Berlin, Germany. Berlin was supposed to be all built up in a “Berlinish Style” by now. At least this would have been the expectation twenty years ago. After the fall of the Wall an almost bloody battle emerged between conservative and progressive architects, about the question how the capital of Germany should be reconstructed. While the progressive camp developed feverish ideas about the next city of tomorrow, the conservative camp saw a chance to cool down such attempts by rigorously looking back at the historic city. The fight was about glass-covered versus stone-clad facades. Glass was supposed to be progressive – and democratic. Stone was supposed to be conservative – and “Berlinish”. From today’s point of view the debate seems ridiculous, also because this feature actually does not define more than the first twenty millimetres of a building.
What happened ever since? Berlin has not become the metropolis that it had dreamt of. It just about kept the number of inhabitants. Economically, it barely survives on the services demanded by the government that was relocated to the city. Otherwise there is no real commercial drive appropriate to a capital city of one of the leading economies of the world. Yes, there is a creative industry, but that benefits from exactly the absence of any other industries. What is flourishing in Berlin today are small progressive initiatives. For example, so-called building groups that run ambitious self-owned projects and commission highly sophisticated architects, or other groups that occupy empty lots and cultivate urban farming with organic plants and animals. The many initiatives of this kind revolve around the topics of community, sustainability, participation, or ownership. It’s all about urbanity, not urban form. No need for an architectural canon at all.
Does anyone remember that there once was this gang of Berlin architects (like all Berliners they were actually not from Berlin) who declared a “Berlinish Style” in architecture and enforced it for a couple of years through occupying the relevant positions in the system. I doubt it. The idea that the “urban wounds” had to be “healed” with a narrow conservative style that defined the proportions of windows and the materials of the building’s surfaces seems so far away now. What brought the turn-around? It is actually hard to say, when exactly this movement disappeared. Time has done its part to the “Berlinish Style”. But more than that, it proofed that it is simply impossible to invent a tradition. Invented traditions vanish with their inventors.
Berlin is a very robust city that shrugs off any claims to define its tradition and identity from the outside. It is a real beast after all.Berlin, Germany. Berlin was supposed to be all built up in a “Berlinish Style” by now. At least this would have been the expectation twenty years ago. After the fall of the Wall an almost bloody battle emerged between conservative and progressive architects, about the question how the capital of Germany should be reconstructed. While the progressive camp developed feverish ideas about the next city of tomorrow, the conservative camp saw a chance to cool down such attempts by rigorously looking back at the historic city. The fight was about glass-covered versus stone-clad facades. Glass was supposed to be progressive – and democratic. Stone was supposed to be conservative – and “Berlinish”. From today’s point of view the debate seems ridiculous, also because this feature actually does not define more than the first twenty millimetres of a building.
What happened ever since? Berlin has not become the metropolis that it had dreamt of. It just about kept the number of inhabitants. Economically, it barely survives on the services demanded by the government that was relocated to the city. Otherwise there is no real commercial drive appropriate to a capital city of one of the leading economies of the world. Yes, there is a creative industry, but that benefits from exactly the absence of any other industries. What is flourishing in Berlin today are small progressive initiatives. For example, so-called building groups that run ambitious self-owned projects and commission highly sophisticated architects, or other groups that occupy empty lots and cultivate urban farming with organic plants and animals. The many initiatives of this kind revolve around the topics of community, sustainability, participation, or ownership. It’s all about urbanity, not urban form. No need for an architectural canon at all.
Does anyone remember that there once was this gang of Berlin architects (like all Berliners they were actually not from Berlin) who declared a “Berlinish Style” in architecture and enforced it for a couple of years through occupying the relevant positions in the system. I doubt it. The idea that the “urban wounds” had to be “healed” with a narrow conservative style that defined the proportions of windows and the materials of the building’s surfaces seems so far away now. What brought the turn-around? It is actually hard to say, when exactly this movement disappeared. Time has done its part to the “Berlinish Style”. But more than that, it proofed that it is simply impossible to invent a tradition. Invented traditions vanish with their inventors.
Berlin is a very robust city that shrugs off any claims to define its tradition and identity from the outside. It is a real beast after all.