Bartlett History and Theory. Neoliberal Urbanism: On urban restructuring in Berlin by Joshua Thomas

History and Theory 2013/2014 Student ID: 72017 Tutor: Tilo Amhoff word Count: 4380

Joshua Thomas

Neoliberal Urbanism: On urban restructuring in Berlin

ig 1: Aerial view of Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg 2010:

The frontline of Neoliberam roll-out during 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.

Introduction

This paper aims to discuss how different companies and authorities in Berlin negotiate the world around them to insert the modern city into pre-existing ideas and realities and in turn to influence them. Twenty years since the fall of the wall, Berlin is still undergoing a difficult transition, as it is re-made as the capital of a reunified German nation state. It attempts to simultaneously position itself within the newly reunified Germany and the supranational region of Europe, which is itself undergoing processes of redefinition. The investigation will question to what extent mediated peripheral city spaces in Berlin have become commodities to foster neoliberal economic interests, by examining the impact of urban renewal strategies on â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;alternativeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; culture and sociospatial diversity at Prenzlauer Berg and the RAW-Tempel site, Friedrichshain. During the mid 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, architectural competitions were

launched by the city for the redevelopment of large-scale urban initiatives. Simultaneously common consent between theorists and planners with regards to the implementation and regulation of urban renewal that existed in the 1990’s disintegrated (Bernt and Holm, 2009). These city planning projects were often disputed and intersected with attempts by city officials and investors, to ‘maintain and market the artsy, edgy, creative, cosmopolitan, and multicultural city, which resulted in conflicts as well as strange new alliances between entrepreneurs and squatters, artists and politicians, city planners and city dwellers’ (Bernt and Holm, 2009, pp. 231). At the same time, city planners started to question the usefulness of the terms ‘gentrification’ and ‘displacement’, since the concepts seemed vague and were considered difficult to quantify (Bernt and Holm, 2009). The relationship between Berlin’s changing geopolitical position and local experiences of urban life, has led to the development of a new ‘normality’ in the city. Exposing the different actors who influenced the establishment of a newly reunified city can help to facilitate a better understanding of processes defining the evolution of the city today. This in turn may help extend practices, which enable a more complete usage of the city and a deeper social and cultural diversity within it (Shaw, 2005). Documenting the evolution Prenzlauer Berg outlines many predominant forces of urban renewal, which characterized the establishment of a newly unified city throughout the 1990’s. These developments can be viewed as an urbanization of neolibralism; denoting actions, which have transformed cities into strategically central sites in the uneven, crisisladen advance of neoliberal restructuring projects (Peck, J et al, 2009). These projects are understood to promote ‘an increased intensity of capital accumulation processes, a reinforcement of exchange-value-orientated activities, general liberalization, the strengthening of the coercive power of competition and a reinforcement of shareholder value in the

1.Bernt, M, and Holm, A (2009). Is It, or Is Not?. City 13.2-3 2. Shaw, K (2005). The Place of Alternative Culture and the Politics of its Protection in Berlin, Amsterdam and Melbourne. Journal of Planning Theory and Practice 6.2 3.Peck, J, Theodore, N, Brenner, N. (2010). Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Movements, Mutations. SAIS Review of International Affairs, Vol 29, No. 1. Pp. 49-66.

4. Keil, R. (2009). The Urban Politics of Roll-with-it Neoliberalism. CITY 13:2-3, 230245. 5. Groth, J, and Corijn, E (2005). Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate Spaces, Informal Actors and Urban Agenda Setting. Urban Studies 42.2

economy.’ (Keil, 1997, pp. 232). The paper will assess the degree to which the district of Prenzlauer Berg became a proving ground for an increasingly broad range of neoliberal policy experiments, institutional innovations and political projects; resultant from interactions between neoliberal projects of restructuring and inherited institutional and spatial landscapes (Peck, J et al, 2013). Additionally Peck et al (2009) argue that cities can simultaneously be viewed as sites of ‘serial policy failure’ and resistance to neoliberal programs of urban restructuring (Peck et al, 2009). It is therefore crucial to reflect upon these conflicts and their impacts on socio-spatial realities in the district. Considering the conditions assisting urban renewal in Berlin during the 1990’s, the investigation will extend to question the emergence of updated approaches to urban agenda setting, highlighted by the RAW-Tempel initiative in Friderichshain. RAW-Tempel is an example of temporary expropriation and animation of ‘indeterminate’ spaces, left out of the ‘time and place’ of their urban surroundings, resultant from ‘rampant deindustrialization processes and the shrinking city’ (Groth and Corjin, 2005, pp. 503). Groth and Corjin (2005) suggest that ‘the undetermined status of these urban ‘no-man’s-lands’ authorize the emergence of a non-planed spontaneous ‘urbanity’’ (Groth and Corjin, 2005, pp. 503) with intervention in these areas resultant from an assortment of motives such as ‘marginal lifestyles, informal activities, artistic experimentation, a deliberately open transformation of public space allowing for equal access and equal representation or a high degree of social and cultural inclusion.’ (Groth and Corjin, 2005, pp. 522). Expressions from these spaces present a paradox for established city planning and urban politics as ‘institutionalized stakeholders may occasionally appreciate their presence for their inherent potential to enhance

attractiveness and revitalization of certain parts of the city’. However on the other hand ‘these sites and the actors involved also spatialise and visualize a resistance and temporary alternative to the institutionalized domain and the dominant principles of urban development’ (Groth and Corjin, 2005 pp. 518). The complex qualities of animated ‘indeterminate’ spaces are thus difficult to incorporate into planning procedures and as a result often become threatened and marginalized. The paper will conclude by evaluating the effectiveness of these new urban forms in exerting a position within the city planning order, which is more impartial to the social and cultural complexity that constitutes contemporary urbanity; this paper will investigate the complicated interplay of subordination and resistance, disavowal and absorption that characterizes neoliberal urban development.

igure 2: ‘Prenzlberg’:

The cultural infastructure of cafes, bars, boutiques and lifestyle culture of a typical street in Prenzlauer Berg.

igure 3+4: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Prenzlbergâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;:

Transformation and renovation of East Berlin property: from squats to sanitized interior design.

1.Holm, A. (2006) Urban Renewal and the End of Social Housing: The Roll Out of Neolibralism in East Berlin’s Prenzlauer Berg. Social Justice, Vol. 33, No. 3 (105).

Prenzlauer Berg to Prenzlberg: From welfare state capitalism to neoliberal capitalism

Holm (2006) describes urban restructuring as an instrument and expression of social and political tendencies and power relations: ‘The slum-clearing measures by Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann in 19th-century Paris aimed at order and urban sanitation for the fast growing cities in the age of industrialization. In the 1960’s, urban renewal strategies involving the complete demolition of old buildings and their replacement with new ones exemplify the ideology of functional cities in the age of fordism. Reurbanization strategies in the current phase of urban policy are boosting a post-fordist orientation toward sophisticated lifestyles and consumption. Both the results and procedures of urban renewal mirror the social and political circumstances.’ (Holm, 2006 pp 147) He argues that a current phase of urban renewal has evolved to embody a neoliberal strategy that renounces the prior orientation towards welfare, characterized by a stronger

involvement of private investors with interests in urban development and enforced by a new type of governance. (Holm, 2006). At the beginning of the 1990’s debates surrounding urban renewal in Berlin supported the idea of careful urban renewal. The International Building Exhibition of 1984 outlined three types of carefulness for review in the process of renewal: (1) Physical care, or the careful handling of historic buildings, an avoidance of demolition, and an orientation toward gradual renewal procedures; (2) Social care, or a considerate handling of old tenants with the specific goal of not endangering the existing social structure in the renewal area and to prevent displacement. (3) Planning policy care, or care given to expanding the capacity of inhabitants to participate, and to avoid implementing any measure against their will. (Bernt, 2003) Holm and Kuhn (2011) present the dynamics of squatter movements in West Berlin during the 1980’s as an important factor in the development of careful urban renewal policy; spawned from a criticism of the redevelopment of spaces. Squat houses and squatters began to become recognised as objects and partners within a new model of urban renewal (Holm and Kuhn, 2011). A concentration of squatters houses in future or predesignated redevelopment areas was formed following election of a new Christian Democratic Union (CDU) led Senate in 1981, which sought to reverse the moderate relationship of ‘selective integration and suppression’ promoted by the preceding Social Democratic Party (SPD) led government. The SPD had previously sought to incorporate

2. Bernt, M (2003). Imposed! ‘Careful urban renewal’ in Berlin in the 1990s. Berlin, Jan Issue 3. Holm, A and Kuhn, A. (2011). Squatting and Urban Renewal: The Interaction of Squatter Movements and Stratagies of Urban Restructuring in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol 35.3 May 2011, pp. 644-58.

squats and other indiscriminate spaces into ‘legally ordered conditions that were also in complete harmony with civil law’ (Bodenschatz et al in Holm and Kuhn, 2011, pp. 648). Under this policy evictions would only be possible if specific criminal charges were made – trespassing alone was not enough. In a wave of repression that followed election of the CDU, Heinrich Lummer, Minister for the Interiors counteracted the course promoted by the SPD by adopting a hard line approach which defined squatters as ‘those ready to negotiate’ [with developmental requirements] and ‘criminals’. He proclaimed a zero-tolerance approach to new squats and launched a large-scale offensive against demonstrations and similar protest actions. The result saw ‘squatters, citizens action groups and a critical section of the public attack in equal measure, if not always as one voice, the planned demolition of whole streets.’ (Holm and Kuhn, 2011, pp. 648). Despite tough interventions, which caused the marginalization and eviction of many squats, resistance against the (by then usual) demolition approach to development was able to garner substantial support, resulting in the self-preservation of the squatter movement as ‘rehab squatting’ (Holm and Kuhn, 2011). The city acted on regulatory requirement to control ‘lawless spaces’ not only by evicting squatters. For the first time some of those living in squatted houses were granted influence in the renovation and design of their houses and neighborhoods. Collective usage agreements, gradual modernization and the integration of ‘self-help’ interests were mediated through resistance, and represented completely new forms of urban renewal and the end of an authoritarian regime of redeveloping spaces (Holm and Kuhn, 2011). Although many viewed the process as a pacification of the squatter movement and the legalizations must be noted as a partial success, where only a few legalized houses enjoyed financial support under the ‘self-help housing’

programme launched in 1982 (Holm and Kuhn, 2011); Holm and Kuhn (2011) conclude that the apparent coherence between the participatory principles of careful urban renewal, and the squatters notion of ‘self empowerment’, can be viewed as a successful level of integration of squats into careful urban renewal policy. (Holm and Kuhn, 2011). ‘Careful urban renewal replaced the violent character, bureaucratic paternalism and inscrutability of [previous] plans with careful, step-by-step processes that were easier to comprehend and more socially adjusted’ (Homuth, 1984, pp. 37) The outcome of this dialogue was an independently minded political alliance consisting of alternative groups, squatters, the Alternative List (now Green Party) and professional town planners and architects, who agreed to work together to create alternative models for renewal (Dieser, 1990). In the following years urban development in process was shaped by, and was integrated into social-democratic policy: as careful urban renewal was financed entirely by public budgets, which sought to supply social housing for ‘wide circles of the population’ - not only the poor - and emphasized the active participation of residents (Holm, 2006). These policies strived to balance socio-spatial disparities with the application of ample public funding to limit segregation. After 1990 the idea of careful urban renewal was continued in many regeneration projects in East Berlin with mostly the same set of governmental and non-governmental actors (Bernt, 2003). However the enormous renewal requirements for around 180,000 apartments in old buildings, the crisis in public finance and the privatization of property brought about by restitution in redevelopment areas soon led to a form of urban renewal ‘financed first and foremost by property owners’ (Berlin Senate, 1993 in Bernt and Holm, 2010 pp. 317).

4. Dieser, H. (1996) Restitution: What It Does and How it Works. In Häußermann , H and Neef, R. Urban Development in East Germany. Pp. 129 -138. New York: Springer

6. Häußermann , H . and A. Kapphan (2013) Berlin: from Divided to Fragmented City? Sociospatial changes since 1990. In Bernt, M, Grell, B and Holm, A (eds.) The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Transcript.

This was especially pronounced in Prenzlauer Berg, an old district located close to the city centre whose centrality had been neglected during the lifetime of East German state socialism and exclusion by the Berlin Wall. Demolition of the wall in 1989 created a path of derelict land in ambiguous ownership right through the middle of the district, which provided the ‘ideal setting for a postmodern form of urbanization to develop’ (Häußermann and Kapphan, 2000, pp. 91). Following reunification, expropriated housing stock was supposed to be returned to the previous landlords or their heirs. However ‘restitution to the previous owners [soon prompted] a rapid reorganization of ownership structures in the redevelopment zones. Most [of the previous owners] were neither personally or technically able to realize renewal activities and quickly resold the recently returned properties’ (Dieser, 1996, pp. 131). This process transformed the role of the market bringing about the ‘commercialization’ of East Berlin, by private capital, which was used to upgrade the inner city areas, drastically changing the urban landscape (Kratke, 2013 pp.113). As a result multifaceted systems of negotiation between tenants, property owners and urban authorities were established. Authorities began using town planning legislation to apply the social and building objectives of urban renewal in East Berlin, opposed to using funds and moving ownership to redevelopment agencies as in the past. This was characterized by ‘an increasingly negotiation-orientated administrative action’ (Holm, 2006, pp. 90), whereby the redevelopment objectives were to be strengthened using ‘laws and commandments’ as means of control, rather than imposing direct control with money. A clear rollback of the

earlier welfare-state foundations of urban renewal became noticeable. The economy of urban renewal, no longer based on public funding and public redevelopment agencies, now drew on private investments of professional property developers; ‘a process, which was taken on board with relish given the priming effect of the local state and the newly perceived value of the location itself.’ (Holm, 2006 pp. 90). In the 1990’s cultural reinforcement supplemented by intensive media hype increasingly became the basis for real investments in ‘cultural’ infrastructure. This attention initiated the transformation of the district into a brand name, which can be found in local names, an apparent aesthetic in the interior design of houses, shops and restaurants. (Holm, 2006) ‘The blend of cafes, international cuisine, boutiques and delicatessens typical of other cities gentrified at the globalized scale can now be found especially around Kollwitzplatz, but recently also on Kastanienalle and Oderberger Strasse. ‘ (Holm, 2006, pp.22) Beauregard (1986) notes how the infrastructure of ‘conspicuous consumption’ features a pronounced degree of spatial concentration (Beauregard, 1986). The process of urban upgrading resulted in an influx of educated young professionals attracted by the newly identified cultural apex. They were seen to displace many local working class communities in the area, in what Florida (2002) defines as ‘the rise of the creative class’. Here economic growth is seen to be ‘driven by the location choices of creative people – the holders of creative capital – who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant and open to new ideas’ (Florida, 2002. Pp. 223). Educated new tenants in particular, and those closely involved with social networks, were able to make their interests count in the individualized negotiation of modernization plans in the area (Häußermann and Kapphan, 2000), utilizing their assets and knowledge to influence urban renewal schemes,

7. Beauregard (1986). The Chaos and Complexity of Gentrification in Smith, N and Williams, P (1986). Gentrification of the City. Boston: Allen and Iverson. 8. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise Of The Creative Class: And how its transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books

10. Kratke, S. (2013). City of Talents? Berlin’s Regional Economy, SocioSpatial Fabric and ‘Worst Practice’ Urban Governance. In Bernt, M, Grell, B and Holm, A (eds.) The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Transcript.

which often disregarded or renounced the interests of local people who were without means to effectively engage in these discussions. The politics of renewal in the area therefore appears to be a socially selective revaluation. This was also exaggerated by the lack of a property market in East Berlin at the time, which was newly establishing itself through the return (and subsequent re-sale) of real estate to its owners, which accounted for between 70-90% of the entire housing stock in Prenzlauer Berg (Dieser, 1996). As there was no generally accepted land price structure based upon rational expectations and experience, the agreed-upon selling prices were largely speculative and some properties doubled or tripled in market value. Borst and Krake (2000) observe how: ‘Following an unprecedented speculative property boom prices exploded in the early 1990’s, sometimes well in excess of 1000 DM/sq.m in inner city areas of old housing.’ (Borst and Kratke, 2000, pp. 145) In contrast to the decline of Berlin’s traditional industries, which led to a considerable rise of unemployment and of the number of people dependant on public social assistance, recent developments of Prenzlauer Bergs sociospatial structure appear to confirm that Berlin experiences a particularly pronounced evolution towards a socially polarized city. The unemployment rate in the city has risen from 10% to nearly 19% (1990 – 2003) and the number of people living on public social assistance shows a rapid rise since the 1990’s (from 1991 to 2001, the share of welfare recipients in relation to the urban population has doubled) (Bernt, 2004).

igure 5+6: ‘RAW-Tempel’:

A ‘laboratory

for examining the residual’ in abandoned railway workings on the banks of the river Spree.

1. Oswalt, P. (2000). Berlin - City without form. Munich: Prestel Verlag 2. Groth, J, and Corijn, E (2005). Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate Spaces, Informal Actors and Urban Agenda Setting. Urban Studies 42.2

RAW-Tempel: Reclaiming Indeterminate spaces as sites of resistance

RAW-Tempel is a vast area of disused railway structures bridging a residential area of extreme density (Boxhagener Kiez. Friedrichshain), with an area of open urban wasteland, located on the north side of the river Spree (Oberer Spreeraum). This urban ‘vacuum’ of derelict land was ignored during the development boom of the early 1990’s, which favoured more central areas in Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg. As a consequence, it has developed as a ‘laboratory for examining the residual’ (Oswald, 2000, pp.84) over the past twenty years. However the upper spree area is increasingly viewed as a major new development sector in Berlin, given its vast size and central location, offering investors great potential for rental and third sector business development – already manifest in the adjacent ‘Media-spree project’, which highlights the one-sided and ambiguous character of restructuring in Berlin since 1989 (Groth and Corjin, 2005).

Heeg (1998) argues that ‘with the neoliberal reorientation of the planning system, largely a consequence of Berlins dramatic fiscal crisis, the city [now] occupies the role of a service provider for external investors and lacks either a coherent policy or the means of its implementation ‘(Hegg, 1998, pp. 12). He observes that while the ‘Planwerk Innenstadt’ (1996) - (an updated strategy following from the inclusionary principles of careful urban renewal, with aims to connect districts in the newly reunified city) - serves as the rhetorical doctrine for future projects, reality produces much more pragmatic compromises in which private investors are accorded unusual planning freedom (Hegg, 1998, pp 12). Alternatively ‘RAW-Tempel’ exemplifies the positive development potential of a space without purpose in a status of waiting, and the prospects for development arising from such conditions. Pioneering artists initially inhabited the abandoned railway workings in 1998. They were attracted by ‘an atmosphere of secrecy and enchantment’ (Weigert, interview in Groth and Corijn, 2005 pp. 512) and sought to establish an independent space for cultural and social projects on the concealed site. Within a few months a non-commercial registered association (RAW-Tempel e. V.) was formed to provide the organisational and legal framework for the diverse range of activities enacting on site. This transformed the discretionary status of occupation into a temporary lease agreement with the property owner (EIM, an offshoot company of DBahn), mediated by the cultural office of Friedrichain acting as a tenant of the site and then letting the space for a figurative rent to the association (urban2-berlin, 2008). The association oversees internal management issues, whilst additionally acting as a public interface. It does not however influence ‘content’ within individual projects or the overall development of the site. This has encouraged colonisation of the space by a diverse set of actors and initiatives. At present

3. Heeg, S, (1998). From the end of the city as a state event: The reformulation of urban policy in Berlin. Journal for Critical Social Science. Vol 28. No.1. 110, 1998. Pp. 5-23. 4. urban2-berlin (2008). Web: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/wohnen/ urban/download/ abschlussbroschuere_URBANII_engl. pdf. Accessed: 16/12/13

5. Ideenaufruf. (2002) b, p. 3. Web: http://workstation-berlin.org/ images/stories/ PDFs/reader. pdf. Accessed: 16/12/13

the site is used by more than 45 different socio-cultural projects, both experimental and professional. It functions as a socially stabilising element for the district and offers a high degree of social inclusion (Groth and Corjin, 2005). Projects include childcare initiatives, musical workshops, and integrative activities for the long-term unemployed including a theatre run by homeless people. The project is more than â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;a mere artists colony and a cultural incubator, [it is] also an important venue for political debate and several Berlin-based grassroots initiativesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Groth and Corjin, 2005, pp. 514). From the initially harmonious existence favoured by support from the district authorities, the status of the site became increasingly precarious after ownership was transferred to Vivico GmbH, an investment company of DBahn in 2000, with the intent to exploit former railway land for full profit maximisation. The acquisition by Vivico GmbH coincided with development pressures on the upper-spree area marking planning for the commercial exploitation of the site at RAW-Tempel. In 2001 the temporary lease contract was prematurely terminated after the new property owners commissioned a feasibility study, outlining the construction of high density office and retail developments with little to no preservation of the remaining industrial structures (Ideenaufruf, 2002). In response to their newly acquired quasi-legal status, the association set up a civil initiative. By supplementing the proposed plans with alternative planning practices, it aimed to preserve existing activities and their function in the neighbourhood. The programme outlined the main philosophy of this development as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Bottom-up urban development may not depart from form, but has to develop a programme, which opposes content to the anonymous spatial production of

commercialised containers’ (Ideenaufruf, 2002 b, p. 3) The ‘Ideenaufruf ’ (‘Call for Ideas’) issued a public call for ideas, which was widely distributed and publicised throughout the local area, aside from organising fortnightly debates and numerous workshops on themes of sustainable urban development (Ideenaufruf, 2002). The program created a dialogue between the developer and all other parties involved in the process and ‘as a flexible but increasingly professional forum for intervention (uniting researchers, architects, interested citizens and the tenants), it succeeded in addressing its claims via formal channels’ (Groth and Corjin, 2005, pp. 515), rewriting conceptions of traditional town planning processes. The revised plan accommodated ‘a process-orientated development of the site, a gradual exploitation drawing on the potential of the ‘temporary’ uses and advanced the integration of ‘soft tools’ in the planning process (providing for the continuous participation of civil actors)’ (Groth and Corjin, 2005, pp. 515). Nevertheless current ‘ success’ achieved in terms of a more sensitive development of a space offering complex social and cultural networks is not without its problems. It appears very much contingent on the weak economic situation in the area, which impedes rapid change. The non-fixed conditions equally permit rapid development on site once favourable investment conditions are provided (Urban2-Berlin, 2008, Groth and Corjin, 2005). The future of this ‘indeterminate’ space and the further presence of projects on its site are thus wide open, particularly since the site was sold to a German-Icelandic financial consortium in 2007, which has since expressed concerns that ‘temporary’ users are an impediment to further development plans as neighboring chunks of the city continue to be consumed by investment (urban2-berlin, 2008).

6. Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. New York: John Wiley & Sons

However the platform of exchange crafted in the course of the conflict between planning aspirations and ‘grassroots’ claims seems resolute, with extensive networks to similar projects being created and a citywide discussion on the potential of temporary uses for sustainable urban development being initiated between developers, ‘users’ and the city authorities (Groth and Corjin, 2008). Sandercocks (1998) notion of ‘Insurgent urbanism’ – an intervention that ‘embraces uncertainty as potential space of radical openness, nourishing the vision of a more experimental culture, more tolerant and multifocal’ (Sandercock, 1998, p.120) is realised to extents in projects such as RAW-Tempel. This must be viewed as a positive resource for future discussions surrounding urban development in the city, expanding a capacity to better understand and negotiate the social and cultural complexities of urban life.

ig 7: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Media Spree Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;:

Stretching along both sides of the Spree river, the prosal forms a section of several kilometers with a surface area of 180 hectares.

1. Fezer, J. (2010). Design for a Post Neoliberal City. http:// www.e-flux.com/ journal/designfor-a-post-neoliberal-city/. E-Flux. Web: 22nd Dec 2013.

Conclusion

Prenzlauer Berg illustrates the domination of urban development by laws of supply and demand, which restrict the role of urban policy. Fezer (2010) argues that this has lead to a post-political condition, in which ‘spaces of democratic engagement are swallowed up by an ongoing radical economization and de-politicization of social space – a process that does not seem to be interrupted by crisis.’ (Fezer, J, 2010, pp.2). However Peck et al (2010) state that deepening crisis’ within and around neoliberal restructuring projects ‘will open up new strategic opportunities for both reformist and counter hegemonic movements’ transforming ‘the urban terrain [into] a decisive battleground’ (Peck et al, 2010, pp. 65). The case of Raw-Tempel’s ongoing tenancy highlights the role of civil actors in successfully seizing opportunities provided by new and fragmented political arrangements, allowing them a degree of agency in the negotiation of local urban redevelopment. Although the status of these

actions are largely determined by local authorities and proprietors, who decide whether the activities are repressed or not, successful forms of criticism can be absorbed into the ‘software’ of neoliberal urbanism (Holm, 2006). While changes in ‘hardware’ don’t necessarily occur immediately they may influence future policy making decisions, as seen with the integration of West Berlin’s squatter movement during the 1980’s into careful urban renewal policy (Holm, 2006). Modernization, rising rental costs and social displacement are now no longer restricted to the central districts of Prenzlauer Berg and Mitte – these circumstances have become common place in neighboring inner city regions such as Friendrichshain, Kreuzberg and recently Neukolln. Changes of ownership or a revived interest in profit on the part of existing owners are increasingly pressuring leftist ‘free spaces’, nurtured within fissures of the 1990’s development boom such as RAW-Tempel. This has already sparked the creation of broader coalitions such as the ‘Wir Bleiben Alle!’ (‘United We Stay’) campaign, brought into being to organise squatters’ action days against rent increases (Bernt and Holm, 1998). Or in the widespread participation seen throughout the ‘Sink the Media spree’ initiative, which started in 2006 to combat development of a ‘global media village’ containing hi-tech industries and commercial outlets located on an extensive and dominant plot of land bordering Mitte and Kreuzberg beside the river Spree (Dohnkle, 2013). It remains uncertain how far this new political interest will have noticeable repercussions for current urban restructuring policy, or whether, in fact, we can expect a break with the current redevelopment model. Bonsiepe (2006) argues that to articulate such conflicts and their intentional transformation is to ‘act on the assumption that design has a social relation that aims less at the solution of problems than the critical handling of social relations and disavowals’ (Fezer, 2010, pp.6). In such a practice, professional

2. 1.Holm, A. (2006) Urban Renewal and the End of Social Housing: The Roll Out of Neolibralism in East Berlin’s Prenzlauer Berg. Social Justice, Vol. 33, No. 3 (105). 3. .Bernt, M, and Holm, A (2009). Is It, or Is Not?. City 13.2-3 4. Dohnkle (2013). Spree Riverbanks for Everyone! What remains of ‘Sink Mediaspree’? In Bernt, M, Grell, B and Holm, A (eds.) The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Transcript. 5. Bonsiepe, G. (2006) Design and Democracy. Design Issues 22, no. 2: 29.

6. Harvey, D. (2008) The Right to the City. New Left Review. 53 (September/ October 2008): 23 7. Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces of Hope. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

actors – just as amateurs are responsible for the informal and illegitimate practices of design, and would regard the urban space as a place for discussion and make their contribution to the debate and negotiation of political issues (Bonsiepe, 2006). This dialogue is imperative within a condition where the setting of urban agendas can no longer be the expression of a harmonious relationship (Harvey, 2008); as is evident from the analysis of neoliberal rollout during the 1990’s in Berlin’s inner city districts, which have been subject to a pronounced level of social and economic polarization. Harvey (2000) emphasises one of the biggest challenges to reclaiming a ‘right to the city’ in which all civil actors have the right to change themselves, by changing the city (Harvey, 2008). He calls for a ‘definition of politics and a form of city planning that can bridge the gap between multiple heterogeneities without repressing their inherent difference and tensions’ (Harvey, 2000, pp. 120). This is nothing less than a radical challenge to the prevalent and accepted models and modes of design and participation, which produce and restructure our built environment.

Bibliography

Articles Bernt, M (2003). Imposed! ‘Careful urban renewal’ in Berlin in the 1990s. Berlin, Jan Issue Bernt, M, and Holm, A (2009). Is It, or Is Not? The Conceptualization of Gentrification and Displacement and its Political Implications in the Case of Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. City 13.2-3 Brenner, N. (2009) Berlin’s Transformations: Postmodern, Postfordist ... or Neoliberal?. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Volume 26, Issue 3, pp. 635-642 Bonsiepe, G. (2006) Design and Democracy. Design Issues 22, no. 2: 29. Cochrane, A and Passmore, A. (2001) Building a national capital in an age of globalization: the case of Berlin. Area (2001) 33.4, 341-352.

Fezer, J. (2010). Design for a Post Neoliberal City. http://www.eflux.com/journal/design-for-a-post-neoliberal-city/. E-Flux. Web: 22nd Dec 2013. Groth, J, and Corijn, E (2005). Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate Spaces, Informal Actors and Urban Agenda Setting. Urban Studies 42.2 Harvey, D. (2008) The Right to the City. New Left Review. 53 (September/October 2008): 23 Heeg, S, (1998). From the end of the city as a state event: The reformulation of urban policy in Berlin. Journal for Critical Social Science. Vol 28. No.1. 110, 1998. Pp. 5-23. Holm, A. (2006) Urban Renewal and the End of Social Housing: The Roll Out of Neolibralism in East Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Prenzlauer Berg. Social Justice, Vol. 33, No. 3 (105). Holm, A and Kuhn, A. (2011). Squatting and Urban Renewal: The Interaction of Squatter Movements and Stratagies of Urban Restructuring in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol 35.3 May 2011, pp. 644-58. Keil, R. (2009). The Urban Politics of Roll-with-it Neoliberalism. CITY 13:2-3, 230-245. Kratke, S. and Borst, R. (2000). Berlin: City Between Boom and Crisis. Opladen: Leske and Budrich. Peck, J, Theodore, N, Brenner, N. (2010). Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Movements, Mutations. SAIS Review of International Affairs, Vol 29, No. 1. Pp. 49-66. Shaw, K (2005). The Place of Alternative Culture and the Politics of its Protection in Berlin, Amsterdam and Melbourne. Journal of Planning Theory and Practice 6.2

Books Bernt, M and Holm, A. (2005) Exploring the substance and style of Gentrification: Berlin’s: ‘Prenzlberg’ In Atkinson R. and Bridge, G (eds.) Gentrification in a Global Context. London/New York: Routledge. Dieser, H. (1996) Restitution: What It Does and How it Works. In Häußermann , H and Neef, R. Urban Development in East Germany. Pp. 129 -138. New York: Springer Dohnkle (2013). Spree Riverbanks for Everyone! What remains of ‘Sink Mediaspree’? In Bernt, M, Grell, B and Holm, A (eds.) The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Transcript. Fezer, J. (2013). Civic City Cahier 5: Design in and against the Neoliberal City. London: Bedford Press. Florida, R. (2002) The Rise Of The Creative Class: And how its transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces of Hope. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Häußermann , H . and A. Kapphan (2013) Berlin: from Divided to Fragmented City? Sociospatial changes since 1990. In Bernt, M, Grell, B and Holm, A (eds.) The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Transcript. Kratke, S. (2013). City of Talents? Berlin’s Regional Economy, SocioSpatial Fabric and ‘Worst Practice’ Urban Governance. In Bernt, M, Grell, B and Holm, A (eds.) The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Transcript. Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.

Oswalt, P. (2000). Berlin - City Without Form. Munich: Prestel Verlag Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sassen S (1997). ‘The Global City; New York, London, Tokyo’. Princtown: Princetown Architectural Press. Sources www.raw-ev.de (website of RAW-Tempel) www.urban2-berlin.de (website of the European Development Programme Urban II) www.workstation-berlin.org (project partner of RAW, e.V., initiator of the ‘Call for Ideas’) www.urbancatalyst.de (EU research project on the potential of temporary uses in residual areas for urban regeneration). Image References Fig 1. East Berlin Aerial Web: http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft. de/Berlin/Berlin-Mitte_02.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=2. Accessed 28.12.2013 Fig 2. Prenzlberg. Web: Berlin Ist Toll. http://www.berlinist-toll.de/Cafe-Berlin/Cafe-de-Paris-Kollwitzplatz-BerlinPrenzlauer-Berg.html. Accessed: 02.01.2014; 02.01.2014 Fig 3. Tacheles. Web: http://www.photoeverywhere.co.uk/ west/berlin/slides/kunsthaus%20tacheles_stairs_jpg_orig. htm. Accessed: 02.01.2014

Fig 4. Apartment by Sophie von Bulow. Web: Dezeen. http://www. dezeen.com/2013/08/10/prenzlauerberg-apartment-bysophie-von-bulow/. Accessed: 02. 01.2014 Fig 5. Raw-Tempel Plan. Web: http://www.raw-tempel.de/ rawgelaendeplan.jpg. Accessed: 02.01.2014 Fig 7. Media Spree Development. Web: B.Z. Berlin: http://www. bz-berlin.de/multimedia/archive/00043/kiez-interviewfried_43910a.jpg. Accessed: 02.01.2014