Berlin: A City Awaits: The Interplay Between Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity [1 ed.] 9783030514488, 9783030514495

Table of contents :
Foreword by Emily Talen
Foreword by M. Christine Boyer
Acknowledgements
Contents
About the Authors
List of Figures
1 Contextual Setting: Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity
References
2 Berlin’s Earlier Development: Power and Economic Growth
References
3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism Versus Monumentalism
References
4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold War: Formation of the East–West Division
References
5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing a Democratic and Economic Capital
References
6 Conclusions: A City Awaits
References
Index

Citation preview

Springer Geography

Neil Mair Quazi Mahtab Zaman

Berlin: A City Awaits The Interplay between Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity

Springer Geography Advisory Editors Mitja Brilly, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Richard A. Davis, Department of Geology, School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Nancy Hoalst-Pullen, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA Michael Leitner, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA Mark W. Patterson, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA Márton Veress, Department of Physical Geography, University of West Hungary, Szombathely, Hungary

The Springer Geography series seeks to publish a broad portfolio of scientific books, aiming at researchers, students, and everyone interested in geographical research. The series includes peer-reviewed monographs, edited volumes, textbooks, and conference proceedings. It covers the major topics in geography and geographical sciences including, but not limited to; Economic Geography, Landscape and Urban Planning, Urban Geography, Physical Geography and Environmental Geography. Springer Geography—now indexed in Scopus

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10180

Neil Mair Quazi Mahtab Zaman •

Berlin: A City Awaits The Interplay between Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity

123

Neil Mair Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment Robert Gordon University Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Quazi Mahtab Zaman Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment Robert Gordon University Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

ISSN 2194-315X ISSN 2194-3168 (electronic) Springer Geography ISBN 978-3-030-51448-8 ISBN 978-3-030-51449-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword by Emily Talen

This book explores the complex interplay between politics and architecture. Working through the three significant political periods of twentieth-century Berlin, Neil Mair and Quazi Mahtab Zaman unravel a question central to anyone working in the realm of architecture and urbanism: the manner in which political ideology is expressed through built form. Are the effects limited to aesthetics and expressions of power, or is there something deeper at play? Though others have attempted such an exploration, few have accomplished it in such a rigorous and timely way. Berlin is the perfect subject for this kind of exploration precisely because, as the authors explain, of its recurrent destruction and rebuilding. At every turn of its reimaging and reinvention, politics insert themselves. It is too easy to relate political ideology and architecture as merely a blunt expression of power and control. Sometimes that is exactly what the connection amounts to. However, in many cases, the relationship demands more nuance. This book provides that kind of depth, offering an understanding beyond “cold concepts” that are outside of relatable life. The book complements an earlier book about Potsdamer Platz (Potsdamer Platz: The Reshaping of Berlin, by Nowobilska and Zaman, 2014). That book was a case study of the contradictions and complexities involved in trying to find an appropriate art and language for urban design. Regarded as an example of Western capitalism and corporate branding, Potsdamer Platz, the book showed, embodied a more complicated story. Josef Stübben, the pre-eminent early twentieth-century German planner, presaged the importance of Potsdamer Platz in 1907, marvelling at the ability of the place to serve multiple purposes—as a market place, an architectural area, a garden area and a monumental square. Stübben’s observations marked the beginning of a century-long tension between urbanism as place and urbanism as a conduit. Here the authors take a broader lens to reveal the complexities and contradictions between political ideology and architecture—not just in a single place, but in the context of Berlin as a whole. Moreover, while Berlin offers unique historical and political circumstances, there are also transferable insights garnered. Amongst them, the interplay between corporate branding and quests for a local agency, and v

vi

Foreword by Emily Talen

between the search for an identity rooted in aesthetics and the search for empowerment rooted in process. These issues are playing out in cities across the globe. The authors expertly sift through the layers of dissension, political haggling and the incessant search for meaning by exploiting the ways in which architecture, politics and urban aesthetics are intertwined. Major architectural works always engender a set of tensions—but to what degree are they manifestations of a larger global political struggle versus something with their substantive effect? The result of this kind of grappling—what the authors have accomplished—is a wealth of lessons learned about politics, architecture, urban planning and cultural identity. As with the Potsdamer Platz account, the story of Berlin presented in this book is a fascinating exploration of the debates about what a city is and what it is supposed to be. Emily Talen, Ph.D. Professor of Urbanism University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA

Foreword by M. Christine Boyer

The Berlin Discourse How do a city—or more specifically, its architectural styles and urban forms— construct an individual’s sense of identity? How does a city act as a platform for the performance of identity formation? Places are assigned all sorts of identities; they are warm or cold, pleasant or annoying, secure or alienating. These feelings are projections of ideas and reflections of specific values held by its citizens and leaders. The exact manner in which place and identity are linked remains a curious phenomenon. Perhaps it is not an architectural style or form but rhetoric and narrative discourse that bind a place to identity formation. Notions of belonging to a specific city such as Berlin are instilled through repetitious accounts in the media, books, newspapers, exhibitions, architectural and urban descriptions. How a city, its space and places are framed and represented in images, written about by historians and critics, discussed by political leaders, professed by government officials—this urban discourse may be the dominant influence shaping the perception and sense of personal and national identity. Architectural and spatial reforms of the city are deployed purposefully to make arguments about identity; they engender a sense of well-being, belonging, allegiance, even loyalty. Place-identity is what Berlin: A City Awaits—The Interplay Between Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity written by Neil Mair and Quazi Mahtab Zaman explores. The book narrates how the architecture of Berlin has been used as a tool of identity formation, reflecting different ideological perspectives and shifting government agendas across its entire history. It does this by selecting key examples from the architectural history of Berlin. A small synopsis of these identity-forming events reads as follows. “Athens on the Spree”: The Brandenburg Gate designed by Carl Gotthard Langhans, built between 1788 and 1791, was based on the Propylea, the gateway to the Athenian Acropolis. It was the symbolic entryway to Berlin, the capital of the

vii

viii

Foreword by M. Christine Boyer

region. The many public squares and buildings designed by Karl Friedrich Schinkel in the early nineteenth century imposed a sense of refinement on the city. Its identity was that of discipline and order. “Chicago on the Spree”: After Germany was united in 1871, Berlin became a new capital city and a vast metropolis. Its population expanded rapidly, from 20,000 in 1871 to 1.3 million by 1886. The city’s spatial footprint exploded following the outlines of a plan of sweeping boulevards, gridded streets and superblocks laid down by engineer James Hobrecht in 1861. Such superblocks quickly filled in with ugly barrack-like housing. Berlin turned into a formless, “monstrous” city, an Americanised city labelled “Chicago on the Spree”. Its identity seemed to be forged in America, where profit-making prevailed over aesthetic decorum, where technological feats of railroads, bridges and stations cut through the city, isolating one of its parts from another. Berlin was envisioned as the capital of ugliness. Berlin, Modern: The city became the embodiment of modernity in the 1920s— reflected in various cultural innovations of art, film, music and architecture. Film and cinema offered a new vision of the city as a montage—cut and abstracted, conflicted and polarised. Promoted by Berlin’s chief architect Martin Wagner advocates of Neues Bauen (New Building) built modernist housing thought to be revolutionary—genuine social condensers that represented a new society. Its identity was that of the new, the innovative, the different, the avant-garde. Monumental Berlin: Adolf Hitler hated Berlin for all the modern corruptions, modern architecture, modern art it produced. He sought to turn the clock backwards and create an authentic “purified” capital worthy to represent Hitler’s, Third Reich. With the aid of Albert Speer, he planned a city of grandiose symbolic constructions, cleansing the city of all taints of modernity. Through the artifice of political theatre, architecture was expected to forge a new National Socialist unity amongst the German people. The monumental classically inspired architecture was the catalyst to overwhelm, to intimidate, to galvanise the masses into identifying with the grandeur of Hitler’s regime. Berlin Partitioned: One-fifth of the city was destroyed by air raids of WWII creating a drastic need to fill in the cold crater that Berlin had become. Different sectors of the city were assigned to separate allied forces. However, after the Berlin Blockade of 1948 imposed by the Soviets, two independent states arose: the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in the East and the German Federal Republic (GFR) in the West. Berlin became a city of contention; its identity-formation split in the opposition between the constructs of “East” and “West” and their separate ideologies. West Berlin was decked out as a showcase of technological, industrial and economic prowess, a display case of luxurious and leisurely lifestyles that only democratic ideals could install. The Interbau exhibition of 1957 celebrated the redevelopment of the Hansa Quarter with architectural prototypes—demonstration projects for the redevelopment of cities across Western Europe. While East Berlin developed a huge boulevard—Stalinallee—lined with perimeter blocks of housing built by and for the working class. East Berlin was a “socialist” city on display.

Foreword by M. Christine Boyer

ix

Berlin Wall 1961–1989: Suddenly in the middle of the night, the GDR closed off the western sectors of the city and began to build a wall. Its physical presence “concretised” “East”–“West” opposition and exacerbating the propagation of two competing identities and two different cities. In the competition over the city, West Berlin decided to build a Culture Forum with a State Library designed by Hans Scharoun and Edgar Wisniewski (completed in 1978) as its centrepiece. While East Berlin redeveloped Spree Island, with a new centre, the Palace of the Republic designed by Heinz Graffunder and group, (completed 1976) for cultural activities and government departments. Berlin Reunification: Just as sudden as the wall’s construction had been, it collapsed in 1989. West Berlin was in charge of planning a new Federal Strip running East-West where a New Chancellery, New Parliament, new civic forum [the latter was never built] were built. Potsdamer Platz was reconstructed to compete hopefully with the financial centres of a globalising world, but this never materialised either. Instead, Berlin now awaits with some anxiety what its future will be. It has been and continues to be a city in flux, its spatial form morphing to take on new roles as ideology commands, moving forward without hesitation, never certain what the future will bring. M. Christine Boyer, Ph.D. William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Architecture and Urbanism, Princeton Mellon Initiative in Architecture Urbanism and the Humanities Princeton University Princeton, NJ, USA

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment, Robert Gordon University, for managing the intellectual atmosphere necessary for interdisciplinary research as nurtured by RIBA Part 2 architectural discourses and which is demonstrated through the critical debate presented in this book. Additionally, the support of Helen Aggasild in proof-reading the final manuscript was invaluable. Lastly, the book was further enriched with the meaningful addition of the Forewords by Prof. Emily Talen of Urbanism at the University of Chicago, USA, and overview by Prof. Christine Boyer of Urbanism at the School of Architecture in Princeton University, USA.

xi

Contents

1 Contextual Setting: Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2 Berlin’s Earlier Development: Power and Economic Growth . . . . . .

5

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism Versus Monumentalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold War: Formation of the East–West Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing a Democratic and Economic Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

6 Conclusions: A City Awaits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

xiii

About the Authors

Neil Mair (M.Arch., B.Sc.) is an architecture graduate from Scott Sutherland School of Architecture, Robert Gordon University. He was the editor of Modernism In Scotland: An Architectural Catalogue (Robert Gordon University, 2017). Neil completed both his RIBA/ARB Part 1 and Part 2 studies with Distinction. He gained professional experience working with Comprehensive Design Architects (CDA) in Edinburgh, an office which consistently features in the “AJ 100” List of top UK Practices. Throughout his time at university, Neil has gained recognition for his projects in several awards and annual events, which include the presentation of work to high-profile critics from the UK and abroad. He was the winner of the RGU Art and Heritage Collections Purchase Prize, Aberdeen Society of Architects Medal Award and the Harbourne McLennan Prize for Professional Practice in 2018. Quazi Mohd Mahtab uz Zaman (Ph.D.) is an architect, urban designer and academic, currently teaching architecture and urban design theory and practice at the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland. He is the convenor and editor for the global research group—“Urbanism at Borders”. He researches “children in the city” and has introduced a new participatory pedagogy and practice: “community as extended classroom”; researching on “healthy city design” and “theorising congestions in cities in developing countries”. He serves on the editorial board of Open House International, MDP— Sustainable Journal and the Global Built Environment Review. He co-edited the book Transdisciplinary Urbanism and Culture—From Pedagogy to Praxis (Springer, 2018) and co-authored the book Potsdamer Platz—The Reshaping of Berlin (SpringerBrief, 2014).

xv

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

Political movements and architectural interventions (Mair 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An early map of Berlin and Cölln in the thirteenth century . . New boulevards connecting key public spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . Order imposed on the mediaeval city by Hobrecht’s grid . . . . Working-class tenements were perceived as slums . . . . . . . . . Bustling Potsdamer Platz spoke of modern vitality . . . . . . . . . a Future vision for a Great Hall in Berlin. b The future vision for a Triumphal Arch in Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Socialist flags adorning facades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone-laying ceremony for the Reichsbank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reichsbank headquarters by Heinrich Wolff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olympic stadium by Werner March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aviation Ministry Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan showing function zones bounded by boulevards . . . . . . . Lithographic rendering of the Speer plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model showing the grand axis of Speer’s plan . . . . . . . . . . . . Model of the Great Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model of the Triumphal Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chancellery plan and section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court of Honour at the Chancellery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mosaic Hall at the Chancellery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marble Gallery at the Chancellery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical street scene in the aftermath of the War . . . . . . . . . . . Map showing the four allied sectors of the city . . . . . . . . . . . View to the East through the Stalinallee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perusal of a scale model of the Interbau project . . . . . . . . . . . Henselmann’s towers on the Stalinallee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workers at the Stalinallee construction site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interbau ground plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Completed Hansa Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

2 6 7 7 8 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 15 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 xvii

xviii

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

List of Figures

4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 6.1 6.2

Fig. 6.3

Interbau’s “exhibition crane”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interbau’s tram adorned with advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wall and so-called death strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prefabrication in the East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Division left the West without historical landmarks . . . . . . . . Library, gallery and philharmonic hall in model form. . . . . . . Alexanderplatz and the television tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An extract from a military map showing Spree Island . . . . . . Palast der Republik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transparency between the interior and exterior . . . . . . . . . . . . Exterior of the completed State Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spacious reading room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surveillance became part of everyday life in the East . . . . . . . Police attending a riot in West Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . House on checkpoint Charlie for “IBA 1987” . . . . . . . . . . . . New “historicised” buildings in the East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fall of the Berlin Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Germany regained full sovereignty in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chancellery building in Bonn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spreebogen site prior to the development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schultes’ Spreebogen Ground Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schultes proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krüger-Schuberth-Vandreike proposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forum at the heart of the masterplan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eastern end of the Spreebogen development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potsdamer Platz following division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shanghai’s Pudong Financial District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potsdamer Platz masterplan model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sony centre in Potsdamer Platz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infobox building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cranes as light sculptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “IBA 2020” consultation event with stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . Proposed site for the new Humboldt Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Chancellery with Potsdamer Platz in the background . . . Bayterak Tower in Kazakhstan’s capital of Astana . . . . . . . . . Lenin and Stalin watching over the Chinese village of Nanjie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Berlin’s reconstruction is both physical and figurative . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 41 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 52 53 54 55 55 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 70

.. ..

70 71

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 1

Contextual Setting: Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity

Capital cities are symbols of both national identity and historical cognisance. They are “not only workplaces but stages for the visualisation of power” (Wise 1998, p. 15). As the apparatuses of significant cities, the public spaces and physical structures, which are the bedrocks of the governing state, have the potential to simultaneously inspire, amaze, isolate and intimidate global urban theorists. Whether it be Beijing’s Forbidden City, Moscow’s Kremlin, Washington D.C.’s Capitol Complex or Berlin’s Chancellery, there exists a central nexus between planning, architecture and political power. The political connotation in architecture has been a subject of interest to many critics and writers. The most prominent of these include Charles T. Goodsell and Kenneth Frampton. In Goodsell’s (1988) statement “Political places are not randomly or casually brought into existence” (ibid, p. 8), the stipulation is that architecture has been used very purposefully in the past to reinforce connotations of power and strength in cities, symbolic of larger nations and fundamental political movements. The question central to this book relates to how this has been achieved in the specific case of Berlin. Goodsell argues that any study of the interplay between political ideology, architecture and identity, demands a theoretical premise imbued with political ideas opposed to “cold concepts and lifeless abstractions” (Goodsell 1988, p. 1). To examine and appraise the processes of creating and re-creating cities being subjugated by the polarity extant in the political and ideological forces, this book focuses on Berlin, as a political discourse. Moreover, the book includes a collective view of the political movements and architectural interventions illustrating the significant destruction and reorganisation to reinstate the identity of Berlin in the context of geopolitics and the advent of globalisation (Fig. 1.1). This new book complements the previous book—Potsdamer Platz: The Reshaping of Berlin (Nowobilska and Zaman 2014 ) with the intention that the interdisciplinary approaches would unveil, methodologically, the effects of political ambitions on Berlin over several decades, and identify the language of architecture as the manifestation of power and politics.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Mair and Q. M. Zaman, Berlin: A City Awaits, Springer Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5_1

1

2

1 Contextual Setting: Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity

Fig. 1.1 Political movements and architectural interventions (Mair 2017)

For many, the mere mention of Berlin immediately evokes vivid imagery of capital, and indeed a nation, whose identity is affected unreservedly by the prejudices we hold of its turbulent past. As a city, it found itself at the forefront of global attention during the Second World War, only then to be sandwiched between the superpowers of East and West for a further 40 years. When the infamous Wall, which had come to symbolise the Cold War, finally fell in the late 1980s, the third period of transformation swept through the city as it made the transition from a divided to a united geographical and political entity. Reunification intended to redefine a national identity, which had been overshadowed by the conflict of power and crumbling political scaffolds. While it is true that Berlin is not, by any means, the only city in the world ever to have been affected by a political movement, the threefold development of the city gives us a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between political ideology, architecture and identity in three different eras: National Socialism, The Cold War and Post-Reunification. A significant body of existing research has sought to analyse and evaluate Berlin’s political architecture, but in almost all cases, attention is paid only to one political period in isolation. History is not readily divided into neat packages. It is, instead, a continuous entity, such that “each period has within it the seeds both of its own demise and of the beginnings of subsequent periods” (Agnew 2003, p. 86). It is, therefore, the fundamental aim of this book to take advantage of the opportunity provided by

1 Contextual Setting: Political Ideology, Architecture and Identity

3

the city as a vehicle through which a more holistic understanding of the influence of the political landscape on architecture can be developed. This is achieved through the examination of three significant political periods of the twentieth century, as opposed to one in isolation. In methodological terms, the research attempts to present an intensive review and synthesis of existing literature of both Berlin’s architecture and politics of the twentieth century. Taking the form of a chronological narrative which allows for the reconstruction of the political and architectural history of the city as a progressive, rather than a static entity, the review of existing literature is subsequently underpinned and verified through the discussion of exemplary buildings and projects from each of the three political movements. Through this means, the following objectives are used in the research of Berlin: 1. To gain a theoretical understanding of the critical socio-political characteristics of the duality of city and society in Berlin specific to each political period. Further, the authors intend to identify critical drivers influencing the architecture of Berlin in each given movement. 2. To analyse and appraise how the factors identified in Objective 1 contributed to a palpable change in the urban landscape of Berlin in each political period to establish the historicity. In doing so, the research attempted to determine whether the effect of a given movement on architecture was related only to form and aesthetics or characterised through much broader, planning-based principles. 3. To consider the relationship between a given period and that which precedes it in order to determine if there were identifiable factors attributed to earlier periods, which account for the subsequent architectural responses in the later periods. 4. Finally, to determine the effect that Berlin’s history has had on the way urban development is managed in the city today. While contributing to more extensive discussions within architectural theory connecting to the issues of identity and historical consciousness, it is hoped that the rigorous process through which the extreme example of Berlin is examined will present a viable model for future research. To this end, the methodology employed might be applied to other notable cities to understand how political dynamics shape and reshape the built environment.

References Agnew J (2003) Geopolitics: re-visioning world politics. Routledge, London Goodsell CT (1988) The social meaning of civic space: studying political authority through architecture. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Mair N (2017) Political movements and architectural interventions. Masters of Architecture Dissertation, Scott Sutherland School of Architecture, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom Nowobilska M, Zaman QM (2014) Potsdamer Platz: the reshaping of Berlin. Springer, London Wise MZ (1998) Capital dilemma: Germany’s search for a new architecture of democracy. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY

Chapter 2

Berlin’s Earlier Development: Power and Economic Growth

It was in the thirteenth century that Berlin, in tandem with nearby community Cölln, first began to develop at a narrow crossing point on the River Spree (Fig. 2.1) (Balfour 1995). At this time, it was the introduction of custom policies within the two townships, which led to early economic development. As a direct result of establishing opportunities for new trade and commerce, the new custom policies allowed Berlin to become part of the Hanseatic League in 1359. Berlin’s association with this “powerful confederation of Baltic towns” (Fraser 1996, p. 8) affirmed the then-town as a regional capital for over a century. By the late fifteenth century, Berlin had become an “electoral capital” which played host to the Princes of Brandenburg. Cited as a critical figure in the city’s early development, the “Great Elector” Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg built a canal to connect the “Spree and Oder” to stimulate further commercial growth and, most notably, issued several edicts, which significantly eased the restrictions existing on immigration. The subsequent development through the seventeenth century is said to have led to the introduction of some 46 new trades to the city (Fraser 1996). It is noteworthy to mention that the political periods of the twentieth century, being the primary subject of this study, are not the first instances in the city’s history where power and national identity could be seen to be expressed through architecture (Balfour 1995). In the years leading up to the eighteenth century, an idea which would resurface at the hands of the National Socialist Party prevailed: there was a deliberate shift towards the use of the classical architecture of antiquity and the idealised societies of Ancient Greece and Rome as models for the new Prussian state. The construction of the Brandenburg Gate epitomised this shift as a symbolic entry point to Berlin and the subsequent development of public squares and buildings by Karl Friedrich Schinkel. Schinkel had been commissioned to develop the city to suit the political interests of Friedrich Wilhelm III (Fraser 1996). The mid-nineteenth century was characterised by both rapid economic and physical growth, despite the city’s relatively modest inception as a regional capital. At this time, the municipal government, seemingly aware of the future need to expand, © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Mair and Q. M. Zaman, Berlin: A City Awaits, Springer Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5_2

5

6

2 Berlin’s Earlier Development: Power and Economic Growth

Fig. 2.1 An early map of Berlin and Cölln in the thirteenth century

significantly upgraded Berlin’s infrastructure under the guidance of engineer James Hobrecht. Drawing inspiration from Paris, the resulting plan revolved around the expansion of the city along with its limits to the West and South-West through vast sweeping boulevards punctuated by public squares (Fig. 2.2). The centre was laid out on a grid pattern of huge urban blocks (Fig. 2.3), imposing a sense of order through which future development could be controlled (Balfour 1990). The emphasis placed on industrial production and the subsequent promotion of Berlin to Imperial Capital in the early 1870s expedited the city’s growth, such that it raised the population from 932,000 to 2.7 million before the twentieth century (Pugh 2014). It was with this significant rapid growth that the city became unable to cope with the vast numbers of people flocking to the area in search of work. To this end, Berlin went from being “Athens on the Spree” to “Chicago on the Spree” (Rathenau as cited in Pugh 2014, p. 22), depicted as an urban slum where disease and death were rampant, and where evident disparities existed between the working class and the asset-accumulating elite (Fig. 2.4). Currency depreciation and strikes added to the general air of unrest, which had existed since Germany’s defeat in the First World War. Despite this, the proliferation of creative movements in art, film, music and architecture which extended into the 1920s allowed the city, at least outwardly, to express itself as the absolute embodiment of modernity (Fig. 2.5) (Colomb 2012). It has been argued that the various regimes which ruled Germany from Berlin through its early development could not take its capital status for granted. To this end, they “very deliberately and consciously had to construct the city as a site of

2 Berlin’s Earlier Development: Power and Economic Growth

Fig. 2.2 New boulevards connecting key public spaces

Fig. 2.3 Order imposed on the mediaeval city by Hobrecht’s grid

7

8

2 Berlin’s Earlier Development: Power and Economic Growth

Fig. 2.4 Working-class tenements were perceived as slums

Fig. 2.5 Bustling Potsdamer Platz spoke of modern vitality

2 Berlin’s Earlier Development: Power and Economic Growth

9

national identity” (Pugh 2014, p. 2). This statement forms a useful starting point from which to consider how the political history of the remainder of the twentieth century was played out within the city. After the First World War, the country found itself unified under the guise of the Weimar Constitution. Within this context, attention was paid to Berlin’s role in a newly unified Germany. The view held by critics, politicians and the general public alike was one, which questioned whether Berlin could represent a single German identity, or that such an identity even existed. This gave way to debates about modernity, Germany’s future, and the kinds of ideals the country wanted to represent. The ensuing discourse on this matter gives context to the conditions in which the National Socialist Party (NSDAP) was to take control of the country’s affairs, at the time when the “principle of totalitarianism replaced municipal self-government” (Fraser 1996, p. 18).

References Balfour A (1990) Berlin: The Politics of Order, 1737–1989. Rizzoli International Publications, New York, NY Balfour A (1995) World Cities: Berlin. Academy Group Ltd., London Colomb C (2012) Staging the New Berlin: Place Marketing and the Politics of Urban Reinvention Post-1989. Routledge, London Fraser D (1996) The Buildings of Europe: Berlin. Manchester University Press, Manchester Pugh E (2014) Architecture, Politics and Identity in Divided Berlin. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA

Chapter 3

Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism Versus Monumentalism

Berlin’s prominence as a big city was reinforced by process of consolidation with smaller urban–rural communities to form the single but larger entity of Greater Berlin in 1920. Alongside the aspirations of the Weimar Constitution to unify the country after the First World War, this had placed obvious and inevitable focus on the city as a national capital. The debates about the city as the symbol of “modern urbanity” became deeply politicised in the 1920s, “with urban phenomena far surpassing, in magnitude and intensity, comparable concerns anywhere else in Europe” (Lees 1991, p. 170). The preferential treatment of modern trends by the Social Democratic and Communist Parties and the hatred towards modernity expressed by the NSDAP came to reflect two opposing political ideologies. Modernism was, in the eyes of the former, the most appropriate means through which Berlin could associate itself with contemporary society. By contrast, this attitude was cited as evidence of the decline of traditional German culture by the National Socialists (Pugh 2014). During the 1950s and 1960s, the strategies for urban development were progressively moulded by the modernist movement manifested in the mass reconstruction. The modernist urban planning of West Berlin was severely disparaged in the public debates seeking alternative patterns of urban development and housing renewal somewhat cautiously referring to the nineteenth century urban typologies (Behutsame Stadterneuerung) (Colomb 2012, p. 58), such as plot structure, courtyards and residential densities. Despite the struggle between Modernism of twentieth century and Monumentalism of the nineteenth century, “the city became an urban laboratory which attracted world-wide attention from architects, planning professionals and community groups” (Colomb 2012, p. 58). Although the National Socialists did not come to power until 1933, an understanding of the struggle between Modernism and German tradition present in the debates of the 1920s is necessary to give context to the influence exerted by the NSDAP on Berlin’s architecture throughout the 1930s. To this end, the examples of architect Erich Mendelsohn and leader of the NSDAP, Adolf Hitler, “represent

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Mair and Q. M. Zaman, Berlin: A City Awaits, Springer Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5_3

11

12

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

extreme positions in the struggle for the form of the future between those who see only the future and those who see only the past” (Balfour 1990, p. 134). Mendelsohn associated himself with the ideas of the modern movement which were endorsed by the CIAM1 from the late 1920s, believing that they promoted “a new order to transcend the cultural destruction wrought by the war” (Balfour 1990, p. 111). By contrast, Hitler, in his infamous book Mein Kampf (1925), proclaimed his desire to reform the failing state and restore strength to the country. He believed this could be achieved through the creation of substantial symbolic constructions based on historical examples which would do nothing other than compelling unity amongst the German people (Pugh 2014). Although many writers simply acknowledge the conflict between the modernists’ desire for rapid change and Hitler’s search for permanence, Balfour (1990) further examines the two ideologies through a comparative analysis of Mendelsohn and Hitler’s attitude to the notions of order, time, memory, progress and culture. An examination of the issues raised by these studies exposes Hitler’s fundamental aspirations as leader of the NSDAP, and in doing so, sheds light on why the architecture which arose in Berlin once he took office as Chancellor manifested in the Monumentalism. Mendelsohn saw the architecture of the future as circumstantial, and free of historical imagery, such that it would be in a continual state of reformation to reflect the changing nature of modern society. In direct opposition, Hitler became preoccupied with the notion of timelessness and a desire for objects of a constant reality to form a “collective conscience to the memory of German Culture by the construction of monuments” (Balfour 1990, p. 135). The future Chancellor produced two sketches to articulate his vision in 1924. The sketches, which expressed a huge dome-like hall (Fig. 3.1a) and a triumphal arch (Fig. 3.1b) of significant scale, were vivid representations of Hitler’s desire to exert control over the city’s urban landscape long before he came to be Chancellor. In turn, they sowed the seeds of proposals which would be more formally presented in an ultimately unbuilt masterplan for Berlin in the late 1930s, setting a tone of monumentality which was to prevail in the architecture of the Third Reich. While the dictatorial nature of the NSDAP from 1933 results in literature emphasising Adolf Hitler’s contributions to the Nazi ideology, it is essential to note that numerous other individuals played a part in the clarification of the regime’s stylistic aspirations within the ongoing dichotomy centred around Berlin. To this end, Paul Schultze-Naumburg and Alfred Rosenberg, in their apparent resistance to the “internationalist and mechanistic tendencies of modern life” (Frampton 1982, p. 217), serve as salient examples. The collective rejection of the modern movement—and indeed modernity as a lifestyle—was crucial in clearing the path upon which the National Socialists could promote historical heritage and vernacular culture. This was a process which saw the “re-provincialisation of the city from cosmopolitan metropolis to Germania, the national capital of the German Reich” (Colomb 2012, p. 47). The discourse was also used as propaganda to critique the then-existing administration of the Weimar 1 Congrès internationaux d’architecture modern or International Congresses of Modern Architecture.

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

13

Republic, and the nature of the Berlin Building administration, which was subservient to the state government. Despite this, the period immediately after the NSDAP took control of the country was not one in which substantial physical changes were implemented to Berlin’s urban space, nor did it involve a reorganisation of the building administration system. It was, instead, a period of psychological change, and political transition, during which the regime attempted to bolster public approval and acceptance through the decoration of facades and public spaces with National Socialist flags and symbols (Fig. 3.2). Large-scale events such as rallies and demonstrations were typical at this time (Fig. 3.3) (Colomb 2012). Behind the veil of public demonstrations and the outward expression of the party’s power, however, it is clear that Hitler still wanted to exert greater control over critical architectural projects. This is exemplified through his involvement with the design for the Reichsbank Headquarters (Fig. 3.4) (Jaskot 2000). The project was the first building of stature to get underway following Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor, and an architectural competition initially dictated its development. Dissatisfied with all of the competition proposals, Hitler commissioned a design based on his aspirations to create a building of scale and grandeur by an in-house architect, Heinrich Wolff (Wise 1998). A similar process was to occur in the development of the 1936 Olympic Stadium (Fig. 3.5). To this end, the Chancellor used the exceptional circumstances of the games to wield changes in Werner March’s design, such that it would become a building of stone as opposed to one of steel and glass (Jaskot 2000). These facts suggest that architecture was very quickly being seen as a mere propagandistic tool through which Hitler could serve the interests of the party, not of the people (Fraser 1996). Harking back to the ideas brought to light by Balfour about time and memory, it can be argued that Hitler associated stone construction with the notion of permanence. To this end, he believed that an indirect link with the exemplary Western civilisations of Antiquity could help to engender a sense of security, strength and order in the city and the nation (Wise 1998). This notion is substantiated by the fact that although the NSDAP procured a plethora of building types and materials, highprofile developments were exclusively constructed in a stripped neoclassical form in stone (Jaskot 2000). The Aviation Ministry building serves as another relevant example (Fig. 3.6). In a detailed study of the Nazi building economy, Jaskot (2000) contends that it is Hitler’s assertion of his architectural policy and authority over projects in his initial term of office, such as the Reichsbank Headquarters and Olympic Stadium, which mark a step towards the creation of an independent body of Berlin’s building administration and a move towards complete control over architectural policy. By 1937, the celebration of the 700th Jubilee of Berlin was in full motion, dominated by discussions on the rebuilding of the “urban jungle of unwanted activities and unwanted people” which the city was seen to be (Colomb 2012, p. 48). In January of that year, Albert Speer was appointed as the Inspector General of Building for Berlin. Given Speer’s extensive associations with the Chancellor through previous commissions, the position offered a means of authority through which any objections made by the city building administration could be overruled

14

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.1 a Future vision for a Great Hall in Berlin. b The future vision for a Triumphal Arch in Berlin

(Jaskot 2000). It was from that moment on that the city would “take on the function of a continental metropolis, and symbolic centre of a centralised, industrialised, and mobilised continent” (Krier 1985, p. 45) as the NSDAP’s attention turned to the development of a masterplan to reshape Berlin, with Speer at the helm. Widely heralded as a prime example of the “pretentiousness and megalomania” of National Socialist architecture (Colquhoun 1989, p. 223), Speer’s Plan for Berlin is perhaps one of the most explicit examples one can cite when discussing the extent to which the Nazi regime saw architecture as a political tool. The plan was organised

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.2 National Socialist flags adorning facades

Fig. 3.3 Stone-laying ceremony for the Reichsbank

15

16

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.4 Reichsbank headquarters by Heinrich Wolff

Fig. 3.5 Olympic stadium by Werner March

into functional zones, subordinate to the road infrastructure. In this respect, it could be seen to represent the modernist planning principles advocated by Le Corbusier in his Ville Radieuse project (1930). However, more delicate examination reveals that, rather than dispersing functions into isolated islands, which bore no relation to

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

17

Fig. 3.6 Aviation Ministry Headquarters

one another, the plan is unique for its time in that only heavy industry was removed entirely from the urban districts. A sense of “metropolitan unity”, as Krier (1985) terms it, was achieved through the introduction of two new intersecting perpendicular avenues running North–South and East–West. Five outlying boulevards surrounded these avenues. The spaces formed as a result of the enclosure provided by the main avenues and peripheral boulevards were divided into parallel bands of functions (Fig. 3.7). These decreased in height and density as one moved further away from the main axes. Although it was apparent that this arrangement would offer to Berlin the urban infrastructure, which had failed to materialise during its years of rapid industrial expansion, Hitler had commissioned the architect with the primary objective of providing the city with “monuments that would eclipse those in all other capitals of the world” (Krier 1985, p. 46). The degree to which Speer had control over the design is disputed to the extent that he is viewed by many as merely “the scribe to Hitler’s vision” (Balfour 1990, p. 97). His statement that “Hitler did the greater part of the Berlin plan and the town planning of the new centre for public buildings” (Speer as cited in Dal Co and Polano 1978, p. 47) substantiates this. The North–South grand axis of the plan (Fig. 3.8) was the means through which Hitler’s objective was to be achieved, forming a “great ritual passage through the city” (Balfour 1990, p. 82). The axis was lined with government offices, corporate headquarters and gardens across a five-kilometre stretch. It was, therefore, not a mere corridor but rather an articulated collection of superlative monumental spaces (Fig. 3.9) (Krier 1985). In considering the statement “that a monument’s values reside in its size is a belief basic to mankind” (Speer as cited in Krier 1985, p. 213), it is essential to note that it

18

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.7 Plan showing function zones bounded by boulevards

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

19

Fig. 3.8 Lithographic rendering of the Speer plan

was not merely the vast land area occupied by the proposed masterplan which was to provoke feelings of intimidation and power but also the scale of its constituent parts. Two of these parts paid homage to the visionary sketches of the domed hall and triumphal arch produced by Hitler in 1924. With a volume sixteen times larger than St Peter’s Church in Rome and the capacity to hold 180,000 people, the Great Hall and its associated square epitomised Albert Speer’s belief that all monuments and public buildings “must be planned to be freely visible from all sides” (Speer as cited in Pugh 2014). The hall terminated the northern portion of the grand axis (Fig. 3.10) while a triumphal arch, two and half times higher than that of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, defined the southern limits of the axis (Fig. 3.11) (Ladd 1997; Vale 2008). The political aspiration of such grandiose constructions can be exemplified in a statement made by Hitler to his colleagues: “All we need to do is tell the Americans how much the Great Hall costs. Then they’ll be wild to see the most expensive building in the world” (Hitler as cited in Balfour 1990, p. 94). With this statement, it is clear that the NSDAP saw architecture as a means through which Berlin, and therefore Germany as a whole, could express itself as the perfect model of society to the world. In this way, attention would be diverted from the internal problems of unemployment and poor living standards (Fraser 1996). In preparation for the implementation of the masterplan, vast areas of land were cleared to make way for the grand North–South axis. At the same time, however, Europe was gearing up for the second large-scale conflict to have taken place in twenty-one years: The Second World War. In conjunction with the fact that Albert Speer was appointed to replace Hitler’s Minister for Armaments and Munitions, this meant that the “largest and most permanent construction of architectural and political power ever conceived” (Balfour 1990, p. 96) never materialised. Had they ever been built, the honorific superstructures of the Speer plan, as had been the case with other buildings of the National Socialist era, were to adopt an architectural language associated with antiquity. In the post-war period, many critics condemned the use of classical architecture within state buildings as a result of the apparent link with the architecture of the NSDAP. In opposition, Krier (1985) contends that the totalitarian terror exerted by the Nazi regime cannot be solely

20

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.9 Model showing the grand axis of Speer’s plan

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

21

Fig. 3.10 Model of the Great Hall

attributed to an architectural style. Although viewed as controversial within that debate, he can clarify, to a higher degree, the role classicism played in the party’s architecture. He contends that it was a catalyst to “raise enthusiasm and seduce, to impress and overwhelm the masses, to offer protection and ultimately to deceive the captivated souls as to the final intentions of the industrial–military system. It was the civilised and well-mannered face in an empire of lies” (Krier 1985, p. 223). Krier’s views are substantiated through the examination of the New Chancellery project by Albert Speer, completed in 1939. An analysis of the project suggests that our view of Nazi state architecture cannot and should not be confined to how a building outwardly expresses itself but instead expanded to consider the experiential qualities generated by the spatial arrangement and layering of elements in a plan. Set within a 16-hectare site, the Chancellery was a low-lying building with modest facades. The building was constructed as a collection of 420 rooms along a horizontal axis. The significant area upon which Speer could build, being linear, encouraged the development of an architectural promenade through which sensations of anticipation, intimidation and surprise could be engendered in visitors (Frampton 1978). To this end, the plan (Fig. 3.12) “was an explicit presentation of the tactics of power and all was secondary to constraining the passage through time and space for visitors to Hitler’s chamber” (Balfour 1990, p. 77). Upon arrival at a sizeable external enclosure, known as the Court of Honour, a sizeable neoclassical portal leading to a reception room beckoned guests (Fig. 3.13). From there, diplomats would pass into a Mosaic Hall of extortionate proportions (Fig. 3.14) whose doors were 17-feet tall, ascend a flight of stairs into a round domed space, and then be met with a lengthy marble gallery (Fig. 3.15). This gallery is said

22

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.11 Model of the Triumphal Arch

Fig. 3.12 Chancellery plan and section

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.13 Court of Honour at the Chancellery

Fig. 3.14 Mosaic Hall at the Chancellery

23

24

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

Fig. 3.15 Marble Gallery at the Chancellery

to have been twice the size of the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles (Wise 1998). Exorcised Aside from the construction of this ceremonial procession, it should be noted that lighting and materials also played an important role. The light was primarily indirect throughout the building, passing through skylights and deep window recesses. This had the effect of increasing the perceived depth and height of the already large spaces. Additionally, the feelings of grandeur and civility usually incited by the austere classicism of the exterior were instead developed through a palette of wellappointed materials and furnishings. This included travertine, bronze doors, mosaic panelling and a range of polished marbles complemented by tapestries and paintings (Balfour 1990). The Berlin masterplan exemplified how the regime manipulated architecture on a large scale. In that instance, the emphasis was placed on building size and the adoption of a stripped neoclassical style to evoke the successful civilisations of antiquity. In the case of the Chancellery, it was the construction of an architectural promenade, use of lustrous materials and the careful control of light, which served to achieve an air of grandeur and intimidation. The latter example reveals that the aspirations of Hitler and his party had implications for architecture, which were far more profound and more precious than the trivial application of a historical style to an exterior. Berlin’s National Socialist architecture was conceived wholly as an instrument of power and deceit, such that “only the desperate or the foolish could see in them

3 Architecture and Identity Under National Socialism: Modernism …

25

a significance independent from the artifice of the political theatre” (Balfour 1990, p. 97). As a duality designed to promote both “outward and inward allegiance to the regime” (Pugh 2014, p. 26), architecture became simultaneously literal and symbolic. It could directly influence an individual’s experience of a particular urban space or building interior, but also metaphorically represented the timeless, everlasting order which was to be imposed on the nation. The constructions of Speer and his contemporaries—which were to guarantee the Third Reich an eternal place in history—were to exorcise some buildings from the city following the defeat of Germany in the Second World War. This is precisely the Old Chancellery which was eradicated. Moreover, both the palace and a new Reich Chancellery building (completed in early 1939) were severely wounded during the Second World War and consequently razed not until 1950. Although their existence was confined to sketches, drawings and photographs, the implications of their association with the Nazi ideology were far-reaching. To this end, they remained responsible, in part, for how architecture manifested in the post-war period and beyond.

References Balfour A (1990) Berlin: the politics of order, 1737–1989. Rizzoli International Publications, New York Colomb C (2012) Staging the new Berlin: place marketing and the politics of urban reinvention post-1989. Routledge, London Colquhoun A (1989) Modernity and the classical tradition: architectural essays, 1980–87. MIT Press, Cambridge Dal Co F, Polano S (1978) Interview with albert speer. Oppositions J Ideas Criticism Archit (12):41– 52 Frampton K (1978) A synoptic view of the architecture of the Third Reich. Oppositions J Ideas Criticism Archit (12):54–87 Frampton K (1982) Modern architecture: a critical history. Thames and Hudson, London Fraser D (1996) The buildings of Europe: Berlin. Manchester University Press, Manchester Jaskot PB (2000) The architecture of oppression: the SS, forced labor and the Nazi monumental building economy. Routledge, London Krier L (1985) Albert speer: architecture 1932–1942. Archives d’Architecture Moderne, Brussels Ladd B (1997) The ghosts of Berlin: confronting German history in the urban landscape. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Lees A (1991) Berlin and modern urbanity in German discourse, 1845–1945. J Urban Hist 17(2):153–180 Pugh E (2014) Architecture, politics and identity in divided Berlin. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh Vale LJ (2008) Architecture, power, and national identity, 2nd edn. Routledge, London Wise MZ (1998) Capital dilemma: Germany’s search for a new architecture of democracy. Princeton Architectural Press, New York

Chapter 4

Architecture and Identity During the Cold War: Formation of the East–West Division

Berlin’s Cold War period is potently symbolised by the Wall, which represented not only a spatial division within one city but rather a deep-rooted ideological division. It symbolised the opposition of the East and West between the USA and the USSR. A great deal of previous research into the city’s post-war division begins by attempting to place an absolute point in time at which East and West came into being. However, this is not of particular relevance to the question of how architecture was affected by the division. To this end, such an understanding demands a degree of familiarity with the ideological aspirations of the two states and the political landscape in which they were operating. In considering an area of study within geopolitics known as binary geographies, Agnew (2003) contends that the identity of a particular nation can only be defined when considered in opposition to “another without which the first could not see itself as distinctive” (ibid, p. 23). This forms a particularly useful means through which to consider the discourse between both the political aspirations and architectural policies of the East and West during the Cold War. Over three hundred air raids throughout the Second World War had contributed to the destruction of around a fifth of the city’s built environment and had significantly hampered Berlin’s industrial capabilities (Fig. 4.1) (Colomb 2012). In the aftermath, the “Potsdam Accord” was signed as a means through which to stabilise the city. It saw the distribution of a sector of the city to each of the allied forces, within which they would have municipal sovereignty (Fig. 4.2) (Fraser 1996). Despite agreeing on the “denazification, demilitarisation, decartelisation and the democratisation” (Pugh 2014), p. 29 of post-war Germany, there had been no formal agreement within the allied administration as to how this could be achieved. The fact that each of the allied forces had control over its sector served to intensify the fragmentation of the city and the increasingly divergent political and ideological positions held by the USA and USSR. To this end, moves made by the American administration to impose a system of “unrestricted trade and investment, free enterprise, and free flow of cultural exchange” (Rosenberg 1982, p. 37) in the city were © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Mair and Q. M. Zaman, Berlin: A City Awaits, Springer Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5_4

27

28

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.1 Typical street scene in the aftermath of the War

Fig. 4.2 Map showing the four allied sectors of the city

met with resistance from the USSR. This culminated in the infamous Berlin Blockade of 1948 (Pugh 2014). The allied agreement was, therefore, short-lived, coming to an end when a series of currency reforms and the withdrawal of the Soviets from the administration in the late 1940s led to the development of two independent states.

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

29

The creation of the German Democratic Republic in the West, and the German Democratic Republic (GDR) or Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) in the East marked the beginning of a division which would last for over 40 years. West Berlin, through its association with the USA, came to represent the capitalist movement. Conversely, East Berlin represented a Soviet State shifting from socialist tendencies towards communism. The existence of the political dichotomy as to which ideology was best suited for the betterment of Western civilisation meant that Berlin once again found itself at the forefront of the Geopolitical landscape. It is within this context that the city was posed with the question of identity for the second time in only a matter of decades. In this context, it became “a cold-war showcase for competing architectural visions that mirrored the ideological rivalry between two superpower blocs” (Wise 1998, p. 44). The question of whether Berlin was the “front city of the free world or the capital city of the GDR” (Colomb 2012, p. 52) epitomises the struggle of East and West to provide a definitive identity for the city. It was the primary role of architecture, in which the “two parts of the city became the front windows of their respective regimes in material and symbolic terms” (Colomb 2012, p. 52), to prove one cause to be of more worth than the other. Alongside this discourse, it should not be forgotten that the memory of the National Socialist’s regime was still present in the city. Pugh (2014) argues that the attitude taken by the East and West in dealing with the city’s recent past had a profound effect on how architecture manifested itself. This is substantiated by other writers, who contend that the two states were forced to “either ignore the twelve years of 1933–1945 or seek to identify themselves as the heirs of non-Nazi Germans” (Ladd 1997, p. 149). To this end, the examples of the Stalinallee (Fig. 4.3) and Interbau

Fig. 4.3 View to the East through the Stalinallee

30

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

(Fig. 4.4) projects of the 1950s are representative not only of the opposition of East and West but also of how each state attempted to distance itself from the ideologies professed by the Nazi regime (Colquhoun 1989; Pugh 2014). The position held by Walter Ulbricht—leader of the GDR’s Socialist Unity Party (SED)—was one which saw a complete disregard for classical architecture’s negative association with the architecture of Hitler and Speer (however unfounded that association maybe). It was proclaimed to “mirror democracy from its roots in Ancient Greece, and mirror socialism by providing unambiguous symbols of equal meaning to all” (Balfour 1990, p. 164). Writing in East Germany’s building magazine Deutsch Architektur (1952), Ernst Hoffman stipulated that the principal architectural task at hand in the city lay in the development of “an intrinsically German architecture imbued with worker’s realism” (Balfour 1990, p. 162). Building on Hoffman’s call to order, Ulbricht believed that a historical stance based on “handicraft approaches that honoured labour, as opposed to an industrialised aesthetic that symbolised the workers’ subjugation to, or replacement by, a machine” (Pugh 2014, p. 38) was proof of the commitment of the state to the reparation of German identity. As an outright critic of the International Style in line with Stalin of the USSR, Ulbricht also argued that the architecture of the GDR should deliberately avoid the influence of American social and economic values. These ideas had already become an inherent part of the East’s building policy through the adoption of its centralised Sixteen Principles of Urban Planning (1950), over those of zoning and decentralisation advocated by the CIAM Charter of Athens (1933). The Stalinallee was the only major reconstruction project to have taken place inside the East before division became more permanent with the construction of

Fig. 4.4 Perusal of a scale model of the Interbau project

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

31

the Berlin Wall in 1961 (Balfour 1990). The project took the form of a vast boulevard, defined along its perimeter by apartment buildings for the working class with numerous cafes and restaurants below. The boulevard was flanked at each end by a pair of towers designed by Hermann Henselmann (Fig. 4.5) (Ladd 1997). The project was used as a means of propaganda through which the SED’s focus on the “collective labour required to build the new, socialist, and singular German nation” (Pugh 2014, p. 41) could be emphasised. This was achieved primarily through the active depiction in local newspapers of men, women and children working at the building site alongside more highly skilled figures such as architects (Fig. 4.6). This exercise was supported by publicity posters which portrayed the project as a symbol of progress in major public squares (Castillo 2007). The Stalinallee was also linked closely, in spatial terms, to Berlin’s historical symbols of Unter den Linden and the Brandenburg Gate. With this in mind, the SED made the argument that the project had connected, both literally and symbolically, the GDR with historic German traditions. In their eyes, this made it a more worthy Germany than that which was presented by the Federal Republic of the West (Pugh 2014). Many East Germans found themselves equipped with much needed comfortable housing as a result of the project. Despite this, the SED’s work in the Stalinallee was undermined by a chronic lack of food and essential commodities in the city and the reality that construction was inordinately expensive. In stark contrast, life in West Berlin could not be more different. Just as “GDR identity was defined by the SED in historical, traditional, and antifascist terms, national identity in the Federal Republic developed out of a discourse around the ‘new’ and around technological, industrial, and economic advancement” (Pugh 2014, p. 47).

Fig. 4.5 Henselmann’s towers on the Stalinallee

32

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.6 Workers at the Stalinallee construction site

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

33

The overall less aggressive approach to the stabilisation of West Germany by the USA and its western allies was reflected in the fact that many West Germans were seen to align themselves on both political and social levels with the USA. It was this close relationship between the Federal Republic and the USA, which led to the stabilisation of the West German financial system. It also contributed to the widespread availability of American consumer products in West Berlin. To this end, numerous cultural exhibitions and campaigns, propagating the lifestyle of leisure and elegance, which could be afforded by the West German populace, were staged throughout the 1950s. Seen as a direct riposte to the Stalinallee, the Interbau exhibition of 1957 celebrated the redevelopment of the city’s war-torn Hansa Quarter (Colquhoun 1989; Pugh 2014). The project site was chosen specifically for its proximity to the eastern sector. The ground plan, which was designed by Jobst and Kreuer, consisted of a series of highand low-rise blocks scattered across the site in a Modernist style (Fig. 4.7), reflecting “a deliberate renunciation of axial orientation, centralised order, or anything that smacked regimentation or totalitarianism” (Ladd 1997, p. 188). Within the context of the plan, Western architects such as Le Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer and Walter Gropius, amongst others, came together to create buildings which could act as prototypes for other cities (Fig. 4.8). In doing so, the exhibition aimed to make the implicit statement that the West was best suited to reunify Berlin and to rebuild other cities in Europe, outwith the sphere of influence of the USSR (Pugh 2014). Just as newspapers and advertising campaigns had been employed to exploit the promotional potential of Stalinallee, Pugh (2014) contends that the West similarly

Fig. 4.7 Interbau ground plan

34

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.8 Completed Hansa Quarter

considered the experience of the Interbau1 exhibition to be of propagandistic value. To this end, a series of unique installations, including an exhibition crane, was developed, to afford attendees a birds-eye view of the project (Fig. 4.9). A tramway was also installed (Fig. 4.10). This idea of the construction site as a tourist site is one, which would resurface after reunification. However, in contrast to the East’s preoccupation with the criticism of Western capitalism, the West never forcibly labelled the buildings of the Interbau exhibition as democratic or capitalistic. Instead, they were referred to as progressive symbols of freedom and humanism. Can it be said that it was the focus on the experience of the new development rather than on the political forces, which led to its creation, which meant that the West was more successful in bolstering public approval than its Eastern counterpart? Architectural historian Castillo considers this to be the case, acknowledging that, “rather than coercing, soft power entices” (Castillo 2010, p. xi). In considering these earlier projects collectively, Castillo (2010) also writes of the role they played in the broader political context of the Cold War. He specifies that the weaponisation of domestic architecture was as much part of the broader programme of psychological warfare adopted during the conflict as the discourse on the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons. The two projects showcase, just as in National Socialism, the dual role played by architecture that of outwardly expressing a style associated with the state, and that of a much more immeasurable function, the attempt to win over the hearts and minds of individuals to become avid supporters of a particular set of political values. Even though they were seen as temporary solutions 1 Interbau

was a housing development, constructed as part of the 1957 International Building Exhibition in the Hansaviertel area of West Berlin.

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.9 Interbau’s “exhibition crane”

Fig. 4.10 Interbau’s tram adorned with advertisements

35

36

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

to a non-permanent division of East and West, the projects established an attitude of opposition and balance, which was adhered to by both states for the next forty years (Pugh 2014). In the discussion of Cold War Berlin, attention must inevitably be paid to the Wall with which the city has become synonymous (Fig. 4.11). Built in 1961 following the rapid closure of the intra-Berlin border, its construction gave physical form to a divide which had existed in mind for many years. It was the expectation of many that its construction would serve only to divide East and West further. However, Ladd (1997) and indeed others (Pugh 2014; Wise 1998) introduce the particularly valuable point that the architecture of the East and West through the 1960s and 70s was not wholly dissimilar. In raising this issue, light is shed upon the fact that there was a marked shift in the architecture of the GDR following the construction of the Wall. The shift was the product of a desire to improve the unproductive housing sector by building as cheaply and as quickly as possible using new prefabricated construction methods (Fig. 4.12). This acceptance of technological modernity over historic German traditions coalesced with the aspirations of the new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to “de-Stalinise” the East. It, therefore, became the new language through which the long-standing urban policies of the GDR, relating to the centralisation of the city and country, could be delivered (Wise 1998). In attempting to analyse Berlin, following the construction of the Wall, many complex social issues merit further discussion, but which can distort our understanding of architecture’s role in the period, present themselves. With this in mind,

Fig. 4.11 Wall and so-called death strip

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

37

Fig. 4.12 Prefabrication in the East

Balfour (1990) contends that the urban development of East and West Berlin in the two decades following the construction of the Wall is best illustrated through an examination of one fundamental issue: the centre, or lack thereof. As a by-product of the division, Berlin’s most important historical sites and buildings fell under the jurisdiction of the East, leaving the West without any real cultural or political hub (Fig. 4.13). The opposing ways in which each state dealt with the issue of the centre in years to come present clear evidence as to how the complex political landscape informed and was reinforced by, the architectural policies of their respective states. For West Berlin, the new condition presented by the more permanent division had huge implications. Although it was still supported financially by the Federal Republic, its “continued existence as a capital-city-in-waiting depended in part on its relevance for national traditions and notions of Germanness” (Pugh 2014, p. 62). The increased isolation of this part of the city meant that new ways had to be sought out in which the West could differentiate itself from the GDR. This is in addition to the movement by the East towards an architecture more in line with that which had been exclusively Western to date. To counteract the ambiguity surrounding the city and justify the financial support, it continued to receive; an effort was made to boost the morale of the populace and provide a deterrent for emigration. This was achieved through the explicit branding of the city as a cultural meeting place and subsequent development of a new Culture Forum in the early 1960s. Sited in an area, which had been cleared in preparation for Albert Speer’s masterplan, the development of the forum was the responsibility of a state-recognised group known as the SPK. Its primary intention was that the project would represent a symbolic challenge to the historical collections housed in the GDR. To this end, the

38

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.13 Division left the West without historical landmarks

forum would comprise buildings housing manuscripts and cultural artefacts which explicitly linked West Berlin with Prussian heritage (Balfour 1990). The centrepiece of the scheme was to be a State Library designed by Hans Scharoun. Other buildings on the forum included a new Philharmonic Hall and National Gallery (Fig. 4.14). By contrast, the GDR moved its cultural centre away from the Wall. It embarked on a journey of political ambition at the end of which it hoped to have proved, beyond doubt, that East Berlin was a worthy capital of the GDR. The earlier noted move towards technocratic construction methods was linked closely to the centralised concern of the state. It represented a means through which workers and other resources could be diverted to more productive sectors, such as the chemical and high-tech industries. Although housing and everyday life were purported to be the purest representation of socialist policy, the shift made it clear that they were actively value-engineered and sidelined by the SED in favour of the significant redevelopment of spaces in the heart of the city (Colomb 2012). The remodelling of Alexanderplatz, which included the construction of a new, television tower excellently exemplifies this attitude (Fig. 4.15). The stark differences between the monotonous suburbs of prefabricated blocks and the grandiose city centre buildings served as a measure of the degree to which the SED’s socialist policies were mere illusions. They were designed to encourage internal public approval of the state, while the party concentrated on the management of the external perception of the city as a capital (Fraser 1996). It is noteworthy to mention that the early 1970s saw the development of the so-called Four-Power agreement. The agreement is said to mark the beginning of a period known as Détente when better relations were afforded between the East

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

39

Fig. 4.14 Library, gallery and philharmonic hall in model form

and West, and access was improved between the two halves of the divided city. The implications of these new-found inter-German relations meant that the GDR was “no longer an illegitimate regime, but an internationally recognised sovereign power” (Pugh 2014, p. 159). As a result, the East German economy experienced significant economic growth, imbuing its inhabitants with a revived sense of national identity. This contributed to a significant shift towards public approval of the SED, under the new leadership of Erich Honecker. The apparent effect of these political and economic changes was the development of an architecture for the people, as opposed to one dedicated exclusively to the state. This was exemplified in the construction of a significant building complex on Spree Island—a symbolic site where an Imperial Palace had once stood (Fig. 4.16). Comprising a new council of ministers and foreign office, the centrepiece of the new complex was to be the Palast der Republik, completed in 1976. As a centre for entertainment, cultural activities and the accommodation of key government departments, it looked to bring the constituent parts of East German life under one roof (Fig. 4.17) (Fraser 1996). Palast der Republik was seen as a counterpoint to the State Library in the Culture Forum of the West (Colomb 2012). It cannot be denied that there existed stark differences between the Palast der Republik and the State Library, and the building economies of which they were a product. However, through a more delicate examination of the values and ideals for which they stood, it can be stipulated that these two buildings share striking similarities. Given that the West’s State Library was not completed until 1978, the opportunity arises to present a comparative analysis of the two buildings. This sheds light on their political role within the context of

40

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.15 Alexanderplatz and the television tower

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.16 An extract from a military map showing Spree Island

Fig. 4.17 Palast der Republik

41

42

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

their respective states and the relationship between East and West. It is important to reiterate that it is not the aim of this research to simply recount or describe these buildings for their formal or aesthetic merit, but rather to offer up a discussion of the role of the political landscape (in which they were built) on their development and perception. The projects should be considered within the context of the broader global discussion of the built environment and criticisms of the modern movement. To this end, critics such as Jane Jacobs and her contemporaries had called for a language of building, which was unimposing and inviting. This was to replace Modernism’s monotonous character and disregard for the spontaneous qualities of everyday life (Nowobilska and Zaman 2014; Pugh 2014). The ensuing global reaction to Modernism gave rise to the development of buildings around the world whose overarching aim was to forge “social cohesion and community by functioning as sites for staging a network of multiple events” (Mathews 2006, p. 39). It is within this context that the SED saw the Palast der Republik as the means through which unity between the state and its people could be achieved. It would be a highly visible focal point within the city and a shared symbol of East Germany’s “newfound place in the global economic market and as an accepted part of the international community of nations” (Pugh 2014, p. 170). It would, however, be one, which expanded beyond the singular notion of centralised political power, to include the broader ideas of cultural and social centrality. This was to be expressed through the broad range of uses housed by the building, which included spaces for political conferences and meetings, a range of bars and restaurants, sports facilities and a theatre. Writing on Architecture, Power and Identity, Lawrence Vale (2008) contends that the relationship of government buildings to their surroundings tells us a great deal about “how the leadership wishes others to regard the institution it houses” (ibid, p. 9). With this in mind, the physical expression of the Palast der Republik and its external and internal spatial relationships merit further discussion. The prominent use of glass represented, on a figurative level, the notion of transparency and openness between the state and its people. It relates, thematically, to Terragni’s Casa del Fascio in Como, built in 1936. It was an interpretation of “fascism as a glasshouse into which everyone can peer, with nothing between the political leader and his people” (Terragni as cited in Rifkind 2006, p. 157). On a literal level, the open plan of the Palast der Republik and proliferation of glass meant that activities taking place inside were visible from outside (Fig. 4.18). This is representative of the SED’s interest in integrating the project with “the Social-spatial environment of the entire district” (Graffunder as cited in Pugh 2014, p. 174). The literal transparency, therefore, served to assert the figurative former. Given that the building’s construction brought together workers, craftsmen, artists and even anticipating staff from all fourteen administrative states of the GDR, it stands that the palace was constructed not just figuratively, but literally by and for all East Germans. This echoes the rhetoric presented by the building of the Stalinallee during the 1950s. This idea also forms a useful point of departure from which to begin a discussion of the West’s State Library. Scharoun’s project also echoes the rhetoric of the 1950s, but rather that of the Interbau project, “wherein the political

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.18 Transparency between the interior and exterior

43

44

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

significance was communicated obliquely, through the evocation of grand, humanist ideals” (Pugh 2014, p. 90). The design for the library (Fig. 4.19) was a product of a competition, which saw entries from a total of eleven architects (Bürkle 1993). It is contended that Scharoun’s proposal was chosen, not only for its formal qualities but because its size suited the aspiration of the SPK to create the most extensive library in the country. This grandness was reflected in its cost, which is said to have exceeded DM 225 million (Pugh 2014; Tietz 2008). Just as the Palast der Republik employed glass and naturally lit spaces to express the (illusion of the) openness of the GDR, the State Library is also linked closely to these ideas. Both projects have their origins in the written work of expressionist Bruno Taut, who is credited with deriving the term “Volkshaus”. This was a speculative community building which could promote cultural and social development. In this context, he heralded the interplay of light and glass in the library space as the means through which a more unified social order could be achieved in any given community (James-Chakraborty 2002). Users participate in an architectural promenade where they are drawn through a dark and enclosed entrance lobby before entering a spacious reading room (Fig. 4.20). The use of promenade here brings to mind the construction of a similar experience by Albert Speer in his Chancellery. There was, however, one crucial difference: light and space are used here to create the sense of an inclusive community rather than to engender fear. To this end, several critics made the statement that the library was a place in which one could feel liberated (Pugh 2014). Given the geographic situation of West Berlin, surrounded by the Wall, the contention of freedom was very powerful.

Fig. 4.19 Exterior of the completed State Library

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

45

Fig. 4.20 Spacious reading room

The library was still under construction at the time of Scharoun’s death in 1972 and fell victim to administrative and monetary woes, which led to design changes. For these reasons, it is difficult to determine the degree to which the completed building represents his original vision. The building was nonetheless seen as a “modern-day temple for scholarship and a stage for the performance of democracy” (Pugh 2014, p. 94), just as the Palast der Republik was representative of the values claimed to have been adopted by the GDR. Both buildings were constructed as symbols of national unity as well as the means through which to engender this unity. Pugh (2014) argues that both East and West shared common political goals and that it is merely the means through which these goals were presented to the public that differed. She also contends that the opinions of contemporary critics had a significant bearing on the broader public perception of the buildings. In the West, “Political stipulations were avoided wherever possible” (Braunfels 1983) in linking the values of democracy with the State Library. Conversely, there was a visible effort in the GDR to praise the Palast der Republik as the ultimate reconciliation of the state and its people. The effects of these differing philosophies were plain to see. The library’s association with the democratic West felt natural and self-evident, while the state-sponsored praise of the Palast der Republik seemed contrived. History tells us that the fleeting progress made by the East under the direction of Honecker was to be short-lived. The 1980s marked the point at which the public realised that his policies were anything but open and liberal, reflecting attempts to realign the state with the USSR and reaffirm the party’s “authority over all aspects of East Germans’ lives” (Pugh 2014, p. 197). This is substantiated by Wolle’s (1999)

46

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

stipulation that the Palast der Republik was only ever kept well-lit in order that security personnel could see into every corner with surveillance cameras (Fig. 4.21). As the years which followed were to prove, it became increasingly difficult for the SED to countenance “the blatant contradictions between the regime’s version of reality, and East Germans’ own experience of it” (Weber as cited in Pugh 2014, p. 198) (Fig. 4.22). The GDR was not alone in experiencing a period of stasis. The West found itself a new reputation as a home for protesters and squatters (Fig. 4.23) (Pugh 2008). The State Library was an attempt to reconnect the West with a definitively German past. However, surrounded by a city that was very different to that in which it was first conceived, the vision offered by the completed building was at odds with the broader public perception of what the West should stand for. The ambivalence of identity which prevailed during this closing period of the Cold War might be attributed to the loss of the intense opposition between the two halves of the city. In this respect, the Four-Power agreement of 1971 had essentially marginalised the heated rhetoric which had once fuelled the distinct identities of each state. Other global conflicts, such as the Vietnam War—as a disastrous flashpoint for the USA—had also drawn the attention of the wider global audience away from Berlin in the preceding years. Attempts were made by both states in the late 1980s to re-establish their respective identities and values for the 750th Anniversary of the city. This saw the emergence of the concept of critical reconstruction to rejuvenate historic quarters. This was symbolised by the international building exhibition “IBA 1987” in the West (Fig. 4.23), and the restoration of the Nikolai Quarter in the East (Fig. 4.24). In the long-term, these

Fig. 4.21 Surveillance became part of everyday life in the East

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.22 Police attending a riot in West Berlin

Fig. 4.23 House on checkpoint Charlie for “IBA 1987”

47

48

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

Fig. 4.24 New “historicised” buildings in the East

efforts were dwarfed by the increasingly growing unrest in each of the states. The protests and riots which were to take place over the forthcoming years culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (Colomb 2012; Pugh 2014). Cold War Berlin abounds with political rhetoric, the reach of which had profound effects on the built environment. It is evident that there was a dichotomy of style in the early years of the period, which characterised each regime’s attempt to distance them from the preceding era of National Socialism. To this end, historical motifs were employed in countries of the Eastern Bloc while Modernism was promoted in the West. The clarity through which East and West could be differentiated was soon lost to the advent of industrialised building processes and prefabrication. This shift meant that Modernism was no longer constrained to the West. The reaction against this movement in the late 1960s served to confuse the situation further. As a result of the continually evolving social and economic conditions and the more extensive global discussions on architecture, it is clear that we cannot define Berlin’s Cold War architecture in simple binary terms of East and West. Despite the absence of a definitive “house style” in each state, it is nonetheless clear that architecture remained a primary means through which economic strength, social equality, and therefore political legitimacy could be defined. Although grand public buildings continued to exist as explicit political gestures, it can be said that a much more extensive range of building types took on a political role during the period. To this end, the housing sector found itself to be part and parcel of the language of propaganda. In this respect, when we discuss Berlin’s Cold War architecture, it should be acknowledged that we mean architecture in the holistic sense. That is an

4 Architecture and Identity During the Cold …

49

architecture where broader-based attitudes to both urban development and everyday life were as implicit in the depiction of specific political values as any style applied superficially to a single building.

References Agnew J (2003) Geopolitics: re-visioning world politics. Routledge, London Balfour A (1990) Berlin: the politics of order, 1737–1989. Rizzoli International Publications, New York, NY Braunfels W (1983) The international building exhibition and the question of Berlin. Archit Des 53(1):15–17 Bürkle JC (1993) Hans Scharoun. Artemis, Zurich Castillo G (2007) Promoting socialist cities and citizens: East Germany’s national building program. In: Swett P, Wiesen J, Zatlin JR (eds) Selling modernity: advertising in twentieth century Germany. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp 287–306 Castillo G (2010) Cold war on the home front: the soft power of midcentury design. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MA Colomb C (2012) Staging the New Berlin: place marketing and the politics of urban reinvention post-1989. Routledge, London Colquhoun A (1989) Modernity and the classical tradition: architectural essays, 1980–87. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Fraser D (1996) The buildings of Europe: Berlin. Manchester University Press, Manchester James-Chakraborty K (2002) German architecture for a mass audience. Routledge, London Ladd B (1997) The ghosts of Berlin: confronting German history in the urban landscape. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Mathews S (2006) The fun palace as virtual architecture. J Archit Educ 59(3):39–43 Nowobilska M, Zaman QM (2014) Potsdamer Platz: the reshaping of Berlin. Springer, London Pugh E (2008) The Berlin wall and the urban space and experience of East and West Berlin, 1961–1989. Ph.D. dissertation. The City University of New York Pugh E (2014) Architecture, politics and identity in divided Berlin. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA Rifkind D (2006) Furnishing the Fascist interior: Giuseppe Terragni, Mario Radice and the Casa del Fascio. Arq 10(2):157–170 Rosenberg ES (1982) Spreading the American dream: American economic and cultural expansion, 1890–1945. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY Tietz J (2008) The state library, cultural forum, Berlin, 2nd edn. Stadtwandel Verlag, Berlin Vale LJ (2008) Architecture, power, and national identity, 2nd edn. Routledge, London Wise MZ (1998) Capital dilemma: Germany’s search for a new architecture of democracy. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY Wolle S (1999) The Ideal World of dictatorship: everyday life and domination in the DDR, 1971– 1989. Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, Bonn

Chapter 5

Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing a Democratic and Economic Capital

The fall of the Wall marked, for many, the end of Berlin’s struggle as a divided city (Fig. 5.1). However, Balfour (1990) contends that “the removal of the concrete from which it was formed will not remove the Wall from the mind. Reality will forever rest on the memory of this division” (ibid, p. 253). The past became increasingly important in the years following its removal, as the city and nation set about developing a new architecture of democracy. The fall of the Wall, therefore, merely marked the beginning of a new chapter in the city’s ongoing struggle for a recognisable identity. In a more dramatic reprise of a process experienced at the end of the Second World War, intense debates centred on the symbols of the past took place. Which memories were to be preserved and which were to be forgotten about? The twelve months following the fall of the Wall were characterised by significant scenes of unrest and revolt in the East. The primary concern at the time was the reform of the GDR as a democratised society. Although early negotiations between a dedicated forum of representatives from the West and the SED were positive, the prospect of the democratisation of the East as a separate state was quickly put to rest. This was primarily because the majority of East Germans looked more favourably upon the complete reunification of the nation. The division which had existed during the Cold War had centred on each state’s desire to prevail with their vision for Germany over that of the other (Colomb 2012; Pugh 2014). Thus, to realise the western vision of unified Germany meant the “consensual annexation of East Germany by the Federal Republic” (Wise 1998, p. 59). This is because it would have been exceedingly difficult for two disparate notions of Germanness to coexist in a single state. An examination of the administrative processes through which reunification took place suggests that East and West envisaged a period of gradual transition. It was hoped that the GDR could be progressively assimilated into the West German economy. In reality, the lack of parity in salaries between East and West meant that economic unification had to be implemented as quickly as possible. This was in order to curtail an already worsening migration crisis which had seen many East

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Mair and Q. M. Zaman, Berlin: A City Awaits, Springer Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5_5

51

52

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.1 Fall of the Berlin Wall

Germans move to the West. To this end, a treaty on economic, monetary and social union was signed by each state in May 1990 (Fig. 5.2) (Colomb 2012). Reunification marked the third major political shift experienced by the city within sixty years. At this time, the city’s population and territory expanded significantly for the first time since the Second World War. Colomb (2012) states that there existed an urgency to reaffirm Berlin as capital on both the national and international stages. The city’s success would lie in its ability to source a new language of architecture appropriate to its aspiration to become a European metropolis. It would, however, have to do so without recalling arduous images associated with past regimes (Wise 1998). The status of exception and division had, for decades, been a better symbol of the city than any state building could have hoped to be. This fact, and the sudden economic reform from a centrally planned to a free-market system, presented the city with a considerable challenge. To this end, the search for a new collective identity called for the (very conscious) “social construction of a particular image and meaning” (Lehrer 2002, p. 61). It was within this context “that a flurry of practices of place marketing and urban imaging emerged with visibility and intensity rarely witnessed in other European cities” (Colomb 2012, p. 6). Through this means, it was hoped that the country’s political image could be stabilised to bolster public approval of the newly reunified state. There was, however, an additional aim. The city wanted to attract visitors and potential investors. Architecture’s role in Berlin after reunification was, therefore, as much related to economics as it was to politics.

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

53

Fig. 5.2 Germany regained full sovereignty in 1990

Much of the regional tension, which existed in Germany following reunification in 1990, had related to the question of where the parliamentary seat should be located. It had been sited in Bonn since 1949 when West Germany formally came into being (Fig. 5.3). An intense national debate took place in 1990 and 1991 between those who felt Bonn was no longer a temporary capital and those who felt the parliamentary seat should return to Berlin—a status it had held from 1871 to 1945. A statement made by the cultural editor of German magazine Der Spiegel in 1992 effectively summarised the view of Bonn which would eventually prevail: “The unending Bonn inconspicuousness, timidity and embarrassment—all of that is an inadequate representation, an unworthy form for a country that has regained its sovereignty. We should finally dare to be great again in our state architecture” (Schreiber 1992, p. 203). The proposal “Completion of the Unity of Germany”, with the anticipated formation of the future seat of government in Berlin, had been articulated and established by leading members of parliament across party lines. The debate culminated in a public vote on the prospective location of the parliamentary seat. The vote broke mostly along regional lines, with legislators from the south and west favouring Bonn and legislators from the north and east voting for Berlin. The vote reflected the generational lines; older legislators with remembrances of Berlin’s past stardom backed Berlin, while younger legislators backed Bonn. Berlin took victory by a narrow margin of 338 to 320. While this seemed to have settled the symbolic debate, it did not provide any pragmatic suggestion as to how the move might be achieved. “How?, When?, and Where in Berlin?” were the questions being asked of the newly reformed state. However, Berlin authoritatively assumed

54

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.3 Chancellery building in Bonn

its full role as the home of the parliament and government of the Federal Republic of Germany in July 1999. It was within this context of uncertainty that the state devised several design competitions, including that of the 1992–1993 “International Urban Design Idea Competition of the Spreebogen”. The process invited leading world architects to submit proposals for an overall masterplan of the new government quarter in Berlin. The site for the project was a substantial arc-like zone adjacent to the River Spree (Fig. 5.4). Reunification had been characterised by the prevalence of Western capitalism in the economic and political landscape. Similarly, it can be asserted that there was a strong continuity of Western architectural ideas over those of the East. This statement is substantiated by the fact that architects of the former GDR submitted only a small minority of several hundred proposals. Despite the bringing together of the two Cold War states, it was becoming clear that the new Berlin would be constructed on the terms of the West. An investigation of the competition judging process also exemplifies the extent to which memories of National Socialism were still haunting the city. The Spreebogen site occupied land which would have become part of Albert Speer’s masterplan in the 1930s. With this in mind, all proposals promoting the use of a North–South axis were seen to be “too tainted by association with National Socialism to permit its use by unified Germany” (Wise 1998, p. 61). An axial arrangement was eventually built, but one which ran from West to East. The winning proposal prepared by Axel Schultes and Charlotte Frank was based upon the idea of a defined federal strip. Running along this new East–West axis, the strip literally and figuratively bridged the gap between the former Cold War city–states (Fig. 5.5). The move was also seen

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.4 Spreebogen site prior to the development

Fig. 5.5 Schultes’ Spreebogen Ground Plan

55

56

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.6 Schultes proposal

as a rejection of the dispersed and random arrangement of government buildings in the temporary capital of Bonn. Within the masterplan, further architectural competitions were held for the design of individual buildings. The most notable of these included that which was held for the New Chancellery (Burg 1995). Forty design entries were prepared by offices that had been shortlisted out of an initial list of two hundred and fifty. After much deliberation, a decision on a single winner was not arrived at by the jury. Two first prizes were awarded. The first proposal by Schultes and Frank was characterised by its lack of decoration and the interplay of glass and stone (Fig. 5.6). The second, by Krüger-Schuberth-Vandreike, was characterised by its references to classicism through the use of pillared arcades (Fig. 5.7) (Bartetzko 1995). With Speer’s Chancellery serving as “the epitome of what they sought to avoid at all costs” (Wise 1998, p. 65), it was clear that the burden of the Nazi era still weighed heavily on the minds of the national decision-makers. This is proven by identifying the primary reason for which Schulte’s proposal was eventually chosen over the alternative. The Krüger-Schuberth-Vandreike proposal was dismissed on the basis that “classicism, by virtue of having been requisitioned by Hitler, was simply impossible to use again” (Conradi as cited in Wise 1998, p. 68). With no apparent reference to the city’s troubled past, it is unsurprising that the Schultes proposal was chosen. It recognised transparency as a symbol of democracy while expressing the new-found confidence of the federal republic through its use of solid stone Walls (Bartetzko 1995).

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

57

Fig. 5.7 Krüger-Schuberth-Vandreike proposal

The alternative proposal was dismissed because it was seen to recall aspects of the NSDAP’s architecture. Can it not, however, be argued that the Schultes proposal recalled the forced ideas of openness and transparency, contrived by the former GDR in their promotion of the Palast der Republik? With this, it is essential to note that the designs for the new parliamentary district did not meet universal approval. A number of concerns, which “cast doubt over the city’s desire to showcase itself as having overcome its past” (Costabile-Heming 2011, p. 235), were raised during its construction. To this end, the chairman of the competition jury, Gerhart Laage, suggested that politicians would lose faith in the value of the masterplan and succumb to financial pressures before it could be fully implemented (Wise 1998). These concerns were not unfounded as an examination of the completed development exemplifies. To attenuate any feeling of monumentality, a vast civic forum was proposed between the new parliament and Chancellery. Space was to be accessible to the public around the clock and form the centrepiece of the development. It was to take the form of large stepped volumes comparable to an amphitheatre (Fig. 5.8). It was, however, never built. Critics contend that there existed a highly pragmatic reason behind its omission. It was believed that “no German politician was eager to have a built-in focal point for protest in immediate proximity to both the Parliament and Chancellor’s Office” (Wise 1998, p. 77). While this may, to some extent, be true, financial constraints were also to blame. The restructuring of the East German economy and the European Union’s bid to move towards a common currency exhausted considerably more capital than had been projected. It is also reported that, by 1997, Germany’s

58

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.8 Forum at the heart of the masterplan

unemployment reached a record of 12.2% (Wise 1998). In this context, the government could not afford to be seen (by its European partners or its taxpayers) to spend vast sums of money without good cause. It was not just the Civic Forum, but rather the overall length of the federal strip which was curtailed. This is because tenants in the Friedrichstadt would have to be forcibly evicted to make way for the Eastern end of the development (Fig. 5.9). The proposed move had conjured up images of the clearances made by Speer in preparation for his masterplan. The changes also typify the continuing disparity which existed between East and West. The federal strip would be imbued with the Chancellery and its gardens in the West, yet “sputter out with a shabby eastern terminus” (Wise 1998, p. 79). A significant new commercial and financial centre was developed in tandem with the new government quarter at the Spreebogen site. The development was sited in an area of the city known as Potsdamer Platz. The relocation of the parliamentary seat and construction of the Spreebogen quarter was a conscious effort to make it clear that the country was in the hands of a stable government. Similarly, Potsdamer Platz represented the aspiration of the new state to attract foreign tourists and investors to the city. The site was a place within the city which had undergone an extraordinary transformation in recent times. It began life as a bustling road junction in the 1920s but became a barren “death strip” between East and West during the Cold War (Fig. 5.10). Although it is not the primary focus of this book, it could, in its own right, warrant further discussion.

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.9 Eastern end of the Spreebogen development

Fig. 5.10 Potsdamer Platz following division

59

60

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.11 Shanghai’s Pudong Financial District

In order to fully understand the context within which the redevelopment of Potsdamer Platz took place, it is necessary to examine the wider global economic issues through the 1990s briefly. The period was characterised by significant globalisation and the mobilisation of information technology and saw the significant growth of a series of Asian economies. Within this context, financial centres such as Shanghai emerged (Jorgensen and Vu 2011). In the early 1990s, Shanghai had been designated as a city, which was “strategically important for China to succeed on the international stage” (Lai 2006, p. 2). Within the city, specific areas such as the Pudong New Area and the Lujiazui Financial and Trade Zone were developed (Fig. 5.11). This was a conscious effort through which China could be linked to the globalised economy (Lau et al. 2000). In a short period, Shanghai had proved itself to be successful in “opening up its economy to foreign investors, implementing policies conducive for capitalist processes and practices, and raising its international profile as a prime location for business activities” (Lai 2006, p. 10). With this, it is clear that there existed several parallels between the city and the aspirations of the newly unified German government. Bearing the example of Shanghai in mind, the Berlin senate launched a competition in 1991 to establish a masterplan for Potsdamer Platz’s redevelopment. It sold off vast areas of the prime real estate to multinational companies like Daimler-Benz and Sony (Colomb 2012 ). It became particularly evident that the public was being left out of the consultation process, with planning objectives for the city “accommodated to the interests of the investor rather than the other way round” (Caygill 1997, p. 47). Within the chosen masterplan design by Hilmer and Sattler, individual buildings came in the form of

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

61

Fig. 5.12 Potsdamer Platz masterplan model

high-rise office blocks (Fig. 5.12). Ladd (1997) contends that the (inevitable) result of this arrangement was a privatised public space. The space corresponded more to the images aspired to by corporate investors than the lively urbanity of the site in the 1920s. Potsdamer Platz was heavily criticised on this basis. It was seen as an exercise in consumerism whose sole role was to benefit the globally perceived image of the city (Enke 2000). Such views are reiterated through the work of Allen (2006) who, in his discussion of “Ambient Power”, denounces the Sony Centre (Fig. 5.13) as “a branded space, obviously in terms of the fact that it houses Sony’s European HQ, but as a display case for the company’s products” (ibid, p. 447). The greatest success enjoyed by the development was in its construction rather than a final realisation, which was seen as both construction site and tourist site where visitors to the city’s central areas in the mid-1990s were welcomed by the ballet of construction cranes and soundtrack of building work. These ideas recall aspects of the aforementioned Interbau exhibition of 1957. It is widely acknowledged that the site was the most widely promoted image of urban change in the reunified city. The project was aided by the local press, actors, politicians, investors and a city marketing initiative known as Partnership für Berlin (PfB). As part of the PfB’s programme of promotion, a temporary structure by Schneider + Schumacher was developed on the site, known as the Infobox. The installation contained exhibition models and plans for the development (Fig. 5.14). It also included an observation platform from which visitors could observe construction work. By the time it closed in 2000, it is said that up to 8.6 million people had visited the installation (Colomb 2012).

62

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.13 Sony centre in Potsdamer Platz

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

63

Fig. 5.14 Infobox building

The Infobox was complemented by a plethora of place-marketing events which included a dance, light and laser show, and specially commissioned sculptures on the site (Fig. 5.15). However, Colomb (2012) argues that “in spite of such claims of transparency, the intensity of communication activities and marketing work was inversely proportional to the undemocratic, opaque, closed and conflictual nature of the decision-making processes which led to the approval of the development” (ibid, p. 153). The PfB initiative can essentially be viewed as an extension of the hand of the government. Its origins were rooted deeply in broad political aspirations held by the state to promote the city as an economic superpower on the global stage. It is evident that the city struggled to achieve a balance in realising this objective and that of political atonement on both local and global terms. To this end, Wise (1998) argues that this dichotomy was responsible for how Germany conducted itself on an international level. It was able to lead the process of European economic integration, yet in other realms displayed “an almost obsessive degree of caution amid a struggle to moderate gestures of national aggrandizement” (ibid, p. 155). The euphoria of the temporary and the new in the 1990s inevitably wore off. This was signalled by the dismantling of the Infobox in 2001. Bernau (as cited in Colomb 2012) suggests that its demolition marked the beginning of a new era, but one in which the city’s future would remain fluid and uncertain. An analysis of the city’s political and economic status in the following decade serves to substantiate this suggestion. 2001 marked a significant point in Berlin’s post-Wall history. Amidst a significant financial scandal relating to Berlin’s public authorities, the political coalition which

64

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.15 Cranes as light sculptures

had ruled since 1991 lost power. The resulting shift in political control of the country marked the beginning of a period of fiscal discipline in the city. It became clear from the ever-declining GDP and the ever-increasing unemployment, that hopes to challenge London, New York, or the emerging Asian financial centres were unfounded. The financial crisis within which the city found itself would have implications, which stretched far into the new millennium. As stipulated by Wolf (2000), local policy-makers did not want to call a complete halt to their search for a specific identity for the city. They did, however, find it challenging to establish what this new vision might be. This gave way to a period of multifaceted place-marketing techniques. Centred on the idea of the “creative city”, the potential of the built environment as a marketing tool was largely ignored. Unlike in previous years where massive infrastructure projects or particular developments were used as tools (for marketing or economic gain/political reasons), the approaches outlined in Colombs (2012) review of that period is much broader ranging campaigns of how to present Berlin to the world—rather than the conscious construction of an architecture or particular buildings to do this job. Colomb (2012) contends that the uncertainty of identity during this period stemmed from the fact that there was no longer a conscious effort to impose the idea that Berlin was the new capital city. That had been accepted. Berlin’s debt is said to have stood at three times that of its annual budget by the late 2000s (Colomb 2012). With this in mind, the global economic crisis of 2008 did not have the same adverse effects on the city as it did on the rest of Germany and Europe. At this time, architecture was given a reprieve by the senate in its ongoing search for the city’s identity. Engineering, pharmaceutical and technology-based industries

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

65

Fig. 5.16 “IBA 2020” consultation event with stakeholders

had been sidelined by the move from production to consumption in the 1990s and early 2000s. However, they did not disappear from the city entirely. It is with this mindset that the Berlin senate found a renewed interest in the industrial sector’s role as a growth engine for the local economy. This was exemplified by the development of its “Industrial City” masterplan in 2010. In the context of this masterplan, discussions began for the third major building exhibition destined to take place in the city over the past century: “IBA 2020”. The previous building exhibition, undertaken by the West as “IBA 1987”, had promoted the critical reconstruction of the historic urban infrastructure. At that time, an attempt was made to draw people into the centre of the city through the development of experimental housing initiatives and public spaces. These served to “attract positive international attention as well as both cultural and financial capital to West Berlin” (Pugh 2014, p. 251). However, the resulting growth in the economic significance of the centre effectively resulted in the neglect of peripheral communities. “IBA 1987” was, therefore, seen to integrate and isolate simultaneously. Under the idiom of the “mixed city”, the overarching ambition of “IBA 2020” was to reconcile critical parts of the Berlin’s historic core with these outlying districts. It also recognised space as a valuable asset for which Berlin is envied by other cities and hoped to “test models for sustainable area management” (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung 2011, p. 3) by redeveloping notable open spaces in the city centre. A closer examination of the senate’s material relating to the exhibition permits the conclusion that the project had apparent political aspirations. To this end, the exhibition aimed to “not only place buildings but also stakeholders and processes in centre stage” (Fig. 5.16) (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung 2011, p. 2). Perhaps

66

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Fig. 5.17 Proposed site for the new Humboldt Forum

the most explicitly “political” site is that of a public space known as the Humboldt Forum (Fig. 5.17). The site comprised three squares, including those of the MarxEngels and Rathaus Forums adjacent to Alexanderplatz in the heart of the former GDR. Given its location, it comes as no surprise that the senate was very careful to point out that it would be a distinctly democratic space. The forum becomes a place where issues relating to local policy and urban development are debated in public. The IBA 2020 documentation was used as a basis for this discussion at the time of writing and is misleading in its description of “The Forum” almost as an outdoor democratic space as opposed to a building. Furthermore, it was hoped that it might also become a place of leisure and recreation. The bringing together of the state and the public, albeit in a subdued manner, recalls a building which once stood on this site: the Palast der Republik of East Berlin. With this in mind, it would seem that the city exists within an infinite vacuum which sees the reinvention of past ideas with each new political period. “IBA 2020” was seen as a vehicle through which the city could once again be turned into an urban laboratory to test solutions to the challenges faced by Berlin in the twenty-first century. It was to see the coming together of architects, sociologists and urban designers from across the world. Therein lies the issue: was to see. In a 2013 announcement regarding the 2014–2015 city budget, the Berlin senate stated that “IBA 2020” was cancelled as a result of ongoing austerity measures (Teerds 2014). The foreshortening of the most significant architectural event to take place in the city since the development of Potsdamer Platz suggests that the future of the city remains subservient to the political landscape in which it exists (Fig. 5.18). In short, it is deeply uncertain.

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

67

Fig. 5.18 New Chancellery with Potsdamer Platz in the background

The opening discussion of National Socialism showed how the autocratic nature of the dictating regime resulted in a powerful political identity. By contrast, the political landscape of the twenty-first century is a melting pot in which decisions are made not by one but by many (Wise 1998). Can it, therefore, be stated that it is the polycentric nature of today’s politics and the economic uncertainty which currently grips Europe which is, at least in part, responsible for the trepidation met by architecture in Berlin today?

References Allen J (2006) Ambient power: Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz and the seductive logic of public spaces. Urban Studies 43(2):441–455 Balfour A (1990) Berlin: The Politics of Order, 1737–1989. Rizzoli International Publications, New York, NY Bartetzko D (1995) Synthesis of Fragments. In: Burg A (ed) International architectural competitions for the Capital Berlin: Chancellery and Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. Birkhaüser Verlag, Berlin, pp 8–24 Burg A (ed) (1995) International architectural competitions for the Capital Berlin: Chancellery and Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. Birkhaüser Verlag, Berlin Caygill H (1997) The futures of Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz. In: Scott, A., ed., 1997. The Limits of Globalisation: Cases and Arguments. London: Routledge. pp. 25–54 Colomb C (2012) Staging the New Berlin: Place Marketing and the Politics of Urban Reinvention Post-1989. Routledge, London

68

5 Architecture and Identity After Reunification: Developing …

Costabile-Heming CA (2011) Berlin’s history in context: the foreign ministry and the Spreebogen Complex in the context of the architectural debates. In: Braziel J, Gerstenberger K. (eds) After the Berlin Wall: Germany and Beyond. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. pp 231–248 Enke R (2000) Missed opportunities? The re-creation of Potsdamer Platz—planning, competitions, and construction. In: Rauch YV (ed) Der Potsdamer Platz: Urban Architecture for a New Berlin. Jovis, Berlin, pp 29–45 Jorgensen DW, Vu KM (2011) The rise of developing Asia and the new economic order. J Policy Model 33(5):698–716 Ladd B (1997) The Ghosts of Berlin: confronting German history in the urban landscape. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Lai K (2006) Developing Shanghai as an International Financial Centre: progress and prospects. China Policy Institute, Nottingham Lau SY, Zaman QMM, Mei SH (2000) A High-density ‘Instant City’: Pudong in Shanghai. In: Jenks M, Burgess R (eds) Compact Cities—Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries. Spon Press, London Lehrer U (2002) Image production and globalization: city building processes at Potsdamer Platz, PhD dissertation. University of California Pugh E (2014) Architecture, Politics and Identity in Divided Berlin. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA Schreiber M (1992) Representation of the State in Buildings and Memorials. In: Gauger J, Stagl J (eds) Staatsrepräsentation. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, pp 191–203 Senatsverwaltung FS (2011) An IBA for Berlin 2020. Senatsverwaltung Für Stadtentwicklung, Berlin Teerds H (2014) IBA Berlin 2020: The Legacy. DASH J 9:73–79 Wise MZ (1998) Capital Dilemma: Germany’s search for a new architecture of democracy. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY Wolf H (2000) Zur Kritik der Metropolenpolitik des Berliner Senats. In: Scharenberg A (ed) Berlin: Global City or Bankrupt State? Karl Dietz Verlag, Berlin, pp 146–154

Chapter 6

Conclusions: A City Awaits

Berlin has long been considered the true capital of the German nation. It is, however, a status, which has been interpreted in different ways by different regimes. Taking the discussion of the city’s history over past 100 years into consideration, it was never in doubt that Berlin’s built environment had been affected by political conditions. To this end, it was not the aim of this book to simply suggest that this was the case. This body of work aimed to examine the political aspirations of particular moments in the city’s history in more exquisite detail. In doing so, light is shed on how these aspirations were represented in the architecture of its time. However, how can the discussion offered up by this piece of research make a broader contribution to contemporary architectural debates? Architecture is not “an autonomous self-referential discipline interested in forms and form-making alone, but rather a larger institutional, cultural and social field” (Bozdogan 2001, p. 12). The question of politics should, therefore, not be seen as an issue external to architecture. Whether a political regime is inherently totalitarian or openly democratic, the built environment has always been used as a tool through which to promote a particular image of identity. The buildings procured by a state speak not just of parliamentary activities but somewhat broader economic, social and cultural trends. In this respect, they can tell us a great deal about a particular place or society (Jones 2011). Through this study, it has been shown that Berlin’s built environment could convey several meanings and serve several purposes simultaneously. This was achieved through numerous means, including literal denotation, metaphorical expression and mediated references, which recalled architectural ideas from the past (Vale 2008). These are characteristics, which should not be confined to Berlin alone. It is with this attitude that the methodology employed in this piece of research could be applied to any given number of politically charged world cities, including those in countries of the former Soviet Union (Fig. 6.1) and Maoist China (Fig. 6.2). As Vale (2008) contends, “Highly charged cityscapes provide a commonality of challenges for designers and for those who wish to interpret the disposition of power and the construction of national identity” (ibid., p. 62). © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Mair and Q. M. Zaman, Berlin: A City Awaits, Springer Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5_6

69

70

6 Conclusions: A City Awaits

Fig. 6.1 Bayterak Tower in Kazakhstan’s capital of Astana

Fig. 6.2 Lenin and Stalin watching over the Chinese village of Nanjie

6 Conclusions: A City Awaits

71

Fig. 6.3 Berlin’s reconstruction is both physical and figurative

Berlin is a city in which tensions arise between the simultaneous rejection and renewal of the past. For this reason, it is a place which also offers a means through which to examine how historical consciousness can play a crucial role in the contemporary manifestation of the built environment (Ladd 1997; Wise 1998). To this end, it is hoped that this book also presents a concise but comprehensive history of the city and the limiting effect of the past on any development destined to take place there. It is clear that the city has “continuously been materialised in space through planning and architecture, staged and performed and re-shaped as a new political regime would emerge” (Till 2005, p. 39). Despite the resolute attitude adopted by the German people to rebuild the city and its image (Fig. 6.3), there is the sense that Berlin has yet to find the identity it so desperately seeks. A paradox lies therein: perhaps Berlin’s true image lies in the fact that it has no definitive or singular identity, but rather has been able to assimilate several different identities in the past century. In this respect, the most recent attempts to impose a particular brand on the city should be seen within the context of the historical lineage presented through the three political periods in this book. They are a continuation of a long-standing attempt to forge an identity, which resonates with both locals and the international public. This is an identity, which has been demonstrably reinforced by attitudes taken towards architecture. In itself, the built environment has continuously evolved to reflect the changing nature of the political and economic landscape within the city and the ideological aspirations of each respective regime. With this, it seems that a

72

6 Conclusions: A City Awaits

description of Berlin first posited by art historian Karl Scheffler in the early 1900s is as appropriate today as it was a century ago: Berlin continues to exist as the city destined never to be, but to await being!

References Bozdogan S (2001) Modernism and nation building. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA Jones P (2011) The sociology of architecture: constructing identities. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool Ladd B (1997) The ghosts of Berlin: confronting German history in the urban landscape. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Till KE (2005) The New Berlin: memory, politics, place. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN Vale LJ (2008) Architecture, power, and national identity, 2nd edn. Routledge, London Wise MZ (1998) Capital dilemma: Germany’s search for a new architecture of democracy. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY

Index

A Adolf Hitler, 11, 12 Agnew, 2, 27 Albert Speer, 13, 19, 21, 44 Albert Speer’s masterplan, 37, 54 Alexanderplatz, 38, 66 Allen, 61 Ambient Power, 61 Ancient Greece, 5, 30 750th Anniversary, 46 Arc de Triomphe, 19 Architecture, 1–3, 5, 6, 11–14, 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 48, 49, 51–53, 57, 64, 67, 69, 71 Asian financial centres, 64 Asset-accumulating elite, 6 Athens on the Spree, 6 Aviation Ministry, 13, 17 Axel Schultes, 54–57

B Balfour, 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 30, 31, 37, 38, 51 Baltic Towns, 5 Bartetzko, 56 Beijing’s Forbidden City, 1 Berlin masterplan, 24 Berlin’s Chancellery, 1 Berlin State Library, 24, 38, 39, 42, 44–46 Berlin Wall, 31, 48, 52 Bernau, 63 Binary geographies, 27 Blockade of 1948, 28 Bonn, 53, 54, 56 Bozdogan, 69

Brandenburg Gate, 5, 31 Braunfels, 45 Bruno Taut, 44 Bürkle, 44

C Capitalist movement, 29 Casa del Fascio, 42 Castillo, 31, 34 Chancellery, The, 21–24, 54, 58 Charlotte Frank, 54, 56 Chicago on the Spree, 6 China, 60, 69 CIAM Charter of Athens, 30 Civic Forum, 57, 58 Civilisations of antiquity, 13, 24 Classical Architecture of antiquity, 5 Cold concept, 1 Cold War, The, 2, 27, 34, 46, 51, 58 Collective conscience, 12 Collective identity, 52 Collective labour, 31 Cölln, 5, 6 Colomb, 6, 11–13, 27, 29, 38, 39, 48, 51, 52, 60, 61, 63, 64 Come, 2, 11, 37, 66 Communist Parties, 11 Confederation of Baltic Towns, 5 Conradi, 56 Costabile-HeminGerhert Laage, 57 Court of Honour, 21, 23 Creative city, 64 Critical Reconstruction, 46, 65 Culture Forum, 37, 39

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Mair and Q. M. Zaman, Berlin: A City Awaits, Springer Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51449-5

73

74 D Daimler-Benz, 60 Dal Co, 17 Decartelisation, 27 Decentralisation, 30 Demilitarisation, 27 Democratisation, 51, 27 Denazification, 27 Der Spiegel, 53 De-Stalinise, 36 Détente, 38 Deutsch Architektur, 30

E Eastern Bloc, 48 East-West division, 17, 54 Economic Capital, 5 Electoral Capital, 5 Empire of lies, 21 Erich Honecker, 39, 45 Ernst Hoffman, 30 Europe, 11, 19, 33, 64, 67 European Union, 57

F Federal Republic, 31, 33, 37, 51, 54, 56 Federal Republic of the West, 29, 31 First World War, 6 Four-Power Agreement, 38, 46 Frampton, 1, 12, 21 Fraser, 5, 9, 13, 19, 27, 38, 39 Free enterprise, 27 Free world, 29 Friedrich Wilhelm, 5 Friedrich Wilhelm III, 5

G Geopolitical landscape, 29 Geopolitics, 1, 27 German Democratic Republic, 29–31, 36– 38, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51, 54, 57, 66 German Federal Republic, 54 Germanness, 37, 51 Globalisation, 1, 60 Goodsell, 1 Graffunder, 42 Grand North-South Axis, 17, 19, 20 Great Elector, 5 Greater Berlin, 11 Great Hall, 14, 19, 21 Grid pattern, 6

Index H Hall of Mirror, 24 Hansa Quarter, 33 Hanseatic League, 5 Hans Scharoun, 38, 42, 44, 45 Heinrich Wolff, 13, 16 Hermann Henselmann, 31 Hilmer and Sattler, 60 Hitler’s chamber, 21 House style, 48

I IBA 1987, 46, 65 IBA 2020, 65, 66 Idealised societies, 5 Identity, 1–3, 5, 9, 27, 29–31, 39, 42, 46, 51, 64, 67, 69, 71 Imperial Capital, 6 Imperial Palace, 39 Industrial city, 65 Industrial Military System, 21 Industrial production, 6 Inspector General of Building for Berlin, 13 Interbau, 29, 30, 33–35, 42, 61 Internationalist, 12 International Urban Design Idea Competition, 54

J James-Chakraborty, 44 James Hobrecht, 6 Jane Jacobs, 42 Jaskot, 13, 14 Jobst and Kreuer, 33 Jones, 69 Jorgensen, 60

K Kampf, 12 Karl Friedrich Schinkel, 5 Karl Scheffler, 72 Krier, 14, 17, 19, 21 Krüger Schuberth-Vandreike, 56, 57

L Ladd, 19, 29, 31, 33, 36, 61, 71 Le Corbusier, 16, 33 Lees, 11 Lehrer, 52 Lifeless abstractions, 1

Index London, 64 Lujiazui Financial and Trade Zone, 60

M Mair, 2 Maoist China, 69 Marx-Engels, 66 Metropolitan Unity, 17 Minister of Armaments and Munitions, 19 Modernist style, 33 Modernity, 6, 9, 11, 12, 36 Modern society, 12 Modern urbanity, 11 Monumentalism, 11, 12 Mosaic Hall, 21, 23 Moscow’s Kremlin, 1

N National Gallery, 38 National Identity, 1, 2, 5, 6, 31, 39, 69 Nationalist Socialist, 11–13, 15, 19 Nationalist Socialist Architecture, 14, 24 National Socialism, 2, 34, 48, 54, 67 National Socialist Party, 5, 9, 11–14, 19, 29, 57 Nazi ideology, 12, 25 Neo-classical style, 24 New York, 64 Nikita Khrushchev, 36 Nikolai Quarter, 46 Non-Nazi Germans, 29

O Oder, 5 Olympic Stadium, 13, 16 Oscar Niemeyer, 33

P Palace of Versailles, 24 Palast der Republik, 39, 42, 44–46, 57, 66 Paris, 6, 19 Partnership für Berlin, 61, 63 Paul Schultze-Naumerg, 12 Philharmonic Hall, 38, 39 Place-marketing, 63, 64 Planning, 1, 3, 11, 16, 17, 30, 60, 71 Polano, 17 Political dichotomy, 29 Political Ideology, 1, 2, 11 Political Power, 1, 19, 42

75 Poor living standard, 19 Post-Reunification, 2 Post-Wall, 63 Potsdam Accord, 27 Potsdamer Platz, 1, 8, 58–61, 66, 67 Power, 1, 2, 5, 11, 13, 19, 21, 24, 39, 42, 64, 69 Princes of Brandenburg, 5 Prussian heritage, 38 Prussian state, 5 Public squares, 5, 6, 31 Pudong New Area, 60 Pugh, 6, 9, 11, 12, 19, 25, 27–31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44–46, 48, 51, 65

R Rathaus Forums, 66 Rathenau, 6 Reich Chancellery, 25 Reichsbank, 13, 15, 16 Reichsbank Headquarters, 13, 16 Reunification, 2, 34, 51–54 Rifkind, 42 River Spree, 5, 54 Rome, 5, 19

S Schneider + Schumacher, 61 Second World War, 19, 25, 27, 51, 52 Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Humboldt forum, 65 Sense of order, 6 Shanghai, 60 Singular German nation, 31 Sixteen Principles of Urban Planning, 30 Social cohesion, 42 Social Democratic, 11 Socialist Unity Party, 30, 31, 38, 39, 42, 46, 51 Sony, 60, 61 Sony Centre, 61 Sony’s European HQ, 61 Soviet State, 29 Soviet Union, 69 Speer’s Plan for Berlin, 14 Spreebogen, 54, 55, 58, 59 Spree Island, 39 Stalinallee, 29–33, 42 State Library, 38, 39, 42, 44–46 St Peter’s Church, 19

76 T Teerds, 66 Television Tower, 38 Terragni, 42 Third Reich, 12, 25 Totalitarianism, 9, 33 Totalitarian Terror, 19

U Unemployment, 19, 58, 64 Unrestricted trade, 27 Unter den Linden, 31 Urban blocks, 6 Urban slum, 6 USSR, 27, 28, 30, 33, 45

V Vale, 19, 42, 69 Ville Radieuse Project, 16 Volkshaus, 44 Vu, 60

Index W Walter Gropius, 33 Walter Ulbricht, 30 Washington D.C.’s Capitol Complex, 1 Weber, 46 Weimar constitution, 9, 11 Weimar Republic, 13 Werner March, 13, 16 Western capitalism, 34, 54 Western civilisation, 13, 29 Wise, 1, 13, 24, 29, 36, 51, 52, 54, 56–58, 63, 67, 71 Wolf, 64 Wolle, 45 Worker’s realism, 30 Working-class, 6, 8, 31

Z Zaman, 1, 42, 60 Zoning, 30