A study of different reactions to change within Berlin Jubal Green c3321806
This essay looks at examples of top down change in the building of the Berlin wall and of bottom up growth in Romani ghetto camps in the city. It will also discuss the legacy of the Berlin wall and the Roma community in the Kreuzberg district and how they have both reacted to change. It will firstly analyse the historical context of the two cases; then relate them to theories of urban development and finally reflect on implications for future urban development. The Berlin wall can be analysed in three main ways: the physical and psychological barriers; the wall taking on different meanings on each side and the significance of the wall today. The first idea is that cultural differences can be seen as both physical and psychological; the Berlin wall is a perfect example of this as a case study. After the Second World War the city was divided into different sectors, the east being Soviet controlled and the west taken by the British, Americans and French. The east to west line started out as merely a cultural divide of convenience; West Berliners travelled east for cheap supplies and East Berliners travelled west for western magazines and clothes. The divide was not visible to the locals but on a grand scale the East Berlin government could see a gradual migration away from the communist ideas the GDR (German Democratic Republic) were trying to portray. So they gradually imposed restrictions on the area, first identification checks and then in time the border became a physical barbed wire fence (fig1).
fig 1 shows the assembly of The early Berlin wall in 1961. photograph ap
As the severity of the regime grew, so did the physical wall and defences on the east side .The early wall was not taken seriously by the people of Berlin but this changed when the GDR enforced tighter coercion. As the fortifications grew and watchtowers were erected, the distance that separated East Berliners could get to the wall increased. In 1975 the wall was at its fourth stage of development; 45,000 concrete slabs traversed demolished homes and community buildings to create a 3.6m high wall in place of the old one (fig2). Getting caught in the 20m to 2.5km space between the first wall and the second meant imminent death by sniper fire, which led the wall to be seen in a completely different light. The second idea of the Berlin wall is the different meaning that citizens from each side took. It had different contextual relationships with individuals not just with governments. Although physically nothing but concrete with piping on top, the wall was a cultural reflection of political opposition at the time. As the concrete stood above the city, the wall started to take on different meanings on each side. The governments controlling Berlin seemed to be polar opposites in the way each side was perceived but it was the people that really felt the erosion. On the east side the simple act of approaching the walled area was deemed a threat to society but on the west the wall became a canvas for people to voice opinions. As tensions built higher the strength of the communist government finally wavered and people were allowed to cross the borders of Germany into neighbouring controlled countries. This political leeway provoked a mass gathering at the wall in 1989 and the physical representation of top down control was broken.
The third key idea is the significance of the wall to modern audiences. It represents the death and oppression of many people and today has become everything from a memorial to a museum. However, the influx of tourism has given the wall a new meaning; people can come and take the wall home with them. Buildings have been inspired by the wall such as the ĂŤTopography of terrorĂ by Peter Zumthor that incorporates the material elements and harsh edges of the wall.
fig 2 shows the size of the wall when built in 1975
fig 3 shows the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989
The second case is a seemingly different method of building. Romani people within Berlin have moved and changed in the eyes of society. One case in particular is the Romani traveller community who set up home in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin. Through first hand research and interviews the ideas can be broken down into three categories: circumstances force the building of ghetto structures; temporary structures grow organically and the use of walls for safety not captivity. Firstly, Romani cultures in Europe have moved and adapted due to changing circumstances. One reason for this is the hostility of host nations; the other is seasonal work. Today the Roma community is the most widespread minority in Europe; the total in Berlin amounts to around 25,000 although the true figures are unknown. The main problem they face is unemployment due to lack of qualifications so they often have to live off the grid and in ghettos known as mahallas (fig 4). Roma people seek places of cultural acceptance such as the apparently tolerant Berlin. Attempts were made to supply housing for traveller groups in tower blocks in Neuklln, but the integration failed, as they did not get a chance to mix with other cultures within Berlin. For the lucky Roma with housing there are free summer schools for children to learn German and for adults to get working permits. However, the community in the case study were unaided by the government.
The second idea is that the type of construction makes the growth in Roma communities organic and temporary. Romani traveller mahallas use whatever they can find to build and construct temporary and inexpensive homes. Houses are made from all kinds of found and acquired objects and are built communally. There are no restrictions apart from the materials and the tools used for the building. The final idea is that the walls around the mahallas have a different use to the Berlin wall Ăs idea of captivity. This community that resides in the heart of fashionable Berlin uses their surrounding walls as protection from current authority that oppresses them and also to keep traditional values alive. Within these walls previously unused dead space gets used and becomes a cultural microcosm.
fig 4 Romani mahallas found in Kreuzberg Berlin. The ghettos grow organically in deadspace with surrounding walls as protection.
The two cases of the Berlin wall and the Roma traveller camp can be related to various urban theories. The physical and psychological cultural differences the wall created can be compared to the idea of it simply framing the situation the people were in. The idea is explored in ‘Exodus, or the voluntary prisoners of architecture’ (Koolhaas et al., 1972) where the people living either side of the Berlin wall are aware of the “good” and “bad” side and the wall highlights the restrictions of those on the “bad” side; “Those trapped, left behind in the gloomy Bad Half, became obsessed with vain plans for escape” (p.1). Rem Koolhaas evokes an idea that shows the wall to be simply a physical artifact; by altering the perspective it becomes a “new phenomenon... to establish an architectural oasis” (p.3) and a physical tool to be accessed and altered (fig 5). Individual relationships to the wall on either side provided a contrast that outlined the differences in societies. Elements described in “New Babylon” by Constant Nieuwenhuys (Nieuwenhuys, 1959-74) correspond to the division of the wall. Stating that the community of the Utilitarian society work and have no access to freedom of expression, Constant relates to the east side of Berlin when the wall was up; the west side, meanwhile, contained individuals who used the wall to express emotion and play. The idea of play links to the “Element of Play in Culture” (Nieuwenhuys, 959-74) to that of the homo luden: the free expressive being that has the freedom to express emotion and create.
The third element of the wall is the significance of how it is viewed nowadays. Many areas of the wall have been treated in different ways; some speak with literal usage and some use signifiers. Hubert Damisch explains a theory that the value of a building is given by its life and just as importantly its death; and by letting the wall stand the meaning is lost (Damisch, 2001). The areas of the wall that use representations and monuments to show the history and encapsulate the experience have more value as they hint at its existence, but leave the interpretation to the viewer. However, the areas of the wall sold to tourists detract from the context of the time and hold less value and dilute the impact of the historical representation. To progress Hubert suggests that only the signifiers should be left, so that Berlin can learn from the historical aspects.
fig 5 shows the imagined exodus That the idea of a wall could bring.
The changing circumstances of the Roma causing their movement can be related to shifting cultures and times. The theories set out by new Babylon state that cultures do not have to be limited to the restraints of the built environment, but the restraints of the social (Nieuwenhuys, p.2). When the Roma people move and change they “interact with the environment and the people along the way”(Interview Sha14.) making the social connection to each place visited; over various countries “one will see many sectors group together, unite and form a whole” (Nieuwenhuys, p.5). The mahallas use spaces and materials that are necessary for people in their current situation, often changing, and the structures become adaptable and temporary. In ‘A city within a city’ monolithic buildings are described as being less applicable to the individual and “the reduction and diminution also make for a better quality” (IDZ and Kunstlerhaus Bethaniem, 1977, p.85). The fluidity of building relies on the need of the user; when materials become unused the Roma adapt them to become usable instead of rebuilding. In this instance the Roma community acts like the Homo luden and “will seek to transform, to recreate, those surroundings, that world, according to his new needs” (Nieuwenhuys, 1959-74, p.3). This is because materials used are finite and the time taken out to construct is a precious commodity.
The use of the surrounding wall in the Romani mahallas gives the communities freedom to build (fig 6). Often situated in the spaces where buildings have once been, the Roma mahallas make use of the decay and build seemingly without context. Fritz Niemeyer talks about the decontextualized spaces between buildings giving a freedom that other places could not have (Neumeyer, 1987-88). The walls surrounding the ghettos provide a situational freedom. By clearing the area of context the Roma communities could build within the spaces free to interpret and interchange cultures thus a “new chapter of the metropolis could be opened�. This idea of urban freedom conflicts with the idea of Hubert Damisch as there are no signifiers left within the mahallas to make it contextual.
fig 6 shows the Roma freedom to build with the cover of the wall.
The two cases are linked by the radical change they both represent. The Berlin wall was created as quickly as it fell; overnight changes in the growth and size of the wall caused massive changesto the surroundings. This is similar to the Roma mahallas that rise within a few days and change dead space into occupied areas. Both cases have contrasting contexts and are linked in the theory of containing walls being a versatile area for design; the wall had the history of conflicting sides and the Roma mahallas have the current conflict with their surroundings. Physical artifacts remain from the Berlin wall which still have a modern impact on contextual relationships whereas the nomadic building of the Roma works within previously dead spaces and grows naturally which alters the cultural view of them. By taking the two styles of building and finding common ground between them there is a possibility of projecting culturally free roaming societies from the ruins of Berlin. Over time buildings set in monolithic forms will decay, leaving spaces for nomadic cultures to occupy and inhabit. Fragments of a city would be left just like the fragments of the wall and these could influence future organic growth. The factors that would affect this growth would be political influence and historical context. The space needed for nomadic growth would need freedom of creativity for example historical buildings in the city would need to be reduced to simple accents of buildings. By taking each building down brick by brick modern Berliners could be given access to build their own ‘new’ Berlin, a city that reflects modern cultures.
To guide the influence of nomadic city growth, the scale of development would need to resemble the magnitude of the Berlin wall. Once buildings in Berlin erode to fragments the wall could become a broken down core for all future nomadic buildings to network from in a free expressive way. (fig 7). In conclusion, the implications for a future nomadic Berlin would be the natural progression of the city with the freedom to create from the signifiers of the past. The city would become an open platform for creation though destruction and freedom of movement using monumental materials like concrete and brick.
Broken berlin wall Existing road network River Park and grassland Nomadic construction
fig 7 imagined organic growth of nomadic culture in New Berlin.
Bibliography Personal interview with local resident in the Romani mahalla Sha14. Damisch, H., 2001. Skyline: The Narcissistic City. Translated by J. Goodman. Stanford University Press. IDZ and Kunstlerhaus Bethaniem, 1977. city within a city. Berlin: cornell university. Koolhaas, R., Vreisendorp, M. & Zenghelis, E., 1972. Exodus, or the voluntary prisoners of architecture. thesis. New York: na Cornell University in Ithaca,. Neumeyer, F., 1987-88. OMA’s Berlin: The Polemic Island in the City. Translated by F. ogier. Santa Monica. Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities. Nieuwenhuys, C., 1959-74. New Babylon. Nederlanders. Nieuwenhuys, C., 1959-74. New Babylon. Nederlanders.
Images fig fig fig fig fig fig fig
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
phtographer unknown. 1961 Berlin Photographer Jubal green 2014 Berlin wall. (author) Sipa Press/Rex Features november 9 1989 Photographer Jubal green 2014 Roma Mahalla. (author) Rem Koolhaas collage 1972 Exodus 1 Photographer Jubal green 2014 Building within the walls. (author) Jubal green. imagined network of future Berlin 2014