Last night's discussion at ANCB was an interesting, if necessarily superficial, examination of the influence of history upon contemporary architecture and urban planning. After opening statements by Aedes' Lukas Feireiss, Zócalo founder Gregory Rodriguez and Getty Museum director Peter Tokofsky, the round opened with Roger Sherman (cityLAB) noting how much more signage there around town since his last visit 25 years ago. (discussions about Berlin always prompt speakers to volunteer the times of their visits). The discussion turned to Potsdamer Platz and its success or failure as a recreated urban space. Wolfram Putz of GRAFT was unimpressed, as was Prof. Dorothee Brantz (TU). Both also noted that they had been back in Berlin for only a few years after living for long periods in LA.
Brantz then said the magic words 'Stadtschloß', which became the evening's bête noire, an example of the failed integration of history and architecture. After the speakers confirmed each other's disgust with Berlin's favorite failure of imagination, Prof. Greg Hise (USC) turned to LA's historical baggage pointing out the omnipresence of historical structures since the California city's urban development sprawls outward, leaving outdated structures behind but still intact. This led naturally to the topic of economic divisions being reflected in the urban fabric and Dr. Niklas Maak (FAZ) pointed out that Berlin has been a divided city since its beginnings as Berlin/Cölln. As the evening wore on and discussion kept returning to the Stadtschloß and the failure of to implement a modern urban vision in Berlin, I grew impressed by Maak's thorough knowledge of Berlin's history and contemporary architectural controversies. He pointed out that due to the reduced window sizes of Potsdamer Platz's skyscrapers, it suffers from a lack of authenticity not only in its location but also in its very scale, and traced the power skirmishes, scandals and ultimate capture of Berlin's urban planning processes by conservative forces back to the failure of the 1984 IBA (he's talking to you Jim!) . There was also discussion of Berlin's empty spaces and the differing conceptions of these as wounds which need to be healed (apparently by filling them in with thoroughly unremarkable structures) or as voids which can lead to imaginative possibilities - you can guess which our panel was leaning towards.
Comparisons between LA and Berlin were of course to be made - both continually refreshed by new arrivals seeking to transform themselves, but who also carry imagined narratives of the city which go on to transform its landscapes, and the creative repurposing of unused and abandoned architectures, whick Maak termed the 'Culture of Failure'. Finally a few questions from the audience were entertained - responding to Putz's use of the word 'Americanization', a woman asked what might be done about the spread of shopping malls and a nervous, sweaty fellow followed up an earlier questioner's use of the term 'Culture of Fear' by raising the topic of the increasingly violent attacks on emblems of gentrification, such as expensive autos and new building projects. The panel shied away from directly addressing contemporary political implications of urban redevelopment, history being so much more comfortable after all, while Putz positioned the attacks as a small number of individuals attempting to freeze a temporal process at a specific moment and thereby doomed to failure....
Afterwards we streamed outside into the cool Berliner Luft to hobnob over refreshments while clever Zócalo technicians uploaded a recording of the evening's discussions for your enjoyment in the comfort of your own home.
Comments