Berlin Thesis
The Reunification of Berlin through Architecture and Urban Planning and the debates to achieve such unity
The study that is to be undertaken is going to be a study into the effectiveness of architecture as a tool to reunify the broken histories of Berlin. The choice of Berlin as the city of study is due to its interest of being a modern (post)colonial city (Lisiak 2010), and its recent history of reunification bringing two separate ideologies in two divided sectors together encompassing them to create the new capital of Germany. Its modern history of open democracy has led to a very considered, contested and much debated plans for a new Berlin. It has adopted and founded new styles and techniques in architecture and urban planning, in order to achieve a reunified city. Research will be taken into the need to be sensitive of the history and context, and the architectural ideology will be questioned as to how a city that has been two separate states can be joined and effectively form the foundations of the way forward in reunification.
Photograph of the remaining Berlin Wall, once splitting Berlin into two cities.
Berlin celebrated its 750th anniversary in 1987 commemorating a much checkered history of a town and capital that has been through so much totalitarian regime and governance. In that time Berlin has been shaped from a small market town, into the capital of Germany. It was originally built as a trade route along the River Spree, and was important as it brought traders together and was a meeting point for them, and an important crossing point. Berlin originally had a series of electors to govern it, each developing Berlin further, attempting to leave their own legacies, starting from a garrison town, encouraging immigration as a way of expansion. In 1701 Berlin became the capital of Prussia, and Friedrich Willhelm I (1688-1740) expanded the fortifications, and laid out a series of new districts in what was still a medieval city, forming the foundations of the modern city. At most times Berlin has been a city that has had the rulers interfering with market forces for their own benefit, not allowing the continuous natural growth that other similar cities have experienced. These electors from the start were very conscious of defending the city and the urban planning was run in a top-down manner, and this too has been the case throughout, such as two centuries later in the 1930’s with the plans of Albert Speer’s Germania in the Nazi rule.
The Second World War destroyed much of Berlin, and what was left was then divided between the allies, into four sectors. Quickly the opposing ideologies of Russia’s communism led to a split in Berlin, creating two individual states, the East (GDR) governed by the Russians, and the West (Federal Republic of Germany) governed by Britain, France and the USA. Between 1945 and 1990 West Berlin was supported by the capitalist western countries, and money was invested in upkeep and the economy was much stronger, very evident visiting the Kurfürstendamm. The East on the other hand was subject to a communist regime of the state imposing itself, and development was slow and poorly funded. Due to pressures from the inhabitants, and the gradual downfall in communism in 1989, Berlin was reunited on October 3rd 1990. This left the city that had been divided for almost half a century to unite itself, and left the task to create a new unified heart of the city in the land periphery to where the wall had stood. It was a canvas that was marked in history but it had been given a fresh start to bring the inhabitants together and push forward into the 21st century Berlin that we have today.
Berlin has tried and needed to unify the East and West to create one city from two separate states. The process has not been easy, and the history of Germany and Berlin through the Nazi and communist regimes brings much remembrance of the past. Ladd (1997) states Berlin “is a city whose buildings, ruins, and voids groan under the burden of painful memories”. For Berlin to be reunified the architecture and the urban planning need to address these sites and be able to deal with them to remove, or appease the memories so that the past does not overwhelm but instead is a catalyst for moving forward further into a reunified new golden age. Architecture has been the tool implemented to bring this change into being.
The Reichstag is an important architectural project linking the pre unified, with the reunified, while addressing issues from its checkered past.
When considering this potential for a reunified city, it is important to remember the contextual past to understand what has shaped German architecture. Germany has had a philosophy of creating architecture for a mass audience and turning this space into a spectacle. Friedrich Willhelm I, (1688-1740) founded the development of the first planned squares and gathering places in Berlin, with the planned expansion of the city in the 1730’s. He took the three main gates into Berlin; Brandenberg Gate, Potsdam Gate and Hallesches Gate, and transformed each into a monumental public space. This in turn led to the development of the major streets and centres of Berlin being formed, linking these main public spaces together, such as Frederickstrasse (Balfour 1990). These districts became the busiest and had the largest spheres of influence within Berlin, and as such became the main areas of architectural development and attention meaning when looking into reunification through architecture they should be pivotal. These commercial centres grew even throughout the division of the city creating the centres of East and West Berlin, with the notable exception of Potsdamer Platz.
A sectional drawing through Friedrichstrasse, one of the main commercial streets linking the East and West.
The German architectural movement has for a long time adopted this sense of mass audience and providing a communal space that is of grand manner and spectacular scale. Although founded in the 1700’s it became a widespread movement in Imperial Germany, with the theory developing that architecture could rebuild society and modeled “courting the masses” fundamental to community (James-Chakraborty 2000). The Republic and the Weimar both encouraged this concept further still, and it was heightened under the Nazi regime encouraging the mass audience in architecture with spectacular demonstrations such as the Nuremberg rallies. It was due to this association with the rule of the Nazi’s, when Germany split, architects started to back down from this supply of mass audience, due to these unwanted memories. This association led to a movement away from public space encouraging the separation of the 1950s-80s. Therefore for the reunification to be a success it is important for the town planners and architects to work through this issues, and restart producing quality public space for the people to unite in.
Another debate that has been caused by this scare of past memoirs, is the style in which to proceed in urban planning to push forward a new future of unity (the stylist approach). Berlin has been influenced by two disagreeing camps, both arguing that their style should lead the way to a reunited future. The two camps are the nostalgic traditionalist critical reconstruction camp and the modernist commercial side. The critical reconstructive side has concentrated its thought on the past and how Berlin was united before the rise of the Nazis. However it ignores the parts of architectural history when fascism, division and national difficulties run parallel. Huyssen (1997) goes further to argue that this critical reconstruction ideology repressed the architecture of the Nazis, and went on further to ignore the architecture of communism, hence directly ignoring part of Berlin’s history.
This camp was led by Has Stimman who sought to “take down the real and invisible borders that were dividing the city” as according to the Planwerk Innenstadt (the urban planning departments goals). He was in the leading position as Berlin’s building director until 1996 and so his plans were to take Berlin back to the last “golden age” and he believed in defending this national tradition (Huyssen 1997). This ideology of reunifying Berlin through an architectural style based on the grounds of its past glory 70 years previously is theoretically pleasing but in realism is “wholly imaginary” (Huyssen 1997). The movement was anti-modernist and set a system of rules, that the style of architecture had to be in traditional blocks, restricting height, with a stone facade, and 1920’s dimensions. This lack of future thinking and realism in implementation led to its general failure with Friedrichstrasse a prominent example. Here when you visit the shopping boulevards that link the past glorious days with the modern, the ideas of critical reconstruction have not really been implemented, as a result of the commercial nature of architecture. James-Chakraborty (2000) argued that Stimmann shared a fear of the spectacle whether civic or capitalist, avoiding another key area of Germany’s past. So this style of architecture did intend on reunifying Berlin but actually when implemented was not a big enough statement to have the ability to tie together and move forwards.
A sketch of a Berlin building to illustrate how small the implications of critical reconstruction were and the need if architecture was to be an effective tool for something greater.
This then brings into question the effectiveness of the opposing camp, the commercial side and its abilities to reunify Berlin. Visiting Berlin it is clear to get a sense that modern architecture has shaped the way forward to a city that still has memories of the past but has a deep desire to catch up with other western cities who have had a long advantage over themselves. Before the fall of the wall, both the East and the West were supported heavily by their governments and the outside world. With this investment the architecture could be generated in a certain approach and had deeper restrictions on the projects (as Stimman had adopted), however with the reunification the city could no longer rely on subsidies but had to survive in a world of the free market economies. Berlin as with the other Central European post communist countries, attracted vast amounts of foreign investment as the land was cheap and so were the costs of labour due to high unemployment rates (Lisiak 2010). The council passed the Investitionsvorranggesetz enabling the selling of land to these foreign investors, creating the property boom. It was this investment that is noticeable when in Berlin, and the new architectural projects developed, promoting a new era in Berlin, an era of unification and a time of breaking down the previous barriers of state led governance.
With the commercial movement in architecture, modernism was rife and steel and glass facaded buildings become second nature, both new and old buildings are given this new, clean, transparent facade. However its not just a facade thats important, but in Berlin it adopts a deeper meaning. The ability to have a building’s facade completely transparent has led to the motion that it offers transparency within the building and institution, holding them accountable for their actions. This is extremely important and contextual for a city that has been for long periods of time governed by authorities secretive about intent and actions, and the Stasi in the GDR illustrate this phenomena.
In this air of transparency, the Reichstag in Berlin has been transformed by Foster. It exemplifies where architectural design can facilitate change. The Reichstag’s history encompasses the Imperial family restraining the governments power, the Weimar Republic’s time of instability, the totalitarian rule of the Nazi regime, the Russian takeover at the end of World War Two, and now finally the new era of a reunified Germany. The Reichstag had been damaged in the war and the original dome on top was destroyed, Foster won the competition to design a new glass dome that would be open to the public so they could interact with the government, and use it as a viewing platform across the united city. James-Chakraborty (2000) states the importance of the design of the cupola which allows the user to “look down upon those who represented them”, hence not allowing for abuse of power. The scheme has transformed a building with a vicissitudinous past to a symbol of transparency and a future of open democracy. This has taken the composition of the building and taken it much further as a weapon to reunify and promote a united future for the East and the West.
Sketch showing the success of the Reichstag’s architecture allowing Berliner’s to look down into the chambers and have transparency in architecture.
Wise (1999) and Fischer (1999) back up this idea that the modernist movement and the simplicity of steel and glass in design offers a political ideology of transparency and is “embraced as symbol of an open democracy”, the key to a united city. Wise (1999) does question however that this has been twisted in fascist Italy where the same use of modernism was used to distort public opinion. However 60 years later, the very nature of democracy has led to a more developed layered transparency that has much less individual power than offered to Mussolini. Hence the slight restraint Wise demonstrates is much less important in the current climate, and the use of transparency in architecture has led to an improved climate of trust and ability to put trust in organisations, redefining history.
It is necessary to consider that although there is a physical material transparency to the building, this does not automatically generate a perfect and well checked order behind it. The use of glass in the modernist architecture (Englert 2008) has aided to the transparency in politics and everyday lives especially having interviewed Berliners to seek their opinions in the matter. From a realists viewpoint this ideology and juxtaposition of transparency within architecture has however been somewhat “exaggerated” (Wise 1999). The new government buildings in Berlin offer this transparency and as an idea and notion of something greater than the physical composition it is a success. However, when you are stood on their perimeters, the increased defense and protection around the ministries due to a rise in terrorism, makes the argument of transparency weaker, as a result of no user interaction, unlike the much more highly successful Reichstag. When standing outside one can look inside and see people walking about or sitting at their desk but any further interaction is restricted unless you have a pre arranged pass, or an appointment. Hence forth this stylistic tool for reunification is its biggest success when it is delivered alongside interaction with the user, and not standing alone.
Urban Plan of the new government buildings sector
The architecture of the west has been adopted in the east of Berlin, as it is commercially viable, funded by private investors, and the East has been subjected to the western world (Lisiak 2010). The real major changes to the new Berlin were needed in the no mans land (periphery land) and in the east of Berlin, as the East had been subjected to the economic poverty and the suppression of the communist regime. Light (2000) argues that some of the symbols of the regime can be quickly broken, such as the lack of democracy, however some symbols take much more time to destroy and are still “highly visible symbols of a period of history which many people want to forget” in reference to the concrete towers of the East. The concrete tower blocks still rise up over the east of Berlin reminding the city that its only just over the horizon of the suppression, and until these signs can be replaced this bond to the past will not be broken.
In Iraq the symbols of Saddam Hussein had to be torn down to show the end of a regime, and here too, to psychologically move forward these architectural symbols will need to be removed to truly unify and free the city. It must be ensured that one remembers that the capitalism of the West does not destroy all parts of the East’s history, as this will be less of a reunification, and more colonisation of the East, which some East Berliners already feel to be the case (Lisiak 2010). This brings forward the continual fine balance between remembrance in architecture, but also not restraining the future growth and hope by these chains of the past. Gradually East Berlin is regenerating and the architectural style is slow to change as the tower blocks cannot be replaced, it is unrealistic to think that in 20 years Berlin could regenerate every block, and the initial focus would be on the new public schemes that can directly unify the nation. This prioritisation has emphasised focus on the past and present city centres to generate change and unity, which then in turn should lead to the expansion from these centres into the surrounding districts. This is the best way to generate unity, as all the population will engage with these centres and the barriers of East and West are broken down gradually. So by the time, the architectural and urban planning change reach the old tower blocks, the unity is already in place, so it should become less of an issue.
Section through a typical east Berlin districts daunting tower blocks.
The best example of such high investment in a centre to unify the population at the foundation of the united Berlin is the case study of Potsdamer Platz. This public centre was mostly destroyed in the bombings of the Second World War, and any remains left were destroyed in 1961 with the building of the Berlin Wall. In 1989 when the wall was torn down, Huyssen (1997) described the remains of where Potsdamer Platz once stood as “a void filled with history and memory”. Porter (2010) states that this “wasteland demarcated by the wall” has been transformed into the commercial heart of Berlin once again, testifying to the quick reunification of the East and West, with a new centre between the two.
It has been argued that Potsdamer Platz as a commercial centre was constructed not to unify but to promote the big businesses. Architecturally the individual buildings may be selfishly designed to maximize their independent image and the prestige of the company putting their individuality above and beyond Berlin’s unity. However the creation of this new populous centre links the two together so creates a new centre stage whereby East and West Berliners, and tourists mix together creating a successful daily mergence of the sides. Davey (1999) defends this individualist outlook further by stating that these corporations such as Sony “have a right to be recognised” due to the vast amount of money they have poured into this once unused wasteland. Davey (1999) further defends this style of internationalisation by referring historically back to the 1920’s and 30’s when this advertisement was the same, and as Fahmy (2010) states it was when “Berlin famously last showed off”. Before the Second World War Potsdamer platz was one of the most flashy and exciting squares in Europe, where the predecessors covered the buildings with advertisement. Hence Potsdamer Platz is contextually similar to what it would have been when Berlin was last reunited.
The new Sony Centre
The site of Potsdamer Platz was sold in 1990 by the city to Daimler-Benz, Sony and Asea Brown Boveri. The three built the main structures each competing with the others to create this new must-see centre in the previous no mans land, turning it into every mans land. The Sony Centre as an example of these schemes is a new development of offices that create a public space offering cinemas, shops, restaurants and entertainment. The design has a tensile roof which acts as a symbol across Berlin of the new hope and new direction into the future. The iconic roof “beckons people” to the site and acts as a place for people to gather, in day and it is lit at night (Davey 2010). The high technology offered in the architecture at Potsdamer Platz competes with schemes across the world, and as a result attracts not only Berliners, but tourists from across the world. This use of architecture then is a very effective use to unify Berlin and to use the public spaces as a catalyst for further growth.
Urban Plan of the new Potsdamer Platz
The development of this no mans land is not just evident at the priority case study of Potsdamer Platz but further along in various forms. At the collapse of the wall and following the reunification of the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany, this land led the cities to grow apart (Ladd 2000). Much of this land still exists to some extent, and there has been debate about how to join the two sides together and how to utilise this area. The 02 World, which is built on the eastern side of the East Side Gallery in this strip of land, is an example of another type of reunifying strategy at the periphery although complimentary to that of potsdamer Platz. Completed in 2008 and the home to ice hockey and basket ball teams, concerts and festivals, the 17,000 seat capacity offers the chance to bring together people from both sides, breaking the barriers that society and the past has instilled. Glaeser (2000) argued that even after the fall of the wall the Germans were worried about the psychological wall, the “walls in the heads of people”. However a project as this unites the population under a common cause, and to those visiting the differences between the East and West is not important. The uniting of people under the same cause has propelled the O2 World and Potsdamer Platz, especially given their location on the border, where the two sides need to be unified, and where the task is harder due to the sparse nature of the land.
When visiting the site of the 02 World, the East Side Gallery situated just in front of the arena, immediately recollected the thoughts of the divided city and so psychologically it seemed the city had not reunified but instead was still living in its past. Having interviewed local people to test these views, it seemed much less of an issue than to that of a tourist, as they had adjusted (although not forgetful) to the existence of these memories. Hence their view was that the wall was not so much a reminder of the past but more of a pointer to the unified present and future.
A conflicting strategy is to leave the periphery land as a memorial to the past, so that the same mistakes will never return to a city marked with many errors. This has become a highly sensitive field of thought in Berlin, as Ladd (1997) and Fischer (1999) point out there are endless sites across Berlin with importance to the past, if not all. When visiting Berlin it becomes evident that memory is a clear statement by the city, memorials of some extent are evident on almost every street, park and public space. One does not seem to be able to escape from the past in Berlin, and the trend seems to be gathering speed with new sections of the wall reopening, new memorial parks created e.g. around the Church of Reconciliation. At the fall of the wall these symbols were destroyed out of passion and need to leave the past behind, whereas now the symbols are somewhat being replaced. This is due to it being Berlin’s national heritage and attempt to identify past mistakes but also for tourism and to promote the past to generate extra income (Heneghan 2000).
Sketches of a couple of pieces of abstract sculpture evident throughout Berlin reminding the inhabitants of the past but offering unity as the way forwards.
One of the large memorials, where the public square has been turned into a concrete graveyard remembering the Jewish victims, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. (Broadbent 2009 and Ladd 1997).
Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin is argued to be the best single example of an architectural project that reunifies Berlin’s history (James-Chakraborty 2000). It addresses the past, even though it is a difficult and even distressing subject on the treatment of the Jewish people under the rule of fascism and Hitler, while at the same time resisting to be a dagger of blame to the people of Germany who now have to live with this uneasy past. Huyssen (1997) agrees that Libeskind’s project successfully addresses the relationship between Berliner and the Jewish people, and seeks to reunify what some may be scared to put back together, “the void provides that in-between space between Berlin’s history and Jewish history in Berlin, inseparable as they are” (addressing the design of the project). It is this balance between modernism and memory that has meant the Berlin can address some of its issues of the past.
Ground plan for the Jewish museum
A view from inside the Jewish Museum, mixing effectively modernism and remembrance.
Alsop et al (1992) put forward the argument that Berlin is “saturated” in its histories, and that the beauty it offers and the way it should develop is to not be full of grand statements as is the way of German history, but instead propose its modernism. This is a valid rule for regeneration to look forward, but modernism does not fulfill all the requirements to reunification, and architectural memory has to have a significant role to play.
It is hard to quantify the effectiveness of the reunification, and how much is due to architecture and planning. Heneghan (2000) looks at a number of indicators to see how united and reunified the two sides are. He discovers that the unemployment rate is still twice as high in the east at 17 per cent, and the West is still dominating over to the East. Social and demographic changes are not just a short term and so the provision of a piece of architecture such as Fosters Reichstag, allows for some of the disparity to be broken and for unity to increase, but the architecture alone does not completely unify people. From this study it is clear to see that architecture and urban planning have been a key issue to the reunification of Berlin. Its very nature of importance has been illustrated by the debate of how to practically implement this ideology to architecture, such as critical reconstruction, or modernism, public space or memorial park, individual project or urban plan. Twenty years after the reunification when visiting Berlin and talking with the inhabitants, much progress has been made and the foundations have certainly been placed, turning Berlin from a destination not to visit, to a place it on the worlds most important and visited cities.
The rise in construction and investment in Berlin, and the westernisation and global nature of these cities is “also mirrored in architecture” Lisiak (2010). The employment in world famous architects such as Daniel Libeskind in Berlin “increases the prestige and tourist value of the cities” Lisiak (2010). This need of tourism and international power has been needed in Berlin to raise its profile and unify it, and Fahmy (2010) has gone as far to call this period of time for Berlin its “renaissance”. This has resulted in the architecture being modern symbols, yet at the same time there is a clear need for memorials to both generate money from tourism and remember the past to move forward. So in conclusion architecture has been a key issue in the reunification of Berlin, and no matter whether one thought of ideas believe in one set of principles, or another believe their own, it has been made clear that this has created a balance in Berlin. This balance promotes the future new centres such as Potsdamer Platz, while keeping parts of the separated cities to show the hope of the reunified city. Hence architecture and urban planning have been successful tools to reunify East and West Berlin, and cause the foundations of even further unity in the future.
Reference List
Alsop W, (1992) City of Objects: Designs on Berlin, London Architectural press, London
Balfour, A. (1990) Berlin, The Politics of Order 1737-1989. Rizzoh International Publications, New York
Broadbent, P. (2009) Phenomenology of absence: Benjamin, Nietzsche and history in Cees Nooteboom’s All Souls day. Journal of Modern Literature, Spring 2009 32 p.99.
Davey, P. (1999) Sony central. The Architectural Review, 205, p.44.
Dawson, L. (2010) Daniel Libeskind, master of memorials, on the healing power of architecture. The Architectural Review, 227 p.32.
Englert, A. (2008) Berlin Modernism. Jouis Velag
Fahmy, D. (2010) Sexy and getting smarter. berlin’s elaborate new buildings are clear signals of an upswing in the city’s mood says Dalia Fahmy, The Financial Times, Saturday 30 October 2010 p.5.
Fischer, J. (1999) Book Reviews:The Ghosts of Berlin and Capital Dilemma. Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 1999 7
Fraser, D. (1996) Berlin. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Glaeser, A. (2000) Divided in Unity: Identity, Germany, and the Berlin Police. The University of Chicago Press, London
Heneghan, T. (2000) Unchained Eagle. Pearson Education, Great Britain
Huyssen, A. (1997) The Voids of Berlin. Critical Inquiry, 24 (1) p.57-81.
Ladd, B. (1997) The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape, University of Chicago Press, London
Ladd, B. (2000) Center and Periphery in the New Berlin: Architecture, Public Art, and the Search for Identity. A Journal of Performance and Art – PAJ 65 (Volume 22, Number 2), May 2000, pp. 7-21
Light, D. (2000) Gazing on communism: heritage tourism and post-communist identities in Germany, Hungary and Romania. Tourism Geographies. 2(2), 2000, p.157–176
Lisiak, A. (2010) The making of (post)colonial cities in Central Europe. Comparative Literature and Culture, March 2010 12
Porter, A. (2010) Together again –for 20 years: it’s been two decades since the wall camedown. An inside look at how Germany has rebuilt itself. Maclean’s, 11 October 2010 46
Wise, M. (1999) Capital dilemma: Germany’s search for a new architecture of democracy. Princeton Architectural Press, New York
