1 + 3 + 9, Take 2

(The concept hasn't changed much, but I've tweaked the implementation)

 

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 architecture of a place should connect with its residents; it should be something with which they can identify themselves.  After 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 is an opportunity to rebuild part of Berlin and recreate a former symbol of division with an architecture that can reconnect it.  The German people have endured so much change and confusion, a source of national pride and identity is needed.  The scars of what has happened cannot be forgotten but should not be simply memorialized; they must help foster the vision for what is ahead and redefine a city long defined by its past.