City Building and the Rhetoric of “Readability”: Architectural Debates in the New Berlin

Abstract

Berlin represents an unusual case vis‐à‐vis the international architectural debate about rebuilding cities. The debate generally takes place between neotraditionalists on the one hand and various avant‐gardists on the other. But in Berlin, the main representatives of the first camp are not, for once, members of the New Urbanism movement, nor are they neotraditionalists tout court; they are, at least on their own self‐understanding, pioneers of a kind of ‘Third Way’ between the two extremes of neotraditionalism and avant‐gardism. Nevertheless, a closer look at their rhetoric reveals deeper‐lying affinities with the cultural conservatism characteristic of New Urbanism: the image of the city that they favor for Berlin is one of clarity, order, permanence, weightiness, etc.—a surprising image, given the city's troubled past. I examine the Architektenstreit (“Architects' Debate”) that arose among planners, architects, critics, and others concerning the rebuilding of the central city in Berlin after reunification, and I discuss, in particular, the doctrine of critical reconstruction that has come to dominate this debate. I locate the origins of critical reconstruction's peculiar rhetoric in a longing for stability amidst the perceived flux of modernity. More generally, I argue (contra many commentators on the Architektenstreit) that a debate on the representations and images of the city is not merely a distraction from, but rather an essential element in, the politics of the city. In Berlin today the substitution of culture for politics is particularly manifest. One sometimes has the impression that architectural form is the most important form of political expression (Lepenies, 2003, p. 322).1

Memory Politics: Growth Coalitions, Urban Pasts, and the Creation of “Historic” Philadelphia

“…Furthermore, studies of civic development demonstrate the cultural, social, and economic impact of the reconstruction of historic districts (Hamer ). This includes such cities as Boston (Li‐Marcus ), Charleston (Bures ), Berlin (Columb ; Ladd ; Murray ), and Jerusalem (Shlay and Rosen ). Here Hodos's (; ) distinctions between global cities and second cities are instructive (see also Newton ).…”

The Cultural Production of Locality: Reclaiming the ‘European City’ in Post‐Wall Berlin

“…They promised tools to create urban diversity and 'a lively and liveable city' (Ladd, 1997) while containing the rush of investors and harnessing speculative real estate development. The concept and repertoire of critical reconstruction was refined and elaborated during the early 1990s through discussions of concrete projects at public and professional forums such as the City Forum (Stadtforum) and the Architecture Workshop 10 For more on the relationship between the Berlin architectural debates and other postmodern urban design trends, especially New Urbanism, see Murray (2008). 11 Intellectual theorizing about the 'European city' dates back to the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century, to the work of Max Weber (Weber, [1921(Weber, [ ] 2000.…”

“…Koolhaas was the first to leave in protest declaring the planning atmosphere in Berlin hopelessly reactionary. Libeskind stayed somewhat longer, but after his defeat 17 For a more detailed discussion of network ties within this group of actors, see Murray (2008). in the debate on 'Berlin architecture', he decided to dismantle his Berlin office and move back to the United States. 2 Several foreign architects complied with the regulatory framework because they happily identified with the objectives of the 'European city' project.…”

“…10 10 For more on the relationship between the Berlin architectural debates and other postmodern urban design trends, especially New Urbanism, see Murray (2008). …”

“…17 17 For a more detailed discussion of network ties within this group of actors, see Murray (2008). …”