(Re)Presentation of “the” past in Berlin-Mitte after German Reunification, and its Implications for Cultural Production through Appropriation of Space

Abstract

This paper examines the appropriation of space for cultural production in Berlin's central district Mitte in the years directly after German reunification (approximately 1990-1994) and suggests an explanatory model for the intensity of and motivations behind these changes. The research conducted for this paper used interviews, discourse analysis and historical research to identify three main impulses that guided spatial changes in Berlin's central district Mitte directly after reunification: the divergent post-war development of the two Germanys, the political and structural aspects of reunification, and the moving of the German capital back to Berlin after 40 years in Bonn. The author posits that these changes represent not only "simple" physical and symbolic appropriation, but also a proxy for the reinterpretation of the German national narrative after 1990.In the conclusion, the author discusses the role of Vergangenheitsbewältigung ("coming to grips with the past") and divided development as pivotal to the spatial developments in Berlin's central district after reunification. One could say that nearly nothing that we encounter in the built environment is arbitrary. The street that we drive on to work was laid out by street planners, the name chosen by a panel of experts. KeywordsThe buildings to either side are the carefully selected work of architects working under the guidelines of urban planners. The name of the city, the zoning of the districts, right down to the type and arrangement of street trees, everything that we see or experience in the urban landscape represents a human decision.Since the beginning of time, humans have shaped their environment to suit their needs and tastes.As the necessities of shelter and community were sated, aesthetic considerations began to take hold. A house was no longer "just" a house, but the dwelling of a commoner, a chief, or a priest.The social differences of the residents were transcribed onto the built form. Similarly, the purpose of the different buildings determined their form. This originated with purely structural necessities, for example the different physical requirements of a house, a barn and a marketplace. However, certain buildings and built space forms were differentiated based not on structural necessities but rather to emphasize their cultural importance. This is above all the case in religious and government buildings. The emphasizing of some buildings and places over others determines and displays a cultural power gradient. In the words of Foucault, "both architectural and urban planning, both designs and ordinary buildings, offer privileged instances for understanding how power operates" (qtd. in Guy 77).In the industrial and post-industrial world, we imbue spaces with cultural meaning as a way of highlighting this information; naming a fountain after a famous general is a way of honoring this person. It also tells us about the value system of the culture in which the fountain is located. It tells us that this general was, for those in power...