The berlin High-Rise. An urban planning debate. Is Berlin becoming a European metropolis? There are currently around 300 high-rise buildings in Berlin. Berlin high-rise buildings have a height of from 22m to an average 100m. The building authorities note that high-rise buildings are clearly defined in the Berlin building regulations, which state that: ...High-rise buildings are buildings where the floor of at least one of the living space areas is located more than 22m above the defined ground surface (See Section 2 Terms and Definitions (3) Building Regulations for Berlin (5th edition)). Berlin building regulations define a high-rise building as one whose height is taller than 22m. The reason for this is that Berlin block development of the late 19th century predominately consists of 6 floors with a gutter height of 18 to 20 m. Compared to other german high-rise buildings such as the Commerzbank high-rise in Frankfurt am Main, with a height of approx. 300m or with the currently tallest building in the world, the twin towers in Kuala Lumpur with 450m, the Berlin high-rise buildings seem rather like truncated giants. High-rise buildings define the image and ambience of a modern metropolis. The German city most well-known for its high-rise buildings is not Berlin, the countrys capital, but Frankfurt am Main, also referred to as Mainhattan because of its high-rise skyline that can be seen from miles around. It is one of the few german cities that has a so-called strategic plan for high-rise buildings, which permits high-rise buildings only in the west of the city centre, the banking district. Berlin has witnessed a great deal of construction in the past few years, and building continues apace. The high-rise plays a crucial role in much of the planning for the city, and in mayor city projects. Yet how and where should new high-rise buildings be permitted in a polycentric city that has witnessed as many urban planning dislocations, development and lost vestiges of the past as Berlin? What local value, what significance do high-rise buildings have in the urban planning development of Berlin? Are high-rise buildings in Berlin symbols, landmarks or points of reference? Do high-rise buildings contribute to shaping the image of the Berlin cityscape as those on the Potsdamer Platz do? Do high-rise buildings lend an urban accent to Berlin? What types of high-rise buildings are there? To answer these questions, we first need to look at the history of Berlin high-rise buildings and the debate about them, and to discuss the visions for these.

The history of the high-rise buildings The history of the Berlin high-rises is at the same time the history of the debate and culture of discussion with respect to the urban planning, architectonic, functional and political development of the city during the previous century. Measured against the first high-rise buildings that started to appear in America starting from 1880, primarily in Chicago, high-rise construction in Berlin was very late of the mark. This was chiefly due to the tight building control regulations and the powerful Prussian building regulatory authorities of the same time. The first designs for high-rise buildings appeared in 1910 as part of the Greater-Berlin competition. In subsequensed years, a series of concepts for high-rise buildings were developed for the Potsdamer Platz and Leipziger Strasse. In 1920, the architects Bruno Möhring, Otto Kohtz and Hans Kraffert founded the Society of Friends of the High-Rise. In 1920, Bruno Möhring writes: Tower block construction in Berlin should (be) permitted provided certain conditions are compiled with (...), because it is necessary for the development of a world trading city both in terms of commerce and visual charm. Germany had at that time practically no experience with high-rise buildings. In 1921, following arduous discussion, a special dispensation was issued by the Ministry for National Economy - at the time, Prussias supreme building regulatory authority - granting a certificate of exemption for high-rise construction. Basic rules and conditions were never issued. Each high-rise project had to laboriously negotiated between the builders, the town council and the ministry. The battle for the seventh floor was underway. So it was hardly surprising that the first high-rise buildings in Germany were constructed not in Berlin, but in Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Cologne. The young avant-garde Berlin architects, which included Peter Behrens, Bruno Taut and Mies von der Rohe, were eager fans of Expressionism, and competed to design new, avant-garde architecture. The painter Lyonel Feiningers cubist glasshouse structures inspired a growing fascination for glasshouse architecture. One of the most spectacular glass high-rise buildings for Berlin was designed by Mies von der Rohe as part of a competition in 1921/22 for building development on the Friedrich Strasse Railwaystation site.The competition was intended to discover new insights into the design and urban context of the Friedrich Strasse. Mies von der Rohes award-winning design was not implemented at the time. Commercial interests coupled with procrastination on the part of the administration in the approval process left the design looking resplendent, but only on the paper. The building authorities, headed by Ludwig Hoffmann, the conservative Chief Building Officer of the city, referred to the need to protect the cityscape from high-rise buildings being erected at unsuitable locations. The site had been the object of intense consideration by urban planners for the construction of a tower since 1914. Mies von der Rohes bold and unique design is still discussed today. One of the most monumental designs of the period was that of Otto Klotz, who envisioned a 200m tall imperial parliament house as a central administration building for the imperial government in Spreebogen on the Königsplatz. The design for the high-rise was regarded as a cathedral of the state and was understood as a counterpart to the American high-rise as a cathedral of commerce. Berlins first high-rise was erected not in the city centre but on the outskirts in the north of Berlin. A high-rise office block designed by the architect Eugen Schmohl was constructed on the built-up factory grounds of the Borsig company between 1922 and 1924. The first high-rise buildings in Berlin were consciously developed with the understanding of their role of fulfilling an architectural mission. The high-rise was to be erected as a solitary stand-alone building.. high-rises in Berlin were to be built only next to parks or rivers in isolated locations. Critical voices warning against this notion of urban development were seldom heard, notable exception being Peter Behrens. The Americans took the opposite tack, arguing in favour of an approach to urban planning which provided for high-rises to be built in clusters. A lot of people had an ambivalent relationship to Berlin. Criminality and moral decay in the big city were seen as indicators of the decline. The conservative bourgeois in particular yearned for the more traditional look of the village small-town. One reason for this view was the fact that Berlin did not arise solely out of the twin city of Berlin-New Cologne, but also through the incorporation of numerous villages in 1921. There was enormous pressure to limit city growth. Further growth along the lines of the American model of the big city only generated fear. Should Berlin build skyscrapers? asked the headline of a Berlin daily newspaper in 1928 as the Minister for Public Welfare put a stop to the construction of the Europahaus, near the Potsdamer Platz, because the builders were constructing a twelve-floor building instead of the seven-storey construction for which approval had been granted. The large number of such buildings often resulted in applications for building permits having to be considered after the event, as the examining authorities could not keep up with the pace of construction. However, in most cases transgression of building regulations were subsequently sanctioned. There were those such as the Berlin Terraingesellschaften (large, highly-capitalized building land companies) who feared that land prices would escalate if high-rise buildings continued to proliferate, particularly in the city centre. Their worry was that if building density increased in the city centre no further tenement blocks would be needed on the outskirts, which were largely controlled by the Terraingesellschaften. That is sometimes the case even today. Even proponents of high-rise buildings who held prominent positions in administration and industry were powerless against feudal, anti-high-rise interests. On the top of this came the imperial family, who supported the opponents of high-rise buildings because they did not want to see their neo-baroque buildings overshadowed, literally, by the high-rise buildings. The proponents voiced enormous criticism of the uniformity of urban development of the period. It lacked the aesthetic attraction and landmark character that the American big cities offered. Most of Berlins early high-rises were constructed during the period in office of the Chief Buildings Officer Martin Wagner, even though following a study trip through America he himself was of the opinion that high-rises were not suited for Berlin. He believed their construction was not economically viable, and pointed to the strains imposed by traffic. Some examples of high-rise buildings that were constructed despite such opposition, are the Kathreiner high-rise in Berlin-Schöneberg by Bruno Paul 1929-30 and Emil Fahrenkamps Shell-house 1930-31. The height and the scale of these high-rise buildings were determinated by those of the surrounding buildings. None of the high-rises projected more than slightly above the height of existing buildings. One of the few exceptions is the Uhlstein high-rise. Urban development under Martin Wagner concentrated primarily on creating suitable traffic connections and room for squares where high-rise buildings could, under certain circumstances be built. Wagner contrived to acquire building plots cheaply so that he could then sell them to prospective buyers from the construction industry at a profit. To interest private investors, he obtained certificates of exemption for high-rise buildings on these squares, such as the Karstadt department store on Hermannplatz. Karstadt declared that it was willing to endow a foundation to build a school as a result of the generous scale of building allowed. The global economic crisis deprived Wagner of the economic basis for this kind of modern city management. Moreover, conservative forces of the Prussian government, who were in favour of strictly limiting and decentralizing the city through provincial scale satellite towns, successfully managed to assert their position. The national socialists put a stop to the Modern, and the high-rise building development associated with it. They repealed the 1921 exemption decree. The insane planning for the Reichs Führer city also provided for high-rise buildings. These were to serve the aims of monumental staging. Four office high-rise buildings up to 100m in height were to be built in the area of the planned north-south axis. Albert Speers plans for the tallest building, the Great Hall, included a 290m tall dome. The most important architects of the Modern left Nazi Germany and built their finest high-rise buildings in America. Walter Gropius co-designed the Pan Am Building and Mies von der Rohe the Seagram Building, both in New York. After World War II, urban planning and architecture in Berlin fell hostage to the political dispute between East and West to a degree witnessed by no other German city. The first planning competition in the western part of the city was announced in 1947 for the neighbourhood of the new city district near the zoo. Many of the more than one hundred entries submitted featured designs which envisaged high-rise buildings. First prize was awarded not to a vision of a skyline of slab high-rises, but instead to a design that propagated the concept of the somewhat traditional block development. Traditional antipathy in Berlin to high-rise buildings continued unabated, it seems. In the divided city of Berlin, the different planning concepts that developed reflected the opposing ideologies. Design and function in the eastern part of the city took its cue from the Soviet model of government office high-rises, while in the western part the American model prevailed. In East Berlin, capital of the GDR, various designs were drawn up between 1950 and 1962 for a central government building on Marx-Engels-Platz, 150m in height. But instead of the central government building, what was finally erected on the site of the former city castle 1973-76 was, after a planning phase of 11 years, the low Palace of the Republic, designed by the architects Graffunder and Swora. One of the most important urban planning projects, whose design paid complete homage to socialist architecture, was the residential building development along the Stalinallee. Construction of the new city district, which began at the start of the 50s under the direction of the architect Hermann Henselmann, included two tower buildings at the Frankfurter Gate. Together with the gate buildings on Straußberger Platz, the Frankfurter Gate accentuates the newly developed street aspect, now widened to 90 meters. Historically, these tower buildings made an interesting reference to the dome buildings at the Gendarmenmark of 1780. The Stalinallee, todays Frankfurter Allee, became notorious for the blood spilled when a spontaneous strike by workers against the government on June 17, 1953, was violently suppressed. In West Berlin, the proponents of the Modern, were able to win acceptance for their planning concepts and visions for high-rise buildings. As part of the Berlin - the Capital-competition for international ideas held in 1957/58, the foreign entrants in particular focused strongly on the vision of enormously tall high-rise buildings. Le Corbusier wanted to place five of his Cartesian high-rises and one of his star-shaped high-rises, each 220m tall, on a geometric grid in the historic old town. Not one of any of these was ever built! As always the case in Berlin, there were many designs and a lot of discussion, all followed by rejection. Consequently, what was common to both parts of Berlin was the visionary designs remained a modest degree of vertical structural accentuation in the repertoire of the so-called modern architecture, according to the architectural critic, Bruno Fliel. The Senat Department for Construction and Housing in West Berlin, is still located today in an office block from the 50s. The building, erected by Werry Roth in 1954-56, has long been one of the tallest and largest post-war buildings in Berlin. The building, erected in Berlin-Wilmersdorf, only received approval once the building regulations of the time were changed. The combination of high-rise section and low buildings became the most popular building arrangement motif in Berlin in subsequent years. An open-perspective residential high-rise development was erected as part of the international construction exhibition from 1957-58 in the Hansaquarter on the edge of the large Tiergarten park.A small town for 5,000 people constructed in line with the modern principles of urban and residential development. The quarter was both a rejection of the block development of the late 19th century and a response to the ostentatious new building development in the east of the city. In the vicinity, on Ernst Reuter Platz, one of Berlins most important traffic arteries, the 22-storey Telefunken high-rise of Schwebes and Schosz was erected as part of an urban planning competition from 1958-60. Totally in line with urban development of the time, the eight to ten-floor slab high-rises were supposed to symbolize the city within its looser, more open perspective and traffic-friendly orientation. Like many cities, Berlin in the 50s was an experimental playground for urban development and architecture. One successful example is Le Corbusiers work, designed as part of the international building exhibition Interbau. Unite d habitation type Berlin, is a solitary constructed residential high-rise that was built 1956-57 near the Olympic Stadium in the outskirts of the city. It has, in addition to its 17 floors and 557 apartments, its own power plant, a shop and, originally a post office on the groundfloor. Le Corbusiers idea of a new City of the Present is based on the construction of gigantic residential blocks like this. The architect distanced himself from the finished building owing to major structural changes imposed by particular construction regulations, primarily on le Corbusiers modular measurement system and a reduction in the number of infrastructure facilities planned in the original design. Though the building remains a jewel today as a stand-alone construction in Berlin, it is no longer conceivable as a model for urban development on a mass-production scale. Apart from the residential high-rise buildings on Hansa Platz in West Berlin, dominant slab high-rises were built along the Wall in East Berlin. In keeping with the nature of the Cold War, they were the response to the so-called Springer High-Rise, erected 1959-66 by the publisher Axel Springer. He wanted the building to serve as an architecturally dominant structure, facing the East directly at the Berlin Wall. Yet the Springer High-Rise adhered to the style of construction typical of the period, namely a skeleton construction with glazed curtain walls and complementary low-rise sections that can nevertheless not deny its uniformity. Due to the four-power status and the loss of political and commercial importance this brought in its wake, berlin in the post-war Germany of the 60s and 70s lost the economic basis that demanded new high-rise projects. Capital and industry moved away from Berlin. Criticism of the inhospitality of the cities was directed at the large housing estates erected in West Berlin, such as the Märkische quarter or Gropiusstadt. The high-rise was seen as a symbol for this decline in the human values associated with urbanity. The separation of living and work, as had been developed at the time by the representatives of the Athens Charter, was destroying the cities. The neglect of local public transport and the ideologization of the car-friendly city was leading to a loss of urbanity in Berlin as well. Further high-rise buildings were constructed in subsequent years in the eastern part of the city, the hight and quality of which observers in the west often found astonishing. For example, there was the 125m tall Forum Hotel from 1967-70 and the Berlin International Trade Centre from 1976-78. The goal of supremacy in height was achieved when the East beat the West with the 368m high television tower built in 1969. The Cold War had scared off many of would-be investors in West Berlin. Large companies left the city The building of the wall in 1961 seemed to settle the situation of the city, even if negatively. West Berlin now lived in financial dependence on the West. A subsidy mentality was to characterize the next 30 years of Berlins construction sector. One of the most important buildings of this period was the Europe Centre, designed by Helmut Hentrich and Hubert Petschniggählt and built 1963-65. The collection of buildings, consisting of a low-rise buiness area and an 86m tall office tower, was constructed on one of the most important sites in West Berlin, opposite the Gedächtniskirche. The building complex contained a colorful mix of shops, large cinemas, a cabaret venue, hotels, bars and even an ice rink. As far as the urban planning skyline of East Berlin is concerned, the new Bettenhaus high-rise of the Charite hospital, 1976-82 by Karl Ernst Swora, is worthy of note. A purely functional building, whose mass and height lends grounds of the Charite a certain landmark character. It is also worth mentioning the city expansion projects in north-east Berlin in Marzahn and Hellersdorf. This is where many residential high-rise buildings were constructed using precast concrete slabs, as was common in the 70s and 80s, whose size and radical nature are still the subject of much argument and debate among urban planners today.

The new Berlin, or the third Gründerzeit High-rise buildings in the Berlin cluster - grid or solitary? This was the question put by the question put by the renowned architectural critic Bruno Flierl in 1992. At the beginning of the 90s, the question was asked concerning the future role of Berlin in the European context. Is Berlin becoming a metropolis of European significance? Moving beyond the divided city towards the one city body was the aim of the urban planning surveys, competitions and planning at the beginning of the 90s. The skyline of European and international cities were examined as potentials models. Cities with global ambitions needed to have high-rise buildings. This was predicated on the question of what economic and commercial importance the city was to have in the future. Was it possible that international conglomerates like Daimler-Benz would return to Berlin? What influence would that have on the move from Bonn to Berlin as the seat of government? The development scenarios of the beginning of the 90s showcased bold growth and immigration forecasts that had the population of the Berlin region growing by 1.4 million inhabitants. Housing and office facilities to cater for this potential figure led some planners to consider high-rise buildings. Potsdamer Platz in particular, sited as it was at the interface between the two halves of the city, and as a symbol of new economic and commercial power and new social prestige for the new Berlin took centre stage right from the start as the focus of a controversial discussion on urban planning. Until 1838, Potsdamer Platz was a crossroad of streets no different from any other. It was only when the Potsdamer Railway station was built in the 1840s that the square started to develop. The golden 1920s saw 1,000,000 people and 20,000 cars crossing the square every day. 80 percent destroyed during the Second World War and consigned to a wasteland with the construction of the Wall, a hitherto undreamed of opportunity presented itself when the Wall fell. It was all about creating the New Berlin. The task was immense, the subject absolutely unique: What was needed was to come up with a totally fresh conception for the centre of Berlin on a desolate, sandy brown-field site that had iconic status. That was how the magazine Bauwelt described the situation in Nowember 1991 on the occasion of the urban planning competition that was held for Potsdamer Platz. In 1990, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper and the German Museum of Architecture held a competition for ideas for Berlin Tomorrow. In keeping with the custom of the previous few decades, many designs submitted featured high-rise buildings as clusters, grid or solitary. None of those designs made it through to the next stage. In the urban planning competition for the Posdamer Platz organized by the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development and Environment Protection in 1991, reference was specifically made to the connection between East and West and to the historical dimension. The Munich architects Hilmar and Sattler emerged as the winners of the competition. Their design envisaged a blockstructure. But pronents and opponents of high-rise buildings had debated long and hard on the merits or otherwise of high-rise buildings in the run-up to the competitions decision. In the end, the second-placed architect Ungers, with his high-rise towers, was finally outnumbered. Once again, critics of high-rise buildings won the day. But criticism was also voiced of Hilmar and Sattlers urban planning design. Daimler Benz, the investor, rightly demanded the best for Berlin in the Bauwelt magazine, and cautiously stated in view of the pre-determinated block-structure. There is no doubt that corporate identity can be achieved with ten-storey buildings too. But an architectural highlight, such as the Hong Kong Bank of China, can be more easily built when no rigid restrictions on height are imposed. This criticism was particularly relevant after Richard Rogers, commissioned by the dissatisfied investors in Potsdamer Platz, went public with an opposing design. Rogers design envisaged radial high-rises, totally in contrast to the high-rise skyline that was still missing at the time. Together with its consultant Berlin architects, the Senate decided against Rogers design. Basing their approach on the urban planning concept of Heinz Hilmar and Christoph Sattler, Renzo Piano and other architects subsequently came up with a workable solution for the Potsdamer Platz that was acceptable for Berlin as a result of the design competition in 1992. Nevertheless, the designs of the investors actually did feature high-rise designs again that won awards, both within the Daimler Benz area and in the Sony area. The 21-storey Debis-high-rise by Renzo Piano is 85m tall, making it one of the tallest buildings in the area. In addition to office spaces, 300 apartments were also built within the area, distributed over four building complexes. Helmut Jahn designed the so-called Sony Center. Jahn wanted to build not just an ambitious company headquarters, but also to lend the site an appropriate measure of urbanity. A mix of offices, apartments, shops, restaurants, cinema hotel and a film house for the German Film and Television Academy was constructed. A covered forum was erected at the centre of all this. The Berlin architect Kollhoff designed one of the most consistent high-rise towers for Daimler Benz on Potsdamer Platz using the prescripted block grid. The prerequisites for obtaining building approval were satisfied from the guidelines of the competitions by using a so-called coordination development plan and six project development plans. The compensation measures required were demonstrated through the creation of new green spaces on the adjoining area. Overall, one can regard the Berlin high-rises on the Posdamer Platz as a successful ensemble that accentuates the whole area. This includes the recently inaugurated Beisheim Center with its two high-rise hotel towers. The whole process regarding the Potsdamer Platz demonstrated one thing in particular, despite the many criticisms raised. When the city administration, supported by a broad range of critical professional public and using an agreed urban master plan as the basis, has a concept and an idea for a particular site, a consensus on structural development can be achieved as part of a Public Private Partnership. Strong investors need a strong, component and imaginative city administration that sufficiently flexible to think outside the box when it comes to major tasks. Further high-rise buildings were constructed which were less the subject of discussion in international trade journals yet which will provide Berlin with a thoroughly spectacular appearance in the years thereafter. Berlin has discovered its waterfront. A row of newer high-rise buildings has been constructed directly on the waterfront. The tallest high-rise currently in Berlin, the 125m tall Treptowers, is one of them, not located in the city centre but in the outskirts in Treptower park. The building is regarded by critics as one of the few examples that possesses the flair of a metropolis. Consistently modern, simple yet elegant, and boasting 11 green-laid inner courtyards, the high-rise designed by Gerhard Spangenberg borders a terrace of various old and new office buildings between the river Spree and the Park. The newer high-rise projects also included the so-called ecological high-rise. The building, developed by the architects Sauerbruch and Hutton, has a double frontage. Warm air heated by the sun flows up inside the cavity between the two walls, sucking in the cooler air from the east side into the interior of the rooms. Coupled with other passive low-energy measures, this results in a up to 40 percent lower electricy consumption compared to conventional high-rise buildings. Between 1992 and 1995, the Kant Dreieck office high-rise, designed by Josef Paul Kleihues, was constructed on a bevelled plot near the zoo railway station. Originally conceived to be taller, the building was restricted to 36m in height. There has been discussion in the meantime about whether to increase the hight. However, this plan has been shelved for now, due to the oversupply of officespace in Berlin. The key to understand this development of the high-rise in Berlin over the past few years, and important for the current discussion, are the instruments, the urban planning guidelines and the administrations decision-making. At the beginning of the 90s, the senate department in charge, consisting of the Senate Department for Urban Development and Environmental Protection and the Senate Department of Construction, began by developing planning basics and expert reports, the aim being to cover the entire development of the city. This included developing the land-use plan using basics such as the spatial structure concept drawn up in 1992. This report detailed for the first time the essential spatial purposes for the whole city. The forecast at the time was for urban planning development to be distributed within the so-called dogs head, the area within the circle formed by the local train network. The built development of high-rise buildings was to be concentrated particularly on each of the axes and on the junctions of the local and the long-distance train. The following statements of principle were made. Berlin with its characteristic construction structure is to be retained and further developed as a city that essentially extends horizontally. This applies in particular to the city centre with its largely compact building development laid out in grid form, clearly discernible streets blocks and regular building development height of around 25m. Only the historic towers and domes, as well as individual high-rises of up to 100m in height, exceed this level, with the television tower dominating them all at 368m. Despite this fundamental commitment to the historic building development of the late 19th century, consideration was given to permitting high-rise buildings at selected points in the city. These were to be constructed primarily on the perimeter of the old city, provided they did not detract from the look of the city. Moreover, high-rises were to provide a certain urban accentuation to the planned centres on the local train network circle. These principles were applied in the land-use plan of 1994 and the particular areas defined as mixed building land. Besides the city of Berlins land use plan, which stipulates the whole range of land use, the administration uses development plans and building approval processes to regulate and control the height of buildings in the city. Apart from these public planning instruments, the public administration controled, and still controlls, the discussion on urban planning development and organization using the medium of competitions, forums, symposia, hearings, publications and advisory committees. A series of public discussion forum ensued, where urban planning development for the whole of Berlin was debated. An organized city forum was set up and conducted primarily by the Senate for Urban Development and Environmental Protection. Important urban planning debates have been held in this public discussion forum since the beginning of the 90s. The discussion about Berlins overall urban planning concept is the key to understanding the debate on high-rises. It may well be that, despite criticism, it is actually a shining example for future developments. The attitude represented by Hans Stimmann regarding critical reconstruction of the city centre is very important here. The Senates director of building steadily implemented the guidelines that he developed, and also defended them capably in debates. In the process, the so-called Berlin gutter height was set as the historic height for all projects relating to the citycenter. The Berlin block grid was set as a reference. Block, uniform gutter edges, stone facades and the preference for a rationalistic architecture in the tradition of Schinkel even led, in the case of Pariser Platz next to Brandenburg gate to a design by-law. The historical context of public streets, squares and block size played a crucial role. The plans for Berlin city centre presented 1996 feature an attempt to completely restore the historical urban fabric of the City West district and the old city centre area, fully in the tradition of the European city. Stimmann sought to demonstrate an overall urban planning concept at a smaller, more specific scale than that of the Berlin land-use plan that would provide identity and profile to the inner city area. Stimmann saw a paradigm shift in the planning, whereby modernity was no longer to be regarded as a break with the tradition of European urban development, but rather there was the need to accept the destroyed urban layout as a basis or a reference parameter for urban planning. The European city and the accompanying understanding of a clear separation of private and public spaces, as they applied to the compact urban development of the 19th century, formed the model that guided the discussions conducted primarily by Hans Stimmann. The debate dealt with big city architecture defined by high-rises versus development distributed over small clusters. The high-rise became the counter-image of the Berlin block. It was only with Kollhoffs high-rise design at the Potsdamer Platz that a way seemed to have been demonstrated of reconciling both tendencies into one. Kollhoff designed and developed the high-rise tower from a block grid totally in keeping with the defining Prussian classicism - frugal, precise and rationally structured. The high-rises built at Potsdamer Platz and other sites today should be seen in this light. Plans for high-rises must always take the urban planning concept as their reference point. The professional public, architects/ planners/ critics initially reacted in a typical Berlin manner - with extreme distrust for the images of the new urban architecture that were suggested. What they presumed was that it was nothing other than a skilled marketing trick to market the state-owned buildings in order to recieve new impetus from the collapsed Berlin real estate market. The Berlin critic Werner Sewing wrote that social spatial development (...) in increasingly demonstrating the absurdity of the concept of the socially integrated and structurally closed European city. City formation, social polarization of inner city housing and the exodus of the young middle class families to the surrounding areas are following the logic of the American city... Mr. Stimmann and his concept of urban planning was criticized as provincialism by international architects, especially within the scope of the competition for the Potsdamer Platz held by the Senate administration. The implementation of the Berlin block development was, however, the awardwinning design for many. The Senate also came under fire for giving land to Daimler Benz AG and Sony at a much too favourable price. At the time when the municipality was lacking funds, many people were critical of its over-dependence on the demands of investors, especially for high-rise towers. A few individuals in the press have repeatedly played the role of key public opinion leaders in the discussions over the past few years on architecture and urban planning discussions in Berlin. The subject of high-rises and the projects associated with them have always been good for an article or two in the Berlin daily press and trade magazines. From Berlin to the New Teutonia was how the Arch plus magazine titled the dispute over the urban planning concept in 1984. Nice Monster. From the Spree-Athens to the Markish Manhattan, Berlin height Frenzy? These are just some of the press headlines of the past few years. Especially if the dispute over high-rises involved everyone. High-rises were more often than not the subject of disagreement between the main Senate building department, the various district building departments and political parties. Designs were presented to the public and often talked to premature death. Discussion usually followed the traditional lines of proponents of reconstruction of the Berlin block development and those who favoured an international skyline for Berlin. The press were glad to have the opportunity to report on the so-called Berlin high-rise dispute, and frequently attempted to take the side of the opponents, especially when citizen initiatives were campaigning against plans for high-rises.

The current state of the Berlin debate The current Berlin debate on the remaining high-rise projects is marked by scepticism concerning their feasibility, given the weakness of the citys economy and the overcapacity on the Berlin office and housing market. The area around Alexanderplatz in particular is slated for development through high-rise projects in the coming years. In contrast to Pariser Platz, where urban planning tradition without high-rises is shaping the new face of Berlin, Alexanderplatz is being mooted as a high-rise cluster. Due to its location, Alexanderplatz plays the role of a central city square, and was considered the destination of the main Berlin feeder highways coming from the hinterland and the suburbs. Attempts were made as early as 1929 to reshape the square. Among those who took part in a competition inspired by the Berlin Chief Buildings officer Martin Wagner were Peter Behrens, Mies van der Rohe and the Luckhardt brothers. As a result, a roundabout was built with five main traffic routes feeding into it, plus a few buildings on the edge. Of these latter, only the Alexanderhaus and the Berlolinahaus remain, built 1930-32 based on the plans of Pether Berens. The Second World War totally destroyed the square. During the GDR period, a radical buildings clearance program reshaped the square with new high-rise buildings, fully in keeping with the socialist approach to urban planning, turning it into one of the most surreal squares in Berlin... The Alexanderplatz myth as Alfred Döblin described it in his novel Berlin Alexanderplatz 1929 no longer exists. The new design for ten high-rise buildings, each 150 m tall with 42 floors, is intended as the basis for creation of a new urban centre, built in the shadow of the television tower. Hans Kollhoffs urban planning ideas competitions in 1993 resulted in the plans which provide the city with its first real skyline. A mix of art, culture, hotels and shopping centres aims to restore urban living to the centre. It features big-city office and commercial high-rises with a housing ratio of 20 to 40 percent. Not everyone is happy with the development. The Chief Buildings officer for Berlin Mitte at the time, Dorothee Dubrau, in particular saw a danger in a mini Mannhattan. Residents felt left out of the process to some degree, and politicians saw the expected volume of traffic as a problem still to be solved. The borough had expert reports on the viability of the development plans, and held discussions on the sense and purpose of this development. Finally, the Senate took over the development planning itself. In June 1999, the Senate decided on the three development plans with a total gross floor space of 815,000 square meters for the state-owned 25 hectare area. The buildings with the 35 m tall socle floors of the high-rises are scheduled for completion by 2008, with six of the towers being built by 2013 at the latest. The remainder will only be built when it is viable for the investors. That at least is how the urban development contract has been negotiated between the Senate and the investors. The corresponding high-rises will be built if and when demands picks up again. Yet after almost 10 years planning there is still no high-rise tower in sight. Construction start had to be postponed as the land purchase agreement necessary for the building project could not be negotiated and signed between the State of Berlin and the investors in the time expected. Changes to the development plans mean a further delay in the start of construction. Time and time again, investors attached new demands before construction can start, such as not having to privately finance a parking garage required by the Senate. The press and political debate describe the high-rise planning as oversized planning dating back to the euphoric growth period of the 90s. Demands are being voiced loudly for purchase agreements to be revamped, in order to reduce retail space and to avoid a temporary arrangement of high-rise skeletons becoming permanent features. The urbanredevelopment of Breitscheidplatz has been in the planned stages for a long time. Here, the intention is that high-rises such as the zoo window will lend the City West a new profile. Permission has even been granted for a listed building to be pulled town. The project was approved in 1993 by the construction senator at the time, who believed that the massive construction plans in the historic centre meant that the City West could only survive if it grew upwards at the same time. The rejections of the time, those from the borough and the profesional public, have maintained their opposition to high rises until now. They wanted further high-rise buildings to counter the failure on the part of the urban planners to take into consideration the 120 m tall house opposite the gedächtniskirche and the Europe Center with. Star architect Richard Rogers was to build a 115-m office tower for the landowners Brau and Brunnen. This building would have a floor-area ratio of 15.7, unique for Berlin, and the then Senator in charge of building sought to grant building approval for the tower under section 34 of the Federal Building Code, contrary to the wishes of the Senate Construction Officer and the legal department responsible. Section 34 of the Building Code stipulates that the planned development in terms of type and scale of the use for building, the coverage type and the plot area to be built on the building proposal must blend with the characteristic features of its immediate environment and the provision of local public infrastructure must be secured. The requirements of healthy living and working conditions must be satisfied. the overall appearance of the locality may not be impaired. Applying these paragraphs to the planned high-rise would seem to be inconceivable, given the existing building development. Discussions about new high-rise buildings and the design and integration of these into the City West often miss the point. What are needed are urban measures that strengthen or at least demonstrate their structural advantages. Hans Stimmann developed specific proposals for this with his Inner City Planning. Its aim is not to use new office space to strengthen the competitiveness of City West and Mitte, the historic centre, but rather to break down their isolation. The intention is for City West to become one attractive centre among many. Berlin is not a city of high-rises like, for example, Frankfurt am Main, but there is a lively discussion going on between supporters and opponents. The Berlin cityscape is not homogeneous - therein lies the attraction and uniqueness of Berlin. That there is a need to sensibly develop existing brown-field sites as required is obvious. However, dealing sensitively with all those involved would also be welcome. Investors in particular are warning against the Berlin debates and the ponderous decision-making of the Berlin administration. Investors are already withdrawing, refraining from developing their properties, and choosing instead to leave their properties empty. Dilapidation is already evident.

Summary It is astonishing that when we look back at Berlins past we see that many of the debates of the 20s stand as blueprints for todays discussions.Many Berlin architects of the 20s developed their high-rise buildings not in Berlin but in America. Berlin has a long tradition of experimenting with high-rises, from the urban planning and architectural point of view. These have always been developed in fragmentary fashion, and were not continued - and often simply not understood, or they were disowned, denied. Closely related to the criticism of Berlins high-rises is the question of the urban planning context, the masterplan of the European city. The past years were characterized by growth. For the first time, Berlin today has to deal with contraction that is not only the result of a weak economy. The population scenarios mooted at the start of the 90s have not materialized. The city has an over-supply of office and housing space. In light of changed conditions, todays high-rise projects only stand a chance if the can contribute to improving the city and its accommodations from the urban planning perspective, and if they do not become an economic burden. Here, the following points should be noted arising from the Berlin high-rise debates. 1. Basically, the debate concerning high-rise buildings is a debate about the urban planning development of a city. 2. Every city has its specific endogenous economic and ecological potentials which determine whether high-rise projects can be approved in the urban planning context. 3. High-rises should be built outside the historic old towns. This enables the retention and further development of the traditional form and shape - as in Berlin, for example, - formed by street networks, block development and density. 4. High-rises should be constructed at sites in the inner city that are functionally attractive, favourable in terms of traffic, spatially accentuated and visually effective. 5. There should be clear arrangements but specific definitions in place concerning the height of high-rise buildings. High-rises of greater height should be allowed in the centre and at locations, provided they have been checked to make sure they are compatible with the local surroundings. 6. The cluster should be used as the urban planning configuration for high-rise buildings. These should be able to grow dynamically as cluster areas, and possible sites defined with the aid of the land-use plan. The aim should be the formation of clusters of high-rise buildings of different heights, as dictated by local conditions. 7. The administration should quickly develop clear framework plans that specify where and under which conditions high-rises may be constructed. 8. The public administration should arrange forums and competitions which will enable all those involved to be included in the necessary debate. 9. For major projects, modern city management involves negotiating building approvals and urban planning agreements between public authorities and private investors. The Berlin high-rise debate, which outsiders often misunderstand as being only concerned with itself, shows that. An intensive public culture of debate and discussion over the urban planning development can neither be conducted by traditionalists nor internationalists alone. As Hanns Swoboda once said. The most dominating factor has to be locally considered development that is, however, completely open and receptive to international trends. Good, successful cities need an urban planning regulatory framework coupled with a certain tolerance for chaos in the smaller details.

Zurück