The architecture of Berlin is suffering an identity crisis from decades of political and social disorder.
In less than 2 centuries, Berlin has been the center of six different regimes, and each movement has made an attempt to create its own identity in Berlin through architecture. The result is a chaotic confusion of constructions, heavily divided by unactivated spaces, social and historical boundaries, and failed attempts at creating unity. The issue brings into question: what is the definition of Berlin architecture?
Is it a reference to the past or a push into the future? The current focus has been twofold: one on “critical reconstruction,” recreating the spatial and building patterns of Berlin prior to its destruction in World War II, the other on massive construction projects designed to help define Berlin as a national capital, making no reference to anything that came before. One approach driven by nostalgia, the other by government strength. But neither one comes close to portraying Berlin’s storied history or the diversity of its peoples. The paradigm case for this concern is the fall of the Berlin Wall, which opened up huge swaths of land directly through the center of the city, much of which is still unbuilt, lost in the tangled mess of urban renewal speculation. This former division has the potential to become a model for Berlin architecture and planning in the future. What becomes of this space can define what it is to be a Berliner, giving a population that for so long has struggled with its own self-image something to bring it unity and national pride. This is not a new building typology or residential strategy, it is a way of thinking about urban space, the needs of the people in it, and how the city can prepare for future growth and prosperity. The mistakes of the past cannot be forgotten, they must help foster the vision for what is ahead and redefine a city long defined by its division.
