the city in the city: berlin as a magnetic archipelago by Alberto Geuna

A L B E R T O GEUNA

T HE C I T Y IN T HE C I T Y B ERL I N AS A MA G N E T I C ARCH I P E L AGO TUTORS P A C R O S ET A S A MP I E R I J P V A S S AL

THE CITY IN THE CITY Berlin as a magnetic archipelago

Tesi di Laurea Magistrale in Architettura, Costruzione, CittĂ Politecnico di Torino A.A. 2013 / 2014

candidato: Alberto Geuna

relatore: Pierre Alain Croset Professore ordinario di progettazione presso il DAD - Dipartimento di Architettura e Design Politecnico di Torino

co-relatore: Angelo Sampieri Professore Aggregato a.a. 2014/2015 presso il DIST - Dipartimento Interateneo di Scienze, Progetto e Politiche del Territorio Politecnico di Torino

co-relatore esterno: Jean - Philippe Vassal Professore presso Fachgebiet Entwerfen und Stadterneuerung UdK Berlin

I ND E X

0 - Introduction

1 - Manifestos: the city in the city Limits

Thesis 1 - Population

Thesis 2 - Aussenstadt wird Gegenstadt

Thesis 3 - Catalysts

Thesis 4 - Conurbations

Thesis 5 -

Islands and magnets

Thesis 6 - Space for construction

Thesis 7 - Magnets and city

Thesis 8 - Block

Thesis 9 - Historic foundations

Thesis 10 - Synthesis

Thesis 11 - Open point

2 - Typological studies R50

Ökohäuser

Askanischer Platz

116

Lützowplatz

122

Berliner Block

136

Mietskaserne

148

3 - No Stop Block Building scale, block scale, infinite scale

154

Industriegebiet Hertzbergerstraße

176

Appendix: floor plan variations

198

4 - Bibliography

220

5 - Acknowledgements

228

I NT R O D U C T I O N

In 1977 O.M. Ungers and a number of his colleagues from Cornell University published a pamphlet called “The City in the City: Berlin as a Green Archipelago”. This document belongs to the larger context of the production of site-specific manifestos, such as Rem Koolhaas’ Delirious New York and Scott Brown and Venturi’s Learning from Las Vegas. Although never reaching the extensive attention of the previous examples, the City in the City has been attracting the interests of many architects throughout the years. This thesis takes its steps from this document. Not as historical inquiry, though, but rather as a critical review based on the assumption that site specific manifestos in general - and The City in the City in particular - could still constitute a significant tool to trace design narratives today. The exercise here is that of rewriting the City in the City by keeping its fundamental framework, scrolling through its eleven thesis in search of continuity, but simultaneously putting in discussion its ideological background and all those assumptions and theories that don’t seem to be valuable anymore. As The City in the City triggered both the metropolitan and the architectural scale, so does this thesis. While the first part is a discussion of the manifesto itself and delineates a scenario for Berlin, the second part of the work focuses on the architectural scale and it constitutes of a research on the typological level. If in 1977 Ungers proposed the urban villa as a possible “architectural tool”, so the objective of this research is to find an urban typology that could be appropriate to the requirements of the contemporary city and that, in this case, is based on the density and complexity of the Berlin Block. This work is an experiment in terms of procedure and an exploration of the logic behind a project. It begins with the assumption that some documents within the discipline could still be source of teaching and an active instrument to change the ways in which we look at the practice of architecture. This doesn’t mean transforming these tools into venerable relics and segregate them in the autonomous world of architecture, though, but it rather means forcing them to face reality, testing their potential on the contemporary city, on contemporary society, on the contemporary way of living.

I have my own crazy definition of art, for what is worth. Hereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the definition: set up a series of arbitrary rules and then follow them slavishly. Errol Morris

MAN I F E S TOS

19 77 O M UNGER S

TH E C I T Y IN TH E C I T Y

2014

B ERL I N AS A MA G N E T I C ARCH I P E L AGO

Limits While Ungers could recognize West Berlin as the portion of territory surrounded by the Wall, today we ought to define the extent of the field as a premise to the manifesto. Since the reunification the frontiers of Berlin have become blurry: the city stretches into Brandenburg with train lines and housing estates and it integrates rural villages and agricultural fields inside its administrative frontiers. Explanation The boundaries of Berlin shall be defined by material factors rather than abstract concepts. We’ll assume that the extension of the city is a question of population density and access to mobility. Considering the density pattern Berlin is a dense dot surrounded by scarcely inhabited land. It includes neighboring towns like Potsdam, Bernau, Strausberg, Königs–Wüsterhausen which should be included in the metropolitan scheme. On the other hand, following the mobility pattern, Berlin is a regional commuting system stretching along railways and highways, including Dessau-Rosslau and Cottbus among other relevant settlements in a range of about 150 kilometers. Conclusion For the sake of this project we shall ignore the administrative frontiers and think in terms of limits. “ A limit designates an extremity, the confines of a territory: the limits of a field. It is viewed from the inside and it does not take in account what lies beyond: whatever is outside the limits, off the field. ” 1 In our case Berlin is the field. Mobility and density define its limits.

(1) Emmanuel Hocquard, Lydia Davis, Marlboro (USA), Aerea in the Forests of Manhattan, Marlboro Press, 1992.

commuters around Berlin (BBR 2009)

200 - 500 500 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 +

Templin

Schwedt - Oder

Neuruppin

Rathenow

Brandenburg

Frankfurt Oder

Magdeburg

Dessau - Rosslau

Cottbus

Halle Leipzig

Dresden

regional railways around Berlin (BBR 2009)

Berlin Railway Ring DB Regio

Oranienburg 41.000 inh Bernau bei Berlin 32.000 inh Nauen 16.000 inh

Potsdam 160.000 inh

BERLIN 3.375.000 inh

Beelitz 10.000 inh

Kรถnigs - Wusterhausen 34.000 inh

Ludwigsfelde 24.000 inh

Angerm端nde 13.000 inh

Eberswalde 39.000 inh

Strausberg 25.000 inh

Kostrzyn nad Odra 18.000 inh

F端rstenwalde Spree 31.000 inh

Frankfurt (Oder) 60.000 inh

Beeskow 8.000 inh

Thesis 1 Current evaluations predict that Berlin, by the 1980s, will have lost more than 10 percent of its population, dropping from 2 to 1.7 million inhabitants. Explanation If we start from the assumption that these estimates are fairly exact, then we must be borne in mind that the real figures may exceed the estimated reduction, because once the decrease is in progress, it ends up by causing a bigger effect. A certain percentage of anxiety-prone inhabitants will be caught up in the end by an exodus psychosis, with the result that the population will slip below the estimated figure. Experience, however, has shown that this figure will subsequently tend to swing back to somewhat higher level, assuming that quality of life improves and the city becomes a more congenial place to live after a reorganization of the urban environment. Without a radically improved offer no one will want to remain in a bankrupt city of his own accord or, still less, go back there. Conclusion Any future planning for Berlin must therefore come to grips with the problem of a city that has shrunk. Since the total surface of Berlin is fixed and political reality is such that it can be neither reduced nor increased, future strategies must be devised that will allow for a controlled decrease in the population density, without jeopardizing the general quality of the urban environment.

Population Current evaluations predict that Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population will increase between 5 and 10 percent by 2030, gaining from 100 000 to 300 000 new inhabitants. 2 Explanation If we start from the assumption that these estimates are fairly exact, then we must be borne in mind that the real figures might exceed the estimated growth, because once the positive trend is in progress it might end up causing a bigger effect. As Europe continues to be embedded in a critical state of recession and/or stagnation, more and more people might be drawn to seek fortune in Berlin, with the result that the population will slip above the estimated figure. Experience, however, has shown that this figure might also be contradicted by facts, assuming that our premises donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t trigger some vital factors that we currently ignore. A recent example of such a failure is the growth expectations for Berlin after the fall of the Wall, in the 1990s, when the city was expected to boom dramatically in terms of economy and population but ended up receding for the whole decade. Conclusion Any future planning for Berlin must therefore come to grips with the problem of a city that is growing and therefore needs new housing facilities. Since Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expansion is centered around the inner city and often ends up privatizing public soil, future strategies must be devised that will allow for an increase in population density without jeopardizing the general quality of the urban environment.

Thesis 2 The opinion that prevails today, whereby the historic parts of the city can be preserved and saved only through additional and supplementary construction stems from erroneous assumptions and is therefore illusory. Explanation Two urban design tendencies must be avoided on the theoretical and operative plane, due to their illusory character. One starts from the assumption that the city can be repaired to its former historic substance and configuration. Programs of this kind are, at best, the result of a misunderstood wave of nostalgia. As statistical forecasts seem to indicate, future demand will simply not be large enough to sustain them. The reduction process, however, cannot be left to chance. The hazardous development that would inevitably ensue not only spells chaos but would ultimately have disastrous consequences for the city. The realization of the idea of â&#x20AC;&#x153;urban repairâ&#x20AC;?, which, if wrongly interpreted, may paradoxically lead, in practice, to the destruction of the city, implies an inevitable thrust toward an increase in buildings, homes, shops, social services, and so on. The postulate of urban repair denies an established fact, namely, that most areas have by now ended in ruins precisely because, in almost all cases and especially in Berlin, the necessity to increase their density does not exist anymore. In effect, recommendations of this kind lead to a general confusion of real necessities and to a consequent outburst of kitsch produced in the name of goodwill and good taste, because the supposed necessity is just as contrived as its ensuing results. Conclusion In Berlin, the theory of urban repair, in the sense of a historic reconstruction, would be particularly detrimental, since the inexorable depopulation process would only be camouflaged and all action taken to improve reality would be pointlessly deferred, to the consequent disadvantage of the city.

Aussenstadt wird Gegenstadt The IBA 2020 has been canceled due to economical reasons, but the concept “Aussenstadt wird Innenstadt” remains the most recent strategic vision for the city of Berlin and its implications must be discussed. Explanation Some urban design tendencies must be avoided on the theoretical and operative plane, due to their detrimental character. One starts from the assumption that the inner city is the sole model for urban qualities and should be expanded into the outer city. A program of this kind is, at best, the result of a failure to observe reality in its complexity, ignoring the advantages that might be inherently present in the outer city. The housing demand, however, cannot be faced without a clear strategy. The hazardous development that would inevitably ensue would ultimately have disastrous consequences for the city, as it nearly happened in the case of the Tempelhofer Feld’s construction plan. The realization of the idea of “spreading the inner city”, which, if wrongly interpreted, may paradoxically lead, in practice, to the destruction of urban quality, implies an inevitable thrust towards homogenization and a transmigration of problems from the inner to the outer city. The postulate of this idea denies an established fact, namely, that most outer city areas have access to qualities that are not available in the inner city. In effect, recommendations of this kind lead to a general confusion of real necessities and to a consequent outburst of unnecessary projects produced in the name of goodwill and good taste, because the supposed necessity is just as contrived as its ensuing results. Conclusion In Berlin, this narrow view of urbanity would be particularly detrimental, since existing features would remain untraced and unknown to the consequent disadvantage of the city. Still, this observation should not clash with the necessity of increasing density in certain areas, but rather lead us to reconsider urbanity in search for different ways. 23

AUSSENSTADT WIRD INNENSTADT

INNENSTADT WIRD AUSSENSTADT

Thesis 3 In Frankfurt, a number of Social Democratic local politicians met recently to discuss the problem of the population drop in big cities and to draw up the necessary countermeasures. In the majority of big German cities, the tendency is regressive. As in America, here, too, the migration to the periphery is mounting. The consequences of this constant exodus is a general impoverishment and, in a broader perspective, a spatial decay of the city center. The depopulation process in some major cities, such as Cologne, Frankfurt, and Berlin, which have a high percentage of foreign labor, is already in progress. Explanation Clearly, however, this flight from the city also results from a changed way of life. As shown by a recent survey by the Demoscopic Beureau of Allensbach, big cities are steadily losing their residential value. The survey shows that 74 percent of the population prefer an apartment in the country to an apartment in the city. Country life seems to offer more attractions. The automobile and television play an important role in this respect. For a long time now, moving to the country does not anymore mean fleeing society. With improvements in means of communication, both spatial and psychological distances have been considerably reduced. This process of depopulation does not apply only to Berlin either. Most of the major cities of the world, with very few exceptions, have been hit by the same phenomenon. Since 1970, the population drop in New York City has reached 650 000 inhabitants, and this trend seems likely to continue. In some parts of the city, more than 70 percent of the inhabitants have left, with the result that entire districts have virtually been wiped off the map. In their place, the city administration now plans to install agricultural concerns, or â&#x20AC;&#x153;urban farmsâ&#x20AC;?. At present, more than 1 000 are scheduled in a once highly populated district in Brooklyn.

Catalysts Since many years Berlin has been identified with a vibrant urban sphere which is propelled by the spontaneous flourishing of many temporary interventions throughout the city, either in the form of recreational or economical activities (clubs and bars, community gardens, start-up companies and informal markets), or proper alternative ways of urban living (squatting, community dwelling). These phenomena normally bloom in urban wastelands and vacant structures, almost casually throughout the city, forming a colorful layer on the contemporary metropolis. Explanation Although being a wide spectrum of agencies, the common ground of all these temporary uses is to be “catalysts” 4, places where subcultures can gather, connect, share values and rules that diverge from the mainstream. These phenomenons have been traditionally referred to as anti-urban because they propose a subversive idea of public space and public morals. Nevertheless, being fragmented and involving a relatively marginal amount of people, they have never been able to present a comprehensive alternative to urbanity, and have thus always confronted the city in a parasitic way, as an enrichment of the urban environment rather than a counterweight to it. These activities are continuously endangered by the rising cost of space in Berlin. Many of them are forced to close or relocate in different areas, while others decide to give up some core values in order to adapt to the situation and survive. Most of them have shown their fragility against the market, being forced to recede in front of investors, plot owners and other authorities. The “catalysts” are normally substantiated by soft, transitory construction that rarely leaves material traces after they are forced to move, and thus creates practically no physical memory of them. They mostly cease to exist as soon as they become inactive.

(4) Philipp Oswalt, Klaus Overmeyer, Philipp Misselwitz, Urban Catalyst. The power of temporary use, Berlin (DE), DOM, 2013.

Conclusion Since, as the examples mentioned show, this process of shrinkage is not a local phenomenon but rather a sign of a much more general tendency, the future task will no longer be to plan the growth of cities but rather to develop new proposals and concepts for dealing with this exodus by protecting the better aspects of cities. Faced with this assignment, urban planners today are unprepared and certainly incapable of solving the problem with the means that have been employed hitherto. Berlin, which has such radical idiosyncratic features, is particularly well suited to act as a laboratory of this set of problems.

Conclusion Since the actual situation is a dynamic process of continuous redefinition, the future task will be no longer that of protecting and enhancing these phenomenons as they are, but rather drive them to concentrate into clusters with higher resilience and permanence. This shift in scale would transform the catalysts into larger laboratories for the development of a different urbanity, a way to develop new proposals for the future of the city. As the availability of cheap or no-cost space is the fundamental condition for the existence of catalysts, more space ought to be strategically realized in order to support the migration of existing agencies and the hosting of new ones.

Thesis 4 Large cities are characterized by an overlapping of many mutually exclusive and divergent conceptions. This is what differentiates them from villages, housing developments, urban districts, and small or medium-sized towns. Here, the chief characteristic is expressed in the predominance of a single basic principle or, if more than one exists, complementary principles. The ideal would be to find an urban configuration in which both unity and an atmosphere of clarity exist. Explanation A structure loses its functional capacity in the measure in which its monolithic character increases, be it in the economy, politics, nature, or the urban environment. When, for example, General Motors became too big and ungovernable, the management decided to a transformation of the production facilities into reasonably-sized units. When Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest industrial complex, the British National Coal Board, reached a no longer functional dimension, the monolith was divided into a group of semi-independent units, each with different tasks and motivations. The situation is no different in the city. Although it is difficult to establish what constitutes a reasonable size for a city, it is clear that a convenient size is somewhere around 250 000 inhabitants, ZĂźrich, Florence, Trier, or Freiburg are places in which the human atmosphere outweighs the hustle and bustle of the big city. These examples show that an increase in size does not mean an improvement in the quality of life. In Tokyo, New York, or London, the millions of inhabitants do not raise the effective value of these cities, but create instead enormous technical and organizational problems, and end up ruining the human environment. Today, we suffer from a sense of universal respect for giantism, perhaps because we think that what is bigger must be better. Reality has instead shown that reduction and diminution also make for better quality, and does not least the quality of life itself. For this reason, small and legible units ought to be created. This applies to production, the way of life, and any other component of our environment.

Conurbations Large cities are characterized by an overlapping of many mutually exclusive and divergent conceptions. This is what differentiates them from villages, housing developments, urban districts and small or medium-sized towns. Here, the chief characteristic is expressed in the predominance of a single basic principle or, if more than one exists, complementary principles. The ideal would be to find an urban configuration in which both unity and diversity exist. Explanation A recent study by physicist Luis Bettencourt has collected an unprecedented number of numerical data on different cities throughout the world, such as the average income of inhabitants or the number of patents per capita, and confronted them with density and population. The results showed that in all cases these factors scale with the size of the city and its density 5, mathematically proving the efficiency of dense, large cities. Yet, it is also true that a structure loses its functional capacity in the measure in which its monolithic character increases, be it in the economy, politics, nature, or the urban environment. An answer to this question on the greater urban scale is represented by conurbations, federations of towns that come together to share resources and gain relevance, forming a network that is not longer possible to define as a city, but rather as an extensive inhabited territory. Existing examples of European conurbations are the Silesian Metropolis, the Eurométropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai and the Ruhrgebiet. In recent European History they can be considered as a counterweight to the traditional model of radial cities embodied by such examples as Paris, London or Moscow. The History of Berlin is much more that of a number of settlements coming together than that of a single center expanding outbound, yet its density is much higher than any of the previously mentioned examples of conurbation. We propose to consider Berlin as a middle case between the radial city and the conurbation, an intensive metropolis in which high density coexists with a multiplicity of centers. (5) Luís M. A. Bettencourt, “The Origins of scaling in cities”, in Science 21, pp. 1438 - 1441, Washington D.C. (USA), AAAS, 2013.

Conclusion These considerations suggest that, within the context of a selective program for the reduction of urban overpopulation, or even a partial demolition of those districts that are superfluous and work badly, the reduction of the population in Berlin might provide an outstanding opportunity to redevelop zones that are no longer satisfactory on the technical, social and structural levels. Simultaneously, those zones that deserve to be preserved should be identified, and their characteristics be either underlined or, if incomplete, completed. These enclaves liberated from the anonymity of the city would in their quality of quasi islands form a green urban archipelago in a natural lagoon.

Conclusion These considerations suggest that, within the context of a densification program, the increase of the population in Berlin might provide an opportunity to reaffirm the multi-centric configuration of the metropolis through the creation of densely inhabited settlements. These should not be created anew, but rather be paired with existing urban areas that would work synergically with the new insertion, receiving additional services in exchange for basic urban infrastructure.

EuromĂŠtropole Lille - Kortrijk - Tournai - pop. 2 155 161 (2008) surface 3 533 km2 - density 610 inh/km2

Silesian Metropolis - Katowice - pop. 2 039 454 (2008) - surface 1 218 km2 density 1 700 inh/km2

Ruhrgebiet - pop. 5 135 136 (2011) - surface 4 435 km2 - density 1 646 inh/ km2 36

London - pop. 8 308 369 (2012) - surface 3 533 km2 - density 5 285 inh/km2

Paris - pop. 10 516 110 (2011) - surface 3 533 km2 - density 3 696 inh/km2

Moscow - pop. 11 979 200 (2013) - surface 2 511 km2 - density 4 771 inh/km2

BER L I N pop. 3 421 829 (2014) surface 892 km2 density 3 837 inh/km2

EUROMETROPOLE LILLE - KORTRIJK - TOURNAI (FR + BE)

Tielt Roselare

pop 6.600.000 Waregem

Kortrijk

Mouscron Tourcoing Armentieres

Roublaix Ascq

Lille

Santes RUHRGEBIET (DE)

Tournai

Wattignies Seclin

pop 5.200.000 Dortmund Bottrop Oberhausen

Duisburg

Herne Bochum

Essen Hagen

Wuppertal Düsseldorf Mönchengladbach 40

SILESIAN METROPOLIS (PL)

10 km

pop 1.520.000

Bytom Zabrze

Chorzow

Gliwice Ruda Slaska

Dabrowa Gornicza Sosnowiec

Katowice

Mikolow Tychy

Oranienburg BERLIN POTSDAM (DE)

Henningsdorf Bernau bei Berlin

pop 3.700.000

Strausberg Reinickendorf Mitte Spandau

Pankow Lichtenberg Marzahn - Hellersdorf Kreuzberg - Friedrichshain Neukรถlln

Schรถneberg Steglitz

Treptow Kรถpenick

Potsdam

Kรถnigs Wusterhausen 41

Thesis 5 The idea of the city in the city is the basic concept for a future urbanistic model of Berlin. It is substantiated in the image of Berlin as a city-archipelago. The urban islands have an identity in keeping with their history, social structure, and environmental characteristics. The city as a whole is formed by the federation of all these urban entities with different structures, developed in a deliberately antithetic manner. A decisive criterion for the selection of these islands ought to be the degree of clarity and legibility of their underlying ideas and concepts. Explanation The first step to be taken ought to be to identify and select those districts of the city that possess clearly identifiable features likely to justify their preservation and accentuation. These so-called ‘identity spaces’ should not be chosen on the basis of a particular taste or aesthetic conceptions. The second step toward a redevelopment is the completion of the fragments to be preserved that, in the course of this process, would receive their definitive architectural and urbanistic form. This task requires the development of a whole unemotional kind. In quarters with a high building density, the existing bulk of building ought to be diminished through the creation of free spaces, such as the city parks, public gardens, and squares, while districts with a low density, such as Westend, could be intensified by the integration of social condensers. The architectural planning intentions for the future consist solely in enucleating the true configuration of each urban island on the basis of which it was first chosen. It is essentially a matter of establishing, in a way, the ‘physiognomy’ of the part of the city in question, and leaving one’s stamp on to it to such an extent that it finds a proper expression. Each part of the city taken in itself will thus receive an identity of its own that will fundamentally differentiate it from the others.

Islands and magnets The idea of the city in the city is the basic concept for an urban model of Berlin, but it is not substantiated in the image of Berlin as a city-archipelago. In the current situation the so called “islands” ought not to be a formal selection of the urban and architectural environment, but rather the recognition of a high degree of human agency in certain parts of the city. Rather than islands as closed enclaves, these areas work as magnets, the basic principle not being exclusion, but rather creating attractors. Explanation Since the 1970s the primary goal of planning has been the stimulation of private investments. “In terms of land management, this concept manifested itself in a kind of island urbanism: sites that are relevant for investments are planned as projects, while territory in between disappears from the public consciousness. Yet it is precisely those areas neglected by the state, capital and planning that often stand out for their special urbanity. Because here, the city is designed and influenced by financially unsound players who are excluded from the projects supported by corporate urban policy 6 ”. Once these magnets have been identified, the second step toward development consists in analyzing these areas in order to find ways to densify them, process which includes selecting spaces that are partially or totally available for construction and that, in the course of this process, would be transformed into heavily constructed areas containing large amounts of available space. As a general guideline areas within the Ringbahn ought not be considered for this program. The central districts of Berlin are already densely inhabited and the unbuilt areas host high levels of human activity. The “dog’s head” has been object of excessive emphasis for many years and must be counterbalanced by a renewed interest for the rest of the city. In fact, the outer city already hosts the majority of Berlin’s population and an efficient public transport network, as well as large amounts of available space and emerging social practices. (6) Philipp Oswalt, Klaus Overmeyer, Philipp Misselwitz, Urban Catalyst. The power of temporary use, Berlin (DE), DOM, 2013.

More specifically, therefore, the M채rkische Viertel, Westend, Kreuzberg and Lichterfelde are necessarily included as components of the concept and should be regarded as complementary elements with different characteristics having the capacity to raise the supply and hence the freedom of choice. Conclusion The urban concept of the city in the city, pluralistic in this respect, is the antithesis of current planning theory, which stems from a definition of the city as a single whole. It corresponds to the contemporary structure of society, which develops more and more as a society of individuals with different demands, desires and conceptions. The concept also involves an individualization of the city, the issue of citizens identifying with the city is also addressed. While an anonymous city composed along a unifying principle provokes a loss of identity and a loss of personality, the city dweller in an open system may choose the identity-space that corresponds to his desires and expectations.

The architectural planning intentions for the future consist thus in identifying the embryonic activities in this area and intensifying them, in order to propose an alternative to the central districts.

Conclusion The urban concept of the city in the city, pluralistic in this respect, is the antithesis of current planning theory, which stems from a definition of the city as a single whole. It corresponds to the contemporary structure of society, which develops more and more as a society of individuals with different demands, desires and conceptions. The concept also involves an individualization of the city, the issue of citizens identifying with the city is also addressed. While an anonymous city composed along a unifying principle provokes a loss of identity and a loss of personality, the city dweller in an open system may choose the identity-space that corresponds to his desires and expectations.

Thesis 6 The phase of selection of the so-called urban islands is as much a question of programmatic identification and description as it is a formal and urbanistic procedure. Not all new integrations have to be planned afresh. Through analogy and comparisons with models it is possible to gain design insights that can be transpoosed in a typological sense. Explanation Upon preliminary analytical examination, a number of zones in the city stand out clearly, set apart from the others by their quality and collective distinctiveness. Areas of the city that are exemplary through their closed structure include the Südliche Friedrichstadt, the Görlitz station, the Schlossstrasse, Siemensstadt, Spandau, and the area known as “the city”, but also Märkische Viertel, the Gropiusstadt, and such typical housing developments (Siedlungen) as the Tempelhofer Feld, the Hufeisensiedlung, Onkel Tom’s Hütte, but also the cultural island of Kemperplatz, which offers a replica of the historic Museuminslel. The zones just mentioned represent extremely different structures in context and form; they contain not only buildings in blocks but also single, radial, linear, and reticular urban layouts, open and closed systems, regular and irregular street networks, while also having different graphic, spatial, functional, and social characteristics.

Space for construction The phase of selection of the construction areas is as much a question of programmatic identification and description as it is a formal and urban procedure. The basic principle driving the selection is that of enhancing the presence of life and human agency rather than limiting it or interrupting it. Explanation Construction is a traumatic act that implies replacement of matter and disruption of connections. If non carefully planned it could bring to the interruption or annihilation of human agency with a subsequent detrimental effect for the city. The selection of construction spaces is thus the most delicate part of the program. In order to define the space available for construction it is also necessary to define an agenda in order to classify which elements need to be protected in the first place and which could be replaced. 1 - Rooted human agency ought to be identified, the spaces in which it takes place ought to be protected as valuable. 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Public access ought to be protected as a part of the urban richness. Accessibility ought to be restricted as little as possible and be rather promoted. 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Trees require a time to grow and they are generally a synonym for environmental quality. Cutting down trees requires a noteworthy effort and it removes qualitative elements from the area for a long time. 4 - Buildings and infrastructures ought to be valued for their factual or potential use. Demolitions, extensions and refurbishments are expensive hard procedures and must be considered in this perspective.

Conclusion To establish the characteristics of the city, one could take into consideration a number of typical cases that were designed at other times for other situations and may have comparable typological features. For example, the ideal project for Karlsruhe, with its radial axis, might serve as an example for a configuration of the Südliche Friedrichstadt, or the project for Manhattan’s Central Park be transferred just as it is into the Görlitz station zone. The urban planning structure of the Schlossstrasse is identical to the baroque structure of Mannheim. Leonidov’s linear design for Magnitogorsk is similar from a typological point of view to the built structure along the avenue Unter den Eichen.

Conclusion To establish where to build is thus necessary to run a research on the field. Urban exploration oughts to become the central method to build a practical knowledge of the city that would eventually lead to a conscious construction. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Cities are more productive, more democratic, more sustainable, and more secure when we are collectively aware of and understand the infrastructure that serves us, whether in our buildings, our streets, or under our feet 7 â&#x20AC;?.

7 - Bradley L. Garrett, Shallow excavation, a response to Bunkerology, 2011.

Thesis 7 The concept of the city in the city, which proceeds from a collage of a different urban entities, will be completed antithetically by the space in between the urban islands. Here the structures, by now valueless, ought to be allowed to gradually retransform into natural zones and pastures, without any rebuilding. This concerns in particular the areas of Kemperplatz, the stations of Gรถrlitz and Potsdam, and, at a later stage, the Tempelhofer airport. Hence, the urban islands would be divided from each other by strips of nature and green, thus defining the framework of the city as a green archipelago. Explanation The green inter spaces form a system of modified nature, and contain a repertoire of types that range from suburban zones to parks and woodland to urban areas put to agricultural use (allotment gardens). Suburbs could be of different densities, and integrate existing districts. The surfaces earmarked for agriculture could penetrate all parts of the city and at the same time create an additional source of industry and employment, as is already planned in New York. As for the wooded areas designated as natural reserve, they could be completed and stimulated by wildparks, and encourage a form of inner tourism. The polarity between nature and culture, or nature and metropolis, which has been generally lost or compromised today, would be given a new impulse by this concept. Since this nature-culture system would have to be fundamentally designed - as a purely synthetic nature - its strong contrast would intensify rather than diminish the experience of the metropolis. The natural grid ought also to incorporate the infrastructure of the modern technological age, that is to say, beyond an extended motorway network linking the urban islands to one another, it ought also to include supermarkets, drive-in cinemas, drive-in banks, and similar automobile-related services, as well as all the other 20th century typologies that rely not on space but on mobility.

Magnets and city The concept of the city in the city, which proceeds from a collage of different urban entities, is juxtaposed to the rest of the urban territory. This manifesto promotes a secession of certain areas from the current type of urban planning to a different regime, but it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the presumption of proposing a unidirectional strategy for the whole city. Rather, by promoting a shift in scale of catalysts and other bottom up activities, this project also brings their parasitic strategy to another level. Magnets are vitally connected to existing urban, social and economical structures.

Explanation Today the metropolis cannot be planned as a whole. Public resources are generally too poor to promote significant change, private resources push urban development in market-driven directions and a general crisis of political representation deepens the gap between citizens and politics. The city is a sick Leviathan, its social, economical and formal foundations have become unclear and the general feeling is that of an afterglow rather than a projection toward the future. A viable strategy on a large scale seems to be that of promoting a gathering of the most creative and active agents of the city into spatially autonomous think tanks that we will call magnets. The connection between humans and the city, which has been generally blurred or disrupted today, would be given a new impulse by this concept. Since these alternatives will be developed inside the urban fabric, their strong contrast would intensify rather than diminish the experience of the metropolis. In the same way in which the carcass of a whale is capable of feeding an whole ecosystem of sentient creatures, the city would feed the so called magnets with urban infrastructure such as public transportation, electricity, sanitation, roads, instruction facilities, job opportunities, as well as all the other aspects in which the magnets would present a limited autonomy.

Next to the suburban zones with different densities, the wooded areas, shooting preserves, natural parks, allotment gardens, land for urban agriculture, and the infrastructural services of the modern age, the greenbelts should also be used to ‘park’ temporarily mobile facilities. This would encourage the emergence of a new type of city dwellers whose main interest is the employment of leisure time and who show a predilection for living in tent-houses and mobile units: new inhabitants who do not remain attached to any fixed spot, but whose existence is indeed stimulated by a transitory way of life. Conclusion In the open zones between the urban islands, projects of suburban quality, similar to proposals already known, should be realized, such as: - the building of low-density detached individual housing, in accordance with Hilberseimer’s recommendations for Chicago - the building of complexes of temporary residential areas of mobile homes as an alternative to the city-center living, which would stimulate living in the open and a way of life oriented toward leisure time - the building of sports, rest, and recreational facilities, beginning with park and play areas and extending to shooting preserves and artificial landscapes, and to amusement zones of the Disneyland type and National Parks for the friends of nature - the setting aside of production in the “industrial park” - style of American cities, with leisure time, play and sport facilities for the workers.

In exchange the magnets will embody new urban centers that will bring urbanity to suburban zones of different densities that would otherwise be remote and excluded. Access to cinemas, theaters, galleries, entertainment such as clubs and bars, project spaces, common gardens, alternative schooling facilities, fleamarkets and so on. The magnets should also be used to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; temporarily mobile facilities. This would encourage the migration of cultural institutions from the inner city for limited amounts of time, allowing an augmented access to cultural life.

Conclusion The magnets ought to establish a continuous dialogue with surrounding areas that would be substantiated in fluxes of people, energy and materials.

CONNECTIVITY railroads, S-Bahn, U-Bahn, trams, highways, major roads

DENSITY floor area ratio pattern

MAGNETS

Thesis 8 Residential building in general has hitherto been linked to two types of buildings: the detached dwelling and the apartment block. Leaving aside the transformation of the detached home into rows of houses, we are left essentially with these two types. To an ever-increasing extent, the apartment block is seen as a renunciation of the detached dwelling. Various studies have shown that nearly 70 percent of the population prefer a detached home to one in a block.

Explanation In the last few years, the tendency toward detached homes has risen in step with increased affluence, even if this potentially meant accepting considerable inconvenience, such as higher costs, long commutes, and disruption in supplies. At the same time, moreover, valuable recreational areas, particularly on the outskirts of the city, have been colonized by detached houses, thus permanently stripping the local community of a further benefit. The actual reason behind this trend toward owning a house is determined less by economic considerations and much more by the desire for independence and the need to freely develop oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s personality; in other words, by increasing individualization and improvement in the quality of life. Apartment blocks cannot fulfill this wish because they impose certain obligations upon those who live in them and restrict their living space. And so it is no coincidence that the building of apartment blocks is continually diminishing to the advantage of detached homes. The question, therefore, is whether, between two extreme types of dwelling, there exists a form of housing that offers the advantages of the detached home while avoiding the disadvantages of the apartment block. The answer is that the type of home that evidently fulfills this function is the old rented villa. It is a type of house containing four to eight apartments of different ground plans. On account of its relatively limited volume and resulting adaptability to the particular wishes of its occupants, this type of house allows for individualized design. In its outward appearance, it resembles the

Block In the “City in the City” Ungers proposed the urban villa as crossover of detached dwelling and apartment block, or rather as a building that could merge the qualities of urban and suburban dwelling. To an ever-increasing extent this typology has become a standard in Berlin’s architecture in the form of co-housing units and townhouses. Although the urban villa has been proven - at times - to be remarkable for its flexibility and convenience, in the contemporary scenario it is necessary to think of an upgrade in scale that could turn it into a denser typology. Explanation While buildings are filling the voids of Berlin’s inner city and immigration is rising, the enhancement of density has become a priority. It is not exclusively a problem of producing residential units, but rather mixed types that could also include other functions that require different sorts of accessibility and larger spaces, such as supermarkets, offices, sport facilities, clubs, gardens, theaters, cinemas and so on. In order to develop these schemes we’ll consider Ungers’ urban villa as a component of a larger urban pattern, in the same way in which the Mietskaserne is a part of the Berliner Block. In other words, the objective is not that of presenting an alternative on the small scale, but rather develop a flexible pattern in which future urban villas could fit, and that would also include larger spaces for more extensive functions. We’ll take the Berliner Block as a reference, being one of the distinctive features of the city and one of the densest urban typologies in Europe. The Berliner Block is outstanding in terms of functional integration: it contains apartments, shops, offices and small industries. In fact, since its very beginning, the strength of the Berliner Block has been residing in its size and flexibility. This could be enhanced further today. We dare to imagine the Berliner Block as a continuous Dom-ino system, as an accumulation of Frei Otto’s Ökohäuser, as a sum of complementary cohousing communities. We picture an urban system that integrates parks, shopping malls, apartments and workshops, a scheme whose spatial configuration is so generous

fin-de-siĂ¨cle type of villa, and comes closer than any other known form of housing to fulfilling the desire for individualization. Furthermore, it offers essential advantages in terms of urban planning, since it has a character that creates an urban atmosphere, as it can be seen in the residential areas built at the turn of the century. Conclusion In the housebuilding sector, the construction of town houses as rented villas ought to be encouraged much more than it has been so far. The transformation of historic villas to meet the reduced requirements of today has demonstrated that this type of home is suitable not only for residential purposes but also lends itself to other functions. In an ideal way, it satisfies the desire of those who wish to personalize their environment, while also accommodating public interest not at least with regard to infrastructures and social density. Villa-type houses with a limited number of individually designed apartments fit fairly easily into a historic urban fabric. While the building of big housing blocks in each case results in a redevelopment of the urban fabric, with all the ensuing social, economic, and planning disadvantages, with urban villas all this is avoided because they are more an integrative than a substitutive urbanistic element.

that it allows subcultures to colonize its spaces and turn them into galleries, cinemas, clubs, bars and so on. We picture a block that could embody and represent the current situation in the same way in which the previous one did for XIX century Berlin.

Conclusion In the building sector, the construction of town houses and other low-density typologies ought to be stopped and replaced by high density developments. The analysis of the historic block has demonstrated that this type of scheme is suitable not only for residential purpose but also lends itself to other functions. In an ideal way, it satisfies the desire of those who wish to personalize their environment, while also accommodating public interest not at least with regard to infrastructures and social density. The blocks could fit fairly easily on the large non-built-up areas of the outer city, and could be superimposed to infrastructural space such as railways or parking lots.

Thesis 9 The history of Berlin shows the development of a city from many different places. The difference and variety that manifest themselves in its historic quarters are what constitute Berlin’s identity and urbanistic quality. It is a city in which opposite elements have always found clear expression, and where attempts of standardization under the aegis of a single principle have always failed. Berlin has never followed one idea alone, but proceeded simultaneously from diverging ideas. Theses and antitheses respond here to one another like breathing in and breathing out. Explanation The history of Berlin is the history of the transformation of one type of city to one another. In the course of 700 years, Berlin has been several different cities. It began by being two cities, Berlin and Kölln, the one for fishermen, the other for traders. It soon became a market city, then a residential one, a capital and, in the 19th century, an industrial city. As early as the 18th century, Berlin was formed by six different cities: Berlin, Kölln, Friedrichswerder, Dorotheenstadt, Friedrichstadt, and the eastern suburb. These different urban entities each had their own administration, different planning structures, and independent functions. Berlin was the commercial town, Kölln the industrial town, Friedrichswerder the administrative and Dorotheenstadt the residential town, while Friedrichstadt was the military town and the eastern suburb the factory town. Together they formed a kind of federation of towns. At the end of the 19th century, greater Berlin was a network of towns, small and medium in size, stretching over a wide area. The invention of the automobile, the emergence of railroads, and industrial progress led to increased mobility among the population and prompted an increase in the number of homes and workplaces on the outskirts of the historic city center. These were either completely new outposts, or additions to existing settlements. Districts such as Spandau, Friedenau, Lichterfelde, Siemensstadt, and Charlottenburg are quite different urban structures that visually clarify the model of the

Historic foundations The history of Berlin shows the development of a city from many different places. The difference and variety that manifest themselves in its historic quarters are what constitute Berlin’s identity and urban quality. It is a city in which opposite elements have always found clear expression, and where attempts of standardization under the aegis of a single principle have always failed. Berlin has never followed one idea alone, but proceeded simultaneously from diverging ideas. Theses and antitheses respond here to one another like breathing in and breathing out. Explanation The history of Berlin is the history of the transformation of one type of city to one another. In the course of 700 years, Berlin has been several different cities. It began by being two cities, Berlin and Kölln, the one for fishermen, the other for traders. It soon became a market city, then a residential one, a capital and, in the 19th century, an industrial city. As early as the 18th century, Berlin was formed by six different cities: Berlin, Kölln, Friedrichswerder, Dorotheenstadt, Friedrichstadt, and the eastern suburb. These different urban entities each had their own administration, different planning structures, and independent functions. Berlin was the commercial town, Kölln the industrial town, Friedrichswerder the administrative and Dorotheenstadt the residential town, while Friedrichstadt was the military town and the eastern suburb the factory town. Together they formed a kind of federation of towns. At the end of the 19th century, greater Berlin was a network of towns, small and medium in size, stretching over a wide area. The invention of the automobile, the emergence of railroads, and industrial progress led to increased mobility among the population and prompted an increase in the number of homes and workplaces on the outskirts of the historic city center. These were either completely new outposts, or additions to existing settlements. Districts such as Spandau, Friedenau, Lichterfelde, Siemensstadt, and Charlottenburg are quite different urban structures that visually clarify the model of the “city in the city”.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;city in the cityâ&#x20AC;?. From a historic point of view, this model also transposes the project drawn up by William IV for the Havellandschaft between Berlin and Potsdam. Here, in the 19th century, a humanistic cultural landscape was composed with commemorative monuments borrowed from different historic styles, in which the romantic fragment of the Pfaueninsel castle, the Neo-classical Heilandskirche, the country church of Saints Peter and Paul, reminiscent of Islamic architecture, the classicist objects of Glienicke Park, the Neo-Gothic Babelsberg Palace, Persiusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house for the court gardener and the machine house, conceived in the late Italian style, and finally the classicist monuments of Potsdam were all embedded as special palaces in themselves, thus forming an archipelago of architectonic phenomena. The configuration of the Havel landscape holds the key to regarding Berlin as an archipelago of many different sites and places. Beyond all practical and rational reasons, the idea of Berlin as an archipelago is the expression of this humanistic tradition transported to the present. Conclusion The superimposition of ideas, concepts, decisions, coincidences, and realities across the arc of seven centuries has given the city its present form. The plan of the current situation is a book of events in which the traces of history have remained clearly visible. It is not a unified image but a living collage, a collection of fragments. From a historical point of view, the simultaneous juxtaposition of contrasting elements is the expression of the dialectic process in which has always found itself and still does. The concept of critical antithesis and divergent multiplicity is the very essence and unique character of Berlin.

From a historic point of view, this model also transposes the project drawn up by William IV for the Havellandschaft between Berlin and Potsdam. Here, in the 19th century, a humanistic cultural landscape was composed with commemorative monuments borrowed from different historic styles, in which the romantic fragment of the Pfaueninsel castle, the Neo-classical Heilandskirche, the country church of Saints Peter and Paul, reminiscent of Islamic architecture, the classicist objects of Glienicke Park, the Neo-Gothic Babelsberg Palace, Persiusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house for the court gardener and the machine house, conceived in the late Italian style, and finally the classicist monuments of Potsdam were all embedded as special palaces in themselves, thus forming an archipelago of architectonic phenomena. The configuration of the Havel landscape holds the key to regarding Berlin as an archipelago of many different sites and places. Beyond all practical and rational reasons, the idea of Berlin as an archipelago is the expression of this humanistic tradition transported to the present. Conclusion The superimposition of ideas, concepts, decisions, coincidences, and realities across the arc of seven centuries has given the city its present form. The plan of the current situation is a book of events in which the traces of history have remained clearly visible. It is not a unified image but a living collage, a collection of fragments. From a historical point of view, the simultaneous juxtaposition of contrasting elements is the expression of the dialectic process in which has always found itself and still does. The concept of critical antithesis and divergent multiplicity is the very essence and unique character of Berlin.

Thesis 10 The inevitable drive toward reduction, the improvement of the urban quality, the preservation of the historic substance, the individualization of architecture, the humanization of living space in the city, and the improvement of the environment are implied topics that will need to be discussed within the framework of the reconstruction of the city and for whose solutions new proposals must be developed. Explanation The issue in question is no longer the design of a completely new environment, but rather the rebuilding of what already exists. The task at hand is not the invention of a new urban system, but the improvement of what is already there, not the discovery of a new order, but the rediscovery of proven principles, not the construction of new cities, but the restructuring of the old ones - this is the real problem for the future. What is needed is not a new Utopia, but rather a blueprint for a better reality. And this is something that applies not only to Berlin but also to the majority of other large cities. Berlin might, however, prompt initiatives that go beyond its particular problematic and thus assume an exemplary and universal character. Conclusion The concept of the archipelago-city answers a series of fundamental urban design demands, such as: - finding a solution to the problem of reduction that goes hand in hand with improvement in quality, as opposed to the loss in quality that is concomitant to constant growth and expansion -improving urban quality by offering varied and versatile spaces for living and activities - creating a pluralistic system of unresolved contradictions, instead of a unitary and centralized system - restoring identity in urban spaces

Synthesis The inevitable drive toward growth, the problem of the reduction of free space, the preservation and concentration of social agency, the individualization of architecture, the humanization of living space in the city, and the improvement of the environment are implied topics that will need to be discussed within the framework of the densification of the city and for whose solutions new proposals must be developed. Explanation The issue in question is the development of an alternative to that of current design strategies. The task at hand is the invention of an urban system that could integrate what is already there. Not the discovery of a new order, though, but rather the rediscovery of proven principles in a new way, not the construction of new cities, but the improvement of the old ones - this is the real problem for the future. What is needed is not a new Utopia, but rather a blueprint for a better reality. And this is something that applies not only to Berlin but also to the majority of other large cities. Berlin might, however, prompt initiatives that go beyond its particular problematic and thus assume an exemplary and universal character. Conclusion The concept of the dense archipelago answers a series of fundamental urban design demands, such as: - finding a solution to the housing problem that goes hand in hand with a densification process, as opposed to the loss of quality that is concomitant with low density extensive development - improving urban quality by offering varied and versatile spaces for living and activities - enhancing a pluralistic system of unresolved contradictions, instead of a unitary and centralized system - preserving identity in urban spaces

- establishing a close link between city and country, which means renewing the relationship between culture and nature - the intensification of places, along with the preservation of collective memory and historical consciousness, understood as a continuity of space and time - the individualization of architecture and, simultaneously, an improved adaptability to the wishes and expectations of inhabitants - the need for smaller units so as to create more manageable living and working areas at the scale of the city, and that of individual buildings.

- re-establishing a close link between citizens and the city, which means enabling a more flexible use of space - the intensification of places, along with the preservation of collective memory and historical consciousness, understood as a continuity of space and time - the individualization of architecture and, simultaneously, an improved adaptability to the wishes and expectations of inhabitants

Thesis 11 The project ought to be carried out in several stages over a long period of time. The first phase is concerned with the formal and content-related description of the characteristics of the city. The second phase deals with the development of alternative models. The third phase covers the evaluation of the different models and the formulation of programs. The fourth is the design phase and the fifth is that of the actual realization. If we grant one year to each of these phases, it will take at least five years to complete the whole project. Explanation The results of the first phase, which principally consists in cataloging the elements and structures of the city, ought to be presented in an exhibition and discussed during the Bauwochen. In terms of method, this research should be organized as a system of fairly open morphological lines so as to allow integrations during the work. The second phase, the development of alternative models, serves to go more deeply into the architectonic and urban planning vocabulary. The possible Utopias for the future should also be compared and contrasted with each other. The alternatives serve to prepare the decision-making phase. As Popper recommends, hypotheses should be put forward that, in subsequent phases and through critical evaluation based on realistic criteria, are then either confirmed, modified, or rejected. The appraisal of these alternatives would, for the main part, be the task of political commissions, and also of individual citizens. The results of the two phases should later be discussed in public meetings and be published. After the formulation of the programs comes the phase of designing the urban islands and the green zones between them. At this stage, we ought to avoid showing a preference for a unified architectural style. Rather, the rule of maintaining as wide as possible an architectural spectrum should be adhered to.

Open point In this final thesis O.M.Ungers delineates the path that would eventually bring to the realization of the Green Archipelago, opening the manifesto to further discussion and officially proposing it as a programmatic document for what would eventually become the IBA â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;87. This re-writing of The City in The City has different objectives: - On a first level it traces a parasitic strategy that proposes the active use of documents and ideas from the past, re-projecting them into the future. - On a second level it is a use of architectural theory as a tool for narrative design. - On a third level it is the proposal of a conscious reconnection between the architectural and the metropolitan level. This manifesto depends on the existence of The City in the City. It is not an independent document but rather a re-writing, an update, a review. The process of re-writing is not limited to this version of the manifesto, but could be repeated multiple times with different criteria producing different scenarios and outcomes. Hence, there is no possible unidirectional conclusion to this manifesto, but rather an invitation to repeat the work on this document - or other documents - and produce new narratives.

Conclusion The punctual realization of prototypical examples illustrating the whole concept might be the purpose and subject of a building exhibition in the 1980s. Along the way, exhibitions could be organized every year, during the Bauwochen, to showcase the different work stages in progress. In a continuation of the first Summer School held in Berlin this year, certain topics from the overall concept could be reexamined and theoretically re-elaborated. International architects should be invited for extended stays in Berlin to work on these projects. An independent group of experts should be set up to organize the entire planning.

Typology, system of groupings (such as “landed gentry” or “rain forests”), usually called types, the members of which are identified by postulating specified attributes that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive - groupings set up to aid demonstration or inquiry by establishing a limited relationship among phenomena. A type may represent one kind of attribute or several and need include only those features that are significant for the problem at hand. Encyclopædia Britannica

TYP O L O G I C A L STUD I E S

Berliner Block Apartment 4

Ökohäuser

Lützowplatz

Askanischer Platz

Apartment 3

R50 Apartment 2 Apartment 1

ANALYZED DATA

ESTIMATED INHABITANTS

PLOT AREA (sm)

R50

state of art

2000

Ökohäuser

state of art

3900

Askanischer Platz

project

250

6000

Lützowplatz

project

450

7200

Berliner Block

state of art

3355

46000

The R50 is an example of how the Baugruppen praxis has renewed the idea of dwelling in Berlin through the involvement of dwellers in the architectural process. The building is conceived as the sum of a “hard” and a “soft” structure. The first includes the slabs, the central stairwell and air, water and electricity ducts. It is the fixed part of the building, a minimal infrastructure that allows further development. The “soft” structure is developed while construction is already ongoing. During this time the inhabitants define the actual spatial configuration of apartments and rooms. This method has been widely adopted as a practice due to its arguable material advantages - construction can begin before the discussion on internal distribution is over, inhabitants are able decide the details of each apartment, spaces remain flexible and are open to be separated or combined in the future - but it also represents a way of redefining urban living in terms of personal and community space. The building contains two major common spaces: a doubleheight common room at the basement level and a common roof terrace. These two spaces were also defined by preliminary discussion with the clients. Considering its peculiar features, the R50 is an almost literal interpretation of what Ungers defined as an urban villa and it presents the same features in terms of spatial quality, density and flexibility. Its simple structure and its efficient plan configuration qualify the building as a paradigm for the further development of urban living concepts.

R5 0

address: RitterstraĂ&#x;e 50, Berlin - Kreuzberg architects: Ifau & Jesko Fezer, Heide & Von Beckerat construction: 2013 plot area: 2000 m2 built area: 395 m2 levels: 7 above ground estimated number of inhabitants: 70 estimated density (plot only): 357 inh/ha estimated density (streets included): 183 inh/ha FAR: 1,58

24.3 m

22.9 m 17.4 m 3

HARD STRUCTURE

1 - south service duct 2 - north service duct 3 - common terrace 4 - common room 5 - bike parking area

16.2 m 14.7 m

common room - 2.00 m

common room 1.00 m

SOFT STRUCTURE

4.00 m

7.00 m 89

10.00 m

12.00 m 90

SOFT STRUCTURE 15

15.00 m

common terrace

18.00 m 91

Adr ess Ri t t er st r .50

Ar chi t ect Pr oj ect I f au&Jes koFezer 2011 Hei de&VonBecker at h

Const r uct i o 2013

Pl otar ea+st r eet s 2570

Pl otar ea 2000

Bui l tar ea 395

Hei ght( st or 8st or eys

Uni t s

Number

Level s

Ar eaI Ter ( sm)

Fl at1 Fl at2 Fl at3 Fl at4 Fl at5 Fl at6 Fl at7 Fl at8 Fl at9 Fl at10 Fl at11 Fl at12 Fl at13 Fl at14 Fl at15 Fl at16 Fl at17 Fl at18 Fl at19 Commonr oom Commont er r ace Commonbal cony

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 5

Tot al 19

Tot al 1885

Aver agear ea

Aver aget er r ace

( sm)

2, 5

Tot ali nhabi t ant s

Densi t y( onl ypl ot )

Densi t y( wi t hst r eet s)

( 1, 5xbedr ooms)

( i nh/ ha)

353

183

92 Ar eaperi nh

95 90 95 100 90 110 80 90 90 90 105 95 90 105 100 90 90 90 90 100

Ter r aceperi nh

( sm)

Bedr oomsperf l at

To 6

Const r uct i on 2013

r ea

Hei ght( st or eys) 8st or eys

Demol i t i on

Ar eaI Ter r aces Ter r ace ( sm)

( sm)

95 90 95 100 90 110 80 90 90 90 105 95 90 105 100 90 90 90 90 100

Tot al 1885

Bedr ooms

2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 5

75 55

Tot al 6

Tot al 350

Tot al 47

msperf l at

y( wi t hst r eet s)

Aver agear ea

Aver aget er r ace

Bedr oomsperf l at

( sm)

2, 5

Tot ali nhabi t ant s

Densi t y( onl ypl ot )

Densi t y( wi t hst r eet s)

( 1, 5xbedr ooms)

( i nh/ ha)

353

183

Ar eaperi nh

Ter r aceperi nh

( sm)

The Ökohäuser are an experimental housing project in open form. They were realized in the larger context of the IBA 1987, although the construction process took longer and was completed in 1991. Like the R50 building, the Ökohäuser are based on a distinction between “soft” and “hard” structure. Here the latter is substantiated by simple concrete frame structures on the model of Le Corbusier’s Dom-ino system. The frames consist of sets of two platforms. The first ones float at about six and a half meters above ground level, the second ones around thirteen meters above ground. Each set is connected by external linear stairwells that are also made of concrete. The basic idea that lead to the project was that of multiplying the soil, thus allowing a larger number of people to build houses on the same plot of land, merging the qualities of urban density and suburban living. Each infrastructure was divided in slots that could be purchased by future dwellers, who would then design their own house and build it independently through light construction. Each slot was given a big amount of space that resulted in generally large houses (around 150 sm average) that often happen to have also large terraces. Although the building could potentially develop into an ongoing process of construction rather than a finished whole, all lots were immediately filled and no houses were removed, replaced or added since 1991. The Ökohäuser are an unusual interpretation of the urban villa concept, as they successfully merge suburban standards with urban density. The radical division between hard and soft structure here is integrated by a larger availability of space: the single units are not limited to the single level, but they rather develop vertically into townhouses or double-height spaces.

ÖKOHÄUS ER

address: CorneliusstraĂ&#x;e 11/12_RauchstraĂ&#x;e 21, Berlin - Tiergarten architect: Frei Otto (hard structure) construction: 1991 plot area: 3900 m2 built area: 1700 m2 levels: max 5 above ground estimated number of inhabitants: 87 (1,5 per bedroom) estimated density: 222 inh/he FAR: 2,61

100

HARD STRUCTURE

101

14.3 m

13.60 m

13.9 m

17.1 m

11.3 m

7.30 m 7.9 m

11.1 m a

1.00 m 102

HARD STRUCTURE

6.3 m

6.3 m b

27.9 m

103

ÖKOHAUS 1

13.00 m

7.00 m

10.00 m

9 6

1.00 m

104

4.00 m

HOUSE 1 Levels: 1 Surface: 130 m2 Terrace: 35 m2 Bedrooms: 1

HOUSE 9 Levels: 2 Surface: 95 + 110 m2 Terrace: 40 m2 Bedrooms: 3

SOFT STRUCTURE

HOUSE 2 Levels: 2 Surface: 85 + 65 m2 Terrace: 45 + 25 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 3 Levels: 2 Surface: 85 + 75 m2 Terrace: 20 + 5 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 4 Levels: 2 Surface: 80 + 75 m2 Terrace: 20 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 5 Levels: 2 Surface: 100 + 100 m2 Terrace: 55 m2 Bedrooms: 4 HOUSE 6 Levels: 2 Surface: 85 + 95 m2 Terrace: 20 + 20 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 7 Levels: 2 Surface: 90 + 100 m2 Terrace: 10 + 10 m2 Bedrooms: 3 HOUSE 8 Levels: 2 Surface: 80 + 95 m2 Terrace: 10 m2 Bedrooms: 3 105

ÖKOHAUS 2

14 10

13.00 m

11 12

7.00 m

106

16 17

1.00 m

10.00 m

4.00 m

HOUSE 10 Levels: 1 Surface: 150 m2 Terrace: 30 m2 Bedrooms: 1

HOUSE 18 Levels: 2 Surface: 95 + 95 m2 Terrace: 30 + 30 m2 Bedrooms: 4

SOFT STRUCTURE

HOUSE 11 Levels: 2 Surface: 90 + 75 m2 Terrace: 55 + 25 m2 Bedrooms: 1 HOUSE 12 Levels: 2 Surface: 90 + 85 m2 Terrace: 20 + 15 m2 Bedrooms: 3 HOUSE 13 Levels: 2 Surface: 85 + 85 m2 Terrace: 20 m2 Bedrooms: 3 HOUSE 14 Levels: 3 Surface: 80 + 90 + 25 m2 Terrace: 55 + 10 + 50 m2 Bedrooms: 3 HOUSE 15 Levels: 2 Surface: 100 + 90 m2 Terrace: 25 + 30 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 16 Levels: 2 Surface: 100 + 100 m2 Terrace: 20 + 20 m2 Bedrooms: 3 HOUSE 17 Levels: 2 Surface: 110 + 110 m2 Terrace: 15 m2 Bedrooms: 2 107

ÖKOHAUS 3

13.00 m

21 22

7.00 m

108

10.00 m

1.00 m

4.00 m

HOUSE 19 (x2) Levels: 1 Surface: 105 m2 Terrace: 50 m2 Bedrooms: 1

0FFICE 27 Surface: 140 m2

SOFT STRUCTURE

HOUSE 20 Levels: 2 Surface: 65 + 65 m2 Terrace: 40 + 5m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 21 Levels: 2 Surface: 100 + 100 m2 Terrace: 50 + 5 m2 Bedrooms: 3 HOUSE 22 Levels: 2 Surface: 80 + 75 m2 Terrace: 20 + 5 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 23 Levels: 2 Surface: 90 + 85 m2 Terrace: 40 + 5 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 24 Levels: 2 Surface: 80 + 80 m2 Terrace: 15 + 5 m2 Bedrooms: 2 HOUSE 25 Levels: 2 Surface: 95 + 95 m2 Terrace: 15 m2 Bedrooms: 2 0FFICE 26 Surface: 95 m2

109

Adr ess Rauchst r .21 Cor nel i us st r .11/ 12

Ar chi t ect F. Ot t o

Pr oj ect 1987

Const r uct i o 1991

Pl otar ea+st r eet s 4660

Pl otar ea 3900

Bui l tar ea 1700

Hei ght( st o 5s t or ey s

Uni t s

Number

Level s

Ar eaI Ar e ( sm)

House1 House2 House3 House4 House5 House6 House7 House8 House9 House10 House11 House12 House13 House14 House15 House16 House17 House18 House19 House20 House21 House22 House23 House24 House25 Of f i ce1 Of f i ce2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Tot al 26

Aver agear ea

Aver aget er r ace

Tot al 4420

Bedr oomsperf l at

( s m)

170

2, 3

Tot ali nhabi t ant s

Densi t y( onl ypl ot )

Densi t y( wi t hst r eet s)

( 1, 5xbedr ooms )

( i nh/ ha)

231

129

110

150 80 90 90 85 100 100 110 95 130 85 85 80 100 85 90 80 95 105 65 100 80 90 80 95

( sm)

90 75 85 85 90 100 110 95

65 75 75 100 95 100 95 110

65 100 75 85 80 95

Const r uct i on 1991

Demol i t i on -

Hei ght( st or eys) 5st or eys Ar eaI Ar eaI I Ar eaI I I Ter r aces

Ter r aceI Ter r aceI b Ter r aceI

( s m)

( sm)

150 80 90 90 85 100 100 110 95 130 85 85 80 100 85 90 80 95 105 65 100 80 90 80 95

Tot al 4420

( s m)

90 75 85 85 90 100 110 95

65 75 75 100 95 100 95 110 65 100 75 85 80 95

2095

1 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

30 55 55 20 20 25 20 15 30 30 25 20 20 55 20 10 10

Tot al 48

Tot al 1080

( sm)

50 15 15 15 20 30

5 20

15 5

20 10 10 40

50 40 50 20 40 15 15

5 5 5 5 5

msperf l at

( wi t hst r eet s)

111

112

Tot al 26

Tot al 4420

Aver agear ea

Aver aget er r ace

( s m)

170

2, 3

Tot ali nhabi t ant s

Densi t y( onl ypl ot )

Densi t y( wi t hst r eet s)

( 1, 5xbedr ooms )

( i nh/ ha)

231

129

Ar eaperi nh

Ter r aceperi nh

( s m)

Bedr oomsperf l at

113

Frei Otto’s project for Asckanischer Platz is the original design for an open form dwelling system and the project was also submitted for the IBA 1987. The proposal was withdrawn due to objections from J. P. Kleyhues, the director of the exhibition. The design enhances the same principle of the Ökohäuser, but it takes the idea to a more radical outcome, resulting in a 55 meters high concrete scaffold that is supposed to host a high number of independent houses with gardens. The larger scale was supposed to enhance a larger spectrum of possibilities for future inhabitants and a superior level of porosity. Houses were expected to be surrounded by large common gardens and other functions were supposed to merge in a sort of vertical green city. The concrete platforms were designed as mountain contours, like terraces, allowing each platform to have proper access to solar radiation.

A S K A N I SCHER PLATZ

115

116

address: Dessauer StraĂ&#x;e architect: Frei Otto construction: plot area: 6000 m2 built area: 2200 m2 levels: max 15 above ground presumed number of inhabitants: 250 presumed density: 416 inh/he FAR: 1,18

117

30.8 m

6.3 m

a 118

HARD STRUCTURE

52.10 m

39.50 m

45.80 m

19.90 m

26.20 m

7.30 m

13.60 m

a 119

The experimental housing development in Lützowplatz is a building designed by O. M. Ungers that stems from an interpretation of the urban villa concept, but in a different way in respect to the previous examples. In this case there is no distinction between “hard” and “soft” structure, but rather an approach to distribution that emphasizes the quality of the single dwelling units. The building enhances the concept of terraces within the framework of an ordinary urban block, mixing large country-like gardens with high density housing. The scheme that underpins this juncture is simple and clever at the same time. It is based on piling a single type of housing units, the size of which is roughly that of Frei Otto’s Ökohäuser. In this case the houses were all designed to match the requirements of a standard 4 bedrooms suburban house. The building was demolished in 2012 in order to be replaced with a hotel with higher density, according to the wishes of private investors.

L Ü T Z OW P L A T Z

121

address: L端tzowplatz, Berlin - Tiergarten architect: O.M. Ungers construction: 1983 demolition: 2010 plot area: 7200 m2 built area: 3500 m2 storeys: max 6 above ground presumed number of inhabitants: 351 - 450 presumed density: 416 - 624 inh/ha

122

123

124

125

Type 1 Type 2

Number

Levels

Surface (m2)

Terrace (m2)

Bedrooms

2 28

2 2

130 120

30 30

3+1 3+1

1 5.00 m

1 2.00 m

126

Type 3 Type 4 Type 5

Number

Levels

Surface (m2)

Terrace (m2)

Bedrooms

4 3 28

1 1 2

115 90 120

15 15 + 15 30

3 2+1 3+1

3 4

11.00 m

3 4

8.00 m

127

Type 6 Type 7 Type 8 Type 9 Type 10 Type 11 Type 12

Number

Levels

Surface (m2)

Terrace (m2)

Bedrooms

1 2 2 6 1 2 6

2 2 2 1 1 1 1

120 120 120 60 60 30 90

30 30 30 30 30 30

3+1 3+1 3+1 1 1 1 3

17.00 m

b 5

c d 6 8

14.00 m

11 5 10

6 8 128

d 129

Pl o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z A d r e s s A r c h i t e c t 1 0 3 3 0 7 2 0 0 Lüt zowpl . O. M.Unger s Pl o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a A d r e s s A r c h i t e c t Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z Uü n i t s N2 u mb e r 1 0 3 3 0 7 0 0U L t z o wpl . O . M. n ger s Pl o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a A d r e s s A r c h i t e c t Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z U n i t s N u mb e r Wo h n g e b i e t L ü t z o w p l a t z 1 0 3 3 0 7 2 0 0 L ü t z o w p l . O . M. U n g er s Wohngebi etLüt zowpl at z T p e 1 4 Py l o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a A d r s s A r c h i t e c t Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z T y p e 2 1 A d r s s A r c h i t c t 1 0 3 3 0 7 2 0 0 U n i t s N u mb e r Lü t z o w pl . Or . M. U n g er s A d r e s s A chi t c t e L ü t z o w p l . O . M. U n g e s T y p e 1 4 3 2 Pü l o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a A d r e s s A r c h i t e c t Wo h n g e b i es tt L ü t z o a t z L t z o w p l .+ O . M. U n g er r s T y p e 2 1 4 2 U n i t s N u mb e r 1 0 3 3 0 7 2 0 0 Lüt zowpl . O. M.Unger s T p e 3 2 5 6 1 4 Py l o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z A d r e s s A r c h i t e c t 6 3 4 2 P l o t a r e a r e s P l o t a r e a T y p e 2 U n i s N u mb e r 1 0 3 3 0 7 0 0 L t z o w p l .+ O . M. U n ger s Pü l o t a r e a +s st t r ee et t s 1 P2 l o t a r e a T y p e 7 1 5 6 1 0 3 3 0 7 2 0 0 1 4 3 2 P l o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a A d r e s s A r c h i t e c t 10 3 3 0 7 2 0 0 Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z 6pl 3 T y p e 8 2 2 1 4 U n i t s N u mb e r 1ü 0 3 3 0 72 0 0U L t z o w . O . M. n ger s T y p e 7 1 9 6 U n i t s N u mb e r 3 2 5 1 4 P o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a Ul n i s N u mb e r A d r e s s A r c h i t c t Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z T y p e 8 2 1 4 60 3 2 1 U n i t s N u mb e r 1ü 0 3 3 0 78 2 0 0U L t z o w pl . O . M. n ger s T y p e 9 6 1 1 2 5 7 1 3 4 Pl o t a r e a r ee t swpl P l o t a r e a A d r e s s A r c h i t e c t Wo h n g e b+ i es tt L ü t z o a t z 1 2 4 6 3 T y p e 8 2 4 2 1 1 0 3 3 0 7 2 0 0U 10 4 Uü n i t s N8 u mb e r T y p e L t z o w pl . O . M. n ger s 1 1 2 2 T y p e 7 1 9 6 5 3 1 4 T p e 2 1 Py l o t a r ea+st r eet s A Pl o t a r e a A d r s s r c h i t e c t T8 o t a l 2 30 T y p e 8 2 1 6 3 4 2 1 U n i t s N u mb e r T y p e 3 2 1ü 0 3 3 0 7 2 0 0 L t z o w pl . O . M. U n ger s 8 5 4 2 9 6 1 1 T y p e 7 1 5 3 4 2 Py l o t a r ea+st r eet s 4 Pl otar ea T p e T y p e 5 6 T o t a ler 1 2 8 2 6 3 4 T y p e 2 1 50 6 U n i t s N u mb 10 3 3 0 78 2 0 0 8 5 6 3 1 1 2 T y p e 9 6 7 1l 5 3 2 6 3 T p e Py l o t a r ea+st r eet s 4 P otar ea A v e r a g e a r e a A v e r a g et er r ace T y p e 7 1 2 T o t a l 1 0 2 8 8 6 3 2 4 T y p e 7 1 U0 n i t s N2 u mb 1 3 3 0 7 0 0 er 8 ( sm) ( s m) 8 5 T y 2 8 91 6 7 1 3 5 4 T yp pe e1 2 8 A v e r a g e a r e a A v e r ag et er r ace 1 1 0 2 9 T y p e 9 6 T o t a l 1 0 T p e 2 4 62 38 9 6 2 1 Uy n i t s8 N u mb er T y p e 1 0 2 8 ( sm) ( s m) 8 5 T y p 2 8 1 9 6 5 70 1 3 4 T y pe e1 1 0 2 8 o t a l i n h a b i t a n t s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) 1 1 0 9 T y p e 1 1 2 Ay v e r a g er ea A8 v e r a g e t e r r ac e T o t a l 2 T p e 1 0 2 6 3 8 1 4 2 1 T y p e 1 2 2 8 1m) , 5 x be d2 r ooms) i n h/ ha) 8 5 ( s ( s m) T y p e 1 2 8 1 7 1 9 5 6 3 2 2 8 T y p e 1 4 T o t a l i n h a b i t a n t s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) 4 5 0 6 2 5 A v e r a g e r e a A v e r a g e t e r r ac e 11 9 T ot a l 1 T ype8 2 0 6 3 4 22 18 T o t a l 1m) , 5 x be d1 r ooms) i n h/ h al ) ( s ( s m) 8 5 T o t a T y p e 9 6 1 2 7 1 5 3 A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h 4 5 6 2 5 8 5 1 1 0 2 9 Ty o t a l i n hab i t ant s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) v e r a g e r e a A v e r a g e t r a c e T o t a l 1 0 2 88 5 T p e 8 2 6 3 4 ( sm) m) ( s m) 1 , 5 x be d r o o ms ) i n h / h a ) ( s ( s m) 8 5 T y p e 1 1 2 9 6 7 1 5 A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h 2 1 5 T o t a l i n h a b i t ant s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) 4 0 6 2 5 1 2 9 A5 v e r a g e r e a A8 v e r a g e t e r r a c e 2 T o t a l 1 0 T y p e 8 2 6 3 ( sm) m) ( s m) A v e r a g e ar r ea a A v e r ag ge et t er r r ac ce e 1 , 5 x b e d r o oms ) i n h/ ha ) ( s ( s m) 8 5 A v e r a g e a e A v e r a e r a 1 1 2 T y p e 9 6 7 1 2 1 5 4 5 0 6 2 5 A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h T o t a l i n h a b i t a n t s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) ( s m) ( s m) 1 9 v e r a g er ea A vt e r aget r ace o a l 2 ( sm) ( s m) T y p e 1 0 2 8 8 1 1 0 2 9 ( s m) ( s m) 1 , 5 x be d1 r ooms) i n h/ ha) 8 5 1 1 0 2 9 ( s m) ( s m) T y p e 1 9 6 A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h 2 1 5 4 5 0 6 2 5 T o t a l i n hab i t ant s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) 1 9 Ay v e r a g e r e a A8 v e r a g e t e r r a c e T o t a l T p e 1 2 2 0 T o t a l i n h a b i t a n t s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l o t ) ( sm) m) ( s m) 1 , 5 x b e d r o o ms ) i n h / h a ) T o t a l i n h a b i t a n t s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l o t ) 8 5 ( s ( s m) ype11 2 2 1 5 A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h ( 1 , 5 x b e d r o o ms ) ( i n h / h a ) 4 5 0 6 2 5 T o t a l i n h ab i t ant s D e n s i t y ( o y p l ot ) v e r a g e r e a A v e r a g e tnl r ac e 1 1 2 9 T o t a l ( 1 , 5 x b e d r o oms ) ( i n h/ h a ) T y p e 1 2 8 4 5 0 6 2 5 ( s m) ( s m) 1 , 5 xbedr ooms) i n h / ha) 4 5 0 6 2 5 ( s m) ( s m) 8 5 2 5 A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h 41 5 6 2 5 1 0 2 T o t a l i n h a b i t ant s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) v e r a g e r e a A v e r a g e t r a c e T9 o t a l A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h ( sm) m) ( s m) A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h 1 , 5 x be dr o oms ) i n h / h a ) ( s ( s m) 85 ( s m) ( s m) 2 1 5 A r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h ( s m) ( s m) T o t a l i n h a b i t ant s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) 4 5 6 2 5 1 0 2 9 v e r a g e r e a A v e r a g e t r a c e ( s m) ( s m) 2 1 5 ( s m) ( s m) 2 1 5 1 , 5xbedr ooms) i n h/ ha) ( s m) ( s m) 2 1 5 4 0 6 5 A5 r e a p e r i n h T e r r a c e p e r i n h T o t a l i n h a b i t ant s D e n s i t y ( o n l y p l ot ) 1 2 9 v e r a g e r e a A2 v e r a g e t r a c e

Br u i l t ea Ho ei g h t ( s t o r e P o j ea cr t C n s t r u c t i o nys) D 3 5 0 0 6 s t o r e y s 198 1983 2 Br u i l t ea Ho ei g h t ( s t o r e P o j ea cr t C n s t r u c t i o nys) D L9 e8 v0 el s A9 r e a IA eaI IT 3 5 0 6 s t o r eysr 1 1 8 3 2 ( sm) ( s m) Br u i l t ea H ei g h t ( s t o r e P o j ea cr t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D L9 e8 v0 el s A9 r e a IA eaI IT 3 5 0 6 s t o r eysr 1 1 8 3 2 1 1 1 5 1 ( s m) ( s m) Br u i l t ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e P o j ea cr t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D 2 6 0 6 0 1 P r o j e c t C o n s t r u c t i o n 3 5 0 0 s t o r e y s L e v e l s A r e a IA r e a I IT 19 8j 19 8 3 2 P r o ect C o n st r uct i on D D 9 8 0 9 8 3 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 6 0 6 0 B u i l t ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e ( s m) ( s m) P r o j ea cr t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D 19 8 0 1 9 8 3 2 2 6 0 6 0 1 L e v e l s A r e a IA r e a I IT 3 5 0 0 s t o r e y s 198 1983 2 2 6 0 6 0 1 1 1 1 5 ( s m) ( s m) Br u i l t ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e P o j ea cr t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D H0 e i g h t ( s t o r e y s) ) 1 9 2 B u i l t a r e 2 6 6 0 1 L e v e l s A r e a IA r ea I IT 3 0 0 s t o r e y s H e i g h t ( s t o r e y s 1 9 8 1 9 8 3 2 B5 u i l t a r ea a 1 6 0 1 3 5 0 0 s t o r e y s 1 1 5 2 6 0 ( s m) ( s m) B u i l t ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e P r o j ea cr t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D 35 0 0 6 s t o r e y s 9 2 1 3 2 6 6 1 L e8 v0 el s A0 r e a IA r eaI IT 39 5 0 s t o r ey s0 1 1 9 8 3 2 1 6 0 1 9 L e v e l s A r e a IA r e a I IT 2 6 0 1 1 5 ( s m) ( s m) B u i l t a r ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e y s) Le v e l s A r e a IA r e a I IT P r o j e c t C o n s t r u c t i o n D 1 3 0 2 6 6 0 1 ( s m) ( s m) 9 2 L e8 v0 el s A r e a IA r eaI IT ( s m) ( s 39 5 0 6 s t o r ey s 1 1 9 8 3 2 ( s m) ( sm) m) 1 9 0 1 2 6 5 6 5 0 1 1 5 Br u i l t ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e ( s m) ( s m) P o j ea cr t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D 2 6 6 1 1 1 5 9 2 1 3 3 6 s t o r ey s0 1 1 5 1 L5 e0 v0 el s A0 r e a IA r eaI IT 1 9 8 9 8 3 2 2 5 6 5 0 1 6 0 1 9 1 1 5 2 6 0 6 0 1 Br u i l t ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e ( s m) ( s m) P o j ea cr t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D T0 o t a l T 2 6 6 1 1 3 9 2 2 6 6 0 1 L e8 v0 el s A r e a IA r eaI IT 0 39 5 0 s t o r ey s0 1 1 9 8 3 2 3 3 0 8 2 6 0 9 5 5 1 6 0 1 1 1 5 2 6 0 ( s m) ( s m) Bui l tar ea H e i ght( s t or eys) 6 0 1 1 6 0 1 T o t a l T 2 6 3 1 9 2 2 6 6 0 1 L e0 v0 el s A0 r e a IA r eaI IT 35 s t o r ey s0 1 3 3 0 8 2 2 6 5 6 5 1 9 0 1 1 1 5 2 6 6 0 2 1 9 0 ( s m) ( s m) Bui l tar ea H e i ght( s t or eys) B e d r o o ms p e r f l a t 1 6 0 1 T o t a l T 2 6 0 3 9 2 1 6 0 1 L5 e0 v0 el s Ar e ar IA eaI IT 3 s t o eysr 1 3 0 9 3 3 0 8 2 6 5 6 5 1 1 3 0 1 1 5 (s0 1 3 0 ( s m) m) B e d r o o ms p e r f l a t 3 , 5 1 9 0 1 T o t a l T 2 6 60 1 3 2 9 1 Level s A0 r e a IA r eaI IT 2 6 0 6 0 1 9 3 3 0 8 2 6 0 6 0 1 5 5 1 1 1 5 6 2 6 0 0 1 ( s m) ( s m) D e n i t y ( wi t h st r e et s)6 3 5 2 1 B, ds r o o ms p er f l a t T ot al 6 T 2 6 0 65 0 1 1 9 2 35 5 5 2 6 0 6 0 1 ( i nh/ ha) 9 3 8 2 6 1 5 5 1 2 6 0 60 0 1 10 13 50 6 D n s i t y ( w i t h s t r e e t s ) 2 9 0 B e d r o o ms p e r f l a t 3, 5 T0 ot al 60 T 2 6 1 1 3 9 2 T o t a l T ( i n h / h a ) 3 3 0 8 T o t a l T 1 9 0 1 2 65 65 0 2 9 0 9 3 3 0 8 3 , 5 Ded nr s i t y ( wi t h st r e et s)3 B o o ms p er f l a t T0 o3 t a l 60 T 2 6 1 3 0 8 1 9 2 ( i n h / h a ) 9 3 3 0 8 2 6 5 6 5 1 1 0 D e n i t y ( wi t h st r e et s)3 2 9 0 3 5 B, ds r o o ms p er f l a t T ot al 60 T 2 6 1 1 90 2 B e d r o o ms p e r f l a t ( i n h / h a ) 9 3 3 0 8 B e d r o o ms p e r f l a t 2 60 5 65 1 1 2 9 0 D e nr s i t y ( wi t h st r e et s)6 3 5 B d o o ms p er f l a t T ot al 60 T 2 1 1, 30 3 , 5 ( i n h / h a ) 9 3 3 0 8 3 , 5 2 65 65 1 1 0 2 9 0 D e n i t y ( wi t h st r e et s)6 3 5 B, ds r o o ms p er f l a t T0 ot al 60 T 2 1 D e n s i t y ( w i t h s t r e e t s ) ( i n h / h a ) D e n s i t y ( w i t h s t r e e t s ) 9 3 3 0 8 2 65 65 1 ( i n h / h a ) 2 9 0 D n s i t y ( wi t h st r e et s)T B e d r o o ms p er f l a t 3 , 5 ot al 60 T ( i n h / ha ) 2 60 1 2 9 0 ( i n h / ha) 2 9 0 9330 8 2, 9 0 3 5 D nr s i t y ( wi t h st r e et s)Tot B e d o o ms p er f l a t al T ( i nh/ ha) 9330 8 D nr s i t y ( wi t h st r e et s) 2, 9 0 3 5 B e d o o ms p er f l a t

s ( 1 , 5xbedr ooms) sm) m)

s m) ( i n h/ ha) s m)

( i nh/ ha)

T1 o0 t ali nhabi t ant s 1

T e r r ai c e( p e r i np hl 59 6 2 5 D e n s t y o n l y ot ) 2

2, 9 0 D e nsi t y( wi t hst r eet s) 3 5

sm) ( 1 , 5xbedr ooms)

s m) ( i n h/ ha)

( i nh/ ha)

2 A r e a p e r i n 41 5 0 T o t a l i n h a bh i t ant s

5 T e r r ai c e( p e r i np hl 62 5 D e n s t y o n l y ot )

29 0 D e nsi t y( wi t hst r eet s)

130 A r e nh 25 1 4 0aperi

( i nh/ ha)

2 9 0 D e n i t y ( wi t h st r e et s) 3 5 B, ds r o o ms p er f l a t

t r ea r ea t

Const r uct i on Demol i t i on H9 e i g ht( st or eys) 1 8 3 2010 6o s t o r e y s H e i g h t ( s t o r e C n s t r u c t i o nys) Demol i t i on 69 s t o r eys 1 8 3 2010 Ao r e a IA r e a I IT r r ac e s r ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e y s) t C n s t r u c t i o n De e mo l i t i on A r e a IA r eaI IT e1 r r aces ( s m) ( sm) 6 s t o r e y s 1 9 8 3 20 0 ( sm) ( s m) r ea H ei g h t ( s t o r e t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) Demol i t i on 1 5 1 A1 r e a IA eaI IT e1 r r aces 6 s t o r e ysr 9 8 3 20 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 5 1 t C o n s t r u c t i o n D mo l i t i o n ( s m) ( s m) r ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e ys) t C o n s t r u c t i o n De e mo l i t i o n 6 0 6 1 A r e a IA r eaI IT e r r aces s t o r e y s0 1 9 8 3 2 0 1 0 1 9 8 3 2 0 1 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 5 1 r ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e ( s m) ( s m) t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) Demol i t i on 6 0 1 6 s t o r e y s0 A9 r e a IA r eaI IT e1 r r aces 1 8 3 20 0 9 2 r e a H e i g h t ( s t o r e y s ) 6 0 6 0 1 1 5 1 ( s m) ( s m) r e a H e i g h t ( s o r e y s )emol t C o n s t r u c t i o n D i t i on 6 0 1 9 2 6 0 A r e a IA r eaI IT e1 r r aces 6 s t o r e y s 6 s t o r e y s 1 9 8 3 20 0 3 6 0 1 6 0 1 1 5 ( s m) ( s m) r ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) Demol i t i on 9 1 3 0 2 6 6 A r e a IA r e a IT e r r a c e s s t o r e y s0 1 9 8 3 20 1 0 s A r e a IA r e aI I IT e r r a c e s 6 0 9 6 0 1 1 1 5 ( s m) ( s m) r ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) Demol i t i on ( s m) ( s m) 5 5 6 0 6 0 1 3 9 2 A9 r e a IA eaI IT e1 r r aces 6 s t o r e ysr 1 8 3 20 0 5 6 5 9 6 0 1 0 1 1 5 r ea H e i g h t ( s t o r e 1 1 5 1emol ( s m) ( s m) t C o n s t r u c t i o nys) D i t i on 6 0 6 0 1 3 9 2 6 s t o r e ys 6 0 60 1 A r e a IA r eaI IT e1 r r aces 1 9 8 3 2 0 0 T o t a T ot al 5 5 9 6 0 1 6 0 1 1 5 6 0 6 0 1 r ea H e i gl ht( s t or eys) ( s m) ( s m) 9 3 3 0 8 6 T o t a l T o t a l 6 0 6 0 1 2 3 A r e ar IA r eaI IT er r a ces 60 60 1 6 s t o e ys 3 3 0 8 6 5 5 6 0 1 9 6 0 6 0 1 1 1 5 ( s m) ( sm) r ea H e i ght( s t or eys) T o t a l T o t a l 9 2 6 0 6 1 3 9 0 2 A r e a IA r eaI IT er r a ces 6 s t o r e y s0 omsperf l at 6 3 3 0 8 6 9 5 6 5 0 1 1 1 5 6 0 1 0 ( sm) ( sm) omsperf l at 3 0 T o t a l T t a l 6 60 1 9 2o 3 0 0 A r e a IA r eaI IT er r a ces 3 3 0 8 6 5 5 9 0 1 6 6 0 9 0 1 1 1 5 ( sm) ( sm) omsperf l at 6 0 0 1 T o al 6 T ot al 3 6 0t 6 0 1 9 2 6 0 6 0 1 t y( wi t hst r eet s)6 6 1 3 3 8 6 5 5 9 6 5 6 5 1 0 1 0 1 1 50 6 t y ( wi t h st r e et s)6 o ms p er f l a t T o t a l T ot al 0 6 0 1 9 2 60 60 1 3 330 60 86 5 5 6 1 90 t y ( wi t h st r e et s)3 o ms p er f l a t T o t a l T o t a l 0 T ot al 60 T o t a l 6 1 9 2 3 3 0 8 6 9 9 3 3 0 65 8 6 5 6 0 1 t y ( wi t h st r e et s)3 o ms p er f l a t T0 ot al 60 T al 6 1 9 2ot 330 65 86 5 90 6 1 t y ( w i t h s t r e e t s ) o ms p e r f l a t 6 0 6 0 1 omsperf l at 3 Tot al Tot al 330 65 86 60 5 9 1 t y ( wi t h st r e et s)6 o ms p er f l a t T0 ot al 60 T al 1ot 95 330 65 86 6 1 t y ( w t h s t r e e t s ) t y ( wi i t h s t r e e t s )6 o ms p er f l a t T0 ot al 60 T al 1ot 9330 86 t y ( wi t h st r e et s)Tot o ms p er f l a t al Tot al 9330 86 t y ( wi t h st r e et s) o ms p er f l a t

Sheet1 Sheet1 Ter r aceITer r aceI IBedr ooms Sheet1 Sheet1 T er r aceIT er r aceI IBedr ooms ( sm) ( sm) ( sm)

( sm)

Sheet1 3 1 T5 er r aceITer r aceI IBedr ooms 3 0 4 1 5 3 ( s m) ( sm) Sheet1 4 3 T0 er r aceITer r aceI IBedr ooms 3 0 4 1 5 3 ( sm) ( sm) Sheet1 1 3 4edr T0 er r aceITer r aceI IB ooms 1 5 3 1 3 0 4 1 5 ( sm) ( sm) Sheet1 3 3 0 1 1 15 4edr T5 er r aceIT er r aceI IB ooms 1 3 0 4 1 5 3 ( s m) ( sm) Sheet1 1 3 0 3 1 5 15 4e T e r r a c e e r r a c e IB d r o o ms T e r r a c eIT IT e r r a c eI I IB e d r o o ms 4 3 1 1 5 ( s m) ( s m) 3 0 ( sm) ( sm) 3 4 1edr 1 5 15 3 T0 er r aceIT er r aceI IB ooms 4 3 1 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 ( sm) ( sm) 3 0 4 1 1 5 15 3 3 0 4edr T e r r aceIT er r aceI IB ooms T o t a l T o t a l 3 1 3 0 4 1 5 3 0 4 ( sm) ( sm) 2 4 3 0 3 0 0 T o t a l T o t a l 3 0 4 1 5 15 1 T e r r a ceIT er r aceI IB e d r ooms 3 0 4 2 4 3 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 4 3 0 1 1 5 ( s m) ( sm) T o t a l T o t a l 1 5 1 5 3 3 0 4 1 1 5 1 5 3 T e r r a ceIT e r r aceI IB e d r ooms 2 4 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 4 1 1 5 3 3 0 1 3 0 ( sm) ( sm) 1 T o t a l T o t a l 3 4 10 5 15 3 1 T er r a ceIT er r aceI IB e d r ooms 2 4 3 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 4 3 0 3 1 5 ( sm) ( sm) 4 3 0 T o al T ot al 1 3 0t 4 1 5 15 3 4 3 0 2 4 30 3 00 4 3 0 4 1 3 0 1 5 3 T o t a l T ot al 3 0 4 1 5 15 3 3 0 4 1 20 430 1 3 3 400 T o t a l T o t a l 1 T ot al T o t a l 4 1 5 15 3 3 0 2 4 3 0 0 0 3 2 4 3 0 3 0 0 4 1 3 0 T ot al Tot al 35 0 4 1 1 15 3 20 430 400 3 3 1 3 0 4 Tot al Tot al 1 20 430 400 3 3 T ot al T al 30 4ot 20 430 300 3 4 T o t a l T al 30 4ot 2430 300 Tot al Tot al 2430 300

t y ( wi t h st r e et s) o ms p er f l a t

t y( wi t hst r eet s)

131

Type 6

17.00 m

14.00 m

Type 5 11.00 m

8.00 m

5.00 m

2.00 m

132

Type 2

133

The Berlin Block is one of the most distinctive architectural typologies in the city of Berlin. It developed spontaneously after Olbrecht’s plan (1862) as a flexible housing typology that could host the enormous amount of rural immigrants that were flooding in the city at the time. At a first glance the striking feature of the Berlin block is its size. It generally stretches for two hundred meters on each side, twice as long as the traditional Barcelona block. The size of the block results in the Höfe, an intricate net of courtyards connected by gateways. The Berlin Block is one of the densest urban typologies in Europe and its size is sufficient to host large office buildings and small industries alongside apartments and shops. The Berlin Block represents a shift in scale from the previous examples, it is a larger urban scheme in which many R50s or Ökohäuser could sit simultaneously. In this case studying the Berlin Block means upgrading the concepts of hard and soft structure to a larger scale, questioning the way in which different buildings coexist in a larger whole.

B ER L I NER B L OC K

135

136

address: Immanuelkirchstr. / Prenzlauer Allee / Marienburger Str. / Winsstr. architect: construction: from mid XIX century plot area: 46000 m2 built area: 29000 m2 levels: max 7 above ground presumed number of inhabitants: 3355 presumed density: 583 inh/he FAR: 3.94

137

total number of trees: 97 on sidewalks: 58 in courtyards: 39

138

f 139

private access free access

140

Mietskaserne office building

141

individual plots within the block

142

The complexity of the Berliner Block is the result of interactions between objects at different scales. In order to get a hold of this complexity I recognized three levels that interact with each other. These are the unit scale (Wohnung), the building scale (Mietskaserne) and the block scale. Thinking in terms of open form, the issue of the relationship between these levels can be targeted from two points of view: a bottom up or a top down perspective. From a bottom up perspective each of these elements is part of a bigger scheme. It is a game of possibility (what can we do?). From a top down perspective, on the other hand, each smaller element is defined by the bigger one. It is a game of allowance (what do we let them do?).

DWELLERS

WOHNUNG

MIETSKASERNE

BLOCK

order of magnitude

SCALE (sm) order of magnitude

1 to 10

10 to 100

1000

100 to 1000

10000

143

CONSIDERING THE ISSUE.. .. FROM A BOTTOM UP PERSPECTIVE

The WOHNUNG is a piece of the Mietskaserne.

The MIETSKASERNE is a piece of the Block.

The BLOCK is a piece of the city.

144

.. FROM A TOP DOWN PERSPECTIVE

The city defines the Block.

The BLOCK defines the Mietskaserne.

The MIETSKASERNE defines the Wohnung.

The WOHNUNG defines the living space.

145

Most of the buildings that form the Berlin Blocks were built in around second half of the XIX century and they go by the name of Mietskasernen (rental barracks). They constitute a specific type of residential building, so deep-rooted in the urban tradition that there is a specific slang vocabulary to describe their features and forms. Mietskasernen are characterized by a high degree of flexibility. They are designed as linear successions of generic rooms around one or more courtyards, distributed on 5 or 6 levels. Due to the plots disposition in the Berliner Blocks most of the apartments had access to a single facade and a limited amount of windows, which resulted in a scarce exposure to air and natural light. This together with the concerns regarding sanitation - resulted in a general negative perception of the Mietskasernen, and this type of building was highly criticized throughout the XX century. Yet, today, refurbished apartments in Berliner Blocks are highly appreciated and are becoming progressively more expensive. In order to define a realistic scenario about what it means to live in such buildings today, I exposed my own experience of inhabiting four different Mietskaserne apartments in the course of two years. These all have different features regarding their position within the block, their access to light and air and their morphology, presenting a small spectrum of living situations.

M I E T S K A S ERNE

147

1877 BandelstraĂ&#x;e 45 Berlin Moabit

148

1872 BirkenstraĂ&#x;e 49 Berlin Moabit

149

APARTMENT 1 Weserstraße 82 Berlin Neukölln kitchen wc Alberto’s room Matteo’s room

150

70 sm 2 dwellers

APARTMENT 2

kitc he n

Manitiusstraร e 2 Berlin Neukรถlln

sto

rag

70 sm

wc living

2 dwellers

sleep

151

APARTMENT 3 living

AdalbertstraĂ&#x;e 23 Berlin Kreuzberg

sleep kitchen

50 sm wc 2 dwellers

152

APARTMENT 4 sleep ImmanuelkirchstraĂ&#x;e 9 Prenzlauer Berg living

ki tc he n

60 sm wc 2 dwellers

153

NO S T O P

B LOCK

The building scale In order to define a urban scheme I will start from the building scale, introducing modified versions of two of the previous examples: the R50 Baugruppe and the L端tzowplatz housing concept. Both constitute simple frameworks that ought to be developed further with light construction.

modified L端tzowplatz unit

156

possibility of vertical extension

modified R50 unit

157

modified L端tzowplatz unit

158

x + 30 m

x + 24 m

x + 18 m

living (+ working) x + 12 m

x+6m

common space

level x

159

modified R50 unit

160

common space

x + 30 m

x + 24 m

x + 18 m living (+ working) x + 12 m

x+6m

common space

level x

161

vertical extension of R50 unit

162

common space

x + 60 m

x + 54 m

x + 48 m living (+ working) x + 42 m

x + 36 m

common space

x + 30 m

163

The block scale Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jump to a larger scale. The objective here is to develop a system in which the building units can work together as a whole. In order to do that Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll take the previously examined Berlin block as an example. In order to emphasize flexibility and allow larger functions into the block I will introduce a 9 meters high plinth beneath the building units. This could host a large spectrum of activities such as malls, cinemas, theaters, sport centers, schools and temporary functions such as the ones described in the first chapter (thesis 3). presumed number of inhabitants: 2648 presumed density: 583 inh/he

164

The plinth could also include existing railways, roads or parking lots, allowing the block to be superimposed on existing mobility infrastructures. The summit of the plinth forms a new ground floor level on which the building units are built. From here it is possible to access the common spaces of the buildings and a have direct visual communication with the lower level.

expected number of inhabitants: 2600 expected density: 565 inh/he

165

plinth

166

retail + common

living

d + 1.00 m

c d

167

The infinite scale Now, the block I developed so far is specific in terms of location. In order to transform it into a typology that could be applied in different contexts Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll generalize the project by transforming it into an infinite algorithm. This infinite space is clearly not real: it is rather an abstraction that allows us to consider the block not as a defined whole, but rather as a part of a larger hypothetical grid. This infinite space is not meant to be the final step of the process: it ought to be confronted with the real, finite space of the city. In the next paragraph Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll face the no stop block with one of the magnets I defined in the first chapter of this thesis.

+ 1.00 m

+ 10.00 m

+ 16.00 m

174

175

I ND U S T R I EGE B I E T H E R Z B ERGERS T RA ß E 176

177

178

The industrial area in Lichtenberg is undergoing a process of redefinition. In recent years it has become a magnet for different communities in Berlin, the most notable being the Vietnamese community that gravitates around the Dong Xuan Center, a strange mix between an ethnic shopping mall and a cultural center. Recently the area also attracted the attention of a major gallery (the Haubrok collection) and it is relatively easy to find other traces of hidden cultural activity in the neighborhood, such as rehearsal studios and ateliers. An abandoned railway line crosses the area, suggesting the possibility of a possible reuse as a pedestrian path, and many undeveloped plots are filled with trees, like tiny specks of forest within the urban fabric. In 2012 the architectural office Brandlhuber+ carved two monumental towers out of an industrial building, attempting to create an identity space in the area. Today this neighborhood is probably the best example of a relatively underrated area that could be reinforced as a part of the Gegenstadt.

179

SAN GIMINIANO LICHTENBERG a methaphorical monument by Brandlhuber+

DONG XUAN CENTER Vietnamese mall and cultural center

ateliers and lofts

180

abandoned industrial railway loop

PROBERAUM rehearsal studios

HAUBROK SAMMLUNG art gallery and ateliers

181

182

183

figure ground plan

184

possible construction sites (following the criteria in thesis 6)

185

186

ON LA VERSIONE DIDATTICA DI UN PRO

DOTTO AUTODESK

c d

TICA DI UN PRODOTTO AUTODESK

b a

NE DIDA CREATO CON LA VERSIO

TTICA DI UN PRODOTTO

AUTODESK

By selecting the sites I essentially erase what is there already, letting the hypothetical grid emerge. This is not simply a rhetorical proposition: it underlines the destructive power of construction and it implies that the grid is already there, in our imaginary space, well hidden under the surface of the city. Architecture doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fall from above: it raises from the ground.

187

selection of the pattern according to the available plots

development on site c

192

193

194

195

F L OOR P L A N V A R I A T I ONS

hard structure - modified R50 unit

198

1 - service ducts

199

studio apartments

200

201

regular size apartments

202

203

wohngemeinschaften

204

205

townhouses

206

207

level x

208

x+3m

209

immeuble villa

210

211

level x

212

x+3m

213

unité d’habitation

214

215

level x

216

x+3m

217

BI B L I OGR A PHY

Pier Vittorio Aureli, The Project of Autonomy. Politics and Architecture Within and Against Capitalism, New York City (USA), Princeton Architectural Press, 2012. Pier Vittorio Aureli, The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture, Cambridge (USA), The MIT Press, 2011. Harald Bodenschatz, Städtebau in Berlin, Berlin (DE), DOM Publishers, 2010. Harald Bodenschatz, Learning from IBA - Die IBA 1987 in Berlin, unpublished paper, 2010. Brandlhuber+, Von der Stadt der Teile zur Stadt der Teilhabe. Berliner Projekte, Köln, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walter König, 2013. Andrea Branzi, No Stop City. Archizoom Associati, Orléans (FR), Editions HYX, 2006. Davide Cutolo, L’altra IBA. L’Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin 1984/1987 e il Behutsame Stadterneuerung di Kreuzberg, Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 2012. Stephen Cairns, Jane M. Jacobs, Buildings Must Die, Cambridge (USA), The MIT press, 2013. Gilles Deleuze, Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953 - 1974, Los Angeles (USA), Semiotext(e), 2004. Frederic Druot, Anne Lacaton, Jean Philippe Vassal, PLUS. Les grands ensembles de logements. Territoires d’exception, Editorial Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 2007. Ulrich Flemming, Die wuppertaler Schwebebahn, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1968. Yona Friedman, Drawings and Models, Dijon (FR), Les Presses du Réel, 2010. Edouard Glissant, Poetica della relazione. Poetica III, Macerata (IT), Quodlibet, 2007. John Habraken, The Structure of the Ordinary, Cambridge (USA), MIT Press, 1998. John Hejduk, Victims, London (UK), Architectural Association Publications, 1986. Emmanuel Hocquard, Lydia Davis, Marlboro (USA), Aerea in the Forests of Manhattan, Marlboro Press, 1992. Oliver Heckmann, Freiderike Schneider, Grundrissatlas Wohnungsbau, Basel (CH), Birkhäuser, 2011. Florian Hertwerck, Sebastien Marot, The city in the city. Berlin: the Green Archipelago. A manifesto by O.M.Ungers, R. Koolhaas, P. Riemann, H. Kollhoff, A. Ovaska, Zürich (CH), Lars Müller Publishers, 2013. Ludwig Hilberseimer, Metropolisarchitecture and Selected Essays, New York (USA), Columbia University Gsapp Sourcebooks, 2013.

220

Vincent Imfeld, La réactivité dans l’architecture de l’habitat, unpublished paper, Séminaire architecture de l’habitat, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de ParisBelleville (FR), 2013. Volker Jahn, Beitrag zur Planetarisierung der Erde, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1968. Jürgen Joedicke, Dokumente der modernen Architektur, Stuttgart (DE), Krämer, 1976. Arthur Laksus, Berliner Brandwände, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1966. Margrit Kennedy, Öko-Stadt. Mit der Natur die Stadt planen, Frankfurt am Main (DE), Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1986. Heinrich Klotz, O.M.Ungers 1951 - 1984, Braunschweig (DE), Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, 1985. Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York, New York (USA), The Monacelli Press, 1994. Rem Koolhaas, OMA, Bruce Mau, S, M, L, XL, Rotterdam (NL), 010 Publishers, 1994. Rem Koolhaas, OMA, Content, Köln (DE), Taschen, 2004. Rem Koolhaas, Junkspace. Per un ripensamento radicale dello spazio urbano, Macerata (IT), Quodlibet, 2006. Nikolaus Kuhnert, Anh-Linh Ngo, Oswald Mathias Ungers: Architekturlehre, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2006. Werner March, Die Gemeinschaftsanlagen in der Gross - siedlung, Berlin (DE), Otto Hellwig & Co., 1959. Fuhimiko Maki, Investigations on collective form, St. Louis (USA), Washington University School of Architecture, 1964. Erika Mühlthaler, Lernen von O.M.Ungers, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2006. Erika Mühltaler, Oswald Mathias Ungers, Grossformen im Wohnungsbau, Berlin (DE), Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2007. Philipp Oswalt, Berlino. Città senza forma, Roma (IT), Meltemi, 2006. Philipp Oswalt, Klaus Overmeyer, Philipp Misselwitz, Urban Catalyst. The power of temporary use, Berlin (DE), DOM, 2013. Kayoko Ota, Rem Koolhaas, Hans Ulrich Obrist, Project Japan : metabolism talks, Köln (DE), Taschen, 2011. Joseph Paxton, Kristallpalast, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1967.

221

Julius Posener, Vorlesungen zur Geschichte der Neuen Architektur, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2013. Cedric Price, Patrick Keiller, Hans Ulrich Obrist, Re:CP, Basel (CH), Birkhäuser Architecture, 1999. Arnulf Rainer, Schwarze Architektur, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1967. Kristien Ring, auf.einander.bauen, Berlin (DE), Jovis, 2007. Kristien Ring, AA PROJECTS, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, Berlin, SELFMADE CITY. Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living And Architectural Interventions, Berlin (DE), Jovis, 2013. Joachim Schlandt, Die Wiener Superclocks, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1969. Tatjana Schneider, Jeremy Till, Flexible housing, Amsterdam (NL), Elsevier, 2007. Senatsverwaltung für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Großsiedlungen. Montagebau in Berlin (Ost), Berlin (DE), Druckhaus Hentrich, 1992. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, Wohnen in der Berliner Innenstadt, Berlin (DE), Kulturbuchverlag, 2006. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, IBA Berlin Zwanzigzwanzig,Berlin (DE), primetime print berlin, 2011. Peter Smithson, Without Rhetoric. Some thoughts for Berlin, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1966. A. and P. Smithson, Mies van der Rohe, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin Abteilung Publikationen, 1968. Jeremy Till, Architecture depends, Cambridge (USA), MIT Press, 2009. Liselotte,Ungers, Oswald Mathias Ungers, Kommunen in der Neuen Welt. 1740 - 1972, Köln (DE), Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1972. Oswald Mathias Ungers et al., Schnellstrasse und Gebäude, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin, Abteilung: Publikationen, 1966. Oswald Mathias Ungers et al., Wohnen am Park, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin, Abteilung: Publikationen, 1967. Oswald Mathias Ungers et al., Architekturtheorie. Internationaler Kongress in der TU Berlin, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin, Abteilung: Publikationen, 1968. Oswald Mathias Ungers et al., Wohnbebauungen, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin, Abteilung: Publikationen, 1968.

222

Oswald Mathias Ungers et al., Berlin 1995, Berlin (DE), Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität Berlin, Abteilung: Publikationen, 1969. Oswald Mathias Ungers et al., Vorschlag für die Bebauung des Grundstücks an der Ritterstraße in Marburg, Ithaca (USA), Cornell University Press, 1976. Oswald Mathias Ungers, Kenneth Frampton, O.M.Ungers: works in progress, New York (USA), Rizzoli, 1981. Oswald Mathias Ungers, Architettura come tema, Milano (IT), Electa, 1982. Oswald Mathias Ungers, Architektur 1951 - 1990, Milano (IT), Electa, 1991. Oswald Mathias Ungers, Morphologie - City Metaphors, Kölln (DE), Walter König Verlag, 2012. T. Valena, T. Avermaete, G. Vrachliotis, Structuralism reloaded: rule-based design in architecture and urbanism, Stuttgart (DE), Menges, 2011. MAGAZINES Sandra Bartoli, Silvian Linden, Architektur in Gebrauch 1. The Architect and Building News, The Golden Lane Housing Estate, Berlin (DE), Büro für Konstruktivismus, 2013. Sandra Bartoli, Silvian Linden, Architektur in Gebrauch 4. Tiergarten, Berlin (DE), Büro für Konstruktivismus, 2013. Yona Friedman, Cahiers du centre d’etude architecturales 3. L’ Architecture Mobile, Bruxelles (B), Presto-Print, 1968. Yona Friedman, Cahiers du centre d’etude architecturales 6. La Planification Urbaine, Bruxelles (B), Presto-Print, 1968. Matteo Ghidoni, San Rocco Magazine 1: Islands, Milano (IT), S.n., 2010. Nikolaus Kuhnert, Anh-Linh Ngo, Arch + 122. Von Berlin nach Neuteutonia, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 1993. Nikolaus Kuhnert, Anh-Linh Ngo, Arch + 201/202. Zurück aus Neuteutonia. Berlin: unfertig und roh, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2011. Nikolaus Kuhnert, Anh-Linh Ngo, Arch + 203. Planung und Realität: Strategien im Umgang mit den Grosssiedlungen, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2011. Nikolaus Kuhnert, Anh-Linh Ngo, Arch + 208. Tokio. Die Stadt bewohnen, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2013. Nikolaus Kuhnert, Anh-Linh Ngo, Arch + 211/212. Think Global Build Social, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2013. Pierluigi Nicolin, Lotus 19, Milano (IT), Electa, 1978.

223

Paolo Portoghesi, Controspazio Anno VII n.3, Roma (IT), Edizioni Dedalo, 1975. ARTICLES Archizoom Associati, “Città, catena di montaggio del sociale”, in Casabella 350 - 351. Per un design non oppressivo, Milano (IT), Electa, 1970. Luís M. A. Bettencourt,“The Origins of scaling in cities”, in Science 21, pp. 1438 - 1441, Washington D.C. (USA), AAAS, 2013. Cristina Bianchetti, Angelo Sampieri, “Contemporary Anti-Urbanism”, in Planum. The European Journal of planning on-line, vol. 1, pp. 2, 2013. Cristina Bianchetti, Angelo Sampieri, “Can shared practices build a new city?”, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, Routledge -Taylor & Francis Group, London (UK), vol 38, pp. 73-79, 2014. Rem Koolhaas, Elia Zenghelis, Madelon Vriesendorp, Zoe Zenghelis, “EXODUS, oder die freiwilligen gefangenen der Architektur”, in Arch+ 209. Kapital(e) London, pp. 32 - 47, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2012. Wilfried Kühn, “Die Stadt als Sammlung”, in O.M.Ungers: Kosmos der Architektur, pp. 69 - 81, Aachen (DE), Arch+ Verlag, 2012. Lara Schrijver, “OMA as a tribute to OMU: exploring resonances in the work of Koolhaas and Ungers”, in The Journal of Architecture, Vol. 13, Iss. 3, pp. 235 - 261, London (UK), Rutledge, 2008.

224

225

ACKNOW L E DG E M E NTS

This thesis is the result of two years of obsessive research. It would be incredibly difficult to list the great amount of people that contributed to the development of my thoughts, if only through tiny informal conversations. Therefore I would like to thank collectively all my friends in Turin and Berlin, my former colleagues at Sauerbruch Hutton and all the supportive people I met along the path. Seriously, thank you guys.

The following is a list of exceptional contributors. This thesis wouldn’t be here without them.

A great special thank you to Jean Philippe Vassal, who accepted me as a student and spent a lot of time caring about this work. I am really grateful for the opportunity I was given. A great thank you to my home tutor Pierre Alain Croset for his support and dedication, both in Turin and abroad. This thesis is a product of his devotion and open-mindedness. Thank you to Angelo Sampieri for the amazingly deep conversations and the witty advices that dissolved some of the large bits of confusion in my brain. Thank you to Jeanne-Françoise Fischer and Felix Dechert from Lehrstuhl Vassal for their support. Thank you to Antonio Pedro Faria for showing me the possibility of getting into this in the first place. Thank you to Mario Bajrossi, Michela Benedetti, Michele Cerruti But, Giulia Di Marco, Annika Falkstedt, Jan Ferrarons, Samuele Fuda, Matteo Giordano, Laura Graziani, Maria Glionna, Marco Migliavacca, Marilivia Minnici, Friedrich Neukirchen, Francesc Ruiz Abad, Ben Schoenewolf, Niccolò Suraci, Paolo Tarizzo. Your help was crucial in many different ways: if you didn’t know, now you know. Special thanks to Simon Geisel and Albert Hermann, whose ideas inspired a bunch of things in this work. Un grande grazie mille (in Italiano) a mia mamma e mio papà per il loro meraviglioso supporto, in tutti i sensi. E riservo l’ultimo grazie, il più grande di tutti, a Giulia.