Requiem for a lost Palast. ‘Revanchist urban planning’ and ‘burdened landscapes’ of the German Democratic Republic in the new Berlin

Abstract

This paper discusses on the fate of the public buildings and public spaces inherited from the socialist era in contemporary Berlin, with a particular focus on one of the ‘burdened landscapes’ of the German Democratic Republic, the Spree Island (Spreeinsel). This site, due to its symbolic significance in the history of the city, has been the focus of complex architectural, political and cultural debates shaped by tensions between different collective memories and conflicting visions of what the new urban landscapes of reunified Berlin should be. The paper documents the fifteen‐year debate on the future of the Spreeinsel, in particular the controversies surrounding the demolition of the Palast der Republik and the proposed reconstruction of the Berliner Stadtschloss (Royal Castle). It is argued that the conflicts surrounding the site are at the intersection of two intermingled processes: on the one hand, the politics of collective memory and identity (re)construction through architecture and planning, on the other, the renegotiation of the social uses and public nature of a strategic inner‐city site in a market economy. The latter has become more prominent in recent years. Analyses of post‐socialist urban landscapes should consequently be embedded within a wide political economy approach casting light on the complex relationships between material processes of urban restructuring, the symbolic economy of the post‐Fordist city and the real and symbolic ownership of strategic inner‐city space.

Acknowledgement

This publication is based on a paper initially presented at the Annual Conference of the Royal Institute of British Geographers/Royal Geographical Society in 2002 (‘Collective memories, public buildings of state‐socialism and the marketing of new urban landscapes in reunified Berlin’) with the support of a Conference Award from the Post‐Socialist Geography Research Group, and on further field research carried out in the summer of 2004 with the support of a fellowship from the EU‐funded Research Training Network ‘Urban Europe’. Many thanks to Prof. Hartmut Häussermann and Prof. Susanne Frank for welcoming me in the Urban and Regional Sociology department of the Humboldt University in Berlin. Thanks to Lena Schulz zur Wiesch (Humboldt‐Universität Berlin), Markus Bader (raumlabor Berlin), Amelie Deuflhart and Sophie Krempl‐Klieeisen (Sophiensaele) for the interviews and exchanges which nurtured this article. Thanks to Quentin Stevens and to Florian Urban for their comments on the draft paper, and to the three anonymous referees who have provided very thorough and helpful comments and additional references.

Notes

1. E. Jarosinsky, Architectural symbolism and the rhetoric of transparency: A Berlin Ghost Story. Journal of Urban History 29 (2002) 62.

2. W. J. V. Neill, Urban planning and cultural identity. London, New York: Routledge, 2004, p. 10.

3. G. Delanty and P. R. Jones, European Identity and Architecture. European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2002) 460.

4. B. Ladd, The ghosts of Berlin. Confronting German history in the urban landscape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997; L. Koepnick, Forget Berlin (transformation of historical memory at the permanent exhibit ‘The Story of Berlin’). German Quarterly 74 (2001) 343–54; S. Boym, The future of nostalgia. New York: Basic Books, 2001; W. J. V. Neill, Memory, Spatial Planning and the Construction of Cultural Identity in Belfast and Berlin – an Overview, in W. J. V. Neill and H. U. Schwedler (eds) Urban Planning and cultural inclusion: lessons from Belfast and Berlin. Basingtoke: Palgrave, 2001, pp. 3–23; E. J. Gittus, Berlin as a Conduit for the Creation of German National Identity at the End of the Twentieth Century. Space & Polity 6 (2002) 91–115; W. P. Blockmans, Re‐shaping cities – The staging of political transformation. Journal of Urban History 30 (2003) 7–20; W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2]; W. Sonne, Specific intentions–general realities: on the relation between urban forms and political aspirations in Berlin during the twentieth century. Planning Perspectives 19 (2004) 283–310; K. E. Till, The new Berlin: memory, politics, place. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

5. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2].

6. K. E. Till, op. cit. [4], p. 8.

7. B. Ladd, op. cit. [2], pp. 17–72; R. Robin, Berlin chantiers: essai sur les passés fragiles. Paris: Stock, 2001; S. Endlich, ‘Grands projets’: un nouveau paysage des lieux de mémoire. Les Temps Modernes 625 (2003) 93–118; J. A. Jordan, A matter of time: examining collective memory in historical perspective in postwar Berlin. Journal of Historical Sociology 18 (2005) 37–71; G. Knischewski and U. Spittler, Remembering in the Berlin Republic: The debate about the central Holocaust memorial in Berlin. Debatte 13 (2005) 25–43.

8. The concept of ‘burdened landscape’ was coined by E. Strom in Building the new Berlin: the politics of urban development in Germany’s capital city. Landham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001.

9. In this paper the term ‘Berliner Stadtschloss’ is translated as ‘Royal Castle’ or ‘Castle’, although a possibly most appropriate English translation could be ‘Royal Palace’. To avoid any confusion with the ‘Palast der Republik’, itself named a ‘palace’, the author has decided to use the term ‘Castle’ to refer to the ‘Schloss’.

10. The two key references on the architectural history of the Berliner Stadtschloss are G. Peschken, Das königliche Schloß zu Berlin. München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1992, 3 vols; and G. Hinterkeuser, Das Berliner Schloss. Der Umbau durch Andreas Schlüter. München: Verlag Random House, 2003.

11. Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands.

12. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2].

13. M. de Frantz, The ‘new’ Berlin: multiple spatial conceptions of the capital city in the ‘Palast der Republik’/’Stadtschloss’ debate, in F. Eckardt and D. Hassenpflug (eds), The European city in transition: urbanism and gloalization. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004, pp. 7–10.

14. H. Häussermann, From the socialist to the capitalist city: experiences from Germany, in G. Andrusz, M. Harloe and I. Szelenyi (eds) Cities after socialism: urban and regional change and conflict in post‐socialist societies. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996; P. Müller, Symbolsuche. Die Ost‐Berliner Zentrumsplanung zwischen Repräsentation und Agitation. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2005; W. Durth, J. Düwel and N. Gutschow, Architektur und Städtebau der DDR. Volume 1: Ostkreuz. Personen, Pläne, Perspektiven. Volume 2: Aufbau. Städte, Themen, Dokumente. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1998.

15. H. Häussermann, ibid.; W. Sonne, op. cit. [4]; T. Hoscislawski, Bauen zwischen Macht und Ohnmacht: Architektur und Staedtebau in der DDR. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1991; B. Flierl, Gebaute DDR. Über Stadtplaner, Architekten und die Macht. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1998. On the early years of planning and architectural debates in the GDR (until 1954), see W. Durth et al., ibid.

16. B. Schneider, Berlin’s centre: what shall there be? The Journal of Architecture 2 (1997) 227.

17. R. May, Planned city Stalinstadt: a manifesto of the early German Democratic Republic. Planning Perspectives 18 (2003) 47–78; R. May, Planstadt Stalinstadt. Ein Grundriß der frühen DDR – aufgesucht in Eisenhüttenstadt. Dortmund: Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung 92, 1999.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. I am indebted to one of the anonymous referees for pointing out this ambiguity in relation to the debates surrounding the Castle’s demolition.

21. A. Schätzke, Zwischen Bauhaus und Stalinallee. Architekturdiskussion im östlichen Deutschland 1945–1955. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1991.

22. In the emerging Cold War context, the West German Federal Ministry for ‘All‐German Affairs’ published in 1951 a document about the Castle and its demolition, a publication which was translated into several languages. See K. Rodemann (ed.), Im Auftrage des Bundesministerium für gesamtdeutsche Fragen: Das Berliner Schloss und sein Untergang. Berlin (West), 1951. Thanks to one of the anonymous referees for pointing out this reference.

23. B. Flierl, Der Zentrale Ort in Berlin – Zur räumlichen Inszenierung sozialistischer Zentralität, in B. Flierl, op. cit. [15], pp. 121–71.

24. I am indebted to one of the anonymous referees for pointing out this interesting parallel.

25. On the design, planning and significance of the Palast der Republik in GDR architectural history, see M. Beerbaum and H. Graffunder, Der Palast der Republik. Leipzig: VEB E. A. Seemann Verlag, 1977; K. Heidler, Von Erichs Lampenladen zur Asbestruine. Alles über den Palast der Republik. Berlin: Argon Verlag, 1998; B. Flierl, Planung und Bau des Palastes, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds) Ein Palast und seine Republik. Ort – Architektur – Programm. Berlin: Verlag Bauwesen, 2001, pp. 54–75; A. Kuhrmann, Zwischen Bauhaus und DDR‐Moderne. Der Palast und seine Ideengeschichte, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), ibid., pp. 92–107; U. Hartung, Zwischen Bauhaus und Barock. Zur Ästhetik des Palastes der Republik. kunsttexte.de (2001) 1–11. See also the Website of the German Historical Museum for pictures of the original artwork and internal décor of the building at http://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/pdr/info.htm (accessed 10 February 2006).

26. A. Kuhrmann, ibid.; S. Hain, Das Volkshaus der DDR. Zur Entwurfsgeschichte und Funktionbestimmung, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), ibid., pp. 76–89.

27. A. Tönnesmann, Bundesrepublik und DDR: Ihre Staastbauten in der Konkurrenz der Systeme, in H. Kier and G. Dolff‐Bonekämpfer (eds) Städtebau und Staatsbau im 20. Jahrhundert. München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1996, pp. 193–212.

28. Political meetings and State visits represented only 8% of all events, according to V. Büttner, Die Veranstaltungen. Zwischen Professionalismus und Provinzialismus, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), op. cit. [25], p. 159.

29. S. Hain, Die Salons der Sozialisten. Geschichte und Gestalt der Kulturhäuser in der DDR, in S. Hain, M. Schroedter and S. Stroux (eds) Die Salons der Sozialisten. Kulturhäuser in der DDR. Ch. Links, 1996, p. 55, author’s translation from German.

30. V. Büttner, op. cit. [28], p. 162.

31. E. Strom, op. cit. [8].

32. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2]; B. Ladd, op. cit. [4]; W. Sonne, op. cit. [4]; A. Hoffmann, Verschwundene Orte. Prominente Abrisse in Berlin. Berlin: Transit, 1997.

33. E. Strom, op. cit. [8], author’s emphasis.

34. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], pp. 84–9; G. Delanty and P. R. Jones, op. cit. [3].

35. Different approaches towards the GDR built heritage were explored in an exhibition organized in East Berlin in the summer of 1990. On the early discussions surrounding the fate of the GDR built heritage, see H. Adam, Erinnerungsrituale – Erinnerungsdiskurse – Erinnerungstabus. Politische Denkmäler der DDR zwischen Verhinderung, Veränderung und Realisierung. Kritische Berichte. Zeitschrift für Kunst‐ und Kulturwissenschaften 20 (1992) 10–35; T. Flierl, Denkmalstürze zu Berlin. Vom Umgang mit einem prekären Erbe. Kritische Berichte. Zeitschrift für Kunst‐ und Kulturwissenschaften 20 (1992) 45–50.

36. M. Azaryahu, Die Umbenennung der Vergangenheit. Oder: Die Politik der symbolischen Architektur der Stadt Ost‐Berlin 1990–1991. Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 88 (1992) 16–29.

37. M. Azaryahu, German reunification and the politics of street names: The case of East Berlin. Political Geography 16 (1997) 479–93.

38. W. Becker, Good Bye Lenin! Germany, 2003.

39. W. J. V. Neill, Place visions and representational landscapes: ‘reading’ Stormont in Belfast and the Palast der Republik in Berlin. Planning Practice and Research 13 (1998) 400.

40. For a detailed overview of the controversies about the planning and architecture of the site since 1990, see M. Zimmermann (ed.), Der Berliner Schlossplatz: Visionen zur Gestaltung der Berliner Mitte. Berlin: Argon Verlag, 1997; W. J. V. Neill, Memory, collective identity and urban design: the future of Berlin’s Palast der Republik. Journal of Urban Design 2 (1997) 179–92; B. Jakubeit and B. Hoidn (eds), Schloss, Palast, Haus Vaterland: Gedanken zu Form, Inhalt und Geist von Wiederaufbau und Neugestaltung. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1998; J. Trimborn, Palast der Republik oder preussisches Stadtschloss? Wie soll man mit Berlins Mitte umgehen? Die Diskussion um den Wiederaufbau des Hohenzollernschlosses. Die Alte Stadt 25 (1998) 212–28; W. v. Boddien and H. Engel (eds), Die Berliner Schlossdebatte. Pro und Contra. Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2000; T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, Im lauf der Zeit. Eine Chronik zu Städtebau und Architektur in der historischen Mitte Berlins von 1945–2001, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), op. cit. [25], pp. 220–45; H. Swoboda, Der Schlossplatz in Berlin: Bilanz einer Debatte. Berlin: Bostelmann & Siebenhaar, 2002; S. Ledanff, The Palace of the Republic versus the Stadtschloss: The Dilemmas of Planning in the Heart of Berlin. German Politics and Society 21, 4 (2003) 30–73; W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], pp. 97–110; A. Hennet, Die Berliner Schlossdebatte im Spiegel der Presse. Berlin: Verlagshaus Braun, 2005; P. Misselwitz, H.‐U. Obrist and P. Oswalt, Abriss, Neubau oder Grüne Wiese? – Der Berliner Schloßplatz. Berlin: Martin‐Schmitz‐Verlag, 2005; E. Konter et al., Streit um den symbolischen Mittelpunkt des Zentrums: Marx‐Engels‐Schloss‐Platz, in H. Bodenschatz (ed.) Renaissance der Mitte – Zentrumsumbau in London und Berlin. Berlin: Verlagshaus Braun, 2005, pp. 261–77. Finally, see the special section of the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper website, listing all published articles on the Palast/Schloss debate, at http://morgenpost.berlin1.de/content/themen/493.html? redirTheme (accessed 10 February 2006).

41. E. Strom, op. cit. [8].

42. ‘Palazzo Prozzo’ (‘The Ostentatious Palace’) was one of the ironic nicknames given to the building by East Germans in reference to the (perceived) conspicuous and glitzy character of the building, as opposed to other ordinary, plain State buildings. ‘Prozzo’ is an Italianized version of the German word ‘protzig’ (swanky, luxurious). Thanks to two anonymous referees for clarifying the meaning of the term.

43. Der Tagesspiegel, Palast der Republik wird abgerissen (24 March 1993).

44. A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 69.

45. These are the ‘Spreeinsel Initiative’; the group ‘Spree‐Palast’; the Initiative ‘Macht den Palast auf!’; the ‘Verein zur Erhaltung des Palastes der Republik’, a working group set up by the architect of the building, Heinz Graffunder; the ‘Initiative against the disguised destruction of the Palast der Republik’, bringing together academics and architects from several European countries supported by the Chamber of Architects of Berlin, the Academy for Urbanism and the Werkbund; finally the ‘Bündnis für den Palast’.

46. The metaphor of the ‘lost heart’, a metaphor commonly found in the Castle reconstruction rhetoric, is commented upon by W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [39], pp. 398–400.

47. The first writings promoting the idea of the reconstruction by Joachim Fest are well documented by G. Zohlen, Verfassungsplatz und Platz der Nation. Zum Schlossplatz in Berlin, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), op. cit. [25], pp. 190–1. See also J. Fest, Plädoyer für den Wideraufbau des Stadtschlosses, in V. M. Lampugnani and M. Mönninger (eds) Berlin morgen: Ideen für das Herz einer Großstadt. Stuttgart: G. Hatje, 1991. Joachim Fest, publicist, author and historian, is the biographer of A. Hitler and A. Speer. In the 1980s he contributed to trigger the ‘Historians’ Debate’ (Historikerdebatte) by accepting to publish a controversial article by Ernst Nolte arguing that the Soviet barbarism of the Gulag preceded the horror of the Nazi Regime. Fest later distanced himself from Nolte (who was accused of Revisionism) whilst defending his right of expression. See E. Nolte, Die Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will. Eine Rede, die geschrieben, aber nicht gehalten werden konnte. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (June 6, 1986), available online at http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/NeueHerausforderungen_redeNolte1986/index.html; Rudolf Augstein et al. (ed.), “Historikerstreit”. Die Dokumentation der Kontroverse um die Einzigartigkeit der nationalsozialistischen Judenvernichtung. München: Piper Verlag, 1987.

48. The authors of the proposal exhibited in the Gallery Aedes were the architectural historian Goerd Peschken and the architect Frank Augustin. See T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, op. cit. [40], p. 237.

49. Förderverein Berlin Stadtschloss e.V., Berliner Extrablatt, pamphlet, various issues. See http://www.berliner‐schloss.de/start.php?navID=180 (accessed 10 February 2007).

50. The façade mock‐up is described in detail in A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], pp. 55–68.

51. Such as Thyssen Hünnebeck.

52. A survey conducted after the event showed that 35% of Berliners supported the reconstruction of the Castle against 11% before the event, while 47% opposed the reconstruction against 60% before the event (Forsa Survey Institute, quoted in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, op. cit. [40], p. 238).

53. R. Haubrich, Kein Lehrstück politischer Kultur. Ein Nachruf aus Westsicht, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), op. cit. [25], p. 203.

54. G. Zohlen, op. cit. [47], p. 195.

55. The magazine Stern sponsored a 50 m × 12 m painted futuristic panorama of the city with the reconstructed Castle and Bauakademie of Schinkel at its core.

56. The mock‐up was sponsored by Mercedes‐Benz. See http://www.probauakademie.de (accessed 1 November 2006).

57. The Castle Info Centre was moved to the Hausvogteiplatz in March 2005.

58. F. Zwoch (ed.), Haupstadt Berlin. Stadtmitte Spreeinsel. Internationaler Städtebaulicher Ideenwettbewerb 1994. [Capital Berlin. Central District Spreeinsel. International Competition for Urban Design Ideas 1994.] Basel, Berlin and Boston: Birkhäuser, 1994. See also: http://www.schlossberlin.de/ideenwettbewerb_spreeinsel/ (accessed 28 October 2006). A detailed account of the Spreeinsel design competition can be found in A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], pp. 79–90.

59. F. Zwoch, ibid.

60. Ibid. See also http://www.schlossberlin.de/ideenwettbewerb_spreeinsel/niebuhr/ (accessed 28 October 2006).

61. T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, op. cit. [40], p. 239.

62. http://www.probauakademie.de/ and http://www.schinkelsche‐bauakademie.de/ (accessed 1 November 2006).

63. Gemeinsame Ausschuss Bonn/Berlin, Beschluss vom 31. Mai 1996, in Bundesministerium für Verkehr Bau‐ und Wohnungswesen und Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (eds) Der Berlin Schlossplatz, Internationale Expertenkommission ‘Historische Mitte Berlin’. Berlin, 2000, pp. 17–18. See A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], pp. 95–8.

64. For a good analysis of the Berlin financial crisis, see S. Krätke, Economic restructuring and the making of a financial crisis: Berlin’s socio‐economic development path 1989 to 2004. DISP 156 (2004) 58–63.

65. Senatsverwaltung für Bauen, Wohnen und Verkehr, Bebauung des Berlin Schlossplatzes. Neubau für kulturelle und kommerzielle Nutzungen am standort des ehemaligen Berlin Stadtschlosses. Exposé des Interessenbekundungsverfahrens. Berlin, 1998.

66. The seven selected entries are presented at http://www.schlossberlin.de/interessenbekundungsverfahren/ (accessed 28 October 2006).

67. T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, op. cit. [40], p. 242.

68. In 2001, the Berlin Department of Urban Development (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung) organized an exhibition to display all proposed designs and concepts for the site put forward between 1991 and 2001 (see http://www.schlossberlin.de, accessed 10 February 2006). In April 1997, at the request of the Green group of the Berlin Parliament, alternative uses for the site were discussed. The Foundation of Berlin Libraries proposed a library and media centre; the Humboldt University suggested an extension of its buildings. In 2000, the president of the Foundation of Prussian Cultural Property proposed a reunion of all non‐European art collections of Berlin in the future building on the site, alongside a house of World Cultures and a ‘College of Europe’. In January 2000, the PDS fraction of the Berlin Parliament advocated a Citizens’ Forum and the creation of a House of World Cultures in a modified and extended form of the Palast der Republik. In 2000, 177 members of the Federal Parliament proposed to erect a monument on the Schlossplatz to commemorate the peaceful revolution of 1989 and the unification of Germany. In February 2001, a project entitled ‘a Park instead of a Castle’ proposed a large urban park running from the TV tower to the river Spree. The proposal was accompanied by a ‘Call for a Moratorium’ to stop the discussions around the Castle reconstruction and prevent compromise solutions of poor quality. For a complete list of all proposals for the use of the site, see the tables compiled by A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 75 and pp. 106–7.

69. The ‘Fassadenrepublik’ (Republic of Façades) was the name of an installation set up in the Palast der Republik in 2004 as part of the Volkspalast festival. See A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt (eds), Volkspalast. Zwischen Aktivismus und Kunst. Berlin: Theater der Zeit, 2006.

70. Internationale Expertenkommission Historische Mitte Berlin, Historische Mitte Berlin. Abschlussbericht. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau‐ und Wohnungswesen und Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2002. See also the documentation and hearings of the Commission: Internationale Expertenkommission Historische Mitte, Materialen. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Wohnungswesen; Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 2002, pp 18–20.

71. Ibid., p. 18.

72. Ibid.

73. Prominent members of the Social Democrats, such as Wolfgang Thierse, President of the Bundestag and Gerhard Schröder, Chancellor, have from early on expressed their support for the reconstruction of the Castle, as well as a few Green Members of Parliament. A majority of Christian Democrats support the reconstruction.

74. In the summer of 2001, 17% of the Berliners wanted to keep the Palast (29% in the Eastern part of the city), 34% supported the reconstruction of the Castle and 9% favoured a new building. Figures from a Forsa survey quoted in R. Haubrich, Der Palast der Republik ist tot. Die Welt (August 14, 2001).

75. The foundations on which the Palast stands will have to be filled in with sand and water as the building is being taken down, so that the foundations are not pushed upward by the underground water table. This would endanger the stability of the nearby Berliner Dom. The rubbles from the Palast will have to be disposed of by boat. Tagesspiegel, Palast‐Abriss kostet rund 20 Millionen. Schiffe werden Bauschutt transportieren (June 4, 2005).

76. N. Bernau, Der Palast bleibt – vorerst. Abbruch des DDR‐Renommierbaus muss verschoben werden Fehlerhafte Ausschreibung/Ministerin Weiss regt Sonderausstellung an. Berliner Zeitung (September 8, 2004).

77. Palast der Republik – Abrissplanung, http://www.berlin.de/kultur‐und‐tickets/events/palast_republik/index.html (accessed 4 February 2006). U. Paul, Endgültig: Palast der Republik wird abgerissen. Parlament entscheidet mit großer Mehrheit, Berliner Zeitung (January 20, 2006).

78. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, Palast der Republik: der Rückbau/the dismantling. Information leaflet. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, c. 2006. Available online at http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/bauen/palast_rueckbau/de/demontage.shtml (accessed 2 November 2006).

79. See http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/bauen/palast_rueckbau/ (accessed 2 November 2006).

80. Tagesspiegel, op. cit. [75]. At the end of 2005 there were five charities fund raising for the reconstruction of the Castle: Förderverein Berliner Schloss, Stadtschloss Berlin Initiative, Gesellschaft Berliner Schloss, Gesellschaft Historisches Berlin, and Forum Stadtbild Berlin. See the following websites: http://www.berliner‐schloss.de/, http://www.stadtschloss‐berlin.de/, http://www.berliner‐stadtschloss.de/index1.htm, http://www.ghb‐online.de/de/index.php4, http://www.stadtbild‐berlin.de/ (accessed 10 February 2006).

81. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (August 23, 2004).

82. In the autumn of 2004, the Norwegian artist Lars Ramberg set up a light installation on the roof of the building, forming the word ‘ZWEIFEL’ (‘doubt’ in German), standing for the ‘Palace of Doubt’. It is, as ironically phrased by the artist, ‘a dedication to fifteen years of highly sophisticated German doubt and transparency regarding identity’. L. Ramberg, Palast des Zweifels, on www.larsramberg.com (accessed 11 February 2006).

83. J. M. Jacobs, The city unbound: qualitative approaches to the city. Urban Studies 30, 4/5 (1993) 827–48.

84. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [39], pp. 398–400.

85. Publisher W. Siedler, quoted in A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 41.

86. M. de Frantz, op. cit. [13], p. 15.

87. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], p. 106; M. de Frantz, ibid., p. 9.

88. Wilhelm von Boddien, the leading advocate of the Castle reconstruction, pointed out that since so many cities are reconstructing key historical buildings, Berlin should be able to do so too. Quoted in A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 156.

89. The Parliament of the Land of Brandenburg voted for the reconstruction on 22 May 2005. The reconstruction will be financed mostly privately and building works have started. See Verein Potsdamer Stadtschloss e. V., http://potsdam‐stadtschloss.org/ (accessed 4 February 2006).

90. Förderverein Bauakademie e.V., http://www.schinkelsche‐bauakademie.de (accessed 10 February 2006).

91. H. Kier, Pro und Contra Rekonstruktion Berlin Stadtschloss, in G. Dolff‐Bonekämpfer and H. Kier (eds), op. cit. [27], pp. 213–34; J. Haspel, Zwischen Hohenzollernschloss und Palast der Republik – Konservatorische Anmerkungen zur Behandlung eines Denkmalortes, in G. Dolff‐Bonekämpfer and H. Kier (eds) ibid., pp. 235–47; H. Engel quoted in A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 43.

92. A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 96.

93. B. Flierl, Zwischen DDR‐Moderne und Planwerk‐Inszenierungen in Berlin‐Mitte, in H. Stimmann (ed.) Von der Architektur‐ zur Stadtdebatte. Die Diskussion um das Planwerk Ineenstadt. Berlin: Braun, 2001, p. 77.

94. P. Marcuse, Reflections on Berlin: the meaning of construction and the construction of meaning. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22 (1998) 333.

95. G. Peschken and F. Augustin, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, op. cit. [40], p. 237; and A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], pp. 49–52.

96. U. Hartung, op. cit. [25].

97. Joachim Fest writing in 1991, quoted in G. Zohlen, op .cit. [47], p. 191; and in A. Hennet, op.cit. [40], p. 41.

98. A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 45.

99. T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, op. cit. [40], p. 239.

100. Landesdenkmalrat, 1997, quoted in S. Hain, Urbanistik und Architektur beim neoliberalen Ausbau der Zitadelle Berlin. Ein Fall revanchistischer Stadtentwicklung, in A. Scharenberg (ed.) Berlin: global city oder Konkursmasse? Eine zwischenbilanz zehn Jahre nach dem Mauerfall. Berlin: Dietz, 2000, p. 123.

101. A. Kuhrmann, op. cit. [25], pp. 106–7.

102. A. Holper and M. Käther, DDR‐Baudenkmale in Berlin. Berlins Osten neu entdeckt. Berlin: Via Reise Verlag, 2003; A. Butter and U. Hartung, Ostmoderne: Architektur in Berlin 1945–1965. Berlin: Jovis, 2004; L. Grand and T. Madörin (eds), Berlin – City in Space: architecture and design from the 1950s to the 1970s. Berlin: Vice Versa Verlag, 2004.

103. R. Haubrich, op. cit. [53], p. 203.

104. B. Ladd, Shrine, stage, or marketplace? Designing public space in the new capital, in F. Trommler (ed.) Berlin: the new capital in the East. A transatlantic appraisal. Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, 2000, p. 41.

105. A. Rouyer, Berlin ou l’ambition métropolitaine: nostalgie ou renaissance de la Weltstadt ?, in P. Claval and A. L. Sanguin (eds) Métropolisation et Politique. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1997, p. 127; M. Manale, La modernité faite mythe. Les Temps Modernes 625 (2003) 196–215; K. E. Till, op. cit. [4], pp. 38–9.

106. M. de Frantz, op. cit. [13], pp. 10–11.

107. S. Boym, op. cit. [4], studied nostalgia as a cultural phenomenon and a historical emotion symptomatic of our global age. She dissected nostalgic and anti‐nostalgic visions in post‐Communist cities and distinguished between two sorts of nostalgia: a restorative nostalgia which ‘characterizes national and nationalist revivals all over the world, which engage in the antimodern myth‐making of history by means of a return to national symbols and myths’, and a reflective nostalgia focusing ‘not on recovery of what is perceived to be an absolute truth but on the meditation on history and the passage of time’.

108. Ibid., p. 78.

109. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], p. 104.

110. Ibid., p. 74.

111. Ibid. See also B. Ladd, op. cit. [4] and R. Robin, op. cit. [7].

112. See Note [4].

113. W. J. V., Neill, Militarised Cityscapes: Reflections on the Genius Loci of Berlin. Paper presented at the conference ‘Cities as Strategic Sites: Militarisation, Anti‐Globalisation and Warfare’, Manchester: CUBE, 7–8 November 2002, p. 10.

114. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], p. 93.

115. W. Kil, Heilung durch Zerstörung. Ein Lehrstück politischer Kultur im vereinigten Berlin, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), op. cit. [25], p. 207.

116. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2].

117. H. Häussermann and E. Strom, Berlin: the once and future capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 18 (1994) 336.

118. S. Hain, op. cit. [29], p. 54; B. Flierl, Das Kulturhaus in der DDR, in G. Dolff‐Bonekämpfer and H. Kier (eds), op. cit. [27], pp. 151–70.

119. S. Hain, ibid., p. 53.

120. Beyond the loss of the Palast as a cultural and social venue, the lack of transparency in the decision‐making process which led to the closure of the building and later to its asbestos decontamination was also criticized. The handling of the building was described to be a prominent example of the ‘undemocratic process of German reunification’ (Verein zur Erhaltung des Palastes der Republik, Eine Palast der Republik … oder ein Kuckucksei? Zur Problematik – eine Dokumentation. Auszüge aus einem Interview der Historikerin Dr. Katharina Lange mit dem Architekten Dr. Wladimir Rubinow, http://kultur‐netz.de/pdr/ accessed 10 February 2006). The representative character of the International Expert Commission set up in 2001 was questioned, as East German voices were not prominently represented (W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2]).

121. H. Rauterberg, Rettet den Palast der Republik! Die Zeit (August 18, 2004), author’s translation from German.

122. Installation WEISS 104, by Victor Kegli and Filomeno Fusco. See R. Robin, op. cit. [7], pp. 143–6; W. Kil, op. cit. [115], p. 211.

123. R. Robin, op. cit. [7].

124. Ibid., Chapter 2.

125. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], p. 74.

126. W. Kil, op. cit. [115], p. 207.

127. ‘Ostalgie’ is a German neologism coined from ‘Nostalgie’ (nostalgia) and ‘Ost’ (East), to refer to East Germans’ expressions of ‘nostalgia’ for aspects of their life under the GDR. P. Betts, writing about the material expression of Ostalgie, described how ‘the revived romance between East Germans and their own material culture emerged in a variety of forms’: P. Betts, The Twilight of the Idols: East German Memory and Material Culture. The Journal of Modern History 72 (2000) 742. On the material expression of ‘Ostalgie’, see also M. Blum, Remaking the East German Past: Ostalgie, Identity, and Material Culture. Journal of Popular Culture XXXIV (2000) 229–53; N. Hodgin, Berlin is in Germany and Good Bye Lenin! Taking leave of the GDR? Debatte 12 (2004) 25–45; P. Cooke and J. Grix (eds), East German distinctiveness in a unified Germany. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 2002.

128. I am indebted to one of the anonymous referees for suggesting this judicious interpretation.

129. M. de Frantz, op. cit. [13], p. 17.

130. B. Ladd, op. cit. [4]; W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], S. Hain, op. cit. [100]; S. Hain, Struggle for the inner city – a plan becomes a declaration of war, in W. J. V. Neill and H. U. Schwedler (eds), op. cit. [4], pp. 69–84.

131. R. Koolhaas, Kein Abriss, kein Erhalt, in A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt (eds), op. cit. [69], p. 229.

132. A. Burg (ed.), Neue berlinische Architektur: eine Debatte. Berlin: Birkhäuser, 1994; A. Burg and H. Stimmann, Downtown Berlin: Building the Metropolitan Mix. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1995; H. Stimmann, Reurbanisierung der historischen Staatsmitte, in W. v. Boddien and H. Engel (eds), Die Berliner Schlossdebatte‐Pro und Contra. Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2000; H. Stimmann (ed.), Von der Architektur‐ zur Stadtdebatte. Die Diskussion um das Planwerk Innenstadt. Berlin: Verlagshaus Braun, 2001.

133. H.‐U. Schwedler, A city twice unique. The urban planning context in Berlin, in W. J. Neill and H.‐U. Schwedler (eds), op. cit. [4]. On the ‘Berlin architectural debate’ see Arch+, Von Berlin nach Neuteutonia. Arch+ Zeitschrift für Architektur und Städtebau 122 (1994); G. Kähler (ed.) Einfach schwierig: eine deutsche Architekturdebatte: ausgewählte Beiträge 1993–1995. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1995; A. Balfour, World cities: Berlin. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1995; R. Halsall, Architectural debates in post‐unification Berlin: an aesthetic ‘historians debate’? Debatte 4 (1996) 91–108; A. Huyssens, The voids of Berlin. Critical Inquiry 24 (1997) 57–81.

134. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, Umweltschutz und Technologie, Planwerk Innenstadt Berlin. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, Umweltschutz und Technologie, 1997. The most recent plans are available at http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/planwerke/de/planwerk_innenstadt/einleitung/index.shtml (accessed 2 November 2006). For the critique, see Architektenkammer Berlin, Planwerk Innenstadt Berlin – Eine Provokation. Berlin: Architektenkammer Berlin, 1997; W. Süchting and P. Weiss, A New Plan for Berlin’s Inner City: Planwerk Innenstadt, in W. J. V. Neill and H. U Schwedler (eds), op. cit. [4], pp. 57–68.

135. S. Hain, Urbanistik und Architektur beim neoliberalen Ausbau der Zitadelle Berlin. Ein Fall revanchistischer Stadtentwicklung, in A. Scharenberg (ed.) Berlin: global city oder Konkursmasse? Eine Zwischenbilanz zehn Jahre nach dem Mauerfall. Berlin: Dietz, 2000, p. 128, author’s translation from German.

136. Ibid., p. 118. Max Welch Guerra argued early on that urban planning in Berlin is used to exert political revanchism (quoted in A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 70).

137. N. Smith, The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist city. London: Routledge, 1996.

138. S. Hain, op. cit. [100]. This is an extreme reading of the ‘Critical Reconstruction’ project. However, others have criticized the Critical Reconstruction strategy for its rigid move towards a ‘neo‐historicist design regime’ which closes down opportunities for architectural expression and urban planning alternatives; see M. Hebbert, The street as locus of collective memory. Environment and Planning D 23 (2005) 591. Several leading architects, such as Rem Koolhaas or Daniel Liebeskind have criticized the authoritarian vision of the Critical Reconstruction agenda (A. Balfour, op. cit. [133], pp. 35–6; R. Koolhaas, op. cit. [131]).

139. B. Ladd, op. cit [104], p. 39.

140. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], p. 95.

141. B. Ladd, op. cit [104], p. 41.

142. Ibid., p. 38.

143. M. Zimmerman (ed.), op. cit. [40], p. 10.

144. R. Frank, Das Vakuum der zivilen Republik. taz (February 4, 1997), quoted in U. Rada, Hauptstadt der Verdrängung. Berlin: Schwarze Risse, 1997, p. 218, author’s translation from German.

145. G. Delanty and P. R. Jones, op. cit. [3], p. 460.

146. The debates on the new ‘architecture of democracy’ have been analysed in M. Z. Wise, Capital dilemma. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998; M. Welch Guerra, Haupstadt Einig Vaterland: Planung und Politik zwischen Bonn und Berlin. Berlin: Verlag Bauwesen, 1999; G. Delanty and P. R. Jones, op. cit. [3]; D. A. Barnstone, The transparent state: architecture and politics in postwar Germany. London: Routledge, 2005.

147. G. Delanty and P. R. Jones, ibid., pp. 457–8.

148. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], pp. 18–24.

149. J. Habermas, A Berlin Republic: writings on Germany. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998, p. 51.

150. G. Delanty and P. R. Jones, op. cit. [3], pp. 457–8.

151. Ibid., p. 464.

152. W. J. V. Neill, op. cit. [2], p. 21.

153. I am indebted to one of the anonymous referees for pointing out this argument.

154. B. Schneider, Berlin’s centre: what shall there be? The Journal of Architecture 2 (1997) 225–33.

155. A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 73 and table p. 128.

156. The International Experts Commission (op. cit. [70]) which recommended the reconstruction of the Castle as a long‐term plan also suggested that the Palast be used for temporary events.

157. In 2002, the State Opera Unter den Linden, the Sophiensæle Theatre, the Deutsches Technikmuseum and the Club WMF initiated a small exhibition on the Palast based on a research project entitled ‘Urban Catalyst’ led by the Technical University of Berlin. The exhibition put forward concrete proposals for the temporary use of the building for cultural purposes until its planned demolition. The Zwischennutzung initiative was not linked to the existing citizens’ initiatives set up in the 1990s to defend the existence of the Palast.

158. The Zwischenpalastnutzung Initiative e.V., set up in March 1993.

159. H. Häussermann and C. Colomb, The New Berlin: marketing the city of dreams, in L. M. Hoffmann, S. S. Fainstein and D. R. Judd (eds) Cities and visitors. Regulating people, markets, and city space. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, pp. 200–18.

160. Officials at the Federal and local level were initially opposed to the idea because of the likely costs. A. Deuflhard, Personal communication of the curator on the organisation of the 2004 Volkpalast festival. Berlin, 9 February 2005; A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt, The making of Volkspalast, in A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt (eds), op. cit. [69], pp. 41–50.

161. A. Deuflhard, ibid.

162. Ibid. Some critics ironically pinned down this transformation of the Palast into a new cult fashion object among the Berlin trendy cultural scene: E. Slevogt, Land unter im Volkspalast. taz (August 31, 2004); Tagesspiegel, Die total verrückte Utopie (August 22, 2004). This could be related partly to the emergence of a fashionable cultural aesthetics around former East German commodities and ‘Ostmoderne’ design. See B. Aris, How the GDR became cool! The Guardian (July 24, 2003); E. Hedler, DDR Design: East German design 1949–1989. Köln: Taschen, 2004; L. Grand and T. Madörin, op. cit. [102]. The cultural taste of the Berlin youth was, however, only one of the factors underpinning the success of the Volkspalast event.

163. New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Daily Telegraph, Libération, El Pais, El Mundo, Neue Zürcher Zeitung. For a sample of comments from the press, see Zwischenpalast Nutzung e. V., Zwischennutznung des Palast der Republik: Bilanz einer Transformation, Berlin, 2005, available online at http://www.palastbuendnis.de/downloads/zwischennutzung.pdf (accessed 10 February 2006), pp. 26–9.

164. In March 2003, the Federal government announced that no Federal money would be poured into the Palast until its demolition. Federal money was actually used to subsidize specific cultural events, not the building itself. U. Paul, ‘Später Sieg der SED‐Propaganda’: Der Kulturstaatsministerin gefällt der Begriff Volkspalast nicht. Berliner Zeitung (September 29, 2004).

165. Minister of State in the Federal Chancellery, Commissioner for Cultural and Media Affairs Christina Weiss quoted in U. Paul, ibid.

166. A complete list of all events and performances staged in the Palast between 2003 and the end of 2005 is available in Zwischenpalast Nutzung e. V., op. cit. [163] and A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt (eds), op. cit. [69].

167. Zwischenpalast Nutzung e. V., ibid., p. 2.

168. A. Deuflhard, op. cit. [160]. The Sophiensaele theatre, one of the institutions that organized the ‘Volkspalast’ festival, has a long‐standing experience of investing and redefining urban derelict sites through artistic interventions.

169. Following the positive impact of the Zwischennutzung, 59% of Berliners wanted to see the Palast building retained until the construction of a new alternative can begin, according to a survey of January 2005, quoted in Zwischenpalast Nutzung e. V., op. cit. [163].

170. R. Koolhaas, op .cit. [131].

171. A. Deuflhard, op. cit. [160]; A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt (eds), op. cit. [69]; C. Colomb, Konstrukt Vergangenheit. ‘Revanchistische Stadtplanung’ und ‘burdened landscapes’ im neuen Berlin. Der Beitrag der Zwischennutzungsinitiative in der Debatte um die Zukunft der Spreeinsel, in A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt (eds), op. cit. [69], pp. 142–52.

172. M. de Frantz, op. cit. [13], p. 14.

173. Stadtschloss Berlin Initiative, http://www.stadtschloss‐berlin.de/englisch.html (accessed 10 February 2006).

174. U. Rada, op. cit. [144], pp. 218–19.

175. H. Häussermann and C. Colomb, op. cit. [159].

176. H. Häussermann and W. Siebel (eds), Festivalisierung der Stadtpolitik. Stadtentwicklung durch große Projekte. Leviathan Sonderheft 13. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1993.

177. D. Harvey, The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.

178. Ibid., p. 273.

179. A. Cochrane and A. Jonas, Reimagining Berlin: World city, national capital or ordinary place? European Urban and Regional Studies 6 (1999) 160.

180. P. Misselwitz and S. Rethfeld, Fun Palace Berlin 200X, in A. Deuflhard and P. Oswalt (eds), op. cit. [69], pp. 181–5; N. Ouroussoff, Trying to save Berlin Relic from the dustbin. New York Times (January 9, 2006); Zwischenpalast Nutzung e. V (2004), Begriffsgeschichte des Volkspalasts, http://www.volkspalast.com/_vp/h02.htm (2004), (accessed 10 February 2006).

181. Zwischenpalast Nutzung e. V., ibid.

182. S. Hain, op. cit. [29], pp. 89–149.

183. Ibid., p. 89.

184. Ibid.; H. Groschopp, Kulturhäuser in der DDR. Vorläufer, Konzepte, Gebrauch. Versuch einer historischen Rekonstruktion, in T. Ruben and B. Wagner (eds), Kulturhäuser in Brandenburg. Potsdam, 1994, pp. 97–177.

185. S. Hain, op. cit. [29] and [26].

186. For a comprehensive analysis of the cultural and social function of the Palast see B. Flierl, op. cit. [118]; S. Hain, op. cit. [29], p. 54; S. Wolle, Der Palast als Gesamtkunstwerk. Oder: das Gleichnis vom Pfennig, in T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak (eds), op. cit. [25], pp. 174–85.

187. T. Beutelschmidt and J. M. Novak, op. cit. [40]; p. 235; A. Hennet, op. cit. [40], p. 37.

188. Zwischenpalast Nutzung e. V (2004), Volkspalast website, http://www.volkspalast.com/_vp/h05.htm (2004) (accessed 10 February 2006).

189. W. Kil, op. cit. [115], p. 209. However, should the ‘Schloss’ be rebuilt with money raised from the general public for mostly public uses, could it still be labelled as an elitist project? I am indebted to one of the referees for raising this question.

190. S. Hain, op. cit. [100], p. 127, about the Planwerk Innenstadt.

191. B. Schneider, op. cit. [154], p. 227.

192. Ibid., p. 225.

193. Ibid., p. 232.

194. S. Boym, op. cit. [4], p. 80.

195. K. E. Till, op. cit. [4], p. 196.

196. Such an approach is promoted in D. Harvey, op. cit. [177]; S. Zukin, The cultures of cities. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995; S. S. Fainstein, and D. Gladstone, Tourism and Urban Transformation: Interpretations of Urban Tourism, in O. Kalltorp et al. (eds) Cities in Transformation‐Transformation in Cities. Aldershot, Hants: Avebury, 1997, pp. 119–35; S. S. Fainstein, L. M. Hoffmann and D. R. Judd, Making theoretical sense of tourism, in L. M. Hoffmann, S. S. Fainstein and D. R. Judd (eds), op. cit. [159], p. 241.

197. N. Ouroussoff, op. cit. [180].

198. B. Ladd, op. cit. [4], p. 235.

199. G. Delanty and P. R. Jones, op. cit. [3], p. 459.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Claire Colomb

Claire Colomb is Lecturer in Urban Sociology and European Spatial Planning at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. She studied sociology, politics and urban planning in Paris, London and Berlin. Her research interests include the governance of planning and urban & regional development in a European comparative perspective; the links between collective memory, urban cultures, identities and the development of new urban landscapes in cities in transformation (including post‐socialist cities). Her doctoral research focused on the links between the symbolic (re)imaging of urban space through urban marketing and the conflicting politics of urban redevelopment in Berlin after 1989. She also researches on European spatial planning and the impact of the EU on spatial planning practices across Europe.