Modernist Architecture in Berlin

I found an interesting article on Planetizen that I had to read and respond to.

Big-name and big-idea architecture is leading the revival of Berlin into one of the world's cultural capitals.

"In the years that Berlin has been claimed as a united Germany’s capital, it has become a mecca for the world’s architects, who have taken up the unique challenge of creating a modern European metropolis, complete with an embassy district, government buildings, cultural institutions and corporate headquarters."

"Ironically, today the former East Berlin houses many of the city’s trendiest neighbourhoods. Even the West Berliners are envious. But in the nearly 30 years that the wall was up it created two distinct cities, divided then as much by their politics as by the style of their urban development."

"Rebuilding the city has had to take this to heart. And as Verlag points out, what makes architecture in Berlin stand out is not least its effort to reconcile history with the present."

"You see it in the city’s new additions: Norman Foster’s glass cupola atop the Reichstag parliament building; the glass- enclosed spiral staircase addition to the National Museum. The old and new versions sit side by side, commenting on each other. The most common element is the use of natural light. Even the new station is a glass structure, revealing its platforms, while allowing the traveller to see the landscape outside."

For the full article, check out: www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=623358

My response, posted on Planetizen:
"As someone living in one of the trendy East Berlin neighborhoods (Friedrichshain), there actually is very little of the avant-gard architecture here. Rather, the popular eastern neighborhoods - Friedrichshain, Prenzlauer Berg, parts of Mitte as well as Kreuzberg (which was former west, but eastern feel) - actually are characterized by traditional Berlin architecture: first floor retail with four stories of housing above, all built at the outer edge of the block along the sidewalk. These are the most lively neighborhoods with the street front retail that has the cool bars, restaurants and people which make the area "trendy".

The avant-gard architecture is mostly in Mitte, especially a lot of it where the "no mans land" between the walls used to be. These buildings make for an contrasting display of unusual modern art, reflective of this era of "public building as public art." Since the world is on this art collecting phase, I think the city of Berlin would feel left out if it didn't join in too. Considering that you can find a Libeskind or a Gehry in most major cities, its starting to feel about as common as discovering a local H&M or Ikea.

What does make Berlin unique is how strongly the architecture tells the political history. From the grandeur of Prussian architecture, the tenements from the industrial revolution, the Bauhaus reforms, foreboding Nazi buildings, the Russian-influenced communist east Berlin, and the modernized West - the fact that the city wears a rich and conflicted history is far more interesting. Certainly not all "happy art," but that's part of what makes the city intriguing."

For the full lively discussion on Planetizen, check out: www.planetizen.com/node/28679

More thoughts:
And as a postscript to my comment, I also could not imagine Berlin without any buildings with "modern" architectural style from a variety of eras. That's part of the city's history: the Bauhaus school was located in Berlin during the 1920s and the idea of "modernist" is a Berlin tradition.

Simon Dach Strasse: in the heart of Friedrichshain it has restaurants and bars galore.

A building on Frankfurter Allee with a high tech look. You only notice that from across the street; walking by it has similar street front retail to all of its neighbors.

The iconic Potsdamer Platz. It was built in the mid-1990s to fill in the void of where the no-mans land between the walls used to exist. And yes, it does look cool at night.

The history of the DDR: matching towers at Frankfurter Tor were built in the 1950s, reminiscent of Russian architectural style meant to impress. This street leading to Mitte (where the TV tower is located) used to be Stalin Allee but has been renamed to Karl-Marx Allee/Frankfurter Allee with the name change occurring at this intersection. When Berlin had a wall around the city in the medieval age, Frankfurter Tor (gate) was a gate on the southeastern side of the city. Additionally, this is also my Bahn stop.

Buildings and Neighborhoods Step Up to Meet the Climate Challenge in Germany

This essay abstract went to the publication team of NextGen (www.cnunextgen.org) so I may be expanding on it later.

As climate change has become a central issue to planners, designers and developers over the past year, it also makes for an interesting time to live in a country that is one of the world’s biggest proponents on climate change action. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, speaks often about the ability to meet environmental goals while making economic progress. At the German Council for Sustainable Development conference, she noted that Germany produces 11 tons of CO2 per capita per year. Germany’s goal for 2020 is to reduce overall CO2 emissions by 40% from 1990 levels (above EUs goal of 30%). In comparison the United States produces 20 tons of CO2 per capita per year. And its federal goal right now is nonexistent. So how does Germany plan to reduce its CO2 emissions? Like any other place, that’s easier said than done.

Germany is certainly a leader when it comes to environmentally friendly building design. Solar panels are not unusual here, nor are triple-paned glass, solar shades, heat exchangers, gray water systems, green roofs, and a whole host of other technology. The most noteworthy projects are considered “special” cases that are known worldwide – such as DaimlerCrystler complex, Potsdamer Platz and the Freiburg Solar Village. Public funds with strings attached, a common part of the funding system, and more stringent regulation encourage projects to reduce their environmental impact. Despite the use of many innovative ideas throughout Germany, they still are not the default in construction.

Bringing the middle and the bottom of the building stock to the same environmental level as the top is much more difficult but plans are underway in the federal government. A current proposal is for new heating systems for all apartments in Germany. It proposes more stringent energy standards (including improving insulation in walls, roofs and windows), more power from cogeneration plants that generate both heat and electricity at the same time, and fines or penalties for the noncompliant. However, the initial cash outlay may be challenging for building owners to swallow, especially if they face long payback periods. Building owners are afraid they will have to bear most of the costs while tenants rights’ groups are afraid that rent increases of 10 percent will be difficult for low income tenants. It remains to be seen how the work will be financed and the negotiating process on this is expected to go on into 2008. This reflects the difficulty in finding a workable process, even in a nation that is trying to lead the world in climate change.

On the neighborhood scale, Germany grew up with a history of walkable neighborhoods that still remain today. However, sprawl still occurs here – just not at the level that it does in many U.S. cities. One of the newest efforts to analyze a location’s sustainability for new development is the Urban Index. Developed by Wolfgang Christian (an active CEU member), it is similar to LEED-ND. In anticipation of the World Building Council seeking to implement a system similar to LEED-ND on a national level, the Urban Index provides a solution calibrated for Europe. It is envisioned to be an advantage for project marketing and a tool that can be used by cities to evaluate the best place for a new neighborhood as it relates to the region, the neighborhood center and to ecological aspects. The Urban Index is one of many similar initiatives, so the jury is out whether or not there will be a national standard for Germany or Europe as LEED-ND is posed to become in the United States.

7th Annual Conference of the German Council for Sustainable Development

At the end of November, I went to a day long conference put on by Germany’s Council for Sustainable Development. While most of the conference was in German, there were headsets available with translations into English and for the part presented in English, translations into German. I was in the small minority using them for the English translation, but the number of people using them for the German translation was equally as small or smaller.

Panel Discussion
The first presentation was called, “New Ideas: What makes sustainability attractive?” which was an interesting discussion among several panelists. One issue noted was that the EU had a target of reducing CO2 by 12% by 2012 and when they met in 2006 they raised that target to 20%. What was not asked at that meeting was why the only overall reduction had only gone down by 1.7% which was far below where it should have been. Policymakers have given little attention to implementation while focusing only on goals so there are still problems with the policymakers’ ability to implement scientific solutions seriously. Additionally, it’s hard to incorporate all scientific knowledge which leads to unintended consequences such as the rise of tortilla prices in Mexico due to increased corn demand for ethanol use. The auto industry in Germany is for bio-fuels but doesn’t support increasing energy efficiency (the first changes their business very little while the other is a big problem they would have to solve). Considering the negative impacts of bio-fuel from rising food prices to the use of South American rainforest land for corn production, it shows the need to understand the climate balance from a holistic approach before an idea influences public policy.

The panel acknowledged the challenge ahead, that not everyone understands sustainability or what it means for them. Changing labels to “bio” is not enough but actually walking the talk makes a lot of things harder. However, they noted sustainability can’t be reduced to one formula. In order to limit the planet to less than a 2 degree rise in temperature, the economic and social aspects need to follow the ecological aspects and not the reverse. As one person commented, with the next industrial revolution approaching, the dream of limitless freedom is over and we need to look at other freedoms. I’m still pondering this comment. Somehow I don’t see it becoming a popular slogan in the U.S. anytime soon.

Helen Clark, Prim New Zealand
The second presentation was by Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I must say, that is not a county I have heard a lot about, but Helen had a lot to say about sustainability. Interestingly, half of the greenhouse gas emissions come from farming although they have some time before agriculture is phased into emissions trading in 2013. Some of the country’s goals and accomplishments include:

• Raise renewable energy use from 64% to 90% of total energy used.
• Introduce electric cars; add 3.4% renewable fuel
• New building code and new public transport systems in major cities underway
• All governments must have a carbon neutral plan by next year (any U.S. planners working on one of those for their city?)
• Using sustainable buying guidelines for all government purchases to use government purchasing power to drive the market

They are also working to make their major industries, tourism and farming more sustainable. One way is by arranging for all travel to New Zealand to be carbon neutral through selling credits to offset air travel. The transport component of food sustainability is a concern to New Zealand meat, but they feel that currently have less total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than British sheep due to greater efficiency but they are concerned about retaining that competitive ecological advantage.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
Finally, Angela Merkel spoke so I got to see the Chancellor herself in person. She had plenty of general statements about sustainability, but no earth shaking news. Each generation cannot pass its problems onto the next; all people on all continents should have some access to natural resources; in 50 years there will be 9 billion people on earth and more people will want access to increasingly limited resources. She noted that energy policy is linked to security polity and that it’s in everyone’s interests that conflicts are avoided not accepted. While I think this can be taken as a jab at the U.S., I wonder if some Germans found this ironic given the close relationship Germany has with Russia and its reserves of natural gas and coal that power Germany.

Angela defended the most recent energy legislation as a great feat politically and a small step forward while she also acknowledged that many see it as not enough. She called for the use of technology to reduce costs and improve efficiency. She also felt developing countries need to decouple CO2 emissions and economic growth. Concerning raw material, she wants transparent forms of trade to enable a fair agreement for efficient and fair distribution. In order to achieve these goals, Angela stated that sustainability guidelines and indicators are needed to provide the best results. I agree, sustainability guidelines are needed, but they are certainly easier said than done. Considering the amount of criticism the LEED guidelines face, I can only imagine the scrutiny that many sets of government guidelines would fall under.

CNU Transportation Summit in London

I have an extensive blog that covers each day of the CNU Transportation Summit (Nov 12 - 14) on the CNU website. Highlights include street design guidelines; London's congestion charging; a tour of Kensington High Street; the links between transport, urbanism and climate change; and a tour of Poundbury. See: www.cnu.org/node/1628 for the fully summary.

Kensington High Street. The sidewalk pavement change is actually a small cross street.

Kensington High Street. The streetscape furniture was kept to a minimal stainless steel look.
Kensington High Street. The median with bicycle parking and trees.

Poundbury. The smaller village square that was built first.
Poundbury. The narrow road widths vary throughout the development, one of its more interesting characteristics. Poundbury. Yes, the trees are planted in the road and separate parallel parking opportunities. Rick Hall (CNUer) is taking out his camera for a picture of these too. Poundbury. These perpendicular parking spaces look like they are long enough for a motorhome for no apparent reason. One of the less successful streetscape elements.
Poundbury. The pavement change actually runs around this small square, partially as a traffic calming device. The street (from where this picture was taken) jogs when it goes through the square and continues on (in the background).

Thoughts on Congestion Pricing and Carbon Pricing

A visit to London got me thinking about congestion pricing here, since it has been widely deemed a success. Here’s some information that I found about the results of congestion pricing:

“Traffic in the congestion-pricing zone has been reduced by more than 20% - resulting in more reliable and safer journeys for businesses, bus passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. It also means, according to many businesses, a more pleasant working environment and benefits for employees using public transportation. The number of bicycle trips within the central zone has grown by 43% since February 2003. Carbon dioxide emissions in the zone have fallen by 16%. Road safety is improving, with 70 fewer serious personal injuries a year in the central zone. The $250 million raised annually through the Congestion Charge has been invested back into public transportation, walking and cycling to further improve traveling within London.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/10/04/2007-10-04_a_congestion_pricing_plan_can_refuel_thi-2.html?print=1

I think one of the key attributes of its success is the provision of alternative transportation modes. The Tube and the bus system are a credible alternative that provide adequate mobility. They are considering expanding the congestion pricing to the entire town of Cambridge (a satellite city/college town about 50 miles from London) which also has notably bad congestion. While Cambridge has a local bus system and a train stop connecting it to London, the town's public transportation is still a far cry from the London city center.

My cousin in England, with whom I stayed, lives in a small townhouse on the outskirts of Cambridge about 3-4 miles from the center of town. He works at a scientific research campus near Cambridge which is primarily surrounded by countryside and his wife works in London. He drops her off at the commuter train station on his way to work and she has a two hour train ride into the city. With the congestion pricing, they would be looking at paying the congestion fee twice a day for my cousin to pick up his wife. And alternatives don’t look like much fun – she already spends four hours commuting and taking a bus or bike into town would only add another hour or two each day.

Instead of a congestion charge, Berlin is moving forward with limits on driving in its city center based on CO2 emissions. Beginning January 1, 2008, the cars that produce the most pollution will not be allowed within the “Ring,” the S-Bahn line that encircles the central neighborhoods of Berlin. Germany has a system that ranks cars according to pollution levels, with the registration sticker showing which pollution category the car falls within. In 2010, the restrictions will be tightened, and the next most polluting class will be included in the ban.

This provides an incentive to own a car the produces low levels of emissions. But it is also a regressive policy, since many of the people that own the older, pollution producing cars cannot afford something new. While it keeps out the cars that produce the highest pollution, it doesn't limit the amount that all the other cars drive either. To reduce the regressive effect, something similar to a low-income tax credit could be given to people with limited income that invest in a newer car with low emissions. Perhaps this might be a stretch with current political reality, but there are options that could help reduce the regressive effect.

I think a combination of the London and Berlin plans would reduce not only the reason to travel frequently by car but also to own a car the produces a lot of pollution. Not sure if these ideas will fly in the U.S. anytime soon, seeing how New York's congestion pricing has fallen on its face, but we'll see how the European experiments work.

The Bahn: Going everywhere I want to go (and cheaper too)

I can go pretty much anywhere by the Bahn and it is much faster than driving in many cases. Of the few times I have been in a car here, it only seems to go faster when there is no traffic such as a Saturday morning or after the Bahn closes during the week at 1:30 am.

In planning speak, "I have a high level of mobility in Berlin" - without a car. In an article that discusses the need for promoting place over mobility (http://www.planetizen.com/node/28195), I find it interesting that I don’t feel like I have either compromised here. Perhaps if I spent my days trying to navigate Berlin in a VW Golf I would feel differently after sitting at the same stoplight twice in a row. But I don’t. Instead I take the Bahn, which is located within average of a 10 minute walk from everywhere I come from and everywhere I go. Not only that, but the Bahn runs every 5 minutes during the weekdays, every 10 during the evening and weekends and every 20 or 30 minutes overnight on weekends.

I must say I do feel rather spoiled with that level of public transportation. Not only that, but for subsidized student rate of €180 per semester, it will also be the least I have spent on daily transportation in a year since I got a car at age 16. Regular Berlin Bahn rates are €6.20 per day, €25 per week, €86 per month or €806 per year. Even if you paid for a year, that would still be cheaper than the $100 per month I spent on gas in Minneapolis (to say nothing of the $250 I spent with a Chapel Hill to Durham commute). And that’s without insurance, repairs or the actual cost of a car.

On the other hand, owning a car in Germany is expensive since cars and gas are taxed heavily here. Considering they aren’t really more convenient, the incentive to own one here is low. Maybe that’s why Berlin has 1.4 million cars and about 3.4 million people.

(I got the last fact from an interesting comparison of Berlin and New York here: http://berlin-newyork.hkw.de/index_en.html)

An Oral History of Development in Berlin

Berlin is certainly a fascinating city – one can see the layers of history while walking through the city. The different architectural styles exhibit the political and social goals of the time and represent particular groups or ideology – I think more so than in the US.

The urbanism throughout time has been excellent from the traditional to the modern. There was a relatively brief period during the 1970s that the “towers in the park” were built, but for the most part the street life was kept.

Here’s some of the oral history that I learned from my host family, Regina and Klaus:

Most of the buildings are about five stories high because they could not be built higher than a particular church for a long time. They front the street with the stores on the ground floor and apartments above. Most tend to be rather narrow and in many parts, so that a branch extends back from the front and other perpendicular to the part fronting the street, forming C, E, F or other shapes. The back part of the building that extends up the full height and is similar to the rest of the buildings is often called the “hinterhaus.” A hinterhaus can also refer to small brick structures that are a little bit similar to shed or barn. In the 1800s when Berlin was growing quickly, many of these hinterhausen of both types were built. The higher parts were nicer with some sort of bathroom for a whole floor or two floors. The shed-like parts had the least light and the most people – maybe 20-30 packed in. Tuberculosis was a problem in many of these places.

One of the more positive outcomes of WWI and WWII was that most of the smaller hinterhausen were destroyed (and not rebuilt) and the taller hinterhausen were thinned out so that the ones that remained or rebuilt had more light and fresh air. So yes, it reduced the density, but in this case that was pretty good outcome.

The Bauhaus movement that began in the 1930s was also of the same attitude: a nicer apartment that a typical person can afford with modern sanitary conveniences like running water, toilets and along with separated bedrooms, kitchens and living room that also had more light and windows for fresh air. The architects of the Bauhaus movement shunned the ornamentation of the past to put their money into more space and the other modern conveniences.

Berlin: The Asia Pacific Weeks Conference

I went to two parts of the Asia Pacific Weeks Conference: one day of the Urban Sustainability Conference and two days of the International Water Conference, learning not only the German approach to sustainability and water, but also some of the German opinion and relationship with Asian countries.

I talked to Bastian Whitstock, a Dipl. (similar to a PhD) student in engineering at the University of Stuttgart. His focus is Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) in the construction industry so we had a lot in common. He is involved in the German Green Building Council, which is currently being developed. Instead of using a point system like LEED, they are planning to do something that is based on LCA, since they feel that it is a better assessment of overall sustainability. I’m interested in learning more about LCA and understand better the similarities and difference between that and LEED. As I described to Bastian, LEED has been successful in changing the market toward more green development. However, people that work with LEED still realize some of its shortcomings – many criteria have 1 point but some are much more important to sustainability than others. (I doubt locally sourced granite countertops have the same impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as that last energy efficiency point.)

Some highlights:
Dr. Prof. Manfred Kohler from the University of Neubrandenburg (the professor that recommended the conference to me) gave a great presentation about green roofs. Green roofs are quite common here – looking out from the top of Potsdamer Platz, you can see many planted rooftops. There is also a rainwater fee for all buildings, but it is reduced if you have a green roof. Manfred also went on to describe green walls, which also helps with the evapotranspiration of water that can help cool a building and reduce the urban heat island effect as well as creating a greener street. I noticed that extra greenery provided by the ivy on the buildings that are next to my friend’s apartment I stayed at this week – I thought that street was one of the prettiest since it had not only street trees, but also the ivy. Greenery in a city that is dominated by hard surfaces is even more special than it would be in the typical American city.

Manfred did have some pictures of Minneapolis in his powerpoint – the lawn bowling roof at Brits and the Phillips Eco-prise Center, both taken when he was in at the Green Roofs conference this past spring.

He noted that in Europe, the governmental regulation is leading the green building movement, while in the US it is the private industry. At least for green roofs, they have been around Berlin for a lot longer than in the U.S. – perhaps 20 years or so. The tour included a visit to the top of the Daimler Chrysler building, which is one of the highest points in Berlin. From there you can see numerous green roofs. Since it is September, they aren’t the brightest shade of green, but they do add to the view more than blacktop.

When I get a chance, I will add some tour pictures!

Frankfurt & Marburg

Frankfurt
Frankfurt reminds me a lot of Minneapolis. It is a city on a river, with a skyline of comparable size and beautiful park along the river. However, Frankfurt also has the old city with a wide range of historic architecture, cobblestone streets and a subway. While Minneapolis is green, the downtown area of Frankfurt is greener with more parks, trails and plants everywhere. It is a smaller city, with less than a million people, although the area by downtown is more densely populated. A lot of the city was destroyed in WWII, so the rebuilding has been pretty extensive.

Frankfurt is also the financial capital of Europe so there is a lot of money in the city - it's where the investment bankers work. I've gotten some negative feedback about that aspect of Frankfurt - similar to the attitude that New York gets as well.

I also liked the tram through the Frankfurt in the grass - it's pretty cool! If you notice the black metal statue in the background of this picture, I was told it is a symbol of communism, with a hammer (anvil?) striking a block. Not the most typical artwork for a western city.

Marburg
Marburg is a very cute town complete with a castle on the hill, Fachwerkhause (half-timbered houses) and a church dedicated after Saint Elisabeth. It is truly a fairy tale town – the Brothers Grimm wrote their famous stories while living in Marburg. The Altstadt or Oberstadt (old or upper city) is the historic part of town on the hill from the castle to the river that gives the town its character. The castle was built on the hill above town so that it could not be invaded - it is primarily accessible from the side opposite the town. Photos include the castle, the rose garden next to the castle and the view from the castle.

The Altstadt was built in the late middle ages

(1400 - 1600) and has curvy, narrow, steep streets. In case you are curious, buses travel a few cobblestone streets in the Altstadt. Cars and delivery trucks use the streets as well, but I believe they are somewhat limited. Students at the University of Marburg live in the historic part of town since the flats are small with floors that slant and relatively few windows. I would still take one. Photos include on the steep streets and the Marktplatz which is the main square in the center of the Oberstadt.

Our group of 30-some Fulbrighters are staying in a dorm (last photo) that is about a 30 minute walk downhill to German class in the morning and usually longer hiking up the hill to get back. The walk is enjoyable, since there is a Bakeri on the way where I get my coffee and fresh roll every morning. Since the town is past our classroom, getting anywhere can be pretty time-consuming. The dorm is 1960s modernism and looks just like every other building of its type in the world. I have heard many people in our group complaining that most of the modern buildings here are eyesores in an otherwise beautiful town. I can’t argue – I just couldn’t get myself to take any pictures of the generic modernism here. You've seen it once and it looks the same everywhere.

Welcome to my Sustainability in Berlin blog!

As a part of my Fulbright experience, I will be keeping a blog for the year that I am in Berlin. The title of my blog reflects what I will be learning about there: sustainability. For those of you that do not spend all of your free time reading about sustainability, Wikipedia gives us this: "Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely." It is also commonly broken down into three main components: environmental, social and economic sustainability.

While not for scholarly citations, the Wikipedia description on sustainability is still a good description (and yes, I read the whole thing). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

I'm seeking to learn as much as I can about a wide variety of sustainable ideas here, including but not limited to: green roofs & green walls (go Berlin!); rainwater & wastewater management; energy efficiency; triple glazed windows (I've seen a fair amount amount already); land use & transportation relationships; relationships between buildings, streets and other spaces; passive houses; renewable energy; and more... I still need to develop a full list yet.

So enjoy reading!