination. Thus: it is possible to live almo st without memory and to live happily moreover, as the animal demonstrates ; but is altogether impossible to live at all without forgetting. (p. 62) Although Nietzsche acknowledged the importance of memory, he was also acutely aware of Germanys propensity to self-flagellate whil e embracing the idea of German strength and destiny. Thus, he believed that balances betw een the unhistorical a nd the historical are necessary in equal measure for the health of an individual, of a people, and of a culture (Nietzsche, 1983, p. 63). Nietzsche was opposed to Germans Hegelian confidence after the creation of German Empire, and Frances defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. Germany has a unique legacy within the specte r of the twentieth cen tury. Discussions of politics, memory, and the built environment will always be complicated by recollections of the two dictatorships (i.e. National Socialism and th e SED system) that left doubly burdensome scars on the national landscape (Jarausch, 2002). The Wall is recurring in discussions of memory because it is a starkly vivid symbol of the citys division, and a physical manifestation of many of the memory and development issues Berliners are faced with. As Brian Ladd explai ns, After 1989, the wall inside our heads became the way Germans described post-Wall problems of German national identity specifically the growing sense of difference be tween Easterners and Westerners (Ossis and Wessis) (Ladd, 1997, p. 33). One of the Senate fo r Urban Developments principal tasks is to
57 ease the sense of difference between Easterners and Westerners by creating a physical joint postwar German history. Konrad Jaraus ch writes that the very fact of their reunification raises the question of whether and how to c ontinue a national narrative after the end of division. It might seem relatively simple to have two previously para llel lines once again intersect, but such a plot line could turn out to be politically dange rous... (Jarausch, 2002, p. 110). By imposing the history of the victors (i.e. We st Germany) on reunited Germany, the GDR ends up being treated like a footnote in the greater scope of German history. Moreover, painting the GDR as a failed experiment or a dark horse trivializes the experience of millions of Germans who lived in the East. Berlin planners, then, must remain conscious of this deba te, as they are responsible for rebuilding the city that was once at the edge of two worlds. Summary The desire to forgetwhether it be Hitle r or Honeckerconstantly struggles with a determination to remember, creating a complicated environment for planners given the task of blurring the lines of division, while somehow simultaneously acknowledging the existence of said division, and everything that preceded it. This division, though, is precisely what makes Berlin strikingly unique within the European ur ban development context. Fiscal, political, and cultural tensions also strain pl anning and redevelopment efforts. The Planwerk Innenstadt, which will be explored in chapter 4, attempts to mitigate some of the issues discussed above.
58 Figure 2-1. The Berlin Walls place in Berlin. [Reprinted with permission from Palgrave Macmillan. 2008].
59 Figure 2-2. High rises near the Wall. Bottom phot ograph is of a GDR mode l currently housed at the Senate for Urban Development. [Photographs taken by author. 2007.].
60 Figure 2-3. Marx-Engels Forum, East Berlins Central Government District Top: Position within the city; Middle: GDR model looking westwa rd from Alexanderplatz; Bottom: MarxEngels Forum in 2007. [Photographs taken by author. 2007.].
61 Figure 2-4. Drawings of future plan for Alexanderplatz. [Reprinted with permission from Regina Poly. 2008.].
62 Figure 2-5. The evolution of Berlin District Mitte (Ove rlay of maps from1658-1700, 1915, and 2000). [Reprinted with permission from th e Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008].
63 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY Characteristics This paper examines the multiple claims competing in the city center to create a European capital. These claims involve the housing, community develo pment, transportation, and sustainability elements of the Planwerk I nnenstadt in Mitte, Berl ins historic downtown district. This site was selected because it was the area most immedi ately affected by postunification planning, as it straddled both sides of the Berlin Wall. Many of Berlins most iconic landmarks (and prolific projects) lie in this district, including Pa riser Platz, Alexanderplatz, and Potsdamer Platz. Rykwert (2000) reitera tes the importance of these sites, If the city was to weld together, someth ing had to be done about the derelict areas adjoining it, the Pariser Platz with its Br andenburg Triumphal Gate opening into the Tiergarten, the Reichstag and its forecourt to the north, as well as the Potsdamer and the Leipziger Pltze with their nexus of roadways to the south Pariser Platz, which links the old city through its main avenue, Unter den Linden, and the adjoining streets (p. 239-40) In this study, physical unifi cation is regarded as equally important to economic and political unification. Planners ar e charged with designing an overa ll urban structure meant to create a common identity, therefore uniting the city. The resulting Planwerk Innenstadt is designed to re-create and streng then relationships between thes e two city-centers, re-expose a common history and future, and assist the further development of these city center identities (Schting and Weiss, 2000, p. 57). As the Senate for Urban Development explains, development in Mitte decisively influences the development in the entire metropolitan region. The city centre is the locomotive that propels Berlin and the region into the future (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b, p. 28). By selecting the city center as this studys fo cus area, the power of i nner city to revitalize a region from the core outwards is affirmed.
64 Advanced capitalist cities, as explained by Mollenkopf and Castells (1992), are marked by high levels of class polarization, the coexisten ce of affluent, luxury residences and places of consumption alongside derelict slums. Berlin is arguably on that path. The Senate for Urban Development and many Bezirke have too noticed this trend, pa rticularly those located in the citys central districts (e.g. Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg). They believe that mistakes in city planning in the past fifty year s have led to this gentrifica tion, and accordingly planners and architects should take the lead in retarding (or ev en reversing) Berlins supposedly inevitable fate as a typical advanced capitalist city. Many theorists argue that Berlins essence can be found in the eighteenth-century block structures in Friedrichstadt and the dense pattern of five-story courtyard buildings that covered those and newer blocks at the end of the ni neteenth century (Ladd, 1997, p. 231). Furthermore, they hold that this es sential structure had remained in tact after 1945; neither Speer nor bombings destroyed, but postwar reconstruction did. The massive pr ojects, in both the capitalist West and the socialist East cleared most of these structures; many of which may have been salvageable. Rather than preserving the urban form resulting from forty years of division, architecture and planning are charged with captu ring a so-called lost character and charm, as long as those characteristics co me from pre-1914 neighborhoods. Residents of the city center still experience the consequences of the wars destruction, a frequently city-destructive recons truction, as well as the separati on of the two city centers. The Planwerk Innenstadt was chosen for this project because it aims to overcome the actual and invisible boundaries of the city di vided and create a holistic center out of the historical center and the town center west, all the wh ile implementing communicative plan ning strategies. Ideally, the plan hopes to curb urban sprawl and discourage commut er traffic; other resources and cost-
65 intensive new infrastructure are not needed, sinc e sufficient capacities are available in the city center. Methodology Though no two European capitals are exactly alike, most share common features. They are made a highly dense urban fabr ic, sprinkled with historic ar chitecture. Most are located on rivers; a few are on the major bodies of water. All have highly diverse demographics (when compared to surrounding areas). Berlin is no ex ception to any of these rules. To judge the Planwerk Innenstadts effectiveness in creating a European capital, we look to these criteria. More importantly, however, it is necessary to look at Berlins historic development patterns. Prior to the citys divisi on, Berlins development tre nds were characterized by specifically European public qualities and a separation of public and privat e spaces; mixtures of residential, commercial, service, and cultural activities and functi ons; and special local identities that were manifested in histor ic physical structures, streetscap es, and ground plans (See Figure 3-1) (Schwedler, 2000, p. 33). The incorporati on of these characteristics will be the basic framework for gauging the effectivene ss of the Planwerk Innenstadt. Critical Reconstruction is the most widely applied urban planning paradigm in unified Berlin. Popularized between 1991 and 1996 by Soci al Democratic planner and city building director, Hans Stimmann, critical reconstruc tion aimed to undo the planning errors of the previous past century (Ladd, 1997). During his te nure, Stimmann issued strict guidelines to restore the city center based on the outlines of old streets, squares, and blocks. He also introduced height limits, seventy-two feet for the eaves, a hundred feet for the set-back peak of a roof, that followed nineteenth century building codes (Ladd, 1997, p. 232). Indeed, if one overlays city plans from 1915 and 2007, buildings, stre ets, and blocks almost always overlap; the same could not be said if juxtaposing the 1953 or 1984 plans to the 2007 city plan.
66 Critical Reconstruction was th e product of the 1987 Interna tional Building Exhibition in West Berlin. The theory is based on a rejection on modernist planning prin ciples, where streets, squares, parks, blocks and buildings were no longer seen as compositional urban building elements that worked together to create bui lt environments (Schting and Weiss, 2000, p. 67). Critical Reconstruction embraces traditional European city desi gn, resulting in a high density, somewhat polycentric urban core. This study uses Critical Reconstruction and the criteria outlined above to analyze the Planwerk Innenstadt. The latest incarnation of the Planwerk seeks to dramatically rebuild Alexanderplatz, revitalize socialist high-rises, an d redevelop the area along the Spree. Similar to the redevelopment of Potsdamer Platz, it is alr eady apparent (based on Hans Kolhoffs plans) that Alexanderplatz will not reclaim its early twentieth century form. What makes this space special? What are the economic ramifications for the Bezirk ? By using the inner city neighborhood as a model, this paper analyzes housing conditions, transp ortation patterns, and sustainability initiatives to determine if the propo sed projects in Mitte wi ll affect those already living there. Furthermore, this project studies the effects of Mittes critical r econstruction on eastern cultural identity. As disc ussed above, the Mitte Bezirk often makes it difficult for building plans to get approval because of a concern that deve lopment will erase traces of their experiences living in the GDR. The Senate for Urban Develo pment has already pledged to preserve the Soviet-era high-rises built along Ka rl-Marx Allee; is this enough to satisfy alienated easterners? This study principally relies on the analysis of primary and secondary sources. Sources include newspaper articles, polls, published ar ticles, and data from the Senate of Urban Development. Furthermore, maps, photographs, a nd relevant interviews conducted by the author
67 in Berlin in September 2007 will be used as prim ary sources. Although this is no substitute for surveys or traditional fieldwork, it offers a well-rounded view of how urban planning decisions are directly affecting citizensecono mically, socially, and culturally. Limitations The greatest lim itation faced while conducting research was the inaccessibility to traditional data collecting methods (e.g. attendi ng community meetings, conducting surveys, etc.) due to physical distance. It is always difficult to write about a topic that is still in flux; the Palast, for example, had not been demolished when I began my research. Consequently, some of the contemporary information contained in this document may be less relevant in the future. Summary This project focuses on Mitte, Berlins hist oric inner-city district, in order to examine various elements of the Planwerk Innenstadt. Mitte was selected as the study area because it was the area most immediately affected by post-unifica tion planning, as it straddled both sides of the Berlin Wall. Four elements of the Planwerk Innenstadt will be analyzed within a European capital framework by looking at the division betw een public and private spaces, incidences of mixed-use developments, a highly dense urban fabric, and strong transportation connectivity. Furthermore, the investigation is guided by the principle of critical reconstruction, whereby planners, city officials, and community members engage in dialogues about the direction of the citys development. Critical r econstruction discussions are, the n, akin to the American urban planning paradigms of visioning and communi cative planning. By em ploying the European city criteria and critical r econstruction, it is possible to determine whether the Planwerk Innenstadt is an effective pl anning tool to accomplish the ta sk of recreating Berlin as a historically mindful, strong, ope n, modern European capital.
68 Figure 3-1. Figure-ground maps: Berlin in the 20th century. Top: Berlin, circa 1943; Bottom: Berlin, circa 1984. [Reprinted with pe rmission from Palgrave Macmillan. 2008].
69 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS: THE POWER OF THE CENTER AND THE PL ANWERK INNENSTADT In good and in evil, Berlin is the trustee of German history, which has left its scars here as nowhere else Richard von Weizs cker, 1983 (quoted in Rrup, 1987, p. 205) There is a general awareness that social, demographic and economic tendencies are hard to predict and that it usually does not take long before planning and construction based on such predictions are hopelessly outdated and out of tune with the realit y on the ground. Despite this, planning still assumes that devel opments can be precisely pred icted and steered and therefore, ultimately, designed Marc Neelen and A na Dzokic, 2004 (Neelen and Dzokic, 2004, p. 84) The Planwerk that has been adopted is a cla ssic example of consensus democracy. The plan is without either teeth or authorit y, and it is implicitly acknowledge d that critics will eventually reduce what is there to an absolute nothing On e does not have to be a prophet to predct that his Planwerk will find a quiet resting place in the overflow ing archived of Berlin urban development plans. (B. Schulz, 1999, as quoted in Schwedler, 2000, p. 31). Throughout the 1990s, Berlins hi storical center (Mitte) wa s the hub of citys urban development. This was the area that had stra ddled the Wall and stretc hed to the east of Alexanderplatz. With reunification, the city center lost its previ ous function as capital of the GDR. As a result, it had to react to and accommodate the pressures of new market forces, all the while representing New Berlin to Germany and to the world. As a European city, however, with its flexible structures, Berlin was naturally considered to be well suited to adapt to the needs of the post-industrial economy and society (Senatverwaltung, 2007b, p. 8). The existing cityscape and building stock were seen as valuable capita l, to be utilized as soon as possible. Investors were anxious to create new forms and functions for liv ing and working in densely built areas as well as conversion sites. The city, though politically united, did not have a unified physical plan for how to proceed with such de velopment. Mitte was seen as a particularly lucrative district as it offered potentially flexib le areas for the creation of a sustainable, postindustrial city, characterized by compact, mixe d-use, socially diverse developments. The Planwerk Innenstadt became the planning document that would attempt to create a new, modern, unified central district.
70 This chapter examines four elements of the Planwerk Innenstadt to gauge the effectiveness and preciseness of the plan versus process of molding a modern European capital. The knowledge gleaned from studying the plan will inform a discussion on the progress that the city has made over two decades of post-conflict development. The chapter begins with a brief introduction to the Planwerk Inne nstadt and its goals. This is fo llowed by a closer examination of the housing, community development, transportation, and sustainability elements of the Planwerk, as these allow the read er to gather a well-rounded glim pse into the citys projected trajectory. Finally, the chapter closes with a summ ary of the most salient points related to the creation of a contemporary European capital. An Introduction to the Planwerk Innenstadt The Planwerk Innenstadt was the Berlins fi rst comprehensive plan sin ce Albert Speers monumental plan for Germania. Encompa ssing approximately 11.5 square miles and 300,000 people, the Planwerk includes abou t one-third of the land within th e S-Bahn ring; this is an area comparable to the inner city of Paris, yet with rou ghly half the population (Schting and Weiss, 2000; Senatverwaltung, 2007b). First drafted in 1996, the plan has c ontinued to evolve, as the Senate for Urban Development receives feedba ck and criticism from various citizen groups. Intensive communication and interaction with a wi de spectrum of resident s is required for the approval of major projects. Cons equently, the Planwerk Innensta dt looks much different today compared to its original version due to consta nt plan updates resulting from this communicative planning. Many of the principal redevelopmen t and urban infill projects have now been formalized; the 2010 city plan includes models of future projects (See Figure 4-1, 4-2). Furthermore, the Planwerk Innenstadt uses a number of classical urban planning tools to help guide the citys development. Among these are land development plans, an urban
71 development plan, infrastructure upgrades, and the Regional Development Plan for the BerlinBrandenburg area (Senatsverwaltung, 2003a). Th e plans essential objectives are, 1. Appropriation of the city through civic dial ogue to reformulate Berlins identity 2. Advocate for sustainable urban development 3. Enhancement of public terr ain through reurbanization 4. Creating new typologies for inner-city homes and jobs 5. Creating new forms of land management and investment 6. Creating links between urban pl anning and urban management 7. Replacing the car-oriented city with a choice-oriented city 8. Enhance the historical centers urban te xture through dialogues on design elements 9. Enhance the western downtowns urban fabric by reinforcing nodes 10. Advocate modernity with tradition to replace the paradigms of Modernist urban design (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a) These goals are all employed with the intent of reaching the overarching goal of creating a vibrant, sustainable, densely popul ated, historically layered cit y. It is this papers aim to investigate if and how well thes e goals have been realized. Mitte had encompassed the central institutions of government, finance, and culture for successive Prussian and German regimes, in cluding the German Democratic Republic (Ladd, 1997, p. 43). Like New York, in the early twentieth century, Berlin was unconcerned with preserving the past, preferring to look into the future. Many narrow streets and medieval homes yielded to massive modern structures for built for government and business. Ladd (1997) explains that, After 1945, once the rubble had been cleared, the heart of East Berlin was a windswept district of vacant spaces, which were only slowly covered with new buildings (p.
72 43). Figuring out what to do with those empty spaces (previously used as modernist plazas) is one of many of the issues f acing planners attempting to rede velop the city. A fundamental principle of the Planwerk, however, is to respec t what is already in place, keeping history intelligible. This keeps buildings in East Berlin safe from demolit ion, as long as they adhere to the principles of zoning, mixed use, clear sepa ration of public and private space, and of public and private maintenance and responsibility. The Planwerk principal aim is to suture th e physical/urban wounds left in Mitte by the Wall. Since this district has been the citys historical center, the Planwerk attempts to reconcile the various histories present while still creatin g a capital city capable of future development and evolution. The Senate for Urban Development and city planners realize th at this is indeed a very precarious undertaking. Communicative planni ng has taken an important part in the postunification urban planning discourse because of th e citys mindfulness in including all facets of society in creating a new image and direction for th e district. It is importa nt to note that Mitte receives the most tourists of any Berlin district, as it cont ains major landmarks like the Reichstag, the Brandenburg Gate, Alexanderplatz the Monument to the Murdered Jews of Europe, and the Museuminsel, among others. It is therefore necessa ry to redefine this space not only for residents, but also because it defines Berlin internationally. All in all, it is necessary to reiterate Berlins financial problem s. The city is deeply in debt. Therefore, anyone who wants to make any planni ng changes must show th at the necessary funds are in place. According to ex-Senator of Urban Development, Hans Stimmann (2000), for this reason, every changed line in the Planwerk is at the same time covered by identification of building land and justification of the ideas abou t use, including the nece ssary sectoral planning
73 for transport, ecological elements, use and waterti ght viability in terms of city finances and the necessary basis in bu ilding law (p. 30). Housing: Space for New Ideas No one understands that the city is simply reflecting historical reality. Nor does anyone want to und erstand this because the historical reality is natura lly not that of the middle-class dwelling that has now been proclaimed the ur ban planning ideal (v an Rossem, 2004, p. 37). Housing, both general and affordable, is a challe nge facing urban development in Berlin. Since the end of the nineteenth centur y, Berlins housing market has b een characterized by severe lack of supply in accommodation. After the opening of the Wall, many expected a dramatic population increase in the region, inducing ma ssive new building c onstruction projects (Mauruszat, 2000, p. 106). These projections, how ever, were incorrect, creating the novel situation of housing surplus; the middle-class mi gration to the peripher y for newer housing (the so-called Speckgrtel around Berlin) also added to the housing surplus.1 The most desirable accommodations have become restored pre-fabricated structures (Plattenbau ) built by the GDR. The opening of the Wall also led to a populat ion decrease. Although the federal governments relocation created an initial demand for housing, it did not live up to land lords expectations. Furthermore, private and public trust developers have invested in urban renewal projects throughout the Eastern sector including refurbishing the Plattenbauten They expected to finance these projects through futu re increases in land value, which have not occurred. This has led to continued high vacancy rates and protests for the affordable housing of yore. For the first time in over a century, landlords must compete for tenants. 1 Speckgrtel translates to fat belt, referring to the area characterized by new single-family residential developments.
74 To understand the complicated issue of housing in Berlin, it is necessary to take inventory of common inner-city housing developments, beginning with the nineteenth century Mietskaserne (See Table 4-1). This background know ledge informs the discussion on postunification housing policy and planning. The Mietskaserne On the eve of the twentieth cen tury, Berlin was a city of tenement housing, the infamous Mietskaserne.2 In 1930, Walter Benjamin reviewed Das Sterne Berlin by Werner Hegemann, a Berlin architectural critic. The book criticized living conditions in the Mietskaserne While Benjamin agreed that they offered miserable livi ng conditions, he asked re aders to consider the community bonds and shared experiences that th e buildings offered. As van Rossem explains, In Benjamins view, it was sheer impertinence to br ush aside the historical reality of life in the tenements with architectural cri ticism [we] should be curious about the true relation between the life of the city dweller and the bui lt environment (van Rossem, 2004, p. 37). Built between 1870-1918, the Mietskaserne is characterized as being a closed or almost closed, five to six-storey building (Senatsv erwaltung, 2007a, p. 1). Individual properties units were put on all sides of the build ing, even if the building abutte d another one, leaving no room for windows, or other types of natural ventilation. Small courtyar ds were included in the design, sometimes with tree in the center; otherwise they were paved with concrete, asphalt, or stone. This open-space structure is characterized by crooked block interiors, made up of entirely or largely enclosed, narrow courtyards, sometimes arranged in a row, and connected by court passages (Ladd, 1997). Much like the tenements in the late nineteen th century in New York City, 2 London, England and New York, New Yo rk also experienced similar living conditions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; Mietskaserne translates to tenement house..
75 the Mietskaserne were a haven for impoverished familie s, creating environments filled with high-crime rates and poverty. Keeping in the nineteenth century tradition, the Mietskaserne was in fact a mixed-use building. The street-level housed businesses; merc hants lived in the stories immediately above. As explored higher and deeper within the building block, one woul d find worsening living conditions. Consequently, these units became s ynonymous with poor planning and Old World injustice during the early twentieth century. As such, many were razed pr ior to World War I and during the Weimar Republic to accommodate ne w modern housing estates. Further razing occurred under the National Socialist government to make room for Hitlers new capital city. Because the historic center of the city was to the east of the Tiergarten, there was a greater prevalence of remaining Mietskaserne in the GDR after World War II. As part of the preservation-oriented reconstr uction at the end of the 1970s and throughout the 1980s, new buildings were erected on formerly vacant lots, and old Mietskaserne buildings were renovated (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). Demolition was carried out in isolated cases. The rehabilitated sites required large-scale demolition of rear buildings to create a healthier living environment. This allowed for the consolidation of courtyards, following the socialist tradition of creating communal gathering places. Postwar High-Rise Development In Berlin, urban developm ent and housing c onstruction were seen as initial post-war panaceas. As Taverne explains, Urban developm ent and housing constructions were spearheads of a centrally planned economy (Taverne, 2004, p. 117). Not only would constructions create new jobs, but it would also resu lt in the production of desper ately needed housing structures. However, since foreign architects and planners we re assigned to rebuilding efforts, the resulting plans were not typically German. Instead, they reflected the victorious sides agenda, upheld
76 by SED leadership: architecture and urbanism has a strong politic al programme function as the physical evidence of the construction, triumph and above all superiority of the socialist system (Taverne, 2004, p. 117). Although post-war high-rise development is often accredited to East Berlin, West Berlin devel oped this housing typology. In December 1949, one of the most prominent boulevards in East Berlin was renamed Stalinallee, in honor of Joseph St alins birthday. Only four years after the end of the War, this road, still a giant heap of rubbl ebecame a demonstration object of socialist architecture and socialist town planning (Dwel, 2004, p. 53). Th e Stalinallee was a veritable showroom for socialist architecture, erecting residential pal aces for workers, many of which still stand. Reconstruction negotiations fo r Mitte began as early as mid-1946. Keeping with Swiss architect Le Corbusiers Charter of Athens, architects and city planners created plans for the construction of multi-storey blocks mainly for single people and childless couples (Dwel, 2004, p. 53). According to the Berlin Senate for Urban Development, post-war high-rise developments include tall row houses and single houses with varying storeys (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). In order for a building to be considered a hi gh-rise in West Berlin, it had to have at least eight floors; in East Berlin, the number was six. Of the pre-fabricat ed concrete buildings laid out in East Berlin as large-scale developments, half were built in semi-open st yles (with courtyards), with the rest being mixed with row development. High-rise development in West Berlin in the 1960s and 1970s commonly arose in lots formerly occupied by the Mietskaserne (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). East Be rlin developed the high-rise Plattenbau during the late 1970s to accommodate housing demand. These are the struct ures that are the most contentious in postunification housing planning.
77 The word Plattenbauten translates roughly to flat building. The Ea st German high-rises acquired this named because they were made of pre-fabricated concrete slabs. Building a Plattenbau building became so streamlined that it became possible to erect a 100 unit building in a matter of weeks (Ladd, 1997). Architectural historians an d architects praise the Plattenbauten as The extreme architectural simplicity of Plat tenbau, in combination with the radical character of the urban design plan for the vast housing estates, resulted in a form of public housing purged of all formal ambition (vam Rossem, 2004 p. 37). The buildings were therefore effective in conveying the SEDs message of wo rkers equality and solidarity. Although Plattenbauten range in shape and size, one can point to a distinct building typology. The Berlin Senate for Urban Development characterizes them, The open-space structure of the developments in East Berlin in semi-open block-edge displays a relatively large bl ock interior, which is partly broken up by building rows in the block interior. For the t ype unplanned reconstruction, undeveloped areas are used relatively sparingly, mostly as parking lots ; the remaining open areas are green edgestrips. The share of the non-bui lt-up areas is relatively larg e for the type "high-rise." Half of the area is paved by large access driveways and park ing lots, the other half is landscaped as ornamental green space, geom etrically designed with trees and shrubs. (Senatesverwaltung, 2007a, p. 1) Although regarded as a commodity enjoyed onl y by top Party members during the citys division, the Plattenbauten lost their prestige after the openi ng of the Wall. Their small square footage, as well as a desire for Western amenities drew many residents away. The Plattenbauten then, became youth-oriented housing, as it was rela tively affordably priced. As reunification slowed down and the economy experienced a r ecession, many of the new inhabitants left the city. The debate as to what to do with the Plattenbauten began. Investors, both foreign and domestic, began to purchase unitsif not entire buildingsfor retrofits (See Figure 4-3). Since 1993, 60,000 Plattenbauten have been refurbished with public funding assistance (Senatsverwaltung, 2006s). Currently, the Plattenbauten are being marketed to young families
78 and urban professionals that woul d otherwise live in the citys outskirts. City officials and investors both hope that the Ostalgie fad will contribute in the city s renaissance. The city has created targets within the Urban-Rebuild ing East program to aid this process.3 Immediately after unification, two housing typo logies arose: compact high-density urban developments and low-density urban developmen ts. These differ considerably from the large pre-fabricated housing developments common in East Berlin. First, they in clude a wide span of city structures (e.g. block-edge development, row development, row-house development, villa development, etc.) (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). The principal (and most obvious) difference between the GDR developments and the newer developments is building height; height differences also exist between low and highdensity post-unification developments. Newer developments have fewer storeys, as the building permit department did not want to significantly alter the citys skyline (see Figure 4-4). Post unification compact, high-density development commonly consists of units (often row-houses) with more than four floors. These units have either closed yards or half closed yards within the row development. In a continuation of Berlin s utility structure, post-unification units are built with common infrastructure installations (energy supply, waste disposal facilities etc); this is done to promote reduced energy expenditures and sustainability. Furthermore, these projects include green building st rategies, like rainwater collecti on, green roofs, green walls, and small terrace gardens. To contrast, low-density urban development c onsists of duplexes and single-family houses with less than four floors, built mainly at the outs kirts of the city. Similar to the garden houses of 3 Program examples include assisting the housing industry in the deconstruction of superfluous apartment buildings, as well as deconstructing empty schools and nurseries that cause undue environmental burdens (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a).
79 the early twentieth century, thes e structures include carports a nd private gardens within the owners lot. Accordingly, the share of publicly usable open spaces is low. Although this project does not look at these low-density urban developments, as they do not occur within Mitte, it is worthwhile to note their existence as evidence of a continuum of an early-twentieth century building tradition. Housing in the Planwerk Innenstadt After reunification, large am ounts of money were invested in east Germanys hopelessly out-of-date economy, infrastructu re and housing stock (Venhui zen, 2004, p. 92). In many East European cities, spatial pla nning still relies heavily on worn -out government patterns of thinking which, because of their use of one-dimen sional forces that determine the real spatial order and which are consequently overtaking traditional planning on all sides (Sanders, 2004, p. 103). In eastern Germanyincluding east Ber lindevelopment in itiatives come from largescale Western commercial organizations, making it difficult for private self-initiative. This problem is compounded due to the areas econom ic stagnation, and the housing markets oversaturation. Unlike other capitals that have undergone so -called urban renewal, Berlin has been able to preserve a considerable amount of inne r city housing. One of the Planwerk Innenstadts principal development goals has been to maintain the inner city as a place where significant amounts of people live. This has allowed housing in Mitte to remain open to the citys diverse wealthy, creative, and immigrant populations. Increased rents in some rehabilitated buildings, however, are making living in those structures less affordable than during the 1990s. The Berlin Senate for Urban Developm ent reported in 2007 that altogether, approximately 181.000 apartments were built agai n in Berlin between 1990 and 2005, [raising] the total number of apartments from 1.7 m illion to 1.88 million (Senatesverwaltung, 2007a, p.
80 1; Senatsverwaltung, 2003b). Moreover, about 60 percent of all reconstruc tions were, in fact, small additions made to existing structures. Unfi nished high-rise projects in the east were finished; the last typically Ea stern project was completed in 1992 (Ladd, 1997). No significant developments were neither planned nor erected in west Berlin during this same period. Upon unification, city officials were hesitant to approve any projec ts due to the amalgamation of the two cities. Furthermore, major investors waited un til the initial unification fervor subsided before speculating on possible ventures; th e dust had to settle before th e city could start healing its wounds. Between 1993-1997, development was characteri zed by the building of new suburbs in the outskirts, creating a so-calle d fat belt around the city.4 Much of the inne r citys population migrated elsewhereincluding the suburbs. The subur bs created a fat belt, as they became the buffer between city and country, though to a much lesser extent than in other European capitals. Housing construction in the metropolitan ar ea slowed between 1997-2002, due to the economic recession plaguing Germany. Between 1995-2002, only 103,000 housing units were built in Berlin. Of these, 61 percent were subsidiz ed, and 39 percent were privately financed (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). In 2000, for example, new construction was at 1991 levels because of a reduction of financial supports/incentives, existing building vacancies, increased demands for single-family construction, and additional tr affic facilities (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). This was particularly debilitating for development in east Berlin, where parts of the city had been revitalized with government aid programs; most notably, federal programs were responsible for rehabilitating approximately 80 percent of the Plattenbauten housing stock (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). 4 During the 1993-2002 there were various high-profile pr ojects completed, including the new Potsdamer Platz, the addition of a glass dome on the Reichstag, and the unveiling of the new government center across the River Spree.
81 The large amount of available hous ing has led to Berlins reputa tion as a city of tenants; only 13 percent of residents are homeowners (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b).5 Although remaining low, homeownership rates have been steadily increasing since 1990. During the late 1990s, occupancy rates of rental units, on the other hand, drastically fell. Betw een the years of 1994 and 1998, rental occupancy rates fe ll by over 12,000 units (Senatsverwaltung, 2003b). This can be explained by the economic recession going on dur ing the same time period. By the end of 2002, 1.65 million apartments (88.5 percent of the tota l housing stock) were rented; the remaining 216,000 (11.5 percent) were owner o ccupied (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). The relatively affordable inner city housing market has recently attracted the urban middle class as well as the creative class. The ma in issue for these demographics is the citys poor economy; Berlin is often a temporary stop en route to opportunities in another city. As stated above, there is no housing shortage, but rather tenant shor tage. In 2002, for example, the city stopped subsidizing rental ap artment construction because of the markets oversaturation of available housing options. To attr act a more permanent population of homeowners, it is crucial to adapt the existing housing stock to the needs of different user groups. The urban development department is already responding to this critic ism by enacting policies encouraging the creation of family-friendly housing in the inner city. By wo rking with the private sector, the city hopes to replicate some of the success it has had creating family-friendly housing in Prenzlauer Berg, an adjacent district. There, they entered public-private partnershi ps to produce high-quality housing, green spaces, retail infrastructure and nearby childcare facilities in accordance with the Inner5 Homeownership in comparable German cities is much higher. 23 percent of both Hamburg and Munichs housing stock is owned.
82 City Zoning Plan (See Appendi x A) (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b).6 The city hopes that this and similar programs will bind new and old neighborhood groups, thus stabilizing the districts. Small-scale housing optionssimilar to Ameri can cooperatives or co-opsare in high demand. Since 2000, Berlin has promoted coopera tive housing purchases from the existing stork. In 2006, 6,400 units fell under this co-op classification (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). These structures are already inte grated into the existing urban st ructure and contribute to image formation and stabilizati on. Some are retrofitted Mietskaserne, while others are new constructions built on vacant building lots in the i nner city to repair fractured urban fabric. The main obstacles facing these housing types are rela ted to organizational st ructure, legality, and clarifications of financial questions. Although some building groups joint build ing ventures have pursued this housing type, there is little le gal definition or protecti on within the citys current system. Unforeseen developments, like social and physic al segregation, site clearances, apartment vacancies, and decreased financia l resources, all demand new strate gies on how to plan for the city. The Senate for Urban Development (2007a) pr ojects negative growth for the city until about 2010, as reflected in the housing urban developm ent plan (See Figure 4-5). This projection considers a stagnating rate of inhabitants a nd jobs, 45,000 additional apartments, half-mile of new commercial areas, and 48.4 m illion ft and 4.3 million ft additional office and retail space, respectively (Table 4-2). In an ticipation, the Senate has been working on Stadtkonzept Berlin 2020, a conceptual document on the futu re of Berlins urban development.7 6 Since 1994, the Senate for Urban Development has promoted low-energy housing projects. In 2007, there were approximately 800 apartment units in compliance with lowenergy standards. Other sust ainable strategies include domestic rain and gray water treatment used to conserve water. 7 Stadtentwicklungkonzept translates to Town Development Concept.
83 Community Development: The Social City Berlin is mired with problems of social se gregation, gentrification, and gender inequality. On the eve of the opening of the Wall, East Be rlin was a fairly homogenous city, composed of life-long residents or migrants from the c ountryside. West Berlin, on the other hand, was heterogeneous, made up of a variety of nationalities and religions. While initial tensions and anxieties have subsided, the legacy of di vision is still acutely present. Although the developments of the past two decades have incr eased social diversity, they have also yielded social division. One of the Planwerk Innenstadt s goals is to alleviat e social divisions and tensions, while still acknowledging and respectin g respective cultures and ethnicities. European cities are, after all, the conglom eration of a multitude of ethnici ties and cultural quarters. It is therefore necessary to find a balance between fostering cultural trad itions and strongly encouraging involvement in civic life and the econo my. Planners believe that the Planwerk is but one vehicle to achieve these goals. Berlin is characterized by is various districts and neighborhoods. Accordingly, the Bezirke play an indelible part in the citys development. Cooperation between the Bezirke and the municipal Senate Administration has proven to be extremely inefficient in the implementation of the visions and goals for the city as a whole (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b). Historically, Berlins ne ighborhoods have developed ba sed on cultural and ethnic boundaries; the same is true today. Approximate ly 460,000 foreign nationals live in Berlin roughly 14 percent of the populationthe largest of any German city; this includes 118,000 Turkish, 39,000 Polish, and 14,000 Russian resident s (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b). As the ethnic communities become larger and more concentrated, there has been evidence that feeling of responsibility for the larger community dissipat es. These problems are further aggravated by language barriers, health problems, lack of e ducation, and feelings of fear and insecurity
84 (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). There is a higher prevalence of these complaints in east Berlins older neighborhoods, as well as in neglected (and affordable) Plattenbauten Berlins community development vision relies on openness and communication to achieve its goals. This is based on the idea that a European city does not dismiss any of its population, and of course, Berlin is a European city (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b, p. 45). According to the Senate for Urban Development th e so-called Social City is a city in which citizens not only comprehend the development of th eir city but also where they feel at home, where they can influence development by engaging in a discourse about the design of their city and for their city (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b, p. 49). An effective interaction between various actorsand cooperative understanding of policy and planningis thus crucial for this process success. The city wants its neighborhoods to be so cially stable, with ci tizens being content and secure about their surroundings. To achieve these goals, Berlin has established a series of quality and action goals, to be overseen by the Neighborhood Management Program. Quality goals address improving residents quality of life by suggesting that, Equitable living conditions should be offered to a ll Berlin inhabitants, regardless of social or ethnic origins. Stable community structur es should be supported or developed in all neighborhoods. Housing and apartments or vari ous types and sizes are available in all parts of the city, appropriate for people with varying cultural backgrounds, needs and interests. (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 39) Other quality goals focus on preventative health care and education, im migrants rights, and reducing incidences of public violence. Furthermore, the city lacks a traditional elite, one of the consequences of mass emigration throughout th e twentieth century. Politicians, embassy workers, journalists, and others associated with the New Capital seldom establish themselves permanently in the city. Education To m eet the quality goals, Berlin has cr eated a series of corresponding action goals.
85 Creating equal opportuniti esfor immigrants and nativesis of utmost priority. To accomplish this, Berlin would like to reduce the citywide po verty rate to 10%; at the most it should not exceed 20% in any statistical cell of the social data map for Berlin, with the percentage of households with extreme debt problems being reduced to 5% (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 39). Nowhere in its plans, however, does the city iden tify specific strategies to meet these targets; rather, it proposes a nebulous series of measur es. Possible programs would improve the available supply of renovated apartments and local housi ng options for senior citizens and multigenerational families; affordable housing is to be maintained with the municipal housing corporations with an even distributio n throughout the area (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b). Furthermore, individual Bezirke may enact policies strengt hening renters rights and participation in local governance. The Senate fo r Urban Development also plans to increase the number of community centers offered. By doing th is, the city expects to strengthen citizens identity as Berliners, rather than as members of their ethni c and cultural groups. Finally, the Neighborhood Management Program will upgrade public spaces, thereby making the spaces more attractive for Bezirke appropriation. This plan, then, makes the Bezirke responsible for managing and maintaining these green spaces. Consequently, the city government is also a proponent of ensuring that all of its citizens speak fluent German, as this increases econom ic opportunities. In 2007, the citys unemployment rate was at approximately 19 percent; a bout 36,000 of these were under the age of 25 (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b). One of the quality goal s states that, immigrants should enjoy the same full rights and responsibilit ies, and the same opportunities for education and work, as all others (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 39). The easiest way to fulfill this goal is to enforce language education, so that immigrants are give n the same opportunities as native speakers to
86 prosper. However, this program is difficult to en force outside of a formal educational structure. The language action goal requires that all children speak German fluently enough to pass acceptance tests and participate in the cl assroom by the time they begin school (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). Percen tages of immigran t children receivi ng equivalents to American high school diplomas, then, should correspond to those of native German children. An additional measure promoting language education is the offering of language courses to all age levels. Getting interested parties to attend may be problematic, as the government does not offer them free of charge, nor do they guarantee any ki nd of subsidy; enrollment is based on time, cost, and interest. The City Parliament ha s recently proposed that schools with higher percentages of immigrants receive extra support (Senat sverwaltung, 2007a). Moreover, immigrants should be sought out to teach langu age courses. They would be offered special training opportunities that would allow them to obtain employment within the German school system. Therefore, the language education compone nt meets its goals of integrating immigrants as well as boosting the economy. Preventative Healthcare To m eet preventative healthcare goals, th e city supports developing a State health program, which not only supports preventative care, but would al so offer support for recreational sports, and infrastructural support for youth activ ities (i.e. maintaini ng playgrounds and other recreation sites). Berlins specific goals are to ensure that at l east 90% of children receive annual preventative check-ups, to reduce deaths caused by heart and circulatory diseases by 30%, and reduce work-related diseases/injuries by 75% (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 39). The city also encourages that public food services follow the pr inciples of organic agriculture and provide residents with fresh regional produce. Similar to the program measures discussed above, neither the Senate for Urban Development nor the City Parliament identifies funding for these programs.
87 Public Safety Another critical component of community de velopment is ensuring that residents feel safe in private and public spaces. Violen ce prevention campaigns would disseminate informational pamphlets on anti-violence m easures. Additionally, the city proposes the development of self-defense programs in school s, as well for women and senior citizens (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 40). Other crime or violence prevention programs would be organized around various types of crimes, such as burglary or assault. The City Parliament hopes that by 2015, recognized crimes are reduced by 30 percent and violent crimes by 50 percent; the percentage of people who feel insecure or uns afe in the city should be reduced by 30 percent (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 40). The main problem with the crime mitigati on programs is that they do not attempt to reduce crim e, but rather teach people how to avoid being a victim. It is assumed, however, that if the other community development initiatives are successful, then crime rates will decrease. Societal elements th at were previously susceptible to committing violent acts would no longer do so because of im proved economic and educational opportunities. As mentioned above, incorporating pub lic spaces as well as affordable housing throughout the city are integral community devel opment elements in the Planwerk. High-quality, accessible public spaces are designed to attrac t diverse groups of residents. The Neighborhood Management Program has created Social Urba n Development Monitoring to improve the opportunities of residents livi ng in disadvantaged neighborho ods (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b). The citywide Social Urban Development Monito ring aims to advance th e citys integration, education, and employment agenda in impove rished neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves. Simultaneously, construction projects continue upgrading problem areas. The citys Social Urban Development Monitoring program depends on physical development, investment, and continuous local involvement in the development pr ocess. As such, the city encourages projects
88 initiated and supported by local residents, as well as local ma nagement projects emphasizing intervention and prevention. Such lo cal civic responsibility will be reinforced by the presence of strong community partners, like housing corporations, community centers, and local businesses, each with a strong interest or stake in promoting the communitys overall success. Unfortunately, Berlin has extremely limite d financial resources to fund all of their proposed initiatives. One aim of the Neighborhood Management Program, then, is to use public and private resources more efficiently and effect ively. The key in achieving this is recruiting new project stakeholders, as well as garnering widespread actor support, creating what the city calls a synergy (Senatsverwaltung, 2007b). Scarce resour ces, like money, must be concentrated and used in the targeted manner, rather than ha ving funds slip through the cracks. The previous mechanism of adjus ting budgets across the Bezirke no longer corresponds to the differentiated socio-physical situation in the city, as each district has di stinct problems and needs. Transportation Networks: The Mobile City Perm eability in major European cities is based on historic urban patterns, which include small, dense blocks, and relatively narrow road s. In Berlin, however, post-war destruction allowed for the rebuilding of roads and infras tructure to accommodate for the age of the automobile. Mitte, however, is an exception to this pattern. A lthough many individual buildings were destroyed, block patterns rema ined largely intact. In East Be rlin, principal arteries were widened in accordance with socialist planni ng principles. Vehicular traffic remained low throughout the citys division, in creasing only after unification. C onsequently, the Planwerks traffic element recommends a reduction model for the inner-city, whereby through traffic would be hindered by applying a variety of traffic controlling and speed reducing measuresreducing single-person vehicle trips to about 20 percent of th e total volume, to the
89 advantage of public transport (Schting and Weiss, 2000, p. 65). In addition to reducing vehicular congestion, this strategy also aims to reduce environmental pollution. The Wall severed established transportation paths of inne r-city circulation (Ladd, 1997, p. 13). Central Berlin was devoid of both pedestrians and automobiles. Often, streets would seemingly lead to the edge of the world, otherw ise known as a ubiquitous ten-foot cement wall. This led to the overwhelming neglect of roads, bridges, and other structures, as one got exponentially closer to the Wall, especially in West Berlin. In East Berlin, the Wall was to be ignored, except on national holidays (La dd, 1997). Residents were discouraged from approaching or visiting the struct ure. Therefore by 1989, the inner ci ty consisted of fragments of different concepts of transpor tation planning. As Hans Stimmann (2000) explains, there were green spaces reserved for rais ed urban motorways, tunnels, broad trunk roads which suddenly ended in buildings, oversized crossroad structures gaps which had lost their meaning, etc. (p. 103). Transportation routes, almost more than an y other single dimension, were placed in the position of simultaneously bringing traffic under c ontrol, keeping historical continuity, and redefining public spaces. One of the Planwerks main goals was to reduce the width of the main transportation routes, restoring the small plot structure conducive to inner city development, as this is more amenable to mixed urban land use (See Figure 45). The citys polycentric structure and low degree of suburbanization create ideal conditions for sustainable mobility.8 By revising the land use plan to encourage less traffic in the area s around large developments, and reusing vacant land in areas with access to existing services and in frastructure, suburban growth patterns will be moderated. The existing public rail way system offers substantial connectivity throughout the city 8 It is worth noting that almost 45 percent of the trips made in Berlin are less than 1.8 miles (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a).
90 (See Figure 4-6) Additional tran sportation improvements include minor roadway, sidewalk, and bicycle lane reorientation to accommodate new development projects (Senatsverwaltung, 2007c). During Berlins division, many intercity rail stations became useless and were consequently abandoned. Subway lines connectin g East and West were blocked by underground cement walls, mirroring the Wall above ground. Two subway lines, however, connected northern and southern parts of West Berlin by passing under central East Berlin, gliding through ghostly stations where no train had stopped si nce 1961 (Ladd, 1997, p. 19). After unification, all of these stations were made operable. Although the trains have been modernized, additional facilities are often lacking in cen tral district stations The citys two main stations, Hauptbahnhof and Ostbahnhof, have undergone significant impr ovements at the expense of smaller stations (See Figure 4-7). Maintenance proble ms are aggravated by the lack of enforcement of rail passes. Payment for rail U-Bahn or S-Bahn passes goe s unmonitored. One can easily board a train without a pass; police seldom conduct searches. Buying tickets has no incentive for the casual user, particularly as increased fares have raised barriers for some people to use mass transit. A proposed solution is to make mass transit tickets more affordable for the poor, as well as offering alternative mobility courses. Th is solution, however, does not address the immense strain put on the economy by not enforcing ticket payment. Like any capital city, Berlin has traffic probl ems. The strong Green Party, however, has led efforts in reinforcing the railway systems (the U-Bahn and S-Bahn) rather than the freeways (Rykwert, 2000, p. 240). Berlins sustainable mo bility policy emphasizes three dimensions: economic, social, and ecological. On e of the citys principal aims is to minimize health burdens and the consumption of natural resources related to transpor tation (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). The three dimensions will be discussed under the sustainability heading.
91 As noted above, Berlins population has stab ilized at 3.39 milli on since 2000, following a slight decrease. In 2004, significant population growth was recorded in the inner city (within the S-Bahn ring) for the first time since prior to World War II (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). Despite little change in the ove rall population, the number of singleperson households has, however, continued to grow. Consequently, the number of commuters in the ci ty has recently increased. In comparison with other major cities in west ern Germany, however, total commuter numbers remain low (Senatsverwaltung, 2007a). Furthermore, when compared to other Ge rman cities, Berlin has a low level of motorization. The Senate for Urban Developm ent has found that motorization levels have stagnated at an average of less than 330 passe nger cars per 1000 inha bitants since 1994, and since 2002 has even begun to fall slightly (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 43). The City Parliament encourages the use of non-motorized, environmentally friendly transportation. To this end, the city has already inst ituted a highly successful bicycle-sharing program. As with the community development element, the city has created a series of plan-related action goals and corresponding meas ures for transportation. First, it has set a target goal of reducing the traffic-related accident s by 20 percent, with traffic-related injuries and deaths being reduced by at least 40 percent by 2015 (Senatsv erwaltung, 2006a, p. 44). To accomplish this action goal, the city will [Use] speed limits, city-wide creation of new bike lanes, reducing the surface area of streets, improving connections and transfers am ong mass transit systems, adjusting traffic lights, expanding on areas with parking me ters, publicity campaign and expansion of public transit, and building of the BBI SingleAirport combined with the closure of the Templehof and Tegel Airports. (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 44). These measures also allow lead to a reducti on of transportation-rela ted noise pollution in residential areas, improving living conditions. Moreover, consuming land for new housing and
92 transportation endeavors is also discouraged, as these two elements ar e directly related. Other ambitious action goals include in creasing the percentage of public and environmentally friendly transportation in the inner city to 80 percent by 2015 (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). This fi gure includes the stabilization of non-motorized transportation at 33 percent of all tran sportation. The Senate for Urban Devel opment also expects an increase in bicycle transportation to 5 pe rcent by 2015, and 15 percent by 2030. Berlin does not expect to impose any restrictions on motorized transportation in the inner city.9 Transportation is an excellent field to extract financial resources. By imposing greater taxes or user fees (in addition to monitoring public transportation tickets), the city would be able to alle viate some of its debt while still creating a compact, dense urban environment. Sustainability: The Green City Maintaining high-density is a prerequisite not only for the success of the Planwerk Innenstadt, but also for the esta b lishment of Berlin as a typical European capitala compact, spatially complex city. Berlins sustainabili ty program is based on the Brundtland Commissions definition of sustainability, whence the one must find methods of handling the resources of an indebted city when planning and managing with a view to future generations (Senatsverwaltung, 2003a). To accomplish this, the Berlin Parliament as mobilized the Bezirke to be ecologically aware self-organized forces; in addition to reporting economic and social complaints, they are now given the responsibility of airing their di stricts ecological grievances as well. This section looks at Berlins sustaina bility plan, particularly Local Agenda 21, sustainable transportation, and sustainable constr uction. These elements will then be analyzed in the proceeding section to determine how this fits into the image of a strong European capital city. 9 Other European cities like London and Amsterdam have re cently created legislation charging cars going into the downtown district.
93 Local Agenda 21 Berlin has m ade substantia l progress since 1991. East Germanys only domestic source of energy and the main fuel for home heating and industry was coal (Ladd, 1997). Coal and the car exhaust produced by the Trabants turned the sky brown in the winter; in East Berlins older residential areas, most apartments that survived the War were still heated with coal-burning tile ovens (Ladd, 1997, p. 13). In less than twenty years, Berlin has been able to enact stringent legislation and standards to clea n substantial amounts of air pollution. Berlins Local Agenda 21 is one of the citys most recent tools to not onl y improve the citys environment, but to also improve citizens quality of life in a sustainable way. The Local Agenda 21 was adopted by the City Parliament on June 8, 2006 (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). This document is supposed to act as a guiding tool for overall future city decision-making, as well as for individual Bezirk. According to the Berlin Parliaments sustainability statement, The sustainable city is a soci al city with growing economic potential, a green city and a city of integrated uses having an inner city that is attractive for housing Sustainable development strives for a fair distributi on of resources among current and future generations but also for global, ecological, economic, and socio-cultural standards that are within the carrying limits of nature. (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 32-33). The city is also concerned with the growing number of elderly resi dents and the influx of members of the creative class. One of Local Ag enda 21s efforts is to create programs that will simultaneously cater to these two groups. Long-te rm visioning is a critical component for Local Agenda 21s success, since the Brundtland definition emphasizes long-term sustainability. One of the principal obstacles facing the Local Agenda 21 program is the citys unstable financial situation. Until Berlins budget can be ameliorated, additional public funding will only be drawn to projects where it can contribute as a long-term inve stment, thus improving the fiscal crisis. This seems somewhat contradictory, as Berlins sustainability statement declares
94 sustainability as a necessary investment for th e future. Indeed, the global Agenda 21 has shown that many sustainable development strategies can l ead to reduced societal costs in the long-term. Most of the mobilization recommended by the Local Agenda 21 committee depends on a commitment on the behalf of civil society. Although the government cannot offer financial incentives to participate, they can encourage civil societys engagement to advance Local Agenda 21. It is too soon to conclusively report on Lo cal Agenda 21s effectiveness, as it was adopted less than two years ago. The Senate for Urban Development will produce five-year reports on Local Agenda 21s progress, with the first report scheduled fo r June 30, 2009 (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). Climate Change and Energy Production Clim ate change caused by human activity is ar guably the largest co ntributor to global warming and other deleterious environmenta l phenomenon. Oil produc tion and consumption, coal production and consumption, and gasoline consumption are worldwide behaviors that have been factors in worsening environmental cond itions. Germany, as a highly industrialized country, is as susceptible to blame as any of its international industr ial contemporaries. As previously mentioned, Berlin was in a unique position throughout the middle of the twentieth century in that though th e Western government was attempti ng to reduce environmental hazards, airborne pollutants from the East could easily traverse the Wall as they pleased. In 2000, Berlin emitted 7.5 tons of CO2 gas per capita, a decrease from the 1990 emission level of 9.6 tons; the global system (supporting a population of approximately six billion people) can only absorb about 2 tons per capita (Sen atsverwaltung, 2006a; Sena tsverwaltung, 2003a). Projection studies have found that if the city (and the greater Brande nburg region) continues on this trajectory, it could face increased droughts, along with dramatic increases in energy prices
95 leading to substantial financial burdens for households and businesses. Berlins sustainability plan has found that the main contributors to energy waste are the usua l culprits: inadequate building insulation, inefficient vehicles, and in efficient appliances (Senatsverwaltung, 2003a). By promoting certification programs like Blauer Engel10 and increasing public/shared transportation programs, Berlin has been able to reduce its CO2 emissions by approximately 14 percent (Senatsv erwaltung, 2006a).11 Keeping with the principles laid out in Lo cal Agenda 21, Berlins energy plans focus on long-term energy production and consumption capabil ities. By investing in long-term plans to reduce CO2 emissions, Berlin hopes to revitalize its economy by producing in related research and technology development. Rising energy costs (environmental and economic) would therefore be inherently reduced due to energy savings and increased efficiency. If one further analyzes the citys energy policy, one finds th at another aim is to reduce dependency on oil exporting states. This endeavor, however, requi res commitment on behalf of the federal government more so than on the part of the city-state. Similar to the actions goal s specified above for housing, community development, and transportation, the city has developed three act ion goals for the climate change and energy section. These goals are based on the principle of locally produced, intelligently applied, [and] conservingly used energy (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 48). The first action goal sets a minimum 50 percent CO2 emissions reduction by the year 2050, with the target being set at 80 percent. Furthermore, the city aims to increa se the percentage of electricity produced by 10 The Blauer Engel (trans. Blue Angel) program is a German eco-labeling program. The Blue Angel program includes a wide range of products, from construction materials to household appliances and goods. 11 Although CO2 reductions in Berlin may seem like impressive gains made in a relatively short period of time, the city is still below the national average of 18.5 percent (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a). This can be attributed to limited available local funding in support of more radical progra ms. Berlins accomplishment, however, is still significantly better than many other cities of comparable size.
96 renewable resources (i.e. photovol taic panels, solar generation plants, etc.) by 35 percent.12 Finally, the percentage of co-gen eration local and district heati ng of the total market should be increased from 25 percent in 2003 to 40 percen t in 2020 (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 49). The last two action goals are inheren tly related, as with increased in stallation of renewable resource technology, it becomes easier for local power generation. Similar to the action goals previously examin ed, the most daunting obstacle is securing funding for the programs success. Berlins Senate for Urban Development affirms that by influencing national laws and regulations to prom ote similar energy plans, then the city will be able to secure sufficient long-term funding. Un fortunately, if the fede ral government adopts similarly ambitious goals and passes them on to the states, then Berlin is again left competing for financial assistance; ecological restructuring of public funding systems (by placing a value on natural capital) is a pot ential alternative. Possible positive national options include introducing passive energy building standards for new cons truction and minimum energy standards for all buildings, heating laws requiring additional buildi ng technologies or systems for heat production using renewable energy systems, and intr oducing air traffic ta xes to reduce CO2 emissions, among others. Berlin does in fact have effective energy pr ograms in place. For example, public roof surfaces (when not used as green roofs) are used for photovoltaic systems. Furthermore, the city can continue to exclude nuclear energy in the Berlin-Brandenburg Region. The Senate for Urban Development (2006a) describes that an additional program, Is to be established for systematica lly increasing energy efficiency and for establishing renewable energy: compre hensive renovation an d insulation of Berlins buildings (public and private) through energy partnerships, requiring City 12 In 1998, the Berlin metropolitan ar ea had approximately 300 solar power ge neration plants, creating up to 1,200 kilowatts per hour (Senatsverwaltung, 2003b).
97 Housing Authorities to carry out energy st udies of their buildings and to introduce benchmarking; consistent ecological purchasing for all public institutions (p. 50) As long as these programs are able to continue, then additional energy efficiency gains will be seen, though perhaps not as dramatic as th e city aimed for in its long-term goals. Sustainable Mobility In addition to reducing dependence on vehicu lar transportation, the Senate for Urban Developm ent has introduced additional measures to promote sustainable mobility. Among these are innovative concepts like green arteries, as well as more conventional plans to enforce nighttime speed reductions through residential areas, and car and bicycle sharing programs. The green artery plan was introduced in 2004 as a part of Berlins Local Agenda 21. Cutting through Mitte, the land abut ting the River Spree is slated to become one of twenty green arteries within the city (See Figure 4-8). Where the Ti ergarten is the Berlins lung, the ten mile green artery running from Charlott enburg Castle to Rummelsburger Bucht is supposed to scenically connect the two halves of the city. Furtherm ore, the Spree green artery is planned in a way that it is within a few blocks distance from over fifty smaller city parks, which act as green recreational spaces (Senatsverwaltung, 2007d). The green arteries therefore not only encourage pedestrian activity, but also offer new intra-city linkages. Additionally, by planting native species along the river, the ci ty is creating a scenic route for the enjoyment of tourists and residents alike. The Speed 30 initiative was introduced in April 2007 to reduce traffic and noise pollution in residential neighbor hoods at night. The program is based on the assumption that noise pollution and air pollution caused by vehicu lar traffic can cause illness (e.g. insomnia, asthma, etc.). The Senate for Urban Development saw it as their obligation to citizens to create
98 Speed 30 zones; the majority of Bezirke approved the measure (Senatsvewaltung, 2007d). Like any traffic zone with a speed limit, compliance is monitored by local police enforcement. Though car sharing is not a novel idea, government sponsored programs are indeed rare. Begun in 1995, car sharing is regarded as a sustai nable means of transportation. The Senate for Urban Development has found that car sharing user s not only change over to a more sustainable means of transport, but tend to generally redu ce their transportation needs (Senatsverwaltung, 2006a, p. 44). The citys bicycle sharing program, Call-a-Bike, has provided bicycles in Mitte without restrictions on pick-up/ return locations, since 2002. The bi cycles are remotely released by cellular phone. It is not unusual to see a preponderance of bicycles within the inner city with the large red DB ( Deutsche Bahn ) logo. These two traffic measures have been effective in reducing traffic in the inne r city, though not to the governments target levels. Summary The Planwerk Innenstadts various elements ha ve helped the inner ci ty quickly rebuild its identity as a modern European capital. Given the citys fiscal and politic al constraints, it is impressive that such dramatic and ambitious changes have been accomplished in less than two decades. As the findings show, the largest probl ems faced in meeting the action goals involve citizen participation, alleviating environmenta l hazards, and providing subsidies for program success (Table 4-2). The Planwerk Innenstadt considers these weakne sses, however, and has provided mechanisms to mitigate them. The main issue facing the Planwerk, then, is the discrepancy between the plans goals a nd the citys ability to execute them.
99 Table 4-1. Inventory of housing ty pologies. [Gathered with data from the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008.] Structure Type Area Type Structure Types with Predominantly Residential Use (1) Late 19th-century block development with (1) Closed courtyard wings and rear buildings (2) Courtyard (5) Preservation-oriented reconstruction (2) Late 19th-century block-edge (3) Decorative and garden court development with few wings / rear buildings (6) Shed court (3) Late 19th-century block-edge development (7) Postwar block-edge with major changes (4) Reconstruction by de-coring (4) Twenties and thirties block-edge and row development (10) Large court and twenties and thirties row (in east-Berlin only large court) (72) Twenties and thirties row (5) Fifties and later row development (11) Fifties and later row (6) Postwar high-rise development (8) Unplanned reconstruction (9) High-rise (7) Eighties and nineties block-edge or row development (71) Eighties and nineties pre-fab high-rise, (8) compact high urban living developmet of the nineties (73) Settlement area of the nineties compact, >= 4 floors (9) urban living developmet of the nineties with low density (74) Settlement area (row, single and dobble houses) of the nineties with low density, < 4 floors
100 Table 4-2. Effectiveness of the Plan werk Innenstadts ten objectives.
101 Legend Figure 4-1. The Planwerk Innensta dt Berlin, 2002 update. [Reprinted with permission from the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008.].
102 Figure 4-2. 3-D models of the Planwerk Innenstadt Berlin. The wooden structures represent post1989 construction [Photographs taken by author. 2007.].
103 Figure 4-3. Examples of rehabilitated Plattenbauten. [Photographs taken by author.].
104 Figure 4-4. Examples of contemporary high-de nsity urban development [Photographs taken by author.].
105 Figure 4-6. Transportation corri dors in central Mitte.
106 Figure 4-7. Public transportati on connectivity in Mitte.
107 Figure 4-8. Railway stations. Top: Ostbahnhof ; Middle: Hauptbahnhof; Bottom: Unter den Linden. [Photographs taken by author].
108 Figure 4-9. An example of a green artery runn ing through Mitte. [Reprinted with permission from the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008.]
109 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION: A EUROPEAN METROPOLIS Time is stronger than planning. The new parts of th e city will be devoured by the new layers. Everything is a phase, just an episode. The city sp eaks for itself, as a person. The city is a very strong individual, capable of absorbing all the w ounds that are inflicted on it (Konrd, 2004, p. 43). This chapter introduces the implications of the findings presented in Chapter 4. Gyorgy Konrds The City Builder, tells the story of a town planner w ho discovers the city as a treasury of clever solutions to well-defined problems, a nd as an expression of what people think, what they do, what they aspire to. As soon as he star ts to realize what the city is really like, he becomes aware of the shortcomings of modern town planning (Konrd, 2004, p. 40). In the past decade, Berlin has arisen as a modern interpretati on of the European capital city. The city shares many of the same problems as other capitals: stagnant growth, unaffordable housing, congested traffic, heightened ecological awareness, and socio-economic tensions. Berlin, however, has been given the opportunity to forge its own deve lopment by seeking out the citys historical structures and interpreting them in new ways. This makes the Planwerk an effective plan theoretically. Its execution, howev er, is limited due to extraneous circumstances (i.e. lack of funding), thus compromising the Planwerks ability to substantially affect change. The physical decisions made there directly affect the well-be ing of citizens and serve to mitigate the problems discussed above. The effects of the Planwerk In nenstadt are examined under three themes: (1) the European capital, (2) the unified city, and (3 ) the historical city. Finally, as the Planwerk Innenstadt is a constantly evolving plan, this chapter provides a glim pse into opportunities for further research. Measuring Up to the Definition of a European Capital This project is based on evaluati ng the certain ty of the Planwerk Innenstadts claims that it is, in fact, (re)creating a modern European capital out of th e divided city. To do this, several
110 unifying characteristics of successful capital citi es were listed, including: proximity to a body of water, highly dense urban fabric, clear historic district, reliance on publ ic transportation, and a commitment to promoting sustainable lifestyles. Th ese characteristics were then juxtaposed with four elements of the Planwerk Innenstadt: housing, community de velopment, transportation, and sustainability. By applying the crite ria of the European city to th e plan elements, it was possible to determine that the Planwerk is indeed accomplishing its goalwith unexpected results. The Senate for Urban Development wishes to blur the lines that onc e divided the city by looking to the characteristics sh ared by great European cities and then highlighting those in central Berlin. During this process, they did not realize that they were, in fact, creating a new post-industrial city, principally because of the new issues and variables that they confronted. Mitte is experiencing a housing surp lus, at the same time as it is experiencing massive financial deficits. Furthermore, various immigrant groups ha ve created enclaves wi thin the city. Finally, Berlin also had to adhere to fe deral sustainability measures to improve quality of life for all residents. After combining these variables, the Senate for Urban Development had to create new programs for city, some of wh ich were explored above. By creating programs and initiatives to resolve Berlins local problems, the Senate for Urban Development unknowingly created vanguar d programs that have been recreated throughout Europe. The citys sustai nability initiatives are but one example, as other cities have developed similar green building guidelines Furthermore, many ex-Soviet capitals are embracing their stock of Plattenbauten in the same manner as Berli n, as these too have proven to be highly attractive housing options. This paper found, then, that although Berlin wanted to capture a certain lost European character by em ulating other cities, it has instead become a vanguard in creating the image of the ultra-modern, citizen-c entered, sustainable city.
111 The Unified City: From Modern to Post-Modern One of the unique characteristics of urban pl ann ing in Mitte is the preoccupation with acknowledging the various layers of history presen t in the streets and buildings. The Planwerk Innenstadt attempts to recreate historic block pa tterns and facades with the excuse of restoring Berlin its last authentic incarnation in historythe pre-World War I city. Prior to 1914, Berlin was undergoing rapid transformation whilst becoming Europes modern Bauhaus-styled city. Curren t city planners wish to adopt planning principles present during this time period. However, this practice over looks over six decades of the citys history. By attempting to arbitrarily recreate the past, the city is at risk of fa lling into a post-modern slumpthat is, recreating historic patterns without need. Furtherm ore, preWorld War I Berlin does not have the same demographics, cultural diversity, and financial woes as present-day Berlin. It would be counterintuit ive to the Planwerks action goals to ignore these variables. Continued community participation and involveme nt is needed to shape our cities and to make them communicative, in addition to maintaining a checks and balances system on development proposals (Rykwert, 2000, p. 246). G overning bodies, however, have overlooked this idea. In Berlin, the Bezirke facilitate community participati on and have made city planning a more democratic processat least in the ne ighborhoods with active co mmunity groups. It is pivotal that involved actors understand the city as a dynamic and three-dimensional figure, capable of self-generation, re quiring understanding its layers of history, as well as an understanding of how built forms are transforme d into image by experience (Rykwert, 2000, p. 246). Mitte residents already have obtained a reputation for understand ing the city as an organic, growing creature, which needs to evolve and upda te itself; the uneasy tension exists in cases where emotional bonds to buildings and st reets overshadow this understanding.
112 The Influence of the Past Berlins form has been shaped by more th an 700 years of history. Countless ideas, thoughts and speculations, planned and unplanned decisions, and constructive, as well as destructive events have left th eir physical m ark. As Ungers (1999) proclaims, The city is a perfect textbook recordin g all the traces left behind by wh at has passed (p. 93). Most other European capital cities embrace thei r history, with each period showing its distinct mark in the urban landscape. For Berlin, it is difficult to embrace history. Painti ng the GDR as a failed experiment or a dark horse trivializes the experience of millions of Germans who lived in the East. Berlin planners, then, must remain conscious of this deba te, as they are responsible for rebuilding the city that was once at the edge of two worlds. No one has to remind a Berliner about how much history there is in a city. Time has indeed proven to be stronger than any sort of urba n planning planning. Anything having to do with building and planning, as the paper has demonstr ated, is inevitably po litical. Planners (and builders), then, must be held publicly accountable for their actions. The Planwerk is an attempt to overcome Modernist planning without falling to pre-Modern planning pr actices, or giving up serious city planning altogether. It has been described as falli ng somewhere between a general zoning plan and a special development plan (Stimmann, 2000, p. 31). In matters involving contentious historical re flection, the Planwerk gets mired in selfaware debate. The city (and its planners, citizens, etc.) is continuously engaged in a dialectical process, where each statement is contradicted, and made relative by an opposing, or counter, statement. It is difficult to find a third or new direction for the c ity because the city is essentially a collection of frag ments, ranging from the late 13th century until today. By attempting to rudimentarily heal wounds in sear ch of a new identity, past planning endeavors have seldom worked out: a decade later th e plans are accused of being un-German.
113 Beyond Berlin: Opportunities for Further Research A city never stops growing and evolvingpossibly to the ch agrin of m any planners and residents. Given the Planwerk Innenstadts coll aborative nature, it is i nherently a continuously evolving creature. It would be wort hwhile to study the plans long-term results to see if the city indeed meets all of the action a nd objective goals detailed in Ch apter Four and shown in Figure 5-1. Further research is also needed to thoroughly examine all of th e issues present in the politics of space and memory in Berlin, and how well prepar ed urban planning is to deal with these. As Gyorgy Konrad espoused, plans and people are imper manent; regardless, planners must engage citizens to create the healthiest and most succe ssful living space possibleif only for ones own lifetime. By using Berlin and the Planwerk as a case study of a fragme nted urban space struggling with a new comprehensive plan, it is possible to apply some of th ese findings to future research on other fragmented cities, includi ng Nicosia, Cyprus and Belfast, Ireland. Both of these cities are dealing with similar issues as Berlin re garding cultural inclusion, future visioning, and contested histories. By using Berlin as the prot otypical divided city, it is possible to gather relevant information on the aforementioned cities to see how successful their paths to unification may be.
114 Figure 5-1. Projected view of Mitte by 2010. [Reprinted with permission from Palgrave Macmillan. 2008].
115 APPENDIX HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN Housing Urban Development Plan (1999) District Mitte. [Reprinted with permission from the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. 2008.].
116 Legend Priority areas and locations Development areas Priority city development areas Inner City, West, South East and Northeast Urban Development Schemes ( 165 ff. BauGB) Priority locations (MFH>/=250 AU, OFH>/=50 AU) OFH Detached house for one family ("one family house") MFH Detached house for two or more families ("more families house") AU Apartment ("Apartment units") Priority areas to complement the existing city structure Existence of areas in priority develo pment spaces (filling in of construction gaps in the city, in the we stern and south-easte rn part of the city as well as in open design areas in the north-east of Berlin) Securing and development of high-quality areas Increase the urban density of areas, but in an open design form Priority locations Location development in resp ect to their marketability Locations Lower priority areas and locations Perspective areas (after 2010) The space used for living as well as its othe r uses are to be clarified within the framework of further plans Lower priority locations to be developed (after 2010) Areas well down the list to be claimed for example domestic architectural areas or housing in mixed construction areas Single measures Guiding projects for urban living Current land use plan alteration procedures Possible land use plan alteration fields Reduction / increase of domestic architectural areas, mixed construction areas
117 Development of existing areas Priority areas; Year of construction predominately up to 1948 Intense urban renewal (Redevelopment areas of the 9th RVO to 11th RVO) The finishing of the city renewal (Red evelopment areas of the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th RVO) Old inner city building quarters Areas with special development needs (neighbourhood management) Year of construction predominately after 1948 Settlements (large housing estate s and social housing complexes) Areas with special development need (neighbourhood management) Guiding-projects of urbanisation in the inner city Links / restrictions City-Structural Contract Area ( 11 BauGB / city-structural contracts under preparation) Formal defined redevelopment areas ( 136 ff. BauGB) ( 136 ff. BauGB) Aircraft noise protection-, planning zone s, settlement limitation zone / water protection area Residential areas and mixed constructi on areas of the land use plan, state October 1998 High expenditure for external development of potential areas together with city-technical infrastructure >500 AU Other descriptions Water Subway, commuter railroad, regional ra ilroad / small railroad (according to the land use plan) Highways (according to the land use plan) District boundaries / county border
118 The basic map for the surrounding area Motorways in the surrounding area / a a nd b roads (federal highways) in the surrounding area Railway constructions in the surrounding area Municipality boundaries / district boundaries Built up areas in the surrounding area
119 LIST OF REFERENCES Balfour, A. (1990). Berlin: The Politics of Order, 1737-1989 New York: Rizzoli. Basic Law ( Grundgesetz ) for the Federal Republic of Ger many (1949), amended on 26 July 2002. Berlin Ministry of Urban Development. (1994). Alexanderplatz: Urban Planning Ideas Competition Berlin: Ernst & Sohn. Burnett, S. (2007). Ghost Strasse: Germanys East Trapped Between Past and Present New York: Black Rose Books. Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity Oxford: Blackwell. Dttmann, M., and F. Zwoch, eds. (2000). Bauwelt Berlin Annual: Chronology of Building Events 1996-2001: 1999/2000 Boston: Birkhuser. Dwel, J. (2000). Wir sind das Bauvolk. In Ideals in Concrete: Exploring Central and Eastern Europe C. Wagenaar, and M. Dings, eds. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Eickelspach, A., and Pfeffer, I. (1996). Perspectiv en der wischaftlichen Entwicklung in Berlin. DIW Wochenbericht, 37 Eltges, M., and Strubelt, W. (2007). Equal Living Conditions and their Fiscal Bases. In German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy: Restructuring East Germany S. Lentz, ed. Berlin: Springer. Ernst, W., and S. Verlag, eds. (1988). Berlin: Denkmal oder Denkm odell? Berlin: Monument ou modle de pense? Berlin: Ernst & Sohn. European Commission. (2004). Economic and Soci al Cohesion in the European Union: the Impact of Member States Own Policies. In Regional Development Studies 29, Brussels. Accessed on 10 October 2006, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/ sources/docgener/studies/study_de.htm. Flierl, B. (1991). Stadtgestaltung in der ehemaligen DDR als Staatspolitik. In Wohnen und Staatspolitik im Umbruch P. Marcuse and F. Staufenbiel, eds. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Flockton, C., and E. Kolinsky, eds. (1999). Recasting East Germany: Social Transformation after the GDR London: Frank Cass. German Institute for Economic Research. (1989). GDR and Eastern Europe A Handbook Aldershot: Avebury. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of th e Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society Cambridge: MIT Press.
120 Hain, S. (2001) Struggle for the Inner Citya Plan Becomes a Declaration of War. In W.J.V. Neill & H.U. Schwedler (Eds.), Urban Planning and Cultural In clusion: Lessons from Belfast and Berlin (69-84). New York: Palgrave. Haxthausen, C.W., and S. Heidrum. (1991). Berlin: Culture and Metropolis Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hayden, D. (1995). The Power of Place: Urban L andscapes as Public History. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jarausch, K. (2002). The Politics of the Past and German Identity. In Ten Years of German Unification: Transfer, Transformation, Incorporation? J. Leonhard & L. Funk, eds. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press. p. 98-114. Jetzt achten die 23 Berliner Bezi rke selbst auf ihr Geld. (1994). Der Tagesspiegel, 14, 14 March 1994. Katzenstein, P. (1987). Politics and Policy in the Fede ral Republic of Germany. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kocka, J. (1994). Crisis of unification: how Germany changes. Daedalus, 123 (1), p. 173-193. Konrd, G. (2004). The City Builder. In Ideals in Concrete: Expl oring Central and Eastern Europe C. Wagenaar, and M. Dings, eds. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Ladd, B. (1997). The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ladd, B. (2002). East Berlin Political Monuments in the Late German Democratic Republic: Finding a Place for Marx and Engels, Journal of Contemporary History 37 (1), 91-104. Lampugnani, V.M. (1991). Berlin Tomorrow: Internat ional Architectural Visions London: Architectural Design. Mauruszat, R. (2000). The Social Organization of Environmental Design: Residential Buildings in the Berlin Region. In Urban Infrastructure in Transition S. Guy, S. Marvin, and T. Moss, eds. London: Earthscan. Marx, K., and F. Engels. (1970). The German Ideology C.J. Arthur, ed. London: International Publishers. Mollenkopf, J.H., and M. Castells. (1992). Dual City: The Restructuring New York Princeton: Princeton University Press.
121 Neelen, M., and A. Dzokic. (2004). Forget about Design. In Ideals in Concrete: Exploring Central and Eastern Europe C. Wagenaar, and M. Dings, eds. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Neill, W.J.V., and H.U Schwedler, eds. (2001). Urban Planning and Cultural Inclusion: Lessons from Belfast and Berlin New York: Palgrave. Nietzsche, F.W. (1983). Untimely Meditations R.J. Hollingdale, Trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oswalt, P. (2000). Berlin Stadt ohne Form: Staretegien einer anderen Architektur New York: Prestel. Palast der Republik in Berlin. ( 2006). Accessed on 29 March 2006 from, http://www.pdr.kultur-netz.de/. Peters, P. (1997). Eine Zukunft fr die Karl-Marx-Allee Hamburg: Dlling und Galitz. Pundt, H.G. (1967). Schinkel's Environmen tal Planning of Central Berlin. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 26 (2). Rrup, R., ed. (1987). Topographie des Terrors. Berlin: Arenhlvel. Rykwert, J. (2000). The Seduction of Place: The City in the Twenty-first Century. New York: Pantheon Books. Sanders, W. (2004). Learning from Lost Cities: Lessons from Post-Socialist Urbanism. In Ideals in Concrete: Exploring Central and Eastern Europe C. Wagenaar, and M. Dings, eds. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Scheffler, K. (1989). Berlin ein Stadtschicksal reprint of the origin al edition, 1910, Berlin. Schildt, A. (2002). Urban Reconstruction and Urban Development in Germany after 1945. In Towards an Urban Nation: Germany since 1780 F. Lenger, ed. Oxford: Berg. p. 141161. Schneider, B. (2001). The Variety of Identities Experiences from Berlin. In W.J.V. Neill & H.U. Schwedler (Eds.), Urban Planning and Cultural Inclusion: Lessons from Belfast and Berlin (165-176). New York: Palgrave. Schwedler, H.U. (2000). The Urba n Planning Context in Berlin: a City Twice Unique. In In W.J.V. Neill & H.U. Schwedler (Eds.), Urban Planning and Cultural Inclusion: Lessons from Belfast and Berlin (165-176). New York: Palgrave. Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwicklung. (2003a). Nachhaltiges Berlin/Sustainable Berlin Berlin: Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtent wicklung Bereich Kommunikation.
122 ---. (2003b). Zahlen und Fakten zum neuen Berlin 1990-1999 Berlin: Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwicklung, Umweltschutz und Technologie. ---. (2006a). Berlin zukunftsfahig gestalten/Creating a Sustainable Berlin Berlin: Herausgeber der Kurzfassung. ---. (2006b). Informationen zur Parkraumbewirtschaftung in Berlin Berlin: Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwicklung Bereich Kommunikation. ---. (2007a). Planwerk Innenstadt: Urban Development Plan Berlin: Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwicklung Bereich Kommunikation. ---. (2007b). Stadtforum Berlin: Perspectives for Berlin, Strategies and Pilot Projects Berlin: H&P Druck Pffsetdruckrei Friedrich Hilberts. ---. (2007c). Besser gehen besser fahren: Sonderprogramm gegen Straenschden. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtent wicklung Bereich Kommunikation. ---. (2007d). Flanieren entlang der Stadtspree: Eine r von 20 grnen Hauptwegen ldt ein. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung fr Stad tentwicklung Bereich Kommunikation. Stimmann, H., ed. (2000). Berlin: Physiognomie einer Grostadt. Berlin: Skira. Strom, E. (2001). Building the New Berlin: The Politics of Urban Development in Germanys Capital City New York: Lexington Books. Schting, W. & Weiss, P. (2001). A New Plan for Berlins Inner City: Pl anwerk Innenstadt. In W.J.V. Neill & H.U. Schwedler (Eds.), Urban Planning and Cultural Inclusion: Lessons from Belfast and Berlin (57-68). New York: Palgrave. Wise, M. (1998). Capital dilemma: Germanys Search for New Architecture of Democracy New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Van Rossem, V. (2004). Criticism, ar chitecture, and public housing. In Ideals in Concrete: Exploring Central and Eastern Europe C. Wagenaar, and M. Dings, eds. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Venhuizen, H. (2004) Alles wird gut. In Ideals in Concrete: Explor ing Central and Eastern Europe C. Wagenaar, and M. Dings, eds. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Young, I.M. (2003). City Life and Difference. In S. Campbell & S. Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory (336-355). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Zappe, S. (2002). Three Cities, Three City Models. In Towards an Urban Nation: Germany since 1780 F. Lenger, ed. Oxford: Berg. p. 163-184,
123 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alexandra C ristina Montealegre was born on June 29, 1984, in Miami, Florida, to Nicaraguan parents. Growing up in both Nicar agua and the United States, Alexandra was exposed to differing political syst ems and development patterns at an early age. She graduated from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in Miami in 2002, going to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to st udy political science. Alexandra transferred to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2003 to study political science and history. Within political science, she focused on Latin American politics; in history, her studies were concentrated on modern Europe, particularly Germany. Through her electives in anthropology, German studies, and dual enrollment at Duke Universitys ar t history program, she began to explore the connections between culture, politics, and the built environment. Although Alexandra first considered pursuing graduate wo rk in material anthropology, sh e instead chose urban planning, as it was a more pragmatic field in whic h to pursue her research interests. She earned a bachelors degree in political science with a sec ond major in modern European history from the University of North Ca rolina at Chapel Hill in 2006. Later that year, Alexandra enrolled in the graduate program in ur ban and regional Planning at the University of Florida on a U.S. Department of Housing a nd Urban Development Community Development Scholarship. She is interested in post-conflict de velopment, sustainable de sign, infrastructure and modernization in the Global Sout h, and historic preservation.