© Funky-data/ Getty Images*

Urban reconstruction as a complex process:

reflections on post-1945 Berlin
by Denis Bocquet*

Abstract:

In Berlin, a significant share of current building activity is on sites that were bombed in 1945,
and can be considered a part of the post-war reconstruction. The duration of reconstruction, a
particularity of Berlin’s experience, is highlighted by Denis Bouquet as he traces the process
of the city’s reconstruction following the destructions of the Second World War to the present
day. He also points out how reconstruction has catalysed and shaped the various phases of
architecture, planning and urbanism in Berlin. Moreover, after almost 30 years after the fall of
the wall and 75 years after the partial destruction of the city, reconstruction remains an entry
point to its understanding.

*The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and
do not commit the Organization.

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creat-
ivecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of
use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open access/terms-use- ccbysa-en). Images marked with an
asterisk (*) do not fall under the CC-BY-SA licence and may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the copyright
holders.
Urban reconstruction as a complex process:
reflections on post-1945 Berlin
Denis Bocquet

© Funky-data/ Getty Images*

Introduction

A t the end of the Second World War, in

May 1945, the city of Berlin was in a state of
In 2019, while a lot has been done in various
institutional, economical and ideological contexts,
profound distress. Numerous waves of aerial one cannot really say that this process is over. A
bombings - employing incendiary techniques and significant share of the current building activity
deliberately targeting civilian neighbourhoods in Berlin is on sites that were bombed in 1945,
- had devastated a substantial part of the built and can be considered as part of the post-war
structure. Most of the city’s infrastructure, from reconstruction, or sometimes re-reconstruction.
railways and roads to public services, as well
as factories and production sites, was also
The first reflection on the reconstruction process
destroyed. About 10% of the buildings of the
of Berlin following the massive destructions
city were completely destroyed, 8% severely
of the Second World War is its duration.
damaged and another 10% so significantly
Reconstruction was not only a central issue in
damaged that they were unusable without heavy
the late-1940s and during the 1950s and 1960s,
restoration. Another 20% were in a condition
but it also shaped the city and the postures of
where reuse was possible following light to
urbanism and architectural development in
medium reparations.
the decades that followed. The case of Berlin
underscores the fact that reconstruction is a long
In addition to the destruction coming from the air, process, even when a city has been the object
ground fighting also caused enormous damages: of intense political attention. Reconstruction
the Soviet artillery had made its way into the capital cannot be considered a short sequence, and
city of the Third Reich using violent techniques must necessarily be perceived from its very
of penetration and destruction. Up until the final first phases as a dynamic trajectory that will
minutes of the totalitarian and genocidal national orientate, determine and shape architecture and
socialist regime, street fighting continued to urbanism in the city for decades. Reconstruction,
damage the buildings and take a severe toll on the according to Berlin, has to be determined by an
civilian population. At the end of the war, Berlin, adaptive perspective. Early plans and decisions
in this deplorable state, hosted tens of thousands have to allow for future visions to develop,
of displaced Germans fleeing the advance of the and even to challenge this early framework in
Red Army. Misery was everywhere. It is in this the case of changing plans, social needs, or
context that the reconstruction of the city began. demographic and economic conditions. No static,
It was going to be a long task. closed, time-bound and horizon-limited vision of
1
reconstruction is desirable. What the case of a reservoir of ready-made lessons, Europe is not
Berlin further illustrates is that, even in a place historically or morally in the position to provide
where comprehensive architectural and urban such lessons, and no solution is transferable
theories and cultures were present at various without severe and critical examination, as well
levels of society, it is often half-measures and as contextualization. Some reflections on the
pragmatic visions that prevailed. In other words, case of Berlin, however, might be useful in the
early visions of reconstruction cannot be deemed context of discussions on other processes of
impervious, time-resistant and self-sufficient. urban reconstruction. Reconstruction not only
They have to integrate the possibility of constant implies a challenging discussion on the nature
negotiation, renegotiation and reinterpretation. of built heritage, the categories of heritage
protection and the instruments of architectural
Another major lesson is that reconstruction was and urban transformation. It also entails
central to shaping the phases of the history of considering the impact of ideas of the cities and
architecture, planning and urbanism in Berlin. urban societies in relation to the actual efforts
With its complex dynamic involving multiple at rebuilding the parts that were destroyed or
layers of expertise, sometimes contradictory damaged. Reflecting on reconstruction goes far
ideological slogans and drivers, numerous beyond mere physical reparation: it is a social,
conflicts, controversies and mistakes, as well political and ideological process. The history of
as various levels of decision-making processes, reconstruction is also a history of ideologies and
reconstruction played a pivotal role in defining historical constructions.1 The best way to avoid
urban planning and governance. For better or mistakes and their induced historical inertia is to
worse, it has made Berlin one of the main focuses critically examine all the aspects at stake during
of urban and architectural discussions in Europe the very early phases, including the numerous
over the past 75 years. social, political, environmental, aesthetic and
functional challenges related to reconstruction
decisions.

The crucial importance of the

early stages of reconstruction
In the case of war damages that challenged the
very readability of the urban structure at various
key points of the city, the first phase of the
reconstruction was, paradoxically, one of further
destruction. Destroying the ruins and evacuating
the rubble were in no way neutral processes
responding to objective criteria. Rather, they
represented the early implementation of
choices, whose criteria were strongly culturally,
professionally and ideologically connoted.
Moreover, widespread inertia impacted on the
built substance and readability of the urban
Figure 1. Aerial view of the Brandenburg Gate, 1945-46. structure.
© tormentor4555/ Wikimedia Commons

In Berlin in 1945, damage assessments and

decisions on whether or not to keep a building
were not impartial. It was an active phase of
In the following narration of the various phases
of the reconstruction of Berlin, the accent will be
1 Hassler, U. and Nerdinger, W. (eds.). 2010. Das Prinzip
put on the main ideas that have emerged from Rekonstruktion [The principle of reconstruction]. Zürich, ETH. (In
the study of this long process in the context of German.); Eisen, M., Nerdinger, W. and Strobl, H. (eds.). 2010.
Geschichte der Rekonstruktion, Konstruktion der Geschichte
collective reflections on contemporary processes [History of reconstruction, construction of history]. Munich, Prestel.
of urban reconstruction. History, of course, is not (In German.)
2
imposing visions of experts and institutions In the Berlin of the late 1940s, defining the
that were already engaged in implementing a roles of the various institutions and professions
precise idea of the city. Destroying the remains in reconstruction processes was the source of
of a bombed building not only meant losing its strong conflict, negotiation and compromise.
material substance. In many cases it also meant Many experts (architects and planners) that
erasing the very trace of the structure of the had been working under the national socialist
city, thus participating in the further weakening regime were authorized to remain active in the
of the inherited historical urban composition. In administration of the city, become owners of
such a way, the clearing of the ruins cannot be private studios, or contribute to works of public
considered as separate to reconstruction: it is a interest. Beyond the eviction of the most famous
phase of reconstruction and it must be theorized Nazi architect Albert Speer,4 numerous members
and practically organized as such. The method, of the Nazi planning offices were able to quickly
extent and timing of the clearing works, as find important positions in Berlin. Reflecting
well as what the ruins represent and what is to on reconstruction thus implies a reflection on
replace them, are already crucial phases of the such continuities: on their meaning in terms
reconstruction process. of ideology and moral positioning, as well as
in terms of inertia in planning perspectives,
In Berlin, this dimension has been largely ignored architectural practices and networks of
in most existing narratives of the reconstruction, professional connivance. Similarly, the post-
but seems ex-post to have constituted a crucial 1945 reconstruction decisions of the forces that
moment. The surveys of the destructions, as had participated in the destruction of the city
they were later understood,2 exaggerated the (Soviet Army, and United States and British Air
extent of destruction with the tacit intent to allow Forces) within their respective occupation zones
reconstruction to start from a blank slate. Many had a symbolic and violent impact on Berlin.
buildings that might have been appropriate for There was also the question of architects who
restoration were destroyed between 1945 and went into exile after 1933 to Moscow, the United
the end of the 1940s for the sake of fulfilling States, Turkey or Shanghai according their
a particular vision of reconstruction; that of possibilities for escape, personal and political
the planners in charge. If an early lesson from choices, or professional opportunities. They
Berlin can be drawn, it might be to: consider ruin belonged to a generation that had collectively
clearing as an active phase of reconstruction, reshaped architecture and planning in the 1920s,
and examine the extent of the impacted areas in inventing the modernist aesthetic, posture and
early discussions on reconstruction itself. method. Some of their colleagues had joined the
administration of the Nazi regime, while others
Another aspect of the early stages of the had stayed in Germany in less active situations.
reconstruction of Berlin worth reflecting on is the
importance of a more or less spontaneous de
facto reconstruction. Due to severe shortages of
building materials,3 many buildings in Berlin were
repaired first by their inhabitants and then with
the help of professionals (sometimes with public
funds). This was carried out on the basis of a
pragmatic vision to: (a) prepare for the winters of
1945 and 1946; (b) return the evacuees to their
homes: and (c) house displaced populations.
This method of prosaic reconstruction was very
significant in the early years.

2 Bodenschatz, H., Claussen, H., Heil, K., Schäche, W.,

Figure 2. Karl-Marx-Allee, Kino ‘Kosmos’.
Streich, W.J., Dittfurth, U., Herden, E., Metz, S., Schleicher A. and
© Bundesarchiv, Bild/ Wikimedia Commons
Villnow, R. 1987. Nach 1945: Wiederaufbau, zweite Zerstörung und
neue Tendenzen [After 1945: reconstruction, second destruction
and new tendencies]. J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und
Städtebau in Berlin [750 years of architecture and urban planning 4 Speer was jailed and prosecuted not specifically as an
in Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, pp. 213-242. (In German.) architect, but for his role as Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and, as
3 The Soviet army confiscated the production of many such, was involved in the planning and material execution of war
German factories in order to send building materials to Russia. crimes and crimes against humanity.
3
The year 1945 was a delicate moment of during the 1920s and 1930s. Albert Speer, the
redefining personal relations, as well as Generalbauinspektor der Reichshauptstadt
professional and symbolic hierarchies. Between (General Inspector of the Building Section of
the end of the war and the early 1950s, the Capital City of the Empire), and his office
architectural journals and circles extensively had designed Germania as the capital city of
discussed this question. Would the new Berlin
be inspired, or even designed, by Mies van der
Rohe (1886-1969) and Walter Gropius (1883-
1969)? Would the influence of the Ostmoderne
Bauhaus generation serve as a guideline for the
reconstruction? What the study of this period
teaches, however, is that things were much
more complicated. In 1947, General Lucius D.
Clay invited Walter Gropius to Germany for a
series of conferences. It was already clear that
this figure of the pre-war Berlin architectural
scene was not going to be the mastermind of
the reconstruction. In his speeches, Gropius
called for linking physical reconstruction to the
democratization of decision-making processes
and of society in general. The context was not
only post-totalitarian, but also the nascent Cold
War. Other conferences were organized by Hans Figure 3. Karl-Marx-Allee, Strausberger Platz.
Blumenfeld (1892-1988) and Samuel Zisman © Bundesarchiv, Bild / Wikimedia Commons
(1908-1970), who worked in Bavaria in planning
reconstruction, but it was soon clear that there
was no American model to be applied or even
proposed for the reconstruction of Berlin. Cultural a totalitarian regime. Speer also directed, in
influences - by architects linked to the Bauhaus the context of the persecution of the Jewish
generation, or by US architects, and exiles or population, works of urban renewal that were
former exiles in Moscow or elsewhere - played conceived on a violent and destructive basis and
a huge role, yet direct actions were extremely aimed at redesigning the relationship between
limited. The post-war period was a moment of the built structure and the ground.5 This vision
constituting a new sphere of expertise and, most planned the partial destruction of the city, largely
of all, one that comprised of complex negotiation the nineteenth century built heritage, and the
and contextual elements that could not be destruction of 5% to 10% of the city structure, i.e.
reduced to architectural history or models. more than 50,000 apartments.6 Hence, the fact
that reconstruction discussions in the profession
Among such contextual elements was the did not happen in a fully unprepared context
inertia of concepts and postures in urban meant that many offices had, in effect, been
planning formulated during previous historical working on a profound and traumatic revision of
phases. There was, for example, the lasting the urban structure for years.
influence of conceptions of urban transformation
inherited from the Nazi period. During the Third Beyond this horizon and chronology, there was
Reich, massive destructions were planned and also the influence of planning approaches that
partially implemented in view of forming an built on ideas formulated within the modernist
urban scenography of huge proportions at the
service of the image and propaganda of the 5 Miller-Lane, B. 1968. Architecture and Politics in
Germany (1918-1945). Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.
regime. The framework was the 1937 Law for
6 Reichhardt, H. and Schäche, W. 1984. Die Zerstörung
the Redesign of German Cities. Yet the Law not der Reichshauptstadt durch Albert Speers Neugestaltungspläne
only permitted vast demolitions in the name of [The destruction of the imperial capital by Albert Speer‘s redesign
the regime’s monumental self-image, but also for plans]. Berlin, Transit Buchverlag. (In German.); Schäche, W. 1987.
1933-1945: Bauen im Nationalsozialismus. Dekoration der Gewalt
hygienic considerations and functionalist visions [1933-1945: Building under National Socialism. Decoration of
that were not entirely disconnected from the violence]. J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und Städtebau
in Berlin [750 years of architecture and urban planning in Berlin].
way urban planning had evolved internationally Stuttgart, Hatje, Vol. 319, pp. 183-121. (In German.)
4
movement or the cultural sphere attached Germans repair the damage left by the war’7.
to it. For some, post-1945 destruction was a This did not mean a lack of significant support
unique opportunity to implement vast planning for Berlin: ERP funds were instrumental in efforts
programmes that supposed the dissolution and aimed at rebuilding factories, schools and even
destruction of the inherited urban structure. housing units8, but the funds were not specifically
Suddenly the urban landscape was not far focused on an urban initiative. What the case of
from resembling the blank slate that modernist Berlin makes clear, however, is that the question
architects had been working towards for virtually of foreign financing is never neutral and goes
two decades. Similar to London, where this hand-in-hand with ideological conditions that
context was decisive in shaping its rebuilt need to be decrypted. In Berlin, the progressive
neighbourhoods, there was a strong influence of separation of the East (Soviet occupation zone)
ideas that had been discussed in the 1920s and and the West (United States, British and French
expressed during the 1930s around, notably, Le occupation zones) conditioned reconstruction for
Corbusier’s formulation of the Athens Charter in more than four decades.
1933. But in the case of Berlin, the impact of such
visions combined with a complex reality resulted The first steps towards forming a reconstruction
in the rapid mitigation of all-encompassing ideas. framework for the city took place prior to
The new Berlin was not going to be built from a its division, when it was still under Soviet
blank slate. occupation9. On May 17, 1945 the architect Hans
Scharoun (1893-1972)10 was appointed head
Another early question in reconstruction was its of the Berlin Planning and Housing Bureau11.
financing. In the few months following the end of A few days earlier, he had been chosen by
the Second World War, Berlin was fast becoming General Nikolai Bersarin, the Soviet commander
one of the central theatres where the impending of Berlin, as a member of the new municipal
Cold War would be played out. Decision-making administration. One of the administration’s first
processes regarding reconstruction were partly tasks in 1945 was the creation of a precise
conditioned by the emergence of the ideology map of the damages. Scharoun ordered the
of the Marshall Plan, formally the European destruction of the Gestapo quarter, which had
Recovery Program (ERP) of 1947. Within been partially damaged, and the Chancery of the
this framework, huge funds were allocated Reich, seeking to erase these landmarks of the
to the reconstruction of Germany. The Soviet totalitarian regime from the symbolic landscape
occupation zone refused this help and denounced of the city. He also instructed that the demolition
the ideological bias it represented, and ‘there of the ruins be extensive.
was no consistent, high-level American policy
on what, if anything, to do about helping the The dominant idea was to unlock the overly
densified city inherited from the end of the
nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth
centuries. But his actions did not result in a blank
slate. In mid-1945 Scharoun also launched,

7 Diefendorf, J., Frohn, A. and Rupieper, H.J. (eds.). 1993.

American Policy and the Reconstruction of West Germany (1945-
1955). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
8 Ferrari, H. 1961. ERP und die Stadt Berlin [ERP and the
city of Berlin]. Berlin, Sagerdruck. (In German).
9 US, British and French troops arrived in their respective
zones of occupation several weeks later.
10 Hans Scharoun was known for his participation in the
1927 Werkbund Exhibition in Stuttgart and for the design of the
Siemensstadt neighbourhood at the end of the 1920s. In the 1930s,
Scharoun had been a member, together with Mies van der Rohe
and Walter Gropius, of the architect’s circle Der Ring. Before the
Second World War in Berlin, he had worked closely with the head of
the planning department of the municipality, Martin Wagner. During
the Second World War he worked with the administration dedicated
to the reparation of war damages.
Figure 4. Gendarmenmarkt. 11 Kürvers, K. 1993. Piani per una nuova Berlino (1945-
© Atlantic-kid /Getty Images*. 1949). L. Spagnoli (ed.), Berlino : la costruzione di una capitale
[Berlin: the construction of a capital]. Milan, CittàStudi, pp. 79-97.
(In Italian).
5
together with the former International Congresses of reality.15 Subsequently, the separation of the
of Modern Architecture (CIAM) architect Wils city into two zones became a clear and defining
Ebert,12 the design of a new master plan. Traffic factor. From 1948 onwards, the reconstruction of
engineer Peter Friedrich was asked by Scharoun Berlin proceeded according to the different logics
to develop ideas for a linear development of the of the East and the West.
city along the Spree Valley. Scharoun’s team,
the Planungskollektiv,13 had a vision to create an
urban landscape inspired by the Athens Charter.
Due to the opportunities provided by the bombing
of the city and ruin clearing, a new modernist
Rebuilding Berlin in the context
urban grid would have provided the framework in of the Cold War
which housing cells could have been inserted into
a green landscape. In the same year, Scharoun In 1948, the physical division of the city
integrated another planning collective into the materialized through the reinforcement of
process: a group of architects working in the checkpoints between the East and the West,
Zehlendorf neighbourhood on options inspired followed by the Soviet blockade of West Berlin.
by the 1910 Jansen Plan and on the hypothesis This growing tension resulted in the creation
of a continuation and reinterpretation of the of two separate local administrations in 1949.
logic of the 1862 Hobrecht Plan. Even before In the West, the new administration was led by
the city was formally divided by geopolitical Ernst Reuter (1889-1953)16 and, in the East,
boundaries, the administration worked on two the administration was headed by Friedrich
plans with two separate teams, both focused on Ebert (1894-1979).17 The teams planning
completely different options and philosophies. the reconstruction ceased to coordinate their
work: the group for Zehlendorf remained in
Scharoun’s Kollektivplan (collective plan) the West whereas most of the members of the
proposed a separation of functions and the Planungskollektiv worked in the East. Informal
creation of a network of large avenues. The meetings, however, continued between both
proposed plan was met with great suspicion by teams.
the Americans, however, as the plan aligned to a
context of a possible abolition of private property In East Berlin, reconstruction between the 1950s
rather than one of restoring the properties.14 and 1970s was characterized by the strong
In the ruins of the Palace of Berlin, Scharoun influence of ideology. In 1947, Scharoun created
organized the 1946 exhibition Berlin plant - erster the Institut für Bauwesen (Architectural Institute)
Bericht (Berlin Plans – First Report) about the with architects Hermann Henselmann (1905-
perspective of the reconstruction of the city. This 1995) and Kurt Liebknecht (1905-1994).18 There
event created a new sphere of discussion within was a clear influence of political image and
the profession, and had a significant impact in surveillance on reconstruction processes of the
the press and on the population, thus constituting city, which became even stronger with the onset
an important moment of collective reflection of the Cold War. While Scharoun was reflecting
on the future of the city. After the elections of in the spirit of the Kollektivplan on the realization
October 20, 1946, that saw the victory of the
Social Democrats, Scharoun was replaced by 15 Bodenschatz, H., Claussen, H., Heil, K., Schäche, W.,
Karl Bonatz as Director of the Planning and Streich, W.J., Dittfurth, U., Herden, E., Metz, S., Schleicher A. and
Villnow, R. 1987. Nach 1945: Wiederaufbau, zweite Zerstörung und
Housing Bureau. The plan that resulted from this neue Tendenzen [After 1945: reconstruction, second destruction
political and professional transition was a much and new tendencies]. J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und
less radical rupture with the city of the nineteenth Städtebau in Berlin [750 years of architecture and urban planning
in Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, pp. 213-242. (In German.)
century and its structure. It insisted on a principle 16 Ernst Reuter had been a follower and advisor of Lenin
after the First World War and, after having been expelled from the
Communist Party, became a Social Democrat urban planner in
Berlin, as well as the founder of the local transportation authority.
During his exile in Turkey, he created the urban planning department
12 Wils Ebert was known for working on the hypothesis of a of the University of Ankara.
reconstruction of European centres ex-novo since the 1930s. 17 Friedrich Ebert was the son of the Social Democratic
13 Kürvers, K. 1993. Piani per una nuova Berlino (1945- President of the Republic of Weimar. A Social Democrat himself, in
1949). L. Spagnoli (ed.), Berlino : la costruzione di una capitale 1946 he joined the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).
[Berlin: the construction of a capital]. Milan, CittàStudi, pp. 79-97. 18 Kurt Liebknecht had worked with Ernst May during
(In Italian.) his exile in the Soviet Union and had been asked by the Soviet
14 Ibid. authorities to supervise the organization of the profession in Berlin.
6
of the first housing cell in the Friedrichshain end of individual property rights was an early
neighbourhood, he was fired and his institute instrument of reconstruction. The way in which
was closed. Scharoun, who lived in the Western property rights were handled, from ideology to
part of city, remained there and ceased to work practicalities, strongly determined the shape of
for the communist regime. The 1949 Master Plan the rebuilt city and its relationship with the pre-
Ersten Aufbauplan für das Zentrum des Neuen
Berlins (First construction plan for the centre of
New Berlin) was short-lived.

In 1950, new directives arrived from Moscow,

and the architects, planners and politicians
in charge of the reconstruction of Berlin even
travelled to the capital of the Soviet Union. The
new philosophy comprised an explicit rejection
of the Bauhaus aesthetic and of many central
features of modernism.19 This ideologically-
driven shift in perspective insisted on a new
German architecture, with references to
historical architectural discourses. It did not
evoke the possibility of reconstruction aligned to
reproducing pre-existing buildings and forms. It
consisted of the invention of a new architectural Figure 5. Ruins at Stalinallee, 1950.
language, a new urban structure. © Bundesarchiv/ Wikimedia Commons

Berlin demonstrates that historicizing

reconstruction does not necessarily mean
reconstructing what existed. This complex nexus
needs to be carefully decrypted. What the Berlin
case also illustrates is that the phases and
postures of reconstruction cannot be explained
solely by architectural history or by political
choices. They were a mix of both, and the result
of complex interactions.

On July 27, 1950 the German Democratic

Republic presented this new doctrine in the
booklet 16 Grundsätze des Städtebaus (The
Sixteen Principles of Urban Planning), which
outlined the orientation of reconstruction for the
upcoming years. Principle 6 stated that cities
Figure 6. Berlin, Karl-Marx-Allee, Milchbar Terrace.
have centres and that the idea and existence © Bundesarchiv/ Wikimedia Commons
of such centres must be a dominant principle in
the organization of the whole city. This statement
represented a distancing from the Athens
Charter, Le Corbusier and Scharoun rather than bombed urban structure, architectural heritage
a will to preserve the existing city centre. and urban society. The zones to be rebuilt were
the object of violent policies of ruin destruction.
Another important decision of the early 1950s in The main project that resulted from this ideological
East Berlin was that the zones designed to be posture was the construction of Stalinallee.20
rebuilt were among the first in which socialist This huge avenue, with neo-classical inspirations
principles of landownership were applied. The for its façades, substantially modified the urban
structure. Various blocks that had been more
19 Düwel, J. 1995. Planen im Kalten Krieg [Planning in
the Cold War]. M. Gleiss (ed.), Krieg, Zerstörung, Aufbau [War,
destruction, construction]. Berlin, Henschel, pp. 195-234. (In 20 In the 1960s, in the context of De-Stalinization, the
German.) avenue was renamed Karl-Marx-Allee.
7
or less damaged in 1945, were destroyed. destructive. The infrastructuralist era, whose
Resulting from a 1951 urban design competition, intensity was reinforced in 1960 with a further
the architects Egon Hartmann, Richard Paulick, decision to accept and even promote a rupture
with the inherited urban structure, led to what
Hans Hopp, Karl Souradny and Kurt Leucht were some scholars have labelled the ‘second
each awarded the construction of a segment of destruction’.22 From the 1950s to 1970s, entire
the avenue, under the overall coordination of blocks that had been damaged during the 1945
Hermann Henselmann. The modernist architects bombings were destroyed in order to give way
adapted their work to the ideology and aesthetic for huge infrastructural programmes. A whole
representations of the authorities. In 1953, network of urban motorways was built in West
the posture of destruction of the traces of the Berlin.23
inherited city culminated in the destruction of the
ruins of the Palace of Berlin, the former residence This traumatic endeavour, however, was
of the Hohenzollern Dynasty. A modernist, multi- largely absent in the urban debates of the
function public building, the Palast der Republik time. Most attention concentrated on the 1957
(Heinz Graffunder and Karl-Ernst Swora Berlin International Architecture Exhibition (IBA
architects) was built on the site in the 1970s. Interbau) and its aftermath. In preparing for this
event, the whole neighbourhood of Hansaviertel
In contrast to the historicist references of the was cleared and an urban enclave was proposed
1950s, during this period in general, East Berlin to a series of internationally-acclaimed architects
became the theatre of a new architectural (Alvar Aalto, Oscar Niemeyer and Walter Gropius)
scenography of a regime that insisted on as a blank slate. Interbau was conceived as a
modernity.21 From a practical point of view, showcase of the city of the future.24
however, most of the reconstruction was in the
form of large housing estates that were built not
only on the fringes of the city, but also in place of
previously existing neighbourhoods very close to
the city centre. During the 1960s and the early
1970s, hundreds of nineteenth century buildings
were destroyed as part of a programme of erasing
the existing urban structure (mostly more or less
damaged nineteenth century buildings), resulting
in the presence of large social housing units in
the very heart of the city.

In West Berlin, what the Cold War confirmed was

a renunciation of a reconstruction plan to mirror
all-encompassing modernist visions. This did not
mean that demolitions of entire blocks of more or
less damaged buildings ceased, but the quantity
of such demolitions remained invariable between
1949 and the early 1970s. Even if hundreds of
buildings were renovated, a very significant Figure 7. Berlin, Hansaviertel. Architect: Walter Gropius.
share of the built structure was erased during © Manfred Brückels/ Wikimedia Commons
medium- to large-scale operations.
22 Bodenschatz, H., Claussen, H., Heil, K., Schäche, W.,
The new city that emerged was marked by the Streich, W.J., Dittfurth, U., Herden, E., Metz, S., Schleicher A. and
importance of social housing and by a growing Villnow, R. 1987. Nach 1945: Wiederaufbau, zweite Zerstörung und
infrastructural ideal that exploited reconstruction neue Tendenzen [After 1945: reconstruction, second destruction
and new tendencies]. J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und
as a tool of urban renewal. The lesson to be Städtebau in Berlin [750 years of architecture and urban planning
drawn from this phase is that an absence of a in Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, pp. 213-242. (In German.)
theorized destructive vision of reconstruction 23 Düwel, J., Mönninger, M. 2011. Zwischen Traum und
Trauma : Stadtplanung der Nachkriegsmoderne [Between dream
did not denote that reconstruction was not and trauma: urban planning of post-war modernism]. Berlin, DOM.
(In German.)
21 Butter, A. and Hartung, U. 2004. Ostmoderne. Architektur 24 Spagnoli, L (ed.). 1993. Berlino : la costruzione di una
in Berlin 1945-1965 [Eastern Modernism. Architecture in Berlin capitale [Berlin: the construction of a capital]. Milan, CittàStudi. (In
1945-1965]. Berlin, Jovis. (In German.) Italian.)
8
Reconstruction was theorized as a moment of reconstruction efforts were in the form of social
reflection on urban planning and architecture. In housing. The old urban structure was generally
1958, the planning competition Berlin Hauptstadt destroyed, and a new relationship between the
caused geopolitical tension as it proposed ground and the built elements was introduced.
motorways as the principle structuring element The scale of the block that constituted the main
of West Berlin. The existing urban morphology structural element inherited from the Hobrecht
was largely ignored.25 During the 1960s, Plan, tended to be replaced by much larger
Scharoun built the Philharmonie and Mies van projects. But in West Berlin, the infrastructuralist
der Rohe constructed the Neue Nationalgalerie and morphological excesses of the 1960s
on cleared areas near the former Potsdamer provoked a reaction, both political and aesthetic,
Platz. In Charlottenburg, an alternative centrality against this traumatic form of reconstruction.
was reinforced in order to compensate for the
fact that the entire former city centre belonged
to the East. In terms of volume, however, most

The emergence of the paradigm

of critical reconstruction
In a city where many damaged buildings and
wastelands existed even 30 years after the
destructions, temporary uses were common.
Moreover, they were part of the reconstruction
processes. For example, squatters, often
belonging to far-left clandestine housing
communities, developed a pragmatic approach
to reconstruction. Having chosen West Berlin as
a way to avoid the military service of the Federal
Republic of Germany and live an alternative
urban ideal, the squatters occupied damaged
and abandoned buildings. They developed
strategies to make them liveable and political
narratives to contest the urban strategies of
the administration. Their idea of reconstruction
Figure 8. Neue Nationalgalerie. throughout the 1960s and 1970s stood in
© Lauren Manning/flickr
stark contrast to the destructive reconstruction
promoted by the administration.26 Paradoxically,
their marginal, revolutionary and utopian ideals
also supported a pragmatic rediscovery of
the historical built heritage. Their rejection of
the policies of the administration was also a
denunciation of the urban form that these policies
promoted, which were often at the expense of the
urban structure and at the cost of the expulsion
of the de facto inhabitants. This sphere, and
the political consciousness it expressed and
materialized, played an important role in debates
about a change of paradigm in reconstruction.

The programme of planned, destructive urban

renewal culminated in 1963 under Mayor Willy
Figure 9. Berliner Philharmonie. Brandt (1913-1992). In the context of the city
© Fred Romero/flickr

26 Düwel, J., Mönninger, M. 2011. Zwischen Traum und

25 Trebbi, G. 1978. La ricostruzione di una città : Berlino Trauma : Stadtplanung der Nachkriegsmoderne [Between dream
1945-1975 [The reconstruction of a city: Berlin 1945-1975]. Milan, and trauma: urban planning of post-war modernism]. Berlin, DOM.
Mazzotta. (In Italian.) (In German.)
9
divided by a wall since 1961, the question of West was further driven by debates on reconstruction
Berlin was more than ever the object of intense methods.
national and international attention. Confronted
by growing protests against destructions, Brandt The idea for a new International Architecture
announced in 1964 that reconstruction should Exhibition (IBA) emerged at the end of the
be implemented according to softer methods. 1970s, to be planned for 1984-1987. From
Even though the Master Plan of 1965 aimed at a political point of view, the IBA embodied an
drastically lowering urban density, the intensity effort by the ruling Social Democratic Party
of the destruction of the previous decade was to soften its conflict with the far-left squatters.
no longer tolerated by the population and public From an architectural point of view, it signalled
opinion.27 the emergence of a potential form of post-
modernism. From a planning point of view, it
A new generation of architects began to propose was the acknowledgment that reconstruction
and formulate new attitudes. In 1971, Josef Paul should respect the inherited structure of the
Kleihues (1933-2004) was authorized to develop city. It represented an important shift for urban
a project for the Vinetaplatz neighbourhood that planning and architecture in Europe. This is
responded to a new posture and embodied a why the importance of IBA Berlin extended far
new attitude towards reconstruction. He insisted beyond Berlin and reconstruction: under the term
on the scale of the project, respecting the block of ‘critical reconstruction’, it represented a whole
and the structure of the former city. Following new theorized paradigm of urbanism.29
other experiments in Wedding-Brunnenstrasse
by Kleihues in the early 1970s, the idea of the
block as the appropriate scale began to be
widely adopted by architects. The rediscovery
of the old structure induced the progressive
emergence of a concept of urban reparation,
which would become central to urban debates on
reconstruction in the subsequent decade.28 In this
regard, the beginning of the 1970s represented
a huge turning point in the conceptualization
of reconstruction. However, from a quantitative
point of view, this posture remained marginal. In
other words: destructions continued.

In 1975, on the occasion of the European Year

of Heritage Protection, new steps were taken
towards a better respect of the inherited city Figure 10. Residential building in Vinetaplatz, by Josef Paul
in reconstruction processes. Berlin introduced Kleihues.
© Gunnar Klack/flickr
measures to protect the façades of existing
buildings, even the previously despised
conventional constructions of the nineteenth
century. A cultural change was taking place, which For the IBA 1987, reconstruction meant urbanism
and a synthetized spirit of a new approach.
A central idea was to promote the city centre
27 Bodenschatz, H., Claussen, H., Heil, K., Schäche, W.,
Streich, W.J., Dittfurth, U., Herden, E., Metz, S., Schleicher A. and as a place to live, thus increasing the micro-
Villnow, R. 1987. Nach 1945: Wiederaufbau, zweite Zerstörung und scale liveability of neighbourhoods. During the
neue Tendenzen [After 1945: reconstruction, second destruction preparation of this full-scale event, an exhibition
and new tendencies]. J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und
Städtebau in Berlin [750 years of architecture and urban planning was organized in 1984. Confirmed and emerging
in Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, pp. 213-242. (In German.) architects30 were invited to participate in the
28 Hämer, H.W., Kleihues, J.P. and Zwoch, F. 1984. Idee, IBA and to propose buildings that responded to
Process, Ergebnis. Die Reparatur und Rekonstruktion der Stadt
[Idea, Process, Result. The repair and reconstruction of the city].
Berlin, IBA-Frölich & Kaufmann. (In German.); Bodenschatz, H., 29 Kleihues, J.P. 1987. Kritische Rekonstruktion der Stadt.
Claussen, H., Heil, K., Schäche, W., Streich, W.J., Dittfurth, U., J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und Städtebau in Berlin
Herden, E., Metz, S., Schleicher A. and Villnow, R. 1987. Nach [750 years of architecture and urban planning in Berlin]. Stuttgart,
1945: Wiederaufbau, zweite Zerstörung und neue Tendenzen [After
Hatje, Vol. 319, pp. 243-294. (In German.)
1945: reconstruction, second destruction and new tendencies]. J.P.
Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und Städtebau in Berlin [750 30 Alvaro Siza, Peter Eisenman, Arata Izozaki, James
years of architecture and urban planning in Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, Sterling (1926-1992), Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid (1950-2016),
pp. 213-242. (In German.) and Aldo Rossi (1931-1997), among others.
10
the new philosophy. The IBA had two sections: of bombed apartment houses was a way for the
new buildings (Josef Paul Kleihues, around the administration to save on the construction costs
Tegel neighbourhood) and old urban structures of new social housing. Close attention was paid
(Hardt Waltherr Hämer, mostly in the Kreuzberg to public spaces, with squares - often in the
neighbourhood). interstices of the bombed city - becoming spaces
of social interaction.

An important lesson from Berlin’s experience is

that alongside critical reconstruction, urbanism
and social policies tended to merge. In contrast to
previous models that risked uniformity in the urban
landscape, the IBA promoted a strong diversity of
housing types. The ‘step by step’ philosophy was
both an imperative of the temporalities of urban
change centred on inhabitants, and a guarantee
against out-of-scale initiatives32.

In contrast to what most experts in West Berlin

thought, however, a lot was also happening
in the Eastern parts of the city. In the name of
‘complex reconstruction’, an important turning
point in the history of planning and architecture
Figure 11. IBA project no. 136/ Housing Development,
was taking place during these very same
Mariannenstraße, Reichenberger Strasse. years33. On the occasion of the celebration of
© Gunnar Klack/ Wikimedia Commons. the 750th anniversary of the foundation of Berlin,
reconstruction of the historic neighbourhood
Nikolaiviertel was carried out according to
principles of neo-historicism34. Between pastiche
As far as reconstruction was concerned, the IBA
and urban marketing propaganda tools, the
slogan was ‘step by step’ for a careful urban
neighbourhood symbolized a distancing from
renewal. Destructions should be minimized
former dominant ideological postures in the
and existing buildings should be repaired
communist world regarding history. The urban
without expulsing the inhabitants. New buildings
structure was not the same as the one that was
should be conceived as elements fitting in the
bombed in 1945, but it was inspired by its shape
inherited urban framework. No project should
and scale.
exceed the scale of the block and inhabitants
should be asked to participate in decisionmaking
Amidst negotiations on postures of reconstruction
processes according to precise and
between architects, planners and politicians,
institutionalized procedures31. The integration of
important symbolic changes were enacted in
Turkish migrants, who had largely been housed
East Berlin between 1977 and 1987. There was
in Kreuzberg after 1961, was the object of
also a change of attitude with regards to historic
positive discourses. Critical reconstruction was
neighbourhoods like Prenzlauer Berg, dating
conceived as a democratic laboratory of a city
back to the nineteenth century. Compared to the
of the future that would reconnect with the past
previous rhetoric of the regime that stigmatized
after traumatic phases of erasure. Putting an end
it as a product of capitalism built to exploit the
to the policy of destruction of the urban structure,
the IBA induced a rediscovery of the value of 32 Wunderlich, C. (ed.). 1989. Step by Step. Careful Urban
archives. The idea of recycling the existing city Renewal in Kreuzberg. Berlin, STERN. The IBA, however, was not
exempt from criticism. Some argued that just outside of the test
comprised an environmentalist perspective neighbourhoods, demolitions and evictions continued (Autzen et
and conscience. Avoiding evictions also meant al., 1984). Some also claimed that the sociological and political rel-
evance of participation was ambiguous. Another ambiguity of the IBA
proposing inhabitants to participate in the very is that it was unable to consider the reunification of the city.
31 Beck, P. 1987. Kreuzberger Kreisläufe. Block 103 – 33 Durth, W., Düwel, J. and Gutschow, N. 2007. Architektur
ein Modell für umweltorientierte behutsame Stadterneuerung und Städtebau der DDR [Architecture and urban planning of the
[Kreuzberg circuits. Block 103 - a model for green, careful urban DDR]. Berlin, Jovis. (In German).
renewal]. Berlin, IBA. (In German.); Edding, T. and Hämer, H.W. 34 Urban, F. 2016. Neo-Historical East-Berlin. Architecture
1987. Step by Step. Careful urban renewal in Kreuzberg, Berlin. and Urban Design in the German Democratic Republic. Abingdon,
Berlin, IBA. Routledge.
11
 Rebuilding Berlin after 1989
From an urban and architectural perspective,
in spite of the incapacity of West Berlin’s recent
IBA to consider the city as a whole, in the years
leading up to 1989 Berlin experienced a relative
reduction in the gap between the practices of the
East and West. Both sides had decided to cease
reconstruction policies through destruction, and
had experimented with a post-modern approach
to the inherited urban structure. From a political
and professional point of view, however, the
reunification was all but a merger. The generation
of architects and planners that had gained
competence and visibility during the IBA literally
evicted their colleagues from the East. Beyond
Figure 12. Kreuzberg, Friedrichstrasse 43-44, Checkpoint
the ideological transition and suspicion of experts
Charlie. who had worked for the communist regime, this
© Jörg Zägel/ Wikimedia Commons process was rigid and created frustration among
those removed from the conversation.

After the fall of the Berlin wall, reconstruction

working class, the accent progressively shifted was again a matter of national image in Eastern
towards viewing these buildings as embodying Europe.36 In Berlin, the attention immediately
the memory of the working class. A change in focused on the reconstruction of Potsdamer
reconstruction principles is often also a change Platz, an important square of the pre-1945 city
of narrative. As a consequence of the ideological that had been left as a wasteland and divided by
reinterpretation of Mietskasernen (rental the wall since 1961. In 1990, it was clear that the
barracks) as part of the socialist memory of the fall of the wall opened up a new phase of the post-
city, it was decided to stop destroying these 1945 reconstruction of the city,37 and Potsdamer
structures in the name of socialist reconstruction. Platz became for a decade one of the biggest
construction sites on the continent. The process
There was also a pragmatic imperative behind of reconstruction of the square had begun a few
this shift: the Social Democratic Party realized it months before the fall of the wall when the Senate
could not otherwise fulfil its promise to provide of Berlin announced its intention to redesign it for
a house for every family. In Prenzlauer Berg, the 1995 National Garden Exhibition. After the
the test areas of Arnimplatz and Arkonaplatz fall of the wall, the area was divided into four lots
were designed for this paradigmatic change.35 sold to investors, and an international competition
In the early 1980s, the Party provided building was organized for its general plan.38 According to
materials to inhabitants to reconstruct damaged early critics, the post-1989 reconstruction began
buildings. It also provided technical guidance in on the basis of morphological and ideological
the form of booklets and architectural consulting. ambiguities. Potsdamer Platz remained for at
Even though the regime continued until the end least a decade at the heart of conversations and
of the 1980s, cultural and political transformation controversies on the spirit of reconstruction in an
had already been made in East Berlin before era of neoliberalism and post-modernism.
the fall of the wall in 1989 in order to build large
housing estates. Beginning in 1990, a new
turning point was imminent in reinterpreting what 36 Bartetzky, A. 2010. “Die Rolle der Rekonstruktion nach
reconstruction means, with repercussions on the dem Wechsel der Systeme in Osteuropa [The role of reconstruction
after the change of systems in Eastern Europe]. M. Eisen, W.
history of architecture and planning far beyond Nerdinger and H. Strobl (eds.), Geschichte der Rekonstruktion,
the mere horizon of destroyed cities. Konstruktion der Geschichte [History of reconstruction, construction
of history]. Munich, Prestel, pp. 138-147. (In German.)
37 Siedler, W.J. 1998. Phoenix im Sand [Phoenix in the
35 Stimmann, H. 1985. Stadterneuerung in Ost-Berlin vom Sand]. Berlin, Propyläen. (In German.)
“sozialistischen Neuaufbau” zur “komplexen Rekonstruktion”[ 38 Heinz Hilmer and Christoph Sattler won first prize.
Urban regeneration in East Berlin from „socialist reconstruction“ to Renzo Piano designed the area attributed to investor Daimler, and
„complex reconstruction“]. Berlin, IBA. (In German.) Helmut Jahn the one attributed to Sony.
12
Another important shift was happening at the that exploited the new urban landscape provided
scale of the whole city, under the aegis of Hans by a reconstruction that had progressively been
Stimmann, who was appointed chief of the distanced from some of its founding social ideals
planning bureau of the Senate. Stimmann, who of the 1980s.
had been working as an expert of urban change in
the East during the IBA, aimed at expanding the
methods and concepts of critical reconstruction
to the former Eastern neighbourhoods.39 He
also developed a vision of reconstruction that
emphasized reconnecting with fragments of the
old urban structure and even reconstituting the
structure.40

The references of this reconstruction posture

were the urban forms of the late nineteeth and
early twentieth centuries. Between 1996 and
1999, Stimmann managed to impose this vision
in the form of a new Master Plan, the Planwerk
Innenstadt.41 The concept of ‘European City’ was
instrumental in the narrative that accompanied
the plan and its contextualization. Stimmann’s
effort also entailed constructing a discourse
that sought to reinterpret the recent history of Figure 13. Aerial view of Potsdamer Platz in 2016.
© Avda / avda-foto.de, Wikimedia Commons
planning in Berlin. This quest for a lost city42 was
ambiguous, as it implied severe judgements
of intermediary phases that might also have
been valued. The interpretation of the heritage
of the 1862 Hobrecht Plan remained important
in local conversations on reconstruction.43 But
the denunciation of the fascination for a fixed Conclusions: contemporary
temporal reference led to a confrontation between debates on reconstruction
historicists and modernists. Moreover, it became
one of the main criticisms of the evolution of the
Almost 30 years after the fall of the wall, and
methods of critical reconstruction implemented
almost 75 years after the partial destruction of
between the late 1990s and the mid-2000s.
the city, reconstruction is still an entry point to
In the context of economic depression and a
understanding architecture and planning in Berlin.
desperate need to attract investors, this posture
One of the remaining issues is the reconstruction
nevertheless allowed reconstruction to advance
of the Palace of Berlin. Following the destruction
with a certain degree of coherence. But it paved
of its ruins in 1953 and the construction of the
the way for the strong gentrification of the 2010s
Palast der Republik in the mid-1970s, strong
debates emerged after the fall of the wall.
39 Bocquet, D. 2010. Hans Stimmann et l’urbanisme Under Hans Stimmann, the decision was made
berlinois : un tournant conservateur de la reconstruction critique? to destroy the Palast der Republik. In 1994, a
Città e Storia, Vol. 2, pp. 467-487.
visual simulation of the reconstructed Schloss
40 Stimmann, H. 2002. Die gezeichnete Stadt. Die
Physiognomie der Berliner Innenstadt in Schwarz- und had been part of the debates. It was decided
Parzellenplänen 1940-2010 [The City in Black. The Physiognomy that reconstruction would be facilitated through
of Central Berlin in Figure-Ground Plans and Parcel Plans 1940-
2010]. Berlin, Nicolai. (In German.)
a foundation and in the form of a public-private
41 Ibid.; Stimmann, H. (ed.). 2001. Von der Architektur zur partnership. After multiple court procedures,
Stadtdebatte. Die Diskussion um das Planwerk Innenstadt [From the Palast der Republik was destroyed in
architecture to city debate. The discussion about the Planwerk 2006. Franco Stella, an Italian architect, won a
downtown]. Berlin, Braun. (In German.)
42 Zohlen, G. 2002. Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen
competition for the construction of the Humboldt
Stadt [In search of the lost city]. Berlin, Nicolai. (In German.) Forum, a building that reproduces the aesthetic
43 Bentlin, F. 2018. Understanding the Hobrecht Plan. of the castle from the outside and develops
Origin, composition, and implementation of urban design elements
in the Berlin expansion plan from 1862. Planning Perspectives, Vol.
other functions inside. With this decision, Berlin
33, No. 4, pp. 633-655. might have caricatured itself in the direction of
13
a pastiche reconstruction. For some, this kind of the Prussian past. The building of the Ministry
of attitude towards reconstruction is a farce44. of Foreign Affairs of the German Democratic
Debates also arose concerning the surroundings Republic was built on the site. After the fall of
of the reconstructed castle. Stimmann advocated the wall, this building was destroyed in the mid-
for the creation of an old town that never really 1990s47. Since then, debates and controversies
existed, inventing a historicized urban structure45. on the reconstruction of the Bauakademie have
Debates are still ongoing in Berlin. been symbolic of the opposing opinions on
heritage and reconstruction. At the beginning
of the 2000s, a temporary visual representation
of the academy was erected at the site. But
a decision to fund its reconstruction has not
yet been made, and the case of the academy
remains the object of strong debate.

Berlin undeniably represents a highly specific

case, and reflections on reconstruction processes
that derive from the study of its evolution since
1945 cannot be considered universal lessons
for all reconstruction endeavours. Every
reconstruction configuration is unique. If the
Berlin case can teach only one thing, it is that
models should be considered with great care
- and even challenged – with regards to their
relevance and content.

Figure 14. Bauakademie. The Berlin experience, however, invites experts

© Nightflyer/ Wikimedia Commons.
involved in decision-making processes about
urban reconstruction to consider a certain
number of factors and to be wary of the illusion
that reconstruction is a quick and simple process.
It not only implies reflection on the nature and
Another current controversy concerns the categories of heritage protection, and memory
Bauakademie (architecture academy). It was built and its vectors, but also the weight and inertia
in the 1830s according to plans by Karl Friedrich of ideologies, professional representations and
Schinkel (1781-1841) and was one of the main networks. Reflecting on reconstruction implies the
symbolic references of Prussian architecture46. analysis of complex decision-making processes
Damaged during the bombings of 3 February and an understanding of the resulting built form,
1945, the building was partially restored as part rather than the mere projection of static heritage,
of the East German plan for the reconstruction memories and ideas. Considering reconstruction
of central Berlin. During the 1950s it hosted the is taking into account the relationship between
East German Architecture Academy. It was not the built element and society. The relevance of
included in the destruction plan of 1953, during the Berlin case for contemporary reconstruction
which the Palace of Berlin was destroyed, yet it processes, on which reflection is already
was eventually destroyed in 1962 as part of the underway48, is also to indicate that reconstruction
regime’s violent offensive against historical traces in all its phases is urbanism. Similarly, what Berlin
44 Von Buttlar, A., Dolff-Bonekämper, G., Falser, M., suggests is that, through reconstruction, it is not
Hubel, A. and Mörsc, G. 2011. Denkmalpflege statt Attrappenkult. only the form, substance and life of damaged cities
Gegen die Rekonstruktion von Baudenkmälern [Preservation
of monuments instead of the cult of facadism. Against the
that is at stake. It is also humanity’s relationship
reconstruction of architectural monuments]. Berlin, Gütersloh. (In with architecture, urbanism and society.
German).
45 Stimmann, H. (ed.). 2009. Berliner Altstadt. Neue Orte
47 Jung, S. and Von Strempel, C. 1997. Wiederaufbau der
und Plätze rund um das Schloss [Berlin old town. New places and
Bauakademie [Reconstruction of the Building Academy]. Berlin,
places around the castle]. Berlin, DOM. (In German). Senat. (In German).
46 Bodenschatz, H. 1996. Der Rote Kasten: zu Bedeutung, 48 Lafi, N. 2017. Building and Destroying Authenticity in
Wirkung und Zukunft von Schinkels Bauakademie [The Red Box: Aleppo. C. Bernhardt, M. Sabrow and A. Saupe (eds.), Gebaute
on meaning, impact and the future of Schinkel‘s Building Academy]. Geschichte. Historische Authentizität im Stadtraum. Göttingen,
Berlin, Transit. (In German). Wallstein, pp. 206-228. (In German).
14
Bibliography
Autzen, R., Becker, H., Bodenschatz, H., Butter, A. and Hartung, U. 2004. Ostmoderne.
Claussen, H., Radicke, D., Stimmann, H. and Architektur in Berlin 1945-1965 [Eastern
Taeger, M. 1984. Stadterneuerung in Berlin: Modernism. Architecture in Berlin 1945-1965].
Sanierung und Zerstörung vor und neben der IBA Berlin, Jovis. (In German.)
[Urban regeneration in Berlin: rehabilitation and
destruction before and alongside the IBA]. Berlin, Diefendorf, J., Frohn, A. and Rupieper, H.J. (eds.).
Ästhetik und Kommunikation. (In German.) 1993. American Policy and the Reconstruction
of West Germany (1945-1955). Cambridge,
Bartetzky, A. 2010. “Die Rolle der Rekonstruktion Cambridge University Press.
nach dem Wechsel der Systeme in Osteuropa
[The role of reconstruction after the change Durth, W., Düwel, J. and Gutschow, N. 2007.
of systems in Eastern Europe]. M. Eisen, W. Architektur und Städtebau der DDR [Architecture
Nerdinger and H. Strobl (eds.), Geschichte der and urban planning of the DDR]. Berlin, Jovis. (In
Rekonstruktion, Konstruktion der Geschichte German.)
[History of reconstruction, construction of history].
Munich, Prestel, pp. 138-147. (In German.) Düwel, J. 1995. Planen im Kalten Krieg
[Planning in the Cold War]. M. Gleiss (ed.),
Beck, P. 1987. Kreuzberger Kreisläufe. Block Krieg, Zerstörung, Aufbau [War, destruction,
103 –ein Modell für umweltorientierte behutsame construction]. Berlin, Henschel, pp. 195-234. (In
Stadterneuerung [Kreuzberg circuits. Block 103 - German.)
a model for green, careful urban renewal]. Berlin,
IBA. (In German.) Düwel, J., Mönninger, M. 2011. Zwischen
Traum und Trauma : Stadtplanung der
Bentlin, F. 2018. Understanding the Hobrecht Nachkriegsmoderne [Between dream and
Plan. Origin, composition, and implementation of trauma: urban planning of post-war modernism].
urban design elements in the Berlin expansion Berlin, DOM. (In German.)
plan from 1862. Planning Perspectives, Vol. 33,
No. 4, pp. 633-655.
Edding, T. and Hämer, H.W. 1987. Step by Step.
Careful urban renewal in Kreuzberg, Berlin.
Bocquet, D. 2010. Hans Stimmann et l’urbanisme
Berlin, IBA.
berlinois : un tournant conservateur de la
reconstruction critique? Città e Storia, Vol. 2, pp.
Eisen, M., Nerdinger, W. and Strobl, H.
467-487.
(eds.). 2010. Geschichte der Rekonstruktion,
Konstruktion der Geschichte [History of
Bodenschatz, H., Claussen, H., Heil, K.,
Schäche, W., Streich, W.J., Dittfurth, U., Herden, reconstruction, construction of history]. Munich,
E., Metz, S., Schleicher A. and Villnow, R. 1987. Prestel. (In German.)
Nach 1945: Wiederaufbau, zweite Zerstörung
und neue Tendenzen [After 1945: reconstruction, Ferrari, H. 1961. ERP und die Stadt Berlin [ERP
second destruction and new tendencies]. J.P. and the city of Berlin]. Berlin, Sagerdruck. (In
Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur und German.)
Städtebau in Berlin [750 years of architecture
and urban planning in Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, Hämer, H.W., Kleihues, J.P. and Zwoch, F. 1984.
pp. 213-242. (In German.) Idee, Process, Ergebnis. Die Reparatur und
Rekonstruktion der Stadt [Idea, Process, Result.
Bodenschatz, H. 1996. Der Rote Kasten: zu The repair and reconstruction of the city]. Berlin,
Bedeutung, Wirkung und Zukunft von Schinkels IBA-Frölich & Kaufmann. (In German.)
Bauakademie [The Red Box: on meaning, impact
and the future of Schinkel‘s Building Academy]. Hassler, U. and Nerdinger, W. (eds.). 2010.
Berlin, Transit. (In German.) Das Prinzip Rekonstruktion [The principle of
reconstruction]. Zürich, ETH. (In German.)
Bodenschatz, H. and Flierl, T. 2010. Berlin plant.
Plädoyer für ein Planwerk Innenstadt Berlin 2.0. Jung, S. and Von Strempel, C. 1997. Wiederaufbau
[Berlin plans. Plea for a Downtown Plan Berlin der Bauakademie [Reconstruction of the Building
2.0.]. Berlin, Theater der Zeit. (In German.) Academy]. Berlin, Senat. (In German.)
15
Kleihues, J.P. 1987. Kritische Rekonstruktion der Stimmann, H. (ed.). 2001. Von der Architektur zur
Stadt. J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 Jahre Architektur Stadtdebatte. Die Diskussion um das Planwerk
und Städtebau in Berlin [750 years of architecture Innenstadt [From architecture to city debate.
and urban planning in Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, The discussion about the Planwerk downtown].
Vol. 319, pp. 243-294. (In German.) Berlin, Braun. (In German.)

Kürvers, K. 1993. Piani per una nuova Berlino Stimmann, H. (ed.). 2002. Vom Plan zum
(1945-1949). L. Spagnoli (ed.), Berlino : Bauwerk: Bauten in der Berliner Innenstadt
la costruzione di una capitale [Berlin: the nach 2000 [From plan to building: Buildings in
construction of a capital]. Milan, CittàStudi, pp. the centre of Berlin after 2000]. Berlin, Braun. (In
79-97. (In Italian.) German.)

Lafi, N. 2017. Building and Destroying Authenticity Stimmann, H. 2002. Die gezeichnete Stadt.
in Aleppo. C. Bernhardt, M. Sabrow and A. Die Physiognomie der Berliner Innenstadt in
Saupe (eds.), Gebaute Geschichte. Historische Schwarz- und Parzellenplänen 1940-2010 [The
Authentizität im Stadtraum. Göttingen, Wallstein, City in Black. The Physiognomy of Central Berlin
pp. 206-228. (In German.) in Figure-Ground Plans and Parcel Plans 1940-
2010]. Berlin, Nicolai. (In German.)
Magnago Lampugnani, V. and Schneider,
R. (eds.). 1994. Ein Stück Grossstadt als Stimmann, H. (ed.). 2009. Berliner Altstadt. Neue
Experiment. Planungen am Potsdamer Platz Orte und Plätze rund um das Schloss [Berlin old
in Berlin [Built history. Historical authenticity in town. New places and places around the castle].
urban space]. Stuttgart, Hatje. (In German.) Berlin, DOM. (In German.)

Miller-Lane, B. 1968. Architecture and Politics in Trebbi, G. 1978. La ricostruzione di una città :
Germany (1918-1945). Cambridge MA, Harvard Berlino 1945-1975 [The reconstruction of a city:
University Press. Berlin 1945-1975]. Milan, Mazzotta. (In Italian.)

Reichhardt, H. and Schäche, W. 1984. Die Urban, F. 2016. Neo-Historical East-Berlin.

Zerstörung der Reichshauptstadt durch Albert Architecture and Urban Design in the German
Speers Neugestaltungspläne [The destruction Democratic Republic. Abingdon, Routledge.
of the imperial capital by Albert Speer‘s redesign
plans]. Berlin, Transit Buchverlag. (In German.) Von Buttlar, A., Dolff-Bonekämper, G., Falser, M.,
Hubel, A. and Mörsc, G. 2011. Denkmalpflege
Schäche, W. 1987. 1933-1945: Bauen im statt Attrappenkult. Gegen die Rekonstruktion
Nationalsozialismus. Dekoration der Gewalt von Baudenkmälern [Preservation of monuments
[1933-1945: Building under National Socialism. instead of the cult of facadism. Against the
Decoration of violence]. J.P. Kleihues (ed.), 750 reconstruction of architectural monuments].
Jahre Architektur und Städtebau in Berlin [750 Berlin, Gütersloh. (In German.)
years of architecture and urban planning in
Berlin]. Stuttgart, Hatje, Vol. 319, pp. 183-121. Wunderlich, C. (ed.). 1989. Step by Step. Careful
(In German.) Urban Renewal in Kreuzberg. Berlin, STERN.

Siedler, W.J. 1998. Phoenix im Sand [Phoenix in Zohlen, G. 2002. Auf der Suche nach der
the Sand]. Berlin, Propyläen. (In German.) verlorenen Stadt [In search of the lost city].
Berlin, Nicolai. (In German.)
Spagnoli, L. (ed.). 1993. Berlino : la costruzione
di una capitale [Berlin: the construction of a
capital]. Milan, CittàStudi. (In Italian.)

Stimmann, H. 1985. Stadterneuerung in Ost-

Berlin vom “sozialistischen Neuaufbau” zur
“komplexen Rekonstruktion”[ Urban regeneration
in East Berlin from “socialist reconstruction“
to “complex reconstruction“]. Berlin, IBA. (In
German.)
16
The writing of this article was made possible thanks to the contribution made by the Ministry
of Education, Culture and Science of the Netherlands through the UNESCO Funds-in-Trust
Project to harness reconciliation through the recovery of cultural heritage.