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.