Master Thesis | The Death & Rebirth of Socialist public spaces | Alexanderplatz| Alexandra Kashina by Alexandra Kashina

The Death and Rebirth of Socialist Public Spaces The case of Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Master Thesis submitted during the winter semester 2018/2019 At the Bauhaus-UniversitĂ¤t Weimar Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism and at the Tongji University Shanghai Study course: Advanced Urbanism College of Architecture & Urban Planning Study course: Urban & Rural Planning

Author: Alexandra Kashina 117729 | B. Arch Examiners: 1st examiner: 2nd examiner:

Prof. Dr. Frank Eckardt Prof. ZHU Wei

Weimar, October 2018

Fig. 1. Cover image. Berlin map. Map by Author, Data Retrieved from Cadmapper (n.d.)

Abstract The coldness of the vast concrete expanse. Enormous monuments of the socialist political figures. The openness and permeability of space and a constant feeling of insecurity. All these are a remnant of the socialist times left to former socialist countries by inheritance. Created in socialist time public spaces generally are not suitable for the new context of current time as they were mainly intended for power representation, military use and an introduction of the certain ideological meanings of the former socialist political regime. However, since the political system changed these functions are not suitable anymore. Moreover, these public spaces might be in poor, even deplorable conditions, in the case they are not in use. Almost three decades after the reunification of Berlin the city changed in all directions, including the political system and urban-social life which led to the inconsistency in spatial planning and the shift in needs of current users of public spaces. Therefore, the subsequent question arises, what is the further fate of these public spaces, and what significance do they have for a current city. The purpose of this research is to analyze, what do the urban public spaces, which were created in another time with strong historical and political identity mean for the current users. And to what extent the existent historical built environment is appropriate and transferable for the current realities and needs. The understanding of what is an urban identity and its components is significant to that end, particularly in highlighting the effects of erasing historical past by virtue of the reconstruction and redevelopment projects that followed. This thesis draws attention to the key challenges encountered in the former socialist public spaces created during the German Democratic Republic (GDR) period on the territory of Berlin. Furthermore, specifically, the study will look at the example of Alexanderplatz as an archetypical socialist square on the one hand, and a public space that has been less altered with after the German reunification on the other. Keywords: place identity, development, post-socialist public spaces

III

Acknowledgements I would like to thank many people and not only the people who took part in one way or another. However, to be sincere, I would like to make a harmless little mischief, and to do away with the formalities on at least one page, because otherwise, this part would not make sense. In the following part, 13 thanks will be given (some more formalities).

Gratitude to the city I thank the wonderful city of Weimar. You are so small; it is impossible to hide when you need. However, you occupy a significant part in my heart. Gratitude to weather I thank the summer heat that made me stronger. It was a difficult task for concentration, nevertheless, as Nietzsche said, “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.” Gratitude to the institute I thank the Bauhaus that it turned out to be more than real to study inside these legendary walls. I am thankful to Professor Frank Eckardt for supervising me, as well as for the classes, after which I began to observe and analyze the behavior of people in public spaces with interest, which also served as a kind of impetus and starting point to write this thesis. I am thankful to my supervisor Professor ZHU Wei from Tongji for the fact that when I first started working and did not understand where to go, you were talking with me, and during our conversations, I realized what is important and interesting to investigate to me personally. I am thankful to Annett Wagner that every time, leaving Your office, I feel better, calmer and more confident. Gratitude to my flatmates I thank my flatmates for being so interesting that I almost had to move into my working room, to not accidentally intersect with you in the kitchen and end the conversation in the middle of the night. Gratitude to my friends I thank for the minutes when it was difficult to find the path in this forest, codenamed “Master thesis,” you, my classmates, were bright lights and guiding stars that illuminate the way. I thank my close friends, who sympathized with my complete absence and participation in their lives during the last six months. I thank Christopher Marx who helped with translation of the survey questions into German. Special thanks to Vaishnav Jayachandran, who enthusiastically took to help me in conducting the survey, imbuing me with the courage to approach people with questionnaires, who also helped to communicate with the respondents in German, and, furthermore, fed unlimited chicken curry. Gratitude to my parents And there is nothing more tangible than parental support. After all, the tree can not stand without strong roots.

2 3

Literature review 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Place identity 2.2.1. Background 2.2.2. Defining place and urban identity 2.2.3. Factors affecting the formation of urban identity

2.3. Public space 2.4. Memory and heritage 2.5. Historical review on GDR

in the context of urbanplanning 2.6. Periodization and style features of the architecture and urban planning of the GDR

2.7. Socialist public spaces 2.7.1. Description and main features 2.7.2. Purpose 2.7.3. The «16 principles»

Introduction 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9.

Focus Background Problem statements Objectives Scope and limitation Research question Hypotheses Methodology Structure of thesis

1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6

2.8. Erasing the past 2.8.1. Controversial socialist heritage 2.8.2. Berlin as a narrative - politics of memory 2.8.3. Reconstruction of Berlin after the fall of the Wall 2.8.4. «Critical Reconstruction» 2.8.5. Criticism

2.9. “Death” of socialist public

Methodology

11 12 12

41 41 45

15 17 19

22 24 24 28 29 29 29 31 32 32 33

spaces

memory in Berlin

2.10. Berlin - ‘‘a symbol of change” 35 2.11. Examples of materialized

3.1. Introduction 3.2. Methodological steps 3.3. Data collection method

Theoretical framework 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

Introduction Defining identity Defining public space Criteria for the selection of the case study

49 50 51 55

Contents

5 6 7

Case study 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

Introduction History Built environment Development after the reunification 5.5. Comparison of the functional use

Survey results

66 67 73 80 84

6.1. Portrait of responders 6.2. The primary purpose of the space use

6.3. Evaluating public space 6.4. Current needs 6.5. Attitude towards the

preservation and development 6.6. Perception of the socialist identity of the place 6.7. Perception of the place by different groups of respondents 6.8. Indicators for the future development

VII

Summary and conclusion

89 89 91 97

100

7.1. Summary 7.2. Conclusion 7.3. Further research

113 116 116

8. References

100

8.1. Bibliography 8.2. Figures

117 121

102

9. Appendix

123

105

List of Figures Figure 1:

Cover image. Berlin map

Figure 2:

The borders of the Wall in Berlin during the Cold War

Figure 3:

Plac Defilad [Parade Square] in Warsaw, 1955

Figure 4:

Plac Defilad [Parade Square] in Warsaw, now

Figure 5:

Lenin statue in Memento Park, Budapest

Figure 6:

Demolition of the Lenin monument, Berlin 1991

Figure 7:

Photographing in front of the Berlin wall. Tortoise & Hare

Figure 8:

Schaustelle Berlin [Showcase Berlin] summer tours brochure

Figure 9:

An example of recounting the result using the graph

Figure 10:

Five dimensions/aspects of public space

Figure 11:

Alexanderplatz. The scale of the chosen public space

Figure 12:

The scale of the open-air public spaces in Berlin: Platz der Republik, Pariser Platz, Lustgarten, Gendarmenmarkt, Bebelplatz

Figure 13:

Alexanderplatz. Visibility and openness of the chosen public space

Figure 14:

Augustusplatz in Leipzig, Bundesarchiv, 1982

Figure 15:

Panorama of Alexanderplatz, Berlin, 2011

Figure 16:

Karl-Marx-Monument in Chemnitz, 1983

Figure 17:

Alexanderhaus. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 18:

Berolinahaus. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 19:

Shopping center «Die Mitte». Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 20:

Kaufhof. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 21:

Haus des Lehrers. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 22:

Park Inn Hotel. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 23:

The Fountain of People’s Friendship on Alexanderplatz

Figure 24:

Urania World Clock on Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 25:

Alexanderplatz. The socialist monuments of the chosen public space

Figure 26:

The connection between Alexanderplatz and Karl-Marx-Allee. Berlin

Figure 27:

Fernsehturm in Berlin, 1977

Figure 28:

Plan of Alexanderplatz in 1804

Figure 29:

Alexanderplatz railway station 1885

Figure 30:

Martin Wagner’s plan of 1928 for the restructuring of the Alexanderpatz

Figure 31:

Bird’s-eye view on Alexanderpatz, Berlin, 1935

Figure 32:

Panorama of Alexanderplatz, Berlin, 1972

Figure 33:

The map of Berlin with the location of Mitte district and Alexanderplatz

Figure 34:

The map of Mitte district with the location of Alexanderplatz. Berlin

Figure 35:

Map of built environment, Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 36:

Berlin, 1940. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz

Figure 37:

Berlin, 1953. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz

Figure 38:

Berlin, 1989. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz

Figure 39:

Berlin, 2001. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz

Figure 40:

Berlin, 2020. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz

Figure 41:

Haus des Lehrers from bird’s-eye view, Alexanderplatz, Berlin

VIII

Figure 42:

Haus des Reisen from bird’s-eye view, Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 43:

Haus des Lehrers with mosaic frieze by Walter Womacka. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 44:

Haus der Elektroindustrie. The view from TV-tower. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 45:

The Fountain and Clock on Alexanderplatz, the view from TV-tower

Figure 46:

The Fountain of People’s Friendship on Alexanderplatz

Figure 47:

Urania World Clock on Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 48:

Berlin Fernsehturm

Figure 49:

Park Inn Hotel from the birds’-eye view

Figure 50:

Railway station «Alexanderplatz

Figure 51:

Alexanderhaus and Berolinahaus from Fernsehturm, Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 52:

Rotes Rathaus from birds’-eye view. Berlin

Figure 53:

Galeria Kaufhof from the TV-tower. Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 54:

Shopping center «Die Mitte». Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 55:

Shopping center «Alexa» near Alexanderplatz

Figure 56:

Proposed tower building «Hines» by architect F. Gehry

Figure 57:

Proposed Alexander tower (Capital tower). Grafik: Bewocon

Figure 58:

Spatial organization. Alexanderplatz during GDR 1989

Figure 59:

Spatial organization. Alexanderplatz now 2018

Figure 60:

Use of space. Alexanderplatz during GDR 1989

Figure 61:

Use of space. Alexanderplatz now 2018

Figure 62:

Public GPS Traces in Berlin and Alexanderpatz

Figure 63:

Use of space. Results from the conducted survey

Figure 64:

Flows of movement in the inner area of the Alexanderpatz

Figure 65:

A visual display of the results of the public space index for Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 66:

The results of the survey which indicate preferable activities on Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Figure 67:

The results of the survey which indicate attributes of Alexanderplatz that are missing or inadequate to the needs of users

Figure 68:

The results of the survey which indicate with what period users associate Alexanderplatz

101

Figure 69:

Correlation between use of space and the users’ perception of the space which they relate to a certain epoch

101

Figure 70:

Representation of the first group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz

106

Figure 71:

Representation of the second group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz

107

Figure 72:

Representation of the third group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz

108

Figure 73:

Representation of the fourth group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz

109

List of Tables Table 1:

Public space index: variables, weighting, scoring and measuring criteria

Table 2:

Results of the public space index for Alexanderplatz, Berlin

Table 3:

Results of the Use of the Space for Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

Table 4:

Attitude towards the preservation

100

Table 5:

Perception of the socialist identity of the place

100

Table 6:

Attitude towards changes on the Alexanderplatz, Berlin

102

Table 7:

Comparison of the relation towards connectivity to Alexanderplatz among different categories of users

103

Table 8:

Comparison of the attitude towards issues of preservation, redevelopment and the history of the GDR among different categories of users.

104

INTRODUCTION 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9.

Focus Background Problem statements Objectives Scope and limitation Research question Hypothesis Methodology Structure of thesis

1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6

1. Introduction 1.1. Focus From 1917 to 1991 in the former Russian Empire, and from 1945 to 1989 in the countries it dominated after the war, there was no real private ownership. No landowners, no developers, no “placemakers” - in half of Europe. Did this mean public space was done differently, and are attitudes to it different in those countries? (Hatherley, 2016, p.1)

According to Engel (2007), public spaces which were designed and built during the Soviet-era faced a new social and economic reality, and therefore «the public realm has become an arena of growing tensions between various interest groups» (Engel, 2007, p.290). In the context of this conflict and «new patterns of urban space consumption» (ibid, p.290), the public space is forced to rebuild according to the new realities. Thus, the reunification of Germany marked a wave of urban changes, code-named «Critical Reconstruction», the concept of which will be described in more detail in the second chapter. In an attempt to restore Berlin, the policy sought to create a certain image of Berlin, referring to the «Golden Age» of the 1920s, subtracting from the «total amount» such components as «war» and «socialism» (Huyssen, 1997; Till, 2005; Tölle, 2010). Therefore, the task of this thesis is to trace the processes connected with the urban transformations after the reunification of Berlin, to study different opinions on this matter, and also to focus attention on the concrete example of the socialist square - Alexanderplatz, having studied the structure of the place, its history, redeveloping and the perceptions of users to it.

1.2. Background As Berlin has left behind its heroic and propagandistic role as flashpoint of the cold war and struggles to imagine itself as the new capital of a reunited nation, the city has become something like a prism through which we can focus issues of contemporary urbanism and architecture, national identity and statehood, historical memory and forgetting. (Huyssen, 1997, p.57)

Berlin has many faces. It is a city of transformation and changes with a multifaceted and complex history. It was the capital of several empires, was elevated to the rank of the center of the world, survived the overthrow and destruction and, rapidly developing, became by the beginning of the XXI century one of the leading cultural capitals of a united Europe. Berlin is actively engaged in urban redevelopment and renewal projects over the past two decades. The history of GDR has influenced the city not only from the socio-economic side but also in the architecture and urban planning. Since the socialist ideas of equality, military strength and all-encompassing government power, embodied through symbols in the built environment, are not fit with the current state of political and social tendencies, such former-socialist public space may become obsolete, as it expresses ideas which are no longer relevant. This leads to a contradiction between the past and the present, preservation and renewal. Thus, it can be assumed that post-socialist public spaces are inconsistent with current realities and needs. At present, many questions arise on this issue. Сan this period be considered as a part of the Berlin identity? Should these spaces exist or been renovate? If the answer is yes, to which extent can we reshape them, and if no, with what possible consequences the city may face? This assumption leads to the emergence of several issues that continue this topic. Should these spaces exist as created, been redeveloped or destroyed? Is there a limit for possible changes and how might any of the interventions affect the city and its inhabitants? As a consequence, many scientists are trying to figure out to which extent the legacy of the GDR era can be considered part of the Berlin identity.

1.3. Problem statements •

The changes in the political, economic and social situation of the Berlin after reunification caused some significant changes in the transformation of the urban public space, which led to the disparity in current needs and functions of public spaces that were created in the Former GDR.

•

The symbolism, which was used to emphasize the power of the socialist political system, expressed through architecture and space organization of the public space can be regarded negatively in the context of the new political system.

•

The possibility of losing the part of the city identity and history in case of ill-conceived urban renewal.

1.4. Objectives •

To examine the perception of current users about public spaces, created during GDR, in case of Alexanderplatz.

•

To examine Alexanderplatz in order to identify its role in the urban space.

•

To examine Alexanderplatz in order to determine how much it corresponds to the concept of «good public space».

•

To examine the political influence on the urban space.

•

To examine how different user groups would like to see Alexanderplatz in the future.

1.5. Scope and limitations The socialist regime left behind a large number of cities with characteristic features of this epoch. This research might be focused on East European countries such as Hungary and Poland, or Russia - the cradle of the spread of socialism. Nevertheless, in this work Germany, and particular, Berlin will be considered as an object of study for certain reasons. At first, with the division of the city into two different parts with different ideology, political regime, economy, structure, and society Berlin, as an epicenter of this collision, became the visible illustration of all that period. Stones of Berlin absorbed the history of the past years, such as war or changes in the political regime, reflecting different consequences in society. For example, after the fall of the wall, one of the urban planning strategies was aimed at the erasing of the socialist past (Tölle, 2010, p.351). This phenomenon has been called “Critical Reconstruction” and will be described later in Chapter 2 of this work. On the wave of these new urban policies, the city had become one immense redevelopment project the main objective of which was to change the identity of the city. Huyssen (1997), in his work “The Voids of Berlin”, metaphorically identified the city of Berlin as a text and to be more precise as an urban palimpsest:

There is perhaps no other major Western city that bears the marks of twentieth-century history as intensely and self-consciously as Berlin. This city-text has been written, erased, and rewritten throughout this violent century, and its legibility relies as much on visible markers of built space as on images and memories repressed and ruptured by traumatic events. (Huyssen, 1997, p.60)

In this sense Berlin become a reflection or “a prism”, how Huyssen determines this urban occurrence, through which it can be observed how the city has been changed. In conclusion, after almost thirty years it became possible to study the consequences of this redevelopment period. Therefore, Berlin, in that sense, is an apt place to analyze the results and consequences.

1.6. Research question

1. How did the changes in the political and ideological context of Germany after the reunification affect the relation between identity and use of public spaces in former socialist East Berlin? The case of Alexanderplatz.

Sub-questions:

â&#x20AC;˘

How did the socialist public spaces change before and after the Wall Fall?

â&#x20AC;˘

How do users evaluate the changes in former socialist public spaces in terms of the socialist identity preservation and current needs?

In addition to the central research question, the issue of the future of post-

socialist public spaces will be also addressed. However, this part of the research does not have the aim of providing with a guideline or even solutions for the future possible development of former-socialist public spaces but rather to highlight the possible dimensions of changes.

2. Based on the users perception and opinion, what is the possible direction for the development of Alexanderplatz?

1.7. Hypotheses Users do not relate to Alexanderplatz as a place with socialist identity. Original design does not correspond to current uses and urban identity. The socialist identity of Alexanderplatz is still preserved. Users have a negative relation with the meanings of Alexanderplatz, since they are related to an abolished state that is no longer perceived as good.

1.8. Methodology

It has been stressed above that after the fall of the wall Berlin faced

with the problem of understanding and constructing its identity. The emerged discrepancy between communist ideology embodied in the built environment, and economic social and political context of the current state might illustrate the lack of constructive urban-spatial dialogue between past and present, users and space. Therefore, this work aims to understand how does this break between the original design and current use is materialized and how users would like to see the future of such urban spaces. In order to answer the primary research question, the process of the research combines qualitative and quantitative analysis and in general consists of three steps: literature review, observation on the field and survey. After the central general concepts are identified, the history of the GDR is treated in the discourse. This also includes consideration of the distinctive features of the urban-planning policy of the GDR period and the influence of socialist ideology on the creation of public spaces. Secondly, the problems of Berlin’s identity that arose after the reunification of Germany, along with the study of urban reconstruction policy after 1990 and the current criticism of this topic, will be highlighted. From studied literature, a definition of key terms will be given. Secondly, criteria for assessing the identity of space will be singled out, as well as public space evaluation system will be described. Finally, the criteria for selecting the case study for further analysis will be identified. The next step in the analysis is the study of history, redeveloping projects and spatial organization of Alexanderplatz. The analysis of the case study also includes multiple observation on the field at different times with subsequent counting, as well as a survey of users. The survey will include questions that allow analyzing the selected square in the context of the theory of «good public space» and «place identity» along with the vision on the «future of the place.» As an outcome for the first question of the study, the results of each step of analysis will be combined: a literature study, existing criticism on Berlin’s identity issues, the evaluation of the space in the context of «good public space» and the results of the questionnaire, showing the user perception of the place. The final stage of the analysis will include a visualization of the result, showing how different social groups see the future of the selected plaza.

1.9. Structure of thesis Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the research topic. The main issues and aspects, the research question, objectives, hypothesis, scope and limitation, and an overview of the methodology are explained here as well. Chapter 2 is concerned with the coverage of literature and the introduction to the topic. This part considers such theoretical aspects as identity, place identity, heritage, public space. An introduction to the history of the GDR, together with the characteristics of the architectural and urban-planning aspects of that time, along with the analysis of the main features of the socialist square also are given in this part. Furthermore, it provides the coverage on the history of Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s redevelopment strategy after the reunification of Germany and its assessment by critics. Chapter 3 is devoted to the methodology used for this study. Each of the research steps is described along with the explanation of why one or the other step was chosen. Chapter 4 begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research and considers what from an extensive literary part appropriate in the case of this analysis. The aspects that are significant for the evaluation of the public space were used to create the questionnaire are highlighted. At the end of the chapter, the reasons for choosing the particular case study also are given. Chapter 5 is where the more detailed study of the case study presented. This chapter explains the history of the place, its latest redevelopment, as well as a description of the buildings of the square. The chapter ends with a comparative analysis of Alexanderplatz space organization during the GDR and now with the aim of revealing the change in functions and uses of space. Chapter 6 describes the empirical analysis based on the survey. This chapter presents the results for the use of space, coupled with the assessment of the square in the context of successful public space. Furthermore, a comparison of the four groups of users that have been selected is made based on the results on the questions of preserving history, redevelopment, using space, as well as their views on possible changes. Finally, Chapter 7, draws upon the entire thesis, tying up the various theoretical and empirical strands in order to arrive at certain conclusions. Further, the resulting findings are compared with the hypotheses put forward at the beginning. Finally, in conclusion, areas for further research are identified.

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. 2.10. 2.11.

Introduction Place identity Public space Memory and heritage Historical review on GDR Periodization and style features of the architecture and urban planning of the GDR Socialist public spaces Erasing the past “Death” of socialist public spaces Berlin - «a symbol of change» Examples of materialized memory in Berlin

11 12 17 19 21 22 24 29 34 35 37

PLACE 2. Literature review GENERAL CONCEPTS

2.1. Introduction One of the aims of this thesis is to study the attitude of users towards the post-socialist public space in the context of the interaction of old meaning to the current one. Evaluation and justification of the results of this relationship should be built on an appropriate scientific discourse - theory, doctrine or concept, which corresponds to the topic and processes of this relationship. Since in the context of the thesis a process such as «perception» is examined, the analysis will take place within the framework of the «identity» theory, which intersects with theoretical concepts of «belonging to the place», “meaning of the place”, «sense of belonging» and “place attachment”, and corresponds to the goals set. Therefore, in order to delve into the topic and to create the framework, which shaping this thesis, the concept of «identity» will be discussed in this chapter. Moreover, as already noted above, Berlin is a city that historically is subject to transformations in the social, economic and political spheres, which has certainly affected the urban morphology and structure. In connection with these constant changes, the city faced with issues regarding the historical heritage, namely, what exactly from the entire extensive but at the same time, ambiguous past of the city is subject for preservation. Thus, in the following chapter, a theory of the problem of memory, past, and heritage will also be studied. Furthermore, a theoretical basis for the further examination of the case study - Alexanderplatz - will be prepared. Therefore, the theory of «public spaces» and «what to consider as a good public space» will be addressed as well.

IDENTITY 2.2. Place identity 2.2.1. Background

Who are we and to what space/place do we belong? Am I a citizen of the world, the nation, the locality? Can I have a virtual existence in cyberspace and what will that mean for the constitution of self, of value and of the ability to identify place, community, and the like? (Hatherley, 2016, p.1)

With such questions, Harvey marked the «crisis of identity,» which has escalated since the last century. In the following paragraphs, it will be discussed what happened, which prompted many scientists to undertake a study on this topic. According to Čepaitienė (2010, p.81), the increase in interest in this problem is due to the weakening of «strong» identities, such as «national, religious and local». Moreover, the last century was marked by a series of events (such World War I and II) that changed cities in the short term, which certainly resonated in society and have led people to think hard about the topic of identity, self-identity and belonging to the place. Furthermore, this was facilitated by some processes that appeared relatively recently in the current world context: individualization, deterritorialization, globalization, industrialization. Some of these factors will be discussed more thoroughly in a subsequent subchapter. 1. Industrialization First, with the advent of industrialization, the habitual to us cities began to change to matches new tasks. New manufacturing plants have emerged that changed the structural organization and urban fabric. Furthermore, with the advent of production, cities began to play a crucial role in the development of countries, which characterized a significant urban population growth. The emergence of intensive urbanization has changed the outlines of cities: habitual buildings have grown taller and become more technological, while simultaneously modifying the scale of cities. With the advent of cars, an accustomed street network was interrupted by wide roads, and the speed of perception of the city was put on fast-forwarding. Instead of a leisurely trip in a carriage, where one can see details of the passing building, now through the windshield of the car, the outlines of the city slipped within a few moments. The buildings were changing, simplifying in detail while increasing in size. The change in speed and scale - in this way could be characterized the whole period (Bairoch & Goertz, 1986).

2. World Wars I & II The second characteristic moment that changed the structure, appearance, life, memory, and perception of the city are the First and Second World Wars. The devastating wars of the 20th century completely altered the face of many cities, leaving scars and voids that needed to be urgently filled. For urban planners a complicating issue has appeared, how exactly to rebuild these spaces? In various cases, this task was solved differently. Some tried to reconstruct what was lost. Others used the opportunity to bring a new identity to place, often emphasizing belonging to a particular political system. While others after the war, in conditions of planned economy and to alleviate the massive housing shortages, preferred prefabricated buildings, turning a city into a monotonous urban environment. Simultaneously, modernist ideas that denied «outdated city models» were gaining popularity (Howard & Osborne, 1965). In any case, the issue affected the interests of residents, as it changed the habitual kind of cities, and furthermore, sometimes was politically charged, which led to an ambiguous reaction of the population and some of the scholars. (Huyssen, 1997; Czepczynski, 2016) 3. Globalization Lastly, the final chord was the growing globalization. As a result of the exchange of goods and products, information, knowledge and cultural values, the world has become more interconnected. However, thanks to advances in such a sphere as technology, communication, science, transport and industry, the pace of this global integration has become more rapid, accompanied by trends to blur the differences between social groups and nations, homogenization, loss of values, rituals, traditions, and features of national cultures. This implication led to the understanding that globalization is a profoundly contradictory phenomenon. It not only unites but also separates, not only enriches but also significantly limits. Globalization entails a contraction, a collision of local cultures, which has to be redefined in this clash of localities (Scott, 2003; Castells, 2010). All these three factors have changed cities so rapidly, by throwing a person on the path of self-analysis associated with problems of self-identification.

2.2.2. Defining place and urban identity

Discussing problems of identity, firstly, it is necessary to differentiate and limit

the concept of «identity.» Thus, for example, Huntington (2004) adduces his classification of types of identity: ascriptive, cultural, territorial, political, economic and social, where territorial identity is the closest environment, climatic zone, city, village, region, province (Huntington, 2004, p.59). The scientific discourse about identity has acquired a territorial context due to some reasons, mainly related to the topical problems of changing the habitual environment of the 20th century, described in the previous subchapter. This led to the emergence of scientific research developing different theories referring to place: «urban imaginary» (Soya, 1996; Zukin, 2001), «place branding» (Anholt, 2008), «genius loci» (Norberg-Schulz, 1980), public spaces in urban environment (D. Mitchell, 1995; Sennett, 2008), «attachment to place» (Gerson et al., 1977), «sense of place» (Buttimer, 1980; Tuan,1980; Relph, 2016) and others.

Place identity However, in most studies, the problem of territorial forms of identity has developed around the concept of «place identity» (Proshansky 1978, Lalli 1992, Hague 2005), where a place becomes a source of associations and the accumulator of local meanings. Thus, for example, Hague (2005) points out that the creating, reproducing or molding of place identity can be considered as «key purpose of planning» (Hague, 2005, p.8). He also emphasized the place identity can be formed through the manipulation and interaction of several elements, such as «activities, feelings, meanings, and fabric» (ibid.). In context of this thesis, the concept of place identity is relevant and comes to the fore for the further research, along with the necessity of studying it coupled with social and political interaction. One of the first, who defined the concept of the place identity was Proshansky, formulated:

By place identity we mean those dimensions of the self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical environment by means of a complex pattern of conscious and unconscious ideas, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals and behavioural tendencies and skills relevant to this environment. (Proshansky, 1978, p.155)

However, way before then, the issues of place identity indirectly appeared in the literature but were not defined under the term «place identity.» Thus, for example, Kevin Lynch (1960) addresses the concept of «city image.» He considers the perception of the city as a certain image that arises in mind, which in its way is a reference to the context of human identification in space. However, Lynch considered this “image” preferably from the side of recognizing the city and navigating in it. Other scholars continue to develop the theory of Lynch, where urban elements play an essential role in the formation of a certain attitude toward the city. Thus, for example, Proshansky (1978, p.155) in his studies found that the physical environment is one of the elements in the formation of the urban identity. Lalli (1992), in turn, argues that the environment forms the identity of a city or place and is a platform for social interaction. Most studies link the concept of place identity with self-identification (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983; Huntington, 2004; Relph, 2016). For example, Proshansky (1978) argues that place identity is a part of self-identity that is related to the environment through feelings, memories, ideas, values, beliefs and so on, that arise in a person. That is, he emphasizes that the conscious and unconscious take part in constructing place identity. Urban identity However, in some works, there is the notion of «urban identity», which is delimited by Lalli (1992) within the context of scale. According to Lalli, «urban identity», or as Lalli calls it - «urban-related identity» is part of the concept of «place identity». Thus, the concept of «urban identity» is limited by the scale of the city structure, and «place identity» refers to the identity of places of any scale. In his works, Lalli reveals the insufficiency of theoretical formulations and empirical materials within the framework of the interaction problem of an individual and a city. Furthermore, he also opens the prospect of studying the sense of the place that arises under the influence of symbolic means providing attachment to the place (Lalli, 1992).

However, modern studies of urban identity tend to focus on solving internal political, social and economic problems of cities. Accordingly, urban identity can be seen as an internal resource of a city. This issue is becoming increasingly prominent in scientific studies, where the resource potential of local forms of identities and the correlation between a strong identity matrix and the successful development of territories is being studied. Thus, Italian scholars hold the position that «territorial identity is driving force in terms of local development» (Pollis 2003, p.115) and note the importance for local communities of constant support and strengthening of the sense of belonging to the place. It becomes the basis for economic strategies and has a positive effect on the social environment. Besides, without taking into account the urban identity, the transformation of the city is impossible. Landry (2000) reasonably notes that for change and development of a city it is necessary to have the presence of urban identity, sense of pride and belonging. Place identity and historical heritage Hull, Lam, and Vigo (1994) report in their study of place identity, based on the case of the hurricane damage in Charleston, SC. in September 1989, shows the significance of the essence and values of the place features which were vanished by a natural hazard. This research points out one of the significant roles of place identity – to represent people’s current state in correlation with space, i.e. where are we “standing”, what we have been through, how we have changed and who we are now. This comparison with the past allows people to make self-reflection about evolution or degradation, about faults or successes. How Lynch (1972) states such self-reflection is also necessary for the guidance in the changes of our surrounding: “the quality of the personal image of time is crucial for individual well-being and also for our success in managing environmental change … the external physical environment plays a role in building and supporting that image of time” (Lynch, 1972, cited in Hull, Lam, and Vigo, 1994, p. 110). This statement has a reasonable implication for the affirmation made by authors that place icons might connect people to the community which expressed by the strong feeling of belonging to the shared past. Accordingly, Hull et al. (1994, p.117) present arguments in their research to emphasize the importance of historic preservation. For this study people affected by the hurricane were interviewed. Answering the question what was the most special about the place or vital for them from what they had lost, «historical features» were mentioned more often than other places or features. As a result, interviewers emphasized the particular significance of the places which link residents with historic buildings and events. As one of the results of this research, authors claim that historic preservation is a crucial direction in urban development which connects a person with a place by the feeling of belonging.

2.2.3. Factors affecting the formation of urban identity The mechanism for the formation of urban identity is not adequately covered in modern research, and this can be partly explained by the novelty of the urban identity concept. Manuel Castells in his work «The Power of Identity» writes that «all identities are constructed», but the real issue is «how, from what, by whom, and for what» (Castells 2010, p.7). Classification of factors which form an urban identity can acquire one or another configuration in each specific case, depending on the objectives of the study and the methods used. Thus, for example, Belanche et al. (2017, p.7)

determined that “urban social representations referring to city’s culture, history, politics, social factors and environmental issues influence urban identity.” To be more specific, events, for instance, can be a tool of formation of urban identity: historical events, events that have affected the success of the city, major events held in the city, aimed both at creating art texts about the city and on their representation (exhibitions, concerts, etc.). As well the institutional aspect that actualizes urban meanings might be a factor in the formation of urban identity, for example: in case of creating a political meaning - political or legislative institutions might be built; cultural - museum; religious - cathedral, and others. Other factors affected the formation of urban identity are based on communication and collectivization. For example, when a resident is included in a city “event” either directly or indirectly. Here «indirectly» denotes when the urban meaning is formed by the codification features of the city texts that people face (written, auditory, visual, etc.). In support of this assertion, Jan Assmann (2016) argues that any collective identity is based on a conscious recognition of belonging to a specific collective. Identity exists not only when it is recognized and understood but also when it is supported. In this case, particular importance is acquired by the mechanism of collective memory support, which functions through the symbolization of urban meanings, using signs that encode commonality - «pictures, ornament, paintings, ... even whole landscapes» (Assmann 2016, p.72). Luhmann and Bednarz (1989) believe that meaning can only be actualized solely based on an events manner. Thus, it can be concluded that the formation of urban identity occurs in the communication processes, where the actualization of urban meanings is carried out. In summary, strategies for the formation of urban identity can range depending on the choice of the dominant structural components of urban identity. In particular, urban projects can be aimed at the formation of internal or external identity, and also can have a combined nature. Moreover, the formation of urban identity can be directed towards a search for authenticity as a backward-looking strategy and, on the other hand, creating some new meanings, although with the support of existing and historically established resources (Musiysdov, 2013, p.55). The process of formation of urban identity is very complex and can hardly be described proceeding from a single trajectory or certain regularities. Thus, Manuel Castells writes that «building materials from history, from geography, from biology, ... from collective memory and from personal fantasies, from power apparatuses and religious revelations» (Castells, 2010, p.7) are used in the construction of social identities. Current studies of urban identity, as a rule, focus on solving domestic political and social problems of cities. Based on the functions performed by the urban identity, the strategy of its formation can be determined depending on the choice of the most priority of them. Thus, according to Fedotova (2017, p.44), within the framework of politics, the function of urban identity can be aimed at mobilization and consolidation. That is, the formation of urban identity will pursue these goals and will be associated with specific institutions and projects. As well it can pursue another goal, for example, to glorify a particular political system. In this case, the task will be realized through symbols and specific urban planning techniques, transferred to the physical environment of the city. These elements are well represented in the case of socialist squares and will be described in the following subchapters devoted to socialist public spaces.

PUBLIC 2.3. Public space

Before approaching the discussion of socialist public spaces, in the context of this thesis, it is crucial to conceptualize the term “public space.” Public space is an essential element of the city, which throughout its history has been a sort of a heart of the city, a magnet for people and their interaction with each other. For centuries, the public space has gradually been transformed, modifying its functions, and thus the external form. Initially, urban public spaces dates back thousands of years, at least from Ancient Greek epoch as a concept of Agora, place with access for public where people used space as a «marketplace» for selling and bargaining, and at the same time it was used as an “arena” for meeting, interaction, collectivization, protesting in other words for public life (Mitchell, 1995; Pollock, 2014). Lebedeva (2017, p.75) states that with the transition to the industrial era, most European cities have significantly changed their appearance. Public space has evolved from a place where people contact and interact with each other, thereby improving the urban environment, in a «bunch of strangers,» making citizens feel insecure. The information revolution complicated the existing order of things and led to the fact that the emerging media space gradually captured the role of public space, assuming the fulfillment of its essential functions. All this caused a considerable increase in interest from urbanists and sociologists in studying and analyzing public spaces. As indicated by Mehta (2013, p.53) the term «public space» was defined by many authors and has “various scales and levels of understanding.” Public space can exist both in physical space and on an information platform, such as the Internet. “From the physical small scale of a street, plaza and park, to the neighbourhood, city and country, as well as the media, World Wide Web, the local and national governments and even international governing bodies” (Mehta, 2013, p.53; Smith and Low; 2006; Relph, 2016). Depending on the area of study, public space is covered from different sides. Hence, from the sociological point of view, the study of «social dynamics» comes to the fore (Mehta, 2013, p.53). Thus, for instance, Thomas (1991) argues that public spaces play an important role as a platform that provides an opportunity to improve and enrich the life of society, in this way emphasized the social role of public space. ”He identified four social roles for public space:

• • • •

as an arena for public life; as a meeting place for different social groups; as a space for the display of symbols and images in society; as a part of the communication system between urban activities.” (Thomas, 1991, p. 210, cited in Mehta, 2013, p. 55)

SPACE Political scientists consider the public space «in the context of civil society and rights,» architects and urban designers often examine public space from the physical urban environment, focusing on the interaction between space and people (Mehta, 2013, p. 53). Public space can be characterized by different uses, access, and can also be viewed from the legal side, where ownership issues come to the forefront. Further to this, public spaces can characterize the cultural, sociological and political processes within the city, what is relevant in the context of this thesis. Therefore, in addition to the physical aspects of the socialist squares, it will be considered from the cultural, political and social facets, where public space is a platform of interaction between all these fields, and serves as a prism, reflected «the health condition» of the city. However, the first step of an analysis of the public space will be conducted in the context of the scheme proposed by Mehta (2013), which is evaluating to which extent the selected public space is «good.» For these purposes will be used the term established by Mehta (2013), which determines the «good public space.» Moreover, the study defines five different characteristics of public space to conduct the study: “inclusiveness”, “meaningful activities”, “comfort”, “safety”, and “pleasurability” (Mehta, 2013, p. 57). This definition and other details of this scheme will be described in the fourth chapter.

However, is it possible to apply the adjective «good» to public spaces created during the GDR period? Many scientists critically evaluate these public spaces. Some believe that these spaces are not entirely suitable for existing realities and necessities due to the inappropriate physical built environment for these purposes (Engel, 2007; Hatherley, 2012). Hatherley (2012) characterizes them as something irretrievably obsolete and causing the inner feeling of rejection (Hatherley, 2012, p.3). On top of that, there is an interpretation that closely links the public space of that time with the socialist political regime. Thus, Engel argues that “the strong hierarchy in the design and function of public spaces was an expression of the transparent desire of the government to control people’s lives and activities at all times and all places” (Engel, 2007, p.289). In order to figure this issue out, in the fifth chapter, an analysis will be made, based on the selected case study - Alexanderplatz. However, the following subchapters will cover the history of the GDR and the main aspects of the urban development of this period, along with the subsequent reunification of Berlin and the emerging problems associated with the attitude to the past. These issues, namely, was expressed in matters related to the preservation of the past, its processing (re-reading), as well as in the politic of amnesia. Therefore, in the next subchapter, the theoretical basis of such concepts as memory and heritage will be given.

MEMORY 2.4. Memory and heritage

The attention of sociologists and historians of Western countries to the problems of «memory» has given rise to some of interconnected and often interchangeable concepts such as «historical», «social», «collective», «communicative», «cultural» memory, «historical consciousness», «historical culture», «politics of memory». In this context, experts often rely on the differentiation proposed by Assmanns (1995) - German credible researchers on this topic. For example, they understand collective memory as consisting of a communicative (used in daily communication) and cultural (a set of representations, constructs, and forms of the past, connecting modern history, culture, and society). Assmann also makes a distinction between «active» and «archival» memory, where active memory is that layer of the past that is used as the construct of the «skeleton of history» that defines group affiliation. Namely, this is a small part of the memory that is consciously processed and embedded in the «history» and is the material for building the foundation of our identity. Conversely, archival memory is everything else that at the moment does not find a connection with the present (Assmann, 2008). Čepaitienė (2010, p.244) continues this topic, noting that the heritage of European cities has been constantly «filtered» and «re-created» for centuries. This assertion resonates with Bugge’s work (2003), who defines the heritage as something that we choose ourselves, «drawing a parallel» with the process of formation of the place identity. (Bugge, 2003). Peca (2009) also studies the creation of urban identity in the context of «story», namely, as the construction of the narrative of the selective past in the form of a «scenario». Thus, all that has survived and still exists today is most often already was «reduced in meaning.» Ashworth (1998, p.267) distinguishes two ways of this «reduction»:

•

Physical demolition - is divided into the conscious and unconscious; where, in the first case, destruction occurs under the influence of modernization, political regimes or cultural paradigm shift, and under unconscious - as a result of wars or natural disasters; Preservation - shift in function and often forms to change their meaning and transmitted messages.

The purpose of such manipulations with the public space is to «embed» the formed identity model into existing urban built environment and, with the help of architectural heritage, create a kind of «physiognomy» of the city. Thereby, the theme of memory acquires particular significance, especially in societies, that have experienced the collapse of repressive-totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. The acuteness of the problem of memory in post-totalitarian societies is due not only to the collapse of the former identity. In such social contexts, an appeal to the past is connected, first of all, with attempts to find «new grounds for collective identification» (Lyozina, 2011, p.17).

HERITAG However, there are apparent differences between the past, history, historical memory, and heritage. Čepaitienė (2010, p.28) defines the past as what happened; history - as attempts by historians, to understand and explain the past, thus, this process has a selective nature; historical memory - as an imperfect and partial concept of the past in the collective consciousness, mainly related to the present needs of society; and the heritage as a modern construct of the past, based on the existing or reproduced its material traces and symbols. Lyozina (2011, p.17) continues that the «Politics of memory», which determines those aspects of history that are of national importance and which therefore have to be kept in memory or be forgotten, has a direct bearing on the processes of collective identification, the creation of one or another image of the collective «we». At all times, the past was used and continues to be used in order to justify the present. However, how does the process of perpetuating collective memory take place, where part of which can be considered the creation of the heritage, that is to say peculiar «politics of memory»? Čepaitienė (2010, p.37) mentions, the nature of the «politics of memory» is essentially instrumental, which means that its distinctive feature is «practicality» and, most importantly, «didacticity.» Didactics, which is embodied in public space, can rely on a negative memory, as a warning, which «guides» how people should not behave; and be inspiring, encouraging to behave in a certain way. Thereby, public space, in this case, becomes especially moral oriented. According to Čepaitienė (2010, p.37), «the awareness of the instrumentality of the past, encouraged by the «politics of memory», is intended not only to provide a symbolic legitimation of power but also for the strengthening of a certain moral code in society». However, any «politics of memory» inevitably provokes the question: what of the whole array of past events to choose and what to include in historical memory? (Bugge, 2003). Thus, post-communist countries that create a new identity face a difficult challenge: to alienate or integrate their socialist past and specific experience «into the space of the worldview and value coordinates of the present?» (Čepaitienė, 2010, p.258). Each of the post-socialist countries has solved this issue in its own way, which will be examined in subsequent subchapters. However, since Alexanderplatz was selected as a case study, for further discourse, it will be relevant to consider this issue in the context of the GDR and begin with a small historical preface about this period in Berlin.

GENERAL HISTORY AND URBAN-PLANNING ASPECTS OF SOCIALIST PERIOD

the Wall

West Berlin

East Berlin

Fig. 2. The borders of the Wall in Berlin during the Cold War. Map by Author, Data Retrieved from Cadmapper (n.d.)

2.5. Historical review on GDR The fate of the German people became a symbol of the post-war division of the world. By agreement between the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition, the territory of the former Third Reich was divided into two parts. The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) originated in the part of the country where American, French and British troops entered. On another side where the Soviet occupation zone was located, in 1949, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was established. Berlin, the former German capital, was also divided into the Western and Eastern parts. In the night of the 12 to the 13 of August 1961, the Soviet troops began erecting the wall in order to restrict the movement of the GDR inhabitants to the western part of Berlin. City-dwellers preferred to work on the territory of FRG where wages were higher, which adversely affected the economy of the GDR. The 155-kilometer wall, as a shameful scar of this confrontation and the whole period in general, was erected on the line of contact between the two new countries in the once united city. This construction became a literal embodiment of the division between two system: capitalism and socialism. As well as the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the unification of Germany after almost 40 years, marked the end of the Cold War era (Ladd, 1997).

2.6. Periodization and style features of the architecture and urban planning of the GDR

Social contradictions and the confrontation of the two political systems within the formerly unified German state created preconditions for a pronounced political orientation in the development of the culture and art of the GDR. The tasks of political and moral education of a person were set already in the first years after dividing. Architecture and urban planning were designed to create the necessary framework to form a new, socialist life. However, the style of architecture in the GDR was by no means the same during almost 41 years of its existence. Periodization of the development of the GDR architecture in general terms corresponds to the main stages of the socio-economic development of the republic. Thus, the styles and accents were influenced not just by political and ideological circumstances, but as well as economic constraints. However, it should be noted that the solution of the housing problem also played an important role in the formation of certain urban planning and architectural principles.1 1.The second half of the 40â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The first period of development of architecture coincided with the years of socio-economic, organizational and ideological preparation of East Germany for the creation of GDR. That was a period of combating against economic difficulties and the implementation of the first democratic reforms. During this period, work has begun to eliminate the severe consequences of the war: roads have been cleared from the debris; bridges, city communications, and partially destroyed buildings have been rebuilt, along with institutional structures: hospitals, institutes, and several schools. This period characterizes the rejection of the fascist timesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; architecture stylistics and the attempts to continue traditions of German modernist School of the 1920s. 2. The first half of the 50â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The second period is connected with the creation of the German Democratic Republic in 1949 and with the transition to socialist transformations. However, the nature of the architecture of this time appealed to the classical heritage. Thus, architectural forms and compositional techniques in a way addressed to the principles of classicism. Therefore, symmetrical-axial and closed-planning systems appeared in urban planning. This, to some extent, led to changes in city morphology because of the large-scale character of the development through organizing urban ensembles in a city core. Along with this, industrialization of construction allowed to move onto standardization of the process of building housing which led to the integrated development of residential areas. Thereby, the foundations of socialist urban planning were laid.

The following part is an overview on the periodization and style features of the architecture and urban planning of the GDR, based on the accounts from Flierl (1985), Beckmann and Wiegandt (2000), Totalarch. (n.d.). 1

3. The second half of the 50â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The third period is a transitional time of searching and becoming a new direction of architecture. When the reassessment of aesthetic criteria and creative principles finally occurred, architects begin to link their artistic search with the functional-constructive structure of buildings, namely with problems of typification and industrialization of construction instead of borrowing compositional techniques and architectural forms of the past. During these years in the GDR, the first district projects and residential micro-districts were being developed, along with the search for new ways of reconstruction of urban centers. 4. Since the 60â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The fourth period is connected with the search for new art forms and composition methods based on the process of typification and industrialization. Furthermore, the period is characterized by the introduction of new construction systems and building materials: long-span structures, ventilated facades, synthetic materials, etc. Urban planning of this period is marked by attention to the creation of artistic composition: silhouette, rhythm, a combination of new and old buildings, etc. Furthermore, in the reconstructed central areas of major historical cities, public complexes were built. By the early 70â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in some cities, there were created an interconnected streets and squares system, large-scale urban-planning complexes and ensembles by the synthesis of architecture and fine arts: monumental and decorative sculpture, monumental painting or small-scale urban molds. Summary As it was shown above, the economic situation affected the character of the GDR urban-planning system, by focusing on the development of industrial construction. As a result, with the transition to typification the pace of the construction accelerated, and at the same time, the price of construction was reduced. The second important aspect is the ideological orientation of architecture and urban planning, expressed in the form-creation: volumes, silhouettes, symbols and other. The third distinguishing factor is the integrated nature of the development of large-scale areas, the interconnected system of streets and squares, which significantly changed the morphology of cities. Thus, the characteristics mentioned above refer to the urban planning and architecture of the GDR period in general, but it has to be taken into account that all of these aspects varied according to different functional zones. Given the context of this thesis, it is advisable to consider the features which formed the public spaces of GDR, as well as of the entire territory of socialist countries. Hence, in the following subchapter, the characteristic features of socialist public spaces will be examined, as well as the reasons for style peculiarities and the critical evaluation of different scholars.

2.7. Socialist public spaces 2.7.1. Description and main features

“An empty space creates a richly filled time.” (Chtcheglov, 1953, p. 8)

Hatherley (2016, p.2) describes the socialist public spaces as well suited to military parades and various demonstrations, but alienated and lifeless in terms of interpersonal interaction. In other words, “public spaces in the Soviet period were of limited use, due to extensive political control and surveillance which effectively turned the ideal of everyone’s space into no-one’s space” (Neugebauer, 2015, p.2; Zhelnina, 2013). First and foremost, the public space is always «for whom» and only in the second - «for which purpose». From the socialist times, we received huge squares and broad avenues which were supposed to be public city spaces, but in most cases, with destroying the human scale of an area, on the territory of the postsocialist countries, they become wastelands or transport junctions. Ploshchad Gagarina (Gagarin Square) and Lubyanka Square in Moscow, Lybidska Square in Kyiv with Monument to Chekists, Defilad Square (Parade Square) in Warsaw, ErnstThälmann Park in Berlin. All these squares are such examples. The problems of these spaces have its roots at the stage of planning the master plan, the approach and attitude to public space. Fig. 3. Plac Defilad [Parade Square] in Warsaw, 1955. Photo credit: Zbyszko,1955

Fig. 4. Plac Defilad [Parade Square] in Warsaw, now. Photo credit: Mazur, 2013.

Architecture is one of the main representing languages of modern society that signifies the spiritual dimension of investors, architects and users”, “the buildings are central to understanding the landscape in that they frame and embody economic, social and cultural processes. (Czepczynski, 2016, p.2)

This statement is supported by Zhelnina (2013), who observes that «a specific mode of urban public space in socialist cities was caused by political, economic and ideological characteristics of the Soviet era» (Zhelnina, 2013, p.58). Nowadays, scientists increase the interest in exploring of symbolism, highlighting the governance aspects of structuring and restructuring the city, urban space, and identity. The study of Diener and Hagen (2013, p.490) has concentrated «on the symbolic nature of architecture and urban design.» They determined this scope, termed it as «the political semiotics of urban landscapes, approached monuments, buildings, neighborhoods, or entire cities as symbolic texts that reflected social, economic, and political relationships of power and resistance through their aesthetics, function, layout, and scale». Indeed, postsocialist public spaces have characteristics that, like everything in the world, have their primary sources, meaning and purpose. The characteristic features of such space, the reasons for using certain symbolic elements, will be disassembled in this subchapter. Appropriately, there are several physical aspects which can characterize the public spaces created during the communist-socialist past: 1. Scale One of the principles of Ancient Greek architecture is that building or space has to be in line with a human scale. This method underlines democracy ideas, where the measure of everything is a person, or rather people who are in the right of collective decision-making with an equal impact of participants. Thus, one of the primary goals of democracy is to limit arbitrariness and abuse of power of one person or a group, which was successfully embodied in the Ancient Greek

architecture (Relph, 2016). On the other side, the Ancient Egyptian canons, where the divinity and importance of the pharaoh were emphasized with the help of giant-size monumental architecture, central-axial composition, and stable trianglepyramid forms - a symbol of a hierarchical structure. The apparent purpose of this grand architecture is to instill respect for power through architectural and town planning techniques (Clerici & Mironowicz, 2009). Socialist architecture is not a continuation of the ancient Egyptian traditions. However, the architectural and urban planning techniques in both cases are quite similar and perform the same role. Such an approach fully corresponds to the essence of the authoritarian power. The first and markedly visible thing one notices when entering socialist public spaces, it is its gigantic size. The critical factor of the design and structural organization of the socialist public spaces was the political and ideological message. That was reflected and “fixed” in spatial forms and in particular in architecture, as a convincing illustration of communist ideas and values. Matveeva (1977, p.10) alleges that the architectural composition of the socialist public spaces sought to create an ideological and artistic image of great impressive power. Ontologically, the socialist public spaces continue the urban planning traditions of the Prussian military state and St. Petersburg of the Russian Empire, and according to Hatherley (2012, p.5) it can be designated as «post-war urban plaza». The desire to express the strength and St. Petersburg was erected according to the greatness of the government could be classicist and baroque principles with a certain traced back to ... the period of Soviet degree of formalism: the axial composition of town planning, grand representative the square expanded to an unprecedented buildings and boulevards were erected, scale. Since St. Petersburg is one of the cities which stood as colossal symbols of that was built from scratch, thereby for the centralized power against the villageinvited Italian urban planners was granted like, traditional private houses that freedom, not limited by small medieval dominated the rest of the urban fabric. streets. The most famous project of the public (Engel, 2007, p.299) space of those years can be considered the Palace Square in the very heart of St. Petersburg, majestically towering above all the steeple of the Admiralty, the progenitor of Stalin’s skyscrapers, and leading to the square vast Nevsky Prospect. As the author continues, in theory, this is authoritarian urban planning. Similar principles of urban planning are found in Prussia. Berlin during GDR borrowed these techniques, embodying them in a wide Karl-Marx-Allee and spacious Alexanderplatz, which will later be discussed. 2. Visibility and openness of the space Driven by ideological considerations, the significant scale of the plaza represents the power of government by its symbolically-tinted architectural elements and size. At the same time, it provides enough space to use a plaza as an arena for propaganda speeches. Such breadth of the street network and voids in the urban fabric are quite suited for conducting marches, meetings, and also appropriate for the movement of tanks and other heavy-duty military equipment (Hatherley, 2012; Matveeva, 1972; Lebedeva, 2017). For the most part, government buildings are located around the central socialist squares. The openness of the space served as a sort of checkpoint, a guarantee that the opposition would not have the opportunity to sneak into the building or organize an unauthorized rally. Therefore, such spaces are most often guarded, equipped with a surveillance camera and security guards, who have the opportunity to observe what is taking place (Hatherley, 2016).

3. Sameness As Lebedeva (2017, p.79) notes, the term «public space» virtually did not occur in Soviet urban planning. In turn, it was called «social space», «social center» or “open urban space” (Zhelnina, 2013, p.57) which emphasized the vital role of collectivism in the life of a socialist city, highlighting the ideas of the equality of people in sense that everyone is allowed to enter (Hatherley, 2012). Spatial segregation as a social distinction was impossible. Unified spatial patterns facilitated this: approximately the equal density of construction and equitable distribution of buildings and zones with socio-cultural and commerce functions. Differentiation based on the production status remained the only possible distinction. Evidently, in practice, there were exceptions such as exclusive access to certain places in the city space by high-status groups of Soviet society. Despite it, as a whole, the ideology of social equality and the priority of production interests dominated (Lebedeva, 2017, p.79). Public space was positioned as an architectural ensemble of the city. The issues of the designing a general plan and a concept of the spatial organization of the city were brought to the forefront. As Hatherley (2012, p.4) observes, a postsocialist square can be attributed to the worst interpretation on the topic of the classical principle of the axis, where space is subordinated to formal composition, avoiding any randomness. Meanwhile, architectural monotony also pursued an economic goal. After the Second World War, the territory of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was partially destroyed. In particular, the industrial sphere suffered. The same fate befell East Berlin, where the major military operations unfolded. Immediately after the formation of the GDR, there was prepared a two-year plan (1948-1950) for the restoration of the destroyed areas, as well as production. This dynamic, in turn, marked the beginning of the industrialization of construction and the associated process of the standardizing design of residential buildings, sections, and public buildings. Architects and urban planners connected their artistic searches with the functional and constructive basis of modern structures, the problems of typification and industrialization of construction. The socialist public space is treated in the scientific literature somewhat ambiguously and contradictorily. Thus, for example, from a positive point of view, there is a uniform density of development and the absence of homogeneous ethnic areas in the countries of Eastern Europe, which is determined by considerations of public benefit, rather than market value (Giddens, 2006). However, there is also enough of criticism from other scholars (Engel, 2007, Diener, 2014, Neugebauer, 2015, Hatherley, 2016), who noted the politicized nature of these spaces in the desire of the government to control the population.

Fig.5. Lenin statue in Memento Park, Budapest. Photo credit: Bernhard Steiner, 2010).

4. Socialist monuments According to Lynch (1960), citizens orient themselves in the city with the help of so-called “mental maps” (Lynch, 1960, p.46). City dwellers form this mental map as a personal perception of the city image and help in recognition and navigation in the urban environment with the help of certain physical elements. Lynch identified five elements of the mental map: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. However, as Few reminders of Soviet rule are can be seen from the subtitle the following discussion quite as powerful as the towering thus turns to the last element - landmarks. Landmarks statues of Vladimir Lenin that, even are a “point-reference,” where “...the observer does not now, keep watch over the region. enter within them, they are external. They are usually (Czepczynski, 2016, p.2) a rather simply defined physical object” (Lynch, 1960, p.48). How Lynch continues that landmarks help to easily identify the place or physical object in the urban landscape from a distance or being nearby. This system is well represented in Baroque Rome, where high obelisks played a navigational role for travelers and pilgrims, leading to a square where one of the Catholic cathedrals rises majestically (Fedulova, 2016). However, city landmarks can play a different role, for example, Clerici and Mironovich (2009) emphasizes that landmarks can turn into a symbol of a place or a city. In the case of socialist squares, the role of the landmark was given to the monument, or mostly the statue, which above all, played an exemplary role, translating socialist values, emphasizing the importance of Marxist teaching or was another reminder of the influential political figures of the period (Hatherley, 2012). Thus, the monument of the socialist period is a politicized ideological symbol, an urban element which forms the spatial composition of the plaza and a landmark of the place and time. Which in a way corresponds to the Lynch’s theory, where a landmark «...frequently used clues of identity and even of structure and seem to be increasingly relied upon as a journey becomes more and more familiar» (Lynch, 1960, p.48).

2.7.2. Purpose

A salient purpose of public space in the Soviet city was to serve as a visual symbol of the power of the Communist Party. This was achieved through the design and dimensioning of streets and squares equipped with political symbols emphasizing the omnipotence of the regime. (Engel, 2007, p.288)

Engel stressed that the crucial task of socialist squares was «to substitute the chaos of urban life with a logical organization of space and human activities, one fitting the particular mold of ideological reasoning» (Engel, 2007, p.289; Stölting, 2002). According to Hatherley (2012), the main purpose of the community center was to hold various parades, rallies, and demonstrations, which stipulated the compulsory availability of long avenues organizing a straight way for the movement of demonstrators. These findings are supported by Diener’s (2014) replication, which emphasizes «the ability of urban spaces to serve as symbolic manifestations of competing interests» (Diener 2014, p. 491), in other words as a powerful tool for the translation of the necessary identity.

Summary To summarize the main reasons discussed above which affected the design of socialist public spaces in a certain way, it can be concluded that the primary driving factor, which influenced the design was the political message captured in architecture and space configuration with the help of symbolic attributes (such as monuments) and specific spatial techniques of urban planning (significant scale, openness, sameness).

2.7.3. The «16 principles» Thus, in 1950 in the GDR these criterions were formed and regulated in the official document of the socialist urban-planning legislation «The Sixteen Principles of Urban Design» (Kip, Young & Drummond, 2015, p.16). In this document, for the first time, the most important elements of the socialist city and their main functions and structure were identified. However, at the same time, since other urban goals were established on the territory of Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), there was another urban planning policy. Two halves of once united city developed in different ways until one day the events of the 19892 changed the situation. A year later Berlin was officially united, and by 1991 the Soviet Union had already broke up. These changes led to a shift in the political regime, which frequently accompanied by a total negation of the socialist past. However, as already noted above, the socialist urban-planning practice had a pronounced expression in the structure of the city, which posed new challenges for politicians, urban planners and architects.

2.8. Erasing the past 2.8.1. Controversial socialist heritage After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many markers of Soviet ideology represented by tangible and intangible Soviet heritage remained on the territory of the former republics. This legacy to date has primarily become «controversial», it causes disagreement in interpretation, which often turns out to be destructive in the matter of its preservation. In the case of the European cities, especially those that are exempting from the legacy of the past, their urban space can be organized very differently. There is an example of Budapest, where all the monuments of the Soviet-era were collected in one park, called «Memento», on the outskirts of the city. «The Memento Park is not about Communism, but about the fall of Communism!» The slogan for the park concept on the official website (Memento park), which is reflected in the design of the exhibition space. Thus, according to its organization, the park resonates with the zoo. The irony of the park is emphasized almost in everything, from brochures that advertise «the biggest communist statues» to the composition and size of the park, where at the entrance the first thing that visitors see are boots, which remained from the demolished monument of Stalin in 1956. Nevertheless, communist sculptures are preserved and offer visitors a certain version of the memory of the communist era. Another example of the park with Soviet sculptures is «Grutas» in Lithuania. In contrast to «Memento,» this park offers several options for interpreting the communist past. As the Lithuanian researcher Rasa Čepaitienė notes, «the impression created by the Grutas Park reflects the paradoxicality, ambiguity, and complexity of memories of Soviet times. Exhibits cause anger, shame, laugh or taunt and a sense of trauma, loss or, conversely, nostalgia» (Čepaitienė, 2010, p.262). However, there is also a more controversial example of Tallinn, where the relocation of the Bronze Soldier monument from the city center to a military cemetery in 2007 led to an interstate conflict between Estonia and Russia. 2

The Fall of the Wall

Fig. 6. Demolition of the Lenin monument, Berlin 1991. Photo credit: Bernd Settnik (1991). Archiv.

Should the gigantic statue of Lenin on the Leninplatz remain or fall? In November 1991, the defenders hung a banderol saying Keine Gewalt [No violence] around Leninâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; s chest. However, the attackers won and now there is no Leninplatz and no Lenin. (Ahonen, 2001, p.187)

According to Čepaitienė (2010, p.28), the protection of cultural heritage is often conceived not for its own sake, but for external reasons and interests: for example, for the sake of education, social or political weight and legitimization of power, for the sake of particular image of a state, or for economic benefits. Therefore, it is impossible to analyze the problem of heritage, without a deep understanding of the historical culture of a single country, since, according to Jeudy (1986), «it is not enough just to know when, why and how values are stored, but it is necessary to understand the functions of social memory in changing societies» (Jeudy, 1986, p.17 cited in Čepaitienė, 2010, p.262). Therefore, it is futile to discuss the relationship between memory and identity outside its signs and symbolic contexts. Against this background, Berlin, as one of the central and most politicized cities in Europe, has its specific relation to past and memory.

2.8.2. Berlin as a narrative - politics of memory Berlin knows different treatment to the recent past. Thus, for example, commercial approach, where parts of the Berlin Wall have become one of the most popular local attractions; nostalgic, under which a revival of the elements of the daily urban culture of the GDR, namely «Ampelmännchen» - little green man - the iconic pedestrian lights signal used in eastern Berlin. Furthermore, here there are also public attempts to treat the past, often expressed in the metaphorical form within the framework of street art. Thus, as Makarychev (2012, p.7) points out, there probably is no better place for discussion about the «politics of memory» than Berlin, which in itself is a densely saturated of meanings space of historical images and narratives. «Berlin is a city that needs to be read, as we read the texts, filling them with our thoughts». (Makarychev, 2012, p.7). The idea to Berlin-as-text remains first and «read» Berlin as a text also develops by foremost a historical text, marked as Huyssen (1997). However, he notes that:

much, if not more, by absences as by the visible presence of its past, from prominent ruins ... to ... shrapnel marks on many of its buildings. (Huyssen, 1997, p.60)

Fig. 7. Phot

ographing

in front of

the Berlin w

all. Tortoise

& Hare. So

urce: Thierr y

Noir (n.d.).

2.8.3. Reconstruction of Berlin after the fall of the Wall When in 1989 the Wall collapsed, and two parts of the city were reunited, the authorities and planners faced new, previously unknown tasks. Two halves of the city, which for many years developed independently and in different ways, finally, had to be glued together. Particular attention was required by the territory of the center, which was the «face» of the city and the main bearer of its historical memory. However, the historic center literally was dotted with «hollow spots» left by the Wall. Since it was Today the city is looking for a function. a question of recreating the center of the It knows what it was, but it still does not capital of the state whose history was very know what it is, let alone what it will be. ambiguous, this task could not be reduced to Engert about Berlin of the 1980’s (Engert, solving purely practical issues.3 Given that 1985, p. 153) the emerging emptiness could be filled with different meanings, the authorities and designers faced the task of defining this intersection of vectors going both in the past and in a certain sense to the future, to create a projection of today’s expectations in tomorrow. Moreover, as it was said above, the past finds its realization through the «politics of memory,» where the latter has a selective nature. Therefore, it was necessary to determine which past will stand in the present to look to the future.

2.8.4. «Critical Reconstruction» Hans Stimmann – ex-Berlin’s building director - was one of the central figures in the process of the Berlin reforms. According to Tölle (2010, p.351), for Stimmann «the memory of the city was contained in its urban structure determining its physiognomy, and post-war Berlin had lost a large proportion of its memory». Thus, Stimmann proposed a reconstruction plan, taking as a basis the idea of «Critical Reconstruction» of Kleihues and virtually extending the principles of IBA-874 to the whole historical center. A historically established layout was adopted as a basis for the general master plan; in its limits, the lost areas were revived, as well as those which were damaged during the war and post-war period. After that, an expected euphoria followed given that Berlin got the opportunity to return to its «natural» state and again appear as the largest capital of the European economy, to become a major metropolis, along with London and Paris (Tölle, 2010, p.351). «Re-creation of hip, cosmopolitan Weimar Berlin» (Till, 2005, p. 194), the reconstruction of the Berlin «Golden Age» of the 1920s «before the «natural» development path had been interrupted by the Nazi regime, the Second World War, and the division» into two parts (Tölle, 2010, p.351), the plan of Stimmann marked all these trends.

The following part is a historical framework for the urban planning strategy of Berlin, based on the account from Baburov (2012). 4 IBA - Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin [The International Building Exhibition Berlin]. In 1977, the architect Josef Paul Kleihues and journalist Wolf Jobst Siedler developed the concept of the International Building Exhibition in West Berlin (IBA-87), calling it a «Critical Reconstruction.» The key idea of reconstruction was the integration of new facilities in the context of the city with the aim of renewal and accomplishment of it. The objects of the IBA were to play the role of «prostheses,» restoring the integrity of partially or entirely lost historic urban fabric. In this case, the self-worth of each of them was sacrificed to the forming holistically urban environment. 3

2.8.5. Criticism However, by 1992, when the plan was presented to the public, the mood in this regard has already changed, provoking controversial debate about the way of the city development. The most severe criticism was caused by the desire of the authors to return to the pre-war state, while there was not much left from the former Berlin. Therefore, Ladd (1997, p.232) notes that «Critical Reconstruction» was a senseless attempt to turn back the clock». In turn, Tölle (2010) also emphasizes that this urban policy was «inevitably aimed at excluding the legacy of the socialist East Berlin and notably of divided Berlin from the new urban identity» (Tölle, 2010, p.351). Proponents of the project pointed to the existence of a collective memory of the city associated with urban planning, with the typology and general structure of the urban fabric, which are more significant than the individual characteristics of individual buildings. In the end, the Senate of Berlin nevertheless approved the basic principles of reconstruction put forward by Stimmann. That “pick and choose” strategy, designed “to re-invent itself as a ‘‘Western” metropolis that had its urban identity based on some ‘‘Golden Age” of the city” (Tölle, 2010, p.356) gave rise to mixed reactions and following controversial implications. Thus, Huyssen (1997) remarks that as a result of such a deliberate purge of the GDR past, this movement caused a backlash:

“… the years since have also taught us multiple lessons about the politics of willful forgetting… It was a strategy of power and humiliation, a final burst of cold war ideology, pursued via a politics of signs, much of it wholly unnecessary and with a predictable political fallout in an East Germany population that felt increasingly deprived of its life history and of its memories of four decades of separate development. GDR nostalgia and an upsurge of support for the revamped communist party … were the inevitable political results, even among many in the younger generation who had been active in the opposition to the state in the 1980s”. (Huyssen, 1997, p.61)

Likewise, hopes that the physical disappearance of the border strip would be a kind of catalyst for the «natural» process leading to a healthy life, were not justified (Tölle, 2010, p.351). However, the reality was promptly followed by, in which the inhabitants of East Berlin had their traditions, habits, attitudes, views, routine. That realization only further emphasized the natural distinction between the western and eastern Berliners. Tölle underlines that the inconsistencies in the social and economic realities of East Berlin, caused by the arduous process of transformation, led to a complication for the embodiment of «Golden Age» ideas, «making the socialist past a part of the urban identity». (Tölle, p.348), which resulted in the emergence of «Ostalgia» - nostalgia for the East Berlin life (Blum, 2000; Good Bye Lenin!, 2003). Bartetzky (2006), as well as Diener and Hagen (2013), also note that despite the demolishing of Tearing down the Wall inside our heads will take socialist landmarks, the new values of longer than any demolition job on the visible Wall post-socialist spaces, urban landscapes (Schneider, 1983, cited in Ladd, 1997, p.32) are still «wrapped up» in «symbolic reminders of the socialist experience» The Wall, now invisible, became the symbol of (Diener & Hagen 2013, p. 501). Germany’s identity crisis in the 1990s as well

(Ladd, 1997, p.32)

Summary Thereby, summing up the results of «Сritical Reconstruction,» where one of the essential tasks was to return to its blooming period of the 1920s, so-called «Golden Age,» it can be concluded that subsequent changes in the city, was followed by the expected criticism. 28 years of life on the other side of the concrete strip, did not pass without a trace: people, their way of life and consciousness changed. Therefore, even though the long-awaited reunion finally occurs, the East Berliners faced the fact of realizing that part of their routine life is irretrievably and compulsorily erased. Such changes in urban planning policy led to a conflict in the former East Berlin. Nevertheless, as Tölle (2010) notes: «yet also, the legacy of the divided city that had been extinguished from the city’s new identity re-emerged» (Tölle, 2010, p.352).

2.9. “Death” of socialist public spaces It is no coincidence that the title of this Master Thesis refers to the work of Jane Jacobs «The death and life of great American cities». In the book, Jacobs (1961) describes how a city full of life can be turned into something formal, not meant for the life of ordinary city dwellers. The reason is that the blind city-formcreation, guided by industrial priorities, overlooks the attention to the needs of citizens. Brushing aside the abstract urban planning, she drew attention to the importance of neighboring communities and the degradation of public transport. Jacobs emphasized how for the city during the era of “aggressive” modernism it is crucial to maintain a human scale, rather than reshape the fabric of the city, focusing on abstract progressive projects. Jacobs was one of the first who paid attention to the need for improvement rather than demolishing and then rebuilding. She stressed the importance of the local development, instead of rewriting them from scratch. There is a similar task in this thesis - to determine what is essential for citizens and users of the post-socialist public spaces and, based on this, to identify possible directions for development, which is a reference to “rebirth.” In the following parts, it will be discussed whether it is possible to reinvigorate existing former-socialist public spaces. Referring to the «death» of socialist public spaces in this Thesis implies changes in the political, economic and social context. As already pointed out above, in the subchapter «Description and main features of socialist public spaces», these three components set the main leitmotif in the formation of socialist squares. Summing up the main events already described before, which influenced the different and sometimes ambiguous «reading» of post-socialist public spaces on the territory of Berlin: 1989 was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of Germany. Two years later in 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been dissolved. These political transformations led to economic and social changes, which turned the former socialist squares into a «downcast» reminder of the past. As Neugebauer (2015) emphasizes, the economic and political changes that occurred after the failure of the Soviet system caused some significant changes in the transformation of the urban public space. Lebedeva (2017, p.81) explains it:

1. The political shift cast doubt on the ideological significance of public space as a resource of national identity and collective memory. 2. Economic changes have brought with it the emergence of new elements of the urban environment, such as shopping streets, business districts and shopping and entertainment centers. The renewed economic infrastructure has given rise to new practices of privatization and commercialization of urban public space. 3. Social changes imply a process of socio-economic polarization of society, the marginalization of its certain elements, as well as significant changes in the system of values of citizens. Public space as such becomes neutral, uncomfortable and empty in terms of meanings and cultural values. Harvey designates this transformation a «generalized crisis» when the landscape adapted to a particular phase of development becomes «a barrier» to the subsequent transformation of the city. In this case, «old places ... have to be devalued, destroyed, ... but rather Berlin as a city making history, which and redeveloped while new is more connected with the constant changes places are created» (Harvey, in time and with the visibility of those changes 1996, p.296). in the cityscape (Hurtado, 2005 cited in Tölle,

2010, p.354)

2.10. Berlin - «a symbol of change»

(Lisiak, 2009)

According to Tölle (2010), the identity or image of Berlin can be characterized by the word «changes». He continues that in fact, Berlin does not have its clear idea of identity, as the focus of attention is directed to the creating future, during selectively taking the narrative line of the past, and these constant changes. All these points characterize the resulting identity as «meaningless» (Tölle, 2010, p.356). This point of view is supported by Huyssen’s (1997, p.62) statement, who metaphorically collates the development of Berlin with emptiness: However, the architect Daniel Libeskind, known for his Berlin Since much of central Berlin in the midprojects, has a favorable 1990s is a gigantic construction site, a hole opinion about the nature in the ground, a void, there are indeed ample of the constant changes in reasons to emphasize the void rather than to Berlin, characterizing it as a celebrate Berlin’s current state of becoming. kind of particular identity of Huyssen (1997, p.62) the city. For Libeskind, Berlin, as a city, has an important function: “It‘s not just another city that is developing. Berlin is this symbol for the rise and fall of political systems – the overcoming of evil maybe” (Uncube, 2015). Thus, the architect continues that for the future development of Berlin it will be a mistake to revive the structure of the past blindly. Firstly, because there were its own disadvantages during the Golden Age, and secondly, the city tasks and functions of that time generally do not correspond to the present, and will not solve the emerging challenges of the present, citing as an example affordable housing, places for children and families and public spaces. Thus, considering such a conservation of the city, Libeskind draws a parallel between the city and the museum, saying that in case of looking at the city in a way that it is a museum or a piece of art, trying to capture a particular moment of the past, recreating and maintaining bygone forms and boundaries, all this at some point will lose its meaning, since Berlin will lose itself. After all, the essence of Berlin is in constant change (Huyssen, 1997, p.62).

“Take a close look or you might miss something. That’s the odd thing about Berlin. One day you notice something new and yet you have the feeling it’s always been there. So the best thing is to keep your eyes open. Then you will be able to remember later on how things used to be” Schaustelle Berlin [Showcase Berlin] summer tours brochure, 1997, retrieved from (Till, 2005, p.195)

Fig. 8. Schaustelle Berlin [Showcase Berlin] summer tours brochure, 1997. Source: Till, 2005, p.195

2.11. Examples of materialized memory in Berlin Accordingly, Huyssen (1997) singles out two examples of attitudes toward

the past of Berlin, expressed in such projects as Potsdamerplatz and the Jewish Museum in Berlin, marking the second as a successful and intelligent reading of the past. These two examples only indirectly refer to the socialist history, however, they show how, in the context of contemporary architecture and urban planning, it is possible to build a dialogue between current users and the past.

Potsdamerplatz

A preeminent symbol of change, which at the same time building upon the pre-war period, can be considered a project to restructure Potsdamer Platz, which has become the new business and trade center of the united city, emphasizing the changes in the economy. Emerged on the wasteland-scar, left after the demolition of the wall, this project corresponds to the pre-war construction contours and preserves the historical height of the main volume of buildings. Potsdamer Platz is «an interesting urban mistake» in itself, as characterizes by Hatherley (2012, p.4), a kind of apogee of critical reconstruction. Potsdamer Platz is an attempt to resurrect the « culture of densifying» inherent in Berlin between the two world wars, to recreate the transport hub crossroads of trade and transport routes (Hatherley, 2012, p.4). However, as Huyssen (1997) remarks, the place has got a purely commercial orientation, and the architecture of this complex supports the ideas of modernists and globalization (Huyssen, 1997, p.73), which according to Hatherley (2012, p.4) the place became a «strained attempt at metropolitanism,» impersonal and senseless: «Potsdamerplatz strains every sinew to create movement, activity, mix of uses, that its ultimate impression is one of great coldness...»

The void in the center of Berlin will have been filled. But memories of that haunting space from the months and years after the wall came down will linger Huyssen (1997, p.73)

Jewish Museum Berlin As already emphasized, there are different ways of referring and «working» with past. Thus, according to Huyssen (1997), Libeskind, the chief architect of the project, managed to create something new in the morphology of the city. Something which is not directly related to the Golden Age of Berlin, nor to the post-war era, while not erasing the difficult history of wartime and the Holocaust. However, Libeskind embodied remembering of the complicated past in the «acute» architecture and spatial organization of the museum, thereby continuing the idea of reading Berlin as a text - by letting a meaning that can be «read between the lines» (Huyssen, 1997, p.80). Conclusion Returning to a discussion about post-socialist spaces, following the results of the critical reconstruction, at present there are not so much of untouched urban «paragraphs» left in Berlin, in case of continuing to read Berlin as a text. Virtually all socialist urban public spaces have been entirely or partially changed. Alexanderplatz is one of the public spaces where it is still possible to indirectly observe the atmosphere of the Berlin of the GDR period. Therefore, this square was selected as a case study. However, all the other criteria of selection will be described in the fourth chapter “Theoretical framework” аnd directly analysis of history, reconstruction and spatial organization will be discussed in the fifth chapter “Case study”.

METHODOLOGY

3.1. 3.2. 3.3.

Introduction Methodological steps Data collection method

41 41 45

3. Methodology 3.1. Introduction The goal of this chapter is to create a system of the methods which will help in answering the research question. Furthermore, it constructs the base for the theoretical framework, which is also a tool for the further analysis, as it creates a system of criteria and schemes for carrying out the study.

First of all, the research questions will once again be given.

How did the changes in the political and ideological context of Germany after the reunification affect the relation between identity and use of public spaces in former socialist East Berlin? The case of Alexanderplatz.

Sub-questions:

â&#x20AC;˘

How did the socialist public spaces change before and after the Wall Fall?

â&#x20AC;˘

How do users evaluate the changes in former socialist public spaces in terms of the socialist identity preservation and current needs?

3.2. Methodological steps

1. Theoretical framework

In the theoretical part, the research question will be clarified. Namely, what its parts mean by itself: 1. Changes in the political and ideological context after the reunification of Germany. 2. The relation between identity and use of former-socialist public spaces.

Secondly, it will be explained what is meant by this relationship between identity and use of space, along with what it will give to research, so the next chapter will also define identity. Then a logical framework will be given, explaining why the comparison of «space use» and «identity» in the context of different time periods is considered for the research question. This means that the impact of different political, ideological, economic and social contexts within the same physical space on the change in the use of the selected public space will be analyzed.

2. Case study

The analysis also includes the study of the Alexanderplatz history, its changes, transformations, a detailed study of the existing buildings that surround the area on the basis of literature.

3. Empirical Analysis

To analyze the relationship between identity and use, the following steps in an empirical analysis will be conducted: 1. Comparison of the Spatial organization of Alexanderplatz during GDR and now; 2. Comparison of the functional use of buildings forming the Alexanderplatz boundaries (during GDR and now); 3. Determination of primary purpose for the use of this space; 4. Evaluation of the selected square in the context of Good Public Space theory; 5. Comparison between the three categories: «Current Use, Attitude towards the Preservation and Development, and Perception of the Socialist Identity of the Place» with the following results and conclusion; 6. Perception of the place by different groups of respondents; 7. All the findings will be analyzed to conclude. The following part shows how each step will be analyzed. 1. Comparison of the Spatial organization of Alexanderplatz during GDR and now For this analysis step, two maps were created displaying the buildings in the surrounding area, the functions during the GDR and now. 2. Comparison of the functional use of buildings forming the Alexanderplatz boundaries during GDR and now This section contains two maps showing how the space of Alexanderplatz has changed since the GDR. 3. Determination of primary purpose for the use of this space A survey will be conducted to determine what is the primary purpose for the use of this space, where users have to choose all suitable options from the suggested answers, where it was also possible to add another answer. 4. Evaluation of the selected square in the context of Good Public Space theory However, in order to understand the extent to which the selected plaza successfully uses its nature: form, spatial organization, built-up environment, embedded functions, and location, an empirical analysis based on Mehta’s study (2013),

mentioned in the chapter «Literary Review» will be carried out. This study identified five categories of public space: inclusiveness, meaningful activities, comfort, safety, pleasurability. By evaluating each of the categories, it is understood how good this public space is. The results will be obtained by two methods: observation and survey. The next chapter will define «Good public space» developed by Mehta, as well as a brief description of each of the five categories along with a description of what will be measured for evaluation. Furthermore, all forty-five variables participating in the evaluation will be presented. As a result of this part of the study, it will be presented which areas of the case study are robust, satisfactory or weak and in need of improvement. This methodological step partially correlates with both of the questions posed to the research, as it will be clear how well the public space is used and also will show the fields that might be improved in the future. 5. Comparison between the three categories: «Current Use, Attitude towards the Preservation and Development, and Perception of the Socialist Identity of the Place» with the following results and conclusion. In order to answer the second research sub-question: «How do users evaluate the changes in the former socialist space?» statements from the survey have been reorganized in the way that it was possible to make a visual comparison of the use of the Alexanderplatz space and the attitude of users towards the preservation and changes in space. The analysis will be conducted based on the answers of the respondents. This part will be divided into three subcategories; Current use, Attitude to the preservation and development and Perception of the socialist identity of the place. The response scale consists of 5 possible marks, where in most cases the answers correspond to the following explanation: 1 strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - neutral, 4 - agree, 5 - strongly agree. However, for clarity and visibility of results, the scale has been restructured and simplified. Thus, all responses were divided into three categories: negative, neutral, or positive. An average of the result for each statement was taken and illustrated on the graph. An example of the created graphs and the value of each category can be seen below in the Figure №9.

1 Negative result (from 1.00 – 2.33)

Neutral result (from 2.33 – 3.66)

Positive result (from 3.67 – 5.00)

Fig. 9. An example of recounting the result using the graph. Author.

Besides, the task was to reflect the attitude of users towards the plaza which has the GDR roots. To reflect the attitude of users towards the public space, which has socialist characteristics, statements for the questionnaire were compiled. This was expressed, on the one hand, in the indirect questions/ statements that fix the attitude to the physical aspects of the place relating to the socialist period: an ample open space, specific features of architecture. On the other hand, with the intention of avoiding innuendos, direct questions related to the legacy of the GDR and the political aspects of this period were put only at the end of the study. However, the questions were constructed in a way to avert the biases or personal opinions. All the questions are presented in the Appendix.

6. Perception of the place by different groups of respondents Based on the responses, the survey will also reveal how different groups of respondents perceive Alexanderplatz. Since the assessment system, suggested by Mehta (2013) does not take into account personal attachment and attitude to the place, and especially in the context of the ambiguous GDR past. Therefore, for these purposes, it is necessary to carry out the next step in the study, which will reflect the relationship between the user and Alexanderplatz in the context of the «place identity» concept. Empirical studies on this topic show that there is no single method to assess the place identity. Therefore, different scientists offer their system. For example, Shamai and Ilatov (2005, p.470) emphasize that survey questions can be direct and indirect, where the answers to the latter are opened for different interpretations. There is also the polarity of the response scale, that is, the opinion of the interviewed can be either positive, neutral, or negative. «The empirical scale can consist of one direct question/component or several components (multicomponent)» Shamai and Ilatov (2005, p.470). Therefore, to analyze the place identity, a multicomponent scale based on several questions is used more often (ibid.), which in the end, after evaluation and indexing, compose one scale. For example, Lalli (1992) in his study, defined five such components for the assessment of place identity (external evaluation, continuity with personal past, general attachment, a perception of familiarity and commitment). Given that respondents may not know what the concept of place identity implies, it was necessary to develop the system of questions, which, on the one hand, reflects the significance of identity concept, however, without resorting to direct mention it. Furthermore, it was decided for this study to find a justification for the construction of questions in the theory of the place identity, presented in the second chapter, by highlighting the main points and components of this concept. For these purposes was carried out: 1. Analysis of the relevant studies and its questionnaires in the context of the theories of place identity and urban identity; 2. The identification of the main components of the identity concept; 3. On the basis of these components, indirect questions with polar scale answers were compiled - from «strongly disagree» to «strongly agree». 4. For the analysis, the same rating conversion system presented in the previous step on the (Fig. №9). 5. In order to make the results more palpable, a comparison of answers to questions about the attitude to space among different groups of respondents will be given. The division into groups was made concerning the place of residence and familiarity with the history of Alexanderplatz. As a result, four groups were singled out: Berliners who know the history of Alexanderplatz; Germans who familiar with the history of Alexanderplatz; residents of Germany (including Berlin) who do not know the history of the square; respondents from other countries. 7. Indicators for the future development Lastly, in addition to the central research question, the issue of the future of Alexanderplatz will also be addressed. However, this part of the research does not have the aim of providing with a guideline or even solutions for the future possible development but rather to highlight the possible dimensions of changes and open the further discussion. In order to reach an outcome of how users see the future of these spaces, the survey was conducted and analyzed, where based on answers of different social groups the results were visualized.

3.3. Data collection method A questionnaire consisting of 39 questions was compiled. In addition to the English version of the survey, a German one was also drawn up. Responses were both manually and electronically collected. Access to the electronic version of the questionnaire was carried out using QR-code. The code was printed as a sticker with a short description and glued to surfaces within Alexanderplatz, but also in other areas. An example of a sticker can be found in the Appendix. Therefore, the survey was conducted with users of space, as well as with people who have ever used this space (replies received electronically). A total of 54 responses were received, where only 9 of which were obtained electronically. Of all the thirty-nine questions, first seven questions are defining the respondent. The primary purpose of this part was to find out the age of the person interviewed, as well as the place of residence: the country, the city in Germany, and if it is Berlin, then, Eastern or Western part. Thus, these questions aim to understand whether a person lived in a country with a socialist past and whether he caught the period before the fall of the wall or not. The next thirteen survey questions relate to the assessment of how good the public space is. The questions were formed from the given by Mehta’s table of «Public space index» (Mehta, 2013, p.62). This part of the questionnaire consists of 5 components; questions are indirect, the answer scale consists of 5 markings, where the answers are polar - from «strongly disagree» to «strongly agree». After this, the next part begins that explores the use and identity of space. This part is divided into three components. The first is studying the «use of space,» which consists of five questions where, in addition to studying its current functions, it also examines how users would like to see this plaza in the future. The next component «Identity» consists of 8 questions, which will be presented in the «Theoretical framework». The purpose of that part is to reveal the sense of belonging to the case study, and also to find out with what historical period users correlate the square. The questionnaire ends with six questions related to the «GDR Identity». For the observation part used for analysis in the context of the «Good public space», eight field observations were made during the day and a week with the counting of thirty-two variables taken from Mehta’s (2013) study. This part is conducted at first as an observation, then counting for ten minutes (if it is needed) and subsequent evaluation from 1 to 5 (the mark transcription depends on the variable that is examined). Observation using counting was conducted twelve times on different dates and time, notably six observation were made on weekdays and six at weekends. Thursday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday

19th of July 21st of July 22nd of July 23d of July 24th of July

All variables will be given in the next chapter.

13:00; 16:00; 15:00; 17:00; 22:00; 11:00; 16:00; 20:00; 07:00; 19:00; 10:00; 14:00.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

Introduction Defining identity Defining public space Criteria for the selection of the case study

49 50 51 55

4. Theoretical framework 4.1. Introduction The goal of this chapter is, based on the literature review, to create criteria for choosing a case study in such a way that, firstly, the public space corresponds to the GDR period, and secondly, it goes along with the objectives of the thesis. At the end of the chapter, criteria for the selecting the case study will be given.

1. Changes in the political and ideological context after the reunification of Germany Berlin is a story about change, as it has already been emphasized in the literature review. Changes in Berlin, as well as in Germany, were not only of the political and ideological context but also socio-economic nature, which also affected the change in urban policy. The next part will explain and order these changes. Political system In connection with the reunification of Germany in 1990, the Eastern part changed the political system from socialism to democracy. Ideology With the change in the political system, the ideology of the state also changed accordingly. Ideology can be regarded as an instrument for maintaining the political system, expressed by the introduction of certain values. Thus, during the GDR era, ideology consisted in the supremacy of public interests over private interests, i.e. in the maintenance of social justice, expressed in the transition to public ownership and the redistribution of national income in favor of the needy. However, at the moment, there is no reference to any official ideology in the «Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland» [Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]. Although, in Art. 139 states that the Basic Law does not affect the provisions of the regulations on the «Befreiung des Deutschen Volkes vom Nationalsozialismus und Militarismus» [Liberation of the German people from National Socialism and Militarism] (Bundestag, n.d.-b); that is, there is an indication of an ideological system that is in principle unacceptable for Germany.

Economy The change in the economic structure: from the state-controlled economy, based on the socialist principles and entailed the process of nationalization to capitalism, which built on diametrically opposed principles of private property, legal equality and freedom of enterprise. Social life Finally, the social structure has changed from ÂŤsocialismÂť, where the main idea was the equality of all citizens, to the current state where the aspects of social polarization, conditioned by the economic structure, can be witnessed.

4.2. Defining identity 2. The relation between identity and use of former-socialist public spaces The concept of identity is rather broad and vague (Shamai, 1991). In order to answer the main question of the research, as it was mentioned above, for this thesis it is important to study and distinguish different focus areas of identity. On the one hand, in this question, the identity means the socialist features and meanings embodied in the space of Alexanderplatz in order to represent a certain ideology of the GDR period. On the other hand, the identity in this particular issue is the subject of territorial consideration, since it is a question of a specific public space that is part of the built environment. Therefore, the definitions of the place and urban identity also will be given in this part. How it was mentioned already in the literature review part, Lalli (1992) differentiates these two concepts by scale, where Urban Identity is a part of Place identity. What is also important to emphasize, since the concept of identity is associated with the unconscious, this term is difficult to classify, define and develop a general scheme for analysis. Based on the above and taking into account the definitions proposed by Proshansky (1978), Lalli (1992) and Hague (2005), following interpretations of the place and urban identity were drawn up for this thesis: Place identity is a conscious and unconscious attitude of a person to a physical environment through feelings, memories, ideas, values, beliefs, that finds a response in his mental and physical world in the form of constructed image, which creates through the interaction of several elements, such as activities, feelings, meanings, and fabric of the city. Urban identity is a set of urban meanings that ensure the identification of residents by associating with the city with the help of symbolic tools that are meaningful for a person. Urban identity is formed by establishing a symbolic connection between a person and a city, it is dynamic and varies under the influence of the process of constructing urban meanings. On the other hand, as just noted, urban identity is codependent with the formation of urban meanings. Therefore, discussing place identity created in the socialist period, one has to include political and ideological influence in the study. Thus, from the above literature (Bartetzky, 2006; Belanche et al. 2017; Fedotova, 2017) it was revealed that changes in policy and, accordingly, ideology affected the introduction of certain embedded meanings in the urban space. Continuing

the logical chain, it should be noted that these meanings were expressed in the architecture and organization of space, which also dictated specific functions of the space, which consequently exerts further influence on the change in the use of space. Thus, there is a codependence between the place identity and the use of space. Hence, it can be concluded that the term «identity» in the central research question refers to the socialist features and meanings embedded in the space of Alexanderplatz, mainly to represent a particular ideology of the GDR. However, since the effect of changes on the use of space is being investigated, the attitude of users towards the square will also be examined in the context of the place identity theory for the following reason. Since political, social and economic changes affect not only the physical space of a city but also the internal attitude of a resident to a given place, this can also affect the change in the use of space. For example, with a negative attitude towards space, the user might not choose this public space as a place for rest. Therefore, based on the place and urban identity theory, the attitude of users towards the selected plaza will be studied, namely, to which extent they identify themselves with Alexanderplatz and how much are they affected by knowing to which period the creation of Alexanderplatz relates.

4.3. Defining public space For the intention of this research, at first the notion “public space” will be formulated, proposed by Mehta (2013).

Public space In this thesis, public space refers to:

... the access and use of the space rather than its ownership. Hence, privately owned spaces that are accessible to the public qualify as public space and those publicly owned spaces that are not accessible to the public do not. This thesis limits the evaluation of public open space to the study of plaza, which will connote not only the spaces between buildings but also the objects and artifacts therein, and the building edges that help define the physical boundaries of the spaces Mehta (2013, p.54)

Good public space is accessible and open, is meaningful in its design and the activities it supports, provides a sense of safety, physical and environmental comfort and convenience, a sense of control, and sensory pleasure. Mehta (2013, p.57)

Inclusiveness

Pleasurability

Safety

Meaningful Activities Comfort

Fig. 10. Five dimensions/aspects of public space. Made by author. Source: Mehta, 2013, p.58.

Inclusiveness Mehta (2013, p.58) concluded that inclusiveness would consider the possibility of people using public space, as well as the ability to be in it. With the help of the created index, the availability of space for people of different categories and groups and their ability to interact with each other and space is measured. For each of the five components, Mehta (2013) identified certain variables. The variables involved in the evaluation of «Inclusiveness» (Mehta, 2013, p.62): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Presence of people of diverse ages; Presence of people of different genders; Presence of people of diverse classes; Presence of people of diverse races; Presence of people with diverse physical abilities; Control of entrance to public space: the presence of lockable gates, fences, etc.; The range of activities and behaviors; Opening hours of public space; Presence of posted signs to exclude certain people or behaviors; Presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, ushers, etc. intimidating and privacy is infringed upon; Perceived openness and accessibility; Perceived ability to conduct and participate in activities and events in space.

Meaningful activities In the context of this study, the notion of «meaningful» is considered with the ability of the public space to maintain activity and sociability. Consequently, the discourse on the place identity in its broadest sense, presented in the previous subchapter, is not considered in this paper. However, the importance of space is taken into account in the context of its usefulness in maintaining symbolic and cultural activities essential to the society: support of sociability, satisfaction of basic needs (consumption and entertainment) and special needs (expression, reflection, discussion, gathering, and others). Thus, Metha (2013, p.59) emphasizes that a meaningful place, ideally, supposed to be communicative.

The variables involved in the evaluation of «Meaningful activities » (Mehta, 2013, p.63): 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Presence of community - gathering third places; The range of activities and behaviors; Space flexibility to suit user needs; Availability of food within or at the edges of the space; Variety of businesses and other uses at the edges of the space; Perceived suitability of space layout and design to activities and behavior; Perceived usefulness of businesses and other uses.

Comfort Mentioned above index was designed to measure the physiological comfort on public space in this part of the Mehta’s study. In other words, this category focuses on the physical aspects of space, which provide comfort: seating, trees, shelters from inclement weather conditions or direct sunlight. Further, the level of safety which depends on the use of space and the interaction of users is one of the essential settings of the comfort category. However, Mehta (2013, p.60) distributed safety into an independent category. The variables involved in the evaluation of «Comfort» (Mehta, 2013, p.63): 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Places to sit without paying for goods and services; Presence of seating provided by businesses; Presence of other furniture and artifacts in the space; The climatic comfort of the space - shade and shelter; Design elements discouraging use of space; Perceived physical condition and maintenance appropriate for space; Perceived nuisance noise from traffic or otherwise.

Safety As emphasized by Mehta (2013, p.60), safety in the context of public space is the ability of a person to feel secure from social and physical factors from crime and traffic. Hence, a sense of security is influenced by many factors, for example, the presence of garbage, graffiti and the like. A sense of security can also be affected by the presence of security guards and security cameras, but this aspect can affect the attitude of users both positively and negatively. Besides, Mehta concluded that the constant presence of people could positively influence the sense of security. The variables involved in the evaluation of «Safety» (Mehta, 2013, p.64): 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Visual and physical connection and openness to the adjacent street/s or spaces; Physical condition and maintenance appropriate for space; Lighting quality in space after dark; Perceived safety from the presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, guides, ushers, etc. providing safety; Perceived safety from crime during the daytime; Perceived safety from crime during the nighttime; Perceived safety from traffic.

Pleasurability Mehta (2013, p.61), argued that «space becomes pleasurable when they are imageable, have a high level of spatial quality and sensory complexity.» Moreover, to be pleasurable, space supposed to have a variety of forms, patterns, and textures, imagery, order and consistency, diversity and novelty and be proportionate to man. The 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

variables

involved

the

evaluation

of «Pleasurability» (Mehta, 2013, p.63):

Presence of memorable architectural or landscape features (imageability); A sense of enclosure; Variety of subspaces; A density of elements in space providing sensory complexity; Variety of elements in space providing sensory complexity; Design elements providing focal points; Visual and physical connection and openness to the adjacent street/s or spaces; Permeability of building facades on the street front; Personalization of the buildings on the street front; Articulation and variety in architectural features of building facades on the street front; Perceived attractiveness of space; Perceived interestingness of space.

Comparison between the three categories: «Current Use, Attitude towards the Preservation and Development, and Perception of the Socialist Identity of the Place» with the following results and conclusion. This part will present the statements asked during the survey to establish the results on each of the categories. Current use

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I feel the design of this space suitable for the currently offered uses; I feel that the currently offered uses, activities and businesses are useful for me; The frequency of using this space; The purpose of using this space; What kind of activities would they like to see on the square? (this question relates to the missing activities); What would you like to see on the square? (this question relates to the missing attributes). Attitude towards the preservation and development

1. 2. 3.

I like that this place reminds me of past; I think the city has to be redesigned regarding new social and political tendencies; I feel it is important to prevent past from disappearing (even if the past is ambiguous).

Perception of the socialist identity of the place

1. 2. 3.

I like buildings around the square; I like the feeling of big open space here; I do not agree with the political system of GDR that’s why I don’t like to spend time here.

Perception of the place by different groups of respondents For the construction of questions for the survey, it was decided to create a justification based on the theory of the place identity presented in the second chapter. As already noted in the last chapter, questions from surveys compiled by Lalli (1992, p.303) and Barreiro (2015, p.20) which measure the user’s perception of the public space were analyzed. Also, based on the theories of place and urban identity (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983, Lalli 1992, Hull, Lam, and Vigo, 1994, Landry 2001, Huntington, 2004, Relph, 2016), discussed in the second chapter, the place identity components were highlighted: the importance of the place, its peculiarity, the relation to the past of the place, the sense of belonging and pride for the place, symbolic meaning. On the basis of these components, the following statements-questions for the survey were made. Each statement needs to be evaluated. This part of the questionnaire relates to the «Identity» part. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I think this place is an important spot in the city; I feel something special about this place; I feel connected to the place; I am proud of this place; This place reminds me of past;

4.4. Criteria for the selection of the case study

Type of space: Location:

Germany, the territory of East Berlin

Period of creation:

From 1949 to 1990, that is, period related to socialism time

Architectural style:

Related to socialism time, for example Socialist Classicism, Functionalism, Futurism, Postmodernism, Structuralism

Intensity of use: Development:

Public space

Actively used space Public spaces, which was not exposed or partially exposed to development so that the presence of the socialist era still feels in the place.

Based on the first four criteria, two squares were selected: Alexanderplatz and Leninplatz. However, due to the last two criteria, Leninplatz was not subsequently chosen. First, it was redeveloped, which turned the concrete square with the large Lenin monument into a small green recreation zone with fountains and benches. However, according to the author’s opinion, perhaps thanks to the presence of socialist architecture around and wide avenues, the atmosphere of GDR is still might be read in space. The decisive factor was the absolute absence of users (except one sleeping homeless), noticed during the observation. This fact made it impossible to interview users of this public space. Therefore, the remaining option - Alexanderplatz was selected as a case study.

Alexanderplatz Type of space:

Public space

Location:

Germany, the territory of East Berlin; “the heart of East Berlin”

Period of creation:

The square initially appeared in the 13th century but was rebuilt several times, and after the redevelopment of the late 60’s - early 70’s of the last century, it has taken its current spatial form and appearance. Despite subsequent redevelopments, Alexanderplatz still retains the presence of the socialist past, which was confirmed by the survey5

Architectural style:

Related to socialist time, however, it is blended with pre-war constructivism (Alexanderhaus, Berolinahaus), as well as with modern buildings (f.e. Kaufhof, Saturn).

Intensity of use:

Actively used space

Then, the features inherent in the public spaces of socialist times will be given again, as well as the main urban pattern of this period in the territory of the GDR, determined from the literature described in the second chapter: Features inherent in the socialist public space, which are also present in Alexanderplatz: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Monumental scale; Visibility and openness of the space; Sameness; Socialist monuments.

For greater clarity, each of these features will be further presented and analyzed in subsequent graphs to confirm the above.

Question №32 «This place reminds me of…» revealed that that the majority of users associate this public space with the GDR period. 5

1. Monumental scale area:

Fig. 11. Alexanderplatz.

Platz der Republik area: 36 000 m2

26 000 m2

author. public space. Made by The scale of the chosen gle Maps (2018). Data retrieved from: Goo

Pariser Platz area: 14 000 m2

Lustgarten area: 12 500 m2

Alexanderplatz

Gendarmenmarkt area: 10 000 m2

Bebelplatz area: 4 700 m2

Fig. 12. The scale of the open-air public spaces in Berlin: Platz der Republik, Pariser Platz, Lustgarten, Gendarmenmarkt, Bebelplatz. Made by author. Data retrieved from: Google Maps, (2018).

The Figure №11 shows a schematic depiction of Alexanderplatz, clearly demonstrating the scale of this public space. The red dots were given the dimensions of the human figure to understand the size of the area. Furthermore, the scale of Alexanderplatz can also be analyzed, based on a comparison with the areas of other Berlins’ open public spaces that are important for the city. Thus, according to Figure №12, it can be noted that only one public space, out of the five presented, exceeds Alexanderplatz by area: Platz der Republik is the central square in the government quarter in front of the Reichstag - the parliament building of united Germany in Berlin. However, the place is almost completely covered with lawn and decorated with small hedges (the so-called «heckenbosquets») and trees, which makes the place more park-oriented. Furthermore, trees work as visual obstacles. The area of the remaining squares represented is smaller than Alexanderplatz approximately two times.

2. Visibility and openness of the space

ce. of the chosen public spa Visibility and openness 8). Fig. 13. Alexanderplatz. from: Google Maps (201 eved retri Data or. Made by auth

Alexanderplatz

Taking into account the second distinctive feature of the socialist public space, the Figure №13 shows the ability to observe the space from the buildings surrounding the square. Moreover, it can be noted that on the territory of Alexanderplatz the only apparent obstacle is the fountain (the central left circle on the Figure №13). However, the size of the fountain is not considerable enough to create a visual obstacle. The highest point of this fountain is a mushroom-shape decor in the central part with a height of only 6.2 meters (by comparison, the height of the lowest nearby building Berolinahaus is 30 meters).

3. Sameness

Fig. 14. Augustusplatz in Leipzig, Bundesarchiv, 1982. Photo credit: Grubitzsch, 1982

Fig. 15. Panorama of Alexanderplatz, Berlin, 2011. Photo credit: Koutoulas, 2011

Fig. 16. Karl-Marx-Monument in Chemnitz, 1983. Photo credit: Thieme, 1983

As mentioned in the second chapter, the socialist public space is «characterized» by similarity. On the Figures №14, №15, №16 three socialist squares created during GDR times are represented: Augustusplatz in Leipzig, Alexanderplatz in Berlin and Karl-Marx-Monument in Chemnitz, respectively.

As can be seen from this comparative analysis of the three panoramas, the areas are similar to each other both by the facade lines with high-altitude dominants and also by the organization of space. However, similarity and sameness can also be seen on a smaller scale in the context of a single plaza. Thus, in the following pictures (Fig. №17 - Fig. №22), fragments of the facades of all buildings framing Alexanderplatz are presented. In this analysis, the repetitive rhythm of the windows is clearly visible, and even though some buildings were built a little before and after the socialist period of East Germany, the facade pattern is repeated.

Fig. 17. Alexanderhaus. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Source: Tchoban (2007)

Fig. 18. Berolinahaus. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Source: Photocommunity, (n.a.)

Fig. 19. Shopping center «Die Mitte». Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo credit: Author (2018)

Fig. 20. Kaufhof. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Source: Klussman (n.a.)

Fig. 21. Haus des Lehrers. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Source: Stadtentwicklung (2010)

4. Socialist monuments The last feature - a socialist monument, is present in Alexanderplatz not as a ruler or an essential figure of socialist culture, but in the form of futurist-modernist sculptures (The Fountain of People’s Friendship and Urania World Clock) reflecting the values of socialism, which are the sculptural dominants of the square.

Fig. 23. The Fountain of People’s Friendship on Alexanderplatz. Photo Credit: Kakouris (2012) Fig. 24. Urania World Clock on Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo Credit: Werk (2012)

space. list monuments of the chosen public Fig. 25. Alexanderplatz. The socia Google Maps (2018). from: ed retriev Data r. autho by Made

Fig. 22. Park Inn Hotel. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo credit: Wolf (2015)

Urban-planning and architectural tendencies of the socialist period in the territory of the GDR. Since the most significant (by the number of restructuring) redevelopment was in the early 1970s, features that are specific to this particular time are highlighted: 1. large-scale urban-planning complexes and ensembles with the synthesis of architecture and fine arts: monumental and decorative sculpture, monumental painting or small-scale urban molds (Alexanderplatz and the neighboring Teacher’s House with a mosaic frieze and Travel House, sculptured World Clock, The Fountain of People’s Friendship). 2. an interconnected streets and squares system, (Alexanderplatz – KarlMarx-Allee);

Fig. 26. The connection between Alexanderplatz and Karl-Marx-Allee. Berlin. Made by author. Data Retrieved from Cadmapper (n.d.)

Karl - M

arx - A

llee

Alexanderplatz

CASE STUDY

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5.

Introduction History Built environment Development after the reunification Comparison of the functional use

66 67 73 80 84

5. Case study

Alexanderplatz «the steppe starts here», — the Berliners joked with an unkind grin. (Hatherley, 2012, p.6)

Fig. 27. Fernsehturm in Berlin, 1977

Photo credit: Hecker, MDR KULTUR

5.1. Introduction Alexanderplatz - the city square, which is located in the center of the Mitte district, and is one of the leading transport hubs of the city and the heart of East Berlin. However, the rallies before the reunification of Germany were held there as well. In itself, the square is a pedestrian zone, and it is intersected by three lines of the Berlin metro, four lines of trams, as well as the S-Bahn line. According to Ballhausen (2014), about three hundred thousand people use Alexanderplatz every day. Weszkalnys (2008, p. 253) describes A place is a dark and colorless landscape, the square “as a model for other GDR cities invigorating breadth and emptiness and as an expression of a specific form of of which give a sense of freedom future socialist society”. Hatherley (2012) (Hatherley, 2012, p. 15) notes, if there is an archetypical Soviet square in Europe, it is most likely Alexanderplatz. All other pretenders are mostly a continuation of avenues, rather than independent squares, or have a prerevolutionary origin. However, even though the square has been known since the 13th century, during the GDR it underwent the most extensive restructuring, which affected its size, shape, spatial organization, and the surrounding environment. As a result, the square with the 368-meter television tower became a symbol, a somewhat a communist showcase, of East Berlin (Ladd, 1997, p.190). However, after the reunification in 1990, the issues about the restructuring of space have repeatedly discussed and been often focused on erasing the socialist past (ibid.). From the memoirs of Libeskind: «I remember when I participated in the competition for Alexanderplatz in 1993 the entire discussion was focused on what to tear down» (Uncube, 2015). The fate of square has been debated: on the one hand, this public space was filled with the GDR symbols. Furthermore, the surrounded architecture was a frequently a subject of malicious jokes from the Berliners. Therefore, a complete reorganization of the public space was under consideration. On the other, the square can be considered as a kind of Berlin heritage. In that case, the preservation of the place was also one of the possible options for further developments. This issue detonated in the society, providing somewhat of «food for thought» for sociologists, Keeping Alexanderplatz largely as it is throws up political scientists, a question many cities need to ask themselves: journalists, and urbanists: can architectural merit ever be definitively Becker (2013, settled, or will it always remain in flux? August 14) argues that (O’Sullivan, 2013, September 5) the protection of the city heritage mistakenly mixes the problems of living urban development with the archives of the historical museum, drawing a parallel between Berlin and Pyongyang.Along with it, since the topic touched upon urban development and history, a closer acquaintance with Alexanderplatz from these sides will begin in the next subchapter.

5.2. History

Development until 1871 - from the city foundation to the imperial capital6

Fig. 28. Plan of Alexanderplatz in 1804. Source: Deacademic (n.d.)

Located in the heart of the Mitte district, Alexanderplatz, the only one plaza in Berlin, which has maintained its location since the 13th century. Until the 17th century, the square was behind a fortification wall and was not only a market where cattle were sold but also a place for the execution of criminals; therefore the Berliners called it as «Teufels Lustgarten» [Devil’s pleasure garden]. The appearance of the first residential buildings around the square dates back to the year 1400. Expansion of the city led to the fact that instead of the cattle market the Sunday market began to work since the trade in livestock in the city was banned. By 1700 there were already 600 houses around the square with butchers and shepherds who were settled there. By that time the square was already named as « Königs Thor Platz» [King’s Thor Square]. During the 18th century silk and woolen manufactory were built around the square; therefore petty bourgeois, artisans, workers and also retired soldiers settled there. Regarding the latter, they appeared because in the southern part, military facilities, including a parade ground, were added, whereas the northern half remained a market. The current name of the plaza (Alexanderplatz) was given in honor of the Russian Emperor Alexander I. On October 25, 1805, here in the square, King Frederick William III perpetuated the alliance of Prussia and Russia in the struggle against Napoleon Bonaparte. The square became an essential contemporaneous transport hub in 1847. A year later street fights took place on it, and by 1896, the Sunday market was closed. In the second half of the XIX century, in connection with the industrialization and the creation of new plants in Berlin, there was a massive influx of job-seekers. This situation entailed a high demand for affordable apartments. After that, the land to the east of Alexanderplatz became more densely built up, also through increasing the number of floors. Сonsequently, step by step, Alexanderplatz became increasingly important as the center of the eastern regions. The following part is a historical review for the Alexanderplatz, based on the accounts from Sturm (2000) and Stadtentwicklung Berlin (n.d.-b). 6

Development from 1871 to 1920 - after the founding of the Reich Thus, the city expanded during the 19th century, and the area of the present Alexanderplatz grew into a part of the city, by becoming one of the most crucial areas of the eastern part. The plaza continued to exist in this position until its destruction in 1945. With the establishment of the empire in 1871, a complete reorganization of the Berlin districts was begun, which was characterized by even greater compaction and increase in altitude of buildings. One of the critical milestones in the development of Alexanderplatz is the construction of the railway in 1882 and the railway station, which was completed by 1886. At the same time, the Central Market was built nearby. By the end of the XIX century, the market became an economic center and transport hub: horse tram lines crossed the northern part of the square. Furthermore, construction of buildings that already met the challenges of a modern metropolis begun there: the Grand Hotel (1884), the District Court (1886) and the Police Headquarters (1886). By the end of 1895, Emil Hundrieser erected cooper Berolina statue 7.5 m high - the first landmark of this square. However, it was melted for the production of weapons during the Second World War. The beginning of the twentieth century marked by a flourishing of the square: the metro station was built, railway and tram lines were laid, and the first large department stores (Tietz, Hahn, Wertheim) appeared, which formed the architectural dominant of the square.

Fig. 29. Alexanderplatz railway station 1885. Photo credit: Schwartz 1885

The 1920s - Transformation into a modern transport hub As a result of good transport connection to the city, Alexanderplatz continued to evolve and, over the next several decades, hotels, restaurants, theaters, cinemas and department stores were built on the square. Alexanderplatz has turned into one of the busiest transport hubs in Europe. For example, only for the period between 1918 and 1939, the number of cars increased almost twice, which entailed a large-scale reconstruction. Thereby, by the end of the 1920s Martin Wagner, construction councilor of Berlin, developed a new concept of the movement at the Alexanderplatz. First of all, he wanted to solve the traffic problems related to the increasing number of cars, and at the same time create a unified architectural closed space. According to Wagner’s plan, he proposed to organize space in the form of a roundabout with a diameter of 100 meters, surrounded by seven-story buildings. The project also provided for roads 12 meters wide. Such a circular configuration, according to Wagner’s design, was due to distribute individual traffic successfully. Following the results of Martin Wagner’s plan, a competition was held in which architects and urban planners tried to develop Wagner’s concept in more detail. Thus, the task was to organize space and movement, taking into account the proposed by Wagner model. Even though Bureau of Hans and Wassili Luckhardt Fig. 30. Martin Wagner’s plan of 1928 for the restructuring won the contest, the project of Peter Behrens of the Alexanderpatz. (Christian Thiele, 2005) was finally approved, even though it took the second place. This decision had been taken since Behrens’ project envisaged fewer efforts for implementation. However, following the results, only the eightstory buildings of Alexanderhaus and Berolinahaus were realized by 1929-1931.

Fig. 31. Bird’s-eye view on Alexanderpatz, Berlin, 1935. Source: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

Fig. 32. Panorama of Alexanderplatz, Berlin, 1972. Photo credit: Heinz Lieber, (1972).

1945 - 1990 - From the post-war period to the reunification of Germany

Alexanderplatz was utterly destroyed during the battles in 1945. By 1946, the initial ideas for a «collective plan» for the site, proposed by Hans Scharoun, city councilor for construction and housing of Berlin, was presented. His proposal continued the ideas described in the Athens Charter (urban planning manifesto, compiled by Le Corbusier and adopted by the Congress of CIAM in Athens in 1933). Thus, the plan was to create a city convenient for traffic, with broad avenues and considerable space between the buildings. However, firstly, that was not enough resources for its implementation, and secondly, a few years later a political split divided Berlin into the West and the East. Therefore, by 1950, the new primary model for urban planning in GDR was established - «16 Principles», which were already mentioned in the second chapter. «16 Principles» were asserting socialist classicism as the basis of an urban-planning pattern. As a result of this document, the 90-meter-wide boulevard Unter den Linden and the 125-meter-wide Stalinallee (currently Karl-Marx-Allee) were built, where the latter shaped the Alexanderplatz border from the northeastern side. However, the importance of this document was also in the fact that it changed attitudes towards urban planning, emphasizing, first of all, his instrumental character in matters of political propaganda. Subsequently, in the spring of 1964, a competition was held among six architectural bureaus, with the aim of redesigning Alexanderplatz. Eventually, the square was reconstructed in 1966-1970 in the socialist-modernism style according to the project of architects Schweizer, Tscheschner und Schulz. The project foresaw the creation of a pedestrian zone to conduct major events; therefore the roads for vehicles were relocated along the perimeter, and the tram lines were removed. As a result of the reconstruction, the area of the square has increased by four times, and since the 1970s, Alexanderplatz has been transformed into the main square of East Berlin. It was in these years that most of the current buildings appeared here. These buildings and other facilities are described in further detail in the following subchapter.

Mitte district Alexanderplatz

Berlin Fig. 33. The map of Berlin with the location of Mitte district and Alexanderplatz. Made by author. Data Retrieved from Cadmapper (n.d.)

Alexanderplatz

Mitte Fig. 34. The map of Mitte district with the location of Alexanderplatz. Berlin. Made by author. Data Retrieved from Cadmapper (n.d.)

5.3. Built environment

Fig. 35. Map of built environment, Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Map by author. Data retrieved from: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

Maps of the Berlin urban morphology in the Alexanderplatz area Maps show developed (black) areas and undeveloped areas (white). The red contours indicate the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz. The city layout documents the changes in Alexanderplatz in five temporal steps (1940, 1953, 1989, 2001 and 2020). Fig. 36. Berlin, 1940. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz. Source: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

1953

Fig. 37. Berlin, 1953. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz. Source: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

1989

Fig. 38. Berlin, 1989. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz. Source: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

2001

Fig. 39. Berlin, 2001. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz. Source: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

2020

Fig. 40. Berlin, 2020. Urban morphology with the outlines of the proposed 2020 plan of Alexanderplatz. Source: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

Monuments of socialist architecture

Despite the fact that the Alexanderplatz was partially rebuilt after the reunification of Germany, and the design of some buildings have been changed (for example, the department store Centrum, preceding the current Kaufland), the square still preserves the spirit of the socialist era, perhaps because of the abundance of concrete structures and high-rise prefabricated buildings in the neighborhood.7 There are three monuments of socialist architecture in the north-east of the square: the Haus des Lehrers [Teacher’s House], the Haus des Reisens [Travel House] and the Haus der Elektroindustrie [House of the Electrical Industry].

Haus des Lehrers The box-shaped Teacher’s House was built in 19611964 according to the project of Hermann Henselmann, perhaps, the most famous architect of the German Democratic Republic. The high-rise building, 54 meters high, was erected with distinctive postwar modernism facade. In particular, this building is decorated with the famous «abdominal bandage» - a mosaic frieze, located between the 2nd and fifth floors of the building, designed by the artist Walter Womacka. About 800,000 tiles were used to create the «Our Life» mosaic, depicting scenes from the life of the GDR society. However, the Haus des Lehrers is a part of the architectural complex, where a two-storeyed congress hall is attached to the building. The complex is recognized as a monument of architecture. After the reconstruction in 2002-2004, the office premises are located here.

Fig. 42. Haus des Lehrers from bird’s-eye view, Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo credit: Philipp Eder (2009).

Haus des Reisens According to the project of Roland Korn, Johannes Brieske, and Roland Steiger, the 17-floors Haus des Reisens, 65 meters high, was built in 1969-1971. The external walls are formed by aluminum structures, the two-story base of the building is completed with wavy plastic shells, and the eastern facade is decorated with mural enamel on copper “Man Masters Time and Space” - another Walter Womacka’s fingerprint.

Fig. 43. Haus des Reisen from bird’s-eye view, Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo credit: Christian Thiele (2005)

Fig. 41. Haus des Lehrers with mosaic frieze by Walter Womacka. Alexanderplatz, Berlin (left picture). Photo credit: Garcia D. (n.d.).

The following part is a description of the buildings, which belong to the Alexanderplatz area. The following information is based on the accounts from Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015 Sturm (2000), Stadtentwicklung Berlin (n.d.-b) and Emporis, (n.d.). 7

Haus der Elektroindustrie Haus der Elektroindustrie was built in 1967-1969 by the project of Heinz Mehlan, Emil Leibold, Peter Skujin. Tenstorey building with a length of 220 m and a height of 38 m. In 2000 it was reconstructed, as a result of which the facade looks different than it was before. At the moment the building is used as an office space.

Fountain

Clock

Fig. 44. Haus der Elektroindustrie. The view from TVtower. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo Credit: Grahn (2009)

Fig. 45. The Fountain and Clock on Alexanderplatz, the view from TV-tower. Photo Credit: Guenther (2015)

Fig. 46. The Fountain of People’s Friendship on Alexanderplatz. Photo Credit: Kakouris (2012)

Fig. 47. Urania World Clock on Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo Credit: Colin Utz (n.d.)

Urania World Clock and The Fountain of People’s Friendship” Other works of Walter Womacka on the Alexanderplatz are “The Fountain of People’s Friendship” and a sculpture «Urania World Clock», futuristic rotating watches, crowned with a sculptural model of the solar system, which shows all the time zones. Located in front of the «Galeria Kaufhof» the fountain was opened on October 7, 1970. The diameter of its water tank is 23 meters, and its height is 6.2 meters, it is made of copper, glass, ceramics, and enamel. The fountain and clock became the meeting points and landmarks of the square and the entire socialist period. The fountain is used as a seating place and to find it without visitors sitting on it is almost impossible.

High-rise landmarks Fernsehturm A 368-meter Fernsehturm [television tower] is located from the south-west side of the railway station. Built-in 1969 by Hermann Henselmann, Jörg Streitparth, Fritz Dieter, Günter Franke, Werner Ahrendt, the tower is still the tallest structure in Germany. The TV tower along with such urban symbols as the Brandenburg Gate, the Victory Column, and the Reichstag Building, is an integral part of the architectural appearance of the city, its symbol, and a prominent landmark. However, it is also one of the most important symbols of the GDR epoch, but this might not have happened: on the site where once the Palace of the Republic was constructed, there could be alternative architectural symbol of the new GDR society - the Government high-rise building, but the plans for its construction were not realized. Instead of that, the TV tower was moved from the outskirt of Berlin, Müggelbergen - the originally planned location, to a more central area - Alexanderplatz.

Fig. 48. Berlin Fernsehturm. Photo Credit: Reuters (2016)

Park Inn Hotel Behind the station, there is a 37-story Park Inn hotel, built in 1967-1970 (architects Roland Korn, Heinz Scharlipp, Hans-Erich Bogatzky). Equally, with Treptower, which also is 125 meters high, it is still considered the tallest building in Berlin, but with the completion of work on the construction of Alexander-tower, the latter will take the primacy in this competition. Initially, it was called the «Hotel Stadt Berlin,» and it belonged to the hotel chain «Interhotel». To reach the last 37th floor, wherein a panoramic restaurant was located, was possible with the unusually fast, for that time, elevator. The name of the hotel changed to «Forum Hotel Berlin» after the reunification of Germany, and already in 2003 the skyscraper was bought by Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group, followed up by the expected changes in name to the current one - Park Inn by Radisson Berlin Alexanderplatz. Today it is a four-star hotel.

Fig. 49. Park Inn Hotel from the birds’-eye view. Photo Credit: Grahn (2009)

Railway station «Alexanderplatz»

Fig. 50. Railway station «Alexanderplatz». Source: Visit Berlin (n.d.)

Alexanderplatz is a busy traffic intersection, along which there are three main roads, four tram lines, and three metro lines located at the different levels underground. In the north-eastern part is the railway station «Alexanderplatz», built in 1881-1882 (architect Johann Eduard Jacobsthal), the metro platform, designed by the architect Alfred Grenander, was completed in 19101913. Alexanderplatz was in the list of so-called «ghost stations», which were closed during the political split in Berlin to prevent the movement of citizens to the other side of the wall. The complete reconstruction of the station was completed in 1998. There are two platforms and four tracks on it. One platform accepts electric trains and long-distance trains, the second high-speed trains. The building of the station is shaped like an arch with the metal frame and glass walls.

Historical buildings of Alexanderplatz Alexanderhaus and Berolinahaus

Fig. 51. Alexanderhaus and Berolinahaus Fernsehturm, Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo credit: Elkawe (2009).

from

Since pre-war times, only two twin buildings have survived on the south-west side of the square: Alexanderhaus and Berolinahaus, built in 1929-1932 by the architect Peter Behrens. These are monumental eight-story buildings in the style of Classical Modernism, erected using a reinforced concrete frame. Partially destroyed during the Second World War, the buildings were rebuilt in the 1950s. The headquarters of the Berliner Sparkasse is located in Alexanderhaus after the complete reconstruction in 1998, and Berolinahaus is used as it was initially conceived - on the ground floors there are shops, and on the upper floors - office space. Furthermore, the entrance to the metro station «Alexanderplatz» is also located in this building.

Rotes Rathaus The oldest building near the square - Rotes Rathaus [Red City Hall], built in 1861-1869 (architect Hermann Friedrich Waesemann). The building has four floors and the attached tower with a height of 94. On the front facade of the town hall is a terracotta frieze «Chronic of History,» where is shown the history of Berlin from the 12th century until 1871. In front of the main entrance, there are two bronze statues of the construction helpers, created in 1958 by Fritz Cremer - a symbol of Berlin, which was restored by its inhabitants.

Fig. 52. Rotes Rathaus from birds’-eye view. Berlin. Photo credit: Piwowarski (2007)

In the following subchapter, it will be discussed the new reconstruction of Alexanderplatz which began in the 1990s, after the reunification of the FRG and the GDR, where one of the results that followed was the restitution of the tramlines in 1998.

5.4. Development after the reunification With the fall of the wall, the political and economic situation in the city divided by the Cold War took on a new «color.» Berlin had to adapt to the new role of the capital, and also to become an essential place in the new pan-European situation. While the authorities were looking for ways to solve the city’s domestic problems, which had a social and technical nature, related to the reunification of the two autonomous halves of the city, myriad of investors, attracted by the tax concessions of the then federal government, filled the city (Sturm, 2000). In 1992, the first proposals for the new development of Alexanderplatz appeared. After that, seven investors purchased critical real estate around the square for the further redevelopment. Soon, the Senate proclaimed a tender for the construction of Alexanderplatz, where investors had specific requests: the area has to be built up with office and commercial premises (Sturm, 2000). As Sturm (2000) writes, at the competition for the master plan Alexanderplatz in 1993, two opposing views on urban planning could be seen. The concept of the winning project by Hans Kollhoff and Helga Timmermann was the plaza surrounded by thirteen 150-meter towers, which were located on square pedestals. Thus, the new design formed the rectangular grid morphology of the area. However, to implement this impressive project, it would be necessary to eradicate the existing «socialist» city. The massive verticality of the nearby skyscrapers created a solid barrier around the square, which was open only to the west side. According to Sturm (2000), this configuration was a kind of gesture that should have been felt by the residents of the city living behind it, as new isolation from the «actual» city. The second place in the competition was awarded to the project of Daniel Libeskind and Bernd Faskel, adding «chaos» to the «Eastern modernity» (Ballhausen, 2014) of the square with the aid of various axes and heights. This project at that time was perceived fragmentedly in comparison with the unified Kollhoff development plan. However, for this moment, «such a heterogeneous picture can become a reality» (Ballhausen, 2014). The matter is that the plan for the implementation of this project was postponed several times and revised in 1994 and 2014 (Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015).

Reasons for deferred implementation

The implementation of the master plan was postponed, for some reason8:

• •

The economic situation in the city has negatively changed;

•

Some old buildings have been carefully renovated and well rented out;

•

The project was met with criticism, mainly from the residents of the eastern part of the city, as this redevelopment was perceived as an attack on the heart of East Berlin. Residents strongly protested against the demolition of existing buildings and erection of highrise buildings;

• •

The demand for real estate decreased after 2000;

•

Private investment was mainly carried out on vacant land in the form of new construction and on existing buildings that underwent further modernization.

Some investors refused to build what was once proposed by architect Hans Kollhoff;

Demolition of existing buildings was not a necessary step in the implementation of the new Master Plan;

Master Plan Overview

The plans for the reorganization of Alexanderplatz were revised in 2014 for the following reasons9:

•

lengthy controversial discussions about Alexanderplatz and the high-rise buildings planned there;

•

Increased interest in multi-stage planning due to changes in the real estate market situation;

•

The architecture of the post-war period was reevaluated, and the significance of buildings and structures located within the area was discussed;

•

The 1993 master plan could not be implemented because the owners had already modernized their buildings.

8 9

Based on the literature, proposed by (Sturm, 2000; Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015); Based on literature, proposed by (Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015).

The buildings erected after the reunification of Germany Galeria Kaufhof Galeria Kaufhof is the main trading house of the square, designed by Josef Paul Kleihues and his son in 2004. Once in its place was the famous department store Hertie; however, it was extensively damaged during the war. Therefore in 1967-1970 the new department store «Centrum» was built, with a distinctive honeycombcells facade. However, after the reunification of Berlin, on a wave of reconstruction and disposal of the socialist time reminders, it was decided to redesign the department store, also in order to increase its trading area by almost two times (Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015; Stadtentwicklung Berlin, n.d.-b).

Shopping center «Die Mitte» or «Saturn»

Fig. 53. Galeria Kaufhof from the TV-tower. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo Credit: Guenther (2015).

The five-story shopping center «Saturn» was completed by 2009. It is noteworthy that this building is the square base for one of the towers, proposed by the 1993 Alexanderplatz redevelopment plan. The electronics store Saturn, a pharmacy, clothing stores and offices are located in this building. The project architect is Rhode Kellermann Wawrowsky, Büro RKW (Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015).

Shopping center «Alexa» «Alexa» is a pink five-story building, one of the biggest shopping center in Berlin. In contrast to the built environment which has a strict geometrical shape, this building has a curved form, reminiscent of a banana. The building was built in 2007 by the architect José Manuel Quintela da Fonseca and Ortner & Ortner Baukunst architectural buro. However, even before it was constructed, the building was criticized because of its design. Due to the contentious color and almost complete absence of windows, the building was nicknamed «Rosaroter Bunker» [Pink bunker] and «Pharaonengrab» [Pharaoh’s grave]. It was the intention that the exterior of the shopping center refers to the Art Deco style, and such a radical color was chosen deliberately - in theory, the building should differ from its surroundings. Alexa was conceived as part of the 1999 Planwerks Innenstadt project for the redesign of Alexanderplatz and its environs (Ballhausen, 2007). As well as Saturn it is a «base» for another high-rise tower, the project of Hans Kolhoff and Helga Timmermann (Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015).

Fig. 54. Shopping center «Die Mitte». Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Photo Credit: Guenther (2015).

Fig. 55. Shopping center «Alexa» near Alexanderplatz, Photo Credit: Imago (n.d.).

Towers awaiting construction in the near future Tower building “Hines”

Fig. 56. Proposed tower building «Hines» by architect F. Gehry. Source: Skyscraper city (n.d.)

The building of the shopping center Saturn, as it was already explained before, is the base for the subsequent construction of a high-rise tower. However, the building was built without the center of the proposed high-rise building. Meanwhile, inspired by the request of the investor about the moving the tower to the northern part of the already constructed shopping center, the Senate administration initiated a procedure for changing the initial plan. A competition for high-rise construction was announced in 2013, the winner of which was the architectural firm Gehry Partners, LLP. The completion of the building construction was planned for 2019, however, at the moment the construction is postponed for the following reason. Under the proposed construction site, there is a subway tunnel that crosses the tunnel of the military bunker. Therefore, it is necessary to study the condition and stability of the concrete structure, as well as to identify risks and clarify the liability in case of insurance (Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015, Crone, 2017).

Alexander tower (Capital tower)

Fig. 57. Proposed Alexander tower (Capital tower). Grafik: Bewocon (n.d.)

At the moment, Capital tower is the only one of the originally planned thirteen towers, which got a green light for the construction. Completion of the work was planned by 2019, however, in mid-2018 the work on the construction site has not started yet. After the realization of the work, the 150-meter Alexander Tower will be the tallest building in Berlin, overtaking the nearby Park Inn hotel. The building is designed by Ortner & Ortner Baukunst and will have 35 floors, including a foyer, the first few floors will be rented out for offices, movie theater, and a gym, and house residential apartments will be located on the last 29 floors. The building will be adjacent to the pink shopping complex «Alexa». The residential tower consists of 4 cubic volumes, and the external appearance of the building, in contrast to the neighboring «Alexa», echoes the environment with its color, structural grid and strict geometric lines (Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015, Crone, 2017).

The results of development:

• • •

The tram line returned to the square in 1998;

•

Some buildings have been restored: Alexanderhaus, Berolinahaus, Haus des Lehrers and even the Park Inn Hotel, which makes the initial idea of demolishing this building unreasonable for the near future;

•

Two towers are awaiting the beginning of construction: Capital Tower and Tower building Hines;

•

Of the original thirteen towers planned by Kollhoff in 1993, only ten, or even less, will be built. At the moment, this issue is still being discussed;

• •

The coverage of the square was changed (see pictures);

Three new buildings were built: Saturn, Alexa, Galeria Kaufhof; Three buildings of the GDR era were listed as architectural monuments: Haus des Lehrers, Elektroindustrie, Haus des Reisens;

With the advent of Saturn, the square acquired more closed outlines. The findings are based on literature (Sturm, 2000; Ballhausen, 2014; Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm, 2015, Kip, Young & Drummond, 2015; Crone, 2017; Stadtentwicklung Berlin, n.d.-b).

5.5. Comparison of the functional use of Alexanderplatz during GDR and now

Comparison of the functional use of buildings forming the Alexanderplatz boundaries (during GDR and now) Spatial organization of Alexanderplatz

Fig .58. Spatial organization. Alexanderplatz during GDR 1989. Map by author Data retrieved from: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

Fig. 59. Spatial organization. Alexanderplatz now 2018. Map by author. Data retrieved from: Stadtentwicklung (n.d.)

For the creation of maps, data was obtained from the author’s observation on the field and also retrieved from the following sources (Stadtentwicklung Berlin, 2013; Emporis, n.d., Google Maps, 2018). As it can be seen from the comparison of the spatial organization of Alexanderplatz given above since the GDR times the area of the square has almost halved. Furthermore, it can be noted, that the surrounded development became denser and reduced the width of the roads.

Use of space

Fig. 60. Use of space. Alexanderplatz during GDR 1989. Map by author. Data retrieved from: Stadtentwicklung (2013) Emporis, (n.d.), Google Maps, (2018)

Fig. 61. Use of space. Alexanderplatz now 2018. Map by author (source). Data retrieved from: Stadtentwicklung (2013) Emporis, (n.d.), Google Maps, (2018)

Comparison of the analysis of the use of space shows that during the GDR Alexanderplatz and its environs consisted mainly of commercial buildings and government institutions. The latter is explained by the fact that the square was the heart of East Berlin, where, as already described in the chapter «Literature Review», one of the main aims of public space was the representation of power. Thus, on Alexanderplatz 1989 it can be observed the features of the socialist area described in the subchapter «Socialist public spaces», i.e., expanse and openness of the square, which was twice bigger than the present one. Further, there are socialist-futuristic monuments: the world clock and fountain symbolizing the friendship of peoples and also the TV-tower - the highest city landmark. As can be seen from the comparison, predominantly commercial organizations have concentrated around the square by 2018: shopping centers, shops, cafes, and restaurants. The second significant point is that the buildings of state institutions were transformed mainly into offices, as well as into hotels. Since 1998, the pedestrian zone of the square is crossed by tram lines, referring to the pre-war Alexanderplatz, as a transport hub. The number of residential buildings almost has not changed, but with the appearance of towers in the future, an increase in residential and office space in the vicinity of Alexanderplatz is expected. The fate of the former House of Statistics is also the question of the further development, but at the moment the building is abandoned. Thus, it can be concluded that the area becomes more commercially oriented than it was at the time of the GDR, where an increased concentration of state institutions was observed.

SURVEY RESULTS 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 6.8.

Portrait of responders The primary purpose of the space use Evaluating public space Current needs Attitude towards the preservation and development Perception of the socialist identity of the place Perception of the place by different groups of respondents Indicators for the future development

89 89 91 97 100 100 102 105

Fig. 62. Public GPS Traces in Berlin and Alexanderpatz. Source: OpenStreetMap contributors (2018).

6. Survey results 6.1. Portrait of responders Based on the analysis, a portrait of the respondent was drawn. Surprisingly, only 22.2% of respondents are visitors from other countries, exactly the same number of respondents (38.9%) are residents of Berlin and residents of other parts of Germany. Of all the Berlin residents surveyed (21 people), nine people have ever lived on the territory of West Berlin, and twelve in the territory of East Berlin. During the analysis of the inhabitants of other countries, it was revealed that only onefourth of respondents live in the country that was a part of the Soviets. Of the 54 respondents, the biggest age group was the young people, aged 26-35 (20 people), which is 37% of the total number of respondents. Only ten people over the age of 46 agreed to take part in the survey. 63% of respondents are more or less familiar with the history of Alexanderplatz.

6.2. The primary purpose of the space use The results of the survey which determined what is the primary purpose for the using this space In the course of the research, a survey was conducted on Alexanderplatz. One of the questions was aimed to find out from respondents their primary reason for using and attending this square. While answering this question, the respondent could cross out several variants or add his answer to a free field.

Fig.63. Use of space. Results from the conducted survey. Source: Google Forms (2018)

According to the results, it was revealed that the vast majority of users (namely 48.1% or 26 interviewees from 54 respondents) use the square as a transit area. Just under this, with the result of 44.4%, the use of public space as a «recreation area» took the second place in the survey. After that, many users chose the option «meeting place» (37%), and exactly one-third of respondents came to the square to see the landmarks («sightseeing area» - 33.3%). With almost the same percentage the answer «place to wait for other reasons» took the following place (31.5%). The equal number of people (8%) are using the space of Alexanderplatz for shopping or waiting for a train. Only a small number of respondents (4%) indicated «work» as the purpose of their location on the square, which is the smallest of the indicators. Since according to the results of the survey, the square is mainly used as a «transit area», in the following part the maps, which indicate the flow of users’ movement in the square and GPS tracks will be shown. According to the (Frech, Schläger, Bönsch, 2010) analysis, in the Fig.№64 it can be seen that a significant part of users of this public space uses the south-western «entrance», i.e., use the passage between Berolinahaus and Alexanderhouse, where the entrance to the metro station «Alexanderplatz» is located. Thus, it can be concluded that the space between these houses, next to the «world clock», is the most dynamic and full. Movement of people in the central part of the square, closer to the fountain and the trading house Galeria Kaufhof is more dispersed and evenly distributed. It can also be noticed that some people come from the Alexanderplatz railway station and the Television tower, however, on the other side of the square, in the north-east of the increased traffic is practically not observed. Thus, with further redevelopment, intensive attention should be paid to areas of intensive traffic, distributing the flow of movement. By the analysis of GPS tracks within a radius of two kilometers from the area, it can be pointed out that the area of Alexanderplatz is the busiest section. It is also apparent from this map that outside the radius of two kilometers, the site is still one of the most visited in the city center. This is explained by the facts that the main transport arteries of the city cross the square, which makes Alexanderplatz a vital transport hub, and additionally, it is one of the essential sights of the city.

Fig. 64. Flows of movement in the inner area of the Alexanderpatz. Authors: Frech, Schläger, Bönsch (2010).

6.3. Evaluating public space Evaluation of the selected square in the context of Good Public Space theory As already mentioned in the previous parts, the method of analysis was taken from Mehta (2013). In the following Table №1, the list of all the variables divided into categories will be presented, as well as the index for recalculating the scoring, and the criteria for evaluation and measurement, followed by the Table №2, which indicates the results of this part of the survey. Table №1. Public space index: variables, weighting, scoring and measuring criteria

Table â&#x201E;&#x2013;1 (Continued)

Table â&#x201E;&#x2013;1. (Continued)

EVALUATING PUBLIC SPACE Inclusiveness 71

Pleasurability

Meaningful Activities 60

Safety

Comfort

Fig. №65. A visual display of the results of the public space index for Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

The empirical analysis of evaluation of the square revealed that Alexanderplatz in all five categories is generally satisfactory. Each of the five categories scored above average, without a significant difference between the categories. However, it can be noted that the area is positively inclusive. The category «Comfort» scored the lowest value (54 points out of 100), followed by the category «Meaningful Activities,» with a difference only of 1 point. The latter category identifies that the area does not provide a full variety of activities. Based on the analysis of the answers for each of the variables presented in Table №1 in more detail, it can be concluded with some findings. Inclusiveness Although the public space is satisfactory-positively inclusive in terms of general indicators, it can be noted that, compared to the highlighted variety in case of gender (4.42), age (4.25) and race - nationality (3.67), a variable that identifies the presence of people of different classes with a value of 2.83 out of the possible 5, is one of the laggards. Meaningful Activities Based on the results given in Table №2, with the same lowest score of 2 points out of 5, the space of Alexanderplatz is estimated as not flexible enough to suit users’ needs, and there is a lack of a variety of businesses and other uses on the edges of the square. Comfort The assessment of the comfort of space revealed a significant shortage of shelter from the sun (1.67 out of 5), as well as a lack of sitting places (1.97 points out of 5). Safety In total, the results of a sense of safety in the area show an averagesatisfactory result. However, the results classified by different gender groups differ from the general results presented in Table №2. For example, the women gave an estimate of the sense of safety during the night as 2.36 out of 5, which is borderline with a negative result (the limits of the negative result from 1 to 2.33

Table â&#x201E;&#x2013;2 Results of the public space index for Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

points), however, on the same issue, with a score of 2.9 points, men consider the safety during the night satisfactory. Furthermore, according to Polizeipräsidium Berlin (2016), Alexanderplatz ranks first in the number of crimes in Berlin. Pleasurability Despite the high score of the variable «Presence of memorable architectural or landscape features (imageability)» (4.08 out of 5), it can be seen from the Table №2 that, firstly, there is no diversity of architectural forms (1.92 out of 5), and secondly, with the same value of 2.08 points, the variables «A density of elements in space providing sensory complexity» and «Variety of elements in space providing sensory complexity» show a negative result.

How it was already mentioned in the methodology part the estimation of users’ perception on the changes in former socialist public spaces in terms of the socialist identity preservation and current needs will be based on a comparison of responses divided into three categories: Current use; attitude towards the preservation and development; perception of the socialist identity of the place.

6.4. Current needs As was already presented a little earlier, according to the results of the survey, Alexanderplatz is used mainly as a transit zone. However, based on the results presented on the Fig.№63, there are five categories of use of space that have gained the highest value. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Transit area (48,1%) Recreational area (44.4%) Meeting area (37%) Sightseeing area (33.3%) The waiting area for another reason (31.5%)

Nevertheless, the initially embedded functions to the public space may differ from the users’ needs. From the analysis given above - the comparison of the use of space during the GDR and now, which is based on the highlighting the functions of buildings, which form the borders of Alexanderplatz, it was concluded that the area is mostly surrounded by commercial buildings: shopping centers, shops, and offices. However, surprisingly, it is these indicators of the space use (working and shopping) rank last on the Fig.№63. This finding may indicate that people from offices and shops do not use Alexanderplatz as a recreational zone, considering this public space not suitable for this purpose. Nonetheless, the real reasons for this may be entirely different from previous guesses, and without taking interviews from people visiting Alexanderplatz for the purpose of working or shopping, it is not possible to draw conclusions. However, based on the answers received, it is still possible to analyze how much the people participating in the survey evaluate the provided forms of use.

Table №3. Results of the Use of the Space for Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

First, from the third question presented in Table №3, it can be concluded that for the most part, the respondents seldom use this area, namely, slightly more often than once a year. Based on the answers to the second question the same table, with an average score of 3.30 points out of 5, users satisfactorily estimate the presented options of using the area. The same neutral response (3.42 points), approaching the positive scale, shows that the area design is more or less suitable for the presented uses; however, it is not a positive example. Thus, as a result, it is possible to give a satisfactory evaluation of the Alexanderplatz applications presented, and the suitability of the area design for the types of use presented. However, in order to understand what kind of activity is not enough presented in the square, the corresponding question was asked. In the chart below (Fig.№66), the results of this survey can be observed.

Walking Sitting Drinking Eating Doing sport Working Biking Watching people Reading Temporary activities Other

Fig. №66. The results of the survey which indicate preferable activities on Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

More than two-thirds of respondents (70.4%) chose «sitting» as the main activity that they would prefer to see on the square. Followed by activities «drink» and «Temporary activities» - (a skating rink in winter months, a weekly market, a fair, a festival, a concert) which have the same result of 64.5%. With a little less result, thirty-one out of fifty-four respondents chose «eating» as the activity they would like to have on the square. Only one person answered that he would like to work in the square. Less than half of respondents would prefer to walk, read and look at people in the square. Only one-sixth of respondents would like to see the square as a place for sports (Doing sport 18.5%, Biking 16.7%). Thus, it can be concluded that most would like to see Alexanderplatz, mainly as a place for relaxing, sitting, with the opportunity to visit temporary fairs, festivals, etcetera, have opportunity to relax in a restaurant or bar, watching people on the square, or perhaps reading a book.

The next graph (Fig.№67) identifies which attributes are missing on the square.

Fig. №67. The results of the survey which indicate attributes of Alexanderplatz that are missing or inadequate to the needs of users.

Only one respondent from fifty-four people is satisfied with the attributes provided by the square. More than a third of users underlined that the area lacks sitting places and greenery (72.2% and 70.4% respectively). Furthermore, slightly less than half of the respondents (42.6%) noted that the area does not have enough restaurants and cafes. Surprisingly, almost a third (29.6%) answered that the square lacks air and space. On the one hand, the areas created in socialist time have a relatively open and spacious layout, capable of hosting demonstrators. On the other hand, after the reunification of Germany, the perimeter of the area borders has almost halved. Furthermore, from the field observation by the author, which took place in the summer, the square is almost always full of people: tourists, passers-by, and just vacationers. One of the reasons for that is that the square is an important transport hub, and also one of the central sightseeing place of the city. However, due to the fact that the area is open and there are no design elements, which divide it into small separate zones, the whole space is readily observable, where significant flows of people coming and leaving the area are noticeable. Besides, as it was noted there is a need for places to sit. Therefore, mostly, users are congregating in two locations: they sit on the steps or the fountain. Thus, possible reasons for a feeling of lack of air and space were identified:

• •

A large number of people, who use the square;

•

Congestion of sitting people in one place.

Open space is easily observed, which might affect on the feeling of the users’ privacy and, therefore, the feeling of lacking space;

Furthermore, three elderly respondents from Ireland indicated a lack of shelters from the sun in the answer «Other».

6.5. Attitude towards the preservation and development

From the previous parts it was found out that in general, the provided opportunities for using the area are satisfactory, but fall short to a positive result. It was also noted which attributes and activities are not enough in the square. However, any change entails the transformation or destruction of the past order. Thus, it was decided to observe how users relate to the issues of the preservation and to reflect the results in the following Tables â&#x201E;&#x2013; 4, 5, 6.

Table â&#x201E;&#x2013;4. Attitude towards the preservation.

The majority of respondents reacted positively to the fact that the place reminds them of the past, but with only 3.76 points out of a possible 5, this answer is borderline with a neutral point of view. Likewise, at the border with the neutral result, with a margin of one-hundredths in favor of a positive result, the respondents agreed with the statement that it is still important to preserve the past, even if it is ambiguous. A more unequivocal answer was given to the statement about the transformation of the city under new social and political tendencies, where the majority took a neutral position (3.13 points).

6.6. Perception of the socialist identity of the place

Table â&#x201E;&#x2013;5. Perception of the socialist identity of the place.

100

From the table presented, it can be noted that in large part, even though on the border with a neutral option, users do not like the built environment of the square. However, it can not be accurately said that this is the influence of buildings erected in socialist time because the area was partly redeveloped after reunification several times. Furthermore, two buildings are of pre-war origin (Berolinhaus and Alexanderhouse), and at least another two were built after the events of 1990 (Die Mitte and Galeria Kaufhof). However, from the survey answer, presented on the following chart (Fig.№68), where it was asked with which period users associate Alexanderplatz, it can be concluded that for the majority (44.4%) the area is reminded of socialist time.

Fig №68. The results of the survey which indicate with what period users associate Alexanderplatz.

However, based on a compiled Graph (Fig.№69) based on the correlation of answers between using space and associating it with a particular epoch, it can be seen that people using the Alexanderplatz space as a recreational, working and sightseeing area, to a greater extent than others, identify this place with a socialist era.

Fig №69. Correlation between use of space and the users’ perception of the space which they relate to a certain epoch.

Contradictory results were obtained for the statement «I like the feeling of big open space here». On the one hand, with a value of 3.57 points, the results are neutral but tend closer to the positive scale. On the other hand, about a third of respondents in another question indicated a lack of air and space on the square. In conclusion, most respondents disagree with the statement that in case they disagree with the political system of the GDR, this could negatively affect their stay on the square. However, it was interesting to analyze this issue by

101

forming groups out of all the respondents, differing from each other, at least, by the place of residence. This procedure will be performed in the following part of the analysis. Ending this part of the analysis by having a look at the Table №6, which concludes that the respondents are neutral about the possible changes in the Alexanderplatz, but still the answer of 3.56 points out of 5 possible is borderline, showing that users lean towards possible transformations more, rather than to the direction of the preservation.

Table №6. Attitude towards changes on the Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

6.7. Perception of the place by different groups of

respondents

The next section of the study concerns the assessment of the attitude of the Berliners, who answered that they know the history of Alexanderplatz. It was taken that only those respondents who answered the question about knowing the history of Alexanderplatz from 3 to 5 points (3 - More or less; 4 - I know something; 5 - Well informed) were selected for this category. However, for clarity of the result, it was decided to compare the responses with the three other groups of respondents. Thus, the following four groups of respondents participate in the comparison. • Group 1 - Berliners who know the history of the square;

•

Group 2 - residents of Germany (not including Berlin), who know the history of the square;

•

Group 3 - residents of Germany (including Berlin) who do not know the history of the square;

•

Group 4 - all other respondents from other countries.

These groups were formed in view of the fact that the attitude to the place is related to how a person is close to the place and how often he uses it. Furthermore, as political issues might influence the perception towards the place, it was decided to filter respondents according to their awareness of Alexanderplatz history. Therefore, according to the priority, the assessment of the answers of the inhabitants of Berlin, who know the history of the square, comes to the forefront. According to this logic, in case of identification with the area, the inhabitants of Berlin should have the most specific results, then the Germans and only then respondents from other countries. For the sake of clarity of results, the following Table №7 was created, and the overall results of all respondents can be observed in the table presented in the Appendix.

102

stions estions

Table №7. Comparison of the relation towards connectivity to Alexanderplatz among different categories of users

Questions Questions

I think this place is an important spot in the city All All(54 (54resp.) resp.)

hink nk this thisplace place n anspot spotinin ecity city

2 I feel something 1 1 I think I think this this place place special about is is anan spot spot in in this place thethe city city

el eelsomething something cial ecialabout about splace place

3 I feel connected 2 2 I feel I feel something something to the place special special about about this this place place

el eelconnected connected he theplace place

4 I am proud 3 3 I feel I feel connected connected of this place to to thethe place place

mmproud proud his thisplace place

sisplace placeisis active ractivetotome me asing easingoror ealing pealingtotomy my ses/feelings) nses/feelings)

Berliners who know history of Alexanderplanz (17 resp.)

Questions

Other Germans who know history of Alexanderplanz (10 resp.)

Germans and Berl. who do not know history of Alexanderplanz (15 resp.)

Respondents from other countries (11 resp.)

Germans Germanswho whoknows knowshistory history Germans Germans who Berliners Berliners knows knows who history who history knows knowshistory history Berliners Berliners who who knows knows history history 4.47 who 3.90 4.50countries AllAll (54(54 resp.) resp.) Other Othercountries countries(11 (11resp.) resp.) Other Other countries (11(11 resp.) resp.) ofofAlexanderplanz Alexanderplanz(27 (27resp.) resp.) ofof Alexanderplanz Alexanderplanz ofofAlexanderplanz Alexanderplanz (27(27 resp.) resp.) (17 (17resp.) resp.) ofof Alexanderplanz Alexanderplanz (17(17 resp.) resp.)

3.82 3.96 3.96 4.30 4.30

3.96 3.96

3.00 4.47 4.47

4.47 4.47

3.13 4.18 4.18

4.18 4.18

3.31 3.31

3.18 3.51 3.51

3.51 3.51

2.20 3.82 3.82

3.82 3.82

2.33 3.10 3.10

3.10 3.10

2.70 2.70

2.71 2.81 2.81

2.81 2.81

2.30 3.18 3.18

3.18 3.18

2.53 2.91 2.91

2.91 2.91

2.61 2.61

3.35 2.56 2.56

2.56 2.56

3.30 2.71 2.71

2.71 2.71

2.93 2.82 2.82

2.82 2.82

5 5 This This place place is is attractive attractive to6to meme Aggregate score (pleasing (pleasing or or 3.16 3.16 appealing appealing to to mymy senses/feelings) senses/feelings)

3.16 3.16

3.51 3.33 3.33

3.33 3.33

2.94 3.35 3.35

3.35 3.35

3.08 3.10 3.10

3.10 3.10

5 This place is 4 4 I am I am proud proud attractive to me of of this this place place (pleasing or appealing to my senses/feelings)

4,30 4,30

4.30 4.30 4,30 4,30

3.31 3.31

Responses, highlighted with Responses, Responses,highlighted highlightedwith with Responses, highlighted with thethe gray color, show which the thegray graycolor, color,show showwhich which gray color, show which of of thethe groups of of respondents ofofthe thegroups groupsofofrespondents respondents groups respondents thethe most positive gave gavethe themost mostpositive positive gave gave most positive response from allall response responsefrom fromallall response from

3.35 3.35

Responses, the Responses, encased within Responses, encased within thethe Responses,encased encasedwithin within the dotted dotted lines, identify which lines, identify which dottedlines, lines,identify identifywhich whichdotted 3.35 3.35 ofofthe of groups respondents of of thethe groups of of respondents thegroups groups ofrespondents respondents gave gave most negative thethe most negative gavethe themost mostnegative negative gave response response from response from allall responsefrom fromallall

It is clearly visible from the Table №7., that inhabitants of Berlin, who know a history of the area gave the highest score almost for all(11the statements. Germans who knows history Berliners who knows history Germans whoknows knowshistory history Berliners who knows history Germans who Berliners who knows history Germans who knows history Berliners who knows history Questions estions stions Questions resp.) Other countries resp.) All(54 (54resp.) resp.) Othercountries countries(11 resp.) All Other resp.) AllAll (54(54 resp.) Other countries (11(11 resp.) Alexanderplanz resp.) (17 Alexanderplanz resp.) Alexanderplanz(27 (27resp.) resp.) Alexanderplanz (17resp.) resp.) ofofAlexanderplanz ofofAlexanderplanz ofof Alexanderplanz (27(27 resp.) ofof Alexanderplanz (17(17 resp.) Aggregate indicators of all question show that all groups are neutral in perceiving the area, but the graph shows that in the case of the first group, the slider that I like that this place thatthis thisplace place 1 1 I like ekethat that this place reminds past minds meofofpast past inds me reminds meme of of past identifies the answer almost reached the border with the positive section of the 3.76 3.82 3.73 2.00 3.76 3.82 3.73 2.00 3.76 3.82 3.73 2.00 3.76 3.82 3.73 2.00 graph. Furthermore, it can be seen that the Germans from the second group, who I do agree withare familiar with the history, evaluated almost all the statements with a lower onot notagree agreewith with 2 2 I do notnot agree with political system epolitical politicalsystem system thethe political system to other groups. Moreover,1.74 it was the only group that answered 3.00 GDR that's why score compared GDRthat's that'swhy why GDR of of GDR that's why 2.02 1.74 1.71 3.00 2.02 1.74 1.71 3.00 2.02 1.74 1.71 3.00 2.02 1.71 I don't like spend on'tlike liketotospend spend n't I don't like to to spend the question of a sense of pride towards the place negatively. Surprisingly at first time here me here e here time here I think city has glance, respondents from other countries answered most positively to the same hink thecity cityhas has 3 3 I think nk the thethe city has redesigned beredesigned redesigned e to to bebe redesigned regarding new social gardingnew newsocial social arding regarding new social statement, value of 2.82 points. However, most likely3.45 this is due 3.45 3.13 3.04 3.23 3.45 3.13with an average 3.04 3.23 3.45 3.13 3.04 3.23 3.13 3.04 3.23 and political tendencies dpolitical politicaltendencies tendencies and political tendencies to the fact that people who do not have a direct relationship to the place, on the I feel it is importantquestion of pride, chose a neutral answer corresponding to the value of 3. From eelit itisisimportant important 4 4 I feel el it is important prevent past from preventpast pastfrom from revent to to prevent past from disappearing appearing ppearing disappearing the Table3.67 №7. it can be3.67 noted that all groups consider Alexanderplatz an 3.67 3.41 3.35 4.10 3.67 3.41 3.35 4.10essential 3.41 3.35 4.10 3.41 3.35 4.10 (even if the past venif ifthe thepast past en (even if the past ambiguous) ambiguous) mbiguous) is is ambiguous) place in the city. However, only the Berliners, those who know history, consider this place to be something special. The next curious finding was that the most marked answer about the feeling of attachment towards the place, however with negative indicators, belongs to the inhabitants of Germany from the second group, followed by the Group 3 - the Germans, who do not know the history of Alexanderplatz, with borderline scores of 2.33 points. However, in the context of this thesis, taking into account the socialist past of Alexanderplatz, it was interesting to compare the previous results with the attitude towards the GDR past of the square, alongside the questions about the preservation and redevelopment. The following Table №8 shows the results of this comparison among the same groups of respondents.

103

4.18

3.10

2.91

2.82

3.10

3.22

Questions Questions

stions estions

Aggregate score

el eelsomething something cial ecialabout about splace place

1 I like that this place 2 2 I feel something reminds me of past I feel something special about special about this place this place

sisplace placeisis active ractivetotome me asing easingoror ealing pealingtotomy my ses/feelings) nses/feelings)

3.08

3.22

Table №8. Comparison of the attitude towards issues of preservation, redevelopment and the history of the GDR among different categories of users. 1 1 I think this place I think this place is is anan spot in in spot thethe city Questions city

mmproud proud his thisplace place

2.94

Germans who knows history Berliners who knows history Germans Germans who whoknows knowshistory history Germans who Berliners Berliners knows who who history knows knowshistory history Berliners who knows history AllAll (54 resp.) Other countries (11(11 resp.) (54 resp.) Other Other countries countries (11 (11resp.) resp.) Other countries resp.) ofof Alexanderplanz (27(27 resp.) ofof Alexanderplanz (17 resp.) ofofAlexanderplanz Alexanderplanz(27 (27resp.) resp.) Alexanderplanz ofofAlexanderplanz Alexanderplanz resp.) (17 (17resp.) resp.) Alexanderplanz (17 resp.)

All All(54 (54resp.) resp.)

hink nk this thisplace place n anspot spotinin ecity city

el eelconnected connected he theplace place

3.51

4,30 4,30

3.31 3.31

2.70 2.70

2.81 2.81

3.51 3.51

4.00

3.82 3.82

3.10 3.10

3.18 3.18

2.91 2.91

2.71 2.71

2.82 2.82

3.35 3.35

3.10 3.10

Responses, encased within thethe Responses, the Responses, encased within Responses,encased encasedwithin within the lines, identify which dotted identify dotted lines, identify which dottedlines, lines, identifywhich whichdotted 3.35 of of thethe groups of of respondents 3.35 ofofthe groups respondents thegroups groupsof ofrespondents respondents thethe most negative gave gave most negative gavethe themost mostnegative negative gave response from allall response response from responsefrom fromallall

3.10 3.10

3.82 3.82

2.61 2.61

3.16 3.16

3.33 3.33

Responses, highlighted with Responses, Responses,highlighted highlightedwith with Responses, highlighted with thethe gray color, show which the thegray graycolor, color,show showwhich which gray color, show which of the groups of respondents ofofthe thegroups groupsofofrespondents respondents of the groups of respondents thethe most positive gave gavethe themost mostpositive positive gave gave most positive response from allall response responsefrom fromallall response from

3.35 3.35

All(54 (54resp.) resp.) All

3.10 3.10

2.00

it is important I feel it is important eelit itisisimportant important 4 4 I feel el to to prevent past from prevent past from preventpast pastfrom from revent disappearing disappearing appearing ppearing (even if the past (even if the past venif ifthe thepast past en is is ambiguous) ambiguous) ambiguous) mbiguous)

3.18 3.18

1.87

2.70

2.56 2.56

2.71 2.71

3.10

3.50

3.33 3.33

3.35 3.35

3.00

2.91 2.91

3.45

2.82 2.82

3.73

4.10

Germans who knows history Berliners who knows history Germans who knows history Berliners who knows history Germans whoknows knowshistory history Berliners who knowshistory history Germans who Berliners who knows AllAll (54 resp.) Other countries (11(11 resp.) (54 resp.) Other countries resp.) Other countries (11resp.) resp.) Other countries (11 ofof Alexanderplanz (27(27 resp.) ofof Alexanderplanz (17 resp.) Alexanderplanz resp.) (17 Alexanderplanz (17 resp.) Alexanderplanz(27 (27resp.) resp.) Alexanderplanz (17resp.) resp.) ofofAlexanderplanz ofofAlexanderplanz

3.76 3.76

I think thethe city has I think city has to to bebe redesigned redesigned regarding new social regarding new social and political tendencies and political tendencies

2.56 2.56

3.35

that this place I like that this place thatthis thisplace place 1 1 I like ekethat reminds meme of of past reminds past minds meofofpast past inds me

notnot agree with I do agree with onot notagree agreewith with 2 2 I do thethe political system political system epolitical politicalsystem system of GDR that's why of GDR that's why GDRthat's that'swhy why GDR I don't like to to spend I don't like spend on'tlike liketotospend spend n't time here time here me here e here

1.80

2.81 2.81

3.23

2.61 2.61 4 I feel it is important to prevent past from 5 5 This place is is This place disappearing attractive to to meme attractive (even if the past (pleasing or or is ambiguous) (pleasing appealing to to mymy appealing senses/feelings) senses/feelings)

hink thecity cityhas has 3 3 nk the beredesigned redesigned e gardingnew newsocial social arding dpolitical politicaltendencies tendencies

3.51 3.51

1.71

3 I think the city has to be redesigned 4 4 I am proud I am proud regarding new social of of this place this place and political tendencies

Questions Questions

3.73

Respondents from 4.18 other countries (11 resp.) 4.18

I do not agree with

the political system 3 3 I feel connected I feel connected of GDR that's why to to thethe place place I don't like to spend time here

estions stions

Berliners who know history Other Germans who know history Germans and Berl. who do not know 3.96 4.47 of Alexanderplanz (17 resp.)3.96 of Alexanderplanz (10 resp.) 4.47 4.30 4.30 4,30 4,30 3.96 4.30 4.30 3.96 4.47 history of Alexanderplanz 4.47 (15 resp.) 4.18 4.18

3.76 3.76

3.82 3.82

3.73 3.73

2.00 2.00

From the Table №8 it can be seen that the first three groups, that is, all the inhabitants of Germany, like that the place reminds them of the past (only those who agreed to the previous statement that1.71 the place is reminiscent of the past). 2.02 1.74 1.71 3.00 2.02 1.74 1.71 3.00 2.02 1.74 1.71 3.00 2.02 1.74 3.00 Of all of these, with the same result in 4 points, the second and third group of respondents are singled out. However, the response of the Berliners, who know the 3.13 3.45 history of the square, is3.04 on the border3.04 with a3.23 neutral result.3.23 Oppositely, residents of 3.13 3.04 3.23 3.45 3.13 3.04 3.23 3.45 3.13 3.45 other countries negatively reacted to the fact that the place is reminiscent of the past. 3.67 3.41 3.35 4.10 3.67 3.41identifies 3.35 4.10 3.67 3.41 3.35 4.10 3.41 3.35 4.10 3.67 The following question clearly that the residents of Germany from all the first three groups do not have a negative impact on being on the square because of the policy of the GDR, of which Group 1 with Berliners who know the history of the square, with the results in 1.71 points, comes out on top. In turn, residents of other countries have reacted neutrally to this statement. When asked about the city’s redevelopment in line with the new political trends, all groups responded neutrally, but the second group - German residents who know the history of the square - turned out to be the most conservative in this matter, earning the least points (2.7 points out of 5). Respondents from other countries are more open to change, followed by Group 1 - the inhabitants of Berlin, who know the history of the square, with the result of 3.23 points. One can observe a curious finding that the last question: «I feel it is important to prevent past from disappearing, even if the past is ambiguous», the respondents were divided into two groups. People who do not know the history of the square responded positively to this statement, and people familiar with the history of the square maintained neutrality. However, despite this, all the answers are in a close range to an intermediate result between neutrality and positive response. Having scored 4.10 points out of 5, respondents from other countries reacted most positively to the statement about the preservation of the past.

104

6.8. Indicators for the future development In conclusion of this chapter, before proceeding to the summary and conclusion, the replies of each of the above four groups concerning the use of the Alexanderplatz space with possible changes in the future will be illustrated. Attributes that have scored more than 50% of the votes are illustrated on the collages on the following pages. These attributes, according to respondents, are presented on Alexanderplatz in insufficient quantities for successful functioning. Furthermore, the results of the attitude toward the built environment were displayed. Below the collages, it can be seen various activities in the percentages that respondents would prefer to see on Alexanderplatz. Accordingly, it can be noted that all the groups are unanimous about the increase in the number of sitting places. Most of the inhabitants of Germany (that is, all the first three groups) with a result in more than 70% of the voters believe that the area lacks landscaping, but only slightly more than half of the respondents (55%) from other countries voted the same way. All the groups, except Berliners, who are familiar with the history of the square, would like to see more restaurants and cafes. Berliners, who know the history of the square, are the least appreciate the buildings erected on the square. From the graph below with the preferable activities, it can be concluded that all groups except the Berliners, who are familiar with the history of the square, would prefer to sit on Alexanderplatz. The latter, in turn, gave to activity ÂŤdrinkÂť the most significant number of votes. The following are comparative graphs relative to the space use, changes, preservation, and development issues. According to the results of data analysis, it can be shown that the first group - the Berliners, who know the history, rather neutrally refer to the space and current uses of the Alexanderplatz. However, only this group (albeit with a common neutral result), on the question about possible changes on Alexanderplatz, leans towards a negative opinion. On the opposite side, the second group - the residents of Germany, not including Berlin, who are familiar with the history of the square, answered about the current space use most positively in comparison with the others. However, to the surprise, this group, with a response of 3.8 out of 5, votes for changes in the square. It can also be mentioned that the third and fourth group - the respondents who are least familiar with the history of the square - are mostly people from 18 to 25 years old.

105

Fig â&#x201E;&#x2013;70. Representation of the first group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz. Photo Credit: Author (2018)

77%

59%

53%

47%

35%

30%

24%

Preferable activities in %

Residents of Berlin who are familiar with the history of the square (17)

Familiarity with history Gender

2.65

Evaluation of the space condition

3.00

Suitability for the currently offered uses

3.12

Usefulness of offered activities, businesse, etc.

3.35

Importance of preventing past from disappearing

3.26

Importance of redesigning due to new tendencies

2.53

Possibilities of changing

Age

106

Fig â&#x201E;&#x2013;71. Representation of the second group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz. Photo Credit: Author (2018)

70%

50%

40%

20%

10%

Preferable activities in %

Residents of Germany (not including Berlin) who are familiar with the history of the square (10)

Familiarity with history Gender

3.40

Evaluation of the space condition

3.80

Suitability for the currently offered uses

3.60

Usefulness of offered activities, businesse, etc.

3.50

Importance of preventing past from disappearing

2.70

Importance of redesigning due to new tendencies

3.80

Possibilities of changing

107

Age

Fig â&#x201E;&#x2013;72. Representation of the third group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz. Photo Credit: Author (2018)

87%

73%

60%

47%

27%

Preferable activities in %

Residents of Germany (including Berlin) who are not familiar with the history of the square (15)

Familiarity with history Gender

3.40

Evaluation of the space condition

3.67

Suitability for the currently offered uses

3.27

Usefulness of offered activities, businesse, etc.

3.73

Importance of preventing past from disappearing

3.10

Importance of redesigning due to new tendencies

3.34

Possibilities of changing

Age

108

Fig â&#x201E;&#x2013;73. Representation of the fourth group preferences and visions about Alexanderplatz. Photo Credit: Author (2018)

82%

73%

64%

55%

46%

18%

Preferable activities in %

All other respondents from other countries (11)

Familiarity with history Gender

3.18

Evaluation of the space condition

3.45

Suitability for the currently offered uses

3.45

Usefulness of offered activities, businesse, etc.

4.09

Importance of preventing past from disappearing

3.45

Importance of redesigning due to new tendencies

3.36

Possibilities of changing

109

Age

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

7.1. 7.2. 7.3.

Summary Conclusion Further research

113 116 116

7. Summary and conclusion 7.1. Summary The present study was designed to determine the impact of changes in the political and ideological context of Reunified Germany for the relationship between identity and space use of former socialist public spaces. Namely, this study set out to determine the role of Alexanderplatz in the city space. Secondly, the thesis has been discussed the political influence on changes in the urban environment. In this regard, one of the objectives of the investigation was to assess the attitudes of different groups of users to the public space created during the GDR period by the example of Alexanderplatz in order to understand whether there is an impact on the use of space in case of disagreement with the policy of the GDR. In conclusion, it was studied how much the area created at another time with the initial function of the power representation is flexible to meet the current needs of users. On the basis of this, a study was also conducted to understand how it is possible to improve this space based on respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers. Thereby, this study showed that Alexanderplatz has a significant role in the urban space. First, it is an important transport hub. Furthermore, this role to a greater degree was returned to the square after the reunification of Germany, as a reference to pre-war time. Secondly, the area under study has a political orientation in the context of the city. Alexanderplatz was politicized since the signing of the alliance treaty between Russia and Prussia in 1805, having received his real name in honor of this event. However, this place took a political coloration notably during the GDR. It can be argued that Alexanderplatz is a kind of showcase that translates certain ideas and the state of society. Thus, if in the time of the GDR Alexanderplatz projected the ideas of socialism and power, then after the reunification, the square reflects social and political changes towards the preservation of history. Therefore, it was not surprising that right after 1990, on the wave of a holistic redevelopment of the city and disposing of everything that might remind of former socialist times and years separated by a wall, the retired heart of East Berlin got

113

on radars of redevelopment. However, it was not possible to fully implement the 1993 redevelopment plan for economic as well as social reasons. Therefore, soon, there were some people, who disagreed with the idea of a complete reshaping of the square, and over time, the redevelopment plan was partially changed in view of the fact that it was decided to leave some buildings of the square as socialist architectural heritage. However, the area of Alexanderplatz has changed. Thus, office premises and shops appeared on the former socialist state institutions sites, which fully corresponds to the capitalist ideas of the present time. However, this partially changed the function of space and the way it is used. With the advent of highrise towers on the square in the near future, the role of space will be changed to Berlin’s commercial and business center. According to the results of the survey, for users, of which 38.9% are residents of Berlin, the exactly the same number of residents from other parts of Germany and the remaining 22.2% of the inhabitants of other countries, Alexanderplatz is mainly a transit and recreational area, a meeting place and the landmark of the city. In the course of the study, it was revealed that the socialist period of Germany is estimated by residents, sociologists, politicians, economists and urban planners ambiguously. After trying to introduce a new ideology, thus forcibly ousting the previous life patterns and culture of people, this implementation touched many aspects of the inhabitants’ lives: from urban fabric to lifestyle and even way of thought. However, there is also such a phenomenon as “Ostalgia” when former residents of East Germany realize the longing, affection, and loss of a previous life routine. At the same time, the GDR period is connected with the painful division of the Germans by a shameful wall and the cultivation of opposition to one another. Therefore, it can be confidently concluded that the GDR period has not passed without a trace and can cause both positive and negative emotions. It can also be argued that some of the German residents can disagree with the policy of the GDR. This thesis did not aim to assess the level of disagreement with some or other political changes, but one of the tasks was to analyze whether there is an influence in the use of public space, because it was created during the GDR. However, based on the responses to the questionnaire, this study has found that nor was there any apparent negative impact on the using Alexanderplatz due to political or any other disagreement with the policy of the GDR. Despite this, it was noted that most respondents do not like the built environment around the square. This finding partly relates to the buildings of the GDR period. However, bearing in mind that some buildings in the square date from the pre-war period, and some appeared after the reunification of Germany in connection with the reconstruction plan of Alexanderplatz put forward by Hans Kollhoff, which won the 1993 competition. Despite this, the majority of respondents (44.4%) indicated that the area reminds them of the GDR period, albeit with a small gap from the answer identifying the period as the 1990s (35.2%). One of the distinctive features of the socialist square is an ample open space with an endless concrete covering. However, to the surprise, almost a third of users pointed to the lack of air and space in the square. What, as already noted in the analysis part, is probably due to a large number of people visiting the square daily. Furthermore, the space of Alexanderplatz is open for observation, without a possibility to hide in someplace private. Moreover, during the study, it was found that people were accumulating in one place due to the lack of sitting places scattered among the square. Also, it could be added that with the construction of the building «Die Mitte,» the original space of the square has decreased almost two times.

114

However, the «concrete story» of Alexanderplatz affected the lack of green space on the square, which was also noted by 70% of users. According to the survey, the area also needs exceptionally more seating, as well as sun protection, which can be solved by the appearance of trees. In general, the attitude towards the place is neutral. Nevertheless, it is possible to single out some crucial points, based on a comparison of four respondents groups under study:

115

•

Most of the respondents consider Alexanderplatz to be important for the city;

•

Berliners who are familiar with the history of Alexanderplatz feel something special about this place;

•

None of the groups studied has a sense of pride towards Alexanderplatz;

•

None of the groups consider Alexanderplatz as an attractive place for them;

• •

None of the groups feel connected to the studied area.

•

Unlike respondents from other countries, all the German groups overall answered that they like that the place reminds them of the past (for those who replied that the place reminded of the past);

•

All groups remained neutral about the statement that the city should be rebuilt in line with new social or political trends

•

Respondents who do not know the history of Alexanderplatz believe that maintaining the past is essential, in contrast to the groups familiar with the history of the square, where the latter retained neutrality;

•

Berliners, who know the history, are relatively neutral about the space and current uses of Alexanderplatz. However, only this group is inclined towards a negative opinion towards the changes in Alexanderplatz.

Nonetheless, according to all indicators, Berliners are more connected with Alexanderplatz;

7.2. Conclusion In conclusion, it was decided to compare the results with the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the study. After the study, it is now possible to argue that most users still associate the square with the socialist times of the GDR, but mostly they are people using space as a recreation area, a place of work and sightseeing area. Some of the buildings of the socialist time were preserved, but the area was rebuilt to a considerable degree. The evidence from this study suggests that the interviewed users do not have a negative perception of Alexanderplatz in view of its socialist past in case of dissent with the policy pursued during the GDR period. From the present study, it can also be concluded that the design of the space is more or less suitable for the present uses. On the other hand, the proposed uses of this particular public space do not always match the desires of users. Thus, for example, the respondents indicated that more sitting places, green spaces, temporary activities, and cafes, in their understanding, can make the area more comfortable and interesting to stay and use. On the basis of the foregoing, it is possible to distinguish four aspects found during the study, which can form the basis for a recommendation on the future fate of Alexanderplatz. The majority of respondents are positive about the fact that the place is reminiscent of the past, while not having negative associations with socialist time whilst being on the square, also users take a neutral stance about possible changes, but at the same time emphasize that there are some attributes and activities that they would like to see on Alexanderplatz. Taken together, these results suggest that this public space should be flexible, in order to adjust to the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs, without substantially changing its core. In conclusion, it can be argued that Alexanderplatz is a full-fledged part of Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity, as Berlin is not just about changes but in equal measure, it is a story about consideration of different stages of the past. Alexanderplatz is not always beloved, but recognizable and essential, in the context of history and urban spatial organization.

7.3. Further research For fairness of the experiment, it would be useful to compare not only these four groups of respondents, divided based on the familiarity with the history of Alexanderplatz, which were studied during this Master Thesis, but also groups of people of different ages who lived before the fall of the wall in Berlin, and Berliners who are not related to this period. However, in the case of this Master Thesis, it is not possible due to the lack of a sufficient number of answers. Thus, for example, only four respondents out of all twenty-one Berliners do not fully know the history of the square. Moreover, during the study was identified another curious former socialist square, - Platz der Vereinten Nationen, former Leninplatz. However, in view of the total absence of users, within the framework of this thesis, it was decided not to choose the plaza as a case study. However, in case of using another way of collecting data, for example, interviewing residents of nearby houses, it is possible to get significant findings.

116

8. References 8.1. Bibliography 1.

Ahonen, S. (2001, 02). Politics of identity through history curriculum: Narratives of the past for social exclusion - or inclusion? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(2), 179-194. doi:10.1080/00220270010011202

Anholt, S. (2008, 02). Place branding: Is it marketing, or isn’t it? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 1-6. doi:10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000088.

Arndt. S. (Producer), & Becker, W. (Director). (2003). Goodbye Lenin! [Motion Picture]. Germany: X-Filme Creative Pool.

Ashworth, G. J. (1998). The conserved city as cultural symbol: the meaning of the text. In B. J. Graham (Ed.), Modern Europe: Place, Culture, Identity (pp. 261-286). London, Arnold.

Assmann, A. (2006). Europe: A Community of Memory? Twentieth Annual Lecture of The GHI, GHI Bulletin. No. 40, 11-25.

Assmann, A (2008) Memory, individual and collective. In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, R Goodin and C Tilly (eds.), pp. 210–224. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Assmann, J., & Czaplicka, J. (1995). Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique, (65), 125. doi:10.2307/488538

Assmann, J. (2016). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge University Press.

Baburov, V. (2012). Umnyye goroda: istorii uspekha: Gorodskoye upravleniye [Clever cities: success stories: City management]. Institut munitsipal’nogo upravleniya [Institute of Municipal Management], №12,.45-56, (in Russian).

10. Bairoch, P., & Goertz, G. (1986, 08). Factors of Urbanisation in the Nineteenth Century Developed Countries. Urban Studies, 23(4), 285-305. doi:10.1080/00420988620080351 11. Ballhausen, N. (2007). Eine Handreichung, um «Alexa» ertragen lernen zu können [A handout to learn how to handle «Alexa»]. Bauwelt, 42. Retrieved from: http://www.bauwelt.de/dl/735973/10824670_ ea9adefd51.pdf, (in German). 12. Ballhausen, N. (2014). Großer Wurf im Kleinen [Great litter in the small]. Wohnhochhaus am Alexanderplatz [Residential tower on Alexanderplatz]. Bauwelt, 9. Retrieved from: http://www.bauwelt. de/themen/Grosser-Wurf-im-Kleinen-Wohnhochhaus-Alexanderplatz-Berlin-Wettbewerb-2086422. html, (in German). 13. Barreiro, F. (2015, 04). Improving the uses of public spaces in European Cities. User. Changes and conflicts in using public space. Contributions from the user project, p.1-88. 14. Bartetzky, A. (2006, 07). Changes in the Political Iconography of East Central European Capitals after 1989 (Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Bratislava). International Review of Sociology, 16(2), 451-469. doi:10.1080/03906700600709434. 15. Becker, P. (2013, August 14). Denkmalschutz in Berlin. Schrecken statt Schönheit. Retrieved from https:// www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/denkmalschutz-in-berlin-schrecken-statt-schoenheit/8635116.html 16. Beckmann, G., & Wiegandt, C. (2000). Urban development and urban policy in Germany: An overview. BBR. 17. Belanche, Daniel, et al. “Understanding the Cognitive, Affective and Evaluative Components of Social Urban Identity: Determinants, Measurement, and Practical Consequences.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 50, 2017, pp. 138–153., doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.004. 18. Blum, M. (2000, 12). Remaking the East German Past: Ostalgie , Identity, and Material Culture. The Journal of Popular Culture,XXXIV(3), 229-253. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.2000.3403_229.x 19. Bugge, P. (2003). A European Cultural Heritage? Reflections on A Concept and A Programme. in R. Shannan Peckham (Ed.), Rethinking Heritage: Cultures and Politics in Europe. (pp. 61-73). London: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd.

117

20. Bundestag (n.d.-b). Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]. XI. Übergangs- und Schlussbestimmungen [Transitional and final provisions]. Retrieved from https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/ gg_11/245152 21. Buttimer, A. (1980). Home, reach, and the sense of place. In A. Buttimer & D. Seamon, Eds., The Human Experience of Space and Place. London: Croom Helm, pp. 167-187. 22. Carr, S. (1993). Public space. Cambridge University Press. 23. Castells, M. (2004). The construction of European identity. The New Knowledge Economy in Europe. doi:10.4337/9781781950425.00014 24. Castells, M. (2010). The power of identity. Wiley-Blackwell. 25. Castells, M. (2010, 11). Globalisation, Networking, Urbanisation: Reflections on the Spatial Dynamics of the Information Age. Urban Studies, 47(13), 2737-2745. doi:10.1177/0042098010377365 26. Caygill, H. (2003). The Futures of Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz. In A. Scott (Ed.), The Limits Of Globalization. Cases and arguments. (pp. 25-54). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis e-Library. 27. Čepaitiene, R., & Zavialova, M. V. (2010). Kulʹturnoe nasledie v globalʹnom mire [Cultural heritage in the global world]. Evropeiskii gumanitarnyi universitet, Institut istorii Litvy [European humanities university, Institute of history of Lithuania], (in Russian). 28. Chtcheglov, I. (1997). Formulary for a new urbanism: Sire, I am from another country. London Psychogeographical Association 29. Clerici, A. & Mironowicz, I. (2009). Are Landmarks Essential to the City – it’s Development? SchwechatRannersdorf, Austria: CORP Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning, pp. 23-32. 30. Crone, B. (2017). Höhenrausch mit Spätfolgen [Heights rush with late effects]. Bauwelt, 19. Retrieved from: http://www.bauwelt.de/dl/1194517/Hochhausplanungen_am_Alexanderplatz_Berlin.pdf 31. Czepczynski, M. (2016). Cultural Landscapes of Post-Socialist Cities Representation of Powers and Needs. Taylor and Francis. 32. Diener, A. C., & Hagen, J. (2013, 07). From socialist to post-socialist cities: Narrating the nation through urban space. Nationalities Papers,41(4), 487-514. doi:10.1080/00905992.2013.768217 33. Emporis (n.d.). Buildings in Alexanderplatz. Data retrieved from: https://www.emporis.com/ zone/100349/alexanderplatz-berlin 34. Engel B. (2007) Public space in the «blue cities» of Russia. In K. Stanilov (Ed.), The post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after socialism. 92, (pp. 285– 300). Springer Verlag. 35. Engert, J (1985) Berlin between East and West: lessons for a confused world. In living with the Wall. West Berlin, 1961–1985, RL Merritt and AJ Merrit (eds.), pp.149–165. Duke University Press, Durham. 36. Fedotova, N. (2017) Formirovaniye gorodskoy identichnosti: faktornyy i institutsional’nyy aspekty [The formation of urban identity: factor and institutional aspects]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noy antropologii [Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology], 20(3): 32–49. 37. Fedulova, T. (2016). Baroque: Chapter 10 of brief guide to the history of architectural styles. Progress Builders. 38. Flierl, B. (1985). Urban Design in Berlin, GDR. A study of the Capital of the German Democratic Republic. Habitat International, 9 (3-4), pp. 91-126. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-3975(85)900517 39. Frech S., Schläger P., Bönsch E. (2010). Flows of movement in the inner area. Rathaus Forum Berlin. Urban Catalyst Studio. Retrieved from http://www.urbancatalyst-studio.de/de/projekte/rathausforum. html 40. Gehl, J. (2002). Life between buildings. China Architecture & Building Press. 41. Gerson, K., Stueve, C. A. & Fischer, C. S. (1977). Attachment to place. In C. S. Fischer, Ed., Networks and Places. New York: The Free Press, pp. 139-161 42. Giddens, A. (2006). Sociology. Polity Press. 43. Goodin R.E. & Tilly C. (Ed.), (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. New York. Oxford University Press Ink. 44. Hague, C (2005) Planning and place identity. In Place Identity, Participation and Planning, C Hague and

118

P Jenkins (eds.), pp. 3–17. Routledge, London and New York. 45. Harvey, D. W. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Blackwell publishing 46. Hatherley, O. (2012). Across the plaza: The public voids of the Post-Soviet city. Strelka Press, London. 47. Hatherley, O. (2016, April 21). Soviet Square: How Public Space is Disappearing in Post-Communist Cities. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/21/sovietsquares-public-space-post-communist-cities 48. Howard, E., & Osborn, F. J. (1965). Garden cities of to-morrow. The MIT Press. 49. Hull, R., Lam, M., & Vigo, G. (1994, 04). Place identity: Symbols of self in the urban fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning, 28(2-3), 109-120. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)90001-9 50. Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we? America’s crisis of national identity. Free Press. 51. Huyssen, A. (Autumn, 1997). The Voids of Berlin, Chicago Journals 24 (1), 57-81. The University of Chicago Press Stable. 2009.06.11 52. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House. 53. Jahn, Mack & Partner, SenStadtUm (2015). Diskussion über den Alexanderplatz [Discussion about Alexanderplatz]. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt [Senate Department for Urban Development and Environment]. Workshopverfahren [Workshop proceedings], Berlin. Retrieved from: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/staedtebau-projekte/alexanderplatz/downloads/ workshop/Workshop_Alexanderplatz2015_Ausstellung.pdf (in German). 54. Jeudy, H. (1986). Mémoires du social [Memories of the social]. Presses Universitaires de France, (in French) 55. Johnson, N.C. (2004). Public Memory. In J.S. Duncan & Johnson, N.C. (Ed.), A Companion to Cultural Geography. (pp. 316-327). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 56. Kip, M., Young, D., & Drummond, L. (2015). Socialist modernism at Alexanderplatz. Europa Regional, 22.2014(1-2), 13-26. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-456862 57. Ladd, B (1997) The Ghosts of Berlin. Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 58. Lalli, M. (1988). Urban Identity. Environmental Social Psychology, 303-311. doi:10.1007/978-94-0092802-2_26 59. Lalli, M. (1992, 12). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 285-303. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80078-7 60. Landry, C. (2000). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. Earthscan Publications. 61. Lebedeva, E (2017). Publichnoye prostranstvo postsovetskogo goroda: vozmozhnosti dlya razvitiya sotsial’nosti i «krizis publichnosti» [Public space of the post-Soviet city. Opportunities for development of sociality and «crisis of publicity»]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noy antropologii [Journal of sociology and social anthropology], XX, 1 (89), 74 - 92, (in Russian). 62. Lisiak, A (2009) Berlin and warsaw as brands. Weimarpolis 1(1), 15–26. 63. Low, S. M. (2008). The politics of public space: Routledge. 64. Luhmann, N., & Bednarz, J. J. (1989). Ecological Communication. Polity Press. 65. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Publications of the Joint Center for Urban Studies. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. 66. Lynch, K. (1972) What Time Is This Place? Pp. vi, 277. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 67. Lyozina, E (2011). Istochniki izmeneniya ofitsial’noy kollektivnoy pamyati (na primere poslevoyennoy FRG) [Sources of changes of official collective memory (on the example of post-war FRG)]. Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniya [Public Opinion Bulletin], No. 3 (109), 17-37, (in Russian). 68. Makarychev A.S. (2012). Gorodskaya identichnost’ i istoricheskaya pamyat’: politicheskiy Berlin v obrazakh i narrativakh [Urban identity and historical memory: political Berlin in images and narratives]. Labirint: zhurnal sotsial’no-gumanitarnykh issledovaniy [Labyrinth: Journal of Social and Humanitarian Studies], № 2, 4–14, (in Russian) 69. Matveyeva N.M. (1972) Obshchestvennyye tsentry gorodov [Public centers of cities]. Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture of the USSR], 7, 9-19, (in Russian). 70. Mehta, V. (2013, 12). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53-88. doi:10.1080/135 74809.2013.854698

119

71. Memento Park Budapest. (n.d.-b) Conception. Retrieved from http://www.mementopark.hu/pages/ conception. 72. Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space: People’s park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85(1): 108-133. 73. Musiezdov A.A. (2013). Territorial’naya identichnost’ v sovremennom obshestve [Territorial identity in modern society]. Labirint. Zhurnal socialno-gumanitarnykh issledovaniy [Maze. The journal of sociohumanitarian studies] 5: 51–58 (in Russian). 74. Neill, W.J.V. (2004). Urban Planning and Cultural Identity. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis e-Library. 75. Neugebauer, C. S., & Rekhviashvili, L. (2015, 07). Loss and (re-)construction of public space in post-Soviet cities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 35(7/8). doi:10.1108/ijssp-04-2015-0042 76. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. Academy Editions. 77. OpenStreetMap contributors. (2018). Public GPS Traces [Data file from August 28 of database OSM]. Map and data retrieved from https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.5230/13.4106&layers=TG 78. O’Sullivan, F. (2013, September 5). Alexanderplatz is difficult to love, but Berlin wants to save it anyway. Retrieved from https://www.citylab.com/design/2013/09/alexanderplatz-difficult-love-berlin-wantssave-it-anyway/6787 79. Øye, I. (2007, 01). The Feeling for Gray: Aesthetics, Politics, and Shifting German Regimes. Social Analysis, 51(1). doi:10.3167/sa.2007.510109 80. Peca, S. P. (2009, 05). Real Estate Development and Investment. doi:10.1002/9781118267783 81. Phillips, J. (2005). The Future of The Past: Archiving Singapore. In M. Crinson (Ed.), Urban Memory. History and Amnesia in The Modern City. (pp. 145-169). Taylor & Francis e-Library. 82. Polizeipräsidium Berlin, (2016). Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik Berlin. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/ %D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0/Downloads/ polizeiliche-kriminalstatistik-berlin-2016.pdf 83. Рollice, F. (2003) The Role of Territorial Identity in Local Development Processes. Proceedings of the Conference The Cultural Turn in Geography, 8–20.09.2003, Gorizia Campus, pp. 107–117. 84. Pollock, S (2014). Production, Use, and Barriers to Access in Public Space. A Comparative Case Study in Metro Atlanta, GA, USA. PLANET Europe 85. Proshansky, H. M. (1978, 06). The City and Self-Identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147-169. doi:10.1177/0013916578102002 86. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983, 03). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57-83. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(83)80021-8 87. Pyzik, A. (2014, September 29). Why Soviet monuments should be protected. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/soviet-ussr-monumentsshould-be-protected 88. Relph, E. C. (2016). Place and placelessness. SAGE. 89. Schneider, P. (1983). Der Mauerspringer [The wall jumper]. World Literature Today, 57(2), 288. doi:10.2307/40137966 (in German) 90. Scott, A. (2003). Introduction. Globalization: Social Process or Political Rhetoric? In A. Scott (Ed.), The Limits of Globalization. Cases and arguments. (pp. 1-2). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis e-Library 91. Sennett, R. (2008). The uses of disorder: Personal identity and city life. Yale University Press. 92. Shamai, S. (1991, 01). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3), 347-358. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-k 93. Shamai, S., & Ilatov, Z. (2005, 12). Measuring Sense Of Place: Methodological Aspects. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 467-476. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00479.x 94. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell Publishing. 95. Stadtentwicklung Berlin (2013). Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen [Senate Department for Urban Development and Housing], Alexandeplatz. Alexanderplatz heute [Alexanderplatz today], (in German). Data retrieved from: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/staedtebauprojekte/alexanderplatz/de/heute/index.shtml 96. Stadtentwicklung Berlin (n.d.-b). Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen [Senate

120

Department for Urban Development and Housing], Alexandeplatz. (in German). Retrieved from: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/staedtebau-projekte/alexanderplatz/de/geschichte/ chronologie/index.shtml 97. Stölting, E. (2002). Stadt und Gesellschaft in Russland, in: Berking, H., and Faber, R, eds, Städte im Globalisierungsdiskurs, Würzburg: Verlag Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 203–223. 98. Sturm, E. (2000, 09). Unternull – eine neue Nutzung für den Autotunnel am Alexanderplatz. [Under zero a new use for the car tunnel at Alexanderplatz]. Diplomarbeit. Technischen Universität Berlin. Retrieved from: https://unternull.de/geschichte/entwicklung-des-alexanderplatzes/ (in German) 99. Till, K.E. (2005) The New Berlin. Memory, Politics, Place. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota. 100. Thomas, M. 1991. “The Demise of Public Space.” In Town Planning Responses to City Change, edited by V. Nadin, and J. Doak, 209– 224. Avebury: Aldershot. 101. Tölle, A. (2010) Urban identity policies in Berlin: From critical reconstruction to reconstructing the Wall. Cities, 27 (2010), 348-357. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2010.04.005 102. Totalarch. (n.d.). Architecture of the USSR and the socialist countries. (in Russian) Retrieved from http://ussr.totalarch.com/architecture_german_democratic_republic 103. Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3-8. 104. Uncube (2015, August 1). Radically modern in 60s Berlin (4), interview with Daniel Libeskind. Retrieved from http://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/15835479 105. Weszkalnys, G. (2007): The Disintegration of a Socialist Exemplar. In: Space and Culture 10, 2, pp. 207230. 106. Zhelnina, A. (2013, 10). Learning to Use ‘Public Space’: Urban Space in Post-Soviet St. Petersburg. The Open Urban Studies Journal, 6(1), 57-64. doi:10.2174/1874942901306010057 107. Zukin, S. (2001). Whose culture? Whose city? the paradoxical growth of a culture capital. S.n.

8.2. Figures

121

Bewocon (n.d.) Retrived from https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/stararchitekten-bauen-in-berlin-sosieht-das-neue-hochhaus-am-alex-aus/13806900.html

Cadmapper. (n.d.). Berlin. Retrived from https://cadmapper.com/

Deacademic (n.d.) Retrieved from http://deacademic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/52563

Eder, (2009) Retrieved from https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/staedtebau-projekte/ alexanderplatz/de/heute/haus_des_lehrers/index.shtml

Elkawe (2009). Alexanderplatz in Berlin 2009. Sicht vom Fernsehturm. Retrieved from https:// de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Alexanderplatz_2009.JPG&filetimestamp=20090901201048 #file

Garcia D. (n.d.) Haus des Lehrers. Retrieved from http://www.flickriver.com/photos/domgarcia/ sets/72157619784703391/

Google Maps. (2018). Alexanderplatz. Retrieved from https://www.google.de/maps/place/Alexanderpl atz/@52.5219184,13.411026,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47a84e1edb11286f:0x30fc01c366e4 166e!8m2!3d52.5219184!4d13.4132147

Grahn R. (2009) Euroluftbild. Retrieved from https://www.luftbildsuche.de/info/luftbilder/baustellezur-errichtung-unterirdischen-parkhauses-park-inn-hotel-alexanderplatz-94582.html

Grubitzsch R. (1982) Augustusplatz in Leipzig, Bundesarchiv, Retrieved from http://deacademic.com/ dic.nsf/dewiki/1437188

10. Guenther, (2015). Alexanderplatz. Retrieved from https://www.bz-berlin.de/media/2534255 11. Hecker, S. (1977). MDR Kultur. Retrieved from: https://www.mdr.de/kultur/themen/kalenderblattkrawalle-auf-dem-alexanderplatz100.html 12. Imago (n.d.). Die «Banane» wird bebaut [The «banana» will] Retr. Retrieved from https://www. tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/immobilien/neue-plaene-fuer-brache-am-alexanderplatz-die-banane-wirdbebaut/13848424.html 13. Kakouris. S. (2012). Keep Walking. Retrieved from http://spirosk81-travel.blogspot.com/2012/08/ berlin-germany-october-2011.html 14. Klussman H. (n.a.). Kaufhof. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Retrieved from: http:// www.klussmann.org/de/projects/Prev?c=14 15. Koutoulas N. (2011). Panorama of Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Retrieved from: https://www.flickr.com/ photos/nikoskoutoulasphotography/5690184586 16. Lieber, H. (1972). What is the future of Berlin’s architecture? Sim City. Frieze. Retrieved from https:// frieze.com/article/sim-city 17. Mazur, F. (2013). Sprzedają działkę na pl. Defilad. Nikt jej nie kupi. Gazeta Wyborcza Warszawa. Retrieved from: http://warszawa.wyborcza.pl/warszawa/1,34896,13736904,Sprzedaja_dzialke_na_ pl__Defilad___Nikt_jej_nie_kupi_.html?disableRedirects=true 18. Noir, T. (n.d.) Berlin Wall Photo Essay. Tortoise & Hare. Retrieved from: https://thierrynoir.com/berlinwall/photo-history/ 19. Photocommunity, (n.a.). Berolinahaus. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Retrieved from: https://www.fotocommunity.de/photo/berolinahaus-gutemiene/14839661 20. Reuters, (2016) Retrieved from https://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/bilderserien/reise/Berlin-von-obenarticle17808911.html?imageIndex=2 21. Schwarz, A. (1885). Retrieved from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahnhof_Berlin_Alexanderplatz#/ media/File:1885_bahnhof_alexanderplatz.jpg 22. Settnik, B. (1991). Demolition of the Lenin monument. Berlin, Archiv. Retrived from https://www.nnn. de/deutschland-welt/kultur/lenin-kommt-wieder-id10585221.html 23. Skyscraper city (n.d.). php?t=1605520&page=49

Retrieved

from

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.

24. Tchoban, V. (2007). Alexanderhaus. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Retrieved from: http://www.tchobanvoss.de/projekt.php?r=249 25. Thiele, C. (2005). Unternull. Retrieved from https://unternull.de/geschichte/entwicklung-desalexanderplatzes/ 26. Thieme, W. (1983). Karl-Marx-Monument in Chemnitz. Bundesarchiv. Retrieved from: https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1983-0503-030,_Chemnitz,_Karl-Marx-Denkmal.jpg 27. Utz, (n.d.). Urania Weltzeituhr. Fine art America. Retrieved from https://fineartamerica.com/featured/ urania-weltzeituhr--worldtime-clock--alexanderplatz-berlin-ger-colin-utz.html?product=greeting-card 28. Visit Berlin, (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.visitberlin.de/en/alexanderplatz-babylon-berlin 29. Werk, E. (2012). Urania World Clock on Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Retrieved from: https://de.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Datei:Berlin_-_Weltzeituhr2.jpg 30. Wolf, C. (2015). Park Inn Hotel. Fragment of the facade. Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Retrieved from: https:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Park_Inn_by_Radisson_Alexanderplatz_-_Berlin.jpg 31. Zbyszko. S. (1955). Plac Defilad in Warsaw. Narodowe Achiwum Cyfrowe. Retrieved from https://www. polityka.pl/galerie/1507682,12,warszawski-dzien-19441966.read

122

9. Appendix Tables

The table is based on the results of the questionnaire and shows the average result for all respondents.